Mr President, the Regulation before us is aimed at coordinating and facilitating matters for those who wish to travel within Europe with their pets. The matter may at first sight appear trivial, but we Swedes remember the Swedish ambassador to Portugal, who has now been retired for a good 20 years, who refused to leave his residence in Lisbon because his life companion, an old Angora cat, would be forced to remain in quarantine for a long period in order to be able to enter Sweden. In the first place, these rules are intended to offer protection against rabies, a disease which, in popular belief, has fearful and deeply mystical associations. It is not for nothing that, in Swedish, the disease is known by a word also meaning hydrophobia. Ireland, Great Britain and Sweden have been free from rabies for quite a few years, and the proposal for a Regulation is therefore, in the first place, of significance for these countries, even though the incidence of rabies has declined throughout Europe. We must, however, make sure that the rules are designed in such a way as to provide adequate protection against the spread of rabies to, in the first place, areas that are free of the disease. In the wake of mad cow disease and foot-and-mouth disease, cases of rabies in, for example, Great Britain as a result of changed EU regulations would give rise to deep mistrust of the EU as an organisation. In the course of dealing with this matter, the legal basis has been changed. The change is explained in terms of the fact that the Regulation is aimed at protecting public health. Nonetheless, animal diseases too, including those affecting pets, can be very aggressive and cause great suffering. Examples include aggressive forms of distemper. I should therefore like to ask Commissioner Byrne: do you believe that protective measures in accordance with other EU directives are enough to enable the Member States to take measures to combat infectious diseases that can cause great suffering among domestic animals? For many years, it has been incomprehensible that the rules governing the commercial transport of animals have been less rigorous than for domestic animals of the same species. The undersigned therefore submitted a proposal to the committee to the effect that the Commission should review existing legislation governing trade involving animals with a view to attempting to achieve harmonisation with the rules in this proposal for a Regulation. This was also the committee’s decision, but I would alert the Bureau and the secretariat to the fact that the wording in the present proposal has been changed on this point. Many are of the belief that puppies and kittens cannot be infected by rabies and can therefore cross the borders in Europe freely. It is therefore important that the proposal for a Regulation should have been clarified in this respect, especially with a view to reducing the illicit trade in puppies and kittens not protected against rabies that clearly exists at the present time. Apart from dogs and cats, ferrets are the only pets that can spread rabies. There are now scientific proofs that vaccinating ferrets against rabies is effective. According to the Swedish state Institute of Veterinary Medicine, ferrets ought in future to be vaccinated in the same way as dogs and cats. In the reading in committee, all mention of ferrets was, however, removed from the list of measures to be taken. Reference to ferrets ought, however, to be introduced into Annex 1, Part A, alongside reference to dogs and cats, and, if this is not approved, ferrets should continue to be referred to in Part B as per the Commission’s proposal. Completely to omit ferrets is irresponsible. We must remember that it is, in particular, children and young people who have ferrets as pets. Finally, I want to thank the rapporteur, Mrs Evans, for the sound work she has done on this matter.

Political group: PPE-DE