Welsh Affairs

Debate between Jo Stevens and David Jones

Thursday 29th February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb) on securing the debate and mildly support his criticism of its attenuated nature; it is really not acceptable.

Last Saturday, I had the great pleasure of hosting the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, my right hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove), as he visited the town of Ruthin in my constituency. Ruthin is—I apologise to the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi)—arguably the finest, most beautiful small town in the whole of Wales. It is benefiting from a levelling-up award of some £11 million. The Secretary of State was very impressed with the levelling-up proposals for Ruthin and he received a warm welcome.

That was in contrast with what happened two days previously, also in my constituency, when the Welsh Government’s First Minister decided to cancel a visit to Colwyn Bay, having received a warm welcome of a rather different nature from farmers in Rhyl the previous day. The farmers were protesting about the Welsh Government’s sustainable farming scheme, which they consider detrimental to their interests. I fully share their view. The Welsh Government’s proposals, which as we have heard are currently subject to a consultation, would require farmers to set aside 10% of their land for tree planting and another 10% for wildlife habitats to qualify for subsidy payments. The Welsh Government say that the aim of the scheme is

“to secure food production systems, keep farmers farming the land, safeguard the environment, and address the urgent call of the climate and nature emergency.”

It is hard to see how reducing the productive land available to each farmer by 20% will either “safeguard food production systems” or “keep farmers farming the land”, and it is impossible to see how any measures introduced by the Welsh Government, in almost any context, will make any appreciable difference to the climate emergency.

The Welsh Government’s plans, quite simply, will damage agriculture in Wales, and that is not just my view. It was also the conclusion of the Welsh Government’s own impact assessment, which predicted that the policies would result in

“a 10.8% reduction in Welsh livestock numbers; an 11% cut in labour on Welsh farms; and a £125.3 million hit to output from the sector and a loss of £199 million to farm business incomes.”

Given that their own impact assessment has predicted such dreadful consequences, it is almost impossible to understand why the Welsh Government think it is a good idea to plough on, so to speak, with what is clearly a catastrophic policy.

There is no doubt that climate change is a reality, which needs to be addressed and, indeed, is being addressed very effectively by the Westminster Government. However, when deciding whether the Welsh Government’s proposals are sensible or proportionate, we should take into account the fact that Welsh greenhouse gas emissions are already very low indeed. In 2021, the United Kingdom contributed only 0.77% of global greenhouse gas emissions. Of those emissions, Wales was responsible for just 7.5%, and the Welsh agricultural sector was responsible for only 15% of those Welsh emissions. Welsh agricultural greenhouse gas emissions therefore constitute just 0.008866% of the global total. Nigel Lawson famously observed that to govern is to choose. It is clear that the Welsh Government have deliberately chosen to penalise Welsh agriculture, damage Welsh farming incomes and decimate the ranks of those employed in the rural economy in order to achieve a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions that will, in global terms, be wholly insignificant.

[Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab)]

May I suggest, very respectfully, that rather than winding up the rhetoric, the right hon. Gentleman should encourage his constituents to respond to the consultation? There is still a whole week to go.

[Mr Jones]

I can assure the hon. Lady that my constituents have responded to the consultation, both on paper and physically. Several of them were in Cardiff yesterday, objecting to this ludicrous proposal.

If large numbers of Welsh farmers are forced off their land, which the Welsh Government’s own impact assessment predicts that they will be, the consequence will be increased rural depopulation. Welsh culture will be undermined, the Welsh language weakened, and it will be another nail in the coffin of the Welsh rural way of life—but that, it would appear, is entirely acceptable to the Welsh Government, provided that it results in a pitifully small reduction in emissions.

Of course, it is not just the farming community that is being damaged by the disproportionate pursuit of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Reducing emissions was used to justify the ludicrous 20 mph speed limit that now prevails across built-up areas in Wales—a measure so hated that nearly 470,000 people have signed a petition calling for it to be scrapped. The same justification was given for last year’s decision to abandon all major road- building projects in Wales, including the desperately-needed third Menai crossing.

When he announced the policy, the Welsh Government’s Deputy Minister For Climate Change—yes, they apparently have a Deputy Minister as well as a Minister—acknowledged that

“None of this is easy.”

He was quite right in that respect. It is not easy for farmers, for commuters, for business people or for families. Livelihoods are being put at risk and lives are being made miserable by a Welsh Government who are putting dogma ahead of common sense. Let me repeat that to govern is to choose. The Welsh Government could, and should, make a new choice. They should recognise that they are the Administration of a relatively small, lightly populated part of the United Kingdom, and that they should be serving its specific needs and addressing its priorities in a proportionate manner. Wales needs better health care, better schools, better roads, a better economy and a better quality of life, and those needs are not well served by the dead hand of climate change fanaticism.