Seòmar agus comataidhean

If a housing order were to be introduced, the Government would absolutely put out the message that there was such an order on free-range hens, because of the threat of avian influenza. I think that everybody is now aware of the problem that we have had over the past number of years with outbreaks of avian influenza—I think that people understand that. We would be very proactive about ensuring that people understand that a housing order has been put in place for that reason and what it would mean for free-range eggs.

We would also ask retailers to ensure that they brought their consumers up to date with what is happening. We cannot force them to do so, but we can certainly encourage them to ensure that they are being as helpful as they can be in order to allow people to buy as honestly as they can.

My instinct was to say that, unfortunately, I did not think that we could give you an answer to that—and, indeed, that is exactly what the answer is. We have no certainty about when or how a housing order will have to be brought in, because we do not know when—or whether—the disease will resurface. You know as well as I do that these things happen, and can happen quite suddenly. At the moment, we do not have any indications in that respect. This is just about putting in place a safeguard that will give us the mechanisms to deal with it, when and if it does happen.

If a housing order is introduced, there will, in the first instance, be a full public announcement by the Scottish chief veterinary officer. That is the first thing that will happen, and it will be fully in the public domain and communicated in a variety of ways—for example, through a signed declaration added to Scottish Government social media messaging, infographics to be issued by the Scottish Government communications and ministerial support directorate and the Animal and Plant Health Agency comms team on Twitter/X and Facebook, and emails from the Scottish Government’s disease control branch to Scottish stakeholders. The Scottish Government would also be looking to issue further notices to inform the public and media about the housing order.

As for supermarkets, there is, as I have said, no legal requirement on retailers to provide a sign saying that their free-range eggs are from hens that are currently being housed. However, they must be mindful of prohibitions in the Food Safety Act 1990 on the selling or offering for sale of food,

“the presentation of which is likely to mislead as to the nature or substance or quality of the food”

and publishing any

“advertisement ... likely to mislead as to the nature, substance or quality of the food”.

Retailers must adhere to those requirements.

I would imagine that, from a supermarket’s point of view, it would want to ensure that it put up such a notice. I distinctly remember seeing, when there was a housing order in place, a notice on a shelf in Tesco in Perth, saying that there was a housing order due to avian flu and that the eggs came from free-range hens that were currently being housed. Tesco or Waitrose—or whoever it might be—will take their own steps to protect their reputation, because if they do not inform their consumers, they could be accused of being misleading.

As far as the Government is concerned, we will do everything that we can to inform people. Supermarkets have their own requirements, but they also have their own reputations to protect. This is the most logical way for us to proceed. After all, we cannot say how long a housing order will last: it could last 16 weeks, 20 weeks or 28 weeks and we will not know until the outbreak is contained. This, therefore, is a logical and practical way of trying to get over the problem of our hitting the 16-week mark then having to change everything.

The vast majority of respondents and producers were in favour of the derogation, but a small minority of respondents thought that the proposed change could be misleading and confusing for the general public. In order to mitigate that we are, as has been published in the notes to the consultation, ensuring that, if housing orders are introduced for free-range hens, notices will be issued to inform the public and the media. We will also encourage the industry and retailers to communicate that to their customers.

I think that the concern that was expressed was more about mis-selling. If the birds had to be housed for health issues—say, to protect them from avian influenza—it could be construed that the eggs that were sold would not actually be free range. However, having to make these changes every time there is an outbreak creates problems for the sector.

The process that you talk about being used down south is the Nexus process, which was different from this one. That looked at financial aspects; we are looking at the entire effect of franchising.

I will give you an example from my area. There are cross-border issues with bus provision in my constituency, and I give this as a purely random example of a possibility. If we decided in my area to go down a franchising route, we would be required to talk to all the other areas in our locality, so that there was joined-up thinking.

The process that was used down south failed the scheme on finances. My understanding is that the business case was not robust enough, so the proposal was then rejected.

One of the beauties of what we are proposing to put in place is that anyone who wants to go down the franchising route—it will be entirely their choice whether to do so—will have to be absolutely clear in their mind that they have put forward the strongest business case, that they have consulted everyone who has a stake and a vested interest in what the franchise looks like and that they have spoken to their neighbours, because everyone knows that if you want to plant a hedge, that will affect your neighbour, and this is a similar kind of thing. Those involved will have to ensure that they have taken the biggest possible picture that they can in deciding that they want to do this and that they are going to go down this route.

You talk about correction, but what does that mean? It means that we would go back to the primary legislation, and I can only see that creating a much longer delay, going into the next session of Parliament.

With regard to the asks of Get Glasgow Moving, I had a quick discussion and debate with Ellie Harrison of the group before we came to the meeting, and a lot of those points were raised. She made a strong argument and is very good at what she does. She is asking for streamlining, but our position is that we want to get franchising done, and we want it to work. The panels are part of the 2019 act. If the committee does not pass the SSI, we will still have the panels and the Government would then have to decide how we will take that model forward.

With regard to our scrutiny of what happens as we move forward, we will absolutely keep a close eye on how the model develops, what the guidance will look like and how that will all be implemented.

I ask Bridget Bryden to answer that, because she is working through the regulations, at the moment.

Yes.

They can slide me a bit of paper with the current timelines. I am sorry, Mr Lumsden; ask me the question again.