Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-06-13-Speech-2-174"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060613.24.2-174"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
".
Mr President, I should like to thank the Members for a very interesting debate. Once again it has been confirmed that we have the same approach and that we see eye to eye on this issue.
As regards the issue of stockpiles, it is not just that some Member States object to the principle, but there is also reluctance by many Member States on the funding of the stockpile. We explained that it will not be a substitute for national stockpiles. On the contrary, in our options paper we have introduced a condition that, in order to be able to benefit, a Member State will have to prove that it has actually begun creating its own national stockpile. That would be a great relief, not only for the Member States that are still in the process of developing stockpiles, but for the neighbouring countries as well, and for the WHO. The WHO would not then have to worry about the European region, because we would take care of ourselves and our neighbours and the WHO could concentrate on other regions in greater need than us.
I totally agree with Mrs Grossetête, but I am afraid that was not the response we received. I was disappointed, but at the same time we have to be realistic. I do not want this debate to continue and then be used as an excuse for some Member States not to develop national stockpiles. Unless the Council changes the position, the Austrian Presidency, ‘challenges’ – if I can use the expression – the Member States to say they will be willing to review the position. It is important to emphasise that Member States will have to create their own national stockpiles.
I totally agree that this is a question of solidarity. To be realistic, if we cannot agree on the solidarity principle now, what is going to happen if there is a crisis and one Member State has to share its medicine with other Member States, with all the citizens feeling threatened? One of the weaknesses detected at the exercise last November was the unwillingness on the part of Member States to share medicine. We therefore need to establish solidarity now, when we can be more realistic in our approach than in a time of crisis. Then it can work in the way we would all wish. Nevertheless, we will try to coordinate the Member States and at least make sure that they take all the necessary steps for the sake of their individual citizens and European citizens in general. I will, as always, keep Parliament informed of every step we take.
Almost all aspects of the preparedness plans are generic in nature. That means that, when we prepare for a possible flu pandemic, we are preparing not just for the possibility of avian flu, but for any flu pandemic and, when it comes to it, for any health threat. Since they are mostly generic in nature, they can be used in any kind of health threat and they are therefore a good investment on the part of the Member States and the Community that will not go to waste. We should all pray that they do go to waste, that we do not have a health crisis and will never actually need to use them, but nevertheless it is a good investment in preparedness, both for natural pandemics and for bioterrorism.
We are much better prepared than we were last year or the year before. We have not yet reached the target and we can never actually say that we have. It is a continuous effort and there is always room for improvement, always a need to do more. Nevertheless, we have really come a long way, but we still have much to do. We still do not know a great deal about the specific virus. That is why we have invested so much in research into the specific avian flu virus and how it behaves. We have certain statistics, but given the areas where the virus usually occurs and is endemic, the reporting and monitoring is not as effective as in some other areas. We still lack data and will therefore be investing in this.
I will not go into the animal health side, since we had an opportunity to discuss that recently in this House. However, the basic policy of the European Union, as well as the world community, is to make sure that avian flu remains an animal disease. In order to do that, we have to eradicate and deal with it effectively at the animal level.
Cooperation is very important. We had the post-Beijing Conference in Vienna last week, where practical steps were discussed for implementing and fulfilling the pledges already made in Beijing. It is true that progress was slow. I am optimistic that things will speed up now. All the European Commission decisions required for the EUR 100 million pledged are in place now and it will start being spent on the various initiatives. The next meeting will be in Africa and will cover the problems of the region. I must remind you that the European Community has pledged money specifically for the African continent.
I agree that it is very important to have the involvement of all services. That is what we have done in our specific plan and that is what we encourage Member States to do in their own national plans. There should be a lead preparedness and response authority, but all services in each Member State and at Community level as well should be involved.
The interoperability of national plans is also very important and we have been working on that. I totally agree with those of you who raised the issue, for example, of borders closing. In the reality of the European Union, one Member State cannot close its borders or cancel flights from a specific place when we have the internal market and freedom of movement. We need cooperation and coordination. We have already set up the structures and mechanisms to achieve that at Community level. We have raised this issue at G8 level – international level – as well, proposing the ‘no first use’ principle, so that no G8 partner would close its borders and cancel flights without at least consulting the others in the group.
I take your point on the issue of the institutions. As you know, we have been working on continuity of Commission services. We have also asked Parliament to look into this matter, and will be working closely with Parliament’s services to ensure continuity within Parliament and its meetings and services.
Antivirals are certainly a debated issue. Antivirals are not a panacea, they are not a cure, they are the first line of defence and we have always said that. But as long as we do not have the pandemic virus, we will not have the pandemic vaccine which would be the basic defence. We are trying to shorten the period required to develop an approved licence and produce the vaccine, but we will need something in the meantime and antivirals are one solution."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples