Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-12-17-Speech-2-019"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20021217.1.2-019"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, I too would like to repeat all the thanks that have been conveyed to all those involved in this excellent committee of inquiry, particularly the Chairperson, Mrs Redondo Jiménez, and Mr Kreissl-Dörfler, both of whom played exemplary roles in the whole process. I would also like to register a note of thanks to the countless people in the United Kingdom who helped organise our visits to the various parts of the UK during the course of our investigations. It was quite a challenge for many of them to deal with this rabble of argumentative poly-lingual MEPs who suddenly descended upon them, but on the whole those visits went extremely well.
The report, as many speakers have said, is judicious and balanced. It is bold and forthright in exactly the right areas, particularly on vaccination and import controls. The report conveys some very clear messages about what should be avoided in the future and what should be done in the horrific eventuality that another outbreak occurs. On both of those points, it is clear that the report has already had an influence on the shift in public policy which is starting in the United Kingdom. I would join Mr Sturdy and others in saying that the response, particularly on the issue of import controls – certainly within the United Kingdom – is still too slow. Insufficient resources have been allocated to that important task.
I see that the PSE Group and the rapporteur have tabled some amendments to protect the reputation of the United Kingdom Government. I would only suggest to my colleagues that they should not be so over-sensitive. It is simply part and parcel of the independence of a committee of inquiry such as this that there should be some critical remarks. Frankly, it is an aspect of independence that the government has deliberately shunned by refusing to hold its own public inquiry in the UK.
Some of the amendments which have been retabled seem to be just plain wrong. I pick out arbitrarily an amendment which says that there was no evidence of health or environmental problems arising from some of the burial sites in the south-west. I would invite my colleagues, for instance, to see and visit, as I have, the Viridor site near Kingsteignton in the south-west and then come back and say to me with any real confidence that they think there are no environmental or health effects. If they speak to any of the residents in that locality, they will see what a silly amendment that is.
Finally, I would ask colleagues to pay particular attention to paragraph 128 of the draft report. The ELDR Group will be asking for a split vote to delete the last sentence of paragraph 128. That last sentence suggests that any compensation in future should be conditional on appropriate insurance mechanisms being in place. We are very keen that a study should be made on the feasibility and the pros and cons of insurance systems, but we do not feel it is appropriate at this stage to make any future compensation automatically dependent upon the existence of insurance schemes."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples