Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-03-09-Speech-2-018"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2004-03-09"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Official feed and food controls2
dcterms:Language	"en"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20040309.2.2-018"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2004-03-09-Speech-2-0192
lpv:speaker	lp:Robert Goodwill2
lpv:spoken text	"Mr President, I would like to thank Mrs Paulsen for all the work she has done to come to this complex compromise. Whilst welcoming the animal welfare aspect of this proposal, I agree with Mrs Klaß that maybe we are rushing a little and we need time to look at every aspect of this rather complex deal. I am also worried that once again we may be coming up against the law of unintended consequences. You may recall that when the original slaughterhouse regulations came forward, the UK Government got hold of them and goldplated them. This resulted in very high costs for some small slaughterhouses which, faced with those costs, closed. That then resulted in animals having to travel very large distances to slaughterhouses. As regards charges, in the case of this particular proposal, whilst it is true that different charges being levied in different countries is a distortion of the free market, common charges would not reflect the differences in cost of inspections in, for example, Lithuania as opposed to Germany. We now seem to have a balance where the cost will reflect the actual cost of those inspections, but it is possible that there will be loopholes, particularly in the way that some countries define 'small operators'. Yes, I support exemptions for small operators, but I can see how some countries that want to subsidise production in certain remote areas would use that definition. Secondly, on the issue of 'naming and shaming', nobody could be against freedom of information – we are all in favour of transparency and openness – and not to be in favour of it would be to support secrecy. We need to be careful, for example, to look at the situation in the UK, where if you are prosecuted you appear in the paper, but if minor infringements are discovered, such as a cracked tile in a slaughterhouse or a piece of mouse dirt in a restaurant, this does not appear on the front page of the local newspaper. In conclusion, whilst I appreciate the good intentions, we need to look at this more carefully to make sure that we do not once again come up against the law of unintended consequences."@en1
lpv:spokenAs	member; Committee on Women's Rights and Equal Opportunities (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 member_of_the_bureau; EPP-ED (2002-03-08--2004-07-19)3 unknown; Conservative and Unionist Party (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 member; Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 member; Delegation to the EU-Russia Parliamentary Cooperation Committee (2003-09-25--2004-07-19)3 member; Delegation to the EU-Ukraine and the EU-Moldova Parliamentary Cooperation Committees and Delegation for relations with Belarus (2002-02-07--2004-07-19)3
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	"Goodwill (PPE-DE )."1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph