���˿���

I will let Brian Service answer that.

Is that right, John?

This conditionality was originally part of the thinking of the farmer-led groups that were chaired on the beef sector. As the committee will know, there were five farmer-led groups; one of the issues that was being examined was beef efficiency, and reducing the calving interval was, through work that the groups had carried out, designated as the best way of reducing emissions for the beef sector. A number of other areas were looked at, but this was the approach that was plumped for.

Reducing the calving interval means, in effect, that cows are in the system while producing beef but are not emitting emissions when they are, as it were, blank. If a cow is running for a year without a calf, she will produce a lot of methane without producing any beef for the food sector. That was the thinking behind it.

That depends on the fertility cycle of a particular cow. An Angus has a shorter gestation than a Limousin, Jerseys have a longer gestation than Friesians. You do not want to get into breeds—this is about simplicity. The median calving index, at the moment, is 400 days; we have set a relatively high threshold of 410 days. As time goes on, we will reduce the calving index as the national herd gets into that system.

We deliberately kept the threshold at 410 days for this year and next year to allow people to adapt—to get that mindset and thinking—and it will reduce over time. Rather than getting into the complications of what breed, what season, whether the cow calved early and so on, the idea is straightforward: a threshold of 410 days, which will be reduced to 400 days and then 390 days as the process goes on. We bring the national herd calving index down, which reduces emissions.

Well, I do not agree with the premises that small herds would be shut out of the scheme or that farmers will force a cow to get into calf. If a cow is not going to cycle, she is not going to cycle—you cannot force her to get into calf. Lots of consultation took place with lots of stakeholders right across the sector, and there was general agreement that the system would work.

As we get into the system, if we later need to look at particular issues for the smaller producers that you have talked about, we might be able to do so. However, there was general consensus that this is the system that would work and that we would go with.

Steven Thomson of Scotland’s Rural College—SRUC—did some work on whether native breeds had a longer gestation. They do not—Angus have a shorter gestation than Limousins do. I raised that point, because I was always under the impression that native-bred cattle had a longer gestation than other breeds, but that is not the case. Professor Thomson has done extensive work on the matter, and he has proven that point.

We would not look to put people out of business, and I am sure that Rhoda Grant accepts that that is not what we are trying to do. However, we need to start somewhere. We are starting at 410 days to allow everybody to get into the system and the ways of working with it.

I fully accept that there is potential for smaller herd sizes to be more directly impacted if a number of cows are not in calf for some reason. That is why I mentioned to the convener that we will look at potential force majeure issues. However, I will not sit here today and work through all the hypotheticals, because we will need to consider a number of factors. With regard to the smaller producers whom you talk to and represent, I absolutely take on board your point and note that we are thinking about that.

Yes, it is not disqualified from the scheme forever—it is only for that one slip.

Your point is well made and it has landed.

Thank you, convener. I also welcome Tim Eagle to the committee. I look forward to working with him over the coming period.

Thank you for inviting me to speak about the Free-Range Egg Marketing Standards (Amendment) (Scotland) Regulations 2024. The draft instrument will amend assimilated European Commission regulation 589/2008 on the marketing standards for eggs—the egg marketing standards regulation—with regard to the 16-week derogation period that is allowed in the event of a housing order being implemented.

The egg marketing standards regulation requires boxes of class A eggs to be marked with their farming method. For the farming method “free range”, poultry must have continuous daytime access to open-air runs. At present, the egg marketing standards regulation allows a derogation for eggs to be marketed as free range for only the first 16 weeks of any housing order that is introduced. Following that, the eggs must then be labelled as “barn eggs”. The instrument will remove that 16-week limit.

Last year, the EU changed its legislation to remove the 16-week limit on the derogation period, as we are proposing here, so that eggs could continue to be marketed as free range regardless of how long hens had been housed under temporary housing restrictions. That followed a period of consultation.

Outbreaks of avian flu in recent years have, unfortunately, required housing orders to be put in place in the United Kingdom. In 2021-22, that covered the whole UK and exceeded the 16-week derogation period by six weeks, to a total of 22 weeks. In 2022-23, England, Wales and Northern Ireland put in place a housing order that exceeded the 16-week derogation period by seven weeks, to a total of 23 weeks. Both those instances required a change to the labelling of eggs, from “free range” to “barn”, for the short time after the 16-week derogation period.

As the industry has noted in its response to the consultation, which I will come on to, those changes come at a financial cost. Although the current risk level for avian influenza in poultry is low—it is very low for premises with good biosecurity—it is anticipated that the UK might face outbreaks of the virus in the future. As such, a longer-term approach to the issue is the most practical route to take.

Members will be aware from the committee papers that the UK Government and the Scottish Government consulted on the issue jointly, and the results of that consultation show that removing the 16-week limit on the derogation, which will align with what the EU has done, is the preferred route for the industry. More than 70 per cent of the respondents to the consultation were in favour of the removal of that limit, and the figure among Scottish respondents only was even higher at 84 per cent.

As well as keeping Scottish industry on a level playing field with the EU, the change that we propose in the regulations today is also likely to keep us in line with the rest of the UK. Removing the limit on the derogation period reduces potential costs to businesses that they would otherwise have to bear as a result of having to switch labelling from “free-range eggs” to “barn eggs” following the end of the 16-week derogation period. Eggs that are produced in different parts of Great Britain are often packed in the same facility, so if the legislation were to differ across the nations, there could be increased complexity and costs arising from different labelling requirements at different packing houses, which could lead to possible disruption in the supply chain.

In practical terms, then, this small proposed change allows eggs to be labelled as free range for the full duration of any housing orders that are put in place for the health and welfare of laying hens. I note that the current legislation already allows for a substantial period of 16 weeks.

The draft instrument also makes a minor update to terminology, replacing retained EU terminology with assimilated terminology under the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023 and clarifying that the derogation applies to any housing order that is made under assimilated law.

I hope that my remarks have been helpful in setting out the rationale for the instrument, and I am happy to take any questions that members might have.

Our chief veterinary officer is very diligent about all such things. She is constantly tracking what is happening across all sectors—not just what is happening with avian flu.