Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-12-17-Speech-2-013"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20021217.1.2-013"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, I wish to congratulate the rapporteur on his report, which is extremely important. It is vital that Parliament gives a very strong signal that vaccination should be a tool of first resort in any future outbreak. I am very glad that our committee has come to that conclusion. I am also glad that we support a change in the law so that there is no automatic incentive to slaughter rather than to vaccinate. We recognise that in Britain over ten million animals were slaughtered – many unnecessarily – because of the overriding priority that was given to the narrow economic goal of regaining export status as quickly as possible.
It is right and proper that we make constructive proposals for the future handling of foot and mouth outbreaks. However, it is also right – where it is called for – that we are strongly critical of the past handling of foot and mouth outbreaks. I, therefore, disagree with the rapporteur that it is inappropriate and unjustified to criticise the UK Government. Such criticism reflects the evidence we heard, and if we do not learn from the past, there is no guarantee of any better action in the future. For that reason, I am saddened by attempts from the British Government to water down this report, to rewrite history and effectively to whitewash the past.
Amendments by the PSE Group follow closely the briefing that all UK MEPs have received from the British Government, that argues, for example, that there is no evidence for allegations of violations of animal welfare. That is untrue. I would remind them of evidence given by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals to the National Audit Office inquiry, which says: 'In many cases there was very good circumstantial evidence that an offence had been committed.' The government says that a veterinary inspector worked closely at every slaughter. In fact there was often one vet supervising
slaughters simultaneously – an impossible thing to do. The government denies that farmers were intimidated in connection with the culls and it asks for evidence. We have evidence in plenty. I would remind them that the committee went to Knowstone in Devon precisely to gather that kind of information.
They allege that the lessons learnt in the inquiry show that the contiguous cull was effective in curbing the disease – again, untrue. The National Audit Office demonstrated that the epidemic had already peaked before the contiguous cull policies could have had any effect. They allege that the firebreak or pre-emptive culling was legal – again, not true. It is made very clear in the UK's new contingency plan that firebreak or pre-emptive culling requires 'the passage of the new animal health bill'. That bill had not been passed last year and, therefore, such provision did not exist for legally enforceable mandatory firebreak culls.
People would have a lot more respect for this government if it could just bring itself to admit that it got things wrong. It matters, because for as long as it does not admit that, then there can be no guarantee that in the event of another outbreak the government will not act in the same way again. I hope that our report is one step in the process of ensuring that such devastation can never be allowed to happen again in the United Kingdom or anywhere in the European Union."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"ten"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples