Financial (minimum income) requirement for UK partner/spouse visas explained in updated House of Commons Library report

House of Commons
Library

The financial (minimum income) requirement for partner visas

Research Briefing

13 January 2025

By Melanie Gower, CJ McKinney, Terry McGuinness

Summary
1 What is the financial requirement?
2 How is the financial requirement satisfied?
3 Scrutiny and opposition
4 Recent and future developments
Annex: sources of information and advice for constituents

commonslibrary.parliament.uk

Number 6724

Contributing Authors
Grace Alston; Joe Tyler-Todd

Image Credits
ring / yüzük by M. G. Kafkas. Licensed under CC BY 2.0 / image cropped.

Disclaimer
The Commons Library does not intend the information in our research publications and briefings to address the specific circumstances of any particular individual. We have published it to support the work of MPs. You should not rely upon it as legal or professional advice, or as a substitute for it. We do not accept any liability whatsoever for any errors, omissions or misstatements contained herein. You should consult a suitably qualified professional if you require specific advice or information. Read our briefing 'Legal help: where to go and how to pay' for further information about sources of legal advice and help. This information is provided subject to the conditions of the Open Parliament Licence.

Sources and subscriptions for MPs and staff
We try to use sources in our research that everyone can access, but sometimes only information that exists behind a paywall or via a subscription is available. We provide access to many online subscriptions to MPs and parliamentary staff, please contact hoclibraryonline@parliament.uk or visit commonslibrary.parliament.uk/resources for more information.

Feedback
Every effort is made to ensure that the information contained in these publicly available briefings is correct at the time of publication. Readers should be aware however that briefings are not necessarily updated to reflect subsequent changes.

If you have any comments on our briefings please email papers@parliament.uk. Please note that authors are not always able to engage in discussions with members of the public who express opinions about the content of our research, although we will carefully consider and correct any factual errors.

You can read our feedback and complaints policy and our editorial policy at commonslibrary.parliament.uk. If you have general questions about the work of the House of Commons email hcenquiries@parliament.uk.

Contents
Summary
1 What is the financial requirement?
1.1 Why was the financial requirement introduced?
1.2 Why was it £18,600?
2 How is the financial requirement satisfied?
2.1 What kinds of income count?
2.2 Are there any exceptions?
3 Scrutiny and opposition
3.1 Calls to change the policy
3.2 Parliamentary scrutiny
3.3 Legal challenge
3.4 Number of people affected
4 Recent and future developments
4.1 Increase to £29,000 from April 2024
4.2 Reaction and discussion in Parliament
4.3 Why £29,000?
4.4 Labour government's position: pause and review
Annex: sources of information and advice for constituents

Summary

People who want to sponsor a foreign spouse or partner for a visa must usually show available maintenance funds equivalent to an income of at least £29,000 per year. This is known as the 'financial requirement' or 'minimum income requirement'.

The financial requirement applies to sponsors who are British citizens or have permanent residence (indefinite leave to remain) in the UK. There are different rules for migrants bringing their partner to the UK on a dependant visa.

Most sponsors need to earn the equivalent of £29,000 a year (previously £18,600)

The Coalition government introduced the financial requirement in July 2012, as part of changes designed to reduce net migration. It said families should be able to support themselves without being a burden on the general taxpayer. The income threshold was £18,600 from 2012 to 2024.

In most cases the financial requirement can only be met by relying on particular sources of income and funding described in the immigration rules. There are complicated rules and conditions.

For example, if the couple are relying on employment income, usually only the sponsor's income counts. The visa applicant's employment income can only be considered if the person is already working in the UK legally and is switching to a partner visa or extending one previously granted.

There can be some flexibility in exceptional circumstances if a visa refusal would breach the couple's human rights. In addition, the requirement does not apply if the sponsor receives certain disability-related welfare benefits.

Critics object to the policy on principle and to the way it works in practice

Migrants' rights groups and other interested parties consider the minimum income requirement unfair. A central objection is that it prevents British citizens on lower incomes from sponsoring their foreign spouse or partner. Roughly half of employees in the UK earn less than £29,000 per year.

Critics also highlight specific aspects or effects of the policy. These include its uneven regional and demographic impacts and the strict evidential requirements. The impact on immigration numbers is unknown but may be in the tens of thousands.

The £18,600 threshold was tested in court. In February 2017, the Supreme Court upheld the lawfulness of the minimum income requirement in principle but made findings that required the rules to be changed to allow some extra flexibility.

The policy has attracted considerable parliamentary interest since its introduction in 2012. The House of Lords Justice and Home Affairs Committee called for it to be reformed in a 2023 report.

The Sunak government's changes in 2024 led to renewed public and parliamentary scrutiny. MPs will next debate the policy on 20 January 2025 in Westminster Hall.

The Labour government is holding the income threshold at £29,000 pending a review

The Conservative government increased the financial requirement from £18,600 per year to £29,000 in April 2024. It had planned to raise it again to around £34,000 later in 2024, and then to around £38,700 in early 2025. Ministers argued that immigration is too high and foreign partners should not be a burden on the state.

The increases were not retrospective, so people who already had or applied for a spouse/partner visa before 11 April 2024 will only ever need to meet the old £18,600 threshold in future applications. But first-time applicants since 11 April 2024 have been subject to the £29,000 threshold.

Upon taking office in July 2024, the Labour government announced an independent review. Home Secretary Yvette Cooper asked the Migration Advisory Committee to examine the level of the income threshold, noting that the policy intention is to "maintain the economic wellbeing of the UK whilst respecting family life".

The committee is due to report in June 2025. The financial requirement will remain at £29,000 in the meantime.

1 What is the financial requirement?

British people who want to sponsor a foreign spouse or partner to live in the UK on a family visa must usually show available maintenance funds equivalent to an income of at least £29,000 per year. [1]

The financial requirement only applies when the sponsor is British or settled in the UK (indefinite leave to remain or equivalent). Migrants entering the UK on a work visa can usually bring their immediate family, and the financial requirement does not apply, although earning a minimum salary is often a condition of the work visa in the first place.

Home Office decision-makers can grant the visa even if the sponsor does not satisfy the financial requirement, if there are exceptional circumstances such that refusing the visa could raise human rights issues (see section 2.2 below).

The financial requirement must also be satisfied when the person renews their visa (usually once, after two and a half years) and when they apply for settlement (usually after five years).

1.1 Why was the financial requirement introduced?

The financial requirement came into effect on 9 July 2012, as part of a broader package of changes to family visas. [2] Before making the changes, the Coalition government had conducted a public consultation and commissioned a report from the Migration Advisory Committee. [3] The income threshold was £18,600.

The Coalition's rationale for introducing a fixed financial requirement was that family migrants and their British/settled sponsors should have sufficient financial resources to be able to support themselves and participate in society without being a burden on other taxpayers. [4] It considered that the immigration rules in place before 2012 were insufficient for these objectives. [5] Subsequent governments have continued to explain the policy in these terms.

As with most categories of temporary visa, people who come to the UK on a spouse/partner visa are usually ineligible for most social welfare benefits and public housing. This is known as having 'no recourse to public funds'. [6]

The Coalition's aim for its wider visa policy changes was to reduce annual net migration (the number of immigrants minus the number of emigrants) from hundreds of thousands to tens of thousands. [7]

1.2 Why was it £18,600?

The threshold was originally set at £18,600 after the Coalition government considered advice from the Migration Advisory Committee (MAC).

The MAC's report recommended a minimum gross income threshold of between £18,600 and £25,700 per year. The range reflected different approaches to calculating when someone would cease to be a burden on the state, with £18,600 the threshold on one methodology and £25,700 the threshold on another.

The lower threshold of £18,600 represented the level of annual gross pay above which a couple would not receive any income-related benefits. [8] The MAC estimated that 45% of sponsors would fall short of the lower threshold amount and 64% of sponsors would not satisfy the upper threshold. [9] The government chose the £18,600 option.

The Coalition said that it expected to review the level of the financial requirement annually. [10] In the event, it remained at £18,600 until 2024 (although the Conservative Party's 2017 general election manifesto had committed to increasing the threshold). [11]

In April 2024, the Sunak government increased the threshold to its current level of £29,000 (see section 4 below). This time the MAC was not involved.

2 How is the financial requirement satisfied?

Various sources of income and funding can be used to meet the financial requirement, although there are conditions and restrictions.

One important restriction is that the visa applicant's employment income can only be taken into account if they are already in the UK with permission to work (that is, if they are applying to 'switch' immigration category or extend an existing partner visa). Otherwise, only the sponsor's employment income can be considered for the initial visa application. This condition has prevented some British people from being able to return to the UK with their partner.

2.1 What kinds of income count?

Only income from sources that are specified in Appendix FM-SE to the Immigration Rules can be considered when assessing whether an application satisfies the financial requirement. The five acceptable income sources are:

• Employment income, from the sponsor only (unless the visa applicant is already in the UK with permission to work).

• Self-employment income, or income as a company director, from the sponsor only (unless the visa applicant is already in the UK with permission to work).

• Certain non-employment income from either party, such as from renting property, share dividends, child maintenance and others.

• Cash savings from either party, but only above £16,000 and divided by 2.5 as described below.

• Pension income from either party. [12]

Some combinations of these sources are allowed in order to meet the financial requirement, but certain combinations are not. For example, cash savings can be combined with income from salaried and non-salaried employment in certain circumstances, but cannot be combined with income from self-employment.

There are more detailed rules on each of these permitted income sources. For example:

• If the sponsor is in the UK and relying on their employment income, they must be in employment at the point of application (with a gross annual salary which meets the financial requirement alone or combined with other permitted sources) and either:

– have been so continuously for the previous six months, or

– if employed for less than six months, have also received over the previous 12 months the level of income required through gross salaried income and/or other permitted sources.

• If the sponsor has been living overseas and is returning to the UK with the applicant, they must have a verifiable job offer or signed contract of employment to start work within three months of their return (with an annual salary which meets the financial requirement on its own or in conjunction with other permitted sources). They must also either:

– be in employment overseas at the point of application (with a gross annual salary which meets the financial requirement alone or in combination with other permitted sources) and have been so continuously for at least the previous six months; or

– have received the level of income required over the previous 12 months through gross salaried income and/or other permitted sources. [13]

The applicant's prospective earnings from a confirmed job offer do not count unless there are exceptional circumstances (see section 2.2 below). [14]

Making up a shortfall through cash savings

Cash savings must have been held under the control of the applicant and/or the sponsor for at least six months prior to the date of application. [15] The savings can be a gift from a third party, such as a parent. [16]

The first £16,000 in cash savings are not taken into account. This is because people can still be eligible for income-related benefits with savings of up to £16,000. [17]

When applying for the initial spouse/partner visa, or for an extension, the amount of cash savings that can count towards the income requirement is calculated by dividing the amount of savings over £16,000 by 2.5. When applying for indefinite leave to remain (after five years), cash savings over £16,000 count in full.

In practice, therefore, when applying for a spouse/partner visa or visa extension:

• £88,500 in cash savings is required if no other income sources are being used to meet the financial requirement: (88,500-16,000) / 2.5 = 29,000.

• £33,000 in cash savings is required if the sponsor's income is £22,200, in order to make up the £6,800 shortfall: (33,000-16,000) / 2.5 = 6,800. [18]

Evidence needed

The immigration rules and associated policy guidance also specify what pieces of evidence must be submitted to prove that different types of income exist. For example, an application relying on the sponsor's income from salaried employment in the UK must provide:

• Wage slips covering the required six or 12 months;

• A letter from the employer(s) who issued the wage slips, confirming the person's employment, gross annual salary and certain other details; and

• Bank statements covering the same period as the wage slips, showing that the salary has been paid into the sponsor's personal account or the couple's joint account. [19]

For rental income, the evidence is title deeds, bank statements and a rental agreement, and so on for the different categories of income.

Armed forces cases

There is a lower financial requirement for sponsors in the military. Instead of £29,000, the threshold is £23,496. [20] This was set to match the starting salary for a member of the armed forces, which was £23,496 in 2023/24 (it has since increased). [21]

Otherwise, the rules on the financial requirement are largely the same as for civilian families. The main difference is that spouses/partners of armed forces members can get a five-year visa from the outset (rather than the usual two and a half years). This affects the way in which cash savings are calculated. [22]

2.2 Are there any exceptions?

Pre-Brexit partners of EU citizens

People granted permission to stay in the UK under the EU Settlement Scheme may have special family reunion rights. The spouse or partner of a person with EU pre-settled or settled status does not need to apply for a normal spouse/partner visa, but only if the couple were married or in a durable partnership before 31 December 2020 (the effective date of Brexit). [23] If the marriage or durable partnership does predate Brexit, the couple can get a free EU Settlement Scheme family permit instead of a visa, and there is no financial requirement. [24]

Otherwise, the couple would need to apply for a normal spouse/partner visa and satisfy the financial requirement.

People on benefits

The financial requirement does not apply if the sponsor is in receipt of Carer's Allowance or certain disability-related benefits. Instead, the sponsor must demonstrate that they have "adequate maintenance" funds in place, in line with the approach taken before the minimum income requirement was introduced. [25] If the sponsor's circumstances change, the normal financial requirement would apply in subsequent applications.

Benefits exempting a visa sponsor from the financial requirement

• Disability Living Allowance

• Severe Disablement Allowance

• Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit

• Attendance Allowance

• Carer's Allowance

• Personal Independence Payment

• Armed Forces Independence Payment or Guaranteed Income Payment under the Armed Forces Compensation Scheme

• Constant Attendance Allowance, Mobility Support or War Disablement Pension under the War Pensions Scheme

• Police Injury Pension

• Child Disability Payment

• Adult Disability Payment [26]

Exceptional circumstances

If an application does not satisfy the financial requirement, visa officials must go on to consider whether, based on information provided by the applicant, there are "exceptional circumstances".

The test of exceptional circumstances is met if refusing the visa could or would breach Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (the right to private and family life) because of "unjustifiably harsh consequences" for the family.

• If the financial requirement cannot be satisfied from the sources specified in the Immigration Rules but refusal could breach Article 8, decision-makers can allow the couple to count a wider range of income sources towards the threshold. [27] For example, a guarantee of support from a parent, or credible prospective earnings from the applicant's future work in the UK. [28]

• If the financial requirement (and/or certain other requirements) cannot be satisfied but refusal would result in a breach of Article 8 rights, the visa must be granted. [29]

Applicants granted a visa on this basis do not have to satisfy the minimum income requirement again in future extension applications, but only become eligible to apply for indefinite leave to remain in the UK after ten years (rather than five years as is the case for other partner visa holders). They can apply to switch to start a five-year route to settlement during the ten-year qualifying period if they become able to satisfy the financial requirement through the usual sources specified in the immigration rules. [30]

Home Office caseworker guidance states that applications must satisfy a high threshold in order to come within these provisions. [31]

What makes a case exceptional?

There is no hard and fast rule on when a couple's circumstances will be exceptional, or what counts as "unjustifiably harsh consequences". It depends on the individual situation. [32]

The Home Office guidance defines unjustifiably harsh consequences as "ones which involve a harsh outcome or outcome for the applicant or their family which is not justified by the public interest…". It notes that "where family life is formed or exists with a person outside the UK who has no right to enter the UK and does not meet the requirements of the rules for entry clearance, Article 8 does not require that they be granted entry, in the absence of such exceptional circumstances". [33]

Caseworkers are told to consider what prevents the couple from remaining overseas to maintain their family life together. [34] If family life can be carried on outside the UK, this makes it very difficult to establish that the couple have a right to come to the UK outside the normal rules. [35]

The guidance goes on to list potentially relevant factors in weighing up whether or not a case is exceptional:

• The best interests of a relevant child

• Ability to lawfully remain in or enter another country

• The nature and extent of the family relationships involved (such as length of cohabitation if the couple are unmarried)

• Where relevant, the circumstances giving rise to the applicant being separated from their partner and or/child in the UK (such as whether the family previously lived together overseas and could do so again)

• The likely impact on the applicant, their partner and/or child if the application is refused

• Any serious cultural barriers to relocation overseas

• The impact of a disability or serious illness which requires ongoing medical treatment

• The absence of governance or security in another country

• The immigration status of the applicant [36]

Two case studies in which unjustifiably harsh consequences might arise are given:

The applicant and their partner [the sponsor] have a child in the UK with serious mental health or learning difficulties, and independent medical evidence establishes that good treatment and learning support are in place for the child here which would not be available in the country where the applicant resides.

The applicant's partner has a genuine and subsisting parental relationship with a child in the UK of a former relationship, is taking an active role in the child's upbringing, and the particular circumstances of the case mean that (taking into account the child's best interests as a primary consideration) it would be unjustifiably harsh to expect the child to relocate overseas with the applicant's partner, or for the applicant's partner to do so without the child.

There are also examples of circumstances not likely to count as unjustifiably harsh, such as inability to speak the language in the country to which the family would have to move, or separation from extended family members in the UK.

3 Scrutiny and opposition

Migrants' rights groups and other interested parties consider the minimum income requirement unfair. A central objection is that it prevents British citizens on lower incomes from bringing a foreign spouse or partner to the UK.

There was intense debate about the policy when it was first introduced under the 2010-2015 Coalition government. Interest had waned in recent years, partly because inflation had reduced the impact of an £18,600 income threshold. [37] The recent increase to £29,000, and possibility of further changes, has led to renewed public and parliamentary scrutiny.

There has also been legal action. In 2017, the Supreme Court upheld the lawfulness of the minimum income requirement in principle but made findings that required the rules to be changed to allow some extra flexibility.

3.1 Calls to change the policy

Various civil society organisations have campaigned against the financial requirement. These include the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants, Migrants' Rights Network and Reunite Families UK.

Criticism is often on principle: that it is unfair for a British citizen's right to live in the UK with a foreign partner to depend on their income. [38] As expressed by one campaigner:

When my Turkish husband, Medet, and I first met in Istanbul in 2010, it never crossed my mind that we might not have a choice about where to live.

Like many people with the luxury of never previously dealing with the UK's immigration system, it simply didn't occur to me then that – as a British citizen – I might not have the right to make a life together with my husband in the country where I was born and raised. [39]

There has also been criticism of specific aspects or impacts of the policy. These include the level of the threshold; its uneven impacts on particular parts of the UK and certain demographic groups; the restrictiveness of the evidential requirements; the effect on family life; and the fiscal impact.

Should the threshold be above minimum wage?

At introduction in 2012, the £18,600 threshold was significantly higher than full-time earnings at the then minimum wage level. A Home Office impact assessment noted that around 40-45% of UK residents earned less than £18,600. [40] A 2015 report by the Children's Commissioner for England said that (relative to earnings) the UK financial requirement was then the highest in the world. [41]

Increases to the minimum wage since 2012 meant that someone working full time would usually meet the old £18,600 threshold. But the increase to £29,000 means that the financial requirement is back above full-time earnings at minimum wage.

The Immigration Law Practitioners' Association has noted that the £29,000 threshold is higher than the salaries offered for professional but junior roles in the NHS and the Home Office itself. [42]

Should the threshold reflect regional differences?

Some have argued that there should be variable income thresholds to reflect differences in wages across the UK (and overseas).

While 16% of British employees in London did not earn enough to sponsor a partner/spouse visa in 2022, this rose to 30% for those in Yorkshire and Humberside, according to the Oxford University Migration Observatory.

Around a quarter of employees in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland did not meet the £18,600 threshold. [43] This will be mostly people working part- time or not at all.

The Migration Advisory Committee's 2011 report did not consider these arguments in detail, but said that it did not see a clear case for differentiation. It believed that a single national threshold provided clarity and simplicity for applicants and Home Office staff.

The committee also argued that regional thresholds would be difficult to enforce, since there would be a risk that some sponsors would temporarily move to an area with a lower income threshold until the visa had been granted. [44] The Conservative government shared this view. [45]

Does the policy discriminate against certain groups?

Campaigners worry that certain demographic groups are particularly affected by the financial requirement. In December 2023, Reunite Families UK said that the effects of the policy were felt "disproportionately" by women, young people, employees outside of London or the South East, and "working single parents (usually mothers)". [46]

The Migration Observatory's 2023 research found that while 16% of British males working as employees did not earn enough to sponsor a partner/spouse visa, this rose to 35% for their female counterparts. 25% of white employees earned below £18,600; this figure was 28% for non-white employees. The research further found that 27% of British nationals in their 20s were unlikely to earn enough (compared to 18% of those aged 30 to 44, and 25% of those aged 45 to 64). [47]

In 2017 the Supreme Court recognised that sponsors who were female or from certain ethnic groups or regions of the UK are "disproportionately affected" by the requirement, but said that this did not mean that it was unlawful. [48]

The Home Office has published an equality impact assessment of the change from £18,600 to £29,000. [49]

Are the evidential requirements too restrictive?

BritCits and the Centre for Care at the University of Sheffield, in 2022 written evidence to the House of Lords Justice and Home Affairs Committee, described the evidential requirements as "highly complex". [50] The restrictions on permissible income sources have been relaxed for cases raising human rights issues, but there is no such for standard applications.

Successive governments have resisted widening the range of permissible income sources. Ministers have said, for example, that offers of third-party support are vulnerable to changes in circumstances or relationships, and that employment prospects and promises of employment in the UK may be difficult to verify and are no guarantee of getting a job. [51]

Was the cost/benefit assessment accurate?

There has been wider debate around the economic impact of the requirement, and how this was initially calculated. The Home Office's impact assessment in 2012 estimated that the financial requirement would bring an overall net benefit of £660 million over ten years. [52]

Academics at Middlesex University have argued that the Coalition government did not take into account the loss of the wider economic benefits of migrant partners' work in the UK. [53] The Coalition did not accept these conclusions. [54]

Is the impact on family life justified?

Some families affected by the financial requirement argue that the rules undermine self-sufficiency and family unity. There have been accounts of families enduring prolonged periods of separation. [55] Research by the Children's Commissioner estimated that 15,000 children were separated from a parent from 2012 to 2015 because of the requirement. [56]

It has also been argued that the policy has been counterproductive in relation to its objectives of promoting "integration and community cohesion" and reducing "burdens on the taxpayer". [57]

Firstly, civil society organisations have said that meeting the threshold has required people to work long hours (or multiple jobs), which hinders their ability to integrate. [58] Secondly, there are some testimonies suggesting sponsors have needed recourse to public funds which might not have been necessary if their partner had been able to join them in the UK. [59]

In 2020 the MAC said that it was concerned that previous analysis had given "too much weight to the fiscal contribution of such migrants and insufficient attention to the benefits that accrue, to both the family and society". [60]

3.2 Parliamentary scrutiny

The financial requirement has attracted considerable parliamentary interest since its introduction in 2012. [61]

In June 2013 the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Migration recommended an independent review to consider whether the policy "represent[s] an appropriate balance between the different interests in this area". [62] The Coalition government rejected this idea, saying it was satisfied that the family immigration rules were operating as intended, but that it would keep their impact under review. [63]

The House of Lords Justice and Home Affairs Committee published a report on family migration in February 2023. The committee did not "receive any evidence suggesting that the financial requirement is achieving its aims". It recognised, however, that "to foster social cohesion, families need sufficient resources", arguing that this should be set at around benefits level. This financial requirement should then have a more flexible focus on the family's prospective future earnings rather than the sponsor's past income. [64]

The government rejected this, saying that the purpose of the requirement was to ensure that thresholds are fairly and consistently applied. A threshold linked to future income would also be harder to evidence and assess. This could lead to people arriving in the UK with a sponsor unable to support them, "leaving them either in danger of destitution or seeking to access public funds to avoid this". [65]

Chapter 5 of the report considered the evidential requirements for family migration policies more generally. It found that the complexity of the rules meant that "applications are not straightforward for caseworkers to process and applicants may submit poorly presented applications". [66] To this end, it recommended that applicants be given a variety of ways to demonstrate they meet a requirement, and that the rules be made "more accommodating of minor errors". [67]

MPs will next debate the policy on 20 January 2025 in Westminster Hall.

3.3 Legal challenge

The lawfulness of the £18,600 minimum income threshold was tested in court. The Supreme Court ultimately held the requirement to be acceptable in principle. The fact that the minimum income requirement may cause hardship did not, the court found, render it unlawful. [68]

In line with the lower courts, the Supreme Court rejected the argument that there was no rational connection between the legitimate aims of the minimum income policy and the specific threshold chosen. It described the MAC's approach as "a model of economic rationality". [69]

The justices did find that the relevant Immigration Rules and policy guidance unlawfully failed to take proper account of the Secretary of State's legal duty to take account of children's best interests. [70] They also held that there should be more flexibility on the sources of funding allowed to count towards the threshold. [71]

MM, one of the appellants, illustrated the issue with inflexible rules excluding the applicant's prospective earnings and offers of support from third parties:

The most striking example, in the cases before us, is found in that of MM and his wife… On the face of it there is a strong case on the merits for admitting her consistently with the general objectives of the new rules. The couple have no realistic prospect of living together in any other country, and, although his earnings on their own are below [£18,600], she is a pharmacist with good prospects of finding skilled employment here, and they have apparently credible promises of support from other family members. They are unlikely to be a burden on the state, or unable, due to lack of resources, to integrate. Yet the strict application of the rules will exclude them. [72]

In order to reflect the judgment, the Home Office adjusted the policy in respect of children and permitted sources of funds. [73] The changes took effect on 10 August 2017. [74]

In June 2024, Reunite Families UK began a legal challenge to the planned £38,700 threshold. [75]

3.4 Number of people affected

In 2018, the Migration Observatory looked into the number of people prevented from coming to the UK because of the financial requirement but concluded that this number "cannot be known". [76]

There were two main reasons for this. First, data is not available on the reasons for a spouse/partner visa application being refused. Second, the number of people who did not apply at all because they knew themselves to be ineligible can never be known.

The analysis did try to provide an "approximate sense of the scale". It used four different approaches, each of which suggested that "the figure is likely to be in the tens of thousands".

The impact assessment produced by the Home Office in 2012 had estimated that the financial requirement would reduce the number of family visas issued each year by between 13,600 and 17,800. [77] The Migration Observatory says this figure is likely too high, as it did not account for behavioural change. That is, people may have chosen to re-arrange their affairs in order to meet the requirement (for instance, by re-entering the workforce or selling assets).

4 Recent and future developments

The Sunak government raised the financial requirement for new applicants from £18,600 per year to £29,000 from 11 April 2024. It had planned to increase it further, to reach £38,700 in early 2025.

In contrast, the Starmer government has commissioned a review of the policy and is holding the threshold at £29,000 in the meantime. The review is expected to report in June 2025.

4.1 Increase to £29,000 from April 2024

On 4 December 2023 the Home Secretary, James Cleverly, announced some changes to visa rules in what he described as a "five-point plan" to reduce immigration. One of the five points was to raise the minimum income threshold from £18,600 to £38,700 in spring 2024. [78]

Later that month, the government announced that the threshold increase would instead be phased in. It would first rise to £29,000 in spring 2024; then to around £34,000 at an unspecified point later in 2024; and finally to around £38,700 in early 2025. [79]

In the event, only the £29,000 increase went ahead before the July 2024 general election. It took effect on 11 April 2024. [80]

The change was not retrospective, so people who had applied for a spouse/partner visa by 11 April will only ever need to meet the old £18,600 threshold (including for future extensions and settlement). [81]

Aside from the threshold increase, there was another significant change: families with children no longer have to meet a higher threshold. When the threshold was set at £18,600, sponsors needed an extra £3,800 to sponsor one child along with a spouse/partner, and £2,400 for each additional child. That has been abolished. [82]

Home Office analysis found that the impact on immigration numbers was very uncertain but might be "in the low tens of thousands". [83] But the government argued that there was also a point of principle at stake: people seeking to bring a spouse or partner to the UK should be able to support them. [84]

4.2 Reaction and discussion in Parliament

Migrants' rights groups opposed the increases. A joint parliamentary briefing by Migrant Voice, British in Europe, Praxis and Reunite Families UK said that the financial requirement should be scrapped altogether. Failing that, they recommended that the rules be reviewed and reformed. [85]

The government did not consult the Migration Advisory Committee before deciding to increase the threshold. [86] Lawyers noted that the original £18,600 threshold survived legal challenge precisely because there was rigorous MAC analysis to support it. [87]

Some Conservative MPs criticised the delay in raising the threshold to the full £38,700 from spring 2024 to early 2025. [88]

In February 2024, Afzal Khan (Labour) presented a petition calling on the government not to implement the increase to £38,700. The petition highlighted the potentially disproportionate effect of the bill on workers of Pakistani or Bangladeshi heritage, who it said are lower paid on average. [89]

Alistair Carmichael (Liberal Democrat) introduced a Private Member's Bill to "prohibit any increase in the minimum income requirement for family visas". [90]

MPs discussed the increases in Westminster Hall in April 2024. [91] Opening the debate, Paul Blomfield (Labour) noted that most people employed in the UK earn less than £38,700, and perhaps half earn less than £29,000. [92] But responding for the government, Tom Pursglove said "the right to family life is a qualified right, and in making our decision we carefully balanced that right against the legitimate aim to protect the UK's economic wellbeing".

The House of Lords has also taken an interest. Its Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee criticised the lack of consultation and failure to publish the relevant impact assessment and equalities analysis. [93] The Home Office did release those documents six months later. [94]

Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Labour) tabled a motion to regret the increase to £29,000. Opening a debate on the motion in May 2024, she queried the government's argument that the financial requirement promotes migrant integration, asking "since when is integration measured by the size of your partner's pay packet?".

For the government, Lord Sharpe of Epsom said that an increase to the threshold was long overdue, given that it had been £18,600 for over a decade. [95]

4.3 Why £29,000?

As mentioned above, the Conservative government's intention was to ultimately increase the financial requirement to £38,700 per year. This is the same level as the baseline minimum salary that employers must be offering in order to sponsor a Skilled Worker visa. The £29,000 level was only intended to be a temporary staging post on the way to £38,700. [96]

The minimum salary for a Skilled Worker visa is designed to avoid foreign workers from undercutting the domestic labour market by working for radically lower wages. It has no obvious relevance to the level of income that a spouse/partner visa sponsor needs to avoid the family becoming a burden on the state.

Explaining the decision to make the Skilled Worker and spouse/partner visa sponsorship threshold the same, immigration minister Tom Pursglove said that "it 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 [£38,700] level has been determined". [97]

As a result of the change of government following the July 2024 general election, the interim £29,000 level remains in place pending a review.

4.4 Labour government's position: pause and review

In opposition, Labour said it had concerns about the increases but would review the evidence before deciding on the appropriate level of the financial requirement. [98]

Shortly after taking office in July, Home Secretary Yvette Cooper announced a major review of the financial requirement, which would be kept at £29,000 in the meantime.

The Family Immigration Rules, including the Minimum Income Requirement, need to balance a respect for family life whilst also ensuring the economic wellbeing of the UK is maintained. To help ensure we reach the right balance and have a solid evidence base for any change, I will commission the [Migration Advisory Committee] to review the financial requirements, in the Family Immigration Rules. The Minimum Income Requirement is currently set at £29,000 and there will be no further changes until the MAC review is complete. [99]

In a letter commissioning the Migration Advisory Committee to begin the review, the Home Secretary asked it to report in June 2025. [100] The committee has begun its work, issuing a call for evidence (since closed) and advertising for survey/focus group participants.

The commissioning letter states that the purpose of the minimum income requirement (and similar rules not covered in this briefing) is to "maintain the economic wellbeing of the UK whilst respecting family life". This is different from the question the MAC was asked in 2011, which focused solely on what income level was needed to prevent partners "becoming a burden on the state". [101]

The Home Secretary's letter also asks the committee to include "the previous Government's proposals" in the scope of its review. This means that the committee is likely to assess the merits of linking the threshold to the Skilled Worker visa minimum salary as well as other potential reference points. Such reference points might include average UK earnings or the level of income needed to make someone a net fiscal contributor (that is, paying more in tax than they receive in public services).

It is unlikely that the committee will recommend that the financial requirement be scrapped altogether.

Annex: sources of information and advice for constituents

The formal rules on the financial requirement (and the other requirements for a spouse/partner visa) are in Appendix FM: family members and Appendix FM-SE: family members specified evidence to the Immigration Rules.

The rules are supplemented by detailed guidance for Home Office decision- makers (PDF), including worked examples. (This guidance on the financial requirement for Appendix FM applications by the partners of British citizens and permanent residents should not be confused with the 'Financial requirement' guidance for student and work visas.)

A summary of the rules and guidance for a partner visa is on GOV.UK. This is written in plain English but is not legally authoritative.

There are many free explainers on the rules by lawyers, such as:

• Free Movement, What are the financial requirements for UK spouse and partner visas?

• Migrate, Spouse Visa UK Financial Requirements

• Immigration Advice Service, UK Spouse Visa Financial Requirements

The quality of peer discussion on the Reddit boards r/ukvisa and r/SpouseVisaUK is generally high. As ever, constituents seeking advice should consult a suitably qualified professional if possible. This is typically provided by solicitors, or advisers registered with the Office of the Immigration Services Commissioner (OISC).

The GOV.UK Find an immigration adviser page has information on how to find a solicitor or an OISC adviser. Some lawyers offer application checking services at a lower fee than they would charge for preparing the entire application. There is some non-profit provision of OISC advisers, including by Citizens' Advice.

________________________

The House of Commons Library is a research and information service based in the UK Parliament. Our impartial analysis, statistical research and resources help MPs and their staff scrutinise legislation, develop policy, and support constituents.

Our published material is available to everyone on commonslibrary.parliament.uk.

Get our latest research delivered straight to your inbox. Subscribe at commonslibrary.parliament.uk/subscribe or scan the code below:

commonslibrary.parliament.uk

@commonslibrary

[101] Migration Advisory Committee, Review of the minimum income requirement for sponsorship under the family migration route, November 2011, para 1.3