House of Commons Library publishes updated report on the financial (minimum income) requirement for partner or spouse visas

New from the House of Commons Library last Friday is an updated briefing on the financial (minimum income) requirement for partner visas.

You can read a full copy of the briefing below or download the original 28-page PDF file here.

As the briefing explains, the Government recently announced that it will increase the annual income threshold needed to sponsor a visa for a foreign spouse or partner from the current level of £18,600 to £29,000 in April 2024. It is then planned to increase it to £38,700 by early 2025, over double the current threshold.

The controversial increase was part of the Government's five-point plan to reduce immigration announced in December.

In its updated research briefing, the House of Commons Library looks at why the minimum income requirement was introduced, how the threshold is set, and how the financial requirement can be met.

Section 3 of the briefing outlines criticisms of the policy, while section 4 considers the coming increase and explains why the threshold is increasing so much.

The full House of Commons Library briefing follows below:

______________________________

House of Commons
Library

The financial (minimum income) requirement for partner visas

Research Briefing

8 March 2024

By Melanie Gower, CJ McKinney, Terry McGuinness, Joe-Tyler-Todd

Summary
1 What is the financial requirement?
2 How is the financial requirement satisfied?
3 Scrutiny and opposition
4 Proposed increases to the income threshold from April 2024 Annex: sources of information and advice for constituents

commonslibrary.parliament.uk

Number SN06724

Contributing Authors
Grace Alston

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 Proposed increases to the income threshold from April 2024
4.1 £29,000 from 11 April, and £38,700 by early 2025
4.2 Why is the Government increasing the threshold?
4.3 Why £38,700?
4.4 Reaction to the announcement
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 £18,600 per year. This financial or minimum income requirement applies to sponsors who are British citizens, in the armed forces or settled in the United Kingdom (indefinite leave to remain or equivalent). There are different rules for migrants bringing immediate family to the UK on a dependant visa.

The Sunak Government intends to increase the income threshold from £18,600 to £29,000 in April 2024 and ultimately to £38,700 by early 2025.

Since 2012, partner visa sponsors have needed an income of at least £18,600 a year

The Coalition Government introduced the financial requirement in July 2012, as part of changes to designed to reduce net migration. It said families should be able to support themselves without being a burden on the general taxpayer.

The £18,600 threshold 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 they are already working in the UK legally and are 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. The requirement does not apply if the sponsor receives Carer's Allowance or certain disability-related 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, among others, from bringing a foreign spouse or partner to the UK. Families may also have to separate until a sponsor can meet the requirement.

Critics also highlight specific aspects or effects of the policy. These include the level of the threshold, 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 has been 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.

Interest has nevertheless waned in recent years, partly because inflation has reduced the impact of an £18,600 income threshold. The imminent increase to £29,000, and ultimately to £38,700, has led to renewed public and parliamentary scrutiny.

The income threshold is rising to £29,000 in April, with plans for it to hit £38,700 in 2025

The Government is raising the minimum income threshold from £18,600 per year to £29,000 from 11 April 2024. It will increase again to around £34,000 at an unspecified time later in 2024, and is planned to reach £38,700 in early 2025 (although this may depend on the outcome of the general election).

As in 2012, ministers argue that immigration is too high and foreign partners should not be a burden on the state. The increases will not be retrospective, so people who already have a spouse/partner visa or apply for one before 11 April will only need to meet the current £18,600 threshold in future applications.

£38,700 per year will be the same as the new general salary threshold for migrants arriving on a Skilled Worker visa. It is not clear why this benchmark has been chosen. The Migration Advisory Committee was not consulted, making the higher thresholds more vulnerable to legal challenge.

The Home Office is due to publish a statement of changes to the Immigration Rules on 14 March 2024. This will provide for the £29,000 increase to take place on 11 April. For regularly updated information on the rollout of the increases, see Library briefing CBP-9920, Changes to legal migration rules for family and work visas in 2024.

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 £18,600 per year. [1] This is known as the financial or minimum income requirement, and has been in place since 2012.

At present, if visas are also being sought for dependent children, the income requirement is higher: an extra £3,800 for the first child, and £2,400 for each additional child. This element of the policy is being abolished when the main income threshold rises from £18,600 to £29,000 in April 2024 (see section 4 below).

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

These rules only apply when the sponsor is British, in the armed forces 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).

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 Coalition's rationale for introducing the 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 the general taxpayer. [4] It considered that the Immigration Rules in place before July 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 Government'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 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] To date, it has never been increased, although the Conservative Party's 2017 general election manifesto had committed to doing so. [11] The Sunak Government now intends to increase it, in stages, to £38,700 per year (see section 4 below).

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 partners.

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 is sufficient to meet 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:

• £62,500 in cash savings is required if no other income sources are being used to meet the income requirement: (62,500-16,000) / 2.5 = 18,600.

• £17,500 in cash savings is required if the sponsor's income is £18,000, in order to make up the £600 shortfall: (17,500-16,000) / 2.5 = 600. [18]

Assuming the basic formula does not change when the threshold rises from £18,600 to £29,000 in April 2024, the amount required to meet the financial requirement from savings alone will rise from £62,500 to £88,500.

Evidential requirements

The Immigration Rules and associated policy guidance also specify what pieces of evidence must be submitted in order to demonstrate income from each of the permitted sources. 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]

Armed forces cases

Applications sponsored by a member the armed forces have been subject to the financial requirement since 1 December 2013, although it is applied in a slightly different way. [20] The main difference is that partners in Armed Forces cases 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. [21]

2.2 Are there any exceptions?

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). [22] 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. [23]

Otherwise, the spouse/partner of someone in the UK under the EU Settlement Scheme would need to apply for a normal spouse/partner visa and satisfy the financial requirement.

Exemption for 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. [24] But 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 [25]

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 qualified 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 take a wider range of income/financial sources into account in order to assess whether the requirement is met. [26] For example, a guarantee of support from a parent or credible prospective earnings from the applicant's future work in the UK. [27]

• 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. [28]

Applicants granted 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 minimum income requirement through the usual sources specified in the Immigration Rules. [29]

Home Office caseworker guidance states that applications must satisfy a high threshold in order to come within these provisions. [30]

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. [31]

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". [32]

Caseworkers are told to consider what prevents the couple from remaining overseas to maintain their family life together. [33] 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. [34]

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 mental or physical disability or of a serious illness which requires ongoing medical treatment

• The absence of governance or security in another country

• The immigration status of the applicant

• Whether there are any factors which might increase the public interest in refusal (such as criminality, use of deception, concerns about character or conduct, or if the applicant does not speak English or is not financially independent)

• Cumulative factors weighing for and against the public interest [35]

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 which the family would have to move to, 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, among others, from bringing a foreign spouse or partner to the UK.

There was intense debate about the policy when it was first proposed and introduced under the 2010-2015 Coalition Government. Interest has waned in recent years, partly because inflation has reduced the impact of an £18,600 income threshold. [36] The imminent increase to £29,000, and ultimately to £38,700, has led to renewed public and parliamentary scrutiny.

There was also legal action. 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.

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. [37] 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. [38]

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 then minimum wage level. A Home Office impact assessment noted that around 40-45% of UK residents earned less than £18,600. [39] 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. [40]

Today, a person aged 23 and above working full time at the minimum wage would meet the threshold. However, the proposed increases have led civil society organisations to again argue that it is too high relative to full-time earnings at minimum wage level. These responses are discussed in more detail in section 4.4.

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, this rises to 30% for those in Yorkshire and Humberside, according to research by the Oxford University Migration Observatory. Around a quarter of employees in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland did not meet the £18,600 threshold. [41] As those working full-time at the minimum wage will meet the threshold, those unable to do so will mostly be working part-time.

The MAC's 2011 report did not consider these arguments in detail, but said that it did not see a clear case for differentiation. [42] It believed that a single national threshold provided clarity and simplicity for applicants and Home Office staff. It further 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. [43] The Government shares this view. [44]

Does the policy discriminate against certain groups?

Campaigners worry that certain demographic groups are particularly affected by the minimum income 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)". [45]

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, 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). [46]

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 does not mean that it is unlawful. [47]

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". [48]

The restrictions on permissible income sources have been relaxed for cases raising human rights issues, but there is no flexibility for applications which fall below that threshold. 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. [49]

Does the policy generate unforeseen costs?

