Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-02-13-Speech-1-108"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060213.11.1-108"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
".
Mr President, I would like to thank Members for a very interesting debate. Perhaps I should have quoted Mahatma Ghandi earlier: ‘The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated’. In the European Union, thank God, we have a very high level of civilisation. The largest number of letters and complaints I have received from European citizens concerns animal welfare, in particular broilers. So this proposal reflects the views of European citizens. It is based on science, but also on consultations with all the stakeholders over a period of three years to take account of all their views and concerns. It is a compromise. Some would like us to go further and have said it is a low-standard proposal. Others say we have gone too far. It is a step towards protecting the welfare of animals, but it also takes into account the interests of the producers.
Competitiveness is certainly important, but we know that the cost imposed on production by animal welfare standards is very low, something between 2.5 and 8 cents per bird. The other costs affect competitiveness. But I do not believe that European producers can compete on the basis of cost. They should compete on the basis of quality. I have some photographs here of the dermatitis caused by this intensive farming and I do not think that any European consumer would be willing to eat these birds; it is just that they do not know about it. So awareness and education are the best policy, together with labelling, which is very important. We have letters; we have Eurobarometer. European citizens are ready to pay more, provided they know, and we are working on that.
On the issue of avian flu, best practices in animal welfare help us implement preventive measures more effectively, to protect the industry and the birds from avian flu. If it is easier to detect sick animals, it is easier to control the situation, and therefore these proposals on animal welfare and protection against avian flu are compatible.
Regarding the amendments, because of the lack of time we will circulate a full list of those that have been accepted and those that have not. I would ask that this list be included in the verbatim report of proceedings of this sitting. Many of the amendments were accepted because they are compatible with the philosophy of the proposal. Others cannot be accepted, mostly for technical reasons or because the provisions are already included in existing legislation. Proposals such as those that take account of climatic conditions, types of production, training of staff and the way the checks should be performed can all be accepted.
One of the most sensitive issues was density. We feel that the proposal is a reasonable compromise. It meets the standards, it improves the situation and it establishes conditions and controls. We would therefore prefer that Parliament accept the Commission’s proposal on that point and we cannot accept that amendment.
Concerning mandatory labelling, we feel – and I agree with Mr Parish that it is very important – that six months is a rather short period. It would be very difficult to produce a substantial report with specific proposals, so we need more time for that.
Finally, on the issue of cost, not everything can be measured in monetary terms, but I know it is a very important aspect. Animal welfare is a very small part of the production cost. I mentioned earlier that in one of the cases the World Bank studied, with the adoption of a very small number of improvements in the treatment of birds, a farm managed to save USD 320 000 per year. I think that proves that adopting animal welfare policies is only really a cost in the short term; eventually it makes a profit and there is a financial benefit for the producers.
I would like to thank Members again for their support for this proposal, which is a big step towards improving animal welfare in the European Union."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples