Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-12-16-Speech-4-020"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20041216.5.4-020"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, animal protection should be moved immediately from the agricultural heading and from Article 37. It could, of course, be transferred to health and consumer protection because it would then be Commissioner Kyprianou who would be responsible for the matter, which sounds more reassuring.
In Denmark, it is the Justice Ministry that is responsible for this matter. We regard animal protection as legal protection, but Article 37 is exclusively about increasing production and earnings. The poor animals must suffer heaven knows what kind of mistreatment when protection itself is subject to greed. It is actually grotesque that export subsidies are paid when horses, cows and sheep have to be sent out of the EU. Animals that are to be slaughtered should only be driven to the nearest abattoir and for a maximum of eight hours. We have a majority in favour of this view in Denmark. Animals that are not to be slaughtered should only be transported for eight hours without rest, food and a change of air, and the accommodation must be in order. That is also something favoured by a majority in Denmark.
Of course, the previous Parliament stated this too, and it has to be asked why the Commission did not go to the Council and insist on these conditions being respected. When we obtain the new Constitution, Parliament will have the right of codecision and, if animal protection had no longer been subject to Article 37, Parliament would now already have had this right.
Regarding another matter – namely transparency – our Ombudsman expressly stated that the provisions of the new Constitution could properly be used when there was such large support for doing so, so there is a double opportunity for involving Parliament in this procedure right now. What has happened is that a strategy has been chosen whereby a decision has been hurried through, almost as if it were a question of keeping both people and Parliament remote from the decision-making concerned over the next six years. We, indeed I, have noted that the Member States must implement decisions that go further ..."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples