Official Report 754KB pdf
Free-Range Poultrymeat Marketing Standards (Amendment) (Scotland) Regulations 2025 [Draft]
Good morning, and welcome to the 26th meeting in 2025 of the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee. Before we begin, I ask members to please ensure that all electronic devices are switched to silent.
Agenda item 1 is consideration of subordinate legislation. I welcome to the meeting Jim Fairlie, Minister for Agriculture and Connectivity, and the following Scottish Government officials: Darren Cormack, policy manager, livestock products; James Hamilton, lawyer; and Joe Kirk, poultry unit branch head. I invite the minister to make a short opening statement.
Thank you, convener, and good morning.
Thank you for inviting me to speak to the draft Free-Range Poultrymeat Marketing Standards (Amendment) (Scotland) Regulations 2025. This draft instrument amends European Commission regulation 543/2008, on the marketing standards for poultry meat, with regard to the 12-week derogation period that is allowed in the event of a housing order being implemented. The EC regulation lays down provisions relating to the “free range” farming method, in which, in order to classify as free-range poultry meat, the birds must have continuous daytime access to open air runs. At present, the poultry meat marketing standards regulations allow a derogation for poultry meat to be marketed as free range for only the first 12 weeks of any housing order that is introduced. Following that, the labelling of poultry meat cannot refer to “free range” and must be changed. The instrument that we are discussing will remove that 12-week limit and allow free-range producers to label the meat as such for the full duration of a housing order.
09:15You might remember that, last year, we amended the egg marketing standards regulations by removing the 16-week derogation so that eggs could continue to be marketed as free range, regardless of how long hens had been housed under temporary housing restrictions. This instrument amends the regulations for free-range poultry meat in the same way, ensuring a consistent approach across the free-range poultry meat and free-range egg sectors.
Members will be aware from the committee papers that the United Kingdom Government and the Scottish Government consulted on this jointly, and the results of that consultation show that the removal of the 12-week limit on the derogation is the preferred route for the industry. There were 79 responses in favour of the change, including from a significant Scottish poultry meat producer that is part of the main supply chain.
Although the sector in Scotland is evolving as a result of recent investment, with a current capacity of around 4.8 million birds across poultry meat farms, there are currently no commercial free-range poultry production premises in Scotland. Nevertheless, in progressing with this change, we will be in line with the rest of the UK, and the move will also future proof the legislation and perhaps, through reducing costs during housing orders, provide an incentive for any potential Scottish free-range poultry meat producer to commercially produce free-range chicken in Scotland. Not making the changes could further disincentivise any future free-range poultry meat production in Scotland, because of the additional requirements, and costs, during housing orders.
Outbreaks of avian flu in recent years have unfortunately required housing orders to be put in place in the UK. In 2021 and 2022, they covered the whole of the UK, when they were extended to 22 weeks, thereby exceeding the derogation periods for poultry meat and eggs. In 2022 and 2023, England, Wales and Northern Ireland put in place a 23-week housing order, which also exceeded the derogation periods. Although the current risk of avian influenza in poultry is low, it is expected that the UK might face outbreaks of the virus in the future. As such, a long-term approach to the issue is the most practical route to take, and, as I have mentioned, it is important that we keep the sectors consistent.
In essence, the proposed change is small but practical in allowing poultry meat to be labelled as “free range” for the full duration of the housing orders that are put in place for the birds’ health and welfare. Current legislation already allows that to happen for a substantial period of 12 weeks.
I hope that those remarks are helpful in setting out the rationale for the instrument, and I am happy to answer members’ questions.
Thank you very much, minister. I call Rhoda Grant.
We welcome the instrument, as it could encourage free-range breeding in Scotland. However, how will you ensure that chickens that are not bred as free range do not come under these regulations and end up being marketed as “free range”, because of the derogation? How will you ensure that the derogation cannot be used to mark chickens that are normally reared in barns as “free range”?
Those birds would not already have free-range status; under this instrument, the birds would already need to have that status. This only works when a housing order is put in place by the chief veterinary officer. Somebody with indoor chickens cannot claim that they are free range if they do not already have that free-range status.
So, if someone applied for such status when a derogation was in place, there would be checks and balances to ensure that the chickens in question would, under normal circumstances, have been outside.
Even if a housing order were in place, they would not be able to apply for free-range status unless they had all the other things in place that they would need to have in place to be a free-range producer. They would not be registered as a free-range producer at that point.
Okay, and checks will be made at that point.
Yes.
I call Tim Eagle.
I hope that you can hear me. Apologies that I cannot be there this morning quite yet.
Minister, I welcome this; it is brilliant. I take your point that it is not a massive issue in Scotland at the moment, but, back in November 2024, I think it was, we introduced the same approach for free-range egg marketing, which was completely practical and absolutely made sense for the industry. Therefore, I think that people will welcome this.
The two points that I pulled out from some of the consultation responses are about consumer confidence around the free-range label and having prompt outdoor access in the event of the lifting of any restrictions around avian influenza. How have you taken those points into consideration? I do not think that consumers have anything to worry about with this measure—it is a practical step—but I would be interested in your thoughts.
I agree. I seem to remember that we had a similar conversation when we were talking about the derogation for eggs, so we had a discussion before I came to committee about how we would be able to give that assurance to consumers. So far, we have seen that supermarkets are keen to make sure that people understand what is happening with their food supply, because it is in their best interests to do that.
I could be wrong, but I think that we talked previously about whether we should be able to compel supermarkets to tell people that there is a housing order in place. We have looked at whether that is feasible, but at the moment, it is not necessary because supermarkets and retailers are very comfortable with the fact that if there is a housing order in place, it is in their best interests to make sure that consumers know what is happening. We do not have any concerns on that point at the moment.
I am sorry, but if there was a second point, I have missed it—I apologise.
That is fine, minister.
I have a follow-up question. With egg marketing, were you aware of any issues with supermarkets not making it clear to consumers that free-range eggs could not currently be sold as such because of a housing order?
No. Joe Kirk and I were discussing that just before we came in. In the early days—Joe will correct me if I am wrong—officials went out to see what supermarkets were putting on their eggs to make sure that the labelling was compliant with the requirement that the information is relevant and not misleading. If there was a housing order in place, the label would say that the eggs are from a free-range flock, but that the birds were currently housed due to avian flu, or words to that effect—I remember seeing that in Tesco.
From our point of view, there are no concerns that supermarkets would not continue to have the view that it is in their and the consumers’ best interests to understand exactly what is going on at any given time.
Other supermarkets are available.
Other supermarkets are available.
I have a couple of questions. We do not have any free-range producers at the moment, but if we were to have them, have you given any consideration to introducing measures to protect poultry welfare while free range is being denied; for example, providing veranda access or increased space and enrichment indoors?
When animals have to be housed, we do not want them to be housed in awful conditions where they are crammed in. Will we try to ensure that the housing allows animal welfare conditions to be kept at the high standard that we have in Scotland?
I have not given any consideration to that on the basis that we do not have anyone in this country right now who is doing free-range poultry meat. There might be measures in England that Joe Kirk is better versed in and can tell you about.
You are absolutely right—while a housing order is in place, when birds have been used to getting free-range access, there is always a concern that denying them that access will put increased stress and pressure on the birds.
In relation to egg production, we have put out a lot of communications to producers about being proactive and thinking about such situations beforehand. There is no requirement for them to add on verandas, but we are saying that the best practice would be to consider providing verandas and lots of enrichments indoors, as well as increasing stockmanship in order to walk the houses far more frequently during housing.
If we had producers of free-range poultry meat, we would apply what we have done with the egg sector, so that the two are complementary. We would hope that we would be able to learn from what we have done in the egg industry and apply it to poultry meat producers.
It sounds as though it is a guideline rather than a requirement to look after those animals, but I am grateful that you understand that a shift in conditions could be shocking to sentient beings.
I have another big picture question. The housing order had to be issued because of avian flu, but we also have zoonotic diseases. The international scientific task force on avian influenza said that a
“reassessment of the nature and sustainability of poultry production systems is required.”
I know that the SSI will be enacted to handle a symptom, but what is the Government doing and what is happening in the UK to look at what we can do to address avian flu at a deeper level? How do we tackle zoonotic diseases?
I am not sure how we tackle zoonotic diseases in a transient wild bird population. There needs to be an understanding that we have transient and migratory bird populations, which is why they are rises in avian flu at certain times of the year. I do not know how you eradicate that in the wild, if that is your question.
I think that is worth looking at the food system.
I am sorry, Ariane, but we are moving off topic. I do not think that it is fair to ask the minister questions about the broader implications of avian flu.
I will take it up with him directly.
If we are looking at labelling for supermarkets, will the SSI have any impact on restaurants, supply chains and chain restaurants?
The same principle will apply. If someone wants to market their product as free range because that suits their business model and it is the kind of model that they work in, they would have exactly the same concerns as anyone else. If they want to continue to sell a free-range product when there is a housing order, it is in their best interests to ensure that their consumers know that.
The minister has suggested that there is no free-range meat production in Scotland at the moment, but you referred to the work that was done on free-range eggs. Was any consideration given to a pre-application process, under which businesses could apply to market their eggs as free range in the event of an avian flu lockdown? For example, there could be inspections of the conditions in sheds or buildings that chickens or hens that would normally have been outdoors had been moved into in the event of a housing order. Those inspections could ensure that the conditions were of a standard that would allow businesses to market their eggs as free range under the legislation.
I am sorry, convener, but I am being a bit dense. I do not understand the question.
Let us say that I had a farm and my chickens were generally outside, but the housing that I had for them was far from adequate—maybe I had only a few sheds, which would make it difficult to allow them to have free range status, whether there was a housing order or not. Would there be any benefit to having a pre-application process so that businesses that could maintain standards at a certain level could apply and those that do not have any sheds could not?
I will defer to Joe Kirk.
Joe looks as though he might understand the question that I am trying to ask.
I think that I know what you are getting at. If someone is already a registered free-range producer before a housing order comes into effect, de facto, they would be allowed the open-ended derogation. If someone has not been registered as a free-range producer at that point, they will not be allowed it, because their birds will never have had outside access.
It is not fair for people who already have stock on the farm—and whose birds have been getting fed, reared and looked after as free range—to compete with somebody whose birds are going straight in during a housing order, when their birds have never got outside and are never likely to get outside during an open-ended housing order.
With regard to your question about a pre-application process for somebody who currently has empty houses, unless they were registered and inspected prior to the housing order, they would not be allowed to avail themselves of that exemption.
09:30
If I have 40,000 hens outside but I have adequate and satisfactory housing for only 20,000, and then there is a housing order and I squeeze all of those 40,000 in—
No—it does not work like that.
If there was a housing order but I had accommodation with suitable conditions for only half the number that I had outside, how would you deal with that?
You would never have been allowed to register in that case. You have to have sufficient indoor and outdoor accommodation—
—in the event of an outbreak. That is absolutely the answer that I was looking for.
As there are no further questions, we move to agenda item 2, which is the formal consideration of a motion to approve the instrument. I invite the minister to move motion S6M-18747.
Motion moved,
That the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee recommends that the Free-Range Poultrymeat Marketing Standards (Amendment) (Scotland) Regulations 2025 [Draft] be approved.—[Jim Fairlie]
Motion agreed to.
Is the committee content to delegate authority to me to sign off a report on the instrument?
Members indicated agreement.
That concludes consideration of the instrument. I thank the minister and his officials for attending.
I suspend the meeting to allow for a changeover of witnesses.
09:31 Meeting suspended.Previous
Attendance