2012/2031(INI)
Protection of animals during transport
Protection of animals during transport 2012/2031(INI)
Lead committee dossier: AGRI/7/08412
Legal basis: RoP 048
| AGRI | ENVI | TRAN | |
| Lead Rapporteur | WOJCIECHOWSKI Janusz (ECR) | ||
| Opinion Rapporteur(s) | LIOTARD Kartika Tamara (GUE/NGL) | DE GRANDES PASCUAL Luis (EPP) |
Legal basis: RoP 048
Procedure completed
2012/2031(INI) Protection of animals during transport
Lead committee dossier: AGRI/7/08412
Legal Basis RoP 048
| Role | Committee | Rapporteur | Shadows |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lead | AGRI | WOJCIECHOWSKI Janusz (ECR) | DE LANGE Esther (EPP), KADENBACH Karin (S&D), PAULSEN Marit (ALDE), SMITH Alyn (Verts/ALE), LE HYARIC Patrick (GUE/NGL) |
| Opinion | ENVI | LIOTARD Kartika Tamara (GUE/NGL) | |
| Opinion | TRAN | DE GRANDES PASCUAL Luis (EPP) |
Legal Basis RoP 048
Subjects
Activites
- 2012/12/12 Text adopted by Parliament, single reading
-
2012/12/11
Debate in Parliament
-
2012/10/16
Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading
-
A7-0331/2012
summary
The Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development has adopted an own-initiative report by Janusz WOJCIECHOWSKI (ECR, PL) on the protection of animals during transport. The competent committee takes note of the Commission report presenting the state of implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2005, which contains the conclusion that the Regulation has had a positive impact on the welfare of animals during transport, but notes that severe problems during animal transport persist, due mainly to poor compliance and implementation in the Member States. The report calls on the Commission: · to ensure an effective and uniform enforcement of existing EU legislation on animal transport across all Member States and to adopt measures to secure full and uniform monitoring of adherence to the transport conditions; · to present a full evaluation of all the economic, environmental and social costs and benefits incurred by the transport of animals, including a comparison between the transport of animals for slaughter and the transport of carcasses and food products, as well as the effect of transport on the price of meat products, paying particular attention to the outermost regions and involving all stakeholders; · to implement an extensive consumer information campaign on the subject of the European regulations on animal welfare, providing continuous information on the changes being required of European producers for the purposes of raising the profile of their work and improving the added value of their production; · proposes a considerably shortened maximum journey limit for all movements of horses for slaughter, and insists furthermore on a thorough, science-based review of welfare standards for horses, if necessary accompanied by legislative proposals, including a reconsideration of vehicle design standards, space allowances and water provision; · demands, in its bilateral trade negotiations with third countries, implementation of the EUs animal welfare rules and to defend the internationalisation, within the framework of the World Trade Organisation, of the Community provisions on the subject; · make legislative proposals before 1 January 2014, aimed at creating an EU-wide common framework for data collection and control through satellite navigation, based on the uploading of data in real time; · to undertake research into how new and existing technology can be applied in livestock vehicles to regulate, monitor and register temperature and humidity, which are essential elements for controlling and protecting the welfare of specific categories of animals during transport; · to increase the number of unannounced Food and Veterinary Office (FVO) spot inspections focused on animal welfare and the transport of animals; · to ensure that veterinary controls on animals to be transported take place at the end of their transport. The report insists on a reconsideration of the issue of limiting the transport time of animals destined for slaughter to eight hours taking account of loading time, irrespective of whether this takes place on land or at sea, with some exceptions taking into account geographic conditions in the outermost regions, provided that it is confirmed by scientific research results and that the rules on animal welfare are complied with. The Member States, for their part, are called on: · to strengthen controls across the entire production chain in order to halt practices that infringe the Regulation and worsen the conditions for the transport of animals, such as allowing overstocked vehicles to continue their journeys, or permitting control posts with inadequate facilities for resting, feeding and watering the animals to continue in use; · to introduce effective, proportionate and dissuasive sanctions for infringements of the Regulation, pursuant to Article 25 thereof. Drawing attention to the differing levels of penalties and sanctions for the same infringement in different Member States, the Members call for a greater harmonisation of sanctions across the EU to ensure better enforcement of the Regulation. The Commission is requested to present, before 1 July 2013, a report analysing the penalties for serious infringements relating to animal welfare in road transport in all Member States, comparable to its report on penalties in the area of social rules in road transport.
-
A7-0331/2012
summary
- 2012/10/11 Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading
- 2012/06/05 Amendments tabled in committee
- 2012/03/15 Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
- 2012/03/02 Committee draft report
-
2011/11/10
Non-legislative basic document
-
COM(2011)0700
summary
PURPOSE: presentation of the European Commissions report on the impact of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 on the protection of animals during transport. CONTENT: in accordance with the provisions of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2005, the purpose of this report is to examine the impact of the Regulation on the welfare of animals being transported and on the trade flows within the EU, its socio-economic and regional impact, as well as the implementation of navigation systems. Furthermore, the report contains information in relation to enforcement of the EU legislation. It should be borne in mind that the Regulation applies to the transport of vertebrate animals transported in connection with an economic activity. It does not take the transport of other species, such as dogs and cats, poultry, animals kept for scientific purposes, and exotic species, into account. Specific problems and actions concerning the transport of fish - identified under the Commission Strategy for the Sustainable Development of European Aquaculture are also examined in the context of this report. Main conclusions: based on the information presented in the report, the following main conclusions can be drawn: The Regulation has had beneficial impacts on the welfare of animals during transport. The Regulation introduced the requirement for vehicles approved for long journeys to be equipped with navigation systems. However, it appears that the full potential of the systems to decrease the administrative burden for the industry or to improve official controls is not being utilised. According to the available data, the Regulation has not had any impact on the volume of the intra-Union trade in live animals. The Regulation appears not to have provoked any impact on the animal production in remote regions. The introduction of the Regulation has led to an increase of transport costs but, likely due to competition in the transport sector, this increase has not been evenly distributed along the food chain and transport operators are mainly bearing the extra costs. According to the EFSA opinion, it appears that parts of the Regulation are not fully in line with the current scientific knowledge. Enforcement of the Regulation remains a major challenge, partly because of differences in interpretation of the requirements and because of lack of controls by the Member States. Furthermore, the quality of monitoring data, submitted to the Commission by Member States, is often insufficient to provide a clear analysis of the situation and to allow planning of specific corrective measures at EU level. The Commissions position: although the Regulation has had a beneficial impact on the welfare of animals during transport, it appears that there is room for improvement. Those improvements could be achieved by different actions and it should be emphasized that for the vast majority of animals falling under the scope of the Regulation, the Commission does not see that an amendment would be the most appropriate approach to address the identified problems. As regards the gap between the requirements of the legislation and available scientific evidence, the Commission sees that, for the time being, this is best addressed by the adoption of guides to good practices. As regards live fish, the Commission will launch a study on the welfare of fish during transport, with a view to determining the appropriateness of a revision of the provisions of the Regulation to improve the clarity of the legal framework on the transport of live fish for aquaculture operators, in accordance with the Commission Aquaculture Strategy. Actions to be undertaken: to correct the identified problems, the appropriate enforcement of existing rules should remain the priority. For that purpose, the Commission will consider the following actions for the near future: 1) Adopt implementing measures concerning navigation systems and establish a simplified version of the journey log, in accordance with point 8 of Annex II to the Regulation. Furthermore it should, in close co-operation with the European GNSS Supervisory Authority (GSA), be ensured that drivers are informed on how to take the best profit of the device. Objective: Improved harmonisation of the implementation of the Regulation, and improved animal welfare through increased possibility to control the journey times, space allowance etc. of animal transports. This action should also contribute to a reduced administrative burden for the transporters, but may increase the administrative burden for Member State authorities. However, this should result in better enforcement of animal transport legislation. 2) Adopt implementing measures concerning the controls to be performed by the competent authorities of the Member States, in accordance to Article 27(1) of the Regulation. At the same time, the structure of the reporting system should be further harmonized. Objective: An increase in the number of inspections, where needed, should lead to improved enforcement. The information received from the Member State 's reports would provide better and more comparable data when based on the same structure and would then offer more useful information for the FVO when auditing the Member States. 3) Commence a study on the welfare of fish during transport. The current work to launch a study on the welfare of fish during stunning will continue. Objective: To receive an overview of the current situation regarding the welfare of fish during transport, with a view to identifying and addressing possible shortcomings of the EU legal framework in this context, in accordance with the commitments undertaken under the Commission Aquaculture Strategy. 4) Increase co-operation and communication with the competent authorities of the Member States and stakeholders, including Non Governmental animal welfare Organisations. The contact points for the Regulation, and existing working groups such as the Advisory group on the Food Chain and Animal and Plant Health, could be used for this purpose. Objective: Collect and analyse information on difficulties and share experiences on possible solutions related to the implementation of the Regulation. 5) Dissemination of Commission guidance on the interpretation of the Regulation and support of the development of guides to good practice, as foreseen in the Regulation. Guides could focus on different aspects of day-today management that may be problematic and would encourage best practice that considers the latest scientific knowledge. Objective: Would cover some ambiguities and inefficiencies in the current animal welfare legislation and would improve harmonisation of the implementation of the rules. At the same time, it would encourage industry and other relevant parties to exceed the minimum welfare standards for transporting animals. Based on the elements above, the Commission invites the European Parliament and the Council to discuss the issues highlighted in this Report.
- DG {u'url': u'http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/health_consumer/index_en.htm', u'title': u'Health and Consumers'}, BORG Tonio
-
COM(2011)0700
summary
Documents
- Non-legislative basic document published: COM(2011)0700
- Committee draft report: PE480.640
- Amendments tabled in committee: PE486.028
- Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading: A7-0331/2012
- Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading: T7-0499/2012
Votes
A7-0331/2012 - Janusz Wojciechowski - Am 1
2012/12/12
| Position | Total | ALDE | ECR | EFD | GUE/NGL | NI | PPE | S&D | Verts/ALE | correctional |
| For | 226 | 9 | 1 | 3 | 26 | 10 | 15 | 108 | 54 | 1 |
| Against | 421 | 62 | 42 | 24 | 0 | 11 | 223 | 58 | 1 | 4 |
| Abstain | 15 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 9 | 2 | 0 |
A7-0331/2012 - Janusz Wojciechowski - § 13/1
2012/12/12
| Position | Total | ALDE | ECR | EFD | GUE/NGL | NI | PPE | S&D | Verts/ALE | correctional |
| For | 624 | 70 | 44 | 12 | 26 | 13 | 232 | 172 | 55 | 2 |
| Against | 28 | 1 | 0 | 15 | 0 | 6 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 0 |
| Abstain | 8 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 0 |
A7-0331/2012 - Janusz Wojciechowski - § 13/2
2012/12/12
| Position | Total | ALDE | ECR | EFD | GUE/NGL | NI | PPE | S&D | Verts/ALE | correctional |
| For | 492 | 55 | 43 | 25 | 19 | 10 | 225 | 113 | 2 | 2 |
| Against | 155 | 14 | 0 | 3 | 6 | 8 | 10 | 61 | 53 | 2 |
| Abstain | 11 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 0 |
A7-0331/2012 - Janusz Wojciechowski - § 14/1
2012/12/12
| Position | Total | ALDE | ECR | EFD | GUE/NGL | NI | PPE | S&D | Verts/ALE | correctional |
| For | 584 | 67 | 25 | 12 | 26 | 13 | 214 | 172 | 55 | 1 |
| Against | 63 | 3 | 19 | 8 | 1 | 6 | 22 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| Abstain | 14 | 1 | 0 | 8 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
A7-0331/2012 - Janusz Wojciechowski - § 14/2
2012/12/12
| Position | Total | ALDE | ECR | EFD | GUE/NGL | NI | PPE | S&D | Verts/ALE | correctional |
| For | 377 | 57 | 44 | 18 | 3 | 6 | 205 | 42 | 2 | 1 |
| Against | 261 | 9 | 0 | 4 | 24 | 11 | 30 | 128 | 55 | 0 |
| Abstain | 12 | 1 | 0 | 6 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0 |
A7-0331/2012 - Janusz Wojciechowski - § 14/3
2012/12/12
| Position | Total | ALDE | ECR | EFD | GUE/NGL | NI | PPE | S&D | Verts/ALE | correctional |
| For | 479 | 31 | 20 | 20 | 25 | 13 | 166 | 151 | 53 | 1 |
| Against | 140 | 34 | 18 | 1 | 0 | 6 | 58 | 21 | 2 | 6 |
| Abstain | 39 | 5 | 6 | 8 | 2 | 2 | 11 | 3 | 2 | 0 |
A7-0331/2012 - Janusz Wojciechowski - § 14/4
2012/12/12
| Position | Total | ALDE | ECR | EFD | GUE/NGL | NI | PPE | S&D | Verts/ALE | correctional |
| For | 496 | 63 | 44 | 14 | 20 | 7 | 203 | 135 | 10 | 1 |
| Against | 143 | 5 | 0 | 11 | 7 | 12 | 33 | 31 | 44 | 0 |
| Abstain | 20 | 1 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 9 | 3 | 0 |
A7-0331/2012 - Janusz Wojciechowski - § 14/5
2012/12/12
| Position | Total | ALDE | ECR | EFD | GUE/NGL | NI | PPE | S&D | Verts/ALE | correctional |
| For | 406 | 9 | 23 | 21 | 18 | 11 | 202 | 113 | 9 | 0 |
| Against | 228 | 59 | 19 | 2 | 7 | 7 | 32 | 60 | 42 | 1 |
| Abstain | 20 | 2 | 1 | 5 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 6 | 0 |
A7-0331/2012 - Janusz Wojciechowski - § 14/6
2012/12/12
| Position | Total | ALDE | ECR | EFD | GUE/NGL | NI | PPE | S&D | Verts/ALE | correctional |
| For | 468 | 61 | 44 | 25 | 22 | 11 | 200 | 103 | 2 | 2 |
| Against | 179 | 7 | 0 | 3 | 3 | 7 | 38 | 67 | 54 | 0 |
| Abstain | 10 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 0 |
A7-0331/2012 - Janusz Wojciechowski - § 14/7
2012/12/12
| Position | Total | ALDE | ECR | EFD | GUE/NGL | NI | PPE | S&D | Verts/ALE | correctional |
| For | 412 | 16 | 44 | 27 | 2 | 11 | 222 | 41 | 49 | 2 |
| Against | 227 | 53 | 0 | 1 | 19 | 7 | 16 | 125 | 6 | 1 |
| Abstain | 15 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 3 | 0 | 4 | 2 | 0 |
A7-0331/2012 - Janusz Wojciechowski - § 19/1
2012/12/12
| Position | Total | ALDE | ECR | EFD | GUE/NGL | NI | PPE | S&D | Verts/ALE | correctional |
| For | 650 | 69 | 42 | 28 | 27 | 20 | 234 | 176 | 54 | 2 |
| Against | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Abstain | 3 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 |
A7-0331/2012 - Janusz Wojciechowski - § 19/2
2012/12/12
| Position | Total | ALDE | ECR | EFD | GUE/NGL | NI | PPE | S&D | Verts/ALE | correctional |
| For | 607 | 71 | 43 | 22 | 24 | 9 | 216 | 169 | 53 | 1 |
| Against | 35 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 11 | 21 | 0 | 2 | 0 |
| Abstain | 8 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
A7-0331/2012 - Janusz Wojciechowski - § 30
2012/12/12
| Position | Total | ALDE | ECR | EFD | GUE/NGL | NI | PPE | S&D | Verts/ALE | correctional |
| For | 580 | 66 | 20 | 11 | 25 | 14 | 237 | 153 | 54 | 0 |
| Against | 38 | 3 | 7 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 22 | 2 | 0 |
| Abstain | 36 | 0 | 14 | 16 | 2 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
A7-0331/2012 - Janusz Wojciechowski - Considérant D/2
2012/12/12
| Position | Total | ALDE | ECR | EFD | GUE/NGL | NI | PPE | S&D | Verts/ALE | correctional |
| For | 335 | 16 | 39 | 20 | 2 | 11 | 215 | 27 | 5 | 1 |
| Against | 297 | 48 | 0 | 3 | 23 | 9 | 19 | 143 | 52 | 1 |
| Abstain | 12 | 3 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 4 | 0 | 0 |
A7-0331/2012 - Janusz Wojciechowski - Recital D/2
2012/12/12
| Position | Total | ALDE | ECR | EFD | GUE/NGL | NI | PPE | S&D | Verts/ALE | correctional |
| For | 335 | 16 | 39 | 20 | 2 | 11 | 215 | 27 | 5 | 1 |
| Against | 297 | 48 | 0 | 3 | 23 | 9 | 19 | 143 | 52 | 1 |
| Abstain | 12 | 3 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 4 | 0 | 0 |
A7-0331/2012 - Janusz Wojciechowski - Considérant I
2012/12/12
| Position | Total | ALDE | ECR | EFD | GUE/NGL | NI | PPE | S&D | Verts/ALE | correctional |
| For | 412 | 11 | 41 | 20 | 2 | 12 | 210 | 113 | 3 | 2 |
| Against | 206 | 55 | 0 | 2 | 7 | 7 | 24 | 59 | 52 | 1 |
| Abstain | 31 | 4 | 0 | 5 | 18 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 0 |
A7-0331/2012 - Janusz Wojciechowski - Recital I
2012/12/12
| Position | Total | ALDE | ECR | EFD | GUE/NGL | NI | PPE | S&D | Verts/ALE | correctional |
| For | 412 | 11 | 41 | 20 | 2 | 12 | 210 | 113 | 3 | 2 |
| Against | 206 | 55 | 0 | 2 | 7 | 7 | 24 | 59 | 52 | 1 |
| Abstain | 31 | 4 | 0 | 5 | 18 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 0 |
A7-0331/2012 - Janusz Wojciechowski - Résolution (commission AGRI)
2012/12/12
| Position | Total | ALDE | ECR | EFD | GUE/NGL | NI | PPE | S&D | Verts/ALE | correctional |
| For | 555 | 65 | 40 | 22 | 12 | 13 | 212 | 141 | 50 | 3 |
| Against | 56 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 20 | 28 | 4 | 0 |
| Abstain | 34 | 2 | 0 | 4 | 14 | 6 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 0 |
A7-0331/2012 - Janusz Wojciechowski - Resolution (commission AGRI)
2012/12/12
| Position | Total | ALDE | ECR | EFD | GUE/NGL | NI | PPE | S&D | Verts/ALE | correctional |
| For | 555 | 65 | 40 | 22 | 12 | 13 | 212 | 141 | 50 | 3 |
| Against | 56 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 20 | 28 | 4 | 0 |
| Abstain | 34 | 2 | 0 | 4 | 14 | 6 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 0 |
| Amendments | Dossier |
| 368 |
2012/2031(INI) Protection of animals during transport
2012/03/29
TRAN
40 amendments...
Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Supports the objectives of Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 on the protection and welfare of animals during transport and related operations,
Amendment 2 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Supports the objectives of Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 on the protection of animals during transport and related operations
Amendment 3 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Supports the objectives of Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 on the protection of animals during transport and related operations, but notes that its implementation has led to increased costs that transport companies have to bear, mainly due to the new requirements as regards vehicle facilities; Regrets that better use has not been made of emerging technologies which would assist in this area and reduce costs in the long run;
Amendment 4 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1.
Amendment 5 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 a (new) 1a. Urges the Commission to ensure that veterinary controls of animals to be transported take place at the end of their transport.
Amendment 6 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 a (new) 1a. Calls on the European Commission to submit a proposal for amending Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 so as to limit the transport of live animals to 8 hours;
Amendment 7 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 a (new) 1a. Calls for a transition to electronic technologies so that Member States can make things easier for companies by facilitating the storage and communication of data requested by the various administrative offices;
Amendment 8 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Regrets that
Amendment 9 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2.
Amendment 10 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Regrets that there still are major differences between the Member States concerning compliance with the requirements for satellite navigation systems, and that there continues to be a significant administrative burden in the use of satellite navigation devices
Amendment 11 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 a (new) 2a. Considers that reducing long road journeys for animals in favour of shorter journeys with slaughter at regional level will lead to a reduction of CO2 emissions and road congestion, which is also one of the main objectives of the White Paper on transport and of the Europe 2020 strategy;
Amendment 12 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 a (new) 2a. Notes that the Federation of Veterinarians of Europe recommends that animals should be reared as close as possible to the premises on which they are born and slaughtered as close as possible to the point of production; believes that this principle would not lead to a decrease of activity in the transport sector as the reduction in the transport of live animals would be compensated by an increase in the transport of carcasses;
Amendment 13 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Calls on the Commission to consider harmonising monitoring tools to enable data collection to be standardised, while reducing administrative tasks and the unnecessary use of multiple instruments on board; expresses concern at the number of reports of inappropriate vehicles being used to transport live animals on both land and sea and calls for the monitoring of those practices to be stepped up;
Amendment 14 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1 (new) calls on the Commission to assess the need to standardise sanctions in the various Member States in relation to the transport of animals, who are forced to travel in conditions that are not conducive to their well-being;
Amendment 15 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 Amendment 16 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 Amendment 17 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4.
Amendment 18 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4.
Amendment 19 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Considers that European legislation on animal welfare in transport must not lead to distortions in the free trade in goods or entail disproportionate economic costs, while the particular situation of peripheral
Amendment 20 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Considers that European legislation on animal welfare in transport must not lead to distortions in the free trade in goods or interfere with competition on the market or entail disproportionate economic costs, while the particular situation of peripheral and outermost regions must also be taken into account;
Amendment 21 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 a (new) 4a. Notes that Regulation 1/2005/EC requires vehicles that transport animals on long journeys to use a satellite navigation system to aid enforcement; believes that such systems would contribute more to improved enforcement if they transmitted data regarding travelling times and rest periods in real time to competent authorities;
Amendment 22 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 a (new) 4a. Considers that, before amending the legislative framework in force with regard to the transport time for animals, it is necessary to take account of the scientific evidence and the recommendations of the European Food Safety Agency, and likewise to consider the differences and characteristics of each species and other parameters affecting animal welfare, such as vehicle design, driving style etc.
Amendment 23 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Considers that good training for transporters, in particular education of drivers, is the basis of animal protection and welfare, as it is
Amendment 24 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Considers that good training and testing for transporters is the basis of animal welfare, as it is the main guarantee of the proper handling of animals, and therefore calls on the Member States to step up training programmes where necessary and test transporters’ knowledge;
Amendment 25 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Considers that good training for transporters and people accompanying animals in transit is the basis of animal welfare, as it is the main guarantee of the proper handling of animals, and therefore calls on the Member States to step up training programmes where necessary;
Amendment 26 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Consider
Amendment 27 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 Amendment 28 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. Agrees with the Commission's approach based on the introduction of measures to improve compliance with this legislation in the Member States, including the publication of general guidelines to ensure proper interpretation of the regulation and the drawing-up of codes of good practice, but emphasises that guidelines and codes of good practice alone will not ensure compliance and therefore stresses the need for frequent and thorough inspections to be routinely carried out at both land and sea borders;
Amendment 29 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 – subparagraph 1 (new) calls on the Commission to consider all aspects that may have repercussions on animal welfare, including the length of time live animals are transported;
Amendment 30 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 a (new) 6a. Considers that the reports submitted yearly by the Member States are essential for understanding the impact of the legislation and taking appropriate corrective action; calls on the Commission to adopt measures on controls and a more harmonised reporting structure by 1 January 2013;
Amendment 31 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 a (new) 6a. Calls on the Commission to examine the economic impact of adapting road infrastructures (animal loading and unloading areas, rest areas, availability of drinking troughs, etc.) before adopting new legislation on resting time for animals.
Amendment 32 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 b (new) 6b. Calls on the Commission to research how new and existing technology can be applied in livestock vehicles to regulate, monitor and register temperature and humidity, which are essential elements for controlling and protecting the welfare of specific categories of animals during transport, in line with the EFSA recommendations;
Amendment 33 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 7. Calls on the Member States to imp
Amendment 34 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 7. Calls on the Member States to improve inspections, in order to ensure proper
Amendment 35 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 7. Calls on the Member States to improve inspections, in order to ensure proper compliance with the regulation, and to impose sanctions commensurate with the infringements committed
Amendment 36 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 7. Calls on the Member States to improve inspections, in order to ensure proper compliance with the regulation, and to impose sanctions commensurate with the infringements committed; highlights that particular attention must be paid to checking journey time and rest periods, feeding and watering intervals, space allowances for animals in vehicles, vehicle ventilation and the effective functioning of animal watering systems.
Amendment 37 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 a (new) 7a. Emphasises that a possible reduction in the transportation time does not constitute an adequate measure for guaranteeing the objectives of Regulation (EC) No 1/2005, which may, however, be achieved through the full application of current legislation and standardisation of the sanctions throughout the European Union;
Amendment 38 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 a (new) 7a. Regrets that the regulations are often inadequately enforced in the Member States and that their uniform application leaves much to be desired; calls on the Commission to take every available step to promote and monitor the standardised application of these regulations;
Amendment 39 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 a (new) 7a. Refers to Article 32 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 of the Council, according to which the Commission's report on the impact of the aforementioned regulation must ‘take into account the scientific evidence of the welfare requirements of animals’; to this end and in accordance with Written Declaration 49/2011 adopted by majority vote by the European Parliament on 15 March 2012, calls upon the Commission and Council to amend Regulation 1/2005 by introducing ‘a maximum of 8 hours for the transport of animals for slaughter.’
Amendment 40 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 b (new) 7b. Regrets that the Commission only has limited options available to it to pursue legal action against and impose sanctions on those Member States which fail to apply the regulation correctly;
source: PE-486.182
2012/03/30
ENVI
54 amendments...
Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Welcomes the Commission's report on the impact of Regulation (EC) No 1/2005, which concludes that the Regulation has had beneficial effects as regards the welfare of animals during transport, but that severe animal welfare problems persist
Amendment 2 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Welcomes the Commission’s report on the impact of Regulation (EC) No 1/2005, which concludes that the Regulation has had beneficial effects as regards the welfare of animals during transport, but that s
Amendment 3 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 a (new) 1a. Regrets that Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 has not been adequately implemented in some Member States; calls on the Commission to seek to ensure swift and full implementation of the provision in all Member States.
Amendment 4 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Regrets the fact that the report ignores the EFSA recommendation on developing strategies to reduce the volume of transport and the long-distance transport of animals for finishing or slaughter and cut journey times, in order to diminish the risk of transport-
Amendment 5 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2.
Amendment 6 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 a (new) 2 a.(new) Regrets that no mention is made in the Commission's report to one of the EFSA Scientific Opinion recommendations stating that priority should be given to direct transport, without stopovers (e.g. livestock markets) that carry the risk for direct or indirect contact with animals from other holdings1; __________________ 1 EFSA Scientific Opinion Concerning the Welfare of Animals during Transport, EFSA Journal 2011, 9(1), 1966, p. 86
Amendment 7 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Considers that reducing the volume of transport
Amendment 8 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Considers that reducing the volume of transport by transporting carcasses and meat instead of live animals would have a positive impact on the environment, reducing pollution, improving the carbon footprint of the transport sector, and encouraging the development of local production and consumption; also points out that the transport of carcasses or meat is more sustainable than the transport of live animals; therefore considers that only carcasses or meat should be transported over long distances;
Amendment 9 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. C
Amendment 10 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Considers that
Amendment 11 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 a (new) 3 a.(new) Considers that, also with regard to diminishing the risk of transport- associated disease outbreaks, food quality and food safety, it would make sense to create incentives for the regional breeding, marketing and slaughter of animals in order to decrease unnecessary long animal transport times;
Amendment 12 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 a (new) 3 a.(new) Calls on the Council and the Commission to develop a strategy for moving towards a more regional model of livestock production in which, wherever practicable, animals are born, fattened and slaughtered in the same region instead of being transported over extremely long distances;
Amendment 13 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 b (new) 3 b.(new) Calls on the Commission to abolish export refunds for livestock in order to prevent and decrease unnecessary long animal transport times;
Amendment 14 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Notes that the provisions in the Regulation on transport time, resting time and space allowance are not based on a scientific opinion of SCAHAW or EFSA, but have been taken from the previous directive3 ; notes with regret that, despite clear conclusions from EFSA, parts of the Regulation are not in line with current scientific knowledge, especially as regards transport of horses, transport of poultry and rabbits, space allowance and internal height of compartments, and that the report is not accompanied by any proposal;
Amendment 15 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Notes that the provisions in the Regulation on transport time, resting time and space allowance are not based on a scientific opinion of SCAHAW or EFSA, but have been taken from the previous directive
Amendment 16 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4.
Amendment 17 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 a (new) 4a. Points out that Recital 9 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 requires that suitable special provisions should be proposed for poultry as soon as the relevant assessments by the EFSA are available; regrets therefore that, despite new scientific evidence and recommendation from the EFSA[1], the Commission’s report was not accompanied by any legislative proposals in relation to the transport of poultry, despite the fact that poultry is the most commonly transported species in Europe; [1] EFSA Journal 2011; 9(1):1966
Amendment 18 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 a (new) 4 a.(new) Calls for a reclassification of horses separately from other farm animals to reflect the specific physical, physiological and behavioural characteristics of horses as set out in the EFSA report1. Calls for a specific journey limit for horses (to slaughter) to have immediate effect. __________________ 1 EFSA Report on the Welfare of Animals during Transport (2011) pg. 86
Amendment 19 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 a (new) 4 a.(new) Considers some provisions of the transport regulation are leaving too much room for interpretation by competent authorities of Member States, creating inconsistencies in enforcement; calls on the Commission to propose technical amendments of the current legislation where needed;
Amendment 20 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 b (new) 4b. Calls on the Commission to examine the maximum height of four metres for heavy goods vehicles and to increase this as appropriate for vehicles used in the transport of animals, so as to prevent animal welfare problems that arise as a result of inadequate head height in cargo holds;
Amendment 21 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 Amendment 22 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Recalls that Article 32 of the Regulation states that the Commission report shall take into account ‘scientific evidence on the welfare needs of animals’, and may be accompanied if necessary by appropriate legislative proposals concerning long journeys; calls on the Commission and the Council, therefore, to review Regulation 1/2005 in order to establish a maximum 8- hour limit for the journeys of animals transported for the purpose of being slaughtered; Considers furthermore that for transports of animals exceeding 6 hours a justification should be required and registered in the transport logs by the operator(s) stating that a shorter transport time is not feasible
Amendment 23 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Recalls that Article 32 of the Regulation states that the Commission report shall take into account ‘scientific evidence on the welfare needs of animals’, and may be accompanied if necessary by appropriate legislative proposals concerning long journeys; also recalls written declaration 49/2011, signed by the majority of the European Parliament, calling for the limiting of the transport of animals for slaughter to a maximum of 8 hours, and the 8 hours initiative supported by more than one million European citizens; calls on the Commission and the Council, therefore, to review Regulation 1/2005 in order to establish a
Amendment 24 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Recalls that Article 32 of the Regulation states that the Commission report shall take into account ‘scientific evidence on the welfare needs of animals’, and may be accompanied if necessary by appropriate legislative proposals concerning long journeys; calls on the Commission and the Council, therefore, to review Regulation 1/2005 in order to establish a maximum 8- hour limit for the journeys of animals transported for the purpose of being slaughtered, as requested by a majority of the Members of the European Parliament in the Written Declaration 49/2011, adopted on the 15th March 2012;
Amendment 25 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Recalls that Article 32 of the Regulation states that the Commission report shall take into account ‘scientific evidence on the welfare needs of animals’, and may be accompanied if necessary by appropriate legislative proposals concerning long journeys; calls on the Commission and the Council, therefore, to review Regulation 1/2005 in order to establish a maximum 8- hour limit for the journeys of animals transported for the purpose of being slaughtered, with exceptions based on geographic conditions, sparse population, scattered infrastructure and the option of longer transport of some animal species confirmed by scientific research results, provided that the rules on animal welfare are complied with;
Amendment 26 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Recalls that Article 32 of the Regulation states that the Commission report shall take into account ‘scientific evidence on the welfare needs of animals’, and may be accompanied if necessary by appropriate legislative proposals concerning long journeys; calls on the Commission and the Council, therefore, to review Regulation 1/2005 in order to establish a maximum 8- hour limit for the journeys of animals transported for the purpose of being slaughtered
Amendment 27 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Recalls that Article 32 of the Regulation states that the Commission report shall take into account ‘scientific evidence on the welfare needs of animals’, and may be accompanied if necessary by appropriate legislative proposals concerning long journeys; calls on the Commission and the Council, therefore, to review Regulation 1/2005 in order to, inter alia, establish a maximum 8-
Amendment 28 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Recalls that Article 32 of the Regulation states that the Commission report shall take into account ‘scientific evidence on the welfare needs of animals’, and may be accompanied if necessary by appropriate legislative proposals concerning long journeys; calls on the Commission and the Council, therefore, to review Regulation 1/2005 in order to establish a maximum 8- hour limit overall for the journeys of animals transported for the purpose of being slaughtered;
Amendment 29 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Recalls that Article 32 of the Regulation states that the Commission report shall take into account ‘scientific evidence on the welfare needs of animals’, and may be accompanied if necessary by appropriate legislative proposals concerning long journeys; calls on the Commission and the Council, therefore, to
Amendment 30 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 a (new) 5a. Points out that other factors also have a major significance for the welfare of animals during transport, in particular appropriate speed and careful loading and unloading; calls on the Commission to ensure that the introduction of an 8-hour limit for the transport of animals for slaughter does not increase stress on animals during transport;
Amendment 31 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 a (new) 5a. Regrets that Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 has failed to fulfil its function in relation to the restriction of animal transport and that serious animal protection problems still exist during transport; therefore calls on the Commission to take the appropriate steps to promote regional production, slaughtering and marketing, so that it is no longer absolutely necessary to transport animals over long or very long distances;
Amendment 32 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 a (new) 5a. Notes that the duration of transport is not the only important indicator for animal welfare and animal health, but that the conditions during transport, such as compartments, the provision of drinking water, the temperature and humidity, also play an important role in animal welfare;
Amendment 33 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 a (new) 5a. Calls on the Commission to ensure the effective and uniform application of existing EU legislation on the transport of animals in all EU Member States. Together with sufficient inspections conducted at national level, this should ensure and preserve the proper functioning of the internal market, avoiding distortions of competition between EU Member States;
Amendment 34 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 b (new) 5b. Calls on the Commission to examine ways to introduce special training and testing for lorry drivers to qualify them to carry out animal transport under the most humane conditions possible;
Amendment 35 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. Considers that the yearly reports submitted by
Amendment 36 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. Considers that the reports submitted yearly by the Member States are essential for understanding the impact of the legislation and taking appropriate corrective action; calls on the Commission to adopt measures on controls and a more harmonised reporting structure by 1 January 2013 and to draw up a report on the progress made in the Member States;
Amendment 37 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. Considers that the reports submitted yearly by the Member States are essential for understanding the impact of the legislation and taking appropriate corrective action; calls on the Commission to make improved enforcement of the Regulation a high priority; calls on the Commission to adopt measures on controls and a more harmonised reporting structure by 1 January 2013;
Amendment 38 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 a (new) 6 a.(new) Calls on the Member States to take all necessary steps to ensure that the legislation is enforced, in particular by checking that the journey logs submitted are realistic and compliant with the legislation;
Amendment 39 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 a (new) 6a. Points out that there are insufficient inspection stations in some Member States and that it is therefore impossible to carry out adequate controls on animal transport or the unloading of animals in emergency situation; therefore welcomes the fact the Commission’s report announces more controls on animal transport; also calls for greater efficiency in these controls;
Amendment 40 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 b (new) 6 b.(new) Calls on the Member States to actively enforce a system of inspections that checks the animal welfare conditions before, during and after the transport, backed by a robust system of effective and dissuasive sanctions;
Amendment 41 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 c (new) 6 c.(new) Urges the Commission to consider the introduction of a legal basis requiring on board navigation systems to able to transmit positioning data and other animal welfare indicators in real time to the competent authorities;
Amendment 42 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 7. Urges the Commission to take measures in order to increase cooperation and communication between competent authorities of different Member States; calls on the Commission to
Amendment 43 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 7. Urges the Commission to take measures in order to increase cooperation and communication between competent authorities of different Member States; calls on the Commission to increase the number of FVO inspections focused on animal welfare and the transport of animals; stresses that inspections must be carried out on an adequate proportion of the animals transported each year within each Member State;
Amendment 44 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 a (new) 7 a.(new) Urges the Commission to ensure that veterinary controls of animals to be transported take place at the end of their transport.
Amendment 45 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 8. Calls on the Commission to research how new and existing technology can be applied in livestock vehicles to regulate, monitor and register temperature and humidity, which are essential elements for controlling and protecting the welfare of specific categories of animals during transport, in line with the EFSA recommendations; Stresses that the use of new technology may not lead to lengthening the transport times of animals;
Amendment 46 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 a (new) 8 a.(new) Underlines that a key role is to be played by retailers, food service companies and manufacturers to ensure that in their private quality standards, meat is originating from animals which have been reared and slaughtered locally and have been transported in conditions respecting their welfare;
Amendment 47 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 a (new) 8 a.(new) Stresses that a better use of Satellite Navigation Systems will help reducing the administrative burden on transport companies and would help the competent authorities of each Member State to improve the quality of controls especially on travelling times and resting periods;
Amendment 48 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 a (new) 8a. Considers that new and more effective control systems, such as monitoring transport with the help of satellite positioning systems, would help to improve the situation and enable a more transparent implementation of the rules; takes the view that use of these new technologies would also help to reduce the burden on cross-border authorities and organisations;
Amendment 49 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 a (new) 8 a.(new) Is content that the Commission recognises that the navigation systems have failed so far to reach their potential in delivering the anticipated beneficial impact on enforcement of the Regulation; calls on the Commission to require for these systems to have the capacity to transmit data in real time to an EU database;
Amendment 50 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 a (new) 8a. Requests the European Commission, in bilateral trade negotiations with third countries, to demand the implementation of the European Union’s animal welfare rules and to defend the internationalisation, within the framework of the World Trade Organisation, of the Community provisions on the subject.
Amendment 51 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 b (new) 8 b.(new) Urges the Commission to consider the introduction of a legal basis requiring on board navigation systems to be able to transmit positioning data and other animal welfare indicators in real time to a central receiver, as long as protection of information is guaranteed.
Amendment 52 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 b (new) 8 b.(new) Recalls that two former Commissioners for animal welfare, Mr Kyprianou and Mr Vassiliou, both promised in the European Parliament to pursue a legislative initiative with the purpose of introducing a time limit on the transportation of animals; regrets deeply that so far the Commission has failed to live up to these promises given to the European Parliament;
Amendment 53 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 c (new) 8 c.(new) Calls on the Commission to revise the legislation concerning the authorisation of transporters; urges the Commission to suggest that where a competent authority establishes that a transporter has not respected the transport regulation, its authorization could be suspended or withdrawn in all member states, and not only in the country concerned
Amendment 54 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 d (new) 8 d.(new) Calls on the Commission to revise the legislation concerning the certificate of approval of means of transport; urges the Commission to suggest that where a competent authority establishes that a means of transport does not comply with the transport regulation, its certificate of approval could be revoked or withdrawn in all member states, and not only in the country concerned
source: PE-486.155
2012/05/06
AGRI
274 amendments...
Amendment 1 #
Motion for a resolution Citation 7 a (new) - having regard to Parliament's Report A5-0197/2004 of 18 March 2004 on the protection of animals during transport and related operations and amending Directives 64/432/EEC and 93/119/EC and Regulation (EC) No 1255/97, which suggested a maximum journey time of 9 hours or 500 km for animals transported for the purpose of being slaughtered;
Amendment 2 #
Motion for a resolution Recital A A. whereas all action designed to ensure the protection and welfare of animals should be based on the principle that animals are sentient beings whose specific needs should be
Amendment 3 #
Motion for a resolution Recital A A. whereas all action designed to ensure the protection and welfare of animals should be based on the principle that animals are sentient beings whose specific needs should be taken into account, and also that the protection of animals in the 21st century is an
Amendment 4 #
Motion for a resolution Recital A A. whereas the protection of animals in the 21st century is an expression of humanity and a challenge facing European civilisation and culture; whereas all action designed to ensure the protection and welfare of animals should be based on scientific findings, as well as the principle that animals are sentient beings whose specific needs should be taken into account, a
Amendment 5 #
Motion for a resolution Recital B Amendment 6 #
Motion for a resolution Recital B B. whereas the transport of animals is necessary for economic reasons
Amendment 7 #
Motion for a resolution Recital B B. whereas the transport of animals is necessary for economic reasons,
Amendment 8 #
Motion for a resolution Recital B B. whereas the transport of animals is
Amendment 9 #
Motion for a resolution Recital B B. whereas the transport of animals is necessary
Amendment 10 #
Motion for a resolution Recital B B. whereas the transport of animals is
Amendment 11 #
Motion for a resolution Recital B B. whereas the transport of animals is necessary for both logistical and economic reasons, whilst at the same time giving rise to an increase in the financial costs of animal production, which are borne
Amendment 12 #
Motion for a resolution Recital B B. whereas the transport of animals is necessary for economic reasons, whilst at the same time giving rise to an increase in the financial costs of animal production, which are borne
Amendment 13 #
Motion for a resolution Recital B B. whereas the transport of animals is necessary for economic reasons,
Amendment 14 #
Motion for a resolution Recital B B. whereas the transport of animals is
Amendment 15 #
Motion for a resolution Recital B a (new) Ba. whereas the transport of animals should be handled both within and outside the EU, animals coming from third countries must be thoroughly controlled and monitored, granting European producers a more balanced competitive situation and an incentive to improve standards of animal transport in third countries.
Amendment 16 #
Motion for a resolution Recital B a (new) Ba. whereas Regulation 1/2005 resulted in an improvement in the welfare of animals during transport, in addition to a rise in the costs incurred by transport companies, on account of the conditioning requirements for vehicles;
Amendment 17 #
Motion for a resolution Recital В а (new) Ba. whereas in order to comply with the requirement of animal welfare during transport, employees in this field take paid training courses which are an extra cost that most entrepreneurs cannot bear.
Amendment 18 #
Motion for a resolution Recital B b (new) Bb. whereas the link between animal welfare issues and health issues should be evaluated along with the economic, social and environmental impact of the transport,
Amendment 19 #
Motion for a resolution Recital C Amendment 20 #
Motion for a resolution Recital C Amendment 21 #
Motion for a resolution Recital C C. whereas the transport of animals gives rise to
Amendment 22 #
Motion for a resolution Recital C C. whereas the transport of animals may give
Amendment 23 #
Motion for a resolution Recital C a (new) Ca. whereas exemptions should be granted given the geographical remoteness of certain regions, particularly the outermost regions, in relation to the EU mainland, in line with Article 349 TFEU.
Amendment 24 #
Motion for a resolution Recital D D. whereas the transport of meat and other animal products is technically easier and financially more rational than the transport of live animals; notes in this connection that consumers are in favour of shorter transport times for animals destined for slaughter, but at the same time prefer to buy fresh meat; calls therefore on the Commission to explain what consequences are to be drawn from this;
Amendment 25 #
Motion for a resolution Recital D D. whereas the transport of meat and other animal products is technically easier and financially more rational than the transport of live animals, which requires the appropriate training in handling animals, the conditioning of the trucks and other administrative and inspection requirements to ensure that the animals are transported under the best possible conditions, that a higher value is obtained for the product and that the cattle farmer’s income is preserved;
Amendment 26 #
Motion for a resolution Recital D D. whereas the transport of meat and other animal products is not necessarily technically easier and financially more rational than the transport of live animals, and therefore better for the environment;
Amendment 27 #
Motion for a resolution Recital D D. whereas the transport of meat and other animal products
Amendment 28 #
Motion for a resolution Recital D D. whereas the transport of meat and other animal products
Amendment 29 #
Motion for a resolution Recital D D. whereas the transport of meat and other animal products
Amendment 30 #
Motion for a resolution Recital D D. whereas the transport of meat and other animal products
Amendment 31 #
Motion for a resolution Recital D D. whereas the transport of meat and other animal products
Amendment 32 #
Motion for a resolution Recital D D. whereas the transport of meat and other animal products is
Amendment 33 #
Motion for a resolution Recital D D. whereas the transport of meat and other animal products is less detrimental to animal welfare and technically easier and financially more rational than the transport of live animals;
Amendment 34 #
Motion for a resolution Recital D D. whereas the transport of meat and other animal products is technically easier and
Amendment 35 #
Motion for a resolution Recital D D. whereas the transport of
Amendment 36 #
Motion for a resolution Recital E Amendment 37 #
Motion for a resolution Recital E Amendment 38 #
Motion for a resolution Recital E E. whereas the transport of
Amendment 39 #
Motion for a resolution Recital E E. whereas
Amendment 40 #
Motion for a resolution Recital E E. whereas the transport of animals over significant distances in unhygenic and unfavourable conditions may increase
Amendment 41 #
Motion for a resolution Recital E a (new) Ea. whereas the transport of live animals is inspected, traced and subject to the strictest hygiene regulations;
Amendment 42 #
Motion for a resolution Recital E a (new) Ea. Calls on the Commission to guarantee effective and uniform application of the existing Community legislation on the transport of animals in all EU Member States. Together with sufficient inspections conducted on a national level, this should guarantee and preserve the proper functioning of the internal market by avoiding the distortion of competition between EU Member States.
Amendment 43 #
Motion for a resolution Recital F F. whereas maintaining
Amendment 44 #
Motion for a resolution Recital F F. whereas maintaining the principles of animal welfare may influence
Amendment 45 #
Motion for a resolution Recital G G. whereas animal slaughter and meat processing at the closest possible proximity to the breeding location is
Amendment 46 #
Motion for a resolution Recital G G. whereas animal slaughter and meat processing at the closest possible proximity to the breeding location is important for the stimulation of rural areas and their sustainable development; whereas, therefore, it is necessary to adapt the Commission’s ‘hygiene package’, which resulted in the closure and restructuring of a large number of small and medium- sized abattoirs;
Amendment 47 #
Motion for a resolution Recital G G. whereas animal slaughter and meat processing at the closest possible proximity to the breeding location
Amendment 48 #
Motion for a resolution Recital G G. whereas animal slaughter and meat processing at the closest possible proximity to the breeding location
Amendment 49 #
Motion for a resolution Recital G G. whereas animal slaughter and meat processing at the closest possible proximity to the breeding location
Amendment 50 #
Motion for a resolution Recital G G. whereas although animal slaughter and meat processing at the closest possible proximity to the breeding location is important for the stimulation of rural areas and their sustainable development, it should be recognised that this is not always possible due to a lack of local slaughterhouses in certain areas;
Amendment 51 #
Motion for a resolution Recital G G. whereas animal slaughter and meat processing at the closest possible proximity to the breeding location is important for the stimulation of rural areas and their sustainable development; it should be recognised that is not always possible due to lack of proper slaughterhouses;
Amendment 52 #
Motion for a resolution Recital G G. whereas animal slaughter and meat processing at the closest possible proximity to the breeding location is important for the stimulation of rural areas and their sustainable development, it should be recognised that is not always possible due to lack of proper slaughterhouses;
Amendment 53 #
Motion for a resolution Recital G G. whereas animal slaughter and meat processing at the closest possible proximity to the breeding location is important for the stimulation of rural areas and their sustainable development; whereas, however, they are not always possible due to a lack of abattoirs;
Amendment 54 #
Motion for a resolution Recital G G. whereas animal slaughter and meat processing at the closest possible proximity to the breeding location, provided that financial factors make this viable, is important for the stimulation of rural areas and their sustainable development;
Amendment 55 #
Motion for a resolution Recital G G. whereas animal slaughter and meat processing at the closest possible proximity to the breeding location
Amendment 56 #
Motion for a resolution Recital G G. whereas animal slaughter and meat processing at the closest possible proximity to the breeding and production location
Amendment 57 #
Motion for a resolution Recital G a (new) Ga. whereas limitations on transport time and overly restrictive conditions may compromise regular market supply in certain countries and peripheral regions in EU territory, making some companies not economically viable, with all the consequences associated with this loss of competitiveness,
Amendment 58 #
Motion for a resolution Recital G a (new) G a. Calls for the Commission to come up with clear definition of what local slaughterhouses are.
Amendment 59 #
Motion for a resolution Recital G b (new) Gb. whereas producers must always have economic freedom in choosing the site for the slaughter or processing of their animals, so that distance does not lead to the formation of artificial monopolies, to which producers would otherwise be subjected;
Amendment 60 #
Motion for a resolution Recital H H. whereas the conditions under which animals are transported are a matter of interest to
Amendment 61 #
Motion for a resolution Recital H H. whereas the conditions under which animals are transported are a matter of interest to
Amendment 62 #
Motion for a resolution Recital H H. whereas the conditions under which animals are transported are a matter of interest
Amendment 63 #
Motion for a resolution Recital H H. whereas the conditions under which animals are transported are a matter of
Amendment 64 #
Motion for a resolution Recital H a (new) H a. Is concerned that experiences show that some of the rules in the Regulation do not offer the sufficient protection for neither the animals nor the persons involved in the transport; examples are the rules on separation of sexually mature animals for transport which can cause important safety risks for handlers and drivers;
Amendment 65 #
Motion for a resolution Recital H a (new) Ha. deplores the fact that animals destined for slaughter are transported all over Europe, with the sole aim of obtaining allegedly better provenance, to the detriment of the animals.
Amendment 66 #
Motion for a resolution Recital H a (new) H a. Calls on the Commission to ensure an effective and uniform enforcement of existing EU legislation on animal transport across all EU Member States. This together with suffiient controls at national level should guarantee and preserve a good functioning of the internal market avoid distortions of competition among EU Member States
Amendment 67 #
Motion for a resolution Recital H b (new) H b. Highlights the rules on responsibility, where the responsibility for the transport of unfit animals is not sufficiently clear to ensure that animals unfit for transport are not transported and the persons sanctioned are not necessarily in a position to prevent the transport;
Amendment 69 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 1. Takes note of the Commission Report presenting the state of implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2005, which contains the conclusion that the Regulation has a positive
Amendment 70 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 1. Takes note of the Commission Report presenting the state of implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2005, which contains the conclusion that the Regulation has a positive
Amendment 71 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 1. Takes note of the Commission Report presenting the state of implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2005, which contains the conclusion that the Regulation has a positive, albeit insufficient, impact on the welfare of animals during transport; but also points out that severe animal welfare problems during transport persist; regrets that the Commission does not intend to propose any changes to the EU's legislation on animal transport; and that this report ignores recital 5 of the regulation, which states that 'for reasons of animal welfare the transport of animals over long journeys should be limited as far as possible';
Amendment 72 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 1. Takes note of the Commission Report presenting the state of implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2005, which contains the conclusion that the Regulation has a positive, albeit insufficient, impact on the welfare of animals during transport; is of the opinion that the appropriate education and training of freight carriers and transporters is indispensable for the proper treatment of animals, thus forming a basis for their protection and well- being; calls, therefore, on all Member States to improve or extend their education and training programmes wherever necessary;
Amendment 73 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 1. Takes note of the Commission Report presenting the state of implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2005, which contains the conclusion that the Regulation has a positive, albeit insufficient, impact on the welfare of animals during transport and that in comparing the quality of animal welfare before and after the application of the Regulation, the report states that severe animal welfare problems during transport persist, due mainly to poor compliance;
Amendment 74 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 1. Takes note of the Commission Report presenting the state of implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2005, which contains the conclusion that the Regulation has a positive, albeit insufficient, impact on the welfare of animals during transport; but also points out that severe animal welfare problems during transport persist;
Amendment 75 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 1. Takes note of the Commission Report presenting the state of implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2005, which
Amendment 76 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 a (new) 1a. Whereas European regulations on animal welfare must not give rise to distortions in the free trade of goods, or result in disproportionate financial costs, not forgetting the particular disadvantageous geographical situation of the peripheral and outermost regions;
Amendment 77 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 a (new) 1 a. Calls on the Commission to ensure an effective and uniform enforcement of existing EU legislation on animal transport across all EU Member States;
Amendment 78 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 a (new) 1a. Calls on the Commission to ensure effective and uniform implementation in all the Member States of existing EU legislation on the transport of animals, which must be accompanied by sufficient controls at national level in order to guarantee and maintain the proper functioning of the internal market and to avoid distortions of competition within the EU;
Amendment 79 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 a (new) 1 a. Strongly condemns the weak scientific basis and data underpinning the Commission report, such as a study from an external contractor based mainly on a survey to be completed by parties directly involved in or having a direct interest in the transport of animals;
Amendment 80 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 2 Amendment 81 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 2 Amendment 82 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 2 2. Expresses concern, that
Amendment 83 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 2 2. Expresses concern that there is a risk that the data from the Member States contained in the Report, without any possibility of verification owing to the increase in the number of journeys, may not fully reflect the actual state of affairs with regard to the transport of animals because of the differing methods and control mechanisms used in individual Member States and therefore recommends introducing a monitoring system based on a risk analysis;
Amendment 84 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 2 2. Expresses concern that the data from the Member States contained in the Report, without any possibility of verification, may not fully reflect the actual state of affairs with regard to the transport of animals because of the differing methods and control mechanisms used in individual Member States; calls, therefore, for existing instruments, in particular satellite navigation systems, to monitor and control the transport of animals, to be used effectively and in all Member States alike;
Amendment 85 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 2 2. Expresses concern that the data from the Member States contained in the Report
Amendment 86 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 2 2. Expresses concern that the data from the Member States contained in the Report, without any possibility of exact verification, may not fully reflect the actual state of affairs with regard to the transport of animals because of the differing methods and control mechanisms used in individual Member States;
Amendment 87 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 2 2. Expresses concern that the data from the Member States
Amendment 88 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 Amendment 89 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 Amendment 90 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 Amendment 91 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 Amendment 92 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 Amendment 93 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 Amendment 94 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 3.
Amendment 95 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 3. Believes that in relation to the weak and ineffectual system of monitoring compliance with the conditions of animal transport in Member States
Amendment 96 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 3. Believes that
Amendment 97 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 3. Believes that in relation to the weak and ineffectual system of monitoring compliance with the conditions of animal transport in Member States it seems expedient to
Amendment 98 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 3. Believes that in relation to the weak and ineffectual system of monitoring compliance with the conditions of animal transport in some Member States it seems expedient to consider
Amendment 99 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 3. Believes that in relation to the weak and ineffectual system of monitoring compliance with the conditions of animal transport in Member States it seems expedient to consider the creation, in Member States, of specialised monitoring institutes that would monitor compliance with provisions governing the protection and welfare of animals, including conditions for the transport of animals; Considers that these institutes could be closely linked to, or form part of, the EU network of reference centres for animal welfare proposed by the Commission;
Amendment 100 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 3. Believes that in relation to the weak and ineffectual system of monitoring compliance with the conditions of animal transport in Member States it seems expedient to consider the creation, in Member States, of specialised monitoring institutes that would monitor compliance with provisions governing the protection and welfare of animals, including conditions for the transport of animals; calls in this regard for improved and uniform monitoring and implementation of the current Regulation;
Amendment 101 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 3. Believes that in relation to the weak and ineffectual system of monitoring compliance with the conditions of animal transport in Member States it seems expedient to consider the creation,
Amendment 102 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 3. Believes that in relation to the
Amendment 103 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 a (new) 3a. Whereas the Commission should focus on researching the best conditions for the transport of animals, optimising management conditions and establishing a platform at EU level, without needing to create new specialised control institutions, burdening Member States and creating more bureaucracy for farmers,
Amendment 104 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 a (new) 3 a. Calls on the Commission to ensure that applicable legislation regarding animal transport is uniformly enforced throughout the Union. In that respect, sufficient national and regional controls are an important ingredient to avoid distortion of competition among the EU producers.
Amendment 105 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 4 4.
Amendment 106 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 4 4. Points out that the Commission Report does not contain a full evaluation of all the economic, social and environmental costs of animal transport, limiting itself t
Amendment 107 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 4 4. Points out that the Commission Report does not contain a full evaluation of all the economic, social and environmental costs of animal transport, limiting itself to taking into account the costs of hauliers, and therefore calls on the Commission to present a full evaluation of all the economic, environmental and social costs incurred by the transport of animals, including a comparison between the transport of animals for reproduction and the transport of semen and embryos and a comparison between the transport of animals for slaughter and the transport of carcasses and food products;
Amendment 108 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 4 4. Points out that the Commission Report does not contain a full evaluation of all the economic, social and environmental costs of animal transport, limiting itself to taking into account the costs of hauliers, and therefore calls on the Commission to present a full evaluation of all the economic, environmental and social costs incurred by the transport of animals, which also includes the outermost regions;
Amendment 109 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 4 4. Points out that the Commission Report does not contain a full evaluation of all the economic, social and environmental costs of animal transport, limiting itself to taking into account the costs of hauliers, and therefore calls on the Commission to present a full evaluation of all the economic, environmental and social costs incurred by the transport of animals, with all stakeholders involved;
Amendment 110 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 4 a (new) 4a. Stresses the importance of explaining to European consumers that its demands in terms of animal welfare will have an additional cost which will inevitably have to be borne and reflected in the final price; it is, in fact, inconceivable that the demands of European citizens in terms of animal welfare will, in this case, be borne exclusively by the breeders and transport companies;
Amendment 111 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 5 Amendment 112 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 5 Amendment 113 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 5 Amendment 114 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 5 Amendment 115 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 5 5.
Amendment 116 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 5 5.
Amendment 117 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 5 5. Expresses disappointment that the Commission has not presented a full analysis supported by calculations of the effect of the costs of live animal transport on the price of meat products within the European Union
Amendment 118 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 5 5. Expresses disappointment that the Commission has not presented a full analysis supported by calculations of the effect of the costs of live animal transport on the price of meat products within the European Union, being satisfied with the thesis
Amendment 119 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 6 Amendment 120 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 6 Amendment 121 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 6 6.
Amendment 122 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 6 6.
Amendment 123 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 6 6.
Amendment 124 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 6 6.
Amendment 125 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 6 6.
Amendment 126 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 6 6. Further to the concerns described above, calls on the Commission to evaluate fully the
Amendment 127 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 6 6.
Amendment 128 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 7 Amendment 129 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 7 Amendment 130 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 7 7. Points out that during the 2005-2009 reporting period the number of animals transported increased significantly: cattle by 8 %, pigs by 70 %, sheep by 3 %, and only with horses
Amendment 131 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 7 7. Points out that during the 2005-2009 reporting period the number of animals transported between Member States increased significantly: cattle by 8 %, pigs by 70 %, sheep by 3 %, and only with horses was there a decrease of 17 %. The aim set out in Recital 5 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2005, namely that ‘for reasons of animal welfare the transport of animals over long journeys, including animals for slaughter, should be limited to the greatest extent possible’ has therefore not been achieved; Considers in addition that the data presented does not provide an accurate reflection of the current situation, as the number of animals transported within Member States is not included and that therefore the number of animals transported in the EU is much greater than indicated in the report;
Amendment 132 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 7 7. Points out that during the 2005-2009 reporting period the number of animals transported increased significantly: cattle by 8 %, pigs by 70 %, sheep by 3 %, and only with horses was there a decrease of 17 %
Amendment 133 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 7 7. Points out that during the 2005-2009 reporting period the number of animals transported increased significantly: cattle by 8 %, pigs by 70 %, sheep by 3 %, and only with horses was there a decrease of 17 %
Amendment 134 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 7 7. Points out that during the 2005-2009 reporting period the number of animals transported increased significantly
Amendment 135 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 7 a (new) 7 a. Points out that during the 2005-2009 reporting period, the number of long distance transports, i.e. transports exceeding 8 hours, has increased significantly by 32,4%;
Amendment 136 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 7 a (new) 7 a. Notes that the number of consignments of animals transported over long distances has increased by nearly 40,000 between 2005 and 2009; Underlines that this may be partly due to stricter space and other journey requirements, set out by Regulation (EC) N° 1/2005, which may have caused consignment sizes to reduce;
Amendment 137 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 8 8.
Amendment 138 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 8 8.
Amendment 139 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 8 8. Believes that given that the Regulation has not fulfilled its aim of limiting the transport of animals,
Amendment 140 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 8 8. Believes that given that the Regulation has
Amendment 141 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 8 8. Believes that
Amendment 142 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 8 8. Believes that
Amendment 143 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 8 8. Believes that given that the Regulation
Amendment 144 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 8 8. Believes that given that the Regulation
Amendment 145 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 8 8. Believes that
Amendment 146 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 8 8. Believes that
Amendment 147 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 8 8. Believes as a principle that animals should be slaughtered as close to their place of rearing as possible, and that EU policies should be conducive to this aim; Believes that given that the Regulation has not fulfilled its aim of limiting the transport of animals, EU policy on the matter should be reviewed, particularly concerning the state aid rules, and should be directed at supporting local processing, small local slaughterhouses and local meat processing plants, based on the supply of animals for slaughter from the immediate vicinity;
Amendment 148 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 8 8. Believes that given that the Regulation has not fulfilled its aim of limiting the transport of animals, EU policy on the matter should be reviewed and should be directed at supporting local processing, small local slaughterhouses and local meat processing plants, based on the supply of animals for slaughter from the immediate vicinity, whilst European beef export capacities must be maintained and there must therefore be a sufficiently clear system of exemptions to enable our breeders to remain competitive and to access potential new markets;
Amendment 149 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 8 8. Believes that given that the Regulation has not fulfilled its aim of limiting the transport of animals, EU policy on the matter should be reviewed and should be directed at supporting local processing, small local slaughterhouses and local meat processing plants, based on the supply of animals for slaughter from the immediate vicinity, where this does not compromise regular market supply in certain countries and peripheral regions, making some companies not economically viable, with all the consequences associated with this;
Amendment 150 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 8 8. Believes that given that the Regulation has not fulfilled its aim of limiting the transport of live animals for slaughter, EU policy on the matter, including that aimed at creating short and transparent supply chains, should be reviewed and should be directed at supporting local processing, small local slaughterhouses and local meat processing plants, based on the supply of animals for slaughter from the immediate vicinity;
Amendment 151 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 8 8.
Amendment 152 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 8 8. Believes that
Amendment 153 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 8 a (new) 8a. Calls on the Commission to take all the necessary measures, also through administrative simplification, to promote small slaughterhouses and the slaughter of animals in the area where they were raised;
Amendment 154 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 8 a (new) 8 a. Notes that the Federation of Veterinarians of Europe recommends that "Animals should be reared as close as possible to the premises on which they are born and slaughtered as close as possible to the point of production"1; believes that, where practicable, EU policy should seek to follow this principle. __________________ 1 FVE/01/043, 18/05/01, Transport of live animals, Position paper, Annex 2
Amendment 155 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 8 a (new) 8a. Regrets that the Commission report ignores the recommendation of the EFSA, which believes that, in order to reduce the risk of illness appearing during transport, the transport of animals for reproduction can be replaced by the transport of semen and embryos and the transport of animals for slaughter can be replaced by the transport of carcasses and food products; agrees with the EFSA, which believes that journey times could be reduced by slaughtering animals as close as possible to production sites;
Amendment 156 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 8 a (new) 8 a. Stresses that EU hygiene legislation, while ensuring the highest level of protection for consumers, should not unnecessarily hamper the development of such mobile or small-scale regional slaughter and processing facilities;
Amendment 157 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 8 a (new) 8 a. Calls on the Commission to acknowledge on the current hygiene legislation and its effects to small local slaughterhouses. Invites the Commission to come up with incentives for small local slaughterhouses to be profitable as that would increase competition in local areas permitting the farmers to sell their meet at better price and also reduce the duration of the transport of animals.
Amendment 158 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 9 9. Insists on
Amendment 159 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 9 9. Insists on
Amendment 160 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 9 9.
Amendment 161 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 9 9.
Amendment 162 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 9 9. Insists on a reconsideration of the issue of limiting the transport time of animals destined for slaughter to
Amendment 163 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 9 9.
Amendment 164 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 9 9. Insists on a reconsideration of the issue of limiting the transport time of animals destined for slaughter and fattening to eight hours, with some exceptions based on geographic conditions, and the option of longer transport of some animal species confirmed by scientific research results, provided that the rules on animal welfare are complied with;
Amendment 165 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 9 9.
Amendment 166 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 9 9. Insists
Amendment 167 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 9 9. Insists on a reconsideration of the issue of limiting the transport time of animals destined for slaughter to eight hours, with some exceptions based on geographic conditions
Amendment 168 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 9 9. Insists on a reconsideration of the issue of limiting the transport time of animals destined for slaughter to eight hours, with some exceptions based on geographic conditions, and the option of longer transport of some animal species confirmed by scientific research results, provided that the rules on animal welfare are complied with; highlights that the Commission’s report makes special mention in its conclusions, in agreement with the opinion of EFSA, that ‘it appears that parts of the Regulation are not fully in line with the current knowledge’; for this reason, it is important to underline the need to consider the latest scientific knowledge in preparing regulations on animal welfare. It highlights that in the EFSA opinion document (DOC. EFSA 2011:9(1):1966, (125 pp.)) that other aspects come into play in the welfare of animals aside from the duration of the journey, such as proper loading and unloading, as well as the design of the vehicles;
Amendment 169 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 9 9. Insists on a reconsideration of the issue of limiting the transport time of animals destined for slaughter to eight hours, with some exceptions based on geographic conditions
Amendment 170 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 9 9. Insists on a reconsideration of the issue of limiting the transport time of animals destined for slaughter to eight hours,
Amendment 171 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 9 9. Insists on a reconsideration of the issue of limiting the transport time of animals destined for slaughter to eight hours, with some exceptions based on geographic conditions, secluded locations and the option of longer transport of some animal species confirmed by scientific research results, provided that the rules on animal welfare are complied with; emphasises the importance of a dense network of slaughterhouses, both in terms of animal welfare and the development of rural regions.
Amendment 172 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 9 9. Insists on a reconsideration of the issue of limiting the transport time of animals destined for slaughter to eight hours taking account of loading time, with some exceptions based on geographic conditions, and the option of longer transport of some animal species confirmed by scientific research results, provided that the rules on animal welfare are complied with;
Amendment 173 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 9 9. Insists on a reconsideration of the issue of limiting the transport time of animals destined for slaughter to eight hours, irrespective of whether this takes place on land or sea, with some exceptions based on geographic conditions, and the option of longer transport of some animal species confirmed by scientific research results, provided that the rules on animal welfare are complied with;
Amendment 174 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 9 9. Insists on a reconsideration of the issue of limiting the transport time of animals destined for slaughter to eight hours, with some exceptions based on geographic conditions or on possible access to new markets, and the option of longer transport of some animal species confirmed by scientific research results, provided that the rules on animal welfare are complied with;
Amendment 175 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 9 9. Insists on a reconsideration of the issue of limiting the transport time of animals destined for slaughter to eight hours, with some exceptions based on geographic conditions in the outermost regions, and the option of longer transport of some animal species confirmed by scientific research results, provided that the rules on animal welfare are complied with;
Amendment 176 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 9 9. Insists on a reconsideration of the issue of limiting the transport time of animals destined for slaughter to eight hours, with some exceptions based on geographic conditions,
Amendment 177 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 9 – point 1 (new) (1) points out that it should be possible to extend transport times in the event of unforeseeable transport delays (traffic jams, breakdowns, accidents, diversions, force majeure etc.), while complying with animal welfare principles and after taking into account all the possibilities available;
Amendment 178 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 9 a (new) 9a. Calls for the information in Member State reports to be similarly structured, so that they provide better and more comparable data.
Amendment 179 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 9 a (new) 9 a. Calls upon the Commission to consider the EFSA recommendation on developing strategies to reduce the volume of transport and the long-distance transport of animals for slaughter and limit journey times, in order to reduce the risk of transport associated disease outbreaks.
Amendment 180 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 9 a (new) 9 a. Stresses that the improvement of the conditions in which animals are transported is essential. In this view, calls for better monitoring and implementation of existing legislation.
Amendment 181 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 9 a (new) 9a. Exemptions to long journey requirements may be granted to take into account the geographical remoteness of certain regions, such as the outermost regions, in relation to the EU mainland. Member States may continue to apply existing national provisions on the transport of animals going to or coming from such regions within their own outermost regions. They must inform the Commission on doing so.
Amendment 182 #
Motion for a resolution Subheading 2 Economic, social and environmental costs of transport and level playing field
Amendment 183 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 10 10. Welcomes the improvement in the quality of animal transport,
Amendment 184 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 10 10. Welcomes the i
Amendment 185 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 10 10. Welcomes the i
Amendment 186 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 10 10. Welcomes the i
Amendment 187 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 10 10. Welcomes the i
Amendment 188 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 10 10. Welcomes the improvement in the quality of animal transport
Amendment 189 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 10 10.
Amendment 190 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 10 10. Welcomes the improvement in the quality of animal transport
Amendment 191 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 10 10. Welcomes the improvement in the quality of animal transport, but believes that the Commission findings referred to above are based on the results of surveys carried out among slaughterhouses and business and transport enterprises engaged in the transportation of live animals. The results of the surveys carried out by the Commission m
Amendment 192 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 10 а (new) 10a. Notes that Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 on the protection of animals during transport should be harmonised with Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 on the harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road transport since both regulations aim at simplifying the requirements for operators to allow the enforcing authorities to implement them simultaneously, thus saving time and costs;
Amendment 193 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 10 a (new) 10 a. Believes that animal welfare legislation, as a matter of principle, should be based on science; Calls therefore on the Commission to update the animal transport rules with regards to the gaps between legislation and the latest scientific evidence as identified by EFSA
Amendment 194 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 10 a (new) 10 a. Points to the considerable differences between Member States as regards the costs for upgrading vehicles (for example a range of €250 to €6000 for the installation of satellite navigation), which seriously affects the level playing field on the Internal Market, and criticises the Commission for not having investigated the reasons for these differences;
Amendment 195 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 10 b (new) 10b. Notes that the use of vehicles in which animals remain hidden from other road traffic users should be restricted in order to achieve more transparency, a possibility of involving ordinary citizens in this problem and a greater chance of alerts being submitted.
Amendment 196 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 11 11. In view of the situation described above, calls on the Commission to
Amendment 197 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 11 11. In view of the situation described above, calls on the Commission to develop a
Amendment 198 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 11 11. In view of the situation described above, calls on the Commission to develop a
Amendment 199 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 11 11. In view of the situation described above, calls on the Commission to develop a
Amendment 200 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 11 11. In view of the situation described above, calls on the Commission to develop an objective and reliable system for evaluating the welfare of animals during transport, based on scientific criteria;
Amendment 201 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 11 11.
Amendment 202 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 11 a (new) 11 a. Notes that in view of the EFSA results the transport time of horses should be greatly reduced, and that with regard to other farm animals, the requirement for such a reduction should be carefully considered;
Amendment 203 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 12 12. Welcomes the fact that in its report the Commission used the scientific research presented by
Amendment 204 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 12 12. Welcomes the fact that in its report the Commission used the scientific research presented by the EFSA, which
Amendment 205 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 12 12. Welcomes the fact that in its report the Commission used the scientific research presented by the EFSA, which
Amendment 206 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 12 12. Welcomes the fact that in its report the Commission used the scientific research presented by the EFSA, which
Amendment 207 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 12 12. Welcomes the fact that in its report the Commission used the scientific research presented by the EFSA, which highlights the need to significantly reduce the length of transport time for horses to the abattoir, which correlates with the suggestions advanced in Parliament’s Written Declaration of 25 February 2010; notes however that sports horses and/or breeding horses are generally transported under entirely satisfactory conditions due to their high value;
Amendment 208 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 12 12. Welcomes the fact that in its report the Commission used the scientific research presented by
Amendment 209 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 12 12. Welcomes the fact that in its report the Commission used the scientific research presented by the EFSA, which highlights the need to significantly reduce the length of transport time for horses, which correlates with the suggestions advanced in Parliament's Written Declaration of 25 February 2010, and insists that consideration is given to a maximum journey time for Equidae intended for slaughter and non-registered Equidae, as indicated in Article 32 of the Regulation and EFSA's research;
Amendment 210 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 12 a (new) 12a. Regrets that despite the new scientific evidence on horse transportation times submitted by EFSA, no recommendations for legislative change were included in the Commission Report.
Amendment 211 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 13 Amendment 212 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 13 Amendment 213 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 13 13. Notes that
Amendment 214 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 13 13. Notes that in view of the EFSA test results the transport time of horses to the abattoir should be greatly reduced, and that with regard to other farm animals, the requirement for such a reduction should be carefully considered;
Amendment 215 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 13 13. Notes that in view of the EFSA test results the transport time of horses should be greatly reduced, and that with regard to
Amendment 216 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 13 13. Notes that in view of the EFSA test results the transport time of horses should be greatly reduced, and that with regard to other farm animals, the requirement for such a reduction
Amendment 217 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 13 13. Notes that in view of the EFSA test results the transport time of horses should be greatly reduced, and that with regard to other farm animals, the requirement for such a reduction should be
Amendment 218 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 13 13. Notes that in view of the EFSA test results the transport time of
Amendment 219 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 13 a (new) 13 a. Urges the Commission to commence the study on the transport of fish before 1st January 2013, and to come up with corresponding proposals after completion of this study;
Amendment 220 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 13 a (new) 13a. Calls on the Commission to carry out an analysis of the transport of animals, performing economic calculations broken down by the type of exploitation of animals concerned, and paying particular attention to the influence of the transport of young animals on the EU meat market and the economy of the EU as a whole.
Amendment 221 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 13 a (new) 13a. Calls for the prescribed density of animals to be recalculated in light of the EFSA recommendations using a formula which takes into account the relationship between the size of animals and their weight.
Amendment 222 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 13 a (new) 13a. Notes with regret that the Commission's report does not take the transport of poultry into account, despite the fact that poultry is the main animal species transported in Europe;
Amendment 223 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 13 a (new) 13a. Considers, in the light of the studies carried out by the EFSA, that the Commission report should be accompanied by legislative proposals concerning the space the animals are allowed, the height of the compartments, the temperature standards for poultry, the standards relating to unweaned animals, goats, rabbits and dogs;
Amendment 224 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 13 a (new) 13a. Calls on the Commission to review existing EU legislation in order to set limits on journey times for the transport of poultry based on the latest scientific evidence;
Amendment 225 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 13 b (new) 13 b. Urges the Commission to follow the recommendations of EFSA's Scientific Opinion to carry out further research on the thermal limits and regulation for poultry and rabbits, the effects of ventilation on pigs, space allowance for rabbits, newly hatched chicks and pigs
Amendment 226 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 13 a (new) 13a. States that the duration of transport has an effect on animal welfare, yet it recognises that other factors related to the conditions for preparing vehicles and the handling of animals have an even greater effect;
Amendment 227 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 13 a (new) 13 a. Notes that the transportation of animals is a recognised factor in the spread of infectious disease and that EFSA recommends that transportation should be limited as much as possible for this reason; therefore, a short, maximum journey limit for animals intended for slaughter would reduce the risk of disease spread and should be considered a priority due to the economic and health risk posed by infectious disease.
Amendment 228 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 13 a (new) 13 a. Calls on the Commission and the Council to review Regulation 1/2005 to inter alia increase space allowances, and tighten the rules on the transport of pregnant and/or wounded animals;
Amendment 229 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 13 b (new) 13b. Calls for binding regulations on the minimum height of compartments, adjusted for the species and age of animal in question;
Amendment 230 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 13 b (new) 13a. Believes it necessary to continue to promote the education of hauliers in the handling of animals and calls on Member States to encourage training programmes, as obligatory under Regulation 1/2005;
Amendment 231 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 13 b (new) 13 b. Notes that the provisions in the Regulation on transport time, resting time and space allowance are not based on a scientific opinion of SCAHAW or EFSA, but have been taken from the previous Directive; notes with regret that, despite clear conclusions from EFSA, parts of the Regulation are not in line with current scientific knowledge, especially as regards transport of horses, space allowance and internal height of compartments, and that the report is not accompanied by any proposal;
Amendment 232 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 13 b (new) 13b. Considers that good practice guides are useful tools and need to be encouraged but, because they have no legal status and are not directly applicable, they are not the most appropriate approach to reduce the difference between legislative requirements and the scientific evidence cited in the Commission report;
Amendment 233 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 13 c (new) 13c. Invites the European Commission, in bilateral trade agreements with third countries, to require them to comply with European regulations on animal welfare in their exports of cattle and meat products to the Community market;
Amendment 234 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 13 c (new) 13c. Considers that the need to improve the application of the existing regulation should not be seen as an obstacle to a comprehensive review of this regulation;
Amendment 235 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 13 d (new) 13d. Calls on the Commission to implement an extensive consumer information campaign on European regulations in terms of animal welfare, by continually informing of the changes being required of European producers for the purpose of giving a greater profile to their work and improving the added value of their productions;
Amendment 236 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 14 14. Welcomes the information on the introduction of a navigation system for monitoring the transport of animals, but is disappointed that this system is being used only to a limited extent in Member States for the purposes of monitoring the transport of animals, and that over half of transport vehicles do not use such a system; calls for Member States to make available funding to encourage take-up of this technology, through Rural Development programmes; believes that such systems would contribute more to improved enforcement if they transmitted data regarding travelling times and rest periods in real time to competent authorities;
Amendment 237 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 14 14. Welcomes the information on the introduction of a navigation system for monitoring the transport of animals, but is disappointed that this system is being used only to a limited extent in Member States for the purposes of monitoring the transport of animals; notes that technical means such as GPS exist and are widespread; is of the opinion that this monitoring system should be obligatory for certain types of transport; centralised monitoring of this system at Community level would make it possible to check transport conditions such as length of transport time, compliance with resting periods, etc.
Amendment 238 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 14 14. Welcomes the information on the introduction of a navigation system for monitoring the transport of animals, but is disappointed that this system is being used only to a limited extent in Member States for the purposes of monitoring the transport of animals; Notes that the Commission has attempted on two previous occasions to correct this situation and that it is now committed to bring forward implementing measures in this area in the near future. Given this commitment calls on the Commission to only adopt measures that are straightforward to implement at the Member State level and that impose the no additional administrative and financial burdens on the livestock and haulage industries;
Amendment 239 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 14 14. Welcomes the information on the introduction of a navigation system for monitoring the transport of animals, but is disappointed that this system is being used only to a limited extent in Member States for the purposes of monitoring the transport of animals; Calls on the Commission to adopt measures which are straightforward to implement at Member State level and which impose the minimum possible additional administrative and financial burdens on the livestock and haulage industries;
Amendment 240 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 14 14. Welcomes the information on the introduction of a navigation system for monitoring the transport of animals, but is disappointed that this system is being used only to a limited extent in Member States for the purposes of monitoring the transport of animals due to the absence of technical harmonisation of the specific criteria for usage, for which reason it considers it imperative to bring about this harmonisation;
Amendment 241 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 14 14. Welcomes the information on the introduction of a navigation system for monitoring the transport of animals, but is disappointed
Amendment 242 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 14 14. Welcomes the information on the introduction of a navigation system for monitoring the transport of animals, but is disappointed that large differences in implementation exist between Member States and that overall this system is being used only to a limited extent
Amendment 243 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 14 a (new) 14a. Calls on the Commission to study the harmonisation of the inspection tools to enable the homogenisation of data collection, reduce administrative workloads and the unnecessary use of multiple onboard instruments;
Amendment 244 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 14 a (new) 14 a. Recalls its resolution of 5 May 2010, where the Parliament asked for proper implementation of the rules on animal transport, especially concerning the development of satellite systems to monitor such transport; Deplores that the Commission concludes that such a system is still not fully in use, without suggesting any solutions to remedy the situation; Calls on the Commission and the Member States to, without further delay, make use of modern technology
Amendment 245 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 14 a (new) 14 a. Calls on the Commission to research how new and existing technology can be applied in livestock vehicles to regulate, monitor and register temperature and humidity, which are essential elements for controlling and protecting the welfare of specific categories of animals during transport, in line with the EFSA recommendations;
Amendment 246 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 14 a (new) 14 a. Requests the Commission to make legislative proposals before 1 January 2014, aimed at creating an EU-wide common framework for data collection and control through satellite navigation, based on the uploading of data in real time;
Amendment 247 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 15 15. Is concerned that the degree of implementation of the rules governing the transport of animals varies significantly between individual Member States, and therefore calls on the Commission to adopt measures to secure full and uniform monitoring of adherence to the transport conditions; (Due to its importance, this point should be moved to Article 3.)
Amendment 248 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 15 15. Is concerned that the degree of implementation of the rules governing the transport of animals varies significantly between individual Member States, and therefore calls on the Commission to adopt measures to secure full and uniform monitoring of adherence to the transport conditions, without the need to create new specialised control institutions, burdening Member States and creating more bureaucracy for farmers;
Amendment 249 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 15 15. Is concerned that the degree of implementation of the rules governing the transport of animals varies significantly between individual Member States, and therefore calls on the Commission to adopt measures to secure full and uniform monitoring of adherence to the transport conditions including regular unannounced on-the-spot controls by FVO inspectors;
Amendment 250 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 15 15. Is concerned that the degree of implementation of the rules governing the transport of animals varies significantly between individual Member States, and therefore calls on the Commission to adopt measures to secure full and uniform monitoring of adherence to the transport conditions and uniform sanctions which take effect in the event of breaches of the Regulation;
Amendment 251 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 15 a (new) 15 a. Furthermore requests that the Commission presents before 1 July 2013 a thorough assessment of the Member States' annual national reports;
Amendment 252 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 15 a (new) 15 a. Calls on the European Commission to monitor the level of implementation of the current animal transport regulation in the member states; and rapport on the results to the European Parliament every 5 years.
Amendment 253 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 16 16.
Amendment 254 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 16 16. Is concerned that significant differences have arisen in individual Member States’ interpretation of the rules, since this threatens the aims of the Regulation and distorts competition; calls therefore on the Commission to
Amendment 255 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 16 16. Is concerned that significant differences have arisen in individual Member States’ interpretation of the rules, since this threatens the aims of the Regulation and distorts competition; calls therefore on the Commission to introduce a
Amendment 256 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 16 16. Is concerned that significant differences have arisen in individual Member States' interpretation of the rules, since this threatens the aims of the Regulation and distorts competition; calls therefore on the Commission to introduce appropriate amendments, clarification and guidance documents to the Regulation so as to eliminate the possibility of it being interpreted arbitrarily;
Amendment 257 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 16 16. Is concerned that significant differences have arisen in individual Member States' interpretation of the rules, since this threatens the aims of the Regulation and distorts competition; calls
Amendment 258 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 16 16. Is concerned that significant differences have arisen in individual Member States’ interpretation of the rules, since this threatens the aims of the Regulation and distorts competition; calls therefore on the Commission to introduce appropriate
Amendment 259 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 16 16. Is concerned that significant differences have arisen in individual Member States' interpretation of the rules, since this threatens the aims of the Regulation and distorts competition; calls therefore on the Commission to introduce appropriate
Amendment 260 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 16 16. Is concerned that significant differences have arisen in individual Member States' interpretation of the rules, since this threatens the aims of the Regulation and distorts competition; calls therefore on the Commission to introduce appropriate
Amendment 261 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 16 a (new) 16 a. notes that any deficiencies in implementation are frequently the result of legal requirements which cannot be implemented in practice or which are incompatible with national law; calls on the Commission to check the current Regulation for such incompatibilities;
Amendment 262 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 17 17. Is concerned that certain Member States are prepared to tolerate blatant infringement of the provisions of the Regulation, such as the acceptance of transport schedules which are impossible to fulfil;
Amendment 263 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 17 17. Is concerned that certain Member States tolerate blatant infringement of the provisions of the Regulation, such as the acceptance of transport schedules which are impossible to fulfil, overstocked vehicles and inadequate space allowances;
Amendment 264 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 17 17. Is concerned that certain Member States tolerate blatant infringement of the provisions of the Regulation, such as the acceptance of transport schedules which are impossible to fulfil, overstocked vehicles and inadequate space allowances;
Amendment 265 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 17 a (new) 17 a. Underlines in this regard that according to Article 25 of the Regulation sanctions should be effective, proportionate and dissuasive; given the large differences between national sanction regimes; expresses serious doubts as to whether this is the case in every Member State the EU;
Amendment 266 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 17 b (new) 17 b. Therefore requests that the Commission present before 1 July 2013 a report analysing penalties for serious infringements against animal welfare in road transport in all Member States, comparable to its report on penalties in the area of social rules in road transport1, which for example found fines ranging from less than €60 in one Member State to more than €5000 in others; 1 COM(2009)225
Amendment 267 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 17 a (new) 17 a. Draws attention to the Report's exposure of vastly differing levels of penalties and sanctions for the same infringement in different Member States, ranging from 75 EUR to 2000 EUR; calls for a greater harmonisation of fines and sanctions across the EU to ensure better enforcement of the Regulation;
Amendment 268 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 17 a (new) 17a. Calls on Member States to improve their inspection work to guarantee proper compliance with the Regulations and to impose the appropriate sanctions for any infractions committed;
Amendment 269 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 18 18. Calls on Member States to strengthen controls
Amendment 270 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 18 18. Calls on Member States to strengthen controls aimed at halting tolerance of practices that infringe the Regulation and worsen the conditions for the transport of animals, such as allowing over-stocekd vehicles to continue their journeys or permitting Control Posts with inadequate facilities for resting, feeding and watering the animals to continue in use;
Amendment 271 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 18 18. Calls on Member States to strengthen controls on the entire production chain aimed at halting tolerance of practices that infringe the Regulation and worsen the conditions for the transport of animals,
Amendment 272 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 18 a (new) 18 a. Supports the Report's conclusion that guides to good practice should be supported and encouraged to circulate, to ensure that operators are aware of the rules and their responsibilities for enforcement;
Amendment 273 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 18 a (new) 18 a. Stresses the key role to be played by retailers, food service companies, or food manufacturers to ensure that in their private standards, meat is originating from animals which have been reared and slaughtered locally and have been transported in conditions respecting their welfare;
Amendment 274 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 18 b (new) 18 b. Notes that the duration and standard of training courses differs greatly between Member States, and demands closer cooperation between the Commission and the Member States with clear EU guidelines to develop better and more uniform training courses for drivers and animal handlers.
source: PE-486.028
|
History
(these mark the time of scraping, not the official date of the change)
| activities/6/type | changed |
Old
Debate scheduledNew
Debate in Parliament |
|
| activities/7/docs | added |
|
|
| activities/7/type | changed |
Old
Vote scheduledNew
Text adopted by Parliament, single reading |
|
| procedure/stage_reached | changed |
Old
Awaiting Parliament 1st reading / single reading / budget 1st stageNew
Procedure completed |
|