Nearly two million foreign nationals ‘receiving benefits or state pension’
Nearly two million foreign nationals received at least one form of benefit or the UK State Pension in 2025, according to a new analysis that has reignited the political debate over immigration, welfare spending and the rights of people who live and work in Britain.
The Centre for Social Justice (CSJ) estimates that approximately 1.85 million non-British adults received some form of welfare support or pension payments last year, at an estimated cost of £23 billion. The think tank warns that the number could exceed two million by 2030, with the associated annual spending approaching £27 billion.
The figures have prompted renewed demands for tighter eligibility rules and a closer examination of the relationship between immigration status, contributions to the public finances and access to taxpayer-funded support.
However, the Government has challenged the reliability of the estimates, arguing that the research uses data sources that were not designed to calculate the total cost of benefits received by foreign nationals. That disagreement means the headline figures should be treated as estimates rather than an undisputed accounting of public expenditure.
The Centre for Social Justice has put the spotlight on foreign nationals claiming benefits (Image: Anadolu via Getty)
The debate nevertheless raises important questions about how the welfare system should operate, how eligibility is assessed and whether existing rules strike the right balance between supporting people in need and maintaining public confidence.
£23 billion welfare estimate sparks political row
The CSJ’s analysis divides the estimated £23 billion annual bill into several categories. It estimates that around £14.3 billion was spent on working-age benefits received by foreign nationals, with a further £2.9 billion associated with pension-related payments and £5.8 billion linked to support for children.
According to the think tank, approximately 1.4 million foreign nationals received working-age benefits in 2025. Its research also suggests that around 400,000 non-British nationals received the State Pension, while approximately 76,000 received Pension Credit.
The figures have attracted political attention because they come amid wider concerns about the rising cost of social security and the financial pressure facing households across the UK.
For the CSJ, the issue is whether immigration and welfare policies remain aligned with the principle that people moving to Britain should generally be able to support themselves and their families, subject to the rules governing their immigration status and eligibility for assistance.
The organisation argues that governments must do more to encourage employment, improve economic participation and ensure that public support is targeted appropriately.
But the total cost estimate requires careful interpretation. Receiving a benefit does not necessarily mean that someone is unemployed, has made no contribution to public finances or has arrived in Britain recently. Some people receiving Universal Credit are in work but have low earnings, while pension and disability payments serve different purposes from unemployment support.
The figures also combine several distinct categories of expenditure. A State Pension payment, disability benefit and child-related support are not interchangeable, and each operates under its own eligibility requirements.
The political argument is therefore about more than a single spending total. It concerns which groups should qualify for which payments, what contribution should be expected and how the Government should balance fiscal pressures against existing legal obligations.
Universal Credit claims under scrutiny
One of the most prominent elements of the report concerns Universal Credit.
The CSJ says the number of foreign nationals receiving Universal Credit has risen by 38% since April 2022, reaching approximately 1.3 million. Its analysis identifies around 745,000 people covered by the EU Settlement Scheme and 537,000 migrants from outside the European Economic Area.
Those figures have intensified calls for a closer examination of eligibility rules and the circumstances in which people can access means-tested support.
Universal Credit is designed to help eligible people with living costs. It can support unemployed claimants as well as people who work but earn too little to cover their essential expenses. Entitlement depends on factors including income, savings, household circumstances and immigration status.
Consequently, the number of foreign nationals receiving Universal Credit cannot be treated as a direct measure of unemployment among migrants. Some recipients may be working and paying income tax or National Insurance, while others may be looking for employment, caring for family members or facing circumstances that prevent them from working.
The Government has emphasised this distinction, stating that only people with an eligible immigration status can claim taxpayer-funded benefits. It has also pointed out that around half of Universal Credit claimants overall are in work.
Robert Jenrick: ‘If I went to live in Japan or India, I wouldn’t expect benefits’ (Image: Andy Rain/EPA/Shutterstock)
That does not settle the question of whether the current eligibility framework is appropriate. It does, however, show why the figures need to be broken down by employment status, immigration route, duration of residence and type of support before firm conclusions can be drawn.
For policymakers, a more detailed picture would help establish whether the growth in claims reflects changes in migration, the cost of living, labour-market conditions, the rules governing access to support or a combination of these factors.
Disability and sickness benefits add another dimension
The CSJ estimates that around 200,000 foreign nationals receive disability benefits, including Personal Independence Payment (PIP) and Disability Living Allowance. It also estimates that another 200,000 receive sickness-related benefits.
These payments serve a different purpose from conventional unemployment support. Disability benefits can help eligible people meet additional costs associated with a disability or long-term health condition, while sickness-related support may be available to people whose health affects their ability to work.
The figures therefore raise a more complex policy question than whether migrants should receive financial assistance while unemployed.
Any proposed restrictions would need to distinguish between people who are capable of working but not currently employed and those whose health or disability creates additional needs. They would also need to account for the specific conditions attached to each immigration status and benefit.
Supporters of tighter eligibility rules argue that the Government should review whether access to public funds is sufficiently linked to residence, contribution and immigration conditions. Critics of blanket restrictions would point to the risk of excluding people who have lawful status, have contributed through employment or have become unable to work through circumstances beyond their control.
