The purpose of this Regulation is to ensure consistency by 2002 in the rules governing the non-commercial movement of pet animals - which has been commonly labelled the "pet passport" scheme. The fact that this proposal has been brought forward by the Commission represents a remarkable achievement in actions taken to control rabies. The success of vaccination campaigns against rabies have led to a fall in the number of cases amongst cats and dogs from nearly 500 in 1991 to just 5 in 1998. It has resulted in the partial abolition of the six-month quarantine system in the United Kingdom and Sweden.

It is the problem of rabies, which has prevented consistent rules being adopted up until now, and so Member States have dealt with pet animal movements in very different ways. So a uniform scheme is welcome.

The Commission measures, which are based largely on the British scheme, allow for easier movement of cats and dogs within the EU and certain third countries on condition they can be identified by electronic chip or a tattoo; that they have been vaccinated and that their immunity has been checked more than six months prior to travel. They also allow the free movement of insects, fish and some other animals. Importantly, there is scope for certain Member States to vary the provisions where special circumstances make it necessary.

The Commission proposed both Articles 37 and 152(4)(b) as a double legal base. However, as the Regulation refers only to pet animals and to the adoption of veterinary measures to protect public health, the Environment Committee agreed that the Regulation should be based only on Article 152(4)(b) which relates to public health and covers rabies. The Committee on Legal Affairs agreed with this view as the proposal concerns the movement of only pet animals and its aim is the protection of public health. I hope we can reach agreement on this.

The key points of debate in the Committee were firstly the use of tattoos or electronic identification systems. Tattoos cause problems, as they can become difficult to read or can be altered. In contrast the use of electronic chips are more effective in terms of identification but also are a more humane method as the animal does not need a pain reliever or tranquilliser. In the long term, therefore, the use of microchips is preferable but taking account of the fact that a number of Member States currently accept tattoos under their national legislation, a transitional period of eight years is proposed by the Committee for the phasing out of tattoos.

Similarly it is proposed that during the transitional period those countries which do not currently accept tattoos as a valid form of identification may require electronic microchips only.

Amendment 8 refers to the need to state clearly that puppies and kittens cannot be moved until they have reached the age for vaccination and other requirements.

If this scheme is to be successful it is crucial that it is operated effectively. The use of specified ISO transponders would achieve this. Similarly, the capacity to record the name and address of the animal owner would improve the effectiveness and would assist in combating trafficking in pet animals. The International Animal Health Code and clarification of the antirabies vaccine are included for reasons of effectiveness.

Another issue is that of quarantine. The purpose of Amendment 9 is to clarify that animals from third countries at risk of rabies which are brought into Sweden, Ireland or the UK - the so-called "sensitive countries" - via another Member State, have to remain in that country for at least six months before travelling to the three countries mentioned. This, of course, removes the need for quarantine whilst also providing the extra safeguards required by those countries.

A controversial issue has been that of ferrets and whether or not they should be included in this Regulation. The Commission proposal includes ferrets in the category of pets which would not require any specific animal health requirements. There were many different views on this but the view of the Environment Committee is that this would pose an unacceptable risk and ferrets should therefore be removed from Annex I Part B.

Finally, it is very important that detailed information for consumers is provided in order to make the necessary preparations for travel and to ensure that the staff at EU borders are familiar with the requirements.

My aim in drafting the report has been to retain the positive and essential elements of the Commission's proposal whilst taking account of the requirements of certain Member States. Confidence in this scheme is essential for its successful operation and the Amendments are designed to improve the Commission's text to this end.