New spouse income proposals will have dire effects, writes Alex Wright
25-11-2011
Since the dawning of the coalition there have been a number of measures implemented to fulfil the pledge of reducing immigration from the hundreds of thousands to the tens of thousands. Most noticeably the introduction of an immigration cap, coupled with the removal of the Tier 1 (General visa) and policies aimed at reducing the number of international students.
On 16th November, the migration advisory committee (MAC) introduced what may well become the next arbitrary blow to the system in the form of necessary minimum incomes for those wishing to bring over spouses or children on a family visa. Currently, in order to demonstrate that a family will not need to rely on public funds, it must only be shown that the family has as much money available to it as it might be provided on income support, currently just over £105 a week for a couple alone and around £215 for a nuclear family.
Under the proposals, minimum income thresholds would be set by the type of application that is being made. For example, for a family consisting of two adults the income required would be between £18,600 and £25,700. By the report’s own admission, this would already exclude around two thirds of applicants if the upper figure were implemented. By the time two children are taken into account as well as a partner, the amount become increasingly grandiose with a top figure mooted of around £48,000. For the sake of contrast, the average household income in the UK for a working family is £33,000.
The striking thing in the way the report has been written is that is almost void of references to Article 8, the right to family and private life protected by the European Convention on Human Rights. Although there is a cursory segment, this says little more than human rights are not within the terms of reference anyway, and that it is within the UK’s margin of appreciation under Article 8(2) to manage migration. At present, the proposals have been considered from a purely economic perspective and, if implemented as they stand, would create severe difficulties for loving, separated families whose only crime is not being wealthy enough.