Mr President, I should also like to welcome Commissioner Byrne, who could play a significant role in this field. A great deal needs to be said about the implementation of Directive 95/29/EC and animal transport. The lack of adequate supervision, carriers who are slapdash at times and abuse during the export of animals for slaughter outside the EU give rise to much commotion. In addition, the unlimited transport of animals for slaughter by the EU has made a compelling contribution to the spread of animal diseases, including foot-and-mouth and swine fever. It is striking that the effects of this are more or less entirely shouldered by the animal farmers. Abuse during transport and the spreading of animal diseases directly impact on the image, and often the income, of animal farmers, while they are not to blame for these causes. Consequently, anyone who wants to adopt a pro-active stance in the fight against animal diseases such as foot-and-mouth and swine fever, anyone who is concerned about the difficult position European animal farmers are already in, or anyone who cares about animal welfare, will not put up with a culture of tolerance and chaotic rules for animal transport. The fact that Parliament has decided to present an initiative proposal to tighten these directives now sends a strong political signal to the Council and the Commission. After all, next month, the Council will be holding a conference on the European vaccination policy, and in this report, an initial proposal is made for effective prevention of infectious diseases. Additionally, the Commission will soon table proposals to tighten the rules for animal transport. This report also reflects Parliament’s great displeasure at the implementation of existing legislation by the Member States and the Commission’s lack of opportunity to notify Member States. This report mainly aims to identify the key conditions which sound legislation on animal transport must meet. First of all, there is supervision. The supervision of animal transport in the European Union must be tailored to European needs by taking the following measures. First of all, 15 EU inspectors should be appointed with the task of submitting annual reports to the Council, the Commission, but also the European Parliament, as well as the parliaments of the Member States. Secondly, adequate regulations must be put in place for sanctions, both financial and in terms of licences. The third point concerns the introduction of an adequate European licensing scheme for carriers of animals. I should like to make the following observations with regard to transport times. We propose to limit the duration of the transport of animals for slaughter and productive livestock to four hours, or 250 km, with a possible extension to eight hours, provided that the carrier is licensed and the animals can lie down and have a supply of fresh water. As for animals intended for breeding and sporting purposes, we suggest a transport duration of two 24-hour legs by specialist carriers, provided that the animals have a supply of fresh water and feed. With regard to possible exceptions, I should like to draw your attention to two problems. The Commission may grant exemption for areas with few or no slaughterhouses by increasing the said distances and durations by up to 50%. For small islands, but also for Ireland, and I wish to make a point of highlighting Ireland, transport by ship is subject to a separate arrangement. Furthermore, the said regions are disproportionately hit by tightened European legislation on food safety, and I would therefore suggest earmarking structural funds for those regions to invest in small, semi-mobile slaughterhouses. The export refunds for the export of live animals for slaughter should be stopped as soon as possible, but that is only possible if an international discussion is held about the transport of animals for slaughter and by adding this item to the agenda. With regard to the amendments, I should like to comment as follows. Together with the and the Socialist Group, I have tabled three amendments to enhance the report’s practical implementability. These concern Amendments Nos 4, 5 and 6, which deal, among other things, with temperature, but also a number of other practical points. I should like to express thanks to Mr Heinz Kindermann and Mr Neil Busk for their very constructive cooperation. As far as I am concerned, the report could also have been referred to as the Maat-Busk-Kindermann report. I assume that the will withdraw Amendment No 3 as it is identical to the joint amendment tabled by the , the and the . The policy of tolerance and the feel-good factor surrounding the transport of animals must be brought to a halt. In the EU, literally millions of animals have been killed and destroyed in the last four years as a result of an explosive spreading of animal diseases including foot-and-mouth and swine fever. Abuse during animal transport and the shocking images of this are an indictment of European culture of which caring about animals and the countryside form an essential part. The sad truth is that in every single case, it is the animal farmer who ends up footing the bill at a time when meat prices are unacceptably low and consumer prices remain at an all-time high. Commission and Council, it is time for action, time to choose in favour of the quality of our animals and our countryside.

Political group: PPE-DE