FUW give evidence to Westminster's Welsh Affairs Committee
Last week the Farmers' Union of Wales welcomed the opportunity to present evidence to Westminster's Welsh Affairs Committee inquiry into the challenges and opportunities facing farming in Wales in 2025.
The FUW was represented by our Head of Policy, Gareth Parry, who was questioned by MPs on a number of the ongoing challenges facing Welsh agriculture; including the UK's withdrawal from the European Union, the changes to agricultural and business property relief and how changes to the UK Government's funding for Welsh agriculture will impact the sustainability of the sector.
As part of the session, the FUW highlighted the impact the UK's departure from the EU has had due to the loss of the intermediate-term stability provided by the EU's seven year Multiannual Financial Framework.
The lack of such replacement financial frameworks has allowed the UK Government to apply the Barnett Formula to any future adjustments to Welsh agricultural funding, meaning that Wales will receive subsequent uplifts based on a historical share of the UK population as opposed to rural needs.
Beyond the uncertainty regarding future farm funding, the FUW also highlighted how successive UK governments' appetite to sign trade agreements with other countries has undermined domestic food production.
These agreements threaten to pull the rug from beneath Welsh farmers by reforming agricultural policies and replacing domestic food production with imports, with little consideration of the economic viability of Welsh farming businesses.
Several questions during the session focused on the proposed inheritance tax reforms, with Mr Parry relaying the latest figures from Family Business UK and CBI Economics on the potential impacts for the UK economy.
In summary, the report suggests that the reduction in business activity will lead to a loss in Gross Value Added (GVA) of £14.8 billion over the next five years.
These latest figures again demonstrate HM Treasury's failure to consider the wider economic and social impacts of the proposed changes, and far-reaching implications on Welsh family farms and the economy.
Frustratingly, it's been clear since the Budget announcement that HM Treasury Officials have had no intention of even acknowledging our concerns.
They have slammed the door on the industry and appear to have thrown away the key.
It remains the case that the FUW are not calling for the policy to be scrapped, however we continue to seek an opportunity to design a policy with HM Treasury that works for genuine family farms whilst closing the loopholes that currently exist.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The National
13 minutes ago
- The National
SNP must treat the Holyrood lists as the most important votes
The interface between psephology and mathematics is an unlikely place to look for an inspiring political discussion. But it is an area we need to get into. Scotland's additional member system is a hybrid of two different methods of election. There are 73 individual constituencies which elect a single MSP by first past the post (FPTP). The country is also divided into eight regions in each of which seven MSPs are elected from a party list. READ MORE: Poverty levels in Scotland below UK for 20 years, graphs show The list representation is quite deliberately intended to compensate parties who do badly out of the FPTP contests. It makes the numbers of MSPs from each party more in line with the votes cast for them. From the start, the system was a cop-out, accepting the gross and unfair distortions of FPTP, but preferring to put a sticking plaster on it rather than change it. It never ceases to amaze me that while on paper there is a massive cross-party majority against FPTP, the Scottish Parliament, unlike its Welsh counterpart, has never seen fit to change the electoral system it was given by Westminster. In theory, there is no reason why you could not allocate additional members through making a calculation of the votes already cast in constituencies. But we don't. Instead, voters are asked to make a separate vote on a different ballot paper. It is that vote, and only that vote, which is used to calculate what share of seats parties should have. These two votes are intended to be part of a single process of determining representation. But I'm pretty sure most people see them as two quite separate choices. Those electors who are still fairly strongly aligned to the party of their choice will probably vote the same way on each ballot. But a growing number of people are not strongly aligned to one party, they swing between them. A lot of them regard the regional vote as an invitation to make a second choice. Now that you've voted for your MSP, which other party would you like to see in the parliament? It feels like they are expressing a preference, giving the system their first and second choices. But it doesn't work like that. In reality, if you vote for a different party on the list, you may effectively cancel out your first choice. So, without your knowledge or intent, your actions may prevent the party you wanted elected from winning. In elections where one party dominates the constituency ballots, this might not be that much of a problem since the biggest party will be hard placed to get seats off the list anyway. But when the electorate's will is volatile and six-party contests make outcomes uncertain, a system in which one vote unwittingly negates the other is a democratic problem. READ MORE: Kenny MacAskill: Do Scots really want to dance to Keir Starmer's military tune? Scotland's political parties have themselves reinforced the illusion that voters are being asked to rank more than one preference. The best example being the 'second vote Green' strategy. But even 'both votes SNP' tells people there are two different votes and implies there's an option of making different choices in each. The SNP have been the decisive constituency victor in the past three elections. In consequence, the party has come to see regional contests as less important. Lists are made up of the same candidates that are fighting the constituencies. For them, it's a belt and braces approach to getting elected. But for some voters, this increases the chance of their vote going elsewhere. They can't see the point of voting for someone on the list who they've already backed with their constituency ballot. Even now, the party has had all its constituency candidates in place for two months and has not begun the process of choosing regional ones. There is almost an acceptance that nothing can be done about the gap in voting intention between constituency and regional ballots. John Swinney speaks at an SNP event which saw the party confirm all its constituency candidates for the 2026 elections (Image: PA) This is a mistake. The only way in this system to get a majority is by winning in both constituencies and lists. And the best way to do that is to drive up the share of support in the regional ballot. Increased shares on the list will drag up votes in the constituencies. It doesn't happen the other way round. So that means a national message must be central to a winning campaign. High-profile teams of candidates not running in individual constituencies need to campaign on a wider terrain. The choice on the list must be presented as the most important, not seen as an afterthought. If anything, it's your main decision. Decide who you want to lead the government first and having done that now choose your local representative. The SNP tried to do this in 2011 with the slogan 'Alex Salmond for First Minister'. It was the only time the party won a majority. We should learn that lesson.
Coin Geek
38 minutes ago
- Coin Geek
EU clarifies legality of shared order books
Homepage > News > Business > EU clarifies legality of shared order books Getting your Trinity Audio player ready... A shared order book involving non-EU licensed exchanges would be a breach of Markets in Crypto Assets Regulation (MiCA) rules, the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) has confirmed. The insight comes from ESMA's series of Q&As aimed at demystifying MiCA, which governs the provision of digital asset services to EU citizens. Though MiCA was agreed upon and officially entered into force in 2023, the full suite of rules it institutes only began coming into force at the end of 2024. As such, ESMA has been publishing Q&As on aspects of the rules and how they apply in practice. Last week, ESMA published an answer that asked about the legality of the shared order book model under MiCA, particularly where the co-sharer is a non-EU trading platform. A shared order book contrasts with the typical model where each exchange keeps its own order book. If you place a bid on one exchange, you'll only be matched with a seller on that exchange, while sellers' offerings will only be available to users of the exchange they choose to list on. Under a shared order book model, orders are propagated to multiple exchanges at once. One of the specific advantages of a shared order book is increased liquidity. Market participants are also more likely to be given a true view of the market for a particular asset as more exchanges are working off the same order book. A shared order book might also be more tamper-proof and resistant to manipulation than a siloed order book may otherwise be. Answering the specific question of whether a shared order book involving a non-EU licensed entity, the ESMA is clear that this would be non-compliant: 'No, this model would be in breach of the authorization requirements under Article 59 of MiCA and would constitute the unauthorized provision of the crypto-asset service of operation of a trading platform for cryptoassets in the Union by the unauthorized entities whose platform(s) share the order book with the EU-authorized CASP.' This makes sense under MiCA. If entities providing digital asset services (known under MiCA as the 'crypto-asset service provider' (CASP) must be registered and licensed under MiCA, then a non-licensed, non-EU company would be breaching MiCA by providing 'crypto-asset' services in the EU without authorization. That, of course, says nothing about shared order books involving only EU-registered platforms. The ESMA's explanation says that its answer should not be taken as an assessment of whether other types of shared order books are compliant. However, provided all parties to the order book are MiCA-compliant, there would presumably be no conflict with MiCA rules. That's just as well: it's an exciting time for digital assets, particularly because the more legal clarity is provided to the industry, the more companies have been willing to experiment with new business models using digital assets, particularly blockchain technology. Blockchain enthusiasts will almost certainly read this promise of a less centralized, tamper-proof order book and begin thinking about how it might be served by digital ledger technology. What if the shared order book was not entrusted to one managing exchange or intermediary but was run on the blockchain? After all, if the benefits of a shared order book are resistance to manipulation and access to multiple streams of data at the same time, it seems foolish not to take the extra step of ensuring that this order book runs on truly decentralized technology. In BSV, this is already a reality. Ordinal Lock is a sCrypt Bitcoin script that allows a seller to list their blockchain-based asset—BSV or anything else—and have that asset locked behind a script that will only release the token upon paying the seller a fixed amount of BSV to a user-defined address. Everything else handles itself: this simple script essentially allows the entire blockchain to function as an order book. Every bid, every sale, and every exchange of BSV is public and auditable, effectively serving as an open order book viewable by anyone. It's a good thing MiCA has laid down such concretely defined rules of the road for the provision of this service. Anyone wanting to use Ordinal Lock can do so compliantly within the EU, as long as they register with a national authority as MiCA requires. Watch: Reggie Middleton on DeFi, booms/busts & crypto regulation title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen="">
Scottish Sun
an hour ago
- Scottish Sun
Vital scheme to get 1,000s on the get on property ladder with tiny deposit ends TODAY – full list of rival deals
Plus we reveal what other support is out there for first time buyers HOUSE HELP Vital scheme to get 1,000s on the get on property ladder with tiny deposit ends TODAY – full list of rival deals Click to share on X/Twitter (Opens in new window) Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) A POPULAR scheme which helps thousands get on the property ladder ends today. The Mortgage Guarantee Scheme was first launched in 2021 and allows buyers to purchase a home with just a 5% deposit. Sign up for Scottish Sun newsletter Sign up 1 The Mortgage Guarantee Scheme helps buyers get on the ladder with a 5% deposit Credit: Getty It can be used to purchase homes worth up to £600,000. The government will then provide a guarantee to the lender to cover some losses if the buyer cannot repay their mortgage and the property gets repossessed. The scheme is set to end today, Monday June 30. But all hope is not lost for those looking for help to get on the property ladder. A new permanent mortgage guarantee scheme is set to launch next month. Plans for the support were initially laid out in the Chancellor's Spending Review earlier this month. Guarantees issued under the scheme will be valid for seven years after the mortgage is approved. Lenders who opt into the programme will also pay HM Treasury a fee for each mortgage entered into the scheme. Emma Reynolds, the economic secretary to the Treasury, said: "We committed to introduce a permanent mortgage guarantee scheme in our election manifesto to ensure buyers with smaller deposits can get a mortgage and fulfil their home ownership ambitions." The mortgage deals were popular leading up to the 2008 financial crash but were phased out afterwards. 5 things to check before applying for a mortgage WHAT OTHER DEALS ARE ON THE MARKET? News of the relaunch comes as many lenders are now offering their own 5% mortgage deals. Nationwide just recently launched a 95% mortgage for buyers looking to purchase a new build home. The offer also allows customers to borrow six times their annual income through its Helping Hand scheme. Elsewhere, Skipton Building Society offers a 100% mortgage deal that allows you to buy a home without a deposit. A similar mortgage deal was recently launched by April Mortgages too. Customers would need to have a household income of at least £24,000 and be looking to buy or remortgage a house that's valued at more than £75,000. The mortgage deal is available on 10 and 15-year fixed terms, so buyers would need to be happy to lock in for a long period of time. However there are no early repayment charges if you decide to move home or if you repay the mortgage in full. Yorkshire Building Society also has a 95% mortgage offer for first and second time home buyers. The fixed deal has an Annual Percentage Rate of Charge of 6.5%. This is a calculation that represents the total cost of a mortgage over its entire term, including all fees and interest. Elsewhere, First Direct also offers a 4.95% mortgage offer. The offer is fixed at 4.95% for five years before reverting to 6.74%. It has an APRC of 6.1% but offers no underpayments or payment holidays if you end up in financial difficulty. WHAT SUPPORT IS OUT THERE FOR FIRST TIME BUYERS? There are plenty of other support schemes for first time buyers. Earlier this year, TSB launched a new "5&5" concessionary mortgage option for its customers. Under the lender's new scheme, landlords would offer their tenants a 5% discount on the property's market value in exchange for putting down a minimum of 5% deposit. Concessionary mortgages allow wannabe homeowners to bag a property for less than the market value. They are usually used by landlords selling a house to their tenants, or someone selling a property to a relative. A number of lenders offer some variation of this mortgage type including Barclays and Natwest. Another option is a Lifetime ISA (LISA) which is designed to help people save for either a first home or retirement. The account is tax-free and anyone aged between 18-39 can open one. You can save up to £4,000 a year and the government will then add a 25% bonus on top. If you save the maximum amount between the ages of 18 and 50 you could get as much as £32,000 for free. You'll also earn tax-free interest on your savings pot, including the added extra from the government. If you choose to buy a property it must cost less than £450,000 and you must buy it at least 12 months after you make your first payment into the Lifetime Isa. There are strict withdrawal rules surrounding a LISA that prospective users should be aware of. For example, you can only make an authorised withdrawal from your LISA to purchase a house or if you are terminally ill. Elsewhere, the banking watchdog is looking to relax lending rules to help buyers get on the property ladder. The FCA said it would like to hear views on whether its rules "could better support more interest‑only mortgages'. The body said: "Interest‑only mortgages could be suitable for consumers who may struggle to afford a repayment mortgage and can support sustainable home ownership.' With this type of product, all you pay each month is the interest on the amount you borrowed.
