|
|
Pet Passports for dogs, cats, and ferrets
Regulation in force
On 3 July 2004, an EU Regulation on the non-commercial movement of pet animals came into force.
A five-year transition period will apply to Ireland, Sweden and the United Kingdom, after which new proposals will be made in the light of experience of the new system, the rabies status of the EU at that time and expert scientific advice. See the links below under Implementation in the UK for information on how the Regulation will be applied in this country.
Aims of the regulation
The main purpose of the regulation is to facilitate the free movement of pet animals while guaranteeing a high level of protection for human and animal health.
For movements of pets between Member States other than Ireland, Sweden and the United Kingdom, rabies vaccination will be the sole requirement for travel across borders. An electronic microchip or a tattoo will indicate the vaccination status of the pet. Additionally, an EU- passport will be given to each pet to be checked. Young pets, which cannot be vaccinated, will be allowed to travel without vaccination. The same rule will apply to neighbouring non-EU countries where the rabies status matches that of the EU e.g. Switzerland or Norway. For the entry of animals into Ireland, Sweden or the United Kingdom, an immunity test will need to be carried out after the vaccination.
Strict rules applying to cats and dogs entering the EU from non-EU countries are reinforced, to guard against the risk of rabies, with compulsory testing and quarantine in the case of countries where rabies is endemic.
[ top ]
Debates in the European Parliament
 |
|
Jill EVANS MEP (Plaid Cymru, Wales) was the European Parliament's rapporteur who steered the proposal through the Parliament's three readings on behalf of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy. The new rules were finally agreed in conciliation with the Council of Ministers in the co-decision procedure.
At second reading, Parliament voted in favour of 14 amendments to the proposal, insisting on:
- electronic identification of pet animals after an 8 year transition period
- removal of exemptions from rabies vaccination
- the terms of further cooperation between Parliament, Council and Commission in this area.
|
Ministers were unable to agree Parliament's amendments in full. At the resulting conciliation, agreement covering all outstanding issues was reached. Essentially:
- during a transitional period of eight years both tattooing and transponders may be used for dogs and cats; after this period tattooing will be phased out and replaced by electronic transponders.
- any extension of the special status granted for a 5-year period to the United Kingdom, Ireland and Sweden would be decided jointly by Parliament and Council.
- measures to be adopted by the Commission without parliamentary involvement are limited to transitional and technical aspects.
Below you will find excerpts of the debates, and links to the full transcripts.
In May 2001, introducing her report to the House, Jill Evans MEP (Plaid Cymru, Wales) said:
The success of the 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 and it is because of that success that we have seen the partial abolition of the six-month quarantine system in the United Kingdom and Sweden.
The Commission measures are based largely on the British scheme and they allow for the easier movement of cats and dogs within the EU and certain third countries on condition that they can be identified by electronic chip or tattoo, that they have been vaccinated and that their immunity has been checked more than six months prior to travel. The proposal also allows the free movement of insects, fish and some other animals. It is very important that there is scope within this proposal for certain Member States to vary the provisions when special circumstances make that necessary.
Phillip Whitehead MEP (Labour, East Midlands) said:
The Ferret Trust have been following me around over the last few days in a state of great excitement about the provisions on ferrets. In the UK, for sure, there are still some doubt whether you can actually prove the vaccination of a ferret sufficiently to be certain that it could be vaccinated and then be safely transferred as a pet from one country to another. The Ferret Trust told me, very temperately, that they thought the determination of whether ferrets should be included in the pet passport scheme should be deferred until further research had been carried out.
Chris Davies MEP (Liberal Democrat, North West) said:
I am also delighted that the basis for the European proposals are those which have already been applied in Britain. As Mr Whitehead has said, I have learnt, like he, a great deal more about ferrets than I knew a month ago. I am sure the Commission has too. I am sure in fact that the Commissioner is a great ferret fancier: if he has not got a house already full of ferrets then I am sure that the many newspaper articles about the virtues of ferrets have encouraged him to fill his house with ferrets I have no doubt they will make charming and affectionate pets and I look forward to them taking their place alongside cats and dogs at the earliest opportunity.
Full transcription of the debate: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/omk/omnsapir.so/debatsL5?FILE=20010502EN&LANGUE=EN&LEVEL=TOC2&CHAP=14
The issue returned for debate in Parliament in October 2002. Introducing her second report, Jill Evans MEP (Plaid Cymru, Wales) said:
Parliament previously called for ISO (International Organization for Standardization) standard transponders to be used and for the owner's name and address to be included. The Commission and the Council proposals allowed for other types of transponders to be used, as long as the owner carried the means to read the information. As ISO chips are not available in all countries, the Committee on the Environment has agreed to remove the requirement for ISO standard equipment, but still wants the owner's details to be included. This would help combat trafficking in pet animals. We strongly believe that electronic identification is more effective, humane and reliable than tattoos and that, after the transitional eight-year period, only microchips would be acceptable.
I must say that I am disappointed that, despite my best efforts, an agreement could not be reached with the Council before the second reading. I believe that Parliament has taken a very constructive approach and we will continue to do so in order to reach agreement as soon as possible.
Phillip Whitehead MEP (Labour, East Midlands), also spoke:
I share the rapporteur's concern that the movement of young animals, which must present at least some element of risk, should be subject to the same constraints as that of other categories. I have not been able to follow the arguments against that, other than that it may, somewhere along the line, affect the trade in animals. But, as the Commissioner well knows, trade in animals, if it is not effectively handled, has led to the perpetuation of some serious abuses in the Community in recent years. I do not believe this is a persuasive argument.
In conclusion, although this is a small measure to many and will not mean much to those countries where animals routinely cross internal EU borders, for those who cherish pets as lifelong companions it is a measure that will be greatly welcomed.
Full transcription of the debate: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/omk/omnsapir.so/debatsL5?FILE=20021022EN&LANGUE=EN&LEVEL=TOC2&CHAP=2
After a conciliation agreement was reached between Parliament and the Council, a final debate took place in Parliament on 9 April 2003. Introducing her third report on this proposal, Jill Evans MEP (Plaid Cymru, Wales) said:
Mr President, the agreement reached on this report in the Conciliation Committee at the end of February is indeed very good news for all pet owners, who will soon be able to travel more easily with their animals throughout the European Union.
What has been commonly labelled the pet passport scheme will make it simpler to cross borders and at the same time ensure high safety standards and the protection of public health.
Whilst there are exceptions for the so-called sensitive Member States – the UK, Sweden and Ireland for five years – in the other 12 EU countries proof of a valid rabies vaccination in the form of a passport document will be the only requirement for taking cats, dogs and ferrets between Member States as long as they also have an electronic microchip for identification, although some Member States may continue to use tattoos for an eight-year transition period.
After that time, only microchips will be allowed as it is a more humane and also a more effective method. In addition to that, microchips enable details of the pet owner to be recorded so it will be easier to trace lost animals and help combat illegal trade in pets. It is very important to be able to distinguish between commercial and non-commercial movement of animals.
The UK, Sweden and Ireland can still use quarantine for animals coming in from countries outside the EU where rabies is endemic, but for EU countries and countries where the disease is under control they will require vaccination and a follow-up immunity test before travel.
A controversial issue earlier on was the inclusion of ferrets in the scheme. The original Commission proposal included ferrets as a category of pets which would not require any specific animal health requirements, and the common position then changed this by putting ferrets in a separate category, so they will require vaccination and identification. While many Members have expressed surprise that ferrets can be classed as pets, I can assure them that in Wales, which I represent, there are many ferret owners who will be delighted with this agreement.
Phillip Whitehead MEP (Labour, East Midlands) said:
I cannot say that I was entirely happy about the way every part of this procedure went. I was not entirely happy about the secure position of the ferrets. I have been very insecure in the presence of ferrets. I was not entirely happy about the provisions with regard to animals under three months old. One has some misgivings there about the rationale for what we have done; but equally the Commission was probably uneasy to some degree about the fact that we have extended into the codecision procedure any further consideration of the exemptions for the UK, Sweden and Ireland, which will follow after five years. In other words, a standard piece of give and take, the kind of thing that until a few years ago, until we had the present Commission and the present Parliament, was not possible. It still only works when you have skilled rapporteurs who can go through these shoals.
It has added modestly to the sum total of human happiness as well. There are many people, lonely people in particular, who are very dependent on the animals with which they share their lives. If we dare to believe that animals are sentient beings, it is also the case that we have added to the sum of animal happiness as well. That certainly is the view of my dog, which is the proud owner of two human beings!
Full transcription of the debate: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/omk/omnsapir.so/debatsL5?FILE=20030409EN&LANGUE=EN&LEVEL=TOC2&CHAP=8
[ top ]
Implementation in the UK
Once agreed by the European Parliament and by Ministers, EU Regulations are directly applicable in all Member States.
However, until October 1st, 2004, a dual system was operated, allowing movement of pets under either the old or the new system - see "transitional measures" on the European Commission's website, and also the press release at http://europa.eu.int/rapid/.
DEFRA, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, is in charge of the scheme in the UK. Advice, factsheets and contacts are available on its website at http://www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/quarantine/index.htm
Please note that the legislation described on this page only applies to dogs, cats and ferrets. Other species are subject to specific arrangements, as is the case for horses - see http://www.defra.gov.uk/news/latest/2004/horsead-140604.htm
[ top ]
Related issues
Additional issues have also been addressed, such as the model pet passport (see the European Commission's press release ), and the model health certificate for animals from non-EU countries (the Commission website has model certificates in the Animal Health and Welfare section).
Full title of the Regulation, reference of publication in the Official Journal, link to the text.
Regulation (EC) No 998/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003 on the animal health requirements applicable to the non-commercial movement of pet animals and amending Council Directive 92/65/EEC (Official Journal L 146, 13/06/2003 pages 0001 - 0009)
Online on the European Commission's Eur-Lex website at URL: http://eur-lex.europa.eu
[ top ]
(Online July 16th, 2004)
(Updated July 20th, 2004)
(Updated June 6th, 2006)
| |