Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-02-13-Speech-2-163"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010213.8.2-163"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in reply to Mr Mulder's question on slaughtering herds: there is no Community provision which prescribes that the herd must always be slaughtered if a case of BSE occurs in it. Several options have been created here and a derogation should also be permitted in the future. What is important to the Commission is that there should be a plan of what will be done if a case of BSE occurs. This plan must be notified to the Commission and will be evaluated by the Commission's scientific committees. If the committees consider the plan acceptable, it is automatically approved by the Commission. This system has worked perfectly so far.
As far as the costs of the test are concerned, may I remind you once again of what I said earlier in reply to Mr Böge's question. As far as massive imports of meat into Europe are concerned, I would qualify the term "massive" somewhat, because relatively little beef is imported into the European Union. The question of removing risk material and, more importantly, the question of whether the meat is from animals which were tested and whether the country in question guarantees that the animals were not fed with feedingstuffs containing meat and bonemeal are clear and this must be implemented accordingly. The Commission is currently working on the relevant proposals and my colleague Commissioner Byrne is working on this.
Now, I fail to see how Mr Jové Peres can say that slaughter premiums in the South are twice or several times higher. That is news to me. The slaughter premiums are the same everywhere. In reply to Mr Jové Peres' question: we do not want to incinerate meat arbitrarily; we want to store this meat, provided that it is quality meat. This disposal scheme is for meat which cannot be stored, which is not eligible for intervention; because only meat from steer qualifies for intervention, not meat from old cows. There has been a great deal of criticism here. We had suggested disposing of the meat from old cows, but we want to take account of this criticism and we therefore now offer two options: either a Member State does as Great Britain has done over the past five years – and this has also worked perfectly in a number of other Member States – or a Member State has the option of buying this old livestock. If it believes it can manufacture products from it, then obviously they must never go into commercial circulation, because first we cannot pay the full value of the animal and, secondly, this meat will then be competing with normal meat. That is out of the question, but if there is additional recovery potential here and if individual Member States see such potential, then they may make use of it.
The 90-head limit does not apply to cows, only to subsidies under the special beef premium; only stocks or rather only up to 90 animals a year are subsidised and no more. That is the ratio. For the rest, we also made this suggestion in connection with Agenda 2000."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples