Adam (PSE), rapporteur. – Mr President, there is complete agreement among the Council, the Commission and Parliament that we need to improve the traceability of sheep and goats. This was the clear conclusion of the experience derived from the outbreak of foot and mouth disease.

There is also agreement that the eventual aim should be a cost-effective electronic identification system.

The proposals from the Commission, which are the subject of this report, bridge the gap between present practice and the agreement to introduce electronic methods. The proposals envisage a complicated control system based on individual identification numbers and the recording of all these numbers when sheep and goats are moved. The proposals would certainly achieve the objective.

Regrettably, they do not take into account the differing methods of sheep and goat rearing in the Member States: the difference in farming conditions from mountainous regions to lowland pasture or the differing sizes of sheep and goat herds, which can vary from a handful to thousands. They fail to take into account the differing numbers in the Member States, which can range from a few hundred thousand to millions.

More seriously, the proposals would impose an impossibly costly and labour-intensive recording system where sheep numbers are large. The proposals are based on the current passport method which is used to trace the movement of cattle but, sadly, ignore the differences between cattle and sheep.

The proposals fail to take into account cultural differences which, in other circumstances, we would be seeking to encourage.

If the proposals were to be implemented they would threaten the future of sheep rearing in Europe as we know it. I suppose that getting rid of sheep is a sure way of getting rid of disease.

The Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development simply asks, in this report, that the differing factors should be taken into account.

Primarily, the committee unanimously wants batch control systems to be allowed as well as individual control, and for the Member States to be able to apply both systems according to circumstances. Batch systems can work. They do so now for pigs, though I would not claim that there is no difference between sheep and pigs.

The committee amendments – which the Commissioner managed not to refer to – make detailed and effective rules for both systems of traceability. Common sense and economics should dictate which is used.

Regrettably, Commissioner Byrne does not seem to have been listening to what has been going on in the Committee on Agriculture.

I would like to end by quoting Commissioner Fischler, the Commissioner responsible for agriculture, who recently said: 'We want farmers to spend the bulk of their working days in the fields and not filling out forms.'