Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-05-02-Speech-3-194"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010502.14.3-194"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
". – Mr President, I wish to thank the rapporteur, Mrs Evans, and the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy for their report on the proposal for a European Parliament and Council regulation on the animal health requirements applicable to non-commercial movements of pet animals.
I should say to Mr Davies that I have discovered quite a lot more about ferrets than I knew yesterday and some of my meetings during the day today, including some of the exotic entertainments engaged some Member States, might account for some of interest that Mr Davies supports.
I would have been more open to the creation of a new category for ferrets with the requirement for vaccination, which is possible, but no post vaccination test can be foreseen. The amendments submitted by the rapporteur and committee, but rejected, were heading in that direction and would have reached, in my opinion, a solution acceptable to everybody.
The Commission can accept six amendments: Amendment No 4 concerning the commitment for the future on a revision of the regulations applying to commercial trade species; Amendments Nos 8, 9 and 15 which bring clarification to the proposal and Amendment No 11 relating to a communication on this issue to the public by Member States.
It was with great interest that I discovered in Amendment No 6 a real pro-active position in favour of a generalisation, in the short term, of the electronic identification complying with ISO standard of animals moved between Member States or from third countries. Therefore I can accept this amendment.
In summary, the Commission cannot accept Amendments Nos 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 10, 12, 13 and 14. On the other hand, the Commission can accept Amendments Nos 4, 8, 9, 11, 15 and 6.
To conclude, I wish to once again thank Mrs Evans for her excellent report and her support to this important proposal.
This assembly is well aware of the importance of this issue which concerns all European citizens who are travelling either for holidays or for longer stays with their pets and do not want to leave them behind. I do not mean that citizens cannot today travel with their pets, but the different regulations applicable in the Member States to movements inside the Community, as well as movements from third countries, are definitely difficult to understand and somewhat discouraging. It is therefore time to establish a common set of rules applicable to the entire European Community, because this issue is directly linked to the free movement of European citizens when they own a pet.
The centre of gravity of this proposal is of course the rabies risk linked to movements of cats and dogs, the two major domestic carnivore species involved in the transmission of this fatal disease. On this essential issue, the proposal is based on the recommendations of the International Zoo Sanitary Code, on reports of the Scientific Veterinary Committee and on the conclusions on panels of international experts consulted on the assessment of the rabies risk linked to movements of domestic carnivores.
I am most satisfied that the report supports the Commission's general approach on this fundamental question of public health. There is unanimous agreement on the safety of the technical provisions relating to the management of the rabies risk, even if a few points of disagreement remain and may need some further clarification.
Allow me now to address in detail the amendments proposed in the report. I will begin with the amendments the Commission cannot accept. The Commission cannot accept Amendments Nos 1, 2, 3, 5, 12 and 13 relating to the legal base of the proposal. The report concludes that Article 152(4)(b) of the Treaty is sufficient because the essential aim of the proposal is to protect public health. This is indeed true at this stage, nevertheless the Commission considers that measures relating strictly to animal disease with no impact on public health could be necessary in the future, and a double legal base with Article 37 is therefore necessary. I was asked by one Member earlier if we have we enough legal base or enough information to prevent other diseases in animals. This is one of the reasons why Article 37 is included as a legal base.
I am aware from other proposals brought before Parliament that there is a general reluctance in Parliament and in the Environment Committee to support Article 37 as a legal base for provisions in conjunction with Article 152, probably because Article 37 is not a co-decision article. But I would ask Parliament to reconsider its view in relation to this particular amendment and consider the question in the light of the need for animal health considerations being relevant, as one Member mentioned. Hence the need for Article 37 rather than Article 152.
The Commission cannot accept Amendment No 7 because it goes far beyond the scope of the proposal which is movement between Member States and from third countries. This amendment provides an obligation for all Member States in relation to the generalisation of electronic identification of all cats and dogs and the establishment of a database to trace any stray or lost animal.
On the classification of third countries, the Commission proposal adopts the same conditions for imports from certain third countries whose rabies status is equivalent to that of the Member States as those which apply for internal movements. Amendment No 10 suggests imposing on this category of third countries the criteria provided in the International Zoo Sanitary code for the recognition of a rabies-free country. This is not consistent with the conditions applicable to internal movements. A number of Member States are not rabies-free countries under this definition, even if rabies in domestic animals is under control on their territory. This would be a discrimination which is not scientifically sound, and therefore Amendment No 10 is not acceptable.
Finally, the Commission cannot accept Amendment No 14. This amendment would delete "ferret" from the list of species which may be moved inside the Community with no veterinary conditions. The Commission proposal was based on a risk analysis which concluded that this species has no significance in the epidemiology of rabies in Europe. I understand the special concerns with regard to this species because it is a carnivore and does bite, but the simple deletion from the list in Annex I, Part b is unfair to this species, as the only reason is that it belongs to the carnivore genus."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples