Kashmir: Human Rights and Peace

Debate between Hamish Falconer and Debbie Abrahams

Wednesday 12th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr Hamish Falconer)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Hall Green and Moseley (Tahir Ali) for securing this debate. I am also grateful for the contributions of other hon. Members and will try to respond to the points raised.

I note that my colleague, the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Friern Barnet (Catherine West), who has responsibility for the Indo-Pacific, spoke about human rights in Indian-administered Kashmir in a Westminster Hall debate on 5 March. I appreciate the importance and complexity of the issues relating to Kashmir and the strength of feeling about it in the House.

As the House is aware, India and Pakistan are important friends of the UK. We have strong and deep bilateral relationships with both. We encourage them to engage in dialogue and to find lasting political solutions to maintain regional stability. The Government’s position is that it is for India and Pakistan to find a lasting political resolution for Kashmir, taking into account the wishes of Kashmiri people. It is not for the UK to prescribe a solution or act as a mediator.

My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Hall Green and Moseley spoke movingly about human rights in Kashmir. We recognise that there are human rights concerns in both India-administered Kashmir and Pakistan-administered Kashmir. The UK Government encourage all states to ensure that their domestic laws are in line with international standards. Our position is clear: any allegation of human rights abuses is deeply concerning, and it must be investigated thoroughly, promptly and transparently.

[Debbie Abrahams]

There are various conflicts across the world at the moment and conflicts always require mediators to end them. Given our history with the continent, can the Minister explain why the Government think that the UK does not have a role as a mediator?

[Mr Falconer]

As my hon. Friend knows well, this is an area of the world in which we have long been engaged. It is the position of this Government, as it has been of many previous Governments, that for this issue to be resolved sustainably it will require an agreed compromise between the two countries. That remains our position.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Hamish Falconer and Debbie Abrahams

Tuesday 25th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

T3.   The International Court of Justice delivered its advisory opinion last July, in which it made crystal clear that the illegal settlements at that time were just that—unlawful. Yet we have seen threats to displace Gazans and tanks on the west bank. When will the Government deliver their response to the advisory opinion? Will it be before the conference in Switzerland in a few weeks?

[Mr Falconer]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her question and for her long commitment to these issues. As I made clear in the Westminster Hall debate on 12 February, the UK respects the independence of the ICJ, and we are considering the court’s advisory opinion with the rigour and seriousness it deserves. We remain clear that Israel should bring an end to its presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territories as rapidly as possible, while making every effort to create the conditions for negotiations towards a two-state solution.

Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories

Debate between Hamish Falconer and Debbie Abrahams

Wednesday 12th February 2025 Westminster Hall

[Mr Falconer]

I will make a little bit more progress, if I may.

As the Foreign Secretary and others have made clear, we continue to consider the opinion carefully. My hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter) rightly identified the complexity and the novel elements of that advisory opinion, and we are taking our time in considering it. I hope to be able to return to the House in due course. The opinion contains novel findings that require further reflection. I understand his desire to know quickly our position, but hon. Members will appreciate that such an important decision necessarily takes time and careful consideration. The advisory opinion in itself took months in its development, and will take some months in its—

[Debbie Abrahams]

Will the decision about the advisory opinion be made before or after the Swiss conference in March?

[Mr Falconer]

I am not going to be drawn on precise timings.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Hamish Falconer and Debbie Abrahams

Tuesday 14th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

Will Ministers update the House on the implementation of the advisory opinion from the ICJ on the Occupied Palestinian Territories, particularly in relation to the consequences for the UK and other nation states?

[Mr Falconer]

We continue to consider the advisory opinion of the ICJ carefully. It is a far-reaching opinion that took months in the production, and we hope to be able to report back soon.

Northern Gaza

Debate between Hamish Falconer and Debbie Abrahams

Tuesday 7th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

I appreciate the difficult position that the Minister is in. He has spoken a number of times in the House about this issue. However, I have significant sympathy for the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) and others who have expressed frustration. Now is the time for action. I appreciate that we as a Government have done a lot and are significantly different from the previous Government, but that is a very, very low bar. It is important that this House has its view expressed through Ministers. Have the Government finally accepted the ICJ’s advisory opinion, which is absolutely crucial to the delivery of a two-state solution and a peace process?

[Mr Falconer]

I am always happy to hear the House’s view on these issues, which I have heard and will continue to hear extensively, and I know the strength of feeling across the House. On the ICJ advisory opinion, we are still considering what was a complex and far-reaching judgment with significant horizontal legal implications as well as in relation specifically to the conflict. At the heart of that advisory opinion is a concern about the status of the Occupied Palestinian Territories. I am pleased to confirm that we continue to consider Palestinian territory to be occupied, we continue to take a position consistent with international law, and we continue to condemn illegal settlements. That is why we took tangible—not just rhetorical—steps against violent and illegal settlements in the west bank.