Family Visas: Income Requirement

Seamus Logan Excerpts

Monday 20th January 2025 Westminster Hall

[Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under you, Mr Pritchard. I thank the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for opening this important debate and the petitioners for succeeding in bringing the debate to the House today.

It is remarkable to be here in Westminster Hall and find such unanimity among Members from both sides of the Chamber—indeed, from all parties, it would appear. The current income requirement for family visas simply means that, in my constituency, social care positions go unfilled, the NHS struggles without the necessary workforce, and care packages are in some instances impossible to deliver, even though the funding is there. The additional money for the NHS and the overall Scottish budget is of course welcome, but money alone will not solve our problems. I remind hon. Members that the previous minimum salary threshold, before April 2024, was £18,600, so the increase brought in by the previous Government represents a significant increase in that requirement.

As has been said, would-be migrant workers are also hit by other rules, such as the extraordinary fees and the up-front health charges that provide yet another brutal barrier. It is not as though the Government’s stated intention of training local people to fill labour shortages has any hope of success. We are at virtually full employment in my constituency, but there are shortages in health and social care, in the farming and fishing sectors and in hospitality and tourism. Those are vital issues in my constituency, and I think the hon. Members for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) and for Bristol Central (Carla Denyer) would agree. This utterly unacceptable position is a betrayal, and it shows how vindictive the Tories were in their ill-fated and crude attempts to control migration numbers in the post-Brexit world. Remember, if we were still in the single market, we would not have this issue with the free movement of people.

Scotland is already suffering as a result of Westminster’s Brexit and migration policies, and the old Tory and now new Labour proposals will inevitably undermine our public services. It is interesting to note that the current leader of the Labour party in Scotland claims that he is in discussion with the Westminster Government about a bespoke Scottish visa; I welcome clarification from the Minister in her speech if that is the case. As a former colleague, Stuart McDonald, so eloquently put it last April:

“The Government are basically saying to many of our children and to future generations, ‘You can fall in love with whoever you wish, but if you want to marry a non-UK national and you are not earning whatever arbitrary sum we decide, you will need to go and live somewhere else. You can have the love of your life. You can have your country and the right to live here. But you can’t have both.’ That is just not normal.”—[Official Report, 23 April 2024; Vol. 748, c. 223WH.]

International students and academics make a contribution in excess of £5 billion annually to the Scottish economy. If the Government recognise the contribution of international students and academics, why would they defend this inherited policy that threatens to prevent future cohorts from making a similar contribution?

The SNP stands totally opposed to the current measures, never mind the increases or any potential increases. This is our motivation—and, it would appear, the motivation of the leader of the Scottish Labour party—for asking for devolved powers in this area. We have voted against these measures in the past, and we continue to call for immigration powers to be devolved to Scotland. I say again, for the avoidance of doubt, that money alone will not fix our problems. If the Labour Government want to reset our relationship with the European Union, here is one of the key areas to consider. We do not need simply to resist any increase in the earnings threshold; we need to bring it down.

Can the Minister defend the current salary threshold and explain its logic, given that she inherited this figure? I for one—as well as other Members and the wider public, I am certain, some of whom are watching this debate—would like to know the evidence on which it is based.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Seema Malhotra]

As always, the hon. Gentleman is welcome to catch me after the debate.

In relation to impact assessments, the previous Government published some initial analysis, which was referenced in the debate, on the volume impacts of the first stage of the minimum income requirement increase in December 2023, when the decision was announced. They committed to publishing the full analysis in the impact assessment, but that was not done when the rules changed or when the general election took place.

Impact assessments are important to enable scrutiny of the impact of the increase of the MIR. That is why we published the regulatory and equalities impact assessments for net migration measures under the previous Government in September and paused any further increases while the Migration Advisory Committee reviews the financial requirements in the family immigration rules. Once the MAC report has been received, a further equalities impact assessment will be completed to inform any further changes that are made.

To conclude, I thank hon. Members who have contributed to the debate. The Government’s position is clear: we support the right to family life and value the contribution that those from overseas make to our economy, public services and civic life. We recognise that that needs to be balanced as part of a fair, managed and controlled migration system.

[Seamus Logan]

The hon. Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam), speaking for the Opposition, described the public’s perception of these rules as being of great concern, as if there were a homogeneous view across the country. We know that is not the case: there is a different view in Scotland. During my speech I asked the Minister to confirm whether the leader of the Labour party in Scotland was in discussions with the Government regarding a bespoke Scottish visa. She has not answered that question yet, but I hope she will. Perhaps she can also confirm whether that might extend to partner visas as well.

[Seema Malhotra]

The hon. Member is right that views vary, but, in line with how the public see immigration, it is important that there should be a fair system that is controlled and well managed. It is extremely important for us to ensure we have controls around our system and not the utter chaos we saw under the last Government. Frankly, to say one thing and be doing almost the opposite is exactly what drives cynicism with politics and with control over immigration and our public services.

On the questions that the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan) has raised, I should say that I am in contact with a number of Members of the Scottish Parliament and other colleagues in the Scottish Parliament. The hon. Member will know our position because it is his colleagues who have raised the issue there. We will not be devolving immigration policy, because the issues that Scotland faces are the same issues faced in other areas. They also relate to labour market issues, whether that be pay, controls or conditions. It is important that we understand the issues, which is why I will visit Scotland in the near future. It is important to hear at first hand from those around the country, as we must have an immigration system that works for all parts of the United Kingdom.

The migration system and the MIR is an important issue. I recognise the concerns raised by hon. Members on different sides today and in the many pieces of correspondence I have received on this topic from Members, many of whom are here today. We must understand the impact of any potential further changes and ensure that policy in this area has a firm evidence base. I look forward to receiving the Migration Advisory Committee’s recommendations in the summer, which I am sure will inform the next steps we take and the debate in Parliament and across the country.