Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-05-14-Speech-3-260"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030514.10.3-260"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
". – Following my presentation of the Commission’s proposal on Community measures for the control of FMD to the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, I was very pleased to learn that Mr Kreissl-Dörfler had been appointed rapporteur for this dossier.
In the report of the Committee on Agriculture, 48 amendments are proposed. The Commission can, in fact, agree with 47 out of the 48 amendments tabled.
The Commission cannot agree to Amendment No 32 which, although in line with the report of the Scientific Committee of 1999, is against the current rules of the OIE. I would however add that the Commission’s proposal provides for rapid adaptation, should the OIE recommendations be modified.
On the additional amendments tabled for this plenary session, the Commission can accept Amendments Nos 51, 52 and 53 in part.
In the international framework, the Commission is committed to addressing, at every suitable opportunity, the issue of regionalisation policy and to contribute to adaptation of the OIE Animal Health Code to reflect scientific and technological progress. To proceed unilaterally would block international trade of EU animals and their products. In this regard we hope to make progress within the next week at the General Session of the OIE.
Before concluding let me address one issue of particular concern – that of veterinary funding. The proposal before us today does not address Community rules on the veterinary funds because the principles of our control policy have not changed. Furthermore, a study on a possible future animal health insurance scheme is well advanced but not yet completed.
Finally, I would like to address some of the questions raised by a number of Members such as Mrs Corbey, who asked who is responsible for FMD vaccination. That responsibility rests with the Member States. However, as a matter of prudence, the Member States are advised to inform and get clearance from the Commission before embarking on this for a number of reasons, not least funding for compensation and also to ensure that there is an agreement with other Member States in the event of cross-border trade. She asked me how we could ensure that supermarkets sell meat from vaccinated animals. It is true to say that there is no law requiring the labelling of meat from vaccinated animals, but there is a requirement in respect of the stamping of carcasses of fresh meat but not in respect of other products. This is an issue that needs to be addressed but I cannot see how this can be dealt with by regulation. It is a matter for the free market.
Regarding Mr Mulder's question regarding insurance, this is being undertaken. Work has been done and a report is anticipated.
Mr Whitehead asked me about research on vaccines. I can assure him that work has been undertaken under the DG Research programme. There will be a report on that issue in due course.
I thank Members for the speed with which they have delivered their opinion, thus paving the way for these new provisions on the control of FMD to come into force as soon as possible.
This prudent appointment ensured that the highly-valued expertise on FMD acquired by the temporary committee has been directly incorporated into your assessment of the proposed FMD directive.
At this stage, I should like to pay tribute to the officials in my own office
I do not normally do this
and point to the quick response of those, one of whom is here this evening, who, on that fateful night in February 2001, when informed by the competent authorities in the UK of this outbreak, at 9.30 p.m., were in a position to make sure that the competent authorities of all other Member States were aware of the outbreak by 10.30 p.m. Their quick reaction contributed considerably to the containment of this disease. This is true in circumstances where we deal with communicable diseases, whether animal or human diseases. A fast response is of critical importance. Containment saves the situation considerably.
Not surprisingly, the Commission’s FMD proposal has prompted vigorous debate amongst all interested parties.
The proposal has been subject to in-depth analysis in the technical expert working groups chaired by the Greek Presidency in the Council.
The overall opinion emerging from various discussions has been positive. The Commission has received wide support for the general policy laid down in this proposal, not least because it is a carefully considered, pragmatic reform, rather than a revolution.
The Commission notes with satisfaction the general support of this House for the increased emphasis on emergency vaccination. This has also attracted the broad support of Member States.
I note, however, that some Members would have liked us to go even further in this regard, but to do so would have compromised the fundamental elements of choice and flexibility that we are aiming to promote.
We agree that disease preparedness must be enhanced and that contingency plans should be based on a worst-case scenario. In addition, and perhaps more importantly, contingency plans must be regularly reviewed and subject to critical analysis through carefully prepared and realistic exercises."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples