Nigel Farage has set out a series of hardline immigration policies that were lauded by the rightwing press.
His Reform party would eject hundreds of thousands of people who have been granted indefinite leave to remain in the UK – a move he claimed would save £234bn over several decades.
The party would also force those with permanent residency to reapply under tougher rules, including higher salary requirements, and abolish the status of indefinite leave to remain (ILR), which gives migrants rights and access to benefits, he said.
But under scrutiny on Monday, Farage struggled to explain how any of this would work and who exactly would be deported. He was also challenged on whether his figures added up. Critics say they don’t.
Would the policy save money – or cost the UK more?
The first paragraph of the party’s policy document, Prioritising UK Citizens, says: “Reform will save the taxpayer £230bn by taking decisive action on immigration and welfare. ILR will be abolished. No new awards granted and existing ones rescinded.”
But the thinktank that came up with the figure, the Centre for Policy Studies, has subsequently said the fiscal data contained within this report was the “subject of dispute”, meaning that the overall cost estimates should no longer be used.
Jonathan Portes, the professor and former government economist, has written a detail critique of the CPS paper. He said that if the CPS had properly interpreted the OBR data, they would have concluded that there would be a net fiscal benefit of about £125bn in the next few years.
At a press conference on Monday, Farage declined to correct the £230bn figure and claimed the true figure was in fact “considerably bigger”.
“The £230bn figure … is without a doubt too low. It underestimates things,” he said.
Who would be removed from the UK?
Farage and his colleague Zia Yusuf argued the changes would lead to “hundreds of thousands of people having to apply and ultimately losing their settled status in the UK”.
“Many of those who will lose their leave to remain are entirely dependent on the welfare state and will leave voluntarily upon losing access to benefits,” Yusuf said.
But they declined to say if their plans would apply to children of people who have indefinite leave to remain, or retired people, Ukrainians or people from Hong Kong.
Ben Brindle, a researcher at the Migration Observatory at Oxford University, said about 430,000 non-EU citizens held indefinite leave to remain at the end of 2024.
“To acquire ILR, most migrants will have had multiple immigration applications accepted by the government and will have been given the right to permanent status. While some have been in the UK for five to 10 years, others will have lived in the UK for decades, and may have British children who have only ever lived in the UK,” he said.
Portes has reportedly said “it is absolutely not true” that most new migrants rely on benefits, because of provisions barring most from receiving government funds.
Josephine Whitaker-Yilmaz, the head of advocacy at the migrant charity Praxis, said the policy would leave many families, including her own, unsure what it might mean if Reform formed the next government.
“My husband, who is Turkish, has applied for ILR and will hopefully be eligible for it next year. Our children are dual UK and Turkish nationals. Would a Reform government insist that my husband has to take my children when he is deported or would they be allowed to stay?” she said.
Could the policies damage some sectors of the economy?
Farage and Yusuf brushed off concerns that their policies, including plans to ban dual citizenship, would have a detrimental impact on the economy.
But Marley Morris, the associate director of the IPPR thinktank, said it would have a significant impact on the UK’s ability to attract talent.
Brindle said increasing the salary thresholds and removing ILR status could leave businesses struggling to fill vacancies in the agriculture, construction and care sectors.
“These jobs are not attractive to domestic workers because they are difficult jobs, with poor pay and conditions. You might eventually be able to fill these jobs but you will not to do it overnight and many of these sectors could struggle for some time.”
Reform said it would introduce a new “acute skills shortage visa” with a strict cap on numbers. Any employers that sponsor the visas would have to pay a levy that in turn would be spent on training equivalent British workers.
