| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
European Union Enlargement
4. Mr. Pickthall: If he will make a statement on the enlargement of the European Union. [12115]
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Doug Henderson): Enlargement is a central objective for the United Kingdom and the European Union. It will enhance security and prosperity in Europe, and is strongly in the national interest. We look forward to EU decisions, in December, on the early opening of enlargement negotiations. Reform of key policies is essential if enlargement is to be successful.
Mr. Pickthall: Does my hon. Friend agree that, desirable though enlargement is, it is incompatible with the common agricultural policy in its present form? How does he see substantial reform of the CAP meshing with the movement towards enlargement, which most of us wish to see?
Mr. Henderson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that there is a need for reform of the common agricultural policy. That need would be there even if enlargement of the European Union were not under consideration. The fact that enlargement is a top priority for the British presidency of the EU means that we shall give top priority in the negotiations in Luxembourg in December to seeking reform of the agricultural system in order to bring prices more in line with world prices.
Mr. Tyrie: Will the Government give a commitment that they will protect Britain's rebate from the European Community budget in those negotiations? Will they further make a commitment that, in those negotiations, they will press for reform of the complete European Community budget to bring about a sharp reduction in the unacceptably large contribution that we now make to the European Community?
Mr. Henderson: The answer to the first question in yes; we will protect the abatement. The answer to the second question is that we are firm in the belief that the Edinburgh criteria on the future size of the aggregate budget--1.27 per cent. of gross national product--should be a sticking point. During negotiations with our European partners, we have realised that there is increasing consensus behind that position.
Mr. David Heath: Given that the Minister has agreed that common agricultural policy reform, along with structural reform and many other essential reforms, must precede any enlargement of the European Union, what measures did the Government take at Amsterdam to ensure that progress was made on those issues? How soon shall we see progress during the British presidency?
Mr. Henderson: The hon. Gentleman knows that some of those issues were covered in Amsterdam. The main forum for discussion will be the Luxembourg summit in December. Last weekend at Mondorf, I discussed those issues, among others, with other European Union Foreign Ministers. Achieving a way forward on structural funds, the budget, agricultural policy and enlargement are top priorities in our negotiations.
Ann Clwyd: The Government have been critical of Turkey and its human rights record. Can my hon. Friend assure us that there will be no further support for Turkey while it continues to violate the rights of Kurds living in
Turkey and to bomb the Kurds in northern Iraq, as has occurred almost daily since 13 October? What representations have been made to stop that bombing?
Mr. Henderson: I visited Turkey three weeks ago and raised those issues with the Turkish Government. I made it clear that, while Britain believes that there is a strong case for Turkey to be included in the European conference because of its important geo-political situation and other reasons, it cannot be without condition. Turkey must improve democracy, and that involves a change of attitude to the Kurdish community, progress on human rights and economic reform. All those points were made to the Turkish Government as well as specific representations in respect of the recent incidents to which my hon. Friend refers.
Mr. Streeter: Do the Government now regret not pushing the agenda for enlargement more energetically at Amsterdam? Does the Minister regret pushing for deepening rather than widening the EU? Will he clarify his Government's policy? Is it their policy to press the European Commission to open its arms more widely to other central and eastern European states and not just to the five plus one? Will he clarify that matter?
Mr. Henderson: I am extremely surprised that the hon. Gentleman should refer to the Government making an impact on the negotiations at Amsterdam. His Government could not even find a dialogue with the other European Union countries, never mind have any influence on them. He is the last hon. Member I would have expected to raise that question. In relation to the 10 countries plus Cyprus seeking membership of the European Union, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we support the European Commission proposals that negotiations should begin with five countries plus Cyprus, but other understandings on the way forward for the other five countries should be an important focus of the negotiations at Luxembourg.
Entry Clearance (Islamabad)
5. Fiona Mactaggart: On what dates during 1997 the computer system at Islamabad has failed to operate properly; and how applicants for entry clearance have been informed of the consequences for their applications of problems caused by computer failures. [12116]
r. Fatchett: During 1997, the computer system at Islamabad has failed to operate properly between 2 and 20 May and between 16 June and 13 July. Applicants for entry clearance were informed of the consequences for applications by means of advertisements placed in the national newspapers. Where interviews were imminent but had to be postponed, applicants were informed by letter. A new system was installed in September and is working well.
Fiona Mactaggart: I thank the Minister for that reply and congratulate him on the fact that a new system has been installed. Frankly, it was desperately needed. Many of my constituents have suffered as a result of the delays caused by the breakdown of the previous system. It occurs to me that, since the installation of the new system, there has been a reduction in the number of applications and
fewer people have been able to visit their relatives here. Given the difficulties that people have faced and the fact that Islamabad is the largest visa-issuing post for Britain, does the Minister have any proposals to make the process easier?
Mr. Fatchett: My hon. Friend is right to point out that the situation that we inherited in Islamabad was far from satisfactory. I am delighted to say that we have taken immediate action in respect of the information technology. We have additional good news in that there are five new entry clearance posts, which we expect to be filled by next January. That should facilitate the process and ensure that individuals get a proper deal.
Mr. Fatchett: If the hon. Gentleman feels that people should not be given justice just because they come from Pakistan, that shows how out of touch he and his party are. To finish the litany of good news, my colleague Baroness Symons now has two additional posts in her private office to ensure that correspondence from hon. Members is dealt with more quickly.
Kashmir
6. Mr. Pike: What recent discussions the Government have had with representatives of the Indian and Pakistan Governments on the issue of Kashmir. [12117]
Mr. Robin Cook: I discussed Kashmir with senior political figures during the recent visit to Pakistan and India. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister also had the opportunity to meet the Prime Ministers of both countries at the weekend. Britain continues to be willing to help, but any offer of help must be acceptable to both countries.
Mr. Pike: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that he recognises that there is considerable international concern about the on-going conflict in Kashmir between India and Pakistan, in which more than 1,000 people have been killed in the past 12 months? During recent months, there has been renewed shelling over the line of control. Will he make it clear that it is the Government's policy to give full support to the bilateral talks between India and Pakistan, with the hope that that leads to a conclusion of the conflict, while recognising that Pakistan and India have more to gain than anybody else from the solution to the problem?
Mr. Cook: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The two countries have a lot to gain from bilateral discussion, particularly by an improvement in trade, which is at present only 1 per cent. of their two gross domestic products. We warmly welcome the fact that the Prime Minister of India has initiated such a bilateral dialogue and we were glad that we were able at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting to ensure that both of them had the opportunity to have a further bilateral dialogue, which I understand went well.
Dr. Fox: Who authorised Government spin doctors to try to blacken the name of our high commissioner in India, David Gore-Booth? It is surely correct to blame not
the servants but the masters for the failures of foreign policy. When will amateur hour at the Foreign Office come to an end?
Mr. Cook: No spin doctor and no official at the Foreign Office has uttered any hostile word to David Gore-Booth, who behaved--[Interruption.] I am happy to assure the House that that is exactly so. I have seen no reference in any British newspaper to any suggestion that any British spin doctor, official, news briefer--whatever one chooses to call them--has uttered a word of hostility to David Gore-Booth. On the contrary, I have myself said that he conducted himself with great dignity in sometimes very difficult circumstances.
Mr. Terry Davis: Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that, in deciding the future of Kashmir, the most important people are the Kashmiri people themselves?
Mr. Cook: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that although the solution is primarily for both countries to find, that solution, if it is to be permanent and acceptable, must be acceptable to all the peoples of Kashmir: Muslim, Hindu and Buddhist.
Mr. Faber: Can the right hon. Gentleman clear up the confusion that he caused on "Today" two weeks ago when he said that the state visit to India had been an unqualified success, but that it was all the fault of the previous Government for arranging it at the wrong time?
Mr. Cook: I shall happily repeat to the hon. Gentleman that I think that it would have been better to be able to look forward to the next 50 years rather than backwards to the past 50 years. I am happy that he has noticed that the state visit was an unqualified success.
Mr. Faber: That is what you said.
Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman used my own words. Her Majesty was greeted with immense warmth by the people of India and our trade exhibition was an outstanding success. It would be helpful if Opposition Members recognised the contribution that Her Majesty has made to Anglo-Indian relations rather than running it down.
Mr. Galloway: Does the Foreign Secretary accept that, far from being a failure, his policy on Kashmir has millions of friends in this country and around the world who have been greatly cheered by his courage in standing up for an ethical foreign policy on behalf of a people who have been oppressed for the best part of the past 50 years by a Government--India--who have failed to implement the United Nations resolutions calling for self- determination for the people of that occupied territory? Has he had the chance to see the United States State Department report, which has described the line of control between India and Pakistan in Kashmir as the most dangerous flashpoint in international relations today--both sides of course having nuclear potential?
Mr. Cook: I am well aware of the report to which my hon. Friend refers. He is right to make the point that the
issue is of legitimate interest because both countries have near, perhaps undeclared, nuclear capacity. The issue will remain at the front of many minds.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: Following the Foreign Secretary's notorious visit to Pakistan and India, would not the best way to solve the Kashmir problem be a period of quiet reflection by the British Government? Does not the difficult problem of Kashmir demonstrate that it would be dangerous for the British Government to act as an arbiter?
Mr. Cook: As I understand it, I am accused of having said that Britain would be willing to help to find a just solution. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the Prime Minister whom he supported in the previous Government said last April:
- "we are prepared to help in the search for a solution".--[Official Report, 23 April 1996; Vol. 276, c. 192.]
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |