UK Conservatives Call for Ban on Sickness Benefits for Some Foreign Nationals

A growing faction within the UK’s Conservative Party is calling for a controversial overhaul of the country’s welfare system—specifically, a ban on certain foreign nationals receiving long-term sickness and disability benefits. Framing the proposal as a measure to protect British taxpayers and preserve the National Health Service (NHS) and welfare infrastructure, Tory MPs argue that current policies are too lenient and have opened the door to abuse by non-citizens. The push comes as part of a broader political strategy ahead of the next general election, with the Conservative Party seeking to sharpen its rhetoric on immigration, social benefits, and national identity in response to pressure from right-wing constituencies.

The Proposal: Restrict Access to UK Sickness Benefits

Led by senior backbench MPs and supported by segments of Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s party, the proposal calls for barring certain categories of non-UK citizens—including temporary residents, recent arrivals from the EU, and those without permanent settled status—from claiming sickness or disability allowances under the country’s welfare system. Conservative MP Sir William Leigh, a vocal proponent of the measure, described the move as “common sense. ”

“We’re not saying all immigrants are abusing the system,” Leigh stated in Parliament, “but we need to ensure that our limited welfare resources are going to the people who have contributed to the system—not to those who arrive and immediately claim support without having paid in.

”

The proposed restrictions would involve changes to eligibility criteria under the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) for benefits such as Employment and Support Allowance (ESA), Personal Independence Payment (PIP), and Universal Credit when claimed due to illness or disability. Data and Justifications

Supporters of the proposal point to government data suggesting a rise in long-term sickness benefit claims in recent years—particularly following the COVID-19 pandemic, which saw a sharp increase in applications tied to physical and mental health conditions. A 2023 internal government review found that non-UK nationals made up an increasing share of new benefit claimants, though critics argue that this data lacks appropriate context and fails to account for workers who lost employment due to illness contracted while working in high-risk frontline jobs during the pandemic.

“There’s been a serious uptick in these claims,” said Conservative strategist Eleanor Davies on a recent radio appearance. “We owe it to working Britons to ask: Is the system sustainable if we’re not setting firm boundaries?”

Criticism from Labour and Human Rights Groups

Opposition parties, particularly Labour and the Liberal Democrats, have criticized the Tory proposal as discriminatory and potentially unlawful under existing human rights obligations. They argue it targets migrants unfairly and risks leaving many in destitution or forcing chronically ill individuals into informal or unsafe work.

“This is not policy—it’s scapegoating,” said Shadow Home Secretary Yvette Cooper. “The reality is that many migrants are key contributors to our healthcare system, to our care sector, to our economy. Penalizing them when they become sick is morally wrong and economically short-sighted.

”

Legal experts also warn that any effort to restrict benefits to legally resident foreign nationals could run afoul of international conventions and UK obligations under the Equality Act 2010. “It’s not just an ethical question,” said Dr. Oliver Grant, a legal fellow at the University of Oxford.

“It's a matter of legal standing and proportionality. Denying access to sickness benefits purely based on nationality could face serious judicial scrutiny. ”

Impact on Migrant Communities

Migrants' rights advocates say the proposal could have chilling effects, especially on refugees, asylum seekers, and low-income migrant workers already struggling with unstable housing and job insecurity.

“We are hearing from individuals who are terrified,” said Fatima Noor, director of the London-based group Migrant Lives Matter. “They’re already hesitant to seek care or apply for benefits when ill because they fear retaliation or deportation. This policy would only worsen that fear.

”

Noor added that many foreign nationals who receive sickness benefits are legally employed, pay taxes, and only claim support when health conditions prevent them from working. A Broader Anti-Immigration Trend?

Analysts suggest the move is part of a larger pattern in recent Conservative Party politics, which has increasingly framed immigration in terms of security, cost, and cultural integration. From the Rwanda deportation plan to limits on family reunification visas, the party has moved steadily rightward in hopes of retaining control amid mounting pressure from the far-right Reform UK party.

“The language is hardening, and so are the policies,” said Dr. Hilary Spence, a political sociologist at the London School of Economics. “We’ve seen this playbook before—link social breakdown to immigration and promise to ‘take back control’ of benefits, housing, jobs.

”

While some polling shows public support for stricter immigration controls, other surveys suggest voters are more concerned about healthcare access, inflation, and housing—issues often exacerbated by government austerity, not immigration. International Comparisons and Precedents

The UK is not the first country to float such proposals. In recent years, similar debates have erupted in Germany, France, and Denmark—each grappling with how to balance social welfare with increased migration.

Denmark’s controversial 'ghetto laws' reduced access to state benefits in areas with high migrant populations, drawing condemnation from the United Nations. France’s recent pension reforms sparked debate about immigrants’ contributions to public coffers versus their use of welfare services. “Across Europe, you see this tension between inclusivity and austerity,” said Spence.

“But what we forget is that immigrants are often net contributors. They fill jobs, pay taxes, and support the very welfare states they are being blamed for burdening. ”

Government Response and Next Steps

The Department for Work and Pensions has not formally endorsed the proposal but confirmed it is reviewing the eligibility framework for sickness-related benefits.

“We remain committed to a fair and compassionate welfare system that supports those most in need while ensuring sustainability,” said a DWP spokesperson. “Eligibility rules are kept under regular review, and all decisions must align with UK law and international obligations. ”

Prime Minister Sunak has not publicly commented on the specific policy suggestion but has spoken in general terms about the need for a “firm and fair” welfare system.

Political insiders say the Prime Minister’s office is weighing whether the proposal could be incorporated into the Conservatives’ upcoming manifesto. Legal and Ethical Dilemmas

Implementing such a ban would require careful legal framing to avoid discrimination lawsuits. Government advisors would likely need to create specific exemptions—such as for asylum seekers, EU citizens with protected status under Brexit agreements, or those who have paid into the National Insurance system.

Even then, advocates warn that the message alone could cause harm. “When the government sends signals that some lives are more valuable than others, it breeds division,” said Noor. “That’s not just dangerous for migrants—it’s corrosive to democracy.

”

Conclusion: Policy or Political Theater?

As the general election looms, the Conservative Party appears to be doubling down on wedge issues that appeal to core voters frustrated with economic stagnation and public service strain. But whether the proposal to restrict sickness benefits for foreign nationals becomes actual law—or remains a headline-grabbing gesture—remains to be seen. “This is a moment of national choice,” said Cooper.

“We can either build a fair, compassionate system that works for everyone, or we can continue pointing fingers at the most vulnerable. ”

For now, the future of the proposal—and its implications for Britain’s migrant communities—hangs in the political balance.