Official Report 172KB pdf
The committee has to consider a negative instrument, the Less Favoured Area Support Scheme (Scotland) Regulations 2001 (SSI 2001/50). We previously decided to take written evidence. The evidence that we have received, which is from the Scottish Landowners Federation, the National Farmers Union of Scotland and the Scottish Crofters Union, has been circulated. I hope that members have had the opportunity to study it, along with a further note to members that the SCU submitted by e-mail this morning. Requests to give evidence have been received from Mr Tom Gray and Mr John Stewart. Mr Stewart submitted a petition, PE197, last year, and Mr Gray has written by e-mail to members and has submitted a covering note.
I think that we should invite them, but not when we are considering the instrument, because we have to deal separately with the instrument and the inquiry. If we delay the instrument, it will delay payment to people. In the inquiry, we need to take evidence from people. I suggest the Scottish Crofters Union.
We would probably accept that the SCU would be our leading witness. I imagine that the NFUS and the SLF would also be acceptable. Rhoda Grant is proposing that the two individuals who have submitted petitions, who have expressed a long-standing interest in the topic and perhaps have experience of the topic, be allowed to give evidence. Does anyone have a contrary view?
It is not a contrary view, but I remind members that LFA is not just about the Highlands and Islands. It may be important that the SCU gives us evidence, but it should not be considered as the No 1 organisation for that. LFA is far more widespread than the Highlands and Islands—80 per cent to 85 per cent of Scotland is covered by LFA.
Anyone who was fortunate enough to attend my recent members' debate will realise that there is huge controversy across the parties about the shift from a headage-based payment to an area-based payment. It is right that the committee should have a short inquiry into it. Having said that, any move that delays the passing of the instrument would delay any payments to farmers. Given the safety net that is in place this year and the appalling situation that the farming world has been placed in, the reasons for which we all know, I am loth to do anything at the moment that results in such a delay. The right place to hear those people is during our mini inquiry. I support Rhoda Grant. We should move to that situation forthwith.
I take on board the remarks made by Mike Rumbles and Alex Fergusson. Are we agreed that the witnesses should include the SLF, the NFUS and the SCU—without putting them in any particular order, in the nature of the popular charts—and that we take evidence from the two individuals who have been tenacious in expressing an interest born of their experience in the field?
That is agreed. Perhaps the clerks can convey that invitation. We hope that the officials will attend, because it will be necessary to obtain responses from them on particular questions.