The Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) has recently published a report advising the government against raising the minimum income threshold for families of migrants from the current £29,000 to £38,700. This recommendation follows consultations that included over 2,000 responses from individuals and 36 from organizations.
The MAC highlighted the significant negative consequences the current Minimum Income Requirement (MIR) can have on the family lives of British citizens, settled residents, and their children. While some applicants who meet the MIR reported only mild impacts, others experienced considerable stress, periods of separation, and financial strain while working to meet eligibility criteria. The most severe effects were felt by those who failed to qualify or endured long periods of family separation, sometimes lasting years. The committee specifically noted the emotional toll on children, including mental health issues, difficulty maintaining relationships with absent parents, and feelings of rejection. While not every family experiences the same degree of hardship, the report concludes that separation due to the MIR can cause profound and lasting harm.
The report also emphasized that the UK’s existing threshold of £29,000 is already high compared to most developed countries, many of which prioritize family unity over strict economic measures. The MAC referenced Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which protects the right to family life, a point that has been challenged by the Shadow Home Secretary. Nevertheless, the committee observed that many other countries adopt a more compassionate approach toward the families of citizens and settled residents.
In evaluating the broader economic context, the MAC acknowledged that about half of the British population is expected to contribute less in taxes than they receive in public services and support over their lifetimes. Thus, setting a standard that requires every individual to be a net fiscal contributor is unrealistic. Many families with incomes below the national average remain financially self-sufficient, even if they are not net contributors to public finances or eligible for state benefits.
Although income levels vary significantly by region, the committee chose not to recommend region-specific thresholds. However, it suggested that London’s higher wages may distort national averages and should not disproportionately influence national income requirements.
The MAC strongly opposed any additional income requirements for families with children, highlighting the particularly harmful effects of separation on children — especially those whose parents are applying from abroad. It recommended revising eligibility criteria for the Parent route to allow parents of British children to apply, regardless of their current relationship status.
The report also drew attention to the administrative burdens imposed by the Home Office, such as the requirement to provide six months of payslips, arguing that procedural difficulties should not justify family separations. The committee described the current adequate maintenance test as “incoherent and unnecessarily complex,” proposing instead a clearer system based either on straightforward financial calculations or an assessment focused solely on housing adequacy.
The MAC criticized the rule that only the sponsor’s income is considered in out-of-country applications. It recommended allowing applicants to count their own income if they have a verified job offer in the UK. This change would particularly support British women who serve as primary caregivers and are often unable to meet income requirements when their partners — often the primary earners — remain abroad.
The committee also set out several recommendations for the Home Office to improve its data in this area, to include:
- Whether the application is subject to the MIR or AM test, which makes it difficult to understand precisely how many people are using this route and refusal rates;
- Reason for refusal or decision to place an applicant onto the 10-year route, which makes it difficult to understand the impact of a change in the MIR;
- The breakdown of sources of finances used to meet the income requirement (benefits, savings, salary, other), income levels, and whose income was used (applicant, sponsor, both), which makes it difficult to estimate the potential impact of any changes in the MIR levels;
- Any information on the sponsor, again making it difficult to understand the impact of a change in the MIR (age, earnings, gender);
- Location, which we understand is recorded by case workers but isn’t available for use in any datasets; this makes it difficult to understand the impact of changes to the MIR by region;
- Whether fee waivers had been used;
- If being tested using the AM, which disability benefit the individual received; and,
- The range of case types (sub-categories of the Family visa route) used for the Home Office Management Information within the Family visa category is relatively complex, and in some cases do not necessarily align with published statistics particularly for in country visas. Simplifying these for use in statistical analysis and mapping them to published statistics categories may support further analysis of routes, such as child dependants and adult dependent relatives.
Minimum income threshold recommendations
Several options for a minimum income requirement are set out in the report, each with different considerations for the government to consider.
The committee recommends that the income threshold be reviewed and adjusted regularly to prevent sudden and substantial increases, as occurred with the most recent rise.
Conclusion
All of the committee’s proposed thresholds are below the current £29,000 level. While it seems unlikely that the government will lower the threshold—given its history of selectively adopting the committee’s recommendations (for example, on granting work permission to asylum seekers)—this review may at least serve to discourage any further increases to the MIR in the future.