The practical effects of any changes would depend on their design. A rule that changes eligibility for one category of benefit may have different consequences from a restriction covering all forms of support, including disability assistance and child-related payments.
The CSJ’s estimates have put these questions firmly back on the political agenda, but the spending totals alone do not establish which policy changes would be effective, fair or legally workable.
Government rejects the figures and questions the methodology
The Government has pushed back against the CSJ’s estimates, saying it does not recognise the figures and questioning whether the data used can reliably support the conclusions.
A spokesperson argued that the analysis appeared to rely on small-sample survey data and a combination of official sources that were not originally designed to calculate the total expenditure associated with foreign nationals claiming benefits.
That objection goes to the heart of the dispute. A report can draw on official statistics and still produce estimates that depend on assumptions about the population being measured, the categories included and the way spending is attributed.
The Government has also highlighted its claim that net migration has fallen by 82% from its 2023 peak. It says it has proposed changes that would extend the standard qualifying period for settlement to ten years for most migrants, while retaining shorter routes for those who make a greater contribution. <Cite refs={[“turn578731news22”]}/>
The competing positions underline the need for greater clarity over the figures. Before the £23 billion estimate can be treated as a definitive measure of the public cost, it is important to establish how the researchers identified claimants, whether the different benefit categories overlap and how the spending estimates were calculated.
A person may receive more than one form of support, while a household may include people with different nationalities and eligibility statuses. Counting individual claimants and assigning expenditure to them therefore requires careful methodology.
The Government’s criticism does not automatically invalidate the CSJ’s analysis, just as the think tank’s findings do not settle the debate. Independent scrutiny of the underlying calculations would help determine how robust the estimates are and which conclusions can reasonably be drawn from them.
Conservatives and Reform demand tighter restrictions
The report has attracted support from politicians who want to restrict access to benefits for foreign nationals.
Robert Jenrick, identified in the supplied report as Reform UK’s choice for Chancellor in a future government, argued that migrants should not automatically expect access to taxpayer-funded support. He said the party would end benefits for migrants and use the resulting savings to help fund a higher tax-free personal allowance of £15,000.
The Conservatives have also called for tighter restrictions. Shadow Work and Pensions Secretary Helen Whately said her party would end access to benefits for foreign nationals, claiming that the policy could save £9.5 billion annually. Shadow Home Secretary Chris Philp argued that immigration and welfare policy should be considered together because population changes can affect public services and government spending.
Those proposals would represent a substantial change in policy, and their practical implications would depend on precisely who was covered, which benefits were restricted and how existing legal rights were treated. Any projected savings would also need to account for implementation costs, possible changes in employment and the circumstances of people who currently qualify for support.
The distinction between foreign nationals and recent migrants is particularly important. Foreign nationals include people who have lived in Britain for many years, people who have worked and paid taxes here, and people who qualify for benefits under specific immigration arrangements. The category does not describe one uniform group.
A policy aimed at recent arrivals could have very different effects from a blanket restriction covering all non-British nationals, including people who have made long-term contributions to the UK economy.
State Pension eligibility is a separate issue
The inclusion of State Pension payments in the headline total also deserves attention.
The State Pension is generally based on an individual’s National Insurance record and qualifying years, rather than British citizenship alone. A person who has worked and built up the necessary qualifying record may be entitled to a UK State Pension even if they are not a British national. Separate rules can affect whether payments are uprated when a pensioner lives overseas. <Cite refs={[“turn578731search3″,”turn578731search9”]}/>
That means the estimated £2.9 billion in pension-related payments should not automatically be interpreted as welfare being paid to people who have made no contribution. Some recipients may have spent decades working in Britain and paying into the system.
Pension Credit, meanwhile, is a means-tested benefit with its own eligibility conditions. Combining it with the State Pension in a broad political argument about immigration risks obscuring the differences between contributory entitlements and assistance based on financial need.
A meaningful assessment would therefore separate pension payments from working-age benefits and distinguish between claimants according to their eligibility and circumstances.
A debate that will not disappear
The CSJ’s estimate of 1.85 million foreign nationals receiving benefits or the State Pension has placed pressure on ministers to explain how welfare eligibility works and how public expenditure is monitored.
For critics of current policy, the central concern is whether the system places sufficient emphasis on contribution, employment and the sustainability of public finances. For the Government, the challenge is to defend lawful access to support while demonstrating that its figures and policies are based on reliable evidence.
The projected increase to more than two million recipients by 2030 remains an estimate, not a guaranteed outcome. Actual numbers and spending will depend on migration patterns, employment, demographic change, benefit rules and wider economic conditions.
Ultimately, the debate requires more than a headline spending figure. It requires transparent calculations, a clear distinction between different forms of support and a careful assessment of the rights and responsibilities attached to each immigration status.
The Government now faces pressure to explain how it evaluates the fiscal impact of migration and whether its proposed settlement reforms will change access to public funds. At the same time, the CSJ’s methodology needs to withstand scrutiny if its estimates are to form a reliable basis for policy.
With welfare spending, immigration and taxation all under political pressure, the question of who qualifies for public support—and on what terms—is likely to remain a major issue in the months ahead.