Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-03-30-Speech-2-037"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20040330.3.2-037"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
".
Mr President, the Environment Committee's opinion on this issue was very positive: it was clear that the committee wanted to stand by the position taken by many Members of this Parliament – over 400 Members signed a resolution calling for 8 hours as a maximum overall journey time. In relation to the Commission's proposal, many of the amendments tabled by the Environment Committee were not taken on board in the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, but I hope the amendments that have been tabled will be supported when the vote takes place.
The rest period on the vehicles, for example, is completely impractical. A rest period on a vehicle cannot be considered as a rest period for a number of reasons. Firstly, conditions do not change at all for the animals. It would be very difficult to water and feed those animals unless the vehicle is equipped to make that possible. If that were the case, it would be economically unviable for transporters to have such a vehicle. It is going to be very difficult to look after the animals if the rest period is on the vehicle. How are dead animals going to be removed from the vehicle?
There was a recent case in Ireland in relation to Pandora, which said it did not want to transport live animals any more, presumably for economic reasons. They can see it coming in the future.
Also, in relation to the continued cycle, the idea of a period of rest on a journey that can continue indefinitely is completely unacceptable. Even the industry does not agree with the rest period on the vehicle. This is one of the key issues that have to be addressed in Parliament this week.
In relation to fraud in export refunds – an issue that came up during last night's sitting and in the media recently – one of the ways to avoid that would be to get rid of export refunds. The vast majority of European citizens do not want their money used to subsidise the inhumane transport of animals, which causes untold and unnecessary suffering. I agree with Mr Maat about the provision of local abattoirs. In some places in Germany, mobile abattoirs are provided to slaughter animals if no abattoir is available locally. We must ensure that animals are not subjected to unnecessary suffering, and this is clearly unnecessary. The Environment Committee is strongly of that opinion."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples