Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-09-24-Speech-2-021"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020924.2.2-021"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, I much regret that the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy did not deliver an opinion on this subject. Our coordinators were led to believe that there would be insufficient time to prepare an opinion before the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy finalised its report. In fact, this process took quite a lot longer than originally planned and there would have been sufficient time for the Committee on Industry to have given an opinion. An opinion from that committee ought to have been regarded as essential – in fact it is arguable that the Industry Committee should have been the committee responsible for this report.
This proposal will have a substantial impact on the European Union's biotechnology industry, on the EU's research programme and, in particular, on the priorities of the Sixth Framework Programme for Research. It also impacts on our trade in GMOs and in genetically modified research material with both developed and less-developed countries. The Commission proposal adds undesirable restrictive requirements beyond the internationally agreed Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, but the Environment Committee's suggested amendments go drastically further. It is essential that in our vote today we radically change the direction of this report. I am only sorry that, coming late to this matter as I did, there was insufficient time to introduce all the changes and separate votes I would have liked.
Why is it such a problem? These additional restrictions and bureaucratic requirements will only discourage investment in life science research in Europe, and further encourage the investment in research to transfer to other areas with more favourable legislation outside Europe. Our scientists will go the same way as the research investment. Have the Commissioner and the rapporteur any concept of the damage this is likely to do? Did they give any consideration to the ambition expressed at Lisbon for Europe to be the most dynamic and competitive knowledge-based economy in the world? This proposal does not restrict imports into the EU of GMOs for contained research, but exports of public and private GM research material to third countries will be subject to yet further and disproportionate regulation. This proposal runs diametrically contrary to the EU's life science and biotechnology action plan. Was there any coordination or consultation with the Commissioner for Research and the Council of Ministers for Research? It is quite appropriate that the Commission should propose, and Parliament and the Council approve, the requirements of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, but we should go no further. If we do, we will jeopardise our life science base for the future, our scientific community, the whole Lisbon strategy and Europe's future as a dynamic knowledge-based economic power in the world.
I call on Parliament to vote overwhelmingly against Mr Sjöstedt's report in all its critical aspects and, in particular, to support Amendments 50 and 51, which will at least mitigate the extent of the damage this proposal and report are likely to cause."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples