Official Report 190KB pdf
Agenda item 5 is our legacy paper. We have to consider this as a paper that aims to summarise the committee's experience during the first session of the Parliament and attempts to provide some advice to its successor committee. We could consider the paper again next week, but it would be preferable to agree it this week. It has already been to the work reporters, who have made suggestions.
I have a personal comment. I might be in a minority of one, but I think that a distinction should be made between the types of inquiries. I am trying to be constructive for our successor committee. Our substantial inquiries have been the most successful. I am never terribly impressed with short inquiries, even though they are on the major, burning issues at the time. The more productive inquiries are the ones that we give more time and consideration to rather than cramming in many witnesses to a couple of sessions. I am not trying to criticise. I am saying that, for the benefit of the future committee, the more time that it can put into a comprehensive inquiry—I will not use the word "proper", because all the inquiries are proper—the better its time will be spent. I did not feel that the committee got as much benefit from the shorter inquiries.
I do not find myself wholly disagreeing with Mike Rumbles, so he is not necessarily in a minority of one. However, we should recognise that from time to time there will be issues—the recent Scottish fishing industry inquiry would be an example—where events simply require that we do something in a relatively short time and ensure that our report is suitably qualified in its conclusions, or we do not do anything at all. We should not turn our faces away from short inquiries.
I think that the question of the use of those words is in the same category as the question of the use of inverted commas. We do not want to go too far down that route.
I never said that we should rule out short inquiries. All that I said was that the longer ones are far more beneficial than the shorter ones. Personally, I think that we have focused too much on the shorter inquiries and not enough on the longer ones.
It depends on the remit of the inquiry. The inquiry into the operation of the agricultural business improvement scheme had quite a specific remit, whereas the inquiries into integrated rural development and changing employment patterns were massive and perhaps too broad in scope. However, we must follow the agenda, to a certain extent. I hope that, if there was a crisis in any aspect of the rural economy, the committee would always have time to conduct an appropriate inquiry into it. The inquiries that have been conducted while I have been a member of the committee have been conducted fairly and thoroughly. We would not want to close the door to an inquiry just because it might be short. However, I do not think that that is what Mike Rumbles is suggesting.
No. I would never question the fairness of the inquiries that we have undertaken. They have all been conducted extremely fairly. The issue is one of emphasis. I was not suggesting that we should rule out short inquiries, which can be very useful.
During the earliest meetings of the committee, we envisaged that happening. When we produced our original suggestions, which were condensed by the clerks and brought back to us, there was a focus on some of the inquiries that we would have liked to do. However, the truth is that every committee—this one in particular—has had its timetable dictated by the legislation that it has had to deal with. I do not need to mention a certain member's bill that took up an enormous amount of the committee's time.
Do not mention that.
I will not mention it. That is the practical reality of the matter. To an extent, the committee's time is dictated by legislative and other requirements that are placed on it. I may or may not disagree with Mike Rumbles's proposal. What we must decide is whether we want to change the wording of the report. I do not think that it is badly worded.
I am content. I am not suggesting that we change anything in the report. I am simply taking this opportunity to have my view recorded in the Official Report. If any sad soul on the next Rural Development Committee wants to wade through what the members of the previous committee thought, they can read those comments.
I shall be deeply impressed if they take their duties so seriously as to read all the Official Reports of the past four years.
I appreciate the fact that the purpose of the legacy paper is to set out a factual summary of what the committee has done. However, it should perhaps also include what we have not done and what, with hindsight, we feel that we could have done.
I am sympathetic towards an inquiry on that issue. I do not know how other members feel about it. We could pop in another paragraph after paragraph 22, under the heading "Outstanding Issues after the First Session". I think that forestry was on the original wish list—it was an issue that we could have looked at. Four years later, we have not done so.
One of the other issues that we wanted to consider in detail was reform of the common agricultural policy. Although we discussed it on an away day, we did not go any further. The new committee will need to tackle CAP reform, which will probably have more impact on that committee's work than it has had on ours.
CAP reform is mentioned under the "European Issues" heading. It is a fair point to suggest that the next committee might wish to spend some time examining that issue. Rhoda Grant is quite right. There is no doubt that it will be a fundamental issue during the next session of the Parliament. We could ask the clerks to put together something on that. It could be e-mailed to the reporters, who could sign it off at the end of the week. Is that agreed?
Other than that, I hope that members are content with the legacy paper. One of my dearest hopes is that the next committee will seek an early opportunity to debate the integrated rural development report on which we spent so much time. It contains many issues for discussion. I am sure that we all look forward to taking part in that debate, if we are lucky enough to be returned.
What are you on the list, convener—number 1?
We should not worry too much about that at this point in time.
I want to raise a final point. Today's evidence highlighted the importance of our taking evidence from EU officials, who plainly have a great deal of power and influence over what happens. There is probably a degree of unanimity among members of all parties that some farmers are not treated fairly in relation to unintentional or inadvertent errors that were not made with any fraudulent intent. That is an example of a trend that will be increasing. I gather from the paper that, in the next session, even more SIs and regulations will result from EU proposals. I suggest that the practice of taking evidence from senior EU officials, such as John Farnell, which we developed rather late in the day, is extremely useful. It might have more influence than we think in letting the Commission know that it is being scrutinised and watched and that we are part of the democratic process. Perhaps we could put that in the paper.
That is a fair point. You may be right—we developed that procedure a little late in the day. It is nice to know that we have developed. We will include some appropriate wording and will circulate it to reporters for signing off.
I hope that you will excuse me. I have to go and see the washing-machine repairman.
I am glad that that will appear in the Official Report.
We have to get our priorities right.
That brings us neatly to the end of the public session. I am glad that Mr Ewing managed to get that important sentence in before I asked for the public gallery to be cleared. I now make that request.
Meeting continued in private until 15:47.
Previous
Petition