Rural Affairs and Environment Committee, 04 Feb 2009

Meeting date: Wednesday, February 4, 2009

Official Report 212KB pdf

---

Pig Industry

Item 3 is correspondence on the pig industry. The item relates to a matter that was raised by a member who is no longer a member of the committee, so it has been going for a wee while, with correspondence going backwards and forwards. Members might be interested to know that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs published a report on the English pig industry, which includes a recommendation that the UK Government discuss with the Scottish Government common and cross-border issues. We hope to be kept informed by the Cabinet Secretary for Environment and Rural Affairs of the outcome of any such discussions.

We have a note—paper RAE/S3/09/4/8—from the clerk. Members will recall that we wrote to the cabinet secretary requesting clarification on why the Government did not intend to act on all the recommendations in the pig task force report. We have used correspondence to make progress on the issue. We sent the correspondence to the pig industry to seek its views, and we sought an update on the issues.

All the correspondence is attached to the paper. I invite comments from members on the correspondence and on any further action that they wish the committee to take. We will consider a work programme paper on 25 February. As always, if the committee wishes to do additional work, that will have to be considered in the context of the overall work programme.

I am not sure how we can bring the matter to a satisfactory conclusion, but we need to do a bit more work. The paper reveals that the pig industry is still in a parlous state and there are some pretty dire projections. We are told that

"A recent report has suggested that the pig herd is now below the critical mass required for a sustainable Scottish pig sector."

That is significant.

There are indications from stakeholders that they will, at a time when margins are tight and the industry faces difficulties, have to make substantial extra investments in storage to comply with nitrate vulnerable zones legislation. We are also told that access to the Scottish rural development programme is difficult.

There are several loose ends. We could perhaps conclude the issue by producing a short report that brings together the evidence. We may wish to have a short evidence session involving the pig sector and the cabinet secretary in order to try to draw the matter to a conclusion. We should produce a report that makes clear to Parliament the industry's concerns and difficulties, and any concerns that members have. There is a bit more work to be done.

For the record, I ought to correct what I said earlier—it was not DEFRA that produced a report; it was our committee equivalent in the House of Lords.

I agree with Peter Peacock. It is a good idea to produce a short report because, unquestionably, the pig industry in Scotland is teetering on the edge of viability—it is in the last chance saloon. It has gone below the critical mass and sow numbers are falling. Notwithstanding the upturn in the market, the returns that Quality Meat Scotland provided show that there is still no future for, or reason for, investing in the pig industry. However, much of the pig industry needs to invest in order that it can comply with NVZ legislation. It is vital that the 40 per cent grant for putting in slurry storage facilities, which is available on a competitive basis, should be available to all people in NVZs.

The Government must send a message to producers about whether it wants a viable pig industry in Scotland. As Peter Peacock said, we are reaching the stage at which we might not have a viable pig industry. We are down to four days of slaughtering capacity. There is nowhere to go except down, which is my huge concern. It is important that the House of Lords committee that the convener mentioned should speak to our Government on the issue. The Scottish and, indeed, the UK pig industries are operating with one hand tied behind their backs.

It was actually a House of Commons committee, John.

Thank you. I thought that you said it was a House of Lords committee—at any rate, it is the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee. The reality is that pig farmers in the UK farm their pigs to much higher animal welfare standards than is the case in Europe, which means that they are farming with one hand tied behind their back and are at a competitive disadvantage. We will end up with no pig industry in the UK.

That is just a flavour of the issues that we need to consider. We also need to consider changing UK legislation.

Can I cut to the chase? There is some give in the committee workload in the run-up to Easter and just beyond it. I suggest that we isolate a date for taking evidence along the lines that Peter Peacock suggested, involving industry representatives and the cabinet secretary. The evidence session should be in the terms that John Scott set out. If the industry in Scotland is verging on being non-viable, we should find out whether there is a commitment to maintaining it. I suggest that we schedule one such meeting, after which we can bring the evidence to a close. Do members agree in principle that that is a good idea? We can include that in the work programme paper that we will consider on 25 February.

Liam McArthur and Elaine Murray want to speak. I do not want to prolong the discussion if we agree in principle that we are going to do more work.

I am happy with that approach. There is bad faith around the original pig task force report and the response to it. However, the issues that have come through in the evidence that we have received are about a lack of confidence and about sow numbers, which have continued to decline despite what has happened in the market. If we could squeeze time into our agenda to produce a report, that would be good.

I agree with the suggestion, but we should take evidence on the animal welfare issues. Members may be aware of the rooting for pigs campaign that is being run by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, which is trying to highlight the fact—

That would be the RSPCA that covers only England and Wales.

On farm animal welfare and some European Union issues, it covers Scotland. The issue is complex.

I do not want to get into that argument.

We do not necessarily have to hear from the RSPCA, but there is an issue about animal welfare. We can think of high animal welfare standards as tying one hand behind the industry's back, but they can also be seen as a positive way in which to promote the industry. There are issues to be considered.

We will bring back the suggestion for the work programme discussion on 25 February. We will decide on appropriate witnesses and schedule an evidence session, after which we will produce a short report on the back of what we have found out. Are members happy with that?

Members indicated agreement.

That ends the public part of the meeting.

Meeting continued in private until 12:32.