Motion No.1
In accordance with Council Rules of Procedure No.10, Councillor Pattison to move the following motion, received by the Democratic Services Manager on 9 August 2022:-
“Newcastle upon Tyne City Council has made the shortlist to host the Eurovision Song Contest in 2023. Sadly, this is due to war torn Ukraine being unable to host it themselves due to the Russian invasion.
This is a once in a lifetime opportunity to welcome a huge number of international visitors, performers and media to the city of Newcastle upon Tyne.
If Newcastle's bid is successful, this would hugely benefit our own beautiful County of Northumberland and we would be delighted to welcome European visitors to come and explore our beautiful coastline and countryside and enjoy the County's full and rich heritage.
I propose that the Leader write to Newcastle upon Tyne City Council offering Northumberland County Council's support and good wishes for a successful and winning bid to host the Eurovision Song Contest in the Toon in 2023”.
Motion No. 2
In accordance with Council Rules of Procedure No.10, Councillor Hardy to move the following motion, received by the Democratic Services Manager on 9 August 2022:-
“This motion calls for Northumberland County Council to reply to the consultation on DEFRA proposals to install a Highly Protected Marine Area, a fishing ban, around Lindisfarne and the Farne Islands.
This proposals will have a devastating effect on Holy Island where there has been fishing since long before the Lindisfarne Gospels were written. Fishing is an integral part of the life and soul of the island. The proposal would threaten the livelihood of the young families who rely on fishing, making the island a less attractive place to live.
Northumberland County Council has done a fantastic job promoting tourism. Our pubs and restaurants are full of people who want to enjoy sustainable local crab and lobster. This proposal would close the main fishing grounds and make restaurants source shellfish further away.
This is an issue for our whole county. Fisherman from up and down the coast fish this area. If local fisherman are banned from here, they will move to other parts of coast, displacing the fisherman there and putting pressure on fish stocks elsewhere. It would have repercussions from Berwick to Blyth.
We all want to protect our seas. But this is not the answer. These small boats follow the rules to make our seas better for their children and grandchildren to follow them.
Northumberland County Council shall respond to the consultation on Highly Protected Marine Areas rejecting the proposals on environmental, social and economic grounds”.
Minutes:
Motion No.1
In accordance with Council Rules of Procedure No.10, Councillor Pattison moved the following motion, received by the Democratic Services Manager on 9 August 2022:-
“Newcastle upon Tyne City Council has made the shortlist to host the Eurovision Song Contest in 2023. Sadly, this is due to war torn Ukraine being unable to host it themselves due to the Russian invasion.
This is a once in a lifetime opportunity to welcome a huge number of international visitors, performers and media to the city of Newcastle upon Tyne.
If Newcastle's bid is successful, this would hugely benefit our own beautiful County of Northumberland and we would be delighted to welcome European visitors to come and explore our beautiful coastline and countryside and enjoy the County's full and rich heritage.
I propose that the Leader write to Newcastle upon Tyne City Council offering Northumberland County Council's support and good wishes for a successful and winning bid to host the Eurovision Song Contest in the Toon in 2023”.
This was seconded by
It was RESOLVED that that the Leader write to Newcastle upon Tyne City Council offering Northumberland County Council's support and good wishes for a successful and winning bid to host the Eurovision Song Contest in the Toon in 2023.
Motion No. 2
In accordance with Council Rules of Procedure No.10, Councillor Hardy moved the following motion, received by the Democratic Services Manager on 9 August 2022:-
“This motion calls for Northumberland County Council to reply to the consultation on DEFRA proposals to install a Highly Protected Marine Area, a fishing ban, around Lindisfarne and the Farne Islands.
This proposals will have a devastating effect on Holy Island where there has been fishing since long before the Lindisfarne Gospels were written. Fishing is an integral part of the life and soul of the island. The proposal would threaten the livelihood of the young families who rely on fishing, making the island a less attractive place to live.
Northumberland County Council has done a fantastic job promoting tourism. Our pubs and restaurants are full of people who want to enjoy sustainable local crab and lobster. This proposal would close the main fishing grounds and make restaurants source shellfish further away.
This is an issue for our whole county. Fisherman from up and down the coast fish this area. If local fisherman are banned from here, they will move to other parts of coast, displacing the fisherman there and putting pressure on fish stocks elsewhere. It would have repercussions from Berwick to Blyth.
We all want to protect our seas. But this is not the answer. These small boats follow the rules to make our seas better for their children and grandchildren to follow them.
Northumberland County Council shall respond to the consultation on Highly Protected Marine Areas rejecting the proposals on environmental, social and economic grounds”.
This was seconded by Councillor Renner Thompson.
Councillor Cartie commented that this would affect a lot of other areas along the Northumberland coast, not just in one area. It needed further investigation because fishermen would be displaced and livelihoods would be lost, and over fishing would inevitably impact on marine life.
Councillor Swinbank commented that any effect on fishing businesses had to be mitigated by Defra who had handled the consultation poorly with a top down approach, and no proper engagement with local stakeholders. Government fishing policy had not been good for years. The consultation was an opportunity to understand how biodiversity could better recover so shouldn’t be dismissed out of hand and would allow the benefits to be properly assessed. Council officers should engage with Defra over the consultation over the areas to be included. The proposal by Defra would tie in with the Council’s own climate change agenda and he urged communication with Defra on this.
Councillor Renner Thompson commented on the devastating impact this proposal would have on the County’s fragile coastal communities. Fishermen were terrified of losing their livelihoods and were already putting off investment decisions. The same was happening at the seafood processing plants in Berwick and Eyemouth. The inshore sea was already protected by legislation and IFCA had already prohibited bottom trawling fishing out to sea by six miles. The lobsterpot industry was already very healthy and the impact of the scheme would be negligible and would only put unnecessary pressure on other parts of the coast. He urged members to support the motion which would give a concrete mandate to reply to the consultation rejecting the latest proposal. The aims of the scheme were noble and he did not object to the one which was further out to sea. Further consultation would be good, but this consultation period closed next week and a response needed to be made
Councillor Hunter urged members to support this and referred to the knock on effect on other local businesses as well as the fishing industry.
Councillor Reid queried what the officer view was on this and whether a response had been made to the consultation which could potentially not endorse the member view. He urged caution in case there was no evidence to support the motion.
Councillor Dale felt the local MP view on the matter would be useful.
Councillor Ferguson appreciated the impact this would have on the local area. He agreed that there needed to be sustainability but this wasn’t the answer.
Councillor Murphy felt evidence was key and asked for details of the numbers of families impacted and what the economic loss to communities would be. If the impact would be great, why would Defra do this? She felt there was more to this than members were aware of.
Councillor J. Watson commented that the town of Amble centred on the harbour and its fishing fleet. It was central to everything and he had been approached by a number of fishermen who were very worried about the potential effects. He would be supporting the motion.
Councillor Castle remarked that there was no evidence from Defra to show the Council what the impact would be, and in the face of that, the Council should respond rejecting the proposal.
Councillor Horncastle commented that Holy Island was one of the jewels in Northumberland’s crown and felt that Defra just did not understand the local impact this would have, on top of the new planning regulations currently affecting six parishes. Members had to reject this on behalf of the people they represented.
With respect to the potential conflict with officer opinions, Councillor Towns reminded members that the Caller report had highlighted that power lay with the members of the Council, not with officers. It was within members’ democratic power to respond to the consultation in the way which had been suggested. With regard to the evidence, he felt that was abundantly clear.
Councillor Mather supported the motion. This matter was not something which could just be switched off for a trial. If these local skills were lost, they would be lost forever as they could not be learned in university. This was local food produced by local people and that’s what should be supported.
Councillor Grimshaw commented that the traditional fishing life had been largely lost in Newbiggin and it would be a travesty if this was repeated elsewhere. Whilst more information was welcome, she felt it was important to support these little communities.
Councillor Robinson commented that he hadn’t seen any evidence from Defra. If the motion was stop Defra from acting and force a rethink, then it should be rejected so Defra could respond with reasoned argument to support their proposals.
Mr O’Farrell advised members that the risk and disbenefits section of the Defra proposal identified loss in income to local communities of between £600,000 and £9m per year. It also listed various other risks to the wider fishing fleet including health and safety as smaller boats would need to fish in deeper waters.
Councillor Hardy commented that if Defra imposed a fishing ban then six fishing boats would be lost from Holy Island and would devastate the island’s economy. The Council was already supporting the indigenous population to stay on Holy Island. If the fishermen were lost then eventually the heart of the island would go and it would become a museum. He had listened to the flawed evidence put forward by Defra. They had not even realised that Holy Island was reached by a tidal causeway and the lack of knowledge of the area had been staggering. He had the support of the local MP and most of the parishes in the area and he urged members to support it.
On being put to the vote, it was RESOLVED by a substantial majority that the County Council respond to the Defra consultation on Highly Protected Marine Areas, rejecting the proposals on environmental, social and economic grounds.