New Clothes, PlayStations, Hair Extensions, and More: Perks Enjoyed by Migrants Who Entered the UK Illegally

The UK's asylum system is once again under the spotlight after new figures revealed councils have spent millions on goods and services for migrants who arrived via illegal routes, including PlayStations, football match tickets, and new clothing.

The spending, funded through government grants, has ignited a national row over what critics say is a 'perks culture' that risks encouraging more Channel crossings.

Critics argue that such spending sends the wrong message and risks incentivising illegal crossings, while defenders insist these measures are necessary for dignity and integration.

£4 Million Spent on Clothing and Footwear

According to Freedom of Information requests obtained by The Telegraph, the UK government has spent nearly £4 million over three years on new clothes and shoes for migrants arriving via small boats across the English Channel.

Packs include underwear, socks, T-shirts, jogging bottoms, sweatshirts, and weather-appropriate footwear such as flip-flops or trainers. These items are distributed at processing centres in Dover to replace clothing soaked in seawater, with changing rooms reportedly available for fittings.

The Home Office defended the expenditure, citing health and safety concerns. However, critics, such as former Border Force Director General Tony Smith, have called for second-hand clothing to be used instead and suggested that migrants granted leave to remain should contribute to the cost.

'If they are allowed to stay, then they are going to be able to work and earn money. To me, that's a chargeable deduction on our investment in them like universities, where you have to borrow £30,000 to get your child in to study', he said.

Entertainment and Leisure: PlayStations and DJ Lessons

A 2025 audit by The Telegraph revealed that councils across Britain have spent £141 million since 2022 on non-essential services for asylum seekers, including game consoles, yoga sessions, and even circus skills training.

West Sussex Council spent £334 on PlayStation consoles and games for migrants in hotel accommodation, while Croydon Council allocated £6,900 for DJ skills training as part of a £317,224 package of extra services.

Bristol Council, facing a £53 million budget shortfall, spent £270,389 of Home Office grants on football match outings for migrants, including tickets to Bristol City and Bristol Rovers games. Denbighshire Council in Wales paid £550 for stadium tours at Liverpool's Anfield.

These initiatives were funded through central government grants, not local authority budgets, but have nonetheless drawn criticism from MPs and taxpayers. Reform UK MP Rupert Lowe branded the spending 'a disgrace', stating:

'It is pure insanity. What message does this send to the millions looking to make the journey?

'No computer games, driving lessons, phones, laptops, or whatever else. They should receive a one-way plane ticket.'

Hair Extensions and Grooming Claims

While not as widely documented, anecdotal reports and social media commentary have suggested that some migrants have received personal grooming services, including haircuts and hair extensions, as part of council-funded integration programmes.

These claims remain largely unverified and are not supported by official data; however, they have contributed to the public perception that migrants are receiving preferential treatment.

Accommodation and Basic Support

Under Section 95 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, asylum seekers who are deemed destitute are entitled to essential living needs and accommodation while their claims are processed.

This typically includes hotel or hostel stays, or private rental properties arranged by government contractors, not in council housing. Weekly financial support varies depending on the type of accommodation.

Those in self-catered housing receive £49.18 per week, while those in catered accommodation (where meals are provided) receive £8.86 per week.

Additional payments are available for pregnant women and children under the age of three to help cover essential needs.

Contrary to viral social media claims, migrants do not automatically receive council houses, lump-sum payments, or British passports. These benefits are only accessible to individuals who have been granted refugee status and meet strict eligibility criteria.

Public Reaction and Policy Implications

The revelations have intensified calls for reform of the UK's asylum system. Critics argue that generous perks undermine public confidence and strain local resources, especially as councils face rising costs and tax hikes.

Supporters of the current system emphasise the need to treat asylum seekers with dignity and provide opportunities for integration.

The debate continues to polarise public opinion, with some viewing the perks as humane and others as excessive.

As the UK grapples with record numbers of Channel crossings and mounting pressure on public services, the question remains: how much support is too much?