Gaza: Humanitarian Obligations

Debate between Imran Hussain and Irene Campbell

Monday 24th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[Irene Campbell]

I agree with the points made by my hon. Friend. I will be interested to hear the Minister’s response to this debate.

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for leading this important debate. She is quite right that nearly 200,000 people have signed this very important petition at relatively short notice. The reality is that, as well as humanitarian aid not getting in, Israel continues to breach the ceasefire. Hundreds of Palestinians continue to die. Starvation and famine remain a reality for millions of Palestinians. Even basic needs like tents are not being provided, with children having to sleep in contaminated water. Many thousands are already at risk of disease.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the UK Government and the international community cannot continue to look on as though the whole situation has been resolved? As the Government have, quite rightly, imposed widespread sanctions against Russia for its war crimes in Ukraine, they need to do the same against Israel for its war crimes and continued genocide in Gaza.

[Irene Campbell]

Some of what my hon. Friend has raised will be said later in this debate. As I said previously, it will be important to hear the Minister’s response to today’s debate.

Humanitarian aid reaching Gaza has been intermittent, starting and stopping repeatedly. Since the ceasefire, only a fraction of promised aid has actually reached Gaza. I agree with the conclusion of the UN independent international commission of inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and Israel, which stated:

“Israel has committed genocide against Palestinians in the Gaza Strip.”

On 22 August 2025, the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification confirmed that a famine is taking place in the Gaza governorate, and that more than half a million people face

“catastrophic conditions characterised by starvation, destitution and death.”

It also found that restricted access to humanitarian and commercial supplies of food and other essentials was a key driver of famine, saying:

“Since mid-March, access to both humanitarian and commercial supplies of food and other essential goods—including water, medicine, shelter and fuel—has remained critically restricted. A ‘tactical pause’ announced on 27 July failed to improve conditions as violence continued throughout the Strip—including airstrikes, shelling, and shooting.”

Family Visas: Income Requirement

Debate between Imran Hussain and Irene Campbell

Monday 20th January 2025 Westminster Hall

[Irene Campbell]

I agree, and I will say a bit more about that later.

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Ind)]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for securing this important debate. Does she agree that the right to family life, which is rightly enshrined in article 8 of the European convention on human rights, is one of the most fundamental rights that individuals are afforded? Central to this debate is systemic inequality, such as the fact that women are still paid less than men due to entrenched structural pay disparities, and that young people who are in the early stages of their careers often earn less as they build their futures.

Systemic inequality also affects those from lower-income regions such as West Yorkshire and Bradford, which I represent. The hon. Lady will be aware that the Centre for Cities released a report this morning saying that those who live in places such as West Yorkshire, including my constituency, earn £20,000 less. Does she agree that the current system being considered by the Migration Advisory Committee should be scrapped, and that a fair requirement would be one in line with the national living wage?

[Irene Campbell]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention; much of what he has raised is in my opening speech.

Since the petition was launched, and following the general election last summer, the Government announced that the threshold would be held at £29,000 until the Migration Advisory Committee completes a new review, which is expected to be in June 2025. However, when an e-petition reaches 10,000 signatures, it gets a Government response, as this one did in January 2024. The then Government outlined their arguments as to why the minimum income requirement should be increased to £38,700, stating that the policy was part of a larger package intended to curb immigration and net migration. They added that the minimum income requirement was set with the intention that family migrants

“could be supported at a reasonable level…and to help ensure they can participate sufficiently in everyday life to facilitate their integration into British society.”

However, in early 2023, the House of Lords published a report called “All families matter: An inquiry into family migration”. It stated that

“applicants and sponsors can feel like second-class citizens and are reluctant or unable to take full part in British society before reaching settlement.”

It summarised:

“Current migration policies are at odds with the Government’s commitment to family life.”

It further stated that the family migration rules are “complex and inconsistent”, they fail “both families and society”, and they “should be simplified”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Irene Campbell]

I am trying to interpret the question. I am not sure whether I agree—I would need to fully consider it—so I will carry on.

[Imran Hussain]

The hon. Lady continues to make an excellent case and she is right to focus on the extortionate fees. She mentioned the current figure of over £10,000, which ordinary working families struggle to pay or simply cannot pay. She also referred to Reunite Families UK, which does excellent work and has said that 23% of families have to wait longer than seven years to be reunited. Does she agree that that continuing injustice needs to be addressed? Those are not just stats, but real people.

[Irene Campbell]

I agree, and this debate is an excellent opportunity for that.

It is also important to highlight that, while applications under the work routes can be processed in just 15 working days, family visas can take anywhere from eight weeks to 12 months. Often, families report requiring specialist legal advice to navigate the system successfully and to try to avoid those long waiting periods, which obviously has a financial impact as well, although I do not have any costs for that. Delaying arrival does not decrease net migration, but it does increase the personal and financial strain on families. It could be construed that the policy effectively views a relationship ending and a family splitting up as a positive outcome, because then at least net migration figures do not rise.

A Reunite Families UK survey also found that the rules have a profound effect on children, with 92% of respondents saying that their child’s mental health had been affected. The separation that many families are forced into exacerbates such problems, putting even more pressure on the single parent. Parents report that younger children often cannot understand why the family have been separated, while older children who do understand the system become anxious for their missing parent. It could be said that those children are growing up in a society that implicitly tells them that their family are not welcome here.

Compared with those of other countries, this family visa policy appears to be unusually strict. The Migrant Integration Policy Index, which measures immigration policies in 52 countries, including all EU member states and OECD countries, ranks the UK second to bottom for family reunification policies. Many countries with strong immigration policies do not have such a high minimum income requirement for family visas. For example, Australia has no earnings threshold for family visas, and Spain and the Netherlands require yearly income to equal annual social security payments. That highlights that our current system is not the only option.

In overall numbers, the percentage of family visas in proportion to other entry visas has remained low and stable at around 5%, as the Migration Observatory’s research found last year. Additionally, the Home Office’s December 2023 policy paper, “Legal migration statement: estimated immigration impacts”, was unable to predict the exact percentage of family visas that would be affected by the change, stating only that it

“may have an impact on the number of family migrants deterred in the low tens of thousands.”

The Government have stated that there will be no further changes until the new Migration Advisory Committee review is complete, which is expected to be in June. I hope that I have outlined the complexities in this area and highlighted that other options could be considered for the family visa that would allow the Government to control net migration while still allowing the average British citizen to marry and live with the person they love. I look forward to hearing the contributions of other hon. Members and the Government response.