Free-Range Poultrymeat Marketing Standards (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2025

Considered in Grand Committee

Moved by

That the Grand Committee do consider the Free-Range Poultrymeat Marketing Standards (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2025.

My Lords, these regulations were laid before this House on 1 July 2025.

Today is Back British Farming Day, and this instrument seeks to do just that: back our free-range poultry meat producers. This instrument has been laid to amend existing legislation governing poultry meat marketing standards to enable free-range poultry meat to be marketed as such for the duration of mandatory housing measures introduced during outbreaks of disease, such as avian influenza, which restrict the access of birds to open-air runs. All other criteria upon which the “free range” marketing term relies, such as stocking density, age at slaughter, feed formula and poultry house pop-holes, must continue to be met.

Outbreaks of avian influenza usually occur during the winter months, as was the case in 2021-22, 2022-23 and 2024-25, resulting in the introduction of mandatory housing measures for poultry that, in all cases, lasted longer than the 12-week labelling derogation period. This was for an additional 10 weeks in 2021-22, 11 weeks in 2022-23 and, most recently, eight weeks in 2024-25. So it will be important for the industry that this statutory instrument is in place for the upcoming winter period and beyond, in the event that we experience another avian influenza outbreak.

Currently, when free-range birds are placed under mandatory housing measures due to outbreaks of disease such as avian influenza, the poultry meat marketing standards regulations allow poultry meat to continue to be labelled as “free range” for a maximum period of 12 weeks, known as the 12-week derogation period. After this, poultry meat from those birds has to be marketed as indoor reared.

In 2024, Defra held a joint consultation on these proposed changes together with the Scottish Government. Some 79% of respondents supported the removal of the derogation. A separate consultation was conducted by the Welsh Government. The European Commission also consulted on plans to remove the 12-week derogation period from its legislation. In line with the Windsor Framework, any changes to EU legislation will also apply to Northern Ireland, when introduced.

When a mandatory housing measure is imposed on poultry producers, this is to safeguard the welfare of the birds, which must be our primary concern. However, we also recognise that the current requirement for poultry meat producers and processors to re-label free-range poultry meat once the derogation period is exceeded represents a financial burden on producers. This is primarily related to the higher operating costs that continue to be incurred to maintain their free-range system, with the additional cost of having to ensure that birds are temporarily housed indoors. This is also combined with the loss of income from the premium price that free-range products attract.

This statutory instrument will remove the 12-week derogation period so that free-range poultry meat producers and processors can market poultry meat as free range for the duration of a mandatory housing measure, however long that may last. With the European Union introducing a similar change to its legislation, the introduction of this statutory instrument will enable English free-range producers and processors to continue to operate on a level playing field commercially with producers in the European Union and Northern Ireland. As broiler chickens are generally slaughtered before reaching 12 weeks of age, the removal of this derogation will apply primarily to higher-value free-range birds with longer production cycles, such as turkeys, ducks and geese.

My Lords, this is the 10th annual Back British Farming Day—a moment to celebrate our farmers and the vital contribution they make to our economy, countryside and food security. I thank the Minister for giving us the opportunity to discuss this important statutory instrument with significant implications for producers and consumers who value high food standards.

We welcome this proposal, which, after consultation, seeks to resolve a persistent challenge balancing disease protection with honest and transparent labelling. This amendment rightly removes the 12-week limit for how long poultry can be kept indoors under mandatory housing measures while retaining the free-range label. The change, as I understand it, has the greatest effect on turkey, duck and goose producers, as chickens are generally slaughtered before the time limit expires.

On this day dedicated to British farming, it is fitting to recognise the immense pressures faced by our producers, especially after the impacts of avian influenza, and the need for legislation that is fair and practical. Mass culls, supply-chain issues and uncertainty have taken their toll on our rural communities, and that is why the priority must be a regulatory system that protects producers from circumstances that are often beyond their control, without undermining their hard-won reputations, of which so many of our UK food producers can be rightly proud.

The Liberal Democrats have consistently championed high animal welfare standards. When in government, we introduced the all-out ban on caged hens. Consumers expect clarity and integrity in their food labelling, and the free-range label stands for quality, welfare and trust, and it is important that those values must not be diluted or diminished.

Support for producers should never mean weaker animal welfare or compromised consumer trust, so I urge the Minister to confirm, or respond with reassurances, that the statutory instrument will not do any of the following. First, will she confirm that it will not exclude British free-range eggs or poultry from EU markets due to regulatory divergence, risking essential exports? After the trading challenges of bad post-Brexit deals, this is a pressure that our farming communities cannot continue to bear. Secondly, will she confirm that it will not dilute the high welfare expectations associated with the “free range” label, which our producers and customers depend on?

My Lords, I begin by saying how delighted I am—indeed, the whole Committee will be delighted—that the noble Baroness is still in her place as a Defra Minister. We have continuity Defra, and that needs to be said.

But may I also say how sad I was to see that Daniel Zeichner has been brutally chopped? He was a good Minister doing a good job. He had been shadow Minister since 2020 and was a Minister for a year, and then was chopped for no good reason. One idiotic report in the press said that he had been chopped because of the tax on farmers. I think they got the wrong target there, since the Secretary of State’s replacement was in the Treasury, which imposed the tax. The reports said that the Secretary of State had been “promoted” away from Defra, diminishing its importance. What does Defra do? It is the only the department that looks after our food, farming, fishing and trees, and looks after the quality of our water, rivers, streams and the air we breathe. Yet the media regard that as less important than going to a department that cannot build houses unless it deals with ghastly local government.

I will not waste the Committee’s time by repeating the necessity of this SI. The Official Opposition wholeheartedly support it for the same reasons set out fully by the Minister. So long as avian influenza is a threat to all flocks in the UK, in addition to the devastation among wild birds, the only precaution is to keep poultry inside. That is unfortunate, but there is no other way.

As the Minister explained, that means that free-range poultry would be kept inside as well and lose the designation “free range” if it is kept inside for more than 12 weeks. However, that would not apply to Europe, which operates under different rules at the moment. Thus, without this SI change, English producers would find their poultry meat marketed as “indoor bred” but similar meat from Europe could be labelled “free range”. Clearly, that would be damaging to the UK poultry sector, so this is necessary to maintain a level playing field.

I have one other query for the Minister, on which I realise that I neglected to tip her or her department off; perhaps she might write to me and the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, about it. I have seen reports recently that breeders of rare birds are killing their birds because of avian flu restrictions. In the poultry tent at the Appleby Show in Cumbria, I have seen chickens of all sizes and extraordinary plumage—I am sure the Minister has seen them as well at shows in west Cumbria. I can understand why rare breeders from all around the country cannot bring them together at poultry shows, but why do they need to kill them? There have been fairly long-standing restrictions, and surely the breeders would have curtailed the number of hatchlings to match supply. I assume that is why there is decreased demand.

I am happy to admit that I do not know what is happening within this sector. I look forward to some elucidation from the Minister—if not today, then perhaps in writing. I think we all agree that we need to keep a thriving rare-breeds sector, because some of them will have genes that we may need to edit in future for wider use.

With those few remarks, I repeat again that we totally support this SI, and we look forward to a happy Christmas with some good turkeys, ducks and geese for consumption—properly labelled, of course.

I thank noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. I know it has not been a very long debate, but I thank noble Lords for their support, because this is an important instrument.

The noble Baroness, Lady Grender, asked whether or not animal welfare would be diluted by it. The answer is: absolutely not. Animal welfare legislation continues to apply even though the birds are being housed. Keepers are ultimately responsible for the welfare of their birds, but we have good legislation in this country to ensure high animal welfare standards. Guidance for all bird-keepers on biosecurity and preventing welfare impacts on poultry has been published by Defra and is available on the avian influenza pages on the Government’s website.

On the free-range criteria, the criteria on which designation of the “free range” special marketing term is granted are outlined in Article 11 and Annexe V of the poultry meat market standards regulations. In summary, for poultry to be regarded as “free range”, the stocking rate in the house and the age at slaughter have to follow detailed requirements. To take chickens for example, the stocking rate per square metre of floor space must not exceed 15 birds and a live weight of 25 kilograms or less, and the age of slaughter must be 56 days or later. Continuous daytime access must also be provided to open-air runs that are covered by certain amounts of vegetation—for example, 4 square metres per turkey or goose. During mandatory housing measures, access to the open-air runs only will be restricted; all the other free-range criteria will continue to apply.

The noble Baroness, Lady Grender, asked about enforcement. Animal and Plant Health Agency inspectors conduct risk-based and random checks on free-range poultry producers. Local authorities also conduct checks at retail level. These inspections will ensure that only free-range poultry meat is labelled as free range during mandatory housing measures. Previously, retailers have put up clear signage to explain the conditions that are being met under the new arrangements.

Motion agreed.