What does the UK spend on welfare – and how much will it rise?
Here, the PA news agency looks at the latest figures and projections for social security and welfare expenditure.
– How much does the UK spend in total?
The Government is forecast to have spent £313.0 billion on welfare in 2024/25, according to the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR).
This is the equivalent of 10.9% of UK GDP (gross domestic product, or the total value of the economy).
The OBR forecasts annual spending on welfare to reach £373.4 billion in 2029/30.
This is up £60.4 billion on the figure for 2024/25 – an increase of nearly a fifth.
Welfare spending as a proportion of GDP is forecast to fall slightly to 10.8%, however.
– What takes up the biggest share of the welfare budget?
Spending on pensioners.
Some £150.7 billion was spent on pensioners in 2024/25, accounting for nearly half (48%) of the total welfare budget.
Besides the state pension, this spending also includes pensioner housing benefit, pension credit and the winter fuel payment.
Spending on pensioners is forecast to reach £181.8 billion by 2029/30, but this would still be just under half (49%) of the full welfare budget.
– How does the rest of the welfare budget break down?
The next largest chunk of spending goes on Universal Credit, which made up 28% of the 2024/25 budget (£87.8 billion).
It was followed by disability benefits at 13% (£41.4 billion) and child benefit at 4% (£13.3 billion), with other types of spending – including social security in Northern Ireland – accounting for 6% (£19.9 billion).
– Is spending set to increase for all types of welfare?
No.
The child benefit budget is forecast to remain largely flat, at £13.6 billion in 2029/30, compared with £13.3 billion in 2024/25.
By contrast, spending on disability benefits is forecast to jump to £56.3 billion by 2029/30, up from £41.4 billion in 2024/25.
Spending on Universal Credit will reach £99.0 billion, up from £87.8 billion.
– Why is welfare spending rising?
The OBR identifies two main drivers of the increase.
The first is higher spending on pensioners.
This is because of the UK's ageing population and the 'triple lock', which guarantees pensions will rise each year by whichever is highest: the annual rate of inflation, average growth in earnings, or 2.5%.
Of the forecast £60.4 billion extra spending on welfare in 2029/30, pensioners are responsible for just over half of the amount, at £31.3 billion (51%).
The second factor identified by the OBR as driving an increase in welfare spending is the rise in people eligible for health and disability benefits.
Spending on disability benefits, which includes disability living allowance and personal independence payments, accounts for £14.9 billion (25%) of the £60.4 billion extra spending on welfare in 2029/30.
– How does spending on health and disability benefits break down by age group?
The OBR defines health and disability benefits as covering the following entitlements: the standard allowance and health element spending for Universal Credit claimants; employment and support allowance; incapacity benefit; severe disablement allowance; income support for incapacity; disability living allowance; personal independence payment; attendance allowance; spending on the Universal Credit carer's element; carer's allowance, and income support for carers.
Spending on all these benefits was estimated to be £75.7 billion in 2024/25, three-quarters of which (75% or £56.9 billion) went to working-age adults.
Just under a fifth (19%, or £14.2 billion) went to pensioners, while 6% (£4.5 billion) went to children.
Although the amount spent on health and disability benefits is forecast to rise to £97.9 billion in 2029/30, the proportions are expected to remain broadly the same: 74% on working-age adults (£72.3 billion), 19% on pensioners (£18.3 billion) and 7% on children (£7.0 billion).
– How does welfare spending compare with other government departments?
In 2023/24, actual spending on health and disability benefits was £66.3 billion.
This was more than than the total departmental expenditure on defence (£57.6 billion) or transport (£32.6 billion), but well below the figure for education (£127.0 billion) and overall health and social care spending (£196.7 billion), according to the latest Treasury data.
Total expenditure by the Department for Work & Pensions (DWP) stood at £275.1 billion in 2023/24, up from £239.1 billion in 2022/23 and the highest figure among all government departments.
– What proportion of total government spending goes on welfare?
The DWP's total spend of £275.1 billion in 2023/24 made up just over a quarter (26%) of all spending by Government departments.
The next largest portions were taken by the Department of Health & Social Care (19%), Education (12%) and the Treasury (8%).
The estimated total welfare budget of £313.0 billion in 2024/25 made up 24% of all Government expenditure (£1.28 trillion).
This is forecast to rise slightly to 25% in 2029/30.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mirror
22 minutes ago
- Daily Mirror
Keir Starmer warned against creating 'two tier' benefit system after U-turn
Keir Starmer said the Government's welfare reforms 'strike the right balance' after he made major concessions to Labour rebels to avoid a potential Commons defeat Keir Starmer is battling to push through watered down cuts to disability benefits as he faced warnings it would create a "two tier" system. In a dramatic climbdown, the Prime Minister offered a series of concessions to Labour rebels opposed to moves that would see hundreds of thousands of disabled people lose lifeline benefits. But campaigners said it risked "betraying the next generation of disabled people" - and some Labour MPs remain opposed ahead of a Commons vote next week. After fraught negotiations on Thursday, the Government agreed to protect all existing claimants from losing Personal Independence Payments (PIP). Plans to tighten eligibility will now only apply to new claimants from November 2026, in a reprieve to around 370,000 people who were due to lose around £4,150-a-year. And existing recipients of the health element of Universal Credit will have their incomes protected in real terms. The original plans to reform the welfare system were designed to save around £5billion from the benefits bill by 2030. But economists said the changes will cost around £3billion, on top of around £1.5billion for the U-turn on the winter fuel allowance, leaving Chancellor Rachel Reeves to make up the shortfall. No10 failed to rule out such raising taxes to foot the bill, saying 'tax decisions are set out at fiscal events'. Today, Mr Starmer said the reforms now "strike the right balance". "It's very important that we reform the welfare system, because it doesn't work and it traps people, and therefore we're going to press ahead with the reforms," he said. "We need to get it right. That's why we've been talking to colleagues and having a constructive discussion. We've now arrived at a package that delivers on the principles with some adjustments, and that's the right reform, and I'm really pleased now that we're able to take this forward." Work and Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall said the Government had listened to concerns. She told broadcasters: "I think we're in a good place now, alongside the huge investments we are putting in to create the jobs that people need in every part of the country, to get waiting lists down in the NHS, to ensure stronger rights at work, but also to make sure there's employment support for those who can work and protections for those who can't." She insisted it was "very common in the welfare system that there are protections for existing claimants". Leading rebel Meg Hillier said she would now support the bill and is expected to drop her amendment, which had been signed by 126 Labour MPs. Ms Hillier, who chairs the Commons Treasury Committee, said it was "a good deal" involving "massive changes" to protect vulnerable people - and said disabled people would be involved in designing future reforms. She said: "It's encouraging that we have reached what I believe is a workable compromise that will protect disabled people and support people back into work while ensuring the welfare system can be meaningfully reformed." But Labour MP Nadia Whittome said "Even these revised proposals are nowhere near good enough and frankly are just not well thought through. It would create a two-tier system in both PIP and the UC system when somebody became disabled.' Andy McDonald, the Labour MP for Middlesbrough, said: "I'll be voting against it because it hasn't dealt with the totality of the is bringing about the change, it's just poverty delayed, or poverty postponed for millions of people in the future." Charles Gillies, Senior Policy Officer at the MS Society and Policy Co-Chair of the Disability Benefits Consortium, said: 'These supposed 'concessions' to the cuts bill are just a desperate attempt to rush through a disastrous piece of legislation. By pushing the cuts onto future claimants, the government are betraying the next generation of disabled people." He urged MPs to "stop this impending disaster" when the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill comes to the Commons on Tuesday. Mikey Erhardt, Policy Lead, Disability Rights UK said: 'We completely reject the imposition of the two-tier system on offer. It is not a massive concession to have a benefit system where future generations of Disabled people receive less support than Disabled people today." He added: "By attempting to push through cruel cuts to the benefits of Disabled people, the Government prioritised balancing its books over improving the lives of Disabled citizens... the Government needs to stop playing politics with our lives." James Taylor, director of strategy at disability equality charity Scope, said: "It is encouraging that the government is starting to listen to disabled people and MPs who have been campaigning for change for months. "But these plans will still rip billions from the welfare system. The proposed concessions will create a two-tier benefits system and an unequal future for disabled people. "Life costs more if you are disabled. And these cuts will have a devastating effect on disabled people's health, ability to live independently or work. "We urge the government to properly engage with disabled people and MPs on how best to reform welfare and create an equal future."
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
The Guardian view on Labour's disability benefits rethink: concessions suggest strategy not a change of heart
The humbling of a prime minister by his own side is rarely an edifying spectacle, but it does at least suggest a pulse in the parliamentary system. Sir Keir Starmer has now staged three conspicuous retreats: over winter fuel payments, over grooming gangs and now – most perilously – over sweeping changes to disability benefits. Two of these reversals followed backbench unrest. This week's about-face on the government's flagship welfare bill looks less like a full U-turn than a partial climbdown designed to avert open rebellion. While Sir Keir has taken a step back over benefit changes, which affect the most vulnerable in society, the result resembles textbook damage control. The concessions, presented as a response to principled pressure, feel more like fallback options held in reserve for moments of internal disquiet. The first is that existing personal independence payment (Pip) claimants will be spared new, tighter assessments – at least for now. But about 430,000 new Pip claimants who would qualify under current rules still face being excluded when tougher criteria arrive in November 2026. The second is that the health element of universal credit will no longer be frozen for current recipients. But new claimants – many too unwell to work – will be placed on a reduced rate unless they meet a higher threshold. All Pip awards are periodically reassessed, implying that all recipients could eventually face the new scheme. The upshot is that existing claimants would be protected, but future ones face tougher rules. Two people with identical conditions could receive support, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, that differs by up to £6,560 a year – purely due to timing. This, we're told, is compassion. The savings – halved to £2.5bn a year – come by offloading the cost on to future claimants. MPs rightly fear this locks in a two-tier system that is deliberately harsher on disabled people. Older Labour MPs will remember denouncing this very playbook. A decade ago, Iain Duncan Smith pioneered a slow, procedural tightening of welfare – hitting new claimants first, then reassessing the rest – precisely to defuse resistance. Labour opposed it then. Today, it is governing by the same method. It feels out of step with a post-pandemic Britain grappling with a cost of living crisis. Many Labour MPs believe these are still the wrong reforms and will vote against the bill when it comes back to the House of Commons next week. Clearly, tightened eligibility and a two-tier system may exclude many who need support. If the government wants to raise money, it might ask a little more of those with the broadest shoulders – not those with mobility aids, care plans and the audacity to ask for a fair deal. If ministers truly believe they are acting decently, they should publish the impact assessment and be honest about the consequences. Perhaps the most telling lesson is not about policy detail, but about political temperament. Modern governments are always under pressure to appear fiscally restrained. Yet whether – or how – they choose to meet that pressure reveals what they value, and who they believe can be asked to bear the costs. The welfare state has always relied on consent, and on a basic sense of fairness. If a Labour government cannot convincingly defend that principle, it risks more than backbench unrest; it risks eroding the trust that makes reform, essential in any changing society, possible in the first place. Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.
The National
an hour ago
- The National
Welfare row shows how Keir Starmer is Labour's Liz Truss
KEIR Starmer has been hanging about with Donald Trump too much. While the US president can get away with disregarding his legislature, Starmer cannot. As the leader of a parliamentary democracy, the Prime Minister does not have the luxury of signing executive orders and changing government policy with a stroke of his pen. Starmer is frequently compared – by the kind of nerds that do this stuff for fun – to Rishi Sunak. Both men are charisma vacuums, neither's vibes align with the messages they send out, both come across like dull technocrats infected with more than a little entitlement. But is Starmer actually more like Liz Truss? I think so. Starmer is less obviously mad than his predecessor-but-one. However, they share a key defining detail: both would happily dispense with democracy if given the chance. It's a little bit too much like hard work. The Prime Minister has tried to compromise with his welfare cuts rebels – after more than 100 Starmerbots suddenly found a spine this week and threatened to kill his benefits reforms. The minor concessions they've reportedly extracted result in a strange offer where existing Personal Independence Payment (Pip) claimants get to keep their current rate of support, while new claimants will be subjected to tougher qualifying tests. Among other issues, it undermines the Government's insistence that this is about getting people off benefits. Who would now ever risk coming off Pip faced with the threat of it becoming much harder to qualify if they reapply? READ MORE: Labour's 'minor' climbdown will leave benefits system 'woefully inadequate' Truss's greatest failure as prime minister, beyond her truly batty policy platform, was her inability to bring her party with her. In the end, they came for her. Starmer may have avoided total humiliation in this week's welfare debacle, if the rebels decide his terms are acceptable. But this fight was the result of his complete lack of political instincts. It reeked of a man who had grown used to people enquiring about height when he makes demands with regards jumping. Through the persecution of internal enemies and aided by the desperate belief that Starmer and his consigliere/puppet master (delete as you see fit), Morgan McSweeney (below), knew what they were doing, dissent became a foreign custom in the Labour Party. But, still smarting from the humiliation of defending the Winter Fuel Payment cut only for the Government to U-turn, MPs found their voices. Ministerial jobs and rewards for loyalty are few. Many MPs sit on majorities which must keep them awake at night. They resolved to take a stand; whether that was done entirely selflessly is up for debate. The Prime Minister has shown his MPs vanishingly little respect and it is in this that I have the most sympathy for him. No one understands better than I what a dismal prospect it is to spend your precious time on Earth talking to Labour MPs. But if that's the job, then you grow up and get on with it. Starmer's authoritarian instincts may prove more successful were he not so indecisive. But, like his mentor Trump, he picks a position, defends it with every fibre of his being, then discards it without a second thought. While he may have won the benefits battle, it has exposed rifts and a level of ill-feeling towards the PM among his own troops that suggest his woes are far from over. You can get the Worst of Westminster delivered straight to your email inbox for FREE every Friday at 6pm by clicking here.
