|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
News Spring Update by John Bowis - Conservative Member of the European Parliament for London
IRAQ The last few months have been dominated in the European Parliament, as elsewhere, by the crisis over Iraq. Unlike previous build ups to military action - Falklands, Kuwait, Bosnia - there was considerable unease among our constituents in London. The truth is that twelve years ago the United Nations laid down conditions for the ceasefire after the liberation of Kuwait, including proof by Iraq that the chemical and biological weapons they had - and used against Kurds and Shiites in their own country - had been destroyed or handed over. Twelve years on and this proof had not been provided by Saddam Hussein. When I addressed the Parliament on behalf of our Conservative Delegation, I said that you might think that the Hans Blix team of UN inspectors were on a glorified treasure hunt - Saddam 'hide' and Blix 'seek'. But that should never have been seen as their role. They were there to inspect the evidence of the destruction or disposal and no such evidence was given. It had, for example, been known that Iraq had several hundred tons of VX nerve gas. That may not sound an enormous amount until you consider 10 milligrams on the skin causes swift death. So Mr Blair may eventually be seen to have taken the right decision to support the Americans but he compounded the guilt of Saddam by failing to explain to the British people the whats, whys, whens and whatafters of his policy. Even now it is unclear how the post-conflict period of the transfer to civilian rule and support for reconstruction will be managed in Iraq and what the implications are for the British policy towards the other countries of the region and for other rogue states. Perhaps two further messages now come through strongly. France and its obstructive partners must not reap any reconstruction rewards in Iraq and Britain must review its internal anti-terrorist laws to stop our country being a haven for terrorist cells and for individuals who have committed or encouraged acts of war or terrorism against our United Kingdom. They have no place here. CHEMICALS We have a major battle
ahead for common sense against ideology on chemicals. We cannot live without
chemicals - we wear them, walk, sit and stand on them, consume them for
good health, look through them and generally rely on them. Yet public
perception is often that they are dangerous, unnecessary and often spilled.
Our task will be to get across the message of the good nature of chemicals,
to show which ones need handling with care and which are so dangerous
they should be phased out or, occasionally, banned. There will also be
a battle royal between the 'green' purists who want every chemical tested
and retested and the 'animal' lobby who will be horrified at the millions
of animals that will be put through the tests and then destroyed as a
result. As one of the Parliament's rapporteurs on Enlargement, I have been able to highlight the problems as well as the benefits of the process. Wearing my Environment and Health hat, I can see some enormous challenges resulting from historic dirty emissions in some countries and low health spending in others. We will, of course, benefit from helping solve the air and water pollution which never stopped at the borders of Eastern Europe. On the other hand, there will be a potential cost in raising standards and avoiding a seepage of professional and business talent. That cost will come partly from Western taxpayers and partly by the reduction in grants to countries such as Spain and Ireland that have done very well out of the European Union in recent years. Enlargement is right for political, environmental and - in the longer term - economic reasons, but it should not be a 'starry eyes' process. Back home, having
exposed the incompetence of the Labour government over the fridge mountain
and the disposal of old cars and waste electrical and electronic items,
my Committee is moving on to measures to discourage unnecessary packaging
and ensure the efficient reuse or disposal of the rest. TISSUES AND CELLS Science has been much on our minds too, as we have considered measures to regulate the use of cells and tissues for transplants. Most such regulations are rightly left to member states but there are some cross-border health and trading issues. We excluded organ transplants from this measure but there remains a debate between those who wish science to roam free, those who want to protect human health and those who are concerned about the ethical implications of human embryo research. One example of this was my own amendment, which was accepted, to ban the use of cells and tissues from closed human-animal hybrids. We all know about the demise of Dolly the sheep but there was also an Australian cloned sheep, Matilda. She disintegrated recently for totally unknown reasons. It seemed to me that this was not the moment to encourage the use of such cells for transplant into human beings. The science is too young and the implications too uncertain. CONTACT: John Bowis MEP I also work closely with my London Conservative colleagues: Richard Balfe, Nicholas Bethell, Charles Tannock and Theresa Villiers. |
John addressing the European Parliament's Environment Committee.
John chairing a meeting between Iain Duncan Smith and Conservative MEPs.
|
