Stephen Timms
Main Page: Stephen Timms (Labour - East Ham)Partner and Spousal Visas: Minimum Income
Stephen Timms ExcerptsWestminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Sir Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir George. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) on securing this debate and on the very compelling case he made in opening it. I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Stroud (Siobhan Baillie), and I agree with a great deal of what she said.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central set out the changes that are proposed. When we started talking about all of this, the Prime Minister argued that anyone bringing dependants to the UK must be able to support them financially. We understand that point, but the changes that have been announced will take the minimum income requirement far beyond the income of most UK employees. It appears to be an arbitrary set of numbers, and it is a disproportionate increase with very unfair and harmful effects.
When the Home Secretary set out his plan, of which the increased minimum income threshold requirement was part, he said this was going to deliver
“the biggest ever reduction in net migration.”—[Official Report, 4 December 2023; Vol. 742, c. 41.]
He said that 300,000 people who came to the UK last year would not be able to do so. However, as we have been reminded, family visas accounted for only 5% of total entry visas between January and September last year. Family visas have not made up more than 10% of total entry visas for over a decade. The Government’s own analysis suggests that the increased minimum income requirement will cut migration by between 3% and 10% of the promised 300,000 reduction, and that is almost certainly an overestimate.
The truth is that increasing income thresholds on spousal visas will barely dent migration figures. It is extraordinary that the Government did not even consult the Migration Advisory Committee before announcing the change. It will not have much of an impact on migration—the Government’s own analysis confirms that—but it will cause great hardship for those affected. Thousands of people will have to live without their partners and thousands of children will have to live without a parent.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central pointed out that the Migrant Integration Policy Index places us second from bottom out of 56 for ease of family reunion. The Justice and Home Affairs Committee in the other place pointed out in its 2023 report “All families matter” the wider harm of reducing cohesion across society. Parents forced into single parenthood must reduce involvement in the wider community, and children separated from their parents by arbitrary rules that they cannot understand trust society less as a result. This is a spiteful change that will undermine cohesion in our society in the long term. Conservative politicians very often recognise the damage caused by breaking up families, but here they choose to break them up quite deliberately. We will all suffer the downsides for society that Conservative Members will readily enumerate in other contexts, but they are forcing those break-ups through these changes.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central pointed out that the Migration Observatory at Oxford University has shown that 70% to 74% of employees in the UK would not meet the £38,700 requirement. Surely the Government are not suggesting that only about a quarter of UK employees can support their dependants financially, but that appears to be the implication of their claims. Various other standards have been suggested in the debate, but, as my hon. Friend suggested, surely a better standard would be to ensure that anybody bringing dependants into the UK would have an income above the level at which they are ineligible for universal credit. That is a possible yardstick. As we have heard, Spain and the Netherlands apply a standard along those lines, and it is certainly well below £38,700.
The increase in the minimum income requirement goes far beyond the level to deliver the Government’s stated aims for the threshold. It will reduce migration only minimally, but it will cause great hardship to thousands and damage the fabric of our society. It will be ineffective, unfair and harmful, and it should be scrapped.
Tom Pursglove
I wanted to come to that point in the course of my response. On access to public funds, our position is that the MIR will prevent migrant partners from accessing public funds until they achieve settlement, when they would be entitled to access public funds should they be needed. They are not entitled to public funds on arrival, as has been said and acknowledged, but if they are destitute or at risk of destitution, if there are reasons relating to the welfare of a child, or if there are exceptional circumstances, that dynamic changes. Where we allow access, the applicant is likely to move to the 10-year route to settlement. That is where access to public funds is relevant.
The minimum income requirement has not been increased in line with inflation or real wages since its introduction, nor has it been adjusted in the light of rising numbers of migrants using the route. In that context, we have reviewed the threshold and taken the decision to raise it to match the level of income needed for someone to come here as a skilled worker—as Members will be aware, that is £38,700 per year—which ensures that migration policy is supportive of our wider ambition for the UK to be a high-wage, high-productivity, high-skill economy. That is the basis on which the level has been determined.
On the issue of consultation with the Migration Advisory Committee, we considered previous advice and evidence provided by the MAC regarding net fiscal contributions and access to benefits when we made the decision. We did not seek further advice from the MAC before making the decision to increase the MIR.
Tom Pursglove
I will give way briefly; I am conscious that there are a few more points to respond to.
Sir Stephen Timms
Why did the Minister not ask the Migration Advisory Committee for its views?
Tom Pursglove
Over recent months we have commissioned work from the Migration Advisory Committee on several fronts, including currently on the undergraduate route and to carry out a fuller review of the immigration salary list. There are, then, ongoing workstreams with the MAC. To make requests of it to consider areas of migration policy is within the gift of Ministers. We will keep that position under review, as we do with the entirety of our immigration system and the policy levers available to Government.
One key element that has not been reflected in the debate is the fact that we have recognised the need to allow families the time to plan effectively and to make arrangements to meet the relevant income requirement. That is why we are implementing the increase incrementally, and why it has not been applied retrospectively. The first increase, to £29,000, came into force on 11 April. A second planned increase will take the threshold to £34,500, with a third rise to at least £38,700 taking place by early 2025. That is one of two key areas of the policy that have not been given an airing today, along with consideration of the fact that the changes have not been applied retrospectively.
The other policy area to mention is the fact that we will continue to grant permission when to do otherwise would breach an applicant’s article 8 right—the right to family life under the European convention on human rights. Such an assessment involves considering whether there are insurmountable obstacles to family life between the applicant, their partner and their children continuing outside the UK. Caseworkers consider those factors as part of the decision-making process, to ensure that we get the right decisions in individual cases and that due and proper regard is given to all relevant circumstances.
I am always happy to debate the intricacies of our policies, but the reality is that net migration is too high. This Government have a policy to bring the numbers down by 300,000 in the way that I have described. A number of changes are now in motion, having been developed and announced, but after giving people time to adjust to them in advance of their coming into force. I believe we have a responsibility to reduce the numbers, and that is what our plan is designed to achieve, but the change is not retrospective and is being introduced incrementally, while the article 8 opportunity remains in the application process for people to be able to set out their circumstances so that the right decisions can be made in individual cases.