Family Visas: Income Requirement

Katie Lam Excerpts

Monday 20th January 2025 Westminster Hall

[Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I am grateful to the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell), the Petitions Committee and the 101,321 members of the public who have requested that we debate this topic. Those 100,000 people have asked us to discuss this policy because, as many hon. Members have movingly pointed out, it can be overwhelmingly important to those it affects. There are few things in life and in human nature more powerful than the desire to be with those you love. To be separated from your husband or wife by a national border is no small thing. Indeed, for those it is happening to it can feel like everything.

The role of Government is to determine what is right for the country, not for any one person, couple or family, so we must place this discussion in its national context: managing overall migration to Britain. The public have consistently asked successive Governments to lower migration. As my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Essex (Mrs Badenoch) has said, the last Government, like Governments before them, promised to do exactly that, but, again like the Governments before them, did not deliver. Migration has been far too high for the last two decades and remains so.

The issue of migration is not just about quantity. It should be a fundamental principle of our system that people who come to this country do not cost more than they contribute; what they pay in tax should at least cover the costs of the public services that they use. The policy that we are debating was implemented by a Conservative Government as part of an attempt to cut migration and to ensure that those who come here do not represent a net fiscal cost. Clearly, it was not enough, but it was a step in the right direction.

In delaying reform, the new Government seem to be making the same mistakes as previous Governments. To refer again to the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Essex, we in Westminster

“cannot pretend that immigration comes only with benefits and no costs”.

This is all too clear to the country. People can see it in their wages, which are stagnating because they are being undercut, and they can see it in their rent soaring, in how hard it is for their children to get on the housing ladder, in the cohesion of their communities and in the pressure on their GPs, dentists and infrastructure.

[Tom Gordon]

I am slightly surprised. The hon. Lady raised a number of points about her own Government’s record and what they were unable to deliver, so does she not find it a little jarring that she is now preaching to this Government about what they should do?

[Katie Lam]

It is the job of the Opposition to hold the Government to account, whoever is in government. As I have acknowledged, these are mistakes that we made, so very few people are as well qualified to suggest what behaviour could be avoided in the future. That is part of our job and our duty to the public.

[Seamus Logan]

I appreciate the humane remarks that the hon. Lady made at the beginning of her speech, but is she not now guilty of continuing to slur migrant workers who come to this country as representing a net fiscal drain on the economy? These workers contribute to our economy, and they represent a contribution to its growth.

[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.

[Dr Opher]

Will the hon. Lady say whether the policy of punitively attacking families was successful in reducing migration? Will she also say what effect immigration has on GDP?

[Katie Lam]

As I have said, the policy was nothing like enough to reduce immigration. It was a step in the right direction, but it was deeply insufficient. Migration has the effect of increasing GDP in raw terms because more people are here but, on GDP per capita, most evidence indicates that it weakens our economy over the medium term.

On this reform and the many others required to our migration system, the Government must make difficult decisions. Those decisions may be painful, especially in the short term, for individual people, families or businesses, or the cost of the public service workforce. But that is the only way for any Government’s actions to match their words. The public have had enough.

Can the Minister confirm that the Government remain fully committed to bringing down migration? Can she confirm exactly what that means, by how much they will bring down the numbers and when, and that the Government understand that it must happen—indeed, can only happen—where it involves making hard and upsetting choices for the good of our country? With that in mind, can the Minister confirm whether it is the Government’s intention to maintain this policy? If they will not make that commitment today, can they at least commit to the fundamental principle behind it—that those who come here, or bring others here, should be able to support themselves financially and not represent a net cost to the state over the long term? Does the Minister therefore agree that the salary threshold should increase to whatever level is necessary to ensure that that is the case?

Finally, I am conscious that those who have been granted indefinite leave to remain are then able to sponsor a spouse. Can the Minister tell us how many migrants on skilled worker visas, care worker visas and shortage occupation lists—I believe that amounts to 2 million visas since the start of 2021—the Home Office expects to apply for ILR when eligible? How many spousal visa applications does the Department then expect to receive from those people? Further, based on demographic, level of income and number of dependants, what do the Government expect that to cost? What discussions are being held between the Home Secretary, the Treasury and the Department for Work and Pensions on how these pressures will be met?