Partner and Spousal Visas: Minimum Income

Debate between Afzal Khan and Paul Blomfield

Tuesday 23rd April 2024 Westminster Hall

[Paul Blomfield]

I see the Minister shaking his head, so I will put my points to him. The Government have talked about migration as a problem, but have failed to come up with a solution that addresses the real challenges. When faced with the rising net migration figures in November, the Government seemed to hit out in all directions, looking to headlines but without regard to the consequences; removing the rights of care workers to bring dependants without regard for the impact on those needing care; increasing the salary threshold for the skilled worker visa without regard to the needs of critical sectors; reviewing the graduate visa without regard to the impact on universities whose funding model has been designed by the Government to be dependent on international students; and, in relation to this debate, introducing new thresholds for family visas without regard to the consequences for families.

Let me be absolutely clear: nobody wants uncontrolled migration. What people want is a comprehensive plan that is fair and works in the interests of our country. The announcement of family visas fails that benchmark. It had all the feel of a policy developed on the back of a fag packet, as we used to say. First, the Government announced that they were more than doubling the threshold to £38,700 by spring 2024. Within days they changed course and said there would be a phased approach starting at £29,000 in spring ’24, rising to £34,500 at an unspecified date later in ’24, and then £38,700. Only later, in response to a petition, did they confirm that the £38,700 would be delayed until early 2025.

Originally a spokesperson said the threshold would apply to visa extensions, but, thankfully, later contradicted that and confirmed that that would not be the case. What is left from the original announcement remains a big change so, as required, the Home Office carried out an impact assessment. However, it has refused to publish it, which was highlighted by the recent House of Lords Scrutiny Committee report, presumably, as with previous Home Office impact assessments, because the results were not favourable to its arguments.

I will share the impact that my constituents have told me the policy would have on their marriages, family life and future. The first constituent to write to me was a charity worker and, as such, was willing to accept a low income, but his willingness to make that salary sacrifice would prevent him having the opportunity to settle here with his fiancée from Argentina. Another told me that he had met his Chinese girlfriend while studying at university. They had planned to start their graduate life together in the United Kingdom, but will now not be able to do so. A midwife told me that she cannot bring her husband over so they could start their family here.

One man wrote to me to say that he had recently got engaged to his partner in Qatar and planned to have a civil partnership here in the UK, but those plans were off. Others told me that they were considering dropping out of degrees to fund full-time employment to meet income requirements, and one told me of the devastating choice between leaving the UK or leaving the person they love.

[Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for holding this important debate. The most common origin countries for which family-related visas were granted last year were Pakistan and India, yet workers of Pakistani heritage have the lowest median hourly pay of any ethnic group, meaning they are less likely to meet the minimum income threshold. Does my hon. Friend share my concern that the policy only entrenches the UK’s hostile immigration environment, as it is likely to be overwhelmingly discriminatory against ethnic minorities, particularly British Asians?

[Paul Blomfield]

My hon. Friend makes an important point and I will come on to it. Across communities, ordinary people doing valuable jobs are having to rethink their lives. Let us reflect for a moment on the sorts of jobs that would not reach the minimum income.

Further and Higher Education Students: Cost of Living

Debate between Afzal Khan and Paul Blomfield

Tuesday 19th September 2023 Westminster Hall

[Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)]

My constituent Elliot is starting his final year at university, and his biggest worry is securing affordable housing. The maximum loan he gets is not keeping up with the prices, and he spends at least two thirds of his loan on rent alone. His family cannot afford to top up his rent. Does my hon. Friend agree that dealing with such financial hardships can be a barrier to excelling at university and that much more financial support is needed to give students the freedom to focus on their education?

[Paul Blomfield]

I echo the point my hon. Friend makes. Many of the comments that we received reflect the sorts of problems that his constituent faces, and I will come on to some of the wider points that he made.

Another contributory factor, according to the IFS, was the inflation forecast errors used to calculate loan increases, which mean that their real value is lower now than at any time in the past seven years. On top of that, we have had the scrapping of maintenance grants. The cumulative effect has pushed many students to a tipping point. More than a quarter of students were left with less than £50 a month, after paying rent and bills last year. As my hon. Friend points out, rent is accelerating at a significant rate. Our inquiry found 96% facing financial difficulty, with food, rent and energy the biggest pressures, but transport costs were also a key issue and particularly difficult for commuter students, many of whom chose to be home-based precisely to save money. Students have been struggling to get to their classes, access libraries and travel to placements.

The inquiry was a genuine learning exercise for us and we were particularly concerned to hear about the sharp increase in hours of paid employment taken by students. Of our respondents, 61% worked alongside their studies and 37% said that they are working more hours because of cost of living pressures. The Sutton Trust reported that about half of undergraduates missed classes last year due to paid employment. Around a quarter missed a deadline or asked for an extension on a piece of work.

They are often in precarious and insecure jobs. Joanna, one of the respondents to the Chamber Engagement Team survey, said,

“I have had to take several jobs, as the part time job sector is full of zero hours contracts with little stability and no promise of actual work. I am working more than I should have to and my grades are suffering.”

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Afzal Khan and Paul Blomfield

Tuesday 6th September 2022 Commons Chamber

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

13. What steps she is taking to support flood relief efforts in Pakistan.

[Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)]

19. What steps the Government are taking to help provide humanitarian support to Pakistan following recent floods. [R]

Islamophobia Awareness Month

Debate between Afzal Khan and Paul Blomfield

Wednesday 24th November 2021 Westminster Hall

[Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Islamophobia Awareness Month.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd.

When I go home and look at my grandchildren, I see limitless potential that deserves to flourish and thrive, yet I find it heartbreaking that they must grow up in a world where racism is still present—they will be subject to racism purely because of their faith—and that I, as their grandfather, must stand up to talk about the rampant Islamophobia in our midst. This month is an opportunity for us all to tackle that insidious hatred, which manifests itself in hate crime, discrimination and loss of opportunity.

As I look around the Chamber, I am touched by the support of my hon. Friends from all parts of the House who have committed to rooting out racism, whichever form it takes. I hosted a drop-in event in collaboration with the Muslim Council of Britain and Amnesty International last week, and it was brilliant to see the cross-party support. I thank the many hon. Members present today for attending.

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

The information shared with us by the Muslim Council of Britain last week was very powerful indeed, and reflects the experience that many of us have heard about from our Muslim constituents. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government need to take responsibility for engaging effectively with the MCB to tackle the issue?

[Afzal Khan]

Yes, I agree, and I will be making that point.

I had the privilege of visiting Europe’s first eco-mosque in Cambridge—a real trailblazer in the community. It highlights how effective the British Muslim community has been in tackling the climate crisis with a positive and inspiring message. I extend an invitation to the Minister. I cannot promise that a visit will be as thrilling as Peppa Pig World, but it is worth a visit.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Afzal Khan and Paul Blomfield

Tuesday 1st December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

What representations he has received from organisations representing people who are ineligible for covid-19 financial support schemes; and if he will make a statement.

[Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)]

What representations he has received from organisations representing people who are ineligible for covid-19 financial support schemes; and if he will make a statement.

Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill (Ninth sitting)

Debate between Afzal Khan and Paul Blomfield

Tuesday 5th March 2019 Public Bill Committees

[Afzal Khan]

My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central, the shadow Minister, will speak to the new clause.

[Paul Blomfield]

New clause 10 is important because, as the Committee should be aware, the Bill removes the current right, under EU law, to appeal against decisions relating to settled status. The new clause seeks to fill that gap by giving the right to appeal to the immigration and asylum chamber of first-tier tribunal to those whose application is rejected and those who have been granted pre-settled status but there is evidence to show that they should have been granted settled status.

As discussed during the oral evidence sessions, as it stands the only right to appeal consists of an administrative review at a cost of £80 or a judicial review at a significantly greater cost and with a drawn-out, time-consuming process. Ms Blackstock from Justice told us that it

“seems to be the most bureaucratic and inappropriate method for what is…potentially a simple grey area that requires a simple review.”––[Official Report, Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Public Bill Committee, 12 February 2019; c. 62, Q162.]

This is a problematic issue.

We also heard from Professor Smismans, who represents the3million, that there had been “considerable problems” with past administrative reviews by the Home Office. I am sure the Minister is aware of that. An administrative review may be fine as a first access point, but it is not sufficient on its own.

The Government clearly recognise the need to make the right of appeal available, as they have agreed that with the EU as part of the draft withdrawal agreement. That right exists under the withdrawal agreement that the Government have signed up to; UK courts and tribunals are authorised to refer cases on citizens’ rights to the European Court of Justice within eight years of the end of the transition period.

The withdrawal agreement also provides for an independent monitoring body to conduct inquiries into alleged breaches of part 2 of the withdrawal agreement. That body would also be able to receive complaints from EU nationals and bring legal action on their behalf.

So far so good, but both those mechanisms fall away in a no-deal situation. Following the delayed publication in December of the Government’s paper on citizens’ rights in the event of no deal, my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton and I wrote to the Minister and the Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr Walker) with our concerns. In reply, they stated their view that it is fair in a no-deal scenario to provide the remedies generally available to non-EU citizens refused leave to remain in the UK in other parts of the immigration system.

I ask the Minister: how is that fair? In the event of no deal, the Government are proposing to reduce the time that people have to apply for settled status. The process of registering 3 million people is already a challenge, and some people believe it might be beyond the Home Office. With less time comes greater risk of mistakes, so why are the Government reducing the means of appeal?

We are talking about a finite number of people who have already been subject to two and a half years of uncertainty. It is worth remembering that about 100 EEA citizens were erroneously threatened with deportation by the Home Office in 2017. Is it really fair to anybody that we are expected to trust the Home Office to mark its own homework? An accessible right of appeal under any terms on which we exit the European Union would provide much-needed reassurance to EU nationals.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Blomfield]

I acknowledge that the Minister’s wish to reflect on some of the issues raised is helpful, but there are still fundamental matters on which we have had insufficient reassurance.

[Afzal Khan]

I will press the new clause to a vote.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.