By Phil Markey BSc FRGS - An independent author and botanist. His book The Consumption Tax Economy examines the proposed transition from taxation of earnings towards taxation of final consumption. His forthcoming second book, Mature Consumption Tax Economy: An Economic Model for a Sustainable Future, investigates longer-term implications for pensions, capital ownership, automation, social protection and government finances. Both books are listed at https://www.trebrown.com/press/ .

Artificial intelligence and robotics are advancing rapidly. Machines are becoming capable of performing tasks that once required substantial human labour, and the implications extend far beyond employment. There is another question that receives remarkably little attention: if machines increasingly do the work, who pays the taxes?

Britain’s taxation system depends heavily upon people earning money. Income Tax and National Insurance generate substantial government revenue, while employers face additional costs associated with employment. But suppose technological progress allows businesses to produce more goods and services with progressively fewer employees. Production might increase, businesses might become more profitable and goods might become cheaper. Society could become wealthier, yet taxation of human employment and earnings could become a less dependable source of public revenue.

This is not a prediction that all jobs will disappear. Technological progress has historically created new employment, and artificial intelligence may do so again. But what if the balance changes? Should government finances remain dependent upon maintaining a large workforce simply because workers are convenient taxpayers?

What If We Taxed Consumption Instead of Earnings?

There is another possibility: rather than collecting so much revenue at the point when people earn money, governments could progressively collect more of it when money is spent. This is the central hypothesis of The Consumption Tax Economy. Income Tax and National Insurance would be reduced gradually, while a broad tax on final consumption would take over an increasing share of government revenue. People would retain more of their earnings, employment would become less expensive for businesses, and saving and productive investment would become more attractive.

The distinction matters in an automated economy. A robot does not receive a salary or pay Income Tax, but the goods and services produced by automated businesses can still be purchased and consumed. A tax on final consumption therefore offers a potential way to finance government without relying so heavily upon human labour. 

Would prices rise? Would poorer households be disadvantaged? Could government collect sufficient revenue? What happens if people save more and spend less? These are fundamental questions that any serious proposal must address.

The Question of Ownership

Automation creates another problem that may be even more important than taxation. If machines produce much of society’s wealth, but ownership remains concentrated among relatively few people, how will everyone else obtain the purchasing power needed to participate in the economy? The difficulty may not be insufficient production, but insufficient income among those whose work is no longer required.

That suggests a changing relationship between individuals and productive capital. Rather than depending almost entirely upon wages, people may increasingly need income from savings, investments and ownership of productive businesses. This raises questions about how people accumulate capital, how pensions should function, how vulnerable individuals are protected, and how government policy can encourage wider ownership. Taxation influences saving; saving influences investment; investment influences ownership; and ownership may increasingly determine who receives the income generated by production.

A Different Economic Future

The Consumption Tax Economy does not propose an overnight abolition of Income Tax or assume that one tax rate can solve every problem. It proposes a gradual, evidence-dependent transition, with each stage examined before proceeding further. The objective is to investigate whether an economy can become more productive, encourage greater individual financial independence and finance essential government expenditure without continually depending upon increasing numbers of taxable workers.

Artificial intelligence and robotics make that question increasingly relevant. We have become accustomed to thinking that employment creates income, income supports consumption, and government collects taxes along the way. But technological progress may eventually weaken the first link in that chain. If human labour becomes less necessary for producing wealth, why should human labour remain the foundation of government taxation?

This edition of Data Decoded is arriving a little later than usual. Last week, the TaxPayers’ Alliance was at the Conservative Party conference in Birmingham, where I spoke on a panel about Britain’s national debt and what it means for taxpayers. Specifically, about how ballooning spending and borrowing have left taxpayers increasingly at the mercy of the bond markets, and where the savings can be found to get the public finances back under control before the markets force the government’s hand. 

Welfare reform was central to that discussion. While we were at conference, we published one of the most detailed breakdowns of constituency-level welfare spending ever produced. Benefit costs are rising more than twice as fast as wages in 502 out of 526 constituencies in England and Wales. That release, and the conversations it sparked at conference, shape what this edition is about. 

Welfare spending is accelerating, driven by an explosion in working-age disability claims that shows no sign of slowing. Behind that growth is a change in the nature of the caseload: more claimants arriving with psychiatric conditions, more young people with no prior history of disability support, and an assessment system that the government’s own review has described as inconsistent.

The welfare bill does not exist in isolation either. It is being funded through borrowing at a time when gilt yields are at their highest in years, with France’s fiscal crisis threatening to destabilise European bond markets further. And with food inflation forecast to climb back above 5 per cent next year driven by drought, El Niño, fertiliser disruption and international conflicts, the benefits uprating mechanism will push the bill higher still, automatically, in April 2027.

PIP spending on young people is set to reach £6.1 billion by 2030-31

Annual spending on personal independence payment for 16 to 24-year-olds stood at £1.3 billion in 2019-20. By 2024-25 it had reached £3.3 billion, more than two and a half times higher in five years. On current projections, it will reach £6.1 billion by 2030-31. In little over a decade, a single age group's PIP bill will have grown nearly fivefold.

There are now over 430,000 PIP claimants aged 16 to 24 in England and Wales, up from 230,000 in 2019-20. But the composition of that caseload is shifting in ways that go beyond simple growth. In 2021, three quarters of under-25 PIP claimants had previously received disability living allowance as children, the expected pipeline for young people with long-standing conditions. By 2025, that share had fallen to 68 per cent, while the number who had never received DLA as a child rose from 62,000 to 145,000. A growing proportion of young people are arriving at PIP without any prior history of disability support.

The highest absolute claimant rates remain in the North East and North West, where in some constituencies more than one in five working-age residents claim PIP. But the fastest growth over the past two years has been in London and the South East, predominantly middle-class areas with stronger labour markets and historically lower claimant rates. Farnham and Bordon recorded the largest percentage increase in PIP claims among those in their twenties; North West Essex recorded the largest among 16 to 19-year-olds. 

Benefits are growing more than twice as fast as pay

The scatter chart plots every constituency in England and Wales by two measures: how much median pay has grown since 2023, and how much the cost of benefit payments has risen over the same period. The diagonal line marks the point where both are equal. Everything above it, shown in pink, is a constituency where benefits are outpacing wages.

That's 502 out of 526 constituencies. Across the country, benefit spending has grown by 25.8 per cent on average against pay growth of just 10.4 per cent. In Birmingham Yardley, benefit costs rose 37.2 per cent while median pay grew just 2.5 per cent. The London figures are particularly notable: in Hornchurch and Upminster, median pay actually fell by 13.9 per cent while benefit costs rose 26.9 per cent. Bexleyheath and Crayford saw wages drop 12 per cent as benefits climbed 26.6 per cent.

Crucially, every single constituency saw benefit costs rise by at least 17.3 per cent. For taxpayers, the welfare bill is not just large; it is expanding faster than the incomes that fund

Psychiatric conditions are driving PIP growth

Overall PIP claims grew by 66 per cent between 2019 and 2024, but that main figure hides a more important finding. Claimants with ADHD as their primary condition increased by 233.5 per cent over the same period. Autism grew by 136.6 per cent and mixed anxiety and depressive disorders by 108.5 per cent, both more than double the overall rate.

Last week's Fonagy review, commissioned by the government to examine rising mental health diagnoses, found that the increase is not simply a product of over-diagnosis; there has been a "very real" rise in distress among young people, particularly since 2020. But the review also found the assessment process is inconsistent, with private providers carrying out more than half of NHS-funded ADHD assessments operating in an "unregulated" market.

Neither conclusion is reassuring for taxpayers. If need is genuinely rising, the welfare bill will keep climbing. If assessments are unreliable, money may not be reaching those who need it most. Either way, the OBR projects PIP spending on 16 to 24-year-olds alone to reach £6.1 billion by 2030-31.

Borrowing costs are rising, and France could make things much worse

Since 2022, all three major European economies have seen bond yields rise sharply as central banks raised interest rates to tackle inflation. But the UK has consistently sat above both France and Germany throughout that period, and at around 5.3 per cent, UK gilt yields still remain the highest of the three. That premium matters because the UK is borrowing heavily: debt interest already runs at over £100 billion a year, and every percentage point on gilt yields translates directly into higher costs for taxpayers.

But the more unsettling story unfolding on the right-hand side of the chart is France. French yields have surged toward 5 per cent as bond markets grow increasingly nervous about a country that has run a budget deficit every single year since 1974. France’s debt-to-GDP ratio has just hit a record 119 per cent, surpassing both Portugal and Spain. Its treasury has announced it will need to issue a record €340 billion of debt next year alone, with the cost of servicing that debt jumping 16 per cent to almost €73 billion.

The political picture makes it worse. France heads into a presidential election in April with no major candidate yet willing to make the cuts markets are demanding. Marine Le Pen, the frontrunner, only recently unveiled a belated conversion to fiscal responsibility. Jean-Luc Mélenchon, her nearest rival, has suggested simply cancelling a chunk of France’s debt.

As Desmond Lachman of the American Enterprise Institute has put it: “If France fails, the whole of Europe fails.” The IMF is not in a position to bail out an economy the size of France. If the ECB is forced to step in to buy French bonds and stabilise yields with, as Lachman notes, “the Germans kicking and screaming,” the contagion risk doesn’t stop there. It could pull in Belgium, Italy, and potentially spread further. 

For the UK, this is not a distant European problem. A welfare bill that keeps borrowing requirements high is precisely the wrong position to be in when the bond markets are already on edge, and the risk of wider European financial instability is rising.

Food inflation is heading back up 

Food prices have had a turbulent few years. After sitting close to zero through 2020 and 2021, food inflation surged to nearly 20 per cent by early 2023 as a consequence of the pandemic, the Ukraine war, and the energy crisis, which together pushed up costs across the entire supply chain. Since then, inflation has come down, falling back to just 1.3 per cent in July 2026. But the respite may be short-lived.

The Food and Drink Federation now forecasts food inflation reaching 6.4 per cent by mid-2027, averaging 5.5 per cent across next year. The drivers behind that forecast are a convergence of supply shocks. Wheat is up 45 per cent on global markets, cocoa over 100 per cent, rice 60 per cent, and sugar 27 per cent. Energy, which is embedded in every stage of food production from farm machinery to cold storage, has added further pressure, with gas and electricity forward prices more than doubling since February 2026. For food manufacturers whose fixed-price energy contracts are due for renewal in late 2026 and early 2027, the full cost has yet to land.

Several further pressures are compounding one another. The UK has experienced an exceptionally hot and dry summer, with wheat yields estimated around 15 per cent below their ten-year average. El Niño is disrupting production across major agricultural regions and constraining shipping through the Panama Canal. Fertiliser costs have risen sharply following the Iran War and disruption to Middle East supply routes, threatening future harvests even where the current growing season has been less affected. And continued conflict in the Black Sea is squeezing global wheat supply, with Russia and Ukraine together accounting for around 30 per cent of world exports.

This matters directly for the welfare bill. Working-age benefits are uprated each April using the prior September CPI figure. With food prices expected to be running at above 5 per cent for much of 2027, they will feed into a higher uprating, meaning higher benefit spending even before any new claimants are counted. 

EMBARGOED: 19:00 Sunday 11th October

• Around 870,066 Universal Credit claimants in their twenties were not in work, equivalent to 67.5 per cent, higher than the average of 60.8 per cent.
• Birmingham's constituencies ranged from 67.7 to 79.8 per cent, home to nine of the top 20 seats with the most unemployed UC claimants aged 20 to 29.
• In 55 constituencies, more than two-thirds of all working age claimants were not in work, while in 9 constituencies it was more than 70 per cent.

The TaxPayers’ Alliance (TPA) has revealed that more than two-thirds of UC claimants in their twenties are not in work, 7 percentage points higher than the average. While the average across England and Wales in April 2026 was 60.8 per cent of claimants aged 20 to 64 not in employment, TPA analysis shows that younger and older people are both much more likely to be on UC and out of work.

Claimants in their twenties were more likely to be unemployed than those in their fifties. Around 870,066 UC claimants in their twenties were not in work, equivalent to 67.5 per cent of the 1.29 million claimants in this age group. The proportion fell to 54.2 per cent among 30 to 39-year-olds and 52 per cent among 40 to 49-year-olds, before increasing to 66.9 per cent among 50 to 59-year-olds. For those aged 60 to 64, it peaked at 80.2 per cent.

In some constituencies, almost four in five UC claimants in their twenties were not in work. In Birmingham Perry Barr, 79.8 per cent of UC claimants aged 20 to 29 were unemployed, followed by Birmingham Hall Green and Moseley at 79.5 per cent and Bradford West at 79.2 per cent. Nine of Birmingham's ten parliamentary constituencies were among the 20 with the highest proportions of UC claimants aged 20 to 29 not in work, with rates ranging from 73.9 per cent to 79.8 per cent. The only exception was Sutton Coldfield, where it was 67.7 per cent, still higher than the working age average.

On Monday, the TPA launched the Benefits Bill, which allows anyone to look up the costs of welfare in their local area. In response, politicians and campaigners argued that around 40 per cent of UC claimants were actually in work. 

But the new figures reveal that in 55 constituencies, more than two-thirds of UC claimants were not in work, while in 9 constituencies, more than 70 per cent were unemployed. This included three constituencies in Liverpool, two in Birmingham and two in Wales. Liverpool Wavertree had the highest proportion of working-age UC claimants not in work, at 72 per cent. This was followed by Liverpool Riverside at 71.5 per cent and Easington at 71.2 per cent. Across the South East, the rate averaged 56.2 per cent, while it hit 66.1 per cent across the North East. 

Dismissing welfare campaigners who play down the problem, the TPA warned that the high levels of young people on UC without a job mean generations are being dumped on benefits, at the expense of working taxpayers.  

[CLICK HERE TO READ THE FULL REPORT]

Key findings

• Across England and Wales, 60.8 per cent of working-age universal credit claimants were not in employment in April 2026.
• In 55 constituencies, more than two-thirds of UC claimants were not in work, while in 9 constituencies, more than 70 per cent were not in work. This included three constituencies in Liverpool, two in Birmingham and two in Wales.
• More than two-thirds of UC claimants in their twenties were not in work in April 2026:
  • 870,066 UC claimants in their twenties were not in work, equivalent to 67.5 per cent of the 1.29 million claimants in this age group.
  • This was almost 7 percentage points higher than the 60.8 per cent average among all UC claimants aged 20 to 64.
  • The proportion fell to 54.2 per cent among 30 to 39-year-olds and 52 per cent among 40 to 49-year-olds, before increasing to 66.9 per cent among 50 to 59-year-olds and 80.2 per cent among 60 to 64-year-olds.
• In some constituencies, almost four in five UC claimants in their twenties were not in work:
  • In Birmingham Perry Barr, 79.8 per cent of UC claimants aged 20 to 29 were not in work, followed by Birmingham Hall Green and Moseley at 79.5 per cent and Bradford West at 79.2 per cent.
  • Nine of Birmingham's ten parliamentary constituencies were among the 20 with the highest proportions of UC claimants aged 20 to 29 not in work, with rates ranging from 73.9 per cent to 79.8 per cent. The only exception was Sutton Coldfield, where 67.7 per cent of claimants in their twenties were not in work.
  • 18 of the 20 constituencies with the highest rates among 20 to 29-year-olds were in the West Midlands or Yorkshire and the Humber.
• Liverpool Wavertree had the highest proportion of working-age UC claimants not in work, at 72 per cent. This was followed by Liverpool Riverside at 71.5 per cent and Easington at 71.2 per cent.
• Four of the 20 constituencies with the highest proportions of working-age UC claimants not in work were in Liverpool, and another four were in Birmingham.
• The proportion of universal credit claimants not in work varied substantially between regions:
  • Among claimants aged 20 to 64, the proportion not in work ranged from 56.2 per cent in the South East to 66.1 per cent in the North East.
  • Among claimants aged 20 to 29, the West Midlands had the highest proportion not in work, at 70.6 per cent, compared with 63 per cent in the South West, which had the lowest.

[CLICK HERE TO READ THE FULL REPORT]

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

"Many young people are being written off and condemned to a life of dependency paid for by taxpayers.

“Some argue that welfare is necessary to top up low wages, but these figures show that generations are being dumped onto welfare with no prospect of work. 

“Rather than turning a blind eye to the booming benefits bill, ministers must get real and make it more affordable to hire young people and cut welfare spending.”

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. An example of the claim that 40 per cent of UC claimants were working can be found here.
4. The press release for the TPA Benefits Bill can be found here.

Universal credit (UC) was introduced to simplify the benefits system and strengthen incentives to enter and progress in work.[1] Unlike many of the benefits it replaced, UC supports both those who are out of work and households in employment on low incomes.[2] Work remains central to the design of the system, with claimants who are able to work expected to take steps to find employment or increase their earnings.[3]

Yet concerns have grown about the extent to which the benefits system supports people, particularly younger people, into employment. In August 2026, work and pensions secretary Pat McFadden argued that there was a “design flaw” in UC which could leave people “signed off and written off” from work.[4] Almost one million 16 to 24-year-olds were not in employment, education or training in the first quarter of 2026, an increase of 30,000 on the previous year.[5] At the same time, more than half of UC claimants are now subject to no work-related requirements, meaning they are not currently expected to work or prepare for work. The proportion of claimants in this group has continued to increase.[6]

On average, around 40 per cent of those on UC are in work. However, this headline figure masks considerable variations between different groups, particularly young people. This note examines the proportion of working-age UC claimants who are not in employment across England and Wales in April 2026, considering differences by age, region and parliamentary constituency.

Key findings

• Across England and Wales, 60.8 per cent of working-age universal credit claimants were not in employment in April 2026.
• In 55 constituencies, more than two-thirds of UC claimants were not in work, while in 9 constituencies, more than 70 per cent were not in work. This included three constituencies in Liverpool, two in Birmingham and two in Wales.
• More than two-thirds of UC claimants in their twenties were not in work in April 2026:
  • 870,066 UC claimants in their twenties were not in work, equivalent to 67.5 per cent of the 1.29 million claimants in this age group.
  • This was almost 7 percentage points higher than the 60.8 per cent average among all UC claimants aged 20 to 64.
  • The proportion fell to 54.2 per cent among 30 to 39-year-olds and 52 per cent among 40 to 49-year-olds, before increasing to 66.9 per cent among 50 to 59-year-olds and 80.2 per cent among 60 to 64-year-olds.
• In some constituencies, almost four in five UC claimants in their twenties were not in work:
  • In Birmingham Perry Barr, 79.8 per cent of UC claimants aged 20 to 29 were not in work, followed by Birmingham Hall Green and Moseley at 79.5 per cent and Bradford West at 79.2 per cent.
  • Nine of Birmingham's ten parliamentary constituencies were among the 20 with the highest proportions of UC claimants aged 20 to 29 not in work, with rates ranging from 73.9 per cent to 79.8 per cent. The only exception was Sutton Coldfield, where 67.7 per cent of claimants in their twenties were not in work.
  • 18 of the 20 constituencies with the highest rates among 20 to 29-year-olds were in the West Midlands or Yorkshire and the Humber.
• Liverpool Wavertree had the highest proportion of working-age UC claimants not in work, at 72 per cent. This was followed by Liverpool Riverside at 71.5 per cent and Easington at 71.2 per cent.
• Four of the 20 constituencies with the highest proportions of working-age UC claimants not in work were in Liverpool, and another four were in Birmingham.
• The proportion of universal credit claimants not in work varied substantially between regions:
  • Among claimants aged 20 to 64, the proportion not in work ranged from 56.2 per cent in the South East to 66.1 per cent in the North East.
  • Among claimants aged 20 to 29, the West Midlands had the highest proportion not in work, at 70.6 per cent, compared with 63 per cent in the South West, which had the lowest.

[1] Department for Work and Pensions, Universal Credit: welfare that works, 2010, p.1.

[2] Department for Work and Pensions, Universal Credit statistics: background information and methodology, Gov.uk, 18 August 2026, www.gov.uk/government/publications/universal-credit-statistics-background-information-and-methodology/universal-credit-statistics-background-information-and-methodology (accessed 2 October 2026).

[3] Gov.uk, Universal Credit: Your claimant commitment, www.gov.uk/universal-credit/your-claimant-commitment (accessed 2 October 2026).

[4] Taggart, E., Benefits system is flawed, admits McFadden, The Telegraph, 26 August 2026.

[5] Office for National Statistics, Young people not in education, employment or training (NEET), UK: August 2026, 27 August 2026, www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peoplenotinwork/unemployment/bulletins/youngpeoplenotineducationemploymentortrainingneet/august2026 (accessed 2 October 2026).

[6] Department for Work and Pensions, Universal Credit quarterly statistics, 29 April 2013 to 14 May 2026, Gov.uk, 18 August 2026, www.gov.uk/government/statistics/universal-credit-quarterly-statistics-29-april-2013-to-14-may-2026/universal-credit-quarterly-statistics-29-april-2013-to-14-may-2026 (accessed 2 October 2026).

At the Labour Party Conference in Liverpool, the Right to Food Commission released their 200 page report calling for a legally enforceable “right to food” in Britain. It is a prime example of policy-based evidence making, with the conclusion baked in from the start. Rather than weighing the effectiveness of different options to tackle food insecurity, the commission’s explicit objective was to produce a roadmap for the implementation of a “right to food” law. This edition of a closer look examines what is buried in the fine print and how its proposals extend far beyond addressing hunger. 

Fundamentally, the report collapses three distinct questions into one: whether people have enough food, whether they are consuming the right kind of food, and whether the way food is accessed meets recipients' standards. Food insecurity is a legitimate concern, but it has been conflated with these other issues in order to push a much broader agenda, resulting in proposed interventions that extend far beyond the scope of the original problem. 

A growing problem? 

The first issue of food insecurity is the most concrete and provides moral cover for the more dubious elements of the report that follow. Latest data suggest that 9% of households are food insecure, with 5% actually experiencing a decrease in the quantity of food consumed. This is a real problem, with the latter up one percentage point since data started being collected in 2019-20. This was partly the result of sharp inflation in 2022 due to the Ukraine war. 

Yet instead of addressing higher taxes and new regulation which the report itself acknowledges have contributed to recent food inflation (p.40), the authors suggest that it is a structural issue. They repeatedly invoke the fact that the UK is the sixth richest country in the world to argue that the food system is “broken” (p.10, 23, 31). Of course, they neglect to mention that the UK actually out performs four of the five countries richer than it when it comes to the share of the population that can afford a healthy diet, and the next five richest countries behind it as well. 

Shifting the goalposts 

Cheap food, which might otherwise weaken the case for a broken food system, is recast as evidence of a different failure: that available food is not sufficiently nutritious. This allows the report to attribute the cost of poor diets to “a system designed to optimise corporate returns rather than population nutrition” (p.9), thereby justifying further intervention. 

Individual responsibility is explicitly rejected (p.31), with healthy food painted as simply unaffordable for those on low incomes. Meeting the government's healthy eating guidelines is said to cost £9 per person per day, or 70% of the post rent income of the poorest households (p.28). Yet digging into the original data reveals a completely different picture. 

The figure they cite uses modelling that was not looking for the lowest prices, and made no adjustment for premium vs own-brand products. In fact, the original study found the exact opposite of what the report claims, namely that a healthy diet was actually marginally cheaper than the average diet, £5.99 compared to £6.02. The British Heart Foundation demonstrated that health guidelines could be met by as little as £4.14 per person per day in 2025, less than half of the cost claimed in the report. When explicitly looking at the cheapest locally available healthy foods, the share of those who cannot afford a healthy diet falls to just 2.5 per cent according to the World Bank, compared to the 16.1 per cent figure used by the report. 

Another piece of evidence they raise is that healthier foods cost more per calorie. But this is misleading as the most important part of a healthy diet, fruits and vegetables, are not meant to be a primary source of calories. Calories instead come from staples like bread, rice, potatoes and pasta that are actually the cheapest per calorie, with the same study also finding that fruits and vegetables were one of the cheapest foods per portion. Put simply, 1000kcal of carrots cost more than 1000kcal of chocolate, but that doesn’t mean adding carrots to your diet is more expensive than adding chocolate.

By expanding the problem to poor diet and ignoring individual responsibility in favour of structural explanations, the authors open the door to far reaching interventions. For example, the report suggests that providing healthy food to every person would cost £51 billion, “only a fifth” of the £298 billion cost of poor diets (p.73). Yet that £298 billion does not arise because people cannot afford healthy food. 91% of households are food secure but, as the authors admit, only 1% adhere to healthy eating guidelines. Providing healthy food at taxpayers expense would cost vast sums without addressing the real problem. Personal choices play a much bigger role in determining diets than the report would like us to believe. 

Defining “dignity”

Choice plays a curious role in the report. When people choose unhealthy food for themselves, it is portrayed as a product of a broken system that the government must intervene to correct. But when food is provided for free by others, choice becomes an inalienable component of dignity that must be defended at all costs. It is not enough that free food is sufficient and healthy, recipients must also get the types of food they prefer, delivered in a way they find acceptable. 

Existing support is labelled “undignified” due to a lack of choice, with the report insisting that nobody should be expected to accept food that just happens to be available (p.78). Recipients must have options that are “culturally appropriate". In London, participants wanted underrepresented Caribbean food to be provided as standard (p.168), while in Birmingham participants complained that there was insufficient halal meat (p.39), despite the fact that a halal diet doesn’t require meat. Scottish participants categorically refused to accept beans (p.190). Support is even criticised for not catering to “sensory specific diets” - essentially not liking certain textures, smells and tastes (p.217). 

Dignity is used to push for universal state provision, as targeted or charitable support carries “stigma, judgement and social exclusion”. The authors advocate not just for free school meals but universal provision “across every life stage” as well (p.118). Essentially, taxpayers are expected to subsidise the 91% of people who face no food insecurity and create an entire parallel retail system of social supermarkets because grown adults are too embarrassed to access the support already available. Somehow, private charity funded by voluntary donations is undignified but state charity funded by compelling taxpayers is not.  

The veil slips 

The natural conclusion of the focus on choice is to simply hand out cash, which the report calls the “most effective approach to addressing the root causes of hunger”. Unsurprisingly, prospective beneficiaries also supported a “cash-first” approach with 93 per cent saying that receiving cash improved their lives (p.69).  

It is at this point that the veil slips. What began as a report about hunger turns into a familiar programme for expanding the welfare state: abolishing the benefit cap (p.16), establishing a minimum income guarantee (p.17.), increasing the local housing allowance (p.16), increasing disability benefits (p.117), expanding benefits to cover transport (p.16), ending sanctions on those who do not comply with benefit conditions (p.14), increasing the minimum wage (p.118) and making trade union organising easier (p.17). These have little to do with food specifically. Rather, a real problem that affects a narrow segment of the population is being used as a Trojan horse for a much wider programme of redistribution. 

None of this broader package is ever costed. Meanwhile, the food-specific interventions that are costed returned less than £1 of measurable benefit for every £1 spent according to the report’s own analysis, failing a basic value for money test. The calculation only returns a positive result when they apply generous distributional weighting that assumes gains by low income households are worth more than two and a half times what they actually are (p.75). 

The right to food 

The most pernicious element of the report is the eponymous “right to food”, which would extend far beyond preventing hunger and be legally enforceable against already stretched public authorities. Unlike negative rights like freedom of speech which prohibit the state from doing something, a positive right requires the state to guarantee a certain outcome. Brazil, Mexico and South Africa are named by the report as positive examples of where a right to food exists (p.53). Yet all of these countries are substantially worse than the UK at delivering food security. 

As the report repeatedly acknowledges, legal duties are meaningless if not accompanied by resources. Yet there is no sense of how much it would cost to realise the right to food (p.76), much less where the money will come from. The danger is readily observable in the many other statutory obligations that have been loaded onto local authorities, from housing to social care to special education, where councils have had to rely on improvised and expensive arrangements that still fail to fully comply with the law. 

By cloaking their agenda in the language of rights, campaigners convert a political question about the scope and nature of the welfare state into a legal question, to be decided by judges who do not have to consider balancing budgets or competing priorities. Before another entitlement is added to an already long list, taxpayers must be clear about what it actually entails and whether the prescription fits the diagnosis.

Welfare is one of the largest areas of public spending. In 2025-26, spending on social security in Great Britain is forecast to hit £322.6 billion, [1] equivalent to almost £1 in every £4 spent by the government. As the welfare bill rises, it must ultimately be met through cuts elsewhere, higher taxes or higher borrowing. However, as taxes approach a record high and the national debt climbs to £3 trillion,^,[2][3] Britain may be reaching the limit of what it is able to afford. Many parts of the country have been left behind economically, resulting in poor wage growth even as benefits claims have surged. This has led to a growing sense of unfairness as taxpayers are supporting an increasingly heavy load while their own prosperity stagnates.

This note compares the growth in six benefit payments from November 2023 to November 2025 with the change in median pay from 2023 to 2025 in parliamentary constituencies in England and Wales. The figures track the relative increases in median pay and the cost of benefits per resident in any given area. 

Key findings

• Median pay in the average constituency grew by 10.4 per cent from 2023 to 2025, while the cost of benefit payments grew by an average of 25.8 per cent from November 2023 to November 2025, more than twice as fast. 
• The cost of benefit payments grew faster than median pay in 502 of 526 constituencies and rose in every single constituency by no less than 17.3 per cent. 
  • Birmingham Yardley saw the largest increase in the cost of benefit payments, 37.2 per cent. Median pay grew by 2.5 per cent in the constituency from 2023 to 2025. 
  • Hornchurch and Upminster saw the largest fall in median pay from 2023 to 2025, 13.9 per cent. Meanwhile, the cost of benefit payments per resident rose by 26.9 per cent in the constituency. 
• The cost of benefit payments per resident was over a tenth of median pay in 19 constituencies, compared to an average of 5.7 per cent across all constituencies. 
  • Hackney North and Stoke Newington had the highest cost of benefits relative to median pay in 2025 at 12.3 per cent. This was followed by Tottenham at 12 per cent and Brent East at 11.9 per cent. 
  • The average cost of benefit payments per resident relative to median pay was highest in the North East, at 7.5 per cent, and lowest in the South East, at 4.3 per cent. 
• The cost of benefits in Easington was equivalent to the income tax and national insurance contributions of 66,270 taxpayers on the median pay, 69 per cent of the resident population.
  •  In 51 constituencies, the cost of benefits was equivalent to the income tax and national insurance contributions of at least half the resident population.[4]
• Of the constituencies represented by national party leaders, Clacton, represented by Reform UK leader Nigel Farage, had the highest cost of benefit payments relative to median pay, 8.5 per cent, nearly triple what it was in Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch’s North West Essex constituency. 

[1] Department for Work & Pensions, Guidance and methodology: Benefit expenditure and caseload tables, 14 April 2026, www.gov.uk/government/publications/benefit-expenditure-and-caseload-tables-guidance-and-methodology/benefit-expenditure-and-caseload-tables-information-and-guidance (accessed 22 September 2026)
[2] Office for Budget Responsibility, Public finances databank – August 2026, 27 August 2026, obr.uk/docs/dlm_uploads/PSF_aggregates_databank_Aug-4.xlsx (accessed 22 September 2026). 
[3] Office for National Statistics, Public sector finances tables 1 to 10: Appendix A, 22 September 2026, www.ons.gov.uk/file?uri=/economy/governmentpublicsectorandtaxes/publicsectorfinance/datasets/publicsectorfinancesappendixatables110/current/publicsectorfinancessummarytablesappendixafinal.xlsx (accessed 22 September 2026). 
[4] Assuming they were all on median pay.

EMBARGOED: 19:00 Tuesday 6th October

• Median pay grew by 10.4 per cent in the average constituency, while the cost of benefit payments rose by 25.8 per cent.
• Benefit costs grew faster than median pay in 502 of 526 constituencies across England and Wales.
• Several London constituencies saw wages fall while benefit costs surged, including Hornchurch and Upminster, Bexleyheath and Crayford and Ealing North. 
• In 19 constituencies, the cost of benefits per resident was equivalent to more than 10 per cent of median pay.

The welfare bill is growing at more than twice the rate of workers’ pay, new research from the TaxPayers’ Alliance (TPA) has revealed. 

On Monday the TPA launched the Benefits Bill, which allows anyone to look up the costs of welfare in their local area. The figures also show the change over two years compared to the change in average wages.  

Median pay in the average constituency rose by 10.4 per cent between 2023 and 2025, while the cost of six major benefit payments per resident increased by an average of 25.8 per cent between November 2023 and November 2025 - more than twice as quickly. 

Benefit costs, including for Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment,  grew faster than median pay in 502 of the 526 constituencies analysed. In fact, while wages fell in some places, the cost of benefits increased by at least 17.3 per cent in every constituency. 

In Birmingham Yardley, represented by Labour’s Jess Phillips, the cost of benefit payments per resident rose by a huge 37.2 per cent, the largest increase in the country, while median pay increased by just 2.5 per cent.

Figures for London were particularly stark. In Hornchurch and Upminster, median pay fell by 13.9 per cent while benefit costs per resident increased by 26.9 per cent. Bexleyheath and Crayford saw median pay fall 12 per cent while benefit costs rose 26.6 per cent. In Clapham and Brixton Hill, median pay fell 9.3 per cent while benefit costs rose 24.6 per cent, while Ealing North saw wages fall six per cent as benefit costs jumped 30.1 per cent. 

Some of the constituencies which saw falling wages yet rising benefits costs were in traditional Conservative areas, such as Goole and Pocklington and East Surrey. Only a small fraction of other constituencies enjoyed faster wage growth than growth in the benefits bill, including Peckham, Liverpool Garston, Preston and Kenilworth and Southam.  

The cost of welfare is rising and putting further strain on struggling taxpayers. In 19 constituencies, the annual cost of benefit payments per resident was equivalent to more than a tenth of median pay. Hackney North and Stoke Newington recorded the highest figure at 12.3 per cent, followed by Tottenham at 12 per cent and Brent East at 11.9 per cent. The average was highest in the North East at 7.5 per cent, compared with 4.3 per cent in the South East.

As Kemi Badneoch prepares to speak at Conservative Party conference, the TaxPayers’ Alliance is calling on politicians to commit to cutting the benefits bill, in the interests of working taxpayers.

[CLICK HERE TO READ THE FULL REPORT]

Key findings

• Median pay in the average constituency grew by 10.4 per cent from 2023 to 2025, while the cost of benefit payments grew by an average of 25.8 per cent from November 2023 to November 2025, more than twice as fast. 
• The cost of benefit payments grew faster than median pay in 502 of 526 constituencies and rose in every single constituency by no less than 17.3 per cent. 
  • Birmingham Yardley saw the largest increase in the cost of benefit payments, 37.2 per cent. Median pay grew by 2.5 per cent in the constituency from 2023 to 2025. 
  • Hornchurch and Upminster saw the largest fall in median pay from 2023 to 2025, 13.9 per cent. Meanwhile, the cost of benefit payments per resident rose by 26.9 per cent in the constituency. 
• The cost of benefit payments per resident was over a tenth of median pay in 19 constituencies, compared to an average of 5.7 per cent across all constituencies. 
  • Hackney North and Stoke Newington had the highest cost of benefits relative to median pay in 2025 at 12.3 per cent. This was followed by Tottenham at 12 per cent and Brent East at 11.9 per cent. 
  • The average cost of benefit payments per resident relative to median pay was highest in the North East, at 7.5 per cent, and lowest in the South East, at 4.3 per cent. 
• The cost of benefits in Easington was equivalent to the income tax and national insurance contributions of 66,270 taxpayers on the median pay, 69 per cent of the resident population.
  •  In 51 constituencies, the cost of benefits was equivalent to the income tax and national insurance contributions of at least half the resident population.
• Of the constituencies represented by national party leaders, Clacton, represented by Reform UK leader Nigel Farage, had the highest cost of benefit payments relative to median pay, 8.5 per cent, nearly triple what it was in Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch’s North West Essex constituency.   

[CLICK HERE TO READ THE FULL REPORT]

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

"Taxpayers are being asked to carry a welfare state growing far faster than their pay. 

“In hundreds of constituencies, the benefits bill is spiralling out of control, with taxpayers in some places even seeing wages fall as welfare spending surges around them.

“Ministers need to stop pretending this is sustainable and get the benefits bill under control for the sake of working taxpayers.” 

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 TPA has produced a new benefits dashboard, which shows the spending across all parts of England and Wales. That is available here.
4. The press release for the TPA Benefits Bill can be found here.

Why has the TaxPayers’ Alliance done this?

The TPA campaigns for lower taxes, better spending and more accountability. 

For several years, as spending has spiralled out of control, the DWP has promised that its ‘Examine a Stat’ tool would allow taxpayers to view spending through interactive and accessible maps. This still has not happened. 

We have decided to do this ourselves, so everyone can examine official Stat-Xplore data and see how their money is being spent on welfare. 

What is the source for this data? 

Unless otherwise stated, the data is drawn from DWP’s Stat-Xplore, available here:

Some releases also use data from ONS Nomis, available here:

Why does the data only cover England and Wales? 

Welfare in Scotland is currently split across a dual-delivery model between the DWP and the Scottish Government as devolution continues. 

Extracting and harmonising these separate, evolving data streams would create inconsistencies within the national metrics.

Can I have a spreadsheet with the data? 

Generally, this won’t be immediately possible. This is because we intend to release the entire Welfare Map, which contains all the underlying data, after Monday 5th October. 

Because the data is all contained in one place, providing this early on would prevent us from publishing any other releases. 

All data will be available to explore after Monday 5th October. 

Why do the figures in the research differ from the latest statistics published by the Department for Work and Pensions on 15 September 2026?

The research was written before the latest DWP benefits data was published. As a result, it could not include figures that were not yet available when the research was completed.

Each piece of research uses the latest data available at the time it was written, unless otherwise stated. The date of the latest available data can vary between benefits and datasets, depending on when the relevant statistics are published. For example:

• Research on universal credit age demographics uses data for May 2026;
• Research on universal credit limited capability for work and work-related activity uses data for March 2026; and
• Research on young people receiving personal independence payment uses data for April 2026.

Why do the figures in the research differ from those on the dashboard?

The dashboard is updated whenever new data is published, so it always reflects the latest available figures.

The research papers, however, use the latest data available when the research was written. The most recent data available can vary between benefits and datasets, depending on when each dataset is published. The month shown for the data in each piece of research is therefore the latest published data available when the research was written, unless otherwise stated.

This means that figures in the research may differ from the figures currently shown on the dashboard, because the dashboard continues to update as newer data becomes available.

When will the figures be up to date? 

From Sunday 4th October onwards, all of the figures used will be the latest available data, taken directly from the dashboard. 

Why have you chosen Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment? 

These are not out-of-work benefits, but are the main benefits available to working age people. 

As welfare spending has spiralled out of control, one symptom of this has been the large increases in the number of working age people who didn’t used to receive benefits now receiving them. This is why they were two of the six benefits we have decided to focus on.  

Isn’t most of the increases in claimants due to the migration into Universal Credit?

The migration does account for a large percentage of the increases in Universal Credit, which is why we have not chosen to focus on the change in claimants for that benefit. 

This is not the case for Personal Independence Payments, which have nevertheless seen huge increases and deserve scrutiny. 

Who has worked with the TaxPayers’ Alliance on this project? 

The project has been done entirely in house. 

The TaxPayers’ Alliance team is experienced at handling large amounts of data and explaining complex public policy issues using innovative communications methods.

We have offered media organisations, other campaign groups and political parties the chance to cover or respond to our findings, but all data will be released to the public via the Welfare Map after Monday 5th October.  

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

• TaxPayers’ Alliance launches an online tool that allows taxpayers to look up how much they pay for welfare spending in their local area, for the first time. 
• AI-powered tool generates an itemised receipt for each resident covering spending, numbers of claimants and types of claims. Users can look up the Benefits Bill for any constituency in England and Wales and easily share the results.
• Benefits Bill has been welcomed by journalist Fraser Nelson and is designed to widen awareness of the explosion in benefits spending which is crippling the public finances.

[CLICK HERE FOR YOUR BENEFITS BILL]

[CLICK HERE FOR YOUR BENEFITS BILL]

The TaxPayers’ Alliance (TPA) is launching a “groundbreaking” tool to show the cost of local welfare spending paid by every resident in England and Wales. 

The TPA ‘Benefits Bill' is a postcode tool which generates a localised and itemised receipt for each constituent. It presents: 

• The total spend in each area, alongside cost per resident, and how this ranks across England and Wales 
• Comparison to the local median wage and how this has changed over 2 years 
• The number of claims for Universal Credit (UC), including the proportion receiving the health element and not expected to seek work  
• The number of claims for Personal Independence Payments (PIP), including those for mental health conditions, with examples, alongside eligibility for a Motability vehicle 
• Costs for other benefits including Housing Benefit 
• The number of PIP claimants compared to the majority of the local MP

The TaxPayers’ Alliance has designed the AI-powered Benefits Bill to increase awareness of the explosion in welfare spending which is crippling the public finances. The tool allows taxpayers to easily check official data using an accessible online tool and share their results on social media.  

[CLICK HERE FOR YOUR BENEFITS BILL]

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

“Our Benefits Bill is designed to show what our broken welfare system means in the real world. 

“It brings the big numbers that we hear on TV and radio, right down to what it means for you and your town. Because the fact is that Britain’s benefits boom is everywhere, in almost every neighbourhood, and it’s bankrupting us. 

“We hope the Benefits Bill will push politicians to finally take this problem seriously and do what needs to be done to cut welfare spending, before it’s too late.” 

Columnist at The Times, Fraser Nelson, said:

"Welfare dysfunction is the biggest scandal in public life: the wasted money is bad but the wasted lives far worse. The welfare state is now bankrolling the very poverty it was set up to eradicate, but this story is lost in the sheer size. A billion here, a billion there: the risk is that the story is lost in its own magnitude.

"The TaxPayers' Alliance has for years been helping to atomise all of this. We are now in an era of data scrutiny where it’s possible to see, right down the neighbourhood, what’s going on. 

“This work has created a lens of transparency, throwing this into sharp focus as only the TPA can. Sunlight is the best disinfectant and scrutiny - with open debate - is what we need to discuss how the welfare state is failing those charged to its care."

Michael Simmons, Economics Editor at The Spectator, said: 

“The costs and caseloads in our welfare system are so vast that eyes often gloss over when they’re discussed.

Personalising the benefits bill helps make those numbers meaningful.

“The TPA’s tool opens up the DWP’s database in a way that should be useful to journalists and MPs alike.”

Dr Lawrence Newport, CEO and co-founder of Looking for Growth, said:

"Britain must break out of stagnation and decline. Politicians do not understand how bad the situation is for people across this country.

“The TPAs benefits bill brings full transparency, so politicians aren't able to hide from the truth.

“Radical action is required to get people back into work, back into building their lives and back into economic growth."

[CLICK HERE FOR YOUR BENEFITS BILL]

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 TPA Benefits Bill uses official data from Department and Work and Pensions Stat-Xplore. 
4. The TPA has also produced a Welfare Map, which shows the spending across all parts of England and Wales. That is available here.

Personal independence payment (PIP) has become one of the most difficult areas of welfare spending to reform. Changes to an established benefit can create an immediate political problem for members of parliament (MPs): those currently claiming the benefit who expect to lose out have a strong reason to oppose the changes and to make their concerns known to their representative. For MPs defending relatively small majorities, the number of constituents affected can therefore matter. In 2025, proposed restrictions to PIP eligibility prompted a rebellion involving more than 100 Labour MPs and forced the government to substantially scale down its plans. [1]

As the number of PIP claimants grows, reform could become politically harder. MPs may have an incentive to avoid measures that could leave large numbers of their constituents worse off in the immediate term, particularly when those constituents considerably outnumber the votes keeping them in parliament. This can create a feedback problem: as more people receive a benefit, the political cost of reforming it rises, making it harder to control future spending or tighten eligibility. This pressure was evident during the 2025 welfare rebellion, when MPs opposing the reforms repeatedly raised concerns about the potential impact of the proposed PIP changes on their constituents. [2]

This note shows how widespread that political pressure could be. The analysis compares PIP claimant numbers with electoral majorities across parties and identifies the MPs, cabinet members and party leaders for whom the gap is greatest.

Key findings

• More than half of MPs in England and Wales have more PIP claimants in their constituency than their electoral majority. In 312 of 575 constituencies, or 54.3 per cent, the number of PIP claimants exceeds the sitting MP’s majority with considerable differences between parties:
  • Conservative: 74 of 112 MPs, or 66.1 per cent.
  • Reform UK: 5 of 8 MPs, or 62.5 per cent.
  • Labour: 204 of 367 MPs, or 55.6 per cent.
  • Liberal Democrat: 17 of 65 MPs, or 26.2 per cent.
• The 204 Labour MPs whose constituencies have more PIP claimants than their electoral majority exceed the government’s current working majority of 166 by 38. [3]
• Bradford West has the largest gap between PIP claimants and the sitting MP’s electoral majority. Labour MP Naz Shah has a majority of 707, while 11,718 people in the constituency claim PIP, a difference of 11,011. Blackburn is close behind, with 10,900 PIP claimants compared with independent MP Adnan Hussain's majority of 132, a difference of 10,768.
• Some MPs with extremely small majorities represent constituencies with thousands of PIP claimants:
• 13 cabinet members have more PIP claimants in their constituencies than their electoral majorities. The largest difference is for home secretary Shabana Mahmood in Birmingham Ladywood, where 11,431 PIP claimants compare with a majority of 3,421, a difference of 8,010.
• Among the four major party leaders in the analysis, only Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch has more PIP claimants in her constituency than her electoral majority. North West Essex has 4,136 PIP claimants compared with Badenoch's majority of 2,610, a difference of 1,526.
  • Reform UK’s Sarah Pochin has a majority of 6 in Runcorn and Helsby, compared with 9,290 PIP claimants. 
  • Labour's David Pinto-Duschinsky has a majority of 15 in Hendon, compared with 7,225 claimants.
  • Conservative Richard Holden has a majority of 20 in Basildon and Billericay, compared with 7,082 PIP claimants.

[1] Benefits and Work, 108 Labour rebels sign amendment to kill PIP cuts bill, 24 June 2025, benefitsandwork.co.uk/news/108-labour-rebels-sign-amendment-to-kill-pip-cuts-bill (accessed 17 September 2026).
[2] White, H., Parliament has changed – Keir Starmer’s welfare reform challenge won’t be a one-off, Institute for Government, 27 June 2025, www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/comment/parliament-starmer-welfare-rebellion (accessed 17 September 2026).
[3] UK Parliament, State of the parties, members.parliament.uk/parties/commons (accessed 17 September 2026).

EMBARGOED: 19:00 Saturday, 4th October

• TaxPayers’ Alliance releases a comprehensive map of benefits spending across England and Wales, across every constituency and local authority.    
• Welfare Map reveals 54 constituencies had benefits bills exceeding £365 million, equivalent to more than £1 million each day. Of these, 36 exceeded £400 million, and 8 exceeded £500 million.
• The interactive map presents official data and details the explosion in claims over the last two years, including in Andy Burnham’s constituency of Makerfield and Birmingham Ladywood, home of Channel 4’s Benefits Street.  

The TaxPayers’ Alliance (TPA) has launched its Welfare Map, a landmark tool which presents benefit spending down to constituency level across England and Wales. 

The interactive map allows users to look up official data, including total benefit spend and number of claimants, welfare claims by age group, Personal Independence Payment (PIP) spend and claims for selected conditions and PIP Mobility awards. The map presents the latest data and shows changes since 2021, the end of the covid pandemic, and since 2024, when the Labour government took office. 

Across six main benefits, including Universal Credit and PIP, spending has increased by £26.1 billion since 2024. It hit £133.1 billion across England and Wales in the 12 months to March 2026. This represents a 24.4 per cent increase in just over two years, more than the entire annual police budget for England and Wales. Just ten constituencies with the largest cash increases added around £1.26 billion to the welfare bill.

Data reveals that 54 constituencies ended up with annual welfare bills exceeding £365 million, equivalent to more than £1 million every day. Of these, 36 had bills exceeding £400 million, and 8 exceeded £500 million. Tottenham had the largest bill of any constituency, at £624.9 million, greater than the combined benefits bill of the six lowest-spending constituencies.

The Welfare Map reveals that, while London had the largest regional welfare bill at £24.2 billion, Birmingham is Britain’s benefits capital. Birmingham Hall Green and Moseley recorded the fastest growth in welfare spending, increasing by 37.1 per cent in just over two years. Five of the ten constituencies with the largest percentage increases were in the city. Birmingham Ladywood, which includes Winson Green, the setting of Channel 4's Benefits Street, had the third-largest welfare bill at £590.7 million. It also had the second-largest housing benefit bill, at £118.1 million, and recorded the second-largest cash increase in total welfare spending, at £143.2 million. More widely, the West Midlands recorded the fastest regional growth across England and Wales, with average spending increasing by 27.3 per cent. 

The TPA’s 2025 Benefits Dashboard uncovered adults in England receiving PIP for conditions including acne, food intolerance, writers’ cramp, alcohol misuse and drug use. The campaign group called for a crackdown on welfare spending, but political efforts have made little headway as backbench MPs resist welfare cuts.  

The Welfare Map shows that Labour MPs accounted for 29 of the 30 highest welfare spending constituencies across the six benefits. Labour constituencies received £98.1 billion of the £133.1 billion welfare bill. The average Labour constituency had a welfare bill of £267.3 million, compared with £159.3 million for Conservative constituencies and £224.9 million for Reform UK. Makerfield, Andy Burnham’s constituency, had a welfare bill of £221.3 million, which had increased by £42.1 million or 23.5 per cent in just over two years. Stephen Timms, the minister charged with reviewing PIP, had a constituency bill in East Ham of £415.6 million, while DWP secretary, Pat McFadden, saw his constituency of Wolverhampton South East reach £393.6 million. They received some of the highest benefits spending in England and Wales, ranked 23rd and 40th respectively. 

As the Conservative Conference begins in Birmingham, the TaxPayers’ Alliance is calling on all political parties to commit to urgent measures to bring welfare spending under control. The campaign group is pushing to toughen up benefits caps, tighten assessments and eligibility, and expand means testing, to protect taxpayers and ensure welfare only goes to those most in need.

[CLICK HERE TO READ THE RESEARCH]

[CLICK HERE FOR THE WELFARE MAP]

Key findings

• £133.1 billion was spent on six benefits across England and Wales in the 12 months to March 2026. This was up from £107 billion in the 12 months to February 2024, an increase of £26.1 billion or 24.4 per cent in just over two years.
• Tottenham had the largest welfare bill of any constituency, at £624.9 million. Brent East had the second largest at £605.9 million, followed by Birmingham Ladywood at £590.7 million. 
• 54 constituencies had welfare bills exceeding £365 million, equivalent to more than £1 million for every day of the year. Of these, 36 had bills exceeding £400 million, and 8 exceeded £500 million.
• Sheffield Hallam had the lowest welfare bill in England and Wales, at £80.8 million. This was despite Sheffield Brightside and Hillsborough, in the same city, recording spending of £428.4 million, more than five times as much, and the 21st highest of the 575 constituencies examined.
• The gap between the highest and lowest-spending constituencies was more than £544 million. Tottenham's £624.9 million welfare bill was almost eight times Sheffield Hallam's and was greater than the combined welfare spending of the six lowest-spending constituencies.
• Birmingham Hall Green and Moseley recorded the fastest growth in welfare spending, increasing by 37.1 per cent in just over two years. Five of the ten constituencies with the largest percentage increases were in Birmingham.
• Hackney North and Stoke Newington recorded the largest cash increase, with its welfare bill rising by £148.3 million in just over two years. Birmingham Ladywood increased by £143.2 million and Tottenham by £136.4 million. 
• The ten constituencies with the largest cash increases added around £1.26 billion to the welfare bill between them.
• London had the largest regional welfare bill at £24.2 billion, followed by the North West at £18.7 billion and the South East at £16.4 billion. However, the West Midlands recorded the fastest growth, with spending increasing by 27.3 per cent in just over two years.
• Different benefits displayed strikingly different geographical concentrations:
  • All five constituencies with the highest universal credit spending were in London; 
  • Four of the five with the highest PIP spending were in the North West; 
  • The four highest for Employment Support Allowance were in Wales; 
  • And four of the five highest for housing benefit were in Birmingham.
• Labour-held constituencies accounted for 29 of the 30 top-five positions across the six individual benefits. The sole exception was Birmingham Perry Barr, represented by independent MP Ayoub Khan, which had the largest housing benefit bill.
• Labour constituencies accounted for £98.1 billion of the £133.1 billion welfare bill. The average Labour constituency had a welfare bill of £267.3 million, compared with £159.3 million for Conservative constituencies, £150 million for Liberal Democrat constituencies, £224.9 million for Reform UK constituencies and £197.1 million for Green Party constituencies.

Case studies

• Makerfield, the constituency represented by prime minister Andy Burnham, had a welfare bill of £221.3 million, ranking 269th out of 575 constituencies in England and Wales. Spending increased by £42.1 million or 23.5 per cent in just over two years.
• North West Essex, represented by Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch, ranked 480th out of 575 constituencies for total welfare spending, at £143.1 million. However, its welfare bill increased by 31.7 per cent in just over two years, substantially above the England and Wales average of 24.4 per cent.
• Clacton, represented by Reform UK leader Nigel Farage, had a welfare bill of £306.8 million, ranking 113th nationally. 
• Manchester Central, home to the new No. 10 North, had the 53rd-largest welfare bill in England and Wales, at £365.8 million, equivalent to more than £1 million per day.
• Birmingham Ladywood, which includes Winson Green, the setting of Channel 4's Benefits Street, had the third-largest welfare bill in England and Wales, at £590.7 million. It also had the second-largest housing benefit bill, at £118.1 million, and recorded the second-largest cash increase in total welfare spending, at £143.2 million.

[CLICK HERE TO READ THE RESEARCH]

[CLICK HERE FOR THE WELFARE MAP]

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

“Our Welfare Map lays bare the parts of Britain which have become addicted to benefits.

“Over the last two years, welfare spending has spiralled out of control and politicians, worried about their poll ratings, have resisted spending restraint at every turn.

“Enough is enough. Politicians must cut this welfare bill, including by restricting who can claim and capping how much they can get, if they want to restore any semblance of taxpayers’ trust in the welfare system.   

Responding to the launch, Helen Whately MP, Shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, said:

"This Welfare Map from the TaxPayers’ Alliance is a vital tool, which lets anyone see for themselves that Labour have lost control of benefits spending. 

“Labour have made it easier to claim and harder to get a job. So we have announced new policies to bring down spending and be tough on those who exploit the system.  

“Britain can’t afford to keep spending this much on welfare. It’s not fair on taxpayers footing the bill.”

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 findings of the TaxPayers’ Alliance's previous 2025 Benefits Dashboard were mentioned at Prime Minister’s Questions by Kemi Badenoch MP and can be found here. 
4. On Monday 5th October, the TaxPayers’ Alliance will release the ‘TPA Benefits Bill', a postcode tool which generates a localised and itemised receipt for the bill paid by each taxpayer to fund benefits in their area.  

Welfare spending represents one of the largest components of government expenditure and is forecast to continue rising substantially. The Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) forecasts that total UK welfare spending will increase from £314.8 billion in 2024-25 to £406.9 billion in 2030-31, equivalent to 11.2 per cent of GDP. The OBR expects rising health and disability benefit spending and pensioner spending to be the main drivers of the increase in welfare spending as a share of the economy. 

Despite the growth of the welfare bill, attempts to control spending have proved politically difficult. The government's proposed reforms to health and disability benefits in 2025 were substantially scaled back following opposition from its own MPs, while changes to PIP eligibility were ultimately removed from the legislation. The subsequent Timms Review has acknowledged significant problems with the current PIP system, but has not been tasked with identifying further savings. 

The scale of welfare spending varies considerably across the country. Different constituencies can have vastly different welfare bills, reflecting differences in the number of people receiving benefits, the value of their awards and the types of support being claimed. Understanding this geographical distribution is therefore important to understanding both where welfare spending is concentrated, how the bill has changed and why reforms might be politically difficult.

This note focuses on six major benefits: universal credit, personal independence payment, housing benefit, disability living allowance, carer’s allowance and employment and support allowance. It calculates the total amount spent on these six benefits in each of the 575 parliamentary constituencies in England and Wales, allowing the size and growth of the local welfare bill to be compared across constituencies, regions and political parties. 

The TaxPayers’ Alliance has used this data to produce a series of notes examining welfare spending culminating in the Welfare Map. Alongside this note, the TaxPayers' Alliance has produced an interactive map allowing taxpayers to see the welfare bill in their own constituency and compare it with the rest of England and Wales. 

CLICK HERE TO SEE THE FULL DASHBOARD

Key findings

• £133.1 billion was spent on six benefits across England and Wales in the 12 months to March 2026. This was up from £107 billion in the 12 months to February 2024, an increase of £26.1 billion or 24.4 per cent in just over two years.
• Tottenham had the largest welfare bill of any constituency, at £624.9 million. Brent East had the second largest at £605.9 million, followed by Birmingham Ladywood at £590.7 million. 
• 54 constituencies had welfare bills exceeding £365 million, equivalent to more than £1 million for every day of the year. Of these, 36 had bills exceeding £400 million, and 8 exceeded £500 million.
• Sheffield Hallam had the lowest welfare bill in England and Wales, at £80.8 million. This was despite Sheffield Brightside and Hillsborough, in the same city, recording spending of £428.4 million, more than five times as much, and the 21st highest of the 575 constituencies examined.
• The gap between the highest and lowest-spending constituencies was more than £544 million. Tottenham's £624.9 million welfare bill was almost eight times Sheffield Hallam's and was greater than the combined welfare spending of the six lowest-spending constituencies.
• Birmingham Hall Green and Moseley recorded the fastest growth in welfare spending, increasing by 37.1 per cent in just over two years. Five of the ten constituencies with the largest percentage increases were in Birmingham.
• Hackney North and Stoke Newington recorded the largest cash increase, with its welfare bill rising by £148.3 million in just over two years. Birmingham Ladywood increased by £143.2 million and Tottenham by £136.4 million. 
• The ten constituencies with the largest cash increases added around £1.26 billion to the welfare bill between them.
• London had the largest regional welfare bill at £24.2 billion, followed by the North West at £18.7 billion and the South East at £16.4 billion. However, the West Midlands recorded the fastest growth, with spending increasing by 27.3 per cent in just over two years.
• Different benefits displayed strikingly different geographical concentrations:
  • All five constituencies with the highest universal credit spending were in London; 
  • Four of the five with the highest PIP spending were in the North West; 
  • The four highest for ESA were in Wales; 
  • And four of the five highest for housing benefit were in Birmingham.
• Labour-held constituencies accounted for 29 of the 30 top-five positions across the six individual benefits. The sole exception was Birmingham Perry Barr, represented by independent MP Ayoub Khan, which had the largest housing benefit bill.
• Labour constituencies accounted for £98.1 billion of the £133.1 billion welfare bill. The average Labour constituency had a welfare bill of £267.3 million, compared with £159.3 million for Conservative constituencies, £150 million for Liberal Democrat constituencies, £224.9 million for Reform UK constituencies and £197.1 million for Green Party constituencies.

Case studies

• Makerfield, the constituency represented by prime minister Andy Burnham, had a welfare bill of £221.3 million, ranking 269th out of 575 constituencies in England and Wales. Spending increased by £42.1 million or 23.5 per cent in just over two years.
• Wolverhampton South East, represented by work and pensions secretary Pat McFadden, had the 40th-largest welfare bill in England and Wales, at £393.6 million. 
• North West Essex, represented by Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch, ranked 480th out of 575 constituencies for total welfare spending, at £143.1 million. However, its welfare bill increased by 31.7 per cent in just over two years, substantially above the England and Wales average of 24.4 per cent.
• Clacton, represented by Reform UK leader Nigel Farage, had a welfare bill of £306.8 million, ranking 113th nationally. 
• Manchester Central, home to the new No. 10 North, had the 53rd-largest welfare bill in England and Wales, at £365.8 million, equivalent to more than £1 million per day.
• Birmingham Ladywood, which includes Winson Green, the setting of Channel 4's Benefits Street, had the third-largest welfare bill in England and Wales, at £590.7 million. It also had the second-largest housing benefit bill, at £118.1 million, and recorded the second-largest cash increase in total welfare spending, at £143.2 million.
• Winchester, previously highlighted for the rapid growth in PIP claims in traditionally affluent areas, had the 526th-largest welfare bill of the 575 constituencies examined, at £128.2 million. Despite its relatively small overall bill, spending on PIP increased by 30.7 per cent, from £21.2 million to £27.7 million in just over two years, compared with a 21.3 per cent increase in total welfare spending.
• Enfield, dubbed Britain’s benefits capital after recording the highest welfare spending per working-age resident of any local authority, contains two of the ten highest-spending constituencies. Enfield North ranked fifth nationally at £541.3 million, while Edmonton and Winchmore Hill ranked seventh at £525.2 million.

Recommendations

• Reinstate the two-child benefit limit within universal credit. 
• PIP assessments should make greater use of face-to-face assessments and require stronger independent evidence where claims are assessed remotely.
• PIP should be means-tested, initially excluding those on the highest incomes and tapering support to avoid a cliff edge.
• PIP awards should more closely reflect the additional costs claimants face as a result of their disability.
• Tighten PIP eligibility by excluding claims based on specified conditions and restricting the types of functional limitation that qualify for support.
• Remove the automatic benefit cap exemption for households receiving PIP.

Benefit spending has seen enormous growth since the Labour government came to power in July 2024, with spending on just six benefits reaching over £133 billion in England and Wales by March 2026. [1] Despite widespread recognition that the current system is not working, meaningful reform has proven politically difficult. One of the reasons for this is that benefit spending is concentrated among particular groups, while the costs are spread widely across taxpayers. Those who stand to lose from reform thus have a much stronger incentive to resist change. 

When a governing party commands a parliamentary majority, its own MPs are often the most significant obstacle to its legislative agenda. In 2016, for example, 26 Conservative MPs voted against the then Conservative government’s proposal to relax Sunday trading restrictions, resulting in the measure being defeated even though the party held a majority in parliament. [2] Despite Labour’s sizable majority, even relatively modest efforts to slow the growth of spending have faced fierce resistance from its own MPs. These have ultimately been dropped or undermined through concessions, resulting in a welfare system that is even more complex and poorly targeted. 

This research examines which MPs constituencies in England and Wales have benefitted most from increases in benefit spending since the start of the Labour government and compares these trends with MPs’ opposition to welfare reform. 

Key findings

• Benefit payments rose by a total of £12.1 billion in England and Wales from August 2024 to March 2026, an increase of 10 per cent. 
• Despite Labour holding 64 per cent of seats, 72 per cent of the increase, or £8.8 billion, went to constituencies represented by the party. 
• Your Party MPs saw the largest increase in benefit spending per seat, £36.5 million. This was followed by Labour (£23.9 million), Restore Britain (£23.7 million), Reform UK (£20.6 million), the Green Party (£19.4 million), the Conservative Party (£15.8 million), the Liberal Democrats (£13.3 million) and Plaid Cymru (£12.8 million).
• Labour MP Diane Abbott’s Hackney North and Stoke Newington constituency saw the largest increase in benefit spending, £76.6 million, more than three times the constituency average. 
• There were 15 constituencies where benefit spending rose by more than £50 million from August 2024 to March 2026; all were represented by Labour MPs except Birmingham Perry Barr, represented by independent MP Ayoub Khan. 

Hillier amendment 

• 117 Labour MPs in England and Wales signed the Hillier amendment opposing the government’s June 2025 welfare reforms, rising to 126 Labour MPs across the UK as a whole. 
• Along with 15 MPs from other parties or sitting as independents, these English and Welsh MPs collectively saw a £3.3 billion increase in benefit spending in their constituencies between August 2024 and March 2026.  
• The average increase in benefit spending in constituencies represented by the signatories of the Hillier amendment between August 2024 and March 2026 was £24,758,736. This was 18 per cent higher than the average increase among all MPs.

Maskell amendment 

• Despite government concessions that cut the proposed savings by half, opposition continued in the form of the Maskell amendment signed by 39 Labour MPs in England and Wales, rising to 42 Labour MPs across the UK as a whole. 
• Along with 14 MPs from other parties, signatories of the Maskell amendment in England and Wales saw a £1.4 billion increase in benefit spending in their constituencies between August 2024 and March 2026.  
• This led to another concession that would eliminate 96 per cent of savings and postpone their implementation. However, 42 Labour MPs still voted for the amendment to stop the government’s reforms.

Second reading 

• Even after the government reversed the vast majority of the proposed reforms, 49 Labour MPs still voted against the bill at second reading, of which 47 were from England and Wales.
• Of these 47 Labour MPs, 36 MPs had also backed both the Hillier and Maskell amendments. 
• Benefit spending in these 36 constituencies rose by £952 million from August 2024 to March 2026, including £76.6 million and £59.5 million in Diane Abbott’s and Apsana Begum’s constituencies respectively. 

[1] Universal credit, personal independence payment, housing benefit, disability living allowance, employment and support allowance and carer’s allowance

[2] Fenton, S., The Conservative MPs who rebelled against the Government to vote down Sunday trading reforms, The Independent, 10 March 2016.

Britain’s public finances are under growing strain, with debt close to twice the level seen during the 1976 fiscal crisis, a heavier interest burden, weaker productivity growth and mounting pressure from an ageing population. But how does today’s position really compare with the crisis of the 1970s, and could Britain once again be forced to

Podcast host Duncan Barkes is joined by TaxPayers’ Alliance chief executive John O’Connell and former TPA chairman Mike Denham, who has authored new research comparing Britain’s current fiscal position with the circumstances that led to the 1976 IMF bailout.

They examine the growth of public debt, the rising cost of servicing it, Britain’s increased exposure to international investors and refinancing risks, and why today’s spending commitments may be harder to reduce than those of the 1970s. They also discuss what the lessons of 1976 mean for economic growth, taxation, and the long-term sustainability of the public finances.

Read the full paper here: https://taxpayersalliance.com/britains-fiscal-problem-worse-than-the-1970s/

For immediate release

Responding to Andy Burnham’s speech at Labour party conference, John O’Connell, chief executive of the TaxPayers' Alliance, said:

“Burnham’s plan to abolish the triple lock will barely touch the sides of the national care system he wants to fund.

“With the welfare bill forecast to hit over £400bn by the end of this decade, alongside a long shopping list of unfunded spending promises, the bill will ultimately be placed on the backs of hardworking taxpayers.

“If the prime minister really wants to be honest he needs to come out with a serious plan to cut welfare spending to stop Britain drifting towards a fiscal cliff edge”

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. Last week the TPA shone a light on the growth of benefits spending, ahead of the release of the upcoming TPA Benefits Bill on Monday 5th October. Take a full look at our latest research here.
4. The TPA yesterday released ‘Britain’s fiscal problem: worse than the 1970s’, which highlights how, in several key respects, today's fiscal problems are even worse than then.