More than 2000 people respond to MAC's call for evidence as it reviews impact of raising minimum income requirement to £38,700
Seema Malhotra, the Minister for Migration and Citizenship, told MPs on Monday that the Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) is expected to publish its review of the minimum income requirement (MIR) for family visas this summer.
Image credit: WikipediaThe minister was speaking during a Westminster Hall debate prompted by a petition, which garnered 100,000 signatures, urging the Government not to raise the MIR to £38,700. The increase had been proposed by the previous Conservative government, but the current Labour government postponed it pending a review by the MAC.
Malhotra told MPs that the MAC had received over 2,000 responses to its call for evidence for the review, a record number of responses for the independent body's consultations.
"The comments received will inform the review being conducted by the Migration Advisory Committee," Malhotra told the debate. She said any change to the MIR must be underpinned by a solid evidence base and form part of a system that is fair, clear and consistent, noting that the Conservatives had set the figure of £38,700 without consultation and without the benefit of advice from the MAC.
Malhotra continued: "The Migration Advisory Committee has also commissioned two pieces of research to independent research contractors: a survey with a sample of applicants to the family visa, and qualitative reviews with people who applied and those who were not able to apply. Fieldwork will start in the next few weeks, and further information can be found on gov.uk. The Migration Advisory Committee is an independent body, and I know that the review will be robust and transparent, considering the impact on family life, children, equalities and regional variations in income. It is expected that the MAC will issue its report in the summer, and we will carefully consider its recommendations before making any further changes."
Once the MAC report has been received by the Government, a further equalities impact assessment will be completed to inform any further changes that are made to the MIR, Malhotra later added.
In response to the points raised in the debate, the minister said the Government was clear in its position that it supports the right to family life and it values the contribution people from overseas make to the UK, whilst recognising that this needs to be balanced as part of a fair, managed and controlled migration system.
Rejecting calls to scrap the MIR, Malhotra said it is a long-established principle that family life in the UK must be on a basis that balances the needs of the family and those of the UK taxpayer, and that also enables family migrants to integrate into British life.
She said: "The right to family life is a qualified right, and the family immigration rules, including the MIR, carefully balance that right against the legitimate aim of protecting the economic wellbeing of the UK. Expecting family migrants and their sponsors to be financially independent is reasonable to both them and the taxpayer. In 2017, the Supreme Court agreed that this principle strikes a fair balance between the interests of those wishing to sponsor a partner to settle in the UK and the community in general."
The minister also emphasised that flexibility and safeguards were available in the family immigration rules to protect the right to family life. She explained: "Those who cannot meet the core requirements of the rules, including the MIR, may still be granted leave if they have exceptional circumstances that mean refusing their application would be unjustifiably harsh. That takes into account the impact on children and considers their best interests. It is in accordance with our obligations under article 8 of the European convention on human rights. Where someone is granted leave on the basis of exceptional circumstances, they are placed on a longer, 10-year route to settlement, which is granted in four tranches of 30-month periods, with a fifth application for indefinite leave to remain.
"The rules recognise that some sponsors will have reduced earning capacity as a result of disability or caring for someone with a disability. Therefore, an applicant whose sponsor is in receipt of certain specified disability-related benefits or allowances is exempt from meeting the MIR. Instead, they must meet a requirement for adequate maintenance, demonstrating that they can support themselves and their family without relying on public funds."
Carla Denyer MP, co-leader of the Green Party, called the MIR a "cruel and nasty" policy that fundamentally discriminates against people based on who they love and how much money they make.
Denyer told the debate: "It is clear that the intention of this policy was not to benefit UK society, or even the economy; it is simply a cruel attempt to appear tough on migration. In fact, this policy harms society and public finances. There are cases where enforced separation has caused UK citizens to be reliant on state benefits, which they would not be if their partners were allowed to live with them. There are also often costs on the NHS and social services, as the trauma of families being forced and torn apart causes long-lasting mental health issues."
Labour's Irene Campbell, who opened the debate, highlighted findings from the University of Oxford's Migration Observatory, which estimated that approximately 50% of the UK workforce would not meet the current MIR of £29,000 based on earnings alone, while 70% earn less than the proposed MIR of £38,700.
Campbell expressed the hope that alternative options discussed during the debate would be considered for family visa rules, which would allow the Government to manage net migration while ensuring that the average British citizen can marry and live with the person they love.