In accordance with the Notice of Motion received under Section 4.19 of
the Constitution, Councillor Gruffydd Williams will propose as follows:-
Given that Cyngor Gwynedd has already passed
a notice of motion in September calling on the Welsh Government to re-consider
demanding that 10% of agricultural land is given to woodland as part of the
Sustainable Farming Scheme, I call on Cyngor Gwynedd:-
To call on the Welsh Government to take a
step back and re-consider (in light of the cumulative
impact on the agricultural industry), before demanding under the Sustainable
Farming Scheme (SFS), that 10% of farming land is given to Cynefin/Biodiversity
land together with the changes to the statutory requirements and policies such
as Nitrate Vulnerable Zones (NVZ).
Minutes:
Submitted - the following notice of motion by
Councillor Gruffydd Williams, under Section 4.19 of the Constitution, and it
was seconded:-
Given that Cyngor Gwynedd has already passed a notice of motion in
September calling on the Welsh Government to re-consider demanding that 10% of
agricultural land is given to woodland as part of the Sustainable Farming
Scheme, I call on Cyngor Gwynedd:-
To call on the Welsh Government to take a step back and re-consider (in light of the cumulative impact on the agricultural
industry), before demanding under the Sustainable Farming Scheme (SFS), that
10% of farming land is given to Cynefin/Biodiversity
land together with the changes to the statutory requirements and policies such
as Nitrate Vulnerable Zones (NVZ).
The member set out the context to his motion, noting that:-
·
Significant damage
would be caused to the agriculture industry if Welsh Government adopts the SFS
and NVZ.
·
That there were
associated costs for farmers should they lose 20% of their land from giving 10%
to biodiversity and 10% of their land to plant trees; this would lead to an
unsustainable farming industry and many farmers would leave the industry.
·
That there was huge
expenditure for the agriculture unit in order to
comply with the new rules, which would squeeze small farms out of business.
·
The nitrogen going on
the land would lead to a reduction in the crops, which would lead to less
produce. He added that if there were food shortages for the public, then prices
would rise.
·
That there was a need
to stand with the farmers or people would leave the countryside and the
population diminished.
The proposal hoped to receive support from all members
to ensure the prosperity of the agriculture industry and prosperity in the
countryside.
Strong support was expressed to the motion by several
members on the grounds of:-
·
That there was a moral duty on us in Gwynedd to support the farmers in
our communities, which represented the culture, history
and language of our communities. The
slogan, No Farmers, No Food, No Future, was quoted.
·
That the current prices
of sheep was proof of the shortages and it was
believed that there would be food shortages - growing trees would not resolve
this.
·
That agriculture was very
important in Pen Llŷn. He asked for the support
of all members, emphasising that the Government's plans needed to be stopped.
·
That the problem of
planting 10% trees was huge in Pen Llŷn,
compared with Meirionnydd. It was believed that insufficient targeting had been
undertaken by the Government and instead they had treated every area in the
same way.
·
That there was a need
to thank both agricultural Unions which had worked hard to support the farmers.
It was expressed that the Council needed to support and strengthen their
request.
·
It was noted that
agriculture was the foundation of the countryside and
it was at the core of our culture. It was noted that without agriculture there
would be no Schools or young people in the countryside; it was believed that it
was essential to support the proposal.
·
That what was proposed
by the Government was harmful and inconsiderate of the mental health and
emotional well-being of the industry, which in reality was
a culture of individuals. It was
believed to be a threat to agriculture and endangered agricultural succession.
Consideration was given to amending the proposal but
following a discussion between the member and the Monitoring Officer, it was
decided not to propose an amendment as it affected the clarity of the original proposal and it did not coincide with the proposal.
To close, the proposer expressed his gratitude for the
support. He referred to the research of the Unions which supported farmers who
noted that adopting the SFS and NVZ would mean that 5,500 jobs would be lost.
He believed that major companies would be the only ones to benefit.