Lough Neagh: fishing industry 'victim' of environmental damage
The fishing industry on Lough Neagh is "a victim" of the environmental challenges facing the lough, politicians have been told.The comments by representatives of the Lough Neagh Fishermen's Co-operative came as eel fishing in Lough Neagh was temporarily paused.The Co-operative said it was because the quality of the catch wasn't good enough.The season started on 5 May, but was suspended on 12 May.
Lough Neagh eel is 'the ultimate'
The Co-operative plans to resume fishing on 9 June, depending on its own assessments of the quality.Speaking at the Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs committee meeting this morning, CEO Kathleen McBride said that Lough Neagh eel was marketed as "the ultimate", as a product with Protected Geographical Indication status since 2011."I have a sample catch scheduled for every week now until the week before the 9th."We will gut these ourselves and try and assess them as best we can to see, and we'll work very closely with our markets in Holland to see is it what they're expecting, is it what they're needing?"She added that, while the science did not show a major decrease in the fat content of the eel, "our customers are telling us there's a significant decrease."
The former CEO of the Co-operative, Pat Close, told the committee that the fishing industry on Lough Neagh was probably "collateral damage" from the other environmental challenges facing the Lough."There are many, many external factors and influences over which we have no control, or indeed had much consultation if any about, but that has led to a situation where the fishing industry is probably collateral damage and certainly a victim in this situation because of the impact all of these things have had on the fish quality, particularly the fat content."Most of the eel catch is exported to the Netherlands, where it is smoked.The rest of the catch is sent to England.The Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute said it had been "due to begin collecting samples on behalf of the department on the 13th of May".It added that because of the suspension, it was "therefore not able to assess the condition of any eels caught since fishing commenced and are not in a position to comment."
Ms McBride urged the government to support the eel-fishing industry."Our eels are traditional here; our methods are very traditional, and better than that, they're very sustainable. There's practically no carbon footprint on that capture."And I think that's to be lauded in comparison to what's happening within the agricultural industry."So we should be supported in that and looked up to how this works in a rural area."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Sun
17 minutes ago
- The Sun
Huge fashion retailer with over 250 UK stores ‘drawing up radical rescue plan' with shops and jobs at risk
A HUGE fashion retailer with over 250 UK stores is reportedly drawing up a radical rescue plan which could see shops and jobs axed. The high street giant - which is being forced to restructure due to tough trading standards - employs around 5,500 people and was founded in London in 1948. 2 2 The chain's owners have brought in advisers from PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) to come up with money-saving solutions, reports Sky News. The proposals are expected to be finalised in a matter of weeks, though sources have reportedly claimed no decisions have been green lit on the retailer's future. Accounts for River Island Clothing Co for the year ending December 30 2023 showed the firm made a £33.2 million pre-tax loss. Then the turnover during the following 12 months fell by more than 19% to £578.1 million. The firm's latest accounts at Companies House, warned of growing financial and operational risks. "The market for retailing of fashion clothing is fast changing with customer preferences for more diverse, convenient and speedier shopping journeys and with increasing competition especially in the digital space," it said. "The key business risks for the group are the pressures of a highly competitive and changing retail environment combined with increased economic uncertainty. "A number of geopolitical events have resulted in continuing supply chain disruption as well as energy, labour and food price increases, driving inflation and interest rates higher and resulting in weaker disposable income and lower consumer confidence." In January, River Island hired consulting firm, AlixPartners, to undertake work on cost reductions and profit improvement. It's understood PwC has now taken over. Why are so many pubs and bars closing? In recent months, a number of River Island stores have been closing, including in Corby and Chesterfield. Originally named Lewis Separates and then Chelsea Girl, the chain was founded by Bernard Lewis in 1948 and became influential during the 1960s fashion scene, including the iconic mini-dress trend. It was re-branded as River Island in 1988 and throughout the next two decades expanded to become a leading high street force in the UK. It now has a presence in over 125 worldwide markets, in stores and online. Why are retailers closing shops? EMPTY shops have become an eyesore on many British high streets and are often symbolic of a town centre's decline. The Sun's business editor Ashley Armstrong explains why so many retailers are shutting their doors. In many cases, retailers are shutting stores because they are no longer the money-makers they once were because of the rise of online shopping. Falling store sales and rising staff costs have made it even more expensive for shops to stay open. The British Retail Consortium has predicted that the Treasury's hike to employer NICs from April 2025, will cost the retail sector £2.3billion. At the same time, the minimum wage will rise to £12.21 an hour from April, and the minimum wage for people aged 18-20 will rise to £10 an hour, an increase of £1.40. In some cases, retailers are shutting a store and reopening a new shop at the other end of a high street to reflect how a town has changed. The problem is that when a big shop closes, footfall falls across the local high street, which puts more shops at risk of closing. Retail parks are increasingly popular with shoppers, who want to be able to get easy, free parking at a time when local councils have hiked parking charges in towns. Many retailers including Next and Marks & Spencer have been shutting stores on the high street and taking bigger stores in better-performing retail parks instead. In some cases, stores have been shut when a retailer goes bust, as in the case of Carpetright, Debenhams, Dorothy Perkins, Paperchase, Ted Baker, The Body Shop, Topshop and Wilko to name a few. What's increasingly common is when a chain goes bust a rival retailer or private equity firm snaps up the intellectual property rights so they can own the brand and sell it online. They may go on to open a handful of stores if there is customer demand, but there are rarely ever as many stores or in the same places. The Centre for Retail Research (CRR) has warned that around 17,350 retail sites are expected to shut down this year.
Telegraph
26 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Why banks may no longer refund fraud victims
Lenders are lobbying for new fraud reimbursement rules to be watered down over fears scam victims are being told to lie to their banks. Since last October, companies which handle payments have been required to give victims of 'Authorised Push Payment' (APP) fraud their money back, up to a limit of £85,000. In the first three months, 86pc of money lost to the scams – approximately £27m – was reimbursed to consumers by 60 firms. The current rules mean that, other than a £100 'excess' which firms can remove from payments, the only reasons that customers can be denied a payout are if they've ignored warnings, failed to quickly notify their bank of the fraud, refused to share information about the scam or do not consent to a police report being made. But in meetings in May, banks demanded that requirements for victims to act reasonably – and not to lie to their bank – were made stronger. This would mean that customers could be denied refunds in more cases. The Payment Systems Regulator (PSR) will hold an independent review of the mandatory scheme in October, and will then recommend changes. Problems raised include the high reimbursement limit, compliance monitoring by which administers the scheme, and the limited number of exemptions for refusing payouts. Lenders also said they should be able to give clear warnings about lying to them, as victims are often guided to do by fraudsters. One bank told industry magazine The Banker that: 'The [consumer negligence] bar is set so high that in almost all these cases a customer can be incredibly reckless, can lie to their bank, can ignore warnings and still get their money back.' Riccardo Tordera, director of policy and government relations at The Payments Association (TPA), said: 'The PSR says just 2pc of claims are rejected on this basis yet acknowledges no clear shift in consumer behaviour. 'Meanwhile, the Financial Ombudsman Service and the PSR both apply a stricter definition of gross negligence than common law, which could make enforcement of reimbursement policies challenging in a British court.' Under the previous voluntary code – called the Contingent Reimbursement Model (CRM) – customers could be refused for ignoring warnings or failing to verify the payee. Now the test is much stricter. Reimbursement numbers never jumped above 75pc under the old scheme – compared to 86pc for the mandatory payouts. APP scams see victims convinced to move their money themselves, eventually into a 'safe' account controlled by the fraudsters, at which point it is lost. Ticket sale scams, such as those experienced by Oasis and Taylor Swift fans, are also considered APP frauds. At first glance, the implementation has gone well. The amount lost in APP frauds dropped by 2pc between 2023 and 2024, according to UK Finance, and the number of cases fell by a fifth. But £450.7m was still lost to fraudsters last year. But the scheme has not been without its critics. Before the scheme was implemented, some parts of the industry warned of the potential problems of moral hazard – which is when consumers are incentivised to lie – and that fraudsters would pose as victims. This, it was claimed, would drive a significant spike in claims. But these fears have not materialised. Originally, the reimbursement limit was set to £415,000 – with firms expected to pay out just days after claims were made. But lobbying saw the limit dropped to £85,000, the same as the Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS), which protects money deposited with banks. Smaller and medium-sized payment companies had said that one large claim could wipe them out. David Geale, managing director of the Payment Services Regulator (PSR), which is responsible for the scheme, said in May that: 'While it is too early to draw firm conclusions based on the period covered by this data, we have not seen evidence of spikes in claim volumes that some had feared would occur under the policy.' Before the scheme was introduced, there was a voluntary code which most of the major banks were signed up to, run by the Lending Standards Board. Sources at the LSB said last year, before reimbursement was mandatory, that they had not seen fraudulent claims. Rocio Concha, director of policy and advocacy at Which?, said: 'Based on the available data from the PSR, the new mandatory scheme appears to be performing well, with more fraud victims getting their money back. 'Sections of the industry had tried – without producing any evidence – to claim that mandatory reimbursement would lead to consumers acting irresponsibly or even teaming up with criminals to con banks out of cash. This seemed ludicrous at the time and initial insights have borne that out.' Ms Concha added that while the number of cases were down, there was another worrying trend. She said: 'Latest industry figures suggest more victims are being tricked into sending money to bank accounts overseas controlled by fraudsters. That is concerning as these transfers aren't covered by the new mandatory reimbursement rules.' A spokesman for the PSR said: 'We have always been clear that we would have an independent review following the implementation of the policy. 'If we think there are key learnings or adjustments to make to our policy, we will consider those carefully before making any changes.'
Daily Mail
27 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Labour is still spending £2.2bn a year of foreign aid on UK hotels for asylum seekers - despite vowing to end the practice
The government is spending around £2.2billion a year of foreign aid on housing asylum seekers in hotels in the UK. Figures released by the Home Office show Labour only managed to reduce its spending on official development assistance between 2024/25 by around £1million, the BBC reports. That is despite the party's election manifesto pledge to 'end asylum hotels, saving the taxpayer billions of pounds'. Official development assistance (ODA) is known at the UK's overseas aid budget and is used to promote the economic development and welfare in developing countries around the world. The Home Office is allocated a portion of this money to support refugees and asylum seekers shortly after their arrival into Britain, of which a large amount is spent on their accommodation. At the end of December 42,000 asylum seekers were in Home Office 'contingency accommodation', including 38,000 in hotels, a report National Audit Office (NAO) showed last month. This includes 735 people being housed in large accommodation sites built by the previous Conservative government, including former RAF base Wethersfield, in Essex, and Napier former barracks in Kent. Previous figures show the government spent around £2.3billion of Home Office ODA on asylum accommodation in 2024/25 while around £2.5billion was spent in 2023/24, when the Conservatives were in power. Last month, it was revealed that asylum accommodation - including hotels - will cost the taxpayer £15billion over 10 years. Data from the National Audit Office (NAO) showed that contracts originally forecast to cost £4.5billion over a decade from 2019 are now expected to run to £15.3billion over same period. It means that on average the taxpayer will spend £4,191,780 a day on housing asylum seekers over the life of the contracts. A separate breakdown from the NAO showed overall costs in 2024-25 were £1.67billion. That amounted to £4,567,123 a day on average, or £3,172 a minute. The report also found that asylum hotels 'may be more profitable' for companies holding the contracts than other types of housing. The Home Office awarded the contracts to three suppliers – Clearsprings Ready Homes, Mears Group and Serco – which operate two or three UK regions each. They are responsible for finding a range of self-catering accommodation for asylum seekers who are dispersed across the country, and for sub-contracting hotels for tens of thousands of migrants coming across the Channel by small boat. The report found Clearsprings is now set to be paid £7.3billion over the 10 years from 2019 to 2029, the NAO said, while Serco is expected to get £5.5billion and Mears will receive £2.5billion. Earlier this year it was reported that Deputy pm Angela Rayner wants the Government to terminate contracts they have made with private companies to house migrants. In its election manifesto, Labour vowed to 'hire additional caseworkers to clear the Conservatives' backlog and end asylum hotels, saving the taxpayer billions of pounds'. But, despite the pledge, the Home Office is yet to set a definite end date on migrant hotels as it does not want to commit to 'arbitrary targets'. The only vague timeframe given by the department was by Matthew Rycroft, the department's top civil servant, in February. He told MP's that the aim is to get to 'zero by the end of the parliament', leaving open the possibility migrant hotels could stay until August 2029. A Home Office spokesperson said: 'We inherited an asylum system under exceptional pressure, and continue to take action, restoring order, and reduce costs. 'This will ultimately reduce the amount of Official Development Assistance spent to support asylum seekers and refugees in the UK. 'We are immediately speeding up decisions and increasing returns so that we can end the use of hotels and save the taxpayer £4bn by 2026.'
