People from overseas are at the heart of the UK workforce (Image: In Pictures via Getty)
Just one in five jobs added to payrolls between 2014 and the end of last year went to British nationals, according to a major new report that warns of Britons being “written off” by the welfare system. An analysis by the Centre for Social Justice (CSJ) found British nationals accounted for only 734,000 of the 3.7million additional payroll jobs created during this period. EU nationals held 408,000 of the positions. The number held by non-EU nationals went up by about 2.5million.
The CSJ warns that annual spending on working-age benefits has increased by £50billion in real terms since 2019-20. The think tank argues “successive governments have relied on low-skill migration to fill jobs”. It claims that between January 2020 and December 2025, the number of payroll jobs held by British nationals fell in nine of the UK’s 12 nations and regions, but those held by non-EU nationals “increased in every one”.
Researchers found Scotland had the largest fall in “British national” payroll jobs, with a fall of 53,000. This compares with falls of 32,000 in the West Midlands, 31,700 in the South-east, 29,400 in the East of England, and 26,500 in London.
Get the latest politics news – straight from our team in Westminster and more
Invalid email
You agree you are 18 or over. We use your sign-up to provide content in ways you’ve consented to and to improve our understanding of you. This may include adverts from us and third parties based on our knowledge of you. You can unsubscribe at any time. More Info.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith founded the Centre for Social Justice (Image: Getty)
The CSJ says the growth since 2020 “has been concentrated in sectors such as social care, hospitality and retail”. Health and social work “accounted for 29% of the increase in non-EU nationals on payrolls”. This was followed by roles in administrative and support services (16%), accommodation and food services (12%) and wholesale and retail (10%).
The think tank alleges the way migration is treated in official economic forecasts “encourages governments to prioritise increases in the size of the economy over improvements in living standards”. It points to how total GDP went up by 26% in real terms between 2006 and 2025 but “GDP per person grew by only 10%”.
Because Government decisions are based on forecasts for the following five, the CSJ claims, positive effects such as an “immediate increase in workers and tax receipts” are picked up but not “longer-term costs that emerge as migrants become eligible for welfare and grow older”.
The report claims Britain has imported workers “to expand headline GDP while allowing millions of people already here to drift away from the labour market”. It states that “employers have gained unprecedented access to overseas labour while taxpayers have absorbed the growing cost of domestic worklessness”.
Former Conservative work and pensions secretary Sir Iain Duncan Smith said: “The report shows that this crisis extends beyond the benefit system. The truth is that successive governments have used welfare over decades to compensate parts of the country for economic failure rather than creating the conditions for prosperity. Compounding this, ministers have repeatedly pulled the easy lever of immigration rather than providing a better deal for left-behind communities.”
The CSJ claims that about “6.7million people across England, Wales and Scotland now receive at least one out-of-work benefit” – equivalent to around one in six working-age adults.
Get the latest politics news straight to your phone Join us on WhatsApp
Our community members are treated to special offers, promotions, and adverts from us and our partners. You can check out at any time. Read our Privacy Policy
Reform UK deputy leader Richard Tice said: “This report is a damning indictment of how Labour and Conservative governments have chosen an open-borders, low-wage economic model that writes off millions of our own people. Reform UK will end the welfare trap, halt mass immigration and get British workers back into jobs.”
Shadow Cabinet Office minister Mike Wood said: “Labour have sent unemployment up and up with their tax raids on businesses and endless red tape. And their failure to secure our borders means more and more low-skilled migrants are arriving.
“This combination means people are fighting harder and harder to get jobs. And Labour are making it worse by failing to offer good opportunities for young people to build good careers, preferring instead to let them walk into a life on welfare.”
A government spokesperson said: “The vast majority of this country’s workforce is made up of UK nationals, and we have introduced a number of changes including a new skills-based migration system to put British workers first and welcome the high-skilled talent that our economy needs. We are also reforming the welfare system by creating almost a million work opportunities for young people through our Youth Guarantee, while investing £3.5billion to help disabled people and those with long-term health conditions move closer to the labour market.”
Foreigners Take 80% of All New UK Jobs – Britons “Written Off”
A fresh report on Britain’s changing workforce has reignited the debate over immigration, employment and the future of the welfare system. According to research from the Centre for Social Justice (CSJ), foreign nationals accounted for roughly four-fifths of the net increase in UK payroll employment between 2014 and the end of 2025.
The findings have prompted concerns about whether successive governments have done enough to help British residents gain the skills, qualifications and opportunities needed to enter work. The CSJ, led by former Conservative cabinet minister Sir Iain Duncan Smith, argues that employers have increasingly relied on overseas labour while too many people in Britain remain outside employment.
The phrase “Britons written off” has become a particularly striking part of the debate. It reflects the think tank’s criticism of a system it believes has failed to connect people receiving benefits with available jobs.
But the numbers raise a broader set of questions. Why has the composition of Britain’s workforce changed so substantially? What responsibilities should employers and government have? And how can the country reduce economic inactivity without overlooking the contribution made by migrant workers?
What the Figures Actually Show
The CSJ report, titled State of Dependency, examines changes in employment recorded through HM Revenue and Customs’ Pay As You Earn system.
Its headline figures suggest that non-EU nationals accounted for approximately 2.5 million of the 3.7 million net additional payroll employments recorded over the period. EU nationals accounted for around 408,000, while British nationals accounted for 734,000.
These figures indicate that the number of payroll employments held by non-UK nationals grew considerably faster than the number held by British nationals during the period examined. Official HMRC statistics also show that the share of payroll employments held by British nationals fell from 88% in July 2014 to 80% in December 2025, while the non-EU share rose from 6% to 13%. <Cite refs={[“turn103720search5”]}/>
However, the distinction between net employment growth and individual recruitment decisions is essential. The figures do not identify particular vacancies and show that a foreign national was hired instead of a British applicant. They record changes in the number of payroll employments associated with different nationality groups.
The totals can be affected by many factors, including population changes, retirement, people entering or leaving employment, changes in the composition of industries and differences in the availability of workers with particular skills.
That does not make the trend irrelevant. It does mean that the headline percentage needs to be interpreted carefully before drawing conclusions about why it occurred or what it means for British workers.
Why Employers Have Turned to Overseas Workers
Employers recruit internationally for a variety of reasons. Some industries face persistent shortages, while others require qualifications or experience that are difficult to find locally. Changes in migration policy have also influenced where businesses can recruit workers.
The post-Brexit immigration system altered the pattern of labour migration. EU workers no longer enjoy the same general freedom to move to Britain for work that they had before Brexit, while work migration from outside the EU became increasingly important.
The University of Oxford’s Migration Observatory reported in October 2026 that non-EU citizens have become the principal source of work-related migration under the post-Brexit system. It also noted that work visa grants rose sharply between 2021 and 2023 before falling back towards pre-Brexit levels in the year ending June 2026, following policy changes. <Cite refs={[“turn103720search6”]}/>
Health and social care provide an important example. The sector has relied on international recruitment to fill many positions, including roles that require specific training and professional qualifications. The Migration Observatory identifies health and social care as accounting for around a quarter of Skilled Worker visa grants in the year ending June 2026.
Other industries, including hospitality, retail and administrative services, have also employed substantial numbers of migrant workers.
Businesses may argue that international recruitment allows them to keep services operating, fill vacancies and respond to demand. Yet critics say an excessive reliance on overseas labour can reduce the incentive to invest in domestic training, improve wages or make jobs more attractive to local applicants.
The challenge for policymakers is to determine where genuine shortages exist and where better pay, working conditions, training or recruitment practices could help more people already living in Britain enter employment.
Millions Outside Work: The Other Side of the Debate
The CSJ report also raises concerns about the growth in the number of people receiving working-age benefits and the associated public expenditure.
Its argument is that Britain has allowed two trends to develop simultaneously: employers have recruited increasing numbers of workers from overseas, while many working-age people remain outside the labour market.
This has become an important policy question because economic inactivity can have consequences for individuals, businesses and the public finances. People who want to work but cannot find suitable employment may lose income, confidence and opportunities to develop skills. Long periods outside the labour market can also make returning to work more difficult.
However, the reasons people remain out of work are varied. Some are unemployed and actively seeking a position. Others are unable to work because of disability or long-term illness, have caring responsibilities, or face barriers involving transport, childcare, qualifications or the availability of suitable vacancies.
These groups should not be treated as though they face identical circumstances.
An effective employment strategy would need to distinguish between people who can move into work with additional support, those who require retraining and those who need appropriate health or disability assistance. It would also need to examine whether jobs are available in the locations where people live and whether wages are sufficient to make employment financially worthwhile.
Simply comparing the increase in migrant employment with the number of people receiving benefits cannot, by itself, establish that one group caused the difficulties experienced by the other.
What Could the Government Do?
The report adds to pressure on ministers to explain how Britain can develop a workforce that is less dependent on recruitment from overseas where domestic workers could fill the gaps.
One possible response is a stronger emphasis on vocational education and apprenticeships. Training programmes could be developed in partnership with employers so that people gain qualifications relevant to actual vacancies rather than skills that are difficult to use in the local labour market.
A second priority would be improving employment support. Jobseekers may need practical help with applications, interview preparation, transport costs or childcare. People returning after illness may require flexible hours or phased returns to work.
Employers also have a role to play. If businesses repeatedly struggle to recruit locally, the reasons should be examined. Some vacancies may require specialist expertise, while others may offer pay or conditions that make it difficult to attract and retain staff.
Improving wages, training and career progression could help make these jobs more appealing. But such changes may increase costs for employers, particularly in sectors operating on tight margins. Any strategy would therefore need to consider productivity, affordability and the long-term benefits of developing a more skilled workforce.
Immigration policy is another part of the picture. Governments can adjust visa requirements and occupation-specific rules, but restrictions alone cannot train domestic workers or immediately fill every vacancy. A credible plan would need to align migration policy with education, skills development and realistic workforce projections.
The Political Consequences
The findings are likely to fuel arguments between parties over immigration, welfare spending and economic policy.
Politicians who favour tighter migration controls may point to the figures as evidence that Britain should place greater emphasis on training and employing its existing workforce. Others will stress that migrants also contribute through their work, taxes, spending and the services they provide.
Neither perspective eliminates the need to examine the underlying evidence. The key questions include whether employers are experiencing genuine shortages, whether British residents have access to suitable training and whether changes to immigration rules would improve employment outcomes without damaging essential services.
The government will also face questions about how it measures success. Lower migration figures would not necessarily mean more British people were employed, just as an increase in migrant employment does not automatically mean British workers have lost opportunities.
A stronger assessment would examine employment rates, wages, vacancies, training participation, economic inactivity and the reasons people leave or enter work. It would also look at differences between regions and industries rather than treating the entire UK labour market as one uniform system.
A Debate That Requires More Than a Headline
The CSJ’s report has brought an important issue into public discussion: whether Britain is making full use of the people already available to work and whether its labour market and welfare policies are helping them find sustainable employment.
The headline that foreigners account for 80% of new UK jobs captures one striking feature of the data, but it does not tell the whole story. The figures describe changes in payroll employment, not a direct record of foreign workers replacing British applicants.
The wider challenge is to build an economy in which businesses can recruit the skills they need while people already living in Britain have realistic opportunities to train, find work and progress.
That will require reliable data, better coordination between employers and training providers, effective employment support and a migration system that responds to the country’s genuine needs.
Ultimately, the debate should focus on whether government policy is delivering a productive, inclusive labour market. If people who want to work are being left behind, their circumstances deserve serious attention. If employers depend on overseas recruitment, the reasons also deserve scrutiny.
The most useful outcome would be a strategy that addresses both challenges together: helping more British residents into good jobs while recognising the contribution of workers who have come from abroad. The statistics provide a starting point for that discussion, but understanding the causes—and identifying policies that can make a measurable difference—will require considerably more than the headline figure alone.