| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Special Export Licensing Procedures
4. Mr. Cousins: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what criteria his Department has for recommending countries for inclusion on the list of countries for which special export licensing procedures are required; and what plans his Department has to review these criteria. [12346]
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. David Davis): The list is drawn up in accordance with foreign policy objectives, international understandings or embargoes to which we are party, the non-proliferation credentials of the country concerned and the effectiveness of its export controls. A revised list was published on 19 July 1995 and is printed in the Official Report. The list is kept under constant review.
Mr. Cousins: I have the list of countries with me. It is necessary to stop countries being used as a staging post
to pass on the means of war to unacceptable regimes. Therefore, can the Minister explain why Israel, which we have just been discussing, is included on the list, but well-known and well-established staging posts such as Jordan, Singapore, Portugal and Cyprus are not? Is it that the Foreign Office is still happy to be the kind of mouse that knows that there is a black market in weapons and is not willing to do enough to stop it?
Mr. Davis: The answer is straightforward. I suspect that I shall disappoint the hon. Gentleman. The list covers countries which are of concern across the full range of dual-use goods or are subject to specific embargoes. Other countries may be of concern in a limited fashion and they are dealt with in a specific way related to that limited fashion. If there are particular countries that the hon. Gentleman thinks should be on the list, he should write to me about it.
European Institutions (Accountability)
5. Mr. Whittingdale: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the accountability of European Community institutions to national Parliaments; and if he will make a statement. [12347]
Mr. David Davis: Within the Council of Ministers, which is the primary decision-making institution in the European Union, national Ministers are accountable to their respective national Parliaments.
Mr. Whittingdale: Does my hon. Friend accept that the existing accountability of European institutions is inadequate and does he agree that that problem is best addressed by enhancing the scrutiny role of national Parliaments rather than by giving any more powers to the European Parliament?
Mr. Davis: I have a great deal of sympathy with my hon. Friend. We must look as a priority at means of improving the democratic accountability of the European Community. The primary focus of democratic legitimacy in the Union is national Parliaments, not the European Parliament. Let me quote the German Federal constitutional court on that point, because it was pretty informative. It said:
- "The European Union...is a union of democratic states. Where it assumes sovereign tasks...it is first and foremost for the national peoples of the Member States democratically to legitimise this via their national parliaments."
We are actively considering options for enhancing the role of national Parliaments.
Mr. Spearing:
The Minister mentioned the importance of national Parliaments and Ministers, but does he agree that accountability of Ministers to the House was not strengthened when, against the unanimous view of the Select Committee on European Legislation, the Government supported automatic referral of any EC document to a Committee Upstairs? Does he further agree that that would not have been so bad but for the fact that several requests from that Select Committee for debates on the Floor of the House have been declined by Her Majesty's Government? Would it not be more in keeping with the protocol to the treaty, which the Government
Mr. Davis:
As someone who has appeared before the Select Committee, I think that, from time to time, its scrutiny is pretty ferocious. With regard to paying attention to the Select Committee's views, the hon. Gentleman will remember that I and the Government generally have supported, for example, its recommendation that we incorporate declaration 13 into the treaty, or make it legally binding. That will add enormously to the scrutiny capacity of the House.
Mr. Garnier:
Does my hon. Friend accept that the institutions of the European Union would receive greater sympathy, not only in the House but in the country more widely, if they did less but did it better?
Mr. Davis:
My hon. and learned Friend quotes almost exactly the motto of the current President of the Commission, Mr. Santer, and we agree with him entirely. The Union does much better, in the eyes of the people of Europe, when it does not meddle in the nooks and crannies of the nation states; when it pays proper respect to the sovereignty of those nation states; and when it carries out legislation to a better quality than has been the case.
7. Mr. Gordon Prentice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent steps he has taken to help the Governments of Pakistan and India resolve the conflict in Kashmir. [12349]
Mr. Hanley:
We have consistently encouraged both sides to resolve their differences over Kashmir through bilateral negotiation. It is not for us to prescribe a solution, but we are ready to help if both sides ask us.
Mr. Prentice:
I thank the Minister for that reply, but can he shed any light on the missile attack on Kahuta, a border town in Azad Kashmir, which took place at the end of January, where the missile landed on a mosque, killing 18 people? Will the Minister also comment on attacks on leaders of the Hurriyet conference? Surely he agrees that it will be impossible to move forward to a peaceful resolution of the continuing conflict in Kashmir unless the perpetrators of those outrages are identified and brought to book.
Mr. Hanley:
I agree with the hon. Gentleman's horror at the incident concerned. We regret very much the loss of life and continue to urge restraint on both sides. We would expect the United Nations military observer group in India and Pakistan to report to the Secretary-General in the normal manner on the exact circumstances. It may help the House if I repeat briefly what we believe the best way forward on Kashmir should involve. There should be simultaneous progress on dialogue between India and Pakistan, as provided for under the 1972 Simla agreement; an improvement in human rights in Kashmir and a genuine political process there; and a clear cessation of external support for violence in Kashmir.
Mr. Colvin:
Bearing in mind what my right hon. Friend said about the Simla agreement and his earlier
Mr. Hanley:
I know that our wish for a solution to the dispute is shared by all members of the Commonwealth. As I said before, it is not for us to say what the solution should be, but we are--I confirm this to my hon. Friend--ready to consider any help that is asked for, as long as both sides do the demanding.
Mr. Watson:
The Minister betrayed, in his response to my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice), the narrowness of the Government's approach when he talked of "both sides". He then said, in answer to the hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin), that it was not for his Government to decide what the outcome might be. Does he accept that there is not simply a choice between the Governments of Pakistan and of India, and that approximately 12 million Kashmiri people may decide that independence is the appropriate road? Will he ensure, when he discusses with the Governments of India and of Pakistan, that independence is included in the discussions, and that, should there be a referendum, independence is one of the options?
Mr. Hanley:
Of course we recognise that finding a solution will not be easy, but we shall continue to urge both countries to try to resolve their differences through peaceful negotiation. I add that, unless both countries agree with any solution, there will be no peace.
Mr. John Carlisle:
Apart from advice on how to win their matches, has my right hon. Friend offered any advice to the England cricket XI who are now in India for the world cup competition on their security, bearing in mind the fact that the Australian and West Indian sides have already said that they are not prepared to play in Sri Lanka? Is he worried about the situation, or are they safe?
Mr. Hanley:
My hon. Friend's love of cricket is the highest in the land. We are not aware of any specific threats to England's cricketers or supporters, but our high commission in Islamabad and our deputy high commission in Karachi are in close contact with the England team and the world cup organisers. In cricket terms, I think that the threat is to the Pakistani cricketers.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |