Rural Abattoirs
The final item of business is a members' business debate on motion S2M-1721, in the name of Eleanor Scott, on rural abattoirs. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament notes that the number of red meat abattoirs in Scotland has fallen from 79 to only 44 in the past 20 years, whereas Austria has sustained over 3,000 slaughter facilities in this period; deplores this reduction, given the detrimental impact on animal welfare that results from increased transportation times; recognises the benefits to rural livelihoods, animal welfare and local food production that more rural abattoirs would bring, and considers that the Scottish Executive should invest in, and support the establishment of, new, modern slaughterhouses throughout rural Scotland.
"Greens promote slaughterhouses" is not a headline that most people would expect, but I am grateful for the chance to raise this important issue in the Parliament. I am also grateful for the responses that I received when notice of the motion went out, almost all of which were supportive and all of which were helpful. I received responses from the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Advocates for Animals, the Scottish estates business group, the Scottish Rural Property and Business Association, the Scottish Federation of Meat Traders Associations, individual farmers and butchers, Highland Council, the Scottish Countryside Alliance and the Scottish Crofting Foundation. I apologise if I have left out any names.
I start with a potted history. Until 1971, local authorities were obliged to provide slaughterhouse facilities in their area. That obligation was removed by the Secretary of State for Scotland in 1971, which resulted in the closure of a large number of abattoirs that had presumably been a burden on councils. There followed a process of consolidation of slaughtering facilities into fewer abattoirs. Private butchers found it difficult to get slaughtering of a few beasts at a time done.
The livestock committee of the Scottish Federation of Meat Traders Associations supported the formation in the 1970s and 1980s of some co-operative slaughtering enterprises, which are still trading. Some butchers, such as John M Munro Ltd in Dingwall, which is responsible for slaughtering and wholesale meat provision in the Highlands, developed their own slaughtering business.
The next big change was the introduction of European Union regulations requiring the presence of a vet throughout the slaughtering process. When the regulations were introduced, they did not replace the previous Meat Hygiene Service but were simply grafted on to existing practice. That has proved very expensive for abattoirs and has a particularly strong impact on smaller ones. I have watched abattoirs in action, and it seems that there is a great deal of duplication between what vets and meat hygiene inspectors do. I believe that the service could be rationalised and made cheaper and more efficient.
Another issue is the disposal of animal waste, which is both a financial burden on slaughterhouses and a difficulty to be overcome in setting up any facility, especially if the current derogation in relation to landfilling for the islands ends. There is a feeling in all sectors of the meat industry that successive regulations have not been rural proofed when they are introduced. As a result, since 1984, the number of red-meat abattoirs in Scotland has fallen from 79 to 44, whereas Austria, which operates under the same EU regulations, still has 3,000.
Will the member confirm that one of the main reasons why Austria has managed to maintain a large number of rural abattoirs is that for many years it enjoyed a derogation from the European regulations?
The Austrians have opted for what are called micro-abattoirs. They do not see the need for consolidation, as they value very small facilities—smaller than the facilities that I am talking about.
How does the Austrian Government monitor so many slaughterhouses, to ensure that they are keeping to the regulations?
I do not know the answer to that question. I know only that the Austrians have gone down the road of having very small facilities. I cannot tell Maureen Macmillan about the monitoring process.
It matters if rural slaughterhouses close down. Rural abattoirs are good for animal welfare, biosecurity and rural employment and they help us to make the most of consumers' increasing demand for locally produced food. No one would deny that it is better for animal welfare if we can minimise the distance that animals must travel to slaughter. Rural abattoirs also help biosecurity. The foot-and-mouth outbreak alerted us to the inherent risk in moving animals around the country. We all hope that we never have another such incident, but keeping our food production local is one good defence against the spread of any disease that might affect our animals.
The most obvious benefit of having small local abattoirs is that they provide rural employment. Marketing of local produce could really benefit our rural areas. Increasingly, both local people and tourists demand locally produced food whose origin they can trace. In the Western Isles, the Co-op in Stornoway has undertaken to source all its lamb from the Stornoway abattoir, so locals and tourists alike can now eat good, local produce. That is just as it should be. Unfortunately, Skye is not so lucky. Skye livestock must be transported at great cost to the east coast. As part of an effort to make the area a Mecca for good-food enthusiasts, a group in Skye and Lochalsh is trying to get an abattoir off the ground. I hope that the Scottish Executive will give every support to that group and to the people of Islay, who are trying to reopen their local abattoir.
The lifting of the over-30-months regulations provides a real opportunity for producers who specialise in the slower-maturing traditional breeds of cattle that are valued by discerning tourists and locals. We need to ensure that there are appropriate slaughter and BSE-testing facilities to make the most of that opportunity. I am aware that we are restricted in what we can do because of state-aid rules, but I believe that we could be more creative in considering what might be done under the rural development regulations. For example, marketing is included as a legitimate use of funding.
Small abattoirs are closing and the prospects for new abattoirs opening are problematic because the regulations, costs and lack of support make it difficult for small operations to be viable. If anything, the situation is likely to get worse in 2006, when the category of low-throughput abattoir is removed. I urge the minister to retain the lifeline cost capping that applies to small units under the Maclean formula.
There are models that we can learn from and build on. The community-owned and community-run facility on Mull is one such model. Another would be to help an existing operator to establish a satellite facility in a remote area. Yet another would be to support the development of a mobile abattoir. The important thing is that we start from the premise that, where possible, local slaughtering is the best option. We need to consider how we can help that to happen.
We also need to change the way in which we consider slaughterhouses. At the moment, we rightly recognise the need for slaughterhouses to conform to certain regulations and so accept that some small slaughterhouses, regrettably, will go out of business. Instead, we should start from the standpoint that we need our small rural abattoirs. As a vital part of the mix that makes up our food industry and rural economies, they should be given every possible help to meet the required standards. Small does not mean substandard. The standards of small abattoirs can be up to the mark.
I hope that the minister will affirm today his support for this important part of our food chain.
The debate is substantially oversubscribed, so it will be helpful if speeches are kept as close as possible to three minutes.
I am pleased to speak in tonight's debate. Although I support the intention behind Eleanor Scott's motion, I have not signed the motion, because I am not sure that I can support the solution that the Green party puts forward. We all agree that we need to support small rural abattoirs, but the question is how we achieve that.
I declare an interest, in that I am still a director of the Rothesay meat producers co-operative that used to operate the local slaughterhouse on Bute. The co-operative is made up of representatives of the local farming community and local butchers. The slaughterhouse operated up until about 1988, when it was completely sunk under the weight of the Meat and Hygiene Service costs that were heaped on the industry as a result of the BSE debacle. The resulting over-regulation was necessary to try to regain the trust of consumers and of the European Commission. We had to show that our regulations were robust and could not be circumvented as had happened before.
My constituency of Argyll and Bute has three abattoirs. Unfortunately, only two of them—the one on Tiree and the one on Mull to which Eleanor Scott referred—are in operation at present. Although the abattoir on Islay is bankrupt, we hope that it will start up again.
Those abattoirs survive not only because they slaughter cattle but because they are supported by the butchers' businesses that are attached to them. Clearly, that model works. Indeed, the weakness with the abattoir in Rothesay on the Isle of Bute was that the butchers did not operate and run it. Because it was run by other employed staff, the costs could not be shared and, at the end of the day, the enterprise could not wash its face.
The key point is that abattoirs should be owned by the business that is also responsible for the retail side. Such businesses have a tremendous future and we must support them.
Again, the issue comes down to sustainability. There are no abattoirs in the north and west partly because there is very little finished stock. Indeed, the only available finished stock is light lambs, which are bound for Spanish and southern European markets, as we all know. There is simply no Scottish trade for small light lambs, so anyone who thinks that someone would buy that stock if they set up an abattoir to process it has got things the wrong way round. The demand is not there.
Will the member give way?
I do not want—
We are very tight for time.
In summary, the key issues are sustainability and the need to ensure a project's viability by attaching a butcher's shop to it. I know that the processing and marketing grant supports the start-up of small rural abattoirs; indeed, that is how the Mull abattoir began. There is a tremendous opportunity to set up abattoirs in other areas of Argyll and Bute and I hope that the Kintyre community will come forward with a proposal that the Executive will support.
I, too, congratulate Eleanor Scott on securing this debate and should tell her that, in lodging this motion, she is the toast of Islay.
I want to build on some of George Lyon's practical and positive suggestions. As he pointed out, this worthy motion has been strongly shaped by the recent experience on Mull, which has an abattoir, a butcher's shop and small-scale specialist meat producers. In that regard, I should mention Aeneas and Minty MacKay, who run an organic farm at Ardalanish near Bunessan that produces quality meat. A visit to their farm is a stimulating experience. People can see the animals, watch the sheep being sheared and the wool being woven, buy organic meat that is as good as any in Scotland and appreciate the biodiversity—in the form of bird life—that has been created as a result of the MacKays' careful organic husbandry of the land.
Putting that approach into practice at Ardalanish has produced nothing less than a little economic miracle. However, as George Lyon said, that miracle is totally dependent on the crucial presence of the local abattoir and the co-op butcher's shop in Tobermory, which has allowed the MacKays to build a strong, viable and—I believe—replicable business model that maximises the retention of value from local produce and improves the value of the visitor experience. Such a virtuous circle and success story would fail if the abattoir were not there. It would simply not be possible for the MacKays to remain viable if they had to bear the cost of transporting live animals from the island and bringing back carcases or butchered meat.
Ardalanish farm has an unsurpassed view of Jura and Islay, neither of which has an operating abattoir. Both islands had such a shared amenity and are currently feeling the loss of it. In fact, I have received more letters and e-mails about this debate from Islay and Jura than I have from anywhere else. That makes Eleanor Scott the toast of those distillery-rich islands and makes the economic and animal welfare case for reopening the abattoir. The correspondence that I have received spells out in great detail the beneficial impact that such a move would have, particularly in producing more local jobs; reducing costs; capturing the full value of the finished beasts; increasing added value by making it easier for local people, hotels and restaurants to access local meat; bolstering the visitor experience and the premium nature of the finished meat; and keeping much more money in local communities. It would also be a key component in triggering and sustaining repeat visits to the island and repeat sales of differentiated, premium meat.
The solid example of the Mull experience bolsters the cases for Islay and Skye, which might be described as latent Mulls that are waiting to retain more of the value of their produce and to enrich the visitor experience. I encourage the Executive to do more to resuscitate abattoirs in such locations, given that they offer a great return on investment in both economic and community terms.
I join other members in congratulating Eleanor Scott on bringing the subject to the Parliament for debate. I also welcome the fact that the Green party has embraced the Scottish Conservative party's manifesto commitment to explore every possibility that might encourage the reinstatement and reinvigoration of rural abattoirs. As the motion rightly points out, the number of such abattoirs has nearly halved in 20 years.
The pressure is on-going. Earlier this year, in my constituency, one of the last true rural abattoirs in the south of Scotland, the one in Castle Douglas, announced that it would have to close. It has enjoyed a chequered career, including a spell when the local council owned and managed it in a valiant effort to keep it afloat, despite the fact that it no longer had to do so. Everybody in the area hoped that its future was secured when it was taken over by Buccleuch Scotch Beef, an attached downstream business that is a local co-operative that specialises in absolutely top-quality beef and which has proved to be a tremendous success.
That arrangement, which was similar to the one that George Lyon mentioned, encapsulated everything that I believe about how local produce should be dealt with in a perfect world. My belief applies as much to timber, milk, lamb and other primary produce as it does to beef. Buccleuch Scotch Beef took a product that was born and reared locally, slaughtered and packaged it locally, and distributed it to the wider world only when the last ounce of added economic benefit had been wrung from it. That is what the debate is really about: maximising the beneficial economic impact of local primary produce before it leaves the area and ensuring that local job opportunities are given the highest priority so that the economic trickle-down impacts on the whole community and does not stop at the farm gate. The good news is that Buccleuch Scotch Beef is closing the abattoir only because it is too small to accommodate the required throughput, but the tragedy is that nobody is queuing up to take it over.
Unfortunately, the Green party makes something of an art form out of lodging motions with which I very nearly agree, but which always have something that makes me stop. Like George Lyon, I did not sign the motion, because I cannot agree with the argument about the
"impact on animal welfare that results from increased transportation times".
Eleanor Scott said that nobody would disagree with that point, but I do. The argument is a fallacy and falls into the same category as saying that if something is organic, it is healthier than other products or that an animal that is organically reared has been better treated than other animals have been.
Will the member take an intervention?
I am sorry, but I have only three minutes.
Abundant research exists to show beyond any doubt that journey times do not have a detrimental impact, if regulations are adhered to, and that any impact comes during loading and unloading. I do not accept the basic tenet that the journey time has a negative welfare impact. However, I agree that local abattoirs have a wider benefit to the local community and I accept the desirability of slaughtering farm stock as close to the point of production as possible.
If we were to have a vote on the motion, I would support it if the distance/welfare equation were amended out. As it is, I encourage the Executive to endorse the Conservative's policy of exploring every possibility to reinvigorate and encourage the rebirth of local abattoirs. I suspect that the plea to invest in them directly will fall foul of the European state-aid rules, but no doubt the minister will deal with that issue.
I welcome the opportunity to debate the issue, but I am sorry that, even at this time of good will to all men, women and, no doubt, political parties, I cannot give the motion my full support.
This issue is raised constantly with rural MSPs and was raised with me at the weekend when I was down in Kintyre, where the farmers were bemoaning the fact that they do not have a local abattoir and have to haul their animals right up the peninsula and down the other side again to have them slaughtered. The issue raises animal welfare issues. Transporting animals on a nice smooth motorway might not be terribly stressful for them, but going along twisty Highland roads is something else entirely. However, I realise that a balance must be struck between possible animal welfare issues and the costs that are associated with hauling beasts by land and sea.
Another factor is the European Union food safety and animal welfare standards, to which slaughterhouses must adhere. If we had 3,000 slaughterhouses in Scotland, I wonder how difficult it would be to monitor whether they were all doing their job properly. I have an idea that the procedure might be the gun at the back door of the farm, rather than the procedure that we would like to happen.
Like other members, I think that there is an issue about community enterprises that include an abattoir. Jim Mather mentioned the Mull community venture, which is extremely interesting. I have visited the abattoir on Mull and considered the food chain. There is a dairy industry—indeed there is a world-famous cheese factory—and the dairy farmer uses the factory's by-products to feed pigs, which are sent to the local slaughterhouse and on to the community butcher's shop. We must support such ventures and promote new ventures that are based on that model, which is ideal for islands such as Skye, Islay and the Western Isles. The model deserves all the support that the Executive can give it through the enterprise agencies and money that is made available from rural development funds and as a result of common agricultural policy reform. If the Mull model is copied elsewhere in Scotland, it should be supported.
The EU document, "Healthy food for Europe's citizens: The European Union and food quality", aims to promote employment opportunities in rural areas, to help farmers to
"upgrade the quality of their production"
and
"to develop markets for niche products".
Healthy eating for Europe's citizens is part of what we want to achieve through rural abattoirs, local hotels, local butchers' shops and local facilities for farmers to use. There is a case to be made for high-quality produce, such as prime beef, being slaughtered locally, given a label of origin and made available on the menus of local hotels and restaurants as an added tourist attraction. The success of seafood festivals attests to the importance of food tourism.
It is difficult for small abattoirs such as the one on Mull to keep their heads above water. It is cripplingly expensive for such abattoirs to meet and maintain the new EU standards and it is crucial that they are supported when they are at the heart of truly innovative community schemes such as the one on Mull. I hope that the Executive will promote similar schemes.
I congratulate Eleanor Scott on securing the debate. The principle behind the motion is desirable in theory, although in practice what it calls for would be extremely difficult to achieve.
Lochaber, which is in my constituency, has no killing facilities. Four or five years ago, the Scottish Crofters Union considered a proposal for an abattoir there, but the proposal was deemed unviable, not because the capital could not be raised—it could—but for two other reasons. Those reasons were the difficulty in sustaining revenue and the difficulty in sustaining volume. Those problems will not go away and would not be solved by state aid, even if that were legal. I am not sure how the proposition in the final part of the motion could be achieved, because the granting of direct subsidies to create slaughterhouse facilities would place existing slaughterhouses at a competitive disadvantage.
There might well be a special case for islands, as Maureen Macmillan and George Lyon suggested, but I cannot see how such support could easily be given without unfairly disadvantaging slaughterhouses such as Raymond Miller Ltd in Grantown-on-Spey. I spoke to the company today and was told that it faces a serious problem. Eleanor Scott alluded to the problem, which is the huge bureaucracy and hassle of running a slaughterhouse. I have invoices from the Meat Hygiene Service inspectors for £4,000 one month and £5,000 the following month. Apparently one of the bureaucratic difficulties that slaughterhouses face is that they must pay inspectors for the whole day, even if the inspectors finish early. What can the minister do about that? I suspect that the matter is reserved and that the answer will be that he can do nothing.
There is a serious problem that has not been mentioned. Although people who run abattoirs are becoming increasingly involved in direct sales and retail in order to try to cut out middlemen and increase their revenues, what will happen if there is a continued flood of meat from South America? The minister will no doubt correct me if I am wrong, but I understand that the United Kingdom Government wants to make it easier to import meat from South America. I believe that the UK Government seeks to increase the quota by 100,000 tonnes; because the United Kingdom wants access to South American financial markets for UK financial businesses, such as banks and City firms, it is arguing that the limits be increased. That means that the current tariffs of 40 per cent would go. What effect would that have on abattoirs? It would put them out of business. In this debate, we are considering the overall viability of abattoirs. I hope that the minister will at least let us know whether the Scottish Executive agrees with me that the current quota system should be maintained and not liberalised. If it is not maintained, it will become extremely difficult to establish new facilities.
I am sure that there are many people in the agricultural community in rural Scotland who would be delighted to support the concept of small rural slaughterhouses if that were a practical and viable proposition. To be frank, however, the facts are all too evident. Small slaughterhouses are neither practical nor profitable, which has led to a reduction in the past 20 years in the number of approved and registered slaughterhouses by some 35 units, which represents nearly 50 per cent of the abattoirs in Scotland.
There are many reasons for that steady decline. The abattoirs have had to comply with regulations that govern the inspection of animals before and after slaughter and have had to ensure stringent inspection of carcases to comply with food and hygiene standards. Inspection is undertaken by qualified professional veterinary surgeons who are assisted regularly by equally qualified meat inspectors. That all adds to the cost of attempting to maintain an abattoir service in Scotland.
The regulations that govern the function and operation of existing slaughterhouses will most certainly guarantee that the facilities and functions are of the highest standards and quality, which is essential if the general public are to have complete confidence in them. After all, they are the end customers and, without their confidence in the product, we will lose the battle.
Many people in rural communities would wish their local abattoir to be retained. No doubt, that would bring a financial benefit in that they would not have to meet the cost of transport over long distances. However, the bare fact is that if we comply with health and safety legal requirements and with food standards regulations on hygiene so that we ensure that quality, acceptable products reach the market, it becomes obvious that we must direct our efforts and resources toward abattoirs that are properly operated and regulated. After all, we want confidence in the product; we do not want a situation to develop again like the one in which we currently find ourselves, in which the sale of British beef produce is restricted because of problems we have had in the past with animal welfare and disease.
I thank Eleanor Scott for securing this debate on an important topic. Abattoirs are a neglected part of our food supply chain. They are extremely important, not only in terms of animal welfare but in relation to developing something that a lot of members have talked about—vibrant and healthy circular local food economies.
The local abattoir in Dunblane is a small to medium-sized abattoir. It, too, is having difficulty surviving. That is the case not least because, since the foot-and-mouth outbreak, the cost of insurance has gone up by 663 per cent. The question is this: what will happen if this small to medium-sized abattoir goes? It supplies 38 small butchers in central Scotland, many of which are struggling. The danger is that, if our small to medium-sized abattoirs disappear, we will be left only with the bigger abattoirs, many of which are tied to supermarkets. The result of that will be that the small independent retailers will find it harder to source produce locally. There are producers in the Stirling area who want to support the local food economy and who want their meat to be reared, slaughtered, butchered and sold locally, whether through a farmers market or a butcher's shop. We need to ensure that the appropriate facilities exist to support that integral part of the local food economy.
I turn to organic slaughtering and organic production. Unfortunately, only 13 of the 44 slaughterhouses in Scotland are certified for organic production. The fewer organic slaughterhouses we have, the more the organic sector's costs go up and the more organic producers' important premiums start to dissolve.
I say to Alex Fergusson that organic standards acknowledge the importance of minimising animal transport to ensure welfare and the integrity of the organic product. Slaughterhouses are extremely important to the organic sector. I would like to know what the minister's approach to slaughterhouses is, given that one of the action points in the organic action plan that was developed in response to Mr Harper's bill in the Parliament's first session was
"The development of local processing facilities for meat products (too much Scottish organic livestock is slaughtered and processed in England)."
Slaughtering is as important as processing, so I would be interested to hear how we are making progress on that in Scotland.
It is clear that there are no instant solutions, but it is necessary that the Executive understand the role of slaughterhouses in developing local food economies. There needs to be dialogue with the industry and communities about the problems and there needs to be creative thinking about how to develop solutions that can fit in with EU rules. I look forward to hearing what the minister has to say about that.
I will speak in the debate from an SSPCA point of view. I am chair of the cross-party group in the Scottish Parliament on animal welfare, on behalf of which, as members will be aware, I lodged a motion on animal transport. Quite a bit of my speech will deal with that.
I thank Eleanor Scott for lodging her motion, which raises many issues besides animal transport. The briefing that we got from the SSPCA and the other material that Eleanor Scott outlined list the problems that are the cause of the demise of rural abattoirs. Much has been said about EU rules and their effect, but it is important that we balance that against the difficulties that were faced in the aftermath of BSE and foot-and-mouth disease. As George Lyon said, it was reasonable to try to restore public-arena trust by ensuring that specified risk material was dealt with correctly. That was why higher standards came about. However, that does not answer Eleanor Scott's questions.
The SSPCA has raised funding issues. As Maureen Macmillan and George Lyon both said, we must consider ways of providing more support. The minister might like to comment on that; it is obviously a matter on which we can make progress.
As Eleanor Scott pointed out, the increase in the use of large commercial abattoirs is cause for concern, not only because transportation of animals over long distances means that there is a greater risk that disease will be spread a long way—as happened during the foot-and-mouth outbreak—but because of the animal welfare implications. The SSPCA briefing states:
"according to European Union legislation, animals can travel for journeys up to 30 hours with only one hour's rest, often in cramped and uncomfortable conditions."
Alex Fergusson asked whether taking animals out and putting them back into lorries causes them difficulty. Given that he is also a member of the cross-party group on animal welfare, one can see that the issue has been yet another contentious subject of debate.
The European Union has consistently tried and failed to reach consensus on improvements to journey times; the latest talks on the subject broke down in April this year. The newest regulations on live animal transport, which date from November 2004, do not touch on the issue but focus on what was agreed to be the best way forward, which is enforcement.
If we look—
The member must wind up.
I welcome what has been said about, for example, transportation of young and pregnant animals and training of drivers. That debate moves us in the right direction.
Finally, I turn to a question that must be asked. How have European countries such as Austria been able to obtain derogations to keep their abattoirs open?
I welcome Eleanor Scott's motion. As she always does, she has raised issues of sustainability that are of interest not only to rural communities but—as Mark Ruskell said in his reference to the abattoir in Dunblane—to communities throughout Scotland.
Although most members have been very good with their timekeeping, I will not get everyone in. As the minister has indicated that he is in agreement, I am minded to accept a motion without notice that the debate be extended. That should comfortably do it.
Motion moved,
That, under Rule 8.14.3 of Standing Orders, the debate be extended to 6.14 pm.—[Mark Ballard.]
Motion agreed to.
I thank Eleanor Scott for bringing the debate to the chamber tonight. I believe that it is crucial to rural livelihoods, animal welfare and the provision of locally produced, high-quality meat.
In 1991, an EU directive was introduced that called for greater levels of inspection and hygiene in abattoirs and, in 1995, the Meat Hygiene Service was established. However, those improvements in hygiene levels meant higher running costs for small and medium-sized abattoirs. Despite the implications for public health, the Government refused to make any grants available to help those businesses comply, which meant that many small and medium-sized abattoirs went out of business.
The numbers of animals that are slaughtered in UK abattoirs has not declined. That has meant an increase in the number of large, commercial abattoirs and, of course, a decline in smaller, rural abattoirs, which has had huge implications for animal welfare. A revival of rural abattoirs would resolve the situation. The SSPCA has said:
"The Society is opposed to the extended transport of live food animals for slaughter. The Society advocates slaughter as close as possible to the point of rearing. This should ultimately lead to a ‘carcase only' trade over long distances".
I hope that some sense can be brought into the situation by the management of animal welfare being considered alongside the increase in the number of rural jobs that would result from bringing back the small, rural abattoirs. People want locally produced food that they know has come from a certain farm or area. Small, local abattoirs also serve to minimise disease—indeed, they have many other advantages for rural communities.
My colleagues laughed about the fact that I was to speak in the debate, given that I am a vegetarian. It is probably a bit unusual for a vegetarian to speak in such a debate. I do not impose my values on other people, however, and I care deeply about the quality of food that people eat and about animal welfare.
The advantages of local abattoirs are many: local jobs; reduced travelling time for animals, which leads to better animal welfare; less stressed animals, which leads to better-quality meat; a reduction in the mixing of animals, which leads to less opportunity for the spread of disease; and reduced dangers for abattoir workers, with improvements in health and safety. A reduction in travelling also means less pollution emissions from lorries.
More local abattoirs would mean more locally produced food, which would lead to better development of farmers markets, which is another key issue for rural communities and for our market towns and bigger towns. We want to know where our food is coming from. In conclusion, the Environment and Rural Development Committee today discussed its proposed inquiry into rural development. The re-establishment of rural abattoirs in farming towns should be considered as part of that inquiry.
I declare an interest in that I still run a sheep and cattle farm in Argyll. I congratulate Eleanor Scott on securing this debate, which is important to farmers and crofters throughout the Highlands and Islands.
I remember hearing the Minister for Environment and Rural Development, Ross Finnie, urging the agricultural sector in the Highlands and Islands to add more value to their products. I heartily agree with that aim, and here is an opportunity for Lewis Macdonald to do something about it by encouraging more modern abattoir facilities in rural Scotland.
It has been difficult to maintain abattoirs because of huge rises in water rates and in the cost of offal disposal, specified risk material disposal and veterinary attendance. State-aid rules and worries about competition displacement make councils cagey about investing in new facilities or improvements to existing ones, but if Austria can work within the rules, why cannot we?
The abattoir in Stornoway in Lewis, which Eleanor Scott mentioned, is open only from August to December, which means that after December the supermarkets and shops have no local meat to sell. They need an all-year-round abattoir service. In Skye, animals have to be taken 120 miles to Dingwall and the cost of killing a sheep works out at £24. An enterprising group of farmers and crofters is trying to set up an abattoir in Broadford, which would cover Skye and much of the adjacent mainland. In Argyll, animals have to be sent across the Clyde to Paisley for slaughter, which is a huge disadvantage.
Highland meat is healthy, nutritious and free range. Its use should be encouraged in schools and hospitals to support healthy eating guidelines. Lamb burgers can be delicious and are popular with children. The local enterprise companies have financed reviews and they should now be supportive by helping to finance abattoirs, which will undoubtedly benefit the rural economy. Many farmers and crofters will take advantage of the opportunities that are afforded by the single farm payment by keeping less stock, but aiming for better finished quality. It is probable that many sheep farmers will keep wedders to a later age, as they used to in pre-subsidy days, rather than selling all the lambs at a young age.
Niche marketing of local meat is important and I call on Quality Meat Scotland to highlight the meat from different regions as well as advertising the overall Scottish product. Areas such as Shetland would benefit enormously from that because they have the product. The tiny Shetland chops disappear like gold dust from butchers' slabs and we need an increased supply. There is an example of good practice in Mull, where there is a community-run abattoir that includes a butcher's shop. Tiree has an abattoir linked to a butcher, which sells fabulous meat and the best potatoes that I have ever eaten. Such models point the way to more prosperity for livestock farmers.
To sum up, accessible local abattoirs give farmers and crofters the freedom to farm and the freedom to finish their product, thereby gaining the added value that is often lost if lambs and calves have to be sold in the store markets. Local enterprise companies can facilitate local abattoirs and provide a real boost to the agriculture and food retailing sectors in local areas throughout the Highlands and Islands.
I declare an interest as a member of the Scottish Crofting Foundation, and I thank Eleanor Scott for launching this debate.
I take up where Jamie McGrigor left off. It is important to recognise the question about Austria that was posed at the beginning of the debate. Austria has a derogation from the European Union in order to run abattoirs in the way that it does. That is a form of subsidy. I am glad that the Conservatives support that in Opposition, but I wish that they would support it in Government—not that they are likely to be in Government in the future.
There is a dichotomy here: we have a Government that says, in its forward strategy for agriculture, that shortening the food chain is recognised as a good thing. At the same time, it says that consumers will pay only a certain amount and that it cannot interfere at the level at which consumers buy cheaper product from abroad. We are aware that the quality of meat that is produced in local abattoirs is generally far better. On "Rick Stein's Food Heroes" programme on television the other night, he pointed out that meat from contented local animals that are killed locally is more tender. That is what people demand at the level of the farmers market, but what most people are offered is not at that level or of that quality. Indeed, we have a Government that seems to have thrown in the towel on dealing with the fact that we are not able to feed the majority of the population from the produce of their local areas.
I give the example of Caithness. In 2002, the red-meat survey for the Highlands and Islands showed that there was a beef supply of 10,388 one and two-year-old beasts, but the local demand was 2,224. Much of the beef that can be produced in Caithness has to be sold outwith the county, but the fact is that, unless it can be branded as Caithness meat, it is unlikely to sell at premium price. We must be able to brand produce, not only from the islands, as Maureen Macmillan suggested, but from local areas throughout the country so as to attract a market. The local abattoir—which was closed and has now reopened to serve local butchers—could be doing much more if we could invest in local branding. We will be interested to hear what the minister has to say about that.
The Orkney brand clearly works well, but we are fundamentally interested not only in trying to give a new lease of life to areas that have been struggling economically, but in founding a new means of operating whereby people can have secure and sustainable futures. I suggest that we must cut the costs of running abattoirs if we have any means to do so. The meat inspection charges and the veterinary contracts must be reconsidered to ensure that we are not gold plating the European regulations.
I congratulate Eleanor Scott on securing the debate. I concur particularly with the remarks that she made about the role that the transportation of animals up and down the country played in the spread of foot-and-mouth disease. That in itself, not only animal welfare, is a reason to consider more local slaughtering.
I will make two points that have been made to me recently. I bring them to the debate and to the minister's attention. There may or may not be much that the Executive can do about them, but they could do with being aired.
The first point concerns the problems that small abattoirs have. A local farmer and constituent raised the point that small abattoirs with small numbers of staff have particular problems in coping with red tape, which puts them at a competitive disadvantage to the larger abattoirs. I ask the minister whether there is some way in which regulation and bureaucracy can be streamlined so that small abattoirs are not disadvantaged.
The second point was made to me by the British Horse Society Scotland, which pointed out that the matter is also an equine issue. When horse passports were introduced earlier this year, many of us wondered why. A horse passport is not for taking a horse on holiday, but is a record of all the medication that the horse has taken, and whether that horse will enter the food chain, to ensure that animal medicines do not get into the food chain. To my surprise, 200 Scottish horses are slaughtered for meat every year, and there are only two specialist equine abattoirs in the United Kingdom. They are in Cheshire and Essex, which means that the horses have to travel for at least eight hours before they are able to get to their place of slaughter.
The British Horse Society and the International League for the Protection of Horses have been campaigning for a Scottish abattoir to be fitted out for equine use—perhaps monthly or quarterly—to prevent the horses from having to go through those long journeys. Alex Fergusson made the point that it is loading and unloading that cause distress to animals. That is true, but although some horses, such as race horses, become used to long journeys, not all horses are used to travelling for long distances. If members ever inspect the interior of a horse box that has been inhabited by a horse that is not used to travelling, they will see that there is evidence that horses find that quite stressful—I hope that that is not too indelicate.
I do not know whether there is an awful lot that the Executive can do about equipping an abattoir in Scotland for horse use—there would clearly have to be discussion with the specialists who are involved in processing and chilling horse meat for export—but if it could be done, it might help to sustain one of the smaller Scottish abattoirs by enabling it to diversify into a different market. I leave that thought in the debate as a point that might be worthy of comment or further consideration.
I am grateful for the extension of the debate, which has allowed all members to contribute. While I was listening to what Elaine Murray and other members were saying about foot-and-mouth disease, I thought about the importance of not having a knee-jerk reaction to the crisis. People at the time highlighted the issue of moving livestock. My colleague Alex Fergusson and I had to argue robustly for markets to continue operating. A significant body of opinion suddenly came to the view that markets and the market system were themselves part of the reason for the spread of the disease and that, therefore, if we stopped markets and had internet trading instead, that would be the solution.
I did not sign Eleanor Scott's motion for the same reason that Alex Fergusson gave. Although travel issues can always be highlighted, we cannot accept that all travel by livestock is bad. If we go down that line, we are being unrealistic—we are entering a world of motherhood and apple pie where people can somehow have meat to eat without it having to travel or without animals even having to be slaughtered. That is a ridiculous concept.
I am wholly supportive of abattoirs. In the context of this debate, I would like further abattoirs to be developed. I welcome the fact that Scottish Enterprise is now much more interested in the rural and farming sector than it has been in the past. It could be supportive of abattoirs. Partly because of the actions of people such as Eleanor Scott, public attitudes have changed.
When I grew up in the community of Lockerbie, there was an abattoir right in the centre of the town. It was taken as a given. People who worked there could regularly be seen out and about in the town during their lunch hour. A number of attempts were made to reopen Lockerbie abattoir, but the change in public attitudes was clear: the public in communities such as Lockerbie simply would not accept an abattoir in the centre of their town now in the way that they did in the past. We must be realistic about that. If we are to have more abattoirs, they will have to be new and state of the art. Such abattoirs will bring with them the costs to which John Farquhar Munro referred. Although opening new abattoirs is a positive aspiration, we must be realistic about it.
We must be realistic, too, about people's consumption of food, an issue that has been referred to in the Parliament many times. Although many of us may seek out organic produce—even I do that—and go to our local butcher, the public tend to want to seek out and acquire cheap food. That is a reality and, no matter how much motherhood and apple pie we have, we cannot get round it.
Eleanor Scott is to be congratulated on raising this important issue for debate. Rural communities like to have key services on their doorsteps, as has been said before, but it is important to recognise—as has also been said before—that there needs to be enough business for abattoirs to do. We must recognise that abattoirs provide a business service; we have to view the issue in that light. The setting up or closing down of an abattoir is a commercial decision for a commercial operator. It is clearly not for ministers to get into the business of directing such commercial decisions, not least because of the issue of EU state aid, which a number of members have mentioned.
It is important to set the debate in its commercial context. A new abattoir means a large investment. The view of many potential investors is that the density of stocking in many parts of Scotland simply does not justify the considerable capital expenditure that is required for even the most modest of plants. In many areas, there is not the necessary throughput of animals for slaughter to allow processing to be done profitably in the longer term. For those reasons, a new abattoir of any size is simply not an economic option in many areas.
History has shown that the pressures on abattoirs are significant. A number of those pressures have been mentioned this evening, including competition for the supply of animals and the need for investment to meet required hygiene standards without wiping out producer returns. Clearly, for smaller abattoirs, those pressures tend to be proportionately greater.
It is worth noting that the decline in numbers has slowed considerably in recent years. I was struck by Jamie McGrigor's party-political approach to the issue. I thought it worth drawing to his attention the fact that the number of slaughterhouses fell by 31 between 1984 and 1997 and has fallen by only a further six since then—the rate of loss of slaughterhouses in the Tory years was two and a half times more.
On the bigger picture throughout Scotland, the challenge for operators does not seem to be a need to increase slaughter capacity; it seems to be a problem of overcapacity, particularly with beef. The larger plants in Scotland are operating at roughly 70 per cent capacity and they account for more than three quarters of all cattle slaughtered. Therefore, any proposition to increase slaughter facilities has to be considered carefully in the context of that commercial reality.
There is clearly an issue about support for rural abattoirs, which ministers recognise.
Does the minister accept that the opening of a small abattoir in a rural area will not dent significantly the throughput of a large abattoir, but might make all the difference to an area such as Assynt, where the north-west cattle producers are trying to get something going and return to the cattle culture that they once had?
I accept that and I accept that the issues for small and remote communities are different from those for Scotland as a whole. However, the motion is drafted in terms of Scotland as a whole and it is important for anyone who would advocate a return to farm-based slaughtering to recognise the commercial realities within which the slaughtering industry operates today.
We recognise the value of increasing the availability of locally produced and processed food and the benefits that that has for producers, consumers, health, the environment and local employment. For that reason, we have processing and marketing grants, through which operators can seek support with both capital and non-capital projects for construction, upgrading and the purchase of plant and equipment. That applies to large and small projects alike. Since 2001, we have committed more than £20 million in grant assistance through those schemes, of which £6 million is for meat processing and animal slaughtering facilities, including the development of the Orkney abattoir and the extension and upgrade of processing facilities at the abattoir on Barra. On some of the specifics that were mentioned this evening, we have also supported the Islay Fine Food Company through a number of projects involving the local processing and packing of beef, and we have had approaches from the abattoir on Mull, seeking assistance. Those will be considered on the same basis as other such applications. Significant public funds have already been committed and will continue to be so.
Clearly, applicants must be able to demonstrate a number of things. First, as with any public grant scheme, they must be able to demonstrate that the project requires the funding in order to proceed. They must also show that the project is economically viable, that there is an identified market outlet for the product and that the project will also deliver an adequate and lasting share of the benefits to the primary producer. I think members of all parties would support those objectives. We acknowledge the difference that those types of project make. We have plans to invest a further £18 million in the food-processing sector over the next four years, but it is for individual operators to make decisions about the investments that they would require to make for such projects to go ahead.
I do not disagree with a great deal of the minister's analysis, but will he respond to the point that I raised about the wider threat to beef production as a whole, in which abattoirs play a significant part, which is the possible influx of huge extra quantities of beef from South America—perhaps an extra 100,000 tonnes? Does the Executive have a view on that? If so, what is it?
Fergus Ewing raises an issue that is on the table. The continuing general agreement on tariffs and trade talks concern such issues. No decisions have been made and no firm proposals have been agreed. It is important not to disadvantage the Scottish industry, but we are also clear that we will compete with Argentina not on quantity, but on quality. That is why the emphasis on Scotch beef is important, because the quality of Scottish produce is our strongest asset in the marketplace.
Animal welfare reasons have been given as justification for a different concentration or spread of slaughter facilities throughout Scotland. It is important to recognise that although issues arose during the foot-and-mouth outbreak with the transportation of animals, they typically related to animals that were being transported for further fattening and finishing; they did not particularly concern animals that were going to slaughterhouses, which did not spread the disease.
We must recognise that some of the greatest stress that animals face on their way to slaughter is from loading and unloading, rather than from the distance or time that is involved in a journey. Strict rules govern journey times and that is appropriate. Those rules should be maintained and respected. As long as those time limitations are adhered to, the quality of the route and the type of journey that the animals must make matter more than the distance, as Maureen Macmillan said.
I will respond to the suggestions that smaller abattoirs somehow invariably deliver a better service and that dispersing the slaughter of animals among a larger number of small units has no potential risks. Consumers want and expect safe food. That is why hygiene standards exist. The record of units in Scotland—including large units—is very good and we want to maintain that.
Given the food hygiene regulations that will come into force on 1 January 2006, it will be important to maintain those standards. It was said that the distinction that exists between full-throughput and low-throughput abattoirs will cease at that time, but it is also worth noting the other change that will happen at that time. The regulations that apply to slaughterhouses of all sizes will be risk based and risk related and will no longer be as inflexible as some regulatory requirements have been. That means that no slaughterhouse will be required to adhere to standards that do not relate to the hygiene risks in that unit. The standards as implemented and enforced will relate to the position in that unit.
The legislation will apply directly in all member states, so gold plating will not be an issue, as has been suggested. All plants—large and small—will require to meet the same standards throughout the European Union. That is the right direction in which to move.
The slaughter of horses was mentioned. The requirements to which Elaine Murray referred relate to the slaughter of horses for human consumption and do not apply to the slaughter of horses when the meat is not to be used for human food.
Through our grant schemes, which comply with European requirements, the Executive wants to maintain support for economically viable projects that have due regard to food hygiene standards, animal welfare, working conditions for staff—they were not mentioned, but they are important—and the commercial realities in which all sorts of businesses must work. We recognise the importance of such services to communities and to Scotland as a whole.
Meeting closed at 18:14.