Indefinite Leave to Remain UK (ILR) is a cornerstone of the UK’s immigration system, giving long-term residents stability, security, and a pathway to citizenship.
Yet recent political proposals, including those from Reform UK, have reignited debate about whether ILR should be restricted or even abolished. In practice, such a move would face formidable barriers. This blog explores why: tracing ILR’s historical development, examining domestic and international legal frameworks, reviewing precedent, and considering the lived realities of migrants. We also assess the wider implications for the UK’s reputation, economy, and social cohesion—showing why ILR remains an essential, if evolving, pillar of immigration law.
The Historical Evolution of Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR)
Pre-1971: An Era of Commonwealth Openness
Before the advent of the modern, controlled immigration system, UK immigration law was considerably more open, especially toward citizens of the Commonwealth. The British Nationality Act 1948 granted Citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies (CUKC) and Commonwealth citizens rights to free entry and settlement, reflecting both post-war reconstruction needs and a political ethos of pan-Commonwealth solidarity. Large numbers of migrants from the Caribbean, India, and Pakistan were actively recruited to support key sectors such as transport and healthcare.
However, rising public concerns around housing, employment, and social integration led to more restrictive legislation during the 1960s, culminating in the Commonwealth Immigrants Acts of 1962 and 1968. Political risks and racial tensions prompted cross-party support for controls, leading to the passage of the Immigration Act 1971.
The Immigration Act 1971 and the Foundation of ILR
The Immigration Act 1971 fundamentally restructured the UK’s approach to migration. It introduced a rigorous framework distinguishing between those with the “right of abode” (primarily British citizens and certain Commonwealth citizens) and those subject to immigration control. The notion of indefinite leave to remain was introduced as a way for non-citizens living legally and continuously in the UK to achieve a form of permanent status—free from time limitations, and a step toward eventual naturalisation as British citizens.
Over subsequent decades, ILR eligibility criteria have evolved in response to labour market needs, social changes, and political pressures. Notably:
- The qualifying period for most migrants has shifted from four years, to five, and, according to recent government proposals, potentially to ten years for many categories.
- Routes based on family, skills, humanitarian protection, and long residence (the so-called “10-year rule”) have existed side by side, reflecting both economic and rights-based imperatives.
Post-Brexit: EU Settlement Scheme and New Pathways
After Brexit, EU, EEA, and Swiss nationals resident in the UK before 31 December 2020 were required to secure status under the EU Settlement Scheme, with “settled status” essentially functioning as ILR. This reaffirmed the principle that those who have established their lives in the UK can obtain security, a testament to ILR’s centrality in modern British immigration and nationality law.
The Security and Loss of ILR
While “indefinite,” ILR is not absolute or irrevocable. It can be lost through:
- Extended absence from the UK (normally over two years);
- Serious criminality (leading to deportation);
- Deception or withdrawal of protection in asylum cases (such as ceasing to qualify as a refugee);
- National security grounds.
However, revoking ILR from settled, law-abiding residents would require not just changes in rules, but potentially primary legislation and could be challenged on human rights and legitimate expectation grounds.
Human Rights Law and ECHR Implications
Article 8 ECHR: A Central Pillar
Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) guarantees every individual the “right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence.” Although the right is qualified—and may be restricted for purposes such as immigration control—it has proved pivotal in the legal regime for long-term residence in the UK.
The Human Rights Act 1998 incorporates the ECHR into domestic law, making Article 8 enforceable through UK courts. Over the past twenty years, the impact of Article 8 arguments in immigration law has been transformative. Legal practice and case law require decision-makers to undertake a proportionality assessment, balancing the public interest (including controlling immigration) against the individual’s right to private and family life.
Precedent Against Retrospective Rule Changes
The courts have also scrutinised, and in some instances struck down, attempts to retrospectively change settlement rules. In HSMP Forum Ltd v SSHD (2008), the High Court ruled it unlawful and unfair to apply new qualifying periods for ILR to those already lawfully progressing under earlier rules, recognising the “legitimate expectation” of settled migrants.
Legislative Infrastructure
While the Government of the day has significant powers to amend the Immigration Rules, outright abolition of ILR would require major statutory changes. The centrality of ILR within the statutory regime, its connection with acquisition of British nationality under the British Nationality Act 1981, and the existence of rights under the ECHR all mean that any attempt to abolish or undermine ILR would likely face a complex legislative process—perhaps requiring primary legislation and, potentially, facing resistance in the House of Lords.
Human Rights, the Rule of Law, and Parliamentary Sovereignty
Attempts to abolish or revoke ILR for existing residents would also have to comply with the Human Rights Act and the UK’s international obligations. While Parliament is sovereign, the courts can issue declarations of incompatibility and order remedies in individual cases. Any attempt to “scrap” ILR would be challenged in the courts, potentially leading to a situation where the government is compelled to provide alternative forms of status for long-term residents on the basis of human rights, fairness, and non-discrimination.
Economic Contributions
Migrants with ILR make substantial contributions to the UK economy—as workers, taxpayers, entrepreneurs, and consumers. The Migration Observatory and Office for Budget Responsibility have shown that, on average, working-age migrants, especially those who arrive skilled and of working age, contribute more in taxes than they receive in benefits, supporting public finances and crucial sectors such as health and social care.
Extending the Qualifying Period
The current UK government’s White Paper (May 2025) proposes extending the default route to settlement from five to ten years for most categories, aligning with a new “earned settlement” model that rewards economic and social contributions. While this would increase the waiting period (and revenue from fees and surcharges), it retains the principle of settlement and incentives for integration.
For legal practitioners and clients, the current wave of policy change is unsettling and requires vigilance. While the government has broad discretion in setting rules, history, precedent, and principle all suggest that any move to abolish ILR would face significant—potentially insurmountable—hurdles across the board. ILR remains, and will remain for the foreseeable future, an essential, if evolving, cornerstone of UK immigration and nationality law.