The next item on the agenda is PE197 from Mr John R D Stewart, regarding the transparency of agricultural subsidies. Are there any comments on the petition? It might be a good idea to declare interests before we begin. I am in receipt of agricultural subsidies.
I used to be in receipt of such subsidies, but sadly I am no longer.
I am interested in how much you get, convener.
I was just saying to Alasdair Morgan that I cannot quite work it out.
The petitioner has a point in that public money is being spent and there is very little transparency. My concern is whether such a procedure would create yet another layer of red tape. However, the matter warrants closer examination.
It seems rather strange that the model of transparency used in the petition is that of the legal profession.
Fair comment.
I do not know whether Mr Stewart has read "Bleak House", but there seems to be some inconsistency here. If there is any comparison between the transparency of the legal profession and the method of agricultural subsidy payment, the matter may require some examination.
We must decide whether we wish to proceed with the petition in some way.
I think that we would be in danger of creating another layer of bureaucracy in some form. There would have to be some way of disclosing the amount received in subsidy and that would impose yet another layer of form-filling on the agricultural practitioner, who has enough of that already. It is a well-known fact that in the present state of agriculture the subsidy that most farmers receive is several times greater than the profit that they are currently making—if, indeed, they are making a profit at all. To ask individual farmers what they receive in public funding—perfectly legitimately—is going a step too far. It is unnecessary. I do not really understand what the petitioner is getting at and I suggest that the committee notes the petition and moves on.
The point behind the petition is that nobody really knows how many subsidies are going where and whether they are going to an individual or are being spread across the rural community. The petition flags up one small part of a bigger issue. Might we consider the matter when we examine modulation?
We could choose to look into that in connection with modulation.
I sympathise with Alex Fergusson's comment about adding another layer of bureaucracy. However, there must be other people around who know how much money farmers receive in subsidies; perhaps they could make that information available.
I take Alex Fergusson's point. We would not want to impose an additional layer of bureaucracy on farmers and make them responsible for ensuring transparency in respect of subsidy payments. To ensure greater transparency, there should be some investigation of the way in which subsidy payments are carried through, but perhaps that should not be done in response to this petition. That could be part of another inquiry, but I do not think that it should be done in the context of a comparison between the levels of disclosure in relation to farmers and the legal profession. That appears to be simply a hobby-horse of the petitioner.
The petitioner's argument about bureaucracy is not valid as it is the Scottish Executive rural affairs department that has the information. We are not asking farmers to provide it. The point is that, while the suggestion would increase transparency, it shows only a part of the picture. It does not provide details of farmers' expenses or other income. It shows only the size of the subsidy. It would be more useful to have the aggregate amounts that are being spent, rather than what any named individual is getting. I may be wrong, but I do not think that enterprise companies, for example, publish the details of grants or loans that they give to named individuals.
I do not know if this has been covered—I was delayed earlier—but I would like to know how many people have signed the petition. How many thousands are we talking about? One thousand?
One person.
The views expressed by Alasdair Morgan were close to the position that we want to be in when we analyse the budget in the next 12 months.
Members indicated agreement.
We agreed to take item 4 on the agenda, which is a discussion of our approach to taking evidence from ministers in our inquiry tomorrow, in private.
Meeting continued in private until 15:45.
Previous
Subordinate Legislation