Carmichael condemns Conservative “political purpose” in debate on family visa rule changes

Orkney and Shetland MP, Alistair Carmichael, has today condemned changes to family visa income threshold requirements on the basis of “political purpose” during a debate in Parliament. Speaking in a debate on Partner and Spousal Visas led by Labour MP Paul Blomfield, Mr Carmichael noted the important economic and social role families with members from outside the UK play in the Northern Isles, and called for more consideration of the “human aspect” to rule changes by the government.

Last year the government announced plans to hike income requirements for UK citizens or people already settled in the UK seeking to bring a partner to live with them. The Government is raising the minimum income threshold from £18,600 per year to £29,000 from 11 April 2024, and ultimately to £38,700 from early 2025, higher than the median income across all UK regions bar London and the South East.

Speaking in Parliament, Mr Carmichael said: 

“On the question of regional and local variations, in my community, we expect young people to go away for further and higher education due to the limited provision within the community. I encourage that, because I always say to young people, “Orkney and Shetland will still be here when you are ready to come back.” They go away, they meet people from other parts of the world, they fall in love and they want to bring them back. That enriches our communities in so many different ways, quite apart from the economic and social contribution. Does that aspect—the human aspect—for communities such as ours not really deserve be given better consideration by the Government?”

Responding, Paul Blomfield MP said:

“The right hon. Member is right; the failure to consider the human aspect of the decision runs right through the policy. As I say, the Government are arguing that it is to stop people being a burden on the state, yet those who come to the UK on a spousal visa do not have access to public funds. They are also required to contribute to NHS costs with the immigration health surcharge, which has been rising significantly. Indeed, many are younger and do not use the NHS very much at that point.”

Speaking later in the debate, Mr Carmichael added:

“Whether or not there is the case for a spousal visa—income connection—in principle is one matter, but does she not highlight the difficulty that we now have? This area of policy has become so complex, and there are so many exceptions and different rules applying to different people, that if we are going to have a scheme of this sort we need to pare it right back to the start and design it to meet people’s needs, rather than some political purpose – which I fear is where we have got to here.”

Responding, Conservative MP Siobhan Baillie said:

“I respect that meaningful intervention, but I disagree that this is just about political point scoring. This is a genuine attempt to simplify the rules, which is genuinely important, particularly for families who are stressed, separated or face issues such as safety with regard to earthquakes. People need to understand their options. However, the Government should look very carefully at the treatment of the self-employed and that disparity.”

Speaking after the debate, Mr Carmichael said:

“This issue of family visa rules is not going away. It is hard to see how these changes by the Conservative government are anything other than a self-interested political response to their own policy failures – with innocent families across this country, including in the isles, paying the price.

“UK citizens with partners from outside the UK contribute just as much as anyone else to our communities. They deserve better than this shoddy treatment.”