Over the past 50 years, UK health expenditure has risen more than five-fold in real terms, from around £45 billion in 1974-75 to £242 billion in 2024-25.[1] NHS spending continues to rise, with Department of Health and Social Care expenditure having increased by 5 per cent in 2024-25.[2] Even after accounting for changes in population size and age, the NHS budget in 2028-29 is projected to be 32.9 per cent higher than it was in 2013-14.[3]

Despite this sustained increase in funding, NHS performance remains under significant pressure. In the third quarter of 2025-26 there were around 7 million accident and emergency (A&E) attendances, yet only around 60 per cent of patients attending major A&E departments were seen within four hours.[4] While performance for single specialty or minor injury A&E departments was higher at around 97 per cent, overall performance remains well below the NHS constitutional target of 95 per cent, and below the government’s 78 per cent minimum target for 2025-26.[5]

Waiting times for non-urgent treatment also remain above NHS targets. The NHS Constitution states that 92 per cent of patients should begin treatment within 18 weeks of referral, a standard last met in September 2015. Although waiting times have stabilised recently, only 62 per cent of patients were waiting less than 18 weeks in October 2025, below both the constitutional standard and the interim target of 65 per cent by March 2026.[6] However, there is evidence to suggest that this recent reduction in waiting lists is driven by fewer referrals and by patients being removed from waiting lists, rather than more people receiving treatment.[7]

As a result, the role of NHS leadership and management has come under greater scrutiny. In May 2025 the government announced a new “carrot and stick” approach to NHS leadership performance, linking senior managers’ pay more closely to operational results. Under the new plans, senior leaders who deliver improvements in patient care or reduce waiting times may receive bonuses of up to 10 per cent of their salary, while executives in failing trusts could have annual pay rises docked.[8]

This note examines the remuneration of senior managers across NHS trusts in 2024-25 and compares it with the previous year, alongside their trust’s performance on A&E and referral to treatment (RTT) waiting times for January 2026.

Key findings

• In 2024-25, there were 1,758 senior managers receiving £100,000 or more in total remuneration (comprising salary, expenses, benefits, bonuses and pension benefits) across 220 NHS trusts, an increase of 3.8 per cent from 2023-24.
• Of these, 1,603 had a salary of £100,000 or more,[9] comprising:
  • 17 who had salaries over £300,000
  • 319 who had salaries between £200,000 and £300,000
  • 1,267 who had salaries between £100,000 and £200,000
• 574 senior managers had a salary greater than the prime minister’s £172,153 salary entitlement in 2024-25, up from 512 in 2023-24, an increase of 12 per cent.[10]
• The number of NHS senior managers receiving at least £300,000 in total remuneration increased by 134 per cent in a single year, rising from 125 in 2023-24 to 292 in 2024-25.

[1] Bridges, E., NHS funding and expenditure, House of Commons Library, 2026, p.6.

[2] Jeffries, D. & Purbrick-Thompson, K., The NHS budget and how it has changed, The King’s Fund, 16 December 2025, www.kingsfund.org.uk/insight-and-analysis/data-and-charts/nhs-budget-nutshell (accessed 5 March 2026).

[3] Issa, Z. & Yang, E., Health care funding, The Health Foundation, 5 March 2026, www.health.org.uk/publications/long-reads/health-care-funding (accessed 6 March 2026).

[4] Nuffield Trust, A&E waiting times, 26 February 2026, www.nuffieldtrust.org.uk/resource/a-e-waiting-times (accessed 6 March 2026).

[5] Ibid.

[6] The King’s Fund, Waiting times for elective (non-urgent) treatment: referral to treatment (RTT), 15 December 2025, www.kingsfund.org.uk/insight-and-analysis/data-and-charts/waiting-times-non-urgent-treatment (accessed 6 March 2026).

[7] Donnelly, L. & Searles, M., NHS rations hospital referrals to cut waiting list, The Telegraph, 29 March 2026.

[8] Department of Health and Social Care, NHS leaders face both ‘carrot and stick’ in new performance drive, Gov.uk, 15 May 2025, www.gov.uk/government/news/nhs-leaders-face-both-carrot-and-stick-in-new-performance-drive (accessed 6 March 2026).

[9] Salary used instead of total remuneration due to abnormally large pensions distorting the top of the range.

[10] Edgington, T & Clarke, J., What does the prime minister do and how much are they paid?, BBC, 10 July 2024, www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-48497953, (accessed 30 April 2025).

Embargoed: 19:00 Sunday 26th July 2026

• NHS Rich List finds that 574 senior NHS managers had higher salaries than the prime minister, an increase of 12 per cent in a single year.
• 1,758 senior managers received more than £100,000 in total remuneration in 2024-25. This is an increase of 3.8 per cent from 2023-24. 
• The number of NHS senior managers receiving at least £300,000 in total remuneration more than doubled to 292 people. An increase of 134 per cent in a single year.
• TaxPayers’ Alliance research presents senior salaries alongside A&E waiting times, revealing failing hospital bosses taking pay rises in defiance of Labour pledge to link pay and performance.

After the appointment of Yvette Cooper as the new health secretary, the TaxPayers’ Alliance (TPA) today reveals there were 574 senior managers in the NHS on a higher salary than the prime minister last year. The NHS Rich List shows that across the 220 NHS Trusts, 1,758 senior managers received over £100,000 in total remuneration, with the number of NHS senior managers receiving at least £300,000 in total remuneration more than doubled to 292.

While few would disagree with paying doctors and nurses properly, the NHS Rich List shows that managers in hospitals with poor A&E performance and long waiting times from referral to treatment (RTT) are still picking up handsome remuneration packages at taxpayers’ expense. 

Total remuneration includes salary, expenses, benefits, bonuses and pension contributions. Looking at salaries alone, 1,603 managers had salary entitlements of at least £100,000, including 319 receiving between £200,000 and £300,000, and 17 who received over £300,000. After the previous health secretary Wes Streeting announced that NHS leaders would face a new carrot and stick performance drive, the TPA is calling on the new health secretary Yvette Cooper to follow through with these plans and properly link performance to pay inside the NHS.The Newcastle Upon Tyne Hospitals had the senior manager with the highest salary in 2024-25, with chief executive, J Mackey, receiving £377,500, including up to £94,000 moonlighting in other NHS jobs. The trust was ranked 41 out of 140 in England for A&E waiting time.  

The worst performing trust for A&E waiting times was East Cheshire for the second consecutive year. The chief executive officer, G J Murphy, had total remuneration of £377,500 in 2024-25, rising from £172,500 in 2023-24 despite the persistent poor A&E waiting times. The trust had 7 senior managers who received over £100,000 in total remuneration overall.

Cambridgeshire and Peterborough had the worst referral to treatment waiting time of 149 trusts, ranking last for the second consecutive year. The chief medical director, Catherine Walsh, had total remuneration of £322,500 in 2024-25, while patients waited an average of 22 weeks for treatment.

CLICK HERE TO READ THE FULL RESEARCH

Key findings:

• In 2024-25, there were 1,758 senior managers receiving £100,000 or more in total remuneration (comprising salary, expenses, benefits, bonuses and pension benefits) across 220 NHS trusts, an increase of 3.8 per cent from 2023-24. 
• Of these, 1,603 had a salary of £100,000 or more, comprising: 
  • 17 who had salaries over £300,000 
  • 319 who had salaries between £200,000 and £300,000
  • 1,267 who had salaries between £100,000 and £200,000
  • 574 senior managers had a salary greater than the prime minister’s £172,153 salary entitlement in 2024-25, up from 512 in 2023-24, an increase of 12 per cent.  
• 574 senior managers had a salary greater than the prime minister’s £172,153 salary entitlement in 2024-25, up from 512 in 2023-24, an increase of 12 per cent.
• The number of NHS senior managers receiving at least £300,000 in total remuneration increased by 134 per cent in a single year, rising from 125 in 2023-24 to 292 in 2024-25.

Highest salary 

• The Newcastle Upon Tyne Hospitals had the senior manager with the highest salary in 2024-25, with chief executive, J Mackey, receiving £377,500 (£382,500 total remuneration). The trust was ranked 41 out of 140 in England for A&E waiting time. 
• This was followed by West Hertfordshire Teaching Hospitals where chief medical officer, M Van Der Watt, received £372,500 in 2024-25 (£372,500 total remuneration).  
• Next was Guy’s and St Thomas’, where chief executive, I Abbs, received a salary of £337,500 in 2024-25 (£347,500 total remuneration).

Highest salary in Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish NHS organisations 

• Crawford McGuffie, medical director at NHS Ayrshire and Arran was the senior manager with the highest salary in Scotland in 2024-25, at £247,500. The trust was ranked 11 of 14 for A&E waiting times in Scotland.
• C Shillabeer, chief executive of Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board, had the highest salary of any senior manager in Wales in 2024-25 at £262,500. The health board was ranked 6 of 7 for RTT waiting time and 7 of 7 for A&E waiting time in Wales. 
• South Eastern Health and Social Care Trust had the senior manager with the highest salary in Northern Ireland in 2024-25, with medical director, C Martyn, receiving £242,500. 

Notable individuals 

• Nottingham University Hospitals was ranked 133 of 149 for RTT waiting times and 131 of 140 for A&E waiting times in England. Their chief nurse, T Pilcher, had total remuneration of £712,500 in 2024-25. 
• Chesterfield Royal Hospital was ranked 136 of 149 for RTT waiting times and 124 of 140 for A&E waiting times in England. Their medical director, Kevin Sargen, had a total remuneration of £542,500 in 2024-25.
• University Hospitals Sussex was ranked 144 of 149 for RTT waiting times and 122 of 140 for A&E waiting times in England. Their chief executive, George Findley, received £492,500 in total remuneration in 2024-25, including £32,500 in performance pay.
• Cardiff and Vale University Health Board was ranked last (7 of 7) for RTT waiting times and 5 of 7 for A&E waiting times in Wales. Executive director of therapies and health science, Emma Cooke received £367,500 in total remuneration in 2024-25.
• NHS Lanarkshire ranked 14 of 14 for A&E waiting times in Scotland. Their medical director C Deighan received £462,500 in total remuneration in 2024-25.

Best and worst performing trusts by A&E waiting time (England)

• Humber Teaching had the best A&E waiting time of 140 trusts. Six senior managers received over £100,000 in remuneration. The senior manager with the highest total remuneration in the trust was medical director, Kwame Opoku-Fofie, at £272,500 in 2024-25.
• East Cheshire remained the worst performing trust for A&E waiting times for the second consecutive year, ranking last in both 2023-24 and 2024-25. The chief executive officer, G J Murphy, had total remuneration of £377,500 in 2024-25, rising from £172,500 in 2023-24 despite the persistent poor A&E waiting times. 

Best and worst performing trusts by RTT waiting time (England)

• Mersey Care had the best RTT waiting time of 149 trusts. The senior manager with the highest total remuneration in the trust was chief nurse and director of infection, prevention and control, Jenny Hurst, at £297,500 in 2024-25. 
• Cambridgeshire and Peterborough had the worst RTT waiting time of 149 trusts, ranking last for the second consecutive year. The chief medical director, Catherine Walsh, had total remuneration of £322,500 in 2024-25.

Highest salary by function  

• Digital: Neil Darvill, chief digital information officer shared between North Bristol and University Hospitals Bristol and Weston, had the highest salary within this function at £195,000 in 2024-25.
• HR: Ajit Abraham, group director of inclusion and equity at Barts Health had the highest salary within this function at £232,500 in 2024-25.
• Strategy: Shane Gordon, director of strategy, research and innovation at East Suffolk and North Essex had the highest salary within this function at £247,500 in 2024-25. 
• Finance: Roy Clarke, chief financial officer at King’s College Hospital, had the highest salary within this function at £267,500 in 2024-25. 

CLICK HERE TO READ THE FULL RESEARCH

Responding to the findings, Rt. Hon Stuart Andrew MP, Shadow Health Secretary, said: 

"Running the NHS is a demanding job and managers should be rewarded for delivering results. But paying managers large bonuses while patients receive poor care is not good value for taxpayers or fair on NHS frontline staff.

"Labour is handing out bonuses while patients bear the brunt of long waits and poor performance. Funding should be focused on frontline services and better patient care, not bigger payouts for managers.

"The Conservatives know the NHS needs serious reform. Every pound should deliver better care for patients and better value for taxpayers."

Anne Strickland, researcher at the TaxPayers' Alliance, said:

“Taxpayers will be appalled that NHS executive pay is soaring while patients are still left waiting for care.

“Andy Burnham’s new government has an early opportunity to show taxpayers that it will get a grip on this culture of rewarding failure.

“Ministers must keep their promise to link performance to pay, so that failing NHS bosses are held accountable and money goes into patients’ care not managers’ pockets. ”

TPA spokespeople are available for live and pre-recorded broadcast interviews via 07795 084 113 (no texts)

Media contact:

William Yarwood
Campaigns Director, TaxPayers' Alliance
william.yarwood@taxpayersalliance.com
24-hour media hotline: 07795 084 113 (no texts)

Notes to editors:

1. Founded in 2004 by Matthew Elliott and Andrew Allum, the TaxPayers' Alliance (TPA) campaigns to reform taxes and public services, cut waste and speak up for British taxpayers. Find out more at www.taxpayersalliance.com.
2. TaxPayers' Alliance's research council.
3. The TaxPayers’ Alliance’s first NHS Rich List revealed that 1,694 senior managers received more than £100,000 in total remuneration in 2023-24, with 512 senior NHS managers having higher salaries than the prime minister.

By Jess Caine, political commentator

At Birmingham City Council’s full meeting on Tuesday, 14th July 2026, councillors adopted a new constitution intended to strengthen how Europe’s largest local authority is governed. Yet the most important contribution of the afternoon was a much simpler question from Reform group leader Cllr Jex Parkin: “Who really governs Birmingham?”

This has been the question Birmingham taxpayers have been left asking since government commissioners were installed with powers over governance, finance and senior appointments following the council’s financial collapse.

The immediate context was ITV Central’s disclosure of a confidential officer paper examining how to end the long-running bin strike. The document contemplated dismissing workers in the narrow period after the local elections but before a new administration formally took office, allowing incoming politicians to avoid ownership of the decision. At full council, Cllr Parkin questioned where commissioner oversight and officer influence ended, and the political judgement of elected councillors began.

Council leader Roger Harmer replied that the paper pre-dated his administration and said he wanted the commissioners to leave once the reasons for intervention had been addressed. That is understandable, but it does not answer the underlying question. A council cannot rebuild public confidence while responsibility for major decisions remains blurred between elected members, permanent officers and Whitehall-appointed commissioners.

Blurred authority is expensive. When responsibility is divided, every failure acquires several possible owners and no obvious one. Officers can point to political direction, politicians to professional advice, and both can point to commissioners. But taxpayers are left funding the consequences while this institutional argument continues. Birmingham’s problem is therefore not only a deficit in its accounts, but a deficit of ownership.

The timing was particularly awkward. In the same meeting, councillors received the Audit Committee’s annual report. It could not provide reasonable assurance that the council’s governance, risk management and internal controls were fully adequate and effective. It also identified difficulty obtaining timely and complete information, weak follow-up of agreed actions and concerns about whether the committee possessed the knowledge and experience required to challenge the organisation effectively. 

Those are not procedural quibbles, instead they describe the machinery that is supposed to stop taxpayers’ money being wasted.

Birmingham’s financial collapse had an immediate trigger - the section 114 notice cited an £87 million in-year gap and an equal-pay liability then estimated at between £650 million and £760 million, which the council could not meet from its reserves. But commissioners later identified a wider governance failure. Hard decisions had not been taken, problems were not followed through, budget underperformance failed to provoke effective challenge and warning signs over Oracle were ignored. Residents then paid through council-tax rises of 9.99 per cent in 2024-25 and 7.49 per cent the following year, more than £300 million of savings affecting services including planned highway maintenance, street lighting and arts funding, and an asset disposal programme initially targeting £500 million in receipts.

The new constitution may improve committee structures and clarify formal powers. But Birmingham’s own commissioners have previously warned that constitutional reform will only work if behaviour changes. A gorgeous, indexed rulebook is of limited use when councillors cannot obtain information, audit actions are not completed, and nobody can give residents a clear answer about who made a major decision.

The agenda offered another revealing juxtaposition. Immediately after the Audit Committee report, full council considered decisions taken under general exception and special urgency provisions. These are routes that allow matters to proceed outside the normal forward-plan process. Such powers are sometimes necessary. But in a council emerging from intervention, every departure from ordinary transparency should be treated as exceptional in substance, not merely in name.

Birmingham does not lack registers, reports or action trackers. The council publishes executive decisions, Forward Plans, urgency reports and committee action logs, while commissioners report separately to ministers. The problem is that these records sit across different parts of the council’s governance machinery, making it unnecessarily difficult for taxpayers to follow a major decision from proposal to approval, scrutiny and delivery.I caught up with Cllr Jex Parkin following Birmingham’s full council meeting. He argued that the test of the council’s recovery is not simply whether the commissioners eventually leave, but whether the governance arrangements left behind can function without them.

“The commissioners were appointed because governance had already failed,” he told me. “The real question is whether Birmingham has built a system that can stand on its own once intervention ends.”

For Cllr Parkin, that requires more than new structures. “The issue isn’t simply who sits around the table. It’s whether the council has built a culture where poor decisions are challenged early, responsibility is clear, and failure has consequences.”

Rather than creating another layer of paperwork, Birmingham should consolidate what it already publishes. A single public dashboard for major decisions should link to the formal decision record, identify whether authority was exercised by cabinet, full council, an officer or a commissioner, name the accountable lead, record the financial value and show any subsequent scrutiny or audit action. Existing recommendation trackers should also clearly distinguish completed actions from those whose deadlines have moved, with the reasons and financial consequences of significant delay.

Transparency is not achieved merely by placing every document somewhere online. It requires taxpayers to be able to establish, without conducting their own municipal archaeology, who made a decision, what it cost and whether the promised safeguards were ever delivered.

Taxpayers are entitled to know who controls their money, who authorised a decision and who can be removed when it goes wrong. At present, Birmingham’s system makes that answer too difficult.

The council has rewritten its constitution but the harder task for the new administration is ending its accountability deficit. Until Birmingham can say plainly who governs, local taxpayers cannot be confident that anyone truly owns the consequences.

Prior to his appointment as prime minister in July 2026, Andy Burnham said that the freezing of the personal allowance over the past five years was the thing he heard most about on the doorstep during the Makerfield by-election campaign.[1] Originally set to last until 2025-26, the policy has been extended twice by subsequent chancellors and is now expected to last until 2030-31.[2]

The prolonged freeze in tax thresholds, which is now expected to last for a decade, has become an increasingly significant feature of the UK tax system. As nominal wages rise while the personal allowance and higher rate thresholds remain fixed,[3] more income becomes subject to tax and more taxpayers are drawn into higher bands, allowing the government to extract substantial sums from taxpayers without raising headline rates, amounting to over £55 billion in 2030-31.[4] This stealth tax is not confined to high earners, with anyone paying income tax or earning close to the personal allowance facing a tax rise. 

Drawing on data from HM Revenue & Customs,[5] this note examines income tax liabilities in 2026-27 and the growing burden of income tax on taxpayers, highlighting how this is distributed across the country.

Key findings

• 1 million more people are forecast to pay income tax in 2026-27 compared to 2025-26:
  •  500,000 more people will pay the basic rate
  •  410,000 more people will pay the higher rate
  • 70,000 more people will pay the additional rate
• Those aged 65 and over who are liable for income tax have increased by 630,000 from 9.6 million in 2025-26 to 10.2 million in 2026-27.
• Total income tax liability in 2026-27 is expected to be £347 billion, this is up £43 billion since Labour came to power in 2024-25.
• On average, taxpayers will pay £640 more in income tax in 2026-27 compared to 2024-25 and £1,040 more compared to 2023-24.
• Since 2010-11, the number of additional and higher rate taxpayers have risen by 5.5 and 2.6 times respectively. These groups combined will pay 72.9 per cent of income tax liability in 2026-27.
• Those with incomes between £500,000 and £1 million face the highest average rate of income tax, at 40.8 per cent. This group paid an average of £276,000 in income tax per person.
• In 2026-27, the top 1 per cent of income taxpayers are expected to earn 12.8 per cent of total income and pay 26.6 per cent of income tax. This means the top 1 per cent of income earners will pay 2.1 times their share of income.
• London and the South East had the highest number of additional and higher rate taxpayers, with 25.9 per cent of income taxpayers in London paying the higher rate, compared to 14.4 per cent in the North East.

[1] Wright, G., Burnham hints at rise in tax-free allowance, The Telegraph, 20 July 2026.

[2] Seely, A., Income tax: freezing the personal allowance and the higher rate threshold, House of Commons Library, 2026, pp.6-7.

[3] The additional rate threshold is aligned with the personal allowance taper.

[4] Masala, F., Fiscal drag: An explainer, House of Commons Library, 2026, p.5.

[5] HM Revenue & Customs, Income Tax liabilities statistics: tax year 2023 to 2024 to tax year 2026 to 2027, Gov.uk, 15 July 2026, www.gov.uk/government/statistics/income-tax-liabilities-statistics-tax-year-2023-to-2024-to-tax-year-2026-to-2027 (accessed 20 July 2026).

EMBARGOED: 19:00 Wednesday 22nd July 

• 1 million more people are forecast to pay income tax in 2026-27 compared to 2025-26.
• On average, taxpayers will pay £640 more in income tax in 2026-27 compared to 2024-25
• London and the South East had the highest number of additional and higher rate taxpayers, while 16.2% of taxpayers in the North West, Andy Burnham’s own region, pay the higher rate. 
• The TPA is calling on prime minister Andy Burnham to end fiscal drag alongside restraining spending. 

1 million more people are forecast to be paying income tax in 2026-27 compared to last year, new TaxPayers’ Alliance (TPA) research has revealed. 

The new prime minister, Andy Burnham, said the freezing of the personal allowance was the issue voters raised with him most during the Makerfield by-election campaign. Now in Downing Street, taxpayers will expect him to act on the stealth tax hitting workers across the country and in his region of the North West. On average, taxpayers will pay £640 more in income tax in 2026-27 compared to 2024-25, and £1,040 more compared to 2023-24. Those aged 65 and above are being increasingly affected, the number of pensioners liable for income tax has risen to 10.2 million, a 630,000 increase in a single year. 500,000 more people will pay the basic rate, while 410,000 more people will pay the higher rate and 70,000 more people will pay the additional rate.

London and the South East had the highest number of additional and higher rate taxpayers, with 25.9 per cent of income taxpayers in London paying the higher rate, compared to 14.4 per cent in the North East. 16.2 per cent of taxpayers in the North West, Andy Burnham’s own region, pay the higher rate. Originally set to last until 2025-26, the freeze has now been extended twice and is expected to continue until 2030-31. The policy has become one of the biggest stealth taxes in the system, with the freeze expected to raise more than £55 billion in 2030-31. The TaxPayers’ Alliance is calling on prime minister Andy Burnham to end fiscal drag and give taxpayers the breathing space he promised by unfreezing thresholds and easing the tax burden on hard-working families.

[READ THE FULL BRIEFING NOTE HERE]

Key findings:

• 1 million more people are forecast to pay income tax in 2026-27 compared to 2025-26:
  • 500,000 more people will pay the basic rate
  • 410,000 more people will pay the higher rate
  • 70,000 more people will pay the additional rate
• Those aged 65 and over who are liable for income tax have increased by 630,000 from 9.6 million in 2025-26 to 10.2 million in 2026-27.
• Total income tax liability in 2026-27 is expected to be £347 billion, this is up £43 billion since Labour came to power in 2024-25.
• On average, taxpayers will pay £640 more in income tax in 2026-27 compared to 2024-25 and £1,040 more compared to 2023-24.
• Since 2010-11, the number of additional and higher rate taxpayers have risen by 5.5 and 2.6 times respectively. These groups combined will pay 72.9 per cent of income tax liability in 2026-27.
• Those with incomes between £500,000 and £1 million face the highest average rate of income tax, at 40.8 per cent. This group paid an average of £276,000 in income tax per person.
• In 2026-27, the top 1 per cent of income taxpayers are expected to earn 12.8 per cent of total income and pay 26.6 per cent of income tax. This means the top 1 per cent of income earners will pay 2.1 times their share of income.
• London and the South East had the highest number of additional and higher rate taxpayers, with 25.9 per cent of income taxpayers in London paying the higher rate, compared to 14.4 per cent in the North East.

[READ THE FULL BRIEFING NOTE HERE]

John O’Connell, chief executive of the TaxPayers’ Alliance said:

“A million more Brits are being caught in the taxman’s net by stealth.

“Freezing thresholds lets ministers rake in billions without admitting they have raised taxes, hitting workers, pensioners and families across the country.

“If Andy Burnham really wants to give hard-working taxpayers breathing space, he should end fiscal drag and unfreeze tax thresholds.”

TPA spokespeople are available for live and pre-recorded broadcast interviews via 07795 084 113 (no texts)

Media contact:

William Yarwood
Campaigns Director, TaxPayers’ Alliance
william.yarwood@taxpayersalliance.com
24-hour media hotline: 07795 084 113 (no texts)

Notes to editors:

1. Founded in 2004 by Matthew Elliott and Andrew Allum, the TaxPayers' Alliance (TPA) campaigns to reform taxes and public services, cut waste and speak up for British taxpayers. Find out more at www.taxpayersalliance.com.
2. TaxPayers' Alliance's research council.

For immediate release

Responding to Andy Burnham’s first speech as prime minister, John O’Connell, chief executive of the TaxPayers' Alliance, said:

“Taxpayers will be hugely disappointed by Andy Burnham’s speech, which offered little more than tired cliches and grandiose promises while failing to provide any kind of real plan.

“Anyone who was hoping that Burnham’s coronation would usher in a different kind of politics will feel betrayed when he inevitably reaches for the same old tax-and-spend policies that have failed so miserably in the past.

“If the new prime minister really wants to give hard-working Brits breathing space, he should start by cutting taxes and getting spending under control".

TPA spokespeople are available for live and pre-recorded broadcast interviews via 07795 084 113 (no texts)

Media contact:

William Yarwood
Campaigns Director, TaxPayers' Alliance
william.yarwood@taxpayersalliance.com
24-hour media hotline: 07795 084 113 (no texts)

Notes to editors:

1. Founded in 2004 by Matthew Elliott and Andrew Allum, the TaxPayers' Alliance (TPA) campaigns to reform taxes and public services, cut waste and speak up for British taxpayers. Find out more at www.taxpayersalliance.com.
2. TaxPayers' Alliance's research council.

At a time when defence, local services and household budgets are under huge pressure, Andy Burnham wants to press ahead with the Chagos surrender deal.

That means handing over British territory, then leasing back a vital military base at a cost of up to £47bn, which the Mauritian government will use to exempt 80 per cent of workers from income tax and pay down its national debt, all the while British taxpayers shoulder the highest tax burden in history and see services cut at home.

Write to your MP by using our tool below and tell them to cancel the Chagos deal once and for all.

By using this tool you agree to be contacted by us. Read our privacy policy.

At a time when defence, local services and household budgets are under huge pressure, Andy Burnham wants to hike foreign aid back to 0.7% of national income.

Write to your MP by using our tool below and tell them that taxpayers’ money should fund British priorities first.

By using this tool you agree to be contacted by us. Read our privacy policy.

As Keir Starmer spends his last few days in Downing Street, the TPA team share their favourite high(low) lights of his premiership.

Darwin

When historians look back on Keir Starmer's premiership, the welfare reform U-turn will stand out as one of its defining lowlights. The proposals wouldn't have cut benefits overnight, they would simply have slowed the relentless growth in welfare claimants and spending. Yet Starmer couldn't even persuade enough of his own backbench MPs to support that modest change. Faced with internal revolt, he retreated, watering down the reforms and adding billions to the long-term cost to taxpayers.

For a prime minister who promised serious government and difficult choices, that episode became a lasting reminder that his priority of political management too often trumped the fiscal responsibility taxpayers and the country need. 

Shimeon 

One of the few positives that came out of Keir Starmer’s premiership was the recognition that spending billions on foreign aid while public finances were stretched thin at home was not sustainable. While Labour’s manifesto pledged to restore foreign aid spending to 0.7 per cent of gross national income, when faced with the reality of the public finances Starmer made the right decision to reduce it to 0.3 per cent in order to fund defence. In doing so, he went further than the previous Conservative government had done.

For too long politicians have believed nebulous soft power could replace actual capabilities. Recent events have shown otherwise. If only Starmer had shown the same willingness to reduce spending across the rest of the bloated state, he might have proved a more successful PM. 

Anne

As a member of generation Z, my defining memory of Sir Keir Starmer's time in Downing Street isn’t a budget or a major speech. It will be watching the Prime Minister stand up at PMQs and say "meep meep". It was a moment that instantly escaped Westminster and became an internet joke. More importantly, it captured something about his premiership: a politician who never seemed entirely comfortable at the despatch box, often struggling to land attacks or command the chamber. The clip has outlasted almost everything else from his performances at PMQs and will likely prove to be one of the enduring legacies of his premiership.

William

When he entered Downing Street, Starmer quickly discovered that the state did not work in quite the way he imagined. He pulled the levers, pressed the buttons, summoned the reviews and announced the missions, only to find that very little actually changed. The machinery of government remained sluggish, expensive and almost impressively unresponsive.

His answer was supposed to be a “bonfire of the quangos”. Ministers would take back control from the sprawling empire of arms-length bodies, end the culture of buck-passing and make government leaner, sharper and more accountable. 

But instead of torching the quango state, Starmer seemed to expand it. Labour created GB Energy, the National Wealth Fund and the Warm Homes Body to name just a few, each of them arriving with the usual promise of transformation, delivery and long-term strategies. In practice, all it really meant was bew boards, new bosses, new branding, new offices and new costs for taxpayers.

This was classic Starmerism. Identify a problem, announce a mission, create a body, appoint some people, publish a strategy and then act surprised when nothing much happens. So much for ‘Change’ hey Keir?

Ben

 For me, Starmer’s premiership has been like an audition to be the world’s worst salesman. The perfect example of this was his Chagos deal whereby he proposed to pay to give away our own territory. Happily signing up to hand over £47 billion of taxpayers’ cash, all so Mauritius can pay off debt and cut income tax, and get the Chagos Islands to boot. This was certainly the deal of the century as far as Mauritius was concerned but for British taxpayers labouring under a record high tax burden and a national debt climbing to almost £3 trillion, it went down like a cup of cold sick. If the prime minister were considering a future career as a second hand care salesman or an estate agent, I’d say don’t quit your day job. But it’s a little late for that now I suppose. 

Jonathan

My favourite moment of Keir Starmer’s premiership was watching him try to save the country with vibes and bribes. The “adults” were supposedly back in the room, though nobody could explain what that meant beyond handing large cheques to their friends in the public sector. Anyone demanding more money was duly rewarded. Predictably, it failed. Rather than buying industrial peace, ministers merely taught the unions that strikes pay. They continued to walk out, encouraged by a government seemingly incapable of saying no. The result was weaker public services and yet more pressure piled onto already strained public finances. The UK’s debt crisis remains one of the most significant issues the country faces and it has only been exacerbated by Starmer’s plan to pay off his public sector buddies. 

Callum

No leader can govern alone and the team around a prime minister is just as important as whoever is in the hotseat. Keir Starmer managed to constantly pick the wrong person at every opportunity and this no doubt contributed to his downfall. He chose a chancellor who fabricated her previous career as an economist, a housing minister who failed to pay the correct tax on her own house and a first chief of staff who resigned due to being unable to manage that staff. Even more catastrophically, Starmer appointed a man with a known ‘intimate relationship’ with Jeffrey Epstein as US Ambassador and lost his second chief of staff as a result too. 

If this was his idea of a government of all the talents, one shudders to think what his B-team looked like… perhaps Burnham will enlighten us. 

Emma 

'Who can we tax in order to pay benefits to others'.  Pat McFadden’s message to Lord Mandelson bleating about back benchers sums it all up.  We all know Andy Burnham is going to be the same as Keir Starmer and, if anything, it’s going to get worse.  

By Richie Fullerton, work experience student at the TaxPayers' Alliance

Football is one of the biggest industries in Britain and one of our most successful exports globally. Every weekend, millions tune in on the telly with hundreds of thousands of adoring fans filling terraces, generating billions every year. Yet, despite the staggering wealth swirling around the beautiful game, taxpayers have still contributed towards some of the biggest stadium projects in the country. This raises the question: why are the public subsidising a massive, highly profitable industry?

The London Stadium is probably the most significant example of this. Built for the London Olympics in 2012, the stadium cost was around £481 million. Following the Olympics, the stadium was converted into a football ground for West Ham United, with the project costing a further £323 million. The stadium was originally expected to turn a profit, but instead loses over £10 million every year.

To make matters worse, the terms of the deal mean West Ham United benefited from all the rewards of a generous 99-year tenant agreement while taking almost none of the risk. In fact, following the club’s recent relegation to the Championship, a clause in that contract allows their rent to be halved, forcing London’s taxpayers to pick up an extra £2.5 million loss this season just to keep a privately owned club running.

Wembley highlights the challenge of using public funding for major sporting projects. Owned by the FA, the redevelopment relied on high public contributions, including £120 million from Sport England through national lottery funding, £20 million from the department for Culture, Media and Sport, and £21 million from the London Development Agency. 

These contributions made up £161 million, yet the project was struck by delays and rising costs before eventually opening in 2007 at a final cost of £757 million. This raises questions about whether public funding should be used to support projects linked with an industry of such wealth. Looking at the revenue made by British football from streaming rights, sponsorships and ticket sales,there was a strong general consensus that the cost of redeveloping Wembley stadium could have been covered by the football industry itself rather than relying on taxpayers' support. 

Meanwhile, the Premier League is the richest footballing league in the world, generating £6.78 billion last year. Clubs receive huge broadcasting payments, meaning they should already have the finances to invest in their own facilities.

Evidence of this is seen in Tottenham Hotspur’s financing in their construction of their £1 billion stadium, which was funded through loans from private banks. This demonstrates that the private sector is not only capable of financing and producing large scale infrastructure projects, but can do so without putting an additional burden on the public, providing another alternative to governments funding developments.

Internationally, there are clear examples that demonstrate alternative ways of financing stadium projects. As Brits watch the 2026 Fifa World Cup unfolding across the pond, many will be introduced to giant, state-of-the-art American stadiums that have been funded very differently from our own.

For example, SoFi stadium in Los Angeles, one of the host venues for the tournament and the most expensive stadium ever built, cost over £5 billion. It was funded mainly by its owner, Stan Kroenke, rather than through taxpayer funding.This is a demonstration that when investors believe a stadium will generate significant revenues through ticket sales, sponsorship, events and streaming, they are willing to take on the financial risk themselves instead of relying on taxpayers to contribute to the project. 

Overall, huge stadiums bring excitement, tourism and economic benefits to the country, but the economic benefits do not justify public handouts. If English football can sustain multi-billion-pound TV deals and record-breaking transfer windows, it is wealthy enough to pay for its own infrastructure. Especially at a time when families are facing a historic tax burden, ordinary people should not be forced to subsidise multi-billion-pound industries. Every pound handed to a wealthy football club is a pound taken from the pockets of hard-working taxpayers. If clubs want to build them, they must pay for them.

EMBARGOED: 19:00 Tuesday 14th July

The government is set to collect £58 million in gambling duties from the 2026 FIFA World Cup, with one in eight Britons likely to place a bet during the tournament, analysis by the TaxPayers’ Alliance can reveal. The figures come ahead of England’s blockbuster semi-final against Argentina tomorrow night, one of the biggest fixtures in the football calendar and a match expected to trigger a surge in betting activity across the country.

A total of £3.1 billion is expected to be bet on the 2026 FIFA World Cup, including £1.2 billion at the group stage, £446 million at the semifinals, £237 million at the grand final. This is up 36 per cent from the 2022 FIFA World Cup. This is partly explained by the fact that there will be 104 matches in the 2026 FIFA World Cup, compared to 64 matches in 2022.

Betting duty is charged at 15 per cent of bookmaker profits. 

Assuming an estimated global football betting margin of 12.5 per cent, the treasury could net £48 million from England’s World Cup wagers, alongside £5 million from Scotland, £2.6 million from Wales and £1.8 million from Northern Ireland. 

Betting on the grand final could deliver a £4.4 million windfall for the government. 

Breakdown of betting volume and betting duty by 2026 FIFA World Cup stage 

The government expects to collect £5 billion in gambling duties in 2026-27, up a quarter from 2025-26. 

From April 2027, gambling duty on online bets will rise from 15 per cent to 25 per cent. This will affect an estimated 85 per cent of football bets that are made remotely. 

The figures show that while millions of fans will be hoping England can go all the way, the Treasury is already guaranteed a significant payday from the tournament.

John O’Connell, chief executive of the TaxPayers’ Alliance, said:

“England fans will be dreaming of a place in the World Cup final, but the Treasury is already set for a tournament windfall.

“With billions expected to be wagered during the World Cup, ministers will collect tens of millions in betting duties before next year’s tax hike even kicks in.

“Supporters should be free to enjoy the football without ministers treating every major sporting event as another opportunity to rake in revenue.”  

Media contact:

William Yarwood
Campaigns Director, TaxPayers' Alliance
william.yarwood@taxpayersalliance.com
24-hour media hotline: 07795 084 113 (no texts)

Notes to editors:

1. Founded in 2004 by Matthew Elliott and Andrew Allum, the TaxPayers' Alliance (TPA) campaigns to reform taxes and public services, cut waste and speak up for British taxpayers. Find out more at www.taxpayersalliance.com.
2. TaxPayers' Alliance's research council.

Responding to the Covid Inquiry finding that £10 billion was wasted on PPE equipment, John O’Connell, chief executive of the TaxPayers’ Alliance said:

"Taxpayers will be sickened to learn that the government has wasted £10bn on PPE while failing to protect healthcare staff.

"This is the inevitable result of a bloated public sector that refuses to stress-test its own plans, only to then panic and raid the pockets of hard-working Brits.

"There must be a radical overhaul of emergency procurement systems, and ministers must claw back cash wherever possible.” 

TPA spokespeople are available for live and pre-recorded broadcast interviews via 07795 084 113 (no texts)

Media contact:

William Yarwood
Campaigns Director, TaxPayers' Alliance
william.yarwood@taxpayersalliance.com
24-hour media hotline: 07795 084 113 (no texts)

Notes to editors:

1. Founded in 2004 by Matthew Elliott and Andrew Allum, the TaxPayers' Alliance (TPA) campaigns to reform taxes and public services, cut waste and speak up for British taxpayers. Find out more at www.taxpayersalliance.com.
2. TaxPayers' Alliance's research council.

The Timms review into the  personal independence payment (PIP) has landed. It follows the government’s failed attempts to slow the growth of the benefits system and the political backlash that came with it. After the retreat over winter fuel payments and the rebellion over welfare reform, ministers have been scrambling to reassure their own MPs that they are listening. The review is a political exercise, leaning heavily into the experience of PIP claimants while ducking the fiscal reality facing taxpayers.

PIP was introduced in 2013 to support disabled people and those with long-term health conditions, helping them meet extra costs and live more independently. It replaced Disability Living Allowance (DLA) which was seen as an out of date benefit that did not understand the needs of people with disabilities.

For financial year end 2020, total PIP expenditure was around £15 billion in 2026-27 prices, including £13 billion for working-age claimants. By spring 2026, DWP forecasts suggested this would rise to more than £41 billion by financial year ending 2031, including £34 billion for working-age claimants.

That is the central problem the review fails to confront. The rise in PIP is unsustainable. It is placing huge pressure on taxpayers and worsening the wider state of the public finances. The government cannot credibly claim to be serious about fiscal discipline while allowing one of the fastest-growing parts of the welfare system to keep expanding without restraint.

Crucially, the review glosses over how PIP interacts with the workforce. It is frequently defended as an ‘in-work benefit,’ but the data tells a completely different story. Over 80 per cent of PIP claimants are not in work. With economic inactivity dragging down our economy, the rapid expansion of PIP is contributing to the system that keeps too many people out of work.

The scale of the wider rise is extraordinary. As of financial year ending 2025, around 10 million working-age people self-reported as disabled, equivalent to 24 per cent of the working-age population. That is up from less than 17 per cent in financial year ending 2014. Over the same period, the number of working-age people receiving PIP or DLA has risen sharply. By financial year ending 2025, more than 3.1 million working-age people were receiving PIP or DLA, an increase of over 54 per cent since financial year ending 2020.

Outturn data for 2024-25 shows that PIP accounted for around 9 per cent of total benefit expenditure, with the government spending almost £26 billion on it. On current forecasts, that is set to rise to almost £45 billion by 2030-31, or around 12 per cent of total benefit expenditure. That would be an increase of 73 per cent in just six years.

This follows a sustained surge in PIP expenditure. Between 2020-21 and 2024-25, PIP spending rose by 89 per cent, an increase of more than £12 billion. That is equivalent to an average annual increase of around £2.4 billion. No serious government can ignore growth on that scale.

The report's most striking data exposes a fundamental shift in why people are claiming. Blaming the pandemic is a neat get-out clause, but it doesn't explain the sheer scale of the trend. Claims for mental health conditions, anxiety, depression, and neurodevelopmental conditions are skyrocketing. By contrast, ailments naturally linked to demographic ageing, like arthritis and back pain, are increasing much more slowly. 

The review itself acknowledges the problem. It notes that the increase in musculoskeletal conditions is likely linked to an ageing society, but that demographics do not obviously explain the trends in mental health and neurodevelopmental conditions. 

Survey evidence shows that self-reported disability among working-age adults has been rising for years, with growth accelerating around the Covid period. Mental health conditions now make up a larger share of reported disability, rising from about 34 per cent in financial year ending 2014 to nearly 44 per cent a decade later. Reporting of neurodevelopmental conditions, including autism, has also risen significantly.

Anxiety and depression increased sharply from 5.9 per cent in 2020 to 8.1 per cent in 2025. By contrast, back pain rose only from 0.4 per cent in 2009 to 0.5 per cent in 2025, while arthritis increased from 0.5 per cent to 0.8 per cent over the same period. Learning disabilities rose from 0.4 per cent to 0.5 per cent, autistic spectrum disorders from effectively zero to 0.6 per cent, while all other psychiatric and neurodevelopmental conditions fell from 1.0 per cent to 0.8 per cent.

This raises serious questions about whether the system is properly distinguishing between genuine need, changing social attitudes to diagnosis, eligibility drift and the incentive effects created by a generous, non-means-tested cash benefit.

Those concerns are magnified by the collapse in face-to-face assessments. Since the pandemic, the proportion of in-person PIP assessments has fallen from 83 per cent in 2019 to just 5 per cent in 2024. More than three quarters of assessments are now conducted by telephone. Remote assessments have a significantly higher success rate, with 57 per cent resulting in an award compared with 44 per cent for in-person assessments.

Conducting assessments over the phone reduces the opportunity to observe applicants directly, limits the evidence available to assessors and increases reliance on self-reporting. In a system increasingly dominated by conditions where functional impact is difficult to verify, that is a serious weakness. It is hard to avoid the conclusion that the shift away from face-to-face checks has contributed to the spiralling number of awards.

The review should have confronted these issues head on. Instead, too much of it focuses on the experience of claiming PIP while giving far too little weight to the people paying for it, the impact on the labour market and the sustainability of the public finances.

The Timms review fails because it does not answer the fundamental question of how can taxpayers be expected to fund a benefit whose cost is rising this quickly, whose caseload is growing this rapidly and whose assessment system has become so much weaker? Until ministers are willing to confront that, they will not solve the benefits bonanza.

For immediate release

Responding to Timms Review of Personal Independence Payment, Shimeon Lee, policy analyst of the TaxPayers' Alliance, said:

“Taxpayers will be concerned that the Timms review fails to tackle the rising cost of personal independence payments and risks being yet another whitewash that pushes more people into an already broken and unaffordable welfare system. 

“With working-age claims rising and fewer than one in five claimants in work, the system is increasingly acting as a substitute for employment and a burden on the backs of hard-working families.

“Ministers must ensure all support is targeted and only given to those with genuine need while protecting the interests of the taxpayers who fund it.”

TPA spokespeople are available for live and pre-recorded broadcast interviews via 07795 084 113 (no texts)

Media contact:

William Yarwood
Campaigns Director, TaxPayers' Alliance
william.yarwood@taxpayersalliance.com
24-hour media hotline: 07795 084 113 (no texts)

Notes to editors:

1. Founded in 2004 by Matthew Elliott and Andrew Allum, the TaxPayers' Alliance (TPA) campaigns to reform taxes and public services, cut waste and speak up for British taxpayers. Find out more at www.taxpayersalliance.com.
2. TaxPayers' Alliance's research council.
3. The TaxPayers’ Alliance submitted a consultation response to the Timms Review, which can be read here.
4. The TaxPayers’ Alliance revealed via its consultation response that there are nearly 200,000 households with an annual income of more than £100,000 receiving Personal Independent Payments.

Isle of Anglesey council is considering whether to introduce a tourist tax. This consultation response argues that doing so would damage the local economy, placing additional pressure on tourism businesses and threatening an industry on which many local jobs depend.

Polling suggests that a tourist tax could significantly reduce overnight visits, with some tourists abandoning their trips and others choosing destinations outside Wales. The impact could be greater than Isle of Anglesey council’s modelling assumes, particularly if visitors shorten their stays, reduce their spending or switch to day trips. As Anglesey is especially dependent on holiday tourism, the levy risks causing substantial losses for local businesses in return for only a modest increase in council revenue.