Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-06-18-Speech-1-189"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20070618.18.1-189"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Ladies and gentlemen, banning the trade in cat and dog fur in the EU is important for a number of reasons.
The first is the completely unacceptable so-called cat industry in Asia supplying Europe with a reported 2 million cats a year. It is outrageous that animals are skinned alive for their fur. This is the cheapest and most appalling method. I am aware that an EU regulation cannot bring about a change of behaviour among industrial breeders in third countries, but it can substantially reduce the volume of animals traded.
The second reason is that European consumers do not know that they are buying these products. If they knew they would not buy them. Cats and dogs are thought of as domestic pets in Europe. Most Europeans have no idea that cat and dog fur contributes not only to the more expensive furs of other animals but also to artificial fur. These products are not properly labelled. This is not an ethical problem, as opponents of this regulation would have it; rather, it is a matter of misleading the consumer, either intentionally or otherwise. The Union has a major obligation to prevent this. It is of course necessary for customs services in the Member States to employ effective means of determining, definitively and at reasonable expense, whether imported goods contain cat or dog fur.
The main reason, however, for adopting this regulation is the fragmentation of the market. Almost half the Member States have laws regulating or banning the trade in cat and dog fur whereas the rest do not. These regulations, with their lack of harmony, are exploited by traders on the European market, who transport goods made of cat and dog fur to the European countries where these goods are not yet banned. This regulation will substantially improve the enforcement of this law. Parliament has amended the Commission’s text so that the only exception would be the use of fur for non-commercial purposes. This is because we do not want to bring about a nonsensical criminalisation of ordinary citizens.
I call on all of you who believe that the Union has no power to intervene in these matters to see that this is simply not the case. Article 95 authorises the EU to take action in such matters because we have a common interest in the functioning of a European market with legitimate commodities. I am grateful to the Commission and applaud the rapporteurs for their work."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples