Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges
Ayoub Khan Excerpts(4 days, 22 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mrs Badenoch
I am going to make some progress. I say gently to Labour MPs—and kindly, as I have been asked to—that if they vote against today’s motion, they are admitting that Labour has lower standards, and should be held to a lower standard than everyone else. When they were elected, they promised their constituents integrity and higher standards, and I am sure that most of them meant it at the time. This country is the mother of all Parliaments, and today’s vote is about Parliament. It is not about the Labour party; it is about the Prime Minister being held to account. To those who are saying that this is a stunt, I say that it is about whether the Prime Minister is accountable, not just to the Opposition but to Labour MPs and their constituents.
Labour Members may believe that the Prime Minister is telling the truth. As Mr Speaker said, they are not being asked whether the Prime Minister is telling the truth; they are being asked whether the Privileges Committee should investigate whether the Prime Minister told the truth. That is a different thing. The question is whether there is a case to answer that he misled this House and has failed to correct the record.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
The British public are already fed up with politicians—we see that from the low turnout at general elections. We have here a prime example of why the British public have lost confidence in politicians. We are trying to shield the public from the truth and hide it from them. Does the right hon. Member agree that in order to restore that trust, this Prime Minister must be put in front of the Committee?
Mrs Badenoch
I agree that this is a matter of trust with the public. We have to show that we do things properly here. As I was saying, the question is whether there is a case to answer that the Prime Minister misled this House and failed to correct the record. If there is a credible case that he did, this matter should be referred to the Committee of Privileges—those are the rules of the House.
I will quickly run through the facts to make sure that every Labour MP hears them. The Prime Minister appointed Peter Mandelson before security vetting was granted, in direct contravention of the advice given to him on 11 November 2024 by the then Cabinet Secretary—that is not due process. The Prime Minister’s own National Security Adviser described the appointment and due diligence as “weirdly rushed”, and the Foreign Office was not asked to feed in—that is not due process. [Interruption.] The chair of the Labour party has a lot to say, so I will give way and let her say what she wants to say.
Gurinder Singh Josan
The right hon. Gentleman should understand that we are here today only because of things that have been determined, whether from the release of papers through the Humble Address or from evidence people have given to the Foreign Affairs Committee. For him to say that those processes have no relevance is wrong; they absolutely have full relevance. My whole case is that we should let those processes complete in their entirety. That is why I believe this motion is premature. Given that those processes are already taking place, this privilege motion is premature. More than that, this motion is a clear attempt to bypass those processes.
Whatever one’s view of the substantive issues, there are some points on which we should all agree. The Prime Minister has been forthcoming in addressing the allegations, both in the House and outside. The Prime Minister has apologised from the very outset in the House and outside it, for the decision to appoint Peter Mandelson, and his apologies have been full, wholesome and without equivocation. He has also specifically apologised to the victims of Epstein. The Prime Minister has repeatedly answered questions in the House and outside, and has shown a willingness to be held accountable.
Ayoub Khan
Whatever the merits of the motion, does the hon. Member accept that the party whip should not be exercised so that politicians are constrained and cannot support or oppose a particular motion? Does he agree that that whip should be withdrawn?
Gurinder Singh Josan
I am a humble Back Bencher, and I would not disagree with my Chief Whip in respect of his decisions on how to apply the whip. That is a matter for him.
All the inquiries that I have mentioned are ongoing, and are being robustly pursued. I fear, therefore, that the motion risks setting an unhealthy precedent, namely that unproven allegations alone are sufficient to utilise one of Parliament’s most serious procedures. That is not something with which any of us should be comfortable. The naked politicising of this process will not serve Parliament well. My further fear is that while Opposition Members are seeking to utilise this procedure in this way, some of them will already be looking into what other procedures they can use to extend the process in the same partisan fashion.
It is incumbent on all of us to give consideration to due process and proportionality. Diverting from the high standards that voters expect of the House risks damaging confidence in Parliament itself. Substantial parliamentary and other processes are already under way. We should not pre-empt those processes, which is what this motion has the potential to do, but should allow them to be completed. That is in the best interests of Parliament and in the best interests of transparency, due process and proportionality, and that is why I call on Members to vote against the motion.
Mr Alex Barros-Curtis (Cardiff West) (Lab)
I rise in this debate first and foremost to reiterate, as other colleagues have done, my fullest solidarity with the victims of Epstein. We should always maintain them at the forefront of our minds. Notwithstanding their absence from the motion, I know that many colleagues on both sides of the House have referenced them, and I am sure that we will continue to do so.
I want to be clear that I will vote against this motion, not because I have to be told to, but because the case has absolutely not been made. Given some of the contributions made about shaving or putting on make-up in the morning, and considering and reflecting on the vote that will be cast tonight, I will have no compunction whatsoever and absolutely no doubt in my mind when I go through the Lobby that I will have made the right decision. I do not need insinuations to the contrary impugning my integrity.
Mr Barros-Curtis
Before I explain why I am making that case and that decision, I will happily give way.
Ayoub Khan
Of course, every Member is entitled to make their decision, and to vote in either Lobby, but they have to justify that to the electorate. Given that, does the hon. Member believe that a three-line Whip is necessary?
David Pinto-Duschinsky
No, I will make some progress.
What is more, this Government are undertaking an extensive release of documents in the interests of transparency and out of respect for this House. Ministers have updated us on the progress with the Humble Address. On top of that, the Foreign Affairs Committee is holding hearings. Alongside that, the Government have already strengthened the processes around national security vetting and senior appointments. So I ask again: what is the real substance here? We are not uncovering new facts. In fact, the Conservatives’ argument has changed time and again, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West (Mr Barros-Curtis) so eloquently pointed out. What we are seeing is lots of throwing mud in the hope that some of it will stick. The Conservatives are speaking not in the public interest, but in service of political opportunism.
David Pinto-Duschinsky
No.
The Conservatives are demeaning and diminishing an important parliamentary process. Our disciplinary processes are serious, and they should not be used for political point scoring. A Committee of Privileges investigation would not bring further clarity; it would only create a long, costly and wholly unnecessary duplication of processes that are either completed or already under way. It is a distraction, and I guess that is why the Conservatives want it. It is a stunt, and that is why I will vote against it.
Under the previous Government, this House was treated with contempt. Standards were bent and procedures were torn apart to protect those in power, with the support of many Conservative Members. We are entitled to ask: why do they raise this matter now? Well, it is because there is an election in a few days’ time, but it is also because they fundamentally cannot accept the change that this Government are delivering. They cannot accept that we are investing in public services that they ran into the ground.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
May I first extend my thoughts and prayers to the victims of Epstein? I commend the bold and courageous contributions of Labour Members who will be voting for the motion.
I was elected as an independent Member of Parliament to represent the people of Birmingham Perry Barr without fear and without favour. I was sent here without a party Whip—without shackles or controls, or indeed hidden notes given to me behind closed doors. I was sent here to exercise my judgment, my discretion and my conscience at the behest of my constituents, and that is exactly what I do each and every day.
The truth is that the British public feel deeply, profoundly disenfranchised. Too many people no longer trust politicians. Too many believe that we say one thing and do another. Too many feel that there is one rule for those in power and another for everyone else. We cannot simply dismiss that sentiment; we must confront it. Honesty matters. Integrity matters. Credibility matters. Above all, transparency matters. Without those fundamental elements, public confidence does not just weaken; it disappears. And once it is gone, it is incredibly difficult to rebuild. I therefore ask colleagues across the House—especially Labour colleagues—what message do we send today if we refuse even to allow a Committee to examine the facts? What are we saying to the public if we block scrutiny before it has even begun?
The motion is not a verdict, a judgment or a declaration of guilt; it is a fair, established parliamentary process to examine evidence, to determine the facts and to allow the truth to emerge. Yet we are told that Labour Members are under a three-line Whip. For those outside the Chamber who may not know, that means they are being instructed and compelled to vote against the motion—to vote against even allowing the question to be examined. Let us be honest about what that looks like.
If an individual votes to prevent the investigation, they are not defending due process, but denying it; they are not upholding transparency, but obstructing it; they are not strengthening public trust, but further eroding it. To the British people, it will look like they are shielding, blocking and protecting the powerful from scrutiny. That is precisely the perception that we should all be fighting against, not reinforcing.
If we expect the public to follow the rules, to respect the law and to have faith in our institutions, we must hold ourselves to the same, if not higher, standards. We cannot ask for trust while refusing accountability, we cannot demand integrity while avoiding scrutiny and we cannot rebuild confidence by closing ranks.
This is a moment that calls for courage—not partisan courage, but moral courage; the courage to say, “Let the process take its course”; the courage to say that no one is above scrutiny; and the courage to put principle above party. As an independent Member, I answer only to my constituents and to my conscience. I am confident that every Labour Member will listen to their conscience. My conscience tells me that supporting this motion is the right thing to do, not because of politics, but because of principles, and not because of personalities, but because of the standards that we owe to the British public.
I urge colleagues across this House, particularly those under instructions today, to reflect carefully on the message that their vote will send. Will it be a message of openness or a message of obstruction? Will it be a message of accountability or a message of avoidance? The public are watching and they will draw their own conclusions. If we are serious about restoring trust in politics, we must be serious about transparency. If we are serious about integrity, we must be serious about scrutiny. If we are serious about public confidence, we must allow the truth to be examined, wherever that truth leads. For that reason, I support the motion. The Prime Minister is willing to put each and every Labour Member of Parliament at risk at the next general election, but he will not risk going in front of the Privileges Committee.
Darren Jones
The right hon. Gentleman should listen to my speech. I have just said that Catherine Little, Sir Chris Wormald and Sir Olly Robbins all agree on the point that due process was followed. When the Prime Minister received new information about the UKSV process this month, he immediately asked for the full facts to be established and he then come to this House on 20 April.
On the statement that Peter Mandelson’s appointment was “subject to developed vetting”, the Prime Minister has always been clear that this appointment was in line with the processes at the time. I understand that there have been some questions about this process, but to be clear, as Sir Olly Robbins told the Foreign Affairs Committee in November:
“As is normally the case with external appointments to my Department…the appointment was made subject to obtaining security clearance.”
As Sir Chris Wormald told the same Committee:
“The normal thing is for the security clearance to happen after appointment but before the person signs a contract and takes up post.”
And as the former Cabinet Secretary said in his letter to the Prime Minister, having conducted a review into the process,
“the vetting process was complete before the previous HMA Washington took up post on 10 February 2025, and it is more usual for security vetting to happen after appointment.”
Ayoub Khan
The Minister clearly believes that the Prime Minister has a defensible position, so will he support the withdrawal of the whipping of Labour Back Benchers?
Darren Jones
I am not going to answer silly questions.
Next, on the question of pressure—[Interruption.] Many hon. Members have asked questions today about a general pressure, a specific pressure or a variety of different pressures, so they may want to listen to the answer. It is important to be clear about this, because there is pressure to get stuff done every day across every area of government, as we work hard to deliver for the British people. The Leader of the Opposition and other Members who have previously served in government will no doubt recall that from their time in office, but there is clearly a difference between asking for progress updates and putting pressure on officials to predetermine an outcome or not to follow a proper process. That was not the case in this scenario.
Middle East
Ayoub Khan Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Yvette Cooper
Because the regional stability and security issues around the middle east have so many wider ramifications, some of the Gulf countries, for example, that I have spoken to are not only immensely seized by the issues around the Iranian threat and the direct threat to their airspace and communities, but are raising with me issues around Palestine, Gaza and Lebanon. This ought to be a moment for intense international diplomacy in support of regional security and not for allowing wider escalation and regional threat that would pose long-term instability for the region.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
The one thing Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu knew full well when they entered this illegal war unilaterally was that the strait of Hormuz would be a place of strategic weaponry, if you want to call it that, for Iran to use against all other nations. Some European countries have unilaterally now decided to open negotiations with Iran, such as France and Italy. They have done that because they are not participating in any direct military action. My question for the Foreign Secretary is: if the Iranians said, “We would allow UK ships to pass through the strait of Hormuz, but you must prevent America from using your base,” would we comply?
Yvette Cooper
I can say to the hon. Member that we are working closely with our European allies, including France, Germany and Italy, on a range of these issues. I do not think that his characterisation of the situation is right.
Strait of Hormuz
Ayoub Khan Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Stephen Doughty
I can assure the right hon. Member that we keep a range of threats and risks under close monitoring. We will always take the steps that we can to protect shipping and our interests and allies in the region, but I am not going to get into the specifics of any individual location.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
Over the weekend, France and Italy opened talks with Iran to allow their ships to pass through the strait of Hormuz. France has limited America’s use of its bases to non-combat missions only; Italy has refused to help altogether. With this Labour Government giving a licence to American assets on British bases, there is no hope of our striking a similar deal to let our ships through at present. Will the Government confirm that they will keep all options on the table—including suspending American military operations from our bases—because British citizens must come first, and they must be shielded from bearing the brunt of America and Israel’s illegal war?
Stephen Doughty
British citizens do come first. The Prime Minister has set out clearly the basis for the decisions he has made, which includes, of course, the defence of our allies and partners in the Gulf, which I am sure the hon. Member would agree is important, and indeed British citizens and interests in the Gulf. Again, I am not exactly sure what policy he is suggesting we should follow. The Prime Minister will continue to approach this in a calm and level-headed way in the British national interest.
Oral Answers to Questions
Ayoub Khan Excerpts(1 month, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Elmore
International NGOs remain indispensable to the UN-led humanitarian response, and we have supported key INGO partners, including through the Disasters Emergency Committee. In January, we marked the UK’s £3 million aid match for the middle east appeal. In total, we have provided £13 million since the appeal began. On 30 December last year, the UK led a statement with nine other countries to underline the vital role that INGOs play in Palestine. We continue to engage those organisations that have been impacted by new registration requirements, and we have raised that issue directly with the Government of Israel.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
Amid the illegal attack on Iran by America and Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu has closed all the border crossings into Gaza. What does the Minister know of this? Food and humanitarian aid are once again being blocked.
Chris Elmore
We would like all borders, including Rafah, to be open as quickly as possible and not in a phased process. We are making representations to the Israeli Government in that regard.
Sudan
Ayoub Khan Excerpts(2 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Yvette Cooper
That is exactly why I had meetings directly with the African Union, to make sure that the work to support civic society involves the work it is doing locally and also involves neighbouring countries directly. The hon. Member is completely right to say that if this simply becomes an ongoing stand-off between two military-led parties, we will not get a secure and sustainable peace for Sudan. The first stage has to be the humanitarian truce, but we have to have that civilian transition.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for her statement today and commend her on her leadership, particularly in travelling out to Sudan to see at first hand the atrocities that are being committed. We all know that in conflict innocent civilians will always get caught up in crossfire, but the distinction in this case is that children are specifically being targeted—children being raped as a weapon of war and young boys being kidnapped and forced to bear arms. I am sure the whole House welcomes the additional support we are giving in the form of financial aid, but it is a drop in the ocean given the challenges faced in Sudan, so what more are we doing with our allies to ensure we can maximise the aid that gets into Sudan? Also, given that we are now in pole position as president of the United Nations Security Council, is there any prospect that we can get UN troops to protect the civilian population, and children in particular?
Yvette Cooper
I welcome the hon. Member’s points about the horrendous way in which children are being targeted. Some of the most disturbing reports are of children and women who have managed to flee from one of the cities under siege. They are leaving—they are fleeing, they are running away—yet on those journeys, they are stopped and face rape, sexual violence and kidnapping. The most terrible crimes are being committed, so we are working on how we can strengthen support for children and use not just the work of the UN Security Council or that of the UN more widely, but any international forum we have, to raise the plight of children.
Armed Conflict: Children
Ayoub Khan Excerpts(2 months, 4 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I thank the hon. Member for Hyndburn (Sarah Smith) for securing this important debate.
There is no period of greater importance than childhood. Every child deserves dignity, protection and the support needed to give them the best possible start in life. Yet today, more than 500 million children are living in active conflict zones around the world. Every day, we are confronted with the human cost of war on children: the 20,000 Ukrainian children abducted and taken to Belarus and Russia, many of whom may never see their families again; the 10.8 million children in Yemen denied food, clean water, healthcare and education; and the millions of girls in Sudan facing displacement, starvation and the constant threat of abduction, exploitation and enslavement.
The scale of trauma being inflicted on children worldwide is both incomprehensible and intolerable. Ending this suffering requires two things from a Government such as ours—adequate humanitarian and development assistance to meet children’s immediate needs, and the political courage to prioritise human rights and the prevention of harm over political expediency. On both counts, unfortunately, this Government have failed, in my view. At a time when children’s suffering has never been more widespread, the Government chose to halve the overseas aid budget. That was not an unavoidable necessity, but a political choice, and one that has stripped millions of children of access to food, healthcare, education and protection. Now is not the time for retreat; it is a time for leadership. Instead, the Government have turned away from their responsibility to uphold the most basic human dignities.
However, this failure goes beyond aid. The Government have also failed to take the political action necessary to prevent and halt the conflicts that devastate children’s lives in the first place. Nowhere—nowhere—is that more evident than in Gaza. For over a year, this Labour Government stood by as Palestinian children were bombed, shot and starved, and as their schools, hospitals and homes were destroyed. Through their inaction, the Government have been complicit in the destruction of the conditions children need to live, learn and grow. They stood by as their lives were reduced to bare survival, or taken away altogether.
We cannot soften the reality of the physical, emotional and psychological trauma inflicted on these children. A recent study led by the University of Cambridge found that constant bombardment and starvation have left children in Gaza
“too weak to learn or play”,
and convinced that they will be “killed for being Gazans”. These children have lost not only their homes and health, but their hope and their faith that the international system will protect them.
Children in Gaza will have lost the equivalent of five years of education since 2020. Rebuilding education across Palestine is going to cost billions. As a result, children will depend on foreign aid for decades, not because this was inevitable, but because the Government failed to stand up for international law when it mattered most. We must be honest about our role in this devastation. The suffering did not occur in a vacuum, and our silence and inaction were not neutral. Lives were destroyed because it was politically convenient to look away.
Middle East and North Africa
Ayoub Khan Excerpts(3 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Falconer
We do remind the Iranian authorities of the right to protest. It is vital that that people are able to conduct that right with access to communications, which have come under pressure in Iran in recent days, and indeed without the threat of violence.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
Deep down we all know that there is no real ceasefire. How can it be a ceasefire when more than 500 civilian Palestinians have been murdered, approximately 100 of them children? We all celebrated the new year with family and friends with fireworks, while Israel Defence Forces soldiers celebrated new year by firing unlimited bullets into Gaza blindly. The level of depravity is unspeakable. We now know that 37 reputable organisations are being prevented from providing humanitarian aid. Here is one suggestion. We know that nine countries, along with the UK, expressed their concern. What stops the Minister and this Government joining with those nine countries and making a visit to the International Criminal Court to raise this matter, so we get a ruling and then enforce it, if necessary with military?
Mr Falconer
The hon. Gentleman will be familiar with the deliberations of the ICC already in relation to this conflict. The ICC is supported by the UK, but it operates independently and at a distance, rightly, from the Ministers of this country and any other country.
Venezuela
Ayoub Khan Excerpts(3 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Yvette Cooper
Trying to make an equivalence between the US and Russia is just totally ridiculous and deeply inappropriate. We have seen the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the kidnapping of Ukrainian children. In contrast, we have our relationship with the US, in which it is discussing security guarantees for Ukraine. I think that is hugely important.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
Absent international rules-based order leads to chaos. We all know that within chaos there is order; sadly, that order is one in which the strongest survive and the most vulnerable and weak die. That is neither just nor morally right. How can we be champions of and advocates for the international rules-based order yet wholly equivocal when it comes to calling out this flagrant breach of international law?
Yvette Cooper
We have set out our continued commitment to international law and the importance of maintaining some of the underpinning rules-based alliances that are so important for sustaining the rules-based order. That is why we will continue to argue for international law and to maintain things such as the NATO alliance and the partnership, and it is why we will continue to raise these issues publicly and privately with our allies.
Sudan: Humanitarian Situation
Ayoub Khan Excerpts(4 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Elmore
The hon. Gentleman raises an extremely important point in relation to children, as have other Members. Conflict is unimaginable in any form, but the killing of children specifically and the use of children as weapons of war is an atrocity all of its own. We continue to work at the UN level, at both the Human Rights Council and the Security Council, to ensure that, as penholder, we bring about an end to the conflict as quickly as possible. Obviously, we will keep up that work, including on the specific impacts on children.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
As well as the atrocious mass murders, the humanitarian catastrophe in Sudan only worsens. It is vital that we commit ourselves not only to giving aid, but to delivering it in a way that reaches as many people as possible. Recently, the Independent Commission for Aid Impact highlighted how our Sudan-related aid is being undermined by understaffing, short-term and unpredictable funding allocations, over-complex compliance procedures and insufficient support for frontline responders. When can we expect the Government’s response to those findings? Can the Minister assure the House that the necessary changes will be made to ensure that humanitarian assistance gets through?
Chris Elmore
Let me give the hon. Gentleman one example. Over the past two years we have provided the World Food Programme with £55 million, which has been explicitly targeted at populations at risk of or experiencing famine, including in Sudan, and £2 million of additional funding for Cash Consortium Sudan’s El Fasher response, supporting over 100,000 people with lifesaving aid in north Darfur. We also work regionally, including around eastern Chad. We do ensure that the funding through the aid programmes reaches the people who are most in need.
Kashmir: Self-determination
Ayoub Khan Excerpts(4 months, 3 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
Thank you, Sir Roger. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I thank the hon. Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain) for his passionate statement and for securing the debate.
We speak about a valley that has carried the weight of unfulfilled promises for generations. Kashmir is not a footnote in history; it is a living community whose rights were affirmed by the United Nations and yet remain suspended in political frost. According to UN resolutions, the people of Kashmir were promised the right to decide their own future through a plebiscite. That right has not expired with time; it still stands like an unopened door. As has been stated, we must be clear that Kashmir is not a bilateral quarrel, to be tucked quietly into the filing cabinets of the two states. It is an international issue rooted in international commitments.
Whether it wishes to or not, the United Kingdom sits inside the story. The partition that sculpted two nations also abandoned the Kashmiri people to a limbo not of their choosing. Our responsibility is not sentimental; it is legal, historical and moral. Economic partnerships must never become soft pillows under which we smother our legal obligations. Human rights abuses in Kashmir continue in the dark corners where accountability rarely reaches: sexual violence, disappearances, extrajudicial killings and detentions without trial or legal counsel.
Those are not allegations to be met with diplomatic murmurs; they demand consequences. The UK must move beyond symbolic gestures and consider targeted sanctions, just as we have invoked international law in response to atrocities elsewhere, including the mass killing of Palestinians. Justice cannot be selective. The human reality along the line of control rarely makes headlines. Families divided by an invisible frontier, guarded by soldiers, live as if they are stitched to opposite pages of the same book, unable to meet, to mourn, to celebrate. That is unnecessary cruelty disguised as security.
I call on the Minister to reflect on one issue on which the Government can deliver: the transformation of the line of control from a barrier into a bridge. Let designated crossings be open for humanitarian movement and for families tied by history, culture and ancestry. The United Nations Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan can support and safeguard the crossings. Compassion can be supervised; it does not need to be suppressed.
The promise of a plebiscite is not a relic; it is the cornerstone of Kashmir’s right to self-determination. The UK Government must recognise that this is no longer a bilateral matter, but a global obligation. When India, for example, threatens to undermine the Indus waters treaty through collective punishment, the UK should send a firm signal that the international community will not tolerate such tactics. We ask for action and not eloquence, for courage and not choreography, and above all, for the rights of the Kashmiri people to be finally honoured.
Imran Hussain
I thank hon. Members for their excellent contributions. The courage and conviction with which many have spoken will send one message to the British Kashmiri community. There are more than a million British Kashmiris—I am surprised the Minister failed to acknowledge that number. Listening to this debate will be not only more than a million British Kashmiris, but also all those who champion human rights. This issue is not isolated to Kashmiris around the world; it is an issue with international law and human rights at its heart.
Imran Hussain
I am not sure I am able to give way. Am I able to, Sir Roger?
Ayoub Khan
We have constantly heard that this is a bilateral issue. The existence of UN resolutions clearly suggests it is not a bilateral but an international issue. Does the hon. Member agree?
Imran Hussain
I absolutely agree. That has been the central theme throughout this debate, and it continues to be the most pressing matter. I will come back to that point, but I first want to pay tribute to the hon. Members who have spoken in the debate. Those listening to the debate will at least know there continues to be hope, because there are Members of Parliament who have the moral conviction to stand on the right side and ensure voices of justice and of their constituents continue to be heard.
I am disappointed but also grateful to the Minister. He has given me the most time ever to sum up—10 whole minutes. But equally, that shows how little he said. That is not personal to the Minister, because he is following the Government line. As we heard from the Opposition as well, these lines are decades old. Frankly, just because lines are decades old does not make them right. We not only lack the moral courage required by the situation, but our silence continues to make us complicit.