← Back to Westminster Hall Debates
Partner and Spousal Visas: Minimum Income
23 April 2024
Lead MP
Paul Blomfield
Sheffield Central
Lab
Responding Minister
Tom Pursglove
Tags
ImmigrationMigrants & BordersEmploymentStandards & Ethics
Word Count: 13450
Other Contributors: 12
At a Glance
Paul Blomfield raised concerns about partner and spousal visas: minimum income in Westminster Hall. A government minister responded.
Key Requests to Government:
The MP asks the Government to review their policy on spousal migration rules and consider fairer approaches. He suggests suspending planned increases for this year and 2025 until a comprehensive review is conducted.
How the Debate Unfolded
MPs spoke in turn to share their views and ask questions. Here's what each person said:
Lead Contributor
The MP is concerned about the Government's approach to migration policy, particularly regarding partner and spousal visas. He highlights that the minimum income threshold changes announced in December have significant consequences for families, with many unable to afford the £29,000 threshold required for a visa extension. The impact assessment has not been published, raising questions about transparency. Additionally, the MP notes that certain professions such as nurses and teachers fall below these thresholds, disproportionately affecting young people, women, minorities, and those in lower-income regions like Yorkshire and the Humber.
Afzal Khan
Lab
Manchester Rusholme
Afzal Khan expressed concern that the policy on family-related visas is likely to be discriminatory against ethnic minorities, particularly British Asians. He noted that workers of Pakistani heritage have the lowest median hourly pay and are less likely to meet the minimum income threshold.
Alison Thewliss
SNP
Glasgow Central
She opposes the higher threshold for partner and spousal visas, arguing it is discriminatory and causes distress among constituents. She highlights how the proposed £38,700 income requirement impacts individuals working in lower-paid but valuable sectors such as hospitality and academia, potentially deterring skilled immigrants from coming to Scotland. Thewliss also mentions a case of a researcher with children who found the system too expensive and unwelcoming.
Alistair Carmichael
Lib Dem
Orkney and Shetland
Alistair Carmichael discussed how young people in his community often leave for education, meet partners from abroad, and wish to return. He argued that such relationships enrich communities economically and socially. Alistair Carmichael intervened to stress that the current policy on spousal visas has become overly complex with numerous exceptions. He suggested a need for simplification, designing policies based on people's needs rather than political purposes.
Arfon
Hywel Williams highlighted the discriminatory nature of the Government's proposed minimum income threshold for partner and spousal visas, arguing that it disproportionately affects women and ethnic minorities due to lower earnings. He pointed out that median incomes in Wales are £32,371, which will soon fall short of the new threshold of £38,700. Williams questioned how the Government justifies a criterion that discriminates against specific groups and most people in Wales.
Jim Shannon
DUP
Strangford
Jim Shannon expressed his support for those affected by the visa income threshold issue, noting its critical importance in Northern Ireland due to lower incomes compared to the rest of the UK. He acknowledged having fought spousal and partner cases involving countries such as South Africa and the US where financial criteria were significant. He apologised for intervening again, noting the average wage in Northern Ireland is £28,939 and many earn less. He suggested that the Minister should seek opinions from the Northern Ireland Assembly, Scottish Parliament, and Welsh Assembly to get a realistic perspective on figures.
Margaret Greenwood highlighted constituents' distress over the visa legislation and quoted a constituent who described it as having 'discriminatory, classist overtones'. She emphasized that the policy affects people trying to go about their lives normally. Margaret Greenwood refuted the argument that immigrants are a burden on the state, citing studies showing their positive contributions to society.
Olivia Blake
Lab
Sheffield Hallam
Blake highlighted the human cost of the increased minimum income threshold for spousal visas, citing a constituent named Elena who needs £88,500 in savings to bring her family to the UK. She questioned the fairness and impact on British nationals and their families, noting that 88% of respondents in a survey were separated for over a year due to immigration rules.
Siobhan Baillie
Con
Bristol West
Siobhan Baillie highlighted the case of Rebecca Gray, a constituent who lived in Turkey with her Turkish husband to care for his terminally ill mother and now faces financial difficulties due to visa salary requirements. She also mentioned another South African constituent concerned about the high cost of spousal visas and citizenship fees. Asks if Labour plans to scrap the net migration package, expressing confusion over Labour's position as it was not clear from previous contributions.
Stephen Kinnock
Lab
Aberafan Maesteg
Criticised the Government's decision to raise the spousal visa income threshold from £18,600 to £38,700 without an evidence base. Highlighted concerns over the lack of impact assessment and transparency. Emphasised the importance of making informed decisions based on thorough analysis. Responds that the Government is afraid of scrutiny without providing specifics.
Stephen Timms
Lab
East Ham
I agree with the previous speaker and highlight that the proposed changes to the minimum income requirement for partner visas will disproportionately affect UK employees, as only a quarter would meet the £38,700 threshold. The Government's own analysis suggests these changes will barely impact migration rates but will cause significant hardship for families.
Stuart McDonald
SNP
Glasgow South West
The Government's policy on partner and spousal visas is making it more difficult for couples to live together, particularly those who are not earning a high income. Stuart McDonald highlighted the negative impact of these rules on families, especially children separated from parents living abroad. He criticised the arbitrary nature of the thresholds set by the government, questioning their logic and legality. Questions the Minister about whether public opinion research has been conducted on the proposals and challenges the use of public opinion to justify policies.
Tim Farron
Lib Dem
Westmorland and Lonsdale
The increased minimum income requirement for partner and spousal visas is cruel, unconservative, and based on no meaningful evidence. It will cause significant economic and social harm, particularly in regions like Cumbria, by forcing British citizens into solo parenting, impacting care and hospitality industries, and making it harder to integrate mixed-nationality families. The policy will exacerbate shortages in the workforce and limit business growth. Furthermore, 79% of women and 61% of men will not meet the minimum income requirement, leading up to two-thirds of overseas staff leaving Cumbria.
Government Response
Tom Pursglove
Government Response
It is a pleasure to serve under the chairmanship of Sir George Howarth. I congratulate Paul Blomfield on securing this debate, acknowledging it as an important issue with varied opinions from Members. The minister highlights that net migration in the year to June 2023 was estimated at 672,000 and stresses the need for decisive action to bring it down by tightening rules on care workers and skilled workers, ensuring support for family members being brought over. He argues that the policy will address the injustice of a system enabling employers to recruit cheap labour from overseas at the expense of British workers while putting unsustainable pressure on public services.
The minister emphasises that seeing 120,000 dependants come with 100,000 care workers is unsustainable. He mentions tackling illegal migration and passing legislation to combat criminal gangs involved in people smuggling, noting tragic consequences this morning. The decision to raise the Minimum Income Requirement (MIR) to £38,700 per year aligns with the aim of a high-wage, high-skill economy. The minister states that the MIR will prevent migrant partners from accessing public funds until they achieve settlement status.
He notes ongoing workstreams with the Migration Advisory Committee on several fronts and highlights implementing the MIR increase incrementally without applying it retrospectively. Additionally, he mentions granting permission when to do otherwise would breach an applicant's article 8 right under the European convention on human rights. The minister concludes by asserting that reducing net migration numbers is a Government responsibility.
▸
Assessment & feedback
Summary accuracy
About Westminster Hall Debates
Westminster Hall debates are a chance for MPs to raise important issues affecting their constituents and get a response from a government minister. Unlike Prime Minister's Questions, these debates are more in-depth and collaborative. The MP who secured the debate speaks first, other MPs can contribute, and a minister responds with the government's position.