I certainly do agree with that, and I will be coming to that. The decision was taken that the Serbs had to be punished collectively and that a veneer of legality would be provided by—in my view—an incompetent tribunal, not one where justice is handed out freely and fairly. If the people in South Africa, Iraq and Afghanistan can try their own people, why cannot the people of the former Yugoslavia do exactly the same?

I turn briefly to the ongoing trial of Mr. Milosevic, and note that paragraph 58 of the newly produced Foreign Affairs Committee report on the western Balkans says:

"we also heard that the badly run Milosevic trial permitted the former leader to present himself as a martyr for Serbia."

Whether he does that or not, I agree with the comments about the trial being badly run; anybody who follows those events will be horrified.

Mr. Milosevic wants to conduct his own trial. The right for somebody to conduct their own defence is a basic right in all our national systems, it is identified as a basic human right in most international conventions and it is explicitly granted in the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. There is a precedent for imposing legal counsel when people are so violent that they would disrupt proceedings. However, there is no precedent for imposing legal counsel for ill health. Mr. Stephen Kay, the British lawyer, has tried to get himself dismissed, but has now been imposed by the court. The whole matter has developed into a farce.

Mr. Milosevic, who has been preparing his case for almost two years, will not co-operate with Mr. Kay. Most witnesses refuse to co-operate with what they regard as a fraudulent process. However, Mr. Stephen Kay, despite voicing misgivings about conducting a case against a client's will, has accepted a position of imposed counsel. Mr. Milosevic has been preparing his case with the help of two legal advisers. He has now seen the whole case handed over to a British lawyer who was not involved in the preparation. The timetable is tight. It was an unlimited timetable for the prosecution, but not for the defence. What kind of justice can anyone expect when such legal chicanery is allowed in a court to which we have put our name?

The agony for the Serbs is continuing. I have looked briefly at today's Foreign Affairs Committee report. On page 27, under the heading of "Co-operation with The Hague Tribunal", it refers to criticism once again of the Government of Serbia. I desperately want the whole region to be regenerated. I want a good, safe democratic future for all the people who live in the former Yugoslavia. The tribunal in The Hague is a festering sore at the heart of Yugoslavia. It is preventing any progress from being made for all its people.

I wish to quote Professor Jianming Shen at St. John's university in Canada. He argues that the tribunal system

"is a lopsided one. Whom to indict, when to indict, and what evidence to collect and use, are all under the control of one single individual"— in my view, a very incompetent and biased individual—

"and there is no checking and review mechanism except for the judges of the chambers of the Tribunal who in theory may reject a prosecution."

He concludes that the tribunal should not be placed in the hands of one prosecutor and goes on to suggest ways in which that could be overcome. I want a complete end to this process.

The cost of administering the tribunal is absolutely staggering. The 2004–05 budget was nearly $300 million. For incompetence and bias, the countries in the west are paying out such money. Let us just consider how much better that money could be spent regenerating the area. It should go into Serbia, Montenegro, Macedonia and Kosovo, where people have been without electricity in some of the Serb villages for a couple of months. People are still being murdered there. It still has a war criminal that the tribunal refuses to indict. Much better use could have been made of the money. It could have rebuilt the bridges over the Danube that were destroyed deliberately. It could rebuild some of the hospitals.

I spent the weekend in Brussels with the NATO Parliamentary Assembly. I was surprised and a little shocked when, on receiving a report on Afghanistan, senior NATO politicians and members of the military, discussing the warlords, the poppy trade and opium, said that, for the good of Afghanistan, there must be no trials, but that they must bring in the warlords. They said that those people had committed mass murders and killed thousands, and that they must be brought into the civic and political process. The double standards when applied to Serbia and Montenegro are absolutely breathtaking.

The tribunal should be abolished and then all the people of Yugoslavia could start to heal the wounds that separate them. The children are now being punished. The next generation will have to bear the guilt. Let us ensure that the children—the young people—can take their place in the heart of Europe where they belong.