Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2008-05-21-Speech-3-471"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20080521.31.3-471"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, the truth of the matter, Commissioner, is that all of us on the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development gave a hearty welcome to the new Animal Health Strategy that you submitted to us, as demonstrated by the many contributions to this report.
It must be said that this is the largest and most ambitious programme ever submitted in relation to this issue, and I must congratulate you here. However, to tell the truth, I must voice my surprise that the mighty ambition of the arguments has not been accompanied by the required budget planning, for it is obvious that the current veterinary funds will not be sufficient to deal with the new and extremely necessary prevention policies.
Commissioner, we have just received Mrs Fischer Boel’s proposal in relation to the CAP health check, and neither health nor animal welfare are recipients of the funds to be allocated to rural development to deal with the new challenges, contrary to what the services were apparently expecting, or so I was told.
In other words, the policy we are discussing will not have extra funds, or at least not agriculture funds – as I think you said – until the new financial perspective.
Commissioner: a budget with no policy is of no use, but a policy with no budget can prove totally sterile. If we wish to meet our current objectives, the budget debate must include future application of this strategy. Moreover, it is obviously going to be extremely difficult to meet the communication’s 2007-2013 schedule. Thus I want to ask you whether you can state when the action plan will be ready, and when you think the initial regulations will be adopted.
As regards amendments, my Group has slightly amended paragraph 29. When the right measures are not applied, problems arise regardless of the livestock production system operating in each Member State. What is important is that things are done properly.
We agree with the development of legislative measures to control pets, but we feel finance ought to be earmarked for farm animals.
Nor do we intend to support the PPE-DE Group’s Amendment 29, the objective of which is to rehash a debate that has no place here. It was, in fact, the Council that postponed a decision four years ago on animal transportation until 2011, in favour of an agreement on some extremely important matters. This is also a controversial issue that requires impact surveys and a solid scientific basis, and I thus wish to reiterate that the amendment is totally at odds with this issue, and my Group will certainly vote against it."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples