Official Statistics

MHCLG enabled spend statistics, 2023-24

Published 12 March 2025

In this release 

• MHCLG enabled spend is an official statistic in development. It provides estimates of both direct MHCLG and arm’s length body spend, and funding delegated to local authorities, at a granular and standard level of geography. MHCLG enabled spend is defined in more detail below.

• MHCLG enabled spend across the UK was £71.6 billion in the 2023-24 financial year which amounts to £1,248 per person in England. This was an increase of 7.1% total UK enabled spend compared to 2022-23. The majority (74.5%) of MHCLG enabled spend was delivered as non-ringfenced general funding delegated to local authorities. This represents local government income that is delivered through MHCLG’s local government finance system.

• Local authorities in England with devolution arrangements typically have higher MHCLG enabled spend per person. In 2023-34, average MHCLG enabled spend per person was £1,264 in mayoral combined authorities (excluding the Greater London Authority), compared to £997 in local authorities without devolution deals.

• Spending on local growth, regeneration and transformation is higher outside the Greater South East, while spending on housing is higher in the Greater South East, where supply issues and delivery costs are higher.

• Higher area costs and greater funding for housing programmes push up MHCLG enabled spend in London. Spend per person in London was £469 higher than the average of other regions but was more consistent with other regions when adjusted to reflect higher area costs, Affordable Homes spend and the Building Safety Fund.

Release date: 12 March 2025

Date of next release: March 2026

Contact: Toni Bilyanska, Rebecca Williams

subnationalexpenditure@communities.gov.uk

Media enquiries: 0303 444 1209 NewsDesk@communities.gov.uk

Things you need to know about this release 

• The previous iteration of the Enabled Spend Statistics was published under the department’s old name – DLUHC which changed in July 2024. In this release of the statistics, the department will be referred to as MHCLG to reflect the updated name of the organisation, while the data retains the same format as last year.

• These are official statistics in development, designed to improve the collective understanding of how MHCLG spends money across the UK. They build on the initial publication last year and assign individual items of spend to the local authorities that the spend is located in.

• The methodology used is set out in the technical notes, including assumptions used to apportion funding to local authorities where it has been allocated at different levels of geography. This methodology will continue to be refined for future publications, and the conclusions drawn may change as a result.

• Due to improvements made to the apportionment in this publication, the amount of spend allocated to local authority districts has increased, as more ‘central spend’ has been able to be apportioned than previously. Comparisons at local level with previous years may be affected by changes to the apportionment in addition to real changes.

• As a result of the methodology used – which is based on actual payments made – estimated programme-specific spend figures may differ from published allocations, which set out the maximum funding set aside for a programme to provide its services. This is especially the case where payments are made in one financial year to provide services in another.

• Many MHCLG functions in England are devolved in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and so are funded by the devolved administrations’ block grants. Consequently, MHCLG enabled spend per person for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland is in addition to that already received via their block grants, and direct comparison with spend in England will not be meaningful.

• To aid meaningful comparison of spend across place and spending segment, we have derived and published levels of spend per person. This is not reflective of, nor a statement on, how funding is or should be allocated. Funding streams seek to deliver different outcomes, which informs the distribution methodologies for each funding stream. These methodologies may not necessarily consider spend per person.

• For example, local government funding operates under a needs-based approach whereby allocations in the Local Government Finance Settlement reflect local circumstances, such as the demand for services from the local population, the cost of delivering those services in that authority, and the ability for each council to raise revenue. Spend per person is unlikely to be an appropriate method for determining how best to fund local authorities because it does not take account of the needs of the local population.

Uses and limitations 

Correct use	Incorrect use
✓ Comparing English local authorities	✘Comparing local authorities funding across years
✓ Understanding where MHCLG spending goes at a local level	✘Comparing local authorities across the UK
	✘ As a reflection of total government spending at a local level
	✘ Identifying how or where local government spends funding
	✘ Understanding how central government determines allocations

Main findings 

MHCLG enabled spend across the UK captures both direct spend by MHCLG and two of its arm’s-length bodies^{[footnote 1]}, and funding delegated to local government through the local government finance system

MHCLG enabled spend in 2023-24 was £71.6 billion, of which £71.3 billion can be attributed to a specific local authority; the remaining £0.3 billion is central spend which cannot be attributed to a local authority. This publication explores the MHCLG subnational spend data, providing insight on the department’s largest categories of spend and how spend is distributed at a local level. 

Overall, MHCLG supports 3 broad mechanisms of spending in a place:

1. Direct MHCLG spend - Direct central government spend in local areas, across the UK, both by MHCLG and two of its arm’s-length bodies (ALBs), Homes England and Planning Inspectorate^{[footnote 2]} to provide services like housing supply (Affordable Homes) and local regeneration (Towns Regeneration and Getting Building Fund).^{[footnote 3]}

2. Specific funding delegated to local authorities - Local government income that is delivered through MHCLG grants, which local authorities can only spend on specific services, like social care (Social Care Grant and Improved Better Care Fund).

3. General funding delegated to local authorities - Local government income that is made available through MHCLG’s local government finance system. This non-ringfenced funding is delegated to local authorities, for the provision of general services. The local government finance system (which includes council tax raising powers and settlement funding assessment as core components) considers differences in tax raising abilities and need to spend between local areas in determining allocations.^{[footnote 4]} This third area accounts for by far the largest share of MHCLG enabled public spending across the UK, and so forms a critical part of the geographic picture captured in this data.

Total MHCLG spend, the sum of these 3 mechanisms of spending, is referred to as ‘MHCLG enabled spend’ throughout this publication. 

Figure 1: Scale of direct MHCLG and ALB spending, specific and general funding delegated to local authorities, UK, 2023-24. 

In 2023-24, MHCLG enabled spend was: 

• £11.1 billion on direct MHCLG (including Homes England and Planning Inspectorate) spend
• £7.1 billion on specific funding delegated to local authorities
• £53.1 billion on general (non-ringfenced) funding delegated to local authorities
• £0.3 billion on central spend^{[footnote 5]} that cannot be attributed to a local authority district

General funding delegated to local authorities represents the majority of MHCLG enabled spend, both nationally and in every local authority in England. Of the £53.1 billion total, the main way MHCLG delegates general funding to local authorities is through the council tax system, which represented £34.0 billion in 2023-24. 

In Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, where local authority funding is devolved (see further information in the section Patterns of MHCLG enabled spend per person vary across regions in England below) the largest MHCLG enabled spend mechanism is direct spend by MHCLG, Homes England and Planning Inspectorate. 

Of the £11.1 billion direct spending by MHCLG and two of its ALBs across the UK, the largest programme of spend was Affordable Homes, accounting for £2.6 billion or 23.7% of MHCLG and ALB direct local spend in 2023-24. 

Direct MHCLG spend and specific funding delegated to local authorities supports housing, social care and health

Government activities and spend can be categorised by the Classification of the Functions of Government (COFOG). This indicates the broad themes and purposes that government spends money on. 

The majority of direct MHCLG and ALB spend supported Housing and Community Amenities (£8.4 billion). In contrast, specific funding delegated to local authorities primarily supported Social Protection (£6.6 billion).^{[footnote 6]} General funding delegated to local authorities is, by definition, used for many purposes, and so we cannot classify it by its ultimate function.^{[footnote 7]}  

Figure 2: The functions of government supported by direct MHCLG and ALB spend and specific funding delegated to local authorities, UK, 2023-24.^{[footnote 6]}

Patterns of MHCLG enabled spend per person vary across regions in England

MHCLG enabled spend per person in England was £1,248 in 2023-24, but this varies significantly by region. Spend per person was highest in London (£1,657), followed by the North East (£1,386) and the North West (£1,277). 

Figure 3: Regional spend per person by mechanism of MHCLG enabled spend, England, 2023-24. 

Why is spend higher in London? 

London has higher levels of general (non-ringfenced) funding delegated to local authorities and higher direct MHCLG and ALB spend, as shown in Figure 3. This is consistent with HM Treasury’s Country and Regional Analysis, where London spend has been historically higher than other regions. 

A key driver of this is the higher cost of delivering services in London. The Area Cost Adjustment index (ACA) is used to measure the variation in the costs of delivering services across the country. MHCLG uses the ACA to account for differences in cost by applying it to the formulas used in the Local Government Finance system. 

After using ACA to adjust for area costs, the difference between spend per person in London and average of every other region in England falls from £469 to £272. 

Higher spend in London is also driven by greater funding for housing programmes. The Affordable Homes is the largest programme in most regions, with spend per person highest in London (£132), followed by the South West region (£41). London also has the largest share of the Building Safety Fund with over 93% of the spend. 

Spend per person is highest in the North East (£1,419) after accounting for higher area costs and excluding Affordable Homes and Building Safety Fund spend, followed closely by London (£1,334). 

Figure 4: Regional spend per person adjusted for area costs and excluding Affordable Homes Programme and Building Safety Fund, England, 2023-24. 

Many MHCLG functions in England are devolved in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, therefore the devolved administrations will have received funding through the block grant (based on the Barnett formula) and allocated funding in line with their priorities. MHCLG enabled spend in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland (total spend of £143 million, £213 million and £47 million respectively in 2023-24) is in addition to that already received via their block grants. In 2023-24 MHCLG provided direct funding for UK-wide programmes such as the UK Shared Prosperity Fund and Homes for Ukraine. 

Overall MHCLG enabled spend per person in England has increased by £105 (9.2%) between 2022-23 and 2023-24. This was primarily due to an increase of £4.1 billion in the non-ringfenced funding delegated to local authorities in England during this period. This increase was driven by a combination of growth in the council tax base, increases in council tax levels, an increase in settlement funding assessment and services grant, as well as the one-off funding guarantee and a new discharge fund. More detail can be found in the 2023-24 local government finance settlement. Specific funding delegated to local authorities also increased in England between 2022-23 and 2023-24 by £1.6 billion. 

All regions in England saw an increase in MHCLG enabled spend between 2022-23 and 2023-24 of at least £70 per person. The largest increases in MHCLG enabled spend were in the North East, the North West and London (increases of £142, £136 and £126 respectively).^{[footnote 8]}

Patterns of MHCLG enabled spend per person vary more significantly at local authority than at regional level

Excluding City of London and Isles of Scilly, which have very different spending patterns and are treated as outliers in this analysis^{[footnote 9]}, MHCLG enabled spend per person in England was highest in Kensington and Chelsea (£2,429), Islington (£2,415) and Camden (£2,408); and lowest in England in Windsor and Maidenhead (£869), Oadby and Wigston (£871) and Crawley (£892). Area cost adjustment narrows the gap between highest and lowest spend per person from £1,560 to £1,106. 

Figure 5: MHCLG enabled spend per person by local authority, before and after adjusting for area costs and excluding Affordable Homes Programme and Building Safety Fund, England, 2023-24. 

In this bulletin we have used spend per person as the standard measure to compare the amount of MHCLG enabled spend between areas. However, other comparative measures can be used.  

In 2023-24: 

• Total MHCLG enabled spend in England was highest in Birmingham (£1.4 billion), followed by Leeds (£898 million) and was lowest in the Isles of Scilly (£6.8 million), reflecting differences in their populations.
• Spend per square meter in England was highest in Islington (£35.20 per m2) and lowest in West Devon (£0.06 per m2), reflecting differences in MHCLG enabled spend and area size.
• Spend per dwelling was £2,676 in England excluding the City of London and the Isles of Scilly. It was highest in Newham (£4,877 per dwelling) and Islington (£4,681 per dwelling). It was lowest in Windsor and Maidenhead (£2,001 per dwelling) and Gosport (£1,959 per dwelling). There is a strong positive correlation between spend per dwelling and spend per person in England. Local authorities which have higher levels of MHCLG enabled spend per dwelling also tend to have higher levels of spend per person.

In England, MHCLG is increasingly devolving powers and spending to local areas

In 2023-34, average MHCLG enabled spend per person was £1,264 in mayoral combined authorities (excluding the Greater London Authority), compared to £997 in local authorities without devolution deals. These values are based on MHCLG enabled spend only and do not reflect the full extent of funding devolution from across central government. 

Figure 6: Average MHCLG enabled spend per person by local authority devolution status, England, 2022-23 and 2023-24. 

There are places of higher direct MHCLG and ALB spend both within and outside of the Greater South East

In 2023-24, total direct MHCLG and ALB spend per person in England was highest in the London borough of Islington (£695), followed by City of London (£687), and was lowest in Rochford (£48). By excluding funding delegated to local authorities, there are clearer hotspots of higher spend being targeted outside of London, for example Tewkesbury (£568) and Chelmsford (£484). 

Figure 7: Direct MHCLG and ALB spend per person by local authority, England, 2023-24. 

In contrast to the Affordable Homes Programme where spend per person is highest in London, programme spending in support of regeneration and transformation was highest outside of London, for example, Towns Regeneration (Future High Streets Fund), UK Shared Prosperity Fund and Housing Infrastructure Fund. Towns Regeneration is one of the largest programmes outside of London with the highest spend per person in the East Midlands and the North East (both £28). 

Figure 8: Spend per person on Affordable Homes Programme and Towns Regeneration by local authority, England, 2023-34. 

Official statistics in development 

The MHCLG enabled spend statistics are published as official statistics in development. These are official statistics that are undergoing development with scope to improve their trustworthiness, quality and value. See further technical details about these statistics, their methodology and development plans.

Accompanying tables and open data 

Tables 

Accompanying tables are available to download alongside this release.

Machine readable data 

These statistics are available in a machine readable, ‘tidy data’ format. 

Technical notes 

Please see the accompanying technical notes document for further details. 

Information on Official Statistics is available via the UK Statistics Authority website. 

Information about statistics at MHCLG is available via the department’s website.

---

1. Homes England and Planning Inspectorate.  ↩

2. Of the ALBs associated with MHCLG in 2023-24: some are self-funded and do not appear in the data, some received grant-in-aid from MHCLG and appear as recipients of central spend, and two, Homes England and Planning Inspectorate, have place based policy spend that is categorised as direct MHCLG and ALB spend that can be apportioned to granular geographies. Sponsorship of HM Land Registry moved to MHCLG in June 2023 and is outside of the scope of this publication.  ↩

3. This measure of direct MHCLG spend excludes payroll expenses. Spend between other government departments such as Cabinet Office has been excluded from direct MHCLG spend and any spend which is covered by the two ALBs (Homes England and Planning Inspectorate) has also been excluded to remove double counting of spend.  ↩

4. Specific and general funding delegated to local authorities is not technically MHCLG “spending”. Instead it is local government income that is enabled by MHCLG’s local government finance system, which includes grants from MHCLG, redistribution between councils and funding raised by councils themselves via council tax and business rates. We include all of this funding as MHCLG enabled local authority spending in this analysis, to ensure fair comparison of total public spend geographically across the UK.  We use Core Spending Power data as a measure of the ringfenced and non-ringfenced spending by local authorities, which MHCLG’s local government finance framework supports. These 2023-2024 figures are based on the final 2024-25 settlement. For more detail on this system, see Final local government finance settlement: England, 2024 to 2025. ↩

5. Less spend has been attributed to central in 2023-24 compared to previous years due to further understanding of the programmes and an improved methodology which included the Inter-Departmental Business Register dataset. The IDBR data was used to reapportion business spend to a local authority and reduce headquartering effects. For further information please refer to the Technical notes accompanying this bulletin.  ↩

6. In this iteration of the data, the Improved Better Care Fund and Market Sustainability and Fair Cost of Care Fund have been reclassified as Social Protection funds. In the 2021-22 and 2022-23 data these funds were classified as Health funds. This is a key driver of the changes across the two categories. Local authority revenue expenditure and financing. ↩ ↩²

7. Revenue Outturn data on how local authorities spend funding. ↩

8. MHCLG enabled spend data included within this publication is recorded on a cash basis. As a result, dates and financial periods may not accurately represent when the funding was utilised on the ground. Caution should therefore be taken when looking at year-on-year changes. For more information, see Technical notes. ↩

9. City of London and Isles of Scilly have atypically small populations and owing to their unique statuses as local authorities are often excluded from local authority comparisons.  ↩