There has been wider debate around the economic impact of the requirement, and how this was initially calculated. The Home Office's impact assessment estimated that the minimum income requirement would bring an overall net benefit of £660 million over ten years. [50]

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. [51] The Coalition did not accept these conclusions. [52]

In 2020 the Migration Advisory Committee 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". [53]

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. [54] Research by the Children's Commissioner estimated that 15,000 children had been separated from a parent from 2012 to 2015 because of the requirement. [55]

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". [56]

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. [57] Secondly, there are some testimonies suggesting sponsors have needed recourse to public funds which might not have been necessary if the migrant partner had been able to join them in the UK and share the work and caring responsibilities. [58]

3.2 Parliamentary scrutiny

The financial requirement has attracted considerable parliamentary interest since its introduction in 2012. [59]

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". [60] 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. [61]

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 likelihood of future income of the family unit rather than on the sponsor's past income". [62]

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 where their sponsor is unable to support them "leaving them either in danger of destitution or seeking to access public funds to avoid this". [63]

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". [64] 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". [65]

3.3 Legal challenge

The lawfulness of the minimum income policy 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. [66]

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". [67]

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. [68] They also held that there should be more flexibility on the sources of funding allowed to count towards the threshold. [69]

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. [70]

In order to reflect the judgment, the Home Office adjusted the policy in respect of children and permitted sources of funds. [71] The changes took effect on 10 August 2017. [72]

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". [73]

There were two main reasons for this. Firstly, data is not available on the reasons for a spouse/partner visa application being refused. Secondly, the number of people who did not apply at all because they knew themselves to be ineligible cannot 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 by 13,600 to 17,800 annually. [74] The Migration Observatory says this figure is likely too high, as it does not account for the behavioural change. That is, people may have chosen to rearrange their affairs in order to meet the requirement (for instance, by re-entering the workforce, or selling assets).

4 Proposed increases to the income threshold from April 2024

The Government is raising the minimum income threshold from £18,600 per year to £29,000 from 11 April 2024, and ultimately to £38,700 from early 2025. This will not be retrospective, so people who already have a spouse/partner visa or apply for one before 11 April will only need to meet the current £18,600 threshold. For regularly updated information on the rollout of the increases, see Library briefing CBP-9920, Changes to legal migration rules for family and work visas in 2024.

4.1 £29,000 from 11 April, and £38,700 by early 2025

On 4 December 2023 the Home Secretary, James Cleverly, announced future 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. [75]

Later that month, Government announced that the threshold increase will instead be phased in. It will 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. [76]

The implementation date for the increase to £29,000 has since been confirmed for 11 April 2024. A statement of changes to the Immigration Rules to this effect is due to be published on 14 March 2024. [77]

The exceptions for people on certain benefits or in exceptional circumstances—discussed in section 2.2 above—will remain in place, according to the Minister for Legal Migration. [78] Similarly, it will still be possible to use savings to help meet the threshold. [79]

There will be one major change: families with children will no longer have to meet a higher threshold. The requirement to have an extra £3,800 in income to sponsor one child along with a spouse/partner, and £2,400 for each additional child, is to be abolished. [80]

A Government spokesperson initially said the higher threshold would apply to people who already have a spouse/partner visa and apply to extend it after the increase takes place. [81] The Home Office has since announced that it will only apply to first-time applicants:

• Those who already have a family visa within the five-year partner route, or who apply before the minimum income threshold is raised, will continue to have their applications assessed against the current income requirement and will not be required to meet the increased threshold. This will also be the case for children seeking to join or accompany parents.

• Anyone granted a fianc(é)e visa before the minimum income threshold is raised will also be assessed against the current income requirement when they apply for a family visa within the five-year partner route. [82]

As worded, this exemption also appears to cover people who will be applying for indefinite leave to remain after spending five years on a spouse/partner visa.

Further details are awaited in the statement of changes due on 14 March.

4.2 Why is the Government increasing the threshold?

Immigration is far too high, according to the Home Secretary. [83] Net migration (the number of immigrants minus the number of emigrants) was provisionally estimated to be 745,000 in 2022. [84] Last year, the Home Office granted 1.2 million non-visitor visas, of which almost 100,000 were family visas of one sort or another. [85]

The potential impact of the threshold increase(s) on immigration numbers is very uncertain, Home Office analysis accepts. It "may have an impact on the number of family migrants deterred in the low tens of thousands". [86]

The Government also argues that there is a point of principle at stake: people seeking to bring a spouse or partner to the UK should be able to support them. [87] As expressed on the Home Office blog:

Family life must not be established here at the taxpayer's expense and family migrants must be able to integrate if they are to play a full part in British life. The Minimum Income Requirement has not been increased for over a decade and no longer reflects the level of income required by a family to ensure they are self-sufficient and do not need to rely on public funds. [88]

Opponents of the change (see section 4.4 below) note that people arriving on a spouse/partner visa generally have no recourse to public funds as a condition of that visa, so are unlikely to be a burden on the taxpayer. [89] They can however apply for a 'change of conditions' granting recourse to public funds if they have evidence of destitution, child welfare concerns or exceptional financial circumstances. [90]

4.3 Why £38,700?

£38,700 per year will be the same as the new general salary threshold for migrants arriving on a Skilled Worker visa. It is not clear why this benchmark has been chosen.

One possible rationale is that people granted a Skilled Worker visa are allowed to bring a spouse or partner. Aligning the thresholds might be intended to make the income required to sponsor a partner the same for both migrant sponsors and British/settled sponsors.

However, the majority of people arriving on Skilled Worker visas are allowed to come on a salary below the new threshold because they work in social care, healthcare or education. [91] This means that there would not, in practice, be a £38,700 income threshold to sponsor a partner across the board. There are also visas which do not require a minimum salary but come with the right to bring a partner. [92]

Setting the threshold by reference to the Skilled Worker minimum salary departs from the approach taken when setting the original threshold in 2012. The options canvassed by the Migration Advisory Committee in its 2011 report were to set the threshold by reference to:

• Average pay in the UK

• The level of income that qualifies someone for benefits, or

• The level of income that makes someone a net contributor to the state [93]

£38,700 is considerably higher than any of these amounts. It is more than most people employed in the UK are paid. [94] This has made the plan controversial in some quarters.

4.4 Reaction to the announcement

Migrants' rights groups oppose the increase. A joint parliamentary briefing by Migrant Voice, British in Europe, Praxis and Reunite Families UK says that the financial requirement should be scrapped altogether. Failing that, they recommend that the rules be reviewed and reformed. [95]

The report also expressed concern that the Government did not consult the Migration Advisory Committee before deciding to increase the threshold. The Minister for Legal Migration has confirmed that the MAC was not consulted. [96]

Lawyers say that the original £18,600 threshold survived legal challenge precisely because there was rigorous MAC analysis to support it. The higher thresholds may be vulnerable to litigation. [97]

The Immigration Law Practitioners' Association has published a detailed response noting that it will be easier for some migrants to bring partners to the UK than it will be for British citizens. [98] For example, someone applying to come to the UK as the partner of someone on a High Potential Individual visa would only need to show that the couple have £285 between them. [99] It also notes that many NHS staff and Home Office civil servants earn less than £29,000 per year. [100]

There have been a number of press reports highlighting couples who would be unable to meet higher income thresholds. [101] Some conservative commentators oppose the change. [102]

Yvette Cooper, the shadow Home Secretary, criticised the lack of consultation on the increase. [103] A Labour Party spokesperson is reported to have said that the party has "real concerns" about an increase to £38,700 but would not commit to changing the threshold without assessing the evidence. [104]

Some Conservative MPs have criticised the delay in raising the threshold to the full £38,700 from spring 2024 to early 2025. [105]

Parliamentary activity

On 19 February 2024, Alistair Carmichael (Liberal Democrat) introduced a Private Member's Bill to "prohibit any increase in the minimum income requirement for family visas". [106]

On 27 February 2024, Afzal Khan (Labour) presented a petition calling on the Government "to not implement the increase in the minimum income threshold for family visas to £38,700". The petition highlighted the potentially disproportionate effect of the bill on "workers of Pakistani or Bangladeshi heritage" who "have the lowest median hourly pay of any ethnic group", and further criticised the impact of the policy on the right to family life. [107]

On 5 March 2024, Paul Blomfield (Labour) proposed a debate to the Backbench Business Committee to examine "the impact of the increase to the minimum income thresholds for partners and spousal visas". [108]

The Archbishop of Canterbury has said in the House of Lords: "the Government are rightly concerned with bringing down the legal migration figures… but there is a cost to be paid in the negative impact that this will have on marriage and family relationships". [109]

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

[End]

[109] HL Deb 8 December 2023 c1657