| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley): I thank my right hon. Friend for one of the clearest statements of intent by the
Government that I can remember, to bring to justice those responsible for war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide. I remind him that in January we launched a cross-party campaign in the House with the backing of the Prime Minister, the former Prime Minister and many others to bring Saddam Hussein to justice. The campaign was then promoted in Washington and will be promoted again in Strasbourg next week. Does he envisage a similar exercise to bring to justice war criminals such as Pol Pot and Saddam Hussein?
Mr. Robertson: I thank my hon. Friend for her welcome and her warm words about today's action. I assure her that it is an indication of the resolution of the Government, the international community and the stabilisation force. We mean business. The people concerned all know what they have done and I wonder how they can sleep at night. They will certainly not sleep any more soundly in their beds as a result of today's action. We took serious action which was a declaration of intent. They should not miss that point. Dealing with other people outside that area is an issue which perhaps we should return to on another occasion.
Mr. Quentin Davies (Grantham and Stamford): This is unambiguously good news. The whole House will warmly endorse the tribute that the right hon. Gentleman has paid to the professionalism and courage of the British forces involved in the operation, which must have required great precision in planning and execution. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that no system of justice, international or not, can continue to enjoy the public support on which it must rest if there is any suspicion that it shies away from apprehending those who are alleged to be leaders or the instigators of serious crimes? It would be devastating to confidence in the system of international justice if NATO left the area without the remaining 75 indicted war criminals to whom the right hon. Gentleman referred--particularly Mr. Mladic and Mr. Karadzic--having been arrested.
Mr. Robertson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his support. The bipartisanship evident on this occasion will be recorded outside the House, including, I hope, by those among whom it might have some effect. The troops whom I visited in Bosnia were distinguished by their military skill and professionalism, and their outstanding commitment to rebuilding the area and establishing unity in a country that has not known it since the Stalinist oppression at the beginning of the communist era. That commitment shines through and should be recorded.
Of course, we cannot hope to establish a system of international justice if people who have been indicted for such terrible crimes never come to trial. That is why the resolution of the international community is on trial. There has been no attempt to shy away from the issues. We must always be conscious of the risks and dangers to our troops in any such exercises. We shall act resolutely when it is sensible and prudent to do so.
Business of the House
3.53 pm
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Ann Taylor): Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the business for next week.
Monday 14 July--Consideration of allocation of time motion relating to the Finance Bill.
Proceedings on the National Health Service (Private Finance) Bill [Lords].
Tuesday 15 July--Consideration in Committee of the Finance Bill.
At 10 pm, the House will be asked to agree the summer supplementary estimates, which have already been laid.
Wednesday 16 July--Until 2 pm, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Completion of consideration in Committee of the whole House of the Finance Bill.
Thursday 17 July--Proceedings on the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill.
Until about 7 pm, motion on the Council Tax Limitation (England) (Maximum Amounts) Order.
Friday 18 July--Debate on the schools White Paper on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Monday 21 July--Second Reading of the Education (Student Loans) Bill.
The House will also wish to know that, subject to the progress of business--and this is subject to the progress of business--it is proposed that the House will rise for the summer recess on Thursday 31 July. I am not yet in a position to say when we will return in the autumn.
Mrs. Gillian Shephard (South-West Norfolk):
I thank the right hon. Lady for her statement.
Along with much of the rest of the House, I am amazed that the right hon. Lady and her Government should seek to impose a limit on the debating of the Finance Bill at this stage in its proceedings. Given that the Bill and the Budget have been lent such portentous significance by the Government, is it not inconsistent with that significance to cram consideration of those measures into a few days?
During last week's business questions, the right hon. Lady said:
The right hon. Lady should be protecting the rights and interests of Members, and the reputation of the House in the outside world. How can she reconcile the peremptory stifling of a legitimate debate on what she and her colleagues describe as measures of immense importance with the increasingly sanctimonious lectures about consultation that the country is having to endure from the Government? She has put herself into a ludicrous position.
Given the right hon. Lady's much-vaunted enthusiasm for transparency, and given the sadly contradictory statements that she and the President of the Board of Trade made from the Dispatch Box last week within an hour of each other, will she arrange an urgent debate on the current position of the Minister for Trade and Competitiveness in Europe, and on the precise issues on which he is permitted to act and speak? Will she arrange for the President of the Board of Trade to be present at that debate so that she can learn about her own Minister's position? Judging from all written answers to parliamentary questions, the President is confused about his position at present. Given its rapidly changing nature, that is perhaps understandable, but it is nevertheless inexcusable.
Mrs. Taylor:
In answer to the right hon. Lady's final question, I made the position clear last week. The Minister concerned has followed "Questions of Procedure for Ministers", and he is not involved in any breach of its requirements. Inquiries have been made to ensure that that is the case, and what I said last week is correct.
On the question of the Budget, I must say that the Opposition have an incredible cheek. Let me give them some rather pertinent facts. First, it is a short Bill. It is less than half the size of last year's Bill and, pro rata, we are allowing more time for discussion. Secondly, we published the Bill in draft ahead of its formal publication, which was helpful. We extended the Budget debate to four days at the Opposition's request. In that respect, we have tried to accommodate all their requests.
We have ensured that the four big issues that the Opposition want to debate on the Floor of the House will be debated on the Floor of the House. We have also agreed to their request that the Committee considering the Finance Bill should have 35 members so that they feel that they have adequate representation.
The Standing Committee will be able to meet for 10 sittings. Last year, it had 14 sittings. This year's Bill has 53 clauses, whereas last year's Bill had 111 clauses. I also point out to the right hon. Lady that we shall provide two days on the Floor of the House to consider the remaining stages of the Bill. Last year, when the Finance Bill was much larger, the previous Government allowed only one day for consideration of its remaining stages.
"The Government want to see as much transparency as possible in all areas."--[Official Report, 3 July 1997; Vol. 297, c. 424.]
It is becoming increasingly difficult to reconcile the right hon. Lady's actions with her words. Will she explain what contribution to transparency, in regard to very complex issues, her business statement represents? As she herself has said,
"The quality of legislation can often be improved by consultation with informed opinion on both the substance and the drafting of legislative proposals."
Does she consider that aspiration to be met by what she proposes in practice--the allowing of just 12 working days between the publication of the draft Bill and the completion of its Committee stage? Do not her proposals demonstrate her Government's high-handedness and
disdain not only for the House, its Members and its procedures, but for all who have a legitimate interest in the Budget proposals?
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |