Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-06-11-Speech-1-086"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010611.5.1-086"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Minister, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, when the issue of animal welfare is mentioned, no one in Europe thinks of cats in cages at the airport, no one thinks of horses being transported to the Olympic Games on the other side of the world, and no one thinks of birds in cages on fifth-floor window sills. Over the years, it has been the transport of livestock in Europe and overseas which has understandably upset the public most of all. The consumers and the animal rights activists do not understand why there is still a need for it.
In my view, the question is not so much 'why' but – quite rightly – 'how'. How are the animals transported? This has been discussed for many years at European level, so it is not a new issue. Commissioner Byrne, I have been a Member of the European Parliament for 12 years, and we have been discussing this issue throughout these 12 years. We have already produced vast quantities of papers and resolutions. Why, then, are we making such slow progress?
Animal welfare is now given far greater priority, and the focus is no longer solely on costs and competition. In contrast to earlier debates about animal welfare, the agenda increasingly includes ethical issues as well as technical aspects. To use a metaphor: we are all broadly in agreement about the destination of our journey, but the path is very rocky. I say this: through their shopping behaviour, consumers could have made a very significant contribution to setting a new course in the past as well. Prices were a key factor then, and I would argue that the final prices paid by consumers will be a key factor in future too.
In its report, the Commission emphasises its plans to improve the implementation of existing legislation. I greatly welcome this statement. The licensing of transport companies, transport plans and the Member States' inspection reports must all be coordinated far more effectively, and I completely agree that Community standards should now be introduced for third countries as well. The definitions of the animals' fitness for transport, but also vehicle standards, densities, travelling times and rest periods, etc. must all be brought into line with current scientific knowledge to a far greater extent. I am in favour of animal welfare, and let me assure you that farmers are too. They have been for decades – in their animal husbandry, breeding and transport. Mr Byrne, thank you very much for stating this so clearly today. Let me conclude by saying that what I am opposed to are the different definitions of the animals' wellbeing. Given the great many directives in force, this diverges widely in the Member States. Happy hens in Germany will have to feel different from perky pigs in Holland or contented calves in Denmark. We cannot have that. It leads to distortions of competition, and I really must oppose it, also in the interests of farmers."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples