Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-05-14-Speech-3-245"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030514.10.3-245"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, speaking on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats, I should like to begin by complimenting the rapporteur highly on the way in which he has cooperated with the various groups and also on the very commendable result. This demonstrates that he has understood the great unease felt at past outbreaks. He has produced a very good report in response to the Commissioner’s legislative proposals. I should also like to thank the Commission and Commissioner Byrne for his speedy reaction to the own-initiative report of Parliament based on investigations we had carried out. He has adopted at least some points from this parliamentary report. This augurs well for good cooperation between the Commission and Parliament, in achieving, now and in the future, an effective approach to combating animal disease epidemics.
At the same time, Mr President, I must say on behalf of my group that the parliamentary investigation has taught us just how shattering the outbreak of animal diseases can be. We conducted an investigation into the epidemics of foot and mouth disease. We saw the consequence for animals and humans alike but we also saw the secondary results. The health problems that are still occurring in places hit by foot and mouth, the huge economic loss but also people’s distress and all its attendant problems demonstrate that we can no longer view these animal diseases as a technical question but must emphatically also look at the social consequences.
It cannot be denied that the risks of infectious animal diseases are growing in a world where borders are becoming increasingly transparent and where there is ever more international trade. I need only make passing reference to the outbreak of SARS to indicate the degree of panic it can generate. We must be fully aware that, if we have opted for a non-vaccination policy, the risks of infectious animal diseases will increase. We want to keep animals outside, we want to see cows in the fields, and we want to see chickens and pigs ranging freely. That does mean, though, an increased risk. In addition there are also the international risks of more transport, more international trade. That means that we cannot leave the consequences solely at the door of the farmers but must as politicians reflect on how we can tackle these risks in future. In that respect, the Kreissl-Dörfler report is a good initial step. If there is a new outbreak we can then at least ensure that through a fundamental change of policy, perhaps also through vaccination, we can achieve a much more effective approach to and control of a number of epidemic animal diseases, in this case foot and mouth disease.
Regarding that fundamental change of policy, namely the provision of more options for Member States, more options for the Commission and most definitely the use of vaccination to keep an outbreak in check, it is of the utmost importance to look at how we can subsequently control the secondary effects and their repercussions. There are a number of important questions. To begin with – and so far the Commission has not yet been totally clear about this – how are we to deal with those indirectly affected by future outbreaks? Secondly, how can we ensure that there is a maximum market for products from the moment that prophylactic vaccination is used and the animals survive? Naturally the legislation permits us to sell our products on the European market under certain conditions but as regards the supermarket chains we are left with question marks. How are we to deal with this? What is our role as politicians in the process, and what is the role of the Commission?
A third question is, how can we ensure that these kinds of outbreaks are translated internationally in trade relations? In that field I should point out that the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats has submitted an amendment – I tabled it on behalf of Mr Böge and a number of other members of our group, in which we call urgently on the Commission to look at what the rapporteur has said, namely that it is crucial that in the international field the length of export bans following an outbreak be reduced from six to three months. That is absolutely crucial to our approach in the European Union, and this approach can only be successful if, internationally too, we see the opportunity of reducing the period from six to three months. We urge the Commission to achieve this through negotiation. I should like to hear the Commissioner’s response to this point.
Mr President, I am glad that we have been able to take a step forward regarding the combating of foot and mouth disease. At the same time I say this with mixed feelings, now that in my own country, but also our neighbours, Germany and Belgium, the spectre of fowl pest has reared its head. Once again I appeal to the Commission to examine how we can take social responsibility for those major animal diseases, such as fowl pest, such as swine fever, and in this case foot and mouth, in order to arrive at a coherent policy. But, once again, the Group of the European People’s Party is glad that we have managed to take a first step in relation to this foot and mouth dossier."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples