Mr President, the purpose of this regulation is to ensure consistency by 2002 in the rules governing the non-commercial movement of pet animals, which has been commonly labelled the pet-passport scheme. The fact that this proposal has been brought forward by the Commission represents a remarkable achievement in action taken to control rabies. The success of the vaccination campaigns against rabies have led to a fall in the number of cases amongst cats and dogs from nearly 500 in 1991 to just 5 in 1998 and it is because of that success that we have seem the partial abolition of the six-month quarantine system in the United Kingdom and Sweden. It is the problem of rabies, which has prevented consistent rules being adopted up until now, and so Member States have dealt with the movement of pet animals in very different ways, so I am sure that a uniform set of rules will be very welcome. The Commission measures are based largely on the British scheme and they allow for the easier movement of cats and dogs within the EU and certain third countries on condition that they can be identified by electronic chip or tattoo, that they have been vaccinated and that their immunity has been checked more than six months prior to travel. The proposal also allows the free movement of insects, fish and some other animals. It is very important that there is scope within this proposal for certain Member States to vary the provisions when special circumstances make that necessary. The Commission proposed both Article 37 and 152(4)(b) as a double legal base. However, as the regulation refers only to pet animals and to the adoption of veterinary measures to protect health, the Environment Committee agreed that the regulation should be based only on Article 152(4)(b) which relates to public health and which covers rabies. The Committee on Legal Affairs agreed with this view as again the proposal concerns only the movement of pet animals and its aim is the protection of public health. I hope that we can reach agreement on the legal base. The key points of debate in committee were first the use of tattoos and electronic identification systems. Tattoos can cause problems, they can become difficult to read or they can be altered. In contrast, the use of electronic chips are more effective both in terms of identification, but they are also a much more humane method because the animal does not need a pain reliever or a tranquilliser. Therefore, in the long-term we believe that microchips are preferable, but we have to take account of the fact that a number of Member States at the moment accept tattoos under their national legislation and so a transitional period of 8 years is proposed by the Committee for the phasing out of the tattoos. Similarly, it is proposed that during this transition period the countries which do not accept tattoos as a valid form of identification at the moment can still require electronic microchips only. Amendment No 8 refers to the need to state clearly in this proposal that puppies and kittens cannot moved until they have reached the age for vaccination and other requirements because there is misconception about this. If this scheme is to be successful, it is crucial that it is operated effectively. The use of specified ISO transponders would help achieve this. Similarly, the capacity to record the name and address of the animal owner would assist in combating trafficking in pet animals, and clarification of the anti-rabies vaccine is included in the report as well as the OIE International Animal Health Code again for the purposes of effectiveness of the proposal. Another issue that we discussed in committee is that of quarantine and the purpose of Amendment No 9 is to clarify that animals from third countries at risk of rabies which are brought into Sweden, Ireland or the UK, the so-called sensitive countries, via another Member State have to remain in that country for at least six months before travelling to those three countries. This of course removes the need for quarantine, but it also provides the extra safeguards that those countries require. A controversial issue has been that of ferrets and whether or not they should be included in this regulation. The Commission proposal includes ferrets in the category of pets which would not require any specific animal health requirements. There have been very different views on this, but the view of the Environment Committee is that this would pose an unacceptable risk and ferrets should therefore be removed from Annex I, Part b. Finally, it is very important that detailed information is available for consumers and for staff at EU borders to ensure they are familiar with the requirements. My aim in drafting the report has been to retain the positive and essential elements of the Commission's proposal whilst at the same time taking account of the requirements of certain Member States. We heard a lot in the previous debate about confidence, and confidence in this scheme is essential for its successful operation and the amendments are designed to improve the Commission's texts to this end.

Political group: Verts-ALE