Britain’s biggest port operator Associated British Ports (ABP) is travelling to Strasbourg on March 7, 2016 to make the case against the proposals that will determine the future of the UK's port industry before voting on the regulation on March, 8.
The vote comes as a new survey reveals that the majority of adults from across six major European countries prefer their own national governments to be responsible for overseeing the activities of commercial sea ports.
The European survey conducted by independent pollster ComRes covered Britain, France, Germany, Spain, Italy and Poland, and shows 66% think that national governments where the ports are based should be responsible for overseeing the activities of commercial sea ports in EU countries, against just 22% who think the European Union should be responsible.
Support for national government oversight was strongest in the UK and Germany, with 74% and 71% respectively.
The UK ports industry is united in opposition to the proposals and is urging MEPs to vote against.
PTI undertook a poll in 2015 which highlighted the majority of readers preferred ports to be governed in a mixed structure of nationalised and privatised elements.
James Cooper, CEO of ABP and Chairman of the UK Major Ports Group, said: “Privately-financed ports are engines of growth and they will be undermined by this new EU Ports Regulation if adopted.
“While the Regulation claims to promote competition, the effect will be to prevent privately-financed ports operating as fully commercial businesses. The ambiguity in the current text is unhelpful, as it creates uncertainty and puts essential future investment, growth and jobs at risk. It is simply not clear how this regulation will add value to European ports.”
Katharine Peacock, Managing Director of ComRes, said: “A clear majority of people across each of the six countries think that national governments should be responsible for commercial sea ports within their borders, not the EU.
“Given the widespread importance placed on the contribution of sea ports to national economies, it is notable that despite some variations between countries, there is broad consensus that sea ports should remain the remit of member states rather than Brussels.”
The UK is presently making up its mind on its overall membership of the European Union in the decision termed as “Brexit”.
The Brexit debate is hinging on several factors, however the British economy is a primary one. Those campaigning to stay in the EU – which includes UK Prime Minister David Cameron – believe Britain can trade and cooperate better with Europe when in a political union.
Those who campaign to leave argue the EU puts too many regulations on Britain’s economy and upends its sovereignty.
Sourced from http://www.porttechnology.org/news/list/
European Commission Proposals Threaten UK Ports Industry
Next Tuesday, the EU Parliament will debate the Ports Services Regulation (PSR), put forward by the European Commission. This could be one of the last chances for the regulation to be halted. While the PSR has been refused by the EU Parliament on two previous occasions, it appears that several concessions in the current draft (not least those designed to appease continental trade union interests) will make this draft more likely to pass. It should be noted that in the UK all major political parties oppose the draft regulation.
The aim of the PSR, it is claimed, is to improve competitiveness across all of the EU’s ports industries. There are concerns, however, that this regulation will adversely affect the UK’s port sector, which is significantly different in nature to that in mainland Europe.
The UK’s port industry is the second largest in Europe, handling 500m tonnes of freight per year and supplying 344,000 direct and indirect jobs across the country. Since 2009, the direct value of the UK’s port sector has increased by 6.4% in real terms, according to UK Trade and Investment. Annual investment in the industry remains robust and the sector’s productivity continues to outperform the rest of the UK economy. The UK Ports Industry Association reports that investment is running at £400 million a year and workers in the port industry are 1.3 times more productive than the UK’s economic average.
UK ports have a different operating model compared to the majority of ports in mainland Europe. Since the 1980s, UK ports are largely privately owned whereas most of those in continental Europe are operated by State authorities. In the UK, 15 of the 20 largest UK ports are private sector operations and only 10% of all ports are run by local authorities. This is in stark contrast to mainland Europe, where 80% of the ports are run by state or local authorities. This includes several large European ports such as Antwerp and Rotterdam, where a public authority retains the harbour authority functions.
As a result of the UK’s competitive ports industry, virtually all of the UK’s ports are privately funded and require no taxpayer subsidy. For example, new port capacity at Felixstowe and Southampton were developed with 100% of private funding. However, many ports across Continental Europe are dependent on taxpayer subsidy – new capacity at the ports of Rotterdam and Hamburg, for instance, were constructed with the help of 1.1 billion Euros and 788 million Euros respectively.
The absence of government involvement in the financing and strategy of the UK’s ports industry make it unique, according to the UK Ports Industry Association.
The proposed PSR would affect 43 ports in the UK – many of which are operated by the private sector. One of the European Commission’s stated aims of the proposed PSR is to improve efficiency and competitiveness of EU ports among other things.
This proposed regulation, however, poses a number of risks for the UK’s port industry. Firstly, the regulation is primarily aimed at tackling a lack of competitiveness from Europe’s state run ports. The UK Government has been clear that they believe these regulations would be harmful to the UK’s already competitive and largely privately owned ports. The UK Major Ports Grouphas also expressed concerns about the proposal’s aims to regulate market access to port services, port charges and financial transparency. The industry believes the regulations could have serious negative consequences for job creation and investment.
Furthermore, there are concerns that the new regulations will not be applied equally. The European Commission is currently considering further clarification of state aid rules, which may include certain port investments in the Block Exemption Regulation. Some MEPs are pushing for generous state aid to their local ports to be protected from the regulations.
Finally, the Prime Minister claimed that his EU renegotiation had “proposed a new mechanism to finally enforce the principle of subsidiarity.” The implementation of the PSR – which would effectively remove national oversight of the UK’s port industry – is contradictory to this commitment.
The UK’s ports enjoy three major advantages: they are independent and free of government controls, they are market driven and they operate in a good policy and planning framework. The UK’s privatised ports system was advocated by the Centre for Policy Studies, and this has resulted in a thriving industry.
Ideally, the European Commission should be looking to emulate the privatised model adopted by the UK. But for the more immediate future, the proposed regulatory intervention poses serious risks to this industry. The UK Government and UK MEPs of all parties should therefore:
- Resist any attempt to allow further state subsidies of EU ports;
- Insist on the PSR not applying to the UK, given concerns about it hampering the UK’s already competitive and largely privately owned ports;
- As a minimum, ensure the introduction of an amendment which would clearly and unambiguously remove privately financed ports from the scope of the regulation.
Story contributed by;
Daniel Mahoney and Tim Knox
Centre for Policy Studies
DISCLAIMER: The views set out in the ‘Economic Bulletin’ are those of the individual authors only and should not be taken to represent a corporate view of the Centre for Policy Studies or UK Haulier.
Comments
Post a Comment