Reform UK vows to scrap indefinite leave to remain, seeking five-year renewals for migrants
Nigel Farage’s party would end indefinite leave to remain and require renewals every five years, a move critics say could affect NHS staffing and the rights of long-term residents.
Reform UK leader Nigel Farage pledged to abolish indefinite leave to remain, outlining a plan that would apply to both new applicants and those already granted ILR and could, in theory, see some current holders at risk of deportation. Farage argued the change would save billions in welfare costs over coming decades, though he did not provide a fixed, independently verified figure. The claim drew swift pushback from opponents who warned of the practical and humanitarian implications of uprooting people already living in Britain.
Indefinite leave to remain is an immigration status that lets migrants live, study and work in the United Kingdom without time restrictions. Holders can access the NHS without paying the Immigration Health Surcharge and may later apply for British citizenship after a set period. Under current rules, most people must hold ILR for five years before they can apply for citizenship, with shorter waiting times for certain visa routes such as entrepreneurs or researchers. Refugees can apply for ILR five years after they are granted refugee status.
How many people hold ILR and how many could be affected by reforms? Oxford University’s Migration Observatory estimates that roughly 430,000 non-EU citizens were granted an initial visa from 2005 onward and now hold ILR but not citizenship, though some may have left the country. Added to those who arrived earlier, the number of non-EU citizens with ILR is likely in the hundreds of thousands. There have been more than 4 million grants of settled status to EU citizens, but the Migration Observatory says data on how many remain in the UK or have become citizens is incomplete. Reform projects that about 3.8 million migrants who arrived after the pandemic would be eligible for ILR between 2026 and 2030.
Reform’s proposal would abolish indefinite leave to remain and force migrants to renew their status every five years. Farage suggested applying a higher salary threshold and improved English-language requirements, although the party had not specified a fixed salary cap at the time of the discussion. The plan would apply to migrants who are currently on ILR and to new applicants; those holding ILR would have their status rescinded under the proposal in its more aggressive framing, sparking concerns about due process and humanitarian consequences.
Who could be affected? Foremost would be refugees and family members of British citizens, groups less likely to meet stringent economic or language criteria. Farage has said the rule would not apply to around six million EU nationals living in the UK with settled status after Brexit. Critics warn that deporting lower-paid workers could undermine public services, including the NHS, where many staff are migrants.
What are critics saying? Healthcare and migration experts worry about the NHS implications of deporting migrants who work in essential roles and earn lower salaries. Ashley Stothard, an immigration lawyer at Freeths, called the plan outrageous and said it undermines the rights of lawful migrants who have contributed to the UK socially, economically, and culturally. The Centre for Policy Studies originally produced the £234 billion estimate for potential benefits costs from axing ILR, but the think tank later withdrew that figure. Chancellor Rachel Reeves said the numbers show Reform’s plans have no basis in reality. The Conservative Party branded the proposals half-baked and unworkable, while London Mayor Sadiq Khan said many Londoners have ILR and deserve protection, stressing that deporting people who are legally living and working in the capital would be unacceptable.
The policy debate comes amid broader questions about migration levels, the fiscal and social costs of integration, and the logistics of revoking a status already granted to hundreds of thousands. Proponents of reform argue that tightening the path to settlement would encourage higher-skill migration and reduce long-term welfare costs, while opponents warn that the plans risk destabilizing families, disrupting communities, and complicating public services that rely on a diverse workforce. As political parties vying for influence in the next election lay out their migration platforms, analysts say concrete costings and implementation timelines will be critical for voters evaluating the feasibility and potential consequences of such reforms.