A fairer pathway? How the “earned settlement” proposals risk discriminating against migrant women

We are hurtling towards the deadline for the government’s “earned settlement” consultation, ‘A Fairer Pathway to Settlement‘, which closes on 12 February 2026. Whilst there are many elements of the proposals which certainly cannot be considered “fair” to migrants living and providing meaningful contributions to the UK, there is one group that will certainly be disadvantaged should the proposals come to fruition: migrant women.

Sex discrimination in the UK’s immigration systems is far from a new concern. Catherine Briddick’s research on ‘Sex discrimination and UK immigration law’ in 2015 found it is “clear that men are more likely than women to benefit from the comparatively generous rules that apply to migrants at the ‘top’ of the labour migration hierarchy”.

In a very brief nutshell, the “earned settlement” proposals aim to implement a ten-year baseline route to settlement, which could be met if a person has earned £12,570 per year for a continuous period of three to five years before applying. This baseline ten-year period can be increased or decreased depending on earnings, skill levels, enhanced language competency, and potential other contributions (e.g. volunteering). A detailed look at the proposals and the groups impacted can be found here.

Disparity in earnings of men and women

The gender pay gap is still alive and kicking. The latest reports show that, in 2024/25, 78% of responding employers stated that median hourly pay was higher for men than for women in their organisation, and that median hourly pay for full-time employees was 6.9% less for women than for men in April 2025. Median pay for all employees (including part time) was 12.8% less for women than for men in April 2025.

As discussed previously, salary thresholds that apply to both men and women equally (as is the case for skilled workers) can be indirectly discriminatory to women due to the gender pay gap. The latest figures also show that the gender pay gap is wider among high-paid employees than among lower-paid employees, and women employees’ share in high-paying occupations decreases with age. This reflects cumulative disadvantages linked to caregiving, career progression, and occupational segregation.

Under the “earned settlement” proposals, higher earners would be rewarded with a reduced qualifying period for settlement; meaning settlement can be attained after three years for those earning a taxable income of £125,140 during the previous three years, or after five years for those who have earned a taxable income of £50,270 during the previous three years. By tying faster settlement to higher earnings, the proposals compound the disadvantages that women face as a result of inequalities in the labour market, disproportionately impacting women who are systematically less likely to meet such thresholds.

An earnings-based settlement model would need to be modified to account for such disparity, should it aim to provide a somewhat fair pathway to settlement.

Working patterns, caregiving and maternity leave

Additionally, women disproportionately work part-time or take leave from work for caregiving. A government review of parental leave found that 59% fathers took paternity leave, which is “significantly lower” than the take up of maternity leave (83%). The average duration of paternity leave was found to be 1.7 weeks, as opposed to the majority of women that took 39 weeks or more maternity leave.

The consultation makes but one reference to maternity leave:

This question is alarming both in the way it is worded and due to it even being up for debate as part of the consultation. The question suggests that maternity leave and disabilities are deviations from the norm, as opposed to very real foreseeable circumstances that are legally protected characteristics. It should be without question that periods of parental leave, long-term illness or disability would, at the very least, not be of detriment to an individual’s path to settlement.

Employer-tied status and the disproportionate impact on women

Research from the Young Women’s Trust shows that workplace discrimination against young women is at a three-year high, with 53% reporting that they have experienced discrimination at work. The figure rises to 61% among racially minoritised young women, underscoring the inequalities faced by those at the intersection of gender and race.

For women on visas tied to ongoing employment with a licensed sponsor, discrimination in the workplace carries particularly severe consequences. Leaving a discriminatory or exploitative employer can mean losing the right to remain in the UK altogether, as finding alternative sponsorship can be challenging.

The proposed changes would be felt most acutely by skilled workers in so called medium-skilled roles (below RQF level 6) and by carers, who could face an extended qualifying period of up to 15 years, rather than the baseline ten, before securing settlement. This is especially significant given that government data from May 2025 indicates that 74% of those sponsored on the Health and Care visa are women.

Taken together, it is clear that the proposals would have a serious and disproportionate impact on women, entrenching vulnerability and making the path to settlement increasingly tenuous.

Settlement routes for dependants require clarity

Greater clarity is needed for dependent partners under the proposed changes to settlement rules. Whilst the proposals indicate an intention to alter the way in which dependants qualify for settlement, they fail to explain when or how such individuals would become eligible. As drafted, the proposals are ambiguous:

We expect it to become the position that the qualifying period for settlement for a person granted entry and stay as the adult dependants of an economic migrant will be separately determined according to their own attributes and circumstances. This will mean that a person admitted as the dependant of an economic migrant will not necessarily enjoy the same qualifying period for settlement as their partner. It may be shorter or longer, according to their particular circumstances.

It would be vastly unfair for the settlement timeline of dependent partners to be judged on the same merits-based earnings scale. The earnings of dependant partners are generally low; Home Office figures from May 2025 show 33% earned £17,501 to £25,000 per year, with many earning less.

Additionally, the ongoing cost of living crisis exacerbates challenges for dependant partners with children, as childcare costs are a major barrier to joining the workforce. Many parents are caught between a rock and a hard place in terms of their ability to work, and the lower earning partner often bears the brunt of this.

As an example, using a childcare calculator, nursery fees for visa holders with no recourse to public funds (which is standard for skilled worker dependants) would be in the region of £1,521 per child per month for a family in Greater Manchester. For individuals with one or more children of nursery age, these costs are prohibitive and can exclude parents, often mothers, from the workforce until children are of school age.

The dependant partners of skilled workers with lower earning capacity and dependant children could be forced to sacrifice time with their children to be left with little or negative earnings each month, solely for the purpose of meeting arbitrary settlement requirements.

Home Office and ONS immigration statistics do not routinely publish data on dependants by gender. Publishing this information would be essential to understanding and mitigating the gendered consequences of reforms to dependant settlement routes.

If the “earned settlement” proposals are allowed to proceed in their current form, they will fail to deliver a fairer pathway to settlement. By tying security of status to earnings, while failing to account for gender pay gaps, caregiving responsibilities, and structural discrimination, the proposals risk disadvantaging migrant women and their families. Should the government be serious about fairness, these proposals must be fundamentally reconsidered before becoming policy.

You can submit your response to the government’s “earned settlement” proposals online here until 11:59pm on 12th February 2026.