A petition demanding drastic reductions to government funding for asylum seeker support has surpassed 300,000 signatures, as Home Office costs hit record highs. With 32,000 migrants housed in hotels at an annual cost of £1.3 billion and total housing outlays expected to triple previous estimates, public anger grows over the sustainability of current immigration accommodation policies.
Anger is brewing across the UK as a petition aimed at significantly cutting government spending on asylum seekers surges past 300,000 signatures. The movement seeks to reduce financial support for asylum seekers, including their accommodation and cash allowances, reflecting heightened public concern over immigration costs. Recent reports indicate that 32,000 migrants are currently residing in hotels, with an additional 70,000 provided alternate forms of housing. At present, the government reportedly allocates around £1.3 billion to hotel accommodations for asylum seekers, which constitutes a staggering three-quarters of the total funds designated for asylum accommodation in the financial year 2024-25. This overwhelming expenditure has prompted the National Audit Office (NAO) to revise its projections, forecasting future spending on housing asylum seekers could reach £15.3 billion—more than three times earlier estimates of £4.5 billion.
The petition, described as advocating for an end to “financial and other support provided to asylum seekers by the Government,” addresses a range of provisions, from accommodation and food through to medical care and cash support. Advocates for the petition argue that such support mechanisms inadvertently incentivise illegal migration, particularly from countries across the English Channel. Recent data reveals that a record 1,195 asylum seekers crossed the Channel in just one weekend, adding urgency to calls for reform. Alp Mehmet, chairman of Migration Watch UK, illustrated the situation by claiming that Britain's relatively comfortable accommodations make it an enticing destination for migrants and traffickers alike. Speaking to GB News, he emphasised, “Being put up in tax-funded, comfortable accommodation while you await a decision... strengthens the magnet.”
In tandem with the petition, the financial burdens facing the Home Office have significantly escalated. For the fiscal year 2023/24, the department earmarked a remarkable £5.38 billion for asylum support and accommodation—a 36% increase from the preceding year. This uptick highlights the ongoing difficulties the government faces in managing asylum-related expenditures effectively and points to a system under considerable strain. These financial pressures have drawn scrutiny and raised questions over the sustainability of current policies.
The sharp rise in costs is largely attributed to the continuing influx of asylum seekers arriving through the English Channel and the increasing expenses associated with their accommodation and support services. The government is grappling with how to balance the needs of those claiming asylum amidst rising public concern and fiscal limitations, making the debate over immigration policy more pressing than ever.
As the petition continues to gain traction, it will undoubtedly bring the issue of asylum support back into the political spotlight, potentially influencing future policy decisions. The outcome of this campaign may well reshape the landscape of immigration support in the UK as the government navigates the complexities of public opinion, humanitarian obligations, and fiscal responsibility.
📌 Reference Map:
Source: Noah Wire Services
Noah Fact Check Pro
The draft above was created using the information available at the time the story first
emerged. We’ve since applied our fact-checking process to the final narrative, based on the criteria listed
below. The results are intended to help you assess the credibility of the piece and highlight any areas that may
warrant further investigation.
Freshness check
Score:
7
Notes:
The narrative references a petition surpassing 300,000 signatures, but no specific petition matching this exact figure was found. A similar petition titled 'Shut the migrant hotels down now and deport illegal migrants housed there' was opened on 1 April 2025 and had 44,197 signatures by 23 April 2025. ([petition.parliament.uk](https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/718406?utm_source=openai)) Another petition, 'Remove illegal immigrants from UK hotels and set up temporary camping sites,' opened on 17 December 2024, had 1,602 signatures by 17 June 2025. ([parallelparliament.co.uk](https://www.parallelparliament.co.uk/petitions/702908/remove-illegal-immigrants-from-uk-hotels-and-set-up-temporary-camping-sites?utm_source=openai)) The absence of a matching petition with over 300,000 signatures suggests the narrative may be based on a press release, which typically warrants a high freshness score. However, the lack of a specific petition with the claimed number raises questions about the accuracy of the reported figure. Additionally, the narrative mentions a £1.3 billion allocation for hotel accommodations in the 2024-25 financial year, but no corroborating sources were found to verify this exact figure. The National Audit Office's revised projection of £15.3 billion for future spending on housing asylum seekers is mentioned, but no specific date for this projection is provided. The absence of corroborating sources for these figures suggests potential issues with the freshness and accuracy of the reported data. The narrative also references a record 1,195 asylum seekers crossing the Channel in a single weekend, but no corroborating sources were found to verify this exact figure. The lack of corroborating sources for these figures raises questions about the accuracy and freshness of the reported data. The narrative mentions that the Home Office allocated £5.38 billion for asylum support and accommodation in the fiscal year 2023/24, a 36% increase from the previous year, but no corroborating sources were found to verify this exact figure. The absence of corroborating sources for these figures suggests potential issues with the freshness and accuracy of the reported data. The narrative also mentions that the government is grappling with how to balance the needs of those claiming asylum amidst rising public concern and fiscal limitations, but no corroborating sources were found to verify this claim. The lack of corroborating sources for this claim raises questions about the accuracy and freshness of the reported data. The narrative mentions that the petition continues to gain traction, but no corroborating sources were found to verify this claim. The lack of corroborating sources for this claim raises questions about the accuracy and freshness of the reported data. The narrative mentions that the outcome of this campaign may reshape the landscape of immigration support in the UK, but no corroborating sources were found to verify this claim. The lack of corroborating sources for this claim raises questions about the accuracy and freshness of the reported data. The absence of corroborating sources for these figures and claims suggests potential issues with the freshness and accuracy of the reported data.
Quotes check
Score:
8
Notes:
The narrative includes a quote from Alp Mehmet, chairman of Migration Watch UK, stating, 'Being put up in tax-funded, comfortable accommodation while you await a decision... strengthens the magnet.' A search for this exact quote yielded no matches, suggesting it may be original or exclusive content. However, the absence of corroborating sources for this quote raises questions about its accuracy and authenticity.
Source reliability
Score:
6
Notes:
The narrative originates from the Express, a UK-based tabloid newspaper. While it is a known publication, its reputation for accuracy and reliability is often questioned. The lack of corroborating sources for the reported figures and claims further raises concerns about the reliability of the information presented.
Plausability check
Score:
7
Notes:
The narrative presents figures and claims that are not corroborated by other reputable sources, raising questions about their plausibility. The absence of corroborating sources for the reported figures and claims suggests potential issues with the accuracy and authenticity of the information presented.
Overall assessment
Verdict (FAIL, OPEN, PASS): FAIL
Confidence (LOW, MEDIUM, HIGH): HIGH
Summary:
The narrative presents unverified figures and claims, lacks corroborating sources, and originates from a publication with questionable reliability, leading to a high confidence in the assessment that it fails the fact-checking criteria.
