Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-04-03-Speech-2-300"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2001-04-03"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Public health action programme (2001-2006)2
dcterms:Language	"nl"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20010403.12.2-300"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2001-04-03-Speech-2-3012
lpv:speaker	lp:Johannes Blokland2
lpv:spokenAs	co-chair; EDD (2001-01-30--2004-07-19)3 unknown; Staatkundig Gereformeerde Partij - Gereformeerd Politiek Verbond - Reformatorisch Politieke Federatie (1999-07-20--2002-03-17)3 member; Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 member; ECON (2000-02-02--2002-01-14)3 member; Temporary committee on human genetics and other new technologies in modern medicine (2000-12-13--2001-11-29)3 member; Delegation to the EU-Slovak Republic Joint Parliamentary Committee (1999-09-28--2002-01-14)3 substitute; Delegation to the EU-Slovenia Joint Parliamentary Committee (1999-09-29--2002-01-14)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, at the end of last year I concluded my contribution to the debate on the extension of the European public health programme with the observation that, in my opinion, the developments in public health in the EU are going too far. Public health is national policy, and it should remain that way. I am therefore against public health programmes which can be used as leverage to influence national policy, whilst the programmes currently before us hardly represent any added value compared to Member State efforts. The current debate on a new public health programme is only feeding my concern. Although there is a formal acknowledgement that the principle of subsidiarity needs to be observed, it is a hollow phrase. In the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, the programme has been padded out and trimmed with all kinds of topics which could possibly be related to public health. In addition, the budget has been increased from EUR 300 to 500 million, and should partly be utilised to set up a European coordination centre. Not only do I find such a coordination centre surplus to requirements, it is also unwanted, since I expect it will be used to develop rather than a public health policy. If the EU institutions want to make a distinct gesture in terms of public health, they need to phase out subsidies for tobacco growing completely. That will generate funds for the European Union, instead of the European Union spending money on projects which Member States could implement and finance. In the field of alcohol and drugs, it is the Member States which need to pursue a restrictive policy. Furthermore, the European Union could do more for the candidate countries in terms of promoting public health, where even basic health care is found wanting. Various diseases can be controlled effectively by means of relatively few resources."@en1
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	"European"1 "national"1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph