Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-02-12-Speech-3-285"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030212.9.3-285"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
". – Mr President, I am convinced that by supporting this regulation, as agreed by the Committee on Development and Cooperation, Parliament will allow us to fund operations and agencies working to reach the international development targets, to empower women and to reduce infant, child and maternal mortality.
One strong reason to remain with what the Committee on Development has concluded, as expressed by Mr Corrie and others, with whom I agree, is that it reflects the Cairo consensus - no more and no less. To Mr Ó Neachtain I say that I can subscribe to his observations. They are a precise account of the reality and the formalities of the issue, as stated.
Anything other than what is now emerging here as the consensus from the Committee on Development and Cooperation represents an unacceptable deviation from Cairo. I advise that we stay on track. When following the international discussion on these issues over the last few years, we have repeatedly seen that proposals or attempts to backtrack from Cairo or to go beyond Cairo in all cases have been futile. That is another good reason for the European Parliament and the European Union to stay on track. I hope that we will be able to stay on track on this issue.
The amendments voted by the Committee on Development and Cooperation have received wide support and strengthen and clarify the text of the regulation, without altering its main objectives. The Commission welcomes them.
On Amendments Nos 46 and 47 on the financial proposal, I am not able to commit the Commission formally tonight because the broader discussions on allocations have not yet been concluded. However, I do not see this as something that should lead to a second reading. I am confident that we will find a solution.
The new amendments tabled in plenary – Amendments Nos 48, 49, 50, 51, 52 and 53 - skew the focus and the substance of the regulation and are not acceptable to the Commission.
Mr Ribeiro e Castro and a few others have remarked that laws are different in Member States and also said something about the competence of the European Union on these matters. We are on very firm ground in what is happening here. We are not discussing abortion policy in European Member States. We are discussing development policy and we are proposing to do what is clearly in line with what has been internationally agreed. This is the purpose of all this. I warn against changing this discussion into something totally different.
Mr Ribeiro e Castro said that Amendment 49 is about clarification. I disagree. It is a change of the substance. We may not have this meeting taking place in full daylight, but I find it light enough in here to make the following remark.
In the existing text, no support is to be given under this regulation to incentives to encourage sterilisation or abortion. Amendment 49 says: 'no support is to be given under this regulation to sterilisation or abortion, nor to …'. This is not a clarification. This is a change of the substance. A spade should be called a spade and a text should be called a text.
In reply to some of the other remarks made by Mr Ribeiro e Castro, I warn against throwing around quotes which are very difficult to verify. This debate has already had an overdose of that sort of input."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples