2 Protection of animals during transport
| (24774)
11794/03
COM(03) 425
| Commission Communication on the protection of animals during transport.
Draft Council Regulation on the protection of animals during transport and related operations and amending Directives 64/432/EEC and 93/119/EEC.
|
| Legal base | Article 37 EC; consultation; QMV
|
| Document originated | 16 July 2003
|
| Deposited in Parliament | 28 July 2003
|
| Department | Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
|
| Basis of consideration | EM of 20 October 2003
|
| Previous Committee Report | None, but see footnotes
|
| To be discussed in Council | Before the end of the year
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Not cleared; further information awaited
|
Background
2.1 According to the Commission, transport is the most controversial
aspect of animal welfare, and has been the subject of Community
legislation since 1977, with the current framework being provided
by Council Directive 91/628/EEC.[1]
It notes that it brought forward in December 2000 a Communication[2]
on the experience acquired by Member States since that Directive
was last amended in 1995,[3]
and that some of actions recommended have already been initiated,
including a proposal in April 2001 to improve the ventilation
standards of vehicles used for long-distance journeys.[4]
However, the Commission also pointed out that most of the recommendations
can only be addressed by amendments to the current legislation,
and it has now sought to do this in the current document, in the
light of detailed recommendations developed by the Scientific
Committee on Animal Health and Animal Welfare.
The current document
2.2 The Commission notes that the trade in live animals in 2000
involved about 20 million head, of which about 87% related to
intra-Community movements, about 11% to imports from third countries,
and the remaining 2% to exports outside the Community. In headage
terms, pigs accounted for about 60% of the trade, followed by
sheep and goats (20%), cattle (19%), and horses (about 1%).[5]
The overwhelming amount of traffic was by road, though air transport
was used for long distance operations involving high-value animals,
with sea transport also being used, albeit principally for export
to third countries.
2.3 It has now proposed that existing Community laws
on the protection of animals during transport should be repealed,
and replaced by a new measure, which would also subsume the earlier
proposal on ventilation standards. The proposal aims to:
- set stricter journey times
and space allowances;
- improve the mandatory training of personnel and
widen the scope of this obligation to those at markets and assembly
centres;
- ban the transport of very young animals, and
set out clearer definitions for when animals are unfit for transport;
- set up stricter welfare standards for the transport
of horses, in such areas as space allowances and individual pens;
- upgrade technical standards for road vehicles;
- introduce specific requirements for all livestock
vessels operating from Community ports;
- emphasize the role of competent authorities in
supervising transport operations and strengthen co-operation between
them.
The Government's view
2.4 In his Explanatory Memorandum of 20 October 2003,
the Minister for Nature Conservation and Fisheries at the Department
for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr Ben Bradshaw) says
that, although the Government has consistently expressed a preference
for a trade in meat rather than in live animals for slaughter,
Ministers have urged the Commission to produce these proposals
and improve enforcement throughout Europe. The Government is
therefore pleased that the proposals have been published, and
it is consulting on their detail and effect.
2.5 In the meantime, he says that the proposals are
broadly in accord with UK policy of bringing about improvements
in animal welfare on a Community-wide basis, reducing the long-distance
transport of animals for slaughter, and improving standards and
consistency of enforcement. However, consultation and early discussions
in Brussels have identified the following as potentially contentious
or difficult issues requiring further detailed consideration:
Type of instrument
- The Minister says that a Regulation,
directly enforceable in Member States, can only be acceptable
if it is clear as to its scope, but that, in this case, there
are concerns that key issues, such as the lack of a definition
of "commercial journey", would enable different exemptions
from the scope of the rules to be determined by Member States.
In that event, he suggests that a Directive would be preferable.
Inspection and approval of means of transport
- Whilst the UK does not inspect
and approve livestock road vehicles for animal welfare, the Minister
says that several Member States which do operate approval schemes
have suggested that the proposal should be extended to cover all
livestock vehicles for road transport, and not just "long-distance"
transport as proposed. The UK livestock haulage sector would
support an approval scheme for longer distance vehicles. On the
other hand, the UK does inspect all specialist livestock vessels
before they first transport sheep from this country, and it welcomes
the proposal that such vessels should be inspected and approved.
The majority of these operate under third country flags, and
very few are registered in Community Member States.
Fitness for transport
- The Minister says that the
proposals adopt from the recently agreed Council of Europe Convention
on the Welfare of Animals during Transport recommendations on
restrictions on the transport of certain categories of animals
on long journeys. It is proposed that these restrictions should
apply to all journeys, and, in their current form, this will affect
the movement of young pigs (and possibly calves) in many Member
States, including the UK.
Journey times and associated higher standards
and space allowances for "long- distance" journeys
- The Minister says that the
proposed maximum journey times are nine hours in basic vehicles,
or, in higher-standard vehicles, a repeatable cycle of nine hours
travel followed by 12 hours rest in the vehicle. In view of the
conditions which will develop in a vehicle over repeated cycles,
the possibility of animals fighting and the effect of lack of
exercise, for horses in particular, he points out that this proposal
is neither acceptable on welfare grounds, nor seen as practicable
by industry. He also points out that it is based on social legislation
governing a single driver's hours, and that the Government envisages
further consideration being given to other options. As a basis
for discussion, the UK has previously called for an eight-hour
limit on the transport of animals to slaughter, with longer times
permitted for breeding/registered animals which are transported
in better conditions, but, in any event, to be acceptable, the
proposals must continue to allow access to markets for producers
in remote areas (notably the Highlands and Islands), and permit
animals to move through UK livestock markets (taking into account
also national rules on bio-security and on animal movements adopted
after the foot-and-mouth epidemic in 2001).
Staging points and veterinary inspection
- The proposal would no longer
require animals to be rested during long-distance journeys at
approved staging points, and would instead permit rest to be taken
in the vehicle at any premises and without veterinary supervision.
The Minister comments that staging points provide an opportunity
for veterinary inspectors to monitor the condition of the animals
and the vehicle, and that this would in future be lost. However,
he recognises that there are disease risks associated with bringing
animals together at staging points, as there are with unsupervised
rest on vehicles at non-approved premises, and he suggests that
finite journeys, without repeated cycles of travel and rest, would
address this issue.
2.6 The Minister says that the full implications
for the UK of new journey times will not be clear until consultation
and negotiation is completed, but it is expected that the greatest
impact will be on the relatively small long-distance slaughter
trade in sheep. He also suggests that enforcement costs in the
UK would not increase as much as in some other Member States as
rules are enforced vigorously here already. However, he says
that revised proposals are expected to be published following
discussion by a Council Working Group of Veterinary Experts and
Chief Veterinary Officers, and that this will be the subject of
a further Explanatory Memorandum and a Regulatory Impact Assessment.
2.7 Finally, the Minister indicates that the Italian
Presidency is believed to be seeking political agreement on the
major principles before the end of the year, with discussion of
technical issues continuing into 2004.
Conclusion
2.8 These are clearly proposals which touch upon
an important area of public interest, and we therefore feel that
the House will wish to consider the issue further before any decisions
are taken by the Council. However, we note that, in the light
of discussions so far at technical level, a revised proposal is
expected, and we think it would be sensible to consider that before
making any formal debate recommendation. That being so, it is
all the more important that any further developments should be
drawn to our attention in good time, bearing in mind the current
Presidency's apparent wish to secure political agreement, at least
on the major principles, before the end of the year.
2.9 In the meantime, we would be glad if the Minister
could confirm that the earlier proposal on ventilation standards,
on which we requested further information on 18 July 2001, has
now been formally withdrawn by the Commission.
1 OJ No. L.340, 11.12.91, p.17. Back
2
(22004) 14650/00; see HC 28-vii (2000-01), paragraph 16 (28
February 2001). Back
3
By Directive 95/29/EC. OJ No. L. 148, 30.6.95, p.52. Back
4
(22357) 7969/01; see HC 152-i (2001-02), paragraph 14 (18 July
2001). Back
5
In tonnage terms, the figures are different, with cattle accounting
for the highest proportion, followed by pigs. Back
|
