Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-10-22-Speech-2-048"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20021022.2.2-048"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
". – Mr President, the aim of this regulation is to ensure consistency in the rules for travelling with pet animals, commonly known as the pet passport scheme. It is a very welcome development and very important to the lives of many EU citizens who have, in the past, been prevented from travelling because they could not take their pet animals with them. The fact that the Commission has been able to bring forward such a proposal reflects the incredible success of the steps taken over recent years to control rabies. It is worth repeating the figures: cases among cats and dogs have fallen from nearly 500 in 1991 to just 5 in 1998.
As the Member States started to adopt their own rules for the increased movement of pet animals, it became clear that a European system was needed to make it easier for pet owners and avoid confusion. I am pleased that Parliament's amendments, adopted in the common position, called for detailed information for consumers so that they can make the necessary preparations before travelling.
I would like to draw attention to some of the key issues. First, the legal base. Members will recall that this was one of the main issues at first reading. The Commission proposed a double legal base, whereas Parliament's view was that, since the main aim of this regulation was to protect public health, a single legal base should apply. However, following the receipt of the common position, the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, has accepted the double legal base.
Secondly, trade. Once the Council has included measures on trade within the regulation, as requested by Parliament, the distinction between commercial and non-commercial movement is still not defined clearly enough. Under the Council proposal, the maximum number of five animals that can be moved under this regulation is fine. But if the purpose of the regulation is primarily to protect public health, then the number of animals being transported is not relevant. We have therefore tabled amendments deleting the maximum number.
Thirdly, identification. Parliament previously called for ISO standard transponders to be used and for the owner's name and address to be included. The Commission and the Council proposals allowed for other types of transponders to be used, as long as the owner carried the means to read the information. As ISO chips are not available in all countries, the Committee on the Environment has agreed to remove the requirement for ISO standard equipment, but still wants the owner's details to be included. This would help combat trafficking in pet animals. We strongly believe that electronic identification is more effective, humane and reliable than tattoos and that, after the transitional eight-year period, only microchips would be acceptable.
The fourth point relates to young animals. The Committee has re-tabled the amendments preventing the movement of animals under three months old without the requirements of this scheme. This would not be applicable to the United Kingdom, Ireland or Sweden, but it would apply to the other Member States. I do not believe that it is possible for the authorities to carry out proper checks on young animals, for instance ensuring that they have remained at the place of birth or have not had any contact with wild animals. This therefore leaves a loophole for trade in puppies and kittens particularly.
The fifth point concerns the involvement of Parliament. Several of our amendments relate to Parliament's involvement in decisions such as the extension of the transitional measures for the three sensitive Member States and to comitology -retaining Parliament's right to be consulted.
Finally, the OIE International Animal Health Code. The committee has retained the requirement to take into account the OIE Code when deciding on the health status of third countries in the scheme. This has been a subject of some debate. I am aware that the Council felt that the OIE Code would exclude large parts of the EU from free movement of animals, especially after enlargement. I also know that countries such as the United Kingdom are moving away from rabies-free status because it would exclude, for example, Canada and the USA, but the committee has decided to adopt a cautious approach.
I believe that each of these issues can be resolved without too much difficulty and I ask Parliament to support the position of the Committee on the Environment. I must say that I am disappointed that, despite my best efforts, an agreement could not be reached with the Council before the second reading and I am very grateful to the shadow rapporteurs from the other groups, the representatives of the presidency and the Commission for their cooperation in our discussions over the past three weeks. I believe that Parliament has taken a very constructive approach and we will continue to do so in order to reach agreement as soon as possible."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples