Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-06-13-Speech-3-289"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010613.11.3-289"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
". – I would like, first, to thank Parliament for the priority given to this issue. Only two days ago the Commission, together with the Council presidency, had the opportunity to set out its views and commitments in relation to animal welfare. I very much welcomed the broad support expressed by Parliament. I would also like to thank Mr Busk, the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development and the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy for the support given to this specific issue of the welfare of pigs.
I cannot accept Amendment No 38 because the definition of manipulable materials is already foreseen in the annex and will be discussed further in the Standing Veterinary Committee. Amendments Nos 2, 10 and 31 add new aspects to the Commission proposal and introduce further initiatives. These are welcome, as is Amendment No 5, that sets a date for the Commission report on further questions related to the welfare of pigs.
Further scientific elements are also necessary to establish new rules for the stocking densities applicable to pigs for fattening. It is for this reason that Amendment No 11 cannot be accepted. The Commission is already committed to further analyse the issue from the scientific and economic point of view and to take the necessary steps.
We are all aware that animal welfare carries a price and the measures outlined in this proposal are no exception. In an industry as competitive as the pig-meat industry, where margins are extremely tight, even small price differentials can have important competitive implications. The Commission is not blind to these implications. The proposal is based on extensive consultations with experts from inside and outside the Commission that led the Commission to the conclusion that the additional costs are a price worth paying.
Amendments Nos 36 and 37 are not acceptable because the delay proposed for the application of the new requirements to all holdings is too strict and would significantly raise the costs of conversion. Data available to the Commission show that the costs would be increased from EUR 0.006 per kilo for a pig carcass to EUR 0.02 if the conversion is carried out with a delay shorter than ten months. That is 3.3 times the cost.
Amendment No 35 is unacceptable for legal reasons and because we have assessed the costs.
Amendments Nos 3, 4, 31 and 34 suggest that EU initiatives be taken on animal welfare only after having considered the global dimension of the agricultural trade. These amendments cannot be accepted. I should recall that the Commission is already considering the global dimension of the trade in animals and animal products, including in relation to the World Trade Organisation that a number of you mentioned.
There is a common misconception that putting forward animal welfare issues in this context is a protectionist agenda. The Commission considers that we have a duty and a responsibility to press for recognition of these standards, both on purely ethical grounds in recognition of the need for the humane treatment of animals, and in recognition of the higher costs which these standards entail for producers and consumers in the EU.
These are legitimate issues, which deserve to be discussed on the international stage. It is essential to share our knowledge of animal welfare with countries outside the European Union and to create a harmonised approach towards this issue. I am grateful for the constructive approach given to this dossier by the European Parliament.
In summary, the Commission can accept Amendments Nos 2, 5, 10, 25, 28 and 30 in full, and Amendments Nos 13 and 31 in part.
The intensification of pig farming in Europe over the past ten years has led to practices which cause unnecessary suffering and which are increasingly proving to be counterproductive. I took the advice of the Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Animal Welfare very seriously in preparing the Commission proposal to bring current legislation in line with the scientific evidence.
The Commission proposal prohibits the confinement of sows during most of their pregnancy to individual stalls which severely restrict their freedom of movement. The use of tethers for sows and gilts will be definitively forbidden.
The proposal also sets out rules to improve the living environment of pigs and piglets in general, setting requirements for living spaces, floor surfaces and proper feeding systems. I can accept Amendment No 13 because it improves the Commission proposal.
Aware of the importance of the effects of stockmanship on the welfare of pigs, the Commission proposal introduced new requirements for the persons attending to the animals.
Amendments Nos 28 and 30 build on this, calling for certified training for the personnel attending to the pigs, and therefore can be accepted.
Even if I share the aim of Amendments Nos 1 and 26, they are not acceptable because they request initiatives that the Commission is already taking. I would make specific reference to the fact that the Commission has proposals in place under a Commission directive, under the comitology procedure, in relation to tail docking, teeth clipping, castration, light requirements and teeth grinding. All of that will be dealt with under the issue of comitology. I should like to take the opportunity to draw Mr Graefe zu Baringdorf's attention to that particular fact, as I know he likes to take an overall view of the legislation that comes before the House.
A second proposal for a Commission directive amending the technical annexes to Directive 91/630 has been discussed by the Standing Veterinary Committee during the past months. These technical amendments regulate noise levels and light access for the animals to food and materials for rooting, timing of weaning of piglets and floor surfaces; they also prohibit the worst type of routine mutilations.
Amendments Nos 8, 27 and 33 cannot be accepted because they reduce the possibility for the Commission to take urgent action to adopt technical improvements for the welfare of the animals."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples