House of Commons
Welsh Affairs Committee
Ports in Wales
Fifteenth Report of Session 2008–09
Report, together with formal minutes, oral and
written evidence
Ordered by the House of Commons
to be printed 27 October 2009
HC 601
Published on 6 November 2009
by authority of the House of Commons
London: The Stationery Office Limited
£0.00
The Welsh Affairs Committee
The Welsh Affairs Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to
examine the expenditure, administration, and policy of the Office of the
Secretary of State for Wales (including relations with the National Assembly for
Wales).
Current membership
Dr Hywel Francis MP (Labour, Aberavon) (Chairman)
Mr David T.C. Davies MP (Conservative, Monmouth)
Ms Nia Griffith MP (Labour, Llanelli)
Mrs Siân C. James MP (Labour, Swansea East)
Mr David Jones MP (Conservative, Clwyd West)
Mr Martyn Jones MP (Labour, Clwyd South)
Rt Hon Alun Michael MP (Labour and Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth)
Mr Albert Owen MP (Labour, Ynys Môn)
Mr Mark Pritchard MP (Conservative, The Wrekin)
Mr Mark Williams MP (Liberal Democrat, Ceredigion)
Mr Hywel Williams MP (Plaid Cymru, Caernarfon)
Powers
The committee is one of the Departmental select committees, the powers of
which are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in SO No
152. These are available on the Internet via www.parliament.uk.
Publications
The reports and evidence of the Committee are published by The Stationery
Office by Order of the House. All publications of the Committee (including
press notices) are on the internet at
www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/welsh_affairs_committee.cfm.
Committee staff
The current staff of the Committee is Dr Sue Griffiths (Clerk), Alison Groves
(Second Clerk), Carys Jones (Committee Specialist), Anwen Rees (Inquiry
Manager), Christine Randall (Senior Committee Assistant), Annabel Goddard
(Committee Assistant), Tes Stranger (Committee Support Assistant) and Rebecca
Jones (Media Officer).
Contacts
All correspondence should be addressed to the Clerk of the Welsh Affairs
Committee, House of Commons, 7 Millbank, London SW1P 3JA. The telephone
number for general enquiries is 020 7219 6189 and the Committee’s email
address is [email protected].
Ports in Wales
1
Contents
Report
1
Summary
3
Introduction
7
Our inquiry
Ports Policy
Welsh ports—operations
2
Opportunities for growth
The cruise market
The market
Potential economic impact
Barriers
Challenges
Supply chains
Logistics
Short-sea shipping
Energy Sector
The role of government
A distinctive Welsh approach
Grant Funding
3
Infrastructure
Policy framework
Impact of policy decisions on the freight sector
Land transport
Cross border co-operation
Roads
New links from the ports
Rail
Planning
Strategic and land use planning
Land use conflicts
Environment
Severn Tidal Power
4
Page
Security and border controls
Policy and legislation
Threats
Risk Assessment
Police and border control staffing at ports
Milford Haven
Co-operation
Common Travel Area
7
8
8
12
12
12
13
15
16
18
19
20
21
23
24
26
28
28
29
31
32
33
35
36
37
37
39
40
40
42
42
43
43
45
46
47
48
2
5
Ports in Wales
Conclusion
49
Conclusions and recommendations
51
Formal Minutes
59
Witnesses
60
List of written evidence
61
List of Reports from the Committee during the current Parliament
63
Ports in Wales
3
Summary
Ports are vitally important economic resources for Wales, playing a key role in the
movement of both freight and people and providing essential international trade links.
However, our inquiry has found that Welsh ports are under-exploited resources that could
play a much greater role in Wales’s economic development. We recommend that the
Government should take action in a number of specific areas in order to draw the full
benefit from Wales’s diverse and flexible ports, particularly at this time of recession.
The need for a coherent ports strategy
Ports policy is a reserved matter falling within the remit of the Department for Transport,
but many policy areas which have a significant influence on port operations, such as
transport facilities and services, economic development and land use planning, are the
devolved responsibility of the Welsh Assembly Government. Our inquiry found that the
Department for Transport and Welsh Assembly Government have very different
approaches to port development. The former supports an approach that lets the market
lead investment, whilst the latter supports greater government engagement. A fully coordinated approach to ports policy is necessary to ensure that their economic benefit is
maximised and that port operators, local authorities and others have shared and coherent
objectives.
Steps to delivery
Government at all levels must use its powers in a complementary and focused way to
achieve the agreed outcomes that will lead to an expansion in the port sector. In this
context, we would expect the Department for Transport to follow through its stated
commitment to local decision-making in the creation of locally relevant policy and we
recommend that the Department for Transport and the Welsh Assembly Government
develop a distinctive ports policy for Wales to identify where investment should be
targeted to enable the sector to thrive.
Role of the Wales Office
Given the administrative division of reserved and devolved matters relating to ports, we
believe that the Wales Office should play a much greater and more proactive role in
facilitating and encouraging co-operation between the Welsh Assembly Government
and relevant central government departments. The Wales Office must ensure that it is
doing everything possible to represent Welsh interests within Whitehall. The Wales
Office does not have the technical expertise to deal with many of the specific issues
involved, so a robust and direct working relationship must be established between the
Department for Transport and the Welsh Assembly Government. It is essential that the
Department of Transport should have a clear understanding of Welsh needs and
priorities in order to ensure that the right support is on offer. The personal role of the
Secretary of State for Wales in particular—as well as the Wales Office as an
institution—is crucial. He must make sure that in this area of policy such relationships
4
Ports in Wales
are established, maintained and work well. This is, of course, the key role of the
Secretary of State and his team across all areas of Government policy and interaction.
Cruise market: tourism and leisure
Our inquiry confirmed that there is a significant opportunity for Wales to capitalise on the
growth of the leisure cruise market and growing demand for new cruise destinations.
Cruise-based tourism can have an enormous impact on local economies, as evidence from
successful initiatives elsewhere (such as Cruise Baltic, which brings together ten Baltic
countries) has clearly shown. At present, the cruise market in Wales is being held back by
the lack of facilities for liners to berth alongside the port. This could be resolved at
relatively little cost compared to the economic benefit that might accrue from putting
Wales on the cruise map. During our inquiry, we heard of the Celtic Wave project which
has attracted European funding for Welsh and Irish ports to work together to market the
region as a cruise destination; and work undertaken by the Welsh Assembly Government
to study the improvements that would be needed to transform the port of Holyhead into
an attractive stop for cruise liners.
Steps to delivery
Recent initiatives are welcome, but more ambition must be shown in order to exploit
the full potential of the cruise market. For this to happen, the Department for
Transport needs to fully support targeted investment in Welsh ports, in spite of its
historic reluctance to intervene in the sector. The identified investment should proceed
now in order to attract cruise operators who have a 3–4 year forward planning period.
Understanding the supply chain
Most Welsh ports have spare capacity and are well placed to take advantage of changing
supply-chain and distribution practices, such as the increased use of feeder ships to transfer
goods from major hub ports. By developing short-sea shipping or feedering services, Welsh
ports could offer alternatives to road transport, which is environmentally damaging and
increasingly time dependent as traffic levels rise and roads become more congested.
Steps to delivery
The Wales Freight and Ports Group has been working effectively to create a better
understanding of logistics chains and the movement of goods and to share market
intelligence. This needs to be extended through a co-ordinated ports policy for Wales
shared between the Welsh Assembly Government, the Department for Transport and
the industry. Department for Transport officials should participate in the Wales
Freight Group, if the group believes this would enhance the Department’s
understanding of the challenges facing the Welsh ports and wider freight sector.
Energy sector
Ports also have a central role to play in the energy sector. Milford Haven, for example, has
grown to become one of the most important locations for the sector in the UK. The growth
Ports in Wales
5
in renewables could provide new opportunities for ports, both as locations for energy
generation installations and in terms of the supply and distribution of fuels and equipment.
Steps to delivery
This requires co-ordinated action from the Government and the Welsh Assembly
Government to develop a more strategic approach to the ports of Wales, identifying
spare capacity and opportunities for the future. Again, the Secretary of State for Wales
needs to play a proactive role in developing such coordination and ensuring that it is
maintained effectively in practice in the long term. Renewable energy developments in
the Severn Estuary could significantly impact on the tidal regime in the estuary, which
in turn could affect the operations of the ports in Cardiff and Newport. Provided that
adequate locking facilities are built in, not all these implications would necessarily be
negative. The UK and Welsh Assembly Governments should give careful consideration
to the potential impact of any development in this area on the South Wales ports,
together with the Wales Freight Group.
Cross-border connectivity
Inland road and rail links are crucial to the development of ports. Wales suffers from poor
quality routes to many of its ports and witnesses were concerned that there was insufficient
cross-border co-operation on transport issues. A lack of strategic planning for investment
in key routes by the English regions can have a significant impact on routes into/out of
Wales. Although there is sufficient spare capacity at Welsh ports to handle increased levels
of freight in the future, this could be severely constrained by inadequate surface links in
other parts of Wales.
Steps to delivery
Transport links to ports need to form a central part of transport planning locally and
regionally. The Department for Transport and the Welsh Assembly Government must
work together to address cross-border rail and road issues affecting ports. Greater
cross-border co-operation on this issue is essential and should form part of an
integrated transport policy that covers all modes of transport. Again, the Secretary of
State for Wales needs to play a proactive role in developing such coordination and
ensuring that it is maintained effectively in practice in the long term.
Security
All port activities are fundamentally reliant on the safety of the people and goods moving
through them. Wales’s ports are key points of entry into the UK for goods and passengers,
providing a range of passenger ferry services, which will be further extended by the
resumption of the Swansea-Cork link from 1 March 2010. Witnesses highlighted the
potential threat to the UK’s security as a result of ‘high risk’ passengers being able to travel
easily from the Republic of Ireland to the Welsh ports.
6
Ports in Wales
Steps to delivery
Co-operation among the range of organisations that help secure Welsh ports needs to
be strengthened to ensure that Welsh ports are not seen as an easy point of entry into
the UK for those undertaking illegal activity or travelling illegally. Accurate
information and intelligence should be shared swiftly between relevant organisations to
minimise this threat. We are not convinced that the significant additional pressure that
has been placed on the local police force by the expansion of Milford Haven in recent
years has been reflected in resource allocations. We recommend that additional
resources be made available to Dyfed Powys Police to enable it to undertake these
activities. These resources must be proportional to its additional responsibilities and
must reflect the importance of Milford Haven to the whole of the UK.
Ports in Wales
7
1 Introduction
Our inquiry
1. Our inquiry into ports in Wales follows on from our work on cross-border transport
services, on which we published our report in July 2009. During this earlier inquiry we
studied the cross-border connectivity of the Welsh transport network, including road, rail
and air travel. We found that the connectivity of the Welsh transport network and
efficiency of these links affects the movement of freight (both road and rail) and passengers
to and from Welsh ports.1 We therefore decided to conduct an inquiry specifically into
ports in Wales.
2. Transport facilities and services are the devolved responsibility of the Welsh Assembly
Government. Ports policy, however, is a reserved matter and falls within the remit of the
Department for Transport. This also includes ensuring port operators comply with
legislation for the security of ports.
3. During the first part of this inquiry, we examined the effectiveness of existing
arrangements and co-operation between the Department for Transport and the Welsh
Assembly Government on policy issues of relevance to ports. We also looked at the
importance of Welsh ports both to their localities and to the wider economy; the current
barriers to their development and opportunities for the future, within the context of
connectivity with the wider transport infrastructure. We studied the movement of freight;
the role of ports within economic development and land use planning; and future
opportunities for ports, with a particular emphasis on the cruise market. In the second part
of our inquiry we examined security issues at Welsh ports, concentrating on policing,
border control arrangements and co-operation between relevant authorities.
4. We received oral evidence and written submissions from a wide range of organisations
including port operators, ferry companies, local authorities, the freight sector, cruise
companies and authorities dealing with security and border control at Welsh ports. We
also received oral and written evidence from Ministers in the Department for Transport
and the Welsh Assembly Government. The evidence we collected is appended to this
report. We are grateful to our specialist advisers Professor Stuart Cole, Wales Transport
Research Centre, University of Glamorgan, and Dr Khalid Bichou, Port Operations
Research and Technology Centre, Imperial College London.2 We congratulate Professor
Cole on twenty-five years of service to the committee and we take this opportunity to
thank him for the invaluable assistance he has offered over the years. During our inquiry
we visited the Port of Holyhead and the Baltic Ports in Tallinn, Helsinki and Stockholm.
Our specialist advisers also visited the ports in Cardiff and Milford Haven on our behalf.
1
Welsh Affairs Committee, Tenth Report of Session 2008-09, Cross-border provision of public services for Wales:
Transport, HC 58.
2
See Formal Minutes of the Committee for 31 March 2009 at
http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/FormalMinutesWAC0809.pdf
8
Ports in Wales
Ports Policy
5. The Department for Transport’s Modern Ports: A UK policy was published in 2000. It
outlined the Department’s aims for ports, which included promoting better regulation of
the industry; promoting agreed national standards and good practice for port management
and port operations; making the best use of existing and former operational land; and
securing high environmental standards whilst supporting sustainable projects where there
is a clear need.3 A 2006 review of ports policy,4 asking for views on government
intervention, was followed by an interim report in 2007 which re-emphasised the
Department’s long-held policy of general non-intervention in the ports sector, based on the
market’s ability to fund further expansion if required.5
6. A 2007 inquiry into the Ports Industry in England and Wales by the Transport Select
Committee concluded that the Government should direct the development of ports to a
greater extent, and called for:
A national strategy that recognises the regional context and looks to balance national
trade requirements with the local imperatives of regeneration, employment and
environmental protection … if it does not, it makes no difference where ‘the market’
decides to develop port terminals, as goods will remain stuck on congested roads or
blocked by dilapidated canals and railways.6
7. The Welsh Assembly Government’s Wales Freight Strategy recognised the importance of
ports in facilitating the movement of freight.7 The strategy highlighted some ‘steps towards
delivery’ which the Welsh Assembly Government would like to progress, but which
contained no funding commitment. These included:
Given the UK (and wider) nature of ports and shipping policy, the Welsh Assembly
Government should continue to work with the DfT to develop an active policy on
the future of ports, in order to help ensure that future development takes place in a
sustainable way.8
Welsh ports—operations
8. Our inquiry concentrated on the Welsh ports that deal with larger volumes of freight.
We recognise that smaller ports and harbours around Wales make a contribution to the
sector through the transport of smaller volumes of freight and by supporting the marine
leisure industry. Harbours and docks for use by the fishing industry, for recreation or for
communication between places in Wales are the devolved responsibility of the Welsh
Assembly Government, and our inquiry did not examine these issues.
3
Department for Transport, Modern Ports: A UK policy (2000)
4
Department for Transport, Ports Policy—your views invited (2006)
5
Department for Transport, Ports Policy Review Interim Report (2007)
6
Transport Committee, Second Report of Session 2006-07, The Ports Industry in England and Wales, HC 61
7
Welsh Assembly Government, Wales Freight Strategy (2008)
8
Ibid.
Ports in Wales
9
9. Welsh ports are diverse. Milford Haven (including Pembroke Dock), Holyhead and
Fishguard handle roll-on roll-off and ferry traffic from Ireland. In addition, an
announcement was made after we had finished taking evidence for this inquiry that the
Swansea–Cork passenger ferry service will resume from 1 March 2010. Milford Haven also
handles significant energy sector traffic and resources. The majority of throughput at Port
Talbot, Swansea, Cardiff, Barry and Newport is dry and liquid bulk, forest products, iron
and steel products and some limited container traffic.9 The Port of Mostyn deals with
general cargo, specialist equipment for renewable energy installations and the Airbus A380
wings manufactured at Broughton.10 Table 1 provides further information on the main
operations of the largest Welsh ports.
10. In 2008, the total amount of freight that travelled through UK ports was 564 million
tonnes. The leading UK ports of Grimsby and Immingham, London, Tees and Hartlepool
and Southampton each handled 65.3, 53, 45.4 and 41 million tonnes respectively. The
figure for Milford Haven was 35.9, with Wales overall handling 54.4 million tonnes.11
11. Milford Haven represents a significant proportion of the total freight handled by Welsh
ports and approximately 10% of the UK’s total of 564 million tonnes in 2008. However,
without the contribution of Milford Haven, the volume travelling through Welsh ports is
nearer 4%.12 Approximately 100 million tonnes of freight are transported through Wales
each year by different modes, which accounts for around 5% of all freight transport in the
UK.13 The Welsh Assembly Government’s 2008 Wales Transport Strategy14 refers to the
role of ports in bringing goods and people in and out of Wales:
Milford Haven is the fourth largest port in the UK in terms of tonnage and the
busiest for oil products, a sector set to grow following completion of the Liquefied
Natural Gas (LNG) terminal and supply line.
Newport and Port Talbot are also significant, with the former being the busiest UK
port for iron and steel, and the latter the third busiest for ores. Significant tonnage
also flows through Cardiff, Barry and Swansea.15
12. In 2007, Holyhead saw the second highest numbers of short sea passengers in England
and Wales at 2.1 million. Total numbers for the UK were 23.6 million, with Dover
accounting for 14.2 million of those movements.16
9
Ev 74
10
Ev 164
11
Department for Transport, Provisional Port Statistics (2008)
12
Ev 153; 158-159
13
Welsh Assembly Government, Wales Freight Strategy (2008)
14
Welsh Assembly Government, Wales Transport Strategy (2008)
15
Ibid.
16
Department for Transport, Maritime Statistics (2007)
10
Ports in Wales
Table 1: Welsh ports – operations and ownership
Name
Ownership
Location & Transport links
Operations / Cargo
Newport
Associated
British Ports PLC
Mouth of the River Usk;
Severn Estuary / Bristol
Channel; near J28 M4.
Road and rail links.
Timber, cars, non-ferrous metals,
building materials, steel, minerals
and ores especially coal, grain,
animal feed, sand, forest products.
Limited cruise market but with
potential.
Cardiff
Associated
British Ports PLC
Mouth of the River Taff
south east of the Cardiff
Bay development; Severn
Estuary / Bristol Channel.
Road and rail link; single
carriageway to M4.
Containers, dry bulk forest
products, fresh produce, general
cargo and steel. Limited cruise
market but with potential.
Barry
Associated
British Ports PLC
Near Barry town; Severn
Estuary/Bristol Channel.
Limited capacity road and
rail links
Dry bulks, containers, forest
products, general cargo including
roll-on roll-off, liquid bulk, steel,
recycled materials
Port Talbot
Associated
British Ports PLC
Adjacent to M4 with direct
access.
Road and rail link
Mainly Corus imports of coal and
iron ore, third party coal for power
stations; processed slag.
The port has one of the deepest
berths in the UK (tidal harbour).
Swansea
Associated
British Ports PLC
Seaward end of Severn
estuary; east of Swansea
city centre.
Direct Road to M4 and
direct rail connection.
Dry bulks, coal, plywood, steel,
copper, roll-on roll-off.
Limited cruise market but with
potential. Passenger ferry to Cork
will resume from 1 March 2010.
Milford Haven
Milford Haven
Both sides of the Cleddau
Port Authority (a estuary. Milford Haven on
trust port)
North Bank and Pembroke
Port and Chevron Oil
refinery to the South.
Direct rail link with low line
speeds and single track in
some places. Limited
capacity road links; 28 miles
from dual carriageway.
Oil, liquid natural gas, roll-on rolloff cargo from Ireland. Major link
to Ireland with Irish Ferries.
Fishguard
Stena Line Ports
Ltd
West Pembrokeshire Coast.
Single carriageway road
link and rail for foot
passengers
Roll-on roll-off cargo.
Holyhead
Stena Line Ports
Ltd
Ynys Môn.
Road link to A55
expressway and rail link. On
Trans European Network.
Roll-on roll-off cargo off via Stena
Line and Irish Ferries, and foot
passengers; deep water quay side
bulk facility.
7/8 cruise ships per annum, from 15
per annum in 2006.
Mostyn
Private
ownership
Dee estuary.
North Wales main line
adjacent. Road link to A55
expressway/ main
motorway network.
General cargo and airbus A389
wing transfer facility. Roll-on rolloff for accompanied and
unaccompanied trailers.
Marina development.
Ports in Wales
11
13. The traditional role of ports has been the transfer of goods between surface transport
modes (road and rail) and waterborne transport. However, evidence we received from the
Chartered Institute of Logistics and Transport (UK) Cymru noted that this role now
includes storage and warehouseing for imports, exports and domestic traffic, value-added
activities such as final processing as well as the traditional role of transferring goods to
other surface transport modes.17 Ports can act as distribution hubs and the extent of their
activities can create employment opportunities and economic growth.18 The operations of
ports make a significant contribution to the Welsh economy:
The activity of Associated British Ports and its tenants in South Wales directly and
indirectly support £79.8 million per annum with a GVA of £34.2 million, and the
activities of ABP’s port tenants account for an estimated 9,711 FTE jobs, with a direct
and indirect output of £2.78 billion and GVA of £902.5 million (2% of the Welsh
total).19
17
Ev 77
18
Ev 78-80
19
Ev 67
12
Ports in Wales
2 Opportunities for growth
14. During our inquiry, witnesses told us that there are many opportunities for Welsh
ports, despite the vulnerability of certain ports as a result of the economic downturn.
Witnesses have said that the diversity of the Welsh ports’ operations means that they “can
take the ups and downs in economic activity” and that “the time we are in at the moment
means that there is great potential for Welsh ports in general to expand the range of
activities that they undertake”.20 According to Dr Anthony Beresford of Cardiff Business
School:
There are opportunities for capturing new traffic, or developing existing flows, in
Ro-Ro and cruise shipping. Likewise, land-land logistics, exploiting the road and rail
networks and strategic industrial sites on the dock estate, could be further exploited
to supplement and compliment existing sea-land logistics services.21
The cruise market
The market
15. The leisure cruise market has shown substantial growth in the last ten years with
demand for cruise holidays almost doubling during this period.22 In 2008, the number of
UK passengers taking cruise holidays increased 11% to almost 1.5 million. By 2012 it is
estimated that this number will increase to almost 2 million.23 Cruise Wales,24 told us that
the potential in Wales is significant:
Only 3% of the US population [is] currently cruising and in the UK only 2%.
Furthermore, other European markets are seeing large growth in the cruise sector.
Notably, Germany [has] grown by 19% in 3 years, Spain by 24% and Italy by a
staggering 49%. In ten years from 1995 to 2005 the number of Europeans cruising
trebled and this is predicted to continue apace.25
To illustrate further this growth, Fred Olsen Cruise Lines, a private cruise company, told us
that it has increased its passenger capacity by 40% in the last 12 months.26
16. In written evidence, Cruise Wales told us that cruise companies are always looking for
new destinations, and that Welsh ports could form part of a number of cruise itineraries,
including the Irish Sea cruise, the round British Isles cruise, the Celtic Fringe cruise, the
20
Q2
21
Ev 73
22
Ev 81
23
Passenger Shipping Association, available at: http://www.the-psa.co.uk/default.asp?PID=6&PPID=6
24
Cruise Wales is a partnership co-ordinated by the Welsh Assembly Government whose role is to promote the cruise
market in Wales to cruise companies and identify development opportunities. The partnership comprises the Welsh
ports, local authorities and tourism sector.
25
Ev 81
26
Q184
Ports in Wales
13
Irish Sea and Iceland cruise and the Irish Sea to/from North America cruise.27 Mrs
Margaret Llewellyn of Cruise Wales told us “we want [Wales] to be the next Baltic!”28
The Baltic Cruise Market
On our visit to the Baltic, we met a number of organisations involved in the cruise market
in Tallinn, Helsinki and Stockholm. Cruise Baltic is an initiative which brings together ten
Baltic countries to market the region as a destination. We were told that the Baltic is the
third most popular cruise destination in the world, and has experienced the most rapid
growth in recent years. Annual passenger numbers have increased by an average rate of
13% between 2000 and 2008 against the cruise market’s global annual growth of 8%. The
numbers of passengers to the Baltic increased from 1.79 million in 2004 to 2.8 million in
2008. Each of the three ports we visited saw more than 250 cruise ship calls in 2008. Cruise
tourism generated €444 million in the Baltic in 2006.29 During our visit to the Port of
Stockholm, we heard that the cruise market is estimated to be worth between €40–€45
million to the local economy, based on the visits of 300 vessels per annum.
Potential economic impact
17. Passengers on cruise ships visit local attractions when they arrive at a destination. The
cruise companies themselves organise excursions for the passengers, which will usually
include a half day or a full day’s visit. The evidence we received clearly suggests that Wales
is well placed to offer passengers a varied and interesting choice of places to visit.
18. The potential economic benefits from passenger spend during visits ashore is
substantial. Various witnesses quoted different figures, but experiences elsewhere have
demonstrated the scale of economic benefits to the local economy as a result of such visitor
spending. Mr Ted Sangster from Milford Haven Port Authority told us that the estimated
spending for cruise passengers was £80–£100 per person, with crew members spending £30
each during visits ashore.30 The Saga Shipping Company told us that on an average port
call, passengers on the Saga Ruby (which visited Cardiff during 2008) spend in the region
of £30,000 on shore excursions.31
19. Ynys Môn County Council noted that in recent years an average of between five and
ten cruise ships per year have called into Holyhead. Most of these have carried a few
hundred passengers, but there have been several calls by larger ships with around 2,000
passengers. Passengers from these ships have tended to go on day or half-day coach
excursions, generating an income for the cruise companies. However, “typically 25% of
passengers from large ships will not go on coach excursions and will walk around the town
or visit other places by taxi. Many crew members will also come ashore and spend in local
27
Ev 81
28
Q170
29
Cruise Baltic available at: http://www.cruisebaltic.com
30
Q114
31
Ev 130
14
Ports in Wales
shops”.32 The profiles of passengers on cruise liners will vary, which means that their
expenditure levels are likely to vary. The average age for cruise passengers is decreasing,
which means the market is expanding and becoming more diverse in terms of the types of
activities they are likely to want to undertake onshore.33
20. The cruise market is estimated to be worth between €40–€45 million to the local
economy in Stockholm, based on the visits of 300 vessels per annum; almost one cruise
ship visit per day. Mrs Margaret Llewellyn of Cruise Wales told us that in Wales, a
minimum of 30-40 cruise ship visits per year are needed to justify investing in the facilities
required to by the cruise lines.34
21. In 2007, Liverpool City Council opened a cruise terminal costing £20 million. Funding
was provided by a partnership that included the North West Development Agency, EU
Objective One funding, Government Office North West, Liverpool City Vision, City Focus
and the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company (which became Peel Holdings), which made
a capital contribution to the scheme. As a result of this development, visiting cruise ships
can now dock at the quayside. Facilities include coach parking, a passenger waiting area
and reception building and coach access. The facility is owned by Liverpool City Council
and profits are used to manage, maintain and operate the facility. Since opening this
terminal, the city has been able to attract a growing number of cruise ships, with visitor
numbers exceeding the City’s expectations. Information provided by Liverpool City
Council indicated that in 2007, seven cruise liners visited the city with an economic impact
of £451,000, in 2008 the impact from fourteen visits was £1.3m and in 2009 the expected
impact from sixteen liners is £1.7m.
22. The cruise market hinterlands are not restricted to the area immediately adjacent to the
port but take in areas up to 1–1.5 hours by coach from the port. Indeed, evidence from the
Port of Mostyn raised concerns that very little of the passenger spending filters through to
the local economies because “most passengers will be whisked away from the ship by coach
to the particular cultural location ... and returned to the ship without visiting the port’s
local town or city”.35 In the case of Holyhead, the hinterland would extend into Gwynedd,
Conwy and Denbighshire as well as Ynys Môn. For Milford Haven the hinterland would
be as extensive as Pembrokeshire, Carmarthenshire and Ceredigion.36 In Liverpool there is
a concentration of locations of interest to visitors within the city and the wider region.37
The relevant authorities must work together in Wales to ensure that the passengers
who currently visit Wales on cruise liners spend their money in the hinterlands of the
particular port of call. If improved facilities are developed in Wales, it will be essential
that this co-operation continues.
32
Ev 108
33
Q172
34
Q159
35
Ev 116
36
Q178
37
Q188
Ports in Wales
15
Barriers
23. At present there is a lack of modern facilities for cruise ships visiting Wales, most
notably a berth that would enable vessels to dock alongside the quay. Mr Matt Grimes from
Fred Olsen Cruises told us that “as a cruise line we recognise Wales as being a ‘must see’
destination. It is just that we do not have the means to be able to get the ships in there. That
is the great shame”.38 Such facilities are available in other ports in the UK, which means
Welsh ports are unable to compete. For example, witnesses believed the port of Holyhead
had lost cruise trade as a result of the better facilities on offer in Liverpool.39
24. Because of the lack of facilities that enable cruise liners easy access to the ports, those
visiting Wales face a number of challenges. At Milford Haven, for example, passengers
have to be tendered to the shore by boat. At Holyhead, smaller cruise ships berth alongside
the inner harbour, but larger ships must anchor outside the port and transport their
passengers ashore using smaller boats. Carrying passengers ashore in this way can be time
consuming and uncertain, dependent on weather conditions,40 and the industry is moving
away from this approach: “some of the newer cruise ships ... do not have tenders so they
will never be able to come to a port which is just an anchorage”.41 Other ports such as
Cardiff, Newport and Swansea are attractive to cruise companies because of the variety of
activities these areas offer passengers, but ships must negotiate a lock to access these ports.
This is subject to very accurate timing and risks damaging the ship. Whilst some witnesses
felt that this can often put liners off visiting these ports, they are suitable for a certain size of
ship.42 Swansea, for example, can accommodate cruise ships with up to 950 passengers.
During our inquiry, we heard about a cruise ship with 800 passengers visiting Newport for
the first time.43
25. Fred Olsen Cruises told us that very little in the way of additional facilities is needed to
make a port attractive. They cite the essential requirements as being: “a safe approach in a
wide range of conditions; towage available but not compulsory; a sufficiently long, wellfendered berth, in good condition, free of hazards; an area immediately adjacent to the
vessel in which to marshal and dispatch excursion coaches and shuttle buses; fast and
efficient customs and immigration clearance”.44
26. Cruise based tourism can bring significant benefits to local economies. A limited
number of cruise liners already visit Welsh ports but their frequency is constrained by
the lack of appropriate facilities for them to berth safely. This could be resolved at
relatively little cost compared to the economic benefit that might accrue from putting
Wales on the cruise map. There is a significant opportunity for Wales to capitalise on
the growth of the cruise market and demand for new cruise destinations, but co-
38
Q196
39
Q166
40
Ev 108
41
Q179
42
Q169
43
Q326
44
Ev 86
16
Ports in Wales
ordinated work and investment will be required to deal with existing constraints and
enable Wales to benefit from the projected growth of the cruise market.
Challenges
27. Developing the facilities required to attract cruise ships to Wales will incur a substantial
cost. Port operators are unwilling to meet such costs because the return to them from
cruise ship visits is minimal; they receive a nominal fee for the use of their facilities. The
main economic benefit from the cruise market is to the local areas visited by the cruise
ships and, of course, to the cruise companies themselves.
Cruise ships do not tend to be huge revenue generators for ports; they are fairly
limited. But they are potential huge revenue generators for the local authorities and
for the local cities in terms of their offering. Whilst we have those facilities available
to us we are actively encouraging that because that helps with the economic
development of the areas around which and in which we are operating.45
28. The Port of Holyhead has made some progress in exploring how existing facilities can
be improved to attract more cruise ships. In February 2009, the Welsh Assembly
Government announced that feasibility work was underway for an along-side cruise berth
on an existing industrial jetty at Holyhead for cruise liners, with the aim of making the
facility ready for the 2010 holiday season.46 The partnership approach adopted to
investigate opportunities at Holyhead was welcomed by witnesses. We were told that this
work would not have been possible without the participation of the private sector, namely
Stena Line as the owner of the port, and Anglesey Aluminium as the owner of the jetty.
Mrs Margaret Llewellyn of Cruise Wales told us that without this co-operation, the work
would have had to start from a zero base and the costs of developing a facility would be “a
minimum of probably £40 million”.47
29. We heard that the most likely approach to be adopted in Holyhead is the construction
of a ‘dolphin’ extension to the existing jetty, along with adequate coach parking and a
bridge for coaches to the landside area. A ‘dolphin’ is a narrow strip of concrete
constructed at the same level as the jetty surface with room for a walkway. This would
enable larger ships of up to 2000 passengers to berth as compared with smaller ships at the
jetty itself.48
30. The Welsh Assembly Government’s study has assessed the likely cost and investment
needed from the public sector to develop the required facilities at Holyhead. For the project
to come to fruition, public funding will be needed. There are a number of challenges which
would need to be overcome before public funding could be justified, including issues of EU
rules on state aid and distortion of the market, 49 but we were told that work is being done
45
Q112
46
Welsh Assembly Government Press Release, New Moves to Attract Cruise Liners to Holyhead, 16 February 2009
available at: http://wales.gov.uk/news/latest/2960880/?lang=en
47
Q159
48
Q158
49
Under EU rules, government intervention should not distort competition between private companies or impact on their
competitiveness.
Ports in Wales
17
to overcome these problems. We also heard from the Welsh Assembly Government
Minister for the Economy and Transport that his department was working with Cruise
Wales to identify the necessary transport and regeneration input to enable the jetty to be
developed.50
31. Work is also being undertaken to investigate the potential for a similar development at
Milford Haven.51 Cruise Wales told us that if Milford Haven and Holyhead built alongside
facilities they would be able to handle any cruise ship in operation. Cruise ships of over 300
metres and carrying in excess of 3,000 passengers are being introduced into the northern
European market and having the facilities available to be able to attract these would be of
great benefit to Wales.52
32. Cruise companies need a long lead time to plan their itineraries and advertise these
to customers. Work to develop the jetty at Holyhead should start as soon as possible,
and efforts will need to be made to quickly find ways of overcoming problems
associated with state aid.
33. The lack of quayside facilities for ships mean that, at the moment, other ports in the
UK and Ireland are more attractive to cruise companies than those in Wales.
Investment is needed to develop these facilities; the Department for Transport should
assist the Welsh Assembly Government’s efforts to ensure that this happens as soon as
possible. The Welsh Assembly Government should continue to work with the cruise
companies through Cruise Wales to ensure that any facilities developed in Wales meet
their requirements in the medium to long term.
34. The Cruise Wales partnership works hard to raise the profile of the whole of Wales
as a cruise destination, and to gain a better understanding of the needs of both the
cruise lines and their customers. We welcome the recent announcement of £1.2 million
in European Funding for the Celtic Wave which will enable the ports of Holyhead,
Milford Haven and Swansea to work with their counterparts in Dublin, Waterford and
Cork to market the region as a cruise destination. However, more ambition must be
shown in order to exploit the full potential of the cruise market. Promoting Wales as a
destination along with other Celtic/Irish Sea ports must be a priority so that the cruise
lines can include Wales in their itineraries as soon as possible. The UK Government
should support this work so that the UK as a whole can offer a more diverse range of
itineraries to cruise companies.
35. There was a lack of clarity from the Department for Transport on the issue of public
funding for cruise facilities. The written evidence stated that the Department believed the
cruise market should be developed without public subsidy.53 However, in oral evidence, Mr
Paul Clark MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Transport, expressed his
support for the exploratory work being undertaken by the Cruise Wales partnership: “I
think it is absolutely critical to ... try and develop and capitalise on that market and we are
50
Q328
51
Q326
52
Ev 81
53
Ev 156
18
Ports in Wales
certainly supportive of that”.54 Mr Robert Davies from the Department for Transport also
indicated that issues of competitive distortion as a result of public subsidy were complex:
“if you do something at one port, it actually helps another, but in other cases, if you do
something at one port it can divert the traffic from another”.55
36. Developing the cruise market in Wales will benefit the whole of the UK. By
improving the facilities in Wales, more UK based cruise itineraries can be created but
this will require public investment. We are concerned that the lack of clarity from the
Department for Transport about the scope and availability of public funding for cruise
facilities could affect ambitions to develop Wales as a cruise destination. The
Department’s policy of non-intervention in port development should not apply in this
context. The market will not invest in a capital scheme for developing cruise facilities
because of the low rate of return to the port operators from cruise operations. We are
concerned that the Department for Transport has not given sufficient consideration to
the benefits to local and regional economies from cruise tourism.
Supply chains
37. In its evidence, the Department for Transport highlighted where future growth for
ports is forecast:
The main growth sectors are in containers and roll-on roll-off services, demand for
which has been forecast to more than double by 2030. The growth is mostly importled ... growth in bulk and general traffic is much slower. An exception is liquefied
natural gas, a major import at Milford Haven, which is expected to grow rapidly but
from a small base.56
38. While these trends provide opportunities for Welsh ports, Mr Robin Smith of the Rail
Freight Group warned that:
At the moment, because of the patterns of international trade, it is not seen that there
are likely to be any significant increases in demands within South Wales or North
Wales ports. Growth, yes ... but not significant changes in patterns.57
39. The Freight Transport Association highlighted a number of changes within the freight
and logistics industry over the past 10 years: internet and web-enabled supply chain
management tools; advances in stock control and inventory management systems; industry
consolidation; and retailer-led supply chain dominance.58 Most importantly, the
Association suggested that “the rate of change in the freight and logistics industry in the
next ten years will at least equal, if not exceed that of the last decade”.59
54
Q294
55
Q299
56
Ev 154
57
Q82
58
Ev 92
59
Ibid
Ports in Wales
19
Logistics
40. In the course of our inquiry, witnesses told us about the economic impact that
developing value-added activities on or near port estates, such as logistics or distribution
centres, can have. Investment in logistics facilities by ports across the UK have been
successful in terms of providing employment opportunities and economic benefit to local
economies and witnesses felt that there were significant opportunities to develop this
aspect of ports’ business in Wales. For example, Mr Matthew Kennerley from Associated
British Ports South Wales told us that there were opportunities in Cardiff and Newport to
develop more unit-load business and encourage inward investment to develop facilities for
logistics and distribution.60 Mr Callum Couper, Chair of the Wales Freight Group,
suggested that added value activities such as stripping containers, could happen in Wales.
He told us that by building the right facilities in Wales, some of the ‘legs’ of the distribution
chain could be removed.61
41. Witnesses have recognised that ports are under-utilised and that there is spare capacity
and potential to expand the business through Welsh ports.62 We heard that there is
potential for growth, but before “any money is spent or any decisions are made about how
things should be administered, you have to do adequate demand forecasting”.63
42. The Road Haulage Association raised concerns regarding the adequacy of the ports’
land-side infrastructure to deal with increased activity, and the investment costs required.
The Association stated: “clearly, for the sake of the Welsh economy, such improvements
could be greatly facilitated by use of grants”.64 We were also told that in a peripheral
location such as Wales, it is imperative that logistics chains are as efficient as possible to
keep costs to a minimum.65
43. Dr Anthony Beresford of Cardiff Business School called for a better understanding of
not only the logistics chains but also the movement of the actual goods. He believed this
would help the Welsh Assembly Government to understand what ports should be doing
and where government can help.66 Mr Callum Couper, Chair of the Wales Freight Group,
called for a better understanding of the market and intelligence sharing.67
44. Ports are a key link in the supply chains in the UK. Overseas manufacturers and
freight forwarders will look at the total supply chain from the point of origin to the
final destination. The UK and Welsh Assembly Governments need to be aware of the
relationship between logistics and supply chains and the location of jobs. Furthermore,
the Welsh Assembly Government should ensure that it understands what the market
60
Q116
61
Q35
62
Q311
63
Q75
64
Ev 124
65
Q3
66
Q23
67
Q28
20
Ports in Wales
requires by undertaking demand forecasting to inform policy development and assist
the Welsh ports to increase their business.
45. We recommend that the Welsh Assembly Government undertakes a review of spare
capacity at Welsh ports. This would help identify the transport and infrastructure
improvements needed to facilitate more freight movements through Welsh ports. The
freight sector needs a long lead-time to plan operations. We suggest that this activity
should, therefore, start as soon as possible.
Short-sea shipping
46. Reliance on import flows from the Far East has influenced the development of
container ports in the UK. Container ships have increased in size which means that fewer
ports are able to accommodate them. In the UK, the main container ports are
Southampton and Felixstowe. Freight is taken from these container ports by road or rail to
its destination. Transporting goods by road is environmentally damaging and increasingly
subject to delay as traffic levels rise and roads become more congested.68 In written
evidence, DG TREN (the Directorate-General for Energy and Transport) of the European
Commission explained the emphasis it places on encouraging the modal shift of freight
from roads to the sea for environmental reasons.69 These problems of higher costs and
reduced reliability of long haul road haulage from the south east of England and east coast
ports into Wales could offer opportunities for Welsh ports to provide short sea shipping or
container feedering. This would involve moving containers from the main hub ports to
Welsh ports on smaller container ships, roll-on roll-off vessels or ferries.
47. Witnesses warned that there was insufficient throughput and volume of import and
export container traffic in Wales to support investment in large container facilities at a
Welsh port and that proposals to develop container facilities at Bristol and Liverpool will
probably serve the needs of businesses in both North and South Wales. Evidence from the
Port of Mostyn acknowledged that transit to these ports would mean “additional inland
transport costs for Welsh businesses, [but] to some extent these costs would be offset
against the higher charges an under-utilised global shipping sized Welsh container
terminal would need to charge to maintain viability”.70
48. However, other witnesses suggested that these developments might provide container
feeding opportunities for Wales’s ports. Whilst a large scale container development in
Wales would not be viable, witnesses told us that Wales should be developing short sea
shipping or feeder services to/from the main container ports in the UK and North West
Europe. 71 Mr Callum Couper, chair of the Wales Freight Group also told us that short sea
shipping also costs less by getting the ship as close as possible to the origin or destination of
the cargo. He argued that there is scope to develop the concept of short sea shipping, with
68
Ev 72
69
Ev 83
70
Ev 117
71
Q13
Ports in Wales
21
Welsh ports acting as a location to feed in from the deep sea hub ports. This could also
provide new opportunities for investment in logistics and distribution.72
49. Based on the evidence we have received, developing feeder services appears the best
way for Wales to take advantage of the growth in the use of containers and would also
provide opportunities for the ports and environmental benefits. We were told that
developing this business is an area under consideration in Wales and “opportunities to
encourage feeder shipping services have been discussed at the Wales Freight Group”.73
Furthermore, Mr Ieuan Wyn Jones AM, Welsh Assembly Government Minister for the
Economy and Transport, told us that he is working with the ports in South Wales to
examine their potential to attract new business in this area.74
50. The Welsh Assembly Government stated that it is “aware of a number of changes in
supply chain and distribution practices that could provide opportunities for Welsh ports.
This includes the increasing use of feeder ships to trans-ship containers from the major
hub ports, as well as the scope to transfer long-haul freight movements from the Iberian
peninsula to road and sea”75. According to the paper, the Assembly Government is “keen to
encourage the development of coastal feeder services for container traffic”.76
51. Whilst a large scale container development in Wales would not be viable, we would
support the industry’s view that Wales should be developing short sea shipping or
feeder services to and from the main container ports in the UK and North West
Europe. This would provide business opportunities for the ports and would reduce the
environmental impact of the freight sector. We would encourage the Welsh Assembly
Government to assess the scope to develop business in this area with the aim of
increasing the volume of goods being transported to Wales by sea.
52. Witnesses have recognised the important role the ports can play in supporting a
more environmentally sustainable transport policy in the future. Transporting goods
by sea is often more environmentally benign than doing so by road and should be
encouraged.
Energy Sector
53. Ports have played a central role in the energy sector in Wales for a number of years.
Milford Haven, for example, has grown to become one of the most important locations for
the energy sector in the UK, as highlighted by Milford Haven Port Authority:
[Milford Haven Port] supports two [oil] refineries that produce over 20% of the UK’s
production of petrol and diesel ... more recently, the well-heralded advent of
Liquefied Natural Gas shipping into the port hast taken place with the recent
opening of the South Hook terminal and the expected opening of the Dragon LNG
72
Q13
73
Ev 94
74
Q311
75
Ev 165
76
ibid
22
Ports in Wales
Terminal this summer. Between them, these two terminals have the capacity to
provide over 25% of the UK’s gas requirements for decades to come.77
54. The growth of the renewable energy sector could provide a significant new opportunity
for ports both in terms of energy generation on port land, and the supply and distribution
of energy sources and component parts for the relevant technologies. Mr Matthew
Kennerley of Associated British Ports South Wales highlighted these opportunities:
Energy is a big part of what we already do in terms of supplying energy producers,
generators with power stations, coal or other fuel sources. We see that the ports are
well positioned from a land holding point of view, from the vessel access point of
view as more generators rely on imported fuel supplies, whether that be coal, oil or
biomass. Ports are ... well connected into the local energy supply grids as well as the
National Grid and we see that right across our South Wales ports, so there are
opportunities in Wales to develop additional energy resources ... provide locations
for generators to build new power stations, whether they are biomass, multifuel,
peaking plants whatever ... what we need to see from government is a consistent
approach to planning.78
55. Several Welsh ports have already been identified by the UK Government as being in a
strong position to service the growing renewable energy industry, and as locations for
energy installations. Many ports are keen to play their part in this growth. The British Ports
Authority referred to the UK Ports Prospectus which identifies four Welsh ports (Mostyn,
Milford Haven, Swansea and Port Talbot) as sites that are well-placed to service the
offshore renewables sector. The submission also states that this would be “substantially
new business and apart from the movement of equipment, will require storage and
offshore servicing facilities”.79
56. The Department for Energy and Climate Change published its Low Carbon Transition
Plan in July 2009.80 This document reiterated the Government’s intention of increasing the
generation of energy from renewable sources, including marine and offshore renewables.
In oral evidence, Mr Ieuan Wyn Jones AM, Welsh Assembly Government Minister for the
Economy and Transport, expressed his eagerness to explore this area further and stated
that he would be keen to work with relevant Welsh Assembly Government Ministers “in
order to facilitate, if you like, the development of the Welsh ports for renewable energy”.81
57. The Welsh Assembly Government is well placed to assist the Welsh ports to take
advantage of the growth of the renewable energy sector, both in terms of servicing the
industry and as a location for energy installations. Welsh Assembly Government
Ministers should work together to identify where these opportunities exist and
communicate them to the UK Government. The Wales Office has a role in making sure
this direct liaison happens.
77
Ev 110
78
Q113
79
Ev 75
80
Department for Energy and Climate Change, Low Carbon Transition Plan (2009)
81
Q324
Ports in Wales
23
The role of government
58. The majority of the Wales’s larger ports are privately owned, with the exception of
Milford Haven, which is a trust port. In general, ports in England and Wales do not receive
any public subsidy for their development or operations. Witnesses told us that in other
parts of the EU where ports are publicly owned, public authorities invest in the
development of port facilities and infrastructure.82 Not only are continental ports more
likely to attract public funding for investment in their development, witnesses told us that
the infrastructure connections to the ports are publicly funded. They argued that the fact
that both these elements are publicly funded means UK ports are “severely
disadvantaged”.83 Nevertheless, Mr Christopher Snelling of the Freight Transport
Association agreed with the Department for Transport’s approach in the context of freight:
“private developers should be responsible for the cost of developing the ports. They are
private facilities which can make money; and they should be responsible for doing that”.84
59. The Department for Transport provided its rationale for this policy:85
Subsidy to port operations should generally be avoided, as it tends to distort
competition and is unnecessary for the provision of sufficient capacity. Only in
extreme circumstances of demonstrable market failure, environmental impact or
significant net regeneration effects, should it be considered.86
Mr Paul Clark MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Transport, confirmed that:
“there is a strategy for ports development, but it is one where we believe that the
development of ports very much should be a free market-led development”;87and that a
detailed policy indicating how and where ports should develop in each region would add
little to the regional approach taken in transport and spatial planning.88 However, in
response to questioning on the need for decision-making on ports development, the
Minister told us that he believed this was best dealt with locally so that decisions could be
based on local demands.89
60. The British Ports Association explained that the ports want to continue to be
responsible for their own development so that they can identify market opportunities,
provide the right facilities and compete with other ports within Wales and the UK.90
Evidence we have received has argued that this approach allows the port operators to use
their own assets creatively,91 has led to the greatest efficiency in freight movements,92 and is
82
Q67
83
ibid
84
ibid
85
Ev 156
86
Ev 154
87
Q277
88
Ev 154
89
Q291
90
Ev 74
91
Q14
92
Q66
24
Ports in Wales
appropriate because trade patterns are unlikely to fit in with the development plans of
government.93 Witnesses agreed that government should not intervene in the day to day
running of the ports, but should provide the right policy framework within which they can
operate efficiently and respond to changes in the market.94 The evidence we have received
throughout this inquiry has demonstrated that decisions made by government, in areas
such as internal investment in facilities at ports or land-side links, can have an impact on
the competitiveness of ports and their ability to attract more business.
A distinctive Welsh approach
61. Mr Ieuan Wyn Jones AM, Welsh Assembly Government for Minister for the Economy
and Transport, described how the Welsh Assembly Government intends to develop the
potential of Welsh ports, based on the strengths of each individual port, indicating a more
proactive approach in Wales:95
Our position, as I think has been made clear not just in the Wales Freight Strategy but
also in other documents that we have presented, is that we want to develop the
potential of Welsh ports. The potential, of course, is different relating to where each
port is located geographically, its historical patterns and how you then develop that
into the future.
The Minister also told us that the Welsh Assembly Government would consider providing
funds for investment in ports, but would not “be putting in investment purely in terms of
speculation; we would want to do that based on a business case”.96 Issues of state aid,
market distortion and displacement would be key considerations.97 There is an apparent
inconsistency between this approach in Wales and the Department for Transport’s policy
of non-intervention.
62. Dr Anthony Beresford of Cardiff Business School suggested that there may be a case for
a more proactive approach to ports policy, as advocated by the Transport Select
Committee (see Section 1). Such a policy could, for example, identify which ports would
benefit from improved facilities, or from improved transport links.98 Dr Beresford
proposed that:
Government policy towards Welsh ports cannot be, nor should it be, dramatically
different from that applied to other British ports … However, there are certain
important differences between Welsh ports and English ports, for example in the
profile of port ownership (private/ trust/ municipal), the landbridge function [i.e. to
Ireland] performed by several Welsh ports, the extreme tidal regime constraining
ship size and access in the Severn Estuary, the strategic importance of just two key
corridors in Wales, and the relative disadvantage Wales has, by virtue of its West-
93
Ev 120
94
Q67
95
Q308
96
ibid
97
Q309
98
Q14
Ports in Wales
25
facing aspect, in relation to core EU trade. Ports policy for Wales must take account
of these differences”.99
63. Port operators require a certain level of return from their investment in port facilities
and in a number of cases the return is unlikely to be sufficient for them to justify the
investment. In many instances, while the benefits to the ports themselves may be small,
developing facilities at ports can stimulate economic growth in the port’s hinterland
through the creation of jobs, and can often lead to improvements in the transport
infrastructure. In these circumstances, it may be appropriate for the public sector to
intervene and provide the funds to facilitate developments. The cruise facility feasibility
work in Holyhead is one area where the Welsh Assembly Government may be willing to
invest because the market will not provide upfront capital investment. The potential
beneficiaries of this type of development are dispersed: while the ports themselves would
only receive a nominal fee from the cruise lines for the use of their facilities, the local area
would benefit significantly from visitor spend. It may therefore be a sound policy to invest
taxpayers’ money in such developments in the expectation that increased economic activity
will provide a good return on such investment.
64. The Department for Transport and the Welsh Assembly Government have different
views on the investment of public funds in ports. The former supports an approach that
lets the market lead investment, whilst the latter supports greater government
engagement. The Department for Transport’s approach has worked for the larger
English ports because the growth of the sector in England and Wales is skewed by their
success, and boosted by their high population densities and high levels of economic
activity. Most Welsh ports, however, are operating below capacity and face specific
challenges which would justify a more strategic approach to their development.
65. Increasing the volume of freight being transported by sea would reduce the
environmental impact of the freight sector. However, Welsh ports face specific
challenges (such as poor connectivity with the transport network – see section 3), which
shackle their ability to compete. For this reason, we welcome the Welsh Assembly
Government’s willingness to consider investing in Welsh ports. We believe there is
merit in identifying where there is spare capacity at Welsh ports and opportunities for
the future.
66. The Department for Transport acknowledges that decisions on port development
are best dealt with regionally or locally but maintains that investment in ports should
be market-led. The different approaches of the Department for Transport and the
Welsh Assembly Government could result in the lack of agreed and coherent strategic
objectives for Welsh ports, in the knowledge of which sound commercial investment
decisions could be confidently made. Government at all levels must use its powers in a
complementary and focused way to achieve agreed outcomes that will lead to an
expansion in the port sector. In this context, we would expect the Department for
Transport to follow through its stated commitment to local decision-making in the
creation of locally relevant policy. It must be prepared to co-operate with the Welsh
Assembly Government to consider public investment where local factors inhibit the
99
Ev 73
26
Ports in Wales
exploitation of market forces to provide for investment in Welsh ports. We
recommend that the Department for Transport and the Welsh Assembly Government
develop a distinctive ports policy for Wales to identify where investment should be
targeted to enable the sector to thrive.
67. Given the administrative division of reserved and devolved matters relating to
ports, we believe that the Wales Office should play a much greater and more proactive
role in facilitating and encouraging co-operation between the Welsh Assembly
Government and relevant central government departments. The Wales Office must
ensure that it is doing everything possible to represent Welsh interests within
Whitehall. The Wales Office does not have the technical expertise to deal with many of
the specific issues involved, so, a robust and direct working relationship must be
established between the Department for Transport and the Welsh Assembly
Government. It is essential that the Department of Transport should have a clear
understanding of Welsh needs and priorities in order to ensure that the right support is
on offer. The personal role of the Secretary of State for Wales in particular—as well as
the Wales Office as an institution—is crucial. He must make sure that in this area of
policy such relationships are established, maintained and work well. This is, of course,
the key role of the Secretary of State and his team across all areas of Government policy
and interaction.
Grant Funding
Domestic sources
68. Ports are eligible for the Freight Facilities Grant. This is a Department for Transport
grant, administered in Wales by the Welsh Assembly Government. Its purpose is to
encourage the modal shift of freight from roads. The inclusion of ports within the scheme
is a recent development. The grant was originally developed to deal with the additional cost
of moving freight from roads to rail, but now includes water, as this is increasingly being
encouraged as a more environmentally benign means of transporting freight. The
Waterborne Freight Grant can fund operating costs and includes the purchase of
intermodal containers. The grant is also available for freight movements by coastal and
short sea shipping. Calculations for the amounts awarded are based on environmental
benefit of shifting the freight from roads. The Department for Transport and the Welsh
Assembly Government should raise awareness of the eligibility of ports for the Freight
Facilities Grant.
EU funding
69. In evidence, DG TREN of the European Commission referred to a number of
Commission-run programmes which encourage modal shift from road to other means of
transport or which can fund facilities and developments at or linked to ports, such as the
Marco Polo and Ten-T programmes.100 We also heard about the Motorways of the Sea
initiative, which funds knowledge-transfer but not development or investment in facilities.
100
Ev 83-84
Ports in Wales
27
70. Witnesses criticised these programmes, suggesting that it was difficult for ports in
Wales to access these funds. The requirement for project sizes required by the Commission
under the Marco Polo II and Ten-T programmes are too large for the Welsh ports:
They do not lend themselves easily to the sort of support that Welsh ports would
need to plug in to some of the trade flows ... which could have much broader benefits
for Wales and the UK and environmentally.101
EU funding programmes
Representatives we met during our visit to the Baltic had differing views of the EU’s
initiatives for ports. The Finnish Ports Association, for example, felt that the Commission’s
programmes were difficult to access and did not think that the Motorways of the Sea
initiative, in particular, had been successful. However, the Swedish Maritime
Administration told us that Swedish ports had benefitted greatly from European
programmes that funded transport and ports developments. They believed that other EU
Member States should make a greater effort to access these funds.
71. The Department for Transport and the Welsh Assembly Government should do
more to assist ports in Wales to access relevant EU funds where these are available.
Witnesses told us, however, that in many instances the rules set by the European
Commission mean that these funds are not available for Welsh ports. In these cases, the
UK Government should lobby the EU for a fairer system.
101
Q14
28
Ports in Wales
3 Infrastructure
Policy framework
72. Wales’s ports operate within UK and international markets; the goods that travel
through the ports do not just originate from or are destined for Welsh markets. However,
the evidence we have received has emphasised the fact that the Welsh ports do face
particular challenges as a result of factors such as the geography of Wales, the tidal regime
in south Wales and the constraints of the main transport routes to some ports; government
can help address these problems by providing a policy framework that recognises the needs
of ports, the freight sector and passengers.102 The Welsh Assembly Government told us that
it sees the development of an appropriate policy framework as its key role in helping ports
to reach their potential:
The Assembly Government... has made it a priority to ensure that the linkage
between ports and the economy is reflected in its wider economic development and
transport policies.103
73. The freight sector told us that the public sector’s role was to provide a planning and
policy framework which enables the efficient development of ports; and to provide greater
support for the development of inland infrastructure connections, rail and road links.104
74. All levels of government must facilitate the development of Welsh ports by
providing the right policy framework within which they can operate efficiently. Our
evidence has demonstrated that at present these conditions do not exist. Many Welsh
ports are disadvantaged because of inadequate road or rail links, or because of delays
within the planning process. For Wales’s ports to develop and increase their
contribution to the economy, the Department for Transport and the Welsh Assembly
Government should put in place the right policy framework, which includes an
integrated transport policy, land use planning and spatial planning across regions and
borders. The Wales Office should proactively encourage this process.
75. The evidence we received from both the Welsh Assembly Government and
Department for Transport Ministers referred to joint working and good relationships at
official level to ensure “joined-up thinking for the development of Wales as a whole”.105 For
example, we heard about a recent visit by Department for Transport officials to learn more
about efforts to develop better cruise liner facilities at Holyhead port.106 However, Mr Ieuan
Wyn Jones AM told us that there had been no ministerial discussion on ports issues to date
but that “if there are important issues that need to be resolved at Ministerial level then
obviously I would be very happy to arrange Ministerial meetings”.107
102
Ev 73
103
Ev 164
104
Q67
105
Q305
106
Q299
107
Q306
Ports in Wales
29
76. Despite these reassurances, we received mixed evidence from witnesses. Some were
concerned that on some policy issues crucial to the competitiveness of ports, such as crossborder transport, there was very little evidence of co-operation.108 Other witnesses told us
that relationships were still evolving,109 whilst some believed that the lack of co-operation
was more a perception than a reality.110
77. We found no evidence of tension between the Department for Transport and the
Welsh Assembly Government at present. However, we are concerned that a lack of
dialogue at ministerial level could result in different levels of government moving in
different directions on ports policy. Given the administrative division of reserved and
devolved matters relating to ports, close co-operation will be needed in the future to
ensure that policy remains joined up, and that all levels of government share ambitions
and coherent objectives for the ports in Wales. The Wales Office should be central to
this process.
Impact of policy decisions on the freight sector
78. Goods are transported to their onward destination from ports in Wales or other parts
of the UK by road or rail, or overseas by ship. Good transport links and sustainable freight
networks across all modes of transport are required for the efficient movement of freight.
The quality of the routes to and from Welsh ports varies across Wales giving some of them
a competitive advantage and severely disadvantaging others. As we were told by Mr David
Whitehead from the British Ports Association: “ports, quite frankly, are only as good as
their infrastructure connections”.111 Some parts of Wales have seen improvements to the
road infrastructure, and the ports of Cardiff, Newport, Swansea, Port Talbot and Holyhead
are well connected to the main trunk roads. This means that some areas have swift links to
strategic routes within the wider UK transport infrastructure.112
79. For freight forwarders and logistics companies, good connectivity is a crucial factor in
deciding which ports to use, and roads remain the main method for carrying freight. The
reliance on roads means that the quality of the links to key routes must be adequate for the
volumes of freight they handle. Mr Christopher Snelling from the Freight Transport
Association told us that:
For a freight forwarder ... to make a decision ... about which port to use, the main
factors will be its connectivity towards the next destination. If we assume that
something is arriving at a Welsh port to go to a further destination somewhere
inland within the UK, it will be about the relative connection times of the ports on
offer; a further factor would be the cost of using that port; ports have different
charges depending on how they are operated and how they are set-up; and a third
factor would be the efficiency of that port, which could mean not only the speed that
108
Q64
109
Q16
110
Q74
111
Q101
112
ibid
30
Ports in Wales
you get through, but also its reliability ... I think the most important one of those is
the linkage to its onward destination.113
80. Dr Anthony Beresford from Cardiff Business School explained that the majority of
Welsh ports’ activities are tied up with freight, and called for greater understanding of
logistics chains to ensure the right type of infrastructure is built to move goods
efficiently.114
81. The evidence we have received indicates that the Welsh Assembly Government’s
understanding of freight operations is improving. Witnesses told us that the policies
contained in the Wales Freight Strategy, published in 2008, are based on an understanding
of the requirements of the freight and transport sectors, as provided by the Wales Freight
Group.115 The Wales Freight Group is comprised of representatives from the transport and
freight sectors, academics with expertise in logistics and transport, and civil servants from
the Welsh Assembly Government, and acts as an advisory group on the freight strategy. A
Welsh Ports sub-group has been created in recent months, which will also inform this
process. Witnesses believed that the existence of this group has improved the Welsh
Assembly Government’s understanding of the needs of the freight sector and ports and will
influence policy development in the future.116 Mr Ieuan Wyn Jones AM, Welsh Assembly
Government Minister for the Economy and Transport, believed the approach taken in
developing the Wales Freight Strategy was a step in the right direction because it was
created with substantial input from sectoral interests and frameworks are in place for this
to continue.117
82. Mr Robert Davies from the Department for Transport told us that the larger ports
input into national policy through the ports associations, the UK Major Ports Group and
the British Ports Association, stating that these representative groups meet Department for
Transport officials regularly. Referring to the Welsh Ports sub-group, he also stated: “it is
good to know that the Welsh ports have now formed their own forum, which will make an
input through that route as well”.118 Mr Ieuan Wyn Jones AM, the Welsh Assembly
Government Minister for the Economy and Transport told us that he envisaged the Ports
sub-group would work with the Welsh Assembly Government to put forward cases for
ports developments, but that he did not see this group working directly with the
Department for Transport.119
83. Witnesses told us that whilst relationships between the ports and government are
generally effective, there was little engagement on some policy areas. Despite the various
representative groups and fora in existence, concerns were raised that ports are not
consulted on important policy decisions that can significantly affect their operations. The
British Ports Association, for example, told us that the sector wanted “to play a bigger
113
Q78
114
Q23
115
Welsh Assembly Government, Wales Freight Strategy (2008)
116
Q307
117
ibid
118
Q280
119
Q307
Ports in Wales
31
collective role in transport spending decisions, with ports at the table and fully
consulted”.120 The Freight Transport Association agreed that there was a need for greater
co-operation between the ports and government: “policy makers must be able to enter into
dialogue with operators to ensure that future decisions regarding ports… are based on the
needs of industry”.121
84. Government needs a thorough understanding of the needs and challenges facing the
freight and ports sectors to be able to develop appropriate policies that can facilitate
their growth. The Wales Freight Strategy is an example of a co-ordinated and intermodal view of the freight sector which is supported by the Wales Freight Group and
more recently the Ports sub-group, and is a model which could be used more widely by
government. The Welsh Assembly Government will need to continue to work closely
with the freight sector to understand logistics chains, the role of the Welsh ports in
these and how government can facilitate their efficient operation by providing the right
policy framework. Stakeholders such as the Welsh Freight and Ports Groups are being
used to ensure that relevant policies take account of the needs of this sector. This data
should inform the Welsh Assembly Government’s discussions with the Department for
Transport on issues affecting Welsh ports. The existence of these stakeholder groups
should therefore result in the ports having a more effective means of proactively
engaging with both the Department for Transport and the Welsh Assembly
Government.
85. We note that the Welsh Assembly Government Minister for the Economy and
Transport does not see a role for the Wales Ports Group in liaising with the
Department for Transport. Nevertheless, despite the reassurances from the
Department for Transport that they regularly liaise with the ports, we are concerned
that there is little consultation with the sector on relevant policy areas at a UK or
England and Wales level. We recommend that the Department for Transport should
use the Wales Ports Group as a means of consulting with the ports industry in Wales to
gain a better understanding of their collective concerns regarding relevant government
spending decisions. We also recommend that Department for Transport officials
should participate in the Wales Freight Group, if the group believes this would enhance
the Department’s understanding of the challenges facing the Welsh ports and wider
freight sector.
Land transport
86. Welsh ports service a hinterland which includes Wales, the M4 corridor, the Midlands,
and the north and south west of England. Welsh ports are therefore competing with other
ports in the UK and need to be well-connected to the overland links that feed in to these
hinterlands. The Welsh Assembly Government’s Wales Freight Strategy identified the poor
road and rail links to some Welsh ports as a weakness, although the good links to other
ports along with rail development capacity were considered a strength.122
120
Ev 75
121
Ev 94
122
Welsh Assembly Government, Wales Freight Strategy (2008),
32
Ports in Wales
Cross border co-operation
87. In our recent inquiry into the cross-border provision of transport services we
highlighted our concerns regarding the prioritisation given by the English regions to routes
of strategic importance to those travelling across the English-Welsh border. A lack of
strategic planning for investment in key routes by the English regions can have a significant
impact on routes into/out of Wales.
88. According to Mr Paul Clark MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Transport,
the Department for Transport and the Welsh Assembly Government both agree on the
importance of transport links for the competitiveness of ports. He told us that one of the
fundamental requirements in developing ports is ensuring that links inland, whether road
or rail, are effective.123
89. Despite the Minister’s recognition of the importance of these links, witnesses criticised
the quality of routes to many of Wales’s ports, and were concerned that there was
insufficient cross-border co-operation on transport issues. Mr Stephen Kelly of the Freight
Transport Association believed that at present there was very little evidence of cooperation:
There does need to be more communication, especially on transport issues, because
as far as freight is concerned it does not know borders; a shipment coming into
Fishguard does not necessarily stop at Newport, it will go beyond into England and
beyond into Europe.124
90. Witnesses told us that the fact that ports policy is reserved and transport is devolved
means that “continuing close co-operation and co-ordination between the Department for
Transport and the Welsh Assembly Government is essential to ensure that the latter’s
policies regarding road and rail links between Welsh ports and their hinterlands and
markets, including those in England, are complementary to UK port policy”.125 Witnesses
also believed that there is sufficient spare capacity at Welsh ports to handle increased levels
of freight in the future but this could be severely affected by inadequate surface links in
other parts of Wales, and that these links need to form a central part of transport planning
locally and regionally. This is recognised by the South West Wales Regional Transport
Consortium (SWWITCH), which told us of the need for “improvements to road and rail
infrastructure serving the ports” which are essential for maintaining “existing and
[developing] new business to sustain and encourage local businesses and suppliers”. 126
91. The Department for Transport and the Welsh Assembly Government must work
together to address cross-border rail and road issues affecting ports. Decisions on
investment in the wider transport infrastructure have affected the efficient movement
of goods and people in and out of the Welsh ports and the competitiveness of the Welsh
ports. A lack of co-ordination has resulted in inadequate landside access to some Welsh
ports in the past. Greater cross-border co-operation on this issue is essential and should
123
Q278
124
Q64
125
Ev 120
126
Ev 131
Ports in Wales
33
form part of an integrated transport policy that covers all modes of transport. The
Wales Office should facilitate and encourage this process.
92. A further concern raised by witnesses was the process of identifying Strategic National
Corridors in England, a process which took account of the major influence ports have on
traffic flows, but not beyond the English border. The Port of Holyhead (Stena Line)
commended this work to an extent because it highlighted the value of good and reliable
links to UK ports. However, Stena Line also criticised the fact that the Strategic National
Corridors tail off at the Welsh border and are not integrated into the Welsh Trunk Road
Forward Programme, pointing to the fact that this lack of integration means that no
account is taken of the impact of Welsh ports on traffic flows across the England/Wales
border.127
93. Both levels of government should ensure improvements and construction work on
the Strategic National Corridors and the Welsh Trunk Roads Forward Programme are
closely co-ordinated. We urge the Welsh Assembly Government and the Department
for Transport to keep the whole supply chain in mind when considering transport
infrastructure improvements and to consult fully with each other before
commissioning such improvements.
Roads
94. Wales has two main routes along the northern and southern coasts, the A55 and the
M4/A48/A40. Each of these leads to important Welsh ports which handle roll-on roll-off
traffic from Ireland. It is inevitable that roads will become congested and that those
transporting goods by road will experience occasional problems along the route.
Bottlenecks occur across the road network and the resulting time-delays add to the overall
cost of transporting goods. Vehicles travelling along Welsh roads are likely to encounter
traffic problems, and in some cases this can happen very close to the port itself which
makes using the port a less attractive proposition.
Pembrokeshire’s ports
95. Witnesses told us that beyond St Clears, the ports in Pembrokeshire (Fishguard,
Milford Haven and Pembroke Dock) suffer from poor road links. These ports are served by
single carriageway roads, which Mr Michael Farmer of the Road Haulage Association told
us cause problems for these ports and makes them less attractive to road haulage
companies:
... the A40 is still a single carriageway road heading for a port which is a ro-ro port
which develops a lot of lorry traffic. I think that is a distinct disadvantage. Obviously,
Wales being on the periphery, the ports being on the periphery of Wales, you need
those road links; and that for us is the limiting factor for a number of ports.128
127
Ev 141
128
Q 83
34
Ports in Wales
96. Responsibility for improvements to these routes lies with the Welsh Assembly
Government which, Mr Ted Sangster, Chief Executive of the Milford Haven Port
Authority, claimed, had failed to “fulfil the expectations and the needs of the
Pembrokeshire economy and ports” by not dualling the A40 beyond St Clear’s. He
considered this to be “a significant dampener on potential investment opportunities in
west Wales and ... a detractor from the use of the ports and the traffic making use of those
ports”.129 Pembrokeshire County Council agreed with this view, stating that “necessary
infrastructure improvements” must be secured to enable future growth at Milford
Haven.130 Their main concern was the lack of a dual carriageway A40 link to the M4.131
97. The Welsh Assembly Government’s consultation on a National Transport Plan
acknowledges that “these routes are susceptible to unreliable journey times caused by
slower moving and larger volumes of traffic and congestion, particularly during busy
holiday periods”.132 Even so, the Welsh Assembly Government Minister for the Economy
and Transport told us that there is not a strong enough business case for the dualling of the
A40 at present: “What we have done is make sure that the improvements that we are
currently undertaking could accommodate a dual carriage road if at some future date the
case for dualling can be made”.133
98. The lack of a dual carriageway serving the important ports in Pembrokeshire causes
traffic congestion and longer journey times for vehicles and passengers using these
ports. This issue impacts on their attractiveness to freight businesses. We acknowledge
that there needs to be a sufficient justification for expenditure to dual this route and
that the Welsh Assembly Government’s current approach allows for dualling in the
future, should this be justifiable financially. The Welsh Assembly Government should
keep this issue under review so as to ensure that ports in Pembrokeshire are not
disadvantaged by an inadequate road connecting them to the main motorway network.
Holyhead
99. The Port of Holyhead is an important employer on Anglesey, supporting
approximately 900 jobs.134 Two ferry companies operate services from Holyhead with up to
seven daily sailings departing from the port. Land access to Holyhead has improved
substantially in recent years with the dualling of the A55 expressway across Anglesey. This
has had a positive impact on journey times for those travelling to the port and means that
goods can be transported from Holyhead into the main motorway network in England
within 90 minutes.
100. Witnesses told us that some local problems remain, however, and these affect the
efficiency of movements to and from the port. The Port of Holyhead (Stena Line) told us
about the difficulties experienced near Holyhead port due to the fact that the A55
129
Q102
130
Ev 119
131
ibid
132
Welsh Assembly Government, National Transport Plan Consultation (2009)
133
Q317
134
Ev 105
Ports in Wales
35
expressway stops some distance from the port check-in facilities. They believe that this
results in “excessive traffic build-up on the local road network as well as causing significant
delays to freight and tourist traffic arriving at and leaving the port”.135 Other problems
which affect traffic heading to the port include delays on the Britannia Bridge and regular
works along the A55 expressway. 136 Ynys Môn County Council and Irish Ferries agreed
with the need to address these issues, which lead to “stresses on the transport network”.137
101. The Welsh Assembly Government’s consultation on the National Transport Plan
proposes improvements that will address the capacity issues on the A55 across the
Menai Strait. We welcome these proposed improvements and urge the Welsh Assembly
Government to ensure they take place as soon as possible.
New links from the ports
102. Guidance on funding for significant infrastructure issued by the Department for
Transport requires developers, as the sole beneficiary, to pay for inland links from the ports
to the main transport network. These can sometimes extend into the main trunk network.
The Welsh Assembly Government has issued similar guidance, not exclusive to ports,
which places planning conditions on developers to ensure that they make a contribution
towards the necessary infrastructure improvements. The Wales Freight Strategy discusses
the need to identify port locations where new facilities could be developed, but does not
make any reference to the funding of such development.
103. In other EU countries many ports are publicly owned and as a result the equivalent
links are paid for from public funds. The Freight Transport Association told us that this
potential additional burden on port investors “places UK ports at a competitive
disadvantage to Continental ports, which typically do not have to bear these infrastructure
costs”.138
104. In general, witnesses agreed with the Department for Transport’s approach. The Rail
Freight Group, for example believed the developer should pay for any immediate links.
However, they questioned the logic behind the requirement for the developer to extend
their contribution to the strategic trunk network. The Group considers that this type of
cost could become a barrier to investment in ports themselves.139 Other witnesses felt that
ports should not be expected to shoulder the whole cost of new links where other users will
benefit from improvements to the infrastructure.140 The Road Haulage Association
believed that improving the transport infrastructure would increase the viability and
success of ports, which in turn would create jobs. They argued this would need funding
from both government and the private sector, and were concerned that: “ports should not
be treated in any way differently from other commercial entities. It is not feasible for either
the port operators or private investors in the ports to be expected to provide funding for
135
Ev 141
136
ibid
137
Ev 107
138
Ev 93
139
Ev 121
140
Q6
36
Ports in Wales
the entire required infrastructure beyond their boundaries when all road users will
benefit”.141
105. We also heard criticisms of the Department for Transport’s guidance, with witnesses
telling us that it is unclear what proportion of any new development the Government is
willing to pay. This lack of clarity makes it difficult for port developers to plan and put in
place finance for future investment in the ports that would attract new business.
106. Where expanding a port’s operations requires investment in road and rail
infrastructure, it is right that the developer should pay a proportion of the cost.
However, our evidence suggests that existing guidance is unclear about the extent of
public funds which may be available to assist development. Both governments should
provide more clarity on the contribution they are willing to make to such developments
and within a timeframe that enables ports to plan their future business activities and
investments.
Rail
107. The level of rail connectivity to Welsh ports also varies.142 Witnesses told us that “the
current rail network in Wales does not present a barrier to development of ports in Wales,
but ... investment will be required to allow rail to play a full role in serving any increase in
traffic through those ports”.143
108. A number of problems affecting the contribution the rail network in Wales makes to
the movement of freight were identified. Mr Robin Smith from the Rail Freight Group
believed that although many Welsh ports have rail links, the loading gauge that can be
handled by the Welsh rail network is likely to cause problems.144 Mr Stephen Kelly of the
Freight Transport Association explained that:
I think where Welsh ports suffer is that they are not rail-linked to a certain extent, or
to any extent as a matter of fact, and that is due to the rail infrastructure itself in
terms of the loading gauge requirements. For example, in terms of the bigger sized
containers, rail in Wales is not equipped for that. That has been highlighted in the
rail utilisation strategy for Wales.145
109. Mr Callum Couper, Chair of the Wales Freight Group also acknowledged this as a
problem:
If, for example, ports were going to be feeding containers, for example, into the
Midlands, they would need sufficient loading gauge by rail to get them into the
Midlands, with sustainable transport. We have not really got that, from South Wales
anyway into the Midlands corridor—we have not got the width through tunnels and
141
Ev 124
142
See Table 1 for further information.
143
Ev 122
144
Q83
145
Q68
Ports in Wales
37
platforms for high cube containers which make up half the world’s population of
containers.146
110. The Welsh Assembly Government’s transport and freight strategies have been clear in
their ambition to move more freight from roads to rail. However, Mr Ieuan Wyn Jones
AM told us that this is particularly challenging because of the lack of facilities available to
undertake this transfer at the ports. The port of Cardiff, for example, does not have an ondock rail freight terminal for containers.147 Consequently, carrying freight by road is
significantly more convenient and cheaper, at present, than transporting goods by rail.148
111. The Rail Freight Group told us that the review of the potential for electrification of the
line from London to Cardiff and Swansea would provide a rail link with full loading gauge
capability.149 The UK Government announced on 23 July 2009 that this line would be
electrified by 2016.
112. Upgrades of the rail network would be required if rail were to contribute fully to
the transport of goods to/from Welsh ports. We welcome the UK Government’s recent
announcement on the electrification of the line from London to south Wales, which
will provide more capacity for goods on the railway, therefore more opportunity to
move goods by train. The Department for Transport should clarify whether there will
be benefits for freight as a result of this development.
Planning
Strategic and land use planning
113. For Welsh ports to become more attractive to customers they need to operate within,
and be well linked to, an efficient transport system. Long term planning and co-operation
between the ports, local authorities, regional bodies and government must happen to make
sure developments take place at the right time. The Welsh Assembly Government told us
that it recognises the importance of ports and “has made it a priority to ensure that the
linkage between ports and the economy is reflected in its wider economic development and
transport policies”.150
114. However, witnesses were concerned that this level of priority was not reflected in a
number of local authority economic development, transport and regeneration plans as well
as local development plans. This was believed to reflect the lack of understanding at a local
level of what ports could offer in terms of employment, or how businesses in the area
should be linked more closely to the ports themselves. Mr Callum Couper, Chair of the
Wales Freight Group, said there was no recognition at policy level within some local
authorities and some regions of the economic potential of the ports and believed that
attempts should be made to improve the way decision makers in the ports, their customers
146
Q22
147
Ev 73
148
Q318
149
Ev 121
150
Ev 164
38
Ports in Wales
and planning authorities co-operate. He told us this should involve identifying “whether
there is road and rail capacity” and should be given a long lead time so that planning
happens a long time in advance.151
115. Recognition of the importance of ports to their local economy varies across local
authorities. The port at Holyhead, for example, is considered a key driver of employment
on Ynys Môn and the local authority’s policies reflect this. Neath Port Talbot County
Borough Council told us that the economic contribution of the port facilities in Swansea
and Port Talbot is vital, and that “in current times with a general reduction in trade, all
support must be given to ensure these facilities are still fit for purpose following the
economic recovery”.152 However, witnesses were concerned that “in other urban areas it
[ports policy] is still almost invisible and that needs to be ramped up. In terms of the
understanding of what ports and shipping can do, environmentally and economically [...]
we need to raise the game”.153
116. The majority of the evidence we received from local authorities did place a high value
on the ports in their area. Pembrokeshire County Council’s submission, for example, refers
to the Pembrokeshire Haven Spatial Plan, which aims to overcome the “area’s peripherality
by improving strategic transport links and economic infrastructure … maximising the
potential of the area’s maritime assets and proximity to Ireland”.154 Written evidence from
the City and County of Swansea states that “the potential to develop economic activity
using the natural resource and primary purpose of Swansea docks should be maximised”155
and that: “development proposals that enhance the viability of the port … will be permitted
provided that such proposals are compatible with adjacent development areas,
communities, environmental enhancement schemes…”.156 We heard from Neath Port
Talbot County Borough Council that its local development plan will examine “the
potential to increase the scale and range of trade both through coastal shipping within the
UK and with other countries”.157
117. The level of importance afforded to the ports as economic drivers varies across
local authority areas in Wales. This can have an impact on not only policies within the
area, but also policies that cross local authority boundaries, such as transport. The
Welsh Assembly Government has a central role to play in ensuring that local
authorities recognise the potential of ports and that the planning system and transport
infrastructure operate ways that benefit the ports, or will be able to benefit the ports in
the future. The Department for Transport must play its part and the Wales Office must
ensure that different levels of government are joined-up and that cross-border cooperation takes place. We reiterate the importance of considering the whole freight
supply chain in policy and planning decisions, both locally and nationally.
151
Q7
152
Ev 166
153
Q26
154
Ev 118
155
Ev 140
156
Ev 146
157
Ev 167
Ports in Wales
39
Land use conflicts
118. During our inquiry we heard of local concerns regarding the disposal of port land and
the development of surplus land for other uses leading to conflict with the port’s
operations. Mr Matthew Kennerley from Associated British Ports South Wales told us
about tensions around the SA1 housing and leisure development in Swansea, which is close
to some of the port’s activities that are believed by the port owners to have commercial
potential.158 Mr Bryan Graham from Swansea County Council acknowledged that there
have been issues surrounding activities at the port itself, for example the handling of
aggregates that might be linked with environmental problems. However, Mr Graham
sought to assure us that such problems were effectively dealt with during the planning
stages.159
119. Tensions can also arise when non-port related activities are carried out on port land.
The Road Haulage Association told us that this has happened in the past as a result of the
port operators letting land to businesses that are unrelated to the port activities. They also
indicated that this land take-up precludes the expansion of port-related activities often
inhibiting the port’s development in the future.160
120. Local authorities have, however, argued that the planning process is able to deal with
tensions that arise from changing the uses of land traditionally linked to ports. Cooperation on these issues between the port owners and the local authority were deemed to
be effective in enabling surplus land to be identified for development. Pembrokeshire
County Council’s Unitary Development Plan “considers that diversification of port
facilities for leisure related use is appropriate where there is clear evidence that this will not
prejudice port operations”.161 The City and County of Swansea told us that:
“redevelopment of port land considered surplus to requirements may be considered
appropriate subject to the criteria and safeguards set out in the Unitary Development Plan,
and provided the viability of the wider port is not compromised”.162
121. Land suitable for use as harbours or ports is a valuable resource, and in urban
settings is non-renewable: once given over to other purposes it cannot be easily
replaced. The port operators are best placed to understand the requirements of their
business and to identify land which is surplus but they should do this in close
consultation with the business and local community. Whilst disposing of land for nonport related functions, such as housing, might provide the ports with higher financial
returns in the short term, the local authorities should work closely with the port
operators to ensure that it does not compromise any future development at the ports
that might lead to job creation in the local area. Where necessary, local authorities
should use their planning powers to restrict use of land to port-related functions and
secure it for the future.
158
Q124
159
Q141
160
Ev 124
161
Ev 168
162
Ev 147
40
Ports in Wales
Environment
122. Our inquiry did not focus in detail on the environmental impact of port developments
or operations. However, we did receive evidence from the RSPB highlighting the fact many
Welsh ports: “coincide spatially with areas that are designated under domestic or EU
legislation for their wildlife importance”.163 The evidence also emphasised the potential
damage that port related development or operations can have on these areas, through
activities such as dredging and construction.164
123. The Department for Transport told us that one of its priorities for ports is for their
development and operations to continue to be carefully managed to minimise the impact
on their surrounding and wider environment.165 Evidence from the ports sector criticised
the implementation of environmental legislation by the UK Government, which they
believed to be more stringent than in other EU countries and a barrier to the development
of port operations.166
124. The ports in Wales have worked within these regulations for a number of years to
develop approaches to their operations that have minimised their negative environmental
impact, particularly in environmentally sensitive areas. The RSPB has praised the ports
sector in the UK, claiming they should strive to continue to be exemplars for the sector in
the EU.167
Severn Tidal Power
125. The Department for Energy and Climate Change and the Welsh Assembly
Government confirmed in early 2009 that five projects for electricity generation from tidal
power are to be assessed for development in the Severn Estuary. Associated British Ports
told us about the potential impact of any developments on their operations, particularly in
the ports of Cardiff and Newport. A barrage from Cardiff to Weston, for example, (only
one of the five options being considered) would put these ports at a disadvantage because it
would obstruct any ship’s passage to the ports and affect the tidal regime in the estuary.
However, any of the proposed projects would provide these ports with business
opportunities, particularly during the construction stage and would also have implications
for development elsewhere. In particular, the potential for Port Talbot to be developed
would be enormous given that it would then be outside the Severn Barrage with excellent
deep-water facilities and plenty of port-related land for development.168
126. Renewable energy developments in the Severn Estuary could significantly impact
on the tidal regime in the estuary, which in turn could affect the operations of the ports
in Cardiff and Newport. Provided that adequate locking facilities are built in, not all
these implications would necessarily be negative. The UK and Welsh Assembly
163
Ev 125
164
Ev 126
165
Q277
166
Q105
167
Ev 125
168
Q109
Ports in Wales
41
Governments should give careful consideration to the potential impact of any
development in this area on the South Wales ports, together with the Wales Freight
Group.
42
Ports in Wales
4 Security and border controls
127. Ports serve a key role in transportation of freight and people and are vital for seaborne
trade and international commerce. Incidents that threaten the security of ports can have an
impact not only on those facilities but also on wider supply chains. The profile of maritime
security has been raised in recent months, and greater consideration is being given to
threats to the UK’s maritime assets from terrorist activities. We took evidence on the
arrangements for security at Welsh ports, the main threats to Wales’s ports and the
resources of the authorities involved in securing these points of entry into the UK for
people and goods.
Policy and legislation
128. The UK’s updated National Security Strategy published in June 2009 noted that, in the
context of terrorism threats, “considerable attention is now being paid to the maritime
domain”.169 The strategy states that maritime security will, therefore, be an area for specific
consideration within the national security framework. Whilst the focus of this strategy is
much wider than just ports and their operations, reference is made to the volume of UK
trade that transits by sea, and the role of maritime transport for energy supplies to the UK.
The strategy also recognises that “given the ongoing importance of this domain to the UK,
and the increasing interdependence of the threats and drivers, it is vital that we take a more
comprehensive overview of maritime security”.170
129. A recent report from the Defence Select Committee, The Defence Contribution to UK
National Security and Resilience,171 noted:
We have learned of the contributions being made by several organisations to
national security in the maritime environment. We do not question their
competence or intention, but the extent to which they are properly resourced and coordinated. Vessels have been acquired by different agencies at different times for
different purposes. At the same time, we are concerned at the level of action being
taken to address identified threats to aspects of critical national infrastructure, such
as ports, and that what assets are available for the purposes of maritime security tend
to be largely reactive forces.
The Committee is concerned that the human and physical resource capability gaps
identified by the Defence Select Committee should be given the necessary attention to deal
with existing threats, and considers that Wales is no different from other parts of the
United Kingdom in this respect.
130. All ports in Wales must comply with the International Ship and Port Facility Security
Code which was adopted by the International Maritime Organisation in December 2002
and came into force globally in July 2004. The code is monitored by TRANSEC, which is
169
Cabinet Office, National Security Strategy (2009)
170
Ibid.
171
Defence Committee, Sixth Report of Session 2008-09, The Defence Contribution to UK National Security and Resilience,
HC 121
Ports in Wales
43
an arm of the Department for Transport with responsibility for transport security. This
code formed the basis of EC regulation 725/2004 and the 2004 International Labour
Organisation code of practice on enhancing port security, which forms the basis of EC
Directive 65/2005. This second Directive is currently being transposed into UK law.172 All
ports will need to comply with this legislation.
131. The UK Border Agency was established in 2008, bringing together the functions
previously undertaken by the Border and Immigration Agency, customs work at the
border from HMRC, and the UK Visa Services from the Foreign and Commonwealth
Office. The UK Border Agency’s Eborders Programme is being implemented across UK
ports from 2009 with a view to being fully operational by 2014.173 The programme will
introduce electronic border control to the UK. Passenger and crew information will be
provided electronically by carriers (airlines, rail and shipping companies) before travel
starts on all journeys to and from the United Kingdom. Merchant shipping companies will
also be subject to these controls.
132. The Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act received Royal Assent in July 2009.
When the Bill was introduced into Parliament in early 2009, it contained proposals to
abolish the Common Travel Area between the UK, the Crown dependencies (the Channel
Islands and the Isle of Man) and the Republic of Ireland. It was proposed that fixed
immigration controls for all passengers and vehicles would be used. The House of Lords
removed this clause during the Bill’s Committee stages. The Bill received Royal Assent
without the inclusion of the clause.
Threats
Risk Assessment
133. Wales’s ports are key parts of the transport infrastructure but they face a number of
threats. The Association of Chief Police Officers Cymru explained that the main threats to
Welsh ports are from ‘routine’ criminality, illegitimate industrial or environmental protest,
serious and organised crime or terrorism”.174 From the UK Border Agency’s perspective,
the threats are wide ranging and include “illegal entry into the UK ... people trafficking,
drugs smuggling, drugs going one way, cash smuggling coming the other, cigarette
smuggling and road fuel”.175 The authorities co-operate on a number of levels to mitigate
the threat to port facilities from terrorist activities.176
134. We were told that different methodologies are used to assess risks and threats by the
authorities, based on each organisation’s perception of security threats and potential
consequences. For example, the approach undertaken by TRANSEC may vary from that of
the Department for Energy and Climate Change (which would be responsible for assessing
the risks to the energy infrastructure in Milford Haven). This may vary again from the
172
Ev 95
173
UK Borders Agency, available at: http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/managingborders/technology/eborders
174
Not printed
175
Q222
176
ibid
44
Ports in Wales
methodologies used by the police or by the ports themselves according to the requirements
of the ISPS code.
135. We heard in evidence that joint assessments of all of the risks between different
authorities do not happen at present and that there may be scope for greater coherence
between the different arrangements. This lack of coherence could lead to differing
priorities over the allocation of resources for security. Witnesses reassured us that this
area is kept under review, but we recommend greater harmonisation of risk assessment
methodologies to ensure consistency. We further recommend that the proposed Joint
Committee on the National Security Strategy examine this aspect of national security at
an early opportunity.
Border Control
136. During discussions on the Common Travel Area arrangements, witnesses highlighted
the potential threat to the UK’s security as a result of ‘high risk’ passengers being able to
travel easily from the Republic of Ireland to the Welsh ports. This was one of the UK
Government’s main reasons for wanting to introduce border controls within the Common
Travel Area. In written evidence, the UK Border Agency referred to abuses of the Common
Travel Area agreement. The Agency stated that it had “seen increased levels of abuse by air
and by sea with a number of people attempting to use Ireland as a back door into the
UK”.177
137. In his evidence, Professor Frank Gregory, Professor of European Security at
Southampton University, questioned “the extent to which there is any evidence of
particular patterns in the use of Welsh ports as entry points into mainland UK by persons
whose names may appear on ‘terrorist watch lists’”.178 However, the UK Border Agency
told us: “our own analysis of risk has identified high risk arrivals and regular action is taken
to meet ferries in this category”.179
138. The UK Border Agency highlighted the importance of all relevant stakeholders
playing their part in providing information on passengers and goods travelling through
ports. Mr John Whyte of the UK Border Agency was concerned that existing checks on
passengers through the main ferry ports are “helpful but not comprehensive enough”.180
He indicated that there are occasional problems, such as some ferry operators not
supplying adequate manifest information, for example for the crews and cargo on their
ships, and said that some of these checks “could be stronger”.181 We urge ports and carrier
companies to work more closely with the UK Border Agency to ensure that correct and
timely passenger and crew information is provided. This would help the authorities to
develop an accurate picture of movements in and out of the UK from the Common
Travel Area.
177
Ev 161
178
Ev 96
179
Ev 161
180
Q261
181
ibid
Ports in Wales
45
Police and border control staffing at ports
139. While some ports in England have independent police forces, Welsh ports are policed
by local forces who respond to incidents when called or have officers located at the port. In
addition, the Home Office provides £6.2million of funding for Special Branch posts that
are dedicated to counter terrorism activities. This is paid to individual forces and provides
for 124 Special Branch posts at Welsh ports, airports, and along the Welsh coastline. Key
performance indicators for these posts are focused on the counter-terrorism agenda. The
funding for these posts is ring-fenced and does not affect the funding of local forces, but
any withdrawal of these resources would affect the service provided by forces.182 Assistant
Chief Constable Collette Paul explained that there is effective “central tasking and control
but local delivery”.183
140. In its written evidence, the Association of Chief Police Officers Cymru highlighted the
occasional tension that can occur between these roles when Special Branch officers are
required to deal with offences not linked to the counter-terrorism agenda, such as: “the
arrest of illegal immigrants … disorder within the ports or on board vessels … drug abuse
and trafficking”.184 However, in oral evidence, witnesses did not cite any examples of
difficulties in this area.
141. Stena Line’s written memorandum notes that the numbers of officers involved in
border checks at Holyhead at present amount to approximately 120: 60 are Special Branch
Police Officers from North Wales Police; 20 are UK Border Agency Officers; and 40 are
employed by the port operator as part of the Ship and Port Facility (Security) regulations
2004/05.185 With regards to the current arrangements, the UK Border Agency told us that
its staff’s “attendance at ports is risk based and this serves to enhance our control in respect
of traffic from Ireland, particularly in relation to abuse of the Common Travel Area”.186
142. The UK Border Agency further explained its specific staffing provision at Welsh ports:
Staffing levels in Wales have been increased during the past year, allowing UK
Border Force to set up a fixed base at Pembroke Dock to address the risk at that port
as well as in the Haven and at Fishguard. This has been welcomed by the ports and
the Police based there. The staffing position in Holyhead is supplemented by the
attendance of mobile immigration teams and at all ports in Wales, additional mobile
UK Border Force resources are sent when required. For example, regular visits are
made by National dog teams to Welsh ports who work with local staff to look for
cash and Class A drugs in particular.187
143. The profile of the potential threat to maritime infrastructure has been raised in recent
months, as recognised by the UK Government’s updated National Security Strategy.
Ensuring the Welsh ports are secure depends on number of different aspects. These
182
Not printed
183
Q233
184
Not printed
185
Ev 142
186
Ev 161
187
ibid
46
Ports in Wales
include: dedicated police and border agency staff; intelligence-sharing on the threat facing
ports; co-operation from stakeholders such as the coast guard, the local community and
the private sector; accurate information on passengers, crew and vessels entering the ports;
adequate resources for the authorities to respond to incidents at the ports; and the cooperation of the ports operators and customers. Each of these elements must be robust to
ensure that Welsh ports are secure. In light of conflicting evidence, the Welsh Assembly
Government, Wales Office and the Home Office should ensure the engagement of
SOCA (the Serious Organised Crime Agency), Special Branch and the Security Service
(MI5) in identifying, categorising and tackling the threat, in liaison with other law
enforcement and order protection agencies.
Milford Haven
144. Milford Haven’s port is a vitally important facility in the supply of energy to the whole
of the UK and has a concentration of important energy installations. Two Liquefied
Natural Gas installations have been developed in recent months. These are located near
two existing oil refineries. A gas-fired power station will also be developed near the site in
the coming months. According to the Milford Haven Port Authority, the oil refineries
produce over 20% of the UK’s petrol and diesel, and the LNG facilities will have the
capacity to provide over 25% of the UK’s gas in the coming years.188
145. Pembrokeshire County Council told us they were concerned about Dyfed Powys
Police’s capacity in south west Wales, particularly following the “increase in installations of
national and international interest” with the recent development of the LNG terminals.189
This concern was amplified by Assistant Chief Constable Colette Paul of the Association of
Chief Police Officers Cymru, who called for more resources for Dyfed Powys Police to
ensure they could provide an adequate response to an incident at Milford Haven, should
this be necessary:
Dyfed Powys is the largest force area in the country ... the force cannot meet the
target times. There are graded criteria around threat and risk and you have to try and
meet it within a ten-minute period. This is a force that is 170 miles from the west
border to the east border and it can take up to three and a half hours to actually get
that distance ... The Chief Constable has made it really clear that he does need some
extra support and help in terms of protective security for this area. He has said that
he needs a dedicated armed response to actually assist there, and that comes to about
£700,000, but he has emphasised that he needs a vessel as well ... that is probably
nearer to £1.5 million in terms of training and a vessel.... if you do that you still need
all the CCTV, the ANPR, the back-up support around strategic coordinating
centres.190
146. We emphasise that witnesses did not state that specific threats to Milford Haven
had been identified. However, we did hear concerns about the risk of a threat and the
specialist capability of the local police force, Dyfed Powys Police, to respond in the
necessary time, as defined by the Home Office, to deal with any incidents at such a site.
188
Ev 110
189
Q151
190
Q256
Ports in Wales
47
Milford Haven is a vital port and has expanded rapidly. Dyfed Powys Police must be
adequately resourced to deal with the demands they now face in this area. We
recommend that additional resources be made available to Dyfed Powys Police to
enable it to undertake these activities. These resources must be proportional to its
additional responsibilities and must reflect the importance of Milford Haven to the
whole of the UK.
Co-operation
147. In evidence, the levels of co-operation between agencies dealing with security at ports
was believed to be effective. Mr John Whyte of the UK Border Agency told us that the level
of co-operation in Wales was greater than in many other parts of the UK:191 “in Wales we
are actually seeing a lot of co-operation ... because of its size we are actually able to do a lot
more in terms of working together than perhaps we can elsewhere”.192
148. There are several arrangements in place to facilitate co-operation between police
forces within and outside of Wales on security issues affecting ports. We heard about the
existence of two police portal groups, the Irish Sea portal group and a Bristol and Cardigan
Bay portal group, in which the Welsh forces participate. These groups allow for coordination with forces outside of Wales and regular intelligence sharing. We also heard
about co-operation with other authorities such as the Serious and Organised Crime
Agency, the UK Border Agency, the Maritime and Coastguard Agency and the value
placed on these relationships.193 Detective Chief Inspector Andy Jenks-Gilbert told us that
these arrangements are a “massive leap forward in terms of the co-operation and
collaboration between the agencies”.194
149. The Association of Chief Police Officers Cymru also told us about the ‘active
enhancement of border policing’ which requires collaboration between the police service,
the private and public sectors to improve the effectiveness of policing at the UK Border.
According to the Association, exercises are undertaken to assess the response format and
requirements in the face of a major event. To illustrate this, we were told about Operation
Oystercatcher, a contingency planning exercise that brought the armed forces, police, local
authorities and Welsh Assembly Government together.195
150. Witnesses were very keen to highlight the important role that the ports communities
and stakeholders play in assisting with the gathering of information and intelligence
needed to assess security risks. The role of Maritime and Coastguard Agency was in
particular deemed to be significant in alerting the authorities to unusual activities along
the coast.196
191
Q244
192
Q226
193
Q233
194
Q240
195
Not printed
196
Q245
48
Ports in Wales
151. The ports told us that they felt security and policing arrangements were adequate.
Their compliance with legislation on port security means that they all adhere to certain
standards. However, we also heard from the port operators that whilst they were satisfied
with security arrangements at the ports, “more support and improved relationships [with
the police] at a local level would be of benefit in dealing with specific issues as they arise”197.
152. There is considerable co-ordination between agencies within Wales, with relevant
bodies across the border, and nationally, on issues of ports security. Co-operation
between the police and authorities dealing with control of the borders is particularly
efficient and avoids duplication and overlap.
153. However, we are concerned that the evidence we received suggested there were
gaps in existing arrangements and that relationships could be improved. Minimising
the threats to the ports and their hinterlands requires all the relevant players to cooperate effectively. The authorities and the private sector will need to work closely to
facilitate this. The ports and ferry operators must play their part in ensuring that the
authorities, such as the UK Border Agency, have adequate information on passengers
travelling into the UK.
Common Travel Area
154. During our inquiry we received evidence from a number of witnesses raising concerns
about the proposed changes to the Common Travel Area included in the Borders,
Citizenship and Immigration Bill at the time. This Bill was being considered in Committee
at the time of our inquiry and received Royal Assent in July 2009. Witnesses were
concerned about the inclusion of a clause which would provide the power to introduce
border checks at points of entry into the UK from the Common Travel Area.
155. The Common Travel Area allows for free movement of people between the UK and
the Republic of Ireland and the Crown Dependencies (the Channel Islands and the Isle of
Man). This means that no passport checks are undertaken on those passengers travelling
between these locations. The clause would have removed this freedom.
156. In evidence, ferry and port operators raised a number of concerns regarding these
proposals which included the impact of increased border controls on the efficient
movement of vehicles and passengers, and the likely economic burden of implementing
the controls to the port operators. We also heard evidence that it was unlikely there would
be any controls between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland and there would be
no border controls for those travelling between Northern Ireland and Scotland. Witnesses
felt this would displace the problems of illegal immigration from Ireland to other parts of
the UK and could also displace business from the Welsh ports if vehicles were likely to
encounter time delays at border control points, and if criminals decided to take their
business elsewhere.
157. We note that on debating the Bill in the House of Commons, the Home Office
Minister, Mr Phil Woollas MP, accepted the opposition to this clause and it was removed
in the House of Lords.
197
Ev 70
Ports in Wales
49
5 Conclusion
158. Ports are important transport infrastructure resources. They serve a key role in the
transportation of freight and people and are vital for seaborne trade and international
commerce. In addition, they serve as the nodal interface where maritime transport
connects with other modes of transport and where trading, logistics and distribution
activities can take place. There are a number of opportunities for Wales’s ports to make a
greater contribution to the economy, but these opportunities will not be exploited without
the right policy framework, and without support from government at all levels.
159. The cruise market in particular offers a significant opportunity for the economies near
the Welsh ports. Developing this market, however, will require public investment in
facilities and public sector support to ensure its continued promotion and marketing.
Recent initiatives are welcome, but more ambition must be shown in order to exploit the
market’s full potential. For this to happen, the Department for Transport needs to fully
support targeted investment in Welsh ports, in spite of its historic reluctance to intervene
in the sector. The identified investment should proceed now in order to attract cruise
operators who have a 3–4 year forward planning period.
160. Most Welsh ports have spare capacity and are well placed to take advantage of
changing supply-chain and distribution practices, such as the increased use of feeder ships
to transfer goods from major hub ports. By developing short-sea shipping or feedering
services, Welsh ports could offer alternatives to road transport, which is environmentally
damaging and increasingly time dependent as traffic levels rise and roads become more
congested. The Wales Freight and Ports Group has been working effectively to create a
better understanding of logistics chains and the movement of goods and to share market
intelligence. This needs to be extended through a co-ordinated ports policy for Wales
shared between the Welsh Assembly Government, the Department for Transport and the
industry. Department for Transport officials should participate in the Wales Freight
Group, if the group believes this would enhance the Department’s understanding of the
challenges facing the Welsh ports and wider freight sector.
161. Ports also have a central role to play in the energy sector. Milford Haven, for example,
has grown to become one of the most important locations for the sector in the UK. The
growth in renewables could provide new opportunities for ports, both as locations for
energy generation installations and in terms of the supply and distribution of fuels and
equipment.
162. Wales’s ports serve broad hinterlands and must be adequately connected by transport
links and surface access so that freight and people can travel swiftly to and from the ports.
A lack of strategic planning for investment in key routes by the English regions can have a
significant impact on routes into/out of Wales. Ports should be given a greater profile in
transport and planning decisions locally, regionally and across borders. The Department
for Transport and the Welsh Assembly Government must work together to address crossborder rail and road issues affecting ports. Greater cross-border co-operation on this issue
is essential and should form part of an integrated transport policy that covers all modes of
transport.
50
Ports in Wales
163. Ports policy is the reserved responsibility of the Department for Transport, whilst
many other relevant policy areas are devolved to the Welsh Assembly Government. Our
inquiry has found that different approaches have led to a lack of coherent strategic
objectives for ports in Wales from both levels of government. Government at all levels
must use its powers in a complementary and focused way to achieve the agreed outcomes
that will lead to an expansion in the port sector in future. In this context, we would expect
the Department for Transport to follow through its stated commitment to local decisionmaking in the creation of locally relevant policy and we recommend that the Department
for Transport and the Welsh Assembly Government develop a distinctive ports policy for
Wales to identify where investment should be targeted to enable the sector to thrive.
164. Given the administrative division of reserved and devolved matters relating to ports,
we believe that the Wales Office should play a much greater and more proactive role in
facilitating co-operation between the Welsh Assembly Government and relevant central
government departments. The Wales Office must ensure that it is doing everything
possible to represent Welsh interests within Whitehall. The Wales Office does not have the
technical expertise to deal with many of the specific issues involved, so, a robust and direct
working relationship must be established between the Department for Transport and the
Welsh Assembly Government. It is essential that the Department of Transport should have
a clear understanding of Welsh needs and priorities in order to ensure that the right
support is on offer.
165. The authorities involved in security at Welsh ports co-operate very closely, but there is
scope for more co-operation with the private sector such as the port operators and ferry
companies. So that the Welsh ports are not seen as an easy point of entry into the UK, each
member of the port community must play their part in ensuring threats to port security are
minimised, and that up to date information is available on the goods and people travelling
through Wales’s ports. We are not convinced that the significant additional pressure that
has been placed on the local police force by the expansion of Milford Haven in recent years
has been reflected in resource allocations. We recommend that additional resources be
made available to Dyfed Powys Police to enable it to undertake these activities. These
resources must be proportional to its additional responsibilities and must reflect the
importance of Milford Haven to the whole of the UK.
Ports in Wales
51
Conclusions and recommendations
The cruise market
1.
The relevant authorities must work together in Wales to ensure that the passengers
who currently visit Wales on cruise liners spend their money in the hinterlands of
the particular port of call. If improved facilities are developed in Wales, it will be
essential that this co-operation continues. (Paragraph 22)
Barriers
2.
Cruise based tourism can bring significant benefits to local economies. A limited
number of cruise liners already visit Welsh ports but their frequency is constrained
by the lack of appropriate facilities for them to berth safely. This could be resolved at
relatively little cost compared to the economic benefit that might accrue from putting
Wales on the cruise map. There is a significant opportunity for Wales to capitalise on
the growth of the cruise market and demand for new cruise destinations, but coordinated work and investment will be required to deal with existing constraints and
enable Wales to benefit from the projected growth of the cruise market. (Paragraph
26)
Challenges
3.
Cruise companies need a long lead time to plan their itineraries and advertise these
to customers. Work to develop the jetty at Holyhead should start as soon as possible,
and efforts will need to be made to quickly find ways of overcoming problems
associated with state aid. (Paragraph 32)
4.
The lack of quayside facilities for ships mean that, at the moment, other ports in the
UK and Ireland are more attractive to cruise companies than those in Wales.
Investment is needed to develop these facilities; the Department for Transport
should assist the Welsh Assembly Government’s efforts to ensure that this happens
as soon as possible. The Welsh Assembly Government should continue to work with
the cruise companies through Cruise Wales to ensure that any facilities developed in
Wales meet their requirements in the medium to long term. (Paragraph 33)
5.
The Cruise Wales partnership works hard to raise the profile of the whole of Wales
as a cruise destination, and to gain a better understanding of the needs of both the
cruise lines and their customers. We welcome the recent announcement of £1.2
million in European Funding for the Celtic Wave which will enable the ports of
Holyhead, Milford Haven and Swansea to work with their counterparts in Dublin,
Waterford and Cork to market the region as a cruise destination. However, more
ambition must be shown in order to exploit the full potential of the cruise market.
Promoting Wales as a destination along with other Celtic/Irish Sea ports must be a
priority so that the cruise lines can include Wales in their itineraries as soon as
possible. The UK Government should support this work so that the UK as a whole
can offer a more diverse range of itineraries to cruise companies. (Paragraph 34)
52
6.
Ports in Wales
Developing the cruise market in Wales will benefit the whole of the UK. By
improving the facilities in Wales, more UK based cruise itineraries can be created but
this will require public investment. We are concerned that the lack of clarity from the
Department for Transport about the scope and availability of public funding for
cruise facilities could affect ambitions to develop Wales as a cruise destination. The
Department’s policy of non-intervention in port development should not apply in
this context. The market will not invest in a capital scheme for developing cruise
facilities because of the low rate of return to the port operators from cruise
operations. We are concerned that the Department for Transport has not given
sufficient consideration to the benefits to local and regional economies from cruise
tourism. (Paragraph 36)
Logistics
7.
Ports are a key link in the supply chains in the UK. Overseas manufacturers and
freight forwarders will look at the total supply chain from the point of origin to the
final destination. The UK and Welsh Assembly Governments need to be aware of the
relationship between logistics and supply chains and the location of jobs.
Furthermore, the Welsh Assembly Government should ensure that it understands
what the market requires by undertaking demand forecasting to inform policy
development and assist the Welsh ports to increase their business. (Paragraph 44)
8.
We recommend that the Welsh Assembly Government undertakes a review of spare
capacity at Welsh ports. This would help identify the transport and infrastructure
improvements needed to facilitate more freight movements through Welsh ports.
The freight sector needs a long lead-time to plan operations. We suggest that this
activity should, therefore, start as soon as possible. (Paragraph 45)
Short-sea shipping
9.
Whilst a large scale container development in Wales would not be viable, we would
support the industry’s view that Wales should be developing short sea shipping or
feeder services to and from the main container ports in the UK and North West
Europe. This would provide business opportunities for the ports and would reduce
the environmental impact of the freight sector. We would encourage the Welsh
Assembly Government to assess the scope to develop business in this area with the
aim of increasing the volume of goods being transported to Wales by sea.
(Paragraph 51)
10.
Witnesses have recognised the important role the ports can play in supporting a
more environmentally sustainable transport policy in the future. Transporting goods
by sea is often more environmentally benign than doing so by road and should be
encouraged. (Paragraph 52)
Energy Sector
11.
The Welsh Assembly Government is well placed to assist the Welsh ports to take
advantage of the growth of the renewable energy sector, both in terms of servicing
the industry and as a location for energy installations. Welsh Assembly Government
Ports in Wales
53
Ministers should work together to identify where these opportunities exist and
communicate them to the UK Government. The Wales Office has a role in making
sure this direct liaison happens. (Paragraph 57)
A distinctive Welsh approach
12.
The Department for Transport and the Welsh Assembly Government have different
views on the investment of public funds in ports. The former supports an approach
that lets the market lead investment, whilst the latter supports greater government
engagement. The Department for Transport’s approach has worked for the larger
English ports because the growth of the sector in England and Wales is skewed by
their success, and boosted by their high population densities and high levels of
economic activity. Most Welsh ports, however, are operating below capacity and face
specific challenges which would justify a more strategic approach to their
development. (Paragraph 64)
13.
Increasing the volume of freight being transported by sea would reduce the
environmental impact of the freight sector. However, Welsh ports face specific
challenges (such as poor connectivity with the transport network – see section 3),
which shackle their ability to compete. For this reason, we welcome the Welsh
Assembly Government’s willingness to consider investing in Welsh ports. We believe
there is merit in identifying where there is spare capacity at Welsh ports and
opportunities for the future. (Paragraph 65)
14.
The Department for Transport acknowledges that decisions on port development are
best dealt with regionally or locally but maintains that investment in ports should be
market-led. The different approaches of the Department for Transport and the
Welsh Assembly Government could result in the lack of agreed and coherent
strategic objectives for Welsh ports, in the knowledge of which sound commercial
investment decisions could be confidently made. Government at all levels must use
its powers in a complementary and focused way to achieve agreed outcomes that will
lead to an expansion in the port sector. In this context, we would expect the
Department for Transport to follow through its stated commitment to local
decision-making in the creation of locally relevant policy. It must be prepared to cooperate with the Welsh Assembly Government to consider public investment where
local factors inhibit the exploitation of market forces to provide for investment in
Welsh ports. We recommend that the Department for Transport and the Welsh
Assembly Government develop a distinctive ports policy for Wales to identify where
investment should be targeted to enable the sector to thrive. (Paragraph 66)
15.
Given the administrative division of reserved and devolved matters relating to ports,
we believe that the Wales Office should play a much greater and more proactive role
in facilitating and encouraging co-operation between the Welsh Assembly
Government and relevant central government departments. The Wales Office must
ensure that it is doing everything possible to represent Welsh interests within
Whitehall. The Wales Office does not have the technical expertise to deal with many
of the specific issues involved, so, a robust and direct working relationship must be
established between the Department for Transport and the Welsh Assembly
Government. It is essential that the Department of Transport should have a clear
54
Ports in Wales
understanding of Welsh needs and priorities in order to ensure that the right support
is on offer. The personal role of the Secretary of State for Wales in particular—as well
as the Wales Office as an institution—is crucial. He must make sure that in this area
of policy such relationships are established, maintained and work well. This is, of
course, the key role of the Secretary of State and his team across all areas of
Government policy and interaction. (Paragraph 67)
Grant Funding
16.
The Department for Transport and the Welsh Assembly Government should raise
awareness of the eligibility of ports for the Freight Facilities Grant. (Paragraph 68)
17.
The Department for Transport and the Welsh Assembly Government should do
more to assist ports in Wales to access relevant EU funds where these are available.
Witnesses told us, however, that in many instances the rules set by the European
Commission mean that these funds are not available for Welsh ports. In these cases,
the UK Government should lobby the EU for a fairer system. (Paragraph 71)
Policy Framework
18.
All levels of government must facilitate the development of Welsh ports by providing
the right policy framework within which they can operate efficiently. Our evidence
has demonstrated that at present these conditions do not exist. Many Welsh ports
are disadvantaged because of inadequate road or rail links, or because of delays
within the planning process. For Wales’s ports to develop and increase their
contribution to the economy, the Department for Transport and the Welsh
Assembly Government should put in place the right policy framework, which
includes an integrated transport policy, land use planning and spatial planning
across regions and borders. The Wales Office should proactively encourage this
process. (Paragraph 74)
19.
We found no evidence of tension between the Department for Transport and the
Welsh Assembly Government at present. However, we are concerned that a lack of
dialogue at ministerial level could result in different levels of government moving in
different directions on ports policy. Given the administrative division of reserved
and devolved matters relating to ports, close co-operation will be needed in the
future to ensure that policy remains joined up, and that all levels of government
share ambitions and coherent objectives for the ports in Wales. The Wales Office
should be central to this process. (Paragraph 77)
20.
Government needs a thorough understanding of the needs and challenges facing the
freight and ports sectors to be able to develop appropriate policies that can facilitate
their growth. The Wales Freight Strategy is an example of a co-ordinated and intermodal view of the freight sector which is supported by the Wales Freight Group and
more recently the Ports sub-group, and is a model which could be used more widely
by government. The Welsh Assembly Government will need to continue to work
closely with the freight sector to understand logistics chains, the role of the Welsh
ports in these and how government can facilitate their efficient operation by
providing the right policy framework. Stakeholders such as the Welsh Freight and
Ports in Wales
55
Ports Groups are being used to ensure that relevant policies take account of the needs
of this sector. This data should inform the Welsh Assembly Government’s
discussions with the Department for Transport on issues affecting Welsh ports. The
existence of these stakeholder groups should therefore result in the ports having a
more effective means of proactively engaging with both the Department for
Transport and the Welsh Assembly Government. (Paragraph 84)
21.
We note that the Welsh Assembly Government Minister for the Economy and
Transport does not see a role for the Wales Ports Group in liaising with the
Department for Transport. Nevertheless, despite the reassurances from the
Department for Transport that they regularly liaise with the ports, we are concerned
that there is little consultation with the sector on relevant policy areas at a UK or
England and Wales level. We recommend that the Department for Transport should
use the Wales Ports Group as a means of consulting with the ports industry in Wales
to gain a better understanding of their collective concerns regarding relevant
government spending decisions. We also recommend that Department for
Transport officials should participate in the Wales Freight Group, if the group
believes this would enhance the Department’s understanding of the challenges facing
the Welsh ports and wider freight sector. (Paragraph 85)
Cross border co-operation
22.
The Department for Transport and the Welsh Assembly Government must work
together to address cross-border rail and road issues affecting ports. Decisions on
investment in the wider transport infrastructure have affected the efficient
movement of goods and people in and out of the Welsh ports and the
competitiveness of the Welsh ports. A lack of co-ordination has resulted in
inadequate landside access to some Welsh ports in the past. Greater cross-border cooperation on this issue is essential and should form part of an integrated transport
policy that covers all modes of transport. The Wales Office should facilitate and
encourage this process. (Paragraph 91)
23.
Both levels of government should ensure improvements and construction work on
the Strategic National Corridors and the Welsh Trunk Roads Forward Programme
are closely co-ordinated. We urge the Welsh Assembly Government and the
Department for Transport to keep the whole supply chain in mind when considering
transport infrastructure improvements and to consult fully with each other before
commissioning such improvements. (Paragraph 93)
Roads
24.
The lack of a dual carriageway serving the important ports in Pembrokeshire causes
traffic congestion and longer journey times for vehicles and passengers using these
ports. This issue impacts on their attractiveness to freight businesses. We
acknowledge that there needs to be a sufficient justification for expenditure to dual
this route and that the Welsh Assembly Government’s current approach allows for
dualling in the future, should this be justifiable financially. The Welsh Assembly
Government should keep this issue under review so as to ensure that ports in
56
Ports in Wales
Pembrokeshire are not disadvantaged by an inadequate road connecting them to the
main motorway network. (Paragraph 98)
25.
The Welsh Assembly Government’s consultation on the National Transport Plan
proposes improvements that will address the capacity issues on the A55 across the
Menai Strait. We welcome these proposed improvements and urge the Welsh
Assembly Government to ensure they take place as soon as possible. (Paragraph 101)
New links from the ports
26.
Where expanding a port’s operations requires investment in road and rail
infrastructure, it is right that the developer should pay a proportion of the cost.
However, our evidence suggests that existing guidance is unclear about the extent of
public funds which may be available to assist development. Both governments
should provide more clarity on the contribution they are willing to make to such
developments and within a timeframe that enables ports to plan their future business
activities and investments. (Paragraph 106)
Rail
27.
Upgrades of the rail network would be required if rail were to contribute fully to the
transport of goods to/from Welsh ports. We welcome the UK Government’s recent
announcement on the electrification of the line from London to south Wales, which
will provide more capacity for goods on the railway, therefore more opportunity to
move goods by train. The Department for Transport should clarify whether there
will be benefits for freight as a result of this development. (Paragraph 112)
Strategic and land use planning
28.
The level of importance afforded to the ports as economic drivers varies across local
authority areas in Wales. This can have an impact on not only policies within the
area, but also policies that cross local authority boundaries, such as transport. The
Welsh Assembly Government has a central role to play in ensuring that local
authorities recognise the potential of ports and that the planning system and
transport infrastructure operate ways that benefit the ports, or will be able to benefit
the ports in the future. The Department for Transport must play its part and the
Wales Office must ensure that different levels of government are joined-up and that
cross-border co-operation takes place. We reiterate the importance of considering
the whole freight supply chain in policy and planning decisions, both locally and
nationally. (Paragraph 117)
Land use conflicts
29.
Land suitable for use as harbours or ports is a valuable resource, and in urban
settings is non-renewable: once given over to other purposes it cannot be easily
replaced. The port operators are best placed to understand the requirements of their
business and to identify land which is surplus but they should do this in close
consultation with the business and local community. Whilst disposing of land for
Ports in Wales
57
non-port related functions, such as housing, might provide the ports with higher
financial returns in the short term, the local authorities should work closely with the
port operators to ensure that it does not compromise any future development at the
ports that might lead to job creation in the local area. Where necessary, local
authorities should use their planning powers to restrict use of land to port-related
functions and secure it for the future. (Paragraph 121)
Environment
30.
Renewable energy developments in the Severn Estuary could significantly impact on
the tidal regime in the estuary, which in turn could affect the operations of the ports
in Cardiff and Newport. Provided that adequate locking facilities are built in, not all
these implications would necessarily be negative. The UK and Welsh Assembly
Governments should give careful consideration to the potential impact of any
development in this area on the South Wales ports, together with the Wales Freight
Group. (Paragraph 126)
Threats
31.
We heard in evidence that joint assessments of all of the risks between different
authorities do not happen at present and that there may be scope for greater
coherence between the different arrangements. This lack of coherence could lead to
differing priorities over the allocation of resources for security. Witnesses reassured
us that this area is kept under review, but we recommend greater harmonisation of
risk assessment methodologies to ensure consistency. We further recommend that
the proposed Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy examine this aspect
of national security at an early opportunity. (Paragraph 135)
Border control
32.
We urge ports and carrier companies to work more closely with the UK Border
Agency to ensure that correct and timely passenger and crew information is
provided. This would help the authorities to develop an accurate picture of
movements in and out of the UK from the Common Travel Area. (Paragraph 138)
Police and border control staffing at ports
33.
In light of conflicting evidence, the Welsh Assembly Government, Wales Office and
the Home Office should ensure the engagement of SOCA (the Serious Organised
Crime Agency), Special Branch and the Security Service (MI5) in identifying,
categorising and tackling the threat, in liaison with other law enforcement and order
protection agencies. (Paragraph 143)
Milford Haven
34.
We emphasise that witnesses did not state that specific threats to Milford Haven had
been identified. However, we did hear concerns about the risk of a threat and the
specialist capability of the local police force, Dyfed Powys Police, to respond in the
58
Ports in Wales
necessary time, as defined by the Home Office, to deal with any incidents at such a
site. Milford Haven is a vital port and has expanded rapidly. Dyfed Powys Police
must be adequately resourced to deal with the demands they now face in this area.
We recommend that additional resources be made available to Dyfed Powys Police
to enable it to undertake these activities. These resources must be proportional to its
additional responsibilities and must reflect the importance of Milford Haven to the
whole of the UK. (Paragraph 146)
Co-operation
35.
There is considerable co-ordination between agencies within Wales, with relevant
bodies across the border, and nationally, on issues of ports security. Co-operation
between the police and authorities dealing with control of the borders is particularly
efficient and avoids duplication and overlap. (Paragraph 152)
36.
However, we are concerned that the evidence we received suggested there were gaps
in existing arrangements and that relationships could be improved. Minimising the
threats to the ports and their hinterlands requires all the relevant players to cooperate effectively. The authorities and the private sector will need to work closely to
facilitate this. The ports and ferry operators must play their part in ensuring that the
authorities, such as the UK Border Agency, have adequate information on
passengers travelling into the UK. (Paragraph 153)
Ports in Wales
59
Formal Minutes
Tuesday 27 October 2009
Members present:
Dr Hywel Francis, in the Chair
Mrs Siân James
Albert Owen
Mr David Jones
Hywel Williams
Alun Michael
Mark Williams
Draft Report (Ports in Wales) proposed by the Chairman, brought up and read.
Ordered, That the Report be read a second time, paragraph by paragraph.
Paragraphs 1 to 165 read and agreed to.
Summary agreed to.
Resolved, That the Report be the Fifteenth Report of the Committee to the House.
Ordered, That the Chairman make the Report to the House.
Ordered, That embargoed copies of the Report be made available, in accordance with the
provisions of Standing Order No. 134.
[Adjourned until Tuesday 3 November at 10am
60
Ports in Wales
Witnesses
Tuesday 2 June 2009
Page
Dr Anthony Beresford, Senior Lecturer, Logistics and Operations
Management, Cardiff Business School, and Mr Callum Couper, Chair, Wales
Freight Group
Ev 1
Tuesday 9 June 2009
Page
Mr Giovanni Mendola, Maritime Transport and Ports Policy, DG Tren,
European Commission
Ev 12
Mr Robin Smith, Welsh Representative, Rail Freight Group; Mr Christopher
Snelling, Head of Rail Freight and Global Supply Chain Policy and Mr
Stephen Kelly, Head of Policy Midlands, Wales and South West, Freight
Transport Association; and Mr Michael Farmer, Regional Director, Road
Haulage Association
Ev 15
Tuesday 23 June 2009
Page
Mr Matthew Kennerley, Port Director, South Wales Ports, Associated British
Ports, Mr David Whitehead, Director, British Ports Association and Mr Ted
Sangster, Chief Executive, Milford Haven Port Authority
Ev 22
Mr Bryan Graham, Head of Planning Services, City and County of Swansea,
Mr Richard Workman, Director of Technical Services, Carmarthenshire and
Mr Kefin Wakefield, Head of Economic Development, Pembrokeshire
County Council
Ev 29
Tuesday 30 June 2009
Page
Ms Margaret Llewellyn, Cruise Wales, and Mr Jon Pinnington, Business
Development Manager, Isle of Anglesey County Council
Ev 34
Mr Matt Grimes, Director, Planning, Ports and Logistics, Fred Olsen Cruises,
and Mr Keith Blundell, Head of Tourism, City of Liverpool
Ev 39
Mr Paddy Walsh, UK Ports Manager, Irish Ferries, and Mr Tim Reardon,
Chamber of Shipping, representing Stena Line
Ev 44
Ports in Wales
Tuesday 7 July 2009
Assistant Chief Constable Colette Paul, Protective Services, Detective Chief
Inspector Andy Jenks-Gilbert, Strategic Ports Lead, Wales Extremism and
Counter Terrorism Unit, Association of Chief Police Officers Cymru; and Mr
John Whyte, Director Central Region, Uk Border Force and Mr Bob Lyne,
Assistant Director for UK Border Force Central Region, Wales, UK Border
Agency
Tuesday 14 July 2009
61
Page
Ev 48
Page
Paul Clark MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Transport, and Mr
Robert Davies, Policy Adviser, Ports Division, Department for Transport
Ev 55
Mr Ieuan Wyn Jones AM, Deputy First Minister and Welsh Assembly
Government Minister for the Economy and Transport, Mr James Price,
Director Transport and Strategic Regeneration, Mr Keith Thomas,
International Connectivity Manager, and Mr Tim James, Director Integrated
Public Transport, Welsh Assembly Government
Ev 61
List of written evidence
1
Written evidence from Associated British Ports (ABP)
Ev 67
2
Written evidence from Dr A K C Beresford
Ev 70
3
Written evidence from the British Ports Association and the UK
Major Ports Group
Ev 73
4
Written evidence from Cardiff Harbour Authority
Ev 76
5
Written evidence from the Chartered Institute of Logistics and
Transport (UK) Cymru Wales
Ev 76
6
Written evidence from Callum Couper, FCILT, Chair, Wales Freight Group
Ev 78
7
Written evidence from Cruise Wales
Ev 80
8
Written evidence from the European Commission
Ev 82
9
Written evidence from Fred. Olsen Cruise Lines
Ev 85
10
Written evidence from the Freight Transport Association (FTA)
Ev 91
11
Written evidence from Professor Frank Gregory
Ev 94
12
Written evidence from Irish Ferries (UK) Limited
13
Further written evidence from Irish Ferries
Ev 101
14
Written evidence from the Isle of Anglesey County Council
Ev 105
15
Supplementary written evidence from the Isle of Anglesey County Council
Ev 109
16
Written evidence from Milford Haven Port Authority (MHPA)
Ev 110
17
Supplementary written evidence from Milford Haven Port Authority
Ev 112
18
Written evidence from the Port of Mostyn Ltd
Ev 114
19
Written evidence from Pembrokeshire County Council
Ev 117
Ev 97
62
Ports in Wales
20
Written evidence from the Rail Freight Group
Ev 120
21
Written evidence from the Road Haulage Association Ltd (RHA)
Ev 122
22
Written evidence from the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds
Ev 125
23
Written evidence from the Royal Yachting Association
Ev 128
24
Written evidence from Saga Shipping Company
Ev 130
25
Written evidence from South West Wales Integrated
Transport Consortium (SWWITCH)
Ev 131
26
Written evidence from Stena Line Ports Ltd
Ev 140
27
Written evidence from the City and County of Swansea
Ev 146
28
Written evidence from the Department of Transport
Ev 153
29
Written evidence from the UK Border Agency
Ev 160
30
Written evidence from Unite
Ev 161
31
Written evidence from the Welsh Assembly Government
Ev 164
32
Written evidence from Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council
Ev 166
33
Written evidence from Liverpool City Council
Ev 167
34
Supplementary written evidence from Pembrokeshire County Council
Ev 168
35
Supplementary written evidence from Pembrokeshire County Council
Ev 168
Ports in Wales
63
List of Reports from the Committee during
the current Parliament
Session 2008-09
First Report
Cross-border provision of public services for Wales:
Further and higher education
Second Report
Globalisation and its impact on Wales
Third Report
Proposed National Assembly for Wales (Legislative
Competence) (Agriculture and Rural Development)
Order 2008
Fourth Report
Work of the Committee 2007-08
Fifth Report
The provision of cross-border health services for
Wales
Sixth Report
Proposed National Assembly for Wales (Legislative
Competence) (Social Welfare) Order 2009
HC 306
Seventh Report
Legal Services Commission Cardiff Office
HC 374
Eighth Report
Potential Benefits of the 2012 Olympics and
Paralympics for Wales
HC 162
Ninth Report
The proposed National Assembly for Wales
(Legislative Competence) (Welsh Language) Order
2009
HC 348
Tenth Report
Cross-border provision of public services for Wales:
Transport
HC 58
Eleventh Report
English Language Television Broadcasting in Wales
HC 502
Twelfth Report
Proposed National Assembly for Wales (Legislative
Competence) (Environment) Order 2009
HC 678
Thirteenth Report
Digital Inclusion in Wales
HC 305
Fourteenth Report
Proposed National Assembly for Wales (Legislative
Competence) (Health And Health Services And Social
Welfare) Order 2009
HC 778
Fifteenth Report
Ports in Wales
HC 601
First Special Report
The proposed draft National Assembly for Wales
(Legislative Competence) (Housing) Order 2008:
Government Response to the Committee's Seventh
Report of Session 2007–08
HC 200
HC 57
HC 184 –I, II
HC 5
HC 252
HC 56
Second Special Report Cross-border provision of public services for Wales:
further and higher education: Government
Response to the Committee’s First Report of Session
2008-09
HC 378
Third Special Report
Proposed National Assembly for Wales (Legislative
Competence) (Agriculture and Rural Development)
Order 2008: Government Response to the
Committee’s Third Report of Session 2008-09
HC 410
Fourth Special Report Globalisation and its impact on Wales: Government
Response to the Committee’s Second Report of
Session 2008-09
HC 538
64
Ports in Wales
Fifth Special Report
The National Assembly for Wales (Legislative
Competence) (Social Welfare) Order 2009:
Government Response to the Committee's Sixth
Report of Session 2008-09
HC 605
Sixth Special Report
Legal Services Commission Cardiff Office:
Government Response to the Committee's Seventh
Report of Session 2008-09
HC 825
Seventh Special
Report
Proposed National Assembly for Wales (Legislative
Competence) (Welsh Language) Order 2009:
Government Response to the Committee's Ninth
Report of Session 2008-09
HC 1024
Eighth Special Report
Digital Inclusion in Wales: Government Response to
the Committee's Thirteenth Report of Session 200809
HC 1050
Session 2007-08
First Report
Energy in Wales: follow up inquiry
HC 177
Second Report
The proposed Legislative Competence Order in
Council on additional learning needs
Third Report
Work of the Committee in 2007
HC 325
Fourth Report
The proposed National Assembly for Wales
(Legislative Competence) Order in the field of social
welfare 2008
HC 257
Fifth Report
The proposed draft National Assembly for Wales
(Legislative Competence) (social welfare and other
fields) Order 2008
HC 576
Sixth Report
The provision of cross-border health services for
Wales: Interim Report
HC 870
Seventh Report
The proposed draft National Assembly for Wales
(Legislative Competence) (Housing) Order 2008
HC 812
First Special Report
The proposed Legislative Competence Order in
Council on additional learning needs: Government
response to the Committee’s Second Report of
Session 2007-08
HC 377
HC 44
Second Special Report Energy in Wales – follow-up inquiry: Government
Response to the Committee’s First Report of Session
2007-08
HC 435
Third Special Report
HC 715
The proposed National Assembly for Wales
(Legislative Competence) Order in the field of social
welfare 2008: Government Response to the
Committee’s Fourth Report of Session 2007-08
Session 2006-07
First Report
Work of the Committee in 2005-06
HC 291
Second Report
Legislative Competence Orders in Council
HC 175
Third Report
Welsh Prisoners in the Prison Estate
First Special Report
Government Response to the Committee’s Second
Report of Session 2006-07, Legislative Competence
HC 74
HC 986
Ports in Wales
65
Orders in Council
Session 2005-06
First Report
Government White Paper: Better Governance for
Wales
HC 551
Second Report
Proposed Restructuring of the Police Forces in Wales
HC 751
Third Report
Energy in Wales
HC 876-I
Oral and written
Evidence
Energy in Wales
HC 876-II
Fourth Report
Future of RAF St Athan
HC 1129
Fifth Report
Current Restructuring of the Police Forces in Wales
HC 1418
Oral and written
Evidence
NHS Dentistry in Wales
HC 771-i
First Special Report
Government Response to the Committee’s Second
and Third Reports of Session 2004–05, Manufacturing
and Trade in Wales and Public Services Ombudsman
(Wales) Bill
HC 433
Second Special Report Government Response to the Committee's Fourth
Report of Session 2004-05, Police Service, Crime and
Anti-Social Behaviour in Wales
HC 514
Third Special Report
Government Response to the Committee's First
Report of Session 2005-06, Government White Paper:
Better Governance for Wales
HC 839
Fourth Special Report Government Response to the Committee's Second
Report of Session 2005-06, Proposed Restructuring of
the Police Forces in Wales
HC 1431
Fifth Special Report
Government Response to the Committee's Third
Report of Session 2005-06, Energy in Wales
HC 1656
Sixth Special Report
Government Response to the Committee's Fourth
Report of Session 2005-06, Future of RAF St Athan
HC 1657
Seventh Special Report Government Response to the Committee's Fifth
Report of Session 2005-06, Current Restructuring of
the Police Forces in Wales
HC 1695
Processed: 29-10-2009 19:44:46
Page Layout: COENEW [SO]
PPSysB Job: 435922
Unit: PAG1
Welsh Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 1
Oral evidence
Taken before the Welsh Affairs Committee
on Tuesday 2 June 2009
Members present
Dr Hywel Francis, in the Chair
Mrs Siân C James
Mr David Jones
Alun Michael
Albert Owen
Mark Pritchard
Hywel Williams
Mark Williams
Witnesses: Dr Anthony Beresford, Senior Lecturer, Logistics and Operations Management, CardiV Business
School, and Mr Callum Couper, Chair, Wales Freight Group, gave evidence.
Q1 Chairman: Good morning and welcome to the
Welsh AVairs Committee and this inquiry on Ports
in Wales. For the record could you introduce
yourselves, please?
Dr Beresford: Dr Anthony Beresford, CardiV
Business School, Senior Lecturer in Transport and
Logistics.
Mr Couper: Callum Couper, I am the Port Manager
at CardiV and Barry and Chair of the Wales
Freight Group.
Q2 Chairman: I say this to all witnesses in this room:
the acoustics are not brilliant so please do not be
afraid to raise your voices. Could I begin by asking
you a very straightforward question: what are the
key strengths and weaknesses of Welsh ports?
Mr Couper: One of the strengths is that there is a bit
of diversity in Wales in terms of the function of the
ports and particularly the trade to Ireland, both UK
trade and the land route trade from Europe; of
course Milford in isolation is an energy port, Port
Talbot is one of only three facilities in the UK that
can take deep-laden capesize vessels, it is quite a
unique port facility and there is the range of general
cargo ports in industrial South Wales that can reach
into the Midlands and the M4 corridor. All this gives
a bit of spread that can take the ups and downs in
economic activity but the strengths and weaknesses
will vary over time. The time we are in at the moment
means that there is great potential for Welsh ports in
general to expand the range of activities that they
undertake and their functions and to take advantage
of a time of change with further internationalisation
of trade and also the shift in the energy markets,
decarbonisation and those imperatives as well. So
we have some limitations and weaknesses,
particularly in South Wales, in that it is a very tidal
estuary, as you are aware, so these ports are not as
accessible as some of the open harbours. Also, of
course, we are on the West coast and although that,
cyclically, is coming back into a more favourable
environment—because mostly trade has been Eastfacing towards Europe with the accession to the EU
and also the shift in our trading relationships—the
West coast has suVered, but it is on the way up again.
You see it with ports like Liverpool having been in
the ascendancy for the past decade and the other
West coast ports are also on their way up as well.
Dr Beresford: If I could add to those points, the
interesting trends that were clear in the 1960s and
1970s of West coast ports by and large declining,
have dissolved in the 1980s and 1990s and the
pattern of port performance has actually been much
more mixed. We have seen in the last 15 years,
perhaps as much as 20 years, a resurgence if you like
of the niche ports, smaller ports, West-facing ports
and the disadvantage of not facing Europe has
diminished. We do see, therefore, new arrivals in the
Mostyn, North Wales opportunistic movement of
Airbus wings, we see in South Wales the LNG and
the trend is no longer visible, possibly at all, but it
certainly was visible for 20 or so years, a decline in
the West, a rise in the East.
Q3 Chairman: What would you consider to be the
key decisions that need to be made in order to ensure
the future prosperity of our ports and who are the
key decision-makers here?
Mr Couper: There are some clear areas, in particular
with globalisation of trade and with looking at
Wales’ gateway ports for international trade, and
whilst we are not and are unlikely to be in a position
with the existing spread of ports, although there is
one exception, containerisation, the retail trade has
not been a big feature of South Wales, but we can
have feeder services from European hubs, from these
ports that will take these super post-panamax
container ships that only call at a few ports for the
fact that (a) only a few ports can handle them
physically and (b) they want to make as few calls as
possible. That trend is one that we should be looking
to develop and add value within the region and add
facilities and the logistics jobs that are not currently
there. There is also the energy sector with the import
of biofuels and biomass, also the generation of
energy on or near port estates and the processing of
fuels on or near port estates. There has been an
inversion or there is an inversion going on from the
concentration of energy generation around the old
coalfields and the Rivers Trent and Ouse in the
Processed: 29-10-2009 19:44:46
Page Layout: COENEW [E]
PPSysB Job: 435922
Unit: PAG1
Ev 2 Welsh Affairs Committee: Evidence
2 June 2009 Dr Anthony Beresford and Mr Callum Couper
centre of the country; much of this is going to have
to occur at import centres and the ports are well
equipped to do that. That will involve perhaps grid
reinforcement so that where there is generation on or
near the port estates the power can be put into the
areas of consumption and also good surface links,
particularly with rail, to be able to get solid fuels into
existing generation areas. Those are two quite
tangible areas that need some further work,
particularly linking with the regional planning, the
economic planning and the LDPs. The ports
themselves have plenty of spare capacity because of
historically where they come from and the trade they
are doing now, and a lot of this capacity can be taken
up. With the changes in geography, trade and
consumption, local authorities or LDP makers need
to start thinking about linking the port as part of the
oVering, both to enhance inward investment and to
reinforce what is going on there. The employment
sites within the vicinity of ports should be linked
strategically with the ports themselves, I believe.
There are, therefore, a number of areas that need to
be thought through a little more to enhance the value
of ports because they are very, very tangible
economic drivers for regions and indeed nationally.
Dr Beresford: May I add a few points? The reliance
on road is well known in the UK—rail does an
excellent job for certain commodities on certain
routes but the reliance on road obviously generates
the congestion problem that we are all aware of. One
additional burden that Wales has to bear of course is
the unidirectional toll across the Severn Crossing—
for trucks I guess it will not be long before it is £20.
The fact is that you are very distance-sensitive if you
are on the edge of a market. Wales is somewhat to the
west of the centre, which is clearly the south-east of
England, the Midlands and of course onwards to
central parts of Europe, so every mile that is covered
is a cost. If you are in a peripheral location you do
need very eYcient logistics to keep those per mile
costs and indeed per hour costs—because a lot of
your costs are obviously time costs also—to an
absolute minimum. The ability of South East
England, the Low Countries and industrial parts of
Germany to absorb transport costs which are rather
high is fairly great, but our ability in Wales,
particularly West Wales and North Wales, to absorb
high transport costs is less. We need to have as low
as possible transport logistics costs.
Chairman: Mr David Jones, did you wish to ask a
supplementary?
Q4 Mr David Jones: Yes, briefly on that point, Dr
Beresford, as you know the Local Transport Act
gives the Welsh Assembly Government powers to
impose trunk road charges in Wales. It seems to me
from what you have just said that if the Assembly
Government were to impose such a charge the
impact upon Welsh ports would be pretty severe.
Dr Beresford: Yes, potentially; of course it all
depends on the level of the charge. My belief is that
a charge should have a purpose and if the charge, if
it were implemented, is to reduce congestion then it
should be targeted at reducing congestion which is
largely dependent on car use. If we look at freight, if
a charge is levied on trucks—typically per mile, but
it would not have to be, it could be a point to point
charge or a threshold charge—then my belief is that
that sort of charge should be looked at very carefully,
possibly with a view to setting it at zero.
Chairman: Mr Mark Pritchard and then Mr Mark
Williams.
Q5 Mark Pritchard: Thank you Chairman. Good
morning, gentlemen, and if I may I would like to lead
you back to strengths and weaknesses. Terrorists
plotting their terror I hope will miss Wales;
nevertheless, many ports in Wales, Haverfordwest
for example, might be seen as a high profile but
perhaps soft target. I just wondered whether you
think there is enough security around the key major
ports in Wales and, even if there is, what you might
like to see put in place to improve it given the
heightened times we live in.
Mr Couper: My interest is predominantly freight,
but clearly some ports are ropax, dealing with freight
and passengers. We have recently got the ISPS code,
the International Shipping and Port Security code,
which has really created a baseline across the UK for
security at ports and the ships they interface with,
and there is also European legislation which the UK
will absorb and implement which really looks at the
port as a whole, not just the ship-shore interface. As
far as the cargo ports are concerned there has been a
marked tightening of the security arrangements and
supervision in that respect. At passenger ports there
is a hierarchy of security measures and passengers,
chemicals, roll-on-roll-oV and containers are at the
upper end, and the bulk ports and general cargo
ports are slightly down on the facilities and you can
have designated security areas, restricted zones,
within ports of various sorts, so there has been a
general improvement in security. I cannot speak
directly for the transit of people and when you look
at Fishguard and Holyhead, they are two examples
in particular where private individuals and cars
rather than just freight are transiting. The ISPS code
has created a baseline for security arrangements at
ports.
Q6 Mark Williams: Can I return to some of the
opportunities for new business that you talked of
earlier? You outline in particular the energy market
and we have heard about obviously LNG and
Airbus and the use they make of Mostyn and
Pembrokeshire, but how will ports themselves
attract that new business? You talk about the need
for an integrated approach with the LDP but is that
integrated approach being realised at the current
time and, secondly, who is going to make the
necessary investment to promote that integrated
approach? Is it going to be the public or the private
sector and are the returns ultimately—I suspect you
will not know the answer to this—going to warrant
the kind of investment that is required to promote
that approach?
Processed: 29-10-2009 19:44:46
Page Layout: COENEW [O]
PPSysB Job: 435922
Unit: PAG1
Welsh Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 3
2 June 2009 Dr Anthony Beresford and Mr Callum Couper
Mr Couper: The business model for the private ports
and, for example, the Associated British Ports
Authority, is that we look for medium to long term
investments with customers. They want to achieve a
certain flow to their process and they need the port
to do that, so we intend to invest in facilities on their
behalf, particularly when they are storage facilities
or land or servicing that we can do back to back with
a contract with these people. Thus we are looking to
secure as far as we can our investment and have a
payback over a period of five, 10, 15 or 20 years
depending on the scale of investment. I think if you
layer it up further the responsibility falls wider. The
privatised model for ports management in the UK
has been successful over the past 15 years and there
has been a tremendous amount of investment in
logistics facilities at ports which has benefited ports,
employment and the economy, particularly the
regional economy, and the country as a whole. There
is a great deal of capacity around the UK and so
people can seek out the most eYcient way of getting
their goods to and from the marketplace. However,
that reaches a point where surface transport in
particular and the availability of road and rail needs
to match the volume and the scale of activity at the
port. The port is not in a position to fund entirely the
A to B as if it has some exclusive claim over it, and
I think that is where there is inevitably a tension of
investment.
Q7 Mark Williams: Given the hopes that you aspired
to earlier on—both of you commented about an
integrated approach—how big a problem is that
tension? Is that an understatement or is that an
accurate thing? The perception is that you have an
Assembly approach which is more proactive, at least
in its vision, and a light touch approach at the UK
level whereas we need a fully integrated approach,
particularly in terms of transport infrastructure in
the vicinity of ports. Are your hopes going to be
realised?
Mr Couper: We are in an environment now where
perhaps we can be looking a bit more strategically at
how the decision-makers in the ports and also the
customers for the ports can sit alongside the regional
planning, and where there is road and rail capacity
there is a lead time and that is programmed in to
accommodate some of the things that may happen in
the future. For example, Port Talbot is a very
significant facility in the UK; it is largely focused on
the steel-making business at the moment, the driveon cargos, but it has got potential in the future for a
range of cargos and it will need those surface links to
move those cargos into the hinterland. That is
something beyond the ports and whether they are
private or a trust or whatever, that involves a much
higher level of things and developing into the
forward movement of the regional plans, the
transport plans and the economic plans. It is a
joint thing.
Q8 Mr David Jones: We have already touched on the
fact that West coast ports have enjoyed something of
a resurgence over the last 10 to 20 years, but to what
extent would you say that Welsh ports are competing
with English ports for business and to what extent
would you say they are doing so successfully?
Dr Beresford: Maybe I should make the first
comment. There is competition, clearly; Bristol is
not far away from Callum’s port, there is
competition in the North, there was competition to
engage in the Airbus project and so on, so there is
England-Wales competition without a doubt. On the
other hand I prefer to see it as a system where the
capability of English ports is across the range. There
are clusters of large ones, there are several very small
ones; similarly, the Welsh ports do certain jobs: the
land bridge to Ireland comes to mind and so on. I do
see competition, there is no doubt, for cargos and I
am sure Callum can allude to specific examples
where he has had to, as it were, secure business
against English competitors, but also I think there is
a mutual dependence as well. A case in point would
be Irish passenger traYc clearly bridging across
Wales and across England into the continent, and
that flow is quite a significant and substantial one—
the vehicular flow of passengers primarily but also,
obviously, trucks. There is an interdependence
therefore as well as competition and if you were to
say to me or ask me which ports compete it is quite
an interesting progression of the discussion and
Callum and I would possibly not entirely agree on
the pairings.
Q9 Mr David Jones: That is something that we are
interested in.
Dr Beresford: Clearly in the short sea we have
competition—several South Wales ports competing
with Bristol potentially, we have got the South Wales
ports competing with the direct Ireland to
continental Europe route, which could be done
diVerently, we have competition in North Wales
between Liverpool and obviously Holyhead for the
ro-ro traYc, but there are other examples as well,
and so there are England-Wales competitors. I do
not think the Welsh ports come out of it badly; they
know what the business is and a lot of the shakeout
has taken place. That is not to say that the industry
is standing still, there are still, clearly, very large
changes that could take place, not least the loss of
bulk traYc in South Wales—Port Talbot’s role with
the steel for example. There are examples, therefore,
where ports may well have to face dramatic change
and the mix of who is competing with whom could
well change along with that.
Q10 Mr David Jones: You mentioned Holyhead and
Liverpool; I actually used to live in a house that
overlooked Liverpool Bay and I used to find it
extraordinary really that you would see these cargo
ships sailing past Holyhead all the way to Liverpool
when it seemed to me that they could have saved
themselves a lot of turnaround time if they had
actually docked in Holyhead. What could Holyhead
do, for example, to compete more eVectively with
Liverpool?
Processed: 29-10-2009 19:44:46
Page Layout: COENEW [E]
PPSysB Job: 435922
Unit: PAG1
Ev 4 Welsh Affairs Committee: Evidence
2 June 2009 Dr Anthony Beresford and Mr Callum Couper
Dr Beresford: Clearly there is a segmentation of the
market. If we deal with passengers, ro-ro passenger
traYc for a moment, passengers tend to like to seaminimise and land-maximise, so they tend to seek
out the shortest sea routes—not necessarily for the
same reasons. Some might be seeking the lowest
cost, some do not like seasickness or whatever. As
regards freight, it is invariably to do with either the
logistics chain—where the freight is starting and
finishing—or it is straight cost and the haulage cost
routing through Holyhead would be, let us suppose,
driver-accompanied something in the order of £1.50
a mile and the alternative routing through Liverpool
would stack up against that calculated total cost.
The two situations are slightly diVerent, the freight
against the passenger, clearly. If the freight is cheaper
through Liverpool, sea-maximising somewhere into
Ireland, maybe close to the coast, it will tend to be
that solution that is taken. But passengers, my
research and my experience tell me, do tend to like
the shorter crossings, though not exclusively
obviously.
Q11 Mr David Jones: You have mentioned the
interdependence between ports; which ports would
you say are those upon which Welsh ports are mostly
interdependent? I would have thought they are
probably on the other side of the country.
Dr Beresford: Yes. Clearly there are cases—and the
recent bulk importation from the Middle East is a
case in point—where the UK relies largely now on
that gateway to Milford Haven, so there is that
dependence. As regards the other way round, the roro ports and the container ports of the big gateways
of the East Coast—Southampton, Felixstowe,
Tilbury, Thamesport and so on—clearly Wales is
dependent on those for deep sea imports because
they are the deep sea ports. I do prefer to have an
image if you like, a vision, of mutual support as
opposed to competition with the England-Wales
combination.
Q12 Mr David Jones: The key to maximising the
benefits of that interdependence would be, I would
have thought, good road and rail links.
Dr Beresford: There is no doubt about that. Again,
Callum will have views on the rail links and so on to
the South Wales ports, but I can remember in the
case of Felixstowe when the volumes were growing,
roughly speaking, at 10% per annum and, somewhat
belatedly, it was recognised that additional road
capability around Ipswich and so on was necessary,
not to mention the A14. The road links just about
caught up with the volumes going through
Felixstowe and the rail enhancement, with
additional terminals at Felixstowe itself and the
gauge capability for high cube nine foot six
containers followed in due course. There are still
several bottlenecks though, 20 or so significant
bottlenecks in the rail network at the moment as we
speak, but the role of the road improvements and the
rail improvements would be major, diYcult to
quantify precisely but absolutely vital to UK Plc to
have good access to those main ports. Felixstowe is
merely an example.
Q13 Mr David Jones: In terms of maximising the
benefits of that interdependence it seems to me that
most of the road improvements would be required in
England rather than in Wales.
Dr Beresford: There are bottlenecks nonetheless,
and again Callum would be able to detail some of
these, but I have carried out some unpublished
research on road freight rates and it is quite
interesting how those actually mirror more or less
the congestion pattern of the UK, running at, say,
£1.30 a mile in uncongested areas and running at up
to £2.00 to £2.20 a mile in and around the M25 area
with higher rates also in the West Midlands and so
on. There is, therefore, an immediate impact of
persistent congestion. Translating that to Wales
there are pinch points and perhaps it would be
appropriate to hand over to Callum to pick those up.
Mr Couper: Just to refocus the question, road
transport is the most expensive and environmentally
it has the greatest impact; sea transport is the most
benign from an environmental point of view and it is
also the lowest cost form of transport. The
imperative really, therefore, is to use the ship and to
get the ship as close as possible to the origin or
destination of the cargo and that is where the ports
of Wales can play a part, with the use of coastline
shipping to replace one form of road transport and
also with the development of container transit, by
feeding in from deep sea hub ports, getting
containers into the UK for the first time via Welsh
ports. Not only does it reduce the amount of road
miles that currently are used, it also provides
opportunities for new investment in logistics and
distribution in the Welsh ports as opposed to this
being done at places like Felixstowe. The single most
immediate benefit is environmental but there are
benefits also to retail goods and raw materials
coming into Wales and also to manufacturers in
Wales of steel and chemicals that are going to
Europe and globally, allowing them to have direct
access and good connectivity to deep sea container
services. Those are things that really should be done
in Welsh ports and then you take out that long run
across to Felixstowe, up the M4 and the A14, which
environmentally is not good and economically and
reliability-wise does not give the Welsh shippers and
receivers as fair a crack of the whip as those closer to
where all the action is.
Chairman: I am conscious of time; we have only
dealt with one part of our inquiry so far and I would
urge everyone to speed things up a little. Mr Jones.
Q14 Mr David Jones: On the issue of government
policy it seems to me that the Department for
Transport has adopted a non-interventionist stance,
almost laissez-faire. To what extent has the Welsh
Assembly Government got a developed policy with
regard to ports—presumably it would be port
infrastructure rather than ports themselves—and to
what extent are they liaising and integrating their
policy with the DfT?
Dr Beresford: I will take a general point if I may on
that. My first involvement in government policy on
ports was around about the year 2000 when things
were becoming sharper with the Dibden public
Processed: 29-10-2009 19:44:46
Page Layout: COENEW [O]
PPSysB Job: 435922
Unit: PAG1
Welsh Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 5
2 June 2009 Dr Anthony Beresford and Mr Callum Couper
inquiry at Southampton, and the comments that
were coming in my direction, general informal
comments, were that it was very much a hands-oV
policy and the feeling was that the ports were by and
large very capable of looking after themselves. I am
not sure that was entirely correct or productive
looking forward; maybe there is a need for a firm
hand to appreciate that, particularly now that we
have data availability on what goes where in precise
terms and the technology to support that. There
maybe could be a case for a more persuasive policy
to identify, for example, some ports in Wales which
could benefit from the support of particular
terminals or, possibly, transport access, particularly
rail access I would suggest, but on specific cases
again, Callum, could you pick up?
Mr Couper: I would lean slightly more to the existing
model of the ports being allowed to have their own
creative use of the assets, underpinned by the
infrastructure being available, which comes from
spatial planning and transport planning and having
the capability to get the goods in and out of these
facilities. Having said that, from an environmental
point of view we have got a tranche of grant in place
for freight facilities—capital grants and also water
grants for revenue support and there is also the EU
with the TEN-T programme such as Marco Polo,
motorways of the sea, but they do not lend
themselves easily to the sort of support that Welsh
ports would need to plug into some of the trade flows
that are not happening now which could have much
broader benefits both for Wales and the UK and
environmentally.
Q15 Mr David Jones: Reverting to the question
though is there any or any suYcient integration
between policy at a national level and at a Welsh
Assembly level?
Mr Couper: The Transport Wales Act created for the
surface links, for road and rail, a clear conduit for
Welsh policy but obviously that does not exist for
ports, although it is interesting that the Welsh
Assembly Government recognised during the
passage of that legislation that they would form a
Wales Freight Group and construct and publish a
Wales Freight Strategy. That very much includes the
ports in trying to integrate those modes of transport,
so clearly their desire appears to be including the
ports within their overall transport plans.
Q16 Mr David Jones: Having said that, we had
evidence a few weeks ago from the Welsh Transport
Minister and, frankly, I was not persuaded that there
was any great integration at all between the DfT and
the Welsh Assembly Government in terms of a
freight transport strategy; is that a fair comment?
Mr Couper: It is probably something which is still
evolving, but if you are going to get the best out of a
national government and a regional government one
would have thought the stronger the links and the
freer the reserved powers and jurisdiction the more
eVective the decisions that are going to be (a)
identified and (b) implemented. That is what the
freight community wants.
Chairman: Could we move on now to infrastructure?
Mr Alun Michael.
Q17 Alun Michael: I do not want to ask the question
whether a Severn Barrage would be a good thing or
a bad thing, but if it were to be built on what appears
still to be the most likely line, what impact would
that have on the ports in South and West Wales
particularly?
Mr Couper: Associated British Ports has got three
ports very close to the line if one of the five options
under evaluation at the moment became
government policy and were to progress; CardiV and
Newport would be within the line of a barrage and,
yes, it would have a significant impact on the ability
of those ports to trade in their existing format
because it is likely that there would be a reduction of
about one metre in high water, which would reduce
the amount of draught and thus the amount of cargo
that ships could carry.
Q18 Alun Michael: Would Newport and CardiV still
have a future in those circumstances?
Mr Couper: Yes, I think they would, but Associated
British Ports is going through a process at the
moment to try and identify the benefits and
disbenefits of this because it may be that a barrage
would alter the dynamics so that there would be
more tugs required, more pilots, more handling of
the ship, a longer time transiting locks—all these
things then add to the ship owner increasing the
amount of freight that they charge the shipper and
the receiver, which then alters the competitive
position of where the ports are. We are going to have
to ask these questions and we are making our
concerns known, and while I cannot say that there
would be a wholly negative impact there are some
very fundamental issues there for the ports. That is
the process that we are going through at the moment.
Q19 Alun Michael: What is the timescale of that
process?
Mr Couper: I believe it is now in phase two of a twoyear evaluation and presumably by this time next
year the government will have enough information
to make a decision.
Q20 Alun Michael: I meant ABP’s evaluation of
the impact.
Mr Couper: We are asking for certain clarification on
how locks would be managed, there would clearly be
a new authority set up, whether there would be
charges, how we would address where loss of water
had diminished the tidal window through which the
deep draught ships would go.
Q21 Alun Michael: It is at the stage of
communications rather than conclusions then.
Mr Couper: It is at the moment, yes.
Q22 Alun Michael: Against that background—I do
not want you to repeat yourselves because we have
had some discussion about the interconnectivity
Processed: 29-10-2009 19:44:46
Page Layout: COENEW [E]
PPSysB Job: 435922
Unit: PAG1
Ev 6 Welsh Affairs Committee: Evidence
2 June 2009 Dr Anthony Beresford and Mr Callum Couper
with the transport infrastructure and where there are
weaknesses—is there anything that has not already
been covered in terms of the limits on the role of
ports as economic drivers, or what we can do about
it, that you would like to add?
Mr Couper: Again, it is getting on the radar now the
limitations that may impact in the future. If, for
example, ports were going to be feeding containers,
for example, into the Midlands, they would need
suYcient loading gauge by rail to get them into the
Midlands, with sustainable transport. We have not
really got that from South Wales anyway into the
Midlands corridor—we have not got the width
through tunnels and platforms for high cube
containers which make up half the world’s
population of containers. That is a particular
question.
Q23 Alun Michael: Can I also ask what has been
done to ensure the ports in Wales are considered an
integral part of the Welsh and UK transport
infrastructure? You both referred to the fact that the
ports in Wales are integrated into the approach that
is being adopted to freight in Wales, but the wider
one—are there any initiatives, either from the
industry side or from government that are relevant
to having that broad approach, which is very much
what you have both argued is needed?
Dr Beresford: We are trying to draw attention to the
joined-up approach that we believe is necessary, that
the bulk of port activity freight-wise is involved in
logistics chains, so a greater and more detailed
understanding of those chains as individual chains
for the movement of not necessarily containers but
particular consignments of whatever they may be, is
part of the greater understanding of why ports are
there and how we should handle our ports. There is
the related issue of the profile of trust, municipal and
private ports, which actually is rather a diVerent mix
in Wales vis-à-vis the mix in England, and there are
some interesting examples where a port is owned in
a way that you would not necessarily expect. There
are funding issues of course with the municipals, the
trust ports do what they have to do and the private
ports are the ones that all the international shipping
lines tend to understand—they forget that we have a
huge number of non-privatised ports. There is a
political dimension to the mix of ownership: are our
ports owned in the right way in Wales and should
they be diVerent from England? That is a dimension
that is somewhat neglected, we have not really
looked at it—we as academics have not looked at it
in any particular depth, but we would be happy to
do so.
Q24 Albert Owen: You have talked about Wales and
the rest of the UK but of course lots of ports in
particularly the Republic of Ireland have benefited
from European funds, as have many Welsh ports.
Do you think there is a proper European strategy for
transport—does the TEN still exist, for instance, the
Trans European Network, and is there really enough
investment in it, is the UK doing enough to draw
down the money to maximise the potential for
Welsh ports?
Mr Couper: It is a good question; it is lacking and it
is something which really should be addressed at this
time whilst there are changes going on in response to
restructuring the economy and the globalisation of
trade. It is now that we need to capture this, and this
is where intervention, if we can call it that, is
necessary through supporting things that the market
wants to do but will not quite happen on their own
because economically it does not work at the present
time. As I mentioned earlier, some of the European
grants just do not lend themselves to many small
schemes which could support and make
environmental improvements and also bring less
congestion via the south east of the country where
containers come through now, to spread that activity
further round the country and to allow Wales to
actually participate and punch above its weight in
terms of its port facilities. I had to look the other
week at joining up a flow of cargo linking Le Havre,
CardiV and an Irish port—for example Waterford—
and looking to see what revenue support could be
factored in. There are UK domestic grants that
might work, but they did not pass muster in that
particular instance where you have two EU states,
they lend themselves more to TEN-type funding but
the hurdles for TEN-type funding are just
impossibly high for us to reach in terms of lorry miles
and environmental benefits. They fit well for putting
cargo from Oporto to Genoa, over that distance,
using the Mediterranean as opposed to moving it on
land; you can hit those targets, but you cannot really
do it for smaller schemes. I think there should be
more imagination, both at the regional level and the
UK level to start achieving some of that because it is
this little window that we have got where all this is
going on and where things change. We need to
capitalise on that. The ports in a way are bringing
sustainable
development
and
employment
investment into parts of Wales that need it.
Q25 Mrs James: We have spoken about freight quite
a bit and what I have learnt from your evidence so
far is that freight is really the way forward when we
look at port development, because we have strayed
several times into that area but I would like to home
in on that a little bit at the moment. We know that
we have got capacity and good facilities in Wales for
the development of freight and you have touched
upon this but bear with me, what do you both see as
the key opportunities and barriers for Welsh ports
with regard to freight transport?
Dr Beresford: Opportunities. Obviously over the last
six months or however long you describe the diYcult
times with freight volumes dropping, it has been
something of an anomaly and the long-range
forecast book of numbers would be unit loads going
up, the Irish traYc has been in recent months less
reliable but certainly long term has picked up very,
very rapidly. There are clearly opportunities for
more trading with Ireland and I agree with Callum
from Wales’ point of view we do wonder and both
independently in our reports suggested cruising—
that is people, I apologise, you wanted freight, but
Processed: 29-10-2009 19:44:46
Page Layout: COENEW [O]
PPSysB Job: 435922
Unit: PAG1
Welsh Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 7
2 June 2009 Dr Anthony Beresford and Mr Callum Couper
the opportunities are there on certain identified
routes which would have to be taken case by case. I
am wondering about Swansea; Swansea has
somehow been bypassed by the lines. Callum, have
you got a comment on Swansea for the Irish
freight link?
Mr Couper: There is a lot of work being done to try
and re-establish the Swansea-Cork ferry and
hopefully that will happen within the next 12 months
or so, but that was an important freight and
passenger route and there will be a role for it in the
future. There are various reasons why it disappeared
and trends will bring it back into play, but if we are
looking at a 10, 15, 20-year horizon then we really
need to be looking at distribution facilities on or
close to the port estates and the connectivity with the
deep sea ports in Europe in particular. I have
mentioned energy and some of the opportunities
that are coming through there. There are shifts in the
way that goods are distributed and with linkages
with the LDPs and spatial planning processes we
could be in a position to take advantage of that.
Some of it will require more imaginative grant
support to get it going as the economics change, as
the environment moves towards new flows of cargo.
We need the surface transport links from the ports,
both rail and road, and the searchlight is very much
on decarbonising and it should be recognised that
ports have a big role to play in that because the ship,
as I said, is the most benign, has the least impact on
the environment.
Q26 Mrs James: Do you think there is enough being
done? We have touched on transport grants et cetera
and we have talked about spatial planning, but it
appears to me and maybe some other people that we
are not quite linked up yet, are we? We have this
window of opportunity now; are you confident that
we are doing enough in Wales, enough in the UK to
actually link everybody up and get some real money
into this spatial planning now, the preparation. You
have mentioned Swansea and I see that the pressures
between what is happening in SA1 for example, it is
the last industrial area of Swansea where we have an
opportunity to develop but there are competing
concerns. People want it as a leisure facility, a
housing facility; do you think we are doing enough?
Mr Couper: The short answer is no but Wales
Freight Group and things like this Committee’s
inquiry do put the searchlight on it. The bullet line
message, as the Eddington Report clearly showed, is
that connectivity is the key to economic growth. We
want economic growth; we require economic growth
that is sustainable and the ports are the facilitators
to achieve that. ABP has carried out research in the
past couple or three years—and it has been
revalidated quite recently—which shows the
economic eVect of the ports on employment
investment in the region, and it is very strong, it is a
very tangible thing. If you look at a port like Le
Havre on Google Earth you will see that it is on its
own, in green fields. It has a terrible road going up
to Rouen and then on to Paris, it has a couple of rail
lines, but there is a massive amount of investment
there because it is what goes in and out of the port
that has facilitated development and it is the shortest
possible transit to where the cargo is being processed
when it comes back out again. Ports are very
tangible devices for economic growth in a
sustainable way, therefore, and that understanding
needs to get into regional government, where the
LDPs are made and at these sorts of levels because
it is very important that that starts being integrated.
I still see LDPs with no mention of the port at all and
I am astonished by it because it is just not perceived
in the way it should be. There are very visible places
like Holyhead and you know what that economy
would be without that three and half million tonnes
of freight going in and out, but in other urban areas
it is still almost invisible and that needs to be ramped
up. In terms of the understanding of what ports and
shipping can do, environmentally and economically,
that is the message: that we need to raise the game.
Q27 Mrs James: You have mentioned that we have
capacity and we have good facilities, we have
identified the market and we want this freight
business so why has it not all happened yet?
Dr Beresford: Some of it is inch by inch. If I can just
focus on waste management as an interesting new
business—it is not that new, but the volume is going
up, we are having to recycle, we are having to
distinguish between recyclable materials and nonrecyclable. Increasingly they are designed in from
day one in manufacture but it seems to me that one
opportunity for Wales is to lock into the logistics of
waste management. A lot has moved on in London
and obviously there is a huge amount of waste of
various types here, but with the legislation ramping
up and as it were complicating waste in terms of its
definition, it seems to me that there is the possibility
for flows through Welsh ports in handling waste.
Mr Couper: That has already happened in some
cases and there has been a big investment at
Newport for recycling metals, ferrous items and
electrical components. CardiV Container Line has
started a UK-Ireland, door-to-door container
service—that has been running since August last
year and we are building that business up. It is the
only unit load container lift-on-lift-oV service in
Wales and it is competing with the ro-ro trade. There
is the recent planning consent at Port Talbot for 300megawatt wood-burning power generation, so some
of these things are happening but they are
discontinuous patchy things, we have not yet got the
mainstream linkages. If you are Dow Corning or
Corus or if your markets are international and you
cannot always put it in a big ship in bulk you want
to put it in containers and get it to smaller customers,
you need that connectivity in Wales and we have not
got there yet. That is something that needs a lot of
focus and that is where Swansea, CardiV, potentially
Mostyn and other ports can play a part.
Dr Beresford: If I can add to that, once you have
unitised something it is suddenly more mobile so you
can compete; you can grab stuV from Birmingham
and from East Midlands and the port becomes the
point of focus for actually a much wider market,
reaching into England comfortably, as well as
Processed: 29-10-2009 19:44:46
Page Layout: COENEW [E]
PPSysB Job: 435922
Unit: PAG1
Ev 8 Welsh Affairs Committee: Evidence
2 June 2009 Dr Anthony Beresford and Mr Callum Couper
dealing with the local flows which are relatively easy
to find. We are saying the same thing here but the
unitisation concept of fresh cargos is a possible area.
Mrs James: Thank you.
Q28 Hywel Williams: I have just a couple of
questions about the potential for Welsh ports. Mr
Couper mentioned a couple of times this morning
the eVects of the economic downturn and the
potential opportunities for Wales, but is there a
downside to that for Welsh ports? I am just thinking
how Welsh ports are marketed to businesses and
other European countries; are they aware of the
opportunities that are available in Wales? How are
they made aware of those opportunities?
Mr Couper: Answering your first point, there are
short term down sides to what is happening with the
economy at the moment and we see that in
construction materials, the reduction in trade to
Ireland, in steel imports for manufacturing in
particular, timber for construction, there is a general
reduction in the amount of traYc going through the
ports at the present time but the overall trend has
been positive if we take a longer period of time. As
far as the marketing of the ports is concerned
perhaps there is more that could be done with
linkages with Europe, and part of the Wales Freight
Strategy identified an understanding of what the
market is doing, particularly in terms of materials
moving in and out of Wales and also materials
moving potentially through Wales, that could go to
the Midlands, along the M4 corridor and the South
West. A greater understanding of that, of market
intelligence and also some promotion of the Welsh
ports in certain areas, particularly where they are
aligned to taking flows oV the road in Europe and
putting them on sea transport as opposed to hauling
them through Europe on trucks. We probably need
to raise the visibility in that way and that is
something that was identified through the process
with the Wales Freight Strategy.
Q29 Hywel Williams: You might have answered this
question obliquely already but thinking of the
timescales
for
large
scale
infrastructure
developments at Welsh ports, it takes many, many
years and you referred earlier on, Dr Beresford, to
the decline in western ports of the United Kingdom
in the 1970s and 1980s and their resurgence in the
1980s and 1990s. It is a long term business and
possibly the recession will be gone—depending upon
whom you believe—by the end of this year. Is there
the capacity to respond in the short term if we have
spare capacity should we need it, or are we going to
be dependent on long term developments which
might come about or not?
Mr Couper: The answer is that in terms of capacity
for existing traYc it can fluctuate through quite a
wide band before you need to step up to add in more
resources, either built or human resources, but it will
be the longer term developments which carry the
greatest benefit for the ports and their regions. That
is the new trade and the new slices of trade in
bringing containers and energy in particular; that is
where the benefits will arise for Wales and for the
region, developing those longer term businesses.
Hopefully one of the by-products of this recession
will be that people can start looking at diVerent ways
of doing things and, of course, driving that strongly
in terms of economics is the carbon imperative and
having to reduce the amount of fossil fuels we use.
Q30 Albert Owen: Is it not the case though that with
the economic downturn we are more reliant on the
Irish economy as Welsh ports than the UK economy
because that has contracted the quickest, and is not
another factor fuel? Do you see the rise in fuel costs
as being short term or does it have to be factored in
for the longer term in terms of fuel for vessels as
opposed to the lorries as well?
Mr Couper: Fuel costs are clearly a very significant
feature of all transport but shipping lines do tend to
have a mechanism to pass them on if they can, but it
is highly competitive and they are not always
successful in doing that. We certainly sensed perhaps
six to 10 months before the UK hit the beginning of
this that the Irish economy was heading south,
construction was easing up and consumption was
starting to show a diVerent pattern, but hopefully
they are suYciently ahead of us that we will see them
coming out of recession before Wales does so that the
ports that are in that trade will see benefits sooner
rather than later. However, that is more of the same
and it is trying to identify the new trades and the shift
in distribution patterns that lock in new activities,
new flows and will bring benefits that are not
currently enjoyed by the Welsh ports.
Q31 Albert Owen: Waste management being one of
them and a new market. All Ireland’s waste goes out
of Ireland, or the vast majority of it.
Mr Couper: Yes.
Q32 Albert Owen: Do you think there is potential
there for Welsh ports in terms of new markets?
Dr Beresford: Yes, why not? One very marginal
example that I came across a couple of years ago was
Irish exports of ATMs, which are flown to China.
There is no real reason why they could not be landrouted to Heathrow and then flown. I did a quick,
not to say reasonably thorough, cost calculation on
this and worked out that it was about £500 more
expensive to fly-fly as opposed to road-sea-road-fly.
That road-sea-road would be business for Welsh
ports and Irish ports, so there is an interesting
intermodal marginal example there of what is going
on with things like ATMs going over to China for
recalibration and so on.
Q33 Mr David Jones: Dr Beresford, in your
submission to the Committee you have referred to
the potential for the ports to oVer value added
services and you referred specifically to the ABP
Connect initiative which they have established in
four British ports, including CardiV, where you say
that they have emphasised “cold chain logistics
management”. Can you explain what that term
means?
Processed: 29-10-2009 19:44:46
Page Layout: COENEW [O]
PPSysB Job: 435922
Unit: PAG1
Welsh Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 9
2 June 2009 Dr Anthony Beresford and Mr Callum Couper
Dr Beresford: Yes, temperature-controlled cargos
that have to be kept in good condition throughout
the chain, the classic being food for retail. I would
like to add, if I may take this opportunity, that ABP
Connect has reduced its profile, we are on a
downward slope as it were at the moment rather
than an upward slope, but I wanted to include it in
the report. The fact of the matter is that it had been
a new initiative in recent years, but it is probably fair
to say that it is not the highest profile part of ABP’s
business at the moment. Nonetheless the principles
are correct in the report.
Q34 Mr David Jones: My next question was going to
be how successful has that initiative been in CardiV,
and it sounds as if it has not been terribly successful.
Dr Beresford: Short term reasonably successful, long
term a question mark.
Q35 Mr David Jones: What opportunities exist for
ports in Wales to provide other types of value
added services?
Dr Beresford: That is a very interesting question.
There is a very, very wide range of cargos and I
would have to say that the cargo streams and types
are the starting point. A lot of cargo you simply
cannot do anything with at all and people do, as it
were, misuse the phrase “value added” in my view.
Value addition in its pure sense and its most useful
sense if you like is where the cargo changes its form,
something is done with it—for example, radios are
put into cars or there is some pre-delivery inspection
process or whatever. At the other end, at the very
simple end, a value addition is simply moving, where
something obviously is worth more because it is
closer to the customer, so depending on the cargo
there are the two types. If we are talking of
repositioning cargo and getting it closer to a point of
sale or point of use, then its value has gone up, but
not by much, it is kind of transport cost plus, but if
there are cargos that we can identify that go through
CardiV or whichever South Wales port, or
Holyhead, wherever it may be, which you can do
something with and actually change the state and
form of the cargo, then that is potentially of interest.
I agree with Callum on retail, such a wide range of
goods goes through the chains in retail—obviously
not only food, people tend to think of retail
straightaway as food, but we have got B&Q, we have
got toys, computer games, you name it—there are
opportunities for value addition but it depends on
where that happens in the supply chain and I think
an understanding of particular supply chains for
cargos which are appropriate to Welsh ports is at the
core of it. Callum.
Mr Couper: For example, if you look at the existing
model where there are deep sea containers, the sort
of commodities that Anthony has referred to, they
come into Felixstowe, they get road-hauled up to
somewhere in the Midlands, the containers then get
stripped, they get put onto pallets or into boxes,
cartons, whatever, they go up into racking
warehouses, distribution warehouses, and then it
goes onto road and gets delivered, maybe all the way
into Wales. That really could be done through a
Welsh port and the distribution facilities built on the
port estate; therefore the traditional value added bits
actually are done within the port estate giving new
investment and employment in the port estate
because it was not there before, it was carried out
somewhere else, and the removal of one or two legs
of the distribution chain potentially—certainly from
the deep sea port to the distribution centre in the first
place. These are port-centric logistics so we need an
environmental eye on the benefits of doing that.
There are many other value added potentials with
steel coils, splitting steel coils or perhaps blending
fertilisers or bagging materials. There is a whole host
of things that could be done as close to the ship as
possible so that you are reducing that onward
distribution leg, you are getting as close to the
finished product as possible.
Dr Beresford: Timber products are another example.
Mr Couper: Yes, we have had a recent investment at
the port in CardiV where there is a timber company
who are on the port estate and they are importing
timber in their own right now and it is going right
alongside the quayside; they are processing it and
that then gets sent to their customers.
Q36 Mr David Jones: I understand that there is quite
a new recycling facility in Newport.
Mr Couper: Yes.
Q37 Mr David Jones: Which I suppose takes up Mr
Owen’s point.
Mr Couper: Yes, that is the WEEE facility which is
for the reprocessing of end-of-life electrical goods,
that is a recent investment there which is just going
live.
Mr David Jones: Thank you.
Q38 Mrs James: Turning to security and policing
now you have already mentioned security but could
you expand on what are the main security threats to
the operations of Welsh ports?
Mr Couper: Again I would suggest that I am more
involved in terms of freight than passengers in my
particular sphere, but clearly each port has a security
committee involving the local police, the special
branch of the local constabulary, immigration
authorities and the various community interests to
ensure that where ships are coming into the ports
there is accountability in terms of the cargo, the crew
and potentially passengers. That has been enhanced
by the ISPS code, as I mentioned earlier. At the ferry
ports there is a higher level of supervision of security,
but I am not really able to comment on particular
weaknesses or strengths really, it is outside of my
field.
Dr Beresford: I would just add that I detect—and I
think this is informal and anecdotal—a convergence
between passenger port attitudes and approaches to
the terrorism threat and those we see at airports. I
have seen ferry terminals which, frankly, if you are in
them you would think you were in an airport. There
is that tendency to move towards the airport—multilayer security so to speak. I tend to be rather similar
to Callum here, I am more of a freight specialist and
the specific measures taken to ensure that freight is
Processed: 29-10-2009 19:44:46
Page Layout: COENEW [E]
PPSysB Job: 435922
Unit: PAG1
Ev 10 Welsh Affairs Committee: Evidence
2 June 2009 Dr Anthony Beresford and Mr Callum Couper
safe and is not available as it were to bombings,
terrorism, drugs, people traYcking and so on are for
a specialist in that area and I would find it very
diYcult to give a professional answer.
Q39 Mrs James: My understanding is that there are
two distinct areas to this, there is security in terms of
threats of terrorism et cetera which obviously ports
have to be prepared for, but if that did happen are
you confident that there are robust systems in place,
that there is a plan?
Mr Couper: Each port has a port security plan that is
approved by TRANSEC who are used by MCA and
come and audit and approve the port security plan.
At its basic level it involves establishing restricted
zones where there is activity, for example, with
chemicals, fuels, dangerous cargos, passengers or
roll-on-roll-oV facilities. They are fenced areas and
you can only get in and out of them with a security
pass with your photograph and so on and so forth.
There are checks at the gangway and, likewise, the
ship has got its own mirror responsibilities in that
they will have somebody at the head of the gangway
who is checking anybody that is going on and oV the
ship if they are not part of the crew. There has been
an increase in the quality of security at ports,
certainly the cargo ports and specialist facility ports.
Mrs James: Thank you.
Q40 Albert Owen: I appreciate that you are not
experts in security but we have the Borders,
Citizenship and Immigration Bill going through the
House of Commons today and obviously a part of
that is the common travel area. The fears in the
central corridor particularly that I represent, the
port of Holyhead, are that a lot of traYc will be
going to the north of Ireland and from Irish ports to
Scottish ports as opposed to Welsh ports. We saw in
the 1970s and 1980s with heightened security over
the IRA threats that those ports were actually very
tight on security and people would come south of the
border and use the central corridors. Do you see the
reverse happening possibly if there is a tightening up
of security at the central corridors that will be to the
detriment of Welsh ports and possibly allow cargo
operators and freight operators to use Scottish
ports?
Mr Couper: Because they are going within the UK
across and use the border crossings?
Q41 Albert Owen: Yes.
Mr Couper: I suppose there must be some potential
for that.
Q42 Albert Owen: You have a short sea crossing.
Mr Couper: The sensitivity is the cost. For freight
they will be looking to use the most cost-eYcient
means depending where the origin of the cargo is,
but going up to a Scottish port or north of the
Mersey corridor, north of Fleetwood, Stranraer and
further north would add substantially to the road leg
which might alter the dynamic for drivers’ hours and
also the cost of road miles being more expensive than
the sea miles. I suppose there is a possibility of that
disadvantage that these people would be prepared
to risk.
Q43 Albert Owen: The port owners and port
operators are worried about the additional costs that
they would have to put forward if the common travel
area disappears, and they actually then would have
to pass that on to the customer so it would become
less competitive.
Mr Couper: There would be additional costs and a
penalty on the overall cost of getting from A to B
which would narrow the margin of advantage of one
port over another.
Q44 Albert Owen: Is this something the Wales
Freight Group has discussed?
Mr Couper: It is not, but I have seen it referred to a
couple of times and it is something we could put on
the agenda. I would add that as far as the Wales
Freight Group is concerned there is a meeting
tomorrow in fact in CardiV of the Wales Ports
Group, which is a sub-group of the Wales Freight
Group, and we will then bring into that the likes of
Stena and Milford and they will have useful things
to input on that because they are more passengerfocused than some of the other ports that are already
members. We will look out for that.
Q45 Mark Williams: Just to prolong this a little bit
on security and policing, you have covered most
areas that we had to question you on, but just
following on from what Mrs James said about the
robustness of the arrangements in terms of security,
are you satisfied that there is suYcient co-ordination
between port operators and those dealing with the
security, immigration and policing? You talked
about the committees in place and the security plan
that each port has, but is there room for
improvement nonetheless?
Mr Couper: I suppose there always is and in security,
in health and safety, in financial controls, in any
dimension there will always be room for
improvement, but we rely greatly on our own
knowledge of our customers, of the activities on the
port estate, those that have got something to do with
what goes on on ships, those that are nothing to do
with the port at all but just happen to be there as a
port tenant. Just the general management of the port
estate gives us some pointers as to where we should
be focusing our attention security-wise, but we also
have to rely on the likes of TRANSEC and their
occasional unannounced meetings where they test
actual security measures in place. CardiV Container
Line, for example, is an ISPS facility in its own right
with its own security plan within the Port of CardiV
and occasionally it does get tested and any
shortcomings will then be very quickly brought to
the attention of the port management.
Q46 Mark Williams: I am not after a list in pecking
order of eVective ports but I would imagine it does
give a competitive advantage. There are quality
assurance issues that come into play in this as well,
Processed: 29-10-2009 19:44:46
Page Layout: COENEW [O]
PPSysB Job: 435922
Unit: PAG1
Welsh Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 11
2 June 2009 Dr Anthony Beresford and Mr Callum Couper
rather than simply complying with the regulatory
requirement, so there is merit in you getting it right
as well is there not?
Mr Couper: Absolutely, it is in our interest as port
managers to know what is happening on our port
estates and where our vulnerabilities are because
clearly that will impact on our business, never mind
the broader economic or social eVects of something
going wrong.
Albert Owen: Thank you.
Q47 Chairman: Thank you very much indeed for
your evidence today and also for the written
evidence you supplied us with earlier which helped
us a great deal in preparing for this session.
Dr Beresford: Thank you, Chairman.
Mr Couper: Thank you.
Processed: 29-10-2009 19:46:27
Page Layout: COENEW [SE]
PPSysB Job: 435922
Unit: PAG2
Ev 12 Welsh Affairs Committee: Evidence
Tuesday 9 June 2009
Members present
Dr Hywel Francis, in the Chair
Mrs Siân C James
Mr David Jones
Alun Michael
Hywel Williams
Mark Williams
Witness: Mr Giovanni Mendola, Maritime Transport and Ports Policy, DG Tren, European Commission,
gave evidence.
Q48 Chairman: Good morning. Bore da and
welcome to the Welsh AVairs Committee and our
inquiry into ports in Wales. For the record, could
you introduce yourself, please?
Mr Mendola: Good morning, my name is Giovanni
Mendola. I am from the European Commission,
Directorate-General for Energy and Transport,
Maritime Transport and Ports Policy Unit, mainly
in charge of internal market issues for maritime
transport and ports, and the legal framework for
State aid in maritime transport and ports.
Q49 Chairman: Thank you very much and thank
you for coming along. A particular big thank you for
your memorandum which was very helpful in
preparing for this session. Could I begin with a very
straightforward question about the Commission’s
view of the main opportunities for ports in the EU?
What do you think are the main opportunities and
challenges for EU ports?
Mr Mendola: The Commission adopted in 2007 a
broad policy Communication further to the two
failed Directives for access to port services. After a
large consultation of stakeholders the main
challenge for European ports generally speaking is
considered by the Communication as being
development in full respect with environmental
rules, on the one hand, and competition rules, on the
other hand. Another challenge, especially from our
perspective, is the full application of the principles of
the Treaty on the freedom to provide services and the
freedom of establishment to ports in the absence of
secondary legislation, in the absence of a Directive.
Generally speaking, ports are considered essential
for the European economy—since maritime
transport, as such, is essential for the European
economy. At the same time the Commission notices,
especially on the Continent, there is quite a large
imbalance in the use of ports with environmental
consequences. Freight is often routed to ports which
are very far away from the original destination. In
the Communication the Commission does not
intend to take regulatory action in this field, but to
use its own means, such as State aid policy or the
revision of the TransEuropean networks, to address
this issue. Those are the basic messages from the
consultation and from the Communication.
Q50 Chairman: How well equipped are UK and
Welsh ports for these challenges?
Mr Mendola: This is something on which I could not
give a reply since we have not especially addressed
ports in the Member States. We have rather
presented the assessment of the Commission of ports
policy in general and left to Member States, on the
basis of subsidiarity, all the decisions relating to port
development. In the Communication we do not find
a single model for the set-up of ports, for port
governance, or for port financing; this is entirely left
to Member States.
Q51 Alun Michael: I accept entirely the principle of
subsidiarity but, at the same time, there is no point
in having a European ports policy unless it is of
benefit to the ports in diVerent states within the
European Union. You refer to the European
Commission’s ports policy in your statement for
us—please can you outline what the Commission’s
policy objectives are for the EU’s ports in general,
and what the action plan aims to achieve and by
when?
Mr Mendola: The general objective is allowing for
appropriate development, I would say, of ports.
Given their importance at the European level (and I
will not repeat the usual arguments which are fully
true, but everybody knows the role of gateways to
Europe and the role for security of supplies in the
Member States) appropriate development as I said
before means reaching the necessary capacity while
at the same time respecting a kind of balance across
Europe for traYc flows, without intervening in those
traYc flows; again, this is left to the Member States.
Another objective, which is very specific to the
background of this Communication, the
consultation and the two Directives, is social
dialogue in ports. One of the reasons why the two
Directives were not capable of being adopted was a
very strong reaction by port workers. One of the
objectives contained in the action plan is starting a
European social dialogue in the technical meaning,
which is nevertheless not in the hands of the
Commission—it is up to certain partners to start
social dialogue; to set up a level playing field for
competition between ports while respecting the
views of the Member States of the role of ports and,
therefore, port financing. The item concerned is the
adoption of the State aid guidelines which originally
was foreseen, optimistically perhaps, for 2008—so
we are late because the guidelines are not there; a set
of guidelines on the interpretation of the
environmental rules and their application to port
development. One of the major worries of port
Processed: 29-10-2009 19:46:27
Page Layout: COENEW [O]
PPSysB Job: 435922
Unit: PAG2
Welsh Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 13
9 June 2009 Mr Giovanni Mendola
stakeholders during the consultation was about
reconciling environmental regulation with port
development; and we were asked on several
occasions during that consultation to give guidance
on the application of environmental rules. With this
task we are a bit more advanced because a draft will
be ready during the next weeks to come, and possibly
a Communication providing such guidance could be
adopted before the end of the year. Again
concerning the level playing field, an initiative will be
taken at the end of this year or early next year
concerning the transparency of accounts between
public administrations and ports, possibly by means
of amending the current transparency Directives
called the Transparency Directive. Finally, another
initiative which is indicated in the action plan, but
which the Commission will only favour but will not
be directly part of, is about a better integration of
ports with their local communities, by means of
spreading best practices in this field; because there
are very diVerent practices and very diVerent
aptitudes across Europe about this subject. Last but
not least, in the Communication there is already a
first action which is accomplished there, which is the
interpretation of the Treaty rules on freedom to
provide services and freedom of establishment to
ports. This is an action that could have been carried
out after the adoption of the ports policy
Communication, but interpretation and guidance
was already given in the Communication.
Q52 Alun Michael: You referred there to the
relationship between ports and their wider
hinterland and the need for greater consistency in
the way that that is dealt with. You have also got the
desire to balance the needs of the market with the
spatial planning objectives of national authorities.
To what extent can the existence of the action plan
influence that, particularly in influencing national
authorities, given what you said earlier about the
subsidiarity that applies to most of the things that
would need to be done in order to deliver that greater
consistency?
Mr Mendola: There is only a broad message, and this
was very much discussed with stakeholders during
the consultation because for many of them—and
ultimately Member States, because the Member
States were also consulted during this port policy
consultation—there was a great fear on the Member
States’ side about a possible idea of a general
European master planning for ports, hinterland
connections and traYc flows; but it is clearly stated
in the Communication that this is not what the
Commission intends to do. The Commission in this
context only recommends the Member States to take
into consideration the environmental dimension in
their master planning, if they want to master plan
ports—because Member States are free to do or not
to do it.
Q53 Mrs James: How successful have funding
instruments such as the Marco Polo II programme
been in shifting freight from road to short sea
shipping and other modes of transport?
Mr Mendola: They have been, generally speaking,
quite successful, even though the diVerent actions
which are included in the Marco Polo actions—the
ones which more directly relate to ports, the
Motorways of the Sea action—today cannot be
considered as the most successful initiative. On the
occasion of the last Marco Polo call in 2008 there
was still no Motorways of the Sea action which was
adopted, and there were very few proposals. In this
respect we tried to encourage Member States to act
in this direction, first of all, by introducing more
consistency between State aid rules and rules of EU
funding. One of the worries of the Member States
was that if they want to provide financial support to
projects and there is no EU funding available, or not
to the extent which is possible, they were not able to
provide complementary State aid which is aid to
operational costs—so a very sensitive matter. For
this reason we aligned the threshold ceilings that can
be used for complementary State aid by means of a
Communication adopted at the very end of 2008;
and possibly this will encourage, and as far as we
know it is encouraging, Member States to in turn
encourage initiatives for new Motorways of the Sea
projects; and there could be a couple of them in the
current exercise, which is not yet finished.
Q54 Mrs James: We have taken previous evidence
from experts and operators referring to the fact that
Welsh ports struggle to access EU funds because
programmes are not suited to smaller projects. We
do not have any public subsidies at all for the
development of new operations or facilities; this is
not the case in other EU countries. What eVect, do
you believe, does the fact that UK ports are marketled have on their ability to receive TEN-T funding?
Mr Mendola: I do not think that there is a direct link
between the fact that ports are market-led and the
problem with the thresholds, because basically I
understand there is a problem with the thresholds.
This is rather related to regulation, to the current
rules on TEN-T funding as they are, and there are
three categories. In practice ports falling in the third
category have more limited access, or no access in
certain cases, to public funding. This is something
that could be addressed. To answer your question—
I do not see any relationship between the two. This
is something that could possibly be addressed now in
the course of the consultation for the setting up of
the revised TEN-T guidelines in 2010, which will also
aVect the framework for port funding.
Q55 Mark Williams: Following on from points you
made in answer to Mrs James, how is that process of
consultation going to work? There is the feeling that
smaller Welsh ports suVer under the TEN-T
programme because of the relatively short distances
for freight within the UK as opposed to other EU
countries. I am interested in how that process of
consultation is going to work and discussion of the
guidelines. Could you tell me more about that,
please? How the process of consultation is actually
going to work, so that those representations which
we heard about in evidence last week are going to be
made to the Commission?
Processed: 29-10-2009 19:46:27
Page Layout: COENEW [E]
PPSysB Job: 435922
Unit: PAG2
Ev 14 Welsh Affairs Committee: Evidence
9 June 2009 Mr Giovanni Mendola
Mr Mendola: I am not involved in the
consultation—as you know, we are quite fragmented
in the Commission—so I cannot tell you at which
stage of the consultation my colleagues currently
are. The final result: a Green Paper was published, if
I am not mistaken—because, as I said, this is a bit
outside my direct competences; but the final result of
the consultation should be a preliminary document
in order to have new guidelines for TEN-T. I would
like to add something to that. Here we are talking
about the funding of ports under TEN-T; so the 10%
of works and the 50% of studies. TEN-T funding is
also available for the development of Motorways of
the Sea. In a diVerent way, it is not State aid but it
is Community aid to infrastructure ancillary to the
development of Motorways of the Sea. Within a
Motorways of the Sea project—and one could
imagine a Motorways of the Sea project for your
region—ports could receive funding under the
current scheme for trans-European networks in the
way of funding to ancillary infrastructure