Robert Jenrick will unveil the plans at a press conference on Monday (Image: Getty)

In his speech, Mr Jenrick will warn that unless savings are made the welfare bill will “bankrupt Britain and send taxes even higher”.

He will accuse the Tories and Labour of being “two sides of the same coin” when it comes to benefits.

“People are more than happy to support their neighbours in hard times, but the British taxpayer cannot afford to subsidise everyone on the planet, especially those who have not paid in.

It comes as welfare spending is forecast to reach an eye-watering £407 billion by 2030.

Banning foreign nationals from claiming most benefits would save £21 billion a year within five years, according to Reform.

The party estimates that British taxpayers have shelled out £55 billion on welfare for foreign nationals between April 2022 and February 2026.

The policy means the Brexit deal with Brussels would need to be renegotiated as it requires the UK to pay benefits to EU nationals as if they were British citizens.

Tory Shadow Work and Pensions Secretary Helen Whately said: “British people want welfare spending under control, abuse stamped out – and dignity for people who are seriously disabled. Serious reforms which take hard work.

“Reform UK have spent months flip-flopping on the two-child cap and now they’ve rushed out a cobbled-together announcement which is already unravelling. Their proposals will drag Britain back into Brexit battles with no certainty or success.”

A Labour spokesperson added: “These plans would mean ripping up the UK’s Withdrawal Agreement with the EU, plunging the UK back into years of Brexit renegotiations, and stripping support from potentially millions of people who have lawfully lived, worked, and paid taxes in Britain for years, and in many cases decades.”

Reform UK Pledges to Ban Foreign Nationals from Claiming Almost All Benefits

Reform UK has announced one of the most dramatic welfare proposals in British politics, pledging to prevent foreign nationals from claiming almost all taxpayer-funded benefits if the party wins power at the next general election. The policy, unveiled by the party as part of a wider plan to reduce welfare spending by around £50 billion a year, would represent a major change to the relationship between immigration, citizenship and Britain’s welfare state.

The proposal was announced by Reform’s economics spokesperson Robert Jenrick and deputy leader Richard Tice. Jenrick argued that Britain’s welfare system should primarily support British citizens and described the current arrangement as unfair to taxpayers. Reform’s central message is simple: access to most benefits should be based on British citizenship rather than simply legal residence in the United Kingdom.

Under the proposal, foreign nationals would be excluded from a wide range of benefits, including Universal Credit, housing benefit, pension credit, jobseeker’s allowance, child benefit, free childcare and disability benefits. There would be only a limited number of exceptions, including certain payments connected with military service and war widows. Reform estimates that restricting benefit access for foreign nationals could eventually save approximately £21 billion a year.

The scale of the proposal explains why it has generated such a strong political reaction. It would not simply target people who have entered Britain illegally or recently arrived in the country. The plan would also affect some foreign nationals who have lived in Britain for many years and have acquired settled status. Most controversially, Reform says the policy would extend to European Union citizens with settled status in the UK.

That element creates a major legal and diplomatic complication. Britain’s post-Brexit arrangements with the European Union protect certain rights for EU citizens who were living in the UK before Brexit. Removing their access to benefits could therefore require the UK to renegotiate aspects of the withdrawal agreement. Such negotiations could also have consequences for British citizens living in EU countries, because reciprocal rights could be reconsidered.

Reform nevertheless argues that the principle behind the policy is straightforward. The party believes that the welfare state should operate primarily as a social contract between British citizens and the British state. Supporters argue that people who contribute through taxes and national insurance should have priority when public resources are distributed, particularly during a period of pressure on government finances.

The party has used the issue of foreign nationals receiving benefits to support its wider argument that Britain’s welfare system has become too expensive and too generous. Reform says its broader programme could save more than £50 billion annually. The proposed savings would not come only from restricting benefits for foreign nationals. The party is also proposing major changes to disability benefits, stricter requirements for long-term unemployed people and other reforms designed to reduce the overall welfare bill.

One of the most controversial parts of the wider programme concerns disability benefits. Reform wants to abolish the current Personal Independence Payment system for working-age people and replace it with a more restrictive health security allowance. The party estimates that changes to disability support could save around £22 billion. Critics argue that this could remove important financial assistance from people with serious illnesses and disabilities.

The foreign-benefits proposal must therefore be understood as part of a much broader attempt by Reform to reshape the welfare state. The party is presenting the reforms as a way to encourage work, reduce dependency and protect taxpayers from what it describes as an unsustainable increase in welfare spending.

However, critics argue that the policy is based on a misleading picture of how Britain’s benefit system currently works. The government has pointed out that most migrants who come to Britain on temporary visas already have a condition known as “No Recourse to Public Funds”, meaning that they cannot normally claim benefits such as Universal Credit. Access to taxpayer-funded benefits generally becomes possible only when migrants acquire an immigration status that permits it and satisfy the same eligibility and residence requirements that apply to other claimants.

This distinction is important because the phrase “foreign nationals claiming benefits” can create the impression that newly arrived migrants automatically receive welfare payments. In reality, most temporary migrants cannot access many public funds. People who have settled status or another qualifying immigration position may become eligible, but they still have to satisfy the relevant rules.

Reform’s policy is therefore aimed largely at people who have obtained a more secure status in Britain. That includes individuals who may have lived and worked in the country for many years. Critics argue that excluding such people from the welfare system could be unfair, particularly if they have paid taxes and national insurance contributions throughout their working lives.

There is also an important question about the economic consequences. Reform argues that reducing benefit eligibility would save taxpayers billions of pounds. But opponents warn that removing welfare support from large numbers of lawful residents could increase poverty, homelessness and pressure on local authorities. If people lose housing support or income-related benefits, some may require other forms of assistance from councils or charities.

The issue becomes particularly complicated when children are involved. A foreign national receiving benefits may have British-born children who are citizens of the United Kingdom. If a parent loses access to welfare, the effects could therefore extend beyond the individual claimant and affect an entire household. Campaigners have warned that the wider Reform welfare programme could push large numbers of children into poverty.

Supporters of Reform would argue that this is precisely why the government should encourage employment rather than long-term reliance on benefits. The party believes that welfare should provide a safety net rather than become a permanent source of income for people who could work. As part of its wider reforms, Reform has proposed requiring some long-term claimants who are considered fit to work to undertake up to 20 hours of community service each week or risk losing their benefits.

This approach reflects Reform’s broader political philosophy. Nigel Farage’s party has increasingly presented itself as a challenger to the traditional political establishment, arguing that successive governments have failed to control immigration, public spending and welfare costs. The new proposals allow Reform to connect these issues into one political message: Britain should reduce immigration, prioritise British citizens and reduce the size of the welfare state.

The proposal is also likely to intensify pressure on Labour Prime Minister Andy Burnham. Immigration and welfare are already politically sensitive issues, and Reform’s announcement gives the party another opportunity to portray itself as more willing than Labour or the Conservatives to take radical action.

For Burnham, the challenge is particularly difficult. Labour cannot simply ignore concerns about welfare spending or the number of people who are economically inactive. At the same time, the government must protect vulnerable people and avoid policies that could push families into poverty. The debate over Reform’s proposal could therefore force Labour to explain more clearly who should be entitled to taxpayer-funded support and under what conditions.

The Conservatives face a similar dilemma. Kemi Badenoch’s party has traditionally supported tighter immigration controls and welfare reform, but Reform is attempting to move much further. If the Conservatives adopt similar policies, they risk allowing Reform to set the political agenda. If they reject them, Reform can argue that the Conservatives are unwilling to take sufficiently strong action.

Another important question is whether Reform’s proposed savings are realistic. The party says that banning benefits for foreign nationals could save £21 billion annually by the fifth year. However, critics have questioned how quickly such savings could be achieved and whether legal, administrative and diplomatic complications have been fully accounted for.

The question of EU citizens is particularly significant. Millions of people were granted settled or pre-settled status under the UK’s EU Settlement Scheme following Brexit. Any attempt to remove rights that were protected by the Brexit agreement would require careful legal and diplomatic negotiations. The policy could therefore become much more complicated than simply changing domestic welfare regulations.

There is also the question of reciprocity. If Britain removes welfare rights from EU citizens living in the UK, European governments could respond by reconsidering arrangements affecting British citizens living in their countries. Thousands of British pensioners and other residents live across Europe, meaning that a policy designed to save money domestically could have consequences beyond Britain’s borders.

Nevertheless, Reform believes that the potential financial savings justify the confrontation. The party’s argument is fundamentally about national priority. It wants British citizenship to become the clearest dividing line when determining eligibility for most welfare benefits.

This represents a significant change from the current system, where eligibility generally depends on immigration status, residence and the specific conditions attached to individual benefits rather than citizenship alone. Government guidance makes clear that claimants must meet the relevant legal and residency requirements regardless of nationality.

Whether voters support Reform’s approach will depend partly on how they view the idea of the welfare state itself. Supporters may see it as common sense that British taxpayers should receive priority. They may also believe that restricting welfare access could encourage greater participation in the labour market and reduce the financial burden on the state.

Opponents see the issue differently. They argue that people who have legally lived, worked and paid taxes in Britain for years should not suddenly lose access to support simply because they were born somewhere else. They also warn that a citizenship-based welfare system could create a sharp distinction between different groups of long-term residents and undermine the principle that legal residents who contribute to society should be treated fairly.

The political consequences could be considerable. Reform is already attempting to position itself as the main challenger to Labour under Burnham. A dramatic welfare policy allows the party to appeal to voters concerned about taxes, immigration and public spending at the same time. It also creates a clear contrast with the traditional parties.

Yet radical policies carry risks. Reform’s welfare proposals could alienate some voters who rely on benefits themselves. Critics have pointed out that constituencies where Reform hopes to win seats also contain large numbers of welfare recipients. A policy designed to attract voters angry about welfare spending could therefore also affect people who might otherwise support the party.

Ultimately, Reform UK’s pledge is about much more than benefits. It represents an attempt to redefine the relationship between citizenship, immigration and the British state. The party believes that welfare should primarily be a benefit of citizenship and contribution, while its opponents argue that eligibility should remain based on lawful status, residence and individual need.

The proposal is ambitious, controversial and likely to remain at the centre of Britain’s political debate. If Reform eventually gains power, implementing the policy would involve major legal, administrative and diplomatic challenges. If it does not, the announcement may nevertheless influence the policies of Labour and the Conservatives by increasing pressure on them to take a harder line on welfare and immigration.

For now, Reform has succeeded in moving the argument in its preferred direction. The party has presented a simple political choice: should Britain’s welfare state be available to people who meet the existing legal requirements, regardless of nationality, or should it primarily be reserved for British citizens?

That question will not be answered by Reform alone. It will ultimately be decided through Britain’s democratic and legal institutions. But with billions of pounds of potential savings at stake, millions of residents potentially affected and the future of post-Brexit rights potentially involved, Reform UK’s pledge is one of the most consequential welfare proposals in British politics in 2026.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.