Mr President, as a member of the Temporary Committee on Foot and Mouth Disease, I have a very high opinion of its final report, which Parliament is to discuss today. The rapporteur's drafting has made the final report fair and a polished piece of work. The advice given by experts to the many hearings was characterised by a consensus that the progress of this disease was to be resisted. Taking into consideration the fact that foot and mouth disease is present all over the world, continuing globalisation and deregulation, that is to say, the increase in worldwide trade, which is already very extensive, and in passenger traffic, mean that the European Union has to reckon with a growing danger of foot and mouth disease being introduced from infected areas. Whereas, formerly, three types of FMD were present across Europe, and successfully combated by means of ring-vaccination, Europe now faces the danger of the disease being imported from a wide variety of sources. The problem here is that – much as with influenza – vaccination only works if the vaccination is derived largely from the same strain as the disease. There is little point in prophylactic vaccination against virus strains, as it is impossible to know in advance which actual FMD virus is being brought in. What does make sense, on the contrary, is what is advocated in the report – the carrying-out of emergency vaccination in the event of an epidemic, which of course presupposes that it is possible to ascertain rapidly the actual strain of the disease involved. This position is a controversial one, but, in the absence of effective action against epidemics in the areas from which they come, and given the current state of research, I can see no alternative and no other option. I would emphasise that emergency vaccination is meant to help prevent foot and mouth disease from spreading. It is for that reason that my group has tabled a motion to the effect that a worldwide strategy to combat foot and mouth disease should be worked out among the FAO countries. What we demand of a policy came to us loud and clear in the many conversations we had with cattle farmers, with representatives of local authorities and associations, and with members of the public who were deeply unsettled and, in ethical terms, outraged. Associated with this is the necessity of using suitable measures to at last halt the burgeoning live animal transports across Europe. This is far from being only an animal protection issue; it is about preventing diseases. There are circumstances under which the Community must involve itself in national preventive strategies, as each EU country belongs to the common internal market and can maintain important relationships with third countries. All the Member States must be able to call upon the services of adequately qualified veterinary personnel in the prevention and treatment of animal diseases. Further scientific investigation is needed into issues associated with emergency vaccination against FMD and the continued use of inoculated animals. It is not possible to justify sending ten million animals to what is, at the end of the day, a senseless death, if ethically and economically preferable procedures are in the offing. My fifth point is that I expect the Commission to come up with proposals for better legal protection for the affected parties in order to compensate for the great financial losses and resultant damage in the regions. In conclusion, I would like to say that I would like great public awareness of the review of the common agricultural policy, and not only in the most arduous, and bleakest, times of crisis.

Political group: GUE-NGL