Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-11-18-Speech-2-318"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20031118.13.2-318"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
". – Mr President, I have taken careful note of the various arguments made and I appreciate the efforts put into this, especially by Mr Adam, to contribute to the overall goal of reinforcing the system of identification and registration of sheep and goats in the Community.
The Commission can also agree to Amendments 20 and 32, as regards the provisions of the mark, but the Commission cannot agree to Amendments 19, 31, 32 or 33, as animals shall keep the same identification code when means of identification are replaced so as to ensure traceability.
The Commission cannot agree to Amendments 30 and 32, by which animals shall be identified by an eartag or a tattoo in one ear only. The double tagging is essential to ensure that identity is retained where one eartag is lost. The second eartag can be replaced by an electronic identifier.
The Commission can agree to Amendment 34, accepting that eartags may be made of metal or plastic and may consist of one or two parts, taking into account approval by the competent authority.
The Commission can agree to Amendments 8, 9, 10, 11, 15, 16, 25, 26, 39 and 40. However, the Commission cannot agree to Amendments 22 or 24, as the competent authority shall establish the database including the procedures for submission of data.
The Commission cannot agree to Amendments 35, 36, 38 or 41 with regard to batch-recording as the general system. Individual identification is essential for the effective tracing of animals for veterinary purposes, which is of crucial importance for the control of contagious diseases. Therefore, a general system based on batch-recording is not acceptable. Batch-recording does not achieve the results that are required by this proposal, bearing in mind that the batch may well be broken up again and again, in which case traceability becomes quite impossible. This is something that many people in the House will remember when we recollect the difficulties that were presented to the authorities in a number of Member States, including, in particular, the UK, in seeking to achieve good traceability at the outbreak of the foot and mouth disease crisis, where three weeks passed before there was effective identification in some cases. That was in a context, as far as I am aware, where 19 farms were infected by the disease from the time of the announcement of the movement order restriction to the implementation of that movement order restriction: only a matter of hours, not weeks.
The Commission cannot agree to Amendments, 5, 13 or 29, as Community financing is not foreseen.
I recognise that this proposal will require significant efforts by both operators and authorities, but I shall stress that these efforts are both worthwhile and necessary. For full clarity and transparency I will circulate a succinct table of the Commission's position in respect of each of these amendments to facilitate matters for you in the vote tomorrow.
I have sympathy with the farmers' situation, but I should like to remind the House – as Mrs Doyle did – of the 2001 foot and mouth disease outbreak, which proved that individual identification was necessary. Mention has been made of the costs involved in this. Advice I have received regarding the estimates given by one Member State points out that these costs are not accurate. The costs we have put forward are much closer to the likely outcome of the situation.
The Commission can agree to Amendment 3 with regard to the stage of development of electronic identification, but the Commission cannot agree to Amendment 3 with regard to the introduction of electronic identification on a voluntary basis.
The Commission can agree to Amendments 17, 18 and 23 with regard to the postponement of the entry into force of the reinforced system until 1 July 2005.
In view of the evolution of the discussion in Council, the Commission could agree to Amendment 17, with regard to deferring the age of tagging in general until 6 months.
The Commission can agree to Amendments 6 and 27, on the submission of a report on the experience gained with regard to the implementation of electronic identification. However, the Commission cannot agree to submit a new legislative proposal with a view to the general introduction of electronic identification on 1 July 2007. Neither can the Commission undertake field trials as foreseen by Amendment 21.
The Commission can agree to Amendments 4 and 7 concerning the role of the Joint Research Centre. However, the Commission cannot agree to Amendments 1 or 2, as reliable registration cannot be achieved through electronic identification only.
The Commission can agree to the linguistic Amendment 12. However, the Commission cannot agree to Amendment 28, as this issue is covered by general rules.
The Commission can agree to Amendment 14, as the responsibilities of the transporter shall include the assurance that animals are properly identified and registered."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples