Nigel Farage’s recent initiative to restrict migrants’ eligibility for permanent residency has faced setbacks due to errors related to financial savings calculations.
The Reform UK leader proposed eliminating indefinite leave to remain (ILR) for migrants if his party gains power. Currently, migrants can obtain ILR after five years, but Reform UK plans to mandate visa renewals every five years with stricter requirements such as higher income thresholds and enhanced English proficiency. The residency period would also extend to seven years, and there would be tighter regulations on family reunification and benefits access.
Farage and Reform’s policy chief, Zia Yusuf, claimed potential taxpayer savings exceeding £230 billion. However, these figures seem to originate from a report by the Centre of Policy Studies, which the think tank disavowed.
Labour critics dismissed Farage’s proposal as lacking substance and criticized Reform UK for sowing division rather than addressing national issues. Chancellor Rachel Reeves questioned the financial validity of the plan, asserting that the claimed savings were already unraveling.
In response, a Government spokesperson emphasized that illegal residents are not entitled to welfare benefits and hinted at extending the waiting period for foreign nationals to access Universal Credit to ten years. The spokesperson defended ongoing welfare reforms to reduce the benefits bill and improve the system.
Reform UK defended its calculations, arguing that the actual fiscal impact of migrants gaining ILR, especially from countries like Somalia and Pakistan, would likely exceed the estimated £234 billion savings.
The ongoing debate underscores differing perspectives on immigration policy and welfare reform, with Farage’s party advocating for stringent measures while facing skepticism from political opponents and experts.