Family visa financial requirements review (accessible) - www.gov.uk

This report was finalised and went to internal publishing on 3 June 2025.

The Home Secretary has asked the MAC to advise on how to set a minimum income requirement for the Family route that balances economic wellbeing and family life. This question does not have a simple technical answer. It requires the government to balance ethical, social and economic concerns against each other. The MAC cannot tell the government how much weight it should put on each factor. However, we can lay out evidence on the impacts of financial requirements for families and for economic wellbeing and highlight the considerations the government should take into account. That is what this report seeks to do.

The Minimum Income Requirement (MIR) and adequate maintenance (AM) requirement apply primarily to British citizens or settled residents who want to bring their partner to the country. However, it also affects other routes, notably Adult Dependent Relative and Parent of a Child. This report only covers the Partner route, and the government will need to consider how any changes will affect other routes.

The MIR can have significant negative impacts on the family life of British citizens or settled residents, and their children. Applicants who met the MIR usually found that these impacts were small, although some experienced stress and temporary periods of separation while establishing eligibility. Not surprisingly, the most negative impacts fell on people who did not qualify or who were separated for long periods before qualifying—in some cases, many years. The impacts include stress and mental health problems caused by separation, as well as financial problems caused by the lack of support from the partner. The impacts on British children separated from one of their parents are particularly concerning. There is evidence of mental health problems among children, difficulty establishing meaningful parental relationships with the absent partner, and feelings of rejection. While not everyone’s experience is uniform and in some cases the impacts were milder, separations due to the MIR have the capacity to inflict severe and lasting damage on British and settled people’s families.

The impacts of family migration on economic wellbeing can be measured in different ways. We distinguish between two broad categories of economic wellbeing: impacts on the living standards of the families themselves, such as their ability to remain out of poverty and support a good quality of life; and the economic wellbeing of the rest of the population, including impacts on public finances and average incomes.

When partners who migrate to the UK have low or no earnings, their presence will usually have negative impacts on public finances. In fact, having no negative impact on public finances is a relatively high bar: around half of the British resident population are expected to pay less in taxes than it costs to provide them with public services and other state support over their lifetime. The proportion of Partner visa holders with earnings in the UK is initially low. The proportion with earnings increases over time but remains well below the UK’s overall employment rate. Average earnings were also relatively low and remained low over time. Even where the partner’s arrival improves the financial wellbeing of the household (through earned income or unpaid work such as childcare), and even where it reduces the family’s reliance on benefits, this does not prevent a negative fiscal impact. This is because fiscal impacts are largely driven by use of public services (notably the NHS) rather than working-age benefits. Many British families who would be considered to have a good standard of living and are perfectly able to support themselves with their incomes will also have a negative net fiscal impact if they earn less than the average.

Moving from the evidence about economic impacts to potential MIR thresholds is not straightforward. The reason is that several of the impacts crucially depend on the income of the non-citizen partner. This income is in most cases not known at the time the couple applies for a visa. Even when it could be known, it is often disregarded because non-citizens’ income is not counted towards the MIR in out of country applications.

This problem affects all potential threshold methodologies but is more manageable if the MIR is set using measures of economic wellbeing that focus on the family’s ability to support itself financially. If the sponsor’s income is known, we at least have some indication of the family’s minimum financial resources. Testing the sponsor’s income is thus a rational way to achieve the goal of improving economic wellbeing. MIR values that we consider reasonable that are set in this way fall in the range of £21,000 to £28,000 for the sponsor alone, depending on the method chosen. Several of the measures, calculated in different ways, cluster around the region of £23,000 to £25,000. A threshold at this level would allow most British workers in full-time minimum-wage jobs to qualify.

If, on the other hand, the government wants a threshold that will influence the impact of partner migration on public finances or average incomes, it is less clear how to do this in a coherent way by only testing the sponsor’s income. Our fiscal analysis suggests that the UK sponsor would have a positive impact on public finances once their income exceeds £27,800, although this level is very sensitive to the assumptions used in the fiscal model. However, the sponsor’s fiscal impact is not the main driver of the partner’s impact on UK economic wellbeing. A non-working, or very low-earning, Partner visa applicant will have a negative impact on public finances regardless of whether the sponsor they are joining is earning £20,000 or £60,000. The data currently available suggest that while the correlation between sponsors’ and applicants’ income is positive (that is, a high-earning sponsor is more likely to have a high-earning partner), it appears to be quite weak. This means that sponsor income is not an accurate way to predict the impact of the partner on broader measures of economic wellbeing for the country as a whole.

As a result, we have not been able to identify a potential MIR threshold that reduces the fiscal impact of partner migration in a targeted way. A higher threshold would reduce migration of both higher and lower-earning partners. Because the overall fiscal impact of partner migration appears to be negative, a higher threshold would mean that fewer people meet it and the fiscal cost of partner migration would fall, albeit by an unknown amount. The government could improve the data to allow a better estimate of the correlation between sponsor and applicant income, and if it plans to pursue a threshold with a fiscal rationale this would be wise. However, if the data confirm the weak correlation between applicant and sponsor income, it will continue to be the case that there is no obvious upper bound for a fiscally-driven threshold and that—without sufficient information about the non-UK partner’s future earnings—a higher threshold would reduce the fiscal cost of migration primarily by reducing numbers, rather than by excluding only those family migrants who have a negative fiscal impact.

The MIR is by necessity a blunt instrument. In practice, the amount of income families require depends on where they live and the size of their family. The amount of income they are able to earn varies depending on their qualifications, age, place of residence, caring responsibilities, health, and whether they are full-time students—among many other factors. This means a single MIR will be too high for some families and too low for others. However, creating variation for couples in different situations adds operational complexity and may create unintended consequences.

For these reasons, we suggest that the government should keep the threshold itself relatively uniform. We do not recommend regional variation; however, since London is the main outlier when it comes to earnings, the government could consider calculating a threshold based on data from the UK excluding London, if it is concerned about unfairness towards non-London residents.

We also do not recommend an additional amount for families with children. While these families face higher living costs, the impacts on family life appear to be particularly significant for children. More broadly, we think that the Home Office needs to review the situation of families with children, especially when they are applying out of country. We are not convinced that the current system sufficiently takes into account the negative impacts of separation on British children. In particular, we recommend a review of eligibility for the Parent route to consider making parents of British children eligible regardless of their relationship status. We cannot sensibly evaluate how many applicants this may impact and therefore what the potential change to net migration would be if such an approach were implemented.

The main variation in the current system is for people receiving specified disability-related benefits, who face the AM test rather than the MIR. We find that the way the AM test is calculated is incoherent and unnecessarily complex. The evidence is incomplete, but it appears that almost everyone subject to AM will meet it. We suggest that the government should either replace AM with a more coherent calculation or replace it with an assessment of housing suitability only.

Practicalities of meeting the threshold

The impacts of the threshold depend not just on the overall level, but what earnings are counted and what evidence couples must provide.

Currently, only sponsors’ income counts towards the MIR in most applications for entry clearance. The Home Office was not able to provide a clear rationale for treating job offers of citizens and non-citizens differently. Given how important the non-UK applicant’s earnings are to their impact on economic wellbeing, we think that the government should explore ways to take into account the non-UK applicant’s earnings where they have a verified job offer in the UK. This would help to mitigate some of the specific problems faced by British women who are primary caregivers returning from abroad with non-UK partners who are the main earners in the household. If it is concerned about fraud, the government could limit this to job offers from certain employers in which it has a higher degree of confidence and also cases where the applicant is able to continue working remotely in their current job.

If two incomes are used to meet the same threshold, it is of course much easier to meet. Logically, this means that the threshold for two earners should be higher than for a single earner (whether this is the applicant or the sponsor). Our report provides options for thresholds in both cases. However, the government must carefully consider the consequences for extension and Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR) applications. If the threshold is higher at extension than entry, the main effect will be to shift more families onto the 10-year route to settlement. This is because extension applications where couples fall below the threshold are rarely refused outright once the couple are already living in the country. A full review of the impacts of 10-year routes and whether they serve a useful policy purpose or not is beyond the scope of this commission, and the Home Office is due to consult shortly on settlement policy.

Some couples experience periods of separation not because they fail the MIR, but because of the practicalities of meeting it. In particular, the requirement to accrue six months of payslips separates some families even though they have a job that meets the MIR. We suggest that the government should ensure that families with children in particular are not separated purely by this administrative requirement.

We make various technical suggestions for the rules on how couples evidence their income. For example, we do not agree with the economic logic behind the current restriction on combining cash savings with self-employment or employee earnings that are demonstrated over a 12-month rather than 6-month period. We also recommend that whatever threshold is chosen should be regularly uprated: it makes no sense to introduce a threshold at a particular level and then let it gradually fall in real terms over time. However, it is also important to give applicants sufficient notice of what threshold they will face when they apply, and we suggest that this should be at least a year (given that income is tested retrospectively over 6-12 months in most cases).

It is not possible to predict with any confidence how different thresholds would affect net migration. First, it is too early to say whether recent increases in net migration of family members are temporary. Second, it is difficult to predict how applicants will respond to changes in the threshold. In plausible but necessarily speculative long-run scenarios, Family visas might make up around 16% of net migration, with a much smaller share affected by variation in the threshold within the ranges discussed in this report. For example, the impact of lowering the threshold from the current level of £29,000 to roughly £24,000 might be expected to increase net migration by up to 8,000, roughly 1-3% of projected future net migration. This is against a backdrop of a halving of net migration since the peak in 2023.

Our enquiry was greatly hindered by insufficient data. This includes basic administrative data that the Home Office should be collecting in statistical form, such as whether people were subject to AM or MIR. In future, collecting better data on the characteristics of each application and linking it to subsequent outcomes of both sponsors and applicants would enable the government to develop a more accurate assessment of how specific policy choices affect economic wellbeing. We make several suggestions for improving data collection.

Dr Madeleine Sumption MBE (Deputy Chair)

The UK’s Family visa allows British citizens and people with settled status in the UK to sponsor eligible family members to join them in the UK. This visa is primarily for partners, children, or parents of children under 18. As part of the application process, families must meet a financial requirement - either a Minimum Income Requirement (MIR) or adequate maintenance (AM) test, depending on their circumstances. Applicants who fail the financial requirements can receive leave to enter or remain in the UK only if they can show that there are exceptional circumstances, in which case they are put on a longer route to settlement.

In September 2024 we were commissioned to carry out a 9-month review of the financial requirements. In the commissioning letter, the Home Secretary states the government’s commitment to “bringing down net migration and creating a fair and coherent system – including on family migration.” The letter says that the financial requirements for Family visas are “intended to maintain the economic wellbeing of the UK whilst respecting family life.” We were asked to review the financial requirements in their current form and the previous government’s proposals to implement further increases to the MIR. The commissioning letter also invited comment on “any other related considerations that you believe are relevant.”

The government’s question for this review differs to that which guided the MAC’s previous review of the financial requirements in 2011. At that time, the government asked the MAC to advise on financial requirements that would ensure family members could be supported in the UK “without them becoming a burden on the State.” This review instead examines the balance between the economic wellbeing of the UK and the right to family life.

Later in the report we explore the definitions of family life and economic wellbeing as well as the associated trade-offs when looking to balance these two aspects. For context, our discussion of family life throughout the report centres around the ability for family members to be physically present together in the UK. We restrict our analysis to the family relationships that are already provided for in the Immigration Rules. The role of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which covers the ”right to respect for private and family life”, is also central to the policy being reviewed here. Article 8 states that:

1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.

2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

Our definition of economic wellbeing centres around the impact on the UK’s public finances and individuals’ standard of living.

During our review we have carried out analysis of Home Office Management Information, primary qualitative and quantitative research, an open Call for Evidence (CfE), and stakeholder engagement.

In late 2024, our CfE received 2,089 personal responses — the highest ever for a MAC consultation – and contributions from 36 organisations. We are very grateful to all the individuals and organisations who took time to respond and to share their experiences. The responses and evidence submitted as part of this CfE highlighted the strong feelings about the Family visa held by a number of applicants, would-be applicants, and organisations with an interest in the field of family migration.

Following the closure of our CfE, we arranged targeted engagement sessions with a select number of stakeholders to help fill evidence gaps and to discuss specific issues in more depth. This included immigration lawyers, a public policy think tank, organisations representing the interests of families and children, as well as academics with expertise in the financial requirements.

We also commissioned two strands of primary research. First, qualitative work comprised 30 in-depth interviews with successful applicants and sponsors, people who were refused for financial reasons, and people who did not apply because they did not meet the financial requirements. Second, we conducted a survey of people who had applied for Family visas within the last 5 years, collecting quantitative information on the characteristics of the visa applicant population (9,840 responses). Further information about the research methodology and participants is in the separate Annexes document. The data tables for the survey are also published alongside this report and referenced as IFF tables throughout, with corresponding table numbers.

We have also undertaken analysis of Home Office visa data alongside external data sources.

It is important to note that, due to the limited evidence and lower route usage in certain Family visa categories, this report and its recommendations focus primarily on partners. The Home Office should therefore give careful consideration to how the implementation of these recommendations may affect other sub-categories within the rules, such as the 5-year Parent route and the Adult Dependent Relative route.

Both family life and economic wellbeing are complex and can be examined in many different ways. The impacts of family migration policy on both family life and economic wellbeing cannot be measured precisely. Moreover, there is no single objective way to balance the two. Striking the right balance will thus be a matter for the government. This report aims to lay out the available options, alongside the evidence about their potential impacts and the strengths and limitations of each approach.

This report is organised into the following chapters:

Chapter 1 documents the use of the Family route over time and provides some international comparisons.

Chapter 2 sets out the definitions of economic wellbeing and family life and considers the trade-off between the two in setting the MIR.

Chapter 3 covers the main options for how to calculate the MIR.

Chapter 4 outlines the practicalities of setting a new MIR.

Chapter 5 considers exceptions to the Family visa financial requirements, including the adequate maintenance test.

Chapter 6 presents our conclusions and recommendations.

Further to the main report, the separate Annexes document provides additional methodology and analysis.

Chapter 1: Use of the Family route

1. The majority of applicants make out of country applications (i.e., they are not switching from another UK visa). A high proportion are women and 90% are under the age of 44.

2. Pakistan is the largest nationality to use the route for out of country applications (almost three times as many as the next largest nationality, India).

3. Since 2020, there has been an increase in the number of visas granted on the Partner route, from around 39,000 out of country applications per year prior to the pandemic, to around 55,000 in 2023 and 2024.

4. Family visa holders tend to stay in the UK long-term: 89% of applicants granted an out of country Partner visa in 2017 or 2018 still had valid status in the UK by the end of 2024.

5. Most applicants need to meet the Minimum Income Requirement (MIR). We estimate that 5-10% of applicants applied using the adequate maintenance (AM) test instead. However, the Home Office do not hold statistics on this.

Earnings of Partner visa holders are low in comparison to the domestic labour market, with weak progression over time. By year four, the PAYE earnings rate is 60% and annualised average monthly median earnings over that period for those in work are £21,200.

6. The UK’s current MIR threshold of £29,000 is high compared to other high-income countries we reviewed. In other words, other countries tend to put more weight on family life relative to economic wellbeing.

In this chapter, we examine how the financial requirements for the Family visa have changed over time, provide statistics of route usage, and compare to family migration routes in other countries.

History of the financial requirements

Prior to 2012, there was no fixed MIR attached to the Family route; instead, applicants had to demonstrate that they could maintain themselves and their family members without recourse to public funds. The test in place at the time was broadly similar to the AM test that exists within the current rules and was based on whether the couple’s disposable income (after housing costs) was at least equal to the level of Income Support a similar-sized British household would receive. As laid out in the MAC’s 2011 report on the financial requirements, a two-adult household with no dependent children needed an annual income of £5,509 (£106 per week) to pass the financial test at that time. This increased to £8,609 for a two-adult household with one dependent child. For a single parent household with one dependent child, the income needed was £6,609. The English language requirement for entry on a Family visa was introduced in 2010, and applicants were eligible for Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR) after 2 years of continuous residence in the UK.

The introduction of Appendix FM to the Immigration Rules in July 2012 brought significant changes to the Family route. These changes created a more structured framework with more requirements.

In 2011, the government launched a public consultation on family migration with its proposals aiming “to strike a proper balance between the individual’s right to respect for family life and the broader public interest”. As part of this process, the MAC was asked: “What should the minimum income threshold be for sponsoring spouses/partners and dependants in order to ensure that the sponsor can support his/her spouse or civil or other partner and any dependants independently without them becoming a burden on the State?”

In November 2011, the MAC published its findings. It proposed two benchmarks - a benefits-based benchmark of £18,600 and a fiscal benchmark of £25,700. The government selected the £18,600 figure, which represented the income a family would need to receive to be ineligible for income-related benefits at the time. It added an adjustment for dependent children which the MAC recommended, and this was set at £3,800 for the first child, and £2,400 for subsequent children.

In the July 2012 rule changes, the route to settlement was also extended to 5 years. For applicants who failed to meet the visa requirements but were deemed to face exceptional circumstances, a 10-year route to settlement was introduced.

The AM test continued to apply to Family visa sponsors receiving certain disability-related benefits (e.g., Disability Living Allowance, Carer’s Allowance). It also continued to apply to Parent and Adult Dependent Relative applications, as well as other visa categories not covered by this review. Under transitional arrangements, these new rules on family migration were not made applicable to dependents of British citizens and settled persons serving in the armed forces.

On 1 December 2013, Appendix Armed Forces was introduced. Members of the armed forces wishing to sponsor non-EEA dependents in the UK became subject to the £18,600 MIR. Sponsors applying under the Armed Forces route and in receipt of certain specified benefits were exempt from the MIR and instead subject to the AM test.

Following legal challenges against the financial requirements, including the £18,600 income threshold, the 2017 Supreme Court judgment upheld the MIR as lawful. However, it ruled that Appendix FM should be amended to allow a wider range of income sources (e.g., financial support from family members) to be considered in cases where refusal could breach Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Following the judgement, GEN.3.1. covering a broader set of income sources was introduced into Appendix FM to give effect to the decision.

The UK’s exit from the European Union (EU) in 2020 brought new EU family arrivals under the UK’s Family route, making them subject to the financial requirements.

In December 2023, the government announced a package of measures to reduce net migration to the UK. Among these was an increase to the MIR which the government at the time stated was to ensure that “people bring only dependants whom they can support financially”. This marked the first rise in the MIR since its introduction at £18,600 in 2012, so it had declined significantly in real terms over time due to inflation.

The following changes were implemented in April 2024, following the announcement:

Although the MIR was initially due to be increased to match the Skilled Worker (SW) route salary threshold of £38,700, the government subsequently opted for a phased increase with the first rise being set at £29,000 (the 25th percentile of earnings for jobs on the SW route);

The government said that it planned further increases to £34,500 (40th percentile) and £38,700 (50th percentile) for early 2025. However, it did not put these increases in the Immigration Rules and as a result they were not implemented following the change of government;

Appendix HM Armed Forces replaced the previous Appendix Armed Forces. The MIR for armed forces personnel was increased from £18,600 to £23,496 which aligned with the 2023/24 salary threshold for an Army Private and their Royal Navy/Royal Marines/Royal Air Force equivalent upon completion of training; and,

The separate child element of the MIR was removed. The government at the time stated that “this is to ensure that British nationals are not treated less favourably than migrants who are required to meet the General Skilled Worker threshold as a flat rate, regardless of any children being sponsored.”

The MAC was not involved in any discussion or analysis relating to these changes.

Figure 1.1: Timeline of changes to the financial requirements

No fixed minimum income requirement (MIR) - applicants had to meet adequate maintenance test

Indefinite leave to remain (ILR) possible after 2 years of continuous residence

English language requirement introduced in 2010

Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) publishes recommendations to MIR

Route to settlement extended to 5 years

10-year route introduced for cases which meet exceptional circumstances

Appendix HM Armed Forces introduced with applications made subject to financial requirements

The Supreme Court upholds the MIR but allows alternative income sources for cases under Article 8 (ECHR). GEN.3.1. introduced into Appendix FM to give effect to this decision

EU family arrivals brought under UK Family visa rules, including MIR

Separate HM Armed Forces MIR introduced and set at £23,496

MAC commissioned to review financial requirements

Who applies to use the Family route?

There are two ways for an applicant to enter on the Family route:

1. Applying to the route from outside the UK (Out of Country Applicants)

2. Switching onto the route from a different route within the UK (In Country Applicants). Note that one cannot apply in country on the Standard Visitor visa but can from other routes such as the SW or Student routes.

Most applicants for Family visas apply as partners to join a spouse/partner who either holds settled status or is a British citizen. Between January 2020 and March 2025, 65% of out of country applications for Family visas were for partners. For simplicity and to align with grouping in published statistics we will mainly talk about Partner visas during this chapter. Partner visas make up the majority of visas directly impacted by an alteration to the MIR. The Home Office do not collect statistics on whether the visa is subject to the MIR or AM test, but we estimate that the AM test accounts for somewhere between 5-10% of applications based on an operational data sample and our survey. We estimate that 8.5% of individuals in the population receive at least one AM qualifying benefit (adjusted for the age distribution of Family visa sponsors). The majority of applications for the Partner route are made out of country (82% in 2020-2024). The proportion of in country and out of country applications is broadly consistent over time (Table 1.2).

Table 1.2: Applications for Family visas

Year 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Q1 2025 Partner out of country applications 39,700 39,500 27,800 35,600 45,100 54,200 55,900 10,900 Partner in country applications 7,500 7,800 9,400 8,000 7,000 9,800 12,700 3,500 Other Family out of country applications 16,400 18,900 12,300 19,300 21,000 25,100 36,000 8,500 Total 63,600 66,200 49,500 62,900 73,100 89,100 104,600 22,900

Source: Home Office Immigration Statistics (Out of Country Applications); Home Office Management Information (In Country Applications).

Notes: In Country Applications includes switchers from other non-Family visas and does not include extensions from existing Family visas. The Home Office does not publish statistics on in country applications to the Family route. Other Family includes children, adult dependent relatives, and refugee family reunion. The MAC was unable to estimate the number of applications for in county other Family visas using Home Office Management Information.

Reasons for applying to the route

Responses to our Call for Evidence (CfE) and qualitative research made it clear that applicants’ primary purpose in applying for the Family visa was to be able to join or remain with their partner/partner and family. However, to establish why applicants wanted to live with their partner in the UK (rather than elsewhere) we asked in our survey which factors had been important in making the decision. Applicants indicated that they had chosen to come to the UK to live with their partner for a number of different reasons. These included a preference for the UK due to factors such as family ties, employment or educational opportunities, healthcare, culture and language as well as barriers to living together in another country (Table 1.3). These factors are consistent with those raised by CfE and qualitative research respondents to explain their decision-making.

Table 1.3: Reasons for choosing to live with partner in the UK

Reason (overarching) Reason % Barriers to living in home country/other countries (46%) My partner is unable to migrate to another country 15% I feel unsafe in the country I live in 10% We would not be able to live together in my home country/outside the UK 18% My partner has limited employment options in my home country or outside the UK 24% Employment (34%) The UK offers attractive pay and benefits 11% Roles in the UK provide opportunities for career progression 22% The wider work opportunities in the UK are better for me compared to other countries 21% Health and education (35%) The healthcare available in the UK for me, my partner and/or my children is better than other countries 19% There are good educational opportunities for me/children in the UK compared to other countries 28% Culture or language (41%) Our familiarity with English language 24% Our familiarity with British culture 18% We want our children to live in the UK 25% Wider family (39%) We have personal networks in the UK such as other family and friends 34% Need to be in the UK to help care for wider family 10%

Source: survey question C10. Which, if any, of the following factors were important to you when choosing to live with your partner in the UK? IFF table 63. Overarching categories were derived, based on whether any of the associated sub-reasons were selected by respondents.

Base: all respondents (9,840). Respondents were able to select multiple responses, so answers do not sum to 100%.

Notes: Data has been weighted to the applicant population (in/out of country, year of application, nationality and age). Base sizes are unweighted. Reasons with over 10% of respondents are reported in table.

Many of the qualitative research participants said they had considered alternative visas to meet their primary goal of being together with their family, including the SW visa, but were either ineligible or felt the Family visa would be less expensive and a quicker process.

Applications for the Family visa over time

In July 2012, the MIR was set at £18,600 as part of the introduction of Appendix FM. The Home Office and the MAC both estimated at the time that the MIR would result in a reduction of applications for Family visas by up to 45%, based on where in the earnings distribution the £18,600 fell at the time. However, between the quarter prior to the MIR implementation (Q2 2012) and the lowest quarter of applications afterwards (Q3 2013) applications fell by 26%. Note that Family visa applications were already on a downwards trend even prior to the policy implementation, declining on average by 5% between 2005 and 2009. This highlights the uncertainty associated with any estimate of the impact of an income threshold change on visa applications, as behavioural responses can be unpredictable and influenced by a variety of other factors.

By 2015, the number of applications had almost returned to pre-MIR levels. From 2015 until 2019, applications remained consistently around 39,000 per year prior to the COVID-induced drop in 2020. Throughout this time the MIR remained at £18,600, a real terms decline.

Applications for Partner visas increased steadily from 2020 to 2023. In 2023 and 2024, out of country applications had increased to around 55,000 per year. It is difficult to determine the precise reasons and thus know whether the recent increase will prove temporary. A couple of potential drivers could include the real terms decline of the MIR over time which has made the route more accessible, and which accelerated in 2022 following the high inflation episode post-pandemic, along with an increase in demand from EU citizens after the end of Freedom of Movement (though they only account for around 5% of Partner visas). Demographics of applicants are discussed in further detail below, but gender, age and nationality all remained broadly similar between Q1 2020 and Q1 2025.

Application numbers spiked ahead of the MIR increase to £29,000 (Figure 1.4), presumably due to some applicants choosing to bring forward their applications to take advantage of the lower £18,600 threshold. Applications fell immediately after the threshold increase, but it is not possible to know how much of this is because some applicants had brought their applications forward, and how much is due to fewer applicants being able to meet the financial requirement. The long-term effects of this policy change cannot be sensibly evaluated at this point given how recently the increase occurred. There were 10,900 applications in Q1 2025, which is broadly consistent with the number of quarterly applications across 2022 prior to any policy announcements.

Figure 1.4: Applications from outside of the UK for Partner and Other Family visas

Image description: The y-axis ranges from 0 to 20,000 applications, and the x-axis represents quarterly time periods. Two lines are plotted: a dark blue line for “Other Family” applications and a light blue line for “Partner” applications. The “Partner” line consistently stays above the “Other Family” line.

Source: Home Office Immigration Statistics.

Notes: Data on in country applications not published in Immigration Statistics, so in country omitted from Figure. Main applicants only.

At what age do people apply to enter the Partner route

Between 2020 and 2024, 90% of out of country applicants in the Partner route were aged 44 and under. The median age of an out of country applicant was 30. People applying in country were more concentrated in the 25-34 age bracket compared to out of country applicants, with a much lower share in the 18-24 age group in particular. The increase in the MIR in 2024 has not significantly changed the age distribution of applicants so far. Figure 1.5 shows the age distribution of the out of country and in country applicants from 2020 to 2024.

Figure 1.5: Age Distribution for Main Applicants

Image description: Bar chart comparing age distribution between two groups: “Switchers from Other Routes” and “Entry Clearance Applicants.” Each bar is divided into five age bands: 18–24, 25–34, 35–44, 45–54, and 55+. The chart shows that “Entry Clearance Applicants” are more concentrated in the 25–34 age group, while “Switchers” have a more even distribution across age bands.

Source: Home Office Management Information.

Notes: Table covers applications to enter the Partner route, either out of country or in country, from 2020 – 2024. Age recorded is based on the age at the point of application.

Pakistan has accounted for 21% of out of country Partner visa applications in recent years (Table 1.6a), almost three times as many as the next largest nationality, India (7%). For in country applications, India is the largest nationality (11%), which likely reflects the high usage on other visa routes. The mix of largest nationalities is consistent over time for out of country and in country applicants, with only Nigeria seeing a larger shift in share of in country applications, which has risen from 6% in 2021 to 12% in 2024.

The long-run effect of the 2024 MIR increase on nationalities is not yet fully clear. However, overall applications in 2023 (pre-policy announcement) averaged at 13,600 per quarter. The average across the second half of 2024 (post-policy implementation) fell to 9,800, or a 28% drop. The decline was largest for Pakistani nationals, whose numbers in the same period declined by 39%.

Table 1.6a: Top 5 Nationalities - Out of Country Applicants

Nationality Applications % of Partner route Nationality’s share of UK migrant population Pakistan 45,900 21% 6% India 16,000 7% 9% United States 12,700 6% 2% Bangladesh 11,100 5% 3% Iraq 7,800 4% 1% Total 93,500 43%

Source: Home Office Management Information & England, Wales, Scotland & Northern Ireland Census 2020 and 2021.

Notes: Data covers applications from 2020 - 2024. Migrant Density based on country of birth, as a proportion of foreign-born UK residents includes European Union (EU) migrants, who would not contribute to the share of Family visas given EU migrants did not need to use the Family route for most of the time period.

Table 1.6b: Top 5 Nationalities - In Country Applicants

Nationality Applications % of Partner route Nationality’s share of UK migrant population India 5,200 11% 9% United States 5,000 11% 2% Nigeria 4,100 9% 3% Pakistan 3,800 8% 6% China 3,300 7% 2% Total 21,400 45%

Source: Home Office Management Information & England, Wales, Scotland & Northern Ireland Census 2020 and 2021.

Notes: Data covers applications from 2020 - 2024. Migrant Density based on country of birth, as a proportion of foreign-born UK residents includes EU migrants, who would not contribute to the share of Family visas given EU migrants did not need to use the Family route for most of the time period.

Just over 70% of out of country applicants are female, compared to 62% for in country applicants (Migrant Journey Microdata, Q1 2020 to Q4 2024). This remains consistent over time.

To add to this data gathered from the Home Office, our survey of applicants generated insights into some of the characteristics of sponsors and applicants that are not collected through application data. Note that, although the data have been weighted, they are not necessarily representative of the underlying population, so should be treated with caution.

Amongst the survey respondents, most said that their sponsoring partners were British citizens (82%) while just over one in ten (13%) had ILR, settled status or proof of permanent residence. A very small proportion were European nationals with pre-settled status (2%), refugees or people with humanitarian protected status (1%) or Irish citizens (1%). Of those whose sponsoring partners were British, 58% report the sponsoring partner was born with British citizenship, compared to 42% that report the sponsoring partner gained British citizenship (IFF tables 31 and 32). Over the whole sample therefore, approximately half of the sponsoring partners were born British citizens, a third had acquired British citizenship and the remainder were non-British citizens with indefinite leave to remain.

43% of the survey respondents reported that they and their partner were responsible for children aged under 18 at the time of the survey. Note that the answer may have been different at the time of application: additional children may have been born since application, or children who were under 18 at the time of application may now be over 18 (IFF table 29).

Grants and refusals of Partner visas for applications from outside the UK

94% of applications for Partner visas were granted between 2020 and 2024. This compares to 93% on the SW route and 97% for sponsored Study visas. Applications which did not result in visas being issued can be:

Refused: Applicant does not meet immigration requirements;

Rejected: Application is invalid; and,

Withdrawn: Applicant withdraws the application before a decision.

Most non-issued Partner visas were either refused or rejected (91% of non-issued). Preliminary evidence points towards a slight decline in the grant rate after the change in threshold (94% granted in Q1 2024, dropping to 86% by Q4). Some of this decline may be a temporary result of applicants not being aware of the rule changes.

In our survey, of those who had experienced a refusal/rejection, 30% reported that this was because their partner did not meet the financial requirements for a Family visa (IFF table 61).

As shown in Table 1.7 applications and grants do not fully align. This is primarily due to operational challenges facing UK Visas and Immigration (UKVI) in 2022 related to the Ukraine scheme which led to delays in processing Family visas. In this period family applications continued to increase, but grants stagnated.

Table 1.7: Partner applications and grants

Year 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Q1 2025 Partner out of country applications 27,800 35,600 45,100 54,200 55,900 10,900 Partner out of country grants 27,100 30,300 36,200 60,500 56,000 9,500

Source: Home Office Immigration Statistics.

Survey respondents were asked what actions they took following an unsuccessful application (IFF table 62). Around a quarter of applicants with experience of a rejected Family visa reported that they waited until their partner was able to meet the requirement (26%), and/or had appealed the decision (23%) (respondents were able to select more than one response). Evidence from our CfE and qualitative research indicates that during the period while the sponsor was attempting to meet the requirement actions taken included continuing to look for work at the required salary, waiting to obtain promotion/qualifications, taking on other work (additional hours or jobs), building up savings, and considering whether there were any other routes open to them.

Other actions taken by survey respondents who had an unsuccessful application included:

Reapplying for a Family visa (8%);

Applying for a different UK visa (a total of 17% of unsuccessful applicants reported doing this: 14% of unsuccessful applicants successfully, 2% unsuccessfully and 1% who were still waiting for a decision);

4% moved to their home country and 2% to another country;

1% said they remained in the UK without a visa/entered the UK without a visa; and,

1% said their relationship ended.

Earnings and employment of main applicants in the UK

We use HMRC data matched to Family visas to look at the employment and earnings of main applicants who arrive in the UK on the Partner visa. These administrative data are the most accurate measure of earnings of Family visa holders. Using HMRC data filtered for Partner out of country visas (in country excluded), Table 1.8 shows the employment information of each cohort of Partner visa holders in their first 12 months. Average monthly earnings remained consistent across cohorts. The PAYE earnings rate in Table 1.8 is based on whether the individual has any earnings within the HMRC data. It does not account for arrivals and departures, meaning estimates may include visa holders who never entered the UK or who left before their visa expired. It also does not account for those individuals that are self-employed, undertaking unpaid voluntary work, or on a long-term absence from work. We have excluded visas from this analysis where HMRC have been unable to match the visa record to a HMRC record or are unconfident they have matched them correctly. In these cases, it is unclear whether the applicant has not been matched because they have no HMRC records, or they do have HMRC records, but HMRC have been unable to match the records. Earnings are generally low and roughly equivalent to someone working full time at the 2023/24 National Living Wage (NLW). The PAYE earnings rate is also low, with 44% to 52% of main applicants having at least one month of earnings in the first year of their visa. The PAYE earnings rate is somewhat higher for more recent cohorts - with earlier cohorts potentially impacted by the pandemic.

Table 1.8: Earnings in first year by entry cohort

Cohort Median monthly average (inflation adjusted) PAYE earnings rate FY 2019/20 £1,500 44% FY 2020/21 £1,600 44% FY 2021/22 £1,600 52% FY 2022/23 £1,600 50%

Source: HMRC-Home Office data match April 2019 to March 2024. Filtered for those with at least 12 months of possible earnings.

Notes: Monthly average is total earnings between month 1 to 12, divided by the number of months with earnings in (excludes months with no earnings). For example, if a person had earnings of £10,000, and had positive earnings in 10 months their average earnings would be £1,000. PAYE earnings rate is based on a person having a least one month of positive earnings between month 1 to 12 since their decision date. Earnings have been adjusted by Consumer Price Index (CPI) to March 2024 prices.

A better estimate of main applicants’ long-term impact would be their earnings as their time in the UK increases. Of the cohort of main applicants granted a visa between April 2019 to March 2020 we can observe 4 years of earnings information up to March 2024. Figure 1.9 shows how this cohort’s earnings have progressed over time (inflation adjusted). Earnings are displayed as annualised monthly average earnings. Earnings do increase over time for this cohort but overall remain low. By year 4, 46% of applicants in work still earn below £20,000, roughly consistent with the earnings of someone working full time at the 2023/24 NLW.

The PAYE earnings rate increases over time as shown in Figure 1.9. Of main applicants that have been in the UK longer, those with at least one month of earnings increases from 44% in year one to 60% in year 4, though the rate does not increase from year 3 to year 4. This rate does not account for those who have left the UK. We estimate that at the extension point, 9% of Partner visa holders have left the country. If we adjust for these exits, the employment rate would be 66%. This employment rate may be generous as the individual only needs to have worked in one month. Alternatively, we can look at the employment rate of those with at least three months of income. In this instance the rate becomes 55% for Partner visa holders (61% adjusted for leavers), in comparison to the UK employment rate of 68% (age and gender adjusted, self-employment excluded to allow consistent comparison).

