The UK’s immigration system has long struggled to strike a balance between economic sustainability and the right to family life. Central to this debate is the Minimum Income Requirement (MIR), a policy that requires British citizens or settled persons’ sponsoring dependents to meet a specific income threshold. The MAC report, published on June 10, 2025, provides a detailed review of the Minimum Income Requirement (MIR), examining its effectiveness and impact on families and public policy.
Read the full MAC report here.
The Current MIR Framework and Its Limitations
The Minimum Income Requirement was initially set at £18,600 in 2012 and remained unchanged for over a decade. On 11 April 2024, the threshold rose to £29,000 (the 25th percentile of Skilled-Worker earnings). A further rise to £34,500 and then £38,700 had been proposed for 2025 but was never implemented.
However, MAC firmly advises against using the Skilled Worker salary threshold as a benchmark for family visas. The committee emphasises that the purposes of family and work visas are fundamentally distinct, and applying the same income standards to both is inappropriate and may contravene international obligations, particularly Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (p.7).
Economic Justification and Household Income
A critical insight from the MAC report is the weak correlation between a sponsor’s income and the long-term economic contribution of the applicant. The applicant’s future earnings, rather than the sponsor’s current salary, are more indicative of the family’s overall fiscal impact. For example, by year four, about 60% of partner-visa holders have PAYE earnings; the median earnings of those in work are £21,200 (in 2024 prices, Chapter 1 data tables). In some instances, applicants out-earn their sponsors, demonstrating the limited predictive value of the sponsor’s income alone.
The committee recommends considering household income, including that of the applicant, especially for in-country applications or where the applicant has a UK job offer. Job offers from applicants could be included in MIR assessments, particularly if they come from trusted employers, such as public sector bodies. In cases where two incomes are used, the threshold should be based on the combined household income.
Income Thresholds: Exploring Reasonable and Balanced Alternatives
The MAC report acknowledges that removing the MIR entirely is not advisable, as it would ignore the economic implications of family migration. Instead, it suggests that the MIR should be:
- Above the poverty line to ensure families do not fall into economic hardship (pg 53).
- Set at a level of £25,400, which is the estimated income needed to keep a couple above the poverty line without requiring the applicant to work (pg 59).
- £21,200 if set at 125% of the individual poverty threshold, an amount achievable through full-time employment at the living wage (pg 59).
- £23,000–£25,000 if the focus is on reducing taxpayer burden while maintaining a balance with family life, aligning with thresholds used for Universal Credit, National Living Wage, and other practical benchmarks (Pg 60).
The MAC report emphasises that setting the MIR at such levels could support economic self-sufficiency without unjustifiably separating families.
Regional Variations and MIR Flexibility
While acknowledging regional disparities in income and cost of living, particularly between London and rural areas, the report does not support region-specific MIR thresholds. The rationale is that intra-regional income variations often surpass inter-regional ones, and region-specific thresholds could introduce complexity and opportunities for manipulation (Pg 58). However, the MAC report suggests that the MIR could be based on UK-wide earnings, excluding London, making the requirement more equitable without complicating administration.
Practical Considerations: Income Proof, Remote Work, and Self-Employment
Household vs. Individual Income
The MAC report suggests that if a job offer from the applicant is considered, MIR could be assessed on a single income. Where both partners’ incomes are used, the household income should be assessed. This dual approach provides both flexibility and accountability (pg 50).
Remote Work
Current rules overlook the increasing viability of remote work. The report recommends allowing remote income to count, provided it can be reliably verified and taxed in the UK. This would modernise the policy to reflect changes in the global labour market (pg 88).
Self-Employment
Self-employed individuals face disproportionate challenges in meeting the MIR due to strict documentation rules and the inability to combine self-employment income with cash savings. Under the current rules, cash savings cannot be combined with self-employment income. However, the MAC recommends removing this restriction, allowing cash savings to be used to supplement all types of income, including self-employment. Since savings often reflect prior income and demonstrate financial prudence, their exclusion appears unjustified (pg 67).
Income Requirements for Children and Vulnerable Applicants
The committee opposes reinstating additional MIR increments for dependent children, a provision that was removed in the April 2024 update. Evidence shows that families with children suffer the most severe consequences from enforced separation, with significant emotional, psychological, and educational impacts on children. Rather than increasing thresholds, the system should be restructured to prioritise child welfare, including revisiting the rules for the Parent route, which currently creates obstacles for non-UK parents of British children (pg 66).
Evidence and Documentation: Reducing Bureaucratic Burdens
Currently, sponsors are required to provide six months of UK payslips, a requirement that can delay reunification and prolong family separation. The report recommends that income be calculated more simply by doubling the total income earned over a six-month period, and that remote work income be accepted, provided it is taxable in the UK and ongoing.
Updating the MIR: Predictability and Fairness
The MIR must be regularly adjusted to reflect inflation and maintain its intended policy function. However, past changes, such as the abrupt April 2024 increase, highlight the problems with sudden shifts. The committee strongly advises that any future changes should be announced at least one year in advance, allowing families time to plan and avoid undue hardship.
Adequate Maintenance (AM) Test: Need for Reform
Designed for more vulnerable applicants, such as those with disabilities or receiving state benefits, the AM test uses an outdated formula based on Income Support, a benefit being phased out in favour of Universal Credit (UC). The report notes that the current AM framework is confusing, complex to apply, and may penalise large families with higher housing costs.
The MAC report outlines four options for reform:
- Replace Income Support with Universal Credit.
- Use the UK poverty threshold as a benchmark.
- Base the test on the minimum UC entitlement.
- Eliminate the financial test altogether, but retain the accommodation requirement.
The fourth option, removing the financial test, is identified as the simplest and fairest approach. It would maintain safeguards (such as suitable housing) while removing bureaucratic hurdles for families already struggling with vulnerabilities.
Importance of Data Collection: A Call for Reform
A significant limitation identified in the MAC report is the lack of consistent, usable data collected by the Home Office. This includes:
- Lack of clarity on whether applications used the MIR or AM test.
- Incomplete data on income levels, reasons for refusal, use of fee waivers, and regional distribution.
- No systematic tracking of outcomes when job offers or remote work are considered.
The MAC report recommends using standardised forms and consistent data categories to enable robust policy evaluation. Furthermore, it advises linking Home Office data with HMRC records to monitor real-world income outcomes, particularly when overseas job offers are counted towards the MIR.
Conclusion
The MAC report presents a nuanced picture of the Minimum Income Requirement for the Spouse visa. It cautions against economically driven policies that overlook human rights considerations, while acknowledging the state’s legitimate interest in ensuring economic self-sufficiency. The recommendations point towards a realistic, flexible, and human-centred framework, one that updates income thresholds sensibly, improves data infrastructure, and modernises rules around proof of income.
For policymakers, the path forward must strike a balance between economic responsibility and the fundamental importance of family life, a value deeply embedded in both UK law and international human rights frameworks.
