Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-11-15-Speech-4-115"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20011115.5.4-115"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, just before I begin on the Flemming report I want to speak about the Katiforis report, which we rejected. I feel very strongly that by rejecting that report we have done nothing today in this House to promote public health. We should never forget that tobacco is the biggest cause of preventable illness across the EU and that each year half a million EU citizens die needlessly due to tobacco. The Commission's proposal would have helped people to stop smoking and it is very sad that we did not support this.
However, on to the matter at hand – the Flemming report. Although the report was rejected, I should like to explain why I and my two colleagues from Scotland supported some of the amendments. Firstly, we believe that, in line with Amendment No 3, no country may be obliged to hand over water against its will and free of charge. The amendment speaks for itself, and that it is why we supported it.
Amendment No 5 was concerned with the more technical matter of water basins. We agree that water basin areas are not suitable bases for water pricing policies in all regions. Much of our water in Scotland is in inter-basin management and, therefore, we had to support it.
Thirdly, the rejection of the Flemming report probably was ensuring that no one report could be hijacked by such a national interest. I hope we will continue the discussion on water, as so many of our citizens are very concerned with this issue."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples