Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-04-09-Speech-3-393"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2003-04-09"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Non-commercial movement of pet animals2
dcterms:Language	"da"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20030409.8.3-393"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2003-04-09-Speech-3-3942
lpv:speaker	lp:Bent Hindrup Andersen2
lpv:spokenAs	unknown; JuniBevægelsen (2003-03-01--2004-07-19)3 member; EDD (2003-03-01--2004-07-19)3 substitute; Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy (2003-03-25--2004-07-19)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, it is not better animal welfare that is on the agenda at present. On the contrary, it is the convenience of animal owners, which is being promoted at animals’ expense. In the EU, there is otherwise a lot about the need to improve animal welfare. Having a larger number of pet animals being moved around is not in the interests of animal welfare. On the contrary, it may give rise to unnecessary stress. Fido and Kit are best off at home. At worst, transportation may result in illnesses such as rabies being spread to countries that, until now, have been free from rabies, possibly including new EU countries. The proposal would harmonise EU regulations. Sweden, the UK and Ireland at present have stricter requirements governing the import of pet animals. They will now, after five years, be forced to withdraw their sensible requirements. It makes sense to impose veterinary requirements in connection with the transport of animals. The EU should adopt a set of minimum regulations and call upon all the EU countries to follow Sweden’s, the UK’s and Ireland’s example. This would take the form of a proposal that puts health and animal welfare above animal owners’ freedom of movement. It is wrong in principal to demand that EU countries with high standards in this area should relax their requirements in order to promote freedom of movement. On the surface of it, it may seem to be a minor matter, but it is an important matter in terms of principle. By voting in favour, Parliament would be adopting the principle of harmonising down to a level corresponding to the lowest common denominator, at the same time as abolishing Sweden’s, the UK’s and Ireland’s right to be pioneers. I have therefore requested a roll-call vote on this matter. I would call for the proposal on freedom of movement for pet animals to be voted against."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph