My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord Harper, will forgive me, I will not comment on the consequences of the fall of the French Government on this legislation or any other. My noble friend Lord Hanson has been a Minister for 15 years; I am of a rather more recent vintage, like a cheap wine, so, if the noble Lord does not mind, I will pass on that. But I have not the slightest doubt that it will be the subject of further debate and comment in your Lordships’ House before too long.

Amendment 198, from the noble Lords, Lord Davies and Lord Cameron, proposes a cap on the number of entrants of partners and proposes amendments to the immigration requirements for a partner of a person present and settled in the UK. I will set out the overall position. The Government are very clear that net migration must come down, and the swift return of those with no right to be in the UK forms a key part of a functioning migration system that commands the confidence of the British public. The provision for family members to come to or stay in the UK is set out in the Immigration Rules, so this is not, strictly speaking, the correct legislation for this debate. But the Government’s position is clear: we support the right to family life and we value the contribution that migrants make to our society. As a migrant myself, I am profoundly grateful for the opportunities that I have had in this country. Like so many others, I have an ineradicable respect and admiration for British institutions and values. Perhaps that is why I am here today.

The noble Lord, Lord Harper, talked about the expectations of immigrants. I entirely endorse those remarks but, as an immigrant myself, I should also say that, in large numbers, immigrants are happy and proud to fulfil the expectations that he sets out.

However, this commitment to supporting the right to family life must be balanced, as we all know, by a properly controlled and managed immigration system that commands public confidence. I note that the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, commented on earlier amendments that there is a great deal of consensus on these points. Our immigration system welcomes people from across the globe to come to the UK to join family here, and it is right that we continue to enable family migration.

To ensure financial independence, the family rules include financial requirements. The minimum income requirement is currently set at £29,000. On 10 June, the Migration Advisory Committee published its independent review of the financial requirements across the family route. The report is now under review, and we will consider the recommendations made by the MAC.  The Home Secretary will respond to the review in due course.

The introduction of a cap, however, would detrimentally impact British citizens applying for their immediate family members to join them in the UK. As the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has observed, it risks undermining our obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights. The noble Lord used the word “arbitrary” several times. I entirely agree that it would impose arbitrary nationality caps, which raises concerns about equality and consistency. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, observed, it would impose age limits for partners, despite the Supreme Court’s ruling in 2011 that a minimum age requirement of 21 was unlawful.

On 12 May 2025, the Government set out their plans to reform the immigration system in the immigration white paper. This includes plans to reform the framework for family migration across all routes. Before the end of the year—so not so far away—we will set out a new family policy to cover all UK residents, including those who are British, settled, on work routes, or refugees seeking to bring family members into the UK. We hope that reform of our family and human rights system will provide a clearer framework for dealing with exceptional circumstances that go beyond our core family policy. I could not add anything to the eloquent observations of the noble Lords, Lord Pannick and Lord Kerr, about relationships and happy couples and so on. I hope I have explained, albeit in a rather dry way, where the Government stand on that.

I turn to Amendment 199 on the use of visa penalties powers where countries are deemed to be unco-operative about the return of their nationals or citizens. We agree that visa penalties are one of the very important levers in the Government’s toolbox to incentivise international co-operation on returns. This is a fundamental pillar of our immigration policy. Ministers and officials are working hard to strengthen relationships with our international partners to improve returns. However, where co-operation with countries falls below the levels expected, and where appropriate, we use all available levers, including visa penalties. The noble Lords, Lord Jackson of Peterborough and Lord Harper, mentioned the comments by the Home Secretary after her Five Eyes meeting, at which she reinforced that point. There has been a statement from the Home Office this morning, so I think the position is up to date and very clear.

Our view is that the existing provision in the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 already gives the Home Secretary sufficient scope to use visa penalties if appropriate. The last Government introduced these powers but exercised their discretion not to use them, despite the obvious challenges they faced with returns. This Government intend to retain that discretion to use those powers in the right way at the right time, as the Home Secretary has confirmed.

Whether a Government are or are not co-operating is a discretionary judgment which needs to be taken by Ministers. The decision also needs to be made on a case-by-case basis, once it is understood whether visa penalties would be the most effective tool. As I said, visa penalties have not been used before, either by this Government or the last. In each case where their use has been considered, we have been able successfully to unblock co-operation through other means such as ministerial and senior official engagement. Further, the fact that visa penalties are available to the Home Secretary has helped to unblock unco-operation, even if they were not ultimately imposed. We believe that the provisions already provided for in the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 are sufficient for our primary aims.

I turn now to Amendment 141 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, and Amendment 141A in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor. The Government strongly value the vital economic and academic contributions that international students make to the UK. Noble Lords and Baronesses across the House have made that observation. Like the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, I am a former chair of a university council, so I know first hand the vibrant contributions international students make to our universities in economic, social and intellectual terms. There has been correspondence between the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, and the Minister, as well as previous Written Questions on similar topics, so we shall see whether the noble Lord is happy with my answer.

As noble Lords will know, the Immigration Rules already provide for the cancellation of entry clearance and permission to enter or stay—