BY BERNARD RYAN
This is the third 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 UK, and would lead policy to be significantly more restrictive than in comparable countries.
Introduction
This blog post will address the implications of the earned settlement plan for partners and children. It focuses on key differences from past and recent UK policy: differential treatment of family of British citizens and others; a ten-year baseline for partners of those other than British citizens; a proposed mandatory income requirement; a new pathway for those who acquire limited leave as minors and become eligible for settlement as adults; and, an absence of transitional arrangements. Where information is available, the earned settlement plan is contrasted with policy in comparable countries.
At the time of writing, the timing and detail of the earned settlement plan remains uncertain. Whatever the outcome, we hope that the information and sources provided in this series of posts will be useful for those evaluating future UK policy on settlement, whether during the current Parliament, or beyond. We anticipate that these will include parliamentarians, civil society organisations, researchers, foreign nationals and other members of the public.
Settlement by partners and children: current framework
Partners and children who are eligible for settlement mostly come to, or stay in, the UK, under one of two headings.
First, partners and children may obtain permission to join or stay with a sponsor who is classed as ‘settled’, namely British citizens, Irish citizens, and persons who themselves hold indefinite leave. (Other sponsors with secure status, and other categories of family member, are not addressed here.)
Secondly, partners and children may be linked to a main applicant in a work or business category from which settlement is allowed. At present, these categories are Innovator Founder, Global Talent, the Scale-up route, Skilled Worker, Minister of Religion, International Sportsperson and UK Ancestry.
For both settled sponsors and work and business routes, the category of ‘partner’ encompasses wives, husbands, civil partners, and unmarried partners where a couple have been in a relationship for at least two years. A sponsor’s children are covered if both parents reside together in the UK, with special provision for sole parents (not covered here).
British citizens and other sponsors
Under the earned settlement plan, the family members of defined British nationals would have a shorter qualifying period for settlement than family members of other persons. This would benefit partners and children of British citizens and holders of British National (Overseas) status. In these cases, there would be a reduction of five years from the ten-year baseline, the effect of which would be to maintain the status quo. Adults would, however, need to meet mandatory requirements concerning the English language and earnings (explained in the first post in this series). This part of the plan was not subject to consultation.
The implication of A Fairer Pathway to Settlement is that family members of other sponsors who are ‘settled’— Irish citizens and holders of indefinite leave —would be covered by the ten-year baseline. The same would be true of parents and children of main applicants in work and business routes. Furthermore, the family of those who acquired British citizenship would apparently be eligible for the five-year reduction only if the sponsor held that status throughout the applicant’s qualifying period.
This proposed unequal treatment between British citizens and other settled sponsors is at odds with established UK policy. The most recent example of such discrimination was a Rule change in 1983, under which British citizen women could sponsor husbands, but women with indefinite leave could not. In Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali v. UK (May 1985), the European Court of Human Rights found discrimination as between men and women in the sponsorship of spouses contrary to Articles 8 and 14 ECHR. That led to new Immigration Rules in July 1985, which both treated men and women equally as sponsors and ended the distinction between British citizens and other settled sponsors. Equality of treatment among settled sponsors has remained the consistent position in family sponsorship ever since, as regards both initial leave and settlement.
Many other countries provide for sponsorship of family members by permanent residents on equal or similar terms to a state’s own citizens. In Australia, the visa routes for sponsorship of partners (visa subclass 801), children (visa subclass 802) and elderly parents (visa subclass 804) treat citizens, Australian permanent residents, and eligible New Zealand citizens equally. In Canada, immigration legislation treats citizens and permanent residents equally as regards sponsorship of family members. In New Zealand, citizens, other lawful residents, and Australian citizens may all sponsor partners and children on equal terms.
The United States may be considered closer to theearned settlement plans on this point. Its immigration law favours the admission of the immediate relatives of US citizens, in that they are not subject to a numerical limit. Nevertheless, the admission of spouses and children by lawful permanent residents is provided for, albeit subject to those numerical limits.
Partners: the ten-year baseline
A ten-year baseline for qualification for settlement by partners of persons who are not British citizens would also be unprecedented in the UK. This departure from the established position can be shown by tracing separately the evolution of qualifying periods for partners of sponsors with indefinite leave, and for partners acquiring settlement from work and business routes.
Sponsors with indefinite leave
The standard qualifying period for partners to obtain settlement has become longer, in stages, since the 1970s. Initially, there was no specific qualifying period for settlement by wives, as Rules adopted in 1973 (HC 79-82) allowed wives to obtain settlement if their sponsor was already settled, or would become so once admitted to the UK.
The next phase saw the elaboration of a twelve-month qualifying period. In 1973, when the possibility to sponsor husbands was limited, husbands from outside the Commonwealth were initially granted permission for a probationary period of twelve months. By the early 1980s, when nationality restrictions on sponsorship of husbands were in place (above), but immigration permission was easier to acquire, all husbands had a probationary period of twelve months. Crucially, the 1985 amendments which followed the Abdulaziz ruling (above) led to that twelve-month probationary period being applied to both wives and husbands.
In April 2003, the standard qualifying period for spouses was extended to two years. Further changes came in July 2012, when the standard qualifying period for partners was extended to five years under Appendix FM.
A ten-year baseline would also be out of step with policy in comparable countries, where partners of permanent residents can generally obtain settlement after five years or less. In the EU, the provision in the 2003 Long-Term Residents Directive for a right of long-term residence after five years’ lawful residence covers the partners of permanent residents, as well as of a state’s own citizens. In Australia, the partner of a citizen or permanent resident has a two-year waiting period for a permanent visa. In both Canada and the US, there are no explicit qualifying or waiting periods for eligible partners and children (although processing times limit the numbers admitted annually).
Work and business categories
The ten-year baseline outlined in A Fairer Pathway to Settlement would also affect partners in work and business routes. The question here is whether such partners face their own qualifying period to settlement, once the main applicant has obtained settlement (or is in the process of doing so). The answer is that partners in work and business routes have not previously had a formal qualifying period to settlement longer than five years.
Under the 1973 Rules, there was no qualifying period: once a main applicant obtained settlement, his wife could benefit from the rules on immediate settlement (above). Separate provision for indefinite leave to remain for spouses in work and business categories was introduced by HC 395 in 1994, but without a distinct qualifying period for them.
A qualifying period for partners in work and business categories first appeared with the 2008 points-based system. Initially, the requirement was that the applicant for indefinite leave had been living together with the sponsor in the UK for at least two years. That period was then increased to five years in 2012, in line with the extension of the qualifying period for partners of settled sponsors under Appendix FM (above).
A somewhat different version of the five-year qualifying period is currently provided for in the post-Brexit points-based system, which took effect on 1 December 2020. Partners in work and business routes which allow settlement are required to have spent five years in that category (for example, in Appendix Skilled Worker, para SW 42.1).
Partners: the minimum income requirement
A Fairer Pathway to Settlement proposed a mandatory income requirement of £12,570, for a minimum of three to five years (see the first post in the series). In this context, the intention appears to have been that it should apply to partners separately from a sponsor. This aspect of the plan would prevent partners acquiring settlement if they earn no or limited income, even though a couple or family unit has more than the required level of income. The plan has been criticised on these grounds by the House of Commons Home Affairs Committee (March 2026) and the House of Lords Justice and Home Affairs Committee (June 2026).
A separate financial requirement upon a partner would also be unprecedented in UK immigration policy. This can again be shown by considering separately partners of settled sponsors – here, including British citizens – and partners in work and business categories.
Partners of settled sponsors
In the UK, no financial or income requirement has ever been applied to an applicant partner, separately from a settled sponsor, at any stage.
At the outset, the Immigration Rules did not contain a financial requirement for partners of settled sponsors at the settlement stage. When spouses became subject to a qualifying period in 1985 (above), financial requirements concerning adequate accommodation and maintenance without recourse to public funds applied when leave was initially sought, and not at the end of the twelve-month probationary period. Similarly, when express provision was made in 1994 for the granting of indefinite leave after a twelve-month qualifying period (HC 395, above), no financial requirement applied at that stage.
A change came in 1996, when accommodation and maintenance requirements were written into the Rules for indefinite leave applications. The result, however, was that the requirements had to be met by ‘the parties’ – i.e., the sponsor and partner between them.
A different approach to financial requirements has been taken under Appendix FM since 2012. It includes a minimum income requirement for both initial leave and settlement applications. Although expressed to be upon the applicant, at the settlement stage, it is capable of being met from income or savings of either or both the applicant and the sponsoring partner.
Work and business categories
Similarly, there has never been a separate financial requirement upon an applicant partner in work and business categories at any stage in UK immigration policy.
When distinct provision for indefinite leave to remain for spouses in work and business categories was first made in 1994, the Rules provided that accommodation and maintenance requirements still had to be met. However, that obligation was upon ‘the parties’ jointly, not the applicant partner alone.
