Partner and Spousal Visas: Minimum Income

Debate between Stephen Kinnock and Jim Shannon

Tuesday 23rd April 2024 Westminster Hall

[Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir George.

I thank and pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) for securing this important debate. He delivered an incredibly powerful speech that included examples of people who have had their lives turned upside down by the policy shift. Many individuals and families across the country have been profoundly impacted and there is real concern about the Government’s policy changes and handling of them. I will come to those points shortly. First, I want to thank my hon. Friends the Members for Wirral West (Margaret Greenwood) and for Sheffield, Hallam (Olivia Blake), and my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms), for their important contributions to this debate.

The policy change to raise the minimum income threshold to secure a visa for a spouse from £18,600 to £29,000 and then later £38,700 is the direct result of the Conservative Government wanting to bring down immigration, after having allowed net migration to spiral to record levels of 745,000 in 2022, despite their repeated promise to the electorate that they would bring numbers down to the tens of thousands. In 2019 the incoming Conservative Government promised to reduce net migration, which at that time was 245,000, but since then that figure has trebled.

Labour is aware of that trend. We have set out plans to reduce our economy’s reliance on migrant workers by reforming the skills system, getting people off long-term sick leave and back into work, ending the 20% discount for businesses recruiting from abroad in shortage sectors and expecting businesses to draw up workforce plans to ensure they are able to recruit more local resident talent.

On the specifics of this debate, the historical stated aim of the spousal visa threshold was to make sure that couples and families have the income that enables them to be self-reliant, so that they do not need to rely on our social security system. That is why the income threshold was set at around £18,600 previously, with additional requirements per dependant. We agree with that basic aim, which is why the level set must genuinely reflect the income needed and required to support family in the UK. It must not be a number plucked out of thin air arbitrarily. That is why we have consistently raised concerns about the lack of an evidence base behind the initial increase to £29,000.

Extraordinarily, the Government have failed to provide any impact assessment of the number of people who will be affected by the shift or who will be prevented from coming to Britain to join their loved ones. Although we support attempts to deliver more sustainable levels of net migration to get the balance right in our economy and society, the Government must be honest and clear in providing a full impact assessment, so that Members are able to fully understand the impact of the proposed changes on their constituents and make informed choices based on an informed analysis.

The Opposition are strong believers in evidence-based policymaking, in stark contrast to the Government, who appear to be addicted to headline chasing, performative posturing and making policy on the hoof. We find it deeply disappointing that Ministers have chosen to shoot from the hip on policies across the spectrum of Government. To have done so on the matter that we are debating today is particularly reprehensible, given how directly it impacts on the deeply personal life choices that people have made and are making. Indeed, by appearing to pull these £29,000 and £39,000 thresholds out of thin air, Ministers have quite frankly behaved in a glib and flippant manner that is both contemptuous of Parliament and shockingly disrespectful towards the couples and families whose lives have been turned upside down by these changes.

The failure, or refusal, of Ministers to publish the impact assessment is particularly baffling because we know that both financial and equalities impact assessments have been completed, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central pointed out in his speech. A report by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee makes clear its utter exasperation with repeated failures by the Home Office to publish the information that Members of both Houses need to properly scrutinise the proposed changes and consider their implications. In the Committee’s words:

“A failure to provide impact information and on a timely basis, makes it impossible for Parliament to scrutinise the legislation properly. Moreover, impact information should be a useful tool in the policymaking process, helping departments to refine and improve their proposals. It appears to us that, instead, the Home Office too often tacks on impact analysis as an afterthought.”

[Jim Shannon]

I apologise for intervening again, but I am very conscious that in Northern Ireland the average wage is £28,939. Many people are on a lesser wage than that. Does the shadow Minister believe that the Minister should ask, in my case, the Northern Ireland Assembly for their opinion on this? That would give him some realism about these facts and figures. The same thing should apply to the Scottish Parliament and indeed the Welsh Assembly, because connecting those three regions will produce with different figures.

[Stephen Kinnock]

I thank the hon. Member for that excellent intervention. He is absolutely right, because the point he is making is that we need to get an aggregate picture of the overall impact of this policy across the United Kingdom. Of course, that aggregate picture needs to be built up through the building blocks of key stakeholders and inputs, including the part of the United Kingdom from which he comes; I am sure that colleagues in Scotland and Wales would concur. He is absolutely right.

For good measure, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee’s report added that,

“We have criticised the Home Office’s explanatory material with such frequency that we are concerned there may be a systemic or cultural issue that is preventing the Home Office from getting it right.”

Will the Minister please explain the actual aim of this policy change? Is it to make sure that migrants are self-reliant and do not need to rely on our social security system, or has the aim changed? How was the £29,000 figure decided? Please could we see some workings around that? Why are the Government introducing a huge jump to almost £39,000? Again, why that particular number? Will he promise to consult fully on the impact of the £29,000 change and the need for any subsequent increase before moving any further? Why has he not provided an impact assessment for this policy, both for the £29,000 and the £39,000? Also, why has he not asked the Migration Advisory Committee to undertake a review into this policy change, or even asked for the committee’s view on it?

The first thing Labour would do, if we are privileged enough to form the next Government, would be to ask the MAC to review this policy and to make recommendations about the level at which the threshold for spousal visas should be set in future. The MAC review that we would commission would consider a range of factors, including the historical aim of ensuring that migrants are able to be self-sufficient, and how the benefits system connects with that aim. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central suggested exploring the way in which the threshold might interact with the minimum wage. The review would also consider the number of people affected, how they will be impacted, and the overall impact on net migration.

The MAC has not commissioned a report specifically on the family visa issue since 2011-12, but in its 2020 annual report it said that, given the amount of time since the 2012 changes came into effect, a fresh review could be worth while:

“We…think now would be an opportune time to reconsider the minimum income requirements associated with this route. The MAC are concerned that previous analysis may have given too much weight to the fiscal contribution of such migrants and insufficient attention to the benefits that accrue, to both the family and society, from the route. In addition, it is a considerable time since the current income requirements were introduced, so more evidence should now be available to review the impact of these requirements”.

Will the Minister please explain why the Government have failed to act on the MAC’s 2020 suggestion? Will he now commit to requesting that review?

Hard-working, good people, their partners and their families are at the very heart of the policy, so why did it take so long for the Government to confirm that people who are already here and are reapplying will be exempt from the threshold rise? It caused a huge amount of undue hurt and anxiety, and I am afraid it confirmed the view, held by many, that the Government are motivated by performative cruelty. On a related point, will the Government make it clear to all those who started a new application before the changes were introduced that it will be processed under the old thresholds?

Finally, will the Minister at the very least commit to make a statement to the House setting out the results of the impact assessment, rather than bulldozing through secondary legislation that could have a far-reaching and profoundly damaging impact on the lives of couples and families all over Britain?

Illegal Migration Bill

Debate between Stephen Kinnock and Jim Shannon

Committee stage
Monday 27th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Kinnock]

I do not know how many negotiations the hon. Lady has been in, but people do not generally go into negotiations by putting all their cards face up on the table. It is absolutely clear that a deal has to be done with the European Union. We do not do that deal from the Dispatch Box; we do it with hard graft, common sense and quiet diplomacy, none of which the Conservatives are capable of. That is why they need to get out of the way so that a Labour Government can fix the problem.

Clause 51 stands as evidence that vague promises from Ministers are not to be taken seriously. I find it particularly telling that, in drafting the clause, the Government were not even able to come up with a definition of a “safe and legal route” or how one should work. Nor do they appear to have any idea of who such routes should apply to, when the measures might be introduced, how many people would be included or exempted from the cap, or who—other than local authorities —the Government may consult. The Opposition’s amendments would address those challenges.

On Second Reading, I said that under this Government, Ministers had done

“little more than pay lip service”—[Official Report, 13 March 2023; Vol. 729, c. 640]

to the principle of authorised safe routes for refugees and others in protection. I stand by that assessment.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Does the shadow Minister agree that, when it comes to honouring statements that we have made, we have an obligation towards those from Afghanistan who served alongside British soldiers? Some are in the system but are yet to be processed. Would the shadow Minister ensure that those from Afghanistan who are stuck in Pakistan and in Syria get here as asylum seekers, which is very much what they are?

[Stephen Kinnock]

The hon. Member is absolutely right. The performance on the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme has been abject. Under pathway 2 of that scheme, 22 Afghans have come over in the last year. They are being told that they can come only once they have accommodation, and they are being treated with a total lack of respect when we owe them a debt of honour and gratitude.

Occupied Palestinian Territories

Debate between Stephen Kinnock and Jim Shannon

Thursday 24th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered settlement and annexation of the Occupied Palestinian territories.

I am grateful to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and to the Backbench Business Committee for making time for this crucially important debate. As the outgoing chair of the British-Palestine all-party parliamentary group, I pay particular tribute to colleagues who have been such powerful advocates for peace, justice and security in this troubled land, not least my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott), who will be taking over as chair of the APPG. I wish her well.

I start by setting out three core principles, which I hope and believe are shared by all who are taking part in this debate. First, this is not about religion or ethnicity. It is not a question of Arab, Muslim or Jewish identity. It is about upholding the universal norms and values that we hold dear, and it is about working to constrain and reverse the actions of those who seek to undermine those norms and values. Nor is this about being pro-Israel or pro-Palestine. This is about striving for peace, justice and security for all.

Secondly, we condemn violence in all its forms, whether it is Hamas launching rockets or the Israel Defence Forces bombarding Gaza or bulldozing Bedouin villages to make way for illegal settlements. We oppose any and all actions that lead to the death and destruction that have so tragically come to define this conflict.

Thirdly, we believe passionately in the rule of law. Indeed, our point of departure is that the rule of law is not up for negotiation. It is not some bargaining chip that can be tossed on to the table in exchange for concessions or compromises; it is the very cornerstone of the rules-based order and the bedrock of the norms, rights and values that we cherish and seek to defend.

I believe that our defence of the rule of law matters more now than it has done at any time since 1945, because we stand today at a moment in history when the rule of law is under threat across the world. The Chinese Communist party has breached the Sino-British declaration on Hong Kong, the Russian Government annexed Crimea in 2014 and, deeply regrettably, even our own Government are willing to renege on their commitment to a legally binding treaty.

Israel’s consistent flouting of UN resolutions and the fourth Geneva convention has undermined the rules-based order for decades, and the international community can no longer just look the other way. Both sides in this conflict have witnessed horrific bloodshed and both sides deserve an end to the fear and suffering that they have had to experience. That is why it is so vital and urgent that the rule of law be brought to bear as the foundation upon which a viable and sustainable Palestine can be negotiated and built—a Palestine that protects the rights of its citizens and lives in peace with its neighbours.

The illegal Israeli settlements undermine all three of the principles that I have set out. They drive and amplify the vicious identity politics that poisons this conflict. They cause violence on a daily basis and they are a flagrant breach of international law, yet they continue and expand.

In 2018, we marked 25 years since the signing of the Oslo accords. That moment in 1993 was meant to herald a new and lasting era of peace and co-existence—the beginning of a genuine two-state solution—but since then, the number of illegal settlers has increased from 258,000 to more than 610,000. Fifty thousand homes and properties have been demolished, and an illegal separation barrier has been built that carves up the west bank and brutally disconnects towns, cities, families and communities from each other. What have the Israeli people experienced in that time? They have experienced insecurity, fear of attacks through suicide bombings, rockets and mortars, knife attacks and car rammings. None of this will end while there is no proper peace and no end to the occupation. It has been a disaster for all sides in this conflict.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the balanced way in which he is opening this debate. The events of the recent weeks have encouraged me and many others; I wonder whether they have encouraged him as well. They have shown that the 70-year unresolved conflict between Israel and the Arabs will no longer be allowed to define regional dynamics and relations. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that this new outside-in approach to peace offers an invaluable opportunity to transform the entire region, and that there is an opportunity to move forward together, perhaps with a two-state solution?

[Stephen Kinnock]

We certainly welcome any steps towards peace and conflict resolution, but we should be realistic about what the so-called Abraham accords really signify. The reality is that the United Arab Emirates and Israel have never been at war with each other. They have pre-existing and long-standing relations. Indeed, they have co-operated on military matters, in counter-revolutions, and in coups in many of the Arab League states. We should be realistic that this is really more the formalisation of pre-existing relations, rather than something new. Nevertheless, it is to be welcomed.