The UK Government's "vision for the Common Agricultural Policy"

by Great Britain: Parliament: House of Commons: Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee

2007 · The Stationery Office

In December 2005 the Government launched a "Vision for the Common Agricultural Policy", which was intended to stimulate debate and show how the Common Agricultural Policy should change in 10-15 years. This report examines the proposals and finds them a lost opportunity. The Government should have directed the debate towards scrapping the existing CAP and replacing it with a Rural Policy for the European Union. There should thus be a new Vision document, launched in a more subtle way so that allies for reform can be enlisted. The credibility of the document depends on the Government providing full and detailed evaluation of the impact of proposals on biodiversity, the environment, markets for agricultural goods and individual farm enterprises. This should be done by mid 2008. The long-term justification of the expenditure of taxpayers' money is the provision of public benefit. These public goods should be measurable and capable of evaluation.

Select Committee Effectiveness, Resources and Powers

by Great Britain: Parliament: House of Commons: Liaison Committee

2012 · The Stationery Office

Drawing on reports from committees, evidence from outside observers and academic research, this report concludes that two years after the general election and the Wright reforms, the evidence is "broadly encouraging" - although committees face some obstacles and there is room for improvement. The "old doctrine by which ministers alone are accountable to Parliament for the conduct of their department is being stretched to implausibility and there is a need for a changed approach. It recommends that the Government engage with the Liaison Committee in a review of the relationship between Government and select committees with the aim of producing joint guidelines for departments and committees, which recognise ministerial accountability, the proper role of the Civil Service and the legitimate wish of Parliament for more effective accountability. The report also makes numerous recommendations for Committees, including: that they be forward-looking in scrutiny of departmental performance, devoting less effort to raking over the coals of past events unless there are lessons to be learnt; give more attention to the financial implications of departmental policy and how departments assess the effectiveness of their spending; experiment with different approaches to evidence-taking, broaden the range of witnesses, and make more use of commissioned research; follow up recommendations to ensure that reports have impact and report to the House at least once each Session on what has been done The Committee intends to ask the Backbench Business Committee for time for a debate in the House of Commons on a motion endorsing its conclusions and recommendations

The work of committees in 2008-09

by Great Britain: Parliament: House of Commons: Liaison Committee

2010 · The Stationery Office

work of committees In 2008-09 : Second report of session 2009-10, report, together with formal minutes and Appendices

Annual Report For 2004

by Great Britain: Parliament: House of Commons: Liaison Committee

2005 · The Stationery Office

Annual report For 2004 : First report of session 2004-05, report, together with appendices and formal Minutes

More cold comfort

by Great Britain: Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

2011 · The Stationery Office

The Parliamentary Ombudsman, Ann Abraham, has upheld complaints from nine farmers about the Government's handling of a subsidy scheme which caused them to miss out on payments they were entitled to. The farmers complained to the Ombudsman about the administration of the Single Payment Scheme (SPS) in 2005 and 2006 by the Rural Payments Agency (RPA), part of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), The SPS is the latest generation of the EU schemes intended, among other policy aims, to give farmers direct income support. The farmers complained about RPA's handling of their claims to the SPS on a number of counts, including that they provided poor quality and sometimes ambiguous guidance on how to make a claim; failed to return applicants' telephone calls when this had been promised; misdirected applicants about the status of their cases; delayed letting applicants know that they would not be paid; and did not explain their decisions properly. RPA also failed to consider the effects their errors and omissions had on the farmers when they came to complain. In one case, a farmer misunderstood the new form and only claimed a subsidy for the year 2005. She did not activate her claim and subsequently did not receive a payment. No one questioned her mistake, even though RPA knew this was a common error by farmers. Losing a payment of over £13,000 left the farmer unable to pay all her bills and reliant on her partner's goodwill. She found out her mistake almost a year after submitting her claim, when she asked what had happened to her payment. Another farmer also misunderstood the new form and guidance and did not activate his claim. He was then led to believe by the RPA that he would be paid, which was not the case. He and his wife found the confusion and uncertainty of their circumstances particularly stressful. The farmer had to increase his overdraft, sell land and take on extra part time work in order to meet the financial shortfall. As a result of the Ombudsman's investigation the farmers will each receive a written apology from the Permanent Secretary of Defra and compensation of £500 for the inconvenience, distress and frustration that they experienced. They will also receive individual payments to put right the financial impact of RPA's failures. In addition, the Ombudsman has also asked RPA to provide an action plan setting out the changes they have made to prevent other farmers experiencing the same problems in future.

Turning the Tide

by Great Britain. Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, Sir Tom Blundell

2004 · The Stationery Office

This Royal Commission report on protection of the marine environment focuses on the impact of marine fishing in the seas around the UK, both on fish populations and the wider ecosystem. It consider a range of issues including the role of the fishing industry and its growth over the last 50 years; the legal framework for the marine environment and fisheries, at the national, European and international levels; the impact of fishing and the legacy of overfishing; aquaculture fisheries; marine protected areas; improved fisheries management; and a system of marine spatial planning. The report concludes that, as a society, we give much lower priority to protecting our seas compared with the land, and over-fishing is a global problem which has led to the collapse of fisheries in many areas. This situation requires significant urgent change which recognises the need for sustainable fisheries management and avoids the degradation of our seas, placing it within the context of wider management of human activities in the marine environment. Recommendations made include: the introduction of a Marine Act to establish a statutory framework with strategic objectives for marine environmental protection; a move away from a presumption in favour of fishing rights to a precautionary approach which requires demonstration that fishing activity is environmentally sustainable; establishing a network of marine protected areas within the UK over the next five years, which would lead to 30 per cent of the UK's exclusive economic zone being closed to commercial fishing; and a change in the emphasis of research away from management of fish populations towards a wider focus on the marine environment.