The approach to financial requirements in these categories changed with the 2008 points-based system. Minimum levels of funds were specified for initial leave applications by partners, which had to be ‘available’ to the main applicant or the partner. There was, however, no equivalent financial requirement for an indefinite leave application.
This remains the position under the post-Brexit points-based system. When entry clearance or permission to stay is sought by a partner, minimum amounts of funds are specified, which must be held ‘collectively’ by one or more of the main applicant or the partner. (For example, Appendix Skilled Worker, paras SW 33.1-33.5.) There is no equivalent requirement when a partner makes a settlement application.
Minors who become adults
The unprecedented character of the earned settlement plan is further reflected in anticipated new arrangements for those who start in the immigration system as minors.
In the Immigration Rules, it has hitherto always been the case that someone who is first granted immigration permission as a child is eligible for settlement once their parents are classed as ‘settled’, even if the applicant has since become an adult. That was true in the original Rules of 1973 (above), when family members obtained settlement without a specific qualifying-period. It remains true in the current Rules relating to extension of stay and settlement, which exempt those previously granted leave from the maximum age of 18 for permission as a child.
Under the current Rules a minor may acquire settlement at the outset if both parents are (or a sole parent is) already settled. More commonly, where one parent holds limited leave under Appendix FM, a person who obtains limited leave as a minor is eligible for settlement when that parent becomes settled, or is becoming so. The same is true for a child whose parent(s) have limited leave in a relevant work and business category. At the same time, there are no formal qualifying periods for those who start as minors to become settled.
There is an unavoidable tension between this long-established framework and the earned settlement plans for adults. As parents may spend far longer before becoming settled, the number of those who started in the immigration system as minors, and have then become adults, will inevitably increase. Equally, the period that such individuals spend as adults without eligibility for settlement may be far longer.
The solution outlined in A Fairer Pathway to Settlement is to restrict access to settlement by such persons. There would be an age-related window, after which they would have a separate immigration pathway to settled status (p 26). This status would come with conditions, as it could eventually include an obligation to meet the mandatory minimum income (discussed above).
The potential of these planned arrangements to block the acquisition of settlement by those who become adults has been criticised in the reports of the House of Commons Home Affairs Committee and the House of Lords Justice and Home Affairs Committee referred to above. The argument here is that these arrangements are equally at odds with established policy which links the status of those who start as minors to that of their parents.
Transitional changes
The earned settlement statement made clear that the Government plans to ‘apply these changes to everyone in the country today who has not already received indefinite leave to remain’, as soon as the Immigration Rules are changed). Retrospective effects of this kind have been widely criticised, including by the House of Commons Home Affairs Committee and the House of Lords Justice and Home Affairs Committee.
Retrospectivity would be at odds with the past approach of protecting those already in the UK where changes are made to family migration categories. This was seen when significant changes were made by Appendix FM in July 2012, including a minimum income requirement – then £18,600 for a partner – and an increase in the qualifying period to settlement for partners from two years to five years (both discussed above). Transitional provisions applied where an individual had been granted or applied for entry clearance or limited leave as a family member prior to 9 July 2012, which ensured that such a person continued to be assessed under the previous Rules.
Similarly, when the minimum income requirement for partner applications was increased to £29,000 from 11 April 2024, those already in the partner route were permitted to extend their leave, and to apply for indefinite leave based on the previous thresholds.
Conclusion
Many aspects of the earned settlement plan which concern family migration lack precedent. For more than 40 years, UK immigration policy has treated British citizens equally with other settled persons as regards sponsorship of family members, and that is also the position in comparable countries. The standard qualifying period to settlement for partners has never previously exceeded five years in the UK, and does not do so in comparable countries. Where there have been financial requirements for partners at the settlement stage, these have previously applied to partners jointly, rather than the applicant alone. Those who start in the immigration system as minors have hitherto been able to obtain settlement at the same time as their parents. Lastly, where significant changes have been made to family routes, transitional provisions have protected those already present in the UK.
As argued in an earlier blog post, the absence of precedents ought to generate a presumption against significant policy change unless a clear case can be made for it. In this area, as in others, it cannot be said that a detailed case for such changes has been made, there has been little by way of justification, and no detail concerning their practical implications.
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. The previous posts dealt with the general scheme of earned settlement and settlement from work and business categories, and the final post will address settlement from international protection categories. A list of contributors was provided in the first post in the series.
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
- Wednesday August 12, 2026