Family Visa Income Requirement: Analysis of the Parliamentary Debate
In This Article
1. Understanding Petition Debates: How MPs Discuss Public Concerns
2. Parliament Debates Family Visa Income Rule
3. Previous Conservative Government’s Stance on the Minimum Income Requirement
4. Economic Impact of the Minimum Income Requirement and UK Family Visas
5. Debate on Minimum Income Requirement for Family Visas
6. General Consensus on Minimum Income Requirement Increases for Family Visas
7. Disproportionate Impact on Women
8. The Emotional and Financial Impact on Families
9. Impact on Young People
10. Regional Disparities and the Impact on Essential, Lower-Paid Workers
11. Economic Strain and Workforce Challenges from Increased Income Requirement
12. Concerns Over Home Office Delays and Bureaucratic Inefficiencies
13. Legal Concerns and Lack of Evidence Behind the Income Requirement Increase
14. International Comparisons and the Uniqueness of the UK’s UK Family Visa Policy
15. Conservative Perspective: Defending the Income Requirement Increase
16. Labour Government’s Response: Prioritising Fairness, Evidence, and Sustainable Migration
17. Conclusion: Ongoing Debate and Review of UK Family Visa Financial Requirement
18. Contact Our Immigration Barristers
19. Frequently Asked Questions
20. Glossary
On 20 January 2025, MPs debated the Family Visa Income requirement (e-petition 652602) in Parliament. You can watch the debate. This article will explore the key takeaways from the MPs petition debate on the income requirement (or otherwise known as the financial requirement). On 11 April 2024, the financial requirement was increased from £18,600 to £29,000, with proposed further increases to £34,000 and £38,700. The current Labour Government has paused further increases and maintained the £29,000 threshold. Also see our previous article UK Partner and Family Visa Financial Requirements Explained.
1. Understanding Petition Debates: How MPs Discuss Public Concerns
Petition debates are ‘general’ debates which allow MPs from all parties to discuss the important issues raised by one or more petitions, and put their concerns to Government Ministers. The Government will send a minister to respond.
Petition debates don’t end with a vote to implement the request of a petition. This means that the MPs did not vote on the issues raised in the petition at the end of the debate.
The Petitions Committee can only schedule debates on petitions to parliament started on petition.parliament.uk. Petitions that receive over 10,000 signatures get a response from the government. After 100,000 signatures, petitions are considered for debate in Parliament.
2. Parliament Debates Family Visa Income Rule
The debate regarded e-petition 652602, ‘Don’t increase the income requirement for family visas to £38,700’, which received more than 101,000 signatures.
The e-petition states:
“Currently the financial requirements to bring your spouse to the UK is £18,600 per year and now the Government wants to more than double it. Most people in the UK don’t make that per year. We believe this policy punishes those who fall in love with someone with a different nationality.
Most people in the UK don’t make £38,700 per year and now may face the choice of a lifetime without their partner or leaving their own country because they fell in love and can’t meet the financial requirement for the family visa.
We believe it’s inhumane for the Government to do this to British citizens and others entitled to family visas, and that this policy is punishing people for failing in love with someone who has a different nationality.”
3. Previous Conservative Government’s Stance on the Minimum Income Requirement
On 10 January 2024 the then Government responded “The Government intends to raise the MIR in line with the general salary threshold for skilled workers, but will do so in stages to provide predictability for families, starting in spring 2024.”
The Government said the minimum income requirement will be raised to ensure family migrants can support themselves financially and integrate into British society without burdening taxpayers. In essence, the increase was a part of a wider policy to curb immigration and net migration.
The minimum income requirement was set with the intention that family migrants “could be supported at a reasonable level…and to help ensure they can participate sufficiently in everyday life to facilitate their integration into British society.”
See the full Government response.
4. Economic Impact of the Minimum Income Requirement and UK Family Visas
- The figure of £18,600 in 2012 would be equivalent to £26,250 in December 2024, based on the Bank of England’s inflation calculator.
- Migration Observatory, an independent group at the University of Oxford, estimated that around 50% of the UK working population would be unable to qualify on earnings alone with the current income requirement of £29,000, and that 70% of the working population earn less than £38,700.
- Migration Observatory also found that last year, the percentage of family visas granted in proportion to other entry visas has remained low and stable at around 5%.
- In 2024, the UK issued 3.4 million visas; 87,000 were family visas, which accounted for 7% of the total, and the spousal visas made up even less—less than 5%.
- Reunite Families UK found that the total cost of fees for a family on a five-year route to settlement can be over £10,000, while the total cost on a 10-year route can be around £20,000.
5. Debate on Minimum Income Requirement for Family Visas
Irene Campbell, Labour MP and a member of the Petitions Committee, opened the debate on 20 January 2025. As stated above, the debate regarded the Government increasing the minimum income requirement in UK family visas from £18,600 to £29,000, and proposing further increases to £38,700.
6. General Consensus on Minimum Income Requirement Increases for Family Visas
The general consensus between MPs in the debate was that they opposed the minimum income requirement being increased to £38,700, arguing it disproportionately affects low-income families and undermines family unity. Many MPs from different parties criticised the increase and opposed an increase to £38,700. These parties included Labour, the Greens, the Liberal Democrats, and the Scottish Nationalist Party. To read the Conservative’s approach to the financial requirement, please read below.
Carla Denyer, Green MP for Bristol Central highlighted the long term impact on migrant’s integration into society and their economic contribution. She described the minimum income increase as “a tax on love: an ugly policy that fundamentally discriminates against migrants’ families and implies that love, and family reunification, is a privilege that people must earn enough to afford.” She continued by saying “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”.
Likewise, Dr Simon Opher, Labour MP for Stroud, focused on the unfairness between the rich and poor, stating “The current policy means that family reunification is a luxury; as we have heard, it is only for the very richest”. He described it as a “matter of basic fairness” and that “families belong together”.
Abtisam Mohamed, Labour MP for Sheffield Central, argued the minimum income requirement should be set as the minimum wage, which is roughly £20,000 a year for 35 hours a week. He stated that “the real reason for introducing the minimum income requirement for spouse visas was the hostile environment policy”. He described the Tory government’s developed policies as being “laced with xenophobic, populist appeal” and that phrases such as “taking back control” and “hostile environment” have created an atmosphere of resentment towards migrants. He described those phrases as being used to “scapegoat migrants, painting them as a threat to national identity and economic stability.”
Finally, Grahame Morris, Labour MP for Easington, stated the minimum income requirement increase was “causing completely unnecessary emotional suffering and economic strain on families”.
7. Disproportionate Impact on Women
MPs highlighted that the minimum income requirement unfairly affects women, as many do not meet the income threshold due to systemic pay inequalities. Reunite Families UK has emphasised that the higher threshold affects women more than men, because women are more likely to have caring responsibilities, are less likely to work full-time, and earn less on average. The median earnings of UK women who work full-time are below £38,700 across all age groups; the highest median earnings figure is £35,250 for 40 to 49-year-olds.
Grahame Morris highlighted the disproportionate impact on women, with a third of women being ineligible to sponsor their partner under the old income threshold:
“Since the policy was last debated, a plethora of evidence has highlighted its disproportionate impact on women, single mothers and those working in relatively low-wage regional economies outside London.”
[…]
“The Migration Observatory’s 2023 research shows that 16% of British men working as employees do not earn enough to sponsor a spouse visa, but for women the figure skyrockets to 35%. That means that over a third of British women are currently ineligible to apply for a spousal visa should they need to do so.”
These statistics indicate that an even larger proportion of women will be eligible to sponsor their partner under the new income threshold of £29,000 a year.
8. The Emotional and Financial Impact on Families
The minimum income requirement increase was described by Irene Campell as an “anti-family policy”. She noted the increased minimum income requirement can create single-parent families and put an incredible stress on all members of the family, particularly children.
She also noted that a Reunite Families UK survey found that the rules have a profound effect on children’s mental wellbeing, with 92% of respondents saying that their child’s mental health had been affected. She stated that the “separation that many families are forced into exacerbates such problems, putting even more pressure on the single parent.”
Euan Stainbank, Labour MP for Falkirk elucidated the emotional and financial stress on single-parent households, stating:
“A system that denies that ability to long-term partners also means that children often have to deal with one parent in the UK and one permanently abroad. Not only is that incredibly challenging personally for the child, but it limits opportunities, with a parent being forced to raise their child in a single-parent household without the support of their partner who is abroad. That places unnecessary financial and emotional pressure on them, at a time when we should be supporting everyone in our community to live and work well.”
9. Impact on Young People
Another critical issue raised by MPs was that many young people do not meet the income threshold as they are in the early stages of their careers and often earn less. Similarly, young people are even less likely to hold significant cash savings.
Dr Simon Opher, highlights that the average 25 to 34-year-old in the UK holds about £3,500 in savings. He described the cash savings threshold of £88,500 as “absolutely ludicrous.”
10. Regional Disparities and the Impact on Essential, Lower-Paid Workers
Furthermore, MPs discussed the demographic disparities across the UK, as well as disadvantages to those in essential lower paid roles.
Statistics from the Office for National Statistics show that the threshold of £38,700 is unrealistic for those living outside of London and south-east England. The median annual income is £38,500 for those living in Scotland, £35,600 for those living in Wales and £34,900 for those living in Northern Ireland. In regions such as the North-East, the median annual earnings are £15,000 lower than those in London.
Irene Campell also highlighted that those in valuable and essential jobs are paid less than £38,700 annually. She noted “salaries for newly qualified teachers in England start at £31,650, for newly qualified nurses at around £30,000 and for police constables at £28,500… an assistant at Aldi makes £12.40 an hour, that equates to £25,792 yearly…”. She described individuals in those jobs as being “penalised” for wanting to marry someone of a different nationality, leaving them with limited alternatives.
11. Economic Strain and Workforce Challenges from Increased Income Requirement
Moreover, MPs raised concerns regarding the impact on the economy. Wendy Chamberlain, Liberal Democrat MP for North East Fife highlighted challenges regarding recruiting people into in-demand areas such as hospitality, research, and dentistry.
Dr Simon Opher described “the narrative that foreign spouses are a burden to taxpayers” as “fundamentally misleading”.
He noted that the Home Office’s own guidelines explicitly state that foreign spouses have no recourse to public funds. Migrants contribute through taxation, national insurance and an annual immigration health surcharge of £1,035.
He emphasised his concerns that the cost of enforcing this policy is greater than the financial benefits, noting that single-parent situations often require more Government support.
He also noted the economic impact on the NHS stating “as a GP, I have been seeing a patient and their family; the children are suffering because they cannot live with both parents, which has caused a lot of mental health difficulties. This policy is not only inhumane, but economically flawed.”
Similarly, he highlighted the impact on the NHS with regards to filling positions, stating:
“The current income requirement for family visas simply means that, in my constituency, social care positions go unfilled, the NHS struggles without the necessary workforce, and care packages are in some instances impossible to deliver, even though the funding is there.”
Correspondingly, Seamus Logan, SNP MP for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East stressed the impact of Brexit and workforce shortages in multiple sectors:
“We are at virtually full employment in my constituency, but there are shortages in health and social care, in the farming and fishing sectors and in hospitality and tourism…shows how vindictive the Tories were in their ill-fated and crude attempts to control migration numbers in the post-Brexit world. Remember, if we were still in the single market, we would not have this issue with the free movement of people.
[…]
Scotland is already suffering as a result of Westminster’s Brexit and migration policies, and the old Tory and now new Labour proposals will inevitably undermine our public services.”
He also gave weight to the fact that international students and academics make a contribution in excess of £5 billion annually to the Scottish economy.
Euan Stainbank highlighted workforce shortages across the UK in key industries, including housekeeping, hospitality management, bricklaying, carpentry, plumbing, manufacturing, and data analysis. He also cited the Fraser of Allander Institute, noting that “one in four employers reported unfilled vacancies last year.” He emphasised that the skilled worker visa eligible occupations list fails to cover all industries experiencing worker shortages or facing significant pressure. He further warned that “any further increases to the minimum income requirement for family visas would worsen skills shortages in vital industries such as hospitality, construction, and healthcare, while also making it more difficult for families to stay united.”
Mr Will Forster, Lib Dem MP for Woking, criticised the financial requirement increase and the previous Conservative government. He stated, “It does not save money—it hurts our financial system and our economy—but it is there to make them look tough on immigration. Everyone can see through it. Roughly half of UK employees earn less than £29,000 a year, so I am disappointed and surprised that the Conservatives, who often say that they are the party of traditional family values, trashed our family values in this country by introducing this policy and breaking up families.”
12. Concerns Over Home Office Delays and Bureaucratic Inefficiencies
A further critical issue MPs raised related to delays within the Home Office and bureaucratic inefficiencies.
Imran Hussain voiced concerns about the complications caused by delays and bureaucracy at the Home Office. He highlighted one case where an applicant submitted their wage slips, but a discrepancy of just a few pennies between the payslip and the amount deposited into their bank account led to the application being refused.
Abtisam Mohamed, Labour MP for Sheffield Central, agreed, adding that many cases have faced delays due to incompetence and inadequate staff training within the Home Office.
13. Legal Concerns and Lack of Evidence Behind the Income Requirement Increase
Beyond the financial and social implications, the debate also raised significant legal concerns regarding the decision-making process behind the income requirement increase. MPs questioned whether the policy changes were introduced without sufficient analysis or adherence to public law standards, leading to legal challenges.
Irene Campbell highlighted that Reunite Families UK, supported by the Good Law Project, filed an application for judicial review in June 2024. The challenge argues that the decision to raise the minimum income requirement to £38,700 was made without proper analysis and in breach of fundamental public law duties.
Echoing these concerns, Grahame Morris criticised the lack of justification for the sharp increase from £18,600 to £29,000, stating that “it became clear that the decision was not grounded in evidence, but seemed to be… ‘plucked out of thin air.’”
Martin Rhodes, Labour MP for Glasgow North, further emphasised that the issue was not only the size of the increase but the arbitrary nature of the new threshold, suggesting that it lacked a clear, evidence-based rationale.
Euan Stainbank, pointed out that when the initial decision to introduce a minimum income requirement was made in 2012, it followed a public consultation and detailed analysis by the MAC. However, he noted that no such analysis was conducted when the most recent changes were implemented, leaving the full economic effects unclear.
14. International Comparisons and the Uniqueness of the UK’s UK Family Visa Policy
Moreover, Irene Campbell compared the UK’s immigration policy to those of other countries, describing the current UK family visa policy as unusually strict. She pointed out that the Migrant Integration Policy Index, which measures immigration policies across 52 countries, including all EU member states and OECD countries, ranks the UK second to bottom for family reunification policies.
She also emphasised that many countries with strong immigration systems do not impose such a high minimum income requirement for UK family visas. For instance, Australia has no earnings threshold for family visas, and both Spain and the Netherlands require yearly income to match annual social security payments. She argued that this shows that the UK’s current system is not the only viable option.
Dr Simon Opher further noted that the £29,000 minimum income threshold is already the highest in the world, and that 75% of applicants would not be able to meet the even higher figure of £38,700.
15. Conservative Perspective: Defending the Income Requirement Increase
Katie Lam, Conservative MP for Weald of Kent, was the sole Conservative voice in the debate, defending the income requirement increase as a necessary step in controlling migration. She argued that policies should prioritise the country’s overall needs rather than individual family circumstances. She framed the key question as not whether British citizens should be able to bring their foreign spouses to the UK, but whether it benefits the country for lower-income citizens to bring spouses. She pointed out that successive governments have promised to reduce migration but have failed to deliver. She argued that migration has been too high for the past two decades and remains so.
She maintained that the financial threshold ensures migrants contribute more than they cost, preventing strain on public services. She pointed out that while family visas make up a small portion of overall migration, they still represent a significant number. She also highlighted that after five years, UK family visa holders can apply for indefinite leave to remain (ILR), gaining access to welfare, housing, and the NHS, costs she argued must be considered.
Citing the Migration Advisory Committee’s assessment, she noted that previous income thresholds had resulted in £1 billion in public sector savings. While acknowledging flaws in the system, she reaffirmed the need for stricter policies and criticised the Labour government for pausing further increases. She acknowledged that the current policy is not enough, but that it was a step in the right direction.
Finally, she raised the issue of delays in Home Office cases, acknowledging the chaos inherited by the Government and attributing some of the problems to the diversion of resources to the Rwanda scheme. She expressed hope that the situation would improve and processing times would become more efficient.
16. Labour Government’s Response: Prioritising Fairness, Evidence, and Sustainable Migration
The Labour government has taken a more cautious stance on the UK family visa income requirement, prioritising evidence-based policymaking. Seema Malhotra, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, acknowledged the contributions of legal migrants but stressed the need to manage net migration sustainably, particularly in light of record-high levels under the previous government (over 900,000 in the year ending June 2023).
She criticised the prior administration for increasing the financial requirement to £38,700 without consultation, emphasising that any future changes must be fair, transparent, and supported by data. To this end, the Home Secretary has commissioned the Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) to review the financial requirement, with findings expected in summer 2025. The review included a call for evidence, which received over 2,000 responses, as well as independent research into the policy’s impact on families, children, and regional income disparities.
Addressing calls to scrap the income threshold altogether, she emphasised that the principle of balancing family life with the needs of UK taxpayers is long-established. However, she noted that exemptions exist for sponsors with disabilities or caring responsibilities and reaffirmed that exceptional cases and children’s best interests are assessed under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
She further highlighted the importance of impact assessments, stating that the government had published regulatory and equalities impact assessments for the previous government’s migration measures in September and had paused further financial requirement increases while the MAC conducted its review. Once the MAC report is received, a further equalities impact assessment will be conducted before making any final decisions. In closing, she criticised the previous government’s failure to control migration effectively, stressing the need for a well-managed system that avoids policy uncertainty and public confusion.
17. Conclusion: Ongoing Debate and Review of UK Family Visa Financial Requirement
The parliamentary debate on the UK family visa financial requirement highlighted significant concerns about the policy’s impact on families, economic sectors, and fairness across different demographics. While parties, charities, and refugee organisations have criticised the increase, the Labour Government has paused further increases and commissioned a review by the Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) to ensure an evidence-based approach.
With the MAC’s findings expected to be published in Summer 2025, it remains to be seen whether the policy will be revised to better balance migration control with family unity and economic stability. Until then, affected individuals are encouraged to stay informed and seek professional advice on immigration matters.
18. Contact Our Immigration Barristers
In this article we have highlighted some of the key subjects discussed in the House of Commons Library report on ‘The financial (minimum income) requirement for partner visas’. For expert advice in relation to UK visa applications or immigration appeals for the partner route, and or the financial requirement, please contact our immigration barristers on 0203 617 9173 or complete our enquiry form below.
