Official Report 176KB pdf
We now move to item 2. Members will have received copies this morning of the Scottish Executive document "A Forward Strategy for Scottish Agriculture". When we discussed the work programme last week, we decided to hold a one-day inquiry into the strategy on 18 September. To give sufficient notice to witnesses, we need to agree today from whom we want to take evidence. Last week, we discussed the proposal that reporters should be appointed to examine the main issues in the strategy, so that they may contribute more effectively to the inquiry. We also agreed that a number of outstanding issues on our agenda should be followed up in the context of consideration of the strategy. Those are listed in paragraph 3 of the paper that was circulated to members earlier.
I have not.
It should have appeared on your desk today.
It certainly has not.
Does anyone else not have a copy of the strategy document? It was quite a chase to get hold of copies, but we have done so.
I had a quick look at the document this morning. Unfortunately, I was not on the radio, discussing the strategy document's contents, as George Lyon was.
I said that I had not received a copy of the document; I did not say that I had not written it—I mean read it.
The truth will out.
I would like to propose an amendment to the suggested terms of reference for the inquiry on 18 September, I am not sure whether everybody has them in front of them, but they read:
I am content with that. I believe that we can deal with resources and mechanisms further down the line.
We have just heard a verbal amendment to terms of reference that had previously been agreed. Although I have some sympathy with the notion behind the amendment, Mike Rumbles will accept that it is unrealistic to view a strategy purely in terms of its aims and intentions. We must be allowed to consider how that strategy is to be implemented and, indeed, whether it can be implemented. That will logically involve consideration of the resources required—especially as we know that the amount of European Union money that will come to agriculture over the next few years is being cut. This year it has been cut substantially from last year. As the document points out, the cake is decreasing. The minister has said that he expects that the cake will decrease further because of EU enlargement.
It is my understanding that we have not agreed the terms of reference for the inquiry.
That is correct. What we have is just a suggestion.
Yes, so Fergus is mistaken about that—I will go no further than saying that he is genuinely mistaken. The terms of reference that we have are just a suggestion. Let me quote from the document, which I have had a chance to read. It says:
I am afraid that I have not had the chance to read the document, but does one not measure commitment by the mechanisms and by the use of resources?
Quite.
If you say that you are committed to something, you have to back it up by saying how. Surely you would do that by stating what resources and mechanisms you would put in place.
I understand the logic of that, but no resources have been identified yet, so to set off in that direction with the inquiry just would not work.
I agree with Mike Rumbles on that. Because of constituency commitments this morning, I have not had the opportunity to read the strategy document but, from what I have heard about it, the strategy is expected to point the direction for agriculture for a number of years. Obviously, the resource commitments will not all be in place at the moment. It would be rather foolish to consider the strategy only in terms of short-term resources, rather than considering the long-term strategy, which is what the document is about.
I am content for the one-day inquiry to consider the aspects that Mike highlighted. I do not see why that should prevent any member who wants to examine resources and mechanisms from doing so.
I am puzzled, as some of us have not yet received the document. The agenda states:
Would it cause a problem if we were to put off a decision on the scope of the inquiry until we have had a chance to read the document? We are being asked to suggest people whom the committee should contact, so that they have time to respond. Do we need to have determined the scope of the inquiry before we contact them or could we ask them for their comments on the Executive document?
We could agree the formal remit of the inquiry later, but if we want to deal with the matter on 18 September, we have to know whom we want to appear before the committee that day.
We have agreed that we will hold a one-day inquiry on the issue after the recess. Today we need to agree the remit and decide on witnesses. That will give people time to prepare and will allow them to make submissions to the committee if they have concerns about the strategy. I agree with Mike Rumbles: the document is not about resources and mechanisms, but about strategy and the longer-term vision. That should be our focus, too.
Would you agree to the inclusion of resources and mechanisms in the inquiry's remit, so that members who want to consider that can do so?
No, convener. I am suggesting that the inquiry should be about vision and commitment. I understand what Fergus Ewing is saying. My intention is not to hold down questioning, but to ensure that we get the inquiry right. The document is about vision and commitment. Our inquiry should be about whether the strategy will develop what the document says it will develop; it should be all-encompassing. I am against including resources in the inquiry's remit, because the document does not discuss resources.
This is about finding the right form of words.
To clarify matters, I will read my proposal again. I have already received a request from the official report to do that. I propose that the inquiry's terms of reference should be:
It has been suggested that we adjust the proposed wording slightly, replacing "commitment" with "level of commitment".
I do not object to that.
Do those terms of reference cover the issues that concern Fergus Ewing?
The inquiry should consider resources. If it does not, it will become slightly divorced from reality. We must deal with the world as it is. The document, in so far as I have had an opportunity to examine it, makes the point that resources from Europe are being reduced. We cannot consider the vision without considering whether there are resources to match it. I would not expect the inquiry to focus too much on resources, but I would expect that to be one of the issues considered. I would like to amend Mike Rumbles's proposal to incorporate a reference to how the vision can be translated into reality and to the necessary resources and mechanisms to achieve that.
Fergus Ewing stated that resources from Europe will decline because of enlargement. That is a supposition, as the matter has still to be decided. No one knows what the result of the negotiations will be. At the moment, the agricultural budget for Europe is set according to the Edinburgh agreement. It will continue to be set at the same level—in euros—as it has been for the past few years. Resources from Europe will become an issue only when the Council of Ministers decides whether the same resources should cover the central and eastern European countries, whether the budget should be increased or whether it should be decreased.
I know that George Lyon has not had an opportunity to study the document, so perhaps I can help him out. I have not been able to study the document fully, but I have looked at page 5, which states:
Fergus Ewing has gone off at a tangent—it is a red herring. We are considering "A Forward Strategy for Scottish Agriculture"—we are not talking about resources. As I have said before, I am sure that when we come to consider the strategy in September, the convener will not rule out any questions on the matters that Fergus Ewing raises, but I do not understand why Fergus Ewing wants them written into the terms of reference. I hope that we can pull this together and get on with it. I am sure that Fergus Ewing will accept that my proposal is straightforward and logical.
I am sorry that I missed the earlier discussion—I have a major constituency problem at the moment. Although I do not know the exact wording of the amendment and counter amendment, it seems to me that what the rural community is looking for is not soft words about vision and commitment. The rural community is facing a very hard situation; it is up against the wall. If the Rural Development Committee does not examine resources in some context, it will fail the rural community. Resources and the mechanisms for putting money into and giving assistance to the rural communities will be critical to the work of the Rural Development Committee over the next two years. We have all read reports about what people think about the Scottish Parliament.
Are we content to agree Mike Rumbles's proposal, with an amendment to include "level of commitment"?
I am quite happy with "vision and level of commitment". That is all-inclusive.
Are we content with that?
I take it that your interpretation of the phrase includes resources and that no one will dissent from that, convener.
It will be minuted as such.
Fine.
Is that agreed?
Are we moving on to discuss suggestions for witnesses now?
Yes.
I suggest the Scottish Crofters Union, which is missing from the list.
Yes, indeed.
I would like to suggest the Institute of Auctioneers and Appraisers in Scotland.
The radio debate this morning suggested concerns among people in the organic sector that the implications for that sector had not been made explicit. I wonder whether it would be worth while inviting someone from the organic sector to talk about those concerns.
I have only flicked through the document, but a number of pages mention quality of meat and standards. I wonder whether we should hear from the Food Standards Agency Scotland and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, which contributed to the document. We should also consider inviting the Scottish Trades Union Congress, because it might want an input to transport and environmental issues.
The clerks are noting all of this and it is developing into quite a long list. We will have to decide how to deal with it.
I agree with a good number of the suggestions that have been made, but we will have to be careful about the number of witnesses that we invite. We want to have time for decent questioning, so we will have to prioritise or risk having a huge procession of people going past us. All the people that have been mentioned have a legitimate interest in the issue, but the committee will have to prioritise.
I would like people from the financial sector to be included. That is important, because the way in which the banks have handled the rural community raises many questions. I know that the Royal Bank of Scotland is on the list, but we should hear from more than just one particular bank.
Margaret, do you have the document that others have in front of them? I think that I have a spare copy.
Probably not. I am sorry—I have been dealing with a critical constituency issue and stuff has been zapped around my office all morning.
I would like to suggest the Macaulay Land Use Research Institute. This is an agricultural issue so we should have researchers and academics who can talk about land use.
The list is now quite long. I suggest that we ask everyone on the list for a written submission. We would then be left with the problem of deciding, at some point during the recess, whom we want to speak to on the day.
Asking people to submit written evidence before the end of the recess would allow us to consider the submissions and then decide whom to invite at our next meeting.
If I remember correctly, we did something similar last year. We asked for written submissions and informed people that we might wish to see them on a specific date. We confirmed the invitation with two weeks' notice.
We have had some good suggestions but, if we want people to turn up on the day, we will have to take an early decision on invitations, to give people time to adjust their diaries. I suggest that, rather than involving the full committee, the reporters group should consider the list and try to prioritise the names.
I am not sure about requesting written submissions. All people will do is send us copies of the evidence that they submitted during the consultation on the document. That information is already available.
I presume that the convener meant that we should ask people to comment on the final document, rather than simply rehash their earlier submissions.
Indeed.
The list is lengthy, but every suggestion has been valid. I am not against the idea of prioritising the list, but it will be difficult to reduce it greatly. It has worried me from day one that we are talking about an inquiry of only one day—in fact, an inquiry of only three hours. I wonder whether we should consider allowing more time and extending the inquiry into the morning or another afternoon. This important subject is an enormous one to tackle in three hours.
Will we accept the recommendations and consider a time scale?
I formally suggest that the reporters group should consider the list. If the group cannot prioritise, it could recommend an extension to the time for seeing witnesses.
I second that.
We will initially seek written responses to the document.
I mentioned a couple of organisations that did not have input into the consultation but which might wish to comment on the final document.
I agree with George Lyon's and Alex Fergusson's suggestion. Even given a whole day, it would be difficult for all members to question a large list of witnesses effectively. We would need to keep the questions reasonably tight, which will involve some selection.
Are members also interested in discussing the issues raised with the Minister for Environment and Rural Development, at the end of the process?
The minister should be on the list of witnesses.
He is not yet on the list. If we must divide the evidence in two, do we want the minister at the end of the process, rather than at the beginning?
The reporters group will consider timetabling.
Who is on the reporters group?
The work programme reporters group consists of Fergus Ewing, Elaine Murray, George Lyon and me.
Perhaps we could arrange a meeting of the reporters group before the recess.
It was suggested that the reporters be appointed to identify key issues relating to the strategy and to investigate them.
Given that we have not even had a chance to examine the document properly, could not we discuss such issues when the group meets? Does that meet other members' approval?
We should wish Rhoda Grant a happy birthday.
I suggest that we move item 4 up the agenda and deal with it in the next few minutes, before we break.
Are members content to do that?
Meeting continued in private.
On resuming—
Previous
Subordinate Legislation