Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-02-13-Speech-1-089"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2006-02-13"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Protection of chickens kept for meat production (debate)2
dcterms:Language	"nl"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20060213.11.1-089"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2006-02-13-Speech-1-0902
lpv:speaker	lp:Jan Mulder2
lpv:spokenAs	vice-chair; Delegation for relations with the countries of South Asia and the South Asia Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) (2004-09-21--2007-03-13)3 member; ALDE (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3 substitute; Delegation for relations with South Africa (2004-09-15--2007-03-13)3 unknown; Volkspartij voor Vrijheid en Democratie (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3 substitute; PECH (2004-09-03--2007-01-14)3 vice-chair; BUDG (2004-07-22--2007-01-14)3 substitute; AGRI (2004-07-22--2007-01-14)3 member; CONT (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)3
lpv:translated text	". Madam President, let me start by congratulating Mr Berman. It may well be his first report, but I think he did a very thorough job of it. As for the report itself, while I have to say that I do not know of anyone in this House who is opposed to animal welfare – everyone is, of course, in favour of it – I do nevertheless have my doubts about this proposal, because I think there is room for improvement. First of all, it imposes the same standards across the whole of the European Union, and I can imagine that in a cold climate such as Finland or in a totally different climate such as Italy, very different standards should apply with regard to stock densities. Things may well already be different in practice. The Commission fails to take this into account in any way, and as the previous speaker said, we have not yet seen an economic analysis. It is easy to say that animal welfare must not take second place to socio-economic priorities, but some people still need to make a living out of this; what exactly are the consequences for them? Does the Commission have any idea? What matters most, of course, as has also been mentioned by many before me, including the Commissioner, although he did not manage to win me over completely, is a code of conduct. It is not very sensible, though, if we want to stress what are referred to as non-trade aspects, to table yet another fresh proposal in the middle of discussions in the World Trade Organisation, without knowing for certain that the importers comply. Why does the Commission not raise the subject of a code of conduct with the supermarkets and other large importers, and do so as soon as possible? Where is the logic, if European producers are told that they need to meet such and such standards, while various supermarkets are allowed to import from the rest of the world with no restrictions, without the Commission demanding that checks of any kind be put in place? We only check for salmonella, or whatever, but we never check for animal welfare. That is what the Commission should do and that is what is missing completely from this proposal."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph