Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-10-04-Speech-3-030"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2000-10-04"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Animal nutrition2
dcterms:Language	"fi"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20001004.3.3-030"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2000-10-04-Speech-3-0312
lpv:speaker	lp:Mikko Pesälä2
lpv:spokenAs	member; Delegation for relations with Australia and New Zealand (1999-10-06--2002-01-14)3 member; AGRI (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 member; ELDR (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 unknown; Suomen Keskusta (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 substitute; ECON (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, I agree with the idea that legislation in this sort of area needs to be all-embracing and comprehensive, but, as a farmer, I do not agree with everything in the report, for example, that farm-produced animal feed should also be covered by the measures. I think it is something that cannot be practically applied or monitored. For that reason, we should look into legislation which is reasonable in the sense that it could be monitored and implemented in practice. The sort of legislation that cannot be monitored or implemented in practice will naturally erode Parliament’s credibility, as will the fact too that we should draft such legislation. I will cite Amendment No 18 as an example. How can we monitor what a domestic animal roaming freely drinks or where it drinks? The basic idea is right. Legislation must be all-embracing and comprehensive, but it must also be such as can be put into effect and monitored in practice. The application of legislation to feed produced on a farm is something that cannot be practically implemented or monitored. Otherwise I do agree very much with this overall policy and the basic idea behind it."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph