Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-12-18-Speech-4-010"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20031218.1.4-010"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, I would like to add my thanks to Louise McVay, to the rapporteur, and also to my two colleagues from the region, Mr Helmer who is here today and will be speaking later on, and to Mr Heaton Harris who also followed this matter very closely.
I am sure many of us know somebody who has suffered from, or has, multiple sclerosis, and I take Mr Howitt's last point. But let us start by remembering, as the Commissioner said, that health is not an EU issue. It is something we can help with, but we must not be deluded into thinking that it is a power of ours. Indeed it is not even a Member State issue. The British Government in its devolution has devolved health to Scotland, because often the best remedies are found close to home. Indeed, if we are going to apply the precautionary principle anywhere it should be applied to the extension of EU legislation into areas that are best dealt with locally.
Having said that, I welcome this report which has many positive things in it. Firstly the code of best practice, and secondly closer international scientific collaboration. Having said that things are often best done at local level, many things can also be done at a European, or even a wider level. We should not forget the centres of research excellence, particularly in the United States, and we should seek as wide a collaboration as we can. Insofar as the EU can assist in that, through the research programmes etc., we certainly should. Clearly, as the report says, we should involve service users in the research. Things need to be done with the cooperation of people, not for them.
As such, we in this Group also support strongly the call for a Europe-wide study to be undertaken, clearly in cooperation with the WHO, because we want to spread the knowledge and gather the knowledge as widely as possible. We welcome, as the report says, the comparative evaluation being undertaken by the European Multiple Sclerosis Centre. All of these are good and positive things.
Turning to the problem of drugs – and this is a problem because, in British terms, where you live can affect what you get – we can produce the information but we cannot direct people how to spend their medical resources, and I am pleased to say that this report does not say that. But people who have MS clearly must be encouraged to play a full part in the community and such discrimination as exists within the community cannot be allowed to stand. One of the things we have to be constantly on the lookout for is giving people a fair deal and making it possible for them to play a full part in the community, as full a part as any of us.
I would like to talk about two of the amendments on introducing this precautionary principle. They are unnecessary and divisive. The chemicals directive and chemicals policy is the subject of a separate effort within this House. If you are going to apply the precautionary principle to toxic chemicals, let us look at it in the context of the chemicals directive. Maybe we should also consider that some people might talk about applying the precautionary principle to new treatments. The precautionary principle is a separate subject and accordingly our Group cannot support Amendments 1 or 2. This has nothing to do with us not wanting the best treatment for sufferers from MS, it has to do with sheer common sense and dealing with things in the appropriate place.
I close by saying that I welcome this report. I commend all the people who have contributed to it and we look forward to supporting it."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples