Scapegoating migrants won’t fix Britain’s welfare system

You can set your watch by it. Every few months, a figure on the populist right emerges from the backbenches or the comment pages with some variation of the same claim: that Britain’s welfare system is groaning under the weight of “foreigners” exploiting it.

This week, it was formerly Reform UK, now Independent MP Rupert Lowe, who crowed over the release of new government statistics on Universal Credit (UC) claimants, claiming victory for those demanding transparency on the immigration status of recipients.

But here’s the thing. Now that the numbers are out - they tell exactly the opposite story from the one Lowe implies.

The Department for Work and Pensions has just published detailed breakdowns of the 7.9 million people receiving Universal Credit as of June 2025. And the result? A staggering 83.6% of claimants are British or Irish nationals, or others who live and work here without any immigration restrictions. That’s 6.6 million people - the vast, vast majority of the UC caseload.

Another 9.7% are EU nationals with settled status - people who’ve lived in the UK for years, paid in, and earned the right to access public services. Roughly half of them are receiving UC as an in-work benefit. Then come those with indefinite leave to remain - a further 2.7%, many of whom have also been taxpayers in the UK for decades. Refugees and those arriving via humanitarian schemes, such as from Ukraine or Afghanistan, make up just 2.2% combined.

And those whom Lowe and others often gesture toward most pointedly - people with only temporary or limited immigration status? That group makes up just 1% of the total Universal Credit population. That’s 75,267 people. To put it plainly: the idea that newcomers are crowding British citizens out of the welfare system is not just exaggerated - it’s disproven.

This is not about denying the public's right to ask fair questions about how welfare spending is distributed. It’s about rejecting a political sleight of hand that misrepresents the facts to stoke division. The UC system has strict rules: you cannot claim benefits unless you have legal status that explicitly includes access to public funds. Those with "no recourse to public funds" - including many temporary migrants and visa-holders - are barred from claiming UC and most other benefits. That’s been the case under successive governments.

Lowe, a former MEP and one-time Farage acolyte , has suggested this data is a “huge win” - as if it confirms his suspicions. But all it confirms is that Britain’s welfare safety net remains overwhelmingly used by British people - including many who’ve suffered stagnant wages, rising housing costs, or health issues, not immigration. It also reminds us that those non-British residents who do receive support are, in the vast majority of cases, long-term residents who have contributed to the country in all the ways we claim to value: through work, taxes, and community life.

Welfare debates are often wielded like cudgels in populist politics. But when the facts come out, they don’t support the image of widespread abuse. They paint a picture of a struggling system trying to meet rising demand across the board, while ensuring that migrants - who already face considerable hurdles - are tightly regulated in their access.

The danger in peddling these myths isn’t just that it stokes xenophobia. It’s that it distracts us from the real challenges: fixing low pay, strengthening social care, supporting single parents, and ensuring that people with chronic illnesses aren’t trapped in administrative limbo. These are British problems, and they deserve real solutions - not scapegoats.

So by all means, publish the data. Shine a light. But then let’s agree to follow the evidence. And the evidence shows this clearly: when it comes to Universal Credit, there is no foreign invasion - just ordinary people, overwhelmingly British, struggling to get by.

________________

Naomi Smith is CEO of Best for Britain.

LBC Opinion provides a platform for diverse opinions on current affairs and matters of public interest.

The views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official LBC position.

To contact us email opinion@lbc.co.uk