Warning Euro judges may sabotage new migrant rules by stopping salary hike for family visas
Raising the salary threshold for British citizens and settled migrants wanting to bring in a spouse on a family visa could breach international law, it says.
The Migration Advisory Committee said lifting the bar to £38,700 — the current threshold for skilled worker visas — was unrelated to family migration.
It was likely to break protections under Article 8 of the ECHR, which could trigger UK court challenges.
But it is understood Home Secretary Yvette Cooper will reject the advice and press ahead with tougher rules.
The previous Tory government came up with the planned rise to help cut net migration by 300,000.
After taking office, Ms Cooper ordered a review of the plan, saying the system must be 'fair and coherent'.
The MAC has now recommended a lower threshold of £23,000 to £25,000.
It warned the £38,700 figure was copied from a different visa route, the skilled worker system, which has 'a completely different objective and purpose'.
Sticking to that figure, the review says, may spark challenges on Article 8, which guarantees family life rights and is used to overturn immigration decisions.
A Home Office source insisted: 'The MAC offered advice but it's a decision for the Home Secretary.'
Shadow Home Secretary Chris Philp said: 'If the ECHR stops us from setting our own visa rules, we should leave the ECHR.'
Sir Keir Starmer has unveiled a sweeping immigration overhaul - vowing to -finally take back control of our borders
A Home Office spokesman said: 'We are considering the findings and will respond in due course.'
1
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
BreakingNews.ie
11 minutes ago
- BreakingNews.ie
Presidential candidates can now be reimbursed up to €250k for election expenses
An order increasing the maximum amount of election expenses that can be reimbursed to a candidate at a presidential election from €200,000 to €250,000 has been signed by Minister for Housing and Local Government James Browne. Election expenses are reimbursed to a candidate at a presidential election who is elected or, if not elected, the total of their votes exceeds one quarter of the quota. Advertisement Section 21A of the Electoral Act 1997 provides that the maximum amount of election expenses that can be reimbursed to a candidate at a presidential election is €200,000. However, under the Act, the minister may vary the amounts having regard to changes in the Consumer Price Index. A review of the amounts typically takes place in advance of each election. Applying the CPI increase since the amount was last revised resulted in a potential increase to €252,700 which has been rounded down to €250,000. Section 53 (as amended) of the Electoral Act 1997 provides that spending by a candidate at a presidential election shall not exceed €750,000. It is not proposed to increase the spending limit, so it will remain at €750,000.
The Sun
11 minutes ago
- The Sun
Labour's taken state spying of social media to whole new level – leaked emails read like their from dictatorship not UK
THE Chinese-owned social media platform TikTok has often aroused fears that personal data collected on its users could end up in the hands of the Chinese Communist Party. What fewer people imagined was that our own Government would try to use TikTok in order to police speech in Britain. Yet that is exactly what has happened. 7 7 7 Leaked emails show that a shady branch of government known as the National Security Online Information Team has been leaning on TikTok to suppress content that is critical of official migration and criminal justice policy. On several occasions during the riots which followed the Southport murders a year ago, the unit approached TikTok requesting that it 'assess' some posts made by its users — effectively a crude instruction to suppress what they were saying. Legitimate debate Britain, like every other country, operates security services that spy on terrorists who are plotting atrocities as well as organisations involved in propagating serious public disorder. Were a government organisation to prevent a bomb attack which could have killed dozens of people, no one would be too bothered about how it had obtained the vital information. But the emails show activity which goes far beyond the demands of national security. In one case, officials drew TikTok's attention to a post that suggested a large number of migrants were 'undocumented fighting age males'. Another suggested that TikTok take a look at users who spread 'concerning narratives about the police and a two-tier system [of justice] '. I am sure the police and courts will defend themselves robustly against a charge of operating two-tier justice, but whether or not you think they are doing this, it is a perfectly legitimate area for public debate, just as is the question of whether ethnic minorities suffer disadvantage in the workplace, schools, hospitals and so on. Those who made online accusations of a disproportionate response by the police towards protesters, and who dubbed our Prime Minister 'two-tier Keir', had good reason for raising their concerns. Ten days before the Southport murders, the Harehills area of Leeds erupted into rioting after children from a Roma family were taken into care. Protesters descend on Canary Wharf migrant hotel as police surround building amid fears over 'summer of riots' Days later there was a machete fight on Southend seafront. Keir Starmer had little to say about those grim developments, yet went into overdrive when protesters took to the streets following the Southport riots. True, there were plenty of thugs among them, but to insinuate that all protesters were driven by nothing more than 'far-right hatred' was outrageous. I am not going to defend Lucy Connolly, who was jailed for 31 months for remarks she made in the wake of the Southport killings — her words read like a pretty clear incitement to violence even if she did not intend them to. But it is perfectly reasonable to question whether her punishment was consistent with the treatment handed out to extreme Islamist preachers and Irish Republican sympathisers. Take the Prevent programme, which was set up by the Blair government specifically to deal with the threat of Islamist terrorism in the wake of the 2005 Tube bombings. 7 7 7 Over time it seems to have become more concerned with the far right. Nineteen per cent of those reported to the programme in the year ending March 2024 were recorded as supporting a far right ideology, against only 13 per cent with Islamist ideology — in spite of the latter being responsible for far more terror attacks and killings than the former over the past two decades. For Government officials to try to stop us discussing these matters is something you might associate more with a dictatorship than with British democracy. We have a human rights lawyer as PM, but where is he when it comes to defending our long-held right to free expression? Labour, however, has taken state surveillance of social media to a new level To be fair to Starmer, it is not just his government that has been trying to silence its critics. The National Security Online Information Team was derived from a body set up during Covid to try to gag critics of vaccines and lockdown. The Online Safety Act, which places obligations on social media companies to police content — and which the Government has used to put pressure on TikTok and other companies — was the brainchild of the last Conservative government. Deep concerns Labour, however, has taken state surveillance of social media to a new level. Particularly disgraceful was Technology Secretary Peter Kyle's attempt this week to claim that Nigel Farage was on the side of Jimmy Savile for daring to criticise the Online Safety Act. To listen to Kyle you would think the act was about nothing other than age verification for users of online pornography (not that Savile used the internet to abuse his victims). There are many people, myself included, who support the age verification measures but who have deep concerns about the act's other provisions, in particular its demand that technologies companies act against anything that could fall under the vague definition of being 'harmful to children'. Even the day's news could be deemed harmful to children if it upsets their immature sensibilities. The trouble is that the Online Safety Act was pushed through on the back of emotional propaganda, with few people realising the dark and disturbing ways in which it could be used to silence any of us. We are belatedly realising that now. 7
The Sun
11 minutes ago
- The Sun
Legendary high street retailer with 120 UK stores confirms its shutting popular shop after string of closures
AN iconic high street retailer with 120 UK stores has confirmed it's shutting yet another shop. The chain announced it will shut one of its branches on August 10 after its landlord decided not to renew its lease. 1 HMV in St Nicholas Arcades in Lancaster is closing its doors for the final time as store bosses scramble to relocate. The shop is housed in the town shopping centre, which is undergoing a major revamp. After 25 years on the site, HMV said it had hoped plans would allow it to continue trading at the centre. In a statement, bosses said said they had "no intention to stop serving our loyal customers". They added: "HMV first traded in Lancaster over 25 years ago, and whilst we hoped that the landlord's redevelopment plans would have allowed us to keep trading, this was unfortunately not possible. "As we have no intention to stop serving our loyal customers in Lancaster, we are actively looking for a new unit to restart trading as soon as possible and would encourage landlords and agents in Lancaster to get in touch with new potential sites. "The current last day of trade will be Sunday August 10. Nearby HMV stores in Blackpool and Preston will remain open." This comes just weeks after the retailer shuttered its store on Cornmaker Street in Oxford. The shop was housed in the Clarendon Centre, which was due to undergo a major revamp that isn't due to finish until 2029. After three decades trading in Oxford, HMV said it had hoped the plans would still enable it to continue trading at the centre. Major card chain with 163 shops launches closing down sales ahead of shutting its doors for good In a statement, bosses said they had "no intention to stop serving our loyal customers in Oxford". They added: "We are actively looking for a new unit to restart trading as soon as possible and would encourage landlords and agents in Oxford to get in touch with new potential sites." It's the latest blow to Britain's struggling high street. Beales, one of the UK's oldest department stores, shut its shop in Poole after more than 140 years. Meanwhile, New Look is in the process of shutting around 100 shops across the UK, blaming rising costs and changing shopping habits. Why are retailers closing stores? RETAILERS have been feeling the squeeze since the pandemic, while shoppers are cutting back on spending due to the soaring cost of living crisis. High energy costs and a move to shopping online after the pandemic are also taking a toll, and many high street shops have struggled to keep going. However, additional costs have added further pain to an already struggling sector. The British Retail Consortium has predicted that the Treasury's hike to employer NICs from April will cost the retail sector £2.3billion. At the same time, the minimum wage will rise to £12.21 an hour from April, and the minimum wage for people aged 18-20 will rise to £10 an hour, an increase of £1.40. The Centre for Retail Research (CRR) has also warned that around 17,350 retail sites are expected to shut down this year. It comes on the back of a tough 2024 when 13,000 shops closed their doors for good, already a 28% increase on the previous year. Professor Joshua Bamfield, director of the CRR said: "The results for 2024 show that although the outcomes for store closures overall were not as poor as in either 2020 or 2022, they are still disconcerting, with worse set to come in 2025." It comes after almost 170,000 retail workers lost their jobs in 2024. End-of-year figures compiled by the Centre for Retail Research showed the number of job losses spiked amid the collapse of major chains such as Homebase and Ted Baker. It said its latest analysis showed that a total of 169,395 retail jobs were lost in the 2024 calendar year to date. This was up 49,990 – an increase of 41.9% – compared with 2023. It is the highest annual reading since more than 200,000 jobs were lost in 2020 in the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic, which forced retailers to shut their stores during lockdowns. The centre said 38 major retailers went into administration in 2024, including household names such as Lloyds Pharmacy, Homebase, The Body Shop, Carpetright and Ted Baker. Around a third of all retail job losses in 2024, 33% or 55,914 in total, resulted from administrations. Experts have said small high street shops could face a particularly challenging 2025 because of Budget tax and wage changes. Professor Bamfield has warned of a bleak outlook for 2025, predicting that as many as 202,000 jobs could be lost in the sector. "By increasing both the costs of running stores and the costs on each consumer's household it is highly likely that we will see retail job losses eclipse the height of the pandemic in 2020.
