Family Visas: Income Requirement

Grahame Morris Excerpts

Monday 20th January 2025 Westminster Hall

[Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I extend my thanks to the petitioners, those who have organised the petition, Reunite Families UK and the Petitions Committee for facilitating this very important debate. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for opening it. I congratulate her on setting out the arguments and issues in a most comprehensive and understandable fashion. I want to highlight a particular case that affects my constituent, but first I want to say a few general words to supplement and complement the existing contributions, which have all been absolutely excellent.

The sharp increase in the minimum income requirement for family visas is not an ill-judged policy; it is a cruel and discriminatory policy. It makes it painfully difficult for many British citizens to live and work in the UK with their foreign-born spouses, causing completely unnecessary emotional suffering and economic strain on families. Since the policy was last debated, a plethora of evidence has highlighted its disproportionate impact on women, single mothers and those working in relatively low-wage regional economies outside London.

When the previous shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Aberafan Maesteg (Stephen Kinnock), raised concerns about the lack of justification for the dramatic minimum income requirement increase from £18,600 to £29,000, it became clear that the decision was not grounded in evidence, but seemed to be, in the words of my hon. Friend,

“plucked out of thin air”. —[Official Report, 23 April 2024; Vol. 748, c. 237WH.]

[Martin Rhodes (Glasgow North) (Lab)]

Would my hon. Friend agree that an underlying problem is not only the size of the proposed increase, but the arbitrary nature of the level? As has been mentioned, perhaps it is linked to the skilled workers level, but that seems to be an arbitrary figure as well. Would he agree that we need to ensure that people out there have faith in the system by ensuring that the levels at which it is set are not arbitrary?

[Grahame Morris]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention; he is absolutely correct. Although I am pleased and delighted that the Government have commissioned a Migration Advisory Committee review, which represents a step forward towards evidence-based policy making, the harm caused in the meantime cannot be ignored. The review is due in June, but in the interim thousands of families are still separated.

The policy disproportionately affects many groups, including, as I have said, women and single parents—often mothers with caring responsibilities, particularly those outside London and the south-east, which is a particular concern. It affects regions where wages are low, such as in Wales and Scotland. In regions such as the north-east, where median annual earnings are £15,000 lower than those in London, many hard-working families simply cannot meet the £29,000 per annum threshold. These regional disparities exacerbate existing inequalities and penalise those who simply do not earn as much. The Migration Observatory’s 2023 research shows that 16% of British men working as employees do not earn enough to sponsor a spouse visa, but for women the figure skyrockets to 35%. That means that over a third of British women are currently ineligible to apply for a spousal visa should they need to do so.

I have permission to share the story of my constituent Lindsay Thompson, who contacted me last year. She has been married to her husband Orlando for six years. He still lives in Jamaica owing to the Home Office policy. He did not meet their son until the little boy was two years old because of the pandemic and travel bans, compounded by their inability to meet the mandatory visa threshold. Lindsay is a dedicated mother. She works tirelessly to provide for her son. She has applied for and secured multiple promotions at work and now only just earns £29,000 a year. She must sustain that income for six months before being eligible to apply for a visa. She lives in constant fear that the Government will raise the threshold even further to the £38,700 proposed by the Conservative party.

[Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for allowing me to intervene. Many of my Slough constituents have contacted me about this very issue. Many families simply want to be together in the UK to get on with their lives. I appreciate what my hon. Friend just said about the Government looking at the £29,000 threshold being looked into by the Migration Advisory Committee. Does he not agree that the hangover from the previous Conservative Government, who wanted to increase the threshold to an exorbitant £38,700 in early 2025, is extremely unfair, especially given that the UK average wage is way beneath that?

[Grahame Morris]

Absolutely. My hon. Friend reinforces previous comments and interventions. He is absolutely correct. That arbitrary threshold is worse for individuals who live in relatively low wage economies such as my constituency and others. Within regions there are areas of low wages, too, as has been highlighted by other hon. Friends.

The emotional toll of the policy on parents and children is immense, with long-term impacts on mental health and wellbeing. We must recognise the policy’s human cost. Families like Lindsay’s deserve better. Everyone has the right to a family life, whether they live in London or Easington in County Durham. It is unacceptable that regional and gender disparities in pay continue to determine whether families can live together. The policy was conceived as a desperate attempt by the previous Conservative Government to reduce immigration. However, experts and campaigners consistently argue that raising the threshold has had a minimal impact on net migration figures. What it does succeed in doing is tearing families apart and inflicting unnecessary suffering.

When the MAC review is published, I urge the Minister to give full weight to the evidence of disproportionate harm caused by this policy, and to consider the voices of campaigners, charities and affected families, who have called for a compassionate approach to immigration policy. I politely remind her that this is a Tory legacy policy that can be reversed if there is the political will, so let us ensure that no family is left behind, and that our policies reflect fairness and respect the right to family life.

Kinship Carers

Grahame Morris Excerpts

Wednesday 13th November 2024 Westminster Hall

[Alistair Strathern]

I thank my hon. Friend for that powerful intervention. It highlights the breadth of support we need to be considering for kinship carers—not just the pilots that have already been announced, but some of the wider training and therapeutic support needed to ensure that they are equipped to support the young people they are taking on caring responsibilities for.

This debate comes at a critical time for kinship carers across the country. They are finally having their voice heard, and we as parliamentarians owe it to them to live up to the commitments we have made over the last few years. It was fantastic at a recent reception to hear my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education listening so attentively to one of the kinship carers, Poppy, talking through some of the challenges she faces and what she would like to change so that kinship carers and those in kinship care across the country are finally fully supported by the Government and their local authorities.

[Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

I compliment my hon. Friend on securing this debate and being a champion for kinship carers, not just in this Parliament but previously. Does he recognise that the situation for kinship families is urgent and that the inaction that we saw from the previous Government means that many kinship carers are unable to continue? If they could not continue, it would push more children back into an already overstretched care system. Does he agree that though the 10 pilots are welcome, the best way to support families would be a non-means-tested mandatory allowance for all kinship families?

[Alistair Strathern]

I thank my hon. Friend for his powerful intervention. It is important to recognise the urgency. We have inherited a situation in which one in eight kinship carers are worried that they might not be able to carry on their caring responsibility, while thousands of other young people across the country could be placed into productive, meaningful and nourishing kinship care placements but are currently denied that by our antiquated children’s social care system.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Janet Daby)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin (Alistair Strathern) on securing this important debate. He has a keen interest in supporting kinship carers, and it is great to hear his passion and advocacy for kinship families in his constituency. It was also great to hear the interventions by so many Members from across the Chamber, who, alongside those who were unable to intervene, are equally passionate about improving the situation for kinship carers. I assure them that I hear the strength of their arguments and their passion, and I will take that with me as I work in this space.

The Government’s mission is to break down barriers to opportunity and give every child the best start in life, and that includes supporting the amazing role that kinship carers play. I thank all kinship carers for the excellent caring work that they do, and the love and compassion they show to the children and loved ones they look after.

[Grahame Morris]

I am grateful for the Government’s emphasis and focus on kinship carers. We are all desperately awaiting the announcement of the 10 pilot areas, but does the Minister recognise that the trial alone offers little reassurance to people such as my constituent Elaine Duffy, who was working full time but had to go part time and withdraw her pension savings to adapt her home so that she could care for her three grandchildren? She still receives no state financial support, and she is looking for some reassurance from the new Government. Can the Minister offer any?

[Janet Daby]

I thank my hon. Friend for that example. If he will allow me to continue, I will address the inconsistencies across local authorities. We have heard about such real-life examples, and we recognise that the situation is not good enough. As I continue, I will explain how the new Government have already begun to address it.

I met some kinship carers during my first visit as a Minister, and it was clear to me that the challenges I witnessed years ago when I was a children and families social worker are still being felt today. That is shocking. I listened to the stories that hon. Members told, like the one that my hon. Friend just raised, and I was very troubled by them—how could I not be? However, we are in government; we want things to change, and change has begun. The evidence shows that children in kinship care often do better in school. They have better health outcomes and do better in later life, in terms of employment and their ability to socialise. Kinship carers are to be thanked, applauded and celebrated for providing a safe and loving home for children who can no longer live with their parents, but are instead being cared for by family members or friends who love them.

Special Educational Needs and Disabilities

Grahame Morris Excerpts

Thursday 24th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Catherine McKinnell]

The hon. Member is right to identify those challenges. In its analysis, published today, the National Audit Office said that the current system was not working and not serving the needs of children and their families in the way that it should. We are moving at pace to review the system in a wholesale way, and the changes that I have outlined will support that. In addition, we will legislate to ensure that local authorities can plan properly for places and admissions in their areas. We want every state school, regardless of how they were established, to co-operate in ensuring that places are there for the children who need them. I have outlined a whole range of changes that will seek to address the problem that he mentioned.

[Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

I am in no doubt that the Labour Government have a terrible inheritance on SEND provision, but children in my constituency of Easington who rely on services provided by the Tees, Esk and Wear Valleys NHS Foundation Trust face unreasonably long waiting times. Incredibly, they have to wait up to five years for assessments for autism, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and other related conditions. What steps is the Minister taking to reduce those unacceptably long waiting lists, and support both children and their families during these lengthy waits for assessments?

[Catherine McKinnell]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I reiterate that the Government have inherited a terrible legacy, not only on special educational needs and disabilities, but on our public spending and the state of our public services overall. The example he raises is good, as it highlights the importance of working across Government to resolve issues and help the families who need support. Whether that is done through the education system, which my Department is responsible for, or through the health service, we need to work collaboratively across Government to address the huge backlogs that far too many people face in getting the support that they need. I can assure him that that is a priority for us.