Family Visas: Income Requirement

Euan Stainbank Excerpts

Monday 20th January 2025 Westminster Hall

[Irene Campbell]

I do not disagree with those comments.

In response to the proposed policy changes, the non-profit organisation Reunite Families UK filed an application for judicial review in June 2024, supported by the Good Law Project. It argued that the rise of the minimum income requirement to £38,700 was made without analysis and in breach of critical public law duties. Many migrants’ rights groups and campaigners have been outspoken against the minimum income requirement. In relation to the legal case, Caroline Coombs, the director of Reunite Families UK, who is in the Gallery today, said:

“In the last decade, this policy has somehow continued to exist under the radar devastating countless British and settled citizens and their partners, families and children. The general public have no idea this policy exists until sadly they come up against it”.

Furthermore, Reunite Families found that the minimum income requirement can prevent integration of mixed nationality families for myriad reasons. The rising financial costs of visas and savings lead to instability, and temporary visas also make it harder to secure housing, access education and secure appropriate employment. It is important to note that those on temporary visas cannot claim benefits and can access NHS services only by paying into the NHS through the immigration health surcharge—I will say more about that later.

Many people might say that this is an anti-family policy. Increasing the minimum income requirement can create single-parent families and put an incredible stress on all members of the family, particularly children. A British citizen abroad, for example, may have to return to the UK for a variety of reasons, such as a need to care for an elderly relative still residing in the UK. If they do not already meet the minimum income requirement, they may have to return to the UK alone and wait for an indefinite amount of time to reunite their family.

It is said that many people who return to the UK are unable to gain employment immediately, but they may only begin their family visa application once six months of minimum income can be evidenced, or one year of income if they are self-employed. It is important to note that the non-British partner’s earnings are not included. If the applicant’s income drops below the threshold, the Home Office application process, which can take up to three months, must begin again.

Statistics from the Office for National Statistics show that the threshold of £38,700—I am sorry to keep repeating that figure—is unrealistic for most people living outside London and south-east England. The median annual income is £38,500 for those living in Scotland, £35,600 for those living in Wales and £34,900 for those living in Northern Ireland, so many people in valuable—indeed, essential—jobs are paid less than £38,700 annually. Yet the people who do those jobs will be penalised for wanting to marry someone of a different nationality and are left with few other options, if any, to prove that they would be able to support a partner.

For example, salaries for newly qualified teachers in England start at £31,650, for newly qualified nurses at around £30,000 and for police constables at £28,500. Also, if a store assistant at Aldi makes £12.40 an hour, that equates to £25,792 yearly, assuming that they work 40 hours a week.

[Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is even rarer for young people who come to this country to earn £38,700, which means that most of them are excluded under the proposed threshold?

[Irene Campbell]

I do agree.

To continue, an executive officer working in the Department for Work and Pensions earns £29,500, while an administrative officer’s salary in the civil service starts at £23,000. Nobody in any of those groups would qualify for the proposed minimum income requirement through their salary alone.

Indeed, the Migration Observatory, an independent group at the University of Oxford, estimated that around 50% of the UK working population would be unable to qualify on earnings alone with the current income requirement of £29,000, and that 70% of the working population earn less than £38,700. In addition, the charity Reunite Families UK has emphasised that the higher threshold affects women more than men, because women are more likely to have caring responsibilities and to earn less on average, and are also less likely to work full time. The median earnings of UK women who work full time are below £38,700 across all age groups; the highest median earnings figure is £35,250 for 40 to 49-year-olds.

The Migration Observatory also pointed out that the new set of policies would mean that, in certain circumstances, British workers in the same job as migrant workers would face stricter restrictions than migrant workers. For example, health professionals in the NHS who come to the UK on a health and care worker visa would be able to bring partners who are not UK citizens with them.

It is clear that the visa rules are long and complex, with many exceptions and differing prices for all circumstances. The family visa fee is £1,846 per person if the applicant is applying from outside of the UK and £1,258 per person if the applicant is applying from inside the UK. Those fees are non-refundable, so if an application is unsuccessful, the applicant is obviously not refunded.

In addition, there is the immigration health surcharge, for which the minimum cost for two and a half years is £2,587.50 for an adult and £1,940 for a child. If people are staying in the UK for two years and nine months, the charges rise to £3,105 for an adult and £2,328 for a child, and if they are staying for five years, they rise to £5,175 for an adult and £3,880 for a child. Reunite Families UK advises that the total cost of all those fees for a family on a five-year route to settlement can be over £10,000, while the total cost on a 10-year route can be around £20,000.

--- Later in debate ---

[Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard, for my first contribution to a Westminster Hall debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) on introducing this important debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee, and congratulate Shannon on bringing the petition forward.

I want to highlight the difficulty that various sectors are having in attracting and retaining workers, the risk that increasing the income requirement places on those sectors, the situation it puts families in, and the importance of accessible family visas for attracting people to the country. Young, happy, united and economically productive families are the building blocks of what we should define as a good economy.

First, I welcome the Government’s quick decision to hold off on further increases to the minimum income requirement and to allow the Migration Advisory Committee to assess the impact of the requirement. We should be led by evidence and proper process, not forced into knee-jerk reactions to the broken migration system, which is still reeling from the hammer blow of the Tories’ botched Brexit deal and other factors.

The current system punishes those on lower and middle incomes who have done nothing except fall in love with somebody from another country. That not only affects families but risks exacerbating employment and skills challenges across the economy. In fairness, when the initial decision to introduce a minimum income requirement was made in 2012, there was a public consultation and detailed analysis by the MAC, but no such analysis was done when the most recent changes were implemented, leaving the full economic effects unclear.

We know, however, that there are workforce shortages across all our constituencies in industries as diverse as housekeeping, hospitality management, bricklaying, carpentry, plumbing, manufacturing and data analysis—to name a few that have approached me as their constituency MP. According to the Fraser of Allander Institute up the road, one in four employers reported unfilled vacancies last year.

It is also important to note that the skilled worker visa eligible occupations list does not cover all the areas facing worker shortages or all the sectors under pressure. A quick look at one recruitment website through which many young people trawl regularly—though I admit I have not done so since June—shows that jobs paying below £29,000 constitute a significant proportion of the work in those industries facing staff shortages. Raising the threshold to £38,700 would substantially exacerbate that.

It is difficult to see how the increase in the income requirement would not deter people from making the UK their home. In my experience of working in hospitality, workers from abroad were often of immense value to that part of the economy, especially in providing longevity to businesses that often deal with a high staff turnover.

A system that denies that ability to long-term partners also means that children often have to deal with one parent in the UK and one permanently abroad. Not only is that incredibly challenging personally for the child, but it limits opportunities, with a parent being forced to raise their child in a single-parent household without the support of their partner who is abroad. That places unnecessary financial and emotional pressure on them, at a time when we should be supporting everyone in our community to live and work well.

My final point is about the importance of attracting people to live in the United Kingdom. When family reunification is made so difficult for people on low and middle incomes, it sends the message that they are not welcome. I know from my inbox how hard the process can be. One constituent has been waiting for six years to obtain a visa for their spouse, and they commented that they were left exasperated by an uncontactable and uncommunicative Home Office. Six years: I can only imagine if that were my spouse, brother, son, nephew, niece or friend. We are deterring young and happy families under the Tories’ previous policies.

That negative sentiment is reflected in the fact that the Migration Integration Policy Index ranks the UK as second to bottom of 56 countries for ease of family reunification, which should be a gauntlet for us to pick up and improve on. Alongside the tricky business—I acknowledge that it is tricky—of balancing migration policy, we should welcome families who are ready to contribute to our society and build their lives here.

In summary, any further increases to the minimum income requirement for family visas would worsen skills shortages in vital industries such as hospitality, construction and healthcare, while also making it more difficult for families to stay united. The Government’s recent decision to hold off on further increases is a welcome step, and I urge them to consider the economic impact of the changes and the disruption that they would cause to families, workers and businesses when making any future decisions.