Irene Campbell MP: speeches

Speeches

• 31 Mar 2025 · Political Donations · Hansard source

  More

  I fully agree with the statement the hon. Member has just made. The Electoral Commission, the independent regulator for the rules, has said that, at present, donations can be made using funding from otherwise impermissible sources, including from overseas. There are variable monetary penalties from the Electoral Commission for breaking the rules, which are outlined in the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act. These can be between £250 and £20,000, depending on the severity of the breach, which is another area that the petition seeks to address. There are many electoral reform recommendations from independent bodies that address some of the concerns in this petition. In relation to fines for breaking the rules, the 2021 report by the Committee on Standards in Public Life recommended reviewing the maximum fines that can be issued for breaking electoral rules, saying that the maximum fine the Electoral Commission may impose “should be increased to 4% of a campaign’s total spend or £500,000, whichever is higher”. The Electoral Commission supports that, saying in 2020: “The Scottish Parliament recently raised the maximum fine to £500,000 for Scottish referendums, and we believe this would be a reasonable benchmark for the maximum fine in relation to other parts of the UK’s political finance regulations”. Additionally, the Committee on Standards in Public Life recommends that political parties introduce caps on donations. It said: “A cap of £10,000 should be placed on donations to a political party or regulated donee from any individual or organisation in any year.” Similarly, Australia’s new electoral reform Act imposed caps on political donations and electoral expenditure, after recent elections where a multimillionaire donated 117 million Australian dollars to a political party. Both bodies have also addressed the loopholes that allow possible donations from foreign parties. In particular, the Electoral Commission said last year that parties and campaigners should “only accept donations from companies that have made enough money in the UK to fund…their donation.”

• 31 Mar 2025 · Political Donations · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely agree that we need to see change; my right hon. Friend makes the point very well. More recently, as people will be aware, Elon Musk proposed to donate a large sum to Reform UK. While he could not make a personal donation, there are ways that he could get around the rules, which I will describe. The current rules on donations to political parties are defined in the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, which is based on the 1998 report by the Committee on Standards in Public Life, “The Funding of Political Parties in the United Kingdom”. A lot of what I have said already demonstrates how complex this area is. The Committee summarised the purpose of the rules by saying that “what happens here is the concern of those who live and work here and the political parties should not be entitled to fill their coffers with donations from abroad, made by persons and corporations who have no genuine stake in the country.” More recently, the Elections Act 2022 changed the electoral rules, removing the 15-year limit on the voting rights of British citizens living overseas to vote in UK parliamentary elections, and allowing them to register on the electoral roll and donate to political parties without a time limit. To be clear, under current UK electoral law, foreign donations are banned as they are not a “permissible source.” Permissible sources include individuals on the UK electoral register, UK registered companies, trade unions, unincorporated associations and limited liability partnerships, or LLPs. It is worth noting that, under the rules, parties can accept donations or loans with no upper limit, as long as they come from one of those permissible sources. Donations are defined as “money, goods or services given to a party without charge or on non-commercial terms, with a value of over £500.” There are additional rules around the thresholds for party headquarters and local accounting, but I will not go into detail because they are not straightforward. There are ways for foreign individuals to get around those rules. For example, a multinational corporation owned by a foreign national could legally donate to UK political parties. Additionally, unincorporated associations, which are permissible donors, do not have to conduct permissibility checks on their own donors, leading to a lack of transparency in their donations.

• 31 Mar 2025 · Political Donations · Hansard source

  More

  I agree with my hon. Friend. To further close loopholes that allow foreign interference, the Committee on Standards in Public Life added that the Government “should legislate to ban foreign organisations or individuals from buying campaign advertising in the UK.” As public office holders, we are all beholden to the seven principles of public life, known as the Nolan principles: selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership. To dedicate ourselves to these principles, we must ensure that there is no question about the transparency and lawfulness of the donations that we receive. Any rules regarding electoral donations must reflect and represent those principles, which we hold dear. The Labour manifesto promised to “protect democracy by strengthening the rules around donations”. In December, the Prime Minister’s spokesman confirmed that the Government are committed to “strengthening the rules around donations to political parties.” Regarding the commitment to reviewing the rules on political donations, he said there will be a “relevant update in due course.” In her response to the debate in March, the Minister agreed that foreign money has no place in the UK electoral system, and that the current rules do not provide strong safeguards. She also made clear the crucial role that the Electoral Commission has, and the possibility that its roles and responsibilities may change. There is much evidence and many policy interventions to be considered before the Government’s approach to electoral reform is published. However, now is the time for robust legislation that works. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response, and the contributions of hon. Members from both sides of the House.

• 31 Mar 2025 · Political Donations · Hansard source

  More

  It has been an honour to open and close this debate. Democracy should not be distorted by money from unclear and illegal sources. Foreign donations can lead to foreign interference. Serious changes must be considered so that the public can once again have confidence in the transparency of political parties. I am encouraged by the response from the Minister on her progress with this. I again thank Jeremy Stone, who started the petition and gathered more than 140,000 signatures. His hard work has ensured that this conversation continues in Parliament and is given the attention it deserves. I also thank the Petitions Committee staff for their hard work in preparing for these debates that we Members on the Committee have the honour of opening and closing. Finally, I thank the representatives from the Electoral Commission I met in preparation for this debate for the valuable briefings and information they gave me. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered e-petition 707189 relating to the rules for political donations.

• 31 Mar 2025 · Political Donations · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered e-petition 707189 relating to the rules for political donations. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I begin by thanking Mr Jeremy Stone, who is here today, for starting this petition, and congratulate him on gathering more than 140,000 signatures, which is a fantastic feat. The petition, titled “Tighten the rules on political donations”, states: “We want the government to…Remove loopholes that allow wealthy foreign individuals to make donations into UK political parties (e.g. by funnelling through UK registered companies)…Cap all donations to a reasonable amount…Review limits on the fines that can be levied for breaking the rules…We think that ultra-rich individuals or foreign state actors should not be able to use their money to give unfair advantage to a political party in order to further their own agenda.” I think that is a principle that all of us here will agree with—that foreign interference through donations has no place in British elections or politics, and that democracy cannot be for sale. I declare an interest: I am a member of Unite the union and I have received donations from both Unite and the Communications Workers Union, the full details of which are freely available on my MP profile on the UK Parliament website. Functions like this mean that we, as MPs, can be constantly transparent and honest to our constituents about where money is flowing in politics. As a member of a political party, I am very aware of how much parties rely on donations; however, donations can become concerning when their origins are unclear and the public cannot be sure whether some foreign interference, or any other suspicious dealings, may have slipped through the cracks in the rules. About a month ago, my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Lloyd Hatton) introduced a similar debate on political finance rules, which covered a lot of the points that I am sure will be mentioned again today. He similarly began by declaring his interest of being a member of a political party, a sentiment that many others here will echo. He used his speech to highlight Transparency International’s research on questionable sources of donations. In particular, the group found that almost £1 in every £10 reported by political parties and their members since 2001 has come from unknown or questionable sources. Some £13 million comes from donors who are alleged, or proven, to be intermediaries for foreign funds or hidden sources; £10.9 million comes from companies that have not made sufficient profits to support the political contributions that they have made; and £4.6 million comes from foreign Governments, Parliaments and regime-linked groups. Reported donations from private sources are growing, from £30.6 million in 2001 to £85 million in 2023. That is unsurprising, given that, in this period, former Governments increased campaign spending limits by 45% to be in line with inflation, meaning that the larger parties’ de facto fundraising targets rose to around £100 million in the major election years. The previous Government also increased the threshold for reporting donations by 50% in 2023, thus demonstrating how complex the system is. Alongside that, the Elections Act 2022 constrained the independence of the Electoral Commission and banned it from prosecuting criminal offences under electoral law. The Electoral Commission said: “The UK Government does not consider this to be an area of work we should undertake and considered it to duplicate the work of the Crown Prosecution Service…and Public Prosecution Service Northern Ireland”. Ministers can now even set the Electoral Commission’s strategy and policy priorities through their own strategy and policy statements. Transparency International said: “This is inconsistent with international good practice, unnecessary, and fetters the Commission’s independence.”

• 26 Mar 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Q12. In my constituency of North Ayrshire and Arran, the SNP ferry fiasco is having a devastating social and economic impact on Ardrossan and the Isle of Arran. As well as a CalMac ferry being built that does not fit into the existing harbour, the Fraser of Allander Institute estimates that the disrupted ferries cost the Isle of Arran £170,000 of lost revenue per day. Does the Prime Minister agree that the SNP Government need to find a rapid solution to swiftly address this serious situation?

• 20 Mar 2025 · Violence against Women and Girls: Prosecution Rates · Hansard source

  More

  2. What steps she is taking to help increase prosecution rates in cases of violence against women and girls.

• 20 Mar 2025 · Violence against Women and Girls: Prosecution Rates · Hansard source

  More

  As a former chair of North Ayrshire Women’s Aid, I know how low the prosecution rates are in cases of violence against women and girls, and how they can discourage people from coming forward at all. Victim withdrawal from prosecutions is also very high, for myriad reasons from poor treatment to long waiting times for court dates. What work is being done to make women feel more comfortable to come forward and report such cases, and to support them throughout the whole process?

• 18 Mar 2025 · Shipyards: Economic Growth · Hansard source

  More

  It is a privilege to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Glenrothes and Mid Fife (Richard Baker) for securing this debate on this very important topic. In Scotland the ferry fleet is years old and replacements have not been ordered in a timely way, which has caused chaos and difficulties for many of those in island and mainland communities. Now more than ever, we need a robust ferry replacement programme to ensure that our island communities are fully connected to the mainland. This debate provides an opportunity to highlight the importance of a UK shipbuilding industry. Take my constituency of North Ayrshire and Arran and the impact that the lack of an effective ferry replacement strategy has had on our local communities, especially the island communities. Two state-of-the-art ferries were commissioned by the Scottish SNP Government for routes to the Isle of Arran. However, that was not what the community really needed or wanted. What we actually needed were smaller ferries that fit in the existing port at Ardrossan harbour, not new and expensive ships. We needed ferries that were built locally and which could provide a reliable and much-needed service, rather than the stop-start one we have at the moment. That is due to myriad issues, too many to mention in this debate. One of the new ferries is the one that had the painted windows seven years ago, which I will speak about in a moment. The ferries were originally commissioned in 2015 and were scheduled to be ready for service in 2018. Glen Sannox has only entered service this year, 2025, and has already been recalled due to faults. Glen Rosa is due to be ready for September 2025—seven years too late for the people of Ardrossan and Arran. Had there been a planned, sustainable order procurement process we would not be in the position we are in Scotland. When planning for future projects, the Scottish Government need to prevent the Ardrossan harbour situation from ever happening again. That should be done through robust and thorough planning. Ardrossan’s economy has for many years relied on the harbour. The Isle of Arran is becoming isolated, suffering economically from a lack of tourism as sailings have been greatly reduced. Residents suffer as they cannot access essential services on the mainline, such as hospital appointments—so this is serious. We are now in the position where we might lose the port of Ardrossan because a ship has been built that cannot fit in the harbour. That will severely affect the local economy of Ardrossan and Arran and that of the surrounding area. As we heard earlier, the recent procurement process to build seven new small electric ferries has awarded the contract to a non-UK bidder. It is a real pity to see the local nationalised shipyard Ferguson Marine, which has a track record of building smaller vessels on time and in budget, miss out on new contracts such as this. I would like to finish by highlighting the importance of shipbuilding to national strategy. UK shipyards play a key role in our defence, as the Royal Navy depends on them for the construction and maintenance of their vessels. Given that we are increasing the defence budget to 2.5%, I think we can all agree that it is time to revisit and reinvigorate this overlooked industry.

• 13 Mar 2025 · Young Carers: Educational Opportunities · Hansard source

  More

  It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Furniss. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) for securing this important debate. Yesterday, I had the opportunity to drop into his young carers event, which did an excellent job at increasing awareness. For example, it shared key findings, such as the fact that fewer than half of teachers agree that their school provides the support that young carers need. In a previous job I had in the NHS, I used to meet young carers from time to time, and they always really impressed me in how they dealt with multiple issues. I highlight the work of a great group of young carers who are part of North Ayrshire Young Carers, which is a local group in North Ayrshire that helps young carers meet each other, organise fun activities and have a break together—letting young people be young people. Services for young carers often offer a range of support for anything a young carer might need, from walking groups and group stress management to guidance on how to apply for financial support if required. The group reports that young carers say year on year that education is one of the biggest barriers that they face, and young carers feel that teachers do not understand their caring responsibilities, as we heard earlier. The Scottish Government estimated that there are at least 44,000 young carers in Scotland, and that 29,000 of them are under 16. Young carers can have a range of extra responsibilities, as we all know, whether that means giving medication, looking after their other siblings, or providing emotional and physical care for the adults. Many young carers rely on local groups such as North Ayrshire Young Carers, not only for time out and breaks but for one-to-one advice and information on how to access funding and school support. There is still so much more that can be done to support young carers in the classroom: we can help educational practitioners to identify them, and help groups of young carers to continue their education by moving into further or higher education. Many young carers report feeling stressed, lonely or tired, and they feel they are missing out on time with their friends or things at school. It is important that we do all we can here in Westminster to support young carers in education to combat that situation. I am delighted to see the debate taking place and highlighting what needs to be done to ensure that young carers get the right support as well as the educational opportunities that they deserve. I look forward to hearing other Members’ contributions.

• 24 Feb 2025 · Social Media Use: Minimum Age · Hansard source

  More

  It is a great privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I thank my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) for securing this debate, and for his excellent speech. I thank Kim Campbell and the other petitioners who have brought this subject to debate today. I recently met with one of my constituents in North Ayrshire and Arran, Sam Rice, who told me about the charity he set up called Kids For Now. He was extremely concerned about a lot of things that have been discussed already, so I will not repeat that, but he shared with me the work of his campaign, which is all about smartphones and social media use in children. His organisation Kids For Now is a grassroots movement that connects parents within the UK to help to delay smartphones together. It is not really about banning them entirely, but about delaying their use and working on campaigns calling for child-safe phones in the UK. He very much mentioned child-safe phones, but I am not sure that young people want the old-style phones that we all used to use and rather than a smartphone like the rest of their peer group. He also mentioned banning smartphones in Scottish schools. My hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Gregor Poynton) has just stolen my line on that as well, because we were delighted that that pledge was made at the Labour conference in Glasgow at the weekend—that was very positive. My constituent Sam also spoke about making primary schools internet free. Now a lot of this is obviously up for debate, but what he said to me was that he helps parents to take positive collective action against peer pressure and challenges the norm of young children feeling as though they need social media. We have discussed a lot of that today as well—including other things people can do while standing at a bus stop. When I was growing up there were clearly no mobile phones, so that was not a distraction we were ever going to have, but it is really important that we actually have time for our children to be children. Sam was extremely concerned about the mental and emotional health of children, as has been discussed today. For example, as has been said, research from the project Delay Smartphones found that children can no longer have any respite from bullies at home. It said a shocking 84% of bullying of children with smartphones now happens online. That is a huge figure. Additionally, smartphones and social media are more likely to expose children to sexual and offensive content, which can include young people being pressured into sending sexual images of themselves. For example, Ofsted found that 80% of teenage girls are being put under pressure to provide images of themselves. When we look at a strategy tackling violence against women and girls, that needs to be considered because of the damage that access to social media can have on young girls. It is really important to consider young people’s safety on the internet in a time where technology is constantly evolving and changing. I am pleased that this debate is taking place to allow for further consideration of where we go with this conversation, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response on the future of smartphone and social media legislation.

• 12 Feb 2025 · Animal Testing · Hansard source

  More

  I am the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on phasing out animal experiments in medical research, where Members from all parties can work together to push for scientific experiments that do not rely on animal cruelty and to encourage a focus on non-animal replacements. Will the Minister meet me and the APPG to discuss future plans and a strategy for the manifesto commitment on phasing out animal testing?

• 12 Feb 2025 · Animal Testing · Hansard source

  More

  5. What steps he is taking with scientists to phase out animal testing.

• 5 Feb 2025 · Maternal Mental Health · Hansard source

  More

  Does my hon. Friend agree that stigma around mental health, particularly maternal mental health, can be used by abusers as a barrier to women getting help? Domestic violence during the perinatal period and the effects on mental health require widespread attention, so that survivors can feel comfortable and safe when asking for support.

• 30 Jan 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  In my constituency, the Isle of Arran has been connected to the mainland through harbours at Brodick and Ardrossan for 190 years. I have mentioned before the Save Ardrossan Harbour group, which is fighting hard to keep the ferry sailing from Ardrossan. Although I welcome the new ferry that is currently sailing from Troon to Brodick, I am concerned that fewer sailings are timetabled. I have been made aware of an island constituent who has had to reschedule a health screening on the mainland three times as they are unable to make the journey and return home on the same day. Had the ferries still been sailing from Ardrossan as usual, that would not have been a problem. Will my right hon. Friend grant a debate to discuss the fact that the SNP Government and other stakeholders need to sort out the ferry situation as soon as possible to provide clarity for the people of Brodick?

• 20 Jan 2025 · Family Visas: Income Requirement · Hansard source

  More

  I do agree. To continue, an executive officer working in the Department for Work and Pensions earns £29,500, while an administrative officer’s salary in the civil service starts at £23,000. Nobody in any of those groups would qualify for the proposed minimum income requirement through their salary alone. Indeed, the 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. In addition, the charity Reunite Families UK has emphasised that the higher threshold affects women more than men, because women are more likely to have caring responsibilities and to earn less on average, and are also less likely to work full time. 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. The Migration Observatory also pointed out that the new set of policies would mean that, in certain circumstances, British workers in the same job as migrant workers would face stricter restrictions than migrant workers. For example, health professionals in the NHS who come to the UK on a health and care worker visa would be able to bring partners who are not UK citizens with them. It is clear that the visa rules are long and complex, with many exceptions and differing prices for all circumstances. The family visa fee is £1,846 per person if the applicant is applying from outside of the UK and £1,258 per person if the applicant is applying from inside the UK. Those fees are non-refundable, so if an application is unsuccessful, the applicant is obviously not refunded. In addition, there is the immigration health surcharge, for which the minimum cost for two and a half years is £2,587.50 for an adult and £1,940 for a child. If people are staying in the UK for two years and nine months, the charges rise to £3,105 for an adult and £2,328 for a child, and if they are staying for five years, they rise to £5,175 for an adult and £3,880 for a child. Reunite Families UK advises that the total cost of all those 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.

• 20 Jan 2025 · Family Visas: Income Requirement · Hansard source

  More

  I agree, and this debate is an excellent opportunity for that. It is also important to highlight that, while applications under the work routes can be processed in just 15 working days, family visas can take anywhere from eight weeks to 12 months. Often, families report requiring specialist legal advice to navigate the system successfully and to try to avoid those long waiting periods, which obviously has a financial impact as well, although I do not have any costs for that. Delaying arrival does not decrease net migration, but it does increase the personal and financial strain on families. It could be construed that the policy effectively views a relationship ending and a family splitting up as a positive outcome, because then at least net migration figures do not rise. A Reunite Families UK survey also found that the rules have a profound effect on children, with 92% of respondents saying that their child’s mental health had been affected. The separation that many families are forced into exacerbates such problems, putting even more pressure on the single parent. Parents report that younger children often cannot understand why the family have been separated, while older children who do understand the system become anxious for their missing parent. It could be said that those children are growing up in a society that implicitly tells them that their family are not welcome here. Compared with those of other countries, this family visa policy appears to be unusually strict. The Migrant Integration Policy Index, which measures immigration policies in 52 countries, including all EU member states and OECD countries, ranks the UK second to bottom for family reunification policies. Many countries with strong immigration policies do not have such a high minimum income requirement for family visas. For example, Australia has no earnings threshold for family visas, and Spain and the Netherlands require yearly income to equal annual social security payments. That highlights that our current system is not the only option. In overall numbers, the percentage of family visas in proportion to other entry visas has remained low and stable at around 5%, as the Migration Observatory’s research found last year. Additionally, the Home Office’s December 2023 policy paper, “Legal migration statement: estimated immigration impacts”, was unable to predict the exact percentage of family visas that would be affected by the change, stating only that it “may have an impact on the number of family migrants deterred in the low tens of thousands.” The Government have stated that there will be no further changes until the new Migration Advisory Committee review is complete, which is expected to be in June. I hope that I have outlined the complexities in this area and highlighted that other options could be considered for the family visa that would allow the Government to control net migration while still allowing the average British citizen to marry and live with the person they love. I look forward to hearing the contributions of other hon. Members and the Government response.

• 20 Jan 2025 · Family Visas: Income Requirement · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered e-petition 652602 relating to the income requirement for family visas. It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Pritchard, on my first opportunity to present a debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee. I thank Shannon Korkmaz for launching this petition and starting a very important conversation that has allowed those affected to have their voices heard today. It is a great achievement that the petition gathered more than 100,000 signatures. It reads: “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.” The minimum income requirement for family visas was introduced in 2012, and at that time it was set at an annual income of £18,600. The coalition Government stated that the purpose of the policy was to ensure that family migrants are fully supported when integrating into the UK, while not being a burden on the taxpayer and public services. The figure of £18,600 in 2012 equated to £26,250 in December 2024, based on the Bank of England’s inflation calculator. An individual needs a family visa to live with a family member in the UK for more than six months. The income threshold remained at £18,600 from 2012 until April 2024, when it was increased to £29,000. A person can apply for a family visa to live with a spouse, fiancé, child, parent or relative who will provide them with long-term care. Spouses on the family visa can stay in the UK for two years and nine months, while a fiancé can stay for six months. Income can be from employment or self-employment, cash savings above £16,000, money from a pension, or non-work income such as property rentals or dividends. In April 2024, alongside a collection of other policies aimed at lowering net migration, the then Government raised the income threshold to £29,000. Their intention was to incrementally raise it to £34,500 and finally to £38,700 by early 2025, as highlighted in the petition. In response, the petitioners stated: “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”. I will say more about that later.

• 20 Jan 2025 · Family Visas: Income Requirement · Hansard source

  More

  This debate has shown how important it is that families affected by the policy have answers soon with regards to their future in the UK. We have already heard the consequences of the long waiting times on families, particularly their children. I am proud to have represented this debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee. First, I thank the staff on the Petitions Committee for their assistance and hard work in preparing for the debate. I thank all the groups whose work I have been able to cite in the debate, particularly Migration Observatory, Reunite Families UK and Citizens Advice for their guidance and extensive research. Many thanks once again to Shannon for starting the petition. We have had the privilege of hearing from Members contributing to this debate with varying views and ideas. It is clear that this is an issue important to constituents and that the minimum income requirement has a profound effect on families all over the UK. Finally, I thank the Minister for her response and for giving this debate the time and care it deserves. We are all looking forward to the new Migration Advisory Committee review this year and the guidance it will provide to the Government and all those affected by the minimum income requirement. Question put and agreed to. Resolved , That this House has considered e-petition 652602 relating to the income requirement for family visas.

• 20 Jan 2025 · Family Visas: Income Requirement · Hansard source

  More

  I agree, and I will say a bit more about that later.

• 20 Jan 2025 · Family Visas: Income Requirement · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention; much of what he has raised is in my opening speech. Since the petition was launched, and following the general election last summer, the Government announced that the threshold would be held at £29,000 until the Migration Advisory Committee completes a new review, which is expected to be in June 2025. However, when an e-petition reaches 10,000 signatures, it gets a Government response, as this one did in January 2024. The then Government outlined their arguments as to why the minimum income requirement should be increased to £38,700, stating that the policy was part of a larger package intended to curb immigration and net migration. They added that 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.” However, in early 2023, the House of Lords published a report called “All families matter: An inquiry into family migration”. It stated that “applicants and sponsors can feel like second-class citizens and are reluctant or unable to take full part in British society before reaching settlement.” It summarised: “Current migration policies are at odds with the Government’s commitment to family life.” It further stated that the family migration rules are “complex and inconsistent”, they fail “both families and society”, and they “should be simplified”.

• 20 Jan 2025 · Family Visas: Income Requirement · Hansard source

  More

  I do not disagree with those comments. In response to the proposed policy changes, the non-profit organisation Reunite Families UK filed an application for judicial review in June 2024, supported by the Good Law Project. It argued that the rise of the minimum income requirement to £38,700 was made without analysis and in breach of critical public law duties. Many migrants’ rights groups and campaigners have been outspoken against the minimum income requirement. In relation to the legal case, Caroline Coombs, the director of Reunite Families UK, who is in the Gallery today, said: “In the last decade, this policy has somehow continued to exist under the radar devastating countless British and settled citizens and their partners, families and children. The general public have no idea this policy exists until sadly they come up against it”. Furthermore, Reunite Families found that the minimum income requirement can prevent integration of mixed nationality families for myriad reasons. The rising financial costs of visas and savings lead to instability, and temporary visas also make it harder to secure housing, access education and secure appropriate employment. It is important to note that those on temporary visas cannot claim benefits and can access NHS services only by paying into the NHS through the immigration health surcharge—I will say more about that later. Many people might say that this is an anti-family policy. Increasing the minimum income requirement can create single-parent families and put an incredible stress on all members of the family, particularly children. A British citizen abroad, for example, may have to return to the UK for a variety of reasons, such as a need to care for an elderly relative still residing in the UK. If they do not already meet the minimum income requirement, they may have to return to the UK alone and wait for an indefinite amount of time to reunite their family. It is said that many people who return to the UK are unable to gain employment immediately, but they may only begin their family visa application once six months of minimum income can be evidenced, or one year of income if they are self-employed. It is important to note that the non-British partner’s earnings are not included. If the applicant’s income drops below the threshold, the Home Office application process, which can take up to three months, must begin again. Statistics from the Office for National Statistics show that the threshold of £38,700—I am sorry to keep repeating that figure—is unrealistic for most people living outside 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, so many people in valuable—indeed, essential—jobs are paid less than £38,700 annually. Yet the people who do those jobs will be penalised for wanting to marry someone of a different nationality and are left with few other options, if any, to prove that they would be able to support a partner. For example, 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. Also, if a store assistant at Aldi makes £12.40 an hour, that equates to £25,792 yearly, assuming that they work 40 hours a week.

• 20 Jan 2025 · Family Visas: Income Requirement · Hansard source

  More

  I am trying to interpret the question. I am not sure whether I agree—I would need to fully consider it—so I will carry on.

• 4 Dec 2024 · Autumn Budget: Discussions with Scottish Government · Hansard source

  More

  We have delivered the biggest Budget settlement for the Scottish Government in the history of devolution, with, as the House has heard today, more than £4.9 billion of extra funding that can go towards public services. Does the Secretary of State agree that there are no more excuses for the SNP, and that Scots expect and deserve delivery and improvement of our public services?

• 4 Dec 2024 · Autumn Budget: Discussions with Scottish Government · Hansard source

  More

  12. What discussions he has had with the Scottish Government on the autumn Budget 2024.