Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-06-14-Speech-4-206"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010614.12.4-206"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
". – Thank you, honourable Members. I wish to thank the rapporteur, Mrs Redondo Jiménez and the Agriculture Committee for the report on the proposal for a Council directive on Community measures for the control of classical swine fever. The main purpose of the Commission proposal is to update the existing control provisions on swine fever, so as to take into account the most recent knowledge and experience acquired in controlling its agent. The proposal also takes account of the development of new diagnostic tools and vaccines, and of the opinions given by the Scientific Committee on these issues.
On the other hand, the Commission can accept entirely or partially, a number of amendments. In these cases, drafting changes are also needed. These concern not only some technical aspects of the directive, like disinfection of holdings, or other contaminated materials and sampling of suspected pigs, but also some more substantial and sensitive issues, like marker vaccination and the introduction of a ban on feeding pigs with catering waste. On this last issue, I can only add to what I have already said in this Chamber last Tuesday, during the debate on the regulation of animal by-products, that the Commission is committed to ensure consistency between this directive and that regulation.
In summary, the Commission can accept the following amendments in full or in part and subject to necessary drafting changes: Amendments Nos 1, 9-11, 14, 19, 27, 31 and 32. The Commission cannot accept Amendments Nos 2-8, 12, 13, 15-18, 20-26, 28-30 and 33-37. To conclude, ladies and gentlemen, I wish once again to thank Madam Redondo and the Agriculture Committee for the excellent report and their support.
This House is well aware that in 1997/1998, a major outbreak of classical swine fever occurred in several Member States. This crisis led the Commission to review Community legislation on this issue and to look at the possibility of introducing provisions on the use of the so-called marker vaccines as an additional tool against the disease in case of emergency. The urgency for this review has been added to by the worrying outbreak in the United Kingdom last year, and today there is confirmation of an outbreak in the region of Lérida in Catalonia, Spain.
The Commission has immediately taken a decision, in full consultation with the Spanish authorities, to impose restrictions on exports from this region. This decision will be reviewed at a meeting of the Standing Veterinary Committee, scheduled for this week. The decision taken today has immediate effect until 30 June and will be reviewed in the meantime. Before standing up in this debate, I had a brief telephone conversation on this matter with the Spanish Minister for Agriculture. A single farm is concerned, and I am happy to say that he informed me that all of the animals moved from that farm before confirmation had been slaughtered. However, we must remain particularly vigilant in relation to this issue. The situation will need to be followed up very closely, and I will be happy to keep Parliament informed of developments.
Returning to the current proposal, and marker vaccination in particular, the Commission financed specific trials and research projects. By means of this research very valuable information was obtained. It has been essential for the Commission in drawing up its proposal and cautiously paving the way for the potential use of these vaccines. Clearly, their use can only be envisaged in an emergency situation and once laboratory tests are available to discriminate between vaccinated and infected animals. Here I must emphasise the importance of the efficacy of the tests, as distinct from the marker vaccinations themselves.
Encouragingly, Parliament's Agriculture Committee, the Economic and Social Committee, the Committee of the Regions and the Member States, largely support the Commission's approach to this sensitive issue. This contrasts with the situation a few years ago, when quite different opinions were expressed by the experts themselves. This reminds us of the importance of scientific investigation, so that informed answers can be given to technically complex matters such as this. Indeed, I am aware that in preparing her report, Mrs Redondo organised an interesting and important hearing in the Agricultural Committee attended by swine fever experts from different Member States to better understand the progress made on this issue after the outbreak from 1997/1998.
The report of Madame Redondo largely supports the main aspects of the Commission proposal and of course, I am obviously very pleased about this. However, allow me to address in detail the amendments, which have been proposed. I will begin with the amendments the Commission cannot accept. The Commission cannot accept Amendments Nos 2 to 5, 26, 28 and 30, as they go beyond the scope of this directive. I understand that the recent FMD crisis has prompted Parliament to raise some horizontal problems related to animal health, which certainly need to be addressed. The report deals for example with the implementation of controls on imports of live animals and products, traceability, financing of costs related to animal diseases and future animal health problems, which may emerge in relation to enlargement. I share the concern of the Parliament. But these complex issues cannot be addressed in this directive.
I have already informed this Assembly that the Commission will address those issues before the end of the year in a separate legal framework. The Commission cannot accept Amendments Nos 6 to 8, 12, 16 to 18, 22, 24, 25 and 29, which contain certain technical details of relatively minor importance, for which the Commission considers the text of its proposal more suitable. Amendment No 15 concerns the establishment of Community financed market support measures, in case of prolonged standstill of pigs in holdings kept under movement restrictions due to an outbreak of swine fever. The Commission cannot accept this amendment, as such decisions must be taken on a case-by-case basis. The legal basis for doing so already exists in the framework of the common market organisation for pig meat. This mechanism demonstrated its efficiency and there is no need for further legal provisions in this regard. Amendments Nos 20 and 21 concern the role of different authorities in the control of classical swine fever in wild boar.
The Commission cannot accept these amendments, as it is for the Member States to ensure that all authorities potentially involved in the control of the disease are given a proper role. Their co-ordination must be guaranteed to ensure proper eradication. Amendment No 23 concerns the introduction of an article on the potential use of marker vaccines. As I have already said, the Commission and Parliament agree on this important issue. The Commission however cannot accept this amendment, as its proposal already includes comprehensive provisions on marker vaccines. However, we will take into account Parliament's remarks in a new recital.
Amendments Nos 20 and 29 concern the legal status of the classical swine fever diagnostic manual, which the Commission intends to adopt. After the adoption of this directive, following the opinion of the Standing Veterinary Committee, the report suggests including this manual as part of the directive itself. The Commission feels that this could create confusion from a legal point of view and thus cannot accept these amendments. However, some modifications will be introduced in the text to reinforce the concept but the manual must be an essential part of Community legislation on swine fever. Amendments Nos 24 and 25 note the need for some transitional provisions on contingency plans, which are indeed already in Article 28 of the proposal. While the Commission shares the views of the Parliament, it cannot accept these amendments."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples