Foreigners take 80% of all new UK jobs – Britons ‘written off’
Britons are being warned that they risk being left behind in the jobs market after a major report found that British nationals accounted for just one in five additional payroll jobs created in the UK between 2014 and the end of 2025. The findings have reignited debate over immigration, welfare spending and whether successive governments have done enough to help people already living in Britain find secure, well-paid employment.
An analysis by the Centre for Social Justice (CSJ) found that British nationals accounted for 734,000 of the 3.7 million additional payroll jobs recorded over the period. EU nationals held a further 408,000 positions, while the number of payroll jobs held by non-EU nationals rose by approximately 2.5 million.
The figures have prompted renewed calls to reconsider Britain’s approach to migration and address the number of working-age people who remain outside employment. Critics argue that employers have increasingly relied on overseas recruitment instead of investing sufficiently in domestic training, wages and progression opportunities.
However, the report also raises a broader question: why has the growth in employment not translated into stronger living standards and better opportunities for more people across the country?
Report raises concerns over Britain’s jobs market
The CSJ, founded by former Conservative Cabinet minister Sir Iain Duncan Smith, argues that the figures point to a long-running weakness in the British labour market. According to the think tank, successive governments have relied on migration to fill vacancies, particularly in sectors where employers face persistent recruitment difficulties.
People from overseas are at the heart of the UK workforce (Image: In Pictures via Getty)
Its analysis suggests that the number of payroll jobs held by British nationals fell in nine of the UK’s 12 nations and regions between January 2020 and December 2025. Over the same period, payroll employment among non-EU nationals increased in every region.
Scotland recorded the largest reported decline in jobs held by British nationals, with a fall of 53,000. The West Midlands saw a decrease of 32,000, while the South East recorded a fall of 31,700. The East of England experienced a reduction of 29,400, and London saw a decline of 26,500.
These figures are likely to intensify scrutiny of regional employment policy, particularly in communities where residents have faced years of industrial decline, limited access to training and fewer routes into stable careers.
Nevertheless, the distinction between a fall in payroll jobs held by British nationals and a direct loss of jobs to foreign workers is important. The figures describe changes in employment by nationality; on their own, they do not establish that overseas recruitment caused British nationals to lose positions. Demographic changes, retirement, economic restructuring, the creation and closure of businesses, and shifts between employment and self-employment can all affect the totals.
The report’s central concern is therefore not simply the nationality of people filling vacancies, but whether the UK is making sufficient use of the skills and potential of its existing workforce.
Welfare spending adds to political pressure
The CSJ has also highlighted a substantial rise in spending on working-age benefits. It estimates that annual expenditure has increased by £50 billion in real terms since the 2019-20 financial year.
The think tank claims that around 6.7 million people across England, Wales and Scotland receive at least one out-of-work benefit, equivalent to approximately one in six working-age adults. The figure has become a focal point in arguments about economic inactivity, the cost of social security and the government’s responsibility to help more people enter employment.
But the total needs to be interpreted carefully. Receiving an out-of-work benefit does not necessarily mean that someone is able to work immediately or has no prospect of returning to employment. People may be dealing with disability, long-term illness, caring responsibilities or other barriers that require tailored support. Benefit categories also differ in their eligibility rules and purposes.
Even so, the scale of the figures raises questions about whether existing employment services are reaching those who need them and whether support is effective enough to help people move into sustainable jobs.
For the CSJ, the problem is connected to the UK’s economic model. It argues that governments have too often relied on expanding the workforce through migration while failing to tackle the underlying reasons why some domestic workers remain unemployed or economically inactive.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith said the crisis extended beyond the benefit system, arguing that welfare had been used for decades to compensate parts of the country for economic failure rather than create the conditions for prosperity. He also criticised ministers for repeatedly turning to immigration instead of improving prospects in communities that feel left behind.
His comments place the debate firmly within a wider political argument about productivity, regional inequality and the long-term consequences of decisions made by successive Conservative and Labour administrations.
Hospitality and social care at the centre of the debate
Sir Iain Duncan Smith founded the Centre for Social Justice (Image: Getty)
The report identifies several sectors where the increase in non-EU payroll employment has been concentrated.
Health and social work accounted for 29% of the increase, according to the CSJ. Administrative and support services represented 16%, accommodation and food services accounted for 12%, and wholesale and retail contributed 10%.
These sectors are central to everyday life in Britain, but many employers have struggled with recruitment and retention. Social care providers need staff to support an ageing population and people with complex needs. Hospitality businesses require workers to cover shifts, while retailers and support-service companies depend on a workforce able to meet changing customer demand.
Employers have frequently argued that overseas recruitment helps them fill vacancies that are difficult to cover through domestic hiring alone. They may point to staff shortages, demanding working conditions, pay constraints and the difficulty of retaining workers in roles with limited opportunities for advancement.
The CSJ’s criticism is that easy access to overseas labour can reduce the pressure on employers and policymakers to address those problems. If businesses can fill vacancies through recruitment abroad, the incentive to increase wages, improve conditions or invest in training domestic workers may be weaker in some circumstances.
That argument, however, is not equally applicable to every employer or sector. Recruiting from overseas does not automatically mean that a business has neglected British applicants, and foreign-born workers themselves contribute skills, taxes and essential services. The relevant question is whether recruitment practices, wages and training arrangements create a labour market in which people already living in the UK have a fair opportunity to compete and progress.
The challenge for policymakers is to address shortages without treating workers of different nationalities as opponents. A sustainable strategy would need to consider the quality of jobs, the availability of training, the cost of living and the conditions that make employment attractive over the long term.
GDP growth does not always mean higher living standards
Another major criticism in the CSJ report concerns the way economic success is measured. The think tank argues that governments have placed too much emphasis on expanding the overall size of the economy without giving enough attention to whether ordinary people are becoming better off.
According to the report, UK GDP increased by 26% in real terms between 2006 and 2025, while GDP per person grew by only 10%. The figures illustrate the distinction between an economy producing more in total and the average person experiencing a comparable improvement in prosperity. <Cite refs={[“turn508008search0”]}/>
Population growth can contribute to a larger economy because more people are working, spending and paying taxes. But the impact on individual living standards depends on several other factors, including productivity, housing availability, public-service capacity, wages and the distribution of economic gains.
The CSJ argues that the benefits of migration are often more immediately visible in official economic forecasts than some of the longer-term pressures associated with population growth. It says governments may place considerable weight on additional workers and tax receipts while paying insufficient attention to future demands on welfare and public services.
That is a contested interpretation rather than proof that migration necessarily weakens living standards. Migrants who work and pay taxes can make significant contributions to public finances, and their spending also supports businesses and employment. The fiscal impact varies according to factors such as earnings, employment, age and eligibility for public services.
The wider question is whether successive governments have invested sufficiently in the infrastructure, skills and productivity improvements needed to ensure that economic growth benefits people across the country.
For voters struggling with housing costs, insecure work or stagnant living standards, headline GDP figures may offer little reassurance if their own financial circumstances have not improved.
Government defends its approach
The Government has rejected the suggestion that its approach simply favours overseas workers over British nationals.
A spokesperson said the vast majority of the UK workforce is made up of UK nationals and pointed to changes intended to create a more skills-based migration system. Ministers have argued that Britain should continue to welcome the highly skilled workers its economy needs while improving opportunities for people already living in the country.
The Government also highlighted its Youth Guarantee, which it says will create almost one million work opportunities for young people, alongside a £3.5 billion investment aimed at helping disabled people and those with long-term health conditions move closer to the labour market.
These commitments address two distinct challenges: ensuring employers can recruit the skills they need and helping people who are unemployed or economically inactive access work.
The effectiveness of those measures will depend on whether they translate into lasting jobs, appropriate training and meaningful support for people facing barriers to employment. Announced opportunities alone do not establish how many people will secure work or remain employed over the longer term.
Official payroll statistics also provide important context. HM Revenue and Customs data show that UK nationals accounted for around 80% of payrolled employment in December 2025, compared with 88% in July 2014. The proportion held by non-EU nationals rose from 6% to 13% over the same period. <Cite refs={[“turn508008search3”]}/>
The figures demonstrate a significant change in the composition of the workforce, but they need to be understood alongside the methodology used to produce them. The data identify nationality as recorded when a person registered for a National Insurance number, meaning some people subsequently granted British citizenship may still appear in the non-UK-national figures. They also count payroll employments rather than every form of work, excluding self-employment. <Cite refs={[“turn508008search3”]}/>
Those qualifications do not erase the trend identified by the CSJ, but they underline why the numbers should not be treated as a straightforward measure of jobs taken from British workers.
Reform UK calls for a change in direction
The report has nevertheless provided fresh ammunition for politicians demanding tighter immigration controls and a different approach to welfare.
Reform UK deputy leader Richard Tice argued that Labour and Conservative governments had maintained an “open-borders, low-wage economic model” that had left millions of British people without adequate opportunities.
He said Reform UK would seek to end what it describes as the welfare trap, reduce mass immigration and bring more British workers back into employment.
The party’s argument is that restricting employers’ access to overseas labour would increase pressure to recruit domestically, improve training and offer more attractive employment conditions. Whether that would produce the intended results across all sectors would depend on the details of any restrictions and how employers responded.
Some businesses could increase pay or invest more in training. Others might reduce their operations, raise prices or struggle to provide services if suitable workers could not be recruited. Social care, in particular, faces staffing needs that cannot necessarily be resolved quickly through domestic recruitment alone.
The Conservative opposition has also criticised Labour’s economic and employment policies. Shadow Cabinet Office minister Mike Wood blamed business taxes and regulation for contributing to rising unemployment, while arguing that the Government had failed to secure the UK’s borders and provide sufficient career opportunities for young people.
Ministers would need to demonstrate that their policies can improve employment prospects while maintaining the workforce required by essential industries.
What happens next?
The political challenge is to turn the report’s findings into practical policies that improve employment outcomes without oversimplifying the relationship between immigration and unemployment.
A credible response would require closer scrutiny of regional job losses, stronger vocational training, better routes into apprenticeships and measures to help people who have been outside the labour market for extended periods. It would also require employers to examine whether wages, working conditions and career progression are sufficient to attract and retain domestic applicants.
For young people, the availability of genuine entry-level opportunities will be particularly important. For people with disabilities or long-term health conditions, employment support may need to include flexible working arrangements, workplace adjustments and specialist assistance rather than a single approach applied to everyone.
Immigration policy will remain part of the debate, especially where employers rely heavily on overseas recruitment. But reducing migration alone would not automatically resolve skills shortages, economic inactivity or regional inequality. Those problems also reflect decisions about investment, education, industrial development and the quality of available work.
The CSJ’s findings have placed a striking statistic at the centre of the argument: just one in five additional payroll jobs recorded since 2014 went to British nationals. The figure raises legitimate questions about how the UK has developed its workforce and whether domestic employment opportunities have received enough attention.
It does not, by itself, establish that foreign workers caused British unemployment or that every additional job held by a non-UK national could otherwise have gone to a British applicant.
Ultimately, the test for the Government will be whether more people who want to work can find secure employment, build careers and improve their living standards. Until ministers can demonstrate progress on those measures, arguments over immigration, welfare spending and the future of the British jobs market are likely to remain at the heart of the political debate.