Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Seema Malhotra)
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.
Ben Lake (Ceredigion Preseli) (PC)
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?
Seema Malhotra
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.
Tom Gordon
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?
Seema Malhotra
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.
Seema Malhotra
I do not think that the hon. Gentleman was in the Chamber at the start of the debate.
Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)
Order. The hon. Gentleman came in quite late.
Seema Malhotra
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.
Seamus Logan
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.
Seema Malhotra
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.