Rt Hon Lord Richard of Ammanford QC
Chair, The Richard Commission
Room 1/11
Cathays Park
CP1
Cardiff
CF10 3NQ |
|
Bae Caerdydd / Cardiff Bay
Caerdydd / Cardiff
CF99 1NA
|
|
31 January 2003
|
|
| Dear Lord Richard |
| Written submission of the Agriculture & Rural
Development Committee |
| I enclose a written submission to the Commission from
the Agriculture & Rural Development Committee of the
National Assembly. The submission was approved at the
Committee’s meeting on 29 January and supplements
that already provided by the Chair, Glyn Davies AM. |
| Yours sincerely |
|
|
Adrian Crompton
Committee Clerk
Agriculture and Rural Development Committee |
|
Richard Commission
|
|
Submission by the Agriculture &
Rural Development Committee
|
National Assembly for Wales
|
| Introduction |
| 1. The following submission is made on behalf of the
Agriculture and Rural Development Committee. The Commission
has already received a submission from the Chair of the
Committee, Glyn Davies AM, describing the Committee’s
mode of operation and role in scrutinising the Minister,
his policies and Assembly subordinate legislation. |
| 2. The main issues covered by this submission relate
to the extent of the powers available to the Assembly
within the Agriculture and Rural Development portfolio
and a more general issue related to the position of the
Minister as a member of a subject committee. |
| Maximising the National Assembly’s powers in
relation to agriculture and rural development |
| 3. To a large extent, policy on agriculture and fisheries
is driven by European Union policy, law and finance. The
Common Agricultural Policy and the Common Fisheries Policy
apply through Community legislation that has direct effect
across all Member States and so there is often little
scope for a Member State, or part of a Member State, to
act independently. The potential to develop distinctive
agricultural policy through legislation is, therefore,
limited. Nonetheless, the Committee believes that the
Assembly’s powers in this portfolio should still
be maximised. |
| 4. The handling of the foot and mouth outbreak in 2001
is, perhaps, the best single example of how greater legislative
powers would be of benefit. The nature of the modern livestock
industry means that steps taken to control a disease such
as Foot and Mouth must be coherent at a UK level. Nonetheless,
the outbreak demonstrated the need for government actions
to reflect regional and local circumstances. The distinctive
topography of Wales, the structure and patterns of its
agricultural industry, and the existence of the National
Assembly meant that, in several key areas, policy could
have been tailored, and decisions taken more quickly,
had the National Assembly had greater legislative responsibility.
Devolution of animal health powers would also have aided
public understanding of governmental accountability in
Wales and provided a clearer and more efficient decision-making
structure. |
| 5. In addition to powers in respect of animal health,
there are other areas where greater legislative powers
would allow distinctive Welsh policy to be developed.
The written submission of the Deputy First Minister and
Minister for Rural Development and Wales Abroad, for example,
identifies potential advantages in developing policy for
fisheries, plant health and bio-technology and the promotion
of rural development through voluntary bodies. The Assembly
as a whole has made clear its wish for powers to decide
on the question of hunting in Wales1. |
| Communication between the Assembly and other government
departments |
| 6. The Committee is not privy to the details of working
relationships between Ministers and officials in the Assembly
and those in other government departments. Nonetheless,
a recent example, related to the production by the Department
of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) of a report
on genetically modified crops2,
highlighted the need for better communication. We understand
that neither the Assembly Minister nor his officials,
had been aware of DEFRA’s intention to publish the
report despite the fact that the issue was known to be
of considerable interest to the Assembly at the time.
We hope that the Commission is able to consider the issue
of communication between the Assembly and other government
departments and make recommendations for its improvement.
|
| Assembly Ministers as members of subject committees |
| 7. The other issue the Committee wishes to draw to the
Commission’s attention relates to the requirement
of the Government of Wales Act3
that Ministers are members of subject committees. |
| 8. The requirement written into the Act was a logical
extension of the concept of the Assembly as a single corporate
body. Since 1999, a majority governing coalition has been
created and the Assembly has passed its resolution of
14 February 2002 for there to be ‘the clearest possible
separation between the Government and the Assembly which
is achievable under current legislation’. Although
the Committee does not have an agreed view on the relative
merits of the position of Ministers on subject committees
in this environment, it feels that this is something the
Richard Commission might usefully consider. |
| Conclusion |
| 9. We hope that this submission is helpful to the Commission. |
|
1 Plenary resolution
of 27 June 2000 calling on the Welsh Assembly Government
‘to request Her Majesty’s Government at Westminster
to allow the National Assembly for Wales to decide on
the question of hunting with dogs in Wales by framing
any Bill to provide for secondary legislative purposes
to this end’
2 DEFRA: Final report
on monitoring studies of field scale release of GM oilseed
rape in England from 1994-2000
3 Section 57(4) |
