Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-10-22-Speech-2-040"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20021022.1.2-040"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, these reports deal with very important issues, and I compliment both rapporteurs. The whole debate on pharmaco-vigilance versus the compulsory five-year review, and the question of whether to centralise the registration procedure or keep the centralised, national and mutual recognition procedures is critical. With certain necessary changes, we have almost got it right. It is very important that all citizens have equal access to state-of-the-art drugs, regardless of where they live in Europe. It is either a single market or it is not.
The same applies to Irish cattle. It is very important that they should have access to the same veterinary medicines as UK cattle, but at the moment they do not.
We need to get the balance right with access to generic medicines and innovation and research and the needs of the pharmaceutical companies. This also applies to the Commission proposal on POM, prescription only medicines. I would ask the Commissioner to take on board the compromise suggested by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, which gets the balance right in this area, because the Commission proposal has caused major problems in many countries, particularly the UK and Ireland.
The MRL regulation of 1990 came into force in 1992, and there was a derogation for many countries until 1 January 2000. This resulted in hundreds of veterinary medicine products being removed from the market and huge welfare problems in Europe for minor animal species – including horses – for many years. Industry needs to be allowed to place on the market equine veterinary products that do not have MRLs, to be used according to the cascade principle, with a record of treatment and exclusion from the food chain. Amendment No 65 is necessary, as it ties this principle, which was endorsed by the Committee on the Environment's Amendment No 10, to the passport decision 2000/68/EEC, which amends Decision 93/623/EEC.
I would ask Commissioner Liikanen to look particularly at the passport decision 2000/68/EEC. We must be consistent here. As well as listening to the able people in the DG, please listen to the veterinary experts in the field and in research. No consumer wants to inflict unnecessary pain and suffering on animals for the sake of the food chain, or make criminals of our vets. We have made mistakes here before. Please be careful."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples