VAUGHAN GETHING, a candidate for the Welsh Labour leadership, has come under fire for accepting a substantial sum of £200,000 from a company led by David Neal, a businessman with a history of environmental offences.
Neal, who has been convicted twice, first faced legal action in 2013 when he received a suspended prison sentence for unlawfully disposing of waste on a conservation site. Despite this, his involvement with Gething’s campaign has raised eyebrows, particularly as the donations were made during a critical period in the leadership contest to succeed First Minister Mark Drakeford.
Gething, representing Cardiff South and Penarth, has declared the donations to the Senedd, stating his commitment to transparency. The funds were provided by Dauson Environmental Group, among others owned by Neal, and were recorded with the Electoral Commission as two separate donations of £100,000 each. One of these contributions was made shortly after Drakeford’s resignation, highlighting the timing’s potential significance.
Criticism has been vocal, especially from Lee Waters, Llanelli MS and supporter of Gething’s opponent, Jeremy Miles. Waters has condemned the donation as “completely unjustifiable and wrong,” expressing concern over the optics of such a large sum being spent on an internal election amidst a cost of living crisis.
Gething’s past acceptance of funds from Neal’s other ventures, including Atlantic Recycling and Neal Soil Suppliers, which donated a total of £38,000 in 2018, further complicates the issue. These companies, along with another Neal enterprise, Resources Management UK Ltd, have faced legal and regulatory challenges, including fines and actions by Natural Resources Wales for environmental violations.
Despite these controversies, Gething’s campaign has defended the legitimacy and transparency of the donations, emphasising their adherence to electoral regulations and Gething’s pledge to enforce stricter environmental penalties.
The debate over these donations comes at a pivotal moment for Welsh Labour, prompting discussions on the ethics of political funding and the implications for environmental policy.
