Family Visas: Income Requirement

16:30:00

I beg to move, That this House has considered e-petition 652602 relating to the income requirement for family visas. It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Pritchard, on my first opportunity to present a debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee. I thank Shannon Korkmaz for launching this petition and starting a very important conversation that has allowed those affected to have their voices heard today. It is a great achievement that the petition gathered more than 100,000 signatures. It reads: “We believe it’s inhumane for the Government to do this to British citizens and others entitled to family visas, and that this policy is punishing people for failing in love with someone who has a different nationality.” The minimum income requirement for family visas was introduced in 2012, and at that time it was set at an annual income of £18,600. The coalition Government stated that the purpose of the policy was to ensure that family migrants are fully supported when integrating into the UK, while not being a burden on the taxpayer and public services. The figure of £18,600 in 2012 equated to £26,250 in December 2024, based on the Bank of England’s inflation calculator. An individual needs a family visa to live with a family member in the UK for more than six months. The income threshold remained at £18,600 from 2012 until April 2024, when it was increased to £29,000. A person can apply for a family visa to live with a spouse, fiancé, child, parent or relative who will provide them with long-term care. Spouses on the family visa can stay in the UK for two years and nine months, while a fiancé can stay for six months. Income can be from employment or self-employment, cash savings above £16,000, money from a pension, or non-work income such as property rentals or dividends. In April 2024, alongside a collection of other policies aimed at lowering net migration, the then Government raised the income threshold to £29,000. Their intention was to incrementally raise it to £34,500 and finally to £38,700 by early 2025, as highlighted in the petition. In response, the petitioners stated: “Most people in the UK don’t make £38,700 per year and now may face the choice of a lifetime without their partner or leaving their own country because they fell in love and can’t meet the financial requirement for the family visa. We believe it’s inhumane for the Government to do this to British citizens and others entitled to family visas”. I will say more about that later.

Many of my constituents have signed the petition, and they say that they struggle to have a family life in the UK due to the previous Government’s 55% increase in the income requirement for family visas. That includes many individuals who work in charities or in public services and are giving back to our communities. Does my hon. Friend agree that those unattainable requirements make it disproportionately difficult for some families to be together?

I agree, and I will say a bit more about that later.

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for securing this important debate. Does she agree that the right to family life, which is rightly enshrined in article 8 of the European convention on human rights, is one of the most fundamental rights that individuals are afforded? Central to this debate is systemic inequality, such as the fact that women are still paid less than men due to entrenched structural pay disparities, and that young people who are in the early stages of their careers often earn less as they build their futures. Systemic inequality also affects those from lower-income regions such as West Yorkshire and Bradford, which I represent. The hon. Lady will be aware that the Centre for Cities released a report this morning saying that those who live in places such as West Yorkshire, including my constituency, earn £20,000 less. Does she agree that the current system being considered by the Migration Advisory Committee should be scrapped, and that a fair requirement would be one in line with the national living wage?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention; much of what he has raised is in my opening speech. Since the petition was launched, and following the general election last summer, the Government announced that the threshold would be held at £29,000 until the Migration Advisory Committee completes a new review, which is expected to be in June 2025. However, when an e-petition reaches 10,000 signatures, it gets a Government response, as this one did in January 2024. The then Government outlined their arguments as to why the minimum income requirement should be increased to £38,700, stating that the policy was part of a larger package intended to curb immigration and net migration. They added that the minimum income requirement was set with the intention that family migrants “could be supported at a reasonable level…and to help ensure they can participate sufficiently in everyday life to facilitate their integration into British society.” However, in early 2023, the House of Lords published a report called “All families matter: An inquiry into family migration”. It stated that “applicants and sponsors can feel like second-class citizens and are reluctant or unable to take full part in British society before reaching settlement.” It summarised: “Current migration policies are at odds with the Government’s commitment to family life.” It further stated that the family migration rules are “complex and inconsistent”, they fail “both families and society”, and they “should be simplified”.

The hon. Member said that the rules are counterproductive to family life. Does she agree that they are also counterproductive to growing our economy? In my constituency, where I have a number of signatories, the challenge is recruiting people into in-demand areas such as hospitality, research and dentistry. The rules are stopping the economic growth that we need.

I do not disagree with those comments. In response to the proposed policy changes, the non-profit organisation Reunite Families UK filed an application for judicial review in June 2024, supported by the Good Law Project. It argued that the rise of the minimum income requirement to £38,700 was made without analysis and in breach of critical public law duties. Many migrants’ rights groups and campaigners have been outspoken against the minimum income requirement. In relation to the legal case, Caroline Coombs, the director of Reunite Families UK, who is in the Gallery today, said: “In the last decade, this policy has somehow continued to exist under the radar devastating countless British and settled citizens and their partners, families and children. The general public have no idea this policy exists until sadly they come up against it”. Furthermore, Reunite Families found that the minimum income requirement can prevent integration of mixed nationality families for myriad reasons. The rising financial costs of visas and savings lead to instability, and temporary visas also make it harder to secure housing, access education and secure appropriate employment. It is important to note that those on temporary visas cannot claim benefits and can access NHS services only by paying into the NHS through the immigration health surcharge—I will say more about that later. Many people might say that this is an anti-family policy. Increasing the minimum income requirement can create single-parent families and put an incredible stress on all members of the family, particularly children. A British citizen abroad, for example, may have to return to the UK for a variety of reasons, such as a need to care for an elderly relative still residing in the UK. If they do not already meet the minimum income requirement, they may have to return to the UK alone and wait for an indefinite amount of time to reunite their family. It is said that many people who return to the UK are unable to gain employment immediately, but they may only begin their family visa application once six months of minimum income can be evidenced, or one year of income if they are self-employed. It is important to note that the non-British partner’s earnings are not included. If the applicant’s income drops below the threshold, the Home Office application process, which can take up to three months, must begin again. Statistics from the Office for National Statistics show that the threshold of £38,700—I am sorry to keep repeating that figure—is unrealistic for most people living outside London and south-east England. The median annual income is £38,500 for those living in Scotland, £35,600 for those living in Wales and £34,900 for those living in Northern Ireland, so many people in valuable—indeed, essential—jobs are paid less than £38,700 annually. Yet the people who do those jobs will be penalised for wanting to marry someone of a different nationality and are left with few other options, if any, to prove that they would be able to support a partner. For example, salaries for newly qualified teachers in England start at £31,650, for newly qualified nurses at around £30,000 and for police constables at £28,500. Also, if a store assistant at Aldi makes £12.40 an hour, that equates to £25,792 yearly, assuming that they work 40 hours a week.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is even rarer for young people who come to this country to earn £38,700, which means that most of them are excluded under the proposed threshold?

I do agree. To continue, an executive officer working in the Department for Work and Pensions earns £29,500, while an administrative officer’s salary in the civil service starts at £23,000. Nobody in any of those groups would qualify for the proposed minimum income requirement through their salary alone. Indeed, the Migration Observatory, an independent group at the University of Oxford, estimated that around 50% of the UK working population would be unable to qualify on earnings alone with the current income requirement of £29,000, and that 70% of the working population earn less than £38,700. In addition, the charity Reunite Families UK has emphasised that the higher threshold affects women more than men, because women are more likely to have caring responsibilities and to earn less on average, and are also less likely to work full time. The median earnings of UK women who work full time are below £38,700 across all age groups; the highest median earnings figure is £35,250 for 40 to 49-year-olds. The Migration Observatory also pointed out that the new set of policies would mean that, in certain circumstances, British workers in the same job as migrant workers would face stricter restrictions than migrant workers. For example, health professionals in the NHS who come to the UK on a health and care worker visa would be able to bring partners who are not UK citizens with them. It is clear that the visa rules are long and complex, with many exceptions and differing prices for all circumstances. The family visa fee is £1,846 per person if the applicant is applying from outside of the UK and £1,258 per person if the applicant is applying from inside the UK. Those fees are non-refundable, so if an application is unsuccessful, the applicant is obviously not refunded. In addition, there is the immigration health surcharge, for which the minimum cost for two and a half years is £2,587.50 for an adult and £1,940 for a child. If people are staying in the UK for two years and nine months, the charges rise to £3,105 for an adult and £2,328 for a child, and if they are staying for five years, they rise to £5,175 for an adult and £3,880 for a child. Reunite Families UK advises that the total cost of all those fees for a family on a five-year route to settlement can be over £10,000, while the total cost on a 10-year route can be around £20,000.

Does the hon. Member agree that if the Government feel that some minimum income requirement is necessary or appropriate, it should never be greater than that necessary to render an immigrant unable to claim benefits, as Theresa May’s original sum was intended to do?

I am trying to interpret the question. I am not sure whether I agree—I would need to fully consider it—so I will carry on.

The hon. Lady continues to make an excellent case and she is right to focus on the extortionate fees. She mentioned the current figure of over £10,000, which ordinary working families struggle to pay or simply cannot pay. She also referred to Reunite Families UK, which does excellent work and has said that 23% of families have to wait longer than seven years to be reunited. Does she agree that that continuing injustice needs to be addressed? Those are not just stats, but real people.

I agree, and this debate is an excellent opportunity for that. It is also important to highlight that, while applications under the work routes can be processed in just 15 working days, family visas can take anywhere from eight weeks to 12 months. Often, families report requiring specialist legal advice to navigate the system successfully and to try to avoid those long waiting periods, which obviously has a financial impact as well, although I do not have any costs for that. Delaying arrival does not decrease net migration, but it does increase the personal and financial strain on families. It could be construed that the policy effectively views a relationship ending and a family splitting up as a positive outcome, because then at least net migration figures do not rise. A Reunite Families UK survey also found that the rules have a profound effect on children, with 92% of respondents saying that their child’s mental health had been affected. The separation that many families are forced into exacerbates such problems, putting even more pressure on the single parent. Parents report that younger children often cannot understand why the family have been separated, while older children who do understand the system become anxious for their missing parent. It could be said that those children are growing up in a society that implicitly tells them that their family are not welcome here. Compared with those of other countries, this family visa policy appears to be unusually strict. The Migrant Integration Policy Index, which measures immigration policies in 52 countries, including all EU member states and OECD countries, ranks the UK second to bottom for family reunification policies. Many countries with strong immigration policies do not have such a high minimum income requirement for family visas. For example, Australia has no earnings threshold for family visas, and Spain and the Netherlands require yearly income to equal annual social security payments. That highlights that our current system is not the only option. In overall numbers, the percentage of family visas in proportion to other entry visas has remained low and stable at around 5%, as the Migration Observatory’s research found last year. Additionally, the Home Office’s December 2023 policy paper, “Legal migration statement: estimated immigration impacts”, was unable to predict the exact percentage of family visas that would be affected by the change, stating only that it “may have an impact on the number of family migrants deterred in the low tens of thousands.” The Government have stated that there will be no further changes until the new Migration Advisory Committee review is complete, which is expected to be in June. I hope that I have outlined the complexities in this area and highlighted that other options could be considered for the family visa that would allow the Government to control net migration while still allowing the average British citizen to marry and live with the person they love. I look forward to hearing the contributions of other hon. Members and the Government response.

Order. I welcome the children to the Gallery—I think this is the first time that I have seen children here. The Chair is neutral in the debate, but you are all very welcome. Right hon. and hon. Members should bob, as some of you are doing, even if you are on the speaking list, so that the Clerks have your name. At the moment, there is no time limit, but I hope that hon. Members will bear one another in mind when speaking.

16:49:00

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Pritchard. I thank the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for opening the debate, and Shannon for starting the petition. I am grateful to be able to speak here, on behalf of the hundreds of my constituents who signed this petition, to highlight the negative impacts of the previous Government’s policy to increase income requirements for family visas. Those negative impacts have been present since the inception of this income requirement, but were made substantially worse by the increase. We are talking about a tax on love: an ugly policy that fundamentally discriminates against migrants’ families and implies that love, and family reunification, is a privilege that people must earn enough to afford. Just last week, I was contacted by a constituent who was forced to choose between being separated from his wife and moving to her home country of Taiwan. I will quote what he wrote to me after deciding to leave: “Now in the UK we judge people by their country of origin and the content of their wallet... If you have money then you are welcome here, if you don’t, then don’t you dare fall in love with someone foreign.” Is that really the country we want to be? As we have just heard, around half of UK employees earn less than the current income requirement of £29,000 a year, and as job offers and prospective earnings for the non-UK citizens are not included, meeting that requirement is made even more difficult for many couples from overseas who just want to be together. That is not to mention the regional inequality factor, as average salaries differ throughout the UK, so a person’s ability to love who they love may also depend on where in the UK they live and work. I do appreciate and welcome the Government commissioning the Migration Advisory Committee to review this horrible rule, but I note with disappointment that in the meantime the income requirement remains in place. It is clear that the intention of this policy was not to benefit UK society, or even the economy; it is simply a cruel attempt to appear tough on migration. In fact, this policy harms society and public finances. There are cases where enforced separation has caused UK citizens to be reliant on state benefits, which they would not be if their partners were allowed to live with them. There are also often costs on the NHS and social services, as the trauma of families being forced and torn apart causes long-lasting mental health issues. Children in affected families are often aware of this policy and feel its impacts deeply. They report feeling sadness, loneliness and guilt, with some explaining that they struggle to sleep or to focus at school. Often, children are aware of the financial strain caused by this rule, and some kids told Reunite Families UK that they were trying to earn money themselves to help with costs. The impact of this policy on children and young people can last a lifetime, affecting their mental health, financial stability and sense of belonging. I wonder why! As RFUK told the Migration Advisory Committee, this has long-term impacts on people’s integration into society and their economic performance. I reiterate that this is a cruel and nasty policy. It fundamentally discriminates against people based on who they love and how much money they make. It is unjust and it undermines its own purposes, sending an offensive message to families and their children. I urge the Government to get rid of it without delay.

16:53:00

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for introducing this debate. I would also like to thank the more than 300 petitioners from Stroud who have made this debate possible, and the Petitions Committee for allocating parliamentary time to this crucial debate. As we have heard, the previous Conservative Government hiked the minimum income requirement to £29,000, and were seeking to raise it even further, to £38,000, all under the guise of controlling immigration. That does not seem to have worked, but let us be clear about this policy and what it has actually achieved: it has torn families apart and inflicted hardship on ordinary people. So I welcomed my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary commissioning the Migration Advisory Committee to conduct a review of this area as soon as we entered government. In November, I, with 25 of my colleagues, wrote to the Migration Advisory Committee calling for the family visa income requirement to be lowered to the equivalent of the full-time national living wage. That adjustment would enable thousands of families to reunite, while still supporting financial stability; it would be a compassionate shift away from the previous Government’s harsh stance. I am hopeful that the committee will come to the same conclusion. Some people have sought to misrepresent the truth about this matter when discussing immigration. It is our duty to bring the facts to this debate. In 2024, the UK issued 3.4 million visas; 87,000 were family visas, which accounted for 7%, and the spousal visas made up even less—less than 5%. Moreover, the narrative that foreign spouses are a burden to taxpayers is fundamentally misleading. The Home Office’s own guidelines explicitly state that foreign spouses have no recourse to public funds. In fact, they contribute through taxation, national insurance and an annual immigration health surcharge of £1,035. I also worry that the cost of enforcing this policy is greater than the financial benefits. As we have heard, families forced into single-parent situations often require more Government support. As a GP, I have been seeing a patient and their family; the children are suffering because they cannot live with both parents, which has caused a lot of mental health difficulties. This policy is not only inhumane, but economically flawed. This debate is not just about numbers on a spreadsheet and arbitrary thresholds; it is about real human lives and love, and the human cost is immeasurable. I will highlight the case of one of my constituents, Rebecca Gray, who played a pivotal role in securing the debate by rallying her social media followers to help to get this petition over the 100,000-signature line. In 2023, Rebecca and her husband married in Turkey and began the spouse visa application process, knowing they had to meet a savings requirement of £88,500. To achieve that, they both worked 18 hours a day, seven days a week, while living in a high-risk earthquake zone in Turkey. Despite losing 250 extended family members in the February 2023 earthquake, Rebecca persevered, but because of the UK’s rigid financial rules, they remain separated, with no certainty about when they can reunite. The cost of applying for a spouse visa is now a staggering £14,256 and increasing regularly. Rebecca is essentially exiled from her own country because she does not meet an arbitrary financial threshold. Rebecca’s case highlights further issues with the present policy. Rebecca is having to go through the cash savings route, which means she must hold £88,500 in savings. The average 25 to 34-year-old in the UK holds about £3,500 in savings. That just goes to show that the £88,000 figure is absolutely ludicrous. The current policy means that family reunification is a luxury; as we have heard, it is only for the very richest. The £29,000 minimum income threshold is already the highest in the world, and 75% of applicants would not be able to meet the even greater figure of £38,700 proposed by the previous Government. It is deeply unjust that many British citizens working in our NHS, our police forces and other key public services now earn too little to live with their spouse in the UK. This is a matter of basic fairness. Families belong together. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister, when the review is published, to commit to a policy that will keep families together.

16:58:00

It is a pleasure to serve under you, Mr Pritchard. I thank the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for opening this important debate and the petitioners for succeeding in bringing the debate to the House today. It is remarkable to be here in Westminster Hall and find such unanimity among Members from both sides of the Chamber—indeed, from all parties, it would appear. The current income requirement for family visas simply means that, in my constituency, social care positions go unfilled, the NHS struggles without the necessary workforce, and care packages are in some instances impossible to deliver, even though the funding is there. The additional money for the NHS and the overall Scottish budget is of course welcome, but money alone will not solve our problems. I remind hon. Members that the previous minimum salary threshold, before April 2024, was £18,600, so the increase brought in by the previous Government represents a significant increase in that requirement. As has been said, would-be migrant workers are also hit by other rules, such as the extraordinary fees and the up-front health charges that provide yet another brutal barrier. It is not as though the Government’s stated intention of training local people to fill labour shortages has any hope of success. We are at virtually full employment in my constituency, but there are shortages in health and social care, in the farming and fishing sectors and in hospitality and tourism. Those are vital issues in my constituency, and I think the hon. Members for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) and for Bristol Central (Carla Denyer) would agree. This utterly unacceptable position is a betrayal, and it shows how vindictive the Tories were in their ill-fated and crude attempts to control migration numbers in the post-Brexit world. Remember, if we were still in the single market, we would not have this issue with the free movement of people. Scotland is already suffering as a result of Westminster’s Brexit and migration policies, and the old Tory and now new Labour proposals will inevitably undermine our public services. It is interesting to note that the current leader of the Labour party in Scotland claims that he is in discussion with the Westminster Government about a bespoke Scottish visa; I welcome clarification from the Minister in her speech if that is the case. As a former colleague, Stuart McDonald, so eloquently put it last April: “The Government are basically saying to many of our children and to future generations, ‘You can fall in love with whoever you wish, but if you want to marry a non-UK national and you are not earning whatever arbitrary sum we decide, you will need to go and live somewhere else. You can have the love of your life. You can have your country and the right to live here. But you can’t have both.’ That is just not normal.”—[Official Report, 23 April 2024; Vol. 748, c. 223WH.] International students and academics make a contribution in excess of £5 billion annually to the Scottish economy. If the Government recognise the contribution of international students and academics, why would they defend this inherited policy that threatens to prevent future cohorts from making a similar contribution? The SNP stands totally opposed to the current measures, never mind the increases or any potential increases. This is our motivation—and, it would appear, the motivation of the leader of the Scottish Labour party—for asking for devolved powers in this area. We have voted against these measures in the past, and we continue to call for immigration powers to be devolved to Scotland. I say again, for the avoidance of doubt, that money alone will not fix our problems. If the Labour Government want to reset our relationship with the European Union, here is one of the key areas to consider. We do not need simply to resist any increase in the earnings threshold; we need to bring it down. Can the Minister defend the current salary threshold and explain its logic, given that she inherited this figure? I for one—as well as other Members and the wider public, I am certain, some of whom are watching this debate—would like to know the evidence on which it is based.

17:03:00

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) on her excellent speech. She, along with other Members present, has raised many important points. I also thank Reunite Families UK and the families we have with us today. This issue is of great importance to my constituents, and I previously worked in this area when I was a lawyer. I will start by asking: why the £29,000 figure? That question has come up many times from my constituents. The previous Government suggested that the new threshold would prevent families from becoming a burden to the taxpayer. They did not define what a burden was, although presumably it has something to do with access to public funds. However, those who come to the UK on a spouse visa do not have access to public funds and must pay the immigration health surcharge, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran mentioned. Assuming the previous Government were referring to recourse to public funds, a couple with no children with an income of around £22,000 and eligible for £500 of housing costs would not be entitled to universal credit, so why the £29,000 figure? In response to a petition, the previous Home Secretary made it clear that their intention was to bring the minimum income requirement in line with the minimum salary threshold for a skilled worker, with no reason or rationale for why that threshold was chosen. Leaving aside the fact that the UK financial requirement is among the highest in the world, as Members have said, 50% of UK employees earn less than that threshold. Most jobs at entry level in many industries start at the minimum wage. The minimum wage at 35 hours a week is roughly £20,000 a year, and that should be the benchmark for the minimum income requirement. It is not clear why low-income workers are being denied family reunification. As colleagues have said, are they not allowed to fall in love? Is that purely for higher earners and the wealthy? The fact that half of UK employees would be excluded by the rules demonstrates that the policy is discriminatory and disregards the fundamental human right to family reunification. I have been given consent to share a story, but the name of the individual has been changed to give her anonymity. Sarah worked full time in the hospitality sector, and had done so for the last eight years. She raised her children, aged nine and 11, as a single mother, and she relied on her mother to help with pick-up and drop off at school. Sarah’s salary was £21,000. She went on holiday with her children and fell in love with a man while she was there. She could not uproot her children from school, and it was not viable to leave all of her family in the UK. While her income was already above minimum wage, it was not enough, so she considered different options. She did not have enough savings— she would have required £33,000—so she needed to get another part-time job, which would mean an extra 13 hours a week at minimum wage. Sarah started to look for evening and weekend work, with the agreement that her mother would look after her children. She needed the two jobs, and she was happy to sacrifice her time with her children to ensure that she met the requirements. She got the job, but sadly her mother passed away, so she was left stranded with no childcare and no means of earning the extra income. Let us be clear that the real reason for introducing the minimum income requirement for spouse visas was the hostile environment policy. Over the past few years, successive representatives from the Tory Government have engaged in rhetoric and developed policies laced with xenophobic, populist appeal. Phrases such as “taking back control” and “hostile environment” have created an atmosphere of resentment towards migrants. Those phrases have been used to scapegoat migrants, painting them as a threat to national identity and economic stability. There is also an intersectional element, as the policy discriminates in terms of wealth, location, age, gender and ethnicity. It affects women more than men, and it definitely affects younger people more. In 2017, the Supreme Court recognised that sponsors who were female or from certain ethnic minority groups are disproportionately affected by the minimum income requirement. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran said, we are only talking about 5% of the migration figures, but I want to stress how important it is that we get this right, as it affects people’s lives. People cannot and do not control who they fall in love with, and our policies must reflect that. Our policies should be fair, non-discriminatory and based on a proper rationale.

The hon. Lady is an expert and she makes a powerful case. A point that has not been raised is about the further complications caused by delays and bureaucracy at the Home Office. In an example from the hundreds of cases I deal with, somebody provided his wage slips, but there was a discrepancy of pennies between the money that went into his bank account and his wage slip, so the case was refused. I know that the Minister is rightly interested in this area, and I hope that she will be able to address that point. Does the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) agree that we need to address the bureaucracy, delay and complications at the Home Office?

I agree with the hon. Member that many cases have been delayed as a result of incompetence and staff not being trained properly. The constant churn in the Home Office has meant that people are just treated as numbers and not as real human beings who have families who need to be reunited. People cannot control who they do or do not fall in love with. Our polices should be fair, and currently they are not. They should not be discriminatory. They should be based on a proper rationale, not plucked out of thin air. Colleagues have made excellent points about bringing the income threshold in line with minimum wage—that should be the lowest benchmark—so that regardless of their income, people should meet the threshold. I said earlier that 50% of employees do not meet the income requirement. We should do everything we can to ensure that everyone who is in work and paid the minimum wage is able to meet the requirements.

17:10:00

It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I thank the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for opening the debate. I have a speech written, but it is always interesting just to speak my mind. Prior to my election as Member of Parliament, when I was a councillor I had hundreds of constituents contact me about the relative increase to an income of £29,000. Many constituents were concerned that they could not bring their spouses to the UK because they would not meet the threshold, and many were having to work more than one job. As hon. Members have rightly said, people working in certain sectors would simply not be able to meet the threshold. Apart from that, there is a disparity when we look at where people are earning. Incomes in London are substantially greater than in the rest of the country, but that in itself is unfair because we all know that expenses in bigger cities are far greater. Someone earning £30,000 in Birmingham would be able to retain, say, £15,000, whereas someone earning £40,000 in London may only be able to retain £5,000 as a contribution towards the spouse and the marriage working out in the UK. There is an enormous disparity but, let us face it, this is not about having a spouse or a family to provide for. If it were, the Government would be at real odds. If it is about affordability, what do we pay a couple in the UK over the age of 25? I think it is about £600 a month. Obviously there are housing costs associated too, but there is simply no comparison. This policy was driven by the last Government to feed into the narrative that they were doing something about immigration. They were going to curtail the amount of people coming in, and the one way they could do that was to increase the threshold. That argument does not succeed either, however, because people who are wealthier or have assets can still marry and bring their spouses into the UK. This policy would harshly affect countless British citizens who have chosen to marry partners from abroad. Stats from the Office for National Statistics clearly identify that the median annual salary in the UK falls well below the benchmark, so this will be impossible. People will have to choose between living with their loved ones in the UK or leaving the country. They may find themselves in the very difficult position of having to leave family, work and so on, to go to a country where they cannot get a job or do not have the skills or experience to take on employment. There are enormous difficulties. This proposal is a punitive measure against those who have committed no crime other than falling in love. We know that love has no borders, especially in a world of social media. So many young people go on to social media because it is a global environment where people fall in love all the time. This policy will impact so many people. The Home Office, which is tasked with protecting and supporting our citizens, should not be placing barriers between family members; it should support and facilitate their union. In seeking to protect the integrity of our borders, we must not lose sight of the integrity of our family values. I urge the Government to reconsider these draconian measures, remember their duty to the people they serve, and ensure that policy reflects both economic reality and the enduring importance of family unity. Let us not punish our citizens for their choice of partners; instead, let us support them in building their family lives, regardless of nationality.

17:15:00

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Pritchard. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) on her very capable speech introducing the debate. I speak today in recognition of the strength of the representations that I have received from constituents; I thank all those who took the time to write to me ahead of this debate. I accept—as, I think, all my constituents do —that all Governments face the challenge of striking the right balance between a fair and rules-based immigration system and the human right to respect for family life, but we are here today because the 2012 system does not strike the right balance. The results can be arbitrary, unfair and distressing for families. As has been said, family life and love cannot be neatly divided by borders. The House of Lords Justice and Home Affairs Committee report said that the family visa system can be “complex and inconsistent”, and drew attention to the processing delays and decisions that are sometimes very hard for constituents to understand, as other hon. Members have ably highlighted. There are a number of examples of unfairness in the policies and practices that this Government have inherited. The inflexibility of the cut-off takes no account of variations in earnings across the country. There is affluence in my constituency, but by and large wages are low and we have not fully recovered from the closure of the Longbridge plant 20 years ago. In a ranking of all constituencies by average income, Birmingham Northfield is 35th from the bottom. In my constituency, the average full-time employee’s salary is about £31,000, but that does not take account of the self-employed, whose earnings tend to be lower. That figure is almost £3,000 lower than in Birmingham as a whole, almost £4,000 lower than in the west midlands overall and more than £6,000, or 16%, lower than the average for the UK. More than half of people in work are below the current threshold, and that would rise to more than 70% under the former Government’s plans. The £29,000 threshold is already an extremely challenging barrier for many families to meet because the jobs are just not available. I have constituents who work two or more jobs in an effort to meet that threshold, at great personal cost. There is a clear risk that if the inherited plans proceed, the right to respect for family life will become the preserve of a fortunate few, concentrated in just a few neighbourhoods within the city of Birmingham. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) made the point well: the previous Government confused income with skill. It has been the stated ambition of successive Governments to attract highly skilled migrant workers. Two of the constituents who contacted me today hold doctorates, including in shortage occupation areas, but, due to a combination of altruism in their choice of career and family circumstances, they do not have large incomes. One of them, Dr Gillian Thies, is in the Public Gallery. She fought for years for her husband, Patrick, who is also with us, and their children to be allowed to join the rest of the family in Birmingham. The applications were initially refused and were granted only in 2018, after significant political and press attention. Patrick is now a senior physician associate at the Royal Orthopaedic hospital, and his application was strongly supported by the NHS. Indeed, his work in the UK is of ongoing benefit to patients and the wider community, but Gillian and he had to fight to bring their children to the UK from America; distressingly, their adopted children—two young teenagers—were turned around and put on a plane at Heathrow. They are now heavily involved in the Reunite Families UK campaign. I want to place on the record an appreciation of how they have responded to their ordeal: by working to benefit others who find themselves in comparable situations today. Gillian and Patrick are not alone in Northfield. Another of my constituents estimates that he has spent £50,000 to try to resolve his wife’s case, which he says is an exceptionally generous subsidy to airlines, hotels and lawyers. Would it not be better for the economy if that money could be spent in south Birmingham instead? I welcome the Government’s decision to ask the Migration Advisory Committee to look again at this policy. I hope that the review, and the Government’s response to it, will take account of the House of Lords Committee’s recommendation that the financial requirement should be revisited to become more flexible and to focus on the likelihood of the future income of the family unit, rather than solely on the sponsor’s past income. The review should also take wider account of a family’s whole circumstances and of the differences in labour markets and local wages, and focus on improving the administration of applications so that fewer families are left in limbo for so long and the system is ultimately fairer and more compassionate.

17:21:00

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I extend my thanks to the petitioners, those who have organised the petition, Reunite Families UK and the Petitions Committee for facilitating this very important debate. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for opening it. I congratulate her on setting out the arguments and issues in a most comprehensive and understandable fashion. I want to highlight a particular case that affects my constituent, but first I want to say a few general words to supplement and complement the existing contributions, which have all been absolutely excellent. The sharp increase in the minimum income requirement for family visas is not an ill-judged policy; it is a cruel and discriminatory policy. It makes it painfully difficult for many British citizens to live and work in the UK with their foreign-born spouses, causing completely unnecessary emotional suffering and economic strain on families. Since the policy was last debated, a plethora of evidence has highlighted its disproportionate impact on women, single mothers and those working in relatively low-wage regional economies outside London. When the previous shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Aberafan Maesteg (Stephen Kinnock), raised concerns about the lack of justification for the dramatic minimum income requirement increase from £18,600 to £29,000, it became clear that the decision was not grounded in evidence, but seemed to be, in the words of my hon. Friend, “plucked out of thin air”. —[Official Report, 23 April 2024; Vol. 748, c. 237WH.]

Would my hon. Friend agree that an underlying problem is not only the size of the proposed increase, but the arbitrary nature of the level? As has been mentioned, perhaps it is linked to the skilled workers level, but that seems to be an arbitrary figure as well. Would he agree that we need to ensure that people out there have faith in the system by ensuring that the levels at which it is set are not arbitrary?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention; he is absolutely correct. Although I am pleased and delighted that the Government have commissioned a Migration Advisory Committee review, which represents a step forward towards evidence-based policy making, the harm caused in the meantime cannot be ignored. The review is due in June, but in the interim thousands of families are still separated. The policy disproportionately affects many groups, including, as I have said, women and single parents—often mothers with caring responsibilities, particularly those outside London and the south-east, which is a particular concern. It affects regions where wages are low, such as in Wales and Scotland. In regions such as the north-east, where median annual earnings are £15,000 lower than those in London, many hard-working families simply cannot meet the £29,000 per annum threshold. These regional disparities exacerbate existing inequalities and penalise those who simply do not earn as much. The Migration Observatory’s 2023 research shows that 16% of British men working as employees do not earn enough to sponsor a spouse visa, but for women the figure skyrockets to 35%. That means that over a third of British women are currently ineligible to apply for a spousal visa should they need to do so. I have permission to share the story of my constituent Lindsay Thompson, who contacted me last year. She has been married to her husband Orlando for six years. He still lives in Jamaica owing to the Home Office policy. He did not meet their son until the little boy was two years old because of the pandemic and travel bans, compounded by their inability to meet the mandatory visa threshold. Lindsay is a dedicated mother. She works tirelessly to provide for her son. She has applied for and secured multiple promotions at work and now only just earns £29,000 a year. She must sustain that income for six months before being eligible to apply for a visa. She lives in constant fear that the Government will raise the threshold even further to the £38,700 proposed by the Conservative party.

I thank my hon. Friend for allowing me to intervene. Many of my Slough constituents have contacted me about this very issue. Many families simply want to be together in the UK to get on with their lives. I appreciate what my hon. Friend just said about the Government looking at the £29,000 threshold being looked into by the Migration Advisory Committee. Does he not agree that the hangover from the previous Conservative Government, who wanted to increase the threshold to an exorbitant £38,700 in early 2025, is extremely unfair, especially given that the UK average wage is way beneath that?

Absolutely. My hon. Friend reinforces previous comments and interventions. He is absolutely correct. That arbitrary threshold is worse for individuals who live in relatively low wage economies such as my constituency and others. Within regions there are areas of low wages, too, as has been highlighted by other hon. Friends. The emotional toll of the policy on parents and children is immense, with long-term impacts on mental health and wellbeing. We must recognise the policy’s human cost. Families like Lindsay’s deserve better. Everyone has the right to a family life, whether they live in London or Easington in County Durham. It is unacceptable that regional and gender disparities in pay continue to determine whether families can live together. The policy was conceived as a desperate attempt by the previous Conservative Government to reduce immigration. However, experts and campaigners consistently argue that raising the threshold has had a minimal impact on net migration figures. What it does succeed in doing is tearing families apart and inflicting unnecessary suffering. When the MAC review is published, I urge the Minister to give full weight to the evidence of disproportionate harm caused by this policy, and to consider the voices of campaigners, charities and affected families, who have called for a compassionate approach to immigration policy. I politely remind her that this is a Tory legacy policy that can be reversed if there is the political will, so let us ensure that no family is left behind, and that our policies reflect fairness and respect the right to family life.

17:30:00

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard, for my first contribution to a Westminster Hall debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) on introducing this important debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee, and congratulate Shannon on bringing the petition forward. I want to highlight the difficulty that various sectors are having in attracting and retaining workers, the risk that increasing the income requirement places on those sectors, the situation it puts families in, and the importance of accessible family visas for attracting people to the country. Young, happy, united and economically productive families are the building blocks of what we should define as a good economy. First, I welcome the Government’s quick decision to hold off on further increases to the minimum income requirement and to allow the Migration Advisory Committee to assess the impact of the requirement. We should be led by evidence and proper process, not forced into knee-jerk reactions to the broken migration system, which is still reeling from the hammer blow of the Tories’ botched Brexit deal and other factors. The current system punishes those on lower and middle incomes who have done nothing except fall in love with somebody from another country. That not only affects families but risks exacerbating employment and skills challenges across the economy. In fairness, when the initial decision to introduce a minimum income requirement was made in 2012, there was a public consultation and detailed analysis by the MAC, but no such analysis was done when the most recent changes were implemented, leaving the full economic effects unclear. We know, however, that there are workforce shortages across all our constituencies in industries as diverse as housekeeping, hospitality management, bricklaying, carpentry, plumbing, manufacturing and data analysis—to name a few that have approached me as their constituency MP. According to the Fraser of Allander Institute up the road, one in four employers reported unfilled vacancies last year. It is also important to note that the skilled worker visa eligible occupations list does not cover all the areas facing worker shortages or all the sectors under pressure. A quick look at one recruitment website through which many young people trawl regularly—though I admit I have not done so since June—shows that jobs paying below £29,000 constitute a significant proportion of the work in those industries facing staff shortages. Raising the threshold to £38,700 would substantially exacerbate that. It is difficult to see how the increase in the income requirement would not deter people from making the UK their home. In my experience of working in hospitality, workers from abroad were often of immense value to that part of the economy, especially in providing longevity to businesses that often deal with a high staff turnover. A system that denies that ability to long-term partners also means that children often have to deal with one parent in the UK and one permanently abroad. Not only is that incredibly challenging personally for the child, but it limits opportunities, with a parent being forced to raise their child in a single-parent household without the support of their partner who is abroad. That places unnecessary financial and emotional pressure on them, at a time when we should be supporting everyone in our community to live and work well. My final point is about the importance of attracting people to live in the United Kingdom. When family reunification is made so difficult for people on low and middle incomes, it sends the message that they are not welcome. I know from my inbox how hard the process can be. One constituent has been waiting for six years to obtain a visa for their spouse, and they commented that they were left exasperated by an uncontactable and uncommunicative Home Office. Six years: I can only imagine if that were my spouse, brother, son, nephew, niece or friend. We are deterring young and happy families under the Tories’ previous policies. That negative sentiment is reflected in the fact that the Migration Integration Policy Index ranks the UK as second to bottom of 56 countries for ease of family reunification, which should be a gauntlet for us to pick up and improve on. Alongside the tricky business—I acknowledge that it is tricky—of balancing migration policy, we should welcome families who are ready to contribute to our society and build their lives here. In summary, any further increases to the minimum income requirement for family visas would worsen skills shortages in vital industries such as hospitality, construction and healthcare, while also making it more difficult for families to stay united. The Government’s recent decision to hold off on further increases is a welcome step, and I urge them to consider the economic impact of the changes and the disruption that they would cause to families, workers and businesses when making any future decisions.

17:35:00

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I start by acknowledging the more than 100,000 people who have signed this petition nationally, including almost 200 people in my constituency, and I particularly thank Shannon for starting it. They have come together to call for a fairer and more compassionate approach to family visas. This issue deeply affects families across our country and we must address it with care and urgency. The Liberal Democrats believe that the immigration system should work for everyone. We want to make sure that it works for our country and for our economy while treating everyone with dignity and respect. That means that the current system must change because, sadly, the previous Conservative Government’s changes to the income requirements for family visas fell far short of that goal. The decision to raise the minimum income threshold for a sponsoring partner to £29,000 a year and to propose further increases to nearly £39,000 a year has rightly caused widespread fear and anxiety for families. We ought to feel concerned for them and the countless people who have been left feeling uncertain about their futures or forced to make impossible decisions about their lives. More than 10 hon. Members have spoken in this debate. I have heard that the policy is a tax on love and that it rips families apart, but I have not heard anyone speak in favour of it—I am pleased to say—which shows that the system is broken and needs changing. We must acknowledge the humanity of the situation: those arbitrary thresholds fail to take into account the many families who simply cannot meet them through no fault of their own. They disproportionately affect women, people in lower paid but essential jobs, and those living outside London and the south-east, where wages are often lower.

We have heard a lot about sector-specific issues, and about regional inequalities and inequalities of race and gender, but does my hon. Friend agree that there is also an issue for people with disabilities? My constituent is an armed forces veteran who now suffers from PTSD and a range of other disabilities that leave him able to work only part time, which would massively hamper his ability to hit any threshold. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to ensure that the system that works for everyone and gives back to the people who have served our country?

I completely agree with my hon. Friend, who highlights that the policy has an impact on disabled and vulnerable veterans. The Government must acknowledge that and take it into account as they change the system to ensure that they support those people. He makes a valid point in support of his constituents. Given that no one has said that they support the current policy, why did the Conservative Government make that move to cause so much disparity and hurt? Putting the threshold so artificially high prevents British citizens on lower incomes sponsoring their foreign spouse or partner moving to the UK. It does not save money—it hurts our financial system and our economy—but it is there to make them look tough on immigration. Everyone can see through it. Roughly half of UK employees earn less than £29,000 a year, so I am disappointed and surprised that the Conservatives, who often say that they are the party of traditional family values, trashed our family values in this country by introducing this policy and breaking up families. The Government’s own Migration Advisory Committee is now reviewing those financial requirements. Although we welcome the pause on further rises, families need certainty, and they need it now. We need to know that they will not be torn apart by policies that prioritise the system over compassion; we need to protect them. We must ask ourselves what kind of country we want to live in—one that values the bonds of family or one that tears those bonds apart based on arbitrary numbers and a statistical threshold picked out of thin air. Do we follow hard data or do we follow the love that our constituents feel for each other? The Liberal Democrats are committed to reversing the unfair increases in income thresholds for family visas. Families should not have to live in fear of being separated. They deserve stability and the opportunity to build their lives together in the UK. I urge the Government to act swiftly, to halt any further increases and to ensure that family visa requirements are fair and proportionate. Families matter. No one should have to choose between their loved ones and their home.

17:40:00

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I am grateful to the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell), the Petitions Committee and the 101,321 members of the public who have requested that we debate this topic. Those 100,000 people have asked us to discuss this policy because, as many hon. Members have movingly pointed out, it can be overwhelmingly important to those it affects. There are few things in life and in human nature more powerful than the desire to be with those you love. To be separated from your husband or wife by a national border is no small thing. Indeed, for those it is happening to it can feel like everything. The role of Government is to determine what is right for the country, not for any one person, couple or family, so we must place this discussion in its national context: managing overall migration to Britain. The public have consistently asked successive Governments to lower migration. As my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Essex (Mrs Badenoch) has said, the last Government, like Governments before them, promised to do exactly that, but, again like the Governments before them, did not deliver. Migration has been far too high for the last two decades and remains so. The issue of migration is not just about quantity. It should be a fundamental principle of our system that people who come to this country do not cost more than they contribute; what they pay in tax should at least cover the costs of the public services that they use. The policy that we are debating was implemented by a Conservative Government as part of an attempt to cut migration and to ensure that those who come here do not represent a net fiscal cost. Clearly, it was not enough, but it was a step in the right direction. In delaying reform, the new Government seem to be making the same mistakes as previous Governments. To refer again to the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Essex, we in Westminster “cannot pretend that immigration comes only with benefits and no costs”. This is all too clear to the country. People can see it in their wages, which are stagnating because they are being undercut, and they can see it in their rent soaring, in how hard it is for their children to get on the housing ladder, in the cohesion of their communities and in the pressure on their GPs, dentists and infrastructure.

I am slightly surprised. The hon. Lady raised a number of points about her own Government’s record and what they were unable to deliver, so does she not find it a little jarring that she is now preaching to this Government about what they should do?

It is the job of the Opposition to hold the Government to account, whoever is in government. As I have acknowledged, these are mistakes that we made, so very few people are as well qualified to suggest what behaviour could be avoided in the future. That is part of our job and our duty to the public.

I appreciate the humane remarks that the hon. Lady made at the beginning of her speech, but is she not now guilty of continuing to slur migrant workers who come to this country as representing a net fiscal drain on the economy? These workers contribute to our economy, and they represent a contribution to its growth.

It is far from a slur. I will come on to more statistical analysis of fiscal costs in a moment, but if a migrant to this country represents a fiscal cost, that is a fact, not an insult. This Labour Government, as we know, have also committed to lowering migration. We do not know by how much or when, so I would be grateful if the Minister could enlighten us on that. The hon. Members for Stroud (Dr Opher) and for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) pointed out that spousal and partner visas accounted for only 5% of visas issued last year, but 58,000 people is still a huge number, and it is only our—to quote the Prime Minister—“sky-high” level of overall migration that makes it seem small. In fact, it is almost as much as the entire cumulative net migration to Britain for the 25 years leading up to 1997. In the past four years, more people have moved to the UK under a spousal visa than live in Exeter, Ipswich or Blackpool, and that number is rising sharply. There is some indication that, as the previous Government tightened the rules around dependants and salary thresholds for work visas, people turned to the family route instead. Numbers in the second quarter of 2024 were up a third on the same time in 2023 and were four times as high as in the second quarter of 2022. It is worth remembering that any and every Briton can marry any foreign citizen who can get a visa here. This country has issued some 5 million visas in the past five years, so the system is hardly stringent. The question is not, “Should British citizens be able to bring their foreign spouses to the UK?” It is, “Does it benefit the country as a whole for British citizens on lower salaries to bring foreign spouses here who are unable to get a visa any other way?” By definition, those spouses fall outside the already excessively broad conditions that we have set for being able to come to this country in their own right. I hope it is some comfort to the constituent of the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon) to hear that there is no minimum income requirement if a spouse is disabled or on personal independence payment. The hon. Members for Stroud, for Sheffield Central and for North Ayrshire and Arran reminded us that those coming here have no immediate right to welfare support. That implies that there are no costs to that migration, but that is wrong. After five years, a person who has come here on a family visa can apply for indefinite leave to remain. If they get it—95% of ILR applicants are successful—they qualify for welfare, social housing, NHS care and everything else, and that costs money. The salary threshold exists because people who move to this country—even those who are spouses of citizens—must be able to sustain themselves financially within their family, or the whole system will fall to pieces, even more than it already has.

On the point about what a spouse costs the state in terms of public services, surely the income generated by the working spouse would mean that they are not entitled to receive benefits of any kind.

As I just explained, if the person has been here for five years and applies for indefinite leave to remain, and it is granted—as almost all indefinite leave to remain applications are—they are entitled to full welfare, social housing, NHS care and everything else the state provides to its citizens. That point about indefinite leave to remain is especially relevant to family visas. Ten years after arrival, only 7%, or one in 14, of those who come here on student visas, and 21%, or one in five, of those who came on work visas, have ILR. For family visas, it is 83%, or five out of every six people. That is why the Migration Advisory Committee’s initial impact assessment of the policy found £500 million in welfare cost savings and £500 million more in public service savings from the introduction of the £18,000 minimum income requirement, and that was when far fewer people were using that route to come here. But the cost-benefit analysis that counts is not that of the Migration Advisory Committee, but that of the British people. They want mass migration to end, and they are sick of broken promises. The numbers must come down across the whole system. The last Government were therefore right to introduce this reform, and it does not bode well that this Prime Minister, for all his talk, decided at the first opportunity to back out of it.

Will the hon. Lady say whether the policy of punitively attacking families was successful in reducing migration? Will she also say what effect immigration has on GDP?

As I have said, the policy was nothing like enough to reduce immigration. It was a step in the right direction, but it was deeply insufficient. Migration has the effect of increasing GDP in raw terms because more people are here but, on GDP per capita, most evidence indicates that it weakens our economy over the medium term. On this reform and the many others required to our migration system, the Government must make difficult decisions. Those decisions may be painful, especially in the short term, for individual people, families or businesses, or the cost of the public service workforce. But that is the only way for any Government’s actions to match their words. The public have had enough. Can the Minister confirm that the Government remain fully committed to bringing down migration? Can she confirm exactly what that means, by how much they will bring down the numbers and when, and that the Government understand that it must happen—indeed, can only happen—where it involves making hard and upsetting choices for the good of our country? With that in mind, can the Minister confirm whether it is the Government’s intention to maintain this policy? If they will not make that commitment today, can they at least commit to the fundamental principle behind it—that those who come here, or bring others here, should be able to support themselves financially and not represent a net cost to the state over the long term? Does the Minister therefore agree that the salary threshold should increase to whatever level is necessary to ensure that that is the case? Finally, I am conscious that those who have been granted indefinite leave to remain are then able to sponsor a spouse. Can the Minister tell us how many migrants on skilled worker visas, care worker visas and shortage occupation lists—I believe that amounts to 2 million visas since the start of 2021—the Home Office expects to apply for ILR when eligible? How many spousal visa applications does the Department then expect to receive from those people? Further, based on demographic, level of income and number of dependants, what do the Government expect that to cost? What discussions are being held between the Home Secretary, the Treasury and the Department for Work and Pensions on how these pressures will be met?

17:51:00

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Pritchard. I thank all those from across the Chamber who have contributed to this important debate, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for moving the motion on behalf of the Petitions Committee. I also thank Shannon who started the petition and the over 100,000 people who signed it. The petition was concluded before the general election, but it has been brought forward for debate in the House. It is important to address the point raised by the hon. Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain) about the delays in Home Office cases. That is a separate matter from the one we are discussing. However, I will say that we inherited a Home Office with utterly chaotic systems. The huge amount—£700 million—spent on the Rwanda scheme and the diversion of caseworkers have partly contributed to the chaos that we have seen across a number of visa routes. I hope that we are starting to bring that under some control, so that applications can be processed more swiftly and people are not left waiting as long as they have been. It is also important to make the point that migration has always been a part of our nation’s history. For generations, people have travelled here from all over the world to contribute to our economy, study in our universities, work in our public services and be part of our communities. Indeed, British citizens also continue to travel across the world and may choose to make their home abroad. We recognise and value the contribution that legal migration makes to our country, but as the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam), and all those across the House will be aware, we have said that net migration, which reached record highs under the last Government—over 900,000 in the year ending June 2023—is unsustainable. It needs to come down, and we have made that commitment. However, there has been a broader conversation in the contributions from Members across the House. I will endeavour to respond to the specific points raised, but first I want to set out the background to the minimum income requirement, or the MIR. I will set out how it came about and what our position is now. As we know, appendix FM was brought into the immigration rules in 2012 to set out the requirements for family members wishing to come to or stay in the UK on the basis of their relationship with a family member who is British or settled here. It also brought the MIR into the immigration rules, with the aim of ensuring that family migrants could be supported at a reasonable level by their sponsoring family member so that, as has been raised, there was no unreasonable burden on the British taxpayer and to help to ensure that they had the independence and means to participate sufficiently in everyday life, to support themselves and to facilitate integration into Britain. The right to family life is a qualified right, and the family immigration rules, including the MIR, carefully balance that right against the legitimate aim of protecting the economic wellbeing of the UK. Expecting family migrants and their sponsors to be financially independent is reasonable to both them and the taxpayer. In 2017, the Supreme Court agreed that this principle strikes a fair balance between the interests of those wishing to sponsor a partner to settle in the UK and the community in general. When the MIR was introduced as part of the changes to the immigration rules, it was set at £18,600, following advice from the Migration Advisory Committee. At that time, the figure represented the level of income that a family could receive at which point they would cease to be eligible for income support. Between its introduction and April 2024, it was not increased in line with inflation or real wages or adjusted in the light of rising numbers of migrants using the route. The previous Government then decided to raise the MIR to bring it in line with the median income for skilled workers, which is currently £38,700. The decision was made without consultation and without the benefit of advice from the Migration Advisory Committee. Shortly afterwards, the Conservative Government decided to implement the rise incrementally. The first increase, to £29,000, took place in April 2024, and no further changes have yet taken place. It is our view that any change must be underpinned by a solid evidence base and form part of a system that is fair, clear and consistent. To achieve that, as has been mentioned, the Home Secretary has commissioned the Migration Advisory Committee to review the financial requirements in the family immigration rules. That includes the level of the MIR and how it can be met.

A number of Members have raised concerns about the discrepancies in incomes and average earnings across different regions and nations of the UK. Can the Minister give us an assurance that the Migration Advisory Committee will look at those?

Indeed, that is what we would expect. The Migration Advisory Committee has already completed a call for evidence. It may be of interest to the House that that call for evidence, which gathered the views of stakeholders and those affected by changes to family rules and closed on 11 December, saw more than 2,000 responses—a record for a Migration Advisory Committee consultation. The comments received will inform the review being conducted by the Migration Advisory Committee. I am sure that many interested Members and their constituents will have taken part in that opportunity to provide views, because, as has been mentioned, a rich evidence base is essential to ensure that effective recommendations can be made. The Migration Advisory Committee has also commissioned two pieces of research to independent research contractors: a survey with a sample of applicants to the family visa, and qualitative reviews with people who applied and those who were not able to apply. Fieldwork will start in the next few weeks, and further information can be found on gov.uk. The Migration Advisory Committee is an independent body, and I know that the review will be robust and transparent, considering the impact on family life, children, equalities and regional variations in income. It is expected that the MAC will issue its report in the summer, and we will carefully consider its recommendations before making any further changes. I will address a few of the points raised by hon. Members from across the House. Some hon. Members called for us to scrap the MIR altogether. However, as I said, it is a long-established principle that family life in the UK must be on a basis that balances the needs of the family and those of the UK taxpayer, and that also enables family migrants to integrate into British life. The family immigration rules are flexible and contain safeguards to protect the right to family life. It is worth highlighting a few of the safeguards that are currently in the rules, because that will inform some of the hon. Members who made contributions today. Those who cannot meet the core requirements of the rules, including the MIR, may still be granted leave if they have exceptional circumstances that mean refusing their application would be unjustifiably harsh. That takes into account the impact on children and considers their best interests. It is in accordance with our obligations under article 8 of the European convention on human rights. Where someone is granted leave on the basis of exceptional circumstances, they are placed on a longer, 10-year route to settlement, which is granted in four tranches of 30-month periods, with a fifth application for indefinite leave to remain. The rules recognise that some sponsors will have reduced earning capacity as a result of disability or caring for someone with a disability. Therefore, an applicant whose sponsor is in receipt of certain specified disability-related benefits or allowances is exempt from meeting the MIR. Instead, they must meet a requirement for adequate maintenance, demonstrating that they can support themselves and their family without relying on public funds.

The Conservative spokesperson, the hon. Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam), mentioned the point about personal independence payments. Obviously, not everybody who has a disability is eligible for every benefit; there are certain thresholds and requirements in order to get those statuses, and the conditions of people with disabilities might vary and change. How does that factor into what the Minister is saying?

I am sure that those issues will have been raised in the responses that have come to the Migration Advisory Committee. It is right that the MAC is reviewing how the current financial requirements are operating, including looking at the impact on family units. It is important to mention that both the immigration fees and the immigration health surcharge may be waived based on what the applicant can afford. I will briefly mention those who work for His Majesty’s armed forces in relation to the immigration rules. I note that the previous Government laid immigration rules in March 2024 that brought the MIR for His Majesty’s armed forces, including the Brigade of Gurkhas and the Royal Air Force partner route, in line with the armed forces salary threshold on completion of training, which was £23,496 for the 2023-24 financial year. That no longer includes an additional income requirement to sponsor a child. Tethering the MIR to the armed forces salary threshold takes into account the unique nature of their service, the armed forces covenant and the recruitment and retention of the armed forces in order to maintain national security.

Will the Minister give way?

I do not think that the hon. Gentleman was in the Chamber at the start of the debate.

Order. The hon. Gentleman came in quite late.

As always, the hon. Gentleman is welcome to catch me after the debate. In relation to impact assessments, the previous Government published some initial analysis, which was referenced in the debate, on the volume impacts of the first stage of the minimum income requirement increase in December 2023, when the decision was announced. They committed to publishing the full analysis in the impact assessment, but that was not done when the rules changed or when the general election took place. Impact assessments are important to enable scrutiny of the impact of the increase of the MIR. That is why we published the regulatory and equalities impact assessments for net migration measures under the previous Government in September and paused any further increases while the Migration Advisory Committee reviews the financial requirements in the family immigration rules. Once the MAC report has been received, a further equalities impact assessment will be completed to inform any further changes that are made. To conclude, I thank hon. Members who have contributed to the debate. The Government’s position is clear: we support the right to family life and value the contribution that those from overseas make to our economy, public services and civic life. We recognise that that needs to be balanced as part of a fair, managed and controlled migration system.

The hon. Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam), speaking for the Opposition, described the public’s perception of these rules as being of great concern, as if there were a homogeneous view across the country. We know that is not the case: there is a different view in Scotland. During my speech I asked the Minister to confirm whether the leader of the Labour party in Scotland was in discussions with the Government regarding a bespoke Scottish visa. She has not answered that question yet, but I hope she will. Perhaps she can also confirm whether that might extend to partner visas as well.

The hon. Member is right that views vary, but, in line with how the public see immigration, it is important that there should be a fair system that is controlled and well managed. It is extremely important for us to ensure we have controls around our system and not the utter chaos we saw under the last Government. Frankly, to say one thing and be doing almost the opposite is exactly what drives cynicism with politics and with control over immigration and our public services. On the questions that the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan) has raised, I should say that I am in contact with a number of Members of the Scottish Parliament and other colleagues in the Scottish Parliament. The hon. Member will know our position because it is his colleagues who have raised the issue there. We will not be devolving immigration policy, because the issues that Scotland faces are the same issues faced in other areas. They also relate to labour market issues, whether that be pay, controls or conditions. It is important that we understand the issues, which is why I will visit Scotland in the near future. It is important to hear at first hand from those around the country, as we must have an immigration system that works for all parts of the United Kingdom. The migration system and the MIR is an important issue. I recognise the concerns raised by hon. Members on different sides today and in the many pieces of correspondence I have received on this topic from Members, many of whom are here today. We must understand the impact of any potential further changes and ensure that policy in this area has a firm evidence base. I look forward to receiving the Migration Advisory Committee’s recommendations in the summer, which I am sure will inform the next steps we take and the debate in Parliament and across the country.

18:09:00

This debate has shown how important it is that families affected by the policy have answers soon with regards to their future in the UK. We have already heard the consequences of the long waiting times on families, particularly their children. I am proud to have represented this debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee. First, I thank the staff on the Petitions Committee for their assistance and hard work in preparing for the debate. I thank all the groups whose work I have been able to cite in the debate, particularly Migration Observatory, Reunite Families UK and Citizens Advice for their guidance and extensive research. Many thanks once again to Shannon for starting the petition. We have had the privilege of hearing from Members contributing to this debate with varying views and ideas. It is clear that this is an issue important to constituents and that the minimum income requirement has a profound effect on families all over the UK. Finally, I thank the Minister for her response and for giving this debate the time and care it deserves. We are all looking forward to the new Migration Advisory Committee review this year and the guidance it will provide to the Government and all those affected by the minimum income requirement. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered e-petition 652602 relating to the income requirement for family visas.

18:10:00