Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-04-09-Speech-3-389"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030409.8.3-389"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
". – Mr President, the agreement reached on this report in the Conciliation Committee at the end of February is indeed very good news for all pet owners, who will soon be able to travel more easily with their animals throughout the European Union.
A controversial issue earlier on was the inclusion of ferrets in the scheme. The original Commission proposal included ferrets as a category of pets which would not require any specific animal health requirements, and the common position then changed this by putting ferrets in a separate category, so they will require vaccination and identification. While many Members have expressed surprise that ferrets can be classed as pets, I can assure them that in Wales, which I represent, there are many ferret owners who will be delighted with this agreement.
This regulation has changed considerably since the Commission first published its proposal, including several aspects relating to animal health and affecting the legal basis used, but we have the basis of a good and effective scheme and one which everyone will welcome.
Finally, I would like to thank my colleagues in the other groups for their cooperation: the animal welfare intergroup for their support; several other organisations which have provided information and advice; and also the Commission and the Council for what turned out in the end to be a straightforward conciliation. We now have to ensure that people are aware of what the scheme means, and of how they can prepare in advance to take their pets with them when they travel. I look forward, on my travels back and forth, to seeing many pet owners taking advantage of these new rules which will benefit everyone.
What has been commonly labelled the pet passport scheme will make it simpler to cross borders and at the same time ensure high safety standards and the protection of public health. It is worth mentioning again that the Commission brought forward this proposal as a result of the remarkable success of measures taken to control rabies in recent years. Due to vaccination campaigns the number of cases of rabies in cats and dogs dropped from nearly 500 in 1991 to a mere 5 in 1998 and, as the Commissioner says, it has almost been eradicated. This success has enabled the Member States to adopt a set of common rules on pet animal movements which is very welcome.
Whilst there are exceptions for the so-called sensitive Member States – the UK, Sweden and Ireland for five years – in the other 12 EU countries proof of a valid rabies vaccination in the form of a passport document will be the only requirement for taking cats, dogs and ferrets between Member States as long as they also have an electronic microchip for identification, although some Member States may continue to use tattoos for an eight-year transition period.
After that time, only microchips will be allowed as it is a more humane and also a more effective method. In addition to that, microchips enable details of the pet owner to be recorded so it will be easier to trace lost animals and help combat illegal trade in pets. It is very important to be able to distinguish between commercial and non-commercial movement of animals.
The UK, Sweden and Ireland can still use quarantine for animals coming in from countries outside the EU where rabies is endemic, but for EU countries and countries where the disease is under control they will require vaccination and a follow-up immunity test before travel.
I would like to highlight briefly a couple of the key points that were raised during the discussion of this report. One is the OIE International Animal Health Code which Parliament wished to use in its entirety when drawing up the list of third countries deemed to be free of rabies. This is the position that Parliament has stated in earlier discussions. However, many countries are now moving away from use of this code and away from the strict rabies-free status; so adopting the code could actually unnecessarily exclude some countries from this pet travel scheme. But, more importantly, it could actually be less effective in stopping the spread of rabies. We must adopt the wording used in the common position.
Similarly, although Parliament expressed concern about the inclusion of animals younger than three months in the scheme, as they could not have been vaccinated, we have been assured that this will not present a danger to public health and can therefore agree to that for 12 of the 15 countries.
There has also been a great deal of debate on the role of Parliament in agreeing any extension to the five-year transitional period for the UK, Sweden and Ireland. I am pleased that agreement was reached on this point, as it is of paramount importance that decisions relating to a report which has been adopted under the codecision procedure should themselves be subject to codecision when being amended or reviewed.
The Commission will have sufficient time to consult Parliament and the Council following the scientific assessment of this scheme which will be carried out in 2008. Similarly, comitology is now limited to implementation measures which Parliament could accept, and the delegation noted the Commission's statement on this."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples