Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairwomanship this morning, Dr Allin-Khan.
I will begin by stating the Government’s policy on Kashmir. India and Pakistan are long-standing important friends of the UK and we encourage both to engage in dialogue and find lasting political solutions to maintain regional stability. It has been the long-standing position of successive UK Governments that it is for India and Pakistan to find a lasting political resolution on Kashmir, taking into account the wishes of the Kashmiri people. It is not for the UK to prescribe a solution or act as a mediator. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Sarah Smith) has secured the debate, and as hon. Members have asked about a voice for Kashmir, I want to reiterate that this is an opportunity to bring our constituents’ concerns to the House of Commons.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South and Walkden (Yasmin Qureshi) said, the history of the region is intertwined with our own. It is very important to take account of that, which is why we have regular interventions in Parliament on this important topic. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) said that we had not spoken enough about it. I remind him that he made points about it at the Adjournment debate on International Human Rights Day in December, and there have been a number of other interventions and written questions on the subject.
We recognise that there are concerns about human rights in both India-administered and Pakistan-administered Kashmir. I want to reassure the hon. Member for Birmingham Perry Barr (Ayoub Khan) and my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald), who said that human rights are paramount. The UK Government encourage all states to ensure that their domestic laws are in line with international standards.
A number of hon. Members mentioned journalists’ freedom of speech. Would my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) be happy if I wrote to her about the woman she mentioned, so that I can provide details? We will follow up directly on that case, and I will put a copy of the letter in the Library. Our position is clear that any allegation of human rights abuse is deeply concerning and must be investigated thoroughly, promptly and transparently.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Hall Green and Moseley (Tahir Ali) said it is important to ensure effective and constructive dialogue with the communities affected. That is the role of Members of Parliament—to raise concerns, which our Government will then raise with the Governments of India and Pakistan. As Minister for the Indo-Pacific, I have interlocutors in Delhi and other places, and in the high commission here. The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer), who oversees the FCDO’s work with Pakistan, Afghanistan and the middle east, also regularly raises points with his interlocutors, as we both bring forward these concerns.
We undertake diligently the role of monitoring the situation and recording concerns. We understand that several restrictions have been put in place over time in Indian-administered Kashmir. Many hon. Members referred to internet blackouts, which we monitor carefully and ensure we raise effectively. Unfortunately, they tend to spike at times of violent outbreaks.
On the importance of human rights, my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) mentioned the important Amnesty International report. Other Members have mentioned the work of Mary Lawlor. We are clear on the importance of human rights being respected, and we continue to call for all remaining restrictions imposed since the constitutional changes in August 2019 to be lifted as soon as possible and for any remaining political detainees to be released.
Some Members mentioned prison conditions, and that goes to the heart of the issue. We welcome reports that some detainees have been released, but we remain concerned by ongoing detentions. More broadly, the Government note that the people of Indian-administered Kashmir used their collective voice with a 64% turnout in the state assembly elections last October, which is a higher turnout than in the UK local government elections, I might add. The electoral process was largely peaceful, and the state legislative assembly in Srinagar has now been restored.
Some Members have raised the revocation of article 370 of the Indian constitution. The UK Government stand by our long-standing belief that any resolution should consider the wishes of the Kashmiri people. For that reason, we continue to urge both sides to ensure that there is constructive dialogue with affected communities. As I said, we are clear on the importance of rights being respected, and we continue to call for all remaining restrictions imposed since the constitutional changes in August 2019 to be lifted as soon as possible and for any remaining political detainees to be released.
The UK is aware of the Indian Supreme Court’s judgment on the validity of the article 370 revocation. Where we have concerns, we raise them directly with the Government of India.
I thank the Minister for replying in such detail to the points made, and I fully accept that she and the Government are raising the article 370 suspension with India. Is she able to tell the House what the Indian response was, or share some detail of the importance with which India took that intervention from the United Kingdom?
The point is that this is a frequent agenda item. Without wanting to go into private discussions, the fact is this: constituents raise the matter with Members, and we then relay that message. That is as transparent as we can possibly be. As ever in foreign policy, it is almost impossible to control the response of our interlocutors. I also responded to yesterday’s urgent question in the House; if I could control my interlocutor’s response, I would be in heaven.
Many Members raised the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act and the Public Safety Act. The UK Government encourage all states to ensure that their domestic laws are in line with international standards. Any allegations of human rights abuses must be investigated thoroughly, promptly and transparently.
My hon. Friends the Members for Huddersfield (Harpreet Uppal), for Sheffield Central, and for Rochdale (Paul Waugh) talked about communications restrictions and the worrying situation for journalists. It is wonderful to have a journalist, my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale, in the House making such effective interventions through speeches, with such heart for his community.
Is there a role for the special envoy in relation to religious discrimination and abuse in the region? If so, we all believe that there is no better person than the hon. Member for North Northumberland (David Smith) to do that job.
Of course. The work of envoys and the work of the United Nations is very important for providing us with data and up-to-date analysis, but the Foreign Office also has a role in visiting the region. The way our heads of mission are able to go into those parts is really wonderful. Some Members mentioned a journey that UK Members of Parliament made some years ago. Their entrance was blocked because some areas are simply too difficult to enter; they are too violent and not safe enough. We have our own teams—envoys, United Nations teams and our own staff—that are able to give us up-to-date guidance.
I want to touch briefly on freedom of religion or belief, because the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) raises it regularly and the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) spoke about its importance. I want to reassure them that when I visited Delhi, I met Hindu, Christian, Sikh and Muslim communities to hear about the different traditions in the region. We had a very impressive visit, which made a huge impression on me, to the Jama Masjid, one of the most ancient religious sites in Delhi.
I thank the Minister for her graciousness in letting me intervene a second time. The Ahmadiyya Muslims are suffering persecution simply because they are of a different kind of the Muslim religion. Has the Minister had an opportunity to discuss with them the persecution that they are enduring?
The hon. Gentleman refers to the Ahmadiyya, but that is mainly an issue in other parts of the region. With his permission, I will ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer), to write to him with more detail.
To return to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale, the UK Government are aware of reports of the detention of a number of journalists. We are clear about the importance of respect for human rights, and continue to call for any remaining restrictions to be lifted as soon as possible, and for any remaining political detainees to be released.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) raised the UN plebiscite. It has been the long-standing position of successive UK Governments that it is for India and Pakistan to find a lasting political resolution on Kashmir, taking into account the wishes of the Kashmiri people. It is not for the UK to prescribe a solution or act as a mediator.
On that point, can the Minister confirm whether adherence to human rights and international law will be included as conditions within any trade agreements with India?
Trade is the responsibility of the Department for Business and Trade, but I reassure the hon. Gentleman that we remain committed to promoting universal human rights, and where we have concerns, we raise them directly with partner Governments, including at the ministerial level. My hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield also raised trade. Human rights are a golden thread that goes through all the work of the international Departments.
An issue that sits alongside that is aid—we have debated it this week because of the announcement on international aid. I assure the House that we are still assessing the impact in the Indo-Pacific region, and we will come back when we have a clearer picture. As Members are aware, our work is intertwined with that of other donor countries. For example, the United States Agency for International Development has traditionally been a very big partner in aid across the globe. In the light of the recent announcement of the cessation of that aid, Ministers have asked the Department to do an assessment in the coming weeks so that we can understand the impact of the reduction of aid more generally in different regions. As the Minister for the Indo-Pacific, I want to know exactly what impact that is going to have, but because the announcement is less than a week old, that work has not yet been completed.
I want to touch briefly on Government visits to the region. The benefit of having in-country expertise is that when it is safe to visit, we can seek and gain the various permissions that are needed. Monitoring the situation in India-administered Kashmir is part of the Government’s duties, and that includes engaging with people from different areas and travelling to different regions, including Indian-administered Kashmir. That is a very important part of our diplomacy, and we will continue to do it. Despite the controls in place, officials from the British high commission in New Delhi request access to Kashmir, monitor the situation and visit the region periodically.
The FCDO advises against travel to certain parts of Indian-administered Kashmir and against all travel within 10 miles of the line of control, whether in Indian-administered Kashmir or Pakistan-administered Kashmir. We encourage all British nationals visiting the region, including our own staff, to follow that advice very carefully. There are limits, therefore, to the frequency and geographical scope of visits. The same applies to our officials at the British high commission in Islamabad, who travel periodically to Pakistan-administered Kashmir.
I want briefly to touch on a couple of other issues raised by hon. Members, but we are getting close to the end of the debate—have I missed anything? One thing I have enjoyed about this debate has been the discussion of the many local organisations, such as the youth organisation in Rochdale mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale, of the impact of councillors in our localities and of the important work on International Women’s Day, when we can celebrate the work of our representatives who have deep connections with the area. This work is the tapestry of the UK, and it is important that we bring such matters to the House to reflect constituents’ concerns.
I will take an intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North first.
I thank the Minister for her diligent response to the debate. Is it reasonable for my constituents to hope that, within the next four and a half years—a single Parliament of this Labour Government—things will have progressed, rather than being simply being rehearsed and repeated? Her response has been sincere, but do the Government have a clear objective to move things forward and move the dial on this long-standing issue?
I impress upon my hon. Friend the importance of these debates in influencing the work of our teams at the FCDO and putting the work that is being done in our communities on the public record. Through that, they can have a lasting impact. However, we have to remember that we strongly hold to the principle of the important role of India and Pakistan in resolving this situation.
I thank the Minister for being so generous with her time. I want to pick up on her point about it not being for the UK to prescribe a solution. I entirely understand why that is the position that she and previous Governments have had, but in 1948 there were eight votes in favour of the special resolution of the Security Council. The USSR abstained. The UK was one of the countries that voted in favour of that resolution, which said a plebiscite should happen. Does the UK no longer support the position that we adopted in ’48—I appreciate that that was a long time ago—or do we think that, although it is a potential solution, we do not necessarily want to push it?
Our position is that it is for the two countries to take charge of the overall situation, while obviously listening to the wishes of the Kashmiri people.
I have a follow-up point. As it stands, the position under international law is very clear; there is a United Nations resolution that gives the birthright of self-determination to the Kashmiris. Do the UK Government support that position? That is the question.
A wish and a prayer is one thing, but to resolve this will definitely come down to the two partners and listening to the wishes of the Kashmiri people. We are here to support and to monitor human rights, but as has been clear in the debate, we cannot prescribe, take charge or dictate terms.
Can I at least ask that, in any interactions with the Indian Government, Ministers push for the prosecution of men who use rape and sexual violence as tools of oppression? They are not being prosecuted at the moment.
My hon. Friend makes a very important point—it is International Women’s Day on Saturday. Regardless of where those awful crimes happen, we will always take violence against women and girls extremely seriously—it is one of the Foreign Secretary’s priorities—and raise it with whichever Government have it happening in their area.
Thank you for your patience in chairing the debate, Dr Allin-Khan; I think we will come back to this topic.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered Government support for human rights in Jammu and Kashmir.