NFUS sets out its stall over Pack proposals

IT TOOK 14 pages of detailed response from NFU Scotland to get its points over to the Pack Inquiry, which is looking into the future of farm support.

The NFUS agrees with Brian Pack on the difficulties of getting new entrants into farming and the need for the industry to rid itself of the "slipper brigade", who still receive subsidy cash long after retiring from active farming. It also supports the view that support should be "activity" based.

But it also strongly disagrees on the Pack-proposed sudden change timescale, which was described by NFUS chief executive James Withers as "jumping off a cliff". The union prefers a three to five-year orderly transition.

NFUS president Jim McLaren said a free market with no subsidies was the "ideal scenario" for many farmers. However, the problem for Scotland moving to a no-subsidy regime without the rest of Europe was unthinkable.

"We would also require any imports to be subject to strict controls, ensuring that they were produced under similar standards and rules – on everything from animal welfare through to labour laws," he said. "That is the only circumstance in which we would support the removal of subsidies."

Having put that position, he admitted all of the recent activity in Scotland over the government-sponsored Pack report might be largely a waste of time as it was quite possible the whole political landscape in Europe could change in the next year or two and current restrictions in policy might be swept away.

"There is a huge frustration in dealing with the current situation," McLaren said. "It is absolutely possible we will be in a completely different position when it comes to decision time in 2013."

He added that although it was helpful that other countries in the European Union were now recognising issues such as the need for productive farming, overall the same level and detail of debate that has dominated Scottish agriculture for the past six months was not taking place in Europe.

In its response, the union said current policy restrictions ruled out any sensible scheme for new entrants to farming, leaving it to suggest that the best route under current regulations might be through preferential treatment in the Scottish Rural Development Programme.

A similar frustration exists over removing those who are no longer active in farming but who continue to receive large subsidies. "We want to get to a position where the less you do, the less cash you will get," said Withers.

The union believed the best way to eliminate these two flaws was to have a one-off interim updating of the current support model, which is based on historic payments. Choosing a more recent year for basing the payments would have the advantage of taking out those who had already retired, but it would equally have the same flaw for those retiring in the years prior to any transition.

Looking at the future model, the union considered that the "one-size-fits-all model" was not appropriate for Scottish agriculture. It has suggested separate types of payments could be made to arable farmers compared with their livestock counterparts.

McLaren admitted that the top-up fund to which Pack suggested a third of current subsidies could be transferred and which would allow farmers to bid into in order to achieve set objectives was very much livestock orientated.

For this reason, he saw an area-based support scheme complete with top-up fund working in livestock areas while in the cropping parts of the country, there would be higher subsidy rates paid per acre. The union also comprehensively rejected any support going to the forestry sector post-2013, with McLaren stating there would be other avenues, such as carbon trading, where that sector would receive financial advantage.