Family Visas: Income Requirement

Ayoub Khan Excerpts

Monday 20th January 2025 Westminster Hall

[Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)]

It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I thank the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for opening the debate.

I have a speech written, but it is always interesting just to speak my mind. Prior to my election as Member of Parliament, when I was a councillor I had hundreds of constituents contact me about the relative increase to an income of £29,000. Many constituents were concerned that they could not bring their spouses to the UK because they would not meet the threshold, and many were having to work more than one job. As hon. Members have rightly said, people working in certain sectors would simply not be able to meet the threshold.

Apart from that, there is a disparity when we look at where people are earning. Incomes in London are substantially greater than in the rest of the country, but that in itself is unfair because we all know that expenses in bigger cities are far greater. Someone earning £30,000 in Birmingham would be able to retain, say, £15,000, whereas someone earning £40,000 in London may only be able to retain £5,000 as a contribution towards the spouse and the marriage working out in the UK.

There is an enormous disparity but, let us face it, this is not about having a spouse or a family to provide for. If it were, the Government would be at real odds. If it is about affordability, what do we pay a couple in the UK over the age of 25? I think it is about £600 a month. Obviously there are housing costs associated too, but there is simply no comparison.

This policy was driven by the last Government to feed into the narrative that they were doing something about immigration. They were going to curtail the amount of people coming in, and the one way they could do that was to increase the threshold. That argument does not succeed either, however, because people who are wealthier or have assets can still marry and bring their spouses into the UK. This policy would harshly affect countless British citizens who have chosen to marry partners from abroad.

Stats from the Office for National Statistics clearly identify that the median annual salary in the UK falls well below the benchmark, so this will be impossible. People will have to choose between living with their loved ones in the UK or leaving the country. They may find themselves in the very difficult position of having to leave family, work and so on, to go to a country where they cannot get a job or do not have the skills or experience to take on employment. There are enormous difficulties.

This proposal is a punitive measure against those who have committed no crime other than falling in love. We know that love has no borders, especially in a world of social media. So many young people go on to social media because it is a global environment where people fall in love all the time. This policy will impact so many people. The Home Office, which is tasked with protecting and supporting our citizens, should not be placing barriers between family members; it should support and facilitate their union.

In seeking to protect the integrity of our borders, we must not lose sight of the integrity of our family values. I urge the Government to reconsider these draconian measures, remember their duty to the people they serve, and ensure that policy reflects both economic reality and the enduring importance of family unity. Let us not punish our citizens for their choice of partners; instead, let us support them in building their family lives, regardless of nationality.

--- Later in debate ---

[Katie Lam]

It is far from a slur. I will come on to more statistical analysis of fiscal costs in a moment, but if a migrant to this country represents a fiscal cost, that is a fact, not an insult. This Labour Government, as we know, have also committed to lowering migration. We do not know by how much or when, so I would be grateful if the Minister could enlighten us on that.

The hon. Members for Stroud (Dr Opher) and for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) pointed out that spousal and partner visas accounted for only 5% of visas issued last year, but 58,000 people is still a huge number, and it is only our—to quote the Prime Minister—“sky-high” level of overall migration that makes it seem small. In fact, it is almost as much as the entire cumulative net migration to Britain for the 25 years leading up to 1997. In the past four years, more people have moved to the UK under a spousal visa than live in Exeter, Ipswich or Blackpool, and that number is rising sharply. There is some indication that, as the previous Government tightened the rules around dependants and salary thresholds for work visas, people turned to the family route instead. Numbers in the second quarter of 2024 were up a third on the same time in 2023 and were four times as high as in the second quarter of 2022.

It is worth remembering that any and every Briton can marry any foreign citizen who can get a visa here. This country has issued some 5 million visas in the past five years, so the system is hardly stringent. The question is not, “Should British citizens be able to bring their foreign spouses to the UK?” It is, “Does it benefit the country as a whole for British citizens on lower salaries to bring foreign spouses here who are unable to get a visa any other way?” By definition, those spouses fall outside the already excessively broad conditions that we have set for being able to come to this country in their own right. I hope it is some comfort to the constituent of the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon) to hear that there is no minimum income requirement if a spouse is disabled or on personal independence payment.

The hon. Members for Stroud, for Sheffield Central and for North Ayrshire and Arran reminded us that those coming here have no immediate right to welfare support. That implies that there are no costs to that migration, but that is wrong. After five years, a person who has come here on a family visa can apply for indefinite leave to remain. If they get it—95% of ILR applicants are successful—they qualify for welfare, social housing, NHS care and everything else, and that costs money. The salary threshold exists because people who move to this country—even those who are spouses of citizens—must be able to sustain themselves financially within their family, or the whole system will fall to pieces, even more than it already has.

[Ayoub Khan]

On the point about what a spouse costs the state in terms of public services, surely the income generated by the working spouse would mean that they are not entitled to receive benefits of any kind.

[Katie Lam]

As I just explained, if the person has been here for five years and applies for indefinite leave to remain, and it is granted—as almost all indefinite leave to remain applications are—they are entitled to full welfare, social housing, NHS care and everything else the state provides to its citizens.

That point about indefinite leave to remain is especially relevant to family visas. Ten years after arrival, only 7%, or one in 14, of those who come here on student visas, and 21%, or one in five, of those who came on work visas, have ILR. For family visas, it is 83%, or five out of every six people. That is why the Migration Advisory Committee’s initial impact assessment of the policy found £500 million in welfare cost savings and £500 million more in public service savings from the introduction of the £18,000 minimum income requirement, and that was when far fewer people were using that route to come here.

But the cost-benefit analysis that counts is not that of the Migration Advisory Committee, but that of the British people. They want mass migration to end, and they are sick of broken promises. The numbers must come down across the whole system. The last Government were therefore right to introduce this reform, and it does not bode well that this Prime Minister, for all his talk, decided at the first opportunity to back out of it.