| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Kashmir
12. Mr. Gordon Prentice: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he has taken at the United Nations to secure a resolution of the conflict in Kashmir. [27204]
Mr. Hanley: Our policy on Kashmir is well known--indeed, I set it out again earlier this afternoon. We are ready to help find a solution if both sides ask us.
Mr. Prentice: Will the Minister comment on the statement made on 5 May by the Prime Minister of India, Mr. Narasimha Rao, that Kashmir would remain a permanent and integral part of India? Does he agree that the elections currently taking place in Jammu and Kashmir will not confer any legitimacy, and that the only thing that will is a plebiscite on self-determination? Is there not a case for a fresh initiative at the United Nations, and a fresh resolution, as the previous ones date from 1947, 1948 and 1960?
Mr. Hanley: I repeat that we believe that the best way forward must involve a simultaneous progress in dialogue between India and Pakistan, as provided for under the 1972 Simla agreement. In the attempts to provide a genuine political process and an improvement in human rights in Kashmir, we hope that as many people as possible in Kashmir will be consulted. A clear cessation of external support for violence in Kashmir is also vital. The Government's position with regard to Kashmir is both sustainable and honest. There can be no solution in Kashmir without India and Pakistan talking to each other, and we urge them to do so.
Mr. Jessel: The first results from the Indian elections come through tonight, including those from Jammu where, I am told, the turnout was more than 50 per cent. The elections in Kashmir valley are to follow later this month. Would it not be disgraceful if electors there were scared off by militants and terrorists armed and trained in Pakistan? Will the UN be asked to look into that?
Mr. Hanley: The parliamentary elections in Kashmir are taking place on 7, 23 and 30 May. We hope that militant groups will not resort to violence to disrupt the elections and will allow those who wish to participate to do so. There is some time to go before the results of the elections are known. As I said earlier, we have long advocated the need for a genuine political process in Kashmir. I believe that free and fair elections could be a catalyst for that process.
Mr. Madden: When will the Government acknowledge the sad lesson of history that, on at least seven occasions, successive Governments of Pakistan and India have failed miserably to reach any political agreement on Kashmir? When will the Government encourage the United Nations to intervene? When will a long-lasting and real agreement on Kashmir, based on the
resolutions of the United Nations, be an immediate prospect? Will the Minister guarantee that the new Government of India, after taking office, will not be allowed an undue period before such progress is made?
Mr. Hanley: The hon. Gentleman referred to the previous United Nations resolutions. The resolutions of 1948 and 1949--which India and Pakistan agreed to and which the United Kingdom supported--provided the basis of a possible solution of the Kashmir dispute. Regrettably, neither side has fully implemented the resolutions and, to some extent, they have been overtaken by events. The 1972 Simla agreement between India and Pakistan represents the most recent formal agreement of both sides on the handling of their dispute over Kashmir. The agreement envisaged a final solution of the dispute
- "through bilateral negotiations or by any other peaceful means mutually agreed between them."
That is what I would urge on any new Government in India, whether it be Mr. Rao's Government or a new Government. I would urge dialogue with Pakistan. That is the only way to make progress.
European Commission
13. Mr. David Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list those decisions and powers of the European Commission which are not subject to scrutiny by the European Parliament. [27205]
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. David Davis): The European Parliament does not formally scrutinise the Commission's role in enacting implementing measures under powers delegated by the Council, in pursuing infraction proceedings, in enforcing competition policy or in negotiating international agreements. In many areas, there are informal arrangements for scrutiny by the European Parliament.
Mr. Evans: Does not this confirm that unelected Commissioners tell us day in, day out, what we can or cannot do? Is it not time that we protected the farmers and fishermen of the United Kingdom from these unelected bureaucrats? We know that the lot opposite, under the banner of the skull and crossbones, would give our sovereignty away. Is it not time that the Government, on behalf of the British people, told Brussels to get stuffed?
Mr. Davis: If I were braver, I would ask my hon. Friend to wish Janice a happy Europe day tomorrow. My hon. Friend referred to "the lot opposite". I do not think that the skull and crossbones is the right flag for the Labour party--I think that the white flag would be more appropriate.
Mr. Watson: Is the Minister aware that, today, in the European Commission and the European Parliament, a visit is taking place by 25 civil servants from the Scottish Office? Notwithstanding what the Foreign Secretary said earlier about Europe day and what the Scottish Secretary said about not flying the European Union flag, does not this show the hypocrisy in the Government over Europe, the confusion and the facing two ways at once? Is it not one of the reasons why the people of this country are
desperate to get rid of the Conservatives and to have in power a party that is positive about Europe for positive reasons?
Mr. Davis: It is quite extraordinary for the hon. Gentleman to suggest that my party faces two ways at once. As my late mother used to say, that is the kettle calling the pot black. I would be happy to call the Labour party's policy two-faced. Looking at the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), if he had two faces he would not use the one that he has.
Mr. Budgen: Does my hon. Friend agree that the powers of the European Parliament illustrate that we have a half-formed federal structure in Europe? Does he agree that either we will have the disadvantages of there being no proper control over the Commission or, if we give the European Parliament extra powers, we will give it powers over this House and other democratic assemblies in Europe, which will take us further along the road towards a federal structure--which is being comprehensively rejected by the people of this country?
Mr. Davis: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend that the federal structure is comprehensively rejected by the people of this country. As for the control of the Commission, my hon. Friend is right in one respect: a great deal of legislation emanates from the Commission and it is for us, as part of the intergovernmental conference process, to try to ensure that the Council, not the European Parliament, gets a tighter control on it.
Mr. Sheerman: Do not answers such as those that we have just heard from the Minister drag down the reputation of the House? Hon. Members on both sides of the House deserve better than that.
There is a serious question about Europe. Executives need to be restrained by legislatures. Even those with pro-European views regard that as a problem that has to be sorted out. I am one who would fly the European flag tomorrow, but there are serious questions about empowering the European Parliament and domestic Parliaments in order to control both the Council of Ministers and the European Commission.
Mr. Davis:
It is correct that the Executive should control--[Hon. Members: "Ah!"]--that there should be democratic control of the Executive. What the hon. Gentleman misses, however, is that the British people see as their proper democratic representation this House of Commons, first and last.
14. Mr. Simon Coombs:
To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he plans to raise with his Spanish counterpart the issue of access to, and egress from, Gibraltar. [27206]
Mr. David Davis:
I have made it clear to Mr. Westendorp, the Spanish Foreign Minister in office until this week, that the delays at the Spain-Gibraltar frontier are intolerable and should cease.
Mr. Coombs:
Is my hon. Friend aware that the newly appointed Spanish Foreign Minister is quoted as having
Mr. Davis:
The Government have stood by those people throughout the past decades. Last time the border was severed, it served simply to sour relations between not just Gibraltar and Spain, but the United Kingdom and Spain. We have made a number of points to the Spanish Government on the issue. The argument that they advance is that they are attempting to solve a drug smuggling problem. We have asked them a number of times to give us evidence of any land-based drug smuggling, but we have not received any. We have made the point that, if Spain is serious about dealing with drugs, it should do so through cross-border co-operation, not confrontation.
Mr. Mackinlay:
Will the Minister consider remedying the democratic deficit that exists for the people of Gibraltar? The comments that he has uttered need to be uttered in this place by someone who represents the people of Gibraltar. Is there not a case for stating now that there should be limited representation in this House of the people of Gibraltar? Such representatives would be able to defend and argue their case more vigorously. That would signal to the Spanish that we will not tolerate the constant frustration of British people in the Mediterranean.
Mr. Davis:
We have not received that request from the people of Gibraltar. The hon. Gentleman and a number of other hon. Members do a good job of putting the case for Gibraltar. That fact is reflected in the answers that I give here and in the opinions of the Spanish Government.
Mr. Colvin:
Does my hon. Friend agree that the other matter that must be causing concern in Gibraltar is the further call in the new Spanish Prime Minister's speech for Europe to speak with only one voice on security? That means that Spain will be more closely aligned with France and Germany on security matters. Surely it is important that NATO speaks with one voice on security. Spain has already proved that it can participate in NATO operations, as it is, and has been, doing effectively in former Yugoslavia. Is it not therefore important, in the interests of Britain, NATO and Gibraltar, that Spain becomes a full member of the integrated military structure of NATO?
Mr. Davis:
I agree with my hon. Friend on that. I think that such a decision would require a referendum in Spain. We certainly believe that the integrated military structure of NATO would work best with all members of NATO in it--that is clearly right.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |