Rishi Sunak is under fire from his own MPs after rowing back on plans to lift the salary threshold for a family visa – with some Tories accusing him of “weakness”.
The prime minister said the government was “increasing the salary threshold significantly” to £38,700 in “early 2025” – a change from the original plan laid out by Home Secretary James Cleverly earlier this month.
The threshold for a family visa – which applies to Britons who wish to bring family members to the UK – was due to rise from £18,600 to £38,700 next spring in a bid to reduce legal net migration, which hit a record high last year.
But on Thursday night the Home Office quietly watered down the measure, saying the threshold would first be raised to £29,000 from the spring, and then increased in “incremental stages” – though no timetable was set for when the top figure would be introduced.
David Jones, deputy chairman of the right-wing European Research Group, told the PA news agency it was a “regrettable sign of weakness” while Jonathan Gullis, a Conservative former minister wrote on X that it was “deeply disappointing and undermines our efforts”.
Former minister Sir John Hayes, chairman of the Common Sense Group of Tory MPs, told the BBC the earnings threshold should rise to £38,700 “quickly” to give people “certainty”.
Speaking to reporters while visiting ambulance workers in Lincolnshire on Friday, the prime minister insisted the government was doing “exactly as we said” in terms of raising the salary threshold for a family visa, but that the process would happen in “two stages”.
He confirmed that the threshold would increase from £18,600 to £29,000 from next spring before going to the “full amount” in early 2025.
“So it’s exactly what we said we’re doing, we’re just phasing it over the next year or so,” he added.
Earlier this month Mr Cleverly outlined a five-point plan to reduce legal migration after net migration hit a record-breaking 745,000in the year to December 2022.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
0:14
Rishi Sunak is spotted buying several boxes of mince pies
Mr Cleverly told the Commons last month the government would “increase the skilled worker earnings threshold by a third to £38,700 from next spring, in line with the median full-time wage for those kinds of jobs”.
It said the plan to hike the family visa salary threshold to £38,700 could mean that “in some circumstances, British workers would face more restrictive rules on family than migrant workers in the same job”.
Spreaker
This content is provided by Spreaker, which may be using cookies and other technologies.
To show you this content, we need your permission to use cookies.
You can use the buttons below to amend your preferences to enable Spreaker cookies or to allow those cookies just once.
You can change your settings at any time via the Privacy Options.
Unfortunately we have been unable to verify if you have consented to Spreaker cookies.
To view this content you can use the button below to allow Spreaker cookies for this session only.
Labour’s shadow international development secretary Lisa Nandy said the backtracking was “just another example of the tail wagging the dog” and accused the government of “running scared of its own back benches”.
Asked whether the party would allow the rise to go ahead if it wins the next election, Ms Nandy said Labour had been “clear all along that immigration policy has to be aligned with skills” to address shortages here in the UK.
Shadow home secretary Yvette Cooper said ministers “failed to consult anyone on their new proposals and took no account of the impact of steep spousal visa changes on families next year, so it’s no surprise they are now rowing back in a rush”.
Image: Yvette Cooper
The Liberal Democrats suggested the planned £38,700 threshold had always been “unworkable”, with the party’s home affairs spokesman Alistair Carmichael branding it “yet another half-thought-through idea to placate the hardliners on their own back benches”.
Rwanda policy troubles
As well as seeking to reduce legal migration, the government has made stopping small boat crossings in the Channel a core part of its strategy to reduce illegal migration.
To achieve that aim, the government wants to deport asylum seekers who arrive in the UK by irregular means to Rwanda.
Mr Sunak saw off a rebellion over the plan earlier this month, but further battles are likely to await him in the new year as right-wing Tories demand the bill goes further while those on the moderate wing have warned Mr Sunak that he risks losing their support if he significantly alters the bill to placate the right.
Image: The Rwanda bill was backed by MPs
As well as deporting asylum seekers to Rwanda, the government has sought to manage the high number of people arriving by small boat by housing them in former military bases – including the Catterick Garrison in his own constituency of Richmond.
However, there have been reports in the Times that the Home Office had assessed the garrison as unsuitable for a large asylum facility.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:41
‘Rwanda plan won’t stop crossings’
The prime minister confirmed the Home Office assessment but said it was still his intention to use a military base in his constituency to house refugees from Afghanistan.
He said it was “not right” to suggest his constituency was different from any other constituency when asked why plans for the garrison had reportedly been scrapped.
“More generally taking a step back, stopping the boats is a massive priority of mine,” he said.
“It’s something I said I wanted to do because that’s ultimately the best way to relieve pressure on hotels and other areas and local communities.”
Who knew what about the Afghan data leak? And could anyone in parliament have done more to help scrutinise the government at the time of the superinjunction? Harriet thinks so.
So in this episode, Beth, Ruth, and Harriet talk about the massive breach, the secret court hearings, and the constitutional chaos it’s unleashed.
Plus – the fallout from the latest Labour rebellion. Four MPs have lost the whip – officially for repeated defiance, but unofficially? A government source called it “persistent knobheadery”.
So is Keir Starmer tightening his grip or losing control? And how does this compare to rebellions of Labour past?
Oh and singer Chesney Hawkes gets an unexpected mention.
Responding to claims in the podcast about whether Commons Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle could have scrutinised the government, a Commons spokesperson said: “As has been made clear, Mr Speaker was himself under a superinjunction, and so would have been under severe legal restrictions regarding speaking about this. He would have had no awareness which organisations or individuals were and were not already aware of this matter.
More on Afghanistan
Related Topics:
“The injunction could not constrain proceedings in parliament and between being served with the injunction in September 2023 and the 2024 General Election Mr Speaker granted four UQs on matters relating to Afghan refugees and resettlement schemes.
“Furthermore, as set out in the Justice and Security Act 2013, the Speaker has no powers to refer matters to the Intelligence and Security Committee.”
Commons Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle knew about Afghan data leak and should have made ministers tell MPs, Dame Harriet Harman has claimed.
Speaking to Beth Rigby on the Electoral Dysfunction podcast, the Labour peer said the Speaker – whose job she ran for in 2019 – should have asked for a key select committee to be made aware.
A spokesperson for the Speaker said he was “himself under a super-injunction” and so “would have been under severe legal restrictions”.
A massive data breach by the British military that was only made public this week exposed the personal information of close to 20,000 Afghan individuals, endangering them and their families.
Successive governments tried to keep the leak secret with a super-injunction, meaning the UK only informed everyone affected on Tuesday – three-and-a-half years after their data was compromised.
The breach occurred in February 2022, when Boris Johnson was prime minister, but was only discovered by the British military in August 2023.
A super-injunction which prevented the reporting of the mistake, was imposed in September of that year.
More on Afghanistan
Related Topics:
The previous Conservative government set up a secret scheme in 2023 – which can only now be revealed – to relocate Afghan nationals impacted by the data breach but who were not eligible for an existing programme to relocate and assist individuals who had worked for the British government in Afghanistan.
Some 6,900 Afghans – comprising 1,500 people named on the list as well as their dependents – are being relocated to the UK as part of this programme.
Dame Harriet said: “The Speaker was warned, ‘If somebody’s going to say something which breaches this injunction, will you please shut them up straight away if an MP does this’, and he agreed to do that.
“But what he should have done at the time is he should have said but parliamentary accountability is important. I’m the Speaker. I’m going to stand up for parliamentary accountability. And you must tell the Intelligence and Security Committee and allow them to hold you to account.
“What’s happened now is now that this is out in the open, the Intelligence and Security Committee is going to look at everything. So, it will be able to see all the papers from the MoD [Ministry of Defence].”
Image: Speaker of the House Lindsay Hoyle. Pic: Reuters
Pressed on whether she meant the Speaker had failed to do his job, Dame Harriet replied: “Yes, and it’s a bit invidious for me to be saying that because, of course, at that time, Lindsay Hoyle was elected a speaker, I myself ran to be speaker, and the House chose him rather than me.
“So it’s a bit bad to make this proposal to somebody who actually won an election you didn’t win. But actually, if you think about the Speaker’s role to stand up for parliament, to make sure that government is properly scrutinised, when you’ve got a committee there, which is security cleared to the highest level, appointed by the prime minister, and whose job is exactly to do this.”
A spokesperson for the Speaker said: “As has been made clear, Mr Speaker was himself under a super-injunction, and so would have been under severe legal restrictions regarding speaking about this.
“He would have had no awareness which organisations or individuals were and were not already aware of this matter.
“The injunction could not constrain proceedings in parliament and between being served with the injunction in September 2023 and the 2024 general election, Mr Speaker granted four Urgent Questions on matters relating to Afghan refugees and resettlement schemes.
“Furthermore, as set out in the Justice and Security Act 2013, the Speaker has no powers to refer matters to the Intelligence and Security Committee.”