Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-10-22-Speech-2-049"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20021022.2.2-049"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
". – Mr President, firstly I would like to thank the rapporteur, Ms Evans, and the Committee on the Environment, for the report on the Council's common position. I am satisfied that the report reflects a general agreement on the safety of the technical provisions relating to the management of the rabies risk, even if a few points of disagreement remain and may need some further clarification.
Amendment No 12 unreasonably deprives the Commission of any possibility to propose temporary measures, whereas Amendment No 16 would have allowed this in a reasonable way. I cannot therefore accept Amendment No 12.
Nor can I accept the other four amendments. Amendments Nos 10 and 11 would limit the executive competence of the Commission to 'technical' aspects. This wording would very likely give rise to legal arguments on the interpretation of the word 'technical', which is not defined in the legislation. This would jeopardise the sound management and efficient implementation of the regulation. Amendments Nos 14 and 15 cannot be accepted because they go beyond the institutional agreement. I would also like to draw your attention to the fact that they are not consistent with the dual legal base of the regulation.
I hope I have adequately explained the reasoning behind the positions I have taken on the amendments.
The main differences between the original proposal submitted to Parliament at first reading and the common position we have before us today fall into three categories. First, we have the provision facilitating movements of young animals between Member States of equivalent status. Second, the provisions for reassessment within a period of five years of the specific conditions for movements to Ireland, the United Kingdom and Sweden. Third, provisions amending the conditions applying to trade to align them with the conditions applying to non-commercial movements – to accommodate the wish expressed by Parliament at first reading.
Allow me now to address in detail the amendments proposed in the report. They can be split into two categories – technical amendments and institutional amendments. I will begin with the nine technical amendments.
Amendments Nos 1 and 6 may be the result of a misunderstanding. The setting of a maximum number of animals aims only to distinguish commercial movements from other non-commercial movements. It is not intended to be a dividing line between two different types of rules – the same rules would apply to commercial and non-commercial movements. So it would be incorrect to say that setting a maximum of, say, five would be any threat to public health. In effect, it means that once you go above five, the commercial rules apply but below five the rules set out in this draft legislation apply.
Amendments Nos 3 and 4 would result in a prohibition of movements of young animals under the age of vaccination between Member States other than the United Kingdom, Ireland and Sweden, for which specific provisions exist.
The conclusion of the discussion with the Council was that those movements of young animals have always been allowed, that they represent a negligible risk and that this flexibility must be maintained. Otherwise, the movement of these animals would be seriously undermined. Therefore, Amendments Nos 1, 3, 4 and 6 cannot be accepted.
Amendments Nos 7, 8 and 9 suggest the adoption of import conditions equivalent to those that apply to movements inside the Community for third countries free of rabies as defined in the OIE Code. As already stated at first reading, this is not in line with the risk analysis approach that we need to adopt, so these amendments cannot be accepted. In fact, this would not be consistent with the conditions applicable to movements inside the Union, as some Member States are not 'rabies free' under the OIE Code definition, even if rabies in domestic animals is under control on their territory, as Ms Evans mentioned. We therefore need to take a similar approach to third countries with similar circumstances. Finally, on the technical amendments, the Commission can accept Amendments Nos 2 and 13.
Almost all Member States consider microchipping to be a reliable method of identification, and I look favourably on automatic harmonisation after a transitional period of eight years.
Let me now turn to the seven institutional amendments. In a spirit of compromise, the Commission could consider favourably Amendment No 5, which aims to introduce a codecision procedure for the extension of specific provisions applicable to the UK, Ireland and Sweden. The Commission could also have accepted Amendment No 16 as an alternative to Amendment No 12, and I regret therefore that Amendment No 16 has been withdrawn."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples