Politics

Fishermen’s fury over transition sell out

Published

7 years ago

April 12, 2018

Milford Haven: Half fish landed are from Belgian boats

‘LIKE drinking a pint of cold sick’, was how Scottish Conservative MP Douglas Ross described the UK Government’s climb down over fisheries policy in talks with the EU.

Mr Ross said the UK Government had “delivered far less than I hoped or expected” for fishermen, before adding: “There is no spinning this as a good outcome. It would be easier to get someone to drink a pint of cold sick than try to sell this as a success.”

The UK Government went into talks with the EU over a deal for the transition period following March 2019 expressing confidence that it would be able to regain control of UK fishing waters at the point the UK formally departs the European Union next year. However, despite rumblings from Michael Gove – Secretary of State for the Environment – and Scottish Conservative leader Ruth Davidson that the return of control over Britain’s fisheries was non-negotiable, it turned out that the UK Government thought it was.

The blow could have electoral ramifications in Scotland, where recent Conservative success in coastal communities has been helped by UK and Scottish Conservatives making the sort of noises that have encouraged Scottish fishermen to back them at the ballot box.

Regardless of the UK’s much-vaunted red lines, the EU made access to British waters by European fleets a red line of their own and the UK Government blinked first.

The CFP has faced harsh criticism in the past, with the Scottish Government calling it “the EU’s most unpopular and discredited policy”. The policy has been accused of being an overly centralised, top-down approach from Brussels to managing fisheries.

A key issue for fishermen is the equal access of EU vessels to UK waters. They argue that as the UK has a relatively large fishing zone compared to many of its continental European neighbours, EU fishermen benefit more from access to UK waters, a criticism supported by the University of the Highlands and Islands.

The Conservatives committed in their 2017 manifesto to leaving the Common Fisheries Policy. The manifesto outlines that the UK “will be fully responsible for the access and management of its waters”.

In the June 2017 Queen’s Speech, the Government announced a Fisheries Bill for the upcoming Parliamentary session. Its purpose is to “enable the UK to control access to its waters and set UK fishing quotas once it has left the EU.”

The UK Government has now abandoned that policy without parliamentary discussion.

The National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations has reacted angrily, saying: ‘There will be a lot of concern throughout the fishing industry about what seems to be emerging.

‘We were led to believe that the UK would be as an independent coastal state from March 2019. The Prime Minister told us that only a fortnight ago. This timetable and perhaps much else has been conceded as part of the transition.

‘In fact, under international law the UK will be an independent coastal state from March. But we will immediately tie ourselves into an arrangement with the EU that is worse that we had before – as the UK will not have a seat at the table when the quotas are decided.

‘The UK’s central problem with the CFP has been that EU vessels, in value terms takes 4 times as much out of UK waters as our vessels take out of EU waters. That imbalance – essentially an exploitative relationship – will continue during the transition.

‘This is being presented as tactical concession that will not prejudice our longer term aims. But it has all the hallmarks of a capitulation’.

A recent report by the Public Policy Institute for Wales says that, while the Welsh fishing fleet as a whole could gain, there are large divisions in the industry, with most vessels, fishers, and ports likely to be ‘net losers’ from Brexit.

At Milford Haven, for example, over half the fish landed are from Belgian-registered vessels with local fishermen’s smaller boats unable to take advantage of a UK fishery zone post—Brexit.

In addition, only a smaller number of vessels face large potential gains, including some ‘flagships’ that land much of their catch in Spain.

The report’s authors say: ‘Parts of the UK fishing industry have been excited by the prospect of claiming exclusive rights to fish in UK waters and larger shares of fishing quota as a result of Brexit. However, the Welsh fleet comprises mainly small-scale vessels that would not benefit from exclusive access to an extended fishing area. They also catch primarily shellfish species that are not managed through quota limits.

‘Most of the seafood produced by the Welsh fleet is exported to EU countries or through EU trade agreements, therefore potential tariff and non-tariff trade barriers could significantly impact market access and competitiveness’.

The authors highlight that the structure of the Welsh fleet is unique and there is a real risk of it being ‘left behind’ in UK-EU negotiations by the demands of larger fishing interests.

Although there is a great deal of uncertainty regarding the outcomes of Brexit, looking forward they estimate that fishing opportunities relating to Welsh waters post-Brexit will be much larger than Wales’ current share. However, as any increases would accrue to existing UK quota holders, the Welsh fleet requires a new arrangement of quota sharing within the UK to get its fair share.

To take advantage of new fishing opportunities, the authors suggest both the UK Government and Welsh Government will need to make targeted changes to the management of fishing opportunities, so that benefits are felt in Welsh ports, coastal communities and wider society from what is, ultimately, a public resource.

However, that area of governance is one of those the UK Government has announced it will retain in its own hands after the UK leaves the EU.

Mid and West AM Simon Thomas, Shadow Cabinet Secretary for Energy, Climate Change and Rural Affairs for Plaid Cymru commented: “Concerns have been raised by the fishing industry following the announcement earlier this week about the transition period for the Common Fisheries Policy, under which the UK will be “consulted” on quotas rather than an equal partner in fishing negotiations with the situation remaining largely unchanged until 2021.

“Last month, the Public Policy Institute for Wales reported that Wales’ fishing fleet has specific needs, with smaller fishing vessels specialising in shellfish and that they need tariff free access to European markets. There are concerns of perishable foodstuffs being held up at customs, continued pressure on seafood species and no say over quotas for alternative catches.”

Mr Thomas continued: “As it is becoming increasingly clear that the Westminster Government cannot be trusted to represent the interests of Wales’ fishermen and women, measures need to be taken by the Labour Government to safeguard the fishing industry in Wales from the uncertainty of Brexit. We need to empower our communities and country in order to ensure that decisions affecting Wales are made in Wales.

“On so many issues, when Westminster refuses to do what’s best for Wales, we must have the tools to do things for ourselves.”

News

Neyland Town Council conflict deepens as Extraordinary Meeting called

Published

1 day ago

January 18, 2025

Tom Sinclair

THE DIVISIONS within Neyland Town Council are set to come under further scrutiny at an Extraordinary General Meeting (EGM) scheduled for Wednesday (Jan 22) at 7:00pm in Neyland Community Hub. This follows weeks of escalating tensions between councillors and public discontent over the council’s operations.

Petition demands resignation

Central to the conflict is Cllr Mike Harry, who is facing calls for his resignation after a petition, organised by Mrs P Percival-Maxwell, accused him of making inappropriate remarks and creating division within the council. The petition was presented during a recent council meeting on Monday (Jan 13).

Cllr Harry has rejected the allegations, describing the petition as “factually incorrect” and part of a targeted effort to undermine his position. In a previous statement to The Herald, he clarified his use of the term “degenerates” in an email, stating it referred specifically to three councillors—Brian Rothero, David Devauden, and Steve Thomas—who he accuses of bullying the Town Clerk and causing dysfunction within the council.

Agenda highlights serious divisions

The EGM agenda, jointly issued by Cllrs Rothero and Devauden, reflects the extent of the discord. Key points include:

Addressing public complaints and the petition calling for Cllr Harry’s resignation.
Allegations of abuse of council social media powers and bringing the council into disrepute.
Concerns over Neyland CIC’s financial losses, which reportedly total £82,000, and their potential impact on the council.
A motion to remove the Mayor and Deputy Mayor from office.

The agenda has been described by Cllr Harry as a “list of items designed to rabble-rouse and cause maximum trouble within the council.” He claims the ongoing actions of Cllrs Rothero and Devauden are an attempt to disrupt proceedings for personal agendas, making it difficult for the council to function effectively.

Questions of lawfulness

The lawfulness of the EGM has become a point of contention. According to Cllrs Rothero and Devauden, the meeting was called in strict compliance with the council’s standing orders, including the required three clear days’ notice. However, the agenda also mentions the possibility of a forced change of venue due to challenges in booking the Neyland Community Hub, raising concerns about whether such a change would meet procedural requirements. For the meeting to remain lawful, any venue change must be communicated effectively and within the legal framework governing local council meetings.

Another potential issue lies in the authority to call the meeting. Cllrs Rothero and Devauden assert that their actions align with standing orders, but any procedural irregularities, such as failing to involve the Town Clerk in booking arrangements or properly distributing the agenda, could open the meeting to legal challenges. The involvement of the Monitoring Officer in correspondence suggests an effort to ensure compliance, but whether this will be sufficient remains to be seen.

Cllr Harry, meanwhile, has described the meeting as a “personal agenda” by his opponents, further questioning its legitimacy. If the meeting proceeds and results in significant decisions, such as the removal of the Mayor or Deputy Mayor, any procedural flaws could later be cited to contest these outcomes.

Social media row adds fuel to fire

A recent post on Neyland Town Council’s Facebook page by Cllr Harry has added to the controversy. In his email to fellow councillors, Cllr Harry admitted the post was “possibly questionable” but justified it as a response to years of attacks from certain councillors and their allies. The post has reportedly drawn threats of legal action and complaints to the Monitoring Officer.

Cllrs Rothero and Devauden have accused Cllr Harry of misusing his position and the council’s social media channels to target opponents, further eroding trust within the council.

Community concerns and financial risks

Beyond personal disputes, the financial state of Neyland CIC, a community interest company, has emerged as a pressing issue. With reported losses of £82,000, concerns are mounting about the potential impact on the town council’s budget and its ability to deliver essential services.

A council divided

As the date for the EGM approaches, opinions within Neyland remain divided. Some residents have voiced support for Cllr Harry, citing his nearly 20 years of service and commitment to the community. Others back the petition, viewing his actions as detrimental to the council’s reputation and functionality.

The Herald understands that the outcome of the EGM could mark a turning point for the council, potentially reshaping its leadership and future direction. With accusations and counter-accusations flying, the meeting promises to be a pivotal moment in addressing the dysfunction that has gripped Neyland Town Council.

News

Neyland councillor defends actions following petition for resignation

Published

2 days ago

January 17, 2025

Tom Sinclair

A STATEMENT has been issued by Cllr Mike Harry in response to a petition calling for his resignation, which was handed in during the Neyland Town Council meeting on Monday (Jan 13). The petition, organised by Mrs P Percival-Maxwell, accuses Cllr Harry of making inappropriate remarks and creating division within the council.

In his detailed statement, Cllr Harry rejected the allegations, describing the petition as “factually incorrect” and part of a targeted effort to discredit him and further destabilise the council.

Cllr Harry explained that his email, which is at the centre of the controversy, was a response to what he described as “insulting and threatening” messages from fellow councillors Brian Rothero, Steve Thomas, and David Devauden. He clarified that the term “degenerates” referred specifically to those individuals, who he accuses of relentless bullying and harassment of the Town Clerk, not Neyland residents.

He also pointed out that the “constituents” referred to in the petition are, in fact, a group of five individuals who attended an unauthorised meeting and whom he alleges are regulars at a local pub owned by Cllr Rothero.

Cllr Harry claimed that the ongoing behaviour of Cllrs Rothero, Thomas, and Devauden has rendered the council dysfunctional and unable to serve the people of Neyland effectively. He described their actions as consistently disruptive, highlighting the negative impact on the Town Clerk and the council’s ability to progress key matters.

“I’d simply had enough and had to finally call it out for what it is,” he stated, noting that his email was directed at a total of eight individuals who, in his view, show no interest in the council’s proper functioning.

Cllr Harry, who has served on Neyland Town Council for nearly 20 years, emphasised his dedication to the community and its residents. “The interests of the residents of Neyland have always been paramount to me,” he said. He expressed frustration over the current tensions within the council, calling the situation “particularly difficult and insulting” and not reflective of why he became a councillor.

The petition has deepened divisions within Neyland, with some residents supporting Cllr Harry’s defence and others standing by the petition’s call for his resignation. The issue highlights broader concerns about the council’s internal dynamics and its ability to address key issues for the community.

News

New holiday lodges at Pembrokeshire deer park get approval

Published

2 days ago

January 17, 2025

Bruce Sinclair - Local Democracy Reporter

PLANS for disability-friendly holiday lodges at a Pembrokeshire deer park attraction which could be a Wales tourism “benchmark” have been backed, but a final decision is likely to rest with full council.

In an application recommended for refusal at the January 14 meeting of Pembrokeshire County council’s planning committee, Mr and Mrs Evans are seeking permission for 15 lodges at Great Wedlock, Gumfreston, near Tenby, the site of a 176-acre deer farm attraction, which includes animals from the late Queen’s estate, and a more recently-granted market traders’ barn.

An earlier application for the lodges was recommended for refusal by officers at last July’s planning meeting, but, at the start of that meeting, members heard the application had been withdrawn at the agent’s behest.

Reasons for refusal given to members included it was outside of an identified settlement boundary in a countryside location, it was considered to have an adverse impact on visual amenity and did not include a Green Infrastructure statement.

The applicants have previously said build costs to complete the development would be circa £2m.

Following the withdrawal, amended proposals have been submitted by the applicants through agent Atriarc Planning, following a consultation recently held with St Florence Community Council.

St Florence Community Council did not support the previous application, but has supported the latest scheme.

Speaking at the January meeting, Alan Jones, on behalf of the community council, said it was now supporting the “much-improved design” which, amongst other concerns, now addressed the issue of a much wider range of disabilities – including the blind and deaf and hard of hearing – rather than just wheelchair use.

Applicant Andrew Evans told the meeting the proposals would support a whole raft of people with varying disabilities, Great Wedlock already taking a “head-on” approach supporting people with disabilities through special vehicles at the deer park, and encouraging people with disabilities to apply for staff vacancies.

“This is not an application for yet another holiday park, it is a well thought out one for those who have a disability, which will make them a majority rather than a minority; it will make us at the forefront for people in Wales to visit with a disability.”

Local member, Cllr Rhys Jordan moved the application be supported in spite of an officer recommendation for refusal, saying it was “an opportunity to address a clear shortage [for disability-friendly accommodation] and a chance for Pembrokeshire to lead the way in accessible tourism,” adding: “Most importantly the lodges will be 100 per cent accessible and set a benchmark, positioning Pembrokeshire as a leader in accessible tourism.”

He finished: “Approve this forward-thinking proposal today.”

Officers have recommended planners refuse the scheme, for similar reasons to previously, saying the material considerations put forward in the agent’s supporting planning statement “are not sufficient to overcome the conflict with relevant Development Plan policies”.

Members voted 11 in favour to two against supporting the scheme.

The committee’s backing of the proposal takes the form of a ‘minded to’ support, meaning the proposal will return to a future meeting as it is against an officer recommendation, and, if supported a second time, will ultimately have to be decided by full council, in this case potentially at the March meeting.

The applicants’ previous scheme for the trading barn took an identical route, being decided by full council after repeatedly being recommended for refusal.