“(1) The Secretary of State must make regulations specifying the maximum number of persons who may enter the United Kingdom annually as a spouse or civil partner of another (the sponsor).

(2) Before making regulations under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must consult—

(a) in England and Wales and Scotland, such representatives of local authorities as the Secretary of State considers appropriate,

(b) the Executive Office in Northern Ireland, and

(c) any such other persons or bodies as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.

(3) But the duty to consult under subsection (2) does not apply where the Secretary of State considers that the maximum number under subsection (1) needs to be changed as a matter of urgency.

(4) The Secretary of State must commence the consultation under subsection (2) in relation to the first regulations to be made under this section before the end of the period of three months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.

(5) The regulations must specify that the number of persons from any one country who enter as a spouse or civil partner of a sponsor cannot exceed 7% of the maximum number specified in the regulations under subsection (1).

(6) If, in any year, the number of persons who enter the United Kingdom as a spouse or civil partner of a sponsor exceeds the number specified in regulations under this section, the Secretary of State must lay a statement before Parliament—

(a) setting out the number of persons who have, in that year, entered the United Kingdom as a spouse or civil partner of a sponsor, and

(b) explaining why the number exceeds that specified in the regulations.

(7) The statement under subsection (6) must be laid before Parliament before the end of the period of six months beginning with the day after the last day of the year to which the statement relates.

(8) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must by immigration rules make the changes set out in subsections (9) to (11).

(9) The requirements to be met by a person seeking leave to enter the United Kingdom with a view to settlement as the spouse or civil partner of a person present and settled in the United Kingdom or who is on the same occasion being admitted for settlement includes that—

(a) the applicant is married to, or the civil partner of, a person who has a right of abode in the United Kingdom or indefinite leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom and is, on the same occasion, seeking admission to the United Kingdom for the purposes of settlement;

(b) the applicant provides evidence that the parties under subsection (9)(a) were married or formed a civil partnership at least two years prior to the application;

(c) each of the parties intends to live permanently with the other as spouses or civil partners and the marriage or civil partnership is subsisting;

(d) the salary of the person who has a right to abode in the United Kingdom or indefinite leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom equals or exceeds £38,700 per year; and

(e) the applicant and the person who has a right of abode in the United Kingdom are both at least 23 years old.

(10) Leave to enter the United Kingdom as a spouse or civil partner under subsection (9) is to be refused if the parties concerned are first cousins.

(11) For the purposes of this section, ‘local authority’ means—

(a) in England and Wales, a county council, a county borough council, a district council, a London borough council, the Common Council of the City of London or the Council of the Isles of Scilly, and

(b) in Scotland, a council constituted under section 2 of the Local Government etc (Scotland) Act 1994.”—

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to specify a cap on the number of spouses or civil partners who may enter the UK, and on the number that may enter from any one country. It would also amend the immigration rules to set a salary threshold.

Brought up, and read the First time.

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 39—Restrictions on visas and grants of indefinite leave to remain—

“(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must by immigration rules provide for all visa grants, including spousal visas, to be conditional on the following—

(a) the requirement that the applicant or their dependents will not apply for any form of ‘social protection’ (including housing) from the UK Government or a local authority, where ‘social protection’ is defined according to the Treasury’s Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses, subject to any further definition by immigration rules,

(b) the requirement that the applicant’s annual income must not fall below £38,700 (or six months or more in aggregate) during the relevant qualification period.

(2) Immigration Rules made under subsection (1) must ensure that any breach of the conditions set out in that subsection will render void any visa previously granted.

(3) The Secretary of State is not permitted to grant leave outside the immigration rules or immigration acts.

(4) A person is not eligible to apply for indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom if any of the following conditions apply.

(5) Condition 1 is that a person is a ‘foreign criminal’ under section 32 of the UK Borders Act 2007.

(6) Condition 2 is that a person, or any of their dependents, has been in receipt of any form of ‘social protection’ (including housing) from the UK Government or a local authority, where ‘social protection’ is defined according to the Treasury’s Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses, subject to any further definition by immigration rules.

(7) Condition 3 is that a person’s annual income has fallen below £38,700 for six months or more in aggregate during the relevant qualification period.

(8) A person who has entered the United Kingdom—

(a) under the Ukraine visa schemes;

(b) under the Afghan Citizens Resettlement Scheme;

(c) under the Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy; or

(d) on a British National Overseas visa,

is exempt from the requirements of Condition 2 and Condition 3.

(9) For the purposes of subsections (1)(b) and (7)—

(a) the condition applies only to earnings that have been lawfully reported to, or subject to withholding tax by, HM Revenue and Customs; and

(b) the relevant sum of annual income must be adjusted annually by the Secretary of State through immigration rules to reflect inflation.

(10) The Secretary of State may by immigration rules make further provision varying these conditions, including by way of transitional provisions.”

This new clause would place certain minimum restrictions on the granting of visas or indefinite leave to remain. It would require migrants to be self-sufficient and do not require state benefits, and would deny ILR to foreign criminals.

New clause 40—Cap on number of entrants—

“(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must make regulations specifying the total maximum number of persons who may enter the United Kingdom annually across all non-visitor visa routes, with such regulations subject to approval by both Houses.

(2) The Secretary of State may by regulations also specify a maximum number of entrants for individual visa routes, subject to the overall total.

(3) No visas may be issued in excess of the total maximum number specified in subsection (1).

(4) Any visas issued in excess of the number specified in subsection (1) must be revoked.”

This new clause would provide a mechanism for a binding annual cap on the number of non-visitor visas issued by the UK.

New clause 35 would require the Secretary of State to specify a cap on the number of spouses or civil partners who may enter the UK and on the number who may enter from any one country. It would also amend the immigration rules to set a salary threshold. We know that there is abuse of the current provisions that allow spouses or civil partners to come to the UK. Our amendment is designed to tighten up the rules so as to make abuse less likely.

We believe that it is important for the Secretary of State to set a cap for the number of people who can enter the UK as a spouse or civil partner, and that the number of persons from any one country who enter as a spouse or civil partner of a sponsor should not exceed 7% of the maximum number specified. We seek to tighten up that route to entering the UK by ensuring that the applicant provides evidence that the parties under subsection (9)(a) were married or formed a civil partnership at least two years prior to the application; that each of the parties intends to live permanently with the other as spouse or civil partner, and the marriage or civil partnership is subsisting; that the salary of the person who has a right to abode in the UK, or indefinite leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom, equals or exceeds £38,700 per year; and that people cannot sponsor their first cousins under this route.

We believe those changes are necessary to ensure that the relationship is genuine and subsisting, and that the sponsor is able to support their partner once they arrive in the UK. That is part of ensuring that we treat living in this country as a privilege, not a right, and that those coming to the UK to live will contribute to our country.

New clause 39 would place restrictions on the granting of visas and indefinite leave to remain. That is another change to achieve our objective that those who come to the UK are able to contribute. The new clause would ensure that visas were granted only where an applicant or their dependants will not apply for any form of social protection, including housing from the UK Government or a local authority, and where the applicant’s annual income will not fall below £38,700 during the relevant qualification period. If either of those conditions fails to be met, the visa will be revoked.

The new clause also specifies that a person cannot qualify for indefinite leave to remain if they are a “foreign criminal” under section 32 of the UK Borders Act 2007; if they or any of their dependants have been in receipt of any form of social protection from the UK Government or local authority; or if their annual income has fallen below £38,700 for six months or more in aggregate during the relevant qualification period. The new clause would not apply to those who have come to the UK through the Ukraine, Afghan or British national overseas schemes.

New clause 40 would introduce some accountability for this place in the overall numbers of migrants coming to the UK per year. It would establish a mechanism whereby Parliament would approve a binding cap on all non-visitor visa routes set out by the Secretary of State. We believe it is important that the House seriously considers the benefits and trade-offs to this country. The new clause is designed to give the House greater accountability for that decision.

New clauses 35 and 39 would build a wall against the quiet epidemic of immigration fraud that has been seeping through our spousal and visa routes—think of sham marriages brokered for £10,000 a pop, or visa overstayers masked by flimsy claims of support. The two-year marriage rule, the £38,700 threshold and the “no first cousin” clause are not just hurdles; they are detectors rooting out paper partnerships before they drain us dry.

The new clauses would anchor immigration to a bedrock of self-reliance, because a Britain that thrives does not prop up newcomers who cannot stand alone. In new clause 35, the £38,700 sponsor salary, which matches that for the skilled worker route, would ensure that thousands of spousal entrants yearly would not tip the welfare scales further. New clause 39 would double down, barring visas and indefinite leave to remain for anyone who dips below that level or taps social housing, for which 1.2 million people are already waiting. This is not exclusion; it is economics, tilting the balance towards those who lift us, not those who lean on us.

New clause 40 is not just a cap; it hands the House the reins of our migration system. The new clause would make Parliament the arbiter, through a binding cap debated here, voted on here, owned here and on which we are fully held to account by the electorate.

There are few things in life and in human nature more powerful than the desire to be with those we love. To be separated from a husband or wife by a national border is no small thing. Indeed, for those it is happening to, it can feel like everything. But the role of Government is to determine what is right for the country, not for any one person, couple or family. We must place this discussion in its national context. For too long immigration has been too high, and the spousal visa route is increasingly being used by those who would otherwise not be able to come to Britain.

Over the past few years we have seen the number of dependent visas balloon. As of December 2024, 51,000 migrants, bringing 130,000 dependants with them, had come to Britain via the health and social care route over the previous year. That is over 2.5 dependants per health and social care worker—dependants who will access public services in their own right, including our already overstretched NHS. The dependant route for health and social care visa holders has since been restricted, but I mention it because it indicates the huge level of demand and desire there is for family members to come to Britain.

There is much more to be done across the immigration system to ensure that the dependant route is not abused by those who are unlikely to make a contribution in their own right. Our lax rules around spousal visas are also exacerbating problems around assimilation. Currently, our system has no safeguards against forced or sham marriages. There is a culture in some communities of bringing vulnerable young women to the UK through the spousal route. These women often have a poor grasp of English and no external support network in this country, which creates the perfect conditions for abuse and exploitation. It effectively enables the introduction and furtherance of a family culture that is totally alien to Britain.

In 2016, Dame Louise Casey published the Casey review, which looked into opportunity and integration, particularly in isolated and deprived communities. In her report, she discussed immigration and the impact it has on integration. This is a highly sensitive issue. Dame Louise Casey's language is nuanced and carefully chosen, and I cannot do better than to repeat it here. She says:

“Rates of integration in some communities may have been undermined by high levels of transnational marriage—with subsequent generations being joined by a foreign-born partner, creating a ‘first generation in every generation’ phenomenon in which each new generation grows up with a foreign-born parent. This seems particularly prevalent in South Asian communities. We were told on one visit to a northern town that all except one of the Asian Councillors had married a wife from Pakistan. And in a cohort study at the Bradford Royal Infirmary, 80% of babies of Pakistani ethnicity in the area had at least one parent born outside the UK.”

As Casey says in the report,

“I know that for some, the content of this review will be hard to read, and I have wrestled with what to put in and what to leave out, particularly because I know that putting some communities under the spotlight—particularly communities in which there are high concentrations of Muslims of Pakistani and Bangladeshi heritage—will add to the pressure that they already feel. However, I am convinced that it is only by fully acknowledging what is happening that we can set about resolving these problems and eventually relieve this pressure.”

Dame Louise Casey was brave to acknowledge and discuss these problems so honestly in the hope of solving them, and we must find that same courage. The Opposition believe that the cap on spousal visas that we suggest with this provision, both overall and from individual countries, would help with that challenge, and we sincerely hope that the Government will consider it.

Turning to new clause 39, we have already covered various elements of the rules whereby we hope to ensure that anyone who comes to this country is and remains a net fiscal contributor, with a view to ensuring that across their lifetime people who come to Britain contribute more to the public purse than they cost. We have already spoken about rules and conditions relating to foreign criminals, the cost of social protection, and the groups to which we believe that should be limited. As we have said, there is a need for these sorts of visas to come with quite serious floors on salaries.

Finally, I turn to new clause 40, which is the numerical visa cap. As I have mentioned to the Committee before, every election-winning manifesto since 1974 has promised to reduce immigration. Time and again, Governments of both parties have failed to deliver on that promise. Perhaps even more scandalously, those same Governments have often attempted to shift the blame for that failure, refusing to take responsibility for overseeing an immigration system that does not align with the expressed wishes of the British people.

Given that the hon. Lady worked previously in a special adviser role and is lecturing us about caps, how were her Government successful with the caps that they set?

I think and hope that it has been clear from everything I have said that I make no defence of the previous Government’s activity. It is incredibly important that Conservative Members are able—as is our duty and our responsibility to the public—to talk about the many things that went wrong and, I hope, to help this Government to avoid making the same mistakes.

I appreciate the collegiate working environment that we are now in. In which case, will the hon. Lady expand on the caps set by the previous Government and the results that came after?

As I have set out already, there was never what we are talking about here, which is a formal cap set by Parliament in legislation. However, a number of aims and promises were given to the electorate over the years, and those promises were not kept.

Selective, limited and tailored to our needs—that is the immigration system that the British public have voted for time and again. If we are serious about delivering it, we must take steps to ensure that future Governments do not renege on their promises as previous Governments have. But this is not just about delivering the immigration system that the British people have voted for repeatedly; fundamentally, it is about public trust and accountability.

Put simply, a hard numerical cap on the number of visas issued each year would force Government and Parliament to have accountability for their immigration decisions. If we believe that the overall level of immigration is too high, we should set the cap accordingly, to ensure that technical mistakes do not produce the kind of migration wave that we have seen over the past few years. If we believe that the overall level of immigration is too low, we should be willing to say that publicly, to explain our reasons and to defend our record. Either way, we must be transparent. That will not rebuild public trust in our political system overnight, but it will represent a significant step in the right direction.

In a previous sitting, the hon. Lady talked to the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire about humanitarian, and safe and legal routes. She highlighted the difficulty that humanitarian events often happen without warning or anticipation. Our country and others will respond as quickly as possible, and one response might be to open a safe and legal route. Do the Opposition new clauses take account of any possible scenarios, recognising that it is hard to anticipate them? Is there any flexibility in the numbers that she provides for the visa category that would support people coming in who are refugees and people in genuine need?

As the hon. Gentleman can read in the new clause, the wording does not state that the caps have to be set and cannot be revised; it is more than possible to come back to Parliament to change them. If such a situation arises—he is totally right to say that many of them are emergencies and may have been unforeseeable—there is no reason why that case should not be made to the British public and the cap changed. We are talking here about the need for that case to be made to the British public and for there to be transparency.

Some Labour Members have mentioned my time at the Home Office, where I was a special adviser. I worked primarily on national security, not on legal migration, but it was very clear to me from what I could see of the problems that all my colleagues were facing that most of Government—most Departments, and the Minister may be experiencing this now—are geared for higher levels of migration. For example, it is helpful for the Department of Health and Social Care to have high volumes of health and social care visas issued, or for the Treasury, which issues gilts based on our overall GDP, to have as many people here as possible.

The purpose of the cap would be to bring those conversations out into the open. If those Departments and Ministers wished to justify to the public, to the British people, why those numbers needed to be higher, that conversation should be had where the British people can hear it.

New clause 40 mentions the Secretary of State making

“regulations specifying the total maximum number of persons who may enter the United Kingdom annually” within six months of the passing of this Bill. I assume that the hon. Lady is saying that a statement may be made providing for the annual cap per visa category, over, say, four or five years, and not that the Secretary of State would have to come back each year. Am I right or wrong in thinking that? Could she clarify that?

The hon. Member asks a good question. I am not sure whether that would be explicitly decided on the face of the Bill; that could be something that the Home Office decided subsequently—whether it wished to set out future years or just the following one. In my initial response to the hon. Member, the point that I was trying to clarify was that that cap can, of course, be changed. Once it is set, it does not need to be set in stone for ever, but it is important that it exists and that the conversation about what it should be is had in front of the British public.

It was interesting to hear the hon. Member for Weald of Kent setting out her argument articulately, and it was good to hear her say that she recognises that the last Government made a lot of mistakes on immigration, and that the evidence shows that. Sadly, although it is good to have that recognition, it does not seem as though very much has been learned from the Conservatives’ experience in office, based on each of the new clauses that they have set out.

First, on the spousal visas, quite a lot of what is in new clause 35 actually exists already. There are already salary thresholds and things like that. It is unlike me to praise the previous Conservative Government on immigration, but, actually, across previous Administrations, both Labour and Conservative, very good work has been done on issues such as sham and forced marriages. What is new in new clause 35, which is a very strange and horrible power to give Ministers, is the ability to either restrict the nationalities that British people can marry or set thresholds on them. I have huge respect for my ministerial colleagues in the Home Office, but I do not think that they should be able to choose what nationalities I am allowed to marry. We got rid of anti-miscegenation laws in the 20th century; we do not want returning through the back door, through measures such as this. Most of all, this arbitrary figure of 7% is very strange; if I were to marry, say, an Australian or an American, I would have to hope that I was not in the 8th percentile of people to do that. That would be a very strange way for us to ask British citizens to live their lives and fall in love with people.

Opposition Members also made the point about how the legislation needs to look backwards and make sure that migrants are net fiscal contributors over their lifetimes. I would say, again, that that is not a realistic thing to ask Governments to do. We will only know whether we have been net fiscal contributors when we die, so we cannot really ask people to make those projections.

Finally, there is the numerical visa cap in new clause 40. Again, that is a gimmick that is not addressing the actual structural problems in the immigration system. First, it treats all migrants the same, as one big monolithic whole, yet we know that the impact of migrants on communities is different, whether they are spouses, students, doctors, lorry drivers or refugees.

If we are going to have this kind of cap, how do we prioritise? Will it apply throughout the whole of the year? How will businesses plan if they want to recruit from overseas? As my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East said, what if emergencies mean that there are more people coming in? The last Conservative Government set a cap for tier 2 visas, then, of course, ended up hitting it and just exempting doctors and nurses from it anyway. Is it not inevitable that we will just be condemned to repeat history if we do that here? We have talked a lot about public trust in the immigration system and how that has been so deeply sapped by failures on immigration policy. The Conservatives had a net migration target of 100,000 a year, which they consistently failed to meet and had to revise. This proposal is just advocating that we repeat that exact mistake, but hoping for a different outcome, which seems bonkers to me.

A number of the issues raised regarding these new clauses have already been debated in relation to other measures, so I will keep my remarks fairly brief on some of the additional issues.

New clause 35 proposes a cap on the number of entrants as a partner, and it amends the immigration requirements for the partner of a person who is present and settled in the United Kingdom. The provisions for family members to come to, or stay in, the United Kingdom are set out in the immigration rules. I gently make the point again that this is not the correct legislation for a debate about the requirements for partners.

The Government are clear that we support the right of people to fall in love, and we value the contribution that migrants make to our society. However, that must be balanced with a properly controlled and managed immigration system, and net migration has been too high for too long. We have also seen significant abuse on the routes, which should have been designed with some tighter safeguards under the previous Administration, the consequences of which we are only catching up with now as we seek to bring back order to our immigration system, as well as public confidence.

The Government have been clear that net migration must come down. Our immigration system welcomes people from across the globe to the UK. They may join a family here, and we think it is right to continue to enable family migration, for the reasons that a number of my hon. Friends have set out. British citizens and those settled in the UK are free to enter into a genuine relationship with whomever they choose. If they wish to establish their family life in the UK, it is appropriate they do so on the basis that they can support themselves financially, without recourse to public funds, and can participate sufficiently in everyday life that supports their integration into British society. To ensure financial independence, applicants on the family route must also meet either the minimum income requirement or adequate maintenance; the minimum income requirement is currently set at £29,000. We have discussed evidence bases already, and to ensure that we have a solid evidence base for any future change, on 10 September the Home Secretary commissioned the Migration Advisory Committee to review the financial requirements in the family immigration rules.

New clause 39 would place specific conditions on those applying for permission to enter, stay or settle in the UK, and remove the Secretary of State’s discretion to grant leave outside the immigration rules. As I have said, the Government recognise and value the contributions that legal migration makes to our country, and the immigration system already controls access to benefits—the principle of no recourse to public funds is long standing. Most migrants become eligible to access public funds only when they gain settlement, or ILR. This approach reflects the need to maintain the confidence of the general public that immigration brings benefits to our country, rather than costs to the public purse.

In addition to those controls, subject to the visa route being accessed, individual migrants are required to meet conditions attached to that route—for example, the skilled worker route includes a minimum income requirement. The immigration system also needs to account for people in a range of circumstances. It cannot adopt a blanket approach that would capture, for example, those visiting the UK as tourists.

We have also extensively discussed foreign nationals who commit offences, so I want to turn briefly to new clause 40, which would impose an annual maximum number of persons who may enter the UK across all visa groups. The Government are clear that net migration must come down. The issue of arbitrary numbers has been rehearsed—not to great effect—over the past 14 years. Important work is under way to restore order to our immigration system, and we will set out that approach in the forthcoming White Paper, as I have mentioned. However, the Government have retained the duty to introduce a non-binding cap on arrivals on safe and legal routes, although I recognise that the new clause is much broader than that. The cap on safe and legal routes helps to manage the pressure on, for example, local authorities and ensure that the number of people coming here is in line with our capacity to receive them.

We think it is right that there should be limits on the number of people who can arrive here as a spouse or partner, a requirement on those bringing people to be able to support themselves, and a cap on the number of people entering the country. We wish to press the new clause to a Division.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

The Committee divided: Ayes 2, Noes 14.

Question accordingly negatived.