Higher Education Funding

Abtisam Mohamed Excerpts

Wednesday 28th October 2026 Westminster Hall

[Abtisam Mohamed (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered higher education funding.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. As co-chair of the all-party parliamentary groups on students and for international students and a member of the all-party parliamentary university group, and representing a constituency with one of the largest concentrations of students, I know at first hand the enormous value of higher education and the growing challenges facing the sector. It is worth saying from the outset that I am applying for a separate Backbench Business debate specifically on students that will cover the cost of living, maintenance support and the wider student experience. Those are important issues in their own right, but today’s debate focuses on the foundations and long-term sustainability of higher education itself.

My constituency is home to two outstanding universities: the University of Sheffield and Sheffield Hallam University. I have had the privilege of studying at both institutions and, like many people, I know personally the doors that higher education can open and the horizons it can broaden. We have a world-class higher education system whose institutions are often seen as a great equaliser, especially for working class communities. Walking into universities, we know right away why they are described as centres of innovation and industry. A good university acts as an anchor in our cities and is far more than just lecture halls and graduation ceremonies.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Member for giving way and congratulate her on securing the debate. On providing opportunities, particularly for working-class communities, would she agree with me that in my area, the likes of regional colleges, both on the north coast and the north-west, offer excellent opportunities, particularly for people who feel disadvantaged and who possibly left school without any qualifications and are really caught in a bind? The colleges offer them a way out of the position they are in with prospects for the future and for jobs.

[Abtisam Mohamed]

I agree with the hon. Member. He makes an excellent point. I will come on to talking about disadvantaged students and the role that universities play.

Universities train the nurses and doctors who treat us. They train the teachers who educate our children, the engineers who build our infrastructure, and the researchers whose discoveries save lives. They support businesses, attract investment, create jobs and drive progress. In Sheffield we see that contribution every day. Sheffield Hallam University trains around 3,900 healthcare professionals and 2,800 teachers every year. In a single academic year, those healthcare students contributed more than 365,000 hours through NHS clinical placements.

Meanwhile, the University of Sheffield generates an estimated £4.82 billion for the UK economy and supports 138 start-ups and spin-outs. Its research activity contributes billions more in economic value. Although those figures are impressive, behind them lies a fracture point. There is a growing disconnect between what we ask our universities to deliver and the resources that are available. We want universities to drive growth to boost productivity, tackle regional inequality and undertake world-leading research. We want them to support the NHS, public services and local economies, yet the sector faces a financial crisis that threatens its very survival.

We have to recognise the failed funding experiments of the last 16 years and bring them to an end. I draw colleagues’ attention to the Education Committee’s comprehensive report from earlier this year, “Higher Education and Funding: Threat of Insolvency and International Students”, that identifies the real-terms cut in undergraduate tuition fees as a huge factor, though one of many, in financial instability. It is also widely recognised that the UK’s public education funding levels rank well below the OECD average of around 70%. Funding levels have fallen so far that funding direct to universities now makes up just £2 billion out of a total of £16 billion—the complete inverse of what it used to be. The majority of Government funding is spent on a bloated student loan system that is wildly out of control, while current repayment threshold freezes are punishing lower-earning graduates. Last year, the Office for Students forecast that up to 40% of higher education providers will be in deficit. Put simply, far too many institutions are being forced into a cycle of cuts just to temporarily balance the books.

[James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend will be aware of there being around 600 job cuts at the University of Nottingham. There have been alternative proposals from staff—120 in total—but the impact will be significant. What has been noticeable in my conversations with the university is the emphasis on commercial elements, whether that is covenants, 30 days’ access to cash or access to a revolving credit facility. Does she agree that that emphasis has gone too far? We have forgotten what the public benefit of universities is, and the Government and universities need to reflect on that.

[Abtisam Mohamed]

I agree with my hon. Friend; he makes an excellent point. Nottingham is seen as a university that needs support, and I think colleagues across the sector will look to see how Nottingham is supported alongside their own universities.

As I was saying, far too many institutions are being forced into a cycle of cuts just to temporarily balance the books. Over recent months, I have spoken to university leaders, staff, representatives of trade unions including the University and College Union, students and employers. While they all have very different perspectives, they all present a common diagnosis: the current funding model for higher education does not work. That raises a fundamental question: if we recognise universities as national assets, as our rhetoric often does, why have we systematically stripped back public funding and left them to shoulder so much of the financial burden themselves?

[Jessica Toale (Bournemouth West) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for setting out the real challenges that our higher education institutions face. Does she agree that the difficult financial position universities are in is causing them to oversubscribe their courses, putting unsustainable pressures on their workforce, reducing the student experience and increasing financial instability as a result of that boom and bust?

[Abtisam Mohamed]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Universities need to be supported, so that the financial burden is not purely left for them to deal with.

I now want to come on to international students. International students should be welcomed as an enrichment of our campuses and strengtheners of Britain’s international ties. International students’ fee income has become an essential pillar, propping up our universities, cross-subsidising home students’ education and supporting research that would otherwise be cut, but universities did not become dependent on international fee income by choice. They have increasingly relied on it because domestic teaching and research funding has failed to keep pace with the real costs of delivery.

I and many others remain concerned about using an international student levy to pay for maintenance grants. It is seen as little more than an additional tax on one of the UK’s most successful exports. At a time when global competition for talent is increasing, we should be asking how we can strengthen one of Britain’s greatest success stories, not how we can make it less attractive. A restructured maintenance support system for home students, separate from international fee income, would be a vastly more successful policy, and it is one that I will continue to support.

Fundamentally, any solution to the sector’s funding crisis and support for the most disadvantaged home students should not further destabilise university finances. That is especially important in a context where universities are already cutting staff, courses and research programmes. Data from Universities UK shows that nearly eight in 10 universities have pursued voluntary redundancies in the last three years, and the same amount have frozen recruitment. The UCU estimates that 30,000 jobs have been lost over the last three years. That is devastating, and we should be clear about what it means: it means rising workloads and pay erosion for remaining staff, and it means staff who support students every day losing their livelihoods.

In Sheffield Hallam University’s case, more than 1,200 posts have gone in just over two years. Having met staff representatives and UCU members, I know that these numbers are not abstract; they represent people who have mortgages to pay, families to support and bills to meet. I also hear from many talented academics who are moving from one short-term arrangement to another, with little certainty about their future. The consequences are felt by individuals and the community beyond the university gates, but there are also implications for the future of British research. A system increasingly characterised by insecurity will only drive talented people away.

If universities are one of the UK’s greatest assets, why are they not considered to be involved in our economic growth? Although we speak of growth, skills and Britain’s future competitiveness, we see growing financial fragility across the very institutions that help to realise those ambitions. We cannot continue to expect universities to do more with less. Chasing efficiencies erodes capacity, and once capacity is lost, rebuilding it is neither quick nor easy.

I have a number of questions for the Minister. First, what is the Government’s long-term vision for higher education? I want to know not simply how individual institutions will survive the next financial year, but how universities will fit into a national strategy for growth, skills, research and regional development.

Secondly, does the Minister recognise that the current funding model has become overly reliant on international student income, mainly because teaching and research funding no longer meets the real cost that universities face? If the Government continue with the international student levy, what impact will it have, and how will fluctuations in student recruitment affect university finances? Does the Minister recognise that the institutions are likely to pass on those costs through higher fees, potentially making the UK a less attractive destination in the international student market?

Thirdly, does the Minister believe that the current balance between public and private contributions to higher education funding is sustainable? The Government now contribute about 16p for every £1 spent on teaching. Does the Minister believe that that is a viable basis for the future funding of higher education? Will the Government examine how to move towards a fairer balance between the individual and state contributions in the long term in recognition of the enormous public benefit that universities provide?

Fourthly, how are the Government assessing the economic impact of university job losses? We cannot call universities regional anchors while simultaneously accepting the loss of thousands of highly skilled jobs across the sector.

Finally, where do universities sit within the Government’s growth mission? If they are engines of growth, they should be treated as such, and they need a funding framework that recognises the enormous contributions that they make to our economy, our public services and our communities.

I want young people in Sheffield to have the opportunities that education gave me. I want our universities to continue training the nurses, teachers, engineers and researchers that our country desperately needs, and I want Britain to remain a world leader in higher education and research. If we want our institutions to survive, we have to stop treating them as an afterthought.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Oral Answers to Questions

Abtisam Mohamed Excerpts

Monday 20th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Josh MacAlister]

I apologise, Mr Speaker.

The proposals we have set out as a Government are all about expanding opportunities so that we get young people out of worklessness and into job opportunities. That is why we have set out a new deal for young people. To put it politely, the shadow Minister’s proposals borrow from a number of the features that we have set out in our plan. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

[Abtisam Mohamed (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

4. What steps her Department is taking to help reduce the cost of living for students.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Josh MacAlister)]

We know that students and graduates have been left facing the sharp end of the cost of living crisis. That is why we are making the system fairer for students, graduates and taxpayers by capping interest rates, future-proofing maintenance loans, reintroducing maintenance grants and making care leavers automatically eligible for maximum support. With your permission, Mr Speaker, I will share that we are concerned about students affected by providers’ misclassification of weekend courses. As Ministers, we have asked the Student Loans Company to collect any overpayments through normal student finance repayments and pause recoveries of overpaid grants until at least September while we consider the next steps.

[Abtisam Mohamed]

A recent cost of living survey by Sheffield Hallam students’ union shows that 82% of students are struggling, and many are working more hours at the expense of their studies. Too many are skipping meals and going without essentials, harming their health and their participation in university life. That is compounded by serious financial challenges at our universities, including staff cuts that are putting further pressure on the learning experiences of students. What action is the Minister taking across Government to review and widen financial support for students? Will he meet me to discuss the financial situation at Sheffield Hallam University?

[Josh MacAlister]

My hon. Friend is a vocal champion for higher education and students in her constituency. To help disadvantaged students, we are future-proofing maintenance loans by increasing them by forecast inflation every year. We continue to look for ways to make the student finance system fairer for students, graduates and taxpayers overall.

Student Loan Repayment Plans

Abtisam Mohamed Excerpts

Wednesday 25th February 2026 Westminster Hall

[Abtisam Mohamed (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South (Jas Athwal) for securing the debate, which at its core is about fairness. In my Sheffield Central constituency, which is home to two major universities, I regularly meet with students and graduates, whether in surgeries or through meetings with student officers. One core theme that they have relayed to me is that they feel anxious and frustrated, and they rightly ask why the system is stacked against them.

I will read a few examples that constituents have given me. One said:

“I started university in 2012 and since graduating have had a salary of between £30,000-£40,000 for much of that time. Despite this, since graduating my loan has increased from ~£45,000 to nearly £80,000”.

Another said:

“I borrowed £76,829. I repay £3,700 every year. But my interest rises by £7,000. Paying it off within 30 years is impossible. It makes me wish I hadn’t gone.”

When education makes young people regret participation, something is profoundly wrong.

We are told that the system is progressive because repayments are income contingent, but if we look closer, higher earners clear their debt quickly, escape decades of interest and move on. The thought of such staggering debt will likely put off working-class students from going to university. That is not progressive; it is regressive, and it will entrench inequality rather than reduce it. I say to the Minister: we must cap interest on all student loans at CPI and restore fair repayment thresholds.

Giving Every Child the Best Start in Life

Abtisam Mohamed Excerpts

Wednesday 16th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Abtisam Mohamed (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

Before I came into politics I spent about 20 years working in and with communities, a significant part of which was in early years, so this area is of real importance to me. Through the Sure Start programme, I helped set up a children’s centre and saw firsthand how early years provision lifts up families, supports parents and gives children the solid foundation they need. The centre that I worked with offered not just childcare but an essential early years services hub to benefit families.

We know, and the evidence shows, that the impact of high-quality early years support lasts a lifetime. The earliest years of a child’s life are critical. The nurturing and love received in those early days can shape their chances for the future in school, in work and in life. Since 2010, however, we have seen a hollowing out of early years support. Sure Start centres closed in their hundreds and early years intervention services were cut to the bone. Our early years provision lost a significant amount of funding, as did many others in Sheffield, with £3 million of cuts city-wide. I became involved in the campaign to save early years, which argued that failing to invest in those services led to our paying a price in school achievement gaps, health inequalities and lost potential. We argued back then, when the cuts were made, that the cost of late intervention to communities and public services is higher than the cost of getting it right from the start.

I therefore welcome the Government’s recent initiatives, such as the expansion of free school meals, free breakfast clubs and the recent £500 million investment into Best Start family hubs. It is important that we catch the problems earlier on, before they escalate, with evidence showing that when we invest earlier on, we reduce the long-term cost for the NHS, social care and the criminal justice system.

It is important, however, that we see additional investment in existing family hubs, which have worked tirelessly to provide vital early years support despite years of funding cuts. It is also important that we keep the independent, voluntary and community sectors involved in discussion, as many participate in the delivery of early years services and family hubs in their communities.

Investing in family hubs is not just good policy; it is the right thing to do. If we want to tackle child poverty and ensure every child can thrive, that is where we start, with families right at the heart of our communities.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Abtisam Mohamed Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading
Tuesday 18th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Graham Stuart]

I thank the hon. Lady, but she again could not explain anything about the Bill. Her passion for improvement is great—we would all applaud that—but her linkage to anything in the Bill that will improve matters was distinctly missing.

Many people, including Sir Jon Coles of United Learning, have criticised the proposals in the Bill; he said they will effectively destroy the academy system. I could not tell where the hon. Lady is on that, but the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr spoke with great clarity. Where once Labour promised us “education, education, education,” it now promises us bureaucracy, bureaucracy, bureaucracy. Tragically, it is our children who will bear the consequences.

The outcomes of the last Labour Government serve as a stark warning of where the Bill will lead. In 2010, notwithstanding the nascent academy movement, we inherited a country where our children ranked 27th globally in reading. We spent more on education than Germany, yet achieved results that lagged behind nations like Poland. By the time we left office, England’s students were ranked as the best readers in the western world. In 2010, just 68% of schools were rated good or outstanding, but today that figure is 90%. These dramatic improvements did not happen by accident; they are the result of a system that puts freedom, competition and accountability at the centre of education, and equally importantly leaves mediocrity with nowhere to hide.

If the Conservative education reforms were great, it was only because we were standing on the shoulders of giants.

“Academies were introduced in the areas of greatest challenge, harnessing the drive of external sponsors and strong school leadership to bring new hope to our most disadvantaged areas.”

Not my words, but those of the longest serving Labour Prime Minister, Sir Tony Blair, in 2005. To his credit, he recognised the failings of our country’s overly centralised education system and started the reforms that paved the way to make our schools great again.

From tiny acorns do mighty oaks grow, and that is what the Conservatives delivered. In 14 years, the number of children attending academies skyrocketed from 192,000 to 4.9 million. That was transformative for pupils across England, particularly those living in deprived communities. One example is Harris Academy Battersea. Formerly known as Battersea Park school, it was considered inadequate before joining the Harris Federation in 2014. At that time, 68% of students achieved five or more GCSEs at grades A* to C. By 2017, that figure had risen to 83%, and in 2018 Ofsted rated the academy as outstanding, noting that teachers were proud to work there, morale was high, and pupils of all abilities made very strong progress. By putting a strong emphasis on cultural enrichment and academic excellence, the life chances of the working-class pupils that academies predominantly teach and who Labour claims to represent were transformed.

I am pleased that the Government have seen sense on one issue—I congratulate the Minister on that—and have amended the Bill to stop the extension of national pay rules to academies, and only require academies to have due regard to the school teachers’ pay and conditions document, rather than impose a ceiling on pay. That would have undermined the remarkable progress made by these institutions in raising standards, particularly for disadvantaged pupils.

New clause 38 goes one step further, making the pay set out in the school teachers’ pay and conditions document a floor and extending freedoms over pay and conditions to maintained schools. One of the strengths of academies is their ability to respond flexibly to local needs, including offering competitive salaries to attract and retain the best teachers in challenging areas. Limiting that flexibility would ignore the realities of teacher recruitment and retention, especially in communities where the need for high-quality education is greatest, because people respond to incentives. If academies cannot pay the best maths or physics teacher more, the children who would benefit from their skills the most will be left behind.

Building on the need for greater freedom and flexibility to raise standards, we introduced free schools, an initiative that helped to spark a renaissance in English education. Walking hand in hand with its union paymasters, who decry those schools as unaccountable and underfunded, as we heard set out in the previous speech, Labour wants these engines of social mobility to be destroyed. Its proposal to allow local authorities to open new schools, along with its planned review of the free school programme, would shift control of our children’s education away from communities and teachers and back into the hands of bureaucrats.

Unfortunately, the process has already started. In October, Ministers paused plans to open 44 new state schools in England, putting parents who planned to send their children there in limbo, so I am pleased to support new clause 39, which would reverse that pause and allow those schools to open as planned. Let us be clear: in 2024, 21% of GCSE entries from free schools achieved a grade 7 or above compared with 19% in comprehensive schools. Labour may not want to face the facts, but the reality is that sometimes the bureaucrat and the trade union shop steward do not know best. The Secretary of State is Labour’s Miss Trunchbull, putting our teachers in the chokey to satisfy her union paymasters.

This Government are so certain in their belief that they know best that they will not even allow parents the freedom to educate their own children without state interference. Buried within this Bill is a new legal requirement for local authorities to maintain a register of children not in school—a policy that I recognise was in the Conservative party’s manifesto, but which has the potential to be not just unhelpful, but actively harmful to children.

Our country has long upheld the primacy of parents, not the state, in determining the best education for their children, and this proposal seeks to undermine that fundamental covenant. That is why I support amendment 200, which would require a local authority to submit a statement of reasons when it does not agree for a child to be taken out of school to be home educated. It should at least have to account for itself. Compulsory enrolment could have serious consequences, as families may simply refuse to comply and potentially disengage from state involvement altogether because of this overreach, leading to negative unintended consequences that could impact on the child’s wellbeing.

The state thinks that it has a divine right to infringe on every aspect of the child’s life—or, at least, this Government do. They want to know what home-educated children do at the weekends and during the holidays. If that information is not required for children who attend mainstream schools, what is the justification for demanding it for children who are home-schooled? Why, in response to my repeated interventions, could the Minister not provide any reassurance that some sensible and proportionate rules would be put in place? I therefore support amendment 197, which would remove that requirement.

It was John Maynard Keynes who said:

“When the facts change, I change my mind”.

In the same spirit, I ask colleagues across the Chamber what they do. The evidence is clear: freedom and flexibility in education drive up standards and deliver better outcomes for children. In government, we followed the evidence and built on the previous Labour Government’s body of work, and the results speak for themselves. England now has the best readers in the western world, a record number of schools rated “good” or “outstanding” and greater opportunities for working-class children, albeit never at the level we would like, which is why that needs to be built on, not knocked to the ground.

As proud as I am of our record, this debate is not about party politics. At its heart, it is about ensuring that every child, regardless of their background, has access to the highest-quality education that we can provide. I urge the Secretary of State to follow the evidence, not ideology. I will vote against this Bill, but given the Government’s majority, we accept that however misguided these policies are, they will probably pass. All I can do is finish by appealing to colleagues across the Chamber to show courage, stand up for the poorest in society, stop the wreckers and support our amendments this evening when we come to vote.

[Abtisam Mohamed (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

I commend the Minister on all the excellent work that has taken place so far on the Bill. My representations will be on home education. I recognise the importance of safeguarding and making sure that vulnerable children do not fall through the net; however, the home-educating community is growing, diverse and caring, and those involved are fiercely passionate about their children’s education and learning.

Amendments 4, 13 and 14, which stand in my name, would add to the Bill the definition of “suitable education” that already appears in section 7 of the Education Act 1996. Without these amendments, it would be left to individual local authority officers to decide what they think is suitable education.

Oral Answers to Questions

Abtisam Mohamed Excerpts

Monday 10th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Bridget Phillipson]

We are investing more in the early years system through the Budget; there are record levels of investment to support families with the expansion that they were promised by the Conservatives, but for which there had been no funding for delivery. We have also delivered the single-biggest uplift in the early years pupil premium, alongside an expansion grant, because we know that, in too many parts of the country, parents are unable to access the places that they have been promised. We are determined to turn that around. Our ambitions to roll out primary-based nurseries will also make a big difference by supporting parents in the childcare deserts left by the Conservatives.

[Abtisam Mohamed (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

11. What steps she is taking to help reduce the cost of sending children to school.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Stephen Morgan)]

Our Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill will introduce free breakfast clubs in all state-funded primary schools in England, and measures to help with the cost of school uniforms. Breakfast clubs will save families up to £450 a year, putting money directly back into parents’ pockets. Our action is urgent, which is why we are rolling out 750 early adopters from April—we are getting on with delivering the change that we promised. Limiting the number of branded uniform items will give parents more flexibility, keeping costs down for families and saving some parents over £50 on the back-to-school shop.

[Abtisam Mohamed]

I thank the Minister for his answer and congratulate the Department on its excellent work on the child poverty taskforce. Lesson time and learning are being significantly affected by high levels of child poverty. Schools in Sheffield Central tell me that many low-income families are really struggling financially. Will the Minister confirm what specific action the Government are taking to turn the tide on child poverty and put money back into people’s pockets?

[Stephen Morgan]

There is no challenge more crucial for this Government than tackling child poverty. The taskforce has started the urgent work of publishing the strategy, which will look at levers across four key themes: increasing incomes, reducing essential costs, increasing financial resilience, and better local support, especially in early years.

Family Visas: Income Requirement

Abtisam Mohamed Excerpts

Monday 20th January 2025 Westminster Hall

[Abtisam Mohamed (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

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.

[Imran Hussain]

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?

[Abtisam Mohamed]

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.