A report from the Centre for Social Justice reveals that British citizens occupied only 20% of new payroll roles in the United Kingdom since 2014. The findings highlight a significant shift toward non-EU employment, particularly following the pandemic.
The 734,000-job ceiling for British nationals
Out of 3.7 million new positions added to the United Kingdom's pay-rolled workforce over the last decade, only 734,000 were filled by British citizens, according to the Centre for Social Justice (CSJ). The remaining roles were dominated by foreign workers, with 2.5 million positions going to migrants from outside the European Union and 408 ,000 going to EU nationals.
This trend accelerated sharply after the COVID-19 pandemic. The CSJ report notes that non-EU employment surged by 2.1 million jobs between 2020 and 2025, suggesting that the post-pandemic recovery was fueled primarily by overseas labor rather than domestic hiring.
This shift echoes a broader economic pattern where immediate labor shortages are solved via immigration rather than long-term domestic training. By relying on a global talent pool, the United Kingdom has seen a rapid expansion of its workforce, but the CSJ warns that this has left millions of British citizens reliant on welfare benefits as they are squeezed out of the new economy.
Scotland's 53,000-job loss and the health sector surge
The distribution of these jobs reveals a deepening regional divide within the United Kingdom. Analysis of HMRC data by the Centre for Social Justice shows that British nationals actually lost ground in several areas between July 2014 and December 2025, including a loss of 53,000 roles in Scotland and 32,000 roles in the West Midlands.
Conversely, the growth was heavily concentrated in the South. Non-EU migrant employment rose by 465,200 in London and by 284,500 in the South East. This suggests that the "new economy" is not just favoring foreign workers, but is geographically isolated from the "left-behind" communities mentioned by CSJ founder Sir Iain Duncan Smith.
Sector-specific data further clarifies where this labor is going. health and social work accounted for 29% of the rise in overseas payroll staff, followed by administrative and support services at 16% and accommodation and food services at 12%. These figures indicate a systemic reliance on foreign nationals to prop up essential public services and low-wage hospitality sectors.
Whitehall's £5 million visa spend and the 'Boris wave' debate
The political tension surrounding these numbers is evident in the government's own spending. As the Daily Mail reported, Whitehall departments have spent at least £5 million on more than 1,500 visas for migrant staff since the recent election, illustrating a contradiction between public rhetoric on immigration and internal departmental needs.
This internal conflict has reached the highest levels of the Home Office. Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood recently admitted that other Labour ministers have pressured her to increase the intake of foreign workers . This pressure comes at a time when the government is attempting to navigate the "Boris wave"—a surge of recent arrivals for whom Mahmood had previously proposed delaying indefinite leave to remain.
However, those proposals are now being watered down following pushback from trade unions and the left wing of the Labour Party... This political tug-of-war suggests that while there is a desire to protect British workers, the institutional dependency on migrant labor is too deeply embedded to easily reverse.
Who is pressuring Shabana Mahmood for more foreign labor?
While the report mentions that "fellow Labour ministers" are pressuring Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood , it does not specify which departments or individuals are driving this demand. It remains unclear whether this pressure stems from the Department of Health and Social Care, given the 29% reliance on overseas staff in that sector , or from other economic ministries seeking to keep labor costs low.
Additionally, the source does not provide a counter-perspective from the trade unions or the "Labour left" regarding why they believe the "Boris wave" reforms were unfair. Without this context, the reader is left with a one-sided view of the policy clash, leaving the specific motivations of the pro-immigration faction within the Cabinet a mystery.
Comments 0