Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-02-28-Speech-3-112"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010228.6.3-112"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
". – Mr Whitehead, I greatly welcome what you said as a preliminary to your question, that you believe that the Commission has acted in a proportionate manner. I fully agree with your assessment that the only panic that can come from this situation is by people irresponsibly drawing attention to what does not exist, which is a threat to human health. I am very happy that you raised that question and gave me an opportunity to emphasise that point yet again.
As regards the application for compensation, as you are probably aware this is an issue that falls within the competence of my colleague, Mr Fischler, but I understand that the UK authorities intend to make an application and it may very well be in the pipeline. I am aware that this constitutes an enormous impact on farming incomes, and this is something that has been fully taken into account in all deliberations.
With regard to the Food and Veterinary Office, no FVO report is available yet, but I should say that no options will be ruled out with regard to vaccinations. As I said earlier, however, this would only be regarded as a last resort.
The question from Mr Maat concerns different levels of performance in different Member States. I strongly believe that Member States fully understand the seriousness of the situation. Member States are taking the appropriate action, given the level of exposure that they believe exists in their own Member State. I am satisfied, for instance, that one Member State alone has destroyed 47 000 sheep without any positive finding in any one of them. Other Member States have also destroyed large numbers of sheep, and markets and so on in a number of Member States have also been closed. Movements have been restricted. The Member States, particularly those at risk of having imported sheep from the UK, are taking the appropriate action. With regard to that, traceability has worked very well but there are limitations. We cannot ensure individual identification of sheep and pigs in all instances.
Mr Cushnahan then asked me about whether there should be criminal prosecution in the event of fraud. That is an issue that Member States are responsible for themselves. It is not the duty of the Commission to require Member States to initiate such criminal prosecutions. But in the event of any persistent failure of a Member State to implement the laws of the European Union, there is scope for the Commission to initiate infringement proceedings. That does not arise in this instance, but I am satisfied that in the event that there is evidence of criminal activity – and I am sure you are referring to the UK when you asked me this question Mr Cushnahan – that the UK authorities will be well aware of the fact that prosecutions of this type are appropriate in the circumstances.
With regard to the last part of your question as to whether I believe it is appropriate for the political party you identify to have restricted its
firstly let me say that I do not follow the affairs of all small parties in the European Union. Another concern that might well have motivated him is: would anybody have turned up out of lack of interest?"@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"Árd Fheis"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples