Conclusion 1
Concluded (the committee's words)Family migration rules and practices are inconsistent when it comes to which relatives are eligible to join a relative in the UK and to the criteria for their entry and stay.
Select committee: Justice and Home Affairs Committee
Family Migration
Closed
Opened 1 Jul 2022
Closed 20 Sep 2023
7 recommendations
54 conclusions
Justice and Home Affairs Committee Inquiry on parliament.uk ↗
Inquiry scope (the committee's words)
The Justice and Home Affairs Committee is conducting an inquiry into family migration. The inquiry will approach family migration policies in the widest possible sense, including the general trends in the design of family immigration pathways, similarities and discrepancies across them, how migration policies affect families, and how family migration policies affect society.
Where it stands
The inquiry is closed, opened 1 July 2022.
The committee has published 1 report, most recently 1st Report - All families matter: An inquiry into family migration on 28 February 2023.
The government's response
Published 9 June 2023. The deadline was 28 April 2023.
Summary written by Accountability Index from the government's response. It is not the government's own words.The government's response sets out that it does not think full harmonisation of family entry and stay conditions is "the right approach", and it largely defends existing rules on adult dependent relatives, the minimum income requirement, child sponsorship and visitor appeals.
- On bespoke routes, it says that "where possible" it uses existing pathways, but that some events are "so critical" that bespoke routes are needed, such as the Afghan and Ukraine schemes.
- On child refugees sponsoring relatives, it says doing so "would risk creating incentives" for more children to make hazardous journeys.
- On fees, it says they are kept under review but there are "no current plans" to reduce fees on the route to settlement or for Indefinite Leave to Remain.
- On the Immigration Rules, it states it has "accepted all of the Law Commission's recommendations in whole or in part" and aims "to consolidate the simplified Rules in early 2024".
Recommendations and conclusions
- Conclusion 1Conclusion
- Conclusion 2Conclusion
- Conclusion 3Conclusion
Reports
- 1st Report - All families matter: An inquiry into family migration28 February 2023 · 61 items
Evidence
- 6 oral evidence sessionsLatest 25 October 2022
- 21 witnesses
Recent activity
- Government response to the Committee’s report All families matter: an inquiry into family migration9 June 2023, Report published
- 1st Report - All families matter: An inquiry into family migration28 February 2023, Report published
- Oral evidence session25 October 2022, Oral evidence
Recommendations and conclusions 61 shown
Conclusion 2
Concluded (the committee's words)There is a tendency towards creating bespoke routes to address emerging crises, but these are also inconsistent in terms of who may enter and on what terms. These distinctions are confusing and create the impression of unplanned, arbitrary, and unfair policy.
Conclusion 3
Concluded (the committee's words)We recognise that strict criteria and vetting of applications is necessary in order to secure public support, not least through the verification of the nature of the relationship and by ensuring adherence to any requirements relating to access to public funds. Fair but tightly drawn criteria can help with both timely processing of claims and reduced bureaucracy, as well as public confidence in the system and reassurance regarding the number of those using the agreed routes.
Recommendation 4
Recommended (the committee's words)The Government should harmonise which relatives are, or are not, eligible for entry and stay across immigration pathways and the Government should be transparent about the reasons for any differences. The Government should also aim to harmonise, so far as possible , the conditions to be met for the entry and stay of family members. The Government should update us by the end of 2023 about progress made as part of these harmonisation processes.
Recommendation 5
Recommended (the committee's words)Rather than introducing new “bespoke” immigration pathways in response to particular geopolitical crises, the Government should revisit existing “mainstream” immigration pathways and ensure that these offer available and workable routes to the UK for those who need them.
Conclusion 6
Concluded (the committee's words)Current family migration policies reflect an outdated understanding of family based on the nuclear family. It is more difficult for some groups such as single parents, young adults, and those in unmarried or same-sex relationships to reunite with family members.
Conclusion 7
Concluded (the committee's words)The approach taken by the Immigration Rules is narrower than that taken in family law and in other policy areas.
Conclusion 8
Concluded (the committee's words)Family migration policies should be updated to reflect the diversity of contemporary families. Inspiration should be taken from the approach in family law. The Home Office should give British citizens, permanent residents, and refugees the right to reunite with adult children and extended family members (siblings, nephews, nieces, aunts, uncles, grandchildren ). Significant, long-term care relationships, such as those nurtured with stepfamilies, should be recognised.
Conclusion 9
Concluded (the committee's words)While it is a legal requirement that the best interests of the child are treated as a primary consideration in all immigration proceedings, the Government has not systematically integrated them into its policy and practice.
Conclusion 10
Concluded (the committee's words)The consequences of this are widespread, creating gaps in provision for children and families to be reunited or achieve a secure status. We are puzzled by the contradiction between the Home Secretary taking the welfare of children “incredibly seriously” and the large number of children precluded by the Immigration Rules from growing up with one of their parents. When this affects British children, it undermines the value of their British citizenship.
Conclusion 11
Concluded (the committee's words)Mechanisms should be introduced to ensure that the best interests of the child are properly and systematically identified, considered, and treated as a primary consideration, among other relevant considerations, by everyone encountering children in all immigration proceedings. This extends to the judiciary. Following best practice in family law, these mechanisms could include the systematic use in decision-making of the “welfare checklist” (Children Act 1989, section 1) and the provision of specialist representation of children before immigration tribunals.
Conclusion 12
Concluded (the committee's words)The immigration pathway for adult dependent relatives is essentially closed. The absence of a pathway impoverishes society and damages family life. It places enormous stress on potential sponsors.
Conclusion 13
Concluded (the committee's words)The ADR route should be reformed to allow families to reunite in the UK . The threshold for dependency should be reduced and the range of eligible relatives extended within tight definitions to secure ongoing public confidence and support. Instead of focussing on the availability of care in other countries, the ADR route should concentrate on the ability of the sponsor to care for their dependent relative. Where the dependent relative cannot be cared for by their family abroad, applications should normally be granted.
Conclusion 14
Concluded (the committee's words)We did not receive any evidence suggesting that the financial requirement is achieving its aims. It does not promote social cohesion, nor does it protect public finances. It achieves the opposite. We recognise that, to foster social cohesion, families need sufficient resources, set at around benefits level.
Conclusion 15
Concluded (the committee's words)The Migration Advisory Committee regrets that the 2012 reform placed too great an emphasis on economic and fiscal considerations. We share their concern.
Conclusion 16
Concluded (the committee's words)The financial requirement should be revisited to be more flexible and to focus on the likelihood of future income of the family unit rather than on the sponsor’s past income. The threshold should not increase.
Conclusion 17
Concluded (the committee's words)The Immigration Rules almost never allow child refugees to sponsor the immigration of their family members. This is harmful to children, disrespects their best interests, and encourages further dangerous journeys. There is no evidence that providing such a right would encourage families to send children on unaccompanied journeys.
Conclusion 18
Concluded (the committee's words)Recent reports of large numbers of children going missing from Home Office accommodation are a vivid example of Home Office failures. These children are vulnerable, and particularly so as they have not been able to be accompanied by an adult relative.
Recommendation 19
Recommended (the committee's words)We endorse the conclusions and recommendations of the 2016 report of the Lords European Union Committee, Children in Crisis. “We found no evidence to support the Government’s argument that the prospect of family reunification could encourage families to send children into Europe unaccompanied in order to act as an ‘anchor’ for other family members. If this were so, we would expect to see evidence of this happening in Member States that participate in the Family Reunification Directive. Instead, the evidence shows that some children are reluctant to seek family reunification, for fear that it may place family members in danger.” “We recommend that the UK Government reconsider its restrictive position on family reunification. Legal aid should be available to unaccompanied migrant children for the purposes of proceedings for family reunification.”
Conclusion 20
Concluded (the committee's words)The right to family reunion for child refugees should be extended and brought within the Immigration Rules to create an effective path to family reunion for child refugees. They should be able to be joined by at least their parents and siblings.
Conclusion 21
Concluded (the committee's words)It usually takes months for family visas to be issued. The Home Office’s own service standards for the processing of applications are too long and even so are not being met. Delays place families in great uncertainty and add to their predicament.
Conclusion 22
Concluded (the committee's words)Service standards for the processing of family visa applications should return to 12 weeks. The Home Office should be required to ensure the prompt implementation of successful appeal decisions. The Home Office should routinely publish detailed statistics on its performance in meeting those standards. (Paragraph 108 )
Conclusion 23
Concluded (the committee's words)The Home Office should exercise its discretion to lift or delay the requirement to submit biometrics when this would involve travelling in dangerous conditions or outside the applicant’s country of residence. The Home Office should allow biometrics to be completed on arrival in the UK for a wider range of nationalities in crisis situations.
Conclusion 24
Concluded (the committee's words)Communication by the Home Office can be very poor. The Home Office does not proactively provide updates, and applicants find it difficult to seek, let alone find, information of their own initiative.
Conclusion 25
Concluded (the committee's words)Poor communication adds to the uncertain, stressful, and precarious situation of families. It also affects cooperation between the Home Office and local authorities.
Recommendation 26
Recommended (the committee's words)The Home Office should adopt a new approach to communication. The Home Office should proactively update applicants, at least when its own service standards are not met. The Home Office should establish standards about its communication with applicants and routinely publish statistics on whether these standards are met. Applicants should be able to contact the Home Office free of charge.
Conclusion 27
Concluded (the committee's words)Reaching settlement status is very expensive. It has a negative impact on families, who are unsure whether they will be able to afford settlement, may incur debt, and have less disposable income. Fee waivers partly address this concern but entail their own challenges.
Conclusion 28
Concluded (the committee's words)Application fees should be reduced. Fees should not be so prohibitive as to interfere with people’s right to respect for family life. Where total income exceeds actual costs to the Home Office, any excess should be invested to improve the quality of the service delivered to family visa applicants.
Conclusion 29
Concluded (the committee's words)The “affordability test” carried out to confirm an applicant’s eligibility for a fee waiver should be simplified. It should be possible to apply for a fee waiver when applying for indefinite leave to remain .
Conclusion 30
Concluded (the committee's words)Many families struggle to access good quality legal advice. This has adverse consequences for families, as well as for the Home Office and tribunals, who must process poorly presented applications.
Conclusion 31
Concluded (the committee's words)We note no progress with the simplification of the Immigration Rules that relate to family migration since the publication of the Law Commission report in 2020.
Conclusion 32
Concluded (the committee's words)The Home Office should support legal practices and charities to provide accessible, good quality legal advice at all levels. This involves supporting the training of OISC-registered legal advisers and ensuring that third-sector organisations receive more funding to provide effective immigration advice.
Conclusion 33
Concluded (the committee's words)The Government and professional bodies should work together to promote wider awareness and crossover expertise between family and immigration law and encourage efforts to better signpost the expertise available. This could involve the development of a “family migration” specialism for immigration advisers accredited by the Office of the Immigration Services Commissioner. Caseworkers should also train in relevant family law.
Conclusion 34
Concluded (the committee's words)Subject to usual eligibility criteria, legal aid should be available to those making a visa application involving a child or making a complex application for a family visa. Legal aid should also be available to those appealing against a decision on a family visa application.
Conclusion 35
Concluded (the committee's words)Current policies fail in their objective of promoting social cohesion. They separate families and generate tensions between families and society. The evidence we received demonstrated that even when family members are allowed to live together, applicants and sponsors can feel like second-class citizens and are reluctant or unable to take full part in British society before reaching settlement.
Conclusion 36
Concluded (the committee's words)Family migration has only a minor impact on public finances. Whether this impact is positive or negative is unclear but it is likely that the net fiscal impact of family migration is worsened by current policies. Allowing families to live together enables members of the family to work, or work more, and to be self-sustaining.
Conclusion 37
Concluded (the committee's words)More data should be collected and made available by Government departments to economists and academics to enable them to draw firmer conclusions on the fiscal effect of migration over generations, including of family migration.
Conclusion 38
Concluded (the committee's words)Respect for family life should be at the heart of family migration policies . While it is valuable to scrutinise the fiscal impact of family migration to inform public discussions, the importance of fiscal considerations should not be exaggerated.
Conclusion 39
Concluded (the committee's words)One consequence of family migration policies is that people living in the UK, including British citizens, feel they have no choice but to leave the country.
Conclusion 40
Concluded (the committee's words)Where the Home Secretary argued that visitor visas are a reliable alternative to emigrating, we found that visitor visa applications are often declined on suspicion that the applicant would overstay.
Conclusion 41
Concluded (the committee's words)Family visitor visa applications should be granted unless there are compelling reasons for rejection, based on the specific circumstances of an individual case . To that effect, a rebuttable presumption should be introduced in favour of applications for a visa to visit close family members. Visas allowing multiple entries over an extended period of time should be issued more frequently to parents and grandparents , who should be allowed to stay longer than six months at a time.
Conclusion 42
Concluded (the committee's words)The Home Office should reintroduce the right of appeal against a negative decision on a family visitor visa application.
Conclusion 43
Concluded (the committee's words)An overlooked consequence of family migration policies is the impact on the labour market. Confronted with the impossibility of living in the UK together with their families, especially with dependent relatives, some professionals decide to leave the country. We are particularly concerned by the evidence we received about the impact of family migration policies on staffing in the NHS.
Conclusion 44
Concluded (the committee's words)An overlooked consequence of family migration policies is the greater burden they place on the social services of local authorities. Local authorities are struggling to meet demand for social services from children separated from their families by the Immigration Rules and from households confronted with destitution because of the No Recourse to Public Funds condition.
Conclusion 45
Concluded (the committee's words)Local authorities are confused by the complexity of family migration policies. They struggle to navigate the varied entitlements of beneficiaries to their support, depending on their immigration status. The amount of funding they receive from the Home Office is linked to the immigration status of their clients and the application of the No Recourse to Public Funds condition adds to their workload. Local authorities cannot plan for future demand.
Conclusion 46
Concluded (the committee's words)Where children would be affected , more flexibility should be introduced in the rules that underpin the application of the No Recourse to Public Funds condition .
Conclusion 47
Concluded (the committee's words)The Home Office should provide more funding to local authorities for them to provide support services to immigrant families in need of their support. The Home Office should also simplify and harmonise the rules that apply to the provision of these services, assisting planning for the long term .
Conclusion 48
Concluded (the committee's words)Family migration policies create a considerable demand on Home Office services. The number of applications to renew a temporary visa far exceeds the number anticipated in 2012.
Conclusion 49
Concluded (the committee's words)The Home Office should reduce the demand on its services by amending the requirement that family visas are regularly renewed. The Home Office should also increase its capability to supply these services to reduce delays.
Conclusion 50
Concluded (the committee's words)By reuniting families, the Home Office can boost fiscal contributions, retain essential skilled workers, and prevent families from falling destitute.
Conclusion 51
Concluded (the committee's words)Family migration policies should be revisited to ensure that they are sufficiently protective of family life. The Home Office should ensure safe and legal routes for family reunion . The primary concern of family migration policies should be to allow families to live together. British citizens, permanent residents, and refugees should not normally have to choose between home, safety , and family.
Conclusion 52
Concluded (the committee's words)By simplifying the Immigration Rules, the Home Office can avoid creating unnecessary demand on its own services and reduce the likelihood families miss reunification opportunities to which they are entitled.
Conclusion 53
Concluded (the committee's words)We are supportive of the simplification of the Immigration Rules. We encourage the Government to accelerate the implementation of the Law Commission report on the subject and to actively involve Parliament in the process .
Conclusion 54
Concluded (the committee's words)The Home Office should simplify the application of the Immigration Rules. This involves making evidential requirements more flexible and less burdensome. Wherever possible, applicants should be given a variety of ways to demonstrate that they meet a requirement and the evidential requirements should be more accommodating of minor errors.
Conclusion 55
Concluded (the committee's words)The Home Office should reintroduce a right of appeal against a negative decision on a family visa application, including on grounds other than human rights claims.
Conclusion 56
Concluded (the committee's words)The Home Office should simplify the journey to settlement of family migrants. Routes to settlement should be capped to five years so that only one repeat application is required before an application for settlement.
Conclusion 57
Concluded (the committee's words)The Home Office should find means to reduce delays in the consideration of applications, tackle issues of communication with applicants, and reduce the proportion of erroneous decisions on visa applications. One means would be reducing the complexity of applications and allowing for more flexibility. By doing so, the Home Office can reduce the impact on affected families and prevent a range of detrimental societal impacts.
Recommendation 58
Recommended (the committee's words)The Government should make the process easier for applicants to handle, for instance by phrasing requirements in a way that can be easily understood by offering clearer and more accessible guidance on the Gov.uk website . The Home Office should also proactively communicate on the status of individual applications to preclude unnecessary correspondence.
Recommendation 59
Recommended (the committee's words)The Government should encourage immigration lawyers and advisers to expand the provision of good-quality legal advice. This includes supporting charities providing OISC-approved legal advice and working with the OISC to curate a “family migration” stream of immigration advisers.
Conclusion 60
Concluded (the committee's words)The Home Office is systematically failing in its role to implement family migration policies. This harms families and undermines social cohesion.
Recommendation 61
Recommended (the committee's words)The Government should significantly increase funding to improve the standards of the services the Home Office delivers to families. In the first place, the Home Office should recruit and train more caseworkers to decide on family visa applications appropriately and in good time. (Paragraph 235 ) < Back Next > © Parliamentary copyright 2023 A-Z index Glossary Contact us Freedom of Information Jobs Using this website Copyright Privacy notice Cookie policy Cookie Manager House of Lords - All families matter: An inquiry into family migration - Justice and Home Affairs Committee Accessibility Email alerts RSS feeds Contact us Home Parliamentary business MPs, Lords & offices About Parliament Get involved Visiting Education House of Commons House of Lords What's on Bills & legislation Committees Publications & records Parliament TV News Topics All families matter: An inquiry into family migration Contents
Reports
1st Report - All families matter: An inquiry into family migration
- HC No.
- Not recorded
- Published
- 28 Feb 2023
- Items
- 61
- Government response
- Government response published 9 June 2023 (deadline 28 April 2023). Read the government's response ↗
Oral evidence sessions
On smaller screens, scroll horizontally to read every column. Keyboard users can focus the table region and use the arrow keys.
| Date | Session and witnesses | Source |
|---|---|---|
| 25 Oct 2022 |
Oral evidence session
Dr Kamal Sidhu · Blackhall and Peterlee Medical practice and New Seaham Medical Group, Durham,
Mr Laurentiu Veliscu,
Ms Rebecca Eribal,
Witness 1,
Witness 2
|
View ↗ |
| 18 Oct 2022 |
Oral evidence session
Barry O'Leary · Wesley Gryk Solicitors LLP,
Ms Samina Iqbal · Goldsmith Chambers,
Ms Sarah Pindar · Goldsmith Chambers
|
View ↗ |
| 11 Oct 2022 |
Oral evidence session
Dr Helga Eggebø · Nordland Research Institute,
Dr Saskia Bonjour · University of Amsterdam,
Professor Audrey Macklin · University of Toronto
|
View ↗ |
| 6 Sep 2022 |
Oral evidence session
Miss Eva Barnsley · London Councils,
Mrs Carole Littlechild · Nagalro, The Professional Association for Children's Guardians, Family Court Advisers and Independent Social Workers,
Ms Clare Williams · Hertfordshire County Council,
Ms Jacqueline Broadhead · Centre on Migration Policy and Society
|
View ↗ |
| 19 Jul 2022 |
Oral evidence session
Professor Alan Manning · London School of Economics (LSE),
Professor Christian Dustmann · University College London (UCL),
Professor Simone Moriconi · IESEG School of Management
|
View ↗ |
| 12 Jul 2022 |
Oral evidence session
Dr Helen Connolly · UNIVERSITY OF BEDFORDSHIRE,
Raquella De’Gessio · Reunite Families Uk,
Rosalyn Akar Grams · Coram Children's Legal Centre
|
View ↗ |
Who gave evidence
On smaller screens, scroll horizontally to read every column. Keyboard users can focus the table region and use the arrow keys.
| Witness | Organisation | Sessions |
|---|---|---|
| Barry O'Leary · Partner | Wesley Gryk Solicitors LLP | 1 |
| Dr Helen Connolly · Senior Lecturer in Sociology | UNIVERSITY OF BEDFORDSHIRE | 1 |
| Dr Helga Eggebø · Research Professor | Nordland Research Institute | 1 |
| Dr Kamal Sidhu · General Practitioner | Blackhall and Peterlee Medical practice and New Seaham Medical Group, Durham | 1 |
| Dr Saskia Bonjour · Associate Professor in Political Science | University of Amsterdam | 1 |
| Miss Eva Barnsley · Principal Policy and Project Officer in the Health and Social Services Team | London Councils | 1 |
| Mr Laurentiu Veliscu | Not recorded | 1 |
| Mrs Carole Littlechild · Chair | Nagalro, The Professional Association for Children's Guardians, Family Court Advisers and Independent Social Workers | 1 |
| Ms Clare Williams · Children's Service Manager | Hertfordshire County Council | 1 |
| Ms Jacqueline Broadhead · Director, Global Exchange on Migration and Diversity | Centre on Migration Policy and Society | 1 |
| Ms Rebecca Eribal | Not recorded | 1 |
| Ms Samina Iqbal · Barrister-at-Law | Goldsmith Chambers | 1 |
| Ms Sarah Pindar · Barrister-at-Law | Goldsmith Chambers | 1 |
| Professor Alan Manning · Professor of Economics | London School of Economics (LSE) | 1 |
| Professor Audrey Macklin · Professor, Faculty of Law | University of Toronto | 1 |
| Professor Christian Dustmann · Professor of Economics, Director of Centre for Research and Analysis of Migration | University College London (UCL) | 1 |
| Professor Simone Moriconi · Department of Economics and Quantitative Methods | IESEG School of Management | 1 |
| Raquella De’Gessio · Head of Operations and Services | Reunite Families Uk | 1 |
| Rosalyn Akar Grams · Managing Director of Legal Practice and Children's Rights | Coram Children's Legal Centre | 1 |
| Witness 1 | Not recorded | 1 |
| Witness 2 | Not recorded | 1 |