Mr President, the history of foot and mouth disease in Europe can be traced back over many years, but the great catastrophe began in the South of England on 21 February 2001. Although it had been known for decades what damage could be caused by the uncontrolled outbreak of a disease, the opportunity for effective defence against the epidemic was not taken. The courses of action set in motion in the Member States affected were unable to prevent the spread of the virus. The state of emergency that was then announced in various regions of the EU left both the rural and urban public equally enraged. Rural areas began to resemble high-security blocks, and a sort of state of emergency was the order of the day on the farms that had been affected. At this time, there was no shortage of ideas as to who was to blame. The EU’s ban on vaccination, which adhered to the principle that, if even only one animal was vaccinated, the whole country was declared to be infected with FMD, met with little approval on the part of the public, and even well-informed officials demanded at the time the use of what are termed marker vaccines in order to prevent the disease from becoming more widespread. Many members of the public saw the containment of foot and mouth disease by means of the open burning of animal cadavers as demonstrating complete disregard for animals’ dignity, and nor did the bottom line add up in economic terms. By doing justice to this principle, the report on the control of foot and mouth disease draws the right conclusions from the calamity of 2001, and has, moreover, been able to confirm the results produced by the work of the committee of investigation. This is an encouragement to the same course of action in other cases, such as that of fowlpest, a constantly-recurrent disease that spreads from one country to its neighbours, one of the main problems with which is the large number of contacts across frontiers. Then – if you go by what the press says – there is the great danger of fowlpest, like foot and mouth disease, becoming even worse than a worst-case scenario. The principle of ‘killing rather than vaccination’ or rather its opposite, should, in the EU, apply to all animal species. It would be worth Parliament’s time and effort to investigate that more closely, examining, for example, whether the German ordinance to prevent the spreading of classic fowlpest is in line with what is actually known and whether all species should be included in the text. It would also be possible to re-examine how cross-border cooperation is actually organised. As far as FMD is concerned, all is quiet in the candidate countries, but I would like to take this opportunity to observe that this state of affairs can change rapidly. Any and every misjudgment in the area of controlling zoonoses and the early diagnosis of them has economic and social consequences. The report was quite right in stating what had to be done, and the work has been a support. I endorse the report and the proposals it makes; above all, I endorse those amendments that have to do with the protection of the fundamental right to property, and which lead the report to emphatically hold fast to some sort of compensation arrangement for those affected. I also endorse those amendments that seek to increase the freedom of action of veterinarians and the steering bodies in the Member States. In so far as the Member States’ responsibilities will change at all, they will increase, as the decision as to which epidemic strategy is to be applied, and when, is to become a matter for the country in question, and rightly so. This does not discharge those who keep animals from their obligation of cleanliness and good order. Criminal activity in border areas involving the trade in animals belongs in another law, but the report sets out the right approach to this, too.

Political group: GUE-NGL