Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-06-11-Speech-1-095"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010611.5.1-095"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I would ask to be allowed to comment on some of what has been said here in the debate.
Mrs Maes spoke about the inspection trips. In this respect, I refer to what I said concerning the responsibility for supervision. This responsibility devolves in the first instance upon the various countries themselves, and then the Commission supervises the countries.
Mr Schnellhardt gave the example of chickens and said that we had achieved something. Yes, we have achieved something, but there still remains such an incredible amount to do. He does not believe that people are prepared to pay. No, perhaps they are not prepared to pay through higher prices. This takes us back to the relationship between animal welfare and cost. If we want to have good animal welfare and a good environment, it will not come free of charge. We must then also design an economic system that ensures that those who provide good animal welfare and a good environment get paid for it, possibly in a different way than through higher prices.
Let me once again stress how important it is that the European Parliament produce an opinion in respect of a new directive on pig keeping, and I am very pleased to have Mr Whitehead’s support on this matter. It is important that we are able to make a decision as early as next week, because we have been working on this matter for a long time. Although I understand the concern that exists in respect of the economic consequences, I nonetheless hope that good animal welfare will pay off, and I am really hoping for Parliament’s support in this process.
Finally, I would like to thank you very much for the fact that we were able to have this debate. It is important that it is kept alive so that the matter of man’s relationship with animals develops over time. We have a moral responsibility to treat animals well. Cruelty to animals is unworthy of us humans.
Mrs Keppelhoff-Wiechert asked the very important question – not why, but
. I still think that we must ask both questions – not only why, but also how. For example, why do we dispatch animals to third countries? Why do we send calves from Sweden to Holland? Clearly there is an answer to these questions. The answer to the first question is that it is profitable, because export subsidies can be paid when animals are sent from the EU to a third country. Young calves are sent from Sweden to Holland, for example, because it is more profitable. In Holland, they are reared by a different method than in Sweden. We must also ask whether all this transportation really has to take place. Fortunately, more and more people are now asking this question, and fortunately more and more of them are also answering ‘no’.
A number of speakers have mentioned the matter of price. Naturally, we must realise that if we want to have good animal welfare – and if we are to have quality rather than quantity in future agricultural production and policy – then there will be a price to pay. We cannot have the cheapest food in the world and, at the same time, have the best animal welfare and the best environment in the world. Someone has to pay. The question is simply: who? There is also cause to think about this as we gradually draw up a new agricultural policy. Who is to pay for animal welfare? Who is to pay for the countryside? Who is to pay for the wetlands, for biodiversity, and so on?
Mr Kindermann spoke about the responsibility that man has. I share this opinion. We have a special responsibility for these matters precisely due to our status as human beings. We have a special position in respect of animals and it is only we who can accept that responsibility.
Mr van den Bos provided the most far-reaching contribution of any of us here. It is of course easy to put forward all these demands, but we must also remember that it costs money. These things do not come about of their own accord. For example, if we demand that international trade must not be in livestock but in meat, we must also remember that there is a connection with the economic system in agricultural policy. In other words, we would then also have to reject all types of export subsidies for these animals.
Mrs Schörling, like several others, spoke about supervision. Allow me to say that we cannot just demand that the Commission or the Council bring about improvements in respect of supervision, for the prime responsibility for supervision lies at national level. I believe that each and every one of us must go home to his or her country and question that country’s supervision, for it is only when a country is not taking care of matters that the Commission steps in. The Commission has a responsibility to ensure that supervision in the various countries is good. It does so through the office in Dublin.
Mr van Dam spoke of the restrictions on live animals, and I share his opinion. Unfortunately, in the report, animals are defined as commodities. Opinions may differ on this, and I think that we should have a different starting point.
Mr Maat talked about vaccination and exports. Allow me to argue that it is not just because of exports that we have this non-vaccination policy. The main reason is that there is not simply one single vaccine for one type of foot –and mouth disease. The day we find a marker vaccine is the day we will be able to start mass vaccination with a view to prevention. We have not yet got that far, but research is in progress. A conference will be held under the Belgian Presidency, once the crisis is over, to allow us to draw conclusions from the policy that has been conducted in this area. This will then concern not just vaccination but also other aspects which may even have encouraged infection with foot-and-mouth disease. This conference will hopefully be held during the autumn.
Mr Whitehead spoke about the fact that animals are not just products and commodities. In this respect, I refer to my earlier answer – animals are sentient beings. He also addressed the matter of chemicals policy. In this connection, I would remind you of the Commission’s White Paper on this issue, which states, for example, that it is hoped to develop test methods that minimise the number of animals used in animal experiments. I think this is a very good ambition."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples