https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-81zZRTPNms

“British taxpayers should not be paying billions in benefits to foreigners, especially given that over half of these payments are for people out of work. Paying unemployed foreigners is an insult to hard-working taxpayers.”

It comes as Andy Burnham is considering whether to soften proposals by Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood to increase the time migrants would have to wait to settle in the UK permanently, known as indefinite leave to remain (ILR), from five to 10 years, including those already in the country.

“If Burnham bottles ILR changes, the ‘Boris wave’ risks becoming permanent and will cost taxpayers tens of billions more. Only Reform will save Britain by abolishing ILR and ending all benefits to foreign nationals.”

A government spokesman said: “Under this Government, net migration is down by 82% from its 2023 peak.

“Only people who are in the UK legally can claim taxpayer-funded benefits, of which around half are in work.

“Last November, we set out proposals to reform settlement, which will double the standard qualifying period to 10 years for most migrants, with shorter routes for those who contribute most to the UK.”

Outrage as Migrant Households Receive Record £12bn in Universal Credit – ‘Shocking!’

A fresh political row has erupted in Britain after figures showed that households containing at least one foreign national received almost £12 billion in Universal Credit payments during 2025. The figures have triggered renewed demands for tighter restrictions on welfare eligibility, with critics arguing that the government must do more to ensure the benefits system remains affordable for taxpayers.

The figures, obtained through freedom of information requests and analysed by the Centre for Migration Control, show that payments to these households reached approximately £11.92 billion in 2025. That represents an increase of around 25 per cent compared with the £9.53 billion recorded in 2024.

The increase has placed immigration and welfare spending back at the centre of Britain’s political debate, creating further pressure on Prime Minister Andy Burnham and Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood as Labour considers changes to immigration and settlement rules.

Conservative critics have described the figures as shocking and questioned whether people who move to Britain should be able to access taxpayer-funded support. The government, however, insists that Universal Credit is available only to people who meet the relevant eligibility requirements and that foreign nationals who qualify legally are entitled to receive the payments.

Behind the headline figure lies a more complicated question: how should Britain balance the cost of its welfare system, the rights of people legally living in the country and the government’s responsibility to manage immigration?

The £11.9 Billion Figure Explained

The figures reported in September 2026 relate to Universal Credit paid during 2025 to households containing at least one foreign national. The total rose from approximately £7.5 billion in 2023 to £9.5 billion in 2024 and nearly £12 billion in 2025.

According to the analysis, these households accounted for approximately 15.6 per cent of all Universal Credit payments in 2025. Around £7.7 billion, or roughly 65 per cent of the total paid to the households concerned, went to households classified as out of work.

Those numbers have attracted attention because Universal Credit is funded by taxpayers and is intended to support people who meet the scheme’s conditions, including those on low incomes, people who are unemployed and eligible people unable to work because of health conditions or caring responsibilities.

However, the term “migrant households” requires careful interpretation. The figures cover households with at least one foreign national, not exclusively households made up of foreign nationals. A household may include British citizens alongside someone who holds another nationality.

Nor does the total mean that every recipient was unemployed or newly arrived in Britain. Universal Credit is a means-tested benefit, and some eligible claimants receive support while working because their earnings are insufficient to cover their recognised needs.

The figures therefore provide information about public spending associated with a particular category of households. They do not, on their own, establish whether individual claims were improper or whether the increase represents fraud.

Why Has Spending Increased?

The reported increase has prompted questions about the relationship between immigration, employment and welfare expenditure.

One possible factor is the growth in the number of people who are eligible to claim support. If the number of qualifying households rises, total payments can increase even if the average payment remains broadly stable. Changes in household composition, earnings, rent, family circumstances and the wider cost of living can also affect the amount of Universal Credit paid.

The labour market is another important consideration. People who are unemployed may qualify for support if they satisfy the relevant rules, while workers on low incomes can also receive Universal Credit. A rise in payments to households containing foreign nationals does not automatically show whether employment among those households has risen or fallen.

The figures reported by the Centre for Migration Control also need to be distinguished from the government’s published statistics on individual claimants. The Department for Work and Pensions records claimants by nationality and immigration status, but household-level spending can capture circumstances that are not directly comparable with figures counting individual people.

To understand the increase fully, policymakers would need to examine how much was driven by changes in claimant numbers, average awards, employment, housing costs and household circumstances. They would also need to assess the extent to which people who have become British citizens remain recorded in administrative data under an earlier immigration category.

These distinctions matter because the headline total is a measure of expenditure, not a complete explanation of why that expenditure occurred.

The Political Backlash

The figures have nevertheless generated sharp criticism from the Conservatives.

Shadow Home Secretary Chris Philp described the spending as “shocking” and argued that taxpayers should not have to finance benefits for foreign nationals who are unemployed. He has called for stricter rules governing access to public funds and for people who cannot meet the conditions of their visas to leave the country when required.

The Centre for Migration Control has also used the figures to question whether the UK’s immigration system delivers the economic benefits its supporters have promised. Its researchers argue that rising welfare expenditure should form part of any assessment of the fiscal consequences of migration.

These criticisms reflect a broader political argument about the balance between immigration, public services and the welfare state. Opponents of current arrangements say that the government must demonstrate that migration contributes to the public finances and does not place unreasonable pressure on services.

But the figures alone do not establish the overall fiscal contribution of foreign nationals. A complete assessment would also need to consider income tax, National Insurance contributions, other taxes, employment, public service use and the long-term effects of migration on the economy.

