Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-12-02-Speech-4-024"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2004-12-02"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Annual report of the Court of Auditors – 20032
dcterms:Language	"nl"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20041202.4.4-024"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2004-12-02-Speech-4-0252
lpv:speaker	lp:Albert Jan Maat2
lpv:spokenAs	member; PECH (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)3 member; EPP-ED (2004-07-20--2007-04-09)3 substitute; Delegation to the EU-Chile Joint Parliamentary Committee (2004-09-15--2007-04-09)3 substitute; BUDG (2004-07-22--2007-01-14)3 substitute; CONT (2004-07-22--2007-01-14)3 substitute; DROI (2004-09-28--2007-01-14)3 unknown; Christen Democratisch Appèl (2004-07-20--2007-04-09)3 vice-chair; Delegation to the EU-Kazakhstan, EU-Kyrgyzstan and EU-Uzbekistan Parliamentary Cooperation Committees, and for relations with Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Mongolia (2004-09-20--2007-03-14)3 member; AGRI (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, when I say that the Court of Auditors’ Annual Report is a sound tool for Parliament, that is also a compliment to its outgoing President. Before I go into the report in more detail, though, I have two political comments to make. Both the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe and the Socialist Group in the European Parliament have commented on agricultural policy. I will not deny that things may go wrong from time to time where payments are concerned, but it could never be the intention that the industry should suffer when the Commission or a Member State fails to do things properly and according to the rules. The way it is implemented can never be a reason for re-opening an attack on European agricultural policy with its high standards on food safety, the environment and animal welfare. I should like to home in on one specific point in the report, namely the EU’s animal disease policy. The Court of Auditors is right in saying that the abolition of the non-vaccination policy in the early 90s was based on assumptions. Those assumptions have changed dramatically. The number of slaughterhouses has fallen drastically and the number of cattle transported has grown exponentially. As far back as 1998, the FAO warned the Commission of the implications of this and of the possible spread of animal diseases. I notice that the Commission has done virtually nothing with these warnings. Under pressure from the interim FMD committee, legislation in the field of FMD was changed to some extent, but still not in compliance with the recommendations of the FAO or the OIE – the International Office for infectious animal diseases. This is where a far more dynamic approach on the part of the Commission really would do justice to the Court of Auditors’ report. There are three things that the Commission should tackle. First of all, it needs to ensure that the non-vaccination policy is reviewed and that vaccination becomes the norm, which is also laid down worldwide in line with the OIE’s requirements. Secondly, it has to be implemented in a uniform way in each Member State. Thirdly, the whole to-do about European regulations, including with regard to the payment of slaughter premiums, should never again stand in the way of this policy’s implementation."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph