Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-07-01-Speech-2-230"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030701.7.2-230"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
".
In answer to the supplementary question from Mr Purvis, let me say that I, the Commission and my advisers have considered the possibility of herd tagging. I raised that question specifically with them. The answer they gave me – and it seemed credible – is that the system of herd tagging you suggest does not have the same degree of security in circumstances where you may have an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease or similar.
Also, for the reason that you identify in your supplementary question, in these markets that we see in Scotland and in my home country of Ireland as well, herds arrive, they are sub-divided into other herds, they are separated so that the chance of following a particular herd number and getting the information that you need in the case of an outbreak of disease is diluted to a considerable extent. In fact, it eliminates the opportunity of following a particular animal that may be carrying that particular disease.
In those circumstances, the only alternative available to us was to come forward with an individual identification tag system. I acknowledge this will last for an interim transition period until electronic tagging comes into play: it is scheduled for 1 July 2006.
I have to say to Mr Purvis that there are many people calling for this system of tagging for the reason that I have identified. Member States want it, even the Member States that have large sheep populations and trade a lot in sheep, both within the Member State and across borders. For those reasons, the degree of support that exists in the Community for this proposal is strong. Therefore, in the light of the need to protect animal health and for other reasons it seems necessary to come forward with that particular proposal.
Finally, I should again draw attention to what I said a moment ago: the Commission has taken into account the diversity of the sheep population and the sheep production systems in Member States and the proposal includes options which Member States may decide to apply under certain circumstances. For instance, for animals kept in extensive farming conditions and in free range, the age of tagging may be extended from one month to six months of age, but, in any event, before leaving the holding of birth. Also, for animals intended for slaughter before six months of age, the identification code may be the code of the holding of birth and the month of birth. Under this system, instead of each individual animal, groups of animals with the same identification code are recorded in the holding register and the movement document. That is a measure that was introduced in the legislation in ease of the kind of farming that I know exists in some remote areas in Scotland and, to a very large extent, meets the case that you have put forward in trying to respond to the concerns that you address.
Where the animals are obviously over six months of age, then, of course, individual tagging must take place for the reason I have already identified."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples