Pressing the Government to unlock vital investment in Southampton's Port
18th January 2011
Alan Whitehead today called on the Government to unlock vital investment for the port of Southampton that is currently being held up by needless bureaucracy.
In order for the Port of Southampton to remain competitive with European and UK rivals, it requires the redeveloping of two existing berths and dredging to allow access by the latest and largest container ships to the container port.
Work must begin in September in order for Southampton to be sure to remain competitive in the years ahead. Over 800 direct jobs and 1,200 indirect jobs will be safeguarded by the investment and over 200 new full time positions will be created. Unfortunately the entire project has faced a number of delays because of errors made by the Marine Management Organisation (MMO), red tape at the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), and the threat of legal action from competitor ports.
In the debate, secured in Westminster Hall by fellow Southampton Labour MP John Denham, Dr Whitehead warned that business could be lost to rival European ports if the Government failed to act quickly.
In the debate, Alan said:
"Why has that judicial review come forward, and why has the Marine Management Organisation, apparently petrified about the possibility of further judicial review, reviewed its powers accordingly? Is it because local amenity groups in Southampton are up in arms? Is it because the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds is worried about the effect on birds? Is it because English Heritage is worried about the effect on the Solent? Is it because Natural England is worried about the natural environment around Southampton? No. None of those organisations has ever objected to the proposal, and none has ever tried to stop it. All agree that the arrangements are satisfactory. Indeed, I understand that no one in the Southampton area has ever objected to the proposal. Nor should they, because the proposal is to upgrade an existing container terminal to bring it up to date with what is required for the port. That is all.
"It is astonishing to hear that an organisation from its vantage point 200 miles away has introduced judicial review of the upgrade’s details into the proceedings. It might be said that that organisation wants a level playing field. That appears to be more of a cover than an up-front argument, and it does not require an enormous amount of brainpower to consider what might happen if the port of Southampton were made to go backwards rather than forwards. That is what happens with port management; ports either lose trade or they gain it.
"UK trade can be obtained for everyone; it is not a zero-sum gain. It is not, however, difficult to conclude that Hutchison Ports believes that delaying or scuppering Southampton’s plans to upgrade its facilities, thereby making it unable to accept larger ships, would directly benefit Felixstowe. A judicial review is a fairly small investment—perhaps £100,000—for what is potentially a large gain. I caution, however, that such a move does not necessarily mean that more traffic will go to Felixstowe. It may not end up in the UK at all, and even if some of it did, in terms of UK plc it is equivalent to one car manufacturer seeking to sabotage another’s production line in the hope that the public will buy its cars, even if some members of the public then buy imported cars. That is the sort of action we are contemplating, and if that is the motivation behind the judicial review, I deplore the fact that it has been requested."
Speaking after the debate, Dr Whitehead said:
"The timing for this decision if crucial. Our port was ready to go ahead with this project in February of last year, but there is now a real danger that a delay of a few more weeks will lead to a full year's worth of lost business and jobs under threat.
"I was encouraged by the Transport Minister's agreement that they would press DEFRA on this issue. I'm also seeking a one-to-one meeting with DEFRA to press this case further."
UPDATE: You can now watch the debate here (Alan's speech starts 9.59 minutes in) and read a transcript of the debate here.
More information
What is the 201/2 berth redevelopment project?
The Port of Southampton is one of the UK’s top container ports, handling around 1.6 million containers a year, primarily in the Far East trades. In response to the growth in the size of container ships on this vital trade route, ABP submitted an application to Government in 2008 to deepen 2 berths (berths 201 and 202) at the Port so that the new generation of container ships could be accommodated at the Port. The project is wholly within the existing Port and represents the redevelopment of the Port’s original container berths.
Why has Government approval been delayed?
Government approval is needed from the Marine Management Organisation (MMO), who originally consented this project in February 2011 – on the basis of all original environmental objections to the project having been successfully addressed. In June 2011, the MMO then withdrew its consent because of legal threats by Hutchison Ports UK, the owner of the Port of Felixstowe.
Since then, the MMO has requested additional information from ABP and intends to re-consult on this project, thereby delaying delivery of this vital upgrade to the existing Port by months, possibly years.
What impact will a further delay in Government consent have on the Port?
The impact of this delay is, potentially, severe. The container terminal at Southampton employs around 800 people. Many of these jobs will be under threat if the redevelopment of 201/2 berth isn’t allowed to proceed.
The larger container ships, for which the deepened berths are needed, are entering service now. If they cannot berth at the Port of Southampton (because the berths are too shallow to accept them), then the shipping lines will be obliged to make alternative arrangements, such as relocating entire services to another UK port (currently only Felixstowe in the south-east) or a mainland European Port such as Rotterdam or Le Havre, who are all hungry for new business.
Why is the timing so critical?
A key element of the construction works is the piling of the quay wall. This activity is seasonally constrained to mid September to end March to minimise effects on migratory salmon. In order to commence piling in September 2012, ABP must award the contract to undertake the design works by end January / early February with the order of steel for the piles themselves required in April. Failure to meet the key dates could result in the project being delayed by twelve months.
What do you think about this story? Email Alan