Partner and Spousal Visas: Minimum Income

Debate between George Howarth and Paul Blomfield

Tuesday 23rd April 2024 Westminster Hall

[Paul Blomfield]

I was not suggesting they are a burden; I was simply reflecting the Government’s argument. My hon. Friend demonstrates, in addition to my argument, that those people are clearly not a burden.

It is not as if family migration is a big problem. Although the absolute number of family visas issued nearly doubled between 2020 and the end of September ’23—I am sure the Minister will make that point—their proportion in relation to entry visas has remained consistently low, at 5%. The policy will not have a significant impact on the UK’s net migration, but for the families affected, the effect is enormous. They will be separated and forced to live apart if they cannot meet the threshold. As my hon. Friend said, some who could make a valuable contribution to this country in all sorts of careers will be forced to leave the UK altogether—many have told me that that is their plan. It is fundamentally unfair that partners and families are being priced out of the right to live in the UK with a foreign partner—priced out of their right to a family life on the basis of how much they earn. It is a two-tier system based on wealth.

Our approach compares badly with those of other countries. All developed countries face the challenge of migration policy. Although the Government sometimes suggest that it is a unique challenge for us, it affects every country in Europe, the States and the whole of the developed world, but those countries do not all adopt the same approach. Over the past few weeks, the Government have cited Australia admiringly as a model for migration policy, but it has no earnings threshold for family visas. In many other countries, such as Germany, the right to reunite with spouses is almost automatic, with no income requirement. Some countries do require proof of sufficient resources, but for those that express that as a minimum income, including Belgium and Norway, the threshold is nowhere near the one proposed by the Government. Countries such as Spain and the Netherlands link it to social security levels. In the US, it is 125% of federal poverty guidelines, which means in real terms that it is pretty similar to the current threshold in the UK, before the Government’s proposed change.

It is no wonder that the Migrant Integration Policy Index, which compares countries across Europe, the US, Canada, Australia and others, ranks the UK as next to the bottom of 56 countries for its policies on family reunification and integration, so there is a strong case for the Government to think again. If we are to have a threshold, there are fairer approaches. Currently, the threshold is close to the national minimum wage—that is one benchmark. It could be set against the national living wage—just over £22,000 for somebody working 37.5 hours a week. That would be well below the proposed threshold, and it would take out the wealth barrier to family life that the Government are imposing. We could take account of spouses’ anticipated earnings on arrival, as we do after they are in the UK.

The point is that there are options. We need a root-and-branch review of the spousal migration rules that considers the unfairness at their heart and the disproportionate impact of the Government’s proposals on so many. In the meantime, the planned increased this year and in 2025 should be suspended, and the Government should listen to those whose lives are being affected.

[Sir George Howarth (in the Chair)]

Order. I remind Members that those who want to be called to speak should bob.

Further and Higher Education Students: Cost of Living

Debate between George Howarth and Paul Blomfield

Tuesday 19th September 2023 Westminster Hall

[Sir George Howarth (in the Chair)]

I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called in the debate.

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the impact of increases in the cost of living on further and higher education students.

I am delighted to see you in the Chair, Sir George. This is a timely debate coming as the new academic year starts. It is based on the two-stage inquiry undertaken during the first half of the year by the all-party parliamentary group for students, which I chair and officers of which are also present. We looked at the impact of the cost of living crisis on higher education students, on which we reported in March, and, in partnership with the all-party parliamentary group on further education and lifelong learning—whose chair, the hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous), I welcome —on FE students, on which we reported in July.

Although many others have been impacted hard by the cost of living crisis, we were concerned that students should not be overlooked. We were not alone in that concern. Petitions Committee staff wrote to me last week to tell me that there have been six petitions to Parliament seeking support for students. It is important that students are not seen as a homogeneous group. In FE and HE, there is enormous diversity of students, including part-time and full-time; distance learners and commuter students; many with families and caring responsibilities, juggling work with study; classroom-based and apprentices; undergraduates and postgraduates; and home and international. Of course, there is the difference in the arrangements and responses across the four nations of the UK.

The current student cohort, though, have one thing in common: the double misfortune of educational disruption from covid and now the cost of living crisis. Our inquiry collated evidence from universities and student unions, and directly from hundreds of students who engaged with us. We drew on the work of others, including the Office for National Statistics, the Sutton Trust, the Institute for Fiscal Studies and Save the Student. I would like to thank Parliament’s Chamber Engagement Team for its work in gathering feedback since the debate was announced. Just over the past couple of days, we have had upwards of 160 students, parents and others contact us.

So what did we hear? First, we heard that the student support system has failed to keep up with rising costs and that it was already unfit for purpose when the cost of living crisis hit, particularly given the decreasing value of student loans. According to the Save the Student survey, the loan fell short of average costs that students face by £439 per month in 2021-22, and that had increased to a shortfall of £582 per month last year. Other factors include the freezing of the lower parental earnings threshold, which means that the proportion studying outside London who receive the maximum student loan fell from 57% in 2012-13 to 38% in 2021-22.

Department for Business, Innovation and Skills Office: Sheffield

Debate between George Howarth and Paul Blomfield

Wednesday 24th February 2016 Westminster Hall

[Paul Blomfield]

I look forward to the answer. The civil servants whose jobs are on the line as a result of the decision are familiar with the concept of making savings for the public purse. They are engaged in that very pursuit in delivering the Government’s agenda on apprenticeships and further and higher education. They work within strict financial constraints, but were they to make a proposal without any evidence of the budgetary implications, the Minister would agree that they were not doing their jobs properly. Why are the Government, elected on the back of a promise to supposedly balance the books, so reluctant to publish the business case for the decision? I fear, from my exchange with the permanent secretary during his appearance before the Select Committee, that it is because there is no such document and no such business case. Will the Minister clarify the basis on which the decision was made, if not to save money?

In the documents that have been published, the proposed “combined regional footprint” that will remain—this is mentioned in the restructuring proposal form—

“the FE funding centre (location yet to be decided)”,

the HE funding centre and

“possibly a regulation centre in Birmingham”

are all part of the new vision. How much will all those things cost? We do not know. We do not know because the Department does not know, but how on earth can they be less expensive?

The Government’s own estate strategy, which was published in 2014, points out that the cost of space in Whitehall is expensive. It cites the Ministry of Defence main building at a cost of £35,000 a year a person, compared with the Home Office buildings in Croydon at £3,000 a person. That is less than a tenth of the cost, and Sheffield is less expensive still, and that is before we take account of central London weighting and the extra staffing costs involved. The decision, which has huge consequences for my constituents, the city and the region, has been made on the basis of so little fact and evidence.

There is a wider issue, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley alluded to, about the way that this country is run. There is real value in locating policy making in the regions and nations of Britain. That is why successive Governments have moved Departments out of London. I remember when the Conservatives under Margaret Thatcher moved the Manpower Services Commission to Sheffield in 1981, and such moves continued under Labour. That policy stalled under the coalition and is now thrown into reverse. Before the Minister wheels out the line that more BIS jobs are based outside London, let me remind him that the focus of this debate is on the highly skilled policy jobs that are at the centre of the decision.

Too many decisions in this country are made through the prism of the personal experience of people who live, work and bring their families up in London. The rest of the country is different. We need more people who live their lives, like most of the population, outside London bringing their experience into policy making. The Department for Education carried out its own review of its estate. The review stated:

“We benefit from maintaining sites around the country—we get alternative perspectives on our policy issues, we can draw from a wider recruitment pool, and employing people in sites outside London helps to keep costs down.”

If that is important for the DFE, why does it not apply to BIS? The Minister risks his own goals if he loses some of his most experienced staff just as he embarks on an ambitious programme in higher education. My right hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley cited the special adviser of the Minister’s predecessor, David Willetts. His special adviser, respected by all parties in Parliament, described the move as

“a genuine tragedy for good public policymaking.”

Is the Minister not concerned about the loss of talent? I hope he will come back on that point. What assessment has he made of the loss of jobs on the successful delivery of the policy agenda for higher education, further education and apprenticeships?

There is another issue about creating a diverse civil service. Earlier this month, Cabinet Office Ministers launched the Bridge report to achieve the Government’s stated aim of creating,

“a public sector that reflects the diverse nature of the UK”.

They launched it with a fanfare, and the head of the civil service, Sir Jeremy Heywood, said:

“The Bridge Group report offers potential nuggets of gold, not just for the civil service but for the UK...The problem is that talent is everywhere but opportunity is not.”

One of the plans arising from that report to address inequality in the public sector states that we need

“new terms in place which make it easier for civil servants to live outside London.”

How on earth can the Government square that circle? Where is the joined-up thinking?

The Bridge report also found that the number of people in the civil service from poorer backgrounds is shockingly low, with only 4.4% of successful applicants coming from working-class backgrounds. Does the Minister think this move will increase that figure? What equality impact assessment has been made of the decision? It cannot be right that we restrict opportunities to those who can afford to live and work in London, and who have the option to do so without commitments elsewhere. The Government could massively reduce the talent pool from which they recruit with this move, so why are they narrowing their options?

Staff in Sheffield have been told by BIS board members that the reason for the move is because Ministers want them close by. I do not believe that. I think Ministers are more open-minded and more innovative than that. It runs counter to the Government’s own estate strategy, published in October 2014, which stated:

“Civil servants should be able to work flexibly across locations at times that are convenient to them and their managers”.

It went on:

“Some parts of the civil service and the private sector still have an inflexible, command-and-control model where people are managed more by their presence than by achievement.”

The decision seems to confirm that that is how BIS wants to continue to run itself.

The killer blow to the rationale for this decision is at the bottom of page 11 of that document:

“With modern IT, officials no longer necessarily need to be physically present, for example to brief ministers.”

I am sure the Minister will concur with that point. Has this decision been taken behind closed doors because somebody had the bright idea that it might be easier for Ministers if they sit on the floor above their policy people rather than pick up the phone, use the video link or plan meetings in advance? No assessment has been made of the expertise and experience lost; of the impact on access to and diversity in the civil service; or of the way in which decisions are made in this country, never mind the cost to the public purse.

Finally, let me reflect on the thoughts of the Department’s most senior civil servant, the permanent secretary Martin Donnelly. It is good to see him here. Almost a year ago to the day, he published a blog post on his experience after the Department had undergone huge change back in 2011. The title of the piece is, “Leadership Statement: Talk less, listen more”. I have a copy that the Minister might want to share afterwards. Mr Donnelly writes that,

“people felt that the process has been done to them not by them.”

He was right. It was a problem then, and it is a problem the Department is on the brink of repeating now. But it is not too late. I urge Mr Donnelly and the Minister to listen to the hugely talented civil servants based in Sheffield. I urge them to listen to the head of the civil service, whose statement, made less than a month ago, I make no apology for repeating:

“Talent is everywhere but opportunity is not.”

I hope that the Minister will confirm today that the Government will publish the papers that have informed this decision and I hope he will commit to reviewing it. Is that really too much to ask?

[Mr George Howarth (in the Chair)]

Order. To accommodate everyone who has indicated that they want to speak, I am imposing a seven-minute time limit on speeches.