Reform UK vows to scrap indefinite leave to remain and require five-year visa renewals

Reform UK has unveiled a plan to abolish indefinite leave to remain (ILR) for migrants and to require visa renewals every five years, a policy the party says would apply to both new applicants and people already granted ILR. Nigel Farage, the party’s leader, argued the move would stop what he described as open-ended rights to settle in Britain and could save billions in future benefits for ILR holders and their dependants. The proposal drew immediate pushback from opponents who said it would be difficult to enforce and could affect lawful residents, including those who contribute to public services like the NHS.

Under current policy, ILR lets migrants live, study and work in the United Kingdom without time limits and enables access to the NHS and certain welfare benefits. Most people must hold ILR for at least 12 months before applying for citizenship, though some categories have shorter paths. Eligibility generally requires five years of lawful residence, with variations for certain visa routes, and refugees can apply after five years of status. The Migration Observatory at Oxford University estimates that about 430,000 non-EU citizens were granted an initial visa from 2005 onward and now hold ILR but not citizenship, with others who arrived earlier also included in total counts that are likely in the hundreds of thousands. Overall, non-EU ILR holders are thought to be in the hundreds of thousands; by contrast, more than four million EU nationals have been granted settled status, though data on how many remain in the UK or have become citizens is less complete. Reform also projects that roughly 3.8 million migrants who arrived after the pandemic would be eligible for ILR between 2026 and 2030 if the current system remained in place.

The party’s proposal would end new ILR awards and rescind ILR for those already granted the status. Under the plan, migrants would instead renew their visa every five years, subject to criteria such as a higher salary threshold and improved English-language requirements. Reform did not provide a near-term figure for the proposed salary cap, saying it would be set later. The policy does not reportedly apply to around six million EU nationals living with settled status, according to Farage. Dr Ben Brindle, a Migration Observatory researcher, noted that those most likely to be affected would include refugees and family members of British citizens who may struggle to meet the economic or language requirements of the new regime.

Critics have raised questions about the implications for the NHS and other public services if lower-paid migrants are deported after long terms of service in essential sectors. Ashley Stothard, an immigration lawyer at Freeths, called the plan outrageous and said it undermines the rights of lawful migrants who have contributed socially, economically, and culturally. Chancellor Rachel Reeves said the figures behind the policy show that Reform’s plan has “no basis in reality.” The Conservative Party described the proposals as half-baked and unworkable, while London Mayor Sadiq Khan highlighted the established rights of thousands of ILR holders in the capital and warned that deporting people living and working legally would be unacceptable.

Analysts and researchers note the policy’s scale and potential fiscal impact would hinge on how many individuals would be forced to leave and how many would be able to meet the new criteria. The debate comes ahead of a general election where migration has long been a political focal point, with reform-minded voices arguing for tighter controls and more explicit incentives to contribute to public services. While supporters frame the proposal as a long-term solution to what Farage has characterized as a broken system, opponents warn of administrative complexity, legal challenges, and unintended consequences for families and communities that rely on migrant workers in sectors such as healthcare, education, and construction. The plan marks a sharp departure from the existing pathway to settlement and citizenship and could reshape the government’s approach to migration if enacted, depending on electoral outcomes and legislative negotiations.

For now, the debate continues as policymakers weigh the balance between border controls, public service funding, and the rights of people who have built lives in Britain over many years. The question remains whether a policy framed around five-year renewals and stricter eligibility would deliver the anticipated savings while preserving the rights and protections that have underpinned Britain’s immigration system for generations. The controversy underscores the complexity of reforming ILR in a way that could be implemented consistently, fairly, and legally across a diverse and changing migrant population.