Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-06-13-Speech-3-282"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010613.11.3-282"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I should first of all like to extend a warm thanks to the rapporteur, Mr Busk, for the excellent cooperation. I should also like to thank Mr Kindermann, who helped us find a solution in a number of compromise amendments.
My second point concerns the Commission. I should like to thank Mr Byrne for coming up with a proposal at any rate. But at the same time, I am of the opinion that the Council should also be here today. For if we consider this legislation on the welfare of pigs, I cannot help but observe that the discrepancies between the European Member States are unjustifiably huge, so huge that they are posing a threat to our free internal market.
It is, in fact, unacceptable in this Europe that, as a result, prices can differ between the various pig holdings in Europe by up to 30 to 35%. This situation is, at the same time, a criticism of the Council, which is requested to draft general rules. In actual fact – that is why I am so pleased with Mr Byrne’s presence here this evening – this matter is also of relevance to consumers, for we are once again debating a directive which has implications for farmers. But what about the implications for consumers?
On behalf of my group, I should like to expressly underline that we are particularly concerned about this aspect for, in the final analysis, this proposal will lead to extra investments for pig holdings without any guarantee of an increase in yield. This concern must be reflected in whatever approach is adopted, be it via a European premium policy or an extra surcharge for consumers. In any case, animal welfare may no longer lead to huge differences in terms of competition, and the bill may not always have to be paid by European farmers alone. I wanted to make this quite clear.
I will not elaborate on the content of the report. Mr Busk made an excellent job of that. Mr Sturdy expertly outlined the consequences for the WTO negotiations. We all know that animal welfare is an incredibly difficult issue in the WTO. But if European society cares about animal welfare, it also has the costly duty to ensure that it is put on the agenda in the WTO negotiations, and to take this matter into consideration in politics in general.
We could talk about this topic
. We have been approached by various organisations with different points of view, as well as by consumer organisations, animal protection organisations and farmers’ organisations. I have increasingly noticed that, sometimes, there is definitely a basis for an alliance. But such an alliance could only be set up if the necessary funding started to become available and if the consumer were far more involved.
Although my group welcomes the agreement reached, it is very concerned about the implications for farmers. We also believe that, slowly but surely, the implications for consumers should be made clearer."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples