Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-03-30-Speech-2-036"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20040330.3.2-036"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, I thank the Commissioner for his initial contribution. However, before I add my own comment to the new animal transport directive, I should like to dwell briefly on an event in my own country, namely the departure of our Queen Mother, Princess Juliana. During her reign, she always showed a special interest in the agricultural sector and cattle farming in my country. To her, each and every human being and animal mattered. I would like to commemorate her today at the start of this debate and commiserate with her family and with all those who will miss her.
If the Council adopts this proposal, cattle farming in Europe will not be squeezed out of the market and animal welfare will enjoy a structural improvement. I would ask the Commission and Council to adopt a preliminary position at this stage. Finally, I should like to thank the different groups for the excellent cooperation during the preparation and discussion of this report.
The review of Directives 64/432/EEC and 93/119/EC on the transport of animals has been rather a long time coming. I appreciate Commissioner Byrne's contribution, because after our debate on the resolution of 2001, he took up the gauntlet after all. In addition to animal welfare, it was mainly the FMD crisis and the outbreaks of swine fever that were reasons for me as rapporteur to subject legislation to a thorough overhaul.
I have to say, though, that the Commission's proposal does not offer a real choice. Given the proposed time limits of nine hours in transit and twelve hours rest, with unlimited repeats of this cycle, and the very generous expansion of space allowance per animal, one can confidently conclude that transport in excess of nine hours would become unaffordable. As rapporteur, however, I distance myself somewhat from that approach, because it does not do any justice to the already difficult income situation in cattle farming and because the limitation of the risks of animal diseases and the regularisation of the slaughter practice are insufficiently addressed. Moreover, too much space per animal leads to an unnecessary risk of injury during transport, so let me now set out the line I have decided to take.
First of all, transport up to 100 kilometres should be kept outside of the scope of the directive, to avoid the so-called farmers' transport for slaughter and productive cattle from becoming unnecessarily expensive. Moreover, this transport mainly involves regional cattle farm systems and during these transports, there are hardly ever, if any, problems involving animal welfare.
Secondly, space allowance requirements for cattle for slaughter should not be considerably altered. The restriction in the transport of cattle for slaughter to nine hours or 500 kilometres, the time and distance covered by 97% of cattle transported for slaughter, already applies. Transitional provisions should be put in place, though, for regions that have few slaughterhouses or special market problems. In addition, I should like to argue in favour of specifically promoting the establishment of slaughterhouses in regions where animals are kept. Why, when milk and sugar are generally processed in the regions where they are produced, would this not be possible in the case of animals for slaughter?
Thirdly, with regard to productive cattle and traditional systems for fattening animals, I suggest a transport limit of 30 hours, including eight hours rest, but no unloading at staging places. I would also argue in favour of a separate regulation for cattle for breeding and racehorses, with a strict rest and feed regime. In general, however, the transport conditions for this group are already excellent.
Fourthly, I am in favour of more, and also more specific, controls of international transport. This point, in particular, is the Achilles' heel of current EU practice.
Fifthly, I would like to see rest periods and driving times in existing EU directives for the transport sector coupled to fresh legislation. Furthermore, the GPS system should be introduced for international transport, so that unnecessary bureaucracy is prevented and controls can be carried out much more effectively.
The fact that especially this latter point is no unnecessary luxury has
been demonstrated in unannounced road checks in Austria, where no less than 50% of the animal hauliers appeared to break the law. It also raises questions when no fewer than 221 000 live cattle are exported to Lebanon every year, which translates into an entire cow for every two families in Lebanon on an annual basis! As far as I am concerned, there is every reason to adapt legislation, particularly with regard to the transport of animals for slaughter. I would therefore urge my fellow MEPs to support Amendments Nos 1 to 97 inclusive, Amendments Nos 109, 110, 111, 112 and 115. This strikes the best balance between animal welfare and what cattle farmers would find economically acceptable."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples