Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-12-16-Speech-2-273"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20031216.6.2-273"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, I thank Mrs Grossetête for her excellent work on this report. The tragedy is that human and veterinary medicines have been confused rather, because both of them are combined in one report. We should really be looking at them quite separately. I will come back to that in a moment. On that score I agree totally with what Mrs Doyle said.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank both the UK and the Irish Permanent Representatives for their work. It is a pity that their work on this report has been rejected by some Member States. The Council's co-called common position is not at all a compromise: it is merely a way of expressing the Commission's original proposals, and the Commission has made it clear that any listing of products arising from comitology proposals will largely be under its control.
The common position would mean, as Mrs Doyle quite rightly said, that many rural small businesses would be put out of business. That is of particular importance. There has been huge confusion here and this is where the Council seems to have got it totally and utterly wrong that we are asking for exemption for prescription medicines. That is not the case: they are already covered under food safety regulations and completely off the record as far as we are concerned. We are not asking for that sort of thing.
Mrs Doyle quite rightly said that while you can go to the chemist's and get a pill for a headache, the problem is that in the United Kingdom and Ireland you can go to similar locally registered people where you can get flea powder, teat-dip for cows all those sort of things. And we are going to put at risk not only animal health but also animal welfare and the whole principle, because people just will not bother to pay the money for a vet. That is very important. This is already covered, as I have already said, by legislation. In the United Kingdom we do not eat horses, dogs, cats, or budgerigars for that matter, so these should not apply.
I would say to you that if you cannot accept this sort of proposal then maybe we should have taken veterinary medicines out of this particular proposal and had a separate piece of legislation for it. In fact, tomorrow, if you are not prepared to accept what Mrs Doyle and I are saying, it might be an idea to vote against this particular piece of legislation and send it back to committee."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples