Domenech oversaw a stuttering, but ultimately successful World Cup qualifying campaign, and the France Football Federation (FFF) confirmed last week there would be no change of coach.

However, the idea of bringing in a general manager wholesale shoes and a director of sport was discussed at a meeting last Thursday by Club France - an organisation created as an advisory board by the FFF.

And reports suggest Club France will recommend installing Lens chairman Gervais Martel as general manager and former Liverpool ugg boots, Lyon and France manager Gerard Houllier as director of sport when the FFF meet on 29th January.

I received my ballot for the 2000 all-decade team from the Pro Football Hall of Fame last weekend

When I’m asked to select any sort of all-star team,ugg outlet I prefer 22 players who can actually line up and play a game at their positions of choice.

So I always pick weak- and strong-side ends, weak- and strong-side outside linebackers and free and strong safeties on defense. ugg stores I also pick a right and left offensive tackle on offense plus a halfback and a fullback.

Thankyou for accepting my post's again.

When you have said all there is to be said its a bit like taking a dose of jollop, you sit back and see what happens, sometimes the effect is drastic but we shall see.

Obviously there really arent that many who are concerned enough about their harbour to speak up so maybe things will stay as they are, perhaps thats the way the silent majority want it to be, time will tell it was always going to be a long haul with no certain outcome.

It seems to have gone very quiet on here lately. Its such a shame even this site is now not posting all of the replies. I've wrote and submitted four comment over the past three weeks, none of them abusive or offensive, but none have been displayed. I doubt this one will either but its worth a shout.

Good Governance for Newlyn
Newlyn Pier & Harbour Commission (NPHC) currently fails to meet the standards of good governance which Government requires it to have in order for funds to be provided to build the new fish market. Until good governance is achieved by NPHC that means no new fish market. This raises the question;- what is good governance? The answer to that has been defined. For anyone interested in learning what the definition is visit the Department of Transport’s web site and look for:-
Modern Ports: A UK Policy
Modernising Trust Ports – A Guide to Good Governance
Published January 2000
Modernising Trust Ports
Modernising Trust Ports – A Guide to Good Governance
Second Edition
NPHC has neither a constitution nor a board of commissioners which are capable of achieving good governance. That means there is no avenue by which to rectify failed governance. So how is the situation to move forward and what is the responsible Government Department (Transport)doing about it?
The long awaited Harbour Revision Order (HRO) when implemented, would provide the constitution. However a viable commission is required as the mechanism to implement it. That viable commission does not exist. At first glance the five remaining commissioners (there should be ten) ought to be viable. A minimum, five commissioners are required to form a quorum in order for a meeting to be held at which decisions on implementation could be made. Closer examination reveals that two commissioners will not attend meetings and the other three including the chairman are merely pretending to be commissioners because their election mandate expired in 2002.
This is quite an extraordinary state of affairs, what is even more extraordinary is that Government itself seems not only to be turning a blind eye but actually argues that it is powerless to rectify this situation. Surely not. But why not act promptly to give Newlyn the good governance it needs?
The remedy has been suggested, it is available and it can be put into effect by Government, so why not get on with it?

Where have all the posters gone? My post from over a week ago has still not been displayed.

ITS TIME TO CUT TO THE CHASE.

THIS IS NOT ABOUT PERSONALITIES IT INVOLVES THE EXPOSURE OF POOR PERFORMANCE STANDARDS BY PUBLIC SERVANTS WHO OPERATE IN A DEEP ROOTED CULTURE OF INSTITUTIONAL FAILURE.

It is so easy to merely descend to an exchange of insults which is toally counterproductive.

However it is necessary to be openly controversial because the views of the protagonists in this instance are so diametrically opposed.

Without being brutally frank it is impossible to expose the scale of Newlyns complex problems which must be resolved for the sake of EVERYONE involved.

As long as exchanges are constructive this is a necessary element in seeking to progress by restoring stability, transparency and accountability, this is a task from which no one should shirk.

All businesses have a right to exist and operate in free and fair competition under similar cost structures and regulatory regimes.

This is all that is required for free enterprise to function and indeed flourish.

This is why it is absolutely vital that NHPC is seen to demonstrably operate in a detached unbiased manner where the same rules and conditions are applied without fear or favour to all.

This absolutely does not mean that ANY Harbour Property should be let at below market rents to anyone.

My initial issue with Newlyn Harbour Commissioners revolved around Harbour rentals, the property I was involved in renting, being the most recently let attracted the highest rental level, which in reality was still very very reasonable.

Given the state of harbour finances I wrote through the Clerk to the Commissioners suggesting that perhaps all rental levels including mine ought to more closely reflect market rates.

This caused uproar but had also been highlighted to the Commissioners by Hyder Consulting who were engaged by the Comissioners to develop a business plan for the regeneration.

As a result I was branded "a troublemaker out to rock the boat" (a standard Newlyn Harbour euphemism) frequently used by the Clerk to the Commissioners when confronted by inconvienient individuals.

Having what I felt to be a legitimate viewpoint I took great exception to this derogatory remark which along with a couple of other incidents led me to the opinion that the Clerk was faceitious and NHPC were an unduly reactionary inept organisation not delivering best value.

I have a vested interest in seeing Newlyn regenerate and prosper as I have a 50% interest in a Harbourside business as well as another wholly owned firm through which I supply vessels that wish me to do so directly.

I feel that it is most desireable that customers deal with me because they want to not because they have to.

This involves accepting that competition exists and providing a service that keeps my customers happy so that they do not migrate to competitors which they are at all times free to do if I do not meet or exceed their reasonable expectations.

THIS IS ABOUT BASIC BUSINESS PRINCIPLES AND TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY IN RELATION TO A SIGNIFICANT PUBLIC BODY.

Any business situation where one player dominates the marketplace is certainly unhealthy and in most circumstances illegal.

It is equally as unhealthy for the dominant player as it is for those who are forced to suffer from the wider effects.

Diversity drives innovation and pushes boundarys, monopolys tend to stagnate and stifle progress as has been so clearly demonstrated in Newlyn.

Over many years Newlyn Harbour Commissioners have been perceived as introspective and unapproachable by those who the Commissioners are meant to serve.

Newlyn Harbour is a community asset not a privately owned fiefdom as so many of its population have, over time, been led to believe.

The Commissioners ongoing failure to engage openly with its constituency and consequent failure to address legitimate concerns has propelled them where they are today.

UNTIL GOOD GOVERNANCE IS DELIVERED IN A LEGAL ACCEPTABLE FORM NEWLYNS PROBLEMS WILL COMPOUND.

The chairman of any public body should be impartial and ideally detached from any vested interest that may be involved in the day to day administration of the body chaired.

This is patently not true in Newlyn where the Chairman of the Commissioners also happens to be the Patriarch of the Ports largest operator which is neither healthy or accceptable in relation to clearly stated Department for Transport Guidelines.

This is not a personal attack on the Gentleman in question merely a statement of fact however unpalatable.

SPECULATION ABOUT THE FISH MARKET PROJECT IS FUTILE UNLESS OR UNTIL THE HARBOUR REVISION ORDER IS ENACTED AND NEW COMMISSIONERS ARE APPOINTED. SOMEBODY SOMEWHERE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE INTERMINABLE DELAYS WHICH SEEM TO HAVE CONSTANTLY THWARTED THIS ESSENTIAL PROCESS.

WHY ARE THEY ESCAPING ANY FORM OF SANCTION WHILE THE HARM THEY HAVE CREATED (WITTINGLY OR UNWITTINGLY) COMPOUNDS?

Despite concerted pressure from a number of individuals over an extended period no one in authority has as yet reacted in a positive manner.

It is becoming increasingly tedious to have to keep reiterating how serious this matter is when it repeatedly appears to fall on deaf ears.

While local feelings appear to be running high at the moment judged by the traffic using Newlyn.info officialdom has still not publicly attempted to inform the community of its proposals to rectify this most irregular damaging situation.

(name and email address supplied)
I'm surprised that we have not heard more from Mr John Lambourne as he more or less started this debate, he seems to have gone very quiet now that others have added their comments, I find this strange.
Also, nothing from Mr Tony Woodham, I find this strange as well.
I honestly believe this sad state of affairs will roll and roll and the harbour will just carry on until some government department takes the bull by the horns and forces the issue.

I was the "individual" alluded to by "Another Harbour User" and I can confirm that I recieved a writ for comments I submitted on the Cornishman website in June 2007 which were published and subsequently withdrawn by the Cornishman after they also received a writ. The highly confidential settlement they entered into tends to indicate that they were severely gagged in addition to paying an undisclosed sum to charity. The Cornishmans subsequent treatment of me, to whom I considered they owed a duty of care as publishers, resulted in a complaint by me to the Press Complaints Commission, which subsequently, was upheld.


Sincerely believing I was telling the truth and being fully aware of the potential consequences I defended myself by producing evidence to back up my allegations.

The allegations were that being in recipt of a conviction for illegal fishing (which like it or not is a criminal offence) the Chairman of NPHC ought to have considered his position as outlined in the DFT Guide to Good Governance in Trust Ports. A current conviction certificate relating to illegal fishing in a closed area in the Bristol Channel was produced to corroborate my statement.

The second allegation was that the Chairmans Firm received unusually favourable rental terms (the term Peppercorn was used by me) from NPHC as outlined in a business feasability report previously prepared by Hyder Consulting for NHPC. This report was produced to defend this allegation. The Oxford English Dictionary defines peppercorn as nominal and likewise defines nominal as virtually nothing.

The third point was that I wrote that the Clerk to NPHC conveyed to me the impression that he was the Chairman of NHPC's personal private assistant which is an allowable opinion. I stand by what I said as I believe these statements to be true.

I entertain no personal animosity toward anyone involved in this issue, I would prefer not to have to resurect this issue, but feel the remarks to be justified in view of the lack of business acumen, transparency and acountability exhibited by NPHC over a protracted period. Everyone associated with NHPC as Trustee's of a Public Asset during this awful time must bear some responsibility for the current tragic outcome. The inescapable fact of the matter is that both the Chairman and Clerk to NPHC have been and continue to be key players.

The inside out programme has not helped the situation in Newlyn what so ever, I thought that it was a witch hunt. The inclusion of the quota court cases( which had nothing to do with this story) only demonstrates the point that it was out to blame WS&S for all of Newlyn's failures.

What the producers missed, was that it was the extreeme bad management of the past and present harbour commisioners that has brought Newlyn to this situation. They also failed to grasp the most important issue, of wether or not that the present market proposal was what is needed for the fishing fleet in Newlyn.

We will hopefully very soon have 10 new harbour commisioners in place, who's job it will be to make sure that the harbour is run profitably. At present and even if the new market is built the harbour see's no profit from the marketing of fish within the premises. The profits of the harbour are made primarily, by turning around the vessels who land to what is geographicly the best situated harbor for fishing in the southwest, and it will be in this area where the new commisioners will need to concentrate their efforts.

I do not think that a new market will be the best option for the fishing fleet in Newlyn, it will stradle the harbour with a debt, that at present it can ill afford and having 5 competing markets in the south west is dilluting the buying power that we need to gain a good return for our catches.

I think the best way foreward is for a centralised market that would incorperate Plymouth,Looe,Bideford and Newlyn landings and would create a 20 plus million turn over market, which would attract buyers from right accross the southwest and the UK. This option would not only deliver a better return for our catches, but would also make the purchasing of fish far more cost effective and simpler. It would also be a far cheaper building to construct as it would be built for purpose, rather than having to be astheticaly pleasing to the eye.

We also have to consider the divisions in Nelwyn that would be created by the building of the new market, if WS&S do not decide to use the new market I fail to see how the venture would be profitable, as some 6million of what goes accross the present 10million yearly market floor in Newlyn is from the landings of the WS&S beamer fleet. So we are now only left with a 4million yearly market which I am sure would not attract the buying power needed to keep the other fisherman coming to the new market.

Passion for Newlyn and the harbour is great and I am glad to see this being exspeesed in this site I only wish we had something like this years ago, but we have to balance this with reality. The fleet will get smaller the price the consumer pays for fish can not increase so we must look to deliver our catch in the most cost effective way possible and reduce the amount of links in the chain and a centralised market is the only way to deliver this.

The future for Newlyn is very good indeed, if we can make the harbour more attractive by placing the market outside of the premises, we can open the harbour up to all sorts of oppotunities. The fisherman will still land into Newlyn, and with a strong commision giving Andrew and his excellent team of harbour staff the backing they need we could attract a lot of new and profitable business.

Thankyou for your openess Mr Howell. I'll rack my brains, see if I can think of any more questions.

It is very unfair to drag the general harbour staff into this controversy as they have no influence or authority and are required to do what they are told given the shambolic working environment we are all forced to endure they deserve our sympathy. However Newlyn actually lacks a harbourmaster in the truest sense as the present incumbents correct title is Clerk to the Commissioners which implies an advisory/clerical role rather than being in possesion of the necessary authority to control the Port in any meaningful manner.

Any other port of Newlyns stature would employ a port manager handling finances, compliance and admistration plus a harbourmaster and berthing master/assistant harbourmaster,the latter two posts would imply formal qualifications of at least a class one fishing ticket standard.

Berthing currently appears to be in a state of anarchy vessels arriving to land frequently find no quay berths available and often have to move inside of a tier to access the quay. Despite extensive decommissioning there are several tiers of defunct vessels that are not in working order but nontheless occupy key berths on the New Pier that ought to be available for active vessels that generate the vital landing dues.

Significantly many of these vessels are owned by the Chairman of the Commissioners firm and have not worked for, in some cases, years.This issue has been regularly raised with the Clerk to the Commissioners but appears to have been repeatedly ignored.

There was a rumour circulating in Newlyn a while back that the Clerk to the Commissioners was heard to be threatening legal action against some individual who had described him as the Chairmans "personal private assistant".Nothing more was heard, however given the recent situation one can help but wonder.

Whatever else it is beyond dispute that Newlyn Harbour is not run to the high standards experienced when landing elsewhere.There is an air of negativity and institutional failure for which, as the nominal head of the Port reporting directly to the Chairman of the Commissioners, the Clerk to the Commissioners must bear some degree of responsibility.

Jim, surely I should say it how I see it, if I didn't then it would be a waste of time posting on here. I personally know all of the employees and have done for many, many years. I'm not attacking them personally as they have been drawn into this mindset gradually because there has never any optimism shown by higher ranks. People seem to vent their grievences at them due to them being on the 'shop floor' so to speak.
The trouble is with Newlyn there has been no real improvement or sign of any in the near future which is very dissapointing considering the amount of money available through grants etc.

I seem to be getting an awful lot of questions! No matter, at least a discussion has ensued. To answer a few, and correct a few misunderstandings:

I believe that the transport companies do pay a small fee each year to use the lorry park.

The merchants do not pay anything at the moment, they offered to pay years ago to get some improvements underway but the proposal was rejected. There has been a merchant commissioner since 1994, but when he makes suggestions that involve capital spending he is told that the merchants don't pay anything! Long term wise I believe that they would be happy to contribute to an improved market.

Yes the new market proposals include an electronic auction. Like every piece of equipment its best use will depend on what it has been built to achieve and that depends on how the build contract is specified. Simply installing an electronic version of the existing "shout" auction would be a missed opportunity but some people believe that is all that is required.

The merchants association passed a majority vote for an electronic auction, over five years ago. It was not unanimous but it was a statement in the right direction.

And finally I don't see the need for or the relevance of naming the consortium partners at this stage. The proposition that they put forward for managing the market included a suggested structure and transition period from the old to the new markets. It was accepted by the Tender Panel appointed by the commissioners and when the decision to go forwards is made the next part of the process will be for open discussion with Newlyn's fishing community in its widest sense.

Perhaps I can ask two question?

With many of the public the perception of fishermen is that they are "plunderers of the ocean". What measures could be included in the future management of the market that could reverse this opinion to "harvesters of the oceans"?

And secondly, the auction only takes a couple of hours per day; grading preparation occupies only part of the building and usually takes place over night. What other uses could the new market building be used for which would benefit Newlyn?

How dare 'Harbour user' say that the employees of the HC have no pride or passion.
As I said earlier in a comment 'it's always the employees who get the fault', employees can only do what they are told at the end of the day and should they suggest anything in the way of improvements they are just ignored, so why should they have pride or passion.
I dont want to see this become just another slanging match so lets have sensible comments please.

I never thought I would live long enough to see a debate like this happen in Newlyn, the numbers visiting Newlyn. info are unprecedented and the views expressed are generally productive as both sides of the argument ebb and flow. Its good to see Nick Howell come out fighting and join the debate in such a constructive frank manner.

Inside Out has certainly put the cat amongst the pigeons to a degree I never envisaged was possible in around ten minutes. What a shame that Radio Emmet (sorry Cornwall) was not as assiduous in highlighting crucial but highly contentious local issues such as this. The same applies to the feeble gagged Cornishman which seems terrified of anything beyond tea treats and playgroups when it comes to local news.

At the end of the day we are talking about a deadly serious issue which must be solved once and for all, the future of Newlyn is bigger than any individual or organisation so the debate must be joined by as many as possible to ensure the right outcome for the majority.

I would also like to take this opportunity apologise publicly to Malcolm Pilcher as for a view expressed in an earlier post as I feel I was a little harsh in my critcism. It was not meant to be personal, rather it was aimed at the former Penwith Council of which he was Chairman.

Congratulations Gabriella for making this possible long may it continue.

I am a 'he' and most definately a harbour user who contributes income through several streams. I have no attachment to WS&S other than the use of their agency. What difference would it make if I do or dont know the running cost's of the market as I'm not employed to run the accounts of NPHC, as it happens I dont, although the 200k Mr Howell suggests seems high but could be reduced by 30k-40k overnight.
Now for the encouraging and very well educated statement by said commissioner 'as the commissioner in question pointed out, if the
market was demolished tomorrow, the harbour trustees would continue to receive revenue from vessels landing dues even if they
shipped their fish out for selling elsewhere but the trustees would not be saddled with the £180/200,000 per year market running costs'.
Just proves why we are where we are when this is the kind of support and vision thats shown.

The merchants do have a say on how the market and harbour is run, thats why there is a fish merchant representative commissioner.

Perhaps the fishermen should refuse to pay the extra 0.5% until we start to see an improvement in facilities.

Jim mentions a good point about the lorry park. Do the transport companys pay for using the space, if so how much?.

We find ourselves in a difficult situation but ultimately somebody has failed in their role/roles to keep Newlyn in the black,until this is
recognised and solved then i'm afraid we may be using this site for some time.

Out of interest I dont really care who has the auction rights on the new market (if completed) as long as it runs smoothly with a
reasonable rate.

Just to be sure, one more question for Mr Howell. Will there definitely,100%, sure thing be an electronic clock auction on the new market?.

The way this debate is expanding is like a breath of fresh air, I do not live in Newlyn, have no business connections with the place but love to visit and observe. I have over a long period been aware that things are not right and ought to be so much better. I also really enjoy visiting this website and applaud its sense of purpose and increasing usefullness to the community it serves.

What a shame that some of the people posting still feel the need to operate from behind psuedonyms but just the same this robust exchange can do nothing but good. I look forward to the time when this beautiful Harbour is restored to rude good health once more.

Best wishes to you all from a regular visitor.

Would Mr Howell like to tell people who the other business-men are who are involved with him in his 'consortium', and I mean all of them.
Also, what exactly do the fish merchants get for the 1% they pay?.
Lorry's that take fish away are often seen washing down and also leaving detrius on the lorry park, who pays for this then, it seems to me the fish buyers dont have it too bad after all.

"Harbour User", if he/she is a Harbour user, must know the actual running costs of the market. My statement that the auctioneers have had their running costs paid for them was made by one of the Commissioners about five years ago. Yes, of course, the money comes out of the revenue received from harbour dues and charges that are paid by vessels but that charge is meant to be used to pay for the upkeep of the piers, quays and landing facilities, not the market. Putting it another way, as the commissioner in question pointed out, if the market was demolished tomorrow, the harbour trustees would continue to receive revenue from vessels landing dues even if they shipped their fish out for selling elsewhere but the trustees would not be saddled with the £180/200,000 per year market running costs.

Every vessels pays the same 2.5% of their catch value to use the harbour and if they don't like it they are free to land elsewhere. If one group or company, collectively, pays more than another should they have preferential treatment? If someone had six lorries on the road and therefore paid more road tax than a private car owner, should they have preferential rights at traffic lights and roundabouts?

As for the merchants they suggested that they contributed a percentage to the market costs back in the 1990's but the commissioners, back then, decided that if the merchants paid a contribution then they may want to have a say in the way the market was run, so it was refused.
Today the commissioners want the money but the merchants have now refused until more modern facilities are installed. Impasse again. Newlyn merchants who buy at Looe and Plymouth pay 1% on top of the bid price because they receive extra services that Newlyn cannot, as yet, supply.

This complex mix was part of the reason that the new market running costs were put out to tender by the harbour trustees; Tuner's have agreed to be part of the new consortium that allocates the costs more evenely, WS&S have not.

It is not easy to put forward subjective, commercial proposals without looking as if they are a vendetta against WS&S but what is clear is that if Newlyn's fishing industry wants to improve its prospects then mature, commercial discussions will need to take place and an interim period of adjustment will have to be agreed.

The following statement by Mr Howell is false . 'WS&S, as auctioneers, have had their auction running costs of electricity, water, rates, grading machines, boxes, maintenance and harbour staffing free of charge for many years, whilst they charged fishermen 4% for the their auction service'.
The 2% and recently 2.5% levy collected by the HC from the fishing boats grossings contributed towards this. The annual box and water charge has also been in place for many years.
Its a bit harsh to make WS&S the scapegoats here for the complete lack of management and foresight to rectify some of the areas returning a loss for NHPC.
Incidently , how much to merchants contribute towards electricty,boxes,water and harbour staff wages?. Answer, ZERO. But a charge was put in place in April of 0.5% but unfortunately this has still not or attempted to be collected. Never mind its only approximately 30-40,000 pounds.

To give some background to how Newlyn fish market operates here is a summary.

In the past the harbour commissioners have allowed a number of agents to auction fish using their harbour premises and facilities whilst Newlyn harbour has been paying all of the running costs. Under the present system the HC's do not actually know the total value of fish sold, from which they collect 2.5%, until the figures are given to them by the auctioneers. This is their main income and from which a large part of the costs of maintaining the quays, berthing and hardstanding have to come from.

The harbour commissioners decided about six years ago, after listening to a broad range of views, that they would be prepared to fund the construction of a new market building if the running costs of the building were borne by the people who undertook to run it. So earlier this year they put the complete management of the new auction building out to open tender and asked for new ideas that included the wider community to be included. WS&S stated that they disagreed with decision to put the auction out to tender as they believed that they had an established right to continue; subsequently they did not submit a tender. In fact only one tender was put forward, from a consortium of those that had "expressed an interest", for a Community Interest Company which would be inclusive of the fishing industry and the local community and this was chosen as the way forward by the Tender Panel. WS&S have said they will take their fish and auction it elsewhere and anyone else who still wants to be "agented" by them can follow.

WS&S, as auctioneers, have had their auction running costs of electricity, water, rates, grading machines, boxes, maintenance and harbour staffing free of charge for many years, whilst they charged fishermen 4% for the their auction service. The Harbour commissioners decided in 2004 that their subsidising of the auction building could not continue. The fact that they were prepared to put up the capital funding for a new building demonstrated their strong commitment to Newlyn's future.

In the past WS&S's fleet of vessels supplied over 60% of the total value of fish landed; this has been increasing, as a percentage, because private boats are selling their catches elsewhere, despite higher costs, demonstrating their dissatisfaction with the existing services. Though over £10m of fish and shellfish was landed in Newlyn in the first six months of 2009, unless a new market is constructed that raises the first hand sale price and provides the most efficient landing facilities boats will continue to sell their fish in other ports, depriving Newlyn of the full benefits that can be achieved when a fishing community works together. It is a pity that WS&S's, who helped the fishing industry so much in the past and who broke the cartel of buyers in the 1960's, have become a short sighted monopoly themselves.

To reinforce the comments below see screenshot of auction room (with electronic auction clock) taken from the presentation distributed by the Newlyn Fish Industry Forum



Also see part of the description which appears in the document NEWLYN HARBOUR FISH MARKET & UNITS published on www.newlyn.org

The auction room is located directly above the reception and resource centre with access via a stair and lift. This room has a viewing window overlooking the market hall as well as views from the projecting section of the building down the Mary Williams pier and onto the area of public realm and Keel Alley beyond The Strand.

One minute and 25 seconds into the video here http://www.newlyn.org/
the Plymouth style computer auction clock can clearly be seen on the rear wall of the bidding room.

Where did the idea come from that there was no electronic auction in the new market? I trust that the whole video is still available for viewing rather than the few clips that were presented on Inside Out? If it is then please look again; I commissioned the video, through the NFIF and with financial assistance from Barclays and it has been made from the architects drawings with the addition of my ideas for an internal layout, where I used the equipment suppliers technical drawings. So it is not an "artists impression" but, apart from the exhibition furniture upstairs, pretty much what the finished building will look like inside should the consortium that I was part of get the lease for the new market.

If you would like to go through the video, after it has panned across the grading machines and the left hand side it pans to the first floor. Stop the video there and you will see the electronic auction clock on the wall inside a seating area. I will not say too much more about the operation as this was a competitive tender but have a thought as to how many people were in the auction room at Plymouth on Inside Out before you make comment. Our idea is for a multi use room.

The interior layout, mode of operation and usage are our own ideas and has been put together after many individual conversations with fishermen, merchants, processors and the public. I did not ask the main auctioneer/boat owners for their views as apart from being competitors, after over a century of involvement they obviously had their own opinions and years of operations to give them ideas on how to go forwards.

Combining the results from the interviews with my own experiences from thirty years of designing, fitting out and using buildings for fish processing and marketing gave me the basis for this internal layout. It will no doubt need fine tuning but until there is a consensus in Newlyn that it is now time to look forward to the future, rather than the past, and to see what this fishing community can really achieve from its unique location it would be a fruitless excercise.

As to the queries that have been expressed about the new markets running costs all I would like to say at this stage is that we presented to the Market Tender Panel,who had been appointed by the commissioners, with two fully costed scenarios. In both cases the basis used was to charge fishing vessels that wished to have their fish graded and auctioned the same as the existing charges at Plymouth and Looe, which is 5% of the sales value. This figure was not plucked out of the air to appease doubters of the viability of the operation but was the initial target when we started to look at the costs. For the tender we were the only potential market operators who talked to the architects and equipment suppliers, obtained quotes for capital and running costs, discussed present day practises and service with other ports and the only ones who considered the options of mechanisation.

When considering some of the comments that we had received during our research regarding "profits" and "ownership" we also considered what structure the company should be. When we presented to the new market tender panel all of our costings and ideas were shown, some only visually, and they were formed around the concept of a Newlyn Fishing Community Interest Company. These are normal operating companies, not charities, but with the requirement that the company has agreed its community aims and objectives with the CIC regulator,(www.cicregulator.gov.uk) and has agreed to abide by the requirement to distribute the majority of the profits to that community.

This innovative structure and fully costed business plan was what appealed to the Commissioners Tender Panel and won the day. Importantly we suggested that the next stage, the formation of the company and the make up of its community structure, should be open to further discussion. We presented a format and suggestions but if the new market is to be built the final formation of the Newlyn Fishing Community Interest Company will need to be agreed.

The financial scenarios presented to the Panel anticipated a number of potential changes in the make up of Newlyn's fishing fleet. When the decision is taken to build the new market final refining of the business plan to match the anticipated landings can take place.


The next stage is for the Newlyn harbour commissioners to form an Interim Board to implement the new Harbour Revision Order which will see the appointment of eleven new commissioners. If the Interim Board have the diplomatic skills to set aside personal differences and they are able to focus on the wider opportunities available to Newlyn's fishing community then we will move forward to a, different but viable future.

The place is a mess, there is no pride or passion shown by any employees or commissioners. A complete change from top to bottom is required.

SEND FOR A GUN BOAT!!!!

CLAP THEM IN IRONS!!!!!

Judging by the remarkable number of hits this item is recieving, which have once again accelerated since the Inside Out item on Monday it is to be sincerely hoped that it has come to the attention of politicians and civil servants. If they are monitoring this traffic it is to be sincerely hoped that they read, mark, learn and inwardly digest the depth of feeling evident.

It is not to their collective credit that hitherto they have chosen to ignore pleas from various individuals to intervene in this rats nest of ineptitude and nepotism that has done so much to undermine Cornwalls already fragile economy over an extended period.

ARE YOU LISTENING ANDREW GEOPRGE MP.

ARE YOU ALSO LISTENING COLIN MORRIS OF THE DEPARTMENT FOR TRANSPORT.

Curioser and curioser what a tangled web they weave! Newlyn Harbour Commissioners spend a quoted £1,000,000 on working up a scheme for a "new state of the art" fish market which apparently fails to include provision for an electronic auction.

The Harbour Commissioners who commissioned and oversaw this inherently flawed project are coincidently chaired by the Father of the Lady who walked out of a recent TV interview because she is vehemently against the new market project. Where is this bizarre situation going next?

The lack of an absolute commitment to an electronic auction from day one is the proposed new markets weakest link.

Those who have moved to Plymouth to sell their fish repeatedly cite this single issue as the main reason when pressed to say why they have abandoned Newlyn market.

The proposed new market portrays the image of a very upmarket shed when compared to what currently pretends to be a market, however without the latest technology it is still potentially an empty shed and a very costly one at that.

Looking at the video presentation of the market design there is no apparent evidence of provision for an electronic auction theatre, was this an oversight or was it a deliberate omission by the Harbour Commissioners who presumably worked up the specification?

Unless this vital ingredient is included Newlyn's proposed new market willl remain in the dark ages and be lucky to attract enough fish to feed the local cats let alone credibly and confidently hope to engage in global trading.

The business will not succeed without a properly presented business plan which incorporates accurate costings coupled with ring fenced access to the specific investment necessary to provide the electronic systems vital to attract online buyers.

To truly succeed in what is now a global marketplace this is the key element which is not being convincingly addressed.

There is, currently, a worrying degree of naievete evident which is giving unwelcome sustenance to those who will stop at nothing to blow this project out of the water.

The biggest question on the majority of boat owners lips is 'how much is this going to cost us?'. Forget about all these grand ideas of other revenue streams because they wont cover cost's, this isn't doom and gloom its reality. Lets start seeing some figures in print for the forecasted commission rates as they must be avaliable. Mr Howells 'aim for keeping them the same' is a little weak in substance.
Even with this new market there is still no guarantee of an electronic clock auction, why?.

This incredibly complex and emotive issue could never be done justice by a ten minute regional TV slot, however sympathetically the presenter handled it. Without in depth back ground knowlege the average viewer would be totally in the dark with regard to the issues huge significance to Cornwalls economy.

What is not needed now is a media feeding frenzy that seeks to sensationalise Newlyns problems, which had they listened and done a better job previously, may not have been allowed to deteriorated to the degree they have at present.

The rights and wrongs of the proposed new fish market are but the latest symptom of the malaise that has affected Newlyn for decades but more particularly since 2000.

What is now becoming increasingly evident are the accumulated consequences of the years of mismanagement. The Harbour Commissioners misguided strategy chose to ignore sound business principles in order to prop up a virtual monopoly to the serious detriment of that virtual monopoly and more significantly the Ports long term well being.

The firm in question, that amongst its many other interests operates a fleet of green boats, once commanded huge respect, which given the degree of success formerly enjoyed, was rightly deserved.

Tragically from this most priveliged position, having in its power the ability to do so much good, it instead chose to embark on a power fuelled ego trip that has taken it to where it is today.The saying "pride goeth before a fall" could have been coined for this very situation.

The Lady who now runs this long established firm, faced with a tough but legitimate question during the TV interview chose to storm out rather than reply, this futile gesture encapsulates a mindset seemingly incapable of embracing anything other than absolute control.

Whether she does or does not eventually choose to market fish in Newlyn is a business decision only she can take, however who controls this marketing process is a matter for the community through a properly constituted board of Harbour Trustees to decide.

In the meantime the current marketing meltdown in Newlyn continues as week on week more of her customers vote with their feet by electing to send their fish to Plymouth's modern market for sale.

It was interesting to observe the contrasting cultures revealed by the item, Plymouths calm ordered bidding contrasting with the noisy chaotic shout auction in Newlyn.At least those who land their fish in Newlyn now have a choice and the Harbour still benefits from the landing dues.

Newlyns long term future is assured whatever the doom and gloom merchants prophesy because there is a nucleus of skilled committed youngsters fishing and quietly prospering as they operate in the midst of the chaos.

Is that a leading quetion Harbour User? why not give us your version of events this discussion needs opening up to and input from everyone.

Well, all I can say after watching the programme is that 'teddy's being thrown out of prams' spring to mind.

My first thoughts on the inside out programme was, what a whitch hunt it turned out to be and I am glad that I had nothing to do with it. The programme producers totally missed the real story, which is the fact that the commisioners past and present had made a real mess of the management of the harbour.
I am not defending WS&S, they are their own worst enemy at times, but the programme went on about the fish fines, which had absolutly nothing to do with the proposed new market. The real issue is wether or not the market should be built at all and does it provide the best opotunities for selling fish. The Fisherman deserve the best price possible for their hard earnt catch and I believe this would be best served by a market built centrally in the southwest, that could incorporate all the markets ie. Plymouth, looe, Bideford and Newlyn.

This would lower the cost of marketing to the fisherman and the cost of buying the fish for the merchants. We have to look at this issue with our eyes wide open and look to the future of selling fish not follow the present trends, the facts are that the fleets will get smaller, we must reduce the supply chain to the end user, and the real value to the communities lies in the many towns and villages retaining their vessels and processing exspertise.

This can be done buy the vessels choosing to work from their home ports but delivering the fish they catch to a central market, which with it being the only place to be to buy the best fish in Europe all the buyers would want to be there buying, so it would have a large client base and great fascillities. Also with this option the building costs would be dramaticly less, as it would not have to look attractive, but be built for purpose. Then places like Newlyn would thrive, as the burden of the cost of building a market would be lifted, so the harbour could concentrate on the real money making side of running a fishing harbour, by turning around the landing vessels efficiantly and making what is the geographicly best sited harbour in the southwest the best place to land your catch.

The only thing the programme did highlight is the depth of division in the harbour, with WS&S desperate to hold onto power and a market which they use for absolutly nothing and others who are more intrested in the loss of a market rather than looking at the future and what is really needed.

If I was lizzy now i wouldn't put a single fish on the new market either, so where does that leave us? we can't carry on with the seagull shed that we have at present so a sensible middle way is what's needed, that also makes BUSINESS SENSE.

What are the opinions on the 'inside out' programme?.

How encouraging to see this piece of news get in excess of 2000 hits in two weeks. Finally the penny is dropping that this issue involves ethics integrity and transparency and is not after all the figment a few "troublemakers" fevered imaginations.

No credit is due to those who could have done something sooner but chose not to, to the serious detriment of our local economy. However there is no time for recriminations, resolute action must now quickly be taken to mitigate the terrible damage that has been inflicted on Newlyn.

Cornwall Council must be thanked for listening carefully and taking this matter serously, a marked improvement on previous inaction. We ought to wish them and the DFT well as they identify and install an interim commission to act in a caretaker capacity until the new Board of Harbour Commissioners is eventually installed.

Thank you John,

I've read this and then read it again, i'll discuss it privately with you.

Glynn

Ethics which govern the performance and behaviour of public servants, the harbour master of Newlyn is one, reflect the public trust which is placed in them. They are not mere employees being told what do. They must carry out and comply with legal requirements. Examination of the legislation and guidelines governing Newlyn Harbour shows that there has not been compliance in a number of important aspects especially regarding transparency and accountability.

Why the harbour master has to be dragged into this sorry state of affairs is beyond me, he is merely an employee doing what he is told to do, but like most employees they take the blame when things go wrong.

Thank you John for finally speaking up, it has been a bit lonely in the last couple of years as the necessity to speak forthrightly seems to have fallen on my shoulders. I well remember the day the writ arrived when I was abandoned by the Cornishmans cowardly capitulation to the legal firestorm that errupted when I openly questioned on their website why convicted criminals were allowed to run Newlyn Harbour. Aditionally at the same time I queried rents, not to have them lowered but raised to a market level which also caused equal uproar among those enjoying most favoured staus from the Commissioners.

While it cost me a bit in legal fees to prove I was telling the truth it meant that the writ was withdrawn so it was worth it as luckily I could afford it. Others over the years have been silenced for fear of financial repercusssions but I live too close to the woods to be frightened of owls!

I well remember the sniggering that went on behind my back as the armchair pundits that frequent the mission gleerfully predicted "that I would be hung out to dry". Because I was telling the truth I was not, but still that example of Newlyns ability to smirk at anothers troubles has left a very bitter taste in my mouth. These selfsame characters, like ventriloquists dummies, are the ones who stir mischief and invariably hide behind anonymity,
they are basically scared of the brooding presence that has hitherto held the port in a grip of fear.

It has been necessary to play the long game, attrition and guerilla tactics have worked as gradually the whole rotten edifice has collapsed in on its own breathtaking degeneracy and corruption. I am glad to have played a small part in this unsavoury saga but as John said serious questions must now be answered of those in authority who allowed this vipers nest of bad practice and ineptitude to operate with such impunity for so long.

The New Fish Market for Newlyn

Without a fish market no one can imagine the fishing industry surviving for very long in Newlyn. Newlyn’s regeneration effort is based on providing this key facility so that the fishing industry and the wider community have a future. For fishing, sustainability is the issue. The marketing process which brings fishermen and consumers together over how much and what sort of fish should be caught and eaten is crucial to achieving that sustainability. How fishing is to dovetail with other objectives about how we use the seas around us is part of this too. Communities not just in Newlyn but all over Cornwall are involved in thinking about the wider issue of how sustainability is to be achieved. The future presents us all with a real challenge.
The building of an up to date, up to standard fish market for Newlyn and the proposal to manage it by a community interest company means there is now a way to take up the challenge. The broad objectives of community participation and sustainability rather than narrow monetary profit objectives will be an enormous advantage.
The fishing industry community and the wider community will be able to participate together and in this partnership process generate all sorts of innovative ideas and solutions about how sustainability could be taken forward.
The new fish market will go ahead but there are still issues which need to be faced up to and tackled.
It is disappointing a decision on funding for the new market has been deferred for a second time but progress has been made, the business case is now accepted as solid and robust. The two reasons given to defer a decision until next year, a question over match funding and a question over the governance of the Harbour Commission show at long last that Government recognises and acknowledges that there are serious deficiencies in the management (governance) of the Commission. This is a refreshing admission and means that these deficiencies can and should now be addressed by Government. The deficiencies need to be corrected without delay because clearly, funding cannot be provided until they are.
On governance the Harbour Commission, Newlyn Pier and Harbour Commissioners (NPHC) is now in such a shambles that it has a deficiency of commissioners on its board, both in terms of the number of commissioners but also in the expertise, skills, talents and abilities that it so desperately needs. It cannot hold meetings, cannot make decisions and has no authority. Over recent years those commissioners who have tried to do something about the situation have one by one resigned in frustration and disgust. They have been unable to get the Commission out of the mess they are in. The rump of commissioners now left, have no authority, their three year mandate following elections expired in 2002 and elections have not been held since 1999. This is contrary to the requirements laid out in the Parliamentary Act which governs the Commission as a Trust Port authority.
A Harbour Revision Order (HRO) to keep the Commission on the rails should have been enacted before the election mandate of 1999 expired in 2002. The necessary HRO has still not been enacted. Meanwhile NPHC has carried on regardless apparently oblivious to necessity to keep themselves on the right side of the law. One would expect a public body such as a Harbour Commission getting into this sort of state to be very rapidly stopped in its tracks and some remedial holding measures applied to quickly rectify the situation but no nothing has been done.
NPHC have simply ignored the requirement to hold elections and nothing has been done about it. There has been no explanation as to why the Harbour Master/Clerk has failed in his public duty to keep the Commission constitutional and its authority intact. No explanation too as to why he did not have a new Harbour Revision Order in place to secure this back in 2002 when the mandate of the elected commissioners expired? Was it incompetence? Was he over-ruled? There are a string of questions we could and should ask. Why is getting a new HRO taking so long? Why has Government not stepped in to rectify the situation? Why is Parliament apparently oblivious to its own act being ignored? Why have we been kept uninformed? Why is the media not interested? Why is there no accountability and why do we have no means or avenue as a community to ensure our public institution and those within it, honour the trust we place in them? Transparency, accountability and all the checks and balances we expect as normal in the operation of a public body have been ignored and allowed to be ignored. That is until last week when the application for funding for the new fish market was deferred.

Given the mess in terms of constitution and organisation we can only guess what Government’s question is over match funding. We are completely in the dark. There is an absolute dearth of accounting and financial information published about the workings of NPHC. We have a right to know but that too is ignored. What we do know is, that according to Defra’s published data on fish landings in Newlyn in terms of value, roughly £18 M of fish has been landed annually over the last few years. For the period January to the end of June this year the landings were £10M so this year’s landings may well exceed £18M. NPHC collects 2 ½ % of this as landing dues, so annual income from this source amounts to £450,000. Other income from harbour dues and rental on properties should boost this considerably. It could not be possible that there is insufficient surplus or income to meet match funding demands. If the match funding commitment has simply not been forthcoming, we need to know why. If like us, Government is in the dark too and feels uncomfortable, then some light needs to be shone on NPHC’s accounts and urgently.
We need regeneration in Newlyn, we demand and deserve a Harbour Commission which we and Government can trust, we demand good governance, we need a new fish market and we will make fishing sustainable.

To start with let’s deal with the governance issue, it is as simple as getting together with the determination to do something about it and not just leaving it as a moan and a whinge.

If you want to be part of doing this contact me John Lambourn on 078 1305 0901 or 01736 366 868 or email: This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it

This negative news is really no surprise as anything that involves Newlyn Harbour is virtually guaranteed to be a dysfunctional shambles that no one seems capable of getting to grips with.

The former chairman of Penwith Council, Mr Pilcher can pontificate til the cows come home but he of all people ought to be aware that his Council were not entirely blameless in standing idly by while this disaster unfolded.It should be apparent to Mr Pilcher that his own performance was obviously deemed less than satisfactory by his electorate judged by the verdict delivered by the ballot box.

Newlyns Harbourmaster is in this instance perfectly correct not to comment as he is a mere employee of the Harbour and its stakeholders who have so singularly been failed by his immediate masters the discredited useless commissioners.

http://www.consolsoils.co.uk/blog/?cat=3