Iran’s Influence in the Middle East

David Nuttall Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd March 2017 Westminster Hall

[Dr Offord]

Once again, I agree with that point of view, but it is not for me to explain to the hon. Gentleman how that co-operation should occur; it is for the Government, who I believe are actively looking at such co-operation and seeking to keep our country safe.

John Smith, the acting sanctions chief of the US Treasury Department, said:

“Iran’s continued support for terrorism and development of its ballistic missile programme poses a threat to the region, to our partners worldwide and to the United States.”

In January, our Prime Minister affirmed the UK’s priority to

“reduce Iran’s malign influence in the Middle East”.

In an address to the Republican party conference in the United States, the Prime Minister said that the UK will

“support our allies in the Gulf States to push back against Iran’s aggressive efforts to build an arc of influence from Tehran through to the Mediterranean.”

She assured members of the Gulf Co-operation Council in December 2016 that she is

“clear-eyed about the threat that Iran poses to the Gulf and the wider Middle East”.

She emphasised that

“we must also work together to push back against Iran’s aggressive regional actions, whether in Lebanon, Iraq, Yemen, Syria or in the Gulf itself.”

In February, the Middle East Minister, who is here today, said:

“The Government remains concerned about Iran’s destabilising activity in the region; we continue to encourage Iran to work constructively with its neighbours to resolve conflicts and promote stability.”

Also in February, Saudi Arabia’s Foreign Minister, Adel al-Jubeir, told delegates at the Munich security conference that Iran is the primary sponsor of international terror and the biggest threat to stability in the middle east. He said:

“Iran remains the single main sponsor of terrorism in the world. It’s determined to upend the order in the Middle East…until and unless Iran changes its behaviour it would be very difficult to deal with a country like this.”

He said that

“Iran is the only one in the Middle East that hasn’t been targeted by Islamic State and al-Qaeda,”

implying that there is a relationship between the regime and terror groups. He also said that the Iranians took advantage of the good will of the other nations that had negotiated the nuclear deal in 2015. He said that

“they stepped up the tempo of their mischief”

while the negotiations were taking place and continue to do so today. When the Israeli and Saudi Arabian Governments agree on something, I believe that the world should listen. The two countries are not renowned for agreeing on many things, but on Iran they certainly do.

There is no doubt about the malign role being played by the Iranian regime in the middle east. The failure of Barack Obama to take decisive action has emboldened the clerics. Now, this morning, is the time for us to renew our alliances and our interests with the US and others in the middle east to curtail that serpent.

[Mr David Nuttall (in the Chair)]

As Members can clearly see, the debate is well subscribed, so with immediate effect, I am imposing a four-minute limit on speeches.

US Immigration Policy

David Nuttall Excerpts

Monday 30th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Boris Johnson]

I am very aware of that particular problem, and I have already heard representations from Iraqi politicians. There are, as the hon. Gentleman will know, specific exemptions for those involved in politics or diplomacy, and I hope that their applications will be treated expeditiously by the US.

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that while we can of course say that we would not have such a policy in the UK, interfering in the affairs of another country can be counter-productive, as President Obama found out when he tried to influence the outcome of the EU referendum last year?

Kashmir

David Nuttall Excerpts

Thursday 19th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House notes the escalation in violence and breaches of international human rights on the Indian side of the Line of Control in Kashmir; calls on the Government to raise the matter at the United Nations; and further calls on the Government to encourage Pakistan and India to commence peace negotiations to establish a long-term solution on the future governance of Kashmir based on the right of the Kashmiri people to determine their own future in accordance with the provisions of UN Security Council resolutions.

Let me start by thanking my fellow members of the Backbench Business Committee for allowing me to stand down from the Committee briefly in order to apply for the debate, and for agreeing that it could take place today. I should also declare that I am the current chairman of the all-party parliamentary Kashmir group.

I thank all the groups who have campaigned so steadfastly on this issue for so many years. I particularly thank Raja Najabat Hussain of the Jammu and Kashmir Self Determination Movement, who works tirelessly to keep up the profile of the issue of Kashmir with MPs, but I also thank Fahim Kayani and the Kashmir Movement UK, Sabiya Khan and the British Muslim Women’s Forum, Azmat Khan of the Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front, Najib Afsar and the Jammu Kashmir Liberation Council, and Dr Syed Nazir Gilani and the Jammu and Kashmir Council for Human Rights.

[Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. May I ask him also to put on record his thanks to all the ordinary Kashmiris, in this country and back in Kashmir, who fight time and again, in a peaceful manner, to ensure that this issue is high on the agenda so that we take some action?

[Mr Nuttall]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point. I certainly put my thanks to those people on record.

Let me explain why the motion was tabled. Essentially, it was tabled because this issue matters to thousands of my constituents who are of Pakistani and Kashmiri heritage, and I know that it matters to the constituents of a number of other Members who are present today. Many of my constituents have families in Kashmir, and in some cases they have personally lost loved ones, or seen loved ones scarred for life as a result of violence.

Some Members may not be familiar with Kashmir. It is an area of territory that runs across the border between Pakistan and India. The root causes of the conflict can be traced back to 1947, when the colony of India was granted independence by Britain and was partitioned into two separate entities, India and Pakistan. The state of Jammu and Kashmir, with a predominantly Muslim population but a Hindu leader, shared borders with both India and West Pakistan.

The area has a long and complex history. Obviously there is not enough time for me to go into all of it, but suffice it to say that the argument over which nation would incorporate the state led to the first India-Pakistan war, in 1947-48, and there have been several further upsurges in the conflict since then. I do not need to remind the House that both countries are now nuclear powers. Just to complicate matters further, some of the historic territory of Kashmir is now under the control of China.

I am pleased to see my hon. Friend the Member for Reading West (Alok Sharma), the Minister for south Asia, in his place and I am grateful to him for taking the time recently to meet members of the all-party group on Kashmir. I know he will be aware that the fact that Britain was responsible for the partition leads many in the Kashmiri community to believe this country could and should be doing more to try and help resolve this matter. The fact that partition was 70 years ago demonstrates the intransigence of this problem, and I am under no illusion that there are any easy solutions.

I wish to cover two areas: the recent increase in violence and human rights abuses, and the longer-term issue of trying to resolve this long-running conflict. The most recent increase in violence began last year when, on 8 July, 22-year-old Burhan Wani was killed by the security forces in Indian-administered Kashmir. Tens of thousands attended his funeral, at which clashes broke out between the security forces and protestors. Security forces fired live ammunition into the crowd, killing several people and a police officer was also killed.

Since then the authorities have declared a succession of curfews and closed down mobile phone services and media outlets. Attendance at mosques and adherence to religious practices has been restricted. Protestors have organised a series of general strikes and there have been regular public rallies. Schools, colleges and universities have also been closed. The economy has been badly hit. Funerals have often led to further clashes between protestors and the security forces. Critically, scores of Kashmiris have been killed and many thousands of civilians have been seriously injured.

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for securing this important debate. He rightly points out the recent escalation in human rights violations, but does he agree this is a much longer-term problem and that human rights violations have happened in that region for decades?

[Mr Nuttall]

As I have said, there is a long and complex history to this issue and, as the hon. Gentleman says, there have been many upsurges in violence over the years and many human rights abuses that have been catalogued and recorded.

[Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is imperative that an international investigation into those human rights abuses is carried out as soon as possible?

[Mr Nuttall]

Yes, I do agree, and that is something I will mention briefly later in my speech.

The use of pellet guns has left thousands of people, including children, injured and in many cases blind. Armed militants have increased their attacks on the security forces. In September 2016 an attack on an army base killed 19 Indian soldiers, the army’s worst loss of life for well over a decade. There has also been a serious flaring up of tension between India and Pakistan, with regular exchanges between their forces along the line of control. These have led to significant military casualties. Senior figures on both sides have been ratcheting up the hostile rhetoric, leading to growing fears of another major escalation in the conflict between the two countries.

I know the Government are concerned about any allegation of human rights abuses—Ministers have said so many times in answer to both oral and written questions—but I urge the Minister to condemn the attacks and the use of pellet guns. The fundamental human rights that are enshrined in the Indian constitution must be adhered to. There must be an end to the use of pellet guns on innocent civilians. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and other interested parties must be allowed free and complete access so that they can make an objective assessment.

I turn now to the role of the United Nations in securing a long-term settlement. There has been 70 years of inaction since the original resolutions requiring the conflict to be resolved by peaceful democratic means were passed, so it is easy to see why so many in the Kashmiri community think that the United Nations has lost interest in their problem. I have often said that the dispute is all too frequently ignored by the media. There is always some other conflict elsewhere in the world that grabs the headlines. I know that the United Kingdom, as a member of the United Nations, supports all UN bodies and wants to help them to fulfil their mandate, but there has surely been a failure on Kashmir if the resolutions have gone unfulfilled for so long. I appreciate that the Government have to tread a careful path and that we want to be friends with both India and Pakistan, but a candid and true friend is one who sometimes says things that the other friend may find unpalatable.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

I support my hon. Friend’s motion. This is not a question of supporting either the Indian Government or the Pakistani Government; it is about supporting the people of Kashmir. He and I campaigned for many years for a referendum to decide whether our country should be part of and governed by the European Union, and the people of Kashmir should be afforded the same liberty of deciding how they want to be governed in future.

[Mr Nuttall]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In a few lines’ time, I will mention the historic decision that this country took on 23 June last year.

[Mr Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Barr) (Lab)]

I concur with the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) that this issue is about Kashmir, but it involves not just India and Pakistan, but China, so we have to concentrate on all of them to ensure that the civil and human rights of the Kashmiri are the priority in this debate.

[Mr Nuttall]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that the matter involves more than one nation and, crucially, is about the rights of the Kashmiri people.

We have to make it clear to both India and Pakistan that we want to help them find a permanent, peaceful solution to the conflict. Of course, this country cannot impose a solution, but we may be able to do more to bring the parties closer together. I want to be absolutely clear that this is not about taking sides and saying, “If you are a friend of Kashmir, you are not a friend of India.” The problem must be resolved by peaceful means. I want the people of Kashmir to be given the right to decide their own future through self-determination, a right which was so historically exercised by the people of this country on 23 June last year when a majority voted to leave the European Union.

No one believes that there is an easy answer, but anything has to be better than having a military-controlled line of partition between the two neighbouring countries. I suspect that there will always be a rivalry between India and Pakistan, but that rivalry should be contained on the field of sport. In responding to the debate, I ask the Minister to set out not only the Government’s position on Kashmir, but what more this country can do.

[Robert Flello]

While I agree that we need a long-term solution that is in the hands of the Kashmiri people, does he agree that there is an important step to be taken beforehand? The Foreign Office and the Government can play an active role in getting both sides round a table to negotiate peace, stability and a calming of the situation, so that children’s lives are not ruined or lost in the meantime. Let us get a summit for peace going and then we can focus on the longer-term solution.

[Mr Nuttall]

I entirely agree. Perhaps I should have finished my sentence, because that is exactly what I was saying. I ask the Minister to set out not only the Government’s position on Kashmir but what more this country can do, either through the United Nations or by working directly with India and Pakistan, to bring the two nations together to find a lasting and peaceful solution to this conflict.

I commend the motion to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Nuttall]

This has been an historic debate, comprehensively covering the extremely important matters relating to Kashmir. I thank all 19 Members who have spoken in the debate and those who have made interventions. I particularly wish to thank the hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Ms Ahmed-Sheikh), who spoke for the Scottish National party, and the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes), for their contributions. I hope that in the light of this debate, the Minister will reflect on the many positive suggestions for action that have been made. I commend the motion to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House notes the escalation in violence and breaches of international human rights on the Indian side of the Line of Control in Kashmir; calls on the Government to raise the matter at the United Nations; and further calls on the Government to encourage Pakistan and India to commence peace negotiations to establish a long-term solution on the future governance of Kashmir based on the right of the Kashmiri people to determine their own future in accordance with the provisions of UN Security Council resolutions.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Nuttall Excerpts

Tuesday 18th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Alok Sharma]

As I have noted, I am of course concerned by reports of the use of pellet guns, and of course any allegations of human rights abuses should be investigated thoroughly, promptly and transparently.

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

Will the Minister speak to officials at No. 10 and urge the Prime Minister to raise this issue during her forthcoming visit to India?

[Alok Sharma]

The UK of course shares a long-standing and deep friendship with India, and I am delighted that the Prime Minister has announced that she will visit India in November. The visit will be an important opportunity to discuss the full range of bilateral issues with Prime Minister Modi.

Dog Meat (South Korea)

David Nuttall Excerpts

Monday 12th September 2016 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Alok Sharma)]

It is an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairmanship in this incredibly important debate, Mr Nuttall. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Oliver Dowden) on accepting the petition and securing the debate, and I thank the Petitions Committee for its work.

I begin by declaring an interest. My family and I adore dogs. My right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr Cameron) demonstrated his love for cats—specifically Larry, the No. 10 cat—by producing photographic evidence. If right hon. and hon. Members will indulge me, I would also like to offer some photographic evidence of Olly, my five-year-old golden retriever. It is often said that dogs and owners end up resembling each other—

[Mr David Nuttall (in the Chair)]

Order. I am sure that the Minister is keen to show us his dog, but he is out of order.

[Alok Sharma]

I apologise, Mr Nuttall. [Interruption.] There is a different view, perhaps, in the Public Gallery. I have induced an element of levity and I apologise if that was not warranted. I did it to make the point that people in this country have a special relationship with dogs. Like millions of dog owners across our great nation, my wife, daughters and I regard our dog as a treasured member of our family. I am certain that all hon. Members present who have dogs feel exactly the same way about their canine friends.

The Westminster dog of the year competition is a wonderful innovation that allows individual parliamentarians not just to showcase their best friend but to highlight to the world at large that those who make Britain’s laws care deeply about the welfare of animals. The very idea of eating dog meat or allowing any form of cruelty to be visited on dogs, or indeed on any other animal, is anathema to us all.

It is clear that the British public feel strongly about the dog meat trade in South Korea and more widely. More than 100,000 people signed the petition, and we have had excellent contributions from hon. Members highlighting their own and their constituents’ heartfelt concerns. My hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere made an excellent opening contribution. He wanted to know what specifically the UK Government are doing to engage South Korea in dialogue on this issue, which I will address later. The hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) made a fantastic speech, and she was keen to make the point that the UK Government should not somehow hide behind the fact that in some countries it is legal to eat dog meat. She pressed me on what we are doing as a Government.

The hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) talked about the support that the UK Government may be providing to local charities in some of these jurisdictions. She and a number of other hon. Members also spoke about the winter Olympics, which I will of course discuss later. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) talked about local charities and the work that South Korean politicians may be doing on this issue. Again, I will address that in my remarks. The hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes) said that culture evolves, and he is right that culture does evolve in these countries. I will talk about how culture is evolving and coming around to our way of thinking on dogs and animal welfare.

The hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) made an important point about the use of soft power. We have a good relationship with the South Korean Government and many other Governments in that part of the world, and of course we should be using those relationships. The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Dr Monaghan) said that we need to take a sensitive approach in such discussions. After all, this is about persuasion.

The hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West), the shadow Minister, also wanted to know about the winter Olympics, and she echoed the points raised by the hon. Member for Bristol East about how the Foreign Office is working with other Departments to highlight issues related to animal welfare and human rights. The shadow Minister made an interesting point about exchanging best practice in the meat industry.

I hope to cover many, if not all, of those points. If I do not manage to cover them all, I will be happy to have a further discussion with hon. Members. Of course, I will write to them on any substantive issues that they wish to raise.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Nuttall Excerpts

Tuesday 12th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

I am unsure whether the two issues need to be prioritised. They can both be pursued in parallel. The decision to renew our nuclear deterrent is quite separate from the negotiations that we will be having with the EU, including negotiations to ensure the rights of EU nationals living in the UK and the reciprocal rights of UK nationals living in EU countries.

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

Regardless of whether the Scottish Government are involved in the negotiations, will the Secretary of State confirm that the negotiations are purely about us leaving the EU and not some sort of renegotiation of our terms of membership that will result in a halfway house where we are half-in and half-out of the EU?

[Mr Hammond]

Yes, I can confirm that. The next Prime Minister has made it clear that Brexit means Brexit: we will be negotiating our exit from the EU. However, we will of course also seek to negotiate an agreement between the United Kingdom and the EU 27 to regulate our trade and other relationships with the EU.

EU Referendum Leaflet

David Nuttall Excerpts

Monday 9th May 2016 Westminster Hall

[Paul Scully]

My hon. Friend is right, and I am glad that Mr Isaby said exactly that. It is important that people in the public eye who have the ear of the press have expressed that opinion.

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

The TaxPayers Alliance is neutral in the debate. It is important to bear in mind the fact that it issued a statement only because of the waste of taxpayers’ money; it is not taking a side in the referendum itself.

[Paul Scully]

Absolutely. As many such organisations find, its members are split either way, so it is right for it to take a neutral view on the main question. That does not mean that it cannot be concerned about the £9.3 million which, as Jonathan Isaby says, is

“not ‘government money’, it is all taxpayers’ money”.

He concludes by saying that

“it is deplorable that ministers see fit to use it to try and instruct us how to vote.”

The Gulf

David Nuttall Excerpts

Wednesday 4th May 2016 Westminster Hall

[Charlotte Leslie]

I absolutely would ask the Minister that. I was going to say that—rather unusually—I have talked about what Britain can learn from the Gulf, because I know that Members such as the hon. Gentleman will be able to speak powerfully on other areas that we must look at.

It is easy to carp morally from the sidelines on issues such as human rights, which are a huge concern to us all, but that is not always the best way—it is seldom good at all—to achieve the practical change we want. I argue strongly that, if we want Gulf nations to improve their human rights and their freedom of speech, which essentially will improve their security far more effectively, the way to do that is to engage.

His Excellency Sheikh Nahyan bin Mubarak al-Nahyan commented on how the UAE has achieved such pluralism while maintaining the Emiratis’ confident identity as rather conservative Muslims. This applies well to international relations and to the hon. Gentleman’s comments:

“Pluralism is not diversity alone, but the energetic engagement with diversity…Pluralism is not simply tolerance, but the active quest for understanding along lines of difference...Pluralism demands dialogue...Dialogue does not mean everyone at the table will agree with one another”.

There is much on which we can engage with the UAE—I take the hon. Gentleman’s point on human rights—and much to work with from our history with Bahrain. I know that we will hear some fascinating first-hand observations from colleagues who have visited Saudi and other Gulf states.

I will finish by repeating a point that was made to me by the exceptional Minister of State for International Co-operation, her excellency Reem al-Hashimy, one of the incredibly impressive women Ministers in the highly conservative Muslim society of the UAE. She emphasised that the UAE could not “export” its pluralism to neighbours simply by preaching. It could demonstrate the possibility of such a pluralism within a conservative Muslim state only by doing. I hope the debate will be in some way instrumental in Britain’s continuing to meet the challenge that it shares with the Gulf states across our differences, by listening, talking, understanding and doing.

[Mr David Nuttall (in the Chair)]

It is my intention that we will start the winding-up speeches at half-past 10. Nine Members have indicated that they want to contribute. I do not intend to implement a formal time limit at this stage, but I ask everyone to restrict their remarks to four minutes. Otherwise we will have to impose a formal limit.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Ellwood]

The reason I am shaking my head is that many other Members want to speak. They want to hear what the Minister and, indeed, the Opposition Front-Bench Members have to say on these matters. Your guidance was very clear, Mr Nuttall, on speeches being four minutes. I was shaking my head not about the substance of anything the hon. Gentleman is saying, but because he has now been speaking for 10 minutes.

[Mr David Nuttall (in the Chair)]

I hear what the Minister has to say about the time limit. I am sure that the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) is about to draw his remarks to a swift conclusion. I am loth to impose a formal time limit but, reluctantly, that is what I will have to do. I look forward to hearing the final sentences of the hon. Gentleman’s contribution very shortly.

[Andy Slaughter]

I will speak for half a minute on Yemen and then sit down, Mr Nuttall. I will just say, however, that I have been in Westminster Hall when Conservative Members have filibustered for an hour in order to prevent debates from taking place on issues of great importance to me. I do not intend to do that here. I do not think that a 10-minute speech for an Opposition Member is unreasonable, given the number of Government Members present.

Let me end by saying this. The Minister will be aware of the Select Committee on International Development report published today in relation to the need for an independent inquiry into what is happening in Yemen. UAE and Saudi forces are engaged, with British advice and support, in the civil war in Yemen. It is clear to anybody who reads what is written by those reporting from inside that troubled country that war crimes are being committed and that there are breaches of international humanitarian law. Will the Minister agree to the Committee’s recommendation of an independent investigation into what is happening in Yemen?

It is my view that we should have a suspension of arms sales to the countries engaged in that civil war, until it is demonstrated that breaches of international law are not happening. This country should not be complicit in matters of that kind and should certainly be asking for transparency in relation to what is happening in Yemen and, in particular, the involvement of other Gulf states in that country.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr David Nuttall (in the Chair)]

Order. I will now impose a three-minute time limit on all speeches, so that we can hear from as many Back Benchers as possible.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr David Nuttall (in the Chair)]

Order. We will move on to the winding-up speeches.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Nuttall Excerpts

Tuesday 12th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

I suggest that my hon. Friend checks the footnotes to the leaflet, which have been published online so that everybody can see the basis on which those statements are made. We have been successful in roughly 87% of votes in the Council of Ministers, and most outside observers say that we have a better track record than most other member states in getting our own way.

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

Given that after 40 years the European Union has still not managed to negotiate a trade deal with the United States of America, surely if we left and regained control of settling our own trade deals, we would be able to make trade deals much faster than the EU.

[Mr Speaker]

In relation to employment.

[Mr Nuttall]

And create job opportunities as a result.

[Mr Lidington]

I am glad to hear that my hon. Friend speaks for that faction of the Brexit camp that supports the transatlantic free trade agreement, because not everybody on his side of the argument does. The United States, through its chief negotiator and the head of its chamber of commerce, has made it clear that it is interested in a deal with 500 million people, the biggest market in the world, but not terribly interested in giving priority to a deal with a country of just 65 million people.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Nuttall Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Swire]

We do not intend to support an international conference or plebiscite on Kashmir. Our long-standing position is that it is for India and Pakistan to find a lasting resolution. We are acutely aware of the allegations of human rights abuses in Kashmir. This was discussed with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister when Prime Minister Modi was here in November 2015, and we continue to monitor the situation closely.

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

Many of my constituents who are of Kashmiri origin and heritage take the view that this entire problem was left behind by the UK when we ruled that area. Does the Minister not feel that there is an obligation on the UK to take a more proactive role and to do something positive to bring about a resolution to this long-running problem?

[Mr Swire]

My hon. Friend will be aware that we are talking about two sovereign countries, India and Pakistan. It is not for the United Kingdom to come between them, other than to urge them to talk. There are some good moves and communications between the leaders of Pakistan and India and they are discussing the subject, among other things, which we very much welcome.