Rural Affairs and Environment Committee, 06 Feb 2008

Meeting date: Wednesday, February 6, 2008

Official Report 250KB pdf

---

Pig Industry

Agenda item 2 is a discussion about the pig industry. Members will remember that Mike Rumbles raised the subject initially, and we have received briefings from the Scottish Parliament information centre and the NFU Scotland. I will ask Mike for comments and then open up the discussion to other members. I will allow a maximum of 10 to 12 minutes for the discussion.

First, thank you, convener, for putting the subject on the agenda. It is a huge issue throughout Scotland but particularly in the north-east, where most of the industry is based.

The papers from the NFUS and Tom Edwards from SPICe are comprehensive. They are short but effective, and they show in a nutshell what the issue is. Let us be clear: the industry is in crisis. It is unprofitable, and losses have been exacerbated by rising costs in a market that is already affected by the foot-and-mouth crisis south of the border.

I want to focus on what practical action can be taken to help the industry. I note that the NFUS called for three courses of action, on which I am happy to support it. However, what I hope will come from this discussion is an agreement to hold a short evidence session, perhaps with the NFUS, followed by the minister's response to that. We could then take things from there. It would be a very short inquiry.

I will outline the three options that we have. The first is the minimal option, which is to have this discussion but take no further action. Secondly, we could hold a one-off evidence session, which Mike Rumbles has suggested and which, because of our existing commitments, would have to be scheduled for late April or later, or as an additional meeting before Easter in a week in which we are not meeting. The third option is to write to the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment to ask what steps the Scottish Government is taking to support the pig industry and allow the response to inform the next discussion of our forward work programme, which will be in June.

Those are the three levels of action, and the final two are probably not mutually exclusive. In any case, we would probably want to write to the cabinet secretary as a minimum.

I agree that the final two options are not mutually exclusive. However, having initiated the process, I do not think that we can afford to wait until June and to include the issue in our forward work programme because the industry is in crisis. My preferred option would be to take the window of opportunity in April and put the issue on the agenda then.

I am grateful for the opportunity that Mike Rumbles has given us to discuss the issue. A few months ago, I visited a pig enterprise near where I live. I received a thorough briefing and have exchanged a lot of correspondence with that business since then. There is no question but that it is facing colossal losses—there is just not enough cash in the industry. In a sense, I am surprised that more enterprises have not gone out of business already, such is the crisis.

There have been vast increases in grain and feed costs on top of foot and mouth and the backlog and collapse in prices that that caused in the market. Those factors, combined with the import of cheaper foreign cuts, the way in which the supermarkets brand some of the products and the changes to slurry storage because of nitrates, all add to the problem.

The pig sector is one part of the agricultural industry that is in serious crisis. It would be well worth our while to have a short evidence session with the minister and some industry representatives. That would allow them to air the issues in public and us to scrutinise what is happening a bit. We should not underestimate the importance of the issue, and I support Mike Rumbles's proposition.

I am happy to support it, too. There is no doubt that the industry is in crisis and in real danger of losing its critical mass. There is already insufficient abattoir capability in the north-east, particularly for sow slaughtering. We must also remember the burden of regulation that the industry faces. We exported part of the industry in the late 1990s in terms of sow tethering, and the danger is that we will lose the entire industry abroad and end up importing the meat that otherwise would have been—and should have been—produced by our farmers.

There is a meeting on 16 April. We could incorporate evidence taking into that meeting and in the meantime write to the cabinet secretary.

Members indicated agreement.

We will invite both the cabinet secretary and either the NFUS or other industry representatives. Mike Rumbles might want to suggest how that session could work, although we do not want to expand it too much.

Given that we have had briefings from both SPICe and the NFUS, could we ask the cabinet secretary to respond to the issues raised in them before the meeting in April?

That is what I have just said—we will write to the cabinet secretary prior to that meeting.

I was going to suggest that we ask the cabinet secretary for a response by mid-March. That would allow the other bodies, such as the NFUS, to comment on what he has said, rather than wait.

We will indicate that we will have a session on 16 April and that it would be more than helpful if we were given enough space before that to allow reaction to what the cabinet secretary says.

The NFUS makes it clear that the main processor is the Grampian Country Food Group, which has been in contact before. It might be useful to involve that company.

I think that we have had this discussion previously. Is it not an individual company—an on-going commercial concern?

It is the biggest, without any question.

I am slightly concerned about inviting a commercial concern.

We will reflect on having an industry representative. I seem to remember speaking to a pig industry association in the past. I think that there is an industry organisation that is not the NFUS, and that might be a better organisation to invite—to avoid any issues.

That discussion was useful. I now close the public part of the meeting.

Meeting continued in private until 12:40.