Resumption of the session President I declare resumed the session of the European Parliament adjourned on Friday, 19 April 1996. Tribute President Ladies and gentlemen, it is my sad duty to inform you of the death of Mr Robert Hersant on 21 April 1996. Mr Hersant was chairman of the Robert Hersant press group. From 1956 to 1978 he was a member of the French National Assembly. In the direct elections of 1984, 1989 and 1994 Mr Hersant was elected to the European Parliament and was a member of the Group of the European People's Party in this House. He was a member of the Committee on Social Affairs and Employment. Our sympathy goes to his family, his parliamentary group and all his friends. I now ask you to rise for one minute to honour his memory. (Parliament rose and observed one minute's silence) McNally Mr President, I wish to raise a point of order under Rule 102(2). Yesterday, as on many previous occasions, there was no interpretation into or out of Finnish or Swedish in the Committee on Research, Technological Development and Energy, despite the fact that a member of the committee from Finland was presenting a report and had to deal with very detailed amendments. As an English speaker, I condemn this discourtesy to other Members of Parliament. It is very discriminatory that they should be forced to present their views in a foreign language. I urge you, Mr President, to ensure in future that where a Member has to present a report they are able to do so in their own language even if this means taking interpreting staff from another committee for the period concerned. The committee views this with the greatest concern. All speakers in this Parliament are entitled to speak in their mother tongue whether that language is spoken by many or by few. Macartney Mr President, I want to say something about the celebration of an important day tomorrow, i.e. Schuman Day, Europe Day or Peace in Europe Day. All across Europe this will be celebrated by the flying of the European Flag except in Scotland where the Secretary of State for Scotland, a British Government Minister, has forbidden the flying of the European Flag from British Government buildings and has tried to prevent the distribution of Europe Day materials to schools. This Parliament should know about this and if you ask why is he doing this, it is because of the beef crisis. He is trying to make Europe the scapegoat for his own inadequacies in representing the Scottish beef industry. However, I am glad to tell the House that local authorities right across Scotland will be flying the flag in defiance of that ban. Miller Mr President, following on from Mr Macartney's comments, I would like to report that Mr Forsyth, while refusing to fly the European flag from public buildings in Scotland, has a party of Scottish Office officials visiting this Parliament to learn more about the European Union and the workings of Parliament. I suspect he has sent these officials over here to fly the flag. President Gentlemen, let us call a halt to this debate. I can assure you that the European Parliament will not be influenced by the comments of the British Secretary of State for Scotland. Florio Mr President, I should like to raise a point of order pursuant to Rule 28(2); in November 1995 I sent you a question within the meaning of Rule 28(2) of the Rules of Procedure on the building policy in Brussels, asking you whether, in particular, the Brussels Bench had been contacted by the presidency with regard to Parliament's buildings policy. You replied to me more than four months later - which is well outside the period of thirty days - not giving me any answer at all on this point but simply combining two questions to which you had already replied previously and not giving me any answer with regard to the specific point I had raised. I think this is an infringement of the Rules of Procedure, though probably not intentional. To be clear I should like to say that the question I have in mind is No 14975 of 10 November 1995. I would ask you, Mr President, to explain why no reply has ever been given to the questions concerning in particular the buildings policy in Brussels which has aroused, and continues to arouse, many doubts in this House. President I shall look into that, Mr Florio. Welcome President Ladies and gentlemen, 46 years ago tomorrow, on 9 May 1950, Robert Schuman, who was then the French Foreign Minister, made a historic declaration. On the basis of that declaration the European Communities were then founded and subsequently developed into today's European Union. That is why it gives me special pleasure to turn to the gallery today and bid a very warm welcome to the ten prizewinners in the Robert Schuman essay competition organized by the Group of the European People's Party. Each of you has written an outstanding essay on the subject 'Europe as I know it today and the Europe in which I want to live tomorrow' . I should like to offer my sincere congratulations on your excellent achievement and to express the hope that you are spending an interesting and thought-provoking day here in the European Parliament. (Applause) Urgent political matters President The next item is the statement by the Commission on urgent political matters of major importance. I call Mr Fischler, Member of the Commission. Fischler Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to thank you very much for the opportunity to report on the latest steps in the effort to end this BSE crisis that affects all of us. I wish to confine my report to the developments that have taken place since my previous report to the House. Let me highlight especially the conclusions adopted by the Council of Agricultural Ministers on 29 and 30 April. First of all, the Council reaffirmed that the ban on exports from the United Kingdom to other countries of the European Union and to third countries is a transitional measure and that its gradual lifting depends on the implementation of those measures introduced, or yet to be introduced, in Britain to combat BSE, and I am thinking here of the so-called additional slaughter programme. Secondly, the Commission, in collaboration with the Member States, carried out an inspection visit to the United Kingdom from 22 to 24 April 1996. The inspection report gives a basic seal of approval to the measures taken in Britain but also indicates that various measures have not yet been implemented to the required extent and that there are particular shortcomings with regard to the identification of animals. Thirdly, the United Kingdom has submitted an additional programme of selective slaughter. This programme was subjected to technical scrutiny during the Council meeting, and the Commission, to which the elements of this proposal had been presented beforehand, took the view that there is essentially no recognizable alternative to the programme but that it is also necessary, of course, to discuss any technical additions to this programme in the Standing Veterinary Committee. These talks in the Standing Veterinary Committee are taking place this very day. The main issue there is how to include in the selective programme those herds in which numerous cases of BSE have occurred. The slaughter programme proposed by Portugal was also considered and acknowledged, and the Standing Veterinary Committee was asked to discuss this programme further and approve a final version. Finally, much of the discussion focused on the fact that we ought to rethink the existing Commission procedure for obtaining scientific advice. The Commission expressed its willingness to table a proposal here too, which would involve the creation of a scientific committee with a basically multidisciplinary mandate that would always be consulted in future when there were complex topics to be discussed such as the BSE issue. The Council finally concluded that the measures already decided upon, along with the selective slaughter programme that was still to be adopted, constituted adequate conditions for instituting a gradual lifting of the export ban. If that is to happen, however, the measures must not only exist on paper in the form of a programme but must actually be implemented, and a start must be made to the selective slaughtering. The first step - although not specifically proposed in the Council conclusions - is to be made in respect of the export ban on gelatine, tallow and bulls' semen. The Commission was dealing with the problem this morning, discussing a proposal and considering what conditions have to be imposed on the production of gelatine and tallow in Britain, in other words what conditions have to be fulfilled so that such production can be certified safe and so that the export ban can be lifted. These conditions were decided upon by the Commission this morning, and I have undertaken to submit to the next meeting of the Standing Veterinary Committee a Commission proposal for the committee to discuss. This proposal provides primarily for the definition of a safe production process; besides such a manufacturing process, there is also to be compulsory indication of origin, and when these things are in place the export ban will be lifted for these products. Now the Council also insisted that we should try throughout Europe, i.e. throughout the entire European Union, to improve the identification system for livestock in general and not only for cattle. In addition, we should take special care to ensure that this does not only cover the animals which spend their lives on the same farm but that records are also kept of livestock movements, in other words of trade in livestock. On this point, the Commission is able to say that, although in principle rules governing animal identification do exist, the Commission also sees the need to develop a programme that includes the aspects to which I have already referred. Furthermore, the Council also expects the Commission to deliberate on better methods of labelling meat and especially of indicating its origin and on the measures that might be taken to ensure that, from the stall where the animal is kept to the counter where the consumer buys his or her meat, an unbroken chain exists which makes it possible to trace the purchased meat back to the stall, so to speak. Since we are dealing here with a complex issue, involving not only the matter of labelling but also problems concerning the internal market and many other questions, I have proposed - and the Council has agreed - that the issue be referred first of all to the competent advisory committee, because in that committee producers, consumer bodies and representatives of the meat industry can formulate a joint proposal. Finally, the Council has also dealt with the question of how to provide, within the scope of the existing financial guidelines, additional support or compensation for farmers who have sustained serious losses as a result of the fall in prices and especially because of the paralysed markets. I have undertaken to table a proposal on this matter for the next meeting of the Council. But while we are doing our utmost to overcome the BSE crisis, we must be well aware that this will certainly take some time, and we must also remember that, once we have surmounted the crisis, it is not enough simply to carry on as if nothing had happened; on the contrary, we must redirect and rethink our beef production policy in the medium and longer term on the basis of this bitter experience we are now undergoing. In this same context it will be very important for us first and foremost to take due account of the expectations that consumers will have of the meat they buy in future. Ladies and gentlemen, the BSE crisis has triggered off a massive loss of consumer confidence as well as spelling real disaster for producers throughout Europe. The Commission will continue to do everything possible to pave the way for a rapid solution of this problem, conscious though it is that BSE is the most complex scientific, economic and political issue ever to have arisen in the food sector. We have no alternative; we must overcome this problem together. We need Britain's solidarity in order to ensure that the measures decided upon and those yet to be adopted will be given the utmost priority and will be properly implemented. This means that the gradual lifting of the export ban is very much linked to the efforts undertaken by Britain and the way these efforts are put into effect. We are equally dependent, however, on the solidarity of the other Member States if we are to understand the difficulties that undeniably exist in the United Kingdom and to make a real concerted effort to resolve this issue. Solidarity within the European Union means taking initiatives, making the necessary decisions and financing a considerable amount of the ensuing costs in order to solve the BSE problem in Britain and to alleviate the crisis endured by meat producers in the other Member States. In the medium term, the BSE problem must serve as an opportunity to take those essential measures which are needed in order to market European beef in the best possible way and which are likely to mean that this type of problem can be more easily mastered in future. Welcome President Ladies and gentlemen, it gives me great pleasure to welcome to the gallery today the Speaker of the Polish Senate, Mr Adam Struzik, and his parliamentary colleagues. We bid you a warm welcome. Urgent political matters (continuation) Graefe zu Baringdorf Mr President, thank you very much for looking in this direction. Commissioner, you have spoken again about solidarity, and I agree with you. However, the demands you made of the British Government in your appeal for solidarity have not yet been met. Are you aware of any herds with a history of BSE having actually been slaughtered? Are you able to check on how the additional programme that was announced is working, or do you know how it is supposed to work and whether it has been set in motion at all? I do understand your intention to start by lifting the embargo on gelatine, which is perhaps the least dangerous by-product, but here too there are risks involved. Do you not share my view that this is a signal to the public, implying that something has actually happened? I maintain that since this embargo was imposed absolutely nothing has been done in England. But these measures that have now been announced and this gradual lifting of the ban will be seen as an indication that action has been taken. That is no way to restore confidence! I appreciate that the Commission is in a difficult position, but I ask you whether a somewhat tougher stance would not be more appropriate as a means of protecting consumers and as a sign of our solidarity with them. Fischler I should like to deal with the honourable Member's question. First of all, I mentioned in my report that the Commission had carried out an inspection visit to Britain, in which the Member States also had the opportunity to take part. Farms were inspected, not only in England but throughout the United Kingdom, and the inspection team was able to form a picture of the progress made in implementing the various measures. It is not true that nothing has been done in England. On the contrary, appropriate efforts have been made there, although the report does say that these efforts have not always been sufficient. So this means that the measures have to be further intensified. I should like to remind you that we are speaking about a package of measures, on the one hand about a programme to prevent cattle over 30 months old from being used for the production of beef for human consumption or of animal feed and on the other hand about a programme to ensure that certain types of tissue which could present a higher risk in younger animals are safely removed from the carcasses and that the meat is prepared with due care and attention before it is put on the market. The third aspect of this issue is surely the question of labelling and of the carcass-processing industry and the safety of its processes. As far as gelatine and tallow are concerned, we cannot simply regard these as being on a par with meat. In this area clear recommendations have been made by the World Health Organization and the Standing Veterinary Committee. This is the scientific basis on which all our actions are founded, and the key message is that safe procedures must be our foremost priority. I have also said already that this precept is being applied to the conditions that have to be met in the United Kingdom so that these products can be marketed again. As for bulls' semen, the scientists have concluded that there is no particular cause for concern, while in the case of embryos the scientific committee has reserved the right to conduct further tests. For that reason embryos are not covered by the decision that the Commission has taken today. Martinez Commissioner Fischler, you know as well as I do that, at the present time, cattle under the age of 30 months are contaminated, and that cases of BSE are being found in cattle under the age of 30 months, in other words in cattle which would not normally have been fed contaminated feeds. In other words, despite the ban, these feeds are still in circulation because you authorize their use for poultry and for pigs, so that the temptation naturally arises to use them for cattle. And so, Mr Fischler, these feeds keep turning up. Yet again, I am going to ask you the same thing as I asked the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development last week: Articles 129 and 129a of the Treaty on European Union make it obligatory for you to ensure a high level of information. First of all, Commissioner, do some investigation and tell us the names of those British companies which manufactured these feeds in the 1980s. Secondly, identify the transnational companies which, in the late 1980s, got rid of their 'Animal feed' departments - Unigate, Unilever, etc. Thirdly, give us the list of the French companies which imported these contaminated feeds into western France. I already know what you are going to say: you haven't got this list. Well then, get your staff to compile it. Fischler Mr Martinez, may I inform you that your statement is incorrect when you claim that the feed is continuing to circulate in the United Kingdom because it is still being fed to pigs and other livestock. That is not the case. The substance of the British ban is that such meal and such feed must not be given to any farm animal, so pigs and other livestock must not be fed with it. As far as your lists are concerned, apart from the fact that industry is not part of my portfolio, I believe you have to bear in mind that there is little to be gained by conducting such research. The point now is to ensure that factories manufacturing such products in the future will work safely. To be fair, while it is true that procedures were altered in Britain in the mideighties to permit lower temperatures and lower pressures, it must be said that at that time there was no clear scientific evidence regarding the resistance of prions. Prion research was less advanced in those days. Thomas I would like to thank Commissioner Fischler for coming here once again and giving us an up-to-date statement. I also welcome the fact that he is going to present a financial package at a future meeting. However, I was a little concerned to hear him say it was going to be confined to farmers. As he rightly pointed out, the whole agricultural industry within the United Kingdom is affected financially by the crisis that has been brought on by the British Government's inaction in this area. I would request that when he draws up this financial package he deals with the whole beef sector from the farmers to the transporters to the food processors to the slaughtering industry and especially to those employees throughout the industry who have lost their jobs through the inability and incompetence of the British Government. Fischler First of all, Mr Thomas, I should like to point out that the main purpose of the short-term measures is to alleviate the losses suffered directly by producers. In addition, the Commission certainly also wants to assist industry in effecting any essential changes to its production processes and will make use of the structural funds earmarked for that purpose. It will also be necessary in the medium term to examine the question of promotion activities for beef, but we in the Commission firmly believe that such activities would be rather pointless at the present moment. Before doing anything else, we need to ensure that the necessary measures to restore consumer confidence can be set in motion now and that safe production processes can be guaranteed. Thereafter, once the export ban is lifted, a programme can be submitted with the aim of intensifying and improving the marketing of meat. I believe this would be a fairly logical approach. Funk Commissioner, I have learned that over 300 calves from diseased cows were housed at an experimental centre to the south of London for the purpose of research into the ways in which BSE is vertically transmitted. May I urge you earnestly to try and obtain these research findings so that truth and clarity can be established here and so that we can make progress in the fight against this disease, which absolutely must be fought with increasing vigour. I believe you are right to say that we cannot solve the problem overnight, but if we do not grasp the roots of the problem and discuss research findings openly, I feel we shall continue to be led a merry dance with regard to the actual number of infected animals. Fischler It is true, Mr Funk - and I have asked the British Minister of Agriculture about it - that there is a research programme with which it is hoped to obtain some reliable background knowledge about the vertical transmissibility of BSE. At the moment, all of the information with which scientists are providing us seems to indicate that this vertical transmissibility, in other words infection of offspring by parents, does not take place. This research programme is scheduled to last for a number of years. No findings have emerged as yet. However, since the view you expressed, Mr Funk, had been voiced in other quarters too, I asked the British Minister of Agriculture to provide us, by which I mean the Commission, with information as soon as the first interim findings emerge from the study. Colom i Naval Mr President, I am glad to note that today there is more solidarity than with previous epizootic diseases and I should like to ask the Commissioner, seeing that the majority of the package of measures under consideration relate to veterinary actions, consumer protection, organization of the internal market and so on and have almost nothing to do with the CAP, whether it would be correct to infer from what he said that the action taken by the European Union in this case could be financed under the third category of the financial perspectives rather than the first. Fischler Mr Colom i Naval, the measures we envisage are, in their financial dimension, mainly market measures. You must bear in mind that intervention alone will use up a large percentage of the resources. The cost of buying 100 000 tonnes of beef into intervention has to be estimated at around ECU 200 million. In the month of April alone we have taken 50 000 tonnes of beef off the market. This means that if we take the same quantity off the market in May, we shall already have used up ECU 200 million, and there is unfortunately no way of knowing how quickly a reasonable degree of normality can be restored to the market. Moreover, the fact is that we are not paying for the slaughter of older cattle; that cost has to be borne entirely by the United Kingdom. That is essentially the health measure. What we in the Community are paying for, or paying a 70 % share of, is only the money for the cattle. This means that we are paying the price received by the farmer for each head of cattle he hands over. These are the two main elements to be taken into account when assessing the cost of BSE. Watson I would like to congratulate the Commissioner on his fine suntan, no doubt from the Italian sun. I hope he will continue his valiant efforts to make sure that the sun can once again shine on the United Kingdom's meat industry. The World Health Organization says that gelatine and tallow are safe. Your inspection teams have reached similar conclusions but we have a capacity problem in the United Kingdom. Our renderers cannot process the animals for slaughter because a tallow lake has grown up as a result of the export ban. In my constituency there is over 10, 000 gallons of tallow waiting to be moved from renderers. The slaughtering of animals which are at risk and the lifting of the ban on gelatine and tallow therefore go hand in hand. I would ask whether you will listen to the majority opinion in the Standing Veterinary Committee, even if that committee is not unanimous in recommending a lifting of the ban on gelatine and tallow, and whether you will make sure that it is the politicians who are taking the political decisions and not the scientists. Fischler Mr Watson, perhaps I can outline to you briefly the procedure involved here, because a separate procedure applies in this instance. First of all, the Commission has to present a proposal to the Standing Veterinary Committee - and I ask you to distinguish carefully between the veterinary committees here, since there are several of them. This proposal will be tabled at the next meeting of the Standing Veterinary Committee, which we have scheduled for 15 May. The next step will depend on the decision reached by the Standing Veterinary Committee. If a qualified majority emerges there, the Commission will then have the opportunity to take a final decision. If there is no qualified majority, it will be up to the Commission to submit a proposal to the Council, and the Council will then have to deal with this issue, which they also have to do within a stipulated time limit. If the Council does not reach a decision, jurisdiction will be transferred back to the Commission. If a simple majority of the Council rejects the proposal, however, that decision is final. That is the procedure, and we are bound by it. Incidentally, please do not think that I have spent the last few days lying in the sun in southern Italy; believe me, we have been investing a huge amount of time and energy into the effort to solve the problems with which we are all familiar. Collins, Kenneth Bearing in mind that the current crisis had its origins in a statement by a health minister in the United Kingdom, albeit with no consultation or information going to the Commission or the European Community beforehand, can the Commissioner tell us whether there have been any discussions between the Commission and health ministers in the Member States on the transmissibility of BSE to human beings? Will he further say whether he is contemplating a uniform approach across the Community on slaughter policy which varies enormously from Member State to Member State when BSE has been diagnosed in a herd? Finally, can he say whether or not the Community is involved in, is sponsoring, or is aware of, any progress being made on the development of a live test for BSE? That would seem to me to be very important for the future. Fischler Mr Collins, as far as the transmissibility of BSE to human beings is concerned, the announcements made in the House of Commons were not previously discussed with the Commission. There was only a telephone call half an hour before the announcement in the House of Commons, informing me that it would be made. Moreover, I should also like to remind you that in connection with these announcements and in their immediate aftermath various public assertions were made in the United Kingdom, some of which went so far that people were openly discussing whether all English cattle, or British cattle, should be slaughtered. It is, I believe, rather obvious that such an announcement and the subsequent publicity will automatically result in a quite drastic loss of public confidence. As for the slaughter policy, the main element in that policy is really not a desire to slaughter as many cattle as possible but is first and foremost the aim of preventing older animals, which may carry a certain risk, from being used for human consumption. That is a far more fundamental aspect. This additional slaughter programme is also about reducing the chances of future BSE outbreaks. It must be appreciated, however, that a reduction is all we can hope for; immediate eradication is not possible for the simple reason that we have no means of finding out which of Britain's eleven million cattle might be carrying an infection. In addition, it must also be clearly understood that the disease cannot be diagnosed until it has virtually reached the terminal stage and that the incubation period, as we know, is extremely long. As far as the differences in the Member States' views of how best to eradicate BSE are concerned, it must not be forgotten that 99 % of all cases of BSE throughout the world have occurred in the United Kingdom, and that is why this issue cannot be compared with others. Oomen-Ruijten Mr President, I usually find the Commissioner's replies very satisfactory, as I do in this case too. The members of our Group on the Committee on Agriculture say that he always keeps us on the right lines in the BSE question. What I wonder as a simple representative of the public is why the people of Britain are still not satisfied with the efforts Europe is making financially. I notice that all European countries are going to very great trouble to avoid spending in a number of areas because funds are needed for the BSE affair. Can the Commissioner tell us, for the British public too, what exactly, more or less, the contributions for England are going to cost us all? Fischler No-one can yet tell how high the contribution to the United Kingdom will be, especially in view of the fact that we cannot estimate at the moment how much money we shall have to spend on intervention in the UK. But what we can say is that we are ready to assume what amounts to 70 % of the value of the 700 000 or so cattle over 30 months old that are slaughtered every year. Seventy per cent of their value will be paid out from the Community purse, and that is certainly a tidy sum, which illustrates the prodigious effort being undertaken by the Union in this domain. Macartney I welcome the Commissioner's statement about the progressive lifting of the ban. We were promised that in Luxembourg and now we are having this for tallow. I should like to ask him about two things he mentioned. One was about the inspection group: how long did it visit Scotland in particular, and also Northern Ireland and England. Nobody seemed to know about it in Scotland. Was it a secret visit? Secondly, concerning labelling in terms of origin. This seems to be quite an acceptable method of dealing with foodstuffs. Has that been explored with the British Government in terms of certificates of origin/veterinary certificates? We should like to know where the progressive lifting of the ban is leading and if he could enlighten us, in particular as to what discussions the Commission has had with the Scottish Office Department of Agriculture and the Northern Ireland Office. That would be most helpful. Fischler As I said in my introductory remarks, we are actually in agreement on a phased approach. It is correct that the number of BSE cases that have occurred in Northern Ireland is distinctly below the UK average. Secondly, it is also true that Northern Ireland has a more up-to-date identification system for cattle. Furthermore, the British Government has indicated to us an intention of proposing that different treatment be applied to those cattle which are raised in such a manner that they may safely be assumed never to have been fed with meal, such as cattle on organic farms or on highly extensive farms like those we find in parts of Scotland. It is up to the British Government to submit appropriate proposals here, because we naturally depend on the British Government to implement these measures, and so we await proposals from the British Government as a first step. However, we have not yet received any concrete proposals to this effect. Hyland I should like in the first instance to express my appreciation of the Commissioner's efforts in handling the BSE crisis and, in particular, his commitment to compensation for farmers outside the United Kingdom who are facing economic ruin as a result of the crisis in Britain. My first question is: how soon can we expect a compensation package to be put in place? Secondly, in relation to the disposal of offal from the meat industry which is now emerging as a very serious problem; does he think that research is needed into the commercial disposal of offal? Fischler In answer to your first question, Mr Hyland, I have given an undertaking to the Council, on behalf of the Commission, to present some ideas about this sort of emergency aid measure for producers at the next meeting of the Council, which will take place on 20 May. This also means that I shall be submitting proposals for that purpose to the Commission next Wednesday. On the question of offal and its safe disposal, it is not really research that we need, because it is quite clear how offal can be safely disposed of. What we need here is meticulous and comprehensive implementation of these measures. Herman Mr President, mad cow disease has provided a wonderful opportunity for several Member States to introduce, unilaterally, protectionist measures which are completely contrary to the Treaty and to the undertakings they have entered into. What precisely has the Commission done to put a stop to this kind of measure? Fischler Mr Herman, one component of the decision that was taken is that the unilateral measures adopted at national level should be revoked without delay. These measures have been taken by quite a number of Member States, including the United Kingdom, which enacted a unilateral order regarding the import of cattle to Britain. Kouchner I would like to thank you, Commissioner, for giving us so much information regarding aid to those farmers who have suffered losses and ways of ensuring basic safety in relation to what has already happened. But I note your failure to reply to the question put by my neighbour, Mr Collins. Public health matters, too, and you have said that transmission does not take place. There is no vertical transmission. Let us view these certainties with suspicion. I believe it is absolutely necessary that you should answer that question: what is the situation in terms of human health, as opposed to bovine health? What arrangements have been made for a coordinated study, or at least a pooling of information, on exactly what constitutes Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease on the one hand and mad cow disease on the other? Are there any possibilities of information exchange and joint research in the European Union? Most of the comment I have heard on this matter has come from the agriculture ministers, not the health ministers. Fischler I agree with you when you advise great caution. But I would ask you to remember that I did not say there was no vertical transmission but rather that our reflections to date had been based on that assumption. We have no proof of the existence of such transmission. As far as human health and the transmissibility of BSE to humans are concerned, let me also remind you that there is still no scientific evidence that such transmission has occurred or that it can occur. The problem facing us - and this is also the verdict of the scientists who have been working on the cases of this so-called new type of Creutzfeldt-Jakob syndrome - is that we cannot rule out the possibility that this strain of CJD is transmissible or that it is caused by BSE. That in itself, however, does not automatically constitute proof that the disease was contracted in one of these ways. We must keep that in mind. That is also the reason why I have asked the leading researchers who are working on these questions in various parts of the world to assist us in dealing with these very complex issues. Professor Weissmann, along with his colleagues who are working on this throughout the world, has expressed willingness to devise a strategy for defining the necessary research priorities. Moreover, we have been cooperating with Directorate-General XII and my colleague Mrs Cresson in order to develop a coordinated research programme for the various aspects of the issue that require closer study. Gredler Mr President, I have a question regarding the obligation to report outbreaks of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. I know that in a regional hospital in my home state ten people died of that disease last year. These people were quite young, and I should like to ask you now, Commissioner, whether it would not be advisable to produce a study on the transmissibility of the disease to human beings and indeed to have some data collected for the whole of Europe to establish where this disease is occurring. The second thing I find rather unsatisfactory is your statement that it is uncertain whether transmission to embryos is not in fact possible. As far as I know, London Zoo has even proved that it is possible, using another species of animal. So I ask you whether precautionary measures should not be taken to prevent embryonic transmission, especially since young animals are also used for the manufacture of medicinal products. A dialysate made from calves' blood is used throughout Europe. It is reputedly very safe. Yet when one speaks to the physicians involved, one has the impression that they are not actually very sure whether there is not in fact a danger that BSE might be transmitted in the form of the Creutzfeldt-Jakob syndrome. Fischler Mrs Gredler, I can only reiterate what our scientists have told us, and I can also do no more than inform you that the final piece of evidence is certainly missing here, as is indeed the case in many of the matters we deal with, and that is precisely why appropriate research is needed and why research must be conducted in this area as a matter of priority. As far as the obligation to report outbreaks of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease is concerned, I am afraid that this, being a health matter, is not part of my portfolio. I cannot give you an answer to that question off the top of my head. I only know that there is an obligation to report cases of BSE, which falls within my remit. Every case of BSE must be reported to the national authorities as well as to the European authorities. Campos Mr President, Commissioner, I should like to ask two questions. The Commissioner is putting a lot of emphasis on slaughter. Slaughtering is a kind of target-practice: nobody knows for sure whether the animals being slaughtered are suffering from the disease or not. But the main question has to do with what we are eating. Beef has been banned in all countries. What effective controls are being carried out and what measures have been taken to control every farm, in that any farmer could use feed meal? Second question: will the single market certification be carried out in the country of origin? This raises the question of one country - in this case, the United Kingdom - which has now become the problem of the other 14 countries. The control networks in all of these countries have been dismantled and I would like to ask the Commissioner what authority has substituted the national authorities since the single market came into force - in that certification now takes place in the country of origin and we the consumers have no confidence in certificates of origin awarded in the country of origin? Fischler The question of feeding animal, meat and bone meals is clearly regulated. I have explained the system that already exists in Britain. I do not need to repeat my explanation. But there is a ban that applies throughout the EU on the feeding of meat and bone meals to ruminants. That is regulated for the whole Union, which means that you actually have no cause for concern. Böge First of all, I note that the Commission is moving in the right direction. Today's debate would be superfluous if the action called for here in Parliament back in June 1990 had actually been taken, namely the culling of all herds affected by BSE. That would have prevented a great deal of trouble for consumers and the farming community. Commissioner, can you confirm that you have received assurances from all members of the Council that the Commission will be kept up to date in future on all interim findings and final results of research experiments? I ask this in view of the successive cover-ups we have experienced in the past. How do you assess press reports according to which many of the cases of BSE registered between January and March this year related to animals born after the feed ban? What conclusions do you draw from such reports with regard to the way in which the campaign against BSE is being handled in the United Kingdom? Can you ensure that the export ban will only be relaxed when all animals everywhere can be definitively and reliably identified? (Applause) Fischler Let me begin with the cover-up attempts. I can assure you of one thing, namely that I shall do everything in my power to forestall any such moves. Secondly, it is true that BSE has occurred in Britain in animals infected from birth after the imposition of the feed ban. What conclusion should we draw? The only possible logical conclusion, in fact, is that this feed ban, sad to say, has not been universally observed. I also asked the British Agriculture Minister for the date from which he could guarantee total compliance with the feed ban. His answer was that he could guarantee it from 1 April 1996. Hardstaff I wish to thank the Commissioner and put two brief questions. First, could you confirm from what you have said already that the earliest date for the ban on products such as gelatine and tallow to be lifted would be 15 May if there is a favourable recommendation from the committee that is meeting that day? Also, can you confirm that if the British Government came to the Commission with a proposal for good certification of herds which can be guaranteed BSE-free you would be prepared to lift the ban on those animals and you are just waiting for that proposal from the British Government? Fischler Mrs Hardstaff, as far as the lifting of the embargo on gelatine and tallow is concerned, perhaps I did not express myself clearly enough on that, although I really thought I had, but I shall say it again. The Commission has adopted a proposal today. This proposal will be presented to the Standing Veterinary Committee on 15 May for discussion and approval. The committee needs to approve the proposal by a qualified majority so that the Commission can then take its final decision. Assuming that these things actually happen and that the relevant conditions are fulfilled in the United Kingdom, the export ban on these products will be lifted at that point. Your second question concerns cattle that can be guaranteed never to have been fed with such dubious products. In this context I should like to emphasize that we have established the practice of first having a proposal submitted to us then examining the proposal and delivering an opinion on it, because I believe that makes everything far clearer to the public and especially to consumers. Elles I warmly welcome your statement today, Mr Fischler, and the progress which has been made in moving towards a gradual lifting of the ban. I have three questions. Firstly, exactly what is wrong with the identification system in Britain? You mentioned ensuring that the measures are effectively implemented. Is this any worse in Britain than in any other Member State? Are European rules not being adequately implemented? Some clarification would be welcome. Secondly rumours abound in my country that there is BSE on the continent but not necessarily from the export of British animals. Can you categorically confirm there is no BSE in other Member States, other than from the export of British animals? Thirdly, to pick up Ken Collins' point, in the professors' mandate that you were talking about and research which you are going to be conducting, will it be ascertained whether there can be a live test used on animals to check whether they have BSE? Fischler Mr Elles, on your first question regarding identification, there is the following problem: for this additional selective slaughter programme we not only need to know which farm has had a case of BSE; it is far more crucial that we also know where the infected animal was being kept at the time when it was given the dubious feed. So it is a matter of tracing the origins of such cattle, as it were. But in England, and in the United Kingdom as a whole, cattle are bought and sold at the rate of one to two million or more every year and taken to other farms. That makes it quite expensive and time-consuming to investigate these things. We cannot always do that here because we cannot obtain the requisite data. Hence the importance of better identification and marking of cattle. That does not mean, however, that this is a specifically British problem; there are also defects in the way rules are implemented in other Member States. Let there be no doubt about that either. Our aim is to improve the situation throughout Europe, in other words throughout the Union. As to the question of the origin of the BSE infection, if we can call it that, which has been found in cattle on the continent, scientists have drawn a clear distinction between two types of case. On the one hand there are the cases in which there is direct evidence of the livestock or their feed having been imported from the United Kingdom. On the other hand there are the so-called 'native cases' , i.e. cases in which no such connection can be proved. These cases therefore need to be examined with particular care. Your third question concerns the live tests. There have certainly been various reports in the press of people having allegedly devised live tests. There is no such test and no such procedure, and it is likely to take five to ten years to develop such a process. Vallvé Mr President, although we are talking about the problem of 'mad cows' and of the controls which need to be instituted in this matter, I am taking the opportunity since the Commissioner is here to report that five lorries carrying perfectly legal products such as fruit and vegetables from Spain were brutally attacked on 26 April in the French district of Le Boulou, with the French police unable to stop it. I think these facts demonstrate the impossibility of guaranteeing free movement of goods in Europe. Although appropriate barriers must be set up to ensure that anything which might be harmful to health cannot get through, other products should be able to move freely. Otherwise the unity of the market and the free movement of goods in the European Union would be threatened. President Mr Vallvé, you are well aware of the rules governing question time. Your question was not relevant to the present subject. I shall leave it to the Commissioner whether
{'language': 'en'}