Call from Senedd members over final say on farming support
He said: 'Today, we're simply asking that this Senedd be given the opportunity to vote: a final, binding vote on the sustainable farming scheme before it is implemented. We all remember last year's protests. We know the strength of feeling across the country.
'A scheme of this scale, affecting over 80% of Wales' land, must carry democratic legitimacy. Let us vote. Let the elected members of this chamber, from every corner of Wales and from every party, have their say.'
The former journalist, who is from a farming family, warned of a 'cliff-edge' in the transition from the basic payment scheme (BPS), which is set to fall by 40 per cent, to the SFS.
He said: "If you don't join the SFS, you forfeit your BPS. If you do join the SFS, you forfeit your BPS entitlements. There's no going back… for you and your business. Is it any wonder anxiety is soaring? Is it any surprise that our farmers' mental health is deteriorating?'
Labour's Lesley Griffiths, a former rural affairs minister, was extremely disappointed to see Welsh ministers cut a target of 43,000 hectares of new woodland by more than 60 per cent, with plans for 10 per cent tree cover on every farm ditched.
Peter Fox, a Tory council leader-turned Senedd member, said he was planning to retire as a farmer having 'just about had enough', with the new SFS 'still laden with bureaucracy'.
'Most farmers just want to farm,' he said. 'They want to produce food and they want to look after their farm… but the priority in this SFS is clearly no longer food production.'
Labour's Lee Waters warned the debate around farming has been dragged into 'culture wars', with divisions heightened by political debate.
Deputy first minister Huw Irranca-Davies said Senedd members would get an opportunity to vote on regulations related to payment rates underpinning the scheme in the autumn.
In the final vote before the Welsh Parliament breaks for summer recess, Senedd members voted narrowly, 22-20, against the opposition motion
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
38 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Angela Rayner on lessons learned from Labour's first year
Pippa Crerar and Kiran Stacey speak to Angela Rayner about Labour's first year in government and the challenges ahead. The deputy prime minister reveals the issue that keeps her awake at night, reflects on why voters are frustrated with Labour, what she thinks the party can do about it, and how it's planning to take the fight to Reform
The National
an hour ago
- The National
It's hard to see new left party cutting through in Scotland
The first thing to say is that if it is able to break out of the factions and abbreviations which abound in the terrain to the left of Labour – and with 300,000 claimed sign-ups and a poll rating of 10% it just might – then it marks a very big change in socialist thinking. For more than a century, socialists who wanted to change capitalism have rubbed along in the Labour Party with those who just wanted a bit more from it. Now large sections of the Labour left look set to give up the ghost. For me, that ship sailed long ago. It's more than two decades since I became convinced that using the powers that Scotland would get with political independence offered a much better prospect of changing the world than trying to reform a British state run by people still steeped in the mindset of empire. READ MORE: Man arrested for 'carrying a placard calling Donald Trump an offensive word' Nonetheless it's an important debate. The political character of England should matter greatly to Scotland and this new party might even play a role here. In one sense the Labour left has nowhere to go. Those now in control of the party have made it perfectly clear radical views are no longer welcome within it. They have been demonised and purged. Labour is manifesting every bit as much intolerance and authoritarianism in its internal structures as it does in government. But how did it come to this? A short time ago the Labour left had more power than at any point in the party's history. Corbyn was leader and commanded the considerable resources provided to the parliamentary opposition by the state. The left controlled the conference and the NEC. And the mobilisation of the grassroots through Momentum was impressive in its day. Yet within a few short years it had all evaporated. Corbyn and others left or were expelled, policy was abandoned wholesale, and the Labour conference would sing the national anthem with no visible dissent. It has been a remarkable transition both in speed and scale. In part this is because the Corbyn project failed abjectly (Image: Getty) in its own terms. Jeremy became leader by accident. And he wasn't very good at it. I watched for years in the House of Commons the breathtaking disloyalty of the right-wing Labour parliamentarians towards the Corbyn front bench. It was embarrassing. Never have I seen such hostility and hate between political parties, never mind within one. But no-one got suspended, or expelled or deselected. They were ignored, left alone to operate as a party within a party. Despite his strength in the wider party organisation, Corbyn never moved against his enemy within. Too naïve, or too nice. Either way, a fatal mistake. Corbyn also never got out of his silo, unwilling or incapable of moving beyond his natural support. He should have developed a narrative about Brexit or constitutional reform that would have galvanised a wider alliance which the left could lead. He didn't. Once defeated, his opponents lost no time in eradicating any possible legacy. These right-wing parliamentarians had been busy making plans. There were organised by a ruthless and clever Irishman called Morgan McSweeney under the banner Labour Together. McSweeney built a strategy for power inspired by Odysseus. Seeing the popularity of left policies in the party, and among the electorate, he argued for 'Corbynism without Corbyn'. But he needed someone to front it who couldn't immediately be outed as a right-wing hack. Step forward the hapless Keir Starmer. You'll cringe to look now at the ten-point platform McSweeney drew up for Starmer's leadership bid. Common ownership, higher income tax on top earners, improving welfare, and more. It worked at the time. Those Labour members who hadn't left after their leader fell lapped it up. Once in position, McSweeney and his acolytes didn't show any hesitation that might have come from wanting to be nice or fair. At breakneck speed and with ruthless efficiency they brushed aside anyone in their way, including many on the soft left, which they saw as a gateway for extremists. They won through deceit, but at the price of the party itself. Which is why we've got a new one. So, what does this mean for us? We've just got used to Scotland being a plurality in which six parties compete. Are we now to have seven? It's hard to see. Certainly, there's plenty of discontent within Labour ranks, but not nearly as much as in places like London. Besides, there's already plenty of options where the disenchanted could escape to. And across it all lies the independence question. Not really something you can avoid. Is it plausible, or possible, for a new party to say we're really radical and want a complete overhaul of the system, but we are agnostic on whether Scotland should be an independent country or remain in the UK? Especially when they would, by definition, be living proof of the failure of the latter option.
Powys County Times
an hour ago
- Powys County Times
Letter: We must all hope new scheme works for farmers
Rattus was not impressed by the 2024 version of the Sustainable Farming Scheme SFS which will shortly replace the BPS payments in Wales which have kept most farms in profit for years. The latest version has dropped the 10% tree cover which was always going to be a major ask for many farmers but also a major contributor to acrimonious disputes. It also restored SSSI's to be included which was one of the ludicrous parts of the previous iteration. OK it is not perfect but correctly is focused on public money for public goods. Why should Welsh Government subsidize farmers to produce lamb for Europeans to eat? There are aspects of SFS that Rattus and farmers will struggle to understand such as the need for on farm soil testing UA1. There are aspects such as the Veterinary requirement UA12 that will make life difficult for landowners that let their land. The aspiration to restore hedgerows should be applauded but the details of payment rates will severely affect take up. What is missing is advice and guidance from the properly informed, who know your farm and your business and can point you in the right direction. That is not going to be easy but the reference to collaborative action via the Integrated Natural Resources Scheme might be the way forward. Welsh Government and RPW are reluctant to engage, hopeless at communication and fed up with being sworn at. They are not the best partners to restore biodiversity in Wales. If they tried to behave like real people you could talk to not AI automatons this might actually work. There is no point in demanding a different scheme. After seven-plus years it is what it is.
