Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-12-11-Speech-2-276"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20011211.12.2-276"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Madam President, the adoption of the Community action programme in the public health sector is the European Union's first integrated attempt to protect public health. Protecting public health is currently one of the primary concerns of the Union's citizens. Health must be a priority, over and above political or economic compromises, and cannot be treated as a commodity. The programme designed to replace sectoral and fragmented Community action on health is a more integrated programme, based mainly on disease prevention, which will help us to introduce quality standards in the public health sector.
The Council has included a large number of the amendments adopted by Parliament at first reading in its common position, mainly as the result of excellent cross-institutional collaboration. However, important aspects of our proposals have been rejected in the common position; worse, part of the programme's proposal has been deleted by the Council, forcing us to amend the common position in the Committee on the Environment, the members of which voted in favour of the present recommendation for second reading by a large majority.
I should like now to make a few comments on the programme itself. The main objective of the programme is to strengthen collaboration between the Member States – and hence achieve added value from the synergy of Community action – by developing three lines of approach, which constitute the general aims of the programme. The first line of approach is to improve the information and knowledge needed in order to develop public health. The second line of approach is to strengthen the potential for a rapid and coordinated response to health threats. I should point out here, given that it is three months to the day since the terrorist attack on 11 September, that we need to include a category to deal with health threats from natural, biological and chemical agents caused by unforeseen circumstances, such as accidents or defective infrastructure or machinery, human error or even acts of terrorism. The third line of approach is to take account of health-determining factors in all policies and activities through health promotion and disease prevention schemes. The programme, which complements national policies, aims to achieve a high level of physical and mental health and greater equality in health issues throughout the Community. Given that the programme has limited resources, we need to prioritise health protection measures, so we can support action to prevent the most serious diseases, together with practical action and the need to develop an integrated, cross-sectoral health strategy within which all Community policy and action will help to protect and improve health.
I should like to highlight two points in our amendments to the common position. Although we are in almost total agreement with the Council on the objectives of the programme and on individual issues, there is still a great deal of discussion as regards coordination and the budget for the programme.
The European Parliament feels that this sort of complex programme, which includes networks, data, various institutions and non-governmental organisations, needs efficient coordination and control. Obviously, there is a need for a coordinating organisation, which is why, at first reading, Parliament recommended a mechanism called the Health Coordination and Monitoring Centre which would, of course, operate under the Commission and the programme. We have now confirmed this approach in the Committee on the Environment, which voted for a second reading. Of course, the Council, in its common position, and the Commission, in its amended proposal, espoused and adopted the main elements of Parliament's position on developing what they refer to as an efficient system and mechanism for coordinating and monitoring the programme. However, the configuration which they have opted for, in the form of structural arrangements including strengthened central resources, is not ideal and will, at the very least, give rise to confusion and ambiguity, which is why we shall clearly insist on a coordinating centre in a bid to achieve efficient, overall and continuous coordination of the programme.
Finally, the budget. The programme must be adequately funded. Parliament is asking for EUR three hundred and eighty million, given that the programme contains extremely ambitious projects and schemes. Consequently, the budget needs to be increased if we are to fully satisfy the needs and objectives of the programme and meet the demands involved in applying the Council's proposals for preparing, adopting and operating suitable structural arrangements including strengthened central resources, as set out by the Council in the second paragraph of Article 7.1.
It is also vital for us to have the flexibility to redistribute resources.
Finally, strengthening the foundations of our European Structure depends on convergence, not just at the level of economic strategy and policies, such as the single market and EMU, but in individual sectors, such as the health sector. These are new forms of integration, which I call new convergences, which broaden and deepen the unifying processes. My view, therefore, is that the new programme marks the start of just such a convergence process in the vitally important health sector."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples