5 ANALYSIS AND THE USE OF DATA
25. A number of submissions to our inquiry voiced
concerns over the use of statistics and the lack of analysis in
the Vision document. The NFU noted how "the slanted use of
statistical sources and the failure to recognise the positive
reforms already undertaken appear as fundamental faults",
before describing instances where figures were "bandied about
rather indiscriminately" and suggesting the way data was
presented could be "misleading".[39]
26. The TFA said it was greatly alarmed that the
Government should be quoting research which was now quite dated
in order to justify its position on the social and economic costs
of the CAP, concluding that "the position at the end of 2005
when the report was drafted was very different to that viewed
by the researchers quoted", with some references in the Vision
dating back as far as 1985.[40]
27. The CLA's written evidence described the Vision
paper as being "severely unbalanced", citing the lack
of any analysis of the impacts of the Vision on the UK farming
structure, employment and output, the upstream and downstream
effects of these changes, or on the environment.[41]
In oral evidence, the Association noted the paucity of analysis
that only amounted to a "total of nine paragraphs" to
cover all "the consequences of their Vision for the rural
economy, the English landscape and countryside". Dr Derrick
Wilkinson, the CLA's Senior Economist, went further, describing
the failure of HM Treasury and Defra "to put forward policies
which are based upon careful, well-thought out and balanced analyses"
as "a dereliction of their duty".[42]
28. Commissioner Fischer Boel was similarly scathing
about what she described to us as "a complete lack of analysis
behind this paper". She also described how her Commission
analysts had questioned the Vision's working assumptions regarding
the market effects of the liberalisation advocated in the report,
before calling for a proper impact assessment to be undertaken
by the UK Government to analyse carefully the consequences of
its proposals.[43]
29. In the face of such criticism, Defra responded
by asserting that "the paper was intended to stimulate debate
and research, especially in other Member States, rather than provide
precise estimates of agricultural parameters post reform".[44]
Defra also confidently assured readers of its "Autumn Performance
Report 2006" that the Department's work in the area of CAP
reform was "underpinned by the existence of a robust evidence
base to support the Vision".[45]
Furthermore, a critique of the use of statistics in the Vision
document, produced by the House of Commons Scrutiny Unit, prompted
Defra to submit a detailed rebuttal, addressing each of the issues
raised.[46]
Our conclusions
30. Despite Defra's helpful reply to the Scrutiny
Unit's critique, we believe there are several instances where
some clarification would have enabled a more balanced representation
of the statistics, where information could have been nuanced to
alert the reader to the fact that some data predated the most
recent reforms, and where it would have been helpful to have noted
the assumptions upon which the analysis was based. The Government's
lack of analysis to underpin its proposals was both a practical
and intellectual failing. We require the Government to explain
why it thought it right to publish a document which has been so
heavily criticised for its lack of rigour and up-to-date statistical
data by key groups whose support for CAP reform was vital. We
recommend that Defra publish a full impact assessment of the consequences
of its proposals, as requested by Commissioner Fischer Boel, in
time for the CAP 'health checks'.
39 Ev 99-100 Back
40
Ev 116 Back
41
Ev 1 Back
42
Q 6 Back
43
Qq 243-244 Back
44
Ev 85 Back
45
Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Autumn Performance
Report 2006, p 43 Back
46
See: Ev 224-226 and 84-86. Back
| 
