First Minister accused of ‘not giving a hoot' about food security
Plans for the scheme, which is designed to replace the funding for Welsh farmers previously given by the European Union, first began after Brexit.
Eluned Morgan was tackled about changes to the controversial scheme following 18 months of consultation with the farming sector.
During First Minister's Questions in the Senedd, Opposition leader, Darren Millar, criticised what he said was a lack of an economic impact assessment.
He asked Eluned Morgan: 'So can you tell us how many job losses this new scheme will cause? What will be the financial hit to the rural economy, and why are you waiting until September to publish a full economic impact assessment of the scheme?'
The First Minister said, 'We have listened to the agricultural community, we recognise the valuable contribution they make to our nation, not just in terms of the economy, but in terms of those wider issues like the environment, like the contribution to our tourism economy.
'When it comes to the impact assessment, there will be a ready reckoner tool available so that prior to the Royal Welsh, people will be able to punch in their particular circumstances, and they will be able to assess how it affects them.'
The Conservative leader said that, 'The problem is that in my constituency and the constituencies represented in this chamber don't want a ready reckoner. They want to know if their jobs are on the line and whether they have still got the opportunity to make a decent living.'
He went on to criticise the Sustainable Farming Scheme for prioritising environmental measures over food security and added that, 'it doesn't even mention the term 'food security' throughout the whole document. It's not mentioned one single time, because you do not give a hoot about food security. First Minister. In contrast, the word 'environment' is mentioned almost 80 times.
'Can you tell us why is there no mention of the term food security in your new schemes document? Why are you still prepared to sacrifice an area of 17,000 acres, half the size of the Vale of Glamorgan' for planting trees?'
In response, the First Minister said 'We know that farmers are very serious about the environment. We know that they are hyper-aware of the very dry patch that we've been through recently, and how that's affecting them, how they need to make these long term investments, and they know more than anyone the impact of climate change.
'We're asking them to help us to make a contribution to addressing the issue of climate change. And I think planting trees has an important contribution. Farmers will choose the right tree in the right place, and we'll be providing incentives for early planting, the budget and the advice and give guidance to farming with that.
'We're not going to apologise for the fact that we do want to see some tree planting, but it will be more flexible than what was initially suggested.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
a few seconds ago
- Reuters
Closures, disposals reshaping the global petrochemical sector
MILAN/HOUSTON/NEW DELHI, July 21 (Reuters) - A wave of closures and disposals is reshaping the global petrochemical sector as companies around the world rethink their exposure to markets as they adjust to capacity build-up in China and higher costs in Europe. The European Union is being hit the hardest by the rationalisation, while the United States and the Middle East are considered relatively immune. Petrochemical makers in Asia are also reducing capacity but at a slower pace compared with the EU. Here is a list of some of the major closures, divestment and portfolio reviews: ** U.S.-based LyondellBasell (LYB.N), opens new tab in June said it had started exclusive talks to sell four olefin and polyolefin plants in Europe to Munich-based investment firm AEQUITA. The sites to be sold are in France, Germany, Britain and Spain. The company has also said it is evaluating options for its factories in the Netherlands and Italy. ** U.S. chemical giant Dow Inc (DOW.N), opens new tab said at the beginning of July it would shut down three upstream sites in Europe: an ethylene cracker in Böhlen, Germany and chlor-alkali & vinyl assets in Schkopau, Germany, and its siloxanes plant in Barry, Britain. The company also announced in January that it would idle a cracker in the Netherlands. ** U.S. oil major ExxonMobil (XOM.N), opens new tab said last year it would shut down the steam cracker and close chemical production at Gravenchon in France, adding that the site had lost more than 500 million euros ($582.75 million) since 2018 and remains uncompetitive. ** British oil company Shell (SHEL.L), opens new tab in April completed the sale of its energy and chemicals park in Singapore, which includes a refinery, an ethylene cracker and other petrochemical assets. The group's top executives told a post-results conference call in May that the group was undertaking a review of its chemical business, including in Europe. Shell hired Morgan Stanley to conduct the strategic review of its chemicals operations in Europe and the United States, the Wall Street Journal reported in March, citing sources. ** BP (BP.L), opens new tab said in February it was looking for potential buyers for its Ruhr Oel refinery, cracker and downstream assets at Gelsenkirchen in Germany. ** French oil major TotalEnergies ( opens new tab said in April it would shut its oldest steam cracker in Antwerp, Belgium, by end-2027, citing a "significant surplus of ethylene expected in Europe". ** Eni ( opens new tab will complete the closure of Italy's two last steam crackers by the end of this year. One is in Brindisi, Apulia, and the second in Priolo, Sicily. It also closed a polyethylene plant in Ragusa, Sicily. ** Poland's Orlen ( opens new tab said at the end of 2024 it would scale back plans for its olefins petrochemical project, pushing back output until at least 2030 and aiming to cut its estimated cost by as much as a third. ** U.S. chemical group Huntsman Corp (HUN.N), opens new tab announced the closure of its polyurethanes facility in Deggendorf, Germany, and the reduction of some of its other sites and facilities around Europe. The company will close a facility located in Moers, Germany. The closure is expected to be complete by the end of the current quarter. ** Japan's largest oil refiner, Eneos (5020.T), opens new tab, said in February that it would consider partially halting an ethylene production facility at its Kawasaki refinery at the end of 2027 due to falling demand. It said in March that it would gradually halt production of lubricants and some petroleum products at its Yokohama plant near Tokyo by March 2028, but will consider relocating lubricants' output to other facilities. ** Saudi Petrochemical Group SABIC said last year it planned to permanently shut one of its two naphtha-fed crackers at its plant in Geleen, the Netherlands. ($1 = 0.8580 euros)
Telegraph
a few seconds ago
- Telegraph
Peers clash in pivotal vote on Telegraph ownership
The fate of The Telegraph is to be decided this week in a contentious House of Lords vote on foreign state shareholdings. The Government is pressing ahead on Tuesday with legislation to allow the United Arab Emirates (UAE) to retain a passive stake of up to 15pc. Easing an outright ban on foreign powers investing in newspapers is viewed as crucial to unlocking a £500m takeover of The Telegraph by RedBird Capital, an American private equity firm. A previous bid, majority-funded by the UAE, was blocked last year following a cross-party outcry over press freedom. A Lords vote on a statutory instrument that has already been approved by the House of Commons would normally be a formality. However, the Liberal Democrats have tabled a rare 'fatal motion' which could block the proposals and effectively overrule the elected chamber. Writing in The Telegraph on Monday, Lord Fox, the Lib Dem business spokesman, labelled the legislation 'nothing more than a desperate attempt to appease foreign rulers'. The UAE, a significant foreign investor in Britain, took offence at the decision to block the previous takeover bid and suspended some diplomatic ties. Lord Fox said: 'By letting the Government defy Parliament, which effectively banned foreign state shareholdings last year, there will likely be a domino effect. This could leave many of our newspapers susceptible to the advances of foreign governments. 'This issue transcends party allegiances, and if we pass the fatal motion tabled in my name we can stop this dangerous legislation in its tracks.' The Conservatives are expected to support the Government. However a group of Tory rebels have signalled that they will back the fatal motion, and Lord Fox said he had drawn further support from Labour, cross-bench and non-aligned peers. Also writing in The Telegraph, Lord Black, a Conservative peer and the deputy chairman of Telegraph Media Group, said of the Lib Dem motion that 'the hypocrisy is breathtaking'. The peer was a leading figure in efforts by news publishers to resist curbs on press freedom in the wake of the Leveson Inquiry. He said the Lib Dems then advocated 'onerous statutory controls wholly inimical to freedom of expression'. Lord Black said: 'My colleagues in the Lords should not fall for it and understand that this is not a parliamentary game. This is deadly serious. The future of the British press hangs in the balance.' He warned that allowing passive stakes of up to 15pc for foreign state-linked investors was critical at a time of severe pressure on traditional news publishing revenues. The takeover of The Telegraph should be welcomed, given the 'watertight safeguards to protect editorial independence in place', Lord Black added. If the legislation passes, the UAE is in line to become a passive minority investor. Any suspicion of the Gulf state influencing The Telegraph could spark an official investigation and action to force it out as a shareholder. Lord Rothermere, the Daily Mail owner, Sir Leonard Blavatnik, the global media investor, are also expected to take small stakes in a deal spearheaded by Gerry Cardinale, the founder of RedBird. RedBird has been preparing to formally submit the takeover for regulatory scrutiny soon, and working on growth plans. It is unclear what would happen if peers blocked the legislation, beyond further uncertainty for The Telegraph. It has been more than two years since its previous owners, the Barclay family, lost control in a dispute with their lender Lloyds Banking Group. The UAE helped the family repay their overdue debts in a misguided manoeuvre intended to secure ownership of The Telegraph. We can stop this dangerous legislation in its tracks By Lord Fox A robust free press is a pillar holding up democracy. And The Telegraph has been a bastion of our 'fourth estate' since 1855. But this could all end when on Tuesday the Government seeks to overturn the will of Parliament and let investors controlled by foreign powers take stakes of up to 15pc in our press. This exercise in foreign influence on our media will start with The Telegraph, for which a bid that includes a United Arab Emirates-controlled vehicle is on the table. But it won't end there. By letting the Government defy Parliament, which effectively banned foreign state shareholdings last year, there will likely be a domino effect. This could leave many of our newspapers susceptible to the advances of foreign governments. Additional new legislation, which is also being debated, will extend their ability to buy stakes of up to 15pc to online news publications. I am sorry to say that this is nothing more than a desperate attempt to appease foreign rulers. That's why I'm calling on all my House of Lords colleagues to act. This issue transcends party allegiances, and if we pass the fatal motion tabled in my name we can stop this dangerous legislation in its tracks. It is now or never. We really do stand at a Rubicon. I am deeply grateful for the support and friendship of colleagues across party lines, including Conservatives, Labour, cross-bench and non-aligned peers, on this issue. They all understand how serious it is for the Lords to take such action. But we cannot sit by and watch this happen before our eyes. So, I am sincerely hoping that the House will be full on Tuesday. Voting for a fatal motion is rare but not unknown. It should be reserved for fundamental issues like this. I will remind fellow Lords that the Government's plan deliberately subverts legislation passed only 15 months ago. I will explain that the initial instrument has already been exposed as faulty in that it allows for multiple foreign states to take stakes of 15pc each. A corrective measure will be tabled in the autumn, but the Government ploughs on regardless in the meantime. Who knows what damage will be done before that happens? Then I will explain that there is every likelihood of other UK media assets also having significant foreign state ownership. And I will take on the naive idea that these 15pc tranches of our free press will not affect the news agenda. Lisa Nandy, the Culture Secretary, claims that it will act if these foreign states affect editorial freedom. But as the authoritative Baroness Butler-Sloss asked in Parliament last week: 'My Lords, how on earth would the Secretary of State know?' Many colleagues will on Tuesday point to other major concerns about the Telegraph bid. The list of consequences, unintended or otherwise, is long. Meanwhile, the Government is rushing this legislation, even though they know it has been badly drafted. Our country's constitutional and societal settlement is not codified, it is woven through our institutions and laws, and it sits on foundations of transparency, accountability and freedom. We won't feel the impact of this legislation the day after it passes, but its corrosive nature will eat away at those foundations. When press freedom starts to fail, it will be too late. Peers have a chance to stop this madness. If we do, it will spare The Telegraph from the first instance of foreign government ownership. If we do not it will by no means be the last. The future of press freedom is in our hands. Lord Fox of Leominster is Liberal Democrat spokesman for business, energy and industrial strategy These Lib Dem shenanigans are breathtakingly hypocritical By Lord Black If the consequences were not potentially so damaging and the constitutional implications of thwarting the will of the House of Commons not so serious, there would be something mildly amusing about the attempt by Liberal Democrats in the House of Lords to block vital investment in the UK media in the name of 'press freedom'. I've spent my entire career defending press freedom. I have often had to do that in the teeth of Lib Dem efforts to shackle the press with onerous statutory controls wholly inimical to freedom of expression, not least in the wake of the Leveson Inquiry. Their motives in moving a 'fatal motion' in the Lords to block carefully calibrated proposals to allow foreign investment in the UK's media – passed with an overwhelming majority in the democratically elected House of Commons – are born not of any principle, but pure opportunism. The hypocrisy is breathtaking. My colleagues in the Lords should not fall for it and understand that this is not a parliamentary game. This is deadly serious. The future of the British press hangs in the balance. The facts are these and they are very straightforward. Two years ago, during an auction for the sale of Telegraph Media Group (of which I am deputy chairman), a bid was made for its purchase which raised matters of principle because the majority of shares would have been owned by a sovereign-controlled media company. That bid was blocked by the then-Conservative government. At the same time it recognised that the UK media desperately needed investment and that it would be wrong to rule out potential sources of funding from foreign state funds, provided it was carefully controlled and monitored. That principle was agreed by Parliament with support from every party and without even a vote. It was the right thing to do. Initially, the then-government looked at setting the threshold for such investment at 5pc. Rightly, it decided that it ought to seek views on whether that was the right level from people actually involved in the business. After full consultation the new Government listened to those views. It sensibly took account of the serious challenges facing UK media and concluded the threshold might reasonably and proportionately be set at 15pc, while limiting it by law to investments that are strictly passive in nature. Under the long-established and effective UK merger regime, this is a figure below which an investor cannot be deemed to have material influence on a business. It is also far stricter than the national security investment regime which permits shareholding in UK assets – including in nuclear power stations – up to 25pc. The Government then undertook a second consultation and published an impact assessment on the proposal. During the course of that process, my colleague Baroness Stowell with her eagle eye highlighted a lacuna in the regulations which do not currently limit investments to a single 15pc stake-holding. This loophole will be closed with further regulations which Parliament will table in the autumn. So, here we have a set of proposals which has been endlessly consulted on and scrutinised at every stage, is supported by all the stakeholders and which has had overwhelming support in Parliament. Most importantly of all, media businesses themselves say they are absolutely crucial to the future of the free press. The news media industry in the UK is facing an existential crisis. The shift to digital journalism has put enormous pressure on the revenues of all publishers. The voracious appetite of the unaccountable, unregulated platforms with seemingly unlimited resources amplifies the threat. Tragically, many titles have closed. Thousands of jobs have been lost, particularly in the local press. The future of many more titles hangs in the balance, with profound implications for democracy. Do we want British independent media to survive? If we do, we must will means as well as ends. Publishers such as The Telegraph need to raise capital to innovate and compete with the big online platforms and their unlimited resources. The likes of Facebook are not subject to onerous investment restrictions either. That calls for private equity with proven experience in, and track record of, growing media companies. With watertight safeguards to protect editorial independence in place, we should warmly welcome it and not treat it as some kind of pariah. It'll be good for growth and good for the media. I have thought long and hard about speaking out. I do so because the free press which I have spent so much of my life defending is under threat as never before, with profound implications for democracy. I do so because I believe in economic growth and the future of the creative economy. I do so because I love The Telegraph. Its fate is intimately bound up with the shenanigans in Parliament this week. That is why I will be voting to ensure these crucial regulations pass and allow vital investment in British media, carefully controlled to ensure its independence and freedom is fully protected, to flow. I very much hope my colleagues will, too.
Telegraph
a few seconds ago
- Telegraph
Dame Joanna Lumley: I ‘wouldn't mind' assisted dying
Dame Joanna Lumley has said she 'wouldn't mind' an assisted death if she reached a 'miserable' state where she was unable to talk or eat without help. The 79-year-old actress says she supports the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill approved in the House of Commons last month, which would allow terminally ill adults in England and Wales with fewer than six months to live to apply for an assisted death. Asked about the Bill in an interview with Saga magazine, Dame Joanna said: 'People are terribly anxious about it and think one may be coerced (into voluntary euthanasia). 'But I'm saying this now when nobody's coercing me, don't let me turn into somebody who doesn't recognise the people I love most, where I'm having a miserable time. 'When I get to the stage where I can't speak and have to be fed, that won't be me any more and that's when I wouldn't mind saying farewell.' Under the Terminally Ill Adults Bill, which was backed by 314 votes to 291 in the Commons, those wishing to go through assisted dying would require approval by two doctors and a panel including a social worker, senior legal figure and psychiatrist. It will next come before the House of Lords for further debate and votes at a date to be confirmed. Dame Esther Rantzen, who is terminally ill with cancer and has been one of the biggest proponents of the bill, has urged the House of Lords to pass the legislation. The TV presenter and campaigner, who has stopped responding to her lung cancer treatment, said: 'Their job is to scrutinise, to ask questions, but not to oppose. 'Law is actually created by the elected chamber, which is the House of Commons, who have voted this through.' Lord Shinkwin, a disabled Conservative peer, has been critical of the bill, having been in intensive care earlier this year. He said if a doctor had asked him at the time about assisted dying – which they would be able to under the provisions of the bill – he 'would have felt under real pressure to do that'. The proposal was first put forward by Labour MP Kim Leadbeater in October last year and passed through the House of Commons on June 20. Sir Keir Starmer, Yvette Cooper, the Home Secretary, and Rachel Reeves, the Chancellor, were among the 224 Labour MPs who voted in favour of the bill, with 160 against. Kemi Badenoch, the Leader of the Opposition, was one of the 20 Conservative MPs out of 121 who voted against the bill.
