BY BERNARD RYAN
This is the first of four blog posts in which Bernard Ryan of the University of Leicester argues that the Government’s earned settlement plan, set out in A Fairer Pathway to Settlement in November 2025, is largely without precedent. If implemented fully, the plan would make it significantly harder to obtain settlement (also known as indefinite leave) than has ever been the case in the United Kingdom. It would also lead UK policy to be significantly more restrictive than in comparable countries.
Introduction
In A Fairer Pathway, the Government indicated that many elements of earned settlement had been decided, with others subject to a consultation process, submissions to which closed on 12 February 2026. There has been widespread criticism of the entire plan, including by backbench MPs, migrant groups, faith leaders, trade unions and the House of Lords Justice and Home Affairs Committee. At the time of writing, there is considerable uncertainty concerning the future of the earned settlement plan, its timing, and its detail.
This blog post is concerned with the general scheme of earned settlement. It covers the ten-year baseline, adjustments to it, mandatory requirements, and the Danish precedent. It should be noted at the outset that those covered by the EU settlement scheme and Windrush cases are outside the scope of the earned settlement plan. Subsequent posts will cover settlement from work categories, the main family categories and international protection categories.
We hope that the information and sources provided in these blog posts will be useful for those evaluating future UK policy on settlement, whether during the current Parliament, or beyond. We anticipate that these may include parliamentarians, civil society organisations, researchers, foreign nationals and other members of the public.
The ten-year baseline
A core element of the plan set out in A Fairer Pathway is a new baseline qualifying period of ten years’ residence. Family members of British citizens (but not of others) and those on British National (Overseas) routes would be exempt from the baseline, and would continue to have a five-year qualifying period.
A general ten-year qualifying period for indefinite leave would be unprecedented in UK policy. In 1973, when the current immigration law and policy framework was put in place, the standard period to settlement was four years for other Commonwealth nationals (HC 80) and for non-Commonwealth nationals (HC 82). In 2005-2006, the standard period was increased to five years for work and business categories and for refugees. A five-year qualifying period was extended to partners, and to parents of resident children, in 2012.
Hitherto, ten years has been the required period of lawful residence prior to acquiring indefinite leave only for fallback options, which become relevant when an individual cannot rely upon the main routes to eligibility. General provision for indefinite leave after ten years’ lawful residence of any kind has its origins in the European Convention on Establishment, which binds twelve states, including the UK (since 1969). Article 3 of that Convention provides that a national of a contracting party should not be expelled after ten years’ lawful residence, save on grounds of national security or particularly serious offences against public order or morality. Access to indefinite leave after ten years’ lawful residence was incorporated into the Immigration Rules in 2003, and is now provided for in Appendix Long Residence. In addition, since 2012, family members who are ineligible for indefinite leave after five years because they do not meet income or language conditions, have had a separate route to indefinite leave after ten years.
Furthermore, a ten-year baseline qualifying period would be far longer than in most comparable countries:
- In the European Union, the Long-Term Residents Directive, adopted in 2003, requires Member States to grant long-term resident status to third-country nationals after five years’ lawful residence. (This Directive does not apply to Denmark and Ireland.)
- In Australia, 45% of those who obtained a permanent visa in 2024-25 as skilled immigrants or through family connections were new arrivals (Australia’s Migration Trends 2024–25, p. 3). A qualifying period of two years applies to other workers, and to partners of Australian citizens and permanent residents initially admitted with a temporary visa.
- Canada provides for permanent residence from the outset for family members and many skilled workers. One year’s employment is the basis for an application as a skilled worker through the Canadian Experience Class.
- In the United States, between 2014 and 2023, 46% of those acquiring lawful permanent residence status did so from overseas, without a qualifying period. The remainder – including employees, family members and refugees – ‘adjust’ their status in-country, for which there are no fixed qualifying periods, though delays arise in processing and from numerical limits. (On 21 May 2026, the Trump administration announced a more restrictive approach to adjustment of status, which appears likely to affect those who have overstayed a visa, or entered the territory in an irregular manner.)
- In New Zealand, permanent residence can be obtained from family and work categories after two years’ residence.
The only comparable country with a ten-year baseline is Switzerland. There, applications for permanent residence may be made after ten years, subject to a broad requirement of integration. Nationals of the 14 pre-2004 EU member states, and of the three EEA states, are eligible for permanent residence after five years, as a result of treaties. Permanent residence permission may also be granted after five years if the applicant can communicate well in the national language of their place of residence, and meets integration requirements.
Varying the qualifying period
Under the earned settlement plan, the ten-year baseline would be varied, both upwards and downwards, in defined circumstances.
The qualifying period would be reduced by one year if a person demonstrated competency in English to Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) level C1. A person who earned a taxable income of at least £125,140 for the previous three years would obtain a seven-year reduction. A person who earned a taxable income of at least £50,270 for the previous three years, or who was employed in a specified public service occupation for five years, would obtain a five-year reduction. An applicant who had worked in the community through volunteering would obtain a reduction of three to five years. Only one of these reductions could be relied upon.
The qualifying period would increase where a person had received public funds during the relevant period of residence. The amount of the increase would be ten years if the period of receipt exceeded twelve months in total, and five years in other cases. Irregular arrival in the UK, initial entry on a visit visa, and overstaying for more than six months, would all lead to an increase of up to 20 years to the qualifying period. Only one of these circumstances would, however, count against the applicant.
There is no precedent in past UK policy for such variability in qualifying periods for settlement. The closest it came was a Labour Government proposal in The Path to Citizenship in 2008 for the addition of two years to the qualifying period for indefinite leave, and similarly for naturalisation, where a person did not meet a requirement of ‘active citizenship’. At that time, the voluntary sector expressed deep unease at the proposal, and, after being referred to a design group, it was not proceeded with. It is unclear why this idea should be any more viable this time round, and it has met strong criticism from charities. The idea of voluntary contributions leading to reductions in qualifying periods of three to five years also lacks comparative support.
The only comparative example of variability in qualifying periods that we know of concerns Denmark, which is discussed below. Upward adjustments would also be in tension with the European Convention on Establishment, in the case of nationals other contracting states.
Mandatory requirements
Mandatory minimum requirements are a second element of the earned settlement plan (A Fairer Pathway, Table 1 at p 21). Family members of British citizens, and those on British National (Overseas) routes, though outside the new qualifying period, would be covered by the mandatory requirements.
One requirement is knowledge of English to CEFR level B2. This is a change from the previous requirement for adults aged 18-65 of knowledge of English to CEFR level B1. This aspect of the earned settlement plan was implemented by Statement of Changes to the Immigration Rules: HC 1691 in March 2026, with effect for most applications for indefinite leave made on or after 26 March 2027.
The second is a new requirement for each adult applicant to show minimum earnings of at least £12,570, for a period of three to five years. The scope and duration of this requirement were the subject of consultation under A Fairer Pathway.
The minimum earnings requirement has the potential to exclude many adults from settlement, including those who are within households or families with more than adequate resources. There is no precedent for such a requirement, separate from a resources test, in UK policy.
With the sole exception of Denmark (below), we are also unaware of comparative precedents. For example, Article 5 of the EU Long-Term Residents Directive simply requires that the applicant have ‘stable and regular resources which are sufficient to maintain himself/herself and the members of his/her family, without recourse to the social assistance system’.
The Danish precedent
In Denmark, the rules relating to acquisition of permanent residence by non-EEA nationals were reformed in 2017. Those changes firstly introduced a standard qualifying period of eight years. A number of mandatory requirements must always be met:
- employment or self-employment for at least three years;
- no recourse to public assistance;
- a declaration of integration and of active citizenship; and
- passing a Danish language test.
At least two of four supplementary requirements must also be met:
- employment or self-employment for at least four years;
- earning above a minimum level for at least two years;
- previous active citizenship; and
- a higher language test score.
If all four supplementary requirements are met, the qualifying period is reduced to four years.
Denmark’s policy has, however, had significant negative social effects on access to permanent residence. Research by Sparre and Nielsen shows that lower-paid workers, partners, children who arrive after the age of 11, and refugees all struggle to meet the mandatory requirements, and are excluded from permanent residence on a long-term basis. It appears unwise for the UK to follow Danish policy, not least because the population of new arrivals here would be far greater.
Conclusion
It can be seen therefore that the key overall elements of earned settlement plan are without precedent both for the UK and for almost all comparable countries. In subsequent posts, that point will be illustrated through a consideration of settlement from work categories, the main family categories and international protection.
Our conclusion is that this lack of UK and comparable precedents raises the bar for the justification of significant changes to policy on the acquisition of settlement which make it far harder to acquire. Without a clear financial, economic and social case for change, the presumption should be to maintain policy broadly as it has been.
Bernard Ryan is Professor of Migration Law at the University of Leicester.
Notes
This series of blog posts is based on the briefing paper Earned Settlement: A Policy without Precedent (April 2026), which has been part of ILPA’s response to the Government’s earned settlement plan. Thanks to Matteo Besana, Anna Bose, Alan Desmond, Elspeth Guild, Emily Lawton, Gill McKearney, Helen Manis and Alex Piletska for their contributions, and to Lillian Ajuria, Zoe Bantleman, Berivan Gunes, Nina Perch and Nick Rollason for information provided.
Nothing contained within this document is to be taken as legal advice or to constitute legal representations. ILPA recommends that any person who requires tailored legal advice seek it from a qualified legal professional.
ILPA invites members and other leading experts to contribute articles to its monthly blog. The views expressed in all blog posts are the authors’ own and are not necessarily those of ILPA.
- Document Date
- Thursday July 16, 2026