The Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) has released a comprehensive review of the UK’s Minimum Income Requirement (MIR) for family visas. The report offers key insights and recommendations that could impact how families are reunited in the UK under the Family route.

‍

Balancing economic concerns and family life

‍

At the heart of the MAC’s recommendations is a recognition that immigration policy must strike a careful balance between economic sustainability and the right to family life. While a higher income threshold may reduce costs to the taxpayer, it also increases the risk of family separation, which can harm the well-being of both adults and children.

‍

The committee did not recommend a single income figure but outlined a range of justifiable approaches. These span from poverty-avoidance models where income keeps families above the relative poverty line, to living standards benchmarks and fiscal cost considerations.

‍

Moving away from the Skilled Worker benchmark

‍

A key recommendation was to decouple the Family route’s MIR from thresholds used for work visas. The current proposal to align the MIR with the Skilled Worker salary threshold (around £38,700) was strongly criticised, with the MAC stating that this model does not reflect the purpose or demographics of family migration. Instead, income thresholds should be based on more representative economic measures, such as the national earnings distribution or indicators like the National Living Wage.

‍

What thresholds might be more reasonable?

‍

The MAC suggests that a range between £23,000 and £25,000 could offer a more realistic balance, especially where the sponsor is working full-time at or above the living wage. This level would help avoid poverty without imposing excessive barriers for families trying to reunite. Notably, the committee also highlighted a US-style model of requiring 125% of the poverty threshold, approximately £21,200, as a cautious but achievable lower limit.

‍

Although children naturally increase household expenses, the MAC does not recommend a separate or additional income threshold for families with dependent children. It emphasised the risk of separating children from one or both parents as a major concern and urged the Home Office to reassess policies that may lead to such outcomes.

‍

Income sources

‍

One area of complexity is how income is calculated. The MAC recommends allowing job offers to count toward the income threshold under specific, verifiable conditions. It also proposes recognising remote work, especially since the pandemic has made this a more common and legitimate form of employment.

‍

Additionally, the MAC called for greater flexibility in how self-employment income and savings are assessed. At present, combining cash savings with self-employment income is restricted, but the committee believes this rule may be overly cautious and should be reconsidered.

‍

While regional income differences exist, the MAC advises against regionalising the MIR. It suggests a single threshold across the UK, possibly excluding London averages, to ensure fairness. To track the real-world impacts of any changes, the committee also calls for better monitoring of applicants' earnings over time, particularly those using job offers or remote work to meet the requirement.

‍

What this means for applicants and sponsors

‍

For UK residents hoping to sponsor a family member, the MAC’s recommendations offer a more nuanced and potentially more achievable framework for meeting income requirements. However, the final decision rests with the government, which will weigh these recommendations against broader political and fiscal considerations.

‍

Contact and Disclaimer

‍

Should you have any questions regarding the above information, or require assistance with your immigration or global mobility matters, please don’t hesitate to contact our legal team at Hudson McKenzie. You can reach us by email at londoninfo@hudsonmckenzie.com or by telephone at +44 (0) 20 3318 5794.

‍

For office locations, please visit our Our Offices page.

‍

The information provided in this blog is for general guidance only and does not constitute legal advice.