---

Lord Beaumont of Whitley moved Amendment No. 2:

Page 1, line 12, leave out ("3,000") and insert ("5,000").

The noble Lord said: Here I am on much more dicey ground. The amendment is concerned with flock size. I confess that I do not entirely understand how a flock should be defined for the purposes of legislation. It has been put to me that it can be better done by sub-dividing enormous flocks in large areas into smaller areas. But the purpose of the exercise is to have a flock the size of which can be inspected by eye once or twice a day. Those of your Lordships who have had experience of counting animals, whether they be sheep in a field, hounds going through a gate or whatever it may be, know how extremely difficult it is. The objective is not for the person who is inspecting to pick up every bird and examine it. That would be ridiculous and bad for the birds. The objective is that the inspector's eye should pass over every bird every time. There must be a limit on the size of flock in order to ensure that that happens and we believe that 5,000 is manageable. The 3,000 in the Bill might be too ambitious an objective. I beg to move.

Lord Carter: I am sure that the amendment is desirable but I believe that the Minister will say that it would be expensive. If he has the figures, it would be interesting if he could give an indication of the cost of such a restriction on flock size. I do not have the statistics and I am not sure whether they are collected. On the whole major broiler producers keep birds in much larger flocks than the amendment proposes. This relates to the previous

12 Dec 1996 : Column 1208

amendment on which we mentioned Europe. Our producers could be placed at a competitive disadvantage vis-a-vis other producers, both inside and outside Europe, if, as the Minister said in his letter, we had to wait for Europe. It would be a long drawn out process before we could bring in such a restriction on flock size throughout Europe. That is an important consideration.

Reference has been made to the role of the major supermarkets and retailers. From memory, I believe that the five major supermarket chains buy 60 per cent. of the fresh produce. In the case of broiler meat, they must be by far the largest buyers. They are big and are powerful agents for improvement and change. A voluntary code for producers, the major supermarkets and retailers could be the way to achieve an improvement in the operation of the broiler industry that was at least as effective as regulations.

4.45 p.m.

Baroness Nicol: I was advised by a good Irishman that the best way to count a flock of sheep was to count the legs and divide by four. However, in this case, it might not work. On the previous amendment I said that I did not approve of Amendment No. 2. Even 3,000 birds could be considered too high a figure. If a person wishes to raise an organic flock, the Soil Association will require him to keep no more than 500 birds in a house. Thus we can see the wide difference in standards applied to them. It seems a good argument for looking hard at the figures.

The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, is interested in keeping to European standards and will be aware that the absolute maximum under those standards for birds labelled free range is 4,800 during the time they are in the broiler house. The poor unfortunate birds in the Bill are in the broiler house 24 hours a day; free range birds, for a good part of the day, are outside. The difference implies a degree of cruelty. If the maximum for part-time prisoners is 4,800, then 5,000 must surely be far too high a figure for full-time prisoners. I do not wish to prolong the debate more than necessary, but I hope that the noble Lord will not wish to go ahead with the amendment.

Lord Lucas: I appreciate what the noble Lords, Lord Carter and Lord Beaumont, said about the power of the supermarkets. They certainly have power which they used to exercise. When the price went up as a result, they would buy products from elsewhere. However, they are now developing a more co-operative, one might say Japanese-model, relationship with suppliers. That should enable progress to be made so that what the consumer wants can be translated into what is happening on the farm without the need for heavy-handed regulation.

Turning to the amendment, I now understand from what the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, said, what is being aimed at. I have always had a problem in understanding how small flock size with essentially juvenile birds within the first six weeks of life is a relevant factor. The difference between 5,000 birds and the industry standard which may be five times as great is merely that the shed is bigger. The

12 Dec 1996 : Column 1209

environment for the individual bird is made up of its immediate neighbours. It does not matter whether 20 yards away there is another group of chickens; it is more a question of the economics of the industry. If the sheds are too large the producer is taking too much of a risk with infection or some other problem, perhaps with the feeding mechanism, which may knock the shed out. The producer does not want all his eggs in one basket, but if the numbers are too small, costs are increased. It seems that 25,000 is the figure on which the industry settled.

I do not know the organic regulation to which the noble Baroness referred, I imagine it refers to older birds, particularly those outside, which may have developed a social structure. My experience with chickens is that they develop quite complex social structures and if they are in too large groups they will become stressed and find life difficult.

Baroness Nicol: No, I referred to organically reared broilers which would not have a life much longer than the birds we are talking about.

Lord Lucas: As usual, it is a case of my ignorance in not knowing the basis for the regulation. I am not aware of any problems which arise in practice from commercial flock sizes. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, is aiming more at the way in which the flock is supervised and individual birds looked after. The method used is that someone will walk through the houses; as they do so, the chickens will move away from them. Those birds which are not so good at moving away will become noticeable. Again, I do not feel that the flock size makes any difference to that. It is more a question of the frequency of inspection and how good the method is of detecting the chickens in need of attention.

I think that the method used at the moment, with a sensible rate of inspection of perhaps up to half a dozen times a day, would be reasonable. If a disease problem develops in a house, it develops fast and therefore it is in the interests of good management to inspect the birds frequently. The method of walking through a house will enable the birds in trouble to be picked up at an early stage and dealt with appropriately. I do not believe that any concept of flock size would help. We shall not oppose the noble Lord's amendment if he wishes to press it, but we do not feel that it makes a difference to the Bill or a useful difference in practice.

Lord Beaumont of Whitley: Once again I thank Members of the Committee for their contributions. It seems to me that the amendment is on slightly dicey ground because of the definition of a flock on which no Member has commented. I put the amendment forward rather tentatively and as no one seems to be much in favour of it and at least one Member is against it I beg leave to withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 2 agreed to.

12 Dec 1996 : Column 1210

Clause 3 [Short title, commencement and extent]:

Lord Beaumont of Whitley moved Amendment No. 3:

Page 2, line 11, leave out ("one year") and insert ("three years").

The noble Lord said: The amendment is obvious. It is right that we should give an industry the time that it needs to adjust to various changes. I have already said that I hope that there will be a coming together of how other countries in Europe and the shops react to these changes, to the threat of these changes, and, eventually, to the changes when they happen. If there is that coming together, one should give the maximum of leeway to putting the Bill into practice. I beg to move.

Lord Carter: The only point I wish to make is that because of the structure of the broiler industry three years may not be long enough for the adjustments required.

Baroness Nicol: Perhaps I may ask a question on this amendment. When a farmer is given notice to leave his farm, for whatever reason, I believe he is given two years in which he can reap any crops that he has to reap, and so forth. In the case of broiler chickens, the harvest, if one cares to put it that way, is every two months. What, therefore, is the reason for wishing to extend the period beyond what is said in the original Bill. I do not believe that the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, or my noble friend Lord Carter explained why the period should be three years.

Lord Lucas: There are obviously some changes proposed in the Bill which would not require much time at all to put into effect, if one chose to do so. However, there are others--particularly those which relate to the amount of space which would be required--which might, as the noble Lord, Lord Carter, intimated, take considerably longer. If one is moving to something where one requires a 50 per cent. expansion in broiler capacity because of lower stocking densities, or whatever, there may be a problem in obtaining the sites and planning permission. Planning permission is extremely difficult to obtain for these enterprises now. That might well take more than the three years.

Three years would be a tight timetable to which to keep, if we take all the provisions in the Bill together. Indeed, looking at the details, it might well not be possible to do it. It is not a proposal that we are against, because I believe that it improves the Bill. It does not address the problems which lie at an earlier stage in the Bill which to our mind make the whole enterprise too impractical to wish to take forward.

---