Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-11-30-Speech-3-151"

PredicateValue (sorted: default)
rdf:type
dcterms:Date
dcterms:Is Part Of
dcterms:Language
lpv:document identification number
"en.20051130.14.3-151"2
lpv:hasSubsequent
lpv:speaker
lpv:spokenAs
lpv:translated text
". Mr President, if there is one country in the European Union that knows what bird flu is, then I think it is the Netherlands. I am encouraged by what the Commissioner had to say. I think that they have learnt a great deal. I should like to thank both rapporteurs, Mr Parish and Mrs Figueiredo, for the hard work they have done. Needless to say, the Committee on Budgets is mainly concerned with the financial side of things, but that has not stopped it from mainly speaking out in favour of the first option that would take effect in the event of an outbreak, namely to give priority to renewed vaccination. In that respect, the Budgetary Committee has tabled two amendments for the 2006 budget relating to studies into the development of better vaccines and better testing methods and into the role of migratory birds in the spread of bird flu. We hope that the Commission will launch these studies as soon as possible and will not wait until the end of the year. One of the major budgetary problems is that the agricultural budget will, in future, be stretched. Not that we would wish it, but it is to be expected that one day, we will face another outbreak of an infectious disease, whether it be bird flu or foot and mouth disease or some other, and money from the European budget will need to be made available to deal with it. The question is whether there is money in the kitty; there may well not be any, and so we think the Commission should, as a matter of urgency, continue looking into the possibility of a European animal health fund. The Budgetary Committee’s second concern is that at the moment, half of compensation is accounted for by the European budget, while the other half is made up by the Member States. The way in which this latter 50% is raised varies from country to country. In some countries, the farmers pay; in others, they do not. This is not what we would call a level playing field, and the Commission should look into this."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

1http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/English.ttl.gz
2http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/Events_and_structure.ttl.gz
3http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/spokenAs.ttl.gz

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph