Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-06-11-Speech-1-091"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010611.5.1-091"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, in the context of the foot-and-mouth crisis, millions of animals, including hundreds of thousands of vaccinated animals, were killed in the EU as a precautionary measure, despite loud protests from farmers, citizens and country people. This was due to European directives which, in principle, prescribe a slaughter policy without vaccination. Ring vaccinations are permitted in exceptional cases but with such far-reaching implications for the exports of the Member States involved that, in practice, that also involves removal. The European Commission recently decided to allow exports of meat from Uruguay back into the EU without guarantees as to whether the meat concerned originated from animals vaccinated against foot-and-mouth. It must be the ultimate in bureaucracy for meat from animals vaccinated against foot-and-mouth from outside the EU to be allowed on the internal market, but for that from within the EU not to be permitted. Now is also a good time for the Council to make drastic changes to legislation on controlling foot-and-mouth, also in the light of unnecessary animal suffering. With the imports from Uruguay, the market argument not to vaccinate against foot-and-mouth has been laid to rest for ever. If the Council takes European farmers and citizens as seriously as the farmers from South America, now is the time for action. I should like to persuade the Commissioner and the Council to repeal the non-vaccination policy.
I should also like to mention a second point, namely the large discrepancies in terms of animal welfare among the Member States. I would concur with the remark made by my colleague, Mrs Keppelhoff, on that point. Animal welfare is still too often an element in the distortion of competition among the Member States. What is also striking is that, in these matters, the Commission’s and Council’s ambition certainly leaves something to be desired. For that reason, Parliament is very likely this week to make the directive on the welfare of pigs stricter but, at the same time, to present an initiative proposal on animal transport in September. It is crucial, in this connection, to consider the role of consumers and the possibility of introducing a green tax system."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples