Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-11-30-Speech-4-096"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20061130.18.4-096"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I have tabled two amendments: numbers 47 and 48. However, with regard to the second one, number 48, the common position has been corrected in line with the aim of this amendment. I am therefore satisfied, since there is no sense in voting on an amendment that has already been accepted.
The second part of the other amendment has been declared inadmissible, that is to say the part that specifies today’s date, 30 November, as the deadline for destroying embryos used for the procurement of stem cells. I do not agree with the declaration of inadmissibility, against which I can unfortunately do nothing. What remains of the article is the replacement of the word ‘extraction’, as it features in the common position, with the word ‘use’, as Parliament was proposing back at the stage of first reading.
This is an issue of secondary importance, although, with the Commissioner having stated last night that, throughout the entire development phase of the programme, the Commission would accept the word ‘use’ and not the word ‘extraction’ – which, in practice, means that it will not fund any research into the destruction of embryos – I feel that this is a proposal that deserves to be endorsed. Therefore, on this point, I would say that we should not insist on the vote if the Members that have signed the amendment agree."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples