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.