Official Report 124KB pdf
Item 2 is the agriculture inquiry, which we plan to do over the coming months. Members have received copies of the clerk's paper, which deals with the options for the 2001 inquiry. The paper covers two main areas. First, it outlines the general direction of the whole inquiry; secondly, it outlines the more detailed suggested terms of reference for investigating issues regarding the less favoured areas in the short term.
I am sorry to sound critical of the note from the clerk, but it does not seem to reflect the session that we had—admittedly in private—
I think that we would describe that as an informal discussion—I think that that is what we had.
Okay. The note does not seem to reflect that discussion, during which I made the point—as did several other members—that we should be looking at a snapshot of the state of Scottish agriculture in the round. Scottish agriculture existed before any Government schemes or direction.
As members are aware, I am not an expert on agriculture.
You soon will be.
In some senses, I hope not. I want to see the inquiry in the context of rural development. I would like the inquiry to cover a range of issues regarding the current position of agriculture in a Scottish context. What will its position be in the future and what systems and resources need to be put in place to ensure that we have an on-going agriculture industry in Scotland?
Are there any other comments?
I agree with what we have heard so far, but I thought that we were going to look forward a wee bit. We agreed that everything that we have done about agriculture has been firefighting. Just spending our time looking at what is in place and whether it is good, bad or indifferent is simply more firefighting. We need to take a new look at the situation, especially given the enlargement of the European Union. We should also consider how we are using rural development funding and what impact agriculture has on rural economies.
It was suggested that the committee should consider the future role of agriculture in the rural economy rather than in individual areas. What is detailed in the paper are a couple of specific topics: the rural development plan and the less favoured areas scheme. There is a big issue about less favoured areas, which we need to look at. We may also need to look at the EU beef commission proposals, as that is certainly an area of considerable anxiety in my neck of the woods. However, that is not a substitute for a much more general and less focused look at the role of agriculture to determine how we see agriculture developing.
I am sure that all four of the members who are not here today would have had comments to make on the agriculture inquiry. As we want our inquiry to be of a general nature, would it be in order to ask the clerk to develop the paper a little and bring it back to the full committee?
I would like to ask the clerks to develop the paper a lot.
More than one member of the committee has put pressure on me to deal with the proposed LFA scheme as a shorter-term issue. In the past, it has been suggested that we organise an inquiry on a single day, when we will take the opportunity to get the necessary information from the relevant interested parties. After that, we can draw up a brief report, which can subsequently be incorporated into the broader inquiry. We are now aware that the statutory instrument that relates to the scheme that is currently proposed for LFAs is likely to pass before us at the end of March or the beginning of April. It has now been published and will be circulated to members in the very near future, if it has not been already.
We probably have no choice but to approve that statutory instrument, but what troubles me is that we all know just how desperate the effect of the LFA deal is going to be. That is accepted by everybody now. It concerns me that this committee has no opportunity to contribute to a debate at a stage at which we can influence the outcome.
I am not sure that the case is so cut and dried. If the instrument will come before us only at the end of March, why can we not discuss it before it reaches us? We know the general thrust of the detail. Why must we discuss it only during the meeting at which we are presented with it? Why can we not discuss it before then, as a separate agenda item? That would allay the concerns that Fergus Ewing has outlined.
We can do that.
Like Fergus, I am of the opinion that we should not be expected to rubber stamp the instrument.
Let us hear a few more views before we decide how to deal with the matter.
I acknowledge and agree with the concerns of Fergus Ewing, Mike Rumbles and you, convener. The problem is that the scheme has approval from Europe. If we do not approve the SI, no funding will be allocated this year, leaving us in a difficult position. I am no happier with the scheme than anyone else, but 90 per cent of what was received last year is better than 0 per cent. We may have to work on that basis. I agree that we should pursue a short inquiry; however, it may take longer than one day, and I would not like us to limit ourselves to only one day's discussion.
No. I propose to invite the interested parties to express their objections to the scheme that has been put in place. We can then consider the SI as part of a more general inquiry into the ways in which support could be allocated to such areas in future. Specific issues have been raised and a number of organisations will want to come to the committee to give their views.
Can we discuss the matter over two days, then, before we receive the statutory instrument?
The instrument could be considered by the committee next week. However, if the Rural Development Committee is to be the lead committee on it, we will be obliged to wait until the Subordinate Legislation Committee has considered it before we dispose of it finally.
Does the committee want to gather the relevant interested parties to discuss the general issue at least a week before we address the instrument?
It is important that we do that. We can take evidence from people in preparation for dealing with the instrument. That is the most appropriate way in which to proceed.
Okay. We would normally request information from SERAD, but the interested parties in this matter are what we have come to describe as the usual suspects—the National Farmers Union of Scotland, the Scottish Crofters Union and the Scottish Landowners Federation. I propose to invite those organisations to express their views. Are there any other organisations or individuals whom we should consider?
Highland Council and the other Highland councils have built up expertise on crofting and farming. It would be helpful if they were invited to give evidence, possibly as witnesses.
The LFA is a Scotland-wide scheme and I am loth to invite only the councils from the Highlands and Islands. We must consider the other areas of Scotland too.
If specific expertise is available, we can ask them to contribute written evidence.
In that case, could we not make the invitation through the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities?
The authorities that are not in COSLA might want to be invited separately.
We will correspond with each organisation that has been mentioned and ensure that their views are available to us. I will attempt to bring those views together so that we can have a discussion and take some evidence at least one week before the final consideration of the statutory instrument.
Are you saying 20 March?
It could be done on the 27th—there would be time to discuss the instrument the following week. I will bring that information back to members as soon as we have confirmation.
When you mentioned the usual suspects—and the National Farmers Union of Scotland—did you consider inviting representatives of the trade unions that represent other agricultural workers? Are they on your list of usual suspects?
Not in this case, as the payment that is being disputed goes specifically to farmers and crofters.
I appreciate that in this instance, but could it be noted that the Transport and General Workers Union represents a number of agricultural workers? If the TGWU is not on your list of usual suspects, could we add it?
We will certainly take that into account.
Previous
Foot-and-mouth Disease