Last week the campaign to end new rules on family migration took a major step forward with a debate in the House of Lords, followed by a significant judgment in the High Court.
Until last week, the government had apparently decided to face down the growing political and public concern about the impacts of its new family migration rules.
Since the launch of the APPG on Migration inquiry on 10 June, to which MRN provided secretariat support, there has been a volley of calls from MPs, peers and affected families for an independent review of the rules which are keeping thousands of families apart. A Westminster Hall Debate on 19 June, attended by over 30 MPs from across the political parties, saw the rules criticised across the House.
However, since then the government seemed to have redoubled its resolve to avoid such a review, which would surely end in further pressure being put on ministers to rethink. As recently as 24 June the Immigration Minister stated that "the Government is satisfied the minimum income requirement is working as intended". Rather than instigating a dedicated independent review, the government intended to itself "keep the impact under review"– a very different thing.
But recent events have conspired against the Government.
Last week, an impassioned debate in the House of Lords was followed by a significant High Court judgment, the impacts of which the Home Office is currently digesting.
The House of Lords debate, led by Baroness Hamwee on 4 July, saw strong concern about the rules expressed by peers from across the political parties. Lord Robin Teverson (LD), Lord Frank Judd (L), Baron Taylor of Warwick (C) and the Earl of Listowel (CB), as well as the opposition spokesman Lord Rosser, were among those who made forceful speeches expressing concern about the impacts of the rules.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach, responding for the government, acknowledged the potential 'dichotomy' between family life and these measures aimed at bringing down net migration, but stood steadfastly by the Government's avoidance of an independent review of the rules.
But the very next day - last Friday - the Government found itself on the backfoot once again. A significant High Court judgement by Justice Blake in MM & Ors v SSHD found that the income requirement rules were an 'unjustified and disproportionate interference with a genuine spousal relationship' for refugees and British citizens. Justice Blake also 'found substantial merit in the contention that the combination of the high level of the income requirement together with limited income sources that can be used to meet the requirement is 'disproportionate and unlawful'.
The judgement particularly pointed to:
• The high threshold of £18,600 p.a – the judgment suggested that a level of £13,400 might be more reasonable;
• The requirement that £16,000 of savings must be held before cash savings can be counted towards the requirement;
• That third party support cannot be counted towards the requirement;
• That prospective income of a non-EEA partner cannot be counted towards the requirement;
• That the rules project ahead for a period of two and a half years, increasing the amount that must be used to meet the requirement. For example, where cash savings are being used to meet it, they must amount to up to £62,500.
The rules were not struck down by the High Court (this rarely happens). However, the judgment does mean that more appeals will be successful in future, in particular on the aspects specifically mentioned in the judgment and above. For more analysis of the judgment, see here and here.
But in the meantime, do we dare to hope that immediate improvements may be in the pipeline? The judgment found that "It will be for the Secretary of State if she sees fit to make such adjustments to the rules as will meet the observations in this judgment". Last Friday, the Home Office published a statement saying that:
'We are looking closely at the judgment and its likely impact on the minimum income threshold before we decide how to respond. In the meantime, where an applicant does not meet the minimum income threshold and there is no other reason to refuse it, the application will be put on hold.'
The next steps, then, will become clearer when it is known whether the Home Office will make changes to the rules and/or whether it will appeal Friday's judgment.
All in all, campaigners coming together for tomorrow's demonstration and public meeting on the one-year anniversary of the rules should feel confident that, collectively, real progress has been made. The fight is far from over, but we have a lot to build on – let's keep up the pressure towards a real, and lasting, improvement in these pernicious rules.
[Read and comment on the original blog post at http://www.migrantsrights.org.uk/blog/2013/07/attacks-house-lords-and-high-court-build-momentum-family-migration-campaign]