Nigel Farage sets out his immigration policy (Image: Getty)
Nigel Farage has announced plans to cut migration and slash the welfare bill by £230 billion if he becomes Prime Minister.
There’s some debate about the precise sum of money, but Reform UK insists there are big savings to be made by making it much harder – or impossible – for foreigners living in the UK to claim benefits.
Get the latest politics news – straight from our team in Westminster and more
Invalid email
You agree you are 18 or over. We use your sign-up to provide content in ways you’ve consented to and to improve our understanding of you. This may include adverts from us and third parties based on our knowledge of you. You can unsubscribe at any time. More Info.
Here’s what we know:
What is the change to benefits?
One massive change is a proposed change in the law to ensure only British citizens are eligible for welfare, with no exceptions. Reform says its plans mean “every loophole closed to prevent abuse”.
On top of that, a Reform UK government would abolish “indefinite leave to remain” status. This is a status foreign people (ie, people who are not British citizens) can apply for in many cases if they have been in the country for five years. It means they are allowed to live here and to work here permanently, and claim benefits, without the need to apply for more visas in the future.
Will they make changes to visas?
Reform would scrap indefinite leave to remain, and replace it with a visa that people have to apply for every five years. The new visa would not entitle people to claim benefits.
Perhaps the most controversial element of Reform’s plan is the pledge to remove “indefinite leave to remain” status from people who already have it. They would also need to start applying for a new visa every five years. Mr Farage stressed that this would not apply to immigrants who are British citizens, as citizenship would always be permanent. Indefinite leave to remain is not the same as being a citizen.
And in another change, the new five-year visa would have tougher requirements. Applicants would need to earn a higher salary than they do now, they would need a higher standard of English and they could be refused a visa if they have any criminal convictions, have failed to pay taxes they owed or have claimed benefits. In addition, they might not be able to bring dependents into the UK, depending on how much they earn.
How will citizenship be affected?
A Reform government would also make it harder to become a citizen. At the moment, people can apply for citizenship if they have lived in the UK for five years and meet certain other conditions. But this would be extended to seven years.
Why does Reform say the changes are needed?
Mr Farage says huge changes are needed because the UK spends billions on welfare for foreign nationals, including £9 billion on Universal Credit. But he says he is particularly concerned about the large number of migrants who came to the UK between 2021 and the end of 2024, who will soon be eligible for Indefinite Leave to Remain. This could be 800,000 people, he says. Because Boris Johnson was Prime Minister when many of these migrants arrived, he (and some other people) calls them the Boriswave.
Mr Farage said: “Welfare will end for everyone that is not a UK citizen, we will close the loopholes. Reform will ensure that welfare is for UK citizens only.
“We are cleaning up the mess of Boris Johnson and dealing with the Boriswave – the biggest betrayal of voters’ trust in modern times.”
Other parties, of course, disagree, Conservative shadow home secretary Chris Philp accused Reform of copying Conservative ideas and called the policy “half-baked and unworkable”.
He said: “They lift our policies but strip away the detail that makes them enforceable. Mass low-skill migration carries real fiscal costs – in housing, welfare, and public services – which is why Britain needs a system that rewards contribution and stops abuse.”
Labour Chair Anna Turley said: “Nigel Farage’s not even half-baked plan is unfunded, unworkable and falling apart in real time.
“Their policy was in pieces before their press conference even started when they relied on discredited numbers. And now Reform have been forced to admit that their policy does not apply to people from the EU – destroying Farage’s claims that it covers all foreign-born nationals.
“Farage is unable to say how many families his policy would break up, what the cost to businesses would be, what would happen to pensioners and how long it would take to implement – basic questions that any serious political party would know the answers to before making an announcement like this.”
Everything we know about Reform’s £230bn-saving immigration plan
Reform UK’s immigration programme has placed an extraordinary figure at the heart of its argument over migration: £230 billion.
The party has presented the figure as the potential long-term saving to taxpayers from abolishing indefinite leave to remain, restricting welfare access for foreign nationals and introducing a much tougher system for permanent settlement.
But the £230 billion figure needs to be understood carefully. It is a Reform UK estimate, based on analysis that has subsequently been disputed, rather than a confirmed saving that has been independently established.
The proposal nevertheless represents one of the most far-reaching attempts in recent British politics to reshape the relationship between immigration, welfare and permanent residence.
What is Reform proposing?
At the centre of the plan is the abolition of Indefinite Leave to Remain, or ILR.
ILR currently allows eligible migrants to live in the United Kingdom without a time limit. It is separate from British citizenship, although it can form part of the route towards citizenship.
Reform says it would abolish ILR and rescind existing awards. Instead, migrants would generally be required to hold renewable five-year visas.
The party says those visas would come with higher salary requirements, mandatory fluency in English and stricter good-character conditions. It also proposes that foreign nationals would have no entitlement to benefits.
The objective, according to Reform, is to end what it describes as the previous era of large-scale immigration and put British citizens first.
The party’s current policy document says that 3.8 million people entered Britain on long-term visas during what it calls the “Boriswave” between 2021 and 2024. It estimates that between 1.6 million and 2.2 million of those migrants could receive ILR between 2026 and 2030 under existing arrangements. Reform says the eventual taxpayer cost could reach around £622 billion in real terms.
Those figures are central to the party’s argument for changing the system.
Where did the £230bn figure come from?
The original £230 billion figure appeared in Reform’s policy document Prioritising UK Citizens.
The document stated that Reform would “save the taxpayer £230bn” by taking action on immigration and welfare, including abolishing ILR and rescinding existing awards.
The estimate was based on work associated with the Centre for Policy Studies and calculations using Office for Budget Responsibility data.
However, the underlying calculation subsequently became controversial.
The Centre for Policy Studies later said that the fiscal data used in the report was the subject of dispute and that the overall cost estimates should no longer be used.
That is an important qualification because it means the £230bn figure cannot simply be presented as an independently verified government forecast.
Farage nevertheless defended the figure when challenged.
According to the Guardian, he declined to withdraw it and argued that the true saving could actually be considerably larger.
Does £230bn mean £230bn in immediate savings?
No.
The figure is presented as a long-term estimate rather than money that would suddenly appear in the Treasury’s accounts.
Reform’s proposals would affect people over a number of years, and the fiscal consequences would depend on how many migrants remained in Britain, how many obtained citizenship, how many qualified for new visas and how many eventually left.
The figure also incorporates assumptions about welfare spending and the wider fiscal position of migrants.
That makes the calculation particularly sensitive to assumptions.
For example, a migrant who works full-time and pays income tax and National Insurance has a different fiscal impact from someone who is unemployed and receiving benefits.
Age also matters.
A younger worker may pay taxes for decades before reaching retirement age, while an older migrant may have a different balance between contributions and public spending.
Who would be affected?
One of the most important groups would be migrants who currently have, or are approaching eligibility for, ILR.
When Farage announced the proposal in September 2025, he said approximately 800,000 people were expected to become eligible for ILR over the following three to four years.
He described many of them as part of the “Boriswave”.
Under Reform’s proposal, they would not simply move automatically from temporary immigration status to permanent settlement.
Instead, they would face the new five-year renewable visa system.
The party has suggested substantially higher salary thresholds, advanced English requirements and tighter restrictions on dependants.
The Times previously reported a possible salary threshold of around £60,000, compared with a £41,700 threshold associated with the Skilled Worker route at the time. The exact threshold has not been established as a final Reform government policy.
Would all these people be deported?
This is one of the most important distinctions in the debate.
Abolishing ILR does not automatically mean that every person affected would immediately be deported.
People could potentially apply for another visa, qualify for British citizenship or otherwise meet the requirements of a future immigration system.
However, people who failed to qualify under the new rules could potentially lose their right to remain.
Reform has therefore created a system in which permanent residence would become considerably more conditional.
The Guardian reported that Farage and Reform policy chief Zia Yusuf acknowledged that hundreds of thousands could ultimately lose their settled status under the proposed changes.
The exact number who would actually leave Britain would depend on the legislation and the individual circumstances of those affected.
Welfare is another major part of the calculation
Reform’s immigration policy is closely linked to its welfare proposals.
The party says foreign nationals would have no access to benefits under its proposed system.
In August 2026, Reform announced a separate plan to prevent foreign nationals from claiming most benefits. It said that policy alone could save approximately £21 billion a year by its fifth year.
The proposal would also apply to EU nationals with settled status, according to Reform.
That creates a major complication because the rights of eligible EU citizens in Britain are protected by the post-Brexit settlement arrangements.
Any attempt to remove those rights would therefore have legal and diplomatic consequences.
It could also affect British citizens living in EU countries because the existing arrangements operate on a reciprocal basis.
Why is the calculation disputed?
The central criticism is that the £230bn figure relies on assumptions that have been challenged.
The Centre for Policy Studies itself subsequently said that the fiscal data behind the calculation was disputed and should no longer be used in that form.
Economists have also pointed out that migrants are not simply a cost to the state.
Many work and pay taxes. They contribute to economic output and fill jobs in sectors ranging from healthcare to hospitality, construction and social care.
That does not mean every migrant is a net fiscal contributor. The balance varies considerably according to earnings, age, employment, family circumstances and use of public services.
But it means that calculating a single long-term saving from removing or restricting migrants is inherently complicated.
The labour-market question
Another issue is what happens to Britain’s workforce if immigration is reduced sharply.
Reform argues that lower immigration would encourage employers to recruit British workers, raise wages and invest more heavily in automation and training.
Critics argue that some industries rely heavily on migrant labour and could experience serious shortages if those workers disappeared.
Social care is one example.
The sector has relied substantially on overseas recruitment in recent years. A major reduction in migration could therefore require higher wages, increased domestic recruitment or greater public funding.
The eventual economic effect would depend on how employers and government responded.
Reform’s wider immigration programme
The £230bn proposal is not an isolated policy.
Reform’s current programme includes a much broader immigration strategy.
The party says it would remove all illegal migrants through a five-year emergency programme, establish a UK Deportation Command, expand detention capacity and negotiate return agreements with other countries.
It also proposes “Net Negative Immigration”, arguing that Britain should move away from what it calls cheap, low-skilled foreign labour.
The party’s position is therefore based on reducing both illegal and legal migration, while making permanent settlement substantially more difficult.
How does this differ from current law?
The difference is considerable.
Under the current system, eligible migrants can qualify for ILR after meeting the requirements of their particular immigration route.
The House of Commons Library has noted that immigration and settlement rules have already been subject to significant proposed changes, including longer qualifying periods for settlement. However, proposals themselves do not automatically change the law.
Reform’s plan would go substantially further by abolishing ILR altogether and rescinding existing awards.
That would require major legislative changes.
What would £230bn actually mean for taxpayers?
This is where the political argument becomes difficult to separate from the assumptions behind the calculation.
If Reform’s estimate were realised, £230bn would represent a very large long-term fiscal saving.
But the figure is not equivalent to £230bn of guaranteed cash that could immediately be spent on tax cuts, hospitals or public services.
The outcome would depend on how many people left, how many remained, how many became citizens, how much tax they paid and how much they used public services.
There could also be costs associated with enforcement, administration, legal challenges, deportation and replacing workers in sectors affected by lower migration.
Those factors would need to be incorporated into any full fiscal assessment.
The political significance
Despite the controversy surrounding the calculation, the £230bn figure has become an important part of Reform UK’s political argument.
It allows the party to connect immigration policy with the cost of welfare and the broader question of government spending.
Rather than presenting immigration solely as a border-control issue, Reform argues that the scale and composition of migration affect taxpayers, public services, housing and the welfare state.
Critics challenge both the assumptions behind the savings and the practical consequences of the proposed restrictions.
The debate is therefore ultimately about more than one number.
It concerns what Britain’s immigration system should look like, whether permanent settlement should remain available, how much access foreign nationals should have to welfare and whether reducing migration would strengthen or weaken the economy.
For now, the £230bn figure should be treated as a Reform UK estimate rather than a confirmed Treasury saving. The underlying calculation has been disputed, and the organisation originally associated with the analysis has said that the relevant fiscal data should no longer be used in that form.
What is not in dispute is the scale of Reform’s proposed change.
The party wants to abolish ILR, rescind existing awards, introduce renewable visas with tougher conditions and restrict welfare access for foreign nationals.
Whether those measures would ultimately save the sums claimed by Reform — or produce different economic costs and benefits — would depend on legislation, implementation and the behaviour of migrants, employers and the wider economy.
That makes the £230bn headline a starting point for the debate rather than its final answer.