Some foreign nationals pay taxes while working and may qualify for Universal Credit when their earnings are low. Others may be unable to work because of circumstances recognised by the benefit system. These differences make it difficult to draw a single conclusion about the economic contribution of all households containing a foreign national.

The debate is therefore not simply about how much is paid out. It is also about what the country receives in taxes and economic activity, which residents qualify for support and whether the eligibility rules are achieving their intended purpose.

Can Foreign Nationals Legally Claim Universal Credit?

Yes, some can, but eligibility is restricted.

Universal Credit is not automatically available to everyone who arrives in Britain. Claimants must satisfy the ordinary benefit conditions and have an immigration status that permits access to public funds.

British and Irish citizens, people with a right of abode and certain people with settled status or indefinite leave to remain can generally qualify if they meet the other requirements. Some people covered by the EU Settlement Scheme may also be eligible.

By contrast, many people holding temporary visas are subject to a “no recourse to public funds” condition. This normally prevents them from claiming Universal Credit and certain other benefits, although immigration rules and individual circumstances can be complex.

Refugees and some people with humanitarian protection may qualify under the relevant rules. Eligibility depends on their status and circumstances rather than simply on whether they were born outside the United Kingdom.

Official Department for Work and Pensions statistics published in 2026 showed that the overwhelming majority of Universal Credit claimants were recorded in the category covering the UK, Ireland and people with a right of abode. Smaller proportions were recorded under the EU Settlement Scheme, indefinite leave to remain, refugee or humanitarian categories and other immigration statuses.

The figures also come with administrative limitations. Nationality and immigration status are recorded differently, and records may not immediately reflect changes such as naturalisation.

These details are essential when assessing claims that benefits are being paid to migrants. The rules distinguish between different groups, and a person receiving Universal Credit has not necessarily breached immigration conditions.

Shabana Mahmood’s Settlement Reforms

The controversy comes as Mahmood pursues changes to the rules governing when migrants can obtain permanent settlement in Britain.

The Home Secretary has proposed extending the standard qualifying period for indefinite leave to remain from five years to ten years for many migrants, with a longer period proposed for some foreign care workers. The government has presented the changes as part of an effort to make settlement more closely reflect contribution and compliance with immigration rules.

The proposals have generated disagreement within Labour. Some MPs argue that applying tougher rules retrospectively to people already living and working in Britain would be unfair, particularly to workers recruited to fill shortages in essential services.

Care workers are especially prominent in the debate because many were recruited under earlier immigration arrangements to help meet demand in the social care sector. Critics of retrospective changes argue that workers should not discover after arriving that the route to permanent residence has become substantially longer.

Supporters of a stricter settlement system say that permanent residence should not be automatic and that the government must retain control over eligibility for public funds and long-term immigration status.

The Universal Credit figures have added another dimension to this dispute. Those calling for restrictions argue that access to benefits should be considered alongside the conditions for settlement. Others warn that making access to support more difficult could increase hardship among legally resident families, including households with children.

The final design of any reform will therefore have implications beyond immigration administration. It could affect employment decisions, family finances and the ability of workers to remain in Britain long term.

What Does This Mean for British Taxpayers?

For taxpayers, the central concern is whether public money is being spent effectively and whether the rules are applied consistently.

Universal Credit represents a substantial commitment by the state. Any significant increase in expenditure deserves scrutiny, particularly when the government is under pressure to fund public services while managing borrowing costs and competing spending priorities.

But the most useful response is to establish what is driving the increase. Policymakers should examine claimant numbers, employment patterns, average awards, eligibility and the financial contribution of the households concerned. They should also investigate any evidence of incorrect payments or fraud through the established processes rather than assuming that a claim is improper because a recipient is a foreign national.

If the evidence shows that particular rules are creating unintended incentives or allowing people to claim when they do not qualify, the government can consider targeted changes. If the increase is largely explained by higher living costs or a greater number of eligible low-income households, different measures may be required.

There is also a practical question about employment. Helping people who can work move into stable jobs may reduce the amount of support they need over time while increasing tax revenue. That requires access to training, childcare, suitable employment and effective support for people whose health or caring responsibilities affect their ability to work.

A sustainable welfare system must therefore combine clear eligibility rules with an understanding of the economic circumstances that lead people to claim.

Conclusion: A Major Spending Figure That Needs Context

The £11.92 billion reported for 2025 has intensified Britain’s debate over migration and welfare spending. Payments to households containing at least one foreign national increased substantially compared with the previous year, and the scale of that increase warrants careful examination.

However, the headline figure should not be confused with proof that all the recipients were unemployed, that all were recent arrivals or that the payments were unlawful. Universal Credit can be claimed by eligible people who meet the relevant conditions, including some foreign nationals who have permission to access public funds.

The government now faces pressure to explain the figures, enforce the eligibility rules and demonstrate that its immigration and welfare policies are financially sustainable. Conservatives are calling for tighter restrictions, while Labour must weigh those demands against the circumstances of people who are legally resident and entitled to support.

Ultimately, the debate should be guided by transparent data and a clear distinction between lawful claims, improper payments and the wider economic contribution of migrants. Taxpayers deserve accountability, and people who qualify under the law deserve consistent treatment.

The key question is not simply whether the spending figure is large. It is why it has risen, which households are receiving support, whether the rules are being applied correctly and what changes—if any—would improve the system without creating unnecessary hardship or undermining the public finances.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.