Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-04-03-Speech-2-187"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010403.8.2-187"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
". – Mr President, I will try to answer all the questions you asked though, given the time I have, I am sure I am going to fail to some extent. If I do please forgive me for that.
Unless the point is being made that the Commission should have acted before the outbreak. If you say that, you are saying that there should be a generalised policy of vaccination throughout the European Union. We are talking about 300 million animals, seven different types of vaccinations every six months and I do not think anybody is seriously calling for that proposal to be introduced. It was also suggested that the vaccinations are authorised only where there is slaughter subsequently. That is not so. An authorisation has been given in the UK where there is a non-slaughter consequence, where the vaccinations are administered to cows which continue to milk and their milk is properly treated to protect humans. Their meat does go into the food chain but only in a processed form and in strict circumstances and under strict control.
Mr Berlato also mentioned the point about the Commission not acting quickly enough and I repeat the answer that I gave to Mr Graefe zu Baringdorf. I have been told that farmers are calling out for a vaccination response. Without prejudice to what I said earlier, a number of other farmers are saying quite the opposite. They have come to me and said "no vaccination policy". I have met the farming unions. They have different views but a substantial number of farmers take the view that there should not be a vaccination policy introduced. I am going to get more information on that subject within the hour. I am meeting COPA again in about half an hour to discuss this issue further. But there is not a unanimous view among the farming community in relation to this issue.
In response to Mr Wyn's question on state aids. Yes, of course, if notice is given to the Commission in relation to support of that type a package of measures can be agreed and in fact my understanding is a package of measures has already been agreed.
Mr Hyland put three questions to me particularly in relation to third countries and the FVO. Of course, the FVO do their work and they are required to do so carefully. The importation of the infected meat in this instance was an illegal importation which would never have been detected, of course, by any FVO inspections. This in fact was an illegal activity. It is interesting to note that the Minister for Agriculture in France also said that the outbreak there was a result of illegal activity and indeed the Minister for Agriculture in Ireland has said exactly the same thing that the outbreak there was the result of illegal activity. It means therefore that the legislation is there, safety measures are in place, but people are not complying with the law and the consequence is that we have had outbreaks in the UK, France and Ireland and the one in the Netherlands is a direct result of the one in France. All of these outbreaks can be traced back to illegal activities, certainly in three countries and maybe in four.
Two people made reference to the EU taskforce and I know that Mr Hyland made that point earlier. It is something that consideration should be given to. I will take that up with my advisers and have further consideration of that subject. Mr Stevenson made a very important point in relation to vaccinations which was that Saudi Arabia vaccinates. There are a number of different countries in the world where foot-and-mouth disease is endemic and where vaccination is undertaken. But there continue to be outbreaks of other strains of foot-and-mouth disease in that country so that again a generalised policy of vaccination is not the answer. On the question of whether the restrictions will be lifted in the UK, already a restriction has been lifted in Northern Ireland where the circumstances were such as to warrant that particular response.
I was asked why zoos are being closed. I can only conclude that the reason for that is that it is an ultra-precautionary measure. I understand that elephants, camels, antelopes and giraffes apparently are susceptible to the disease. I expect that the zoo owners are responding by saying "well, we had better keep our zoos closed in those circumstances". I also understand that this issue is being discussed in the SVC this afternoon and I expect a decision will be adopted today which will set out the conditions for vaccination of zoo animals.
Mrs Corbey asked me if I believed the EU strategy was failing. I do not believe so because if you examine the spread on the continent of Europe at the moment, you have two cases in France, 12 in the Netherlands, 1 in Ireland. The restrictive measures that have been taken in Ireland, which is the country closest to the major outbreak in the UK, appear so far to be working and vaccination is not in place there. But stringent protective measures are, and to the extent that there has been one outbreak only, within a couple of miles of the outbreak in Northern Ireland, it seems that these strategies are operating.
Mr Watson then asked me to confirm when the Commission was informed of the outbreak by the UK and I can confirm that the Commission was informed on 20 February. The day the outbreak was known in the UK the Commission was informed immediately. There was certainly no question of the Commission being told anything prior to that date and as I said a moment ago, the Commission responded within a matter of hours at a meeting in the Commission.
In response to Mr Daul's question, I fully agree with him that we must look at the lessons of this outbreak for communicable human diseases.
Mrs Lucas made reference to the National Farmers Union. My understanding from my contacts with the National Farmers Union is that they do not want a policy of vaccination introduced in the UK. That is certainly the contact I have had with them most recently unless that view has changed in the meantime.
A number of you – indeed maybe everybody – spoke about vaccination and the case for there being a wider use of vaccination. Let me be very clear about this and repeat what I said earlier. The Commission does see a role for vaccination. I said this on a number of occasions when I was here before in Parliament and on other occasions and in other places. The word "firebreak" was probably first used by me in this Chamber. I have had this in my mind since the very beginning. This explains why it has already been approved as a preventive measure in the UK and in the Netherlands. However, the fact remains that no Member State has asked the Commission to authorise generalised preventive vaccination. Indeed there is a consensus against such an approach, as recently as the European Summit in Stockholm last week. This is in recognition of the limitations of vaccination which I have already outlined and will not repeat again.
Mr Campos then asked why we always have to rely on science? Why cannot we make the decision here today and get on with it? Since I have taken up this job, I have taken the view that I try as best I can to make decisions based on science. If we move away from that we are lost in my view. We then end up in a situation where we make decisions based on subjective analysis rather than objective criteria. That is not the way forward and I do not believe it is the appropriate way to deal with the situation such as this.
I agree with what Mr Whitehead said that there is a crisis with regard to the movement of animals, and even vaccinated animals can carry the infection. That is the point I was making earlier. It is a serious issue which must be taken into account when we consider the question of vaccination. It is not a simple issue of administering a vaccination to an animal as you would vaccinate a child, for example, against polio. It is something more complex and does not achieve anything like the same result.
Mr De Rossa also asked me about vaccination and I just ask the question: where do we vaccinate? If we want to introduce a vaccination policy in France, in the Netherlands or in Ireland where do you start? Is it to be generalised? Is it to be localised? How localised? What area? On what basis? At the moment we do have a localised form of vaccination authorised in two Member States. Is that satisfactory? Is that what you are saying? Do you want more? It is not quite so simple. If you ask the question in relation to vaccination without identifying exactly what you have in mind, I cannot really agree or disagree. But from what I have said already, you have probably gleaned that I agree with the policy of vaccination in some limited circumstances that I have already outlined, but not on a generalised widespread basis, also for the reason that I have already identified.
Finally, Mrs Keppelhoff-Wiechert said that in 1991 she took the view that there should be a policy of no vaccination but the time has come for us to revise our view. I agree, as I said some hours ago when I first addressed the House, that this is something we must look at after this crisis has passed. But it will have to be in circumstances where the vaccination that is available to us and the science available to us in this area are more refined, more focused, so that we can get the best possible result from introducing a vaccination policy. That avoids the risk of creating a situation where we have vaccinated animals but we do not know, when we examine them to see whether they are positive or negative, whether the reaction is a reaction to the vaccination or a reaction to the disease itself. We need science to assist us on this and when that happens we can make more progress.
Let me give you a specific example of these limitations which I take directly from the current situation. The original outbreak in the UK was in pigs. It then spread to sheep, some of which unfortunately were exported to other Member States before the virus was detected. It is this presence in sheep which has been the major vector in the spread of this virus. But vaccination in the EU, before the non-vaccination policy introduced in 1991, was confined to cattle. In other words, even if vaccination had been in place as it was before 1991 the major damage would still have occurred. The pigs in Heddon in England where the outbreak originated would still have been infected. They would still have cross-contaminated the sheep. Some of these sheep would still have been exported to France and to Ireland where they would have cross-contaminated calves in transit to the Netherlands. In other words, the outbreak in all four Member States, would almost certainly have occurred given the way it started.
In the event that you are not convinced, what if the animals had been vaccinated against the wrong strain of virus? It needs to be made very clear that the choice of vaccine is not dissimilar to a lottery as I said earlier. You might be lucky and choose the right one, but you are more likely to be unlucky and choose the wrong one – there are seven to choose from, each one with its own sub-types.
Yes, vaccination does have a role, but it is of the nature that I have already outlined, namely limited to use in well-defined circumstances to bring an outbreak under control. This might change if new and more effective vaccines are found, especially if a marker vaccine, which allows us to distinguish vaccinated from infected animals, is developed. We do not have that yet. Some people made that point earlier and they are perfectly right about that. I agree fully with that point. But until then we have to work with the limitations of the existing possibilities in this area.
Let me deal with some of the individual questions. Why is the Commission doing nothing in response to the experience in Africa and Argentina? They are not precedents for anything either. We have a situation in Argentina at the moment where they have had a vaccination policy in place in some areas and not in others, but it has spread to the other areas. Trade was allowed from the free areas. Trade is now stopped to the US, to the European Union and elsewhere so that is no answer. I agree that foot-and-mouth disease must be approached differently from BSE. It is in every respect quite a different issue.
Why do we not have suppressive vaccination which would lead to the final eradication of the disease? The questioner said he had major doubts about this. I said that the introduction of a vaccination now as a firebreak would have some limited effects in circumstances where it was not possible to kill or dispose of an animal within a short space of time. I said the vaccination would not be effective in a period shorter than 6 to 10 days. Mr Böge, I think, said 15 days and that may indeed be correct but it is certainly something in that area.
The point I am making here – and I said it earlier – is that animals are infective during that period. So if you think the answer to this problem is to administer a vaccination tomorrow to an animal that might be infected because it was in contact with another animal and then believe that animal is not in an infective state and leave it free to come into contact with other animals, you are running the enormous risk of spreading the disease right throughout the livestock. In my view that is an inadequate answer because it does not deal with all the situations that may arise. But it can occur in certain circumstances if you do it in the way that is being done in the Netherlands and is being considered in the UK. But it does require ring-fencing. It does require very severe surveillance and it can only operate in circumstances where it provides a form of firebreak to prevent the disease spreading further to the non-contaminated areas. I was asked to consider the reduction of milk quotas and that, of course, is an issue for my colleague, Franz Fischler, and I will mention to him that the issue was raised this afternoon in the Chamber.
It has also been suggested that the Commission acted too late. I can say with my hand on my heart that is not so. The information came to us on 20 February and we acted within a matter of 12 hours. There was in fact a Commission meeting the following day. We were told on Tuesday night. I brought this up in the Commission meeting on Wednesday. So to say that the Commission did not act promptly in my view is incorrect and unfair. The Commission did act very quickly on this issue."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples