Ports demand £120m for ‘obsolete' Brexit border posts
The request for taxpayer-backed compensation has been made after the new UK-EU agreement meant that new refrigerated inspection sheds, warehouses, car parks and roads would become surplus to requirements.
The Prime Minister's agreement will remove the need for border checks on plant, animal and food imports from the EU, wiping out the fee revenue that ports were banking on to recover the hefty capital cost of setting up the new checkpoints and inspection facilities.
The ports' demands could add an unforeseen taxpayer cost to the UK-EU deal, putting further pressure on the Government's already stretched finances and offsetting some of the deal's benefit.
It would also be controversial, given Britain's ports are owned by Middle Eastern and Chinese investors. Some of the recipients would include UAE-owned DP World and the Hong Kong-based conglomerate CK Hutchison.
'We've prepared these facilities in good faith, and now they're not going to be used,' said Richard Ballantyne, chief executive of the British Ports Association.
'Some of them may be eventually demolished, or at least modified. The Government should cover the full costs of these white elephants and put this episode behind us.'
In 2020 the government doled out £200m to 41 ports across Britain in payments ranging from under £100,000 to more than £20m. The money was to be spent on infrastructure designed for inspections and spot checks on trucks from the EU carrying farm and food produce.
But the Port Infrastructure Fund was not large enough to meet demand, leaving the ports to foot up to £120m of the bill – much of which was incurred during the pandemic, when construction costs soared.
Once built, a typical large border control post costs around £200,000 to maintain, with running costs including energy, security, business rates, cleaning and repairs.
The plan was for the ports to recoup at least the operating costs of the facilities, if not the capital and opportunity costs, from charging levies or fees on the EU-origin trucks that used them. Up to 40pc of Britain's trade with Europe is in agri-food or related products.
But the UK-EU deal will set up a 'common sanitary and phytosanitary area' that will remove the need for the checks and inspections – and for the revenue and infrastructure that supports them.
'It's quite impressive infrastructure. But it could be largely redundant now,' Mr Ballantyne said.
It could be more than a year until the UK-EU deal on animal and plant products is implemented. Mr Ballantyne said this would give the Government and industry time to set up any compensation mechanism.
'Based on our experiences last time, it's got to be quite flexible. The conditions that were placed on ports last time were too onerous,' Mr Ballantyne said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The National
an hour ago
- The National
Time will tell whether new Scottish left-wing party has the legs
In fact, having spoken to both Phil and other enthusiasts, SLA seems at a pretty embryonic stage right now. However, they are having a crunch meeting tomorrow with members of Collective, the London-based English grouping which shares much of the same left-wing agenda. One of the people coming north for the summit is Karie Murphy, who was head honcho at Jeremy Corbyn's office before being seconded to run Labour's 2019 election campaign. Labour subsequently had their worst result since 1935. Karie, a former nurse, now self-describes as a 'political strategist'. Although they are apparently not formally part of the Corbyn/Zarah Sultana combo which launched a new party somewhat messily the other week, Collective's website does not hide its admiration for the former Labour leader. READ MORE: John Swinney brands Gaza as 'genocide' for first time as Fringe show disrupted They assert that Collective 'has captured a renewal of socialist ideas and political energy that was generated under [[Jeremy Corbyn]]'s leadership of the Labour Party. It is driven by the spirit of 'Corbynism' that can now be seen in the UK-wide mobilisation, at all levels, in opposition to Labour's rightward and authoritarian turn.' Rightward and authoritarian it may be, but there's little evidence of enthusiasm for Scottish independence, which Phil Taylor describes as one of the core principles of the new movement in Scotland. Corbyn once described indy as 'not a priority', while Keir Starmer now says it can't happen at all while he's PM. Otherwise, the list of causes the Scottish Left Alternative embraces echoes to a large extent the mantra adopted by Collective in terms of support for workers, for Gaza, an assault on the climate emergency and corporate greed. Which means more than an element of crossover with the Greens. In Taylor's view, new leadership in the Greens in both England and Scotland means that the party will be readier to accept new kids on the political block. We shall see. Thus far, all is not sweetness and light amid the Greenery. He also says that in conversations within Scotland, he's found that many people are prepared 'to leave their political baggage at the door'. The other question mark is whether or not they can make a dent in SNP support or woo back those who defected/returned to Labour the last time round. The [[SNP]] too are in the midst of internal warfare, with their leader proposing one strategy and impatient footsoldiers an entirely different one. Half of his party thinks independence needs a much stronger focus, while the other half believes getting public services right will matter more to the Holyrood electorate. At the moment, Mr Swinney seems inclined to ride both horses at once which is fine, so long as you don't fall off. The other possible bone of contention between north and south is the SLA's declaration that it will support both women's rights and those of the LGBT+ community. Of late, that issue has also made a jagged split in tartan ranks. There is no doubting Taylor's sincerity, but perhaps a question mark over his naivety. It's one thing to suggest that there are many folks on the London left who just don't understand Scotland; quite another to hope they will jettison their long-standing beliefs in the value of Unionism on the say-so of a newly registered Scottish counterpart. There will be a second meeting of SLA adherents in early October which is coming perilously close to next May's Scottish elections. And, not at all incidentally, it will take place a week before the [[SNP]] gather for their 91st conference in Aberdeen. Taylor concedes that Collective is rather more motivated by the 2029 election than next year's Holyrood variety but sees no reason why that needs to matter. In his opinion, inclusivity and transparency will be the hallmarks of the new movement in Scotland. and Collective will be relaxed about any divergence in the electoral cycle or the attendant strategies required. Yet setting out a stall for an election some four years distant is a totally different proposition from one which has to get a serious act together in a matter of months. Plus, there is no guarantee that tomorrow's summit between Collective and Scottish Left Alternative will be an entirely harmonious affair, given the known areas of likely controversy. I reminded Phil that new parties have an unfortunate habit of rising without trace, but his optimism for the notion of a Scottish Left Alternative is unshakeable. There is no doubt that many erstwhile Labour voters are downright scunnered with the party just a year into its current five-year stint; the question is whether they will scamper off into this 'electoral vehicle' or whether they will merely switch allegiance to the Scottish Greens or the [[SNP]]. Much will ride on what conclusions the [[SNP]] conference reaches (or perhaps is allowed to reach). And whether or not Scottish Labour remember the Scottish bit. Mr Swinney's latest suggestion of a constitutional convention would have had rather more merit in late 2014 when the indy troops were licking their wounds and desperate for some kind of balm. Since then, there have been many trigger points to advance independence which were ignored from a great height – Mr Swinney will remember them well as he was embedded in the leadership team at the time. One straw in the nationalist wind is the notion of reprising 'both votes SNP'. As I never tire of explaining, this is a surefire route to handing seats to Unionist parties as the imperfect hybrid proportional system we use was devised to give list options to parties who failed to have their vote share properly reflected in parliamentary numbers. It has meant, inter alia, that some of those most hostile to independence for Scotland and, for that matter, even to devolution, are able to rest their posteriors on Holyrood seats. Though 2011 might have been a triumph, it was also an aberration. All parties – especially one in power for a long time – are liable to fall out with each other, a fate which may also await a fledgling one too. After all, if there's one thing the left excels at, it's contriving to split. After which, implosion generally follows. It's also difficult to see how a Corbynite cadre based in London can offer the hand of solidarity and friendship to a similar would-be mass movement in Scotland, but one wedded to self-determination even if they share an interest in most of the other named causes, like wealth taxes and 'welfare not warfare'. Mr Taylor insists that the Scottish end of the equation is bottom-up and organic and most certainly not a mere branch office of the English operation: 'It will not be a franchise of a UK initiative.' That's an admirable ambition, and one which makes it rather more distinctively Scottish than Anas Sarwar's fiefdom. Yet you do wonder if the Scottish tail will be permitted to wag the English dog. Anyway, some of the mist will have cleared by close of play tomorrow. Then we will find out if we have a serious new player in the game, running up and down the left wing, or whether this is yet another false dawn for people of a lefty persuasion. Watch this space.
The National
an hour ago
- The National
Keir Starmer's Palestine recognition speech full of colonial arrogance
This week, three-quarters of a century later, the British Prime Minister affirmed the enduring truth of Sayegh's words. In the same breath that Keir Starmer declared statehood to be the inalienable right of the Palestinian people, he confirmed that British recognition will hinge on the actions of the Israeli state: Only if Benjamin Netanyahu and his government continue their campaign of ethnic cleansing will Britain join 147 other countries in recognising [[Palestine]] as a sovereign nation. Speaking in front of two large Union Jacks, the Prime Minister acted with the same colonial arrogance that motivated the British colonisation of Palestine in the early 20th century. Justifying that occupation before the Peel Commission in 1937, Winston Churchill said: 'I do not admit that the dog in the manger has the final right to the manger even though he may have lain there for a very long time … I do not admit that a wrong has been done to those people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher grade race, or, at any rate, a more worldly-wise race, to put it that way, has come in and taken their place.' READ MORE: Police remove pro-Palestine protesters from John Swinney's Edinburgh Fringe show Keir Starmer would never say such things. However, for as long as Britain uses Palestinian statehood as a bargaining chip and simultaneously supplies material aid to abet Israel's crimes, the Prime Minister channels Churchill's imperial logic: Dehumanise the Palestinians in order to justify the denial of their right to self-determination. In Gassan Kanafani's novella, Returning To Haifa, Said, the protagonist, asks his wife, Safiyya: 'Do you know what homeland is? It is where nothing like this happens.' Since October 2023, the Palestinian homeland has been decimated – 70,000 tonnes of explosives have been dropped on the Gaza Strip; 4000 buildings have been demolished in the Occupied West Bank. The conditions necessary for human habitation of that homeland have been systematically erased too. Gaza, the UN acknowledges, is now 'the hungriest place on earth'. As the direct consequence of intentional decisions by a nuclear power, the mass starvation of Gaza is, as Professor Adam Tooze points out, 'quite unlike that anywhere else in the world'. In Yemen, Sudan and Haiti – among the places where hunger is most acute – the share of the population at risk is between 49% and 57%. In Gaza, the share is 100%. The declared objective of Israel's genocide is to deny the Palestinian people even the hope of a homeland. Last week, the British state served that aim, conferring the right to decide Palestine's future not to the land's people, but to its illegal occupier. Deploying the language of universal human rights to strip the Palestinian people of their agency, Keir Starmer's duplicitous designs offer Benjamin Netanyahu an olive branch. By delaying any decision regarding recognition until the UN General Assembly meets in September, the British government has afforded the Israeli government six more weeks of impunity. Keir Starmer will only recognise Palestine as a last-ditch attempt to salvage what little faith remains in the 'rules-based international order'. To do so would involve committing the cardinal sin of humanising a population whose erasure the British state has licensed, supported and participated in for decades. If the British state is to concede that Palestinians, like the rest of the world, have the right to self-determination, then Keir Starmer and his Cabinet have a series of uncomfortable questions to answer. To this day, imperialism's serial dispossession of the Palestinians has rested on the explicit understanding that they do not enjoy the same rights as the rest of us. The question of recognition – and Keir Starmer's attitude to it – forces this contradiction to the surface for all to see. Since last year's General Election, the question of Palestine has posed serious challenges to the Labour leader's premiership. Confronted by a mass movement to end Israel's genocide, the Prime Minister has taken every possible step to evade accountability – including the criminalisation of peaceful protest. Last week's announcement is no different. The foreign policy of the British state – which has conducted more surveillance flights over Gaza than even Israel – is not, as far as our government is concerned, up for debate. Indeed, Britain's subjugation to the United States is such that the interests of imperialism have always sat outside the realms of our democracy. By cynically gesturing toward recognising the Palestinian state, Keir Starmer hopes to ease popular domestic pressure while not straying from the broad position of the Trump administration. The Palestine solidarity movement can have no truck with such colonial parlour games.
The National
an hour ago
- The National
Is age verification being used right in Online Safety Act?
Chelsea Jarvie, who is finishing up a PhD in online age verification, said the technology brought in to support the implementation of the Online Safety Act needs to be 'urgently' looked at as she accused ministers of failing to 'read the room'. She added that the legislation in isolation will not be enough to protect children online, and the Government had "work to do" to balance children's safety with public trust in the technology available. The legislation has sparked a huge backlash since it came into force on July 25. It mandates that websites verify users' age – often using facial recognition or photo ID – before granting access to adult content such as pornography, violence, or material on self-harm and eating disorders. READ MORE: Revealed: The full text of SNP's independence strategy But while the sentiment may seem well-intentioned, major websites such as Reddit, Instagram and Wikipedia have been caught up in the storm, with the latter launching a court case against the UK Government as it argues the legislation will hurt collaborators. Nearly 470,000 people have signed a petition calling for the act to be repealed. Jarvie, who has been doing her research at the University of Strathclyde, said the UK is attempting to take ID-checking methods from the physical world and expecting them to work in the digital one, when trust in both the Government and cybersecurity is at an all-time low. 'The public don't want to be giving up their ID because they're concerned about security, privacy, surveillance, and there is a general lack of trust in the Government,' she told the Sunday National. 'So I think the Government has come at this from the perspective of 'we all want to keep children safe and so people will give up their ID in order to meet that goal', and they've just not read the room at all on what adults actually want from their own internet experiences. 'I think people do want online safety for children, but do they have to give up their ID or their face or their privacy for that? No, I don't think that they should. (Image: Supplied) 'We're essentially trying to take the methods that we use in the physical world to do ID, where we look at someone's face or we check their documents, and we're trying to replicate it in the digital world, and that, for me, is not the right approach. 'We need to be more innovative and thinking out of the box of how the internet works – the fact it's dynamic, we're served algorithmic content and have a much slicker and more effective way of telling whether someone is an adult or a child and guiding them through their internet journey that way.' While she said facial age verification has its place, there should be more options for people to anonymously confirm their age. "We should have more options people can choose if they want an anonymous method," she went on. "I don't think the technology options are available to meet everyone's needs and wants right now." The legislation has come into force in the wake of major brands such as M&S and Harrods being victims of cyberattacks, putting the public on edge about giving sensitive information away online. Not only are there privacy concerns, but the public have also been angered at being blocked from accessing legal content and many have turned to downloading virtual private networks (VPNs), which allow users to appear to be browsing from countries with looser rules. While Jarvie believes the UK Government's goal of trying to ensure children do not stumble across harmful content will largely have been achieved, the legislation alone will not make the internet safer for children. Asked if she felt age verification was being used in the right way, she said: 'I think the Government has brought something in and put a stake in the ground to say 'this is what we're going to do with online age verification to make the internet a safer place', but the legislation itself is not going to make the internet a safer place for children. 'There's so much more needed. READ MORE: Erin Brockovich joins forces with Scottish university to launch course 'It's one of the things I'm writing about in my thesis, is that on the internet we need layers of care around a minor. Age verification has come in as one control but you have so many other things you'd need to put in place to really make the internet a safer place, and that includes education for everybody. 'Have they [the UK Government] done the right thing? I think prioritising online safety from a legislative perspective, yes, but in practice, the technology that is there, the sentiment of the public, the collaboration between Government and public, I think is not right.' Jarvie added she felt engagement between the public and Government on the legislation had been 'seriously lacking'. 'I think the technology to support the regulation needs to evolve and we need to look at what people are saying, how they're now using VPNs, and looking at what it is they want and need and how we meet those requirements,' she went on. 'I also think there's a huge amount of trust and engagement needed between the public and the Government on this, you cannot just force it out on the basis everyone is going to do it because they care about online safety for kids because that's clearly not enough.' A UK Government spokesperson said: 'This self-proclaimed expert is wrong. The Online Safety Act protects children without sacrificing people's privacy. 'Under the law, platforms are required to verify users' ages using secure, privacy-preserving methods that avoid collecting or storing personal data. 'The Information Commissioner's Office has significant enforcement powers to hold platforms accountable, including the ability to impose severe fines on services that misuse personal information. All online services – regardless of where they are based – must adhere to UK data protection laws.'
