What does the universal credit immigration data show?
The vast majority of current claimants are people who live or work in the UK without any immigration restrictions: British and Irish nationals, plus those who have right of abode in the country.
Some 6.6 million people were in this category in June, making up 83.6% of all claimants.
This is a higher proportion than a year earlier (82.5%) as well as being a jump of one million from 5.6 million.
The next largest proportion are people who have a right to live in the UK under the EU Settlement Scheme.
These accounted for 9.7% of all claimants in June 2025, down from 10.7% a year earlier, though the number of people in this category rose slightly from 732,107 to 770,379.
Some 2.7% of claimants were classed as having indefinite leave to remain in the UK, separate from the EU Settlement Scheme, up from 2.2% a year earlier.
This status gives people the right to live, work and study in the UK for as long as they like and apply for benefits if they are eligible.
Some 211,090 people were in this category, up from 150,838 in June 2024.
The proportion of claimants who had refugee status was 1.5%, down from 1.6%, though the number rose slightly from 111,011 to 118,749.
The percentage in the UK for humanitarian reasons was unchanged year-on-year at 0.7%, with the number up slightly from 51,146 to 54,156.
In addition, there was a fall in both the number and proportion of claimants classed as having limited leave to remain, or temporary immigration status, from 1.3% (86,129) to 1.0% (75,267).
Overall, people from outside the Common Travel Area of UK and Ireland accounted for 15.6% of UC claimants in June 2025, down from 16.5% in June 2024.
This covers the five categories of the EU Settlement Scheme, humanitarian status, refugee status, indefinite leave to remain and limited leave to remain.
The number of claimants across these categories increased from 1.1 million to 1.2 million year on year, up by nearly a tenth.
But the total number of UC claimants rose by a faster rate, up by nearly a sixth, from 6.8 million to 7.9 million.
This is why the proportion of claimants from outside the Common Travel Area shrank year-on-year, from 16.5% to 15.6%, even though the number of these claimants rose.
With 83.6% of claimants in June 2025 from inside the Common Travel Area and 15.6% from outside, the remaining 0.8% either had no immigration status recorded (0.4%) or were classed as 'other' (0.4%), such as people no longer receiving UC payments or ineligible partners of an eligible UC claimant.
These percentages have changed only slightly in recent years.
The proportion of claimants from the Common Travel Area of the UK and Ireland stood at 82.9% three years ago in June 2022, 82.4% in June 2023, 82.5% in June 2024 and 83.6% in June of this year.
The proportion from outside the Common Travel Area was 16.2% in June 2022, 16.7% in June 2023, 16.5% in June 2024 and 15.6% in June 2025.
The new data also includes a breakdown of universal credit claimants by employment and immigration status.
It shows that 34% of people on UC in May 2025 (2.7 million) were in employment and 66% (5.1 million) were out of work.
A year earlier the figures were 38% (2.6 million) and 62% (4.2 million).
Among the 5.1 million claimants who were not in employment in May 2025, 12% (604,914) were foreign nationals while 85% (4.3 million) were British and Irish nationals or those who have right of abode in the UK.
These figures stood at 12% (514,961) and 84% (3.5 million) in May 2024.
Of the 604,914 foreign nationals out of work and claiming UC in May this year, 343,741 were in the UK under the EU Settlement Scheme; 109,324 had indefinite leave to remain; 60,753 had refugee status; 49,790 had humanitarian status; and 41,306 had limited leave to remain.
Universal credit is available to people on a low income as well as those who are unemployed.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Statesman
an hour ago
- New Statesman
No 10 is scrambling for a Silicon Valley payday
Photo by Kevin Lamarque/Reuters It all turned on a decimal point.A shipping container of Aston Martins had been waiting off the American coast for the British government to strike a deal with the White House. The vehicle manufacturer was desperate for Keir Starmer to get Donald Trump to lower his 25 per cent tariff on British cars. In May, Trump finally agreed to drop the base tariff to 7.5 per cent. The only problem was that when the ship docked, a US customs official wrote down 75 per cent by mistake, leaving out the decimal point. The error was soon corrected, and British exporters have since smoothed over the chaos of getting their goods into the world's richest market. But other embassies up and down Massachusetts Avenue are anxiously waiting for a phone call from the White House. Trump put out a new deadline of 1 August for several countries to capitulate to fresh deals before those big tariffs from the package he announced on 2 April – 'Liberation Day' – hit. The cycle of threats and negotiations feels ceaseless. These pauses mean Trump is mocked by Wall Street with a teasing slogan coined by a Financial Times columnist: 'Trump Always Chickens Out', or Taco. Trump's penchant for cutting taxes on the rich and bombing the Middle East has led many commentators to muse he is 'Just Another Republican' (call them Jars, for short). But don't confuse Trump hitting pause with ditching protectionism. Few Jars would raise tariffs with the alacrity that Trump has. While Ronald Reagan deployed import quotas in some sectors, that Republican president believed the 'freer the flow of world trade, the stronger the tides of human progress and peace among nations'. Compare that to the fact that since Trump took office in January, the average tariff rate has soared from 2.5 per cent to 16.6 per cent. Those fixated on the constant delays and reversals forget that the general thrust of the policy is that tariffs are going up. Protectionism, like mass deportation, is one area in which this administration is ruthlessly consistent. All of which means the UK's deal from June grows more attractive by the day. It sparkles when compared to Vietnam's 20 per cent base rate, or the 30 per cent Trump has said he wants the European Union to pay. The Business Secretary and President of the Board of Trade, Jonathan Reynolds, is hoping to visit Washington soon for further negotiations, or at least to court American business. Photo ops to one side, Reynolds would likely be overshadowed by Ambassador Peter Mandelson and Starmer's éminence grise with business, Varun Chandra, the mysterious former Hakluyt chief who is frequently in town. All the politicking is leaving the Americans fed up of taking calls from British negotiators who are under pressure from No 10 to finalise awkward areas such as steel. Avoiding a cliff-edge for trade with other countries now takes precedence. Hadn't the Brits already got a deal, anyway? Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe The problem is that there is still much to thrash out. I understand the Trump administration is pushing for the NHS to charge UK providers more – for pharmaceuticals, for instance – in order to make American firms more competitive. Then there is the crowning deal on technology: the one part of these negotiations that isn't just mitigation but could actually advance Labour's governing agenda. Starmer and Rachel Reeves see an open invitation to Silicon Valley's tech companies as the ladder out of the country's terminal decline. Britain's saviour, in their mind, will arrive in robotic form. And if the options are either Chinese and American, then Labour will look west. Nonetheless, the deal is proving tricky to reach. I hear the hold-up is end-to-end encryption. The Washington Post reported in February that the UK government was trying to force Apple to open up users' encrypted data, including that of non-British citizens. But JD Vance, the US vice-president, who is negotiating with Mandelson, has resisted, backing the tech companies, ever keen to protect his old Valley buddies. Vance's position denudes the argument that these firms are apolitical, as if there is no cost to letting foreign companies become gatekeepers for the digital systems on which the UK operates. Vance clearly views these companies as American – does Labour? Remember it was Vance who refused to sign the communiqué at the Paris AI summit in February to protest against over-regulation. The UK dutifully followed suit. The government's claim that this had nothing to do with the American position should elicit a small chuckle. Look also to the tech-optimist, Innovation Secretary, Peter Kyle welcoming Google into the civil service last week. Much as the software company Palantir did during the pandemic, Google said it would provide its services to the UK for free, which meant the deal did not go out for tender. A marriage between Whitehall and Silicon Valley has become the mission by which this government wants to define itself. But a comprehensive tech deal with Washington remains elusive. The specific content is confused and ambiguous. The pressure on the ambassador, who always has one eye on the growing fissures back in Westminster, is mounting. On technology, the Brits are still circling off the coast, waiting for an agreement to be struck. [See more: Trump is serious about getting tough on Putin] Related
Spectator
2 hours ago
- Spectator
Do we really need state-funded restaurants?
Two British cities, Dundee and Nottingham, have been chosen as trial sites for a new government scheme to be piloted next year: state-subsidised restaurants. The Department for Science, Innovation and Technology has put up £1.5 million for the 12-month trial, initiated by the campaign group Nourish Scotland. If the restaurants are successful, they'll be rolled out across Britain – nourishing us all – with a subsidised meal for £3. Inspired by second world war state-funded canteens, they're going to be called 'Public Diners' – clever branding, with its quasi-American vibe. Their branding matters because – as anyone who ever ate greasy slop from a tray at a state-run stolovaya in Soviet Russia remembers – no-frills, state-funded restaurants are intrinsically drained of glamour. Today's fastidious British public will require a touch of coolness to entice them in. Winston Churchill also understood that branding mattered. When those state-funded canteens got going in 1940, he decreed that their name, 'communal feeding centres', was 'an odious expression, redolent of communism and the workhouse'. At one stroke, he transformed their image by branding them 'British Restaurants'. 'Everyone,' he said, 'associates the word 'restaurant' with a good meal.' The slogan for the new Public Diners on Nourish Scotland's website is 'an idea whose time has come'. 'They are a holistic food system intervention: for public health, climate and the right to food.' (So we're going to be preached at in noun-lumps, as well as fed.) If all goes to plan, we'll soon see these new, climate-friendly, taxpayer-subsidised diners, inspired also by Turkish public restaurants, Mexican public dining rooms and Polish milk bars. Are those countries really now our economic role models? It doesn't give one much confidence in how things are going. Hospitality entrepreneurs and executives are neither pleased nor impressed. These diners are 'a ludicrous idea,' says Hugh Osmond, co-founder of Pizza Express. Luke Johnson, chairman of Gail's, says the idea that state-backed restaurants could operate more efficiently than the private sector is 'beyond a joke'. You can see why they're worried. Life is tough enough for restaurant owners – hit with ballooning, government-enforced overheads – without this new undercutting from state-funded establishments. But you could argue that commercial restaurants have only themselves to blame. Their prices have rocketed far more steeply than people's pay. In the last ten years, the cost of a Pizza Express 'Margherita' pizza has gone up from £7.55 to £14.95. If the British salary had kept pace with the increasing price of a Margherita, it would have risen from £27,600 to £53,000 – whereas in fact it's £37,500. There may well be a need for 'somewhere where all of us can eat without stretching the budget'. 'What could possibly go wrong?' hospitality executives are wondering as they wait for the pilot branches of the diners to open. A contract to run them is expected to be tendered later this year. Though the restaurants themselves will be not-for-profit, the caterers who run them will be expecting to make money – as will the providers of the fittings and the produce. Governments don't have the best reputation when it comes to not being ripped off during the procurement process. The issue of precisely what food to serve is also going to be a minefield. Nourish Scotland's consultation exercise 'showed that there are plenty of challenges ahead when it comes to deciding on what food should be served in a Public Diner'. We're no longer the unfussy wartime population who gratefully scoffed a plateful of boiled cabbage and mashed potato. The food served in those wartime British Restaurants had three chief attributes: it was soft (designed for a nation with a high proportion of false teeth), bland (designed to avoid tummy upsets) and filling (designed to fatten up a thin population). Today's populace won't be so willing to eat up whatever's put in front of them. They'll expect their individual health- and religion-based dietary requirements to be respected. An added complication is that, far from aiming to fatten up the population, this new scheme aims to tackle obesity. The scheme also requires the food to be locally sourced, to fulfil the climate aspect of its brief. As Jeremy Clarkson showed us in the latest series of Clarkson's Farm, locally sourced food is expensive. How will that work, economically, for the taxpayer? It'll be fun seeing what dishes the various branches do decide to serve – and whether the scheme sparks a revival of distinctly British regional food. I hope the Dundee branch offers the local