Nearly two million foreign nationals received benefits or the state pension last year at an estimated cost of £23billion, according to a new analysis calling for urgent reform to welfare and immigration. The Centre for Social Justice (CSJ) found approximately 1.85million non-British adults received at least one form of welfare support or the state pension in 2025. It warns this number is expected to top two million by 2030, with the total bill edging towards £27billion.

The Government says it does not “recognise” the figures and has cast doubt on the findings. But the influential think tank claims about 1.4million foreign nationals receive working-age benefits at a cost of approximately £14.3billion. This is alongside £2.9billion in pension-related payments and £5.8billion in benefits linked to children.

It states: “The number of foreign nationals on Universal Credit has increased by 38% since April 2022 alone, to 1.3million, including 745,000 covered by the EU settlement scheme and 537,000 migrants from outside the European Economic Area.”

The CSJ reports that “around 200,000 foreign nationals now receive disability benefits such as the Personal Independence Payment and the Disability Living Allowance”, with another 200,000 receiving sickness benefits. It estimates 400,000 foreign nationals receive the state pension, with around 76,000 getting Pension Credit.

Former Conservative leader Sir Iain Duncan Smith, who founded the CSJ, said: “Britain’s immigration and welfare systems were founded on the expectation that those arriving here should be able to support themselves and their families. But at a time when families and businesses are being clobbered with yet more taxes, many will be deeply concerned at the extent to which governments have let unconstrained immigration drive up the welfare bill.

“We must urgently now restore contribution and reciprocity to the welfare system while helping the millions of Brits on out-of-work benefits back towards a better future for themselves and their families. We have done this before, we can do it again.”

The CSJ has also claimed that since January 2020, “non-EU nationals accounted for 2.1million new payroll jobs, while payrolled jobs going to British nationals fell by 186,000”. It says the “out-of-work benefit caseload rose by 2.3million over the same period”. The think tank further warns that the “total working-age benefit bill is set to reach £136.1billion in 2026-27”.

Robert Jenrick – Nigel Farage’s choice to serve as chancellor in a Reform UK government – said: “This is an outrageous waste of taxpayers’ money. If I went to live in Japan or India, I wouldn’t expect benefits – and nor should migrants coming to the UK.

“How on earth can Andy Burnham justify this spending when he’s planning on putting up taxes even higher at the Budget? Reform will end all benefits for migrants so we can afford to raise the tax-free personal allowance to £15,000.”

A government spokesperson said: “We do not recognise these figures, which appear to be based on small-sample survey data, which is not robust enough to produce reliable estimates. Under this Government, net migration is down by 82% from its 2023 peak, and only people with eligible immigration status can claim taxpayer-funded benefits, of which around half of those claiming Universal Credit are in work.

“We have also set out proposals which will double the standard qualifying period to 10 years for most migrants, with shorter routes for those who contribute most to the UK.”

The Goverment argues the data sources used by the CSJ should be “treated with caution” due to small sample sizing. It claims the research draws on a mix of official data sources which were “not intended for this purpose”.

Shadow Work and Pensions Secretary Helen Whately said: “The welfare bill has spiralled out of control, with millions of people trapped on out-of-work benefits and taxpayers footing an ever-growing bill. This report exposes the scale of the problem facing Britain’s welfare system and the urgent need to restore fairness and contribution. The Conservatives will end access to benefits for foreign nationals, saving £9.5billion a year. Our welfare system should be there as a safety net for British citizens who have paid in, not a pull-factor for foreign nationals.”

Shadow Home Secretary Chris Philp added: “When immigration rises without proper control, the pressure on public services and the welfare system grows, and it is working people who are left to pick up the tab. Immigration and welfare policy cannot be treated in isolation.

“Britain must have a system that rewards contribution, not one that leaves taxpayers paying the price for Labour’s failure to control our borders.”

Nearly Two Million Foreign Nationals ‘Receiving Benefits or State Pension’ – £23 Billion Welfare Bill Sparks Debate

Nearly two million non-British adults in the United Kingdom received at least one form of benefit, pension or child-related financial support during 2025, according to a new analysis by the Centre for Social Justice (CSJ). The think tank estimates that the associated public spending reached approximately £23 billion, raising fresh questions about immigration, welfare eligibility and the long-term cost of supporting households across Britain.

The figures have prompted renewed political debate over whether the benefits system strikes the right balance between providing support to people who qualify and ensuring that public money is spent fairly. Critics argue that immigration and welfare policies must be considered together, particularly when the country faces pressure on public services and household budgets.

However, the figures also require careful interpretation. The estimate is not an official count of people who arrived recently, nor does it mean that nearly two million people are claiming benefits unlawfully. The Government has challenged the research methodology, while official statistics do not record nationality consistently across all benefit programmes.

The debate therefore involves two related but distinct questions: how much public support is being provided to non-British citizens, and whether the existing rules governing access to that support are appropriate.

What Does the New Research Claim?

The Centre for Social Justice estimates that approximately 1.85 million non-British adults received at least one form of welfare support or the State Pension during 2025. Its analysis puts the associated spending on benefits, pensions and child support at around £23 billion, potentially rising to nearly £27 billion by 2030. <Cite refs={[“turn587003news22″,”turn587003search9”]}/>

The report has attracted attention because of the scale of the estimated expenditure and the projected increase over the coming years.

According to the analysis, approximately 1.4 million foreign nationals receive working-age benefits, with estimated spending of around £14.3 billion. The research also highlights an increase in the number of non-British nationals receiving Universal Credit.

The figures have been cited by politicians arguing that Britain needs a clearer relationship between immigration policy, employment and entitlement to publicly funded support.

Former Conservative Work and Pensions Secretary Sir Iain Duncan Smith said people arriving in Britain should generally be expected to support themselves and their families. He argued that welfare rules should place greater emphasis on contribution and reciprocity. <Cite refs={[“turn604141view0”]}/>

These are political arguments about how the system should operate, rather than proof that the people included in the research have broken any rules.

The distinction is important. A person can be a foreign national, have a lawful right to live in Britain, work and pay taxes, and qualify for benefits under the same or different rules that apply to other residents. Nationality alone does not establish whether an individual is eligible for a particular payment.

Why the £23 Billion Figure Has Become Controversial

The estimated cost has become a focal point because the Government faces competing spending priorities, including the NHS, social care, housing, transport and defence.

For taxpayers, the central question is whether public expenditure delivers the intended support while remaining financially sustainable. Any government must decide how much assistance should be available, who should qualify and how eligibility should be verified.

The CSJ’s estimate has been presented by critics of current policy as evidence that immigration and welfare decisions cannot be treated as entirely separate issues.

Yet the headline total should not be interpreted as a direct measure of the cost of recent immigration. The group included in the analysis may contain people who have lived in Britain for many years, worked and paid National Insurance contributions, raised families or reached State Pension age after a long working life.

Furthermore, an estimated total covering different benefits and pensions is not necessarily equivalent to the amount that could be saved by changing eligibility rules. Any potential savings would depend on the specific policy changes, the number of people affected and how the changes were implemented.

The Government has also disputed the CSJ’s figures, saying that it does not recognise the estimates because they rely on a small-sample survey. It pointed to lower net migration compared with its 2023 peak and said that only people with eligible immigration status can claim taxpayer-funded benefits. <Cite refs={[“turn604141view0”]}/>

Consequently, the £23 billion estimate should be understood as a figure produced by the think tank’s analysis, not as a comprehensive official total accepted by the Government.

Receiving Benefits Does Not Automatically Mean Breaking the Rules

One of the most important issues in the debate is the distinction between lawful benefit claims and illegal access to public funds.

Many people who come to Britain on work or study visas are subject to a condition known as “no recourse to public funds”. This generally restricts access to specified benefits, although the rules depend on immigration status and individual circumstances.

However, not every non-British citizen is subject to that restriction. Some have settled status, indefinite leave to remain, refugee status or other immigration arrangements that may permit access to particular benefits.

Eligibility also varies by benefit. A person who qualifies for one payment will not automatically qualify for every other form of support.

The Government says its rules are designed to ensure that public funds are available only to people who meet the relevant requirements. The policy debate concerns whether those rules are sufficiently strict, how consistently they are enforced and whether the public can obtain clear information about their effects.

If a claim is made fraudulently or a person receives money to which they are not entitled, authorities can investigate and take action under the applicable rules. But a person’s nationality, by itself, is not evidence of fraud.

A credible assessment of welfare expenditure must distinguish between legitimate claims, incorrect payments, fraud and cases where eligibility has changed over time.

The State Pension Is Different From Means-Tested Benefits

The inclusion of State Pension recipients in the headline has generated particular discussion because the State Pension operates differently from many working-age benefits.

The State Pension is primarily based on an individual’s National Insurance record. British citizenship is not, by itself, the test of entitlement.

A non-British citizen who has lived and worked in the UK and built up the required National Insurance record may qualify for a UK State Pension. Depending on the rules and the person’s circumstances, payment may also be made to eligible recipients who subsequently live overseas.

This means that counting foreign nationals who receive the State Pension does not necessarily reveal the cost of supporting recent arrivals who have made little or no contribution to the UK system.

In a written parliamentary answer on February 3, 2026, the Department for Work and Pensions stated that it does not record recipients’ nationality as part of the State Pension claims process. As a result, the department could not provide the requested official breakdown of State Pension recipients by nationality for the specified financial years. <Cite refs={[“turn587003search1”]}/>

That limitation matters when assessing the overall £23 billion estimate. The Government’s inability to produce a comprehensive nationality breakdown does not establish that the think tank’s estimate is necessarily wrong, but it does mean that the figure cannot be checked against a complete official State Pension nationality dataset.

It also reinforces the need to distinguish between people receiving a pension they have earned through their working lives and people receiving means-tested assistance.

Universal Credit and Changing Immigration Patterns

The CSJ research also highlights the number of foreign nationals receiving Universal Credit.

The report cited by The Sun estimates that approximately 1.3 million non-British nationals were receiving Universal Credit, an increase of 38 per cent since April 2022. <Cite refs={[“turn604141view0”]}/>

Universal Credit is a means-tested benefit designed to help eligible households with living costs. It can be paid to people who are unemployed, on low incomes or working but earning relatively little, subject to the relevant conditions.

The fact that someone receives Universal Credit does not necessarily mean that they are out of work. Some claimants are employed and receive support because their income and household circumstances qualify them for assistance.

The Government has emphasised this distinction, stating that around half of Universal Credit claimants receiving the benefit are in work. It argues that eligibility depends on immigration status and the relevant benefit rules, rather than nationality alone. <Cite refs={[“turn604141view0″,”turn604141view2”]}/>

The rise in the number of non-British Universal Credit recipients is nevertheless a legitimate subject for further analysis. Policymakers may wish to understand how employment patterns, wages, family circumstances and changes in immigration status affect the number of people qualifying for support.

To evaluate the trend properly, it is necessary to examine the underlying data, including employment status, household income, benefit type and the period over which recipients have lived in Britain.

The Government’s Data Limitations

A central complication is that the UK does not collect and publish a consistent nationality breakdown for every benefit.

In an April 2026 parliamentary answer, the Department for Work and Pensions said it publishes quarterly Universal Credit statistics broken down by immigration-status type and nationality group. However, it explained that nationality and immigration status are not recorded on its digital systems in a way that allows a comparable official breakdown to be extracted for other benefits. <Cite refs={[“turn604141view2”]}/>

The Office for National Statistics had similarly explained in a June 2025 response to a freedom of information request that it did not hold the comprehensive claimant and expenditure breakdown by citizenship and immigration status requested by the applicant. It directed the requester towards DWP statistics for the information that is available. <Cite refs={[“turn587003search0”]}/>

These gaps make it harder for the public to compare the overall cost of benefits received by British and non-British citizens using a single, consistent official dataset.

More detailed reporting could help Parliament and the public assess the consequences of policy changes. It could also distinguish between people who have recently arrived, long-term residents, workers who have paid National Insurance contributions and people who qualify for means-tested support.

However, better data would need to be accompanied by clear definitions and safeguards to ensure that different groups are not incorrectly combined.

Could the Rules Become Stricter?

The debate is taking place as the Government considers changes to the immigration system and the conditions under which people can qualify for long-term residence.

The Government has said it plans to extend the standard qualifying period for indefinite leave to remain to ten years for most migrants, with shorter routes for some groups that make greater contributions to Britain. <Cite refs={[“turn604141view0”]}/>

Changes to settlement rules can affect when individuals become eligible for particular entitlements, but the relationship between immigration status and benefit eligibility is complex. Not every benefit has the same residence requirements, and the consequences of any reform depend on the final legislation and its exemptions.

Supporters of tighter restrictions argue that migrants should be expected to support themselves and that public assistance should be carefully targeted. Others warn that excessively broad restrictions could affect people who work, pay taxes, care for relatives or have legitimate protection needs.

The Government must therefore consider both the potential fiscal effects and the practical consequences for employers, families and public services.

Any reform should make the rules understandable, apply them consistently and provide a clear process for resolving disputes.

What the Figures Mean for British Taxpayers

For taxpayers, the underlying question is whether the welfare system is fair, transparent and financially sustainable.

The £23 billion figure has intensified that discussion, but it should not be confused with a confirmed amount that could be recovered through benefit cuts or immigration restrictions.

Some of the expenditure included in the estimate relates to the State Pension, which is linked to National Insurance records. Some recipients of working-age benefits are employed. Others may have settled status or another lawful basis for receiving support.

A useful assessment would identify how much is spent on each type of benefit, the immigration status of recipients where that information is available, how many are working and what proportion of expenditure results from means-tested support.

Such detail would allow policymakers to examine whether the current system is meeting its objectives and where changes might be justified.

It would also help ensure that debate about public spending does not incorrectly portray every foreign national receiving a benefit as someone who has arrived recently or is claiming unlawfully.

A Debate That Requires Better Evidence

The Centre for Social Justice’s estimate has brought renewed attention to the relationship between immigration and welfare spending. Its projection of nearly £27 billion by 2030 has raised questions about the long-term financial implications and the Government’s ability to explain who receives public support.

But the figures remain contested, and official data limitations make a complete independent comparison difficult. The Government disputes the research methodology, while parliamentary answers confirm that a comprehensive nationality breakdown is not available for every benefit, particularly the State Pension.

The issue is therefore not simply whether the headline number is large. It is whether the figures are measured consistently, whether the spending is lawful and appropriate, and what policy changes would produce meaningful savings without unfairly affecting people who qualify under existing rules.

Britain’s welfare system must support eligible people while protecting public finances. Immigration policy must establish clear conditions for residence and access to public funds. Both objectives depend on accurate information and rules that can be applied fairly.

The new research has put those questions firmly back on the political agenda. The next step should be to establish a clearer picture of the costs, the people receiving support and the effects of any proposed reforms.

For taxpayers and benefit recipients alike, transparency is essential. Only with reliable data can Parliament and the public judge whether the system is operating as intended and what changes, if any, are needed.