Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-12-11-Speech-2-278"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2001-12-11"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Public health (2001 – 2006)2
dcterms:Language	"fr"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20011211.12.2-278"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2001-12-11-Speech-2-2792
lpv:speaker	lp:Frédérique Ries2
lpv:spokenAs	member; ELDR (1999-07-20--2003-06-11)3 member; Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 unknown; Parti réformateur libéral/Front démocratique des francophones (1999-07-20--2004-02-11)3 member; Delegation for relations with Israel (1999-09-29--2002-01-14)3 substitute; Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3
lpv:translated text	"Madam President, I should like, in my turn, and this time on behalf of the Liberal Group, to thank Professor Trakatellis for his excellent report and for his particularly productive and effective collaboration with the notional rapporteurs, and in this case, believe me, that is not just a formality. He has succeeded in extracting from the 57 amendments our essential concerns, as expressed by our vote on the occasion of the first reading. Above all, I should just like to say that I am glad that he has abandoned the idea of creating a European centre for the coordination and monitoring of public health. On this point, I would just like to remind the House that the Liberal Group supports Amendment Nos 34 and 57 which, more prudently, are evidently intended to strengthen that coordination and also Community integration at the level of the various existing public health networks, under the auspices of the Commission. At a more fundamental level, of course, there are still points on which we disagree with the Council: first of all its refusal to include in the enacting terms any mention of a specific disease, any explicit reference to patients’ rights, or the methods of action for preventing diseases. Amendment Nos 16, 22 and 47 are essential. They emphasise the importance of a policy of prevention and epidemiological monitoring. Finally, thanks to Amendment Nos 3, 26 and 42, the rights of young and adult patients are finally laid down in a Community programme. The second point on which we disagree is the budget, on which Parliament has already made numerous efforts to reach a compromise with the Council. The EUR 380 million which we had adopted at the time of the first reading in plenary session, on 4 April, is in our view the . Moreover, as far as the budgetary aspect is concerned the Council’s position is to my mind somewhat paradoxical. It has drastically reduced the budget to EUR 280 million, and at the same time it intends to open up this programme to the candidate and associated countries. There is a problem here. Should it be necessary to remind the House, as our rapporteur has done, that health is one of the most important concerns of the citizens of Europe? Food safety issues, changed attitudes in the face of the AIDS scourge, for example, or the threat of biological terrorism, remind us that the human race is not immune from outbreaks of new viruses or the reappearance of former pandemics. This fully justifies an appropriate budget for the next six years. The citizens – and I am just about to finish, Madam President – the citizens, the Members that represent them, and the Commission, all insist on that budget, in order to ensure that health is not sacrificed on the altar of budgetary dogmatism."@en1
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	"minimum minimorum"1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph