Family Visas: Income Requirement

I beg to move,

That this House has considered e-petition 652602 relating to the income requirement for family visas.

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Pritchard, on my first opportunity to present a debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee. I thank Shannon Korkmaz for launching this petition and starting a very important conversation that has allowed those affected to have their voices heard today. It is a great achievement that the petition gathered more than 100,000 signatures. It reads:

“We believe it’s inhumane for the Government to do this to British citizens and others entitled to family visas, and that this policy is punishing people for failing in love with someone who has a different nationality.”

The minimum income requirement for family visas was introduced in 2012, and at that time it was set at an annual income of £18,600. The coalition Government stated that the purpose of the policy was to ensure that family migrants are fully supported when integrating into the UK, while not being a burden on the taxpayer and public services. The figure of £18,600 in 2012 equated to £26,250 in December 2024, based on the Bank of England’s inflation calculator.

An individual needs a family visa to live with a family member in the UK for more than six months. The income threshold remained at £18,600 from 2012 until April 2024, when it was increased to £29,000. A person can apply for a family visa to live with a spouse, fiancé, child, parent or relative who will provide them with long-term care. Spouses on the family visa can stay in the UK for two years and nine months, while a fiancé can stay for six months. Income can be from employment or self-employment, cash savings above £16,000, money from a pension, or non-work income such as property rentals or dividends.

In April 2024, alongside a collection of other policies aimed at lowering net migration, the then Government raised the income threshold to £29,000. Their intention was to incrementally raise it to £34,500 and finally to £38,700 by early 2025, as highlighted in the petition. In response, the petitioners stated:

“Most people in the UK don’t make £38,700 per year and now may face the choice of a lifetime without their partner or leaving their own country because they fell in love and can’t meet the financial requirement for the family visa.

We believe it’s inhumane for the Government to do this to British citizens and others entitled to family visas”.

I will say more about that later.

Many of my constituents have signed the petition, and they say that they struggle to have a family life in the UK due to the previous Government’s 55% increase in the income requirement for family visas. That includes many individuals who work in charities or in public services and are giving back to our communities. Does my hon. Friend agree that those unattainable requirements make it disproportionately difficult for some families to be together?

I agree, and I will say a bit more about that later.

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for securing this important debate. Does she agree that the right to family life, which is rightly enshrined in article 8 of the European convention on human rights, is one of the most fundamental rights that individuals are afforded? Central to this debate is systemic inequality, such as the fact that women are still paid less than men due to entrenched structural pay disparities, and that young people who are in the early stages of their careers often earn less as they build their futures.

Systemic inequality also affects those from lower-income regions such as West Yorkshire and Bradford, which I represent. The hon. Lady will be aware that the Centre for Cities released a report this morning saying that those who live in places such as West Yorkshire, including my constituency, earn £20,000 less. Does she agree that the current system being considered by the Migration Advisory Committee should be scrapped, and that a fair requirement would be one in line with the national living wage?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention; much of what he has raised is in my opening speech.

Since the petition was launched, and following the general election last summer, the Government announced that the threshold would be held at £29,000 until the Migration Advisory Committee completes a new review, which is expected to be in June 2025. However, when an e-petition reaches 10,000 signatures, it gets a Government response, as this one did in January 2024. The then Government outlined their arguments as to why the minimum income requirement should be increased to £38,700, stating that the policy was part of a larger package intended to curb immigration and net migration. They added that the minimum income requirement was set with the intention that family migrants

“could be supported at a reasonable level…and to help ensure they can participate sufficiently in everyday life to facilitate their integration into British society.”

However, in early 2023, the House of Lords published a report called “All families matter: An inquiry into family migration”. It stated that

“applicants and sponsors can feel like second-class citizens and are reluctant or unable to take full part in British society before reaching settlement.”

It summarised:

“Current migration policies are at odds with the Government’s commitment to family life.”

It further stated that the family migration rules are “complex and inconsistent”, they fail “both families and society”, and they “should be simplified”.

The hon. Member said that the rules are counterproductive to family life. Does she agree that they are also counterproductive to growing our economy? In my constituency, where I have a number of signatories, the challenge is recruiting people into in-demand areas such as hospitality, research and dentistry. The rules are stopping the economic growth that we need.

I do not disagree with those comments.

In response to the proposed policy changes, the non-profit organisation Reunite Families UK filed an application for judicial review in June 2024, supported by the Good Law Project. It argued that the rise of the minimum income requirement to £38,700 was made without analysis and in breach of critical public law duties. Many migrants’ rights groups and campaigners have been outspoken against the minimum income requirement. In relation to the legal case, Caroline Coombs, the director of Reunite Families UK, who is in the Gallery today, said:

“In the last decade, this policy has somehow continued to exist under the radar devastating countless British and settled citizens and their partners, families and children. The general public have no idea this policy exists until sadly they come up against it”.

Furthermore, Reunite Families found that the minimum income requirement can prevent integration of mixed nationality families for myriad reasons. The rising financial costs of visas and savings lead to instability, and temporary visas also make it harder to secure housing, access education and secure appropriate employment. It is important to note that those on temporary visas cannot claim benefits and can access NHS services only by paying into the NHS through the immigration health surcharge—I will say more about that later.

Many people might say that this is an anti-family policy. Increasing the minimum income requirement can create single-parent families and put an incredible stress on all members of the family, particularly children. A British citizen abroad, for example, may have to return to the UK for a variety of reasons, such as a need to care for an elderly relative still residing in the UK. If they do not already meet the minimum income requirement, they may have to return to the UK alone and wait for an indefinite amount of time to reunite their family.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is even rarer for young people who come to this country to earn £38,700, which means that most of them are excluded under the proposed threshold?

I do agree.

To continue, an executive officer working in the Department for Work and Pensions earns £29,500, while an administrative officer’s salary in the civil service starts at £23,000. Nobody in any of those groups would qualify for the proposed minimum income requirement through their salary alone.

Indeed, the Migration Observatory, an independent group at the University of Oxford, estimated that around 50% of the UK working population would be unable to qualify on earnings alone with the current income requirement of £29,000, and that 70% of the working population earn less than £38,700. In addition, the charity Reunite Families UK has emphasised that the higher threshold affects women more than men, because women are more likely to have caring responsibilities and to earn less on average, and are also less likely to work full time. The median earnings of UK women who work full time are below £38,700 across all age groups; the highest median earnings figure is £35,250 for 40 to 49-year-olds.

The Migration Observatory also pointed out that the new set of policies would mean that, in certain circumstances, British workers in the same job as migrant workers would face stricter restrictions than migrant workers. For example, health professionals in the NHS who come to the UK on a health and care worker visa would be able to bring partners who are not UK citizens with them.

It is clear that the visa rules are long and complex, with many exceptions and differing prices for all circumstances. The family visa fee is £1,846 per person if the applicant is applying from outside of the UK and £1,258 per person if the applicant is applying from inside the UK. Those fees are non-refundable, so if an application is unsuccessful, the applicant is obviously not refunded.

In addition, there is the immigration health surcharge, for which the minimum cost for two and a half years is £2,587.50 for an adult and £1,940 for a child. If people are staying in the UK for two years and nine months, the charges rise to £3,105 for an adult and £2,328 for a child, and if they are staying for five years, they rise to £5,175 for an adult and £3,880 for a child. Reunite Families UK advises that the total cost of all those fees for a family on a five-year route to settlement can be over £10,000, while the total cost on a 10-year route can be around £20,000.

Does the hon. Member agree that if the Government feel that some minimum income requirement is necessary or appropriate, it should never be greater than that necessary to render an immigrant unable to claim benefits, as Theresa May’s original sum was intended to do?

I am trying to interpret the question. I am not sure whether I agree—I would need to fully consider it—so I will carry on.

The hon. Lady continues to make an excellent case and she is right to focus on the extortionate fees. She mentioned the current figure of over £10,000, which ordinary working families struggle to pay or simply cannot pay. She also referred to Reunite Families UK, which does excellent work and has said that 23% of families have to wait longer than seven years to be reunited. Does she agree that that continuing injustice needs to be addressed? Those are not just stats, but real people.

I agree, and this debate is an excellent opportunity for that.

It is also important to highlight that, while applications under the work routes can be processed in just 15 working days, family visas can take anywhere from eight weeks to 12 months. Often, families report requiring specialist legal advice to navigate the system successfully and to try to avoid those long waiting periods, which obviously has a financial impact as well, although I do not have any costs for that. Delaying arrival does not decrease net migration, but it does increase the personal and financial strain on families. It could be construed that the policy effectively views a relationship ending and a family splitting up as a positive outcome, because then at least net migration figures do not rise.

A Reunite Families UK survey also found that the rules have a profound effect on children, with 92% of respondents saying that their child’s mental health had been affected. The separation that many families are forced into exacerbates such problems, putting even more pressure on the single parent. Parents report that younger children often cannot understand why the family have been separated, while older children who do understand the system become anxious for their missing parent. It could be said that those children are growing up in a society that implicitly tells them that their family are not welcome here.

Compared with those of other countries, this family visa policy appears to be unusually strict. The Migrant Integration Policy Index, which measures immigration policies in 52 countries, including all EU member states and OECD countries, ranks the UK second to bottom for family reunification policies. Many countries with strong immigration policies do not have such a high minimum income requirement for family visas. For example, Australia has no earnings threshold for family visas, and Spain and the Netherlands require yearly income to equal annual social security payments. That highlights that our current system is not the only option.

Order. I welcome the children to the Gallery—I think this is the first time that I have seen children here. The Chair is neutral in the debate, but you are all very welcome.

Right hon. and hon. Members should bob, as some of you are doing, even if you are on the speaking list, so that the Clerks have your name. At the moment, there is no time limit, but I hope that hon. Members will bear one another in mind when speaking.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Pritchard. I thank the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for opening the debate, and Shannon for starting the petition. I am grateful to be able to speak here, on behalf of the hundreds of my constituents who signed this petition, to highlight the negative impacts of the previous Government’s policy to increase income requirements for family visas. Those negative impacts have been present since the inception of this income requirement, but were made substantially worse by the increase.

We are talking about a tax on love: an ugly policy that fundamentally discriminates against migrants’ families and implies that love, and family reunification, is a privilege that people must earn enough to afford. Just last week, I was contacted by a constituent who was forced to choose between being separated from his wife and moving to her home country of Taiwan. I will quote what he wrote to me after deciding to leave:

“Now in the UK we judge people by their country of origin and the content of their wallet... If you have money then you are welcome here, if you don’t, then don’t you dare fall in love with someone foreign.”

Is that really the country we want to be? As we have just heard, around half of UK employees earn less than the current income requirement of £29,000 a year, and as job offers and prospective earnings for the non-UK citizens are not included, meeting that requirement is made even more difficult for many couples from overseas who just want to be together. That is not to mention the regional inequality factor, as average salaries differ throughout the UK, so a person’s ability to love who they love may also depend on where in the UK they live and work.

I do appreciate and welcome the Government commissioning the Migration Advisory Committee to review this horrible rule, but I note with disappointment that in the meantime the income requirement remains in place. It is clear that the intention of this policy was not to benefit UK society, or even the economy; it is simply a cruel attempt to appear tough on migration. In fact, this policy harms society and public finances. There are cases where enforced separation has caused UK citizens to be reliant on state benefits, which they would not be if their partners were allowed to live with them. There are also often costs on the NHS and social services, as the trauma of families being forced and torn apart causes long-lasting mental health issues.