Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-05-03-Speech-4-095"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010503.5.4-095"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"This report raises certain questions.
First of all, with regard to the legal basis that is the combination of Article 37, on the organisation of the agricultural markets, and Article 152, on phytosanitary and veterinary measures. Article 152(1)(2) only states that “Community action, which shall complement national policies, shall be directed towards improving public health…” There is no mention of harmonisation.
Then, there is the question of the added value of the Union: without any harmonisation of health policy, the fight against rabies has produced very good results in Europe, enabling quarantine measures, for example, to be lifted in Sweden and the United Kingdom.
Finally, there is the question of the financial implications for pet owners of the proposal for a regulation: tattooing carried out by a vet costs around FRF 150 whereas fitting a microchip will cost between FRF 400 and FRF 500 francs. Tattooing, which has been tested in health and veterinary practice in France, has the advantage of being immediately readable, thereby making the search for the animal’s owner straightforward and rapid and does not require any reading equipment.
This proposal would require the standardisation of transponders (Standard ISO 11784) and of reading equipment for the microchips (Standard ISO 11785). In any event, the person responsible for the animal must not be responsible, when checks are carried out, for the equipment needed to read the microchip.
Following the eight-year transitional period, both methods of identification – tattoo and transponder – must coexist. The owner must be given the choice of which method of identification he or she prefers.
As for those who are pressing for the widespread use of transponders for reasons of animal welfare, we feel that that is another debate altogether.
For all of these reasons, we oppose the text."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples