Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-02-13-Speech-2-232"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010213.9.2-232"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
". – It is important to understand what we are talking about. I understand that the honourable Member is asking me about the measure that was introduced last week at the SVC for the removal of the vertebral column as distinct from the spinal cord.
The spinal cord has been designated as a specified risk material (SRM) for a long time and has been removed in many Member States as such for a long time; it has been removed now as a matter of law in the European Union by all Member States since 1 October 2000. If you are referring to the vertebral column, I will deal with that aspect of your question by saying that the proposal that I put before SVC for their decision last week was firmly based on the advice of the Scientific Steering Committee.
The situation is that something over 95% of the infectivity is located in the SRM in an infected animal. The removal of the vertebral column is regarded by the scientists to account for an additional couple of percentage points so that, in the context of the whole question of the removal of specific risk material, this is an ultra-precautionary measure. In advising whether this should be done, the Scientific Steering Committee examined the available evidence from Member States and came to the conclusion that it was appropriate to remove the vertebral column in circumstances where Member States did not have a substantially BSE-free regime or did not have control measures in place which would be equivalent to very low BSE-incidence. Bearing in mind that advice, a conclusion was reached that it was appropriate to grant waivers to the five Member States that you are referring to, two of them because they had very rigorous control measures in place, and the other three because they were in category 2 of the geographical risk assessment that was published last July, thereby identifying those Member States as being at very low risk. Accordingly, the waivers were granted in those circumstances.
It is a Community-wide measure. It applies to all Member States. However, in circumstances where it is appropriate, in the individual circumstances of an individual Member State, and strictly on the advice of scientists who advise me, it was considered appropriate to allow for derogations. Not only did the Scientific Steering Committee give advice on which that decision was based, but the Standing Veterinary Committee came to the same conclusion, as did the Commission.
This was a justifiable response. There are many Member States which take the view that I went too far. There are Member States that take the view that I did not go far enough. Proportionate responses in these circumstances are what we tried to achieve.
With regard to the 24 months, I assume that you are referring to the fact that there is a requirement to test animals above the age of 30 months. There is one Member State that has reduced that on its own territory to 24 months, but that has absolutely no trade implications between that State and other Member States; that Member State has presumably concluded that it would be worthwhile reducing it to 24 months having regard to the age profile of a couple of positives that they have found.
I substantially agree with the basis of your question, which is that it is better to have Community measures right across the board rather than have individual measures, but sometimes individual Member States or a particular measure that is somewhat different from the Community measure can be justified in circumstances where a particularly unique situation is obtained in a Member State."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples