Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-09-06-Speech-4-154"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010906.8.4-154"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, in this outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease, there are technical areas of shadow, political certainties and strategic questions.
First of all regarding the areas of shadow, how, far from the known endemic sources – Turkey, Asia and Thrace in Europe – how has foot-and-mouth disease, and its virus, managed to reach Great Britain, an island? Perhaps by swimming? Why this dogmatic refusal of a vaccine that is nevertheless effective. In 1950, before the obligatory vaccination between 1961 and 1991, France had up to 300 000 sources of infection per year, which disappeared with the obligatory vaccination. Why, in the same country, have we had the foot-and-mouth virus and the prion for mad cow disease?
So many questions that lead to political certainties, if not lessons. In both cases, BSE and foot-and-mouth disease, the British authorities have reacted late and have been overwhelmed, because the ultra liberalism of the Thatcher years left only 220 vets compared with 8 000 in France. Just as for a developing country, Australia, Canada and even the French army had to send vets to Great Britain. A lack of vets and no epidemic monitoring, which is why the disease spread. It was also ultra liberalism that led to abattoirs being closed and meant that, from Carlisle, Hadrian’s Wall and Northumberland, sheep are taken to the south and the virus is spread. The virus is spread across Great Britain and, following the removal of borders, it is also spread across France. Freedom of movement is freedom of contamination.
The third certainty, demonstrated in an investigation report from the French Parliament in June 2001: it was illegal purchases, at knock-down prices – less than 90 euros per sheep for the Muslim feast of Eid-el-Kabir – which led to the spread of the virus.
Along with these certainties, however, there are questions for the Commission; and it is good that it should be Mr Lamy, the strategist, who is here. First of all, does the compensation system in Great Britain not end up becoming a bonus for contamination? The impression was given that the beneficial compensation meant that people perhaps had an interest in having contaminated animals. All the more so given that, collectively, four million animals were slaughtered, the majority of which were sheep, means that the surpluses will be drained. And finally, does New Zealand, the leading world exporter, not have an interest in seeing its potential market share in Europe increase as animals are slaughtered? And my God, if Anglo-Saxons were able to come to an understanding on the Echelon Treaty, they can exchange favours. For me, Great Britain, excessive individual compensation, for you, New Zealand, the possibility of more exports. The Cairns group would be happy. Doha would be a success. It would be good if Mr Lamy could clarify this for us."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples