Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-03-14-Speech-3-205"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010314.7.3-205"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"A number of different issues were raised. Perhaps I might deal briefly with those, rather than go through the individual questions, and hope that I touch on all of the issues, particularly the important ones.
First of all, regarding globalisation, it should be stressed that foot-and-mouth disease was prevalent – even endemic – in many Member States in the past when trade was a tiny fraction of present levels. So to identify trade as being the cause of this is, in my opinion, a simplistic response. Foot-and-mouth disease is endemic in the developing world. The EU has a huge trade surplus in food and agricultural products. So do we wish to surrender the resulting benefits? Trade in agricultural products is one of the areas where the developing world has real potential to increase trade. I am personally asking my own officials to advise me about raising the standards in developing countries so that they are in a position to trade with the European Union. This is an important issue. We must not lose sight of that. Are we to tell these countries that we do not want their products for the reasons that we have discussed here this afternoon? The other route is the better one.
Intensive farming is another issue that was raised. I should repeat that the foot-and-mouth disease is endemic in the developing world. Conversely, it is extremely rare in the OECD countries: the United States, Canada, the European Union, Australia and New Zealand. That is an important issue to be taken into account. There farming is at its most intensive. So, once again, to identify the debate as being one that focuses on intensive and extensive farming is also, in my opinion, an inadequate response to a complex issue. Intensive farming has a lot to answer for but it is simplistic to see this as the cause of the current outbreak.
Transport was another issue that was raised. It is a Commission policy and priority to reduce the incidence of long-distance live animal transport. A number of you asked the question "Is this under control?". The restrictions on animal movement will minimise the risk of transmission of the disease. This will, in turn, eventually ensure that the outbreak is brought under control. It remains to be seen, however, how long this will take. A lot depends on the amount of trade that took place before we first knew about this outbreak. We will have to wait for the passage of incubation periods before we get a better picture of the situation.
Many measures advocated by Members such as restrictions on sporting events, for example, are simply outside the competence of the Commission and outside the Treaties.
With regard to controls, I should also emphasise that it is likely that this outbreak commenced in the United Kingdom as a result of illegal activity. I must stress this. A number of people have asked why the Commission does not bring forward more proposals. That is always the standard response when something happens. The legislation is there. It was a breach of the legislation which caused this illegal activity to spark off this particular infection in the UK. I should also emphasise that it is the responsibility of Member States to seek to properly enforce the legislation relating to this and other matters. I can only draw your attention to the discussions we have had here before in relation to questions surrounding BSE. Controls and enforcement are important. We must not lose sight of that.
I hope I have dealt with most of the issues you have raised."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples