Andy Burnham could water down an immigration crackdown (Image: Getty)

“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 new set of figures showing that households containing at least one foreign national received almost £12 billion in Universal Credit during 2025 has triggered a fresh political row over immigration, welfare and the cost of Britain’s benefits system.

According to figures from the Department for Work and Pensions, households with at least one foreign national received £11.9 billion in Universal Credit last year. The figure represents a substantial increase from £9.5 billion in 2024 and £7.5 billion in 2023. The latest total is therefore around 25 per cent higher than the previous year’s figure.

The figures were obtained through freedom of information requests by the Centre for Migration Control, which has used them to argue that the UK’s approach to legal migration and access to benefits needs to be reconsidered.

The data have quickly become a political flashpoint because they arrive at a time when the Government is debating major changes to immigration rules, including proposals to extend the standard qualifying period for indefinite leave to remain.

The scale of the Universal Credit payments has also prompted criticism from Conservative politicians and other opponents of the Government’s immigration policies.

Shadow Home Secretary Chris Philp described the figures as “shocking” and argued that taxpayers should not be responsible for paying benefits to unemployed foreign nationals. His comments reflect a wider Conservative argument that migrants should face stricter conditions before becoming eligible for welfare support.

But the figures require careful interpretation.

The £11.9 billion figure refers to households with at least one foreign national. It does not mean that £11.9 billion was paid exclusively to foreign nationals, nor does it establish that every person in those households was born overseas.

A household can contain both British citizens and foreign nationals. Consequently, the statistics cannot be interpreted as a simple measure of the amount of welfare personally received by migrants.

This distinction has become an important part of the debate surrounding the figures.

The Centre for Migration Control’s analysis states that households containing at least one foreign national accounted for approximately 15.6 per cent of all Universal Credit payments during the period examined. Of the £11.9 billion, approximately £7.7 billion was associated with households in which an individual was not in work.

That £7.7 billion figure has attracted particular attention because it represents roughly 65 per cent of the total payments to the households identified in the analysis.

Critics of the current immigration system argue that the numbers demonstrate a growing fiscal pressure associated with migration.

Robert Bates, research director at the Centre for Migration Control, argued that the figures challenge the idea that large-scale legal migration has necessarily produced economic benefits for Britain. His organisation has called for significant changes to settlement and citizenship rules.

Reform UK politicians have also used the figures to renew calls for restrictions on migrant access to welfare.

The argument comes at a particularly sensitive moment for the Government.

Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood has proposed reforms that would change the route to indefinite leave to remain, commonly known as ILR. Under the proposals reported this month, the standard qualifying period would increase from five years to ten years for many migrants, with different arrangements proposed for certain groups.

The proposals have generated disagreement within Labour itself, particularly over how the changes would affect migrants already working in Britain.

Andy Burnham is facing pressure over whether the Government should maintain the proposed settlement reforms or modify them. Some Labour MPs, including Angela Rayner, have criticised plans that could affect foreign care workers already living and working in Britain.

The Universal Credit figures have therefore entered a much larger political argument.

At the centre of that argument is the question of who should be entitled to receive taxpayer-funded support and under what circumstances.

Foreign nationals cannot simply arrive in Britain and automatically claim Universal Credit. Eligibility depends on immigration status and the applicable rules governing access to public funds.

The Government has emphasised this point in response to the controversy.

A government spokesperson said that only people who are legally in the UK and have the appropriate entitlement can claim taxpayer-funded benefits. The Government also pointed out that around half of the people represented in the relevant figures are in work.

That last point is particularly important because Universal Credit is not exclusively an unemployment benefit.

People can receive Universal Credit while working if their income and circumstances meet the eligibility requirements. The benefit is designed to provide support to households on lower incomes as well as people who are unemployed.

Consequently, describing the entire £11.9 billion as money paid to unemployed migrants would be inaccurate.

Nevertheless, the £7.7 billion associated with households containing a foreign national where an individual was out of work remains a substantial figure and provides the basis for arguments about the relationship between migration and welfare expenditure.

The political debate is also complicated by the fact that the foreign-national category covers a wide range of people.

It can include people with EU settled status as well as individuals who have obtained indefinite leave to remain. Some may have lived in Britain for many years, worked, paid taxes and established families in the country.

This means that the term “migrant household” does not necessarily describe a recently arrived family.

It can describe a household containing one foreign national who has been living in Britain for a considerable period.

That context is important when interpreting the £12 billion headline figure.

The statistics nevertheless come at a time when immigration has become one of the most prominent political issues in Britain.

The Government has pointed to a substantial fall in net migration from its 2023 peak. A spokesperson said net migration is now down by 82 per cent from that peak. Ministers have also defended the proposed settlement reforms as part of a broader effort to create a more controlled immigration system.

The Government’s approach therefore combines tighter immigration controls with changes to the conditions under which migrants can eventually settle permanently.

The welfare figures add another dimension to the debate.

If more migrants become eligible for public funds after obtaining permanent residence, changes to settlement rules could potentially affect future welfare expenditure. But the precise financial effect would depend on employment levels, household circumstances, eligibility rules and future migration patterns.

It would therefore be premature to conclude that the entire £11.9 billion represents a cost caused by recent migration.

There is also an important distinction between expenditure and net fiscal impact.

A person may receive Universal Credit but also pay income tax, National Insurance, VAT and other taxes. A migrant household can therefore simultaneously receive public support and contribute to public finances.

The latest figures measure Universal Credit payments, not the overall balance between taxes paid and public services or benefits received.

This is why the figures have produced competing interpretations.

Critics see the rapid increase from £7.5 billion in 2023 to £11.9 billion in 2025 as evidence that welfare expenditure connected to foreign-national households is growing quickly. Government supporters can point to the eligibility rules, the fact that many recipients are working, and the broader economic contribution made by migrants.

Both sides are therefore discussing different aspects of the same data.

The controversy is unlikely to disappear soon.

As the Government considers changes to settlement rules, politicians will continue to debate whether migrants should have access to welfare and how long they should have to wait before gaining permanent residence.

For taxpayers, the key question is ultimately how the welfare system should balance support for households in financial difficulty with conditions attached to immigration status.

For the Government, there is an additional challenge: maintaining confidence that immigration rules and welfare rules operate together in a way that is financially sustainable and perceived as fair.

The £11.9 billion figure has provided new fuel for that discussion.

It is a record amount, and its 25 per cent increase over the previous year is significant. But the headline figure alone does not answer the wider questions about migration, employment, taxation or the long-term fiscal impact of foreign nationals living in Britain.

What the data do show is that households containing at least one foreign national accounted for a substantial share of Universal Credit expenditure in 2025. They also show that the amount paid to these households has increased considerably over the past two years.

The political disagreement begins with what those numbers mean.

Conservatives and Reform UK figures have argued that the figures demonstrate the need for tougher restrictions. The Government has instead stressed that benefits are available only to people who meet the relevant legal conditions and that its proposed settlement reforms would already tighten the system.

As Britain debates the future of immigration and welfare, the Universal Credit figures are likely to remain central to the argument.

The £12 billion headline may be politically powerful, but understanding the underlying definition is essential. The money was paid to households containing foreign nationals, not necessarily exclusively to migrants themselves.

That distinction does not remove the questions raised by the figures. It does, however, make clear why the debate over immigration, welfare and the taxpayer cannot be reduced to a single number.

The Government’s forthcoming decisions on settlement and welfare policy will determine how these issues develop. For now, the record £11.9 billion payment has placed renewed pressure on ministers to explain how Britain’s immigration system and welfare state are intended to work together in the years ahead.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.