Letter from the Rt Hon Michael Jack MP,
Chairman, Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Select Committee
to Lord Bach, Minister for Sustainable Farming and Food (RPA 12)
1. At its meeting on 25 January,
the Committee discussed your comments on 'Farming Today' and the
'Today' programme on 24 January, and your letter to the Financial
Times of 25 January, about the Committee's interim report on the
Rural Payments Agency. Committee colleagues asked me to write
to you, on their behalf, about your comments.
2. You stated in the media
that several of our conclusions were "utter nonsense",
citing in particular the report's comments on timing of payments,
financial impact on farmers and the apparent "complacency"
of Ministers. On the first point, our report noted that the RPA
had indicated in January 2004 that payments would commence in
February 2006, and expressed our shock that, so close to this
date, no definitive date on which payments would
be made had been announced, and that it was still not clear to
farmers whether they would receive a full or partial payment (paragraphs
1, 3 and 13). The Committee does not believe this is an unreasonable
conclusion.
3. On your second point, about
the financial impact on farmers, in your Farming Today interview
you denied that you had referred to an "average farm".
The Committee noted in its report that you referred to the fact
that £25 million of extra interest was only about two per
cent set against "an annual average change in [farmers']
income" (Q 30). The Committee's point was that, while this
sum is a small percentage of the total income, as you noted,
for individual businesses on the margins of viability the
impact of late payment of SFP could be too much to bear (paragraph
8).
4. Thirdly, you have argued
that to accuse you of complacency is "utter nonsense"
(Financial Times) and "offensive" (Farming Today). Our
comment was mainly based on your statement to the Committee, in
response to a question about whether, with hindsight, there was
anything you could have done differently: "I cannot think
of anything I could have done although others may well think of
things I could have done" (Q 24). Hence our conclusion -
which, once again, we do not think unreasonable - that we were
"dismayed at the complacency of the Minister, who refused
to admit that any mistakes had been made or that anything could
have been done differently to avoid the problems" (Paragraph
12).
5. You have also said, on Farming
Today, that the timing of the report "could create unfounded
alarm and uncertainty in the farming community". Given that
the impetus for our inquiry, and this interim report, was the
huge degree of uncertainty, frustration and indeed anger among
farmers, we hardly feel that our report - which has been welcomed
by farmers' representatives - can be said to have "created"
alarm and uncertainty.
6. Finally, in the course of
your interview on the Today programme, it was put to you that
this was a report from a cross-party committee. You replied that
"very strongly chaired, in my view, by the Conservative chairman",
apparently implying that party political considerations had played
a part in the report's findings. While the Committee accepts that
Ministers will not always like the conclusions it reaches, we
were very disappointed to hear this comment about the way the
Committee works. Like other select committees, we seek to work
by consensus, reaching conclusions on the basis of evidence presented,
as on this occasion. As you know, the inquiry into the RPA was
led by two of my colleagues, David Taylor and Roger Williams,
and members of all parties took part in the oral evidence session
on 13 January. Colleagues have asked me to emphasize that the
report, for which they take full responsibility, was agreed for
publication without the need for a formal division.
7. We would welcome any further
comments you might have on the points I have set out above. We
look forward to the additional written information which we requested
at the oral evidence session and subsequently by letter, and will
take this into account in preparing our final report on the RPA.
As we consider this further information, the Committee will also
wish to determine the need for a further oral evidence session
with Defra and the RPA prior to the completion of our final report.
Rt Hon Michael Jack MP
30 January 2006
|