dish Cullen skink (smoked haddock and potato soup with milk), and the Nottingham one Sherwood Forest venison and stilton. Are Public Diners really 'an idea whose time has come', or are they in fact an idea whose time is long gone? The scheme's brochure celebrates, with some nostalgia, those morale-boosting wartime British Restaurants which brought everyone together. There was indeed a great charm about them. Kenneth Clark's wife Elizabeth arranged to borrow paintings from Buckingham Palace to hang on their walls, to cheer everyone up. Today's utopian ideal is that strangers will meet and make friends over their plates of spicy chickpea and potato tagine – and that this will be a new way of falling in love IRL rather than online. But British Restaurants had their moment – and that moment has gone. The government withdrew financial responsibility for them in 1949, and they dwindled away after rationing ended in the mid-1950s. The free market took over, and competitive hospitality businesses survived – or closed down – accordingly. Is this scheme really the best way to spend taxpayers' money? Essentially, those who don't go to the restaurants will be subsidising those who do. Surely our taxes would be better spent teaching schoolchildren how to fry an onion and make a cheap pasta sauce at home. This government is so much better at thinking of new ways of spending our money than of saving it.
Daily Mirror
2 hours ago
- Daily Mirror
American visits Sainsbury's and 'can't comprehend' UK vs US differences
Natalie Barbu said she was shocked by what she found on the shelves when she visited the supermarket An American woman who was shocked by her Sainsbury's shop wowed social media users after pointing out the differences between UK and US supermarkets. Natalie Barbu, from Miami, recorded a recent visit to a Sainsbury's store in London. Posting the video online as @nataliebarbu, she said: "I was shocked at the grocery stores in the UK. Here are some differences that I noticed as an American shopping at Sainsbury's, which is one of the biggest grocery stores in all of London." She added that the supermarket reminded her of Walmart. Explaining the differences she noticed, Natalie spotted something she didn't expect as soon as she entered the supermarket. "One thing I couldn't comprehend is the fact that you had to bring a coin in order to get a shopping cart," the shopper shared. "You also have to bring your own bags when shopping, because if not, they will charge you for a bag, and you were able to scan your own items as you're shopping." Making her way to the food aisles, she found another surprise. "The first thing that I noticed was the meat selection was definitely different than what we have at home, and British people definitely love their sausages. So it's not ground beef, it's beef mince. "British people will also find any excuse to put something into a pie or a pastry. They'll put meats, they'll put eggs. Anything can turn into a pie, pastry, or a roll." On the other hand, Natalie wasn't surprised to find baked beans. "Of course, you have everything you need for a Sunday roast or an English breakfast, like beans," she said. "They love baked beans, and they're very different than American baked beans." That said, the eggs did catch her eye. The shopper explained: "You definitely won't see this at an American grocery store, but the eggs are not refrigerated, and you will never find these prices there." Moving on, she praised the "iconic British meal deal", before pointing out more differences she noticed. Natalie said: "This has been hard for me, but there are no dill pickles, only sweet ones." She added: "What we call chips, they call crisps, and there are slight differences. Like notice in the Doritos, they're not cool ranch, it's just cool original." Rounding up her video, Natalie acknowledged that there are other foods with different names across the pond. "We just call certain foods different things. Like porridge is oatmeal, zucchini is courgette, and eggplant is aubergine," she told followers. "Are there any other differences that I missed?" Her caption added: "There are some things the American mind can't comprehend when shopping at a British supermarket." Replying to the video, someone pointed out Brits say "shopping trolley" not "shopping cart." Another viewer commented: "After living here two years I've noticed they don't have pretzels and honestly the section where they have cookie and cake mix is not very good! "Not a lot of chocolate chip options, if any. Also no meatloaf mix pre-made and a lot of dairy products that come in containers don't have lids, only plastic peal off tops."
