Controversial immigration rules are dividing opinion — and families

Thousands of families stand to be torn apart as a power struggle rages on between the UK government and courts.

In the latest conflict between the coalition and the judges, over 15,000 families face being separated by government policy.

The Home Office is appealing this summer’s High Court judgment, which found new immigration rules on partners and children joining their families in the UK breach basic human rights.

Last month (5 July), three families won a judicial review of new immigration rules which required British citizens and refugees to earn at least £18,600 if they want to bring a non-European partner into the UK, rising to £22,400 if a partner and child are coming, plus £2,400 for each additional child.

Justice Blake ruled that the new earnings threshold was not unlawful] in itself, but it was a ‘disproportionate’ interference with the right to a family life at the level it was set, especially as it was combined with other onerous rules. For example, the requirement that applicants must have at least £16,000 in the bank if they want to use savings to supplement an income less than the £18,600 threshold.

Justice Blake suggested a lower threshold of £13,500, which would be less likely to penalise young couples, and he also proposed taking into account the earnings of the incoming partner, who may well be the main breadwinner.

The ruling culminated months of campaigning by separated families, human rights lawyers and MPs and came hot on the tails of a June report by the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Migration, which called for an independent review of the rules in light of “emerging evidence about what must be the unintended consequences” - including, it said, the cost to the public purse.

Yet the government remains adamant that the new rules are fair and economically sound and has launched an appeal against the High Court ruling. Earlier this month, House of Lords whip Lord Taylor of Holbeach sent a letter to peers defending the measures.

Lord Taylor insisted that a Middlesex University study which found that preventing 17,800 partners coming to work in the UK would cost £850million in lost economic activity over 10 years, did not include costs such as welfare, health and education.  Lord Taylor argued that the net benefit of the income threshold barrier to family immigration will be £660m to the taxpayer over the next decade.

“The aims of the income threshold are to ensure that family migrants are supported at a reasonable level so that they do not become a burden on the taxpayer and they can participate sufficiently in everyday life to facilitate their integration in British society,” maintained Lord Taylor. 

What is clear is that thousands of husbands, wives, fathers and mothers will suffer separation from their families under such rules.

The £18,600 figure came from advice by the UK Border Agency’s Migration Advisory Committee. Their November 2011 report suggested that 45 per cent of the 37,600 visas issued to migrants joining their spouse or partner that year would fail to meet an £18,600 income threshold. But the Committee warned that its advice was based on economic considerations alone, with no reference to wider legal, social or moral issues. Furthermore, it noted that its calculations relied on various assumptions and generalisations.

So just how arbitrary is the £18,600 income barrier to bring a loved one who may be earning more than you to the UK? It’s certainly far above the £12,875 minimum wage earnings for a 40 hour week.

But as usual, we have a government that says it is determined not to let the courts dictate public policy — even though the High Court’s judicial review in July was not overturning Home Office rules, just suggesting a few sensible amendments to make these family rules more workable and help comply with human rights.

The government’s intransigence suggests it fears discrimination or human rights claims if it loses the appeal.

Meanwhile the cost of these wranglings add up, as does the human cost of couples divided and children growing up not knowing their fathers.

Once again human rights, in this case the right to a family life, is the battle ground for an ugly squabble between government and the courts.

The Home Office is appealing this summer’s High Court judgment on the new immigration rules. Photo: Getty

Vanessa Ganguin is a partner at Laura Devine Solicitors. She is an immigration specialist and heads the firm’s human rights and appeals team.

Getty
Show Hide image

Inside the progressive alliance that beat Zac Goldsmith in Richmond

Frantic phone calls, hundreds of volunteers, and Labour MPs constrained by their party. 

Politics for a progressive has been gloomy for a long time. On Thursday, in Richmond Park of all places, there was a ray of light. Progressive parties (at least some of them) and ordinary voters combined to beat Ukip, the Tories and their "hard Brexit, soft racist" candidate.

It didn’t happen by accident. Let's be clear, the Liberal Democrats do by-elections really well. Their activists flood in, and good luck to them. But Richmond Park was too big a mountain for even their focused efforts. No, the narrow win was also down to the fast growing idea of a progressive alliance. 

The progressive alliance is both a defensive and offensive move. It recognises the tactical weakness of progressives under first past the post – a system the Tories and their press know how to game. With progressive forces spilt between Labour, Liberal Democrats, Greens, the SNP, Plaid Cymru, the Women’s Equality Party and more – there is no choice but to co-operate, bring in proportional representation and then a whole new political world begins.

This move opens up the wider strategy – to end the domination of the City, and right-wing newspapers like the Mail, so Britain can have a real debate and make real choices about what sort of economy and society it wants. A pipedream? Well, maybe. But last night the fuse was lit in Richmond Park. The progressive alliance can work.

Months before the by-election, the pressure group for a progressive alliance that I chair, Compass, the Greens, and some Labour, Liberal Democrat and SNP MPs and activists, began considering this. The alternative after Brexit was staring into the void.

Then the Tory MP Zac Goldsmith stepped down over Heathrow. To be fair, he had pledged to do this, and we should have been better prepared. In the event, urgent behind-the-scenes calls were made between the Greens and the Liberal Democrats. Compass acted as the safe house. The Greens, wonderfully, clung onto democracy – the local party had to decide. And they decided to stand up for a new politics. Andree Frieze would have been the Green candidate, and enjoyed her moment in the autumn sun. She and her party turned it down for a greater good. So did the Women’s Equality Party.

Meanwhile, what about Labour? Last time, they came a distant third. Again the phones were hit and meetings held. There was growing support not to stand. But what would they get back from the Liberal Democrats, and what did the rules say about not standing? It was getting close to the wire. I spent an hour after midnight, in the freezing cold of Aberdeen, on the phone to a sympathetic Labour MP trying to work out what the party rule book said before the selection meeting.

At the meeting, I am told, a move was made from the floor not to select. The London regional official ruled it out of order and said a candidate would be imposed if they didn’t select. Some members walked out at this point. Where was the new kinder, gentler politics? Where was membership democracy? Fast forward to last night, and the Labour candidate got less votes than the party has members.

The idea of a progressive alliance in Richmond was then cemented in a draughty church hall on the first Tuesday of the campaign – the Unitarian Church of course. Within 48 hours notice, 200 local activist of all parties and none had come together to hear the case for a progressive alliance. Both the Greens and Compass produced literature to make the case for voting for the best-placed progressive candidate. The Liberal Democrats wove their by-election magic. And together we won.

It’s a small victory – but it shows what is possible. Labour is going to have to think very hard whether it wants to stay outside of this, when so many MPs and members see it as common sense. The lurch to the right has to be stopped – a progressive alliance, in which Labour is the biggest tent in the campsite, is the only hope.

In the New Year, the Progressive Alliance will be officially launched with a steering committee, website and activists tool-kit. There will also be a trained by-election hit squad, manifestos of ideas and alliances build locally and across civil society.

There are lots of problems that lie ahead - Labour tribalism, the 52 per cent versus the 48 per cent, Scottish independence and the rest. But there were lots of problems in Richmond Park, and we overcame them. And you know, working together felt good – it felt like the future. The Tories, Ukip and Arron Banks want a different future – a regressive alliance. We have to do better than them. On Thursday, we showed we could.

Could the progressive alliance be the start of the new politics we have all hoped for?

Neal Lawson is the Chair of Compass, the pressure group for the progressive alliance.

Neal Lawson is chair of the pressure group Compass, which brings together progressives from all parties and none. His views on internal Labour matters are personal ones.