Election Watch: Labour's position on the Minimum Income Requirement under the Family route

7 June 2024

While the party manifestos have yet to be published, in the run-up to the General Election on 4 July 2024, the leaders of the main parties and ministers have given indications of the likely directions of their immigration policies over the last few weeks.

Family migration is a particularly hot-button issue in immigration policy, especially after the Government increased the minimum income threshold for British or settled individuals to bring family members to the UK in April 2024—the Minimum Income Requirement (MIR).

The Conservatives’ increase to the MIR threshold has attracted much public criticism. Yesterday (6 June 2024), the pressure group Reunite Families UK (RFUK) lodged a High Court challenge against the increase to the salary threshold.

The Labour Party’s expected approach to this policy can be gleaned from a recent debate in the House of Commons on 23 April 2024. During this debate, Stephen Kinnock, Shadow Minister for Immigration, stated that Labour would conduct an evidence-based review and possible overhaul of the new MIR salary threshold should they win the General Election, indicating their likely future position on family migration.

Background to the MIR increase

As part of the Government’s plans to reduce net migration, in April 2024, the Home Office raised the required income threshold under the MIR. British or settled individuals are now required to earn at least £29,000 per year to bring family members to the UK from overseas, up from the previous threshold of £18,600. The Home Secretary James Cleverly proposed that this threshold would increase again to £34,500 later in 2024 and again to £38,700 in Spring 2025.

The Government justified the increase in the MIR by stating that individuals relocating to the UK under the Family route should be self-sufficient and not reliant on public funds. Critics pointed out that the £29,000 threshold (and the proposed final threshold of £38,700) was far in excess of the actual income threshold required not to be a burden on public finances.

Labour’s criticism of the MIR increase

During the Commons debate on the MIR, Shadow Minister for Immigration Stephen Kinnock criticised the new £29,000 threshold partly on the basis that it did not appear to have a clear evidentiary or policy justification and was ‘arbitrary’. While agreeing with the stated aim of the MIR to ensure that migrants are not a burden on public finances, in the same Commons debate in April 2024, Stephen Kinnock raised concerns about ‘the lack of an evidence base behind the initial increase to £29,000.’ Mr Kinnock also criticised the fact that ‘the Government have failed to provide any impact assessment of the number of people who will be affected by the shift or who will be prevented from coming to Britain to join their loved ones.’ He went on to call for a ‘full impact assessment, so that Members are able to fully understand the impact of the proposed changes on their constituents and make informed choices based on an informed analysis.’ In the Commons debate, Conservative Minister for Legal Migration and Delivery, Tom Pursglove, defended the increased threshold, stating it was necessary to reduce net migration and ensure the self-sufficiency of migrants.

In the past, the Migration Advisory Committee (MAC—a non-political body that advises the Government on immigration policy) has conducted a detailed assessment of any such significant shift in immigration policy. However, the MIR increase was announced and implemented without the Government having sought the MAC’s expertise or input on the policy.

In his speech to the Commons in April 2024, Mr Kinnock concluded:

The first thing Labour would do, if we are privileged enough to form the next Government, would be to ask the MAC to review this policy and to make recommendations about the level at which the threshold for spousal visas should be set in future.’

Conclusion

For critics of the Conservatives’ MIR increase and lack of public consultation or MAC review, Labour’s stated commitment to seeking the MAC’s expert input may be welcome news if Labour wins the next election and could indicate a potential relaxation of the MIR threshold in the future.

With RFUK’s judicial review against the £29,000 threshold lodged at the High Court as of 6 June 2024 — on the basis that this higher threshold is contrary to the Equalities Act 2010 and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child — this piece of policy remains at the forefront of the immigration debate. With party manifestos due to be published in approximately mid-June 2024, any indication of concrete policies regarding family migration and income thresholds will be keenly anticipated.

Get in touch

To learn more about upcoming changes to UK immigration law, please refer to our website, contact your assigned LDI lawyer, or email enquiries@lauradevine.com.

Wilfrid Boon profile image

Wilfrid Boon


Solicitor

Phoebe Warren


Trainee Solicitor


Latest Insights


Common compliance pitfalls

Following the government’s recent announcements, it is clear that there is a crackdown on compliance and the Home Office are ramping up compliance…

How the 2024 election will determine America’s immigration policies

Immigration is one of the top issues in the US 2024 presidential election. Most US adults consider it to be a priority, however there is little…

eVisas – Are we prepared?

Biometric Residence Permits (BRPs) will no longer be issued after 31 October 2024. Instead, individuals will have online access to their immigration…

Immigration Services


UK Immigration

US Immigration

News