|
NIRJ JOSEPH DEVA DL FRSA MEP NEWSLETTER - WINTER 2004 |
![]() |
|
Dear Friends,
THE NEW COMMISSION Many thanks for all your responses to my last Newsletter when I asked your views about the decision we were going to make at the November session of the Parliament in Strasbourg. I gave the reasons why I believed it would be wrong for me to vote either for or against the proposed new Commissioners who had been nominated by their Member-States. Most of your responses agreed with those reasons, and I abstained when we voted on 18th November. Some said that they did not like abstentions, and I agree with them, but in the peculiar circumstances of this case I felt that I had no other option. Some responses said that the Parliament must be careful to preserve diversity of opinion even on sensitive issues like homosexuality, and the role of women. I agree with them too. The new Commission was approved, and they will now get to work. I will be watching them carefully on your behalf, and will constantly be pressing them on the ten points set out in my last Newsletter. AFRICA, CARIBBEAN AND PACIFIC (ACP) As Co-ordinator on the Development Committee of the European Parliament, I attended the bi-annual meeting of the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly last week at The Hague. I value the ACP as a means by which the EU countries can maintain a continuing dialogue with some of the countries most in need of our assistance. I do not believe in just giving handouts to developing countries out of EU taxpayers' money, but I do believe in assisting them to put their economies on a sustainable basis, to develop independent, legal systems, transparent accounting systems, and democratic institutions. Often it is not money they need, but sound practical advice. I find the ACP-EU a very useful vehicle for achieving these objectives, and I was encouraged by my talks in The Hague with parliamentarians from the ACP countries. |
|
Nirj Deva is a Member of the South East
Conservative MEP team. The others are Dan Hannan,
James Elles and Richard Ashworth |
|
THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT My work on the Development Committee constantly reminds me of the devastation caused by internal conflict, which in many developing countries is the chief cause of poverty, malnutrition and despair. I was therefore glad to have the opportunity to meet the President of the International Criminal Court, the Canadian Judge, Philip Kirsch, and to make a contribution to the debate on the subject at The Hague. If one person murders another he will, if convicted, rightly receive the most severe punishment known to the law, but if he murders a thousand people he has all too often in the past been able to claim that his conduct is political, or an "act of state," and escape any punishment at all. Today wars between States are less likely, and our attention focusses more often on internal conflicts, where hundreds of thousands of people are systematically murdered, raped, enslaved and brutalised by their own Government, or by some rebel warlord acting against that Government, and sometimes by both. In these situations the international community cannot stand aside, offering sympathy and aid to the victims, but taking no action to bring the criminals to justice. We have to take collective action, and we have to put into practice the basic principles of human rights which are universally recognised. Britain already does more than its fair share to keep the peace and remedy injustice in the world, and the international community must make it clear to all brutal dictators, and rebel warlords alike, and to the people who work for them, that they will be held personally accountable for their actions. There must be no escape, and there must be no possibility of a comfortable retirement for such people on the proceeds of their crimes, accumulated in foreign bank accounts. A great step forward was taken on 12th July 1998 when the Statute of the International Criminal Court was signed in Rome, which entered into force on 1st July 2002. I believe that the Court will soon be able to demonstrate that it is independent, highly professional, accountable and non-political, and that its proceedings are fully transparent. ANIMAL WELFARE I share the concerns of those who have written to me about this. Earlier this year, animal transport proposals from the Commission were put before the Parliament, and we voted overwhelmingly to limit journey times to 9 hours. Improvements in the type of lorry, stocking density and rest periods were also supported by the Parliament, but when the proposals were discussed by national ministers at the EU Agriculture Council in April negotiations broke down and no agreement was reached. On 22nd November the Dutch president of the Agriculture Council presented new proposals on the transport of live animals. These new proposals have been adopted and will bring into play some good, yet limited, measures that should improve the welfare of animals. However, journey times and space allowances - arguably the two areas that determine the amount of animal suffering more than any others - were left out of the text. The British Environment Minister, Margaret Beckett, supported the Dutch proposal, but she did not demand that journey times and stocking density be discussed with urgency. Instead she advocated a four year delay before these issues will be revisited. Four years is too long to wait for improved animal welfare and I will press the Council to return to these topics during the British presidency next year.
|