We are unable to observe earnings past the 4th year for any cohort but can use the Annual Population Survey (APS) to supplement our analysis. Using the APS (2017-2019 Pooled) the employment rate of a spouse joining a UK citizen or person with ILR in the UK and arriving as an adult was 63% overall (51% employee), and 46% for those with less than 3 years in the UK (40% employee). The median earnings for those with less than 3 years in the UK was £22,100 (March 2025 prices). Earnings do not increase much for those who have been in the UK longer. This suggests if we could look at main applicants over a longer time scale, we might expect employment to increase somewhat, but earnings growth would likely remain low.

Figure 1.9: Earnings bands, average earnings, and earnings rate of 2019/20 cohort

Image description: Stacked bar chart showing the proportion of earnings groups across four years. Each bar represents a year and is divided into six income bands, from “£0 to £10k” up to “£40k plus.” The chart shows a shift over time, with higher earnings bands making up a larger share in later years.

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 PAYE earnings rate 44% 55% 62% 60% Median average earnings annualised £17,700 £20,300 £20,800 £21,200 Mean average earnings annualised £21,100 £23,700 £24,600 £25,700

Source: HMRC-Home Office data match April 2019 to March 2024, filtered for 2019/20 cohort.

Notes: Earnings are average monthly income, converted into annual values. i.e., if someone has earnings of £1,000 in 10 months, their annual value would be calculated as £12,000. This is because of data entry issue described in footnote 4. Earnings have been adjusted by Consumer Price Index (CPI) to March 2024 prices. Unmatched and unacceptable matches excluded from analysis. Adjusted for CPI to March 2024 prices. Earnings data excludes those without earnings.

It is useful to compare this cohort’s earnings distribution to the resident workforce. Figure 1.10 shows the earnings distribution of main applicants, against resident workforce earnings in Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings (ASHE) (age- and gender-adjusted). Again, looking at monthly average earnings, the earnings distribution for main applicants is consistently lower than the resident workforce. In year one, the median average monthly earnings for main applicants are £1,500, compared to £2,200 for resident workers (ASHE, 2020). By year 4, the median average earnings for main applicants is £1,800 and for resident workers is £2,300 (ASHE, 2023).

Figure 1.10: Earnings distribution of main applicants and resident workers monthly earnings

Image description: Four-panel chart comparing monthly earnings distributions of partner migrants and resident workers over four years. Each panel shows the percentage of individuals earning from £0k to £10k per month. In all years, resident workers (teal) are more concentrated in higher earnings bands, while partner migrants (grey) are more concentrated in lower earnings bands. The gap narrows slightly over time.

Source: HMRC-Home Office data match April 2019 to March 2024, filtered for 2019/20 cohort.

Notes: Monthly average earnings in HMRC of main applicants on the Partner route, weekly gross earnings converted to monthly in Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings (ASHE) for domestic workers. All results in March 2024 prices. Year 1 has been compared to ASHE 2020, Year 2 ASHE 2021, Year 3 ASHE 2022 and Year 4 ASHE 2023. Unmatched and unacceptable matches excluded from analysis. This is for employees only.

In conclusion, earnings and employment of Partner visa holders is low in comparison to the resident labour market, with weak progression over time. By year four the PAYE earnings rate is 60%, and the observed median earnings of those in work over that period are £21,200 (25th percentile of the UK’s whole earnings distribution).

Partner visas require an extension after 2.5 years. Of the 63,800 main applicants granted an out of country Partner visa between 2017 and 2018 (and subject to the previous MIR of £18,600), 85% extended their Partner visa before or upon expiry of their initial leave period, as shown in Figure 1.11. Those who no longer satisfy the requirements of the 5-year Partner route but are granted leave due to exceptional circumstances can switch onto the 10-year Partner route. They may also move onto the Parent route (for example if the relationship has broken down but they have a qualifying child), or onto the Private Life route. 7% of the 2017-2018 cohort did this before or upon expiry of their initial leave period. An additional 2% switch to other routes. Overall, 93% stay in country at the extension point.

Refusals for an extension were low. Only 200 people in the 2017 and 2018 cohort (i.e., 0.3%) had an extension application refused, either on financial or other grounds. 7% of the cohort have no extension visa and can be assumed either to have left the UK or overstayed.

After 5 years on the Partner route an applicant can apply for ILR and settle in the UK; 76% of the 2017 and 2018 cohort reached settlement on the Partner route. 7% switched onto the 10-year route. This makes them ineligible to apply for ILR at the settlement point measured in Figure 1.11, but means they were able to remain in the UK. Applicants can be moved to the 10-year route if they do not meet the financial requirements at the 2.5-year renewal stage or at settlement and can apply to switch back into the 5-year route if they begin to meet them again. To apply for ILR, they must have either spent 10 years continuously in the UK with leave to remain, or 5 continuous years on the 5-year Partner route. The majority (89%) of applicants granted an out of country Partner visa in 2017 or 2018 were still in the UK by the end of 2024. This implies that the initial testing of the MIR at the visa applicant stage is crucial, as very few people appear to leave the UK after that initial test – other than those who voluntarily choose to do so.

Figure 1.11: Outcomes for 2017 and 2018 cohort of Partner Entry Clearance holders

Image description: Flowchart showing the visa journey of 63,840 successful UK partner visa applicants from the 2017–2018 cohort. It tracks their progression from initial partner visa to extension and settlement stages. Most follow the 5-year route to Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR), while others switch to different visa categories, remain on other valid routes, or let their leave expire.

Source: Home Office Management Information.

Notes: ‘Leave Expired’ at the settlement point implies settlement was not granted but an application may have been made. Still holds Valid Leave on another route indicates a switch onto a different route such as work or study. Extension point and settlement point are based on the rules on the 5-year Partner route i.e., if someone switched onto the 10-year route at their extension point, they would not have been eligible for settlement at the settlement point.

Family migration in other countries

Other countries also face the question of how to balance economic wellbeing and family life. We looked at international comparisons of family rules in other high-income countries, including countries subject to Article 8. In most of the countries we looked at, the income requirements for a couple with no children were substantially lower than the UK’s current MIR of £29,000 – in other words, they put less emphasis on economic wellbeing and more on family life. The results for a selection of comparator countries are displayed in Table 1.12. None set their income requirement close to the level at which families would be expected to make a net fiscal contribution or to increase average earnings. The thresholds generally appeared to be geared more to ensuring applicants would have a basic level of resources or remain above the poverty line.

Table 1.12: International comparison

Country Income Economic wellbeing and other considerations Family visa share of 2023 migration Family visa share of 2023 population Australia n/a No income requirement. Sponsor must not have any debt to the Australian government and must agree to support their partner for 2 years while they have no recourse to public funds. 22% 0.20% Canada n/a No income requirement. The sponsor must sign a financial ‘undertaking’ that they will support their spouse/partner for 3 years. 23% 0.28% France £18,182 This requirement is based on gross minimum wage for the sponsor. The requirement increases with family size e.g., for a family of 4 add 10%. ‘Stability’ of employment is usually assessed by consideration of the type of employment contract the sponsor holds. 33% 0.15% Germany n/a No set income requirement – couple must demonstrate ability to ‘financially maintain themselves.’ This will involve assessment of any employment contract or savings (held over a 1-year period). 17% 0.14% Ireland £11,212* Sponsor must demonstrate that they have earned at least £33,636 cumulatively in the three years prior to their partner joining them. This number increases incrementally depending on number of children requiring support. 6% 0.08% Japan n/a No set income requirement but applicants must show they can support themselves, taking into account income and costs of living in the region where they live. 12% 0.02% Netherlands £22,129 The amount is equivalent to the minimum wage in a full-time job. People who cannot work or have reached state pension age are exempt. The sponsor must demonstrate this for up to the previous 3 years (dependent on various factors) and anticipated for the next twelve months. 23% 0.25% Norway £29,018 The sponsor must meet this income requirement during the year of the application and in the year prior to the application, in most cases. 17% 0.13% United States £19,865 In 48 states, the income requirement for sponsors is 125% of the Federal Poverty Guidelines based on the size of their household. Add £5,203 per dependant. Earnings during the previous 12 months are considered, and a previous history of tax returns aids assessment. 66% 0.23% UK £29,000 The current MIR is based on the UK earnings distribution, where the level of £29,000 is the 25th percentile of the earnings distribution for occupations that are eligible for the Skilled Worker (SW) route. 15% 0.16%

Notes: Incomes converted into £GBP on 13/05/2025, using Exchange Rates UK - Compare Live Foreign Currency Exchange Rates.

*For Ireland the £11,212 is illustrative for earning in one of the three years. 3 x £11,212 gives a cumulative total of £33,636.

The ways in which the sponsor must demonstrate they have sufficient income to support themselves and their partner/spouse varies. France, Ireland, Japan, Norway and the United States (US) set an income requirement like the UK does, although the levels are lower (not adjusted for purchasing power parity). In the US, couples who already have three or more children at the point of application would face a higher income requirement. Australia and Canada have no income requirement for most applicants. Germany assesses income case by case, requiring only basic income to support living costs.

Some countries have other requirements or exemptions. For example, in Norway, students and researchers must have a job or savings that meet the income requirement at the time of application but do not have to demonstrate any income for previous years. Japan requires the sponsor to demonstrate that they have fully paid up any taxes and national insurance contributions at the point of application. The incoming partner must acquire a ‘Certificate of Eligibility’, which when applying for includes detailing medical history and current health status. This is to prevent a situation where private health insurance would become prohibitively expensive. Beyond income, France stipulates requirements on the size (floor space in square metres) of property the couple will live in. The size increases per dependent child.

Different countries assess applicants’ finances in different ways before the application. In Ireland the previous 3 years are considered, whereas in Germany the actual employment contract is considered as part of a range of factors. A common feature is that the couple must be able to support themselves without the need for recourse to state funds. In all countries with income requirements, household income (or assets/savings) can be considered to cumulatively make up the requirement or equivalent when both members of the couple already legally live and work in the chosen country. In instances where the overseas spouse/partner is moving to join their sponsor, their income can generally be considered as part of the household. This is provided they can show evidence of overseas earnings, assets or savings for six of the countries. The exceptions to this are Japan and France, where the individual responsibility rests solely with the sponsor.

Chapter 2: Economic wellbeing and family life

1. Family life: A higher threshold will have a negative impact on the family life of a larger number of people. Impacts include adults’ mental health, relationships, and children’s mental health and education. The threshold and practicalities of meeting the threshold can also lead to temporary but prolonged separations, which can have negative impacts on applicants and their children.

2. Economic wellbeing: We consider the economic wellbeing of the family and of the country and review four broad elements of economic wellbeing in our review: fiscal impacts, average income, living standards and benefits.

3. Many families with below-average incomes can still be considered to have enough income to support themselves (including to support themselves without being eligible for benefits), even if they do not have a positive net fiscal impact.

4. There is no single, objective way to calculate the appropriate threshold, nor how to balance economic and family life considerations. The balance is complex and difficult to measure but placing greater weight on economic wellbeing will place less weight on family life, and vice versa.

Appendix FM of the Immigration Rules details the rules for family migration in the UK. It notes that decisions under this route must balance the right to private and family life (protected under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)), with legitimate national interests such as security, public safety, and the economic wellbeing of the UK. Article 8, as a qualified right, thus allows restrictions on family migration, including to mitigate costs to the taxpayer. The rules also acknowledge a need to “safeguard and promote the welfare of children in the UK,” to ensure the Home Secretary is meeting their duties under section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009.

In 2014, section 117B was inserted into the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 which sets out Parliament’s view of what the public interest requires in immigration cases engaging the qualified right to respect for private and family life under Article 8. It requires the courts to give due weight to this public interest when deciding such cases. This means the public interest in family migrants being financially independent and able to speak English, as required by the family Immigration Rules, is underpinned by primary legislation.

If applicants fail to meet the requirements set out for the standard 5-year route to settlement, decision makers must consider whether there are “exceptional circumstances which would render refusal of entry clearance, or leave to enter or remain, a breach of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, because such refusal would result in unjustifiably harsh consequences for the applicant, their partner, a relevant child or another family member.” Caseworker guidance advises decision makers to recognise exceptional circumstances only when the evidence clearly shows that refusing the application would lead to unjustifiably harsh consequences for the applicant, their partner, a relevant child, or another family member whose Article 8 rights would evidently be affected by the refusal.

When we discuss family life in this report, we are referring to the ability to be physically present together in the UK. Assessing the extent to which family life could continue outside of the UK for different types of applicants is beyond the scope of this review. We also restrict our analysis to the family relationships that are already provided for in the Immigration Rules which covers relationships between partners, between parents and children, and relationships between adults and any qualifying adult dependent relatives. The evidence we have been able to gather covers almost exclusively partners, and therefore, whilst we do not make specific recommendations on the 5-year Parent route or the Adult Dependent Relative route, our overarching recommendations on the Family route, if implemented, will impact these sub-categories which the Home Office should carefully consider before implementation.

Definition of economic wellbeing

Economic wellbeing is a broad term that can cover anything from the strength of public finances to the incomes and living standards of the resident population. The potential impacts on economic wellbeing are complex and cannot be captured in one indicator. We approach economic wellbeing by considering two broad concepts. The first concept to consider is the living standards of the family. This approach explores measures that seek to ensure that the family will have sufficient resources to maintain a reasonable standard of living – which can be defined in several ways. This would prevent anyone joining a partner in the UK whose living standards are below an acceptable level. For example, a main applicant who joins a partner living in poverty is likely to be an additional person living in poverty in the UK, which also reduces the country’s economic wellbeing. This concept is focused primarily on the economic situation of the individual family, including British citizens and settled sponsors, who are part of the resident population; it does not explicitly consider the impact of the family on broader economic outcomes.

Under this approach, we consider two types of measure:

1. Living standards: the family could be required to have an income that will enable them to maintain a reasonable quality of life. There are several different ways of defining a reasonable quality of life, ranging from avoiding poverty to having sufficient resources to fully participate in the country’s social and economic life.

2. Benefits: the family could be required to have an income high enough to be ineligible for income-related benefits.

The second concept to consider is the economic wellbeing of the rest of the country, i.e. those who are not part of the families using Partner visas. This considers measures that seek to achieve certain aggregate outcomes that are viewed as beneficial for the country as a whole, rather than focusing on the individual family. Any measure under this approach must still be conducted at the level of the family but seeks to achieve a broader goal. For this approach, we consider two measures:

1. Fiscal impacts: the impact of family migration on public finances. For example, the threshold could be set to seek to reduce any overall net fiscal cost from the Family route.

2. Average income: the family could be required to have an income level that would not reduce the average income level of the UK or not reduce it significantly.

None of these measures are straightforward. Most of them vary depending on the circumstances of the family, such as where in the UK they live and how many children they will have in the future. Particularly crucial is whether the applicant will work and how much they earn – something usually not known at the time of application.

Like all migration, family migration will have impacts on public finances and living standards. A Minimum Income Requirement (MIR) will affect the number of Family visas granted, and thus population growth and net migration; this in turn will affect infrastructure (e.g. housing, schools, roads, and hospitals).

A lower threshold would also mean that more people earn enough to sponsor a main applicant, leading to more Family visas and higher levels of immigration. This will lead to higher population growth, and greater impacts on existing infrastructure as highlighted in our net migration paper. If the fiscal contribution of the applicant is sufficient (for example, if they are in the top part of the income distribution), their economic contributions will be enough to offset the impacts of population growth on infrastructure if appropriate investments are made.

Some parts of the UK may welcome population growth. For example, the Scottish Government told us that the current threshold is too high, and consequently risks worsening existing demographic challenges in more rural/island communities, which it said would benefit from targeted visa interventions. However, most family migrants do not go to these areas and those that do, have no obligation to stay. This makes it difficult to use family migration as a tool to address population decline in the small minority of UK local authorities that experience it currently.

In an ideal world, we would know the income of both the sponsor and the main applicant. For the living standards of the family, knowing both incomes essentially provides the key information needed to evaluate the economic resources that they have access to. For the economic wellbeing of the rest of the country, the income of the main applicant is far more important than the income of the sponsor. It is the addition of the main applicant to the population that will change the net fiscal outcome or the average income in the economy. In most cases, the sponsor is already in the UK so does not cause any additional change in either of these outcomes.

In practice, we can generally only observe the income of the sponsor. Main applicants joining from abroad will rarely have a job offer before they arrive, and under current rules cannot count such an offer anyway – we discuss this further in Chapter 4. Any income they earn in their own country, even if reliably observed, will not necessarily be a useful predictor of earnings and employment outcomes they might achieve in the UK, unless they remain in the same job and work remotely from the UK. In most cases therefore, the MIR needs to be set as an individual test on the sponsor’s income.

This presents the key challenge for any MIR. The sponsor’s income is relevant for the living standards of the family, because it is an important component of household income. A higher household income will be needed to achieve the same standard of living for a couple compared to an individual (as we show in the next chapter), but we can only observe the sponsor’s income rather than the likely household income once the main applicant joins.

The challenge is worse for measures that seek to achieve economic wellbeing for the country, since those measures need to assess the impact of the main applicant. This is perhaps easiest to consider for the measure based on average income. Whether average income in the UK rises or falls when a main applicant arrives has nothing in principle to do with the income of the sponsor – it depends on the income of the main applicant once in the UK.

This difficulty can also be seen when considering the fiscal impact. Whether a migrant presents a net fiscal cost or benefit depends on the tax payments they make over their lifetime relative to the costs incurred in providing them services. The cost of providing services is relatively high: around £10,000 per year in government spending for an average 30-year-old and increasing as the person ages and requires more healthcare, social care and the state pension. Most government spending is not on welfare benefits, so an individual can claim no welfare payments but still be fiscally negative. This is not specific to migrants: around half of British people are expected to be fiscally negative over the course of their lifetimes, even if their income allows them to support themselves with a good standard of living.

Whilst calculating values over a person’s lifetime is complex and uncertain, the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) (Figure 2.1) estimated that the cumulative lifetime fiscal impact of a low-wage migrant is significantly negative as their earnings are not sufficient to generate the tax revenues needed to offset the additional spending – particularly the spending that will accrue to them in later life. Again, this is not specific to migrants. UK-born workers with the same earnings profile will also have a negative lifetime fiscal impact.

Using the OBR methodology, we estimate that the low-wage migrant OBR describes as ‘representative’ earns approximately £19,000 per year. As we documented in Chapter 1, the median earnings of main applicants who work is broadly similar to this. The median income is approximately £21,200 in the fourth year since their visa was issued and this does not appear to increase much over time. As a result, a large fraction of main applicants on the Family route are likely to be fiscally negative over their lifetime. Overall, given the OBR figures, we would expect the lifetime fiscal impact of the median main applicant to be negative. This is because their overall earnings distribution is similar to the low-wage migrant wage, particularly as the employment rates are lower for main applicants compared to the OBR’s ‘representative’ low-wage migrant. A key point here is that knowing the income of the sponsor does not fundamentally change this outcome, even if it has some impacts at the margins (because, for example, a person with a high-earning partner will be eligible for fewer benefits). Nonetheless, the overall net fiscal contribution of the main applicant is not primarily a consequence of the income of the sponsor but depends on the earnings (and thus tax payments) of the main applicant and their use of the NHS, other public services and state pensions over their lifetime.

Several stakeholders have raised the concern that restricting some partner migration can be fiscally costly because it creates single-parent families in the UK. For example, British partners may have to care for their children in the UK without the support of their partner, increasing the likelihood that they will become more reliant on benefits. This is particularly the case where the British sponsor is a female primary caregiver. Not having the partner in the UK can reduce family income and thus increase entitlement to benefits. There are also wider costs associated with single parenthood, such as poorer outcomes for children in the long term. Our Call for Evidence (CfE) received examples of this happening, outlined by respondents who told us of the financial impacts of separation on their individual households (discussed further in the section below on financial impacts).

The number of families in the situation described above is expected to be a relatively small minority of the total. Most family migrants are women, and their earnings and employment rates are relatively low, on average. As a result, if the government define economic wellbeing in terms of fiscal impact, the fiscal argument in favour of permitting family migration for the lowest-income families is not very strong. If we use other indicators of economic wellbeing, such as the living standards of the sponsor’s family, the argument is stronger because lower levels of applicant earnings are required to improve the family’s economic standard of living (the difference between individual and household living standards measures ranges from £7,200 - £14,000, as we describe in Chapter 3). Nonetheless, from a policy perspective, the main argument for permitting partner migration below a certain income level is not economic, but because family life has inherent value.

Figure 2.1: Cumulative fiscal impact of representative migrants

Image description: A line graph showing the fiscal impact of a representative migrant across all ages, comparing this with a representative UK resident. Above the x axis is where tax received from the migrant is greater than spending, and below is where spending on the migrant is greater than tax received. Migrants on average and higher wages have a higher net contribution across all ages when compared to a domestic worker, whereas low wage migrants have a lower net contribution when compared the representative UK resident across most ages.

Source: Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) - Fiscal Risks and Sustainability Report 2024.

Notes: In £ thousands, cumulative fiscal impact includes the cost of a Skilled Worker visa, NHS surcharge, indefinite leave to remain and immigration skills charges for employers. Figures for migrants includes the fiscal spending required to keep public capital stock per person constant. ‘Representative UK resident’ reflects an average UK resident.

Migrants can come to the UK and contribute to net migration if they stay in the long term (see our net migration paper for more detail). The volume of people arriving in the UK on each route varies, and so too does their likelihood of staying here permanently (their stay rate). By combining these two pieces of information we can illustrate how many people on each route might stay in the UK permanently, and hence their impact on long run net migration. Table 2.2 groups the various routes into broad categories. These are not forecasts but represent a plausible long-run scenario.

Family visas are currently not one of the largest categories of immigration with 84,000 non-European Union (EU) citizen visas in 2023. However, the stay rate of those on Family visas is relatively high, with 80% of all people who come to the UK on a Family visa staying permanently (89% for Partner visas). Their impact on net migration is therefore more significant than the number of visas issued would suggest. It is the entry visa numbers that matter if you want to reduce net migration through policies targeted at the Family route. Under plausible but necessarily highly speculative assumptions, family migration might make up around 16% of total non-EU net migration in the long term with Partner visas being lower (Table 2.2). This is similar to study migration but considerably less than work migration.

There are sensible economic reasons to care about net migration, because there are costs resulting from impacts on the housing market and the need for additional infrastructure. However, excluding higher-paid migrants from entering the UK may not be sensible as higher-paid migrants have a higher net fiscal contribution which may allow for greater government investment in infrastructure.

Table 2.2: Illustrative net migration scenario, non-EU citizens only

Category 2023 immigration (LTIM) Hypothetical long-run immigration Assumed stay rate Long-run non-EU net migration % of non-EU future net migration Work visas 444,000 280,000 56% 157,000 38% Study visas 418,000 270,000 26% 70,000 17% Family visas 84,000 84,000 80% 67,000 16% Asylum and Humanitarian routes 160,000 128,000 90-100% 115,600 28% Other visas 17,000 17,000 31% 5,000 1% Total 1,123,000 779,000 53% 415,000 100%

Source: 2023 immigration figures from Office for National Statistics (ONS), Migration Observatory-London School of Economics (LSE).

Notes: Migration statistics (column 1) are taken from the Long-Term International Migration (LTIM) estimates produced by the ONS. A hypothetical estimate of what long-run immigration would look like (column 2) is assumed (see our Net Migration publication for further detail (Net Migration). ay rates (column 3) are calculated using Migrant Journey data and have been taken from a Migration Observatory-LSE study. The long-run net migration figure is simply the estimate of long-run immigration, multiplied by an estimated stay rate. For simplicity, European Union (EU) citizens are excluded. In recent years, net migration of EU citizens has been negative. Net migration of British citizens is also excluded (this is almost always negative too).

The evidence we collected covered a range of impacts on families, most of which are difficult to quantify. Some participants in our qualitative research and respondents to our CfE and survey said they had not been impacted at all, while others said the impacts had been multiple, severe and lasting. Those responding to the CfE were particularly likely to describe severe impacts.

Some impacts result from the threshold itself for families that are not able to meet it, while others result from the process of meeting the threshold such as rules on what income can be counted, as we discuss later in Chapters 3 and 4. Impacts are also not just felt by those who are unable to meet the requirements and consequently do not apply or are rejected: several of those who went on to be successful said that they had experienced lasting negative impacts. In the next section we differentiate between these experiences where possible.

Many partners and families responding to the CfE reported they were separated as a result of the financial requirements, either because the sponsor could not meet the financial requirement at all, or because it took time for them to do so and to gather the necessary evidence. In many cases, this delayed or prevented applications. When considering those who had applied, just under half of applicants responding to our survey (43%) reported they had been separated from their partner/family whilst in the process of applying for a Family visa/meeting the financial requirements, and for 63% of respondents who had been separated (i.e. 27% of all respondents), the separation lasted for 6 months or longer (IFF table 50). Many survey respondents who had been separated reported negative impacts on their mental health and/or their relationship with their partner and children as a result.

In the next sections we discuss these different impacts of the Family route and consider how the impacts differ across a series of metrics relating to both adults and children (applicants’/partners’ mental health, applicants’ relationships, children’s mental health and children’s relationships with their parents) by length of separation.

Across all four metrics discussed, the likelihood of reporting “fairly negative” or “very negative” impacts increased along with reported duration of separation, while the likelihood of reporting “no impact” declined.

Mental distress and physical impacts:

Our survey asked applicants who reported they had been separated for any length of time because of the financial requirements about what impact this had on their or their partner’s mental health. Around three quarters (78%) of survey respondents who were separated for any length of time reported that this had negative impacts on their or their partner’s mental health, compared to 18% who said that separation had had no impact (IFF table 51). The likelihood of reporting negative impacts increased with reported length of separation (see Table 2.3).

Table 2.3: Impact on applicant or partner’s mental health

Very negative impact Fairly negative impact No impact Fairly positive impact Very positive impact Separated for up to 6 months 26% 43% 29% 1% 1% Separated for 6 - 12 months 38% 41% 16% 3% 2% Separated for more than 1 year But less than 2 48% 38% 10% 2% 2% Separated for more than 2 years 60% 29% 8% 2% 1% Total (all separated) 39% 39% 18% 2% 2%

Source: Survey questions C4.1 and C3.

Notes: Row percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding. Categories ‘less than 1 month’, ‘1 - 2 months’ and ‘2 - 6 months’ have been combined into ‘Separated for up to 6 months’. Categories ‘more than 2 years but less than 3’ and ‘3 years or more’ have been combined into ‘Separated for more than 2 years’. Data has been weighted to the applicant population (in/out of country, year of application, nationality and age). Base sizes are unweighted.

Base: All separated (C3) and selecting a response other than “Not applicable” to C4.1 (total base size 3726). Separated for: up to 6 months, 1417; 6 - 12 months, 1004; more than 1 year but less than 2, 681; more than 2 years, 624.

Total (all separated): very negative impact, 1,452; fairly negative impact, 1,496; No impact, 661; Fairly positive impact, 67; Very positive impact, 50.

From our CfE and interviews, families that did not apply for a visa because they could not meet the threshold reported particularly severe distress and disruptive impacts on their family life, with many reporting a decline in their mental health related to prolonged separation and lack of certainty over when the separation would end. This supports the findings of the survey, where the most severe impacts were reported by those reporting longer separations. Not being able to meet the MIR was one of the main reasons why people who said they would like to make an application reported not doing so.

Although some respondents said they were able to see their partner by using visit visas, others said they had not been able to get visit visas or were not able to travel because of finances and work particularly when the partner lived further away. Reunite Families UK (RFUK) reported similar findings in its own research, stating that “The vast majority (83%) of the respondents indicated that their mental health deteriorated… The majority (60%) of the respondents further indicated that their child’s mental health has deteriorated.”

Yeah, it’s really affecting him [her husband] and his mental health is really bad. Like, he calls me every day and he’s crying because he’s not with his family, he’s not with me and the boys.

Qualitative interview participant, sponsor, not yet applied

The impact has been that I struggle to bring our daughter up alone in this country. We have not seen him [my husband] in 18 months as he cannot get a visit visa to this country, and we cannot afford the extortionate prices to visit him in school holidays. It has previously been said that video calls are adequate to provide a relationship with parents and their children. This however is not the case for us, my daughter becomes mute on any type of call and does not interact in any way at all, so maintaining the relationship between father and daughter is extremely hard. If my husband was here, I would not be reliant on benefits, and we would be able to give our daughter a better life.

CfE personal capacity, sponsor, not yet applied

Uncertainty and stress were particularly strongly expressed by sponsors who needed to find a higher-paying or more stable job to meet the requirement and did not have a timeline for when this was achievable. Those responding to the CfE who were working additional hours widely reported working in National Living Wage (NLW) jobs, working irregular hours/in precarious employment, being self-employed/freelancing, being on fixed-term contracts, or working while also acting as carers and potentially therefore limited or inconsistent in the hours they could work.

My life and my husband’s life is basically on hold until the foreseeable. I am constantly, every single day and for the past three years, been under pressure to find, stay in, and then gather enough evidence for the MIR. We almost did it when it was £18,000 and then they announced the change. He is tired of being apart, I am tired of being apart, and it seems impossible. I live in the [outside London/South East] and there’s just no way I’m finding one position which pays £29,000 – I need to find two, meaning I’m working upwards of 56 - 60 hours a week with one day break.

CfE personal capacity, sponsor, not yet applied

In the CfE and interviews, those who did not apply/were waiting to become eligible, or who had unsuccessful applications, reported distress about the inability to progress with life plans, such as having children, and going through major life events alone.

I am unable to live in the same country as my husband, who I married almost 6 months ago. We are unable to plan for normal things, like one day buying a house or starting a family. I am searching for higher paid employment, but am yet to find a suitable role, and should I find a job that allows me to meet the financial requirement I will likely lose the flexibility of my current job and have to see my husband even less than I currently do in the run up to applying for a visa. Realistically, I am faced with the dilemma of choosing between my home country and my loving family, and my own husband. This is obviously a highly stressful situation, which naturally negatively affects my mental health. The impact of the current higher financial requirements affects most areas of our lives.

CfE personal capacity, sponsor, not yet applied

I think the biggest one for us was the fact that I was really ready to have children… I was really ready when we got married. And we don’t have them because we can’t have them, because I’m not going to be a single mum, it would be much harder.

Qualitative interview participant, sponsor, unsuccessful MIR application, £29,000 threshold

There were examples in the CfE and interviews of the positive impacts of being able to rejoin family, for those who made successful applications. However, even after a successful application, some people reported examples of negative impacts on the mental health of sponsors and partners. Some, particularly those responding to our CfE, reported that the impacts were persistent and long lasting:

I have now been diagnosed with depression for which I am heavily medicated, I also have severe anxiety. My marriage broke down due to distance.

CfE personal capacity, sponsor, unsuccessful MIR application, £18,600 threshold

The last 7/8 years have been hell. We spent 1 year apart in 2017/18 due to the MIR and [this] has left us both with PTSD, separation anxiety and not to mention the emotional impact, but we are no longer financially stable because of the costs involved also which has put a huge pressure on our relationship.

CfE personal capacity, sponsor, successful MIR application, £18,600 threshold

In the qualitative interviews, respondents who had a successful application generally said waiting for a decision whilst remaining apart was difficult (from Home Office data covering 2020 to 2024, the median successful applicant on the Partner route had to wait 47 days for a decision), with several respondents having reported becoming emotional at the outcome due to both this, and the general length and complexity of the application process.

However, there were also those who expressed a view that a period of separation was just a necessary part of the process, even if it could be difficult: these tended to be people who had a firm plan to meet the financial requirement, and who had either been successful in their application or were confident they would be so. In these cases, being apart, while rarely framed positively, was accepted with resignation.

I mean, we manage. Like, we started our relationship long distance. I think it’s just, get on with it. It’s not the best, but…

Qualitative interview participant, sponsor, successful MIR application, £18,600 threshold

We always knew it would be something like two to three months… [I was] busy with my new job and getting the house ready for them.

Qualitative interview participant, sponsor, successful MIR application, £18,600 threshold

In our survey more than half of applicants (58%) who were separated for any length of time because of the financial requirements reported negative impacts on their relationship with their partner, whilst 37% of applicants reported no impact (IFF table 52). The likelihood of experiencing negative impacts increased the greater the reported time spent apart (see Table 2.4 below).

Table 2.4: Impact on applicant and partner’s relationship

Very negative impact Fairly negative impact No impact Fairly positive impact Very positive impact Separated for up to 6 months 12% 33% 51% 2% 3% Separated for 6-12 months 18% 39% 37% 3% 3% Separated for more than 1 year but less than 2 27% 41% 27% 3% 2% Separated for more than 2 years 37% 40% 19% 3% 2% Total (all separated) 20% 37% 37% 3% 3%

Source: Survey questions C4.2 and C3.

Notes: Row percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding. Categories ‘less than 1 month’, ‘1 - 2 months’ and ‘2 - 6 months’ have been combined into ‘Separated for up to 6 months’. Categories ‘more than 2 years but less than 3’ and ‘3 years or more’ have been combined into ‘Separated for more than 2 years’. Data has been weighted to the applicant population (in/out of country, year of application, nationality and age). Base sizes are unweighted.

Base: All separated (C3) and selecting a response other than “Not applicable” to C4.2 (total base size 3719). Separated for: up to 6 months, 1420; 6 - 12 months, 1006; more than 1 year but less than 2, 676; more than 2 years, 617.

Total (all separated): very negative impact: 716; fairly negative impact, 1,405; no impact, 1,416; fairly positive impact, 95 ; very positive impact, 87.

Some respondents to the CfE or who were interviewed also said that separations were a stressor on their relationship, especially when there were additional difficulties such as childcare or health needs and/or there was no end point in sight. However, the application process (i.e. gathering proof of income and proof of relationship), especially when combined with wider financial stress, was also described as stressful.

Some respondents in the CfE and qualitative research reported that the burden of meeting the requirement (the distance, stress of looking for work that met the financial requirement and not knowing how long separation would last) led to a breakdown of their relationships.

The stress of having to leave the UK to be together, and then the disruption that this had to both of our careers caused immense stress to both of us. It exacerbated my eczema, with led to mental health problems, and consequently problems for me at work. This combination of factors contributed to the end of my relationship with my ex-partner…

CfE personal capacity, sponsor, not yet applied

The strain of caring for children alone without having partners to support the sponsor was widely reported in the CfE and interviews. This impacted sponsors who had come to the UK without their partner, or those who remained abroad and lacked wider family support because they were not (yet) able to apply or did not want to be separated. This was reported by all types of parents but was especially strongly expressed by parents of very young children, parents of children with additional needs, and parents who themselves had health problems.

We have to consider we are single parents while [our] partners are in a foreign country and juggling work and children alone is a massive struggle and expensive.

CfE personal capacity, sponsor, not yet applied

Emotional/behavioural and physical impacts:

Organisations representing children told us that children were being impacted in the short and longer term due to separation from one of their parents, at all stages of development from early and primary years to teenagers. Parents also reported impacts on their children in their personal responses.

Survey respondents who had experienced separation were asked about the impacts of any separation on the mental health of their children (IFF table 53). Just over half (58%) of respondents answering this question reported negative impacts on their children’s mental health, compared to 39% reporting no impact.

Table 2.5: Impact on applicant’s children’s mental health

Very negative impact Fairly negative impact No impact Fairly positive impact Very positive impact Separated for up to 6 months 18% 21% 57% 0% 3% Separated for 6-12 months 30% 27% 40% 1% 1% Separated for more than 1 year but less than 2 42% 24% 31% 1% 2% Separated for more than 2 years 48% 29% 21% 2% 1% Total (all separated) 33% 25% 39% 1% 2%

Source: Survey questions C4.3 and C3.

Notes: Row percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding. Categories ‘less than 1 month’, ‘1 - 2 months’ and ‘2 - 6 months’ have been combined into ‘Separated for up to 6 months’. Categories ‘more than 2 years but less than 3’ and ‘3 years or more’ have been combined into ‘Separated for more than 2 years’. Data has been weighted to the applicant population (in/out of country, year of application, nationality and age). Base sizes are unweighted.

Base: All separated (C3) and selecting a response other than “Not applicable” to C4.3 (Total base size 1454). Separated for: up to 6 months, 506; 6-12 months, 343; more than 1 year but less than 2, 276; more than 2 years, 329.

Total (all separated): very negative impact: 479; fairly negative impact, 398; no impact, 538; fairly positive impact, 13; very positive impact, 26.