Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-02-22-Speech-2-199"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050222.13.2-199"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Madam President, this plan proposes to implement actions through existing initiatives and programmes to which resources have already been allocated under the operational budgets of the services concerned, in particular the Public Health Programme and the Sixth Framework Programme for Research. Forgive me for being sceptical. It is inevitable that new initiatives will be required to move the action plan forward.
I would stress the importance of identifying gaps in knowledge and ensuring that any initiatives necessary to fill such gaps are well thought out and capable of delivering the required outcomes. These must be based on EU risk evaluation procedures and the opinions of relevant scientific committees, which also allow for peer review. The integrity of the legislation we adopt in this House continually and increasingly depends on scientific rigour, and I have increasing concerns about that.
All impact assessments must be attributable to their authors. They should not be merely the result of in-house navel gazing. The authors' names must be on every impact assessment, so that we know where they come from and whether we believe vested interests are involved.
In our Member States there is a need for much-improved coordination between public bodies carrying out activities related to food monitoring, drinking water monitoring, air quality monitoring, and so on. In relation to health impact assessment, it seems to be internationally accepted that the methodology is evolving rather than settled, and that there is considerable difficulty in establishing and collecting the statistical data needed scientifically to underpin health impact assessments.
We cannot protect people from themselves, nor should we legislate for all life's risks. We have to be frank about this. I would like to see a definition of public health. We continue to use that term across a swathe of legislation; it means different things in different countries. The Commission is talking about the health of the European public, not delivering public health services.
In conclusion, I would like the Commission to ban mass medication of the public water supply. From an ethical point of view, it can no longer be accepted by the EU institutions."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples