Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-05-14-Speech-3-247"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030514.10.3-247"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, at the height of the 2001 outbreak of foot and mouth disease the Group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party formulated three principles: how can we prevent such outbreaks from recurring, what are we to do if there is another outbreak and how can we pay for such outbreaks in future?
On the first point: better border controls. We have heard that the Commission has issued new guidelines. I have paid particular attention when arriving back in Europe from time to time from another continent. To be honest, despite the newly announced measures I have not yet been able to detect much change. What exactly were the new measures?
What are we to do if there is another outbreak? We took the view that the mass culling of healthy stock is not acceptable in future, which is why we fully support the conclusions of the report that prophylactic vaccination must be used. We went even further. In 2001 we submitted an amendment to the budget to ensure that the Commission was able to carry out research into better vaccines, marker vaccines against foot and mouth disease. We did not limit ourselves to foot and mouth disease by the way. It could extend to all infectious animal diseases.
It is particularly disappointing to note that as of now, some two years after the amendment was submitted and carried, the Commission has still not begun this research. We are constantly given different explanations. It will happen. But it still has not happened. I should like to know why.
Another point: what is to be done with the products of vaccinated animals? That strikes me as a huge problem. This has already been said by Mrs Corbey and by Mr Maat. The probability is that it will be more difficult to sell the products of those vaccinated animals, and that it will be at a reduced price. Will that also be covered by future compensation schemes, yes or no? What is the Commission proposing to do in this respect?
Third point: how are we to pay for such outbreaks in future? In that respect we were lucky with the outbreak in 2001. There was sufficiency leeway in the agriculture budget. If calculations are correct there is considerably less slack in the agriculture budget. The euro is strong against the dollar and there will be very little leeway. If there were a new outbreak now, how would we pay for it? This was in fact why the Liberal Group submitted an amendment in 2001 calling for studies to be carried out in to insurance systems. In that respect the Commission
do its work. At the end of May we shall have a report on the subject. As rapporteur for the 2004 budget I myself made it one of my priorities. It is not acceptable that we should always leave the financing of such outbreaks to chance, according to whether there is money available or not. It must be put on a sound financial footing. I hope to be able to work that out in future in consultation with the Commission.
The point about six months and three months is also essential for us and I therefore recommend that the plenary should accept the amendment of the Liberal and Christian Democrat groups on this."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples