Seòmar agus comataidhean

No. There will be the potential of force majeure in particular instances—I am not going to go through all the hypotheticals in that respect—but there will be no mitigation for, say, a cow that happened to have cost 15,000 guineas getting penalised in year 2, because she did not have a calf in year 1. Those will be business decisions for farmers. We are looking at the national herd on a national basis and at how we can bring the whole herd’s emissions down. The best way of doing that is, as we have already decided, through the calving interval. There will be no individual interventions for high-value cows just because they have a high value.

Force majeure issues will be dealt with as individual cases at the time. However, the other point that Rhoda Grant made, which is important to talk about, is that the quantum of money for the sector is not going to go down—it is what it is. I think that that pot of money is sitting at £40 million. If farmers have fewer calves that are being claimed on, the value of the calves that are claimed on will be higher. Therefore, this is a way of taking out of the system cows that are not producing calves, with the calves that are born getting a higher payment. The process might not balance itself out exactly, but it will certainly be a better payment for an individual calf that is born—rather than a calf that was not born, if that makes sense.

I will ask John Armour to come in on that. He was part of the discussions with the stakeholder group, so he might be able to answer in a way that will give you some satisfaction.

Good morning to you, convener, and to the committee. Thank you very much for having me today for your consideration of these regulations.

The regulations were laid using powers conferred by the Agriculture (Retained EU Law and Data) (Scotland) Act 2020 that enable us to improve the operation of assimilated European Union law applying to our common agricultural policy legacy schemes. They will improve the operation of the provisions of common agricultural policy assimilated EU legislation by introducing new cross-compliance requirements as part of good agricultural environment conditions relating to the protection of peatlands and wetlands, and by introducing a new eligibility requirement for bovine animals under the Scottish suckler beef support scheme.

The changes are intended to contribute to tackling the climate crisis, and the improvements that are being made as a result will address environmental matters of concern as part of our plans to transition from existing CAP legacy schemes to the introduction of the new schemes under the Agriculture and Rural Communities (Scotland) Act 2024. The changes contribute to the Scottish Government’s green conditionality objective for 2025 for provisions ensuring climate, biodiversity and efficiency conditions for payments as part of our published agricultural reform programme route map.

The regulations have been drafted to come into force from 1 January 2025 so that they can be enforced for the 2025 scheme year and can start contributing to the fight against climate change as soon as possible. Failure to bring them into force for the 2025 scheme year will undermine that progress and the efforts and work of many of our farmers and crofters who are already committed to making these improvements; it would also hinder our transition plans.

I am happy to take any questions that the committee might have.

As I said, I will not go through all the potential force majeure issues. However, let me make this point—

Is that correct?

I have my own thoughts on that, but I will let John Armour answer.

No, but I will pass over to Brian Service with regard to where that sits.

At the moment, the median average for 2021 is 400 days, but if we can bring that down further without causing damage to the herd, that would be a good thing, because it would mean that we would be even more efficient.

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.