Kashmir: Self-determination

Anna Dixon Excerpts

Wednesday 10th December 2025 Westminster Hall

[Imran Hussain]

That is the very point that I am coming to. As my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) said, for decades successive UK Governments have hidden behind the policy and line that Kashmir is a bilateral issue between India and Pakistan. Let us start by saying clearly that Kashmir is not a bilateral issue between India and Pakistan but an international issue. The first thing the Government can do is start recognising it as that. The roots of the situation continue to be within UN Security Council resolutions that Britain helped to draft and promised to uphold.

When a people are denied their right to self-determination, when human rights abuses are systematic and documented and when—this is another point—two nuclear states sit on a knife edge, the world, and especially the UK, cannot wash its hands of responsibility.

[Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)]

rose—

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

Order. The hon. Lady arrived after the start of the debate. I will allow her to intervene on the strict understanding that she remains for the entirety of the debate. That goes for any other Members who arrived after the start of the debate.

[Anna Dixon]

Thank you, Sir Roger, and please accept my apologies. I thank my hon. Friend, who is a great advocate, for taking an intervention. In the great city of Bradford we share a large British-Kashmiri community, whom I met recently. Will he join me in calling for greater international diplomatic efforts to try to bring a resolution to the situation and give the Kashmiri people the self-determination for which they have been waiting for so long?

[Imran Hussain]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I will come to that firmly when I get to my asks. The international community cannot continue to ignore Kashmir for the whole number of reasons I have outlined.

Let us to turn to the current situation, which has deteriorated sharply since August 2019 when the authoritarian, right-wing Modi Government unilaterally and unconstitutionally revoked articles 370 and 35A. That stripped Jammu and Kashmir of what little autonomy it had, in direct violation of international law, of commitments made to the people of Kashmir and of decades of United Nations resolutions. The consequences were immediate and devastating, with a 150-day communications blackout, mass detentions of political leaders, violent crackdowns across the valley, journalists silenced and civil society dismantled. It transformed communities into open-air prisons.

Families were separated, businesses destroyed, young people denied education and everyday life suffocated under curfews and lockdowns. Nearly six years on, the prosperity and normality that was promised never materialised. Instead, we see further repression and further deepening of the injustices. Now, with the domicile rules, we are seeing blatant attempts to permanently change the demographics of Kashmir. Let there be no doubt: the right-wing Modi Government have one aim, which is to try to quash the Kashmiri struggle for good.

This is a timely debate, as I said at the beginning. While we mark UN Human Rights Day today, let us be clear that Kashmir’s human rights abuses are not isolated or occasional events; they form a systematic pattern of intimidation and control. Arbitrary detention, custodial torture, forced disappearances and collective punishment continue with impunity. Women have endured gender-based violence at shocking levels, with over 11,000 documented cases since 1989—an appalling statistic that speaks to the use of sexual violence as a weapon of repression.

Political prisoners remain behind bars without any due process. Khurram Parvez, a globally respected human rights defender, has spent years in prison for documenting abuses. Yasin Malik has been convicted in proceedings widely condemned for lacking fairness and transparency by every human rights organisation and now faces the death penalty. Many others, including Asiya Andrabi and Irfan Mehraj, remain imprisoned under draconian legislation. Political disputes are criminalised with one aim: to silence legitimate voices for self-determination. Kashmiris continue to suffer under a system that strips them of dignity, voice and agency.

In Azad Kashmir, where conditions are arguably much better and where there can be simply no comparison with the violence and bloodshed faced daily by Kashmiris on the Indian side, we have recently seen, very concerningly, a region-wide lockdown triggered by deep public grievances and followed by the suspension of mobile internet and even landline services. Markets have been closed and transport halted. Heavy deployments of security forces have created real fear and uncertainty for ordinary people. Those events have tragically led to the deaths and casualties of many. The current dispute started with Kashmiri grievances and demands, at the core of which were basic rights such as the right to a decent education, decent healthcare, fair pricing for electricity, and basic human rights that should be granted to all people.

Of course, I welcome the de-escalation of the situation and the positive negotiations between the Pakistani Government, the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Government and the grassroots movement, the Awami Action Committee. I thank all colleagues who signed the letter from the all-party parliamentary group on Kashmir, and I am grateful to those Governments for liaising with it. But let me make it absolutely clear that the human rights of Kashmiris must be respected and that all the reasonable demands of the Awami Action Committee must be met in full and implemented in full.

The central point of this debate is our moral, legal, historical and political duty. The United Kingdom is not a neutral observer in this conflict. Our decisions at partition, our diplomacy in the early decades and our vote for United Nations resolutions created obligations that remain unfulfilled to this day. We helped to shape Kashmir’s unresolved status, and therefore we bear a share of the responsibility for resolving it. We cannot speak of human rights in other parts of the world while telling Kashmiris that their rights are a matter for someone else to address. That is completely absurd and a clear abdication of our responsibilities.

We cannot pick and choose when it comes to human right abuses, yet for decades successive Governments have done just that. Governments of all stripes since the early ’70s have relied on the easy line that this is a bilateral issue between India and Pakistan, which has allowed us to wash our hands of moral, legal or political obligations. Let me be clear: this is not a bilateral issue and never has been. At its heart are international law and the right of Kashmiris to self-determination.

Action is required. Silence is not neutrality; frankly, it is complicity. The world has allowed UN resolutions on Kashmir to sit gathering dust for decades, and that must end. The UK must match its words with action by raising human rights concerns at every diplomatic level, demanding the release of political prisoners, insisting on independent access for journalists and observers, and ensuring that any future trade negotiations with India contain binding human rights conditions. Trade cannot trump human rights, and economic deals must never come at the expense of the Kashmiri people’s dignity, safety and democratic rights.

I have some simple questions for the Minister. First, do the Government and the Minister, who speaks for them, accept that the UK has a moral, historical and legal responsibility to support the full implementation of United Nations resolutions? Will he confirm that the UK Government’s position is to support the Kashmiri people’s birthright to self-determination through a free and fair plebiscite? Will the Government commit to ensuring that future trade negotiations with India do not come at the expense of human rights, accountability or justice, as trade cannot be prioritised over the rights of people who have been oppressed for generations, or do we apply a different set of rules to Kashmir?

The key question that we, our Kashmiri constituents and everybody up and down the country who champions human rights are asking is: what is the Government’s stance on whether this is a bilateral or an international issue? When political parties go out campaigning in our constituencies, big promises are made on issues such as Kashmir. Frankly, people are fed up with promises made by successive parties and Governments, all of which have gone on to betray the Kashmiri people.

Do the Government have the moral courage to stand by and defend their obligations under international law, to provide a case that moves away from the age-old wrong argument—that this is a bilateral issue—to one that recognises it as an issue deep-rooted in international law? That is the central question for the Government and the Minister. Along with hundreds of thousands of people watching, I would appreciate a straight answer.

Drug-related Deaths

Anna Dixon Excerpts

Wednesday 5th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Charlotte Nichols]

The number of drug deaths in Scotland is stark, and it underlines the fact that the issue affects every part of the UK. We know what we need to do to start addressing it. I welcome the recent Scottish Affairs Committee report, which I will mention later.

I have said before that putting drugs within the Home Office’s ministerial purview is putting the issue in the wrong place, so I am very happy that a Health Minister is here to respond. The current approach is rooted in the belief that we can simply arrest and imprison our way out of this. Despite the death toll rising every year in the six years that I have been doing this job, the Home Office seems to show not just a lack of curiosity but hostility towards harm reduction measures. My overarching question today is: will the Government finally take an evidence-based stance on drugs policy to reduce the immense harm that the status quo causes in our constituencies? Will the Minister work across Government to bring forward necessary changes to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 and deliver a fit-for-purpose, public-health-led approach to drugs across the UK, saving thousands of lives?

[Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for securing the debate. In the Bradford district, there were 70 drug-related deaths in 2023. I agree with her that we need to take a different approach to tackling the problem, and it must be a public health approach. The UK could learn much from countries like Portugal, which has gone a long way towards adopting such an approach to drugs and drug-related deaths.

[Charlotte Nichols]

I absolutely agree. Later, I will try to develop my argument for that kind of approach, which we could take here but do not.

As a Parliament and as a society, we may have inadvertently come to accept the yearly statistics, and have perhaps not given them the necessary thought, but I stress that there are cost-effective solutions that could save the taxpayer money and save the lives of our constituents, while taking money out of the pockets of exploitative, organised criminal gangs.

I am afraid to say that the problem may be far worse than is recognised. A recent report by King’s College London indicates that there has been a severe under-reporting of drug-related deaths over the past 15 years. The researchers found that drug-related deaths have been under-reported by 30%, and opioid-related deaths between 2011 and 2022 were found to be 55% higher than recorded, putting the estimated number of opioid-related deaths in that period north of 39,000.

Freedom of Religion or Belief: UK Foreign Policy

Anna Dixon Excerpts

Thursday 17th July 2025 Westminster Hall

[Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)]

Earlier this week, I spoke to Aid to the Church in Need, particularly about the situation for Christians in Syria. Hon. Members are obviously well aware of the recent suicide bombing of the St Elias Orthodox church in Damascus, and Christian communities are still facing persecution, including with destructive fires. Does the hon. Member agree that the situation is grave in many parts of the world, including Syria?

[Martin Wrigley]

Absolutely. The situation is very grave in many parts of the world. In fact, it is more than grave—it is intolerable. In our foreign policy, the UK must proactively seek to champion freedom of belief and religion. The hon. Member for North Northumberland, the special envoy, has identified 10 priority countries where freedom of religion or belief is under particular strain; I am concerned that diplomatic pressure in those countries remains inconsistent and at times ineffective.

Where religious legislation remains stagnant or regressive, I see little evidence that UK engagement has shifted the dial. I urge the Government to take a far more active and co-ordinated approach, not just to maintain relationships but to use them to drive real progress on rights and freedoms. It is not enough to make declarations; the Government must match words with action. That means ensuring that the special envoy for freedom of religion or belief—I understand why he uses the acronym FORB; it is much easier to say—is properly resourced, has a clear mandate and is empowered to influence policy across the FCDO. I also urge the Government to appoint an ambassador-level champion for freedom of religion or belief, with cross-departmental reach and the responsibility to ensure that religious freedom is not an afterthought in UK foreign policy, but a guiding principle.

The UK’s approach must also recognise the intersections between religious persecution and other forms of oppression. Minority faith women and girls face heightened risks, including forced marriage, exclusion from education, and sexual violence. Their gender adds a further layer of marginalisation, and it is essential that UK policy reflects that reality.

We must also be alive to the modern tools of repression. In China, surveillance technology and biometric data are being used to monitor and intimidate religious groups. Technological repression is becoming increasingly sophisticated and the UK must be ready to challenge those abuses at the international level. To have the biggest impact, the UK must work through international bodies, including the United Nations and the Commonwealth, to press for reform, support democratic movements and uphold the right of all people to live with or without faith.

Persecution based on religion or belief should have no place in today’s world. It is a bellwether for broader freedoms: where it is restricted, restrictions on other rights soon follow. We will continue to push for a foreign policy that defends the rights of all people, everywhere, to live without fear and in accordance with their consciences. The UK must not be a bystander. We must lead with conviction, courage, and a clear commitment to human rights at the heart of our foreign policy. I ask the Minister what concrete steps the Government will take this year to challenge countries where religious repression is entrenched, and to ensure that our foreign policy truly upholds the values we claim to defend.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Anna Dixon Excerpts

Friday 16th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Rebecca Paul]

The key point is that we need to improve palliative care. We are spending so much time and effort focusing on this Bill rather than doing the thing that would actually help more people. My amendment 80, in combination with amendments 30 and 31 tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer), would drive significant improvements to palliative and end-of-life care, getting us closer to consistent and universally available care for all.

[Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)]

I support the hon. Lady’s amendment. As the Royal College of Psychiatrists pointed out, pain from unresolved physical symptoms and the fear of physical pain or death can make a person want to die, and depression, which is also associated with a wish to die, is often missed. Does she agree that it is vital that people are supported to be free from pain by having access to good palliative and end-of-life care, and that the Bill’s provisions should be available only to those whom that cannot help?

[Rebecca Paul]

I completely concur.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anna Dixon]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I appreciate that you and the team have had a very difficult day, but as someone who tabled an amendment but has not had the opportunity to speak to it, I would like clarification that if a closure motion is moved, my amendment, as well as those tabled by other Members who have been unable to speak to them, will not receive further debate.

[Mr Speaker]

To be quite honest with you, the amendments that we have discussed are the ones that we have got through. On the amount of time allocated, in fairness, we are presuming what will come next. I am going to call the Minister; if a closure motion is moved, I will decide at that moment whether to accept it. The fact that many amendments may not have been spoken to is not unusual, which is why consideration will not last for one day, as per the normal procedure; it will continue over further days, on which further amendments will be discussed, and of course there will be Third Reading at a later date. I call the Minister.

Bosnia and Herzegovina

Anna Dixon Excerpts

Monday 31st March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)]

I volunteered with the OSCE to ensure free and fair elections in Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1996, following the Dayton peace agreement. I therefore have huge concerns about the escalating tensions. I welcome the diplomatic efforts we are undertaking to support stability, on which the Minister has updated us, but can he confirm that he is working closely with European civil society partners such as the OSCE to secure peace and stable democracy in the region?

[Stephen Doughty]

We continue to work with all organisations that seek to promote peace and stability in the region. My hon. Friend rightly mentions the OSCE, which is crucial. I know that the issue is of keen interest to members of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly in this place. We will continue to work with them, with the Council of Europe and with others, including our partners in the EU, the US and beyond. Civil society organisations are crucial to that work. Many examples of the work that we have done in the past to build trust between communities and on peacebuilding have been achieved through civil society organisations.

Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office

Anna Dixon Excerpts

Wednesday 5th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Doughty]

I obviously cannot speak for what will happen many years into the future, but the right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: our intent is to get back to 0.7% of GNI as soon as the fiscal circumstances allow. The Prime Minister has been very clear about that.

[Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Stephen Doughty]

I will not take any more interventions, because of the time; I need to respond to the points that have been made.

It was clear that all of us across the House agree—with a couple of exceptions—that our defence spending needs to go up. There is absolutely clear unity on Ukraine. We will obviously be setting out the further work following the summit at the weekend and how we will go forward. There have been important conversations on that over recent days involving myself, the Foreign Secretary, the Prime Minister and others.

At this time of profound change, with conflicts overseas undermining security and prosperity at home, the Prime Minister rightly took the decision to increase spending on defence to 2.5% of GDP from 2027. That will be funded by cutting our spending on overseas development from 0.5% to 0.3% of GNI. The Prime Minister was absolutely clear that this was not an announcement that he was happy to make—I know that a couple of Members suggested the opposite. The Prime Minister is a man of integrity and sincerity on this issue, and I urge colleagues to look carefully at what he said about it.

For me, this was a sincere but difficult decision, not least given my experience working for humanitarian and international development NGOs and, indeed, at the former Department for International Development. I too have seen the positive impacts of Britain’s proud record on overseas development on lives around the world, as hon. Members reflected on. As the Prime Minister said, we will continue to play a key role in doing everything we can to move towards rebuilding our capacity, and we remain committed to working in Sudan, Ukraine and Gaza and on tackling climate change, on supporting multinational efforts on global health and challenges such as vaccination, and on our commitments to the overseas territories.

I have to level with the House, and I hope that people can see and feel this: in this dangerous new era, the defence and national security of this country must come first. This is not the 1990s. This is not even 2005, and I cannot look at what I, or indeed other Ministers, do every day and not recognise that we have to respond differently to the very serious threats facing this country, our continent and the world. I say that in deep candour.

This difficult choice reflects the evolving nature of the threats we face and the strategic shifts required to meet them, while maintaining economic stability—the foundation of this Government’s plan for change. We will ensure that every pound of development assistance is spent in the most impactful way, equipping the FCDO to deliver the plan for change internationally. The changes in this estimate reflect that approach, and the FCDO will continue overall, not just through ODA, to focus on growth, security, Europe, migration, climate and nature, and development.

Reducing the overall size of our ODA budget will necessarily have an impact on the scale and shape of the work we do. We will consider how to maximise the value of our budget throughout the ongoing spending review, but ODA alone is not, and has never been, the single answer to the many challenges of international development. We have to use all the levers at our disposal to support our development aims and make use of all forms of development finance to maximise the impact of our ODA. We have set out the detail of the changes being made.

Many Members have raised concerns about asylum spending. The Home Office introduced policy and operational changes within the asylum system to reduce the impact on UK ODA spend. The Home Secretary is committed to ensuring that asylum costs fall, and indeed there has already been an impact. The Government have taken measures to reduce the asylum backlog and the use of expensive asylum accommodation in the next spending review period, and to increase detention capacity to facilitate more removals.

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury considered the impact of the rise in GNI and the reduction in asylum costs, among other changes to ODA forecasts, in the round and agreed that the FCDO would receive an uplift to its 2024-25 ODA settlement in the region of £540 million. Many colleagues have raised questions about 2025-26. We will be setting initial budgets for 2025-26 to minimise disruption to key programmes as we transition financial years. The details of that will be set out in due course. The ODA budgets for future years are under review by the Government, and we will confirm details to the House in due course. I want to be honest that we cannot provide categorical assurances at this stage, but I assure Members that their points have been heard clearly.

Many Members raised debt relief. Supporting developing countries to tackle unsustainable debt is a key development priority of this Government. We need to take the twin-track approach of tackling the immediate challenges and the underlying drivers of unsustainable debt.

BII was mentioned, and it is a crucial part of our development architecture. We have provided additional support to BII, and we will work closely with it on its role. Indeed, in 2023, BII-backed businesses provided more than 1 million jobs, paid $2.5 billion in taxes and generated huge amounts of electricity, and we need a clearer role for it. I have taken on board the important points about the British Council and the funding that we give it, and about the BBC World Service, which we hugely support—our part of the funding for it has gone up by £32.6 million in the 2025-26 fiscal year. The role of SDRs has been pointed to.

I want to highlight that we will continue to centre absolutely everything that we do internationally on women and girls. Impact assessments have been mentioned many times. Of course, impact assessments, including of impacts on women and girls, will play a crucial role. I have mentioned UK Aid Match and many other things.

These are incredibly difficult choices, but they are the right choices for the circumstances in which we find ourselves. They are not choices that we make lightly. I say sincerely that I have heard all the contributions that Members have made. We will come back to the House in due course with further information. I commend the estimates to the House.

Oral Answers to Questions

Anna Dixon Excerpts

Tuesday 14th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Danny Beales (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Lab)]

8. What steps he is taking to help improve the humanitarian situation in Gaza.

[Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)]

12. What steps he is taking to help improve the humanitarian situation in Gaza.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)]

22. What steps he is taking to help improve the humanitarian situation in Gaza.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anneliese Dodds]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this incredibly important issue. In December, I saw for myself in Jordan how medical aid had been blocked from entering Gaza. As I have said before, the position that the UK Government have articulated at every possible juncture is that restrictions on lifesaving aid must end. The UK continues to provide core healthcare relief items, and has provided 76,000 wound care kits, 1.3 million items of medicine, and critical funding for UK-Med to run its field hospitals in Gaza.

[Anna Dixon]

I thank the Minister for her response, and I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s efforts to secure a sustainable ceasefire and the release of hostages.

Many of my constituents have expressed concern about the recent raid of Kamal Adwan hospital, which was one of the last healthcare facilities still operating in Gaza. The hospital’s director, Dr Safiya, was detained along with several of his staff during that raid. International law prohibits the detention of medical staff in conflict zones. What is the Minister doing to secure the release of these medical staff so that Gaza’s civilians can continue to access essential medical care?

[Anneliese Dodds]

My hon. Friend is right to raise this critically important issue. We have raised the protection of healthcare facilities and the detention of healthcare workers directly with the Israeli Government. The Minister for the middle east, my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer), has specifically raised the detention of Dr Hussam Abu Safiya with both Israel’s deputy Foreign Minister and its ambassador to the UK.

Oral Answers to Questions

Anna Dixon Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Will Stone (Swindon North) (Lab)]

6. What steps he is taking to help improve the humanitarian situation in Gaza.

[Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)]

13. What steps he is taking to help improve the humanitarian situation in Gaza.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anneliese Dodds]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this matter. We see people up and down the country who are very concerned about the humanitarian situation in Gaza. Clearly, we now have extreme levels of food insecurity. We are very concerned about the situation in northern Gaza in particular. The Foreign Secretary, the Prime Minister and all of us in the ministerial team have been very clear to all actors in the region and others that there must be access to the aid that is so desperately needed in all of Gaza.

[Anna Dixon]

Since the devastating Hamas attack on Israel more than a year ago, an estimated 42,000 Palestinians have died, including many civilians, and many more families have been repeatedly displaced. Will the Minister assure me and my constituents that the Government are using the full diplomatic force at their disposal to secure an immediate ceasefire in Gaza and to allow the free flow of humanitarian aid?

[Anneliese Dodds]

Yes, I can. A resolution to this conflict has been a priority since day one of the new Government. We are calling for an immediate ceasefire, the release of all hostages still cruelly detained by Hamas, and much more aid to enter Gaza. The death and destruction in Gaza is intolerable and we have made that clear at every possible moment.