Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-10-24-Speech-2-257"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20001024.7.2-257"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I should like to join with Mr Pronk in asking you to look critically at the preliminary decisions of the Committee on Budgets regarding the deliberations of the specialist committees, in my own case the preliminary decisions on health and environmental policies.
For example, subsidising tobacco cultivation in the EU is simply no longer justifiable. As you all know, this special form of cultivation is subsidised each year to the tune of EUR 1 billion, despite the fact that there is no market at all for European tobacco within the EU and it has to be exported. What is more, we are working right now on the new directive on tobacco cultivation, the main objective of which is of course to explain to the consumer the harmful effects of smoking upon health. This is supposed considerably to reduce tobacco consumption within the EU. To go on subsidising tobacco cultivation at the same time is a downright contradiction in terms. Instead, these subsidies must be removed step by step, though on condition that the farmers concerned are given structural aid for the purpose of switching production to other goods. At the same time, budget funds from the Research and Information Fund ought to be made available for the purpose of researching into alternative forms of production for farmers who at present cultivate tobacco, and this is something we want to see happen. I think these measures are at present the most sensible solution where the tobacco issue is concerned. I am no dreamer. I know that this proposal is not at present capable of winning a majority, but I should like to call upon as many fellow MEPs as possible to vote in favour of this package of measures in order simply to set an example so that we might finally make some headway on this issue.
Another important point relates to the European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products in London. This definitely requires an increase in its budget, for we ourselves have of course given it a new additional task. This agency is to promote the development of medicinal products – so-called orphan drugs – for rare diseases. This has already been reported on today. We ourselves have therefore arranged for corresponding legislation which did not come into force until April of this year. It is merely being consistent now also to ensure that our decisions can be put into effect and that this agency’s funds are increased. On the other hand, it would not be in our interests to support agencies whose work we cannot see as being of any discernible consequence and which do not produce any visible results. In our view, that is the case with the European Environment Agency in Copenhagen. The Committee on Budgets has also recognised this. It is not a question of regularly increasing the funds of any old agencies but of promoting work of proven value. This is what I am asking you to do, and I am asking you to vote accordingly."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples