Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules
(12 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Basildon
That this House regrets that notwithstanding welcome but limited measures to ensure the deportation of foreign criminals and tackle sham marriages, and notwithstanding the importance of greater protection for the taxpayer, the Government have not demonstrated that the specific minimum annual income requirement which has been introduced through the Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules (HC 194) is the most effective way to protect taxpayers and deliver fairness for UK citizens who wish their spouse or partner to settle in the United Kingdom.
Relevant document: 6th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, I should say at the outset of this debate that we support the Government in their efforts to address and manage levels of immigration to this country and to make it easier to deport foreign criminals, but my Motion of Regret is on the specific aspect of HC 194, that part of it which sets an income threshold of £18,600 for British citizens and people settled here who wish to sponsor their spouse or partner to come to live with them in this country and of £22,400 for couples with children. I would also like, during the course of the debate, to raise with the Government the issue of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights—that is, the right to respect for private and family life—and the Government’s proposal to find greater legal clarity by balancing Article 8 with public interest considerations.
On income threshold, of course it is right that if an individual wishes to bring their family to settle here in the UK, they should not assume that the state will support them. That is why it is already a requirement for an individual to demonstrate that they have access to sufficient funds at a level that will put them in a similar position to someone on income support here in the UK, so that they will not seek recourse to benefits. Unlike a blanket income threshold, the current position allows authorities to take into account the different ways in which a couple may be able to demonstrate that they can meet that requirement. For example, currently, the joint income of a couple can be taken into consideration when assessing whether their funds are adequate, as well as the likely employment prospects of one or both of the parties. Couples are also able to use an undertaking by members of their family in the UK to provide them with adequate funds for maintenance as evidence that they will be able to support themselves without recourse to the state.
I understand that that leaves a level of discretion in decision-making, and we support efforts to provide greater clarity in the rules, to eliminate opportunities for abuse, but we must also recognise that, nowadays, we live in a world where it is commonplace to travel, to study, to do business and to work abroad, so it is only natural that people from here in the UK will travel, fall in love and form long-term and permanent relations across borders. Family circumstances are not always as straightforward as government policy assumes. Many in your Lordships’ House will know of couples of different nationalities, friends and family members, who have established long-lasting relationships through living and working abroad.
When my Motion of Regret was published, I received several letters by e-mail and fax from those who have been affected by government policy. I do not know the circumstances of all those who have contacted me, but as a generalisation, I would class those who have contacted me directly as strivers—a term that the Prime Minister has used. They are people who work hard to provide for themselves and their families, not rich or wealthy people, but often people who work hard in useful jobs on wages lower than most of us in your Lordships’ House have come to expect in our working lives.
I want to refer to a couple of examples that I think may help your Lordships’ House in considering the issue. I shall call one family Mr and Mrs M. They are a married couple. She is from a Commonwealth country; she is Canadian. Both of them have children from previous marriages. They married in 2005 in the UK and lived in the UK for a year, when she went back to Canada to go to university to complete her education, which would no doubt lead to a better job. As she puts it to me in her correspondence, it was,
“short term suffering for the long term benefits”.
Her husband visited Canada a couple of times and they then decided that they would settle in Canada. For a number of reasons, not least being his responsibilities to his family here in the UK, including his parents, who were getting old, he moved back home in 2010 and they agreed that she would follow him once he found work. In the mean time, his wife sent him money from her earnings in Canada to buy household items for the new home that they were going to set up here in the UK. Again, these are people trying to do the right thing in seeking to support themselves. Alfred got a job; he was doing well and she started to complete the visa application form. However, in July 2012, their world just fell apart because he did not earn the £24,800 that the Government said he had to before his wife and two children could join him. His father was a miner in Wales; he had a low income—both were proud men and proud of their work. They estimated that his wife—when they thought she was going to join them—would get a job in the region of £18,000 to £24,000. Yet despite all their planning, and all their efforts to provide for themselves, they have fallen foul of this rule and are now living on different sides of the world.
There is another lady who contacted me, Miss BF. She and her non-EU partner plan to marry in December 2012. She wrote:
“I do not earn £18600. I work part time as a healthcare assistant for the NHS. I am unable to work full time as I have a 14 year old son … If I worked in London I could earn the £18600 however the cost to rent in London would probably be triple the cost of my current mortgage. The income threshold does not allow for variations in circumstances. It does not allow for the earning potential of single parents, or for women in general. Our wedding plans are now on hold”.
So no regional variation—or, again, partner’s income—is taken into account.
Mr S—a highly qualified man who has worked in government in the past—also outlines in his letter to me the perverse incentive of an absolute threshold. He lives some distance from London. He says:
“I’m desperately trying to find a job that would make the required £18,600 a year. In this area, that scenario is a difficult one, so I’m looking for work in London. If I secure such a job, earning the required salary, it’s likely that most of this would be spent on the high costs associated with living in London. Yet the government deem this ok. However, I could probably find a job in this area earning around £14-15,000 and would have more disposable income to support my family whilst having the assurity of living with my parents in the short term.”.
All these are people trying to do the right thing—trying to support themselves. As there is now no flexibility in the system, but a very blunt policy of a blanket income threshold, the rules can unfairly penalise couples like Mr and Mrs M, and people like Mr S and Miss BF. Can the Minister confirm that we have members of the Armed Forces serving overseas who, if they were to marry somebody they met on duty overseas, would have an income that would fall below the level expected by the Government and who therefore would not be allowed to bring their new wife or husband back to the UK with them?
People who are trying to do the right thing and who are strivers—and the Prime Minister has used both those terms—and who would so easily be capable of supporting themselves and are determined to support themselves without relying on the state, are being turned away. We need a system that delivers protection and fairness for existing tax payers, but also fairness to families like this who will ultimately be net contributors to the system.
This is about the right to family life for British citizens and those permanently settled in this country. That is not an absolute right but one that is rightly qualified by the public interest test. None the less, it is of the utmost significance to the lives of many British citizens who wish to settle their families in the UK. Did the Government properly and adequately examine all the options for the most effective method of delivering fairness to both families and taxpayers? We contend that the Government have failed to do so. The Government have relied on the response of the Migration Advisory Committee for justification of the policy and the level at which the income threshold has been set.
So, what was the question that the Government asked the Migration Advisory Committee, which provided the evidence that this was the correct policy? Did the Government ask: “Is an income threshold the most effective way of delivering fairness for the taxpayer and families and preventing abuse of the system?”. Perhaps the Government asked the Migration Advisory Committee: “What would be the best way of ensuring that those bringing a spouse or dependent children into this country would not have recourse to public funds?”. It was neither of those questions. Instead, the initial question that the Government asked the Migration Advisory Committee was framed in a way that made it clear that they had decided the policy before asking the question. It was,
“what should the minimum income threshold be for sponsoring spouses/partners”.
The policy of a single income threshold had been decided, and the question was asked in such a way that it could only be answered with an assessment of the amount. The Government pre-empted any independent advice from the Migration Advisory Committee on what would be the most effective and fair process for determining adequate means of support without reliance on the state because they had already unilaterally decided on an income threshold policy.
Baroness Browning
My Lords, I join this debate briefly because I was intrigued by the noble Baroness’s Motion. I have discussed it informally with the noble Baroness. Having looked at this and made a study of average wages, I think it would be helpful if my noble friend in replying could confirm what is in the instrument, as was drawn to the attention of the House by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee in its report back in July. The committee said:
“The changes to immigration rules contained in HC 194 are extensive although mainly intended to strengthen or clarify the current position and reduce overall numbers claiming a right to settlement on the basis of family life”.
I welcome the fact that we are having a much more open and honest debate about immigration than perhaps we would have had three or four years ago. I read the memoir, Back from the Brink, by the right honourable Member for Edinburgh South West, Mr Alistair Darling, the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, where he confirms that perhaps things were not spoken about in the past. Immigration is an issue, and it is something about which we should be a lot clearer and have a discussion.
If it is the intention of this rule that we are to reduce overall numbers, which is how I have interpreted it, equally the rule changes before the House in this instrument seem to make it absolutely clear that financially, among other things—and it is among other things, because the financial aspect of this minimum threshold of income is part of a package of rules—people who live in this country and have dependants can afford to maintain them as well as live an average life. I always think that it is difficult when we talk about averages. Therefore, the bar has been set at £18,600, although the appendix to the instrument refers to a,
“minimum income threshold of £18,600 for those who wish to sponsor the settlement in the UK of a partner of non-European Economic Area nationality”,
and says that a,
“higher threshold will be required for sponsoring any dependent child under the age of 18 in addition to the partner: £22,400 for one child and an additional £2,400 for each further child sponsored before the migrant parent qualifies for settlement”.
It would be helpful to the House if my noble friend could clarify how that threshold was set. If I have understood it correctly, it is the sort of policy that one sees elsewhere. It is a level set to ensure that people are not dependent on the state. But, equally, there is another dimension to people’s wealth within the family. I wonder whether my noble friend could touch on something that was debated in some fullness, along with the economic impact of immigration, by the Economic Affairs Committee of this House. I have a copy of the committee’s report from the Printed Paper Office. In 2007-08, noble Lords discussed the question of capital. Apart from the threshold of income, how is capital considered? I realise that the noble Baroness, in tabling this Motion, looked at those on low incomes and the impact that this measure might have on them, equally there are families for whom capital can be a substantial part of their income. Will my noble friend say a few words about those who sometimes would be regarded as capital rich but income poor? Capital does not seem to be mentioned here at all, so, going back to that very good report that came out of the Economic Affairs Committee of your Lordships’ House in 2007-08, will my noble friend touch on that issue?
In adverts that encourage people to migrate to other countries, one often finds a focus on certain occupations. In English-speaking Commonwealth countries, they are particularly focused on people with certain skills, who are able to carry out certain occupations. Presumably, apart from the need to recruit those skills into those countries, there is also a focus on the ability to be financially independent. I thought that I would contribute to today’s debate as earlier in the week I went through some research that looked at levels of pay. I realise again that we are dealing with these dreadful averages, which are never quite what our personal experience is of individual cases. For example, if we look at teachers’ pay, the scale point for people newly qualified starts at £21,588. Looking at the salary bands that might apply here, we are looking at professionals and we are probably looking at people who have gained qualifications in a trade or a profession that would make them employable on coming to this country.
I also took a quick look at regional variations, particularly the average salaries in cities and the different categories there. In London, the average salary is £33,000 a year, which is not typical perhaps because of the nature of London. I went up to Aberdeen and found it was £33,000—no different from London. In Bristol, in the south-west, the average was £27,900. I will not read them all out to the House but I did not find any figures in the average city salaries below the £18,600, or anywhere near it, that would sustain a family with two children.
I want to ask my noble friend this question and I ask for a frank reply to it. If we are reducing the number of people allowed to come to live and work in this country—which is what the instrument is about and this is an open policy as we realise these matters need to be brought under control—are we gauging it at £18,600 plus the additional amounts for dependent children on the assumption that people will have qualifications or professions in which they can work which would add to the British economy? Is that what is steering it? Can my noble friend give some indication as to whether that figure is to recruit people where we have skills shortages or just a bar that has been set to make sure that in opening our shores to people from abroad we are not encouraging dependency on the state?
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Browning. She has raised some very pertinent questions. While I want to focus on the income thresholds, I want also to draw attention to the concerns raised by BID, Bail for Immigration Detainees, about the implications for children of measures to ensure the deportation of foreign criminals.
BID’s experience is that wide powers already exist to deport foreign national ex-offenders, and in the very few appeals against this which are successful it is often because the courts have found that grave harm would be caused to a child by deporting the parents. It says that the Government are now seeking to prevent the courts from upholding the law to protect these families. In the view of BID, the measures do not allow for adequate consideration of the child’s best interests. For example, it does not follow that it is in a child’s best interests, if there is another relative that they can live with in the country, to live with that relative and to be permanently parted from their parents; or, say, if the parents have been in prison and the child has been living in foster care, for them to be deported with their parent to a country that they have never visited before.
Liberty, too, raises concerns about the implications of the changes for children and concludes:
“It is clear from the Government’s proposals that it is paying little more than lip service to the importance of UK children’s interests in immigration decisions … Far from placing children at the heart of immigration decisions, the proposed changes seek to relieve officials of the responsibility for weighing up the interests of a child in any but the most clear cut cases”.
I would welcome the Minister’s response to that and his explanation of how children’s interests will be safeguarded.
As we have heard, the Home Office’s human rights statement and the Home Secretary have emphasised that Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, on the right to respect for privacy and family life, is a qualified right. As my noble friend Lady Smith has already said, we accept that. However, as Liberty argues, there is,
“a delicate balancing exercise to be struck between the rights of the individual and wider social interests in, for example, the reduction of crime and disorder and the protection of the economic interests of the UK”.
Liberty and I do not accept that the proposed changes,
“properly accommodate the fact-sensitive balancing exercise that the right demands”.
Liberty argues that instead they,
“represent a one-size-fits-all approach to complex immigration decisions. … Far from better reflecting the proportionality required under Article 8, the proposed changes seek to circumvent the crucial fact sensitive consideration of decisions involving fundamental rights”.
The Government argue that the income threshold is proportionate in meeting their legitimate aims of safeguarding the economic well-being of the UK. It is a sad day when the economic well-being of the UK depends on keeping apart a few thousand poor families each year without adequate attention being given to safeguarding the well-being of children and their families.
The Migrant Rights Network points out that, because of differences in earnings across different social groups, the new income requirement will disadvantage women, who we know are still on average paid less than men, some minority ethnic groups and people living outside the south-east. My noble friend gave an example that illustrated the unfairness of that fairly arbitrary or one-size-fits-all limit.
The Home Office human rights statement acknowledges that the income threshold may be challenged under Article 14 of the European Convention of Human Rights in terms of its equalities impact, particularly with regard to whether this constitutes unjustified indirect discrimination against these groups—for example, women and those nationalities who the evidence shows are likely to have lower earnings. Having raised this possibility, the Home Office’s only answer was that this will be mitigated in some cases by the exemption from the income threshold of those in receipt of carer’s allowance, and that certain contributory benefits such as maternity allowance will be allowed to count towards the income threshold. That is welcome as far as it goes, but it does not go very far. Otherwise, the Home Office considers that any indirect discrimination is proportionate to public policy objectives. We will see, but I imagine that this will be tested in the courts.
I find it repugnant that we are going to means test family life. Means-testing generally purports to target help on the needy and exclude the better off. This is a reverse means test that excludes the needy, as if people on low incomes have nothing to contribute to this country. The existing “recourse to public funds” rule is already designed to prevent the supposed burden on the taxpayer that we hear so much about. According to Liberty, and as my noble friend has already said, it is being replaced by a far blunter instrument.
The impact statement makes a virtue of the shift from a more discretionary approach, which it says is complicated for caseworkers to operate, yet in other areas of policy the Government favour more discretionary approaches and say that we have to get away from a one-size-fits-all approach. Indeed, as Liberty argues, the proposed changes as a whole contain an armoury of blunt instruments which, far from better reflecting Article 8 and the Immigration Rules, may well leave the rules in breach of it.
The changes reflect badly on a Government who claim to be the most family-friendly Government ever and who are supposed to be applying a family test to all their domestic policy decisions, as they suggest that some families are considered not to matter because of their immigration status and their poverty.
Lord Avebury
My Lords, this is a very important debate, focusing as it does on family and children’s rights. We have all heard from organisations such as the ones that have been mentioned, including by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister—Liberty, Bail for Immigration Detainees, and so on—and I shall rely on the evidence that has been given to them in my later remarks.
Since these changes were published, a further three sets of changes have appeared: HC 514 of eight pages, HC 565 comprising 56 pages and Cm 8423 with 276 pages. These latter two statements spell out in detail how decisions on leave to enter or remain are to be made, following the rulings of the Supreme Court in Alvi. To summarise, at the risk of oversimplification, Alvi said that statements in guidance and elsewhere that were not in the Immigration Rules, such as particular types of evidence that have to be submitted with an application, were unlawful because they had not been laid before Parliament as required by the parent Act. I realise that we are not talking about these subsequent statements of changes this evening, but obviously the legal advisers and their clients who are considering the effects of HC 194 will have to look at these other instruments as well. It would be astonishing if, given the length and complexity of all the changes taken together, there were not a steep rise in the number of applications rejected because of some minor omission or mistake.
My first example is from the organisation BritCits, which defends the interests of families who are affected by this set of changes. Rob is a British professional musician with a first-class degree in music. He has taught music and performed at concerts, has an eight year-old son and lives in a detached house in Huddersfield. He fell in love with and married an Indonesian woman and his wife applied for a spouse visa on 26 June. As a self-employed worker, he submitted three years of bank statements—originals and copies—and everything as requested, leaving no stone unturned. For over two months the message was that the application was under process at the British embassy, until early September when an e-mail arrived asking for the spouse to take an SELT English test. The e-mail indicated that if she did not submit this within seven days, the application would be rejected. Despite the short notice, the wife took the test and submitted it on time. A month later, they received a message saying that the application was refused because of the English test. Rob was amazed because his wife’s English was extremely good. On inquiry, they found that she had passed the reading, writing and listening requirements but had inadvertently omitted the speaking part. A lawyer advised them that the only remedy was to lodge a fresh application, at a cost of £900. The same thing happened to a friend of mine. It is not an uncommon experience for people to make a minor error and find that the whole application has been rejected. The UKBA does not give applicants a chance of remedying minor omissions of this sort.
The Motion says that the Government have not demonstrated that the specific minimum financial requirement is the most effective way to deliver fairness. That stricture can also be extended to the provisions dealing with savings. This may answer part of the question put by the noble Baroness, Lady Browning: I quote the example of a woman with three children applying to join her husband who would have to show evidence of savings of £62,500, which is well beyond the resources of most young families.
A four-page guide produced by UKBA tells applicants that they need to read Appendix FM-SE, another 26 pages of dense prose, which was added to the rules on 20 July, specifying what supporting documents may or not be supplied as evidence of compliance with particular financial requirements. The sums involved are undoubtedly substantial and they mean that many spouses and children who would have been able to satisfy the previous requirement—that they could be supported and accommodated without reliance on public funds—will now be denied entry. That is, indeed, the letter of government policy. The Migration Advisory Committee estimates that if the financial requirement in this set of rules had been in force in 2011, it would have excluded 45% of successful applicants, even though all those spouses and children were assessed as not needing access to public funds.
The Lord Bishop of St Edmundsbury and Ipswich
My Lords, I do not mean to detain the House for long, but I would like to echo some of the concerns that have been mentioned today, particularly on the inflexibility of the income test. Looking at what is laid before us —a specified gross annual income of at least £18,600, an additional £3,800 for the first child and an additional £2,400 for each additional child—a clergy family with three children would not earn enough stipend to meet that test. The reason why they survive very well is because their housing costs are met, as are their council tax, and there are other means of keeping them housed in areas where the Church wants them to live and minister.
I can think of two examples of a UK passport holder, a member of the clergy, whose spouse holds a foreign passport outside the EU, one of whom has three children. Whatever you think of the mission of the Church, which is of course promoting the Christian religion of the Church of England, one of them also lives in an extremely deprived area, and the social capital that he has added to that area is considerable. This is not simply someone coming to take advantage of the state but someone who has given an awful lot, which has been recognised by local authorities.
Inflexible rules cannot deal with these sorts of difficult anomalies, and so discretion needs to come in. The overall thing that I would like to echo is: how is this now being monitored? How is it being applied, and is it applied fairly? When UK Border Agency hard cases come into the public domain, anxiety is always raised, and of course it is easy to do that. I appreciate the fact that these are hard-working officials, and indeed, when given an opportunity to meet some of them I appreciated their frankness and their willingness to look at how they might help. Nevertheless, there are too many stories of the difficulty that the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, described as happening in some of these applications. I can think of another member of the clergy, a UK passport holder, who was going through the whole process to help his spouse to get leave to remain. They were told that they could not apply before a certain time limit. They applied at the time limit and then, when they applied for a slot for her interview, they were told, “There are no slots left”. These are intelligent people who can cope with that sort of thing, but there are many people who cannot.
I do not think that anyone in this Chamber would want to deny the scale of the problem that we must face as a country, but against that background, having realised the problem, where are fairness and justice going to be helped to be seen to be done, and how is the UK Border Agency being monitored to see that it is applying standards of fairness to the best of its ability?
Lord Teverson
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, very much for bringing this regret Motion before the House. In fact, if anything, I regret that it is only a regret Motion. I would certainly have followed her through any Lobby if it were more of a fatal Motion because I feel that there are some fundamental issues here.
It is interesting that this regret Motion has been put forward this week. My weeks are often imaged by the cover of the Economist, which I read most weeks. This week it is inaccurate in one way, although accurate in another. It says:
“Immigration. The Tories’ barmiest policy”.
Of course, that is wrong. It is not a Tory policy; it is a coalition policy. It includes my party as well. Its argument is that the policy on immigration very much restricts the economic and financial potential of this country, but here we have pinpointed an area where we are restricting the moral, ethical and family aspects of our society within the UK.
I say to the noble Baroness that I was probably one of the few people in this country to be very disappointed that the leader of the Opposition apologised for Labour’s “migration mistakes” in 2004, which allowed the best talent from the new European member states—which in many ways we had treated treacherously in the settlement after the Second World War—to come to this country, because they were restricted in going to other EU states. They repopulated much of Scotland, and in the south-west, where I come from, they manned much of the tourist industry, which had found it difficult to find talented and energetic workers. Therefore, I regret that that happened.
I understand entirely that sham marriages exist. They are a cancer on the institution of marriage and they are probably growing in number. That has to be stopped by whatever means possible. I also agree that there cannot be limitless migration. However, our society is becoming more and more international. Taking my family as an example, some of my wife’s children live in Singapore and others live in Argentina. Her grandchildren have mixed religious affiliations and mixed nationalities. People meet other people more and more on an international basis, particularly when they are youngsters and in their first areas of work. Therefore, this problem is going to get worse.
I say to the Minister that I believe this matter comes down to two important issues. Those are fundamentally moral and ethical, with human rights perhaps coming third. First, it must be fundamentally in the DNA of the UK that its citizens can marry whomever they want. That has to be a basic right of our citizens, who have one of the greatest and deepest histories in terms of being able to exercise individual rights. I also say to my Conservative colleagues—perhaps not the ones who are here but some of the others—that it is absolutely wrong for the state to intervene so strongly in deciding whom you are able to marry and live with. It is wrong that the state should be able to intervene to that degree. If the marriage is a real one—and that is always the important question—then people should be able to marry exactly whom they like and to live exactly where they like.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I confess to a number of areas of confusion, the first being what the rules actually say. Other noble Lords have referred to their complexity. For me, looking at any set of Immigration Rules is a quick route to a migraine. I have been used to reading rather more than glossy magazines in the course of my career, so if I find them difficult—without wanting to be too big-headed—then so will many, many others.
I was reassured, in a sense, by the briefing from the Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association but that reassurance is very limited. It tells us that it is running advanced courses for solicitors and barristers on the financial requirements that are a part of these rules and has sent noble Lords an extract from its training notes, just to give us a glimpse of the complexity. Our laws should be accessible. Immigration is so difficult that legal practitioners have to be specially licensed. I, for one, am very grateful to the organisations that have briefed us. They helped me to short-circuit the work for this debate quite a lot, but that is not good enough when you are actually advising individuals.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Taylor of Holbeach)
My Lords, I welcome this debate. The Motion tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, has given us an opportunity to debate this matter in this House. It has been a good debate and a lot of very interesting aspects of these rules have been raised. I am sure that noble Lords will not expect me to comment on individual cases. My noble friend Lady Hamwee did me a good turn by referring to the complexity of the rules because they are indeed extremely complex. If I fail to cover particular aspects of the points made and questions asked, I hope that noble Lords will forgive me if I address them in correspondence after the debate.
These new rules are a major reform of the requirements for family migration by people of non-European Economic Area nationality. They form part, as noble Lords have said, of the Government’s overall programme of reform of all routes of entry into the UK. The new family rules have three aspects, and I thank my noble friend Lady Browning for her welcome of these three aims. My noble friend Lord Teverson pointed out that the coalition has taken a different view from his own. I accept that but I think he will agree that the coalition is being consistent in its approach of this vexed problem of immigration.
I would also like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, for her general support of elements of these rules. First, they tackle abuse; for example, by extending from two to five years the probationary period before partners can apply for settlement to test the genuineness of the relationship concerned. My noble friend Lady Hamwee questioned that, but I believe that it is a reasonable expectation which should help to deter applications based on sham marriages.
Lord Avebury
My Lords, if that is the case, why have the Government refused to take into account the income provided by the spouse? Surely, if the £18,600 figure is sufficient to ensure that recourse to public funds is not on the cards, then that £18,600 should apply to the joint incomes, not to the income of the sponsor.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
That is the decision that was made. The Migration Advisory Committee was asked to look at the amount of money that a couple would require on the single income—the sponsor’s income. Indeed, it is the sponsor’s income that is vital to understanding this case.
My noble friend also asked how the capital should be dealt with. As pointed out by my noble friend Lady Hamwee, the multiplier is two and a half times the shortfall in income, and that, too, I believe, came from the same recommendation from the Migration Advisory Committee.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, while the Minister is on that point, it would be helpful to the House if after today we could have an explanation of what lies behind both that action, which is less of an issue because it is a judgment, and my noble friend’s question about why a spouse’s income is disregarded. Indeed, one could add to that the question of why support from a third party, such as a parent of one of the spouses who would be prepared to guarantee the income, which I am sure is not uncommon, should be disregarded. What lay behind those decisions? What was the rationale? I do not expect the Minister to answer that now.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
It would be much easier for me if I could inform myself before I sought to inform the House on that issue. I have stated the position as I know it to be, without knowing fully the policy development that led to that conclusion.
There has been criticism of the fact that there is no regional variation but, once people are in this country, they are free to move wherever, and it was felt that there could be great difficulties if a regional variation were permitted for that very reason.
The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, expressed concern about what will happen to people who lose their jobs. We will expect a migrant to be able to meet the same financial threshold when they apply for further leave but, once the migrant is in the UK, we count any income that they earn, as well as money from their sponsor, towards the threshold. That is an important response to the question raised by my noble friend Lord Avebury. In some circumstances, we will allow the migrant to continue at a lower rate on a longer route to settlement to allow that transition to take place. Both the noble Baroness and my noble friend asked about prospective earnings and I will seek to answer that in correspondence, as I promised.
We have also built significant flexibility into the operation of the threshold—for example, by exempting sponsors in receipt of certain disability-related benefits or carers’ allowance. I was asked specifically by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, about the Armed Forces. The Armed Forces are exempt from these rules.
The noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett, felt, as did several noble Lords, that the rules were not sufficiently focused on children. We understand the importance of the statutory duty, which goes back to the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act, to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in the UK. That is why we have reinforced our approach by bringing consideration of the welfare or best interests of children into the Immigration Rules. After all, the best interests of the child will normally be met by remaining with their parents and returning with them to their country of origin, subject to considerations such as long residence in the UK, their nationality and any exceptional factors. The new rules lay out a clear framework for weighing the best interests of the child against the wider public interest in removal cases.
The minimum income requirement that we have introduced is, I believe, the most effective way to protect taxpayers and deliver fairness in respect of family migration to the UK. I invite the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, to reflect on my response.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, I will reflect on the Minister’s response and will read and consider his comments in Hansard. However, I have to say that at this stage I am disappointed by his response; I wonder if he took on board any of the comments around the House about the devastating impact that this threshold is having on so many families. All of us in your Lordships’ House understand the need to tackle abuses—this was said to the Minister—but this measure goes beyond that and I do not think, as other noble Lords have illustrated, that it actually achieves the Government’s policy objectives.
The Minister said that it more effectively reduced the burden on the taxpayer and was fair to families. Based on the examples he has heard this evening, however, it does not seem a very effective way to protect the taxpayer. The issue is not just the level of the threshold but the principle of the threshold. He claimed that one of the questions I asked was what happened if somebody lost their job. That was not the question I asked at all; the point that I was putting to the Minister was that a threshold is an inadequate way of making an assessment, as someone could be above that threshold and then lose their job but still have the right to remain, since a judgment was made at one point in time based on a person’s income, rather than on a package of measures that was available previously.
I appreciate that he cannot comment on individual cases, but Mr and Mrs M, the lady from Canada and her husband from Wales; the lady who was the NHS care worker; and the clergymen referred to by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Edmundsbury and Ipswich who wanted to come or bring their spouses to this country will all listen to the Minister’s comments with some dismay.
I appreciate that he was not able to answer all the questions but I was disappointed that he answered so few. I mentioned one to him about the perverse incentive where an individual would have to go and live in a more expensive part of the country to see their income increase, even though their costs would increase, including their rent or mortgage, and their disposable income would fall. That would qualify them to be able to bring their spouse into the country because they had a higher income level. That is a perverse incentive, to have a lower disposable income. The Minister did not comment on that. Nor did he comment on any of the examples—I am sure that this was not intended—of Church of England clergy’s partners being excluded from the UK. He also said that the Migration Advisory Committee supported the level but my understanding is that the committee was asked what the level should be; it was not asked to comment on the proposals generally or on whether this was the most appropriate way to achieve the Government’s objective.
I was especially hoping that the Minister would respond on the following issue that I raised. The Migration Advisory Committee, in its response to the Government, said that, of those who satisfied the current criteria of being able to show they had access to sufficient funds to support themselves and their families, 45% would no longer be eligible under the new criteria to have their spouses come to this country. I asked him how many of those who were eligible under the current procedures would not be allowed under the new rules and have since claimed access to public funds. He has not answered that. The answer that he gave was that 267 individuals now claim some kind of public support or assistance, but he was unable to tell us how many of those had come to this country through the existing rules on family visas. If he does have that figure, it would be extremely helpful to have it. I suspect that it might not be available but it might have been provided to him. It would have been a more useful figure and the one that I asked for.
Obviously we understand the need to ensure that the system is not abused, but I fear that what is being done here today will not protect the taxpayer in the way that the Minister seeks, and it certainly does not protect the family. I beg to withdraw the motion.
Motion withdrawn.