Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
On definitions in respect of clause 2, the important point is that those categories represent a sensible widening of scope, something that we do not have at present. It is true that there is no single agreed definition for peace building, but we do not anticipate a problem in practice. Peace building, as right hon. and hon. Members will be more than well aware, is the phase after peace making and peacekeeping when a violent conflict has slowed down or halted.
Humanitarian assistance is, as right hon. and hon. Members know, deployed at times of humanitarian crisis, such as natural disasters. Political and development assistance is always part of a long-term solution to provide a lasting strengthening of a nations capability and capacity to recover from times of trouble.
Several points were raised about procedure, such as the time taken to bring the Bill before the House. Right hon. and hon. Members know that, as with any legislation, we need to find a place for it in the legislative programme. We prepared the Bill by working closely with the British Red Cross, to which I again extend my appreciation and thanks. Once the parliamentary process is complete, the UK will ratify the protocols as soon as possible, and statutory instruments will be laid to give effect to them. There are no significant financial implications.
On the question of scrutiny, right hon. and hon. Members know that the Bill started life in the other place and that it is not practice to take evidence on Bills that do so. However, this Bill is destined for the scrutiny of the whole House in Committee, so there will be no parliamentary opportunity for an evidence session. I repeat that the Bill has been prepared and drawn up in full consultation with the British Red Cross, which has used its expertise to bring many great aspects to the Bill.
On clause 2 and the Bills coverage, the protocol covers only UN workers. However, we continue to press for a fuller set of protectionsfor example, for those who work for Save the Children or Oxfam. Of course, other criminal offences can be committed by people who attack humanitarian personnel, whoever they work for.
On the international legislative position, I reiterate that five countries with UN missions in their territories have signed the protocol. For us, the adoption of the protocol is a very serious matter and a demonstration of the importance that we place on it. In reality, we are seeking to lead by example, but we will continue to lobby international partners to do likewise. As we have heard, 87 countries have ratified the convention. A further 34 countries have signed the protocol, and 16 have ratified it. The protocol will come into force once 22 countries have ratified it.
A question was asked about the protocols application. The convention and the protocol apply not only in states that have ratified them, but wherever a UN operation is taking place, so people can be brought to justice in the UK for acts committed elsewhere.
A question was asked about whether the Bill should amend the list of offences in the United Nations Personnel Act 1997. No further change is needed under the Bill, and any necessary consequential amendments were made when sections 1 and 2 of the 1997 Act were changed.
Mr. Greg Knight: The Minister is being very generous in giving wayI appreciate itbut will she tell the House whether this is the first Bill that we have ever debated that contains a logo in the schedule?
Gillian Merron: It is tempting to answer, but I am afraid that I cannot. I will happily write to the right hon. Gentleman to give him an accurate reply, but I would not describe the red crystal as a logo; it is an emblem of protection, which is certainly how the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies seeks to present it.
A question was asked about the difference between optional and additional protocols. There is no such difference in legal effect. The truth is that the terminology is not always consistent, contrary to what one might like. The word optional is used because Governments can decide whether to become party to such a protocol, which commits only those who ratify it.
Further questions were asked about why this is a reserved matter, the extension to the overseas territories and other areas. Such things are, of course, quite normal in the UK legislative framework.
In closing, I ask the House to join me in paying tribute to all those courageous men and women who continue to work under the most difficult and dangerous conditions to save and improve the lives of others. The majority of us have been spared the horrors of war, but for those caught up in conflict, we can only imagine their sense of relief and gratitude for the humanitarian support provided by the UN, the Red Cross, the Red Crescent and the many other organisations that do such work. In passing the Bill, we will make our own small but significant contribution to their efforts. I commend the Bill to the House.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, (Standing Order No. 83A),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Geneva Conventions and United Nations Personnel (Protocols) Bill [ Lords]:
Committal
1. The Bill shall be committed to a Committee of the whole House.
Proceedings in Committee, on consideration and on Third Reading
2. Proceedings in Committee, any proceedings on consideration and proceedings on Third Reading shall be completed at one days sitting.
3. Proceedings in Committee and any proceedings on consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption.
4. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption.
5. Standing Order No. 83B (programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings in Committee, any proceedings on consideration or proceedings on Third Reading.
6. Any other proceedings on the Bill (including any proceedings on consideration of any message from the Lords) may be programmed. (Ms Butler.)
The House proceeded to a Division.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the Aye Lobby.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),
That the draft Occupational Pension Schemes (Contracting-out) (Amendment) Regulations 2009, which were laid before this House on 23 February, be approved. (Ms Butler.)
That, at this days sitting, the Motion in the name of Mr. David Cameron relating to the Non-Domestic Rating (Collection and Enforcement) (Local Lists) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2009 may be proceeded with as if Standing Orders Nos. 16 (Proceedings under an Act or on European Union documents) and 17 (Delegated legislation (negative procedure)), were applicable thereto. (Ms Butler.)
Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con): I beg to move,
That the Non-Domestic Rating (Collection and Enforcement) (Local Lists) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2009 (S.I., 2009, No. 204) dated 5 February 2009, a copy of which was laid before this House on 10 February, be revoked.
It is a pleasure to return yet again to the issue of the effect of certain changes in port rating. Before the Minister looks up in despair, I should say that I return to it without apology. This debate gives us an opportunity to look not only at the issue set out in the regulations, but at what has given rise to the regulations. The regulations attempt to provide a measure of relief to port businesses that, on any objective measure, have been subject to gross injustice and unfair treatment. This debate gives us the opportunity to address that issue once again.
Mr. Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Lab): Some of us on this side of the House have to make up our minds about what to do, so it would be helpful to know at the beginning how the Opposition are going to vote on the motion.
Robert Neill: If the right hon. Gentleman is patient and listens to me, he will be enlightened in due course. It will help him if I put everything into context; that will lead him to where we are going to be.
How has this regulation come about? It is an attempt by the Government to pick up some of the mistakes of the Valuation Office Agency, for which the Department for Communities and Local Government does not have direct responsibility, but which is the responsibility of the Treasury. Those mistakes were made at a time when, ironically, the Prime Minister was Chancellor of the Exchequer. I do not know whether that had anything to do with the Treasurys having taken its eye off the VAO, but that is the simple chronology of the matter.
What has arisen is this: after the 55 registered ports were denationalisedfor good reasonsit was initially decided that they should be rated under a system different from that relating to other businesses in the UK. Rates were raised through a system of prescription by the Secretary of State. The payments generally took place through a system known as the cumulo, in which the port businessesthe warehousemen, the stevedores, the crane operators, the importers of vehicles, the engineers and so onpaid their rents and rates to the port owner. In due course, the rate element was paid to the local authority, which had a duty to collect. The rates were then paid to the Treasury, as they were national non-domestic rates.
Next Section | Index | Home Page |