Immigration hotel costs
£5.7 million per day for 32.000 immigrants
That's over £180 per day per immigrant
How can they country continue to afford this ?
What can we do about this?
Comments
-
Stop reading far right, reactionary 'news' sites?
11 -
The concern is legitimate. According to the Home Office and the National Audit Office, the United Kingdom spends between £4.2 million and £5.5 million every single day on asylum accommodation, mostly hotels. That amounts to £100 to £158 per person, per night, depending on the type of accommodation.
Separately, the Afghan Relocations and Resettlement scheme, which was triggered by a catastrophic government data breach, is projected to cost £1.2 billion over five years. That is in addition to the daily asylum accommodation spend.
So when someone says you should “stop reading far-right, reactionary ‘news’ sites,” it is worth clarifying: these figures are not drawn from partisan commentary or ideological spin. They come directly from audited government sources, published by the Home Office and the National Audit Office.
We are spending billions on schemes that are not only expensive, but often the direct result of government failures, including poor planning, data breaches, and chronic delays. Refugees did not create this chaos. Ministers did.
The pressure on housing and essential services is not caused by those seeking safety. It is caused by a system that is expensive, chaotic, and poorly managed. This is not a matter of ideology. It is a matter of budget logic.
Questioning how public money is spent is not an act of extremism. It is a basic democratic right. We scrutinise National Health Service budgets, defence spending, and infrastructure projects without anyone suggesting we have been radicalised. The same standard should apply here. Asking whether billions are being used efficiently is not “far right.” It is responsible citizenship.
And if the only response to these facts is to accuse critical voices of reading “far-right, reactionary ‘news’ sites,” then perhaps the real discomfort lies not in where the figures came from, but in how unsustainable and out of control they have become.
9 -
Questioning how public money is spent is, of course, not extremism, targeting asylum seekers through the confrontation and violence we have seen far too often imo is; whether that's from infiltration of the far right or not.
4 -
My post is solely about scrutinising government spending based on audited figures, not about endorsing any form of violence against any group, which I unequivocally condemn.
4 -
Yep, I guessed that, I was making my own point.
4 -
I kind of agree with everyone on this thread,if that's possible.I believe that the figures are real and that they are indeed financially unsustainable.What i do query though is the value of scapegoating groups of people because,as sure as night follows day,Nasty Nige (our next PM) will turn on us after he has dealt with,or been beaten by, the illegal immigration problem.
In short,it might be in our best interests not to turn on other groups,as it will foment an environment where scapegoatism (if that is a word) is normalised.
Just a thought.
6 -
BBC is hardly far right
1 -
BBC is hardly objective as they have repeatedly shown.
1 -
Firstly I agree that taking in so many illegal asylum seekers is ridiculous, non sustaintable and a kick in the teeth for all the legal migrants.
What bothers me is that there are loads of Arab countries surrounding these countries where people are fleeing from, but they are not taking in their fellow people who have the same religion, same values, same way of life, but people insist on migrating to the UK?
Part of me feels that these asylum seekers elected their govt. and went along with their ****, until it no longer benefited them and now want to export their values, religion and way of life to our country. (note I am not stereotyping all illegal migrants, but I can think of a lot of people who should have been classed as asylum seekers, who never got the opportunity, many of them then came in as legal migrants)
The govt. is cracking down on legal migrants, but that is not the problem, it is the illegal migrants.
I don't want the bill of rights to be repealed because it provides us, disabled people rights, but I don't see why they can't amend it specific to illegal immigrants.
That said I would just like to bear in mind that many of these migrants are doing **** jobs, working long hours to do jobs that ordinary UK citizens turn their noses up at and don't want to do. Many migrants contribute to the country and this is overlooked when we are looking at these hotel costs.
Also lets remember what it is like when the govt. and some people stereotype all people and label all disabled people as "scroungers", remember when the previous govt. cited example of a small portion of disabled people and used it to paint all disabled people, so we need to be careful not to buy in to too much govt. propoganda of blaming one group of people for all the problems in the country, a certain politician and his party are very opportunistic at saying all the right things to get peoples support, even though they don't necessarily believe that, they know they can stir people up and gain their support at elections, without actually doing anything other than to get elected.
(Thank you to the mods who catch my posts when I overshare or give tmi, my meds make me a bit confused and doolally at times)2 -
The Goverment makes money off people's misery
1 -
Those that feel inclined to take a swipe at desperate people coming to their country (how can a human being be 'illegal"?). It would be nice if they spelt out what they would do with these unfortunate people.
1 -
Migrants (both legal and Illegal) claim, not only housing (which is already in short supply for UK residents) but also benefits such as PIP - which just appears wrong to me - when the country is struggling to pay to many UK born residents…..
I am not trying to cause any ill feeling because I know that many people are happy paying out so much of our country resources on migrants - but something has to be done to reduce these ever increasing costs to the country. But what can be done ?
I see boat loads of immigrants being shipped in to Dover and surrounding areas and wonder just how far these people have travelled to get to UK and what they thought they were coming to and whether they are really here because they are being persecuted in their own country and how many countries they passed through before making it to "wonderful England" - why do they think that UK is the be-all and end-all ?
EU pays them more in benefits than UK.
How far did they get across the channel before humanitarian aid kicked in and they were plucked from possible death under a cross channel ferry or supertanker and brought to UK ?
When will it stop - 1 million per year ?
2 million ? 10 million ?
4 -
I wonder how you feel when the red tops are screaming about all these 'scroungers' claiming out of work benefits?
2 -
You ask what people should do with “these unfortunate people”, which is a fair question. But before expecting answers from others, perhaps begin by sharing what you believe the government’s plan should be. The system is overwhelmed, expensive, and clearly struggling. How would you reassure those who are concerned about cost, capacity and fairness, without dismissing them as prejudiced?
I have already outlined what I think needs addressing earlier in the thread. What I am interested in now is your view. Not just good intentions, but practical, workable actions that could genuinely improve the situation.
There is a common assumption that questioning how £5.7 million a day is spent reflects hostility towards refugees. That could not be further from the truth. This is not about prejudice. It is about accountability and responsible use of public funds.
When people raise concerns about how the system operates, it is striking how quickly some resort to labels and name-calling rather than engaging with the substance. That kind of deflection does not solve anything. It simply helps a broken system continue.
To be clear, I am asking how we fund this situation sustainably. That is a separate question from compassion or sentiment. It deserves a serious and considered response.
So I am genuinely curious. What would you suggest to make the system sustainable and fair for everyone involved? What practical steps would you take to manage the pressure without ignoring legitimate concerns on costs?
3 -
Asylum seekers are excluded from claiming benefits as they are under immigration control. They could claim contributory benefits, which they actually cannot, as of course, they are not allowed to work, so won't have contributed any national insurance. So, they can't claim them either. Of course, that will count for 'illegals' too.
2 -
"There is a common assumption that questioning how £5.7m a day is spent reflects hostility towards refugees. That could not be further from the truth".
I can't imagine that many people are 'happy' with what is spent and it's more than unfortunate that at least hundreds who've been out protesting don't direct their concerns in the right direction ie government. Instead, threatening, violence and nothing less than abhorrent behaviour towards people, many of whom have fled from unimaginable horrors that we are lucky enough to not even begin to imagine.
So, any of us questioning costs - get to government to protest - not directing it towards fellow human beings seeking sanctuary. Those setting fire to hotels etc etc who are trying to provide a safe environment to refugees/asylum seekers are all sitting in cosy little cells now and rightly so.
So the hostility has been clear to see. Just because you may not be hostile - hundreds (thousands) are, and imprisoned. I don't see anyone who is scrutinising spending on NHS, defence (with few exceptions) or construction projects, out protesting, as we see with the people seeking refuge. It is layer upon layer upon horror for them.
Now, far be it for me to 'reassure' people on spending and how out of control it is.
Above my pay grade.
freemovement.org.uk if you want figures/verification, blog established by Colin Yeo, barrister, sets out the 'free and fair' safe routes and the outcomes. It's a travesty of what it's set up to do and doesn't deal with either the Uganda LBGTQI, Sudanese or the Gazans.
That might be a good start for government. And that's firmly, unquestionably, where the blame lays. All too busy at the trough, same as the tory's before, and paying lip service to humanity. So it's not for me, nor I would dare say, other Scope members to work out the funding, nor the answers.
There will be many more people in truly tragic circumstances coming here soon. Hundreds of children of Gaza, with appalling injuries, along with supporting family members, for medical care. Do I sit and feel annoyed about the costs of that ? How it may impact me? How someone can get treatment and care when they've not 'paid in' when I have? What it means for our public finances? How I can work out whether we, as a country, can 'afford' it?
Nope. Not for a second. I thank God, or whoever, that I don't. I am grateful, beyond any measure, that I was lucky to be born here and not face the abhorrence of the violence others face daily. Being shot whilst trying to get food and the images of REAL PEOPLE we see daily starving.
I'd say be careful in what questions you ask. Direct your concerns or anger at the right people. Have humanity sitting at the foundation of all you do and how you act.
5 -
Hostility towards refugees is abhorrent, and I certainly do not condone it; however, it must never be used to deflect legitimate scrutiny.
I have raised my own concerns with the Home Office about the £5.7 million spent daily on asylum accommodation contracts. Such significant expenditure demands robust oversight. Conflating necessary scrutiny with hostility only serves to protect contracts that urgently need reform.
Unlike many other public services, spending on refugee accommodation remains opaque. This is not a call to deny care but to ensure it is delivered with dignity and not outsourced to firms profiting from overcrowded, neglectful conditions. Refugees deserve safe and humane living conditions as much as local communities deserve transparency and fairness.
Compassion alone is not enough. We must ask whether these contracts provide safety, value, and dignity or simply erode them. If compassion replaces scrutiny, we risk surrendering our moral compass. These contracts enrich intermediaries, not refugees or taxpayers.
It is reasonable to expect a clear government plan for accommodating individuals granted leave to remain, alongside the necessary resources and support for local communities. These are urgent and interconnected challenges that require thoughtful, honest solutions.
At £5.7 million per day, the public deserves full transparency on how this money is spent and who profits. Every taxpayer has the right to ask these questions because transparency and accountability are essential when millions of pounds of public money are involved.
I do not believe many people are anti-refugees. Rather, they are concerned about the cost and how it will affect their taxes as they struggle to feed their own families. At present, people cannot get the GP or dentist appointments they need. They need to know what will happen if more people are placed in their communities, using resources that are already difficult to access, let alone with increased demand. What we need is a clear plan that addresses these concerns and calms people’s fears.
Compassion does not build more homes, create more GP appointments, provide access to dentists, or open the schools our communities desperately need. It cannot fix broken systems on its own. True dignity and public trust demand real investment, clear structures, and strong accountability. We need to know now how this will be properly funded and delivered for the benefit of both refugees and the communities welcoming them.
2 -
I am not, nor have I ever been, ambivalent, towards asylum seekers/refugee seekers. I have no uncertainty/dilemma and I am not torn in what is the 'right' thing to do.
I do not believe, for a moment, that compassion/'sentiment' or whatever you want to call it, are separate from the issue of funding. They are not. They are integral.
Me, or anyone else not being 'happy' with funding, is not mutually exclusive with caring for refugees and having deep compassion for them, and welcoming them. They are not mutually exclusive. Oh, did I already say that?? Emphasising my point I guess. Don't quite know where you get that from Wibbles. I'm sure you'll enlighten us!
The question being asked Wibbles is (knowingly) controversial. Controversy breeds controversy. Wibbles - you may wish to proffer your view?
It would be quite nice to 'box' them off. As if they are separate issues. They are not. If we were to exclude compassion/humanity as a factor, as if it were a separate issue, I am pretty certain that we could all agree that the UK cannot afford it. No refugees. No money therefore no welcome. I do not exclude compassion nor sentiment, from my viewpoint. Never have, never will.
I would also add to Wibbles - there is no consensus, from what I see, that 'many people are 'happy' with costs/resources spent by the UK' on immigration. It is very clearly a divisive and polorising subject. I don't think there's been any polls that support your point that 'many' people are 'happy' with it. Please do feel free to correct me if I am wrong.
I also do not think it is primarily the 'far right' that's driven this - more likely the economic situation in the UK.
I am able to be 'unhappy' with the costs yet still very much supportive of refugees seeking asylum. They are not mutually exclusive.
My question would be this. How much does the UK House of Commons cost us (by the way, just because I am on benefits I am a UK taxpayer). Over £60 million a year, excluding their London and constituency homes and staff. Do you not think we'd be right to EXPECT that they get at least ONE thing right?? Immigration could be a good starting point.
I would also clarify my point about being careful what one asks as a question. I ask that for two reasons. One, I can tend to go off on a tangent. I don't believe that I have here. If anyone thinks I have then, quite frankly, so be it.
In my tendency to 'divert' the topic, it serves as a warning. Not mine. To 'protect' anyone from sitting in a smaller, much more uncomfortable space, I will not mention the shenanigans of Saturday in London. When I talk about Gaza and starvation I make not one apology. I shall make no other comment on that!
Secondly, I expect that if somebody's asked a question (@Wibbles) then they expect a variety of viewpoints/answers/perspectives. If they DO NOT - please, don't ask it. If you do, join the discussion/debate. It's not an 'argument' - all views welcome I'd say. Free speech- whilst we've got it 👍 👌 !
On that note, off to lunch! Digest as you will! All debate on this very important issue should not be stymied.... is that the word?? It's never just about ££££££'s!!!
4 -
On another (similar) matter - what's the difference between what Putin is doing in Ukraine and what Netanyahu is doing in Gaza ?
1 -
And there is a difference between Financial refugees (who just want a "better" life and "conflict" refugees who's life is at risk, if they stay where they are…
The problem is who determines which type an individual really is.
3
Categories
- All Categories
- 15.5K Start here and say hello!
- 7.3K Coffee lounge
- 90 Games den
- 1.7K People power
- 122 Announcements and information
- 24.1K Talk about life
- 5.8K Everyday life
- 426 Current affairs
- 2.4K Families and carers
- 873 Education and skills
- 1.9K Work
- 533 Money and bills
- 3.6K Housing and independent living
- 1.1K Transport and travel
- 627 Relationships
- 1.5K Mental health and wellbeing
- 2.5K Talk about your impairment
- 867 Rare, invisible, and undiagnosed conditions
- 923 Neurological impairments and pain
- 2.1K Cerebral Palsy Network
- 1.2K Autism and neurodiversity
- 39.9K Talk about your benefits
- 6K Employment and Support Allowance (ESA)
- 19.7K PIP, DLA, ADP and AA
- 8.5K Universal Credit (UC)
- 5.8K Benefits and income