‘Serious problems' with UK's reliance on migration, warns OBR official
David Miles, an executive at the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR), said Labour must prioritise getting Britons back to work instead of relying on overseas workers to grow the economy.
Only by achieving this will Sir Keir Starmer be able to slash the welfare bill and tackle the country's 'explosive' debt pile.
The economics professor, who has also served on the Bank of England's interest rate-setting Monetary Policy Committee, said the UK was already on course to become the most populous country in Europe by the middle of this century.
He added that depending on an increasing population to expand the economy 'could not be sustained', as migrants themselves use schools, hospitals and other public services as they get older, have children and become eligible to claim benefits.
Writing in an essay published by the Common Good Foundation, Mr Miles said: 'Immigration – which primarily involves those of working age who are many years away from retirement – both delays the impact of the ageing of the population and is the driver of population growth.
'Some conclude from this that a faster rise in the population ... will be beneficial in alleviating acute underlying fiscal pressures.'But, even setting aside the fact that it is GDP per capita that matters for average standards of living – and growth in population does not obviously boost it – there are serious problems with the idea that faster population growth can consistently alleviate fiscal problems.'Mr Miles also suggested that tackling worklessness among working-age Britons was more important than attracting the most highly paid migrants to the UK.Almost the entire rise in economic inactivity since Covid has been driven by people born in the UK, many of whom are also claiming sickness benefits that do not require them to look for work.
Mr Miles said: 'The fiscal benefits of raising the incomes of those who are born in the UK and who might be on a trajectory of consistently below average wages are as great as the benefits of having more people come and stay in the UK with average or, especially, well above average earnings.'It comes after the OBR has faced scrutiny for overstating the economic benefits of migration, with Morgan McSweeney, Sir Keir's chief of staff, reportedly concerned that the watchdog does not properly account for the burden on public services.
The watchdog has previously admitted that low-paid migrant workers are a drain on the public purse – costing taxpayers more than £150,000 each by the time they hit state pension age.
However, calls for restrictions on overseas workers are likely to be uncomfortable reading for Rachel Reeves, with Treasury officials warning successive chancellors that a big reduction in migration would substantially reduce the Government's headroom.
Ms Reeves is already likely to have to raise taxes by £20bn this autumn, following a series of about-turns on welfare and winter fuel payments.
'Substantial' burden
Official data shows that immigration has fuelled the two biggest population increases in peacetime.
The Office for National Statistics (ONS) has found that the population of England and Wales grew by more than 700,000 in the year to June 2024 to nearly 62 million.
This is the second-biggest annual jump since records began in 1949 and only beaten by the 800,000 rise in the population in the previous 12 months.
This stemmed from record rises in net migration – the number of people entering the UK minus those leaving.
Mr Miles said continuing these trends was unsustainable because it would pile a 'substantial' burden on the public finances.
He highlighted that even if all the future migrants arriving in the UK were all aged 24 and would not reach retirement for more than four decades, the population would have to rise by 20m to balance the split between pensioners and workers.He said: 'Twenty million extra young people would need to arrive in the UK over the next 40 years to stabilise the dependency ratio at its current level. That would imply a UK population of around 100 million by 2064.'
Worklessness crisis
OBR analysis published last year showed the average low-earner who comes to Britain aged 25 costs the Government more overall than they pay in from the moment they arrive.
The cumulative bill rises to an estimated £150,000 each by the time they can claim the state pension at 66, according to the watchdog.
This is because low-paid migrants, who the OBR assumes earn half the average wage, demand more from public services compared to what they contribute in tax.
Mr Miles suggested that tackling the substantial rise in young Britons claiming they are too sick to even look for work would be more beneficial for the public purse.
He said: 'The fiscal benefits of helping people, especially young people who potentially have many years of work ahead of them, back into employment are substantial.
'There is a great deal of evidence that mental health in particular is typically improved by being in work. And mental health problems have been a very significant factor behind the recent rise in illness-related inactivity.'
Calls for lower migration come amid growing scrutiny of the UK's benefits bill, particularly after Labour watered down welfare reforms earlier this year following a backbench rebellion.
The benefits bill for people on sickness or disability benefits is currently on course to hit £100bn by the end of the decade.
Mr Miles said: 'The higher population route to fiscal sustainability by slowing the ageing of the population is uncertain. Today's young people are tomorrow's old people, so fiscal benefits fade. And the rise in the population needed to completely offset ageing in demographic structure is very great and gets bigger over time. It could not be sustained.'
The Government was contacted for comment.
Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Solve the daily Crossword
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Fox News
an hour ago
- Fox News
Gov. Newsom vows to fight fire with fire if Texas lawmakers pass legislation regarding redistricting
Gov. Gavin Newsom vowed to fight fire with fire if Texas lawmakers pass legislation regarding redistricting.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
'Hidden tax' to hit Aussies from this week in fresh cost-of-living blow
Aussie motorists will pay more for petrol and diesel at the bowser from this week following another increase to the fuel excise. The fuel excise increases twice a year in line with inflation in February and August. The fuel excise on petrol and diesel rose from 50.8 to 51.6 cents per litre on Monday. This is a flat sales tax levied by the federal government on petrol and diesel bought at the bowser, and is on top of GST. Based on filling up a 55L tank, the increase works out to an extra 44 cents per tank. Aussie motorists paid an estimated $15.71 billion in net fuel excise in 2023-24 and are expected to pay $67.6 billion over the four years to 2026-27. RELATED New $363 EV tax plan for electric car drivers amid $67.6 billion cost St George slammed over 'obscene' cash withdrawal move as thousands struggle Commonwealth Bank reveals LMI home loan changes for borrowers The Victorian Automobile Chamber of Commerce (VACC) has criticised the increase, saying it would lead to higher prices for families and businesses already struggling with cost-of-living pressures. "This is an indiscriminate tax that disproportionately affects low-income earners and families who rely on their vehicles for work and essential travel," VACC CEO Peter Jones said. The group has labelled the excise a "hidden tax", given that it is built into the price displayed at the petrol pump. "Motorists deserve transparency about how their fuel is priced. They need to understand that fuel excise isn't a static tax – the government increases it every six months, and it's a significant component of what they pay at the pump," Jones said. In the 2023-24 financial year, the Australian Automobile Association found the fuel excise bill for the typical household was about $1,283. What is the fuel excise? The fuel excise increases twice a year in line with the Consumer Price Index, which rose by 0.7 per cent in the June quarter and 2.1 per cent over the 12 months to June. The fuel excise was originally introduced to help pay for our roads, with all or part of the excise earmarked for spending on roads between 1926 and 1959. But since then, it has generally been available for any spending. Over the decade to 2022-23, the Australian Automobile Association found only 57 per cent of fuel excise was reinvested in land transport projects. When was the fuel excise cut? The fuel excise was halved for six months in 2022 by the previous Coalition government to ease cost-of-living pressures. The Opposition also promised to halve the tax for 12 months should it win this year's federal election and claimed it would save motorists $700 per year; however, this didn't happen. What about EVs? With more Aussies buying electric vehicles, the revenue generated from the fuel excise is expected to drop significantly. A record of just over 10 per cent (13,169 vehicles) of new car sales were electric in June, according to data from the Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries and Electric Vehicle Council. Australia's new vehicle emissions standards, which became mandatory in July 2025, are designed to accelerate EV uptake. Treasurer Jim Chalmers previously flagged a new road user charge that would include EV drivers to replace the fuel excise. New South Wales has confirmed plans to introduce a road user charge from 2027, or when EVs reach 30 per cent of new car in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Casual dining real estate faces perfect storm and high vacancies
This story was originally published on Restaurant Dive. To receive daily news and insights, subscribe to our free daily Restaurant Dive newsletter. While brands like Texas Roadhouse and Olive Garden continue to thrive, many casual dining chains have halted expansion, closed stores or filed for bankruptcy, leaving a glut of former restaurant properties with few buyers. Casual dining real estate is in a major slowdown, as property sale success rates have plummeted from 72% in 2021 to just 37% in 2024, according to data from Northmarq, a commercial real estate firm. This decline is primarily driven by fundamental mismatches between available properties and the changing needs of restaurants, which make it increasingly challenging to repurpose former casual dining locations. The dramatic decline reflects economic headwinds that have reshaped the restaurant landscape, from the lasting impact of COVID-19 on consumer behavior to rising labor costs and the growth of fast casual dining, according to commercial real estate experts. "It's definitely a nationwide trend," said Matt Lipson, senior vice president and co-founder of the national restaurant group at Northmarq. "Beyond a few exceptions, there's just this clear drop off." Size mismatches are driving conversion problems There's a fundamental size mismatch between available casual dining properties and what growing restaurant chains actually need as brands, such as Buffalo Wild Wings, look to downsize. A typical Red Lobster location averages about 7,600 square feet on 1.68 acres, while a Chipotle operates in just over 2,400 square feet on 0.99 acres, Northmarq data shows. According to Lipson, most fast casual chains won't consider retrofitting casual dining properties because they don't meet their rigid site selection criteria. That's because the conversion costs are high: Tenant improvements can run $200 per square foot, Lipson said, making a Red Lobster conversion too expensive for smaller-format concepts. 'In a lot of cases, it's easier just to knock down the building and have a developer split it up,' said David Orkin, executive vice president and restaurant practice leader for the Americas at CBRE. He said landlords are increasingly dividing properties into multiple smaller spaces. Many older restaurant buildings are essentially worthless to new casual dining tenants, as well. Orkin cited a recent example where his team discovered an old Macaroni Grill 'had negative value' once they began to analyze construction costs, with renovation costs exceeding those of demolition and reconstruction. Economic pressures compound challenges The COVID-19 pandemic dramatically altered consumer dining habits while devastating the finances of many full-service operators. Even as restrictions lifted, fear of dining out persisted, and revenue collapses led to casual dining closures that have created lasting negative perceptions. 'Every time there's bankruptcy news — and there's a lot of it — or every time there's store closure news, it starts passing on to the other brands,' Lipson said. 'It affects consumer behavior, because there's just so much bad news around these places.' Rising labor costs have also had a significant impact on casual dining operations, which typically require 25 or more staff members — far more than a typical fast casual or quick-service restaurant, Lipson said. Minimum wage increases that might be manageable for a fast casual or drive-thru concept can be crushing for full-service restaurants operating on razor-thin margins. Higher construction costs have also made new builds more expensive, and restaurants are moving toward smaller footprints in response, according to Lipson. The average new quick-serve restaurant build has decreased from 3,000 square feet in 2016 to approximately 2,200 square feet today, with many operators switching to 950-square-foot modular buildings that focus entirely on drive-thru service, according to Lipson. Market dynamics favor the strongest players The construction slowdown has created a market of haves and have-nots, where the strongest casual dining brands can cherry-pick premium locations. 'There is no one to take those B, C, D sites,' Lipson said. Less desirable properties often sell to non-restaurant buyers, such as car dealerships, looking to expand. That's because cap rates — which calculate a property's ROI by dividing its net operating income by its asset value — rose significantly as interest rates climbed, further depressing property values and making it harder to make deals. At the same time, some quick-service restaurants are competing directly with casual dining for prime real estate. New Chick-fil-A locations require nearly 1.6 acres, compared with one acre, historically, and larger margins allow them to pay higher rents than casual dining brands, Lipson said. Signs of recovery emerge Despite the issues, there are reasons for optimism. Development activity is 'turning back on pretty aggressively' in 2025 as sales rebound, Orkin said. 'Right now, it's actually pretty vibrant,' Orkin said, noting that the struggles are often brand-specific rather than industry-wide. 'There are a lot of older, tired brands that have kind of lost their relevance. Those are the ones that are kind of struggling.' That's partly because millennials are returning to casual dining as they age, after driving the growth of fast casual restaurants earlier in their lives. 'These millennials are having families, right? And so their shopping patterns, their lives are different, and they're going to start doing what their parents did,' Orkin said. But that hasn't offered much solace to landlords who now regret investing in casual dining real estate. They're 'just like, 'Oh my, I could have bought anything else in the world,'' Lipson said. Recommended Reading Why urban areas are a challenge for casual chains Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data