How would scrapping Indefinite Leave to Remain affect current settled migrants and their families?
Executive summary
Scrapping Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR) or replacing it with a time-limited, re‑applying visa system would put the lawful status, rights and long-term security of large numbers of migrants and their families at risk by making permanence conditional, retrospective in some proposals, and subject to new tests that many current settled people may fail [1] [2] [3]. Policymakers and campaigners disagree sharply: proponents frame it as fiscal and immigration control, while critics warn of family breakup, legal chaos and harms to public services and social cohesion [4] [5] [6].
1. Immediate legal and status consequences: loss, reapplication and retrospective reach
A full abolition of ILR would, according to Reform UK’s outline, force people with existing settled status to reapply for visas on a periodic basis or lose permanent status, a move the party says could affect "hundreds of thousands" and would require reapplication every five years under their plan [1] [2]. Government consultations on an “earned settlement” model also propose applying new rules to those who have not yet been granted ILR—effectively extending qualifying periods and introducing discretionary criteria that could be applied retrospectively to people already on routes to settlement [7] [8] [9]. Legal commentators predict substantial litigation if retrospective revocations were attempted because of the disruption to families and communities who relied on the existing rules [3].
2. Rights, benefits and access to public services: conditionality and uncertainty
ILR currently guarantees rights to live, work and access public services and is the gateway to citizenship; removing or conditioning that status would change eligibility for benefits, housing and other entitlements and could leave people in a limbo of repeated renewals and tests rather than permanence [10] [4] [9]. Reform UK claims fiscal savings from stricter rules, but critics and analysts point out that many benefit claimants with ILR are EU nationals protected under the Withdrawal Agreement, and that the proposed calculations of savings are unclear and contested [5] [4]. The Home Office’s own earned‑settlement proposals make settlement dependent on “contribution” and suitability tests, which would make access to rights less automatic and more discretionary [11] [7].
3. Families and children: risk of separation, prolonged uncertainty and unequal effects
Campaigners warn that revoking or delaying settled status will “tear families apart” by making dependants subject to earnings, language or contribution tests that some caregivers and refugee families cannot meet, with acute consequences where children are British or where family life has been built on a promise of permanence [5] [12] [13]. Public opinion data show a majority oppose removing ILR from those who already hold it—reflecting concern about breaking up families and specific sympathy for groups such as Ukrainians and refugees [14] [6]. The Migration Observatory and legal advisers highlight that refugees and family members of British citizens could be disproportionately affected, raising Article 8 human‑rights issues and likely legal challenges [4] [7].
4. Economic and employer impacts: workforce, recruitment and public services
Removing a clear route to permanence risks deterring migrants from staying long‑term or from choosing the UK, which may exacerbate recruitment problems in sectors that rely on overseas staff—health, social care and skilled roles—if candidates seek countries with more secure settlement pathways [9] [4]. Employers and immigration lawyers warn the “earned settlement” proposal’s complexity will increase compliance costs, legal advice demand and uncertainty for businesses and employees, with knock‑on effects for filling vacancies and planning workforce development [9] [11].
5. Political feasibility, legal pushback and competing narratives
Proposals to scrap or overhaul ILR are politically charged: Reform frames the move as fairness and fiscal prudence while opponents call it morally wrong and likely to backfire at the ballot box, noting majority public resistance to revoking existing settled status [2] [15] [14]. Multiple sources predict significant legal challenges to retrospective measures and emphasise that EU Settlement Scheme beneficiaries are legally protected—complicating any wholesale revocation [3] [1] [5]. Analysts also note an implicit agenda: shifting from time‑based to contribution‑based settlement reframes belonging as conditional and signals a broader migration‑control philosophy rather than a narrow administrative change [11] [6].
6. Bottom line: forced insecurity, legal fights and human costs
If implemented as proposed by some political actors, scrapping or fundamentally changing ILR would replace certainty with conditional renewal, expose many settled people and families—especially refugees, low‑earners, caregivers and those close to settlement—to heightened risk of losing rights or being pushed through prolonged pathways, and would likely provoke legal battles, employer disruption and public pushback; the scale and precise mechanics, however, depend on final rules, transitional provisions and which groups (notably EU‑settled people) are legally exempt [1] [7] [3]. The debate therefore is less a technical tweak than a choice about who counts as permitted to belong permanently in Britain, with significant social, economic and human consequences [6] [15].