Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-10-22-Speech-2-051"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2002-10-22"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Animal-health requirements applicable to non-commercial movement of pets2
dcterms:Language	"en"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20021022.2.2-051"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2002-10-22-Speech-2-0522
lpv:speaker	lp:Phillip Whitehead2
lpv:spoken text	"Mr President, this measure is of great significance in those countries – the United Kingdom, Ireland and Sweden – which are now bringing their rules on the movement of pet animals into line with practices elsewhere in the Community. Like the rapporteur, I believe it is a pity that we could not reach agreement before the conciliation stage, but I understand the differences. Some of those differences will be reflected in this debate, and I still have some minor differences with the rapporteur, which she has already acknowledged. For those countries which have prevented the entry of animals that may be at risk of rabies without a long period of quarantine, this is, in a way, an act of faith. It is made possible by the fact that we now have effective vaccination methods which can be indicated by the transponder chip. We have recently had representations from some members of the veterinary profession arguing for an extension of the tattooing principle and claiming that the transponder chip can be surgically removed or otherwise nullified. I cannot accept those arguments. There is broad agreement between the Commission and all Members of this House that we should move toward alignment. I share the rapporteur's concern that the movement of young animals, which must present at least some element of risk, should be subject to the same constraints as that of other categories. I have not been able to follow the arguments against that, other than that it may, somewhere along the line, affect the trade in animals. But, as the Commissioner well knows, trade in animals, if it is not effectively handled, has led to the perpetuation of some serious abuses in the Community in recent years. I do not believe this is a persuasive argument. I agree, however, with the Commission and not the rapporteur on Amendments Nos 7, 8, and 9. It is counterproductive to introduce amendments which will effectively constrain the movement of animals between some existing Member States, as well as extending the scheme – as the United Kingdom and other countries with the current constraints would like – to countries that are not rabies-free. For the United States and Canada, for example, we see no reason why there should be the further impediments set out in Amendments Nos 7, 8 and 9. We agree with the rapporteur, however, on the question of comitology. I welcome the Commissioner's assurance that a suitable amendment allowing for reference to Parliament at any process of review will be introduced. In conclusion, although this is a small measure to many and will not mean much to those countries where animals routinely cross internal EU borders, for those who cherish pets as lifelong companions it is a measure that will be greatly welcomed."@en1
lpv:spokenAs	member; PES (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 member; Delegation to the EU-Czech Republic Joint Parliamentary Committee (2002-02-07--2004-04-30)3 member; Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 unknown; Labour Party (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 member; Temporary committee on foot and mouth disease (2002-01-17--2002-12-17)3 substitute; Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	"Whitehead (PSE )."1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph