Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-05-02-Speech-3-180"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2001-05-02"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Transmissible spongiform encephalopathies2
dcterms:Language	"fr"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20010502.13.3-180"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2001-05-02-Speech-3-1812
lpv:speaker	lp:Danielle Auroi2
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; Committee on Women's Rights and Equal Opportunities (1999-07-22--2002-01-14)3 substitute; Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy (1999-07-22--2002-01-14)3 vice-chair; G/EFA (1999-07-20--2002-01-07)3 member; AGRI (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 member; Delegation to the EU-Czech Republic Joint Parliamentary Committee (1999-09-28--2002-01-14)3 unknown; Les Verts-Europe-Ecologie (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, what we should do, this evening especially, is to enable the remarkable report by Mrs Roth-Behrendt to be implemented as quickly as possible, in other words, to enable the measures to take effect from July. On the basis of scientific knowledge, which is increasing every day, I do believe that the two amendments that have been proposed to us are ambiguous and are more likely to slow down the implementation of these measures than to have a positive impact. My group, the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance, could conceivably support the first amendment, because classifying countries according to the number of suspected cases is a good approach and because the most crucial task is, above all, to monitor the infectious disease. Whether or not the countries that feel most vulnerable want to protect themselves, this is not necessarily a form of neo-protectionism. On the other hand, Amendment No 2 seems to be slightly excessive, seeking, on the pretext that animals under 24 months do not pose exactly the same problems as other animals, to eliminate the systematic use of rapid screening tests and to allow other countries, particularly Great Britain – the country that initiated this and the most affected – not to carry out systematic screening. If that is the intention behind the amendment, we in the Group of the Greens are totally opposed to it. Since this debate is evolving continually, I will add that, as Mrs Doyle has just said, we are asking ourselves questions about Canada or the United States. No country is today able to say that it is free from BSE or TSE and, more importantly, we should now have screening for sheep, since it is obvious today that the disease was definitely spread from them and that it is better to monitor this type of livestock, which can also pose the same problems that we have had with cattle."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph