The Front Page. - Copy 196 ( Ed Connell, David Foley on Port Funding)
6 September 2011
Our well known writer on all things nautical, Ed Connell, posted this following item in our Forum section in response to The Chamber of Commerce press release further below.....
The lines are blurred as to what is state aid and what is not.
Liverpool has a tremendous maritime history and should certainly get a slice of the cruise market. If it needs to repay a few million quid of taxpayers money to become a turnaround port then so be it.
Southampton is far and away the major cruise port. Together with many other privatised British ports, it is owned by ABP who are a foreign consortium registered in Jersey and paying no corporation tax. It has just received a lot of taxpayers money to upgrade the railway connection to the port to handle bigger containers.
Portsmouth has just opened a new cruise terminal funded by the City Council. It has also just benefited from £371m of taxpayers money to build the Hindhead bypass around and under the Devil’s Punchbowl making the A3 entirely dual carriageway.
Dover is a Trust Port and is on very dodgy ground complaining about taxpayer subsidies to other ports. Nevertheless the Chamber of Commerce has issued the statement at the start of the thread and Charlie Elphicke has stated the following:
MP for Dover Charlie Elphicke has written to transport minister Mike Penning as part of a 10-week consultation to formally object.
“There is no problem with a bit of competition but there needs to be a level playing field. We don’t get any help like that in Dover – it amounts to Liverpool getting state aid. I’m not an expert on this, but I would imagine allowing turnaround trips at Liverpool would be unhelpful for Dover.”
Clearly neither Charlie nor the Chamber of Commerce have any comprehension of what colossal state benefits Dover receives by virtue of being a Trust Port. There is certainly not a level playing field as it is tilted very much in our favour.
As a Trust Port, the Port of Dover is owned by the nation. It has benefited from enormous investment from the taxpayer over the years amounting to billions of pounds in todays money, the largest outlay being the fortune spent on the construction of the Admiralty Harbour a century ago. All the profits from operation of this infrastructure are continuously reinvested in the port with the result that we are the largest ferry port in Europe, the second largest cruise port in the UK, and have flourishing cargo and marina facilities.
The port pays nothing to the taxpayer for the privilege of operating all this nationally owned infrastructure free gratis and having the opportunity of continuously improving and building on it by reinvesting the profits. In return, the nation can comfort itself with the warm feeling that it owns a vital piece of national infrastructure which is thriving and continuously expanding.
I think that, in consequence, it would pay us to keep a very low profile in this trifling argument over a few million quid being spent on the other side of the country. Ed Connell.
* *
Chamber of Commerce press release...
The Dover District Chamber of Commerce has been monitoring developments at the Port of Dover since 1850. It is manifestly clear that any measure that menaces the growing cruise liner business in Dover will have a negative effect on local suppliers and retailers.
In September 2007, Liverpool City Council opened the City of Liverpool Cruise Terminal (CLCT). The allocation of £18 million of public funds from the North West Development Agency, Single Regeneration Budget, European Regional Development Fund and MWRP was based on the clear and agreed condition that CLCT would not welcome cruise ships which begin or end their schedule at Liverpool i.e. operate as “a turnaround port”, but would serve as a “port of call”. The Department for Transport rightly rejected a bid from Liverpool in 2009 to modify this condition with the words: “It is right that that business within this market should go where customers get best value without distortion of the market by subsidy. It is for the port of Liverpool to consider whether there are options to develop the turnaround cruise business at Liverpool on a purely competitive basis.”
Dover is the busiest UK cruise terminal after Southampton. We cannot blame Peel Ports and Liverpool City Council for offering to pay just £5,327,000 over a 15 year period to have the grant condition rescinded. After all, The Peel Group did not acquire £6 billion of assets by hiding its light under a bushel, but we do not think that Dover businesses and tax payers should contribute to the bank balance of their competitor. We do expect Liverpool to pay back the whole of the public grant it received before it can be allowed to compete with Dover, Southampton and the other cruise ports that pay their own way.
Chamber Chief Executive David Foley pictured left said: “In responding to the Department for Transport’s consultation, this Chamber supports the UK Cruise Ship Alliance in calling for a rejection of the proposal to allow CLCT to change the condition of its public grant.”
Our well known writer on all things nautical, Ed Connell, posted this following item in our Forum section in response to The Chamber of Commerce press release further below.....
The lines are blurred as to what is state aid and what is not.Liverpool has a tremendous maritime history and should certainly get a slice of the cruise market. If it needs to repay a few million quid of taxpayers money to become a turnaround port then so be it.
Southampton is far and away the major cruise port. Together with many other privatised British ports, it is owned by ABP who are a foreign consortium registered in Jersey and paying no corporation tax. It has just received a lot of taxpayers money to upgrade the railway connection to the port to handle bigger containers.
Portsmouth has just opened a new cruise terminal funded by the City Council. It has also just benefited from £371m of taxpayers money to build the Hindhead bypass around and under the Devil’s Punchbowl making the A3 entirely dual carriageway.
Dover is a Trust Port and is on very dodgy ground complaining about taxpayer subsidies to other ports. Nevertheless the Chamber of Commerce has issued the statement at the start of the thread and Charlie Elphicke has stated the following:
MP for Dover Charlie Elphicke has written to transport minister Mike Penning as part of a 10-week consultation to formally object.
“There is no problem with a bit of competition but there needs to be a level playing field. We don’t get any help like that in Dover – it amounts to Liverpool getting state aid. I’m not an expert on this, but I would imagine allowing turnaround trips at Liverpool would be unhelpful for Dover.”
Clearly neither Charlie nor the Chamber of Commerce have any comprehension of what colossal state benefits Dover receives by virtue of being a Trust Port. There is certainly not a level playing field as it is tilted very much in our favour.
As a Trust Port, the Port of Dover is owned by the nation. It has benefited from enormous investment from the taxpayer over the years amounting to billions of pounds in todays money, the largest outlay being the fortune spent on the construction of the Admiralty Harbour a century ago. All the profits from operation of this infrastructure are continuously reinvested in the port with the result that we are the largest ferry port in Europe, the second largest cruise port in the UK, and have flourishing cargo and marina facilities.
The port pays nothing to the taxpayer for the privilege of operating all this nationally owned infrastructure free gratis and having the opportunity of continuously improving and building on it by reinvesting the profits. In return, the nation can comfort itself with the warm feeling that it owns a vital piece of national infrastructure which is thriving and continuously expanding.
I think that, in consequence, it would pay us to keep a very low profile in this trifling argument over a few million quid being spent on the other side of the country. Ed Connell.
* *
Chamber of Commerce press release...
Threat to Dover Retailers & Suppliers!
The Dover District Chamber of Commerce has been monitoring developments at the Port of Dover since 1850. It is manifestly clear that any measure that menaces the growing cruise liner business in Dover will have a negative effect on local suppliers and retailers.
In September 2007, Liverpool City Council opened the City of Liverpool Cruise Terminal (CLCT). The allocation of £18 million of public funds from the North West Development Agency, Single Regeneration Budget, European Regional Development Fund and MWRP was based on the clear and agreed condition that CLCT would not welcome cruise ships which begin or end their schedule at Liverpool i.e. operate as “a turnaround port”, but would serve as a “port of call”. The Department for Transport rightly rejected a bid from Liverpool in 2009 to modify this condition with the words: “It is right that that business within this market should go where customers get best value without distortion of the market by subsidy. It is for the port of Liverpool to consider whether there are options to develop the turnaround cruise business at Liverpool on a purely competitive basis.” Dover is the busiest UK cruise terminal after Southampton. We cannot blame Peel Ports and Liverpool City Council for offering to pay just £5,327,000 over a 15 year period to have the grant condition rescinded. After all, The Peel Group did not acquire £6 billion of assets by hiding its light under a bushel, but we do not think that Dover businesses and tax payers should contribute to the bank balance of their competitor. We do expect Liverpool to pay back the whole of the public grant it received before it can be allowed to compete with Dover, Southampton and the other cruise ports that pay their own way.
Chamber Chief Executive David Foley pictured left said: “In responding to the Department for Transport’s consultation, this Chamber supports the UK Cruise Ship Alliance in calling for a rejection of the proposal to allow CLCT to change the condition of its public grant.”