Farmers’ Union of Wales President Glyn Roberts has stressed the need for clarity on funding for Welsh agriculture at a roundtable meeting with Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs George Eustice MP.

Speaking at the meeting, Mr Roberts said: “We currently have no clarity on what budget the Welsh Government will be able to assign to agricultural funding from 2023 onwards, which creates uncertainty about the continuity of BPS and the transition to a new Sustainable Farming Scheme. This is in addition to the £137 million cut that Wales has seen to it’s agricultural funding, which will begin to take effect next year.

“What we need are reassurances about this budget and if or when a multi-year settlement might be given as opposed to a one year budget.”

Responding to the question, George Eustice MP told delegates that the budget allocation was annual for now, given the disruption caused by Covid. However, he was hopeful that this autumn there would be a funding review which would provide a five year budget. He further stressed the UK Government will abide by their commitment to funding promises made and that funding will stay the same as when the UK left the EU, adding that it will be frozen at the level it was in December 2019.  

The Farmers’ Union of Wales has described the UK Government’s decision to allow imports from the EU to circumvent checks until the autumn as a blow for many UK producers, and an own goal in terms of the UK’s negotiating position over improvements that would help UK exporters.

While thorough checks have been in place for UK food exports to the EU since 1st January 2021, equivalent checks on food products imported from the EU were due to be introduced from 1st April following a transition period to allow importers to adjust to the UK’s departure from the EU Single Market. 

However, the UK Government announced yesterday (11th March) that pre-notification requirements for products of animal origin, certain animal by-products and high risk food not of animal origin would not be required until 1st October 2021. Export health certificate requirements for meat and dairy products and certain animal by-products will come into force on the same date, while a range of other requirements have been delayed until 2022.

The importance of protecting livestock assets on farms with the right insurance policy was highlighted at a recent livestock worrying webinar, hosted by the Farmers’ Union of Wales and Wales YFC.

FUW Insurance Services Account Executive Gwenno Davies told delegates that a minor addition to existing sheep cover could cost as little as £3 a year and cover the financial burden of losses incurred due to a livestock attack. 

“Whilst an insurance policy for such incidents doesn’t take away the heartache of the incident or the stress of dealing with the situation, knowing that it won’t negatively impact you financially can be a relief. All farm businesses are different so a client would need to check their insurance policy specifically. But to add the extra cover for such a low cost, should be considered especially for that piece of mind,” said Gwenno Davies. 

Farmers in Wales, who are frustrated with ongoing livestock attacks heard what proposed changes to the law could help police forces across England and Wales deal with such incidents more effectively and deter irresponsible dog owners from causing thousands of pounds worth of damage to the livestock industry. 

Speaking at a livestock worrying information webinar, jointly hosted by the Farmers’ Union of Wales and Wales YFC, North Wales Police Rural Crime Team Manager and Chair of the NPCC (National Police Chiefs Council) Livestock Offences group Rob Taylor explained The Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953 is weak and no longer serves its purpose. 

“The Act dates from the early 1950’s when both farming and policing were practiced differently. We can all agree that both occupations have evolved since then and the act does not reflect modern practices. For example in 2021, the Act doesn’t allow the police to obtain DNA, it doesn’t allow us to prosecute people whose dogs have attacked Alpacas and Llamas, it doesn’t allow us to prosecute if the attack happened on land that’s not agricultural land, we don’t have an option of banning orders. If a dog is subject of a control or destruction order at court, the 1953 Act does not have any powers written into it for the court to refer to and use. The court also has to borrow laws from  an old Victorian civil act namely the Dogs Act 1871, and this can cause confusion for both Police and court alike,” he said.