Official Report 163KB pdf
The final item on the agenda is the agriculture inquiry, on which a paper has been prepared by the Scottish Parliament information centre. It has been suggested that, for us to understand better what SPICe is capable of achieving and to determine how we might make progress on this issue, we might organise a seminar involving the committee and the SPICe researchers. I am informed that it would be possible for us to avoid a formal meeting next week and hold that informal seminar on the agriculture inquiry as a substitute. Are we agreed?
Is there anything else to discuss at this point?
I do not understand what that reporter's role would be. Surely reports would come back to the committee, which we would discuss to feed in our views. It is our inquiry and we must take part in it.
We have appointed reporters before to monitor the early stages of a report. If you recall, Rhoda, you were one of the reporters for the committee's inquiry into the impact of changing employment patterns in rural Scotland.
No, I was not. In any event, I thought that the role of those reporters was simply to pull together the remit of the inquiry and to come back with a paper such as the one that is in front of us today.
If my memory serves me correctly, we appointed two reporters—Cathy Peattie and Irene McGugan—at the beginning of the inquiry into changing employment patterns and their role was to draw together the draft remit and to agree the tender. They did not monitor the progress of the inquiry—they were involved in drawing up the tender because of their backgrounds. I would have thought it unusual for a reporter to monitor the progress of research.
We can pass on that suggestion at this stage and come back to it if it becomes a relevant issue.
The last point is Fergus Ewing's suggestion that we might wish to proceed with one-day inquiries into specific issues.
My suggestion was related to the plight of crofters and small hill farmers. For the reasons that I gave before, their plight is of pressing concern and I know that members of all parties have expressed concern in the Parliament about that in various ways. Holding a one-day inquiry to take evidence from witnesses such as the National Farmers Union of Scotland, the Scottish Crofters Union and others would be a useful way of getting an early indication of how we might move forward and find solutions to the problems that lie ahead.
I agree that it is important for us to investigate the position of crofters and small hill farmers, but I think that we should do so as part of the agriculture inquiry. A lot of Government and EU funding goes into agriculture and we must examine how that funding is being spent and whether it could be better targeted. That fits into the larger inquiry. If we were to hold a separate, short inquiry into crofters and small hill farmers, while we might be able to shed light on the problems, it would be difficult to suggest solutions.
Do members think that it would be appropriate to consider the options at our seminar next week?
As there is no further business relevant to the matters that we have discussed today, I thank members for attending what has been an unusual meeting, which was far shorter than usual.
Meeting closed at 15:24.
Previous
Work Programme