|
Back to SOCIAL/ECONOMIC/POLITICAL
Page
Why I resigned from the
Scottish Landowners Federation
James Irvine
Teviot Agriculture, Cultybraggan Farm, Comrie,
Perthshire
Teviot Scientific, Edinburgh
Filed 21 Nov 03
© www.land-care.org.uk & LandCare Scotland
On Monday 13th October of this year I resigned
from the Scottish Landowners Federation (SLF) while taking part
in their central region committee meeting which was being held in
Perth.
Many years ago shortly after my Company purchased
Cultybraggan Farm, I joined both the National Farmers Union of Scotland
(NFUS) and the Scottish Landowners Federation (SLF). I looked to
the NFUS to represent my interests in Scottish farming and to the
SLF to represent my interests in owning land in Scotland, albeit
a fairly modest farm of some 520 acres.
With regard to the NFUS it was always clear they
were representing farmers of all kinds. I did not necessarily -
nor did I expect to - agree with everything they did. But for me
ever since joining the SLF it has been a worry who the SLF were
representing and how they did it.
My impression is that the SLF started as a sort
of old boys club for elite big landowners - you know, the few percent
who own most of Scotland sort of thing, with some meetings conveniently
held in London for those who could not be bothered to travel north.
Nevertheless they did profess to represent farming as well, but
just what sort of farming was less than clear - not commodity farming,
for example. Yet how could they represent farming interests effectively
through its agricultural committee if they were not looking at farming
in the round?
It seemed logical to join the SLF to represent
the interests of a landowning farmer such as myself, although I
considered myself primarily as a director of a Company that happened
to own a farm and therefore had all sorts of responsibilities in
terms of staff and land. I did not primarily consider myself as
a landowner. In more recent times the SLF came to be sitting at
the negotiating table in Scotland where the future of land management
- including farming - was going to be decided against a backdrop
of impractical and potentially damaging political ideology.
As the political climate was changing in the UK
- and especially in Scotland with the advent of devolution and the
birth of the Scottish Parliament in 1999 - the SLF was claiming
to democratically represent the views of its 3000 members. In other
words the SLF needed to change from being a club for wealthy landowners
(and their associates in the form of lawyers, estate agents, accountants
etc) into a political lobby group representing the interests of
all its members. Admittedly this would not be an easy transformation,
but an essential one.
Most SLF members are not in fact owners of large
amounts of land. Nevertheless, I never managed to find out what
the distribution of the membership actually was, even after I had
been elected to the local regional committee. The most that was
revealed was a list of names of members for the region that was
made available at regional committee meetings, but not otherwise.
So, as I conscientiously attended almost all the central region
committee meetings, I never properly knew whom I was supposed to
be representing.
It appeared that on almost every count my interests
as an owner of a modest sized farm were contrary to what the SLF
seemed set on achieving. They were singularly uninterested in the
problems of owners of farms next urban settlements in terms of the
Land Reform Bill that was under discussion, until the membership
compelled them to do so; they supported keeping the Wages Board
when new national legislation made it unnecessary; and they actively
pursued the downgrading of Scottish farming in favour of the "sustainability"
creed. Indeed the SLF claim to have been "taking the lead"
in promoting this distorted line of thinking. But were they merely
promoting the distorted thinking promulgated by the Macauley Land
Use Research Institute (MLURI) (1)?
When it came to the matter of Common Agricultural
Policy (CAP) Reform, the level of debate within the SLF was derisory
- and yet the SLF stated early on that they supported complete decoupling.
Trying to get across the concerns of those who run quality suckler
herds in Scotland based on years of breeding and high animal welfare
standards was a waste of time. It appeared to me that the SLF agricultural
committee had already decided, and in my view the SLF rural policy
officer seemed to reckon that he knew all the answers no matter
the subject.
As the national debate continued on the Land Reform
(Scotland) Bill (now Act) and on what options Scotland should take
regarding the EU Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) Reform, it appeared
to me that the powers that be within the SLF had contacts that were
too close with influential bodies that were substantially government
funded - such as Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) and the Macauley
Land Use Research Institute (MLURI) in Aberdeen. My impression was
that, rather than being a negotiating advantage for the SLF to get
its views across to these bodies, matters were working in the reverse.
In other words there was a conflict of interest. The policies advocated
by SNH and MLURI in relation to Scottish farming are a matter of
much concern. The SLF is supposed to be an independent lobby group
promoting the interests of those who own land in Scotland (most
of it necessarily involved in agriculture of one kind or another),
and must not be thought of as being in the pockets of government
funded agencies or institutes.
Perhaps it is understandable how some
of the ordinary members of the SLF find it so difficult to get across
to the SLF executive points of view
that are not in accord with the aims of SNH or MLURI.
Thus, in my view, if you want to be a governor
of the MLURI (2) or a Regional Board member
of SNH (3) you should not also be a current
vice president of the SLF, or the current chairperson of its Land
Reform Task Group, or the current chairperson of its Access and
Tourism committee, or indeed the current director of the SLF. The
current convener of the SLF was previously a board member of MLURI.
At the least the interests of such persons should be conspicuously
declared to the membership they are representing. There are plenty
of able people about. It is not necessary for a small core of persons
to assume so much influence.
Perhaps it is understandable how some of the ordinary
members of the SLF find it so difficult to get across to their executive
points of view that are not in accord with the aims of SNH or MLURI.
After all governors or board members of these organisations are
obliged to subscribe to the respective aims and and objectives of
these organisations. The membership of the SLF may not necessarily
share the same aims and objectives, and indeed may wish to protest
against them.
Why did the SLF not have a functional
website to inform its members
over the past 2 turbulent years?
My impression is that for all the hype the SLF
are not much interested in what their members think. True the SLF
held roadshows on such matters as Land Reform, but if I had not
been on the central region committee I would have had great difficulty
in knowing what was going on. An expensive glossy journal produced
every two months called Landowning in Scotland seemed to
be aimed at impressing rather than informing.
The occasional news bulletin would not have helped
much except in retrospect. Minutes of meetings were not available
to members even if they asked for them. The SLF could not even manage
to run a functional website to keep their members informed or to
otherwise facilitate communication. It did not need to be a fancy
high-tech production: just a site for putting up information using
a standard template plus copying and pasting from standard Word
documents, or using the simple pdf facility provided by Microsoft
in its standard off-the-shelf software. I and others have been asking
the SLF to provide an informative and functional website for the
past two years and more. It was a recurrent call at SLF agm's. At
the time of my resignation it still had not been achieved.
I had concerns that what the SLF hierarchy might
be saying in the corridors of power might be a touch different from
what was being said to the members or to at regional committee meetings.
Were I and possibly others being palmed off with bland but meaningless
reassurances? What was the true underlying SLF agenda?
SLF accepts finance from SNH to part
fund an Access Officer
Matters came to a head when the SLF accepted finance
from SNH to partially fund the appointment of an Access Officer
who was supposedly to be appointed and directed by the SLF independent
of SNH. In view of the poor track record of SNH in terms of how
it had behaved previously on Access matters (4),
I voiced my concern - only to be given bland reassurances from the
SLF executive.
What in fact happened was that when such an access
officer was appointed by the SLF, one of the three persons on the
appointments committee had strong links with SNH. Having been convener
of SLF until 31 March 2003 he joined the East Region Board of SNH
the next day but continued as the chairperson of the SLF Land Reform
Committee and Access Committee (3). Moreover, the successful
appointee to the position of SLF Access Officer had absolutely no
experience or training in farming - nilche (5).
An honours degree in land management from the University of Dundee
in the Faculty of Arts and Social Science contains no content relevant
to the understanding of farming (6). The
response from the SLF was that "she could learn" - just
like the rest of the public I suppose.
Yet the problems of open access to agricultural
land of various types and in various geographical situations as
outlined in the draft SNH Scottish Outdoor Access Code were foremost
among the points that had been raised repeatedly by the SLF membership.
There was still plenty scope to have the Code modified in terms
of what could be regarded as responsible behaviour on the part of
access takers and access providers. The Land Reform (Scotland) Act
could not get the Royal Assent until this aspect of the Access Code
was agreed.
Previous SLF convener (now regional
SNH Board member) gives press interview
saying that he has no problems with walkers on his farm
What was also unacceptable in my view was that
the same individual who had been the SLF convener until 31st March
of this year and who wore so many other hats, gave a press interview
whereby he stated that he had no problems with walkers on his farm
(7). Over the years the SLF executive had
never to my knowledge suggested that the press (or other influential
bodies such as politicians) visit any other member's farm apart
from that of a previous president, although they had plenty of opportunity
so to do.
Reference to the SNH website revealed the declared
interests of members of its Main and Regional Boards (3). The SLF
immediate past convener is recorded there as being paid to provide
ranger services for the Lomond Hills National Park which extends
over approximately 65 square miles of West Central Fife (8).
Does it include the estate upon which he farms? Is that why he can
claim that he has no problems with walkers on his farm, or that
it is not in his interest to suggest that he has? Perhaps if I and
others were being paid to provide ranger services on our farms we
may not be so anxious as to how access to farmland next urban settlements
is going to be monitored.
Few of us have any confidence in the so-called
Access Forums that are being set up within each District Council
- one for the large area of Perth and Kinross. There can be little
doubt that the SLF hierarchy will manipulate that their nominated
representative on this particular access forum will come from one
of the large estates.
In their committee structure the SLF grouped tourism
and access together, which probably suited some of the large estates
where there are good opportunities for tourism. But it would not
suit the average sized farms owned by other members of the SLF,
especially next urban settlements.
The SLF failed to support the NFUS
when the SNH Access Forum
ignored the farmer's concerns
The NFUS rightly in my view walked out of the
Access Forum when their legitimate concerns were being ignored and
not even passed up the line, but the SLF stayed. Thereby, as I see
it, the SLF weakened the farmers' stance and gained themselves some
brownie points with SNH. This may well have contributed to the poor
draft Access Code that was subsequently produced by the Access Forum.
Just maybe it helped the then SLF convener to become a SNH regional
board member shortly after. What game was the SLF playing in the
name of its members?
Adding to my concerns as to what the SLF was up
to, the only way one could get a copy of what the SLF submitted
in response to the Draft SOAC consultation this year was to contact
their HQ and ask for a copy (or go to specified SNH offices and
read it by appointment). In my view the the SLF response was not
sufficiently robust, although technically it could be said to cover
most of the points raised by members. But how strongly was the content
of their response being argued at the Access Forum or elsewhere?
The SLF did not make its response to
the SNH Access Code consultation
widely available to the public
The SLF did not put their response to the consultation
on Access (or to any other consultation) on their website, which
is perfectly and attractively accessible but as mentioned above
seriously dysfunctional - the members area has been "temporarily
suspended" for 2 years or more and was still dysfunctional
when I resigned on 13th October 2003. They also refused the offer
by this website to publish their access response for them. All other
bodies approached by Land-Care accepted, such as the Scottish Agricultural
College, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors in Scotland,
and the Scottish Countryside Alliance among others. Why were the
SLF putting obstacles in the way of a wider audience reading what
they had to say? Until it was too late for anyone to do anything
about it?
The SLF has been navel gazing for years
as to what to call itself
For years the SLF has been agonising on what it
should call itself, indicating that it is uncertain as to what it
actually stands for. Maybe this genuine confusion as to who they
were - and what they were there for - might partly explain the impression
they sometimes give of duplicity.
Accepting collective responsibility
for these actions - no way
As members of SLF committees are expected to accept
collective responsibility for the actions of the executive, I felt
there was no alternative but for me to resign.
The future for the SLF?
If the SLF do eventually get round to winding
themselves up or reinventing themselves under another name, let
us hope that whatever emerges will conduct itself in a more democratic
and open manner.
© www.land-care.org.uk & LandCare Scotland
References
1. Irvine, James (2003). The Arrogance
of Academics pontificating about Rural Affairs
Are they letting us down?
ECRR Conference: Scotland’s Landscape - a Fixed Asset? Battleby,
Perthshire, 8th May 2003.
See account of the paper by Dr Dick Birnie.
See Social/Economic/Political Homepage, filed 14 May 03, www.land-care.org.uk
(Click
Here to View)
2. http://www.mluri.sari.ac.uk/governors/boardmembers.html
3. Scottish Natural Heritage (2003).
Register of interest of regional board members.
www.snh.org.uk/pdfs/ab-bai.pdf
Extracted information also available on www.land-care.org.uk
(Click
Here to View)
4. Irvine, James (2003). Does
SNH conduct itself as an honest broker, or as a political manipulator?
See SOAC Homepage, filed 25 October 03, wwww.land-care.org.uk (Click
Here to View)
5. Editorial (2003). SLF appoints
new access officer with no training or experience in farming/agriculture.
See Scottish Outdoor Access Code Homepage, filed 4 Oct 03, www.land-care.org.uk
(Click
Here to View)
6. University of Dundee (2003).
www.dundee.ac.uk and personal discussion with the faculty spokesperson.
7. Irvine, James (2003). Access
to farmland next urban settlements: does Robert Balfour speak for
SLF members?
See Scottish Outdoor Access Homepage, filed 28 Jul 03, www.land-care.org.uk
(Click
Here to View)
8. http://www.fifecoastandcountrysidetrust.co.uk/lomond/
Finis
|
