Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-05-16-Speech-2-145"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000516.6.2-145"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, I am pleased to outline our position on your amendments to our proposed regulation on the prevention and control of TSEs.
With regard to epidemiological surveillance: I accept Amendment No 15 to Article 7, introducing the mandatory use of the rapid diagnostic tests in the annual monitoring programme. Let me add, however, in passing, that we will keep under constant review the scope for increased testing of animals for BSE.
On specified risk material: unfortunately I cannot accept Amendments Nos 16, 17, 18, 40 and 41 to Article 8, bringing under codecision the approval and conditions for use of rapid diagnostic tests. I happen to believe that it is essential to maintain the flexibility of the commitology procedure. Nor can I accept that tests should be capable of detecting infectivity in all products and at all stages of the disease. That is the advice I have been given.
I partly accept Amendment No 19 to Article 8, requesting a review of the age limits for SRM removal under a commitology procedure.
I cannot, however, accept the restraint of annual reviews and, in particular, the proposed deadline for the first review which is foreseen for 1 January next, which is too soon.
I also accept Amendment No 20 to Article 8, which brings under codecision the principle of granting derogations from the provisions on SRM removal in high-risk areas or for taking account of an effective feed ban.
I also welcome Amendments Nos 38, 39 and 56 to Annex IV. They mainly propose no longer requiring the designation of long bones of cattle as SRM and suggest a reformulation of the proposed derogation for the removal of a vertebral column under a commitology procedure.
On feed ban, I accept Amendments Nos 22 and 42. I can partly accept Amendments Nos 21 and 57 on condition that the possibility of extending the feed ban is allowed, irrespective of risk status. I also partly accept Amendment No 54 to Annex V, laying down the detailed rules on the extended feed ban. I cannot accept the derogation for dicalcium phosphate, as this is against our scientific advice. I also cannot accept the limitation of extending the feed ban to any species, mainly pet animals, only if a risk of cross-contamination of livestock feed exists, as we believe that ruminant protein should be banned for all susceptible species. I identify cats here in particular. That is the advice I have been given in relation to cats.
I can partly accept Amendment No 50 to Annex V where it exempts gelatine from hides from the ban. However, I cannot accept the exemption for feeding cats with ruminant protein from the ban.
I also cannot accept Amendment No 23 to Article 9, ensuring immediate application of the feed prohibitions, as this amendment does not fully make sense legally.
On disease eradication: I accept Amendments Nos 25 and 28. I also welcome Amendment No 24 to Article 11, but propose to reformulate, providing for "regular" rather than "immediate" notification.
I wish to begin by thanking you for the excellent cooperation between your assistants and my services. Due to this thorough preparation I am in a position today to agree in full or in part to almost three-quarters of your proposed amendments. Furthermore, most of the amendments, which I am not in a position to accept, relate to two issues: the so-called "whereas" clauses – that is the recitals – and whether or not changes to certain provisions of the regulation should be by commitology or codecision. That is an issue which I have referred to before. I know it is a controversial issue and I look forward to discussing this particular issue in the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development which is scheduled for July.
I can also partly accept Amendment No 26 to Article 13 and Amendment No 43 to Annex VII, introducing whole-herd slaughter for BSE in cattle, sheep and goats and, secondly, excluding research animals from these provisions. Whole-herd slaughter for BSE only, not for scrapie, is acceptable to me on condition of approval of equivalent measures by commitology. I cannot accept the second part of this amendment as it is in fact superfluous.
I can partly accept Amendment No 44 on condition that the equivalent measures are approved on a case-by-case basis under commitology.
I do not accept Amendment No 27 to Article 13, requiring a complete standstill on a holding with a confirmed TSE case, as I consider the extremely strict conditions of our proposals are already sufficient, as they require measures to be taken under strict, official veterinary supervision, duly certified.
I also cannot accept Amendment No 37 to Annex II, as the proposed definition is not used elsewhere in the text and is, in addition, inadequate for TSE control purposes. I should add that ADNS regions are too small and too difficult to control. Bigger regions which are legally defined may be possible, for instance the Azores, and I refer to what Mr Nicholson said earlier about Northern Ireland.
On the conditions for marketing animals: we welcome the intention of Amendment No 53 to Article 16. However, I propose to reformulate the text to ensure approval of the equivalent schemes by commitology. I also welcome the intention of Amendment No 45 to Annex VIII, but would ask for flexibility to determine the exact duration of the scrapie-free period. I cannot accept Amendment No 55 to Annex VIII, reducing the protection measures against scrapie. Furthermore, I cannot accept Amendment No 46 to Annex VIII, extending the ban on placing on the market offspring of TSE cases, for lack of scientific support.
Finally, on laboratory techniques, I accept Amendments Nos 47 and 48.
Thank you again for your cooperation. I sincerely hope that this will continue to be a hugely important proposal and that we shall continue our cooperation on it.
In substance, therefore, the Commission and Parliament are equally committed to a strong regulation which puts in place a comprehensive framework to tackle TSEs.
I should like especially to thank Mrs Roth-Behrendt and Mr Böge for their huge contribution to this proposal. I can think of no other individuals who have made such a positive contribution to tackling BSE. They have both rendered an enormous service to the health protection of Europe's citizens.
I might also add that this piece of legislation is an excellent example of the good work and cooperation which has taken place between our two institutions and could provide a precedent for the future.
I turn now to the specific amendments and formal Commission position. Firstly, on commitology, we accept Amendments Nos 6, 11, 12, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 and 36. With regard to the recitals, I also accept Amendments Nos 3, 4 and 5. However, I cannot accept Amendments Nos 1 and 2 because it is inappropriate to introduce recitals in a piece of legislation which are not matched by substantive provisions in the text. However, I shall be raising your concerns on pharmaceuticals and cosmetics, which a number of you mentioned, with my colleague Mr Liikanen and I will ask him to address those concerns.
With regard to the articles themselves, firstly, the scope: I accept Amendments Nos 7 and 8. With regard to definitions: I can partly accept Amendments No 9 to Article 13 on the definition of TSE suspected animals. But the inclusion of "fallen cattle, sheep and goats" in the definition cannot be accepted. It is not practicable to collect, incinerate and carry out a full epidemiological investigation on each fallen animal. The Commission will, however, be monitoring the situation closely both through the recently agreed measures on random testing for BSE and in the forthcoming proposal on animal waste. However, I accept Amendment No 52.
I also accept Amendments Nos 10 and 49 to Article 3, with a slight reformulation to create the possibility of delegating the evaluation, not the approval, of tests to an external body.
With regard to classification, BSE status: I accept Amendments Nos 13, 14, 51 and 58."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples