Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-03-01-Speech-3-167"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000301.10.3-167"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"I would like to thank Mr Hudghton for his excellent report on ISA and for broadly supporting the measures proposed by the Commission and also for the contributions from each of the speakers this evening.
With regard to the environmental impact, it is a well-known phenomenon that while stocks have fallen during the last decades several reasons have been advanced to explain these reductions: pollution, over-fishing, changes in climate, etc. It cannot at present be excluded that ISA has an impact on wild stock. Fish escapes from aquaculture premises have been reported in the past and the virus has been found in wild stocks. In this context, a number of scientific questions that can only be resolved through further research remain open. It is for that reason that a careful approach towards the control of ISA is needed. Diseased fish should not remain in the farms and I am prepared to look into the matter so as to avoid unnecessary shedding of a virus into the environment. For that purpose, I propose to amend our initial proposal to provide that rural programmes established by the competent authority must be approved by the Commission. This is to avoid excessive withdrawal periods. I also propose to provide that the withdrawal of fish displaying clinical signs of disease should be immediate.
The procedures for setting additional control measures that already exist in Community legislation will be used to establish withdrawal schemes based on the state of health of the fish in order to minimise a possible environmental impact. Bearing this in mind, I can agree to accept Amendment Nos 7 and 8 with a minor change to the latter. I am also very sympathetic towards Amendment No 9, but I believe that it can be better formulated so as to join, at the same time, environmental concerns and disease control and eradication strategies.
I do not feel in a position to accept Amendments Nos 12 and 13. It is my feeling that these amendments aim to achieve a zero risk. I believe this objective is very difficult to achieve without closing down the fish farming sector concerned.
I look forward to Parliament’s own views on these amendments and will take careful note if you believe that such an approach is the best way forward. I can partly accept Amendment No 11.
Finally, I would like to emphasise that we continue to strive to maintain a high level of health protection in accordance with our obligations under the Treaty. I believe that measures that are proportionate to that objective is the way forward. We remain committed to eradicating the disease, an objective that will be beneficial for both the environment and the salmon-farming sector. I hope that in accepting our proposal the European Parliament acknowledges our commitment and I would be very grateful for that.
The Commission proposal aims to ensure a more pragmatic approach towards controlling a disease that has the potential to cause important losses in salmon farms. However, this cannot be allowed to compromise our objective of reducing and possibility eliminating ISA. Nor can it be done, if the proposal involves a threat to public health. The environmental implications must also be taken very seriously.
I am advised that ISA is considered non-pathogenic for humans and mammals. The disease exists since 1984 and there is no report of it affecting human health or mammals. The virus harms cold-blooded animals. It does not replicate at temperatures above 25° centigrade and would, if present in fish for human consumption, be inactivated when ingested. In no way, however, can diseased fish be used for human consumption. As an extra precaution, I am validating this advice to our scientific committee.
During the debate, a number of important issues linked to our disease-control strategy have been raised including compensation. I deeply regret the losses suffered by the Scottish salmon industry. You may know that with effect from 15 January 2000, under the new financial instrument for fisheries guidance, Member States may encourage eradication of diseases in aquaculture. The Commission’s services are drawing up implementing rules in order to ensure the practical application of this instrument.
Council Decision 90/424 constitutes another instrument for Community financial support in case of disease outbreaks. I must emphasise, however, that there are serious constraints. Budgetary resources are very limited and priorities with other diseases have to be set. So further thought is necessary. I regret therefore that I am not at present in a position to accept amendments that refer to compensation through Decision 90/424. This is in particular the case for Amendments Nos 3 and 5.
I agree, however, with the statement in Amendment No 2 saying that no compensation has been made payable to salmon farmers. I am not able to comment on the availability of commercial insurance.
The Commission included in its proposal a possibility for vaccination of salmon. The intention of this proposal is to introduce a tool for combating the disease in emergency situations. I believe a vaccine should not be used for preventative purposes as suggested in Amendment No 4. Experience in other areas has shown that preventative vaccination has the adverse affect of creating healthy virus carriers. Those could perpetuate an infection. I therefore am not able to accept Amendment No 4.
You also referred to the need for further scientific research on the nature of the disease. I agree that such research is needed and I understand this is at present being organised in the United Kingdom. I will follow very closely the results of this research and take it fully into account in future legislative proposals. It must be further examined whether and how scientific research in other parts of the Community must be organised. In this context I am happy to partly accept Amendment No 1, taking into account, however, that scientific investigations are not done by the Commission but that the Commission relies on results of investigations carried out in the Member States. I also can partly accept the part of Amendment No 6 saying that Directive 93/53 should be amended as a result of scientific and technical evidence.
As I pointed out earlier, the available scientific evidence is that ISA is not a threat to health. I can therefore agree to Amendment No 10 with the
that the words, and I quote, “of the highest possible standard” are replaced by “are safe”."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"proviso"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples