Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-05-02-Speech-3-185"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010502.13.3-185"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Tonight could signal the end of two years of hard negotiations between Parliament, the Council and the Commission on the legal framework to combat transmissable spongiform encephalopathies. This is the first major piece of legislation to be adopted following the introduction of co-decision in relation to veterinary matters impacting on public health set out in the Amsterdam Treaty. It is both ironic and appropriate that it relates to BSE, as it was the BSE crisis which led to the introduction of co-decision in this area of community activity.
The debates we have had in Parliament on this subject since last November make this only too evident. It is vital, therefore, that this regulation enters into force as soon as possible. The Commission is therefore prepared to consider only amendments which would substantially improve the text or correct important weaknesses. Neither of the two proposed amendments falls, in my view, into these categories.
I cannot accept Amendment No 1 for reasons of substance also. This amendment, which had already been rejected in committee during first reading, proposes the right for BSE-free Member States to take unilateral action at their own discretion against the import of any live animal. This is against the principles of laying down Community rules. It is also superfluous, as one of the main objectives of the regulation is to create harmonised rules for the marketing of animals in view of BSE status.
Nor can I accept Amendment No 2 as it makes the establishment of an epidemiological picture of all Member States more difficult. This does not however prejudge future initiatives from the Commission on the basis of this regulation in the light of the experience gained particularly on the aid structure of the cases detected by the current screening, and this can be done by comitology.
Over 1.3 million tests were carried out on healthy animals aged over 30 months in the first three months of this year. These are in addition to the tests on fallen animals and at-risk animals. We are rapidly acquiring a hugely improved picture of the true incidence of BSE in the Community. If I see any reason in the light of this evidence to reduce the current age of testing, I will not hesitate to take the necessary proposals. I would also add, in this respect, that research continues on more sensitive tests than are currently available.
In conclusion, we are now very close to putting in place the proper legislative framework for the control of TSEs. It has taken much time and effort, but the text of the common position following considerable input of all three institutions provides a coherent set of rules and procedures for the future.
May I just comment briefly on some of the contributions made by some Members a moment ago. This particular proposal is compatible with the OIE international standards. Furthermore, let me say that I greatly welcome the views expressed by Mrs Paulsen when she made reference to the proposals on animal feed and, in particular, the bi-product legislation. Let me comment on Mrs Auroi's remarks on the testing of sheep: I should point out that I am bringing a proposal on random testing of sheep very shortly. In the draft decision, we have foreseen as a first step 170 000 tests on sheep from October 2000 for the first year.
I would like to pay particular thanks to Mrs Roth-Behrendt, the rapporteur, for her tireless work over the years in pursuing a coherent community approach to the control of TSEs. A great many of the key provisions of the Regulation under discussion result directly, or indirectly, from her personal commitment to putting in place a very strong framework to protect our citizens from the threat from TSEs and this is an objective I fully share and I want to join with Mr Phillip Whitehead in wishing Mrs Roth-Behrendt the very best for her stay in hospital over the next couple of days.
When we started our work on this proposal in late 1998, the majority of Member States considered themselves free of BSE. This was still the case in May 2000 when the initial opinion of Parliament, largely endorsed by the Commission, was adopted: The ensuing negotiations with Council remained blocked as Council could not agree on the proposed central role of a scientific assessment for the BSE classification of countries. However, after the adoption of new emergency measures for the Community-wide removal of specified risk materials and the introduction of rapid tests for BSE, a compromise on the legal framework came within reach. The provision for such a large-scale screening allowed Council to agree to classification by the Commission on the basis of the Scientific Steering Committee opinion provided it was verified by that screening.
At its first reading, Parliament proposed verification of the scientific risk assessment by statistically valid large-scale screening. In its amended proposal, the Commission proposed large-scale screening as a transitional measure for the changeover from the current uniform SRM rules to the classification-based rules of the regulation. These two elements allowed the Council to come to a political agreement on its common position in December 2000.
Apart from leading to the Council common position, the start of the large-scale screening at the end of 2000 had yet another effect: within days Germany detected BSE cases amongst healthy slaughter animals. Around the same time, Spain and Italy detected their first cases and a number of BSE cases detected in France also rose steadily. Consumer confidence dropped to a record low.
Faced with this crisis, the position of Council, Parliament and the Commission drew closer. Aware of the urgency of the matter and the need for a proper legal framework, in particular in relation to BSE eradication and imports from third countries, an informal trialogue took place prior to the Council adopting its common position. During this trialogue, a very solid basis for agreement between the three institutions emerged.
These were hard but very constructive negotiations proving that the three institutions can work together very constructively on key issues related to public health. The Council agreed to additional demands from Parliament increasing the number of tested animals. The Commission committed itself to introduce all new measures, adopted under safeguard procedures after the common position, into the regulation. The Commission also committed itself to take without delay all necessary initiatives under comitology after entry into force of the regulation. Consequently, the common position of Council was adopted by unanimity and endorsed by the Commission. This compares with the very sharp differences in approach in the past on BSE-related issues.
I would finally like to remind Parliament of its resolution of 16 November 2000 on BSE and the ban on animal proteins in animal feed. In this resolution, Parliament asked for several protection measures. These included a temporary suspension of the use of meat and bone meal, increasing testing in all Member States and rules for the control of scrapie. The TSE regulation, in its current form, provides the framework and, in many cases, the detailed rules for these measures.
Further amendments at second reading would, however, delay formal action upon this resolution. I trust that this House agrees with me on the need for the proper legal basis to be operational without delay and from what some of the speakers have already said, there appears to be a measure of agreement on that issue."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples