Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-03-01-Speech-3-166"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000301.10.3-166"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr Pietrasanta explained why we support some aspects of the Commission’s proposal, in particular support for development of a vaccine and compensation for farmers who are forced to slaughter their fish, but were not at all happy with the idea of changes to the slaughter policy.
Now people have said here that Norway has done a better job of controlling the epidemic of ISA and that the proposed change will bring us more in line with the Norwegian approach, but it must be said that there is more than just one difference between the Norwegian policy and that of the Community. This is a Community policy which will effect Ireland as well – where I am from – should similar unfortunate events occur.
There are other differences that exist in the policy for inspections of disease, fallowing periods, restriction on movement of contaminated fish and materials and others. Before we jump to copy the slaughter policy of the Norwegians, we should try these other things first to see if we can mitigate the disaster. And people have spoken in the past about BSE. For many years the Greens were calling for the BSE issue to be addressed. Had it been at that time, you could have actually saved an awful lot of farmers and the EU a huge amount of money. So it also has to do with environmental protection. The protection of the farmers themselves and the protection of public health."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples