Further 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 2% 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
|
