|
Back to SOCIAL/ECONOMIC/POLITICAL
Homepage
The precipitous dismissal of QMS chairman
James Irvine
Teviot Scientific, Cultybraggan Farm, Comrie,
Perthshire
Filed 21 Oct 05
©www.land-care.org.uk
Jim Walker, a previous chairman of the National
Farmers Union Scotland (NFUS), was dismissed from his position as
chairman of Quality Meat Scotland (QMS) on the afternoon of Sunday
9th October, some ten minutes before he was due to board a plane
to Cologne, Germany to attend Europe's biggest Food Fare, Anuga
(1). His purpose was to promote Scotch beef
and lamb for the export market.
It has been some 10 years since Scotland had a
beef export market, and the ban was about to be lifted. Allegedly
the chairman's precipitous dismissal was effected by a phone call
by Isla Roebuck, president of the Scottish Association of Meat Wholesalers
(SAMW) (2).
The Articles of QMS are such that it is "owned"
by three bodies: NFUS, SAMW and the Meat and Livestock Commission
(MLC). Representing these three bodies as far as the ownership of
QMS is concerned are David Mitchell for the NFUS, Isla Roebuck for
the SAMW and Neil Stoddart for the MLC.
Jim Walker was appointed as chairman of QMS for
a period of three years, which was up in March 2006. The owners
of QMS were considering whether or not he should be considered to
serve for another three year term of office. As part of their consideration
they carried out an assessment of Jim Walker's performance as chairman
to date (3).
Allegedly the assessment greatly praised Walker
with phrases such as
"particularly effective in building consumer confidence
and promoting the Scottish brand",
"he has developed QMS into a leading authority in the Scottish
red meat sector"
"he has been particularly effective at building consumer
confidence and promoting the Scottish brand"
The downside part of the assessment allegedly
asserts that he is a poor team man, takes too many unilateral decisions,
creates poor staff morale by criticising indiviuals publicly, shows
no respect for his board and fails to seek consensus.
Incredibly the assessment sheet is alleged to
say:
"There are concerns about his relationship with other levy
bodies and his tendency to see anything not 'made in Scotland'
as inherently flawed"
Just how that can be a criticism of a body called
Quality Meat Scotland is a mystery.
Again, one can only be perlexed at the situation
where the assessment sheet allegedly awards a score of only one
out of five for his ambassador role, given that he has possibly
the highest profile in the Scottish meat industry, and possibly
only second to Robert Forster in the UK meat industry.
Thus, allegedly, in relation to the 11 different
items listed by the assessors Jim did not get enoungh marks out
of 5 on enough of them. His best score is reported as being 3 out
of 5 for attendance and commitment. Now that also seems odd, since
the text of the assessment had allegedly praised him for his commitment
and for his attendance as being "well in excess for the time
for which he was paid"
So he was allegedly told that his services would
not be required at the end of his current term, March 2006.
Perhaps not surprsingly, Jim Walker thought the
assessment was unfair, and responded with all guns blazing (4).
Relationships broke down and solicitors letters flew about. Allegedly
even futile legal attempts to prevent Jim from clearing his desk
were made. Oh dear! Oh dear! what a mess!
The word "allegedly" is repeatedly used
throughout this article as the "owners" of QMS have kept
a stoney silence. To this writer's knowledge, the NFUS has said
nothing in public regarding the circumstances of Jim Walker's assessment
and the debacle that led to his instant dismissal on his way to
the most important European Food Fare. Likewise the MLC have apparently
said nothing, although Isla Roebuck has written a letter in the
press protesting the innocence of his himself and his organisation
as far as having any great axe to grind with Jim Walker (5).
Jan Polley, on hearing the news of Jim's dismissal,
got the next available plane back from Cologne to Edinburgh and
then went on sick leave. The QMS staff were left to get on with
the Food Fare on their own. This situation can only be described
as little short of farce, although the press assure us that the
QMS staff who stayed on at the fare did a good job.
Ross Finnie, Minister for the Environment and
Rural Affairs (SEERAD) at the Scottish Parliament, is reported as
saying that the levy payers will not pick up the bill for any legal
fees or compensation payments, but that any such burdens will have
to carried by NFUS and SAMW. Should that come to pass there is likely
to be much discussion between NFUS members and their executive as
to what has been going on. In the event of a substantial sum of
money in terms of compensation and legal fees to be paid by NFUS
to Mr Walker, the vast loss of NFUS funds incurred by a previous
NFUS executive over a seriously misjudged service to members may
be recollected rather readily.
According to articles and correspondence published
in recent issues of the Scottish Farmer, Jim Walker has a lot of
supporters. Support for him is also evident in articles in local
newpapers in Ross-shire (6) and Orkney (7).
Interim chairman
Donald Biggar, a former vice-chairman and member
of the board since March of this year, has been appointed interim
chairman of QMS. A breeder of Aberdeen Angus and Shorthorn cattle
at Castle Douglas, he is in line to join the board of SAC in the
autumn of next year. It would appear that he may indeed remain as
an interim chairman until a new appointment is made. But as a director
in waiting for SAC it would be surprising if we are going to witness
any significant opposition to current government policies.
The need to reorganise QMS
What this debacle highlights is the need for reorganisation
of QMS, particularly as regards its "ownership." It is
absurd that the three "owners" - NFUS, MLC and SAMW -
represent only some 50% of livestock farmers who pay the levies
that support QMS. That situation cannot be allowed to continue.
NFUS will have done itself no favours in terms
of retaining its members, let alone recruiting new ones. The MLC
is an organisation of decreasing relevance in Scotland as £5million
of the levy money raised in Scotland that previously went to the
MLC now goes direct to QMS. The agenda for promoting beef and lamb
in Scotland is necessarily significantly different from that in
England. Although Scottish farmers have plenty of problems with
SEERAD, they are generally of a lesser order than what English farmers
have to suffer with DEFRA. It is essential that the levy monies
are spent in Scotland in an enlightened manner with an eye to genuinely
improving quality and the lasting reputation of the product.
The MLC has been regarded as an inhibitor of progress
in Scotland with attitudes that are not sufficiently orinetated
for the good of the Scottish industry (8,
9).
It is to be hoped that there will be some meaningful
consultation with levy payers as to what is the best way forward
for this organisation.
Petty bickering between personalities must not
be allowed to disrupt an organisation the need for which has never
been greater. Such bickering has also been evident among a certain
faction of the Scottish beef industry in relation to trying to depose
Robert Forster, who has proved to be so effective as chief executive
of the National Beef Association (NBA).
What should QMS be doing?
What is at serious risk is the continued production
of quality Scotch beef and lamb. If there is not enough quantity
of quality, there will not be sufficient infrastructure to maintain
it. The supply of commodity beef from other countries is all too
readily available on the Scottish, UK and European markets.
What is emphatically not required is the continued
hype about quality while efforts to maintain quality concentrate
on bureaucracy rather than customer satisfaction in terms of eating
charactersitics. There must be concern at the apparent resistance
of QMS to take on board research on eating quality that has been
carried out extesnively elsewhere in the world. The attempt to reinvent
what has already been established by others seems a waste of levy
payers' money.
A high quality homebred pedigree registered
Limousin calf
with its dam at Cultybraggan Farm, Comrie, Perthshire
(To enlarge: Click Here)
©Kimpton Graphics
The worse scenario would be that QMS advocates
the keeping of low cost, poor quality cattle in the attempt to keep
the industry alive in the wake of the disastrous Common Agricultural
Policy (CAP) reform, while pretending that the product is quality.
In contrast to the attitude in other countries,
Influential pedigree breeders in Scotland and in the UK generally,
seem to have little interest in the eating quality of beef. This
is strange as the main market for bulls is the commercial beef suckler
herd. The MLC/Signet scoring system for cattle (referred to as Estimated
Beef Value) is seriously out of date with no component that even
attempts to address eating quality of the final product.
Quality Assurance Schemes run by QMS are all very
well, but of little use if the public do not realise the significance
of, or do not care about, assurances when it comes to buying the
product. Unless the public know and can recognise the difference
between home produced quality beef and imported beef, they are unlikely
to automatically pay the higher price for the home product.
QMS could surely do more to shame Ross Finnie
into making it mandatory that restaurants indicate the country of
origin of the meat they serve. It is understood that this is permitted
within the multiplicity of the EU rules and is already in practice
in other EU member states. The catering industry in Scotland could
do so much more to help itself, and to help the farmers who produce
the products that the restauranteurs allegedly serve their customers.
Thus while recently dining out at a four star
local hotel with a restaurant acclaime by the tourist industry,
the fillet of beef was said to be Scotch on the menu. But on seeking
a little more information there was no response. Was it locally
produced? What breed did it come from? No answer. Presumably the
chef was not interested.
Likewise, when it came to the choice of cheeses.
A severely limited choice, that could be got out of any superstore
or even the local Costcutters, was described as "farm"
cheese. Three little bits of cheese with three little most ordinary
biscuits must have brought a profit of some 500% or more. Interestingly,
dinner for two came to more that the price the farm gets for growing
and harvesting and selling more than a tonne of barley.
QMS should be vociferous about the lack of fair
trade by the supermarkets who control some 80% of the total retail
food market.
The unfortunate image of QMS promoting the commodity
end of the Scottish meat industry under a banner of quality assurance
should be addressed.
QMS should be making it clear to SEERAD that for
Scotland to continue to produce quality beef the use of the subsidies
that are available through CAP reform must achieve a better balance
between the ability to farm quality livestock and an excessive emphasis
on environmental issues.
Jim Walker was right to publicly criticise Tony
Blair's attitude that farming does not matter. Hopefully, the new
interim chairman and his successor will continue to do the same.
Let's hope they have as much fire in their bellies as Jim has.
©www.land-care.org.uk
References
1. Buglas, Dan (2005). Chairman
of Quality Meat Scotland sacked.
The Herald, 10th October 2005
http://www.theherald.co.uk/business/48505.html
2. Buchan, Jim (2005). QMS sacks
Walker after in-fighting.
Scotsman, 10th October 2005
http://business.scotsman.com/agriculture.cfm?id=2065122005
3. Maxwell, Fordyce (2005). Critical
report on Walker threatens Quality Meat Scotland
Scotsman, 30th Septmebr 2005
http://business.scotsman.com/agriculture.cfm?id=2015382005
4. Pate, Ewan (2005). Walker comes
out with guns blazing.
The Courier, 30th September 2005.
http://thecourier.co.uk/output/2005/09/30/newsstory7593123t0.asp
Click
Here to View
5. Pate, Ewan (2005). SAMW denies
claim in QMS dismissal row.
The Courier, Thursday October 13, 2005 p13
6. Wyvis (2005). QMS boss will
be sorely missed.
Ross-shire Journal, 7th October 2005
http:/www.rsjourna.co.uk
Click Here
to View
7. Leader (2005). Dramatic dismissal
of QMS chairman.
Orkney Today. 19th October 2005
http://www.orkneytoday.co.uk/farming/asp
Click
Here to View
8. Irvine, James (2003). Future
pedigree breeding of cattle. QMS meeting Monday 26th May 2003.
See SC|ENCE Homepage, filed 06 Jun 03, www.land-care.org.uk
Click
Here to View
9. Editorial (2003). Suckler cow
herds and CAP review: unwise words from MLC
See SC|ENCE Homepage, filed 29 Jul 03, www.land-care.org.uk
Click Here to View
Finis
|
