On 20 January, as Trump’s inauguration was taking place, a parliamentary petitions committee debated the current income requirements for family visas, which were hugely increased by the previous Conservative government.
A colossal increase in family visa costs
As Labour MP Irene Campbell, who led the debate, explained, a British citizen now needs to earn at least £29,000 in order to apply for a visa for an overseas partner – previously £18,600. The Conservatives increased the minimum income requirement (MIR) in April 2024 as part of their crackdown on legal migration, and it was due to be increased again to £38,700 this year.
84,000 family visas were issued in 2024, only 6% of total net migration for the year, hardly an overwhelming amount. Although Labour is also committed to bringing down migration figures, Home Secretary Yvette Cooper has currently stalled further increases to the MIR and ordered a nine-month review by the Migration Advisory Committee.
Apart from the financial implications, the emotional and social impact of this policy is huge, keeping families apart, with children bearing the brunt of separation. This is an issue close to home, as it will impact on my daughter, currently working overseas, if she and her foreign partner wish to settle in the UK.
The right to family life is being undermined
When Sunak announced the hike in MIR, there was an outcry from immigration charities and couples affected by the policy. Dr Madeleine Sumption from the Migration Observatory pointed out the disproportionate impact on those on lower income: “particularly women and younger people who tend to earn lower wages” and those living outside London. As Labour MP Grahame Morris highlighted in the debate, “Over a third of British women are currently ineligible to apply for a spousal visa.”
A petition against the proposed increases stated: “We believe this policy punishes those who fall in love with someone with a different nationality…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.” The petition reached over 100,000 signatures. A legal challenge has also been issued by campaign group Reunite Families UK against the policy.
The ‘right to family life’ is protected by the European Convention on Human Rights (article 8), but this right is now being undermined in post-Brexit Britain. A 2023 House of Lords’ report on family migration, All Families Matter, reported: “Applicants and sponsors can feel like second-class citizens.” This was confirmed by many MPs who spoke in the debate.
Reunite Families found that the MIR puts incredible strain on families, especially if they are split across countries; there is often a long wait – often more than seven years – to obtain a visa and reunite.
Only the rich can afford to fall in love
Irene Campbell reported Migration Observatory findings that: “Around 50% of the working population would be unable to qualify on earnings alone with the current income requirement of £29,000, and that 70% of the population earn less than £38,700 [the proposed increase].”
Many MPs who spoke in the Parliamentary debate talked about the inequity of the charge for those unable to afford it and gave numerous, often heart-rending examples of their constituents who were suffering under the current policy. These cases put the human face on otherwise anonymous figures.
Labour MP Simon Opher stressed that the policy has “torn families apart and inflicted hardship on ordinary people”. He and 25 other MPs have asked the Migration Advisory Committee, who are reviewing the policy, to lower the MIR to the national living wage. “The current policy means that family reunification is a luxury”, he added.
Carla Denyer, Green Party co-leader, called the family visa rules “a tax on love: an ugly policy” which is discriminatory and forces people who cannot afford the MIR to choose between being separated and moving to their partner’s home country. She called the policy a “cruel attempt to appear tough on migration” and urged the Government to get rid of it.
Scottish MP Seamus Logan, SNP, put it bluntly: “The Government are basically saying… ‘You can fall in love with whoever you wish, but if you want to marry a non-UK national and are not earning whatever arbitrary sum we decide, you will need to go and live somewhere else’.” He said the MIR was another indication of the hostile environment towards migrants.
A lone voice in the debate, who exemplified the negative rhetoric Logan was criticising, was Conservative MP Katie Lam. She claimed: “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.” Logan called this a “slur” on migrants.
UK is second to bottom for family reunification
The Migration Integration Policy Index, which measures immigration policies in 52 countries including the EU, puts the UK “second to bottom for family reunification policies”. Many countries have much lower MIR charges and some, like Australia, have no earnings requirements.
A key theme of the debate was the arbitrary nature of the MIR increase. Bringing the debate to a close, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Migration and Citizenship Seema Malhotra explained that Labour had inherited “utterly chaotic” systems in the Home Office and were collecting substantial evidence for the MIR review. “Any change must be underpinned by a solid evidence base and form part of a system that is fair, clear and consistent.” Two pieces of independent research on the issue have also been commissioned.
Malhotra concluded: “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.”
The extent of opposition to the MIR policy expressed by MPs of all parties (apart from the Conservatives) in the debate was encouraging. Let’s hope that the review of current requirements is indeed fair and balanced and, for the sake of families affected by this inhumane policy, that the further increase to income requirements planned by the previous Government is squashed.
A full record of the debate can be read on Hansard.
CLICK HERE TO DONATE TO OUR CROWDFUNDER
HELP US BECOME STRONGER SO THAT WE CAN CONTINUE TO DELIVER POWERFUL CITIZEN JOURNALISM!
