Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2010-04-19-Speech-1-195"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20100419.22.1-195"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, animal welfare is, in fact, something that most of the citizens of Europe care about. Animal welfare is not just about animals. It also concerns our own identity, what we think we represent and what we think Europe represents, what we consider to be the hallmarks of civilisation; it is about respect and how we treat these, our fellow travellers in the journey through life.
In my assessment, which is supported by the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, the vast majority of the five year plan adopted by Parliament in 2006 – for which Mrs Jeggle was rapporteur – has been implemented fairly reasonably. One very important piece of the puzzle is missing, and that is compliance. Consequently, when I outlined the coming five year plan – which both I and the Committee very much hope will come about this year – I focused on tightening up compliance with the existing legislation.
At present, this means, in particular, the directive on the life, welfare and management of pigs. It also concerns the recurrent problem of the long-distance transport of animals, sometimes in grim conditions. In other words, it is about compliance with, control of and the sanctions contained in the laws, directives and regulations that have already been passed.
Furthermore, I should like to see a slightly new approach – and in particular a more holistic approach. I would like to see a general act on the protection of animals that sets a basic standard for Europe, the EU and the internal market, with minimum levels laid down.
This is important for two reasons. Firstly, because of competition within the Union in the internal market; in other words, it must not be possible for one country to derive a competitive advantage as a result of the neglect of animals. The second and perhaps most important reason is that we make great demands of European farmers and producers. They therefore need to be protected from unfair competition from third countries. It is unreasonable to make such great demands of them if we are not prepared to ensure fair trade. Moreover – and this may not be so popular – somehow or other, we have to pay for animal welfare. Whether this is at the point of sale or via taxes is a debate for another occasion. We also need to establish a permanent, well-organised network – and note here what I am saying: not a new authority, but rather coordinating functions for the extremely good scientific institutions that we already have in Europe.
Last but not least, we need to get to grips with the use of antibiotics in animal husbandry. I am not talking now about the risk of antibiotic residues in foods, but rather about the resistance to antibiotics – particularly among zoonotic bacteria – which poses a considerable threat to public health."@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples