UK family visa income threshold 2025 under review

The UK is once again revisiting its contentious stance on family reunification under immigration law. A fresh assessment by the Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) proposes adjusting the minimum income required to sponsor a partner—a bar that rose to £29,000 as of April 2024.

Critics have long charged that this figure tears families apart and diverges sharply from norms seen in other high-income countries. Yet the political stakes are high: easing the requirement could nudge net migration upward—precisely the direction this government has vowed to resist.

Originally tasked with evaluating the feasibility of a steeper £38,700 threshold—put forward by the former Conservative government under Rishi Sunak—the MAC rejected that path outright. In its view, aligning family visa income rules with skilled worker benchmarks made little conceptual or legal sense. After all, one route supports economic goals; the other underpins personal lives.

Instead, the committee floated a more modest range: £23,000 to £25,000. That level would still sit above the national minimum wage, easing the path for families without opening the fiscal floodgates. Setting the figure at £24,000, the report notes, could lead to a 1–3% uptick in future net migration—a non-trivial shift, but hardly seismic.

These recommendations stop short of hard policy. What the MAC offers is a roadmap of tradeoffs, not mandates. Lowering the income bar could bolster family cohesion and reduce court challenges under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Raising it further might lessen pressure on public finances—but at a human cost that’s hard to ignore.

The stakes are even higher for families with children. Here, the MAC urged caution, warning that the toll—emotional, developmental, financial—is particularly acute when kids are caught in bureaucratic limbo.

Notably, the report also dismissed proposals for region-specific thresholds. Despite clear income disparities across the UK, the committee argued that a national benchmark ensures fairness and avoids administrative complexity.

One caveat runs throughout the MAC’s review: the data is patchy. The Home Office, it says, lacks a reliable picture of who is applying, how they fare, and what outcomes follow. That shortfall hinders both accountability and informed policy design. Better tracking and linkage of applicant data to long-term socioeconomic results remain urgent needs.

Advocacy groups, while encouraged by the rejection of the £38,700 threshold, remain unsatisfied. Organizations like Reunite Families UK contend that any minimum income requirement—even one near minimum wage—still divides households and penalizes lower earners. Their position is blunt: no earnings bar at all.

The government now holds the next move. The Home Secretary has acknowledged the findings but stopped short of a concrete response. Whatever decision comes next, it will need to reconcile competing imperatives: migration control, fiscal prudence, and international human rights obligations.

This isn’t just about recalibrating numbers. It’s about signaling priorities—whether the UK chooses to lean into cohesion or draw a harder line. On paper, the adjustment may look technical. In practice, it reveals where compassion ends and control begins.