Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-06-11-Speech-2-059"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020611.5.2-059"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"On my own behalf, I should first of all like to thank Mr Bowis for letting me go first, because I am having to receive a visitors’ group, a choir, that will be opening the Dutch week shortly. This is why I should like to leave at 11 a.m.
Mr President, it is not the first time that a very emotional and very passionate debate is taking place on the subject of the supply of blood. The opinions on this subject are diverse, even between my good friend, Mr Nisticò, and myself. We do however agree on one thing, namely that the safety of the supply of blood must be paramount because too many people rely on blood products. Patient organisations – and I would quote haemophiliac associations – were right to get involved in the debate, but their opinions are also diverse. Moreover, these different opinions run parallel with whether or not a Member State is self-sufficient in the organisation of the supply of blood and blood production.
I come from a Member State where self-sufficiency is paramount, and the voluntary, unpaid donation, the so-called 'gratis principle', underlies the organisation of our supply of blood. I am not able, or prepared, to impose our principle on other countries, and I am talking to Mr Nisticò when I say this. He asked for subsidiarity a moment ago. This should not, and cannot, entail the undermining of our principle of voluntary 'gratis' self-sufficiency. For this reason, I would ask Mr Nisticò to bring up for discussion the principles that were laid down at first reading in Parliament and confirmed at second reading by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy. This means that we need to make a positive recommendation on the agreements in the framework of the trilogue, involving Mr Lund, Mr Nisticò and others, namely in order to continue to enable the Dutch people, the northern Member States, to maintain their own organisation, which is also the gist of Amendment No 19. Mr Nisticò, I am prepared to withdraw my support for Amendment No 7 if you can assure me, in the framework of this subsidiarity, that Amendment No 19 will also be supported, including by Members whose countries operate a different system.
Please allow me to comment on a second amendment. We will support Amendment No 20, Mr Lund’s compromise to replace Amendment No 10, which enables a Member State to continue to determine its own organisation and its own blood policy. This is also backed by Mr Nisticò. This compromise receives my unqualified support, for I think it is an improvement on the original amendment which I had tabled on Amendment No 10. I should like to urge all of you once again to support Amendment No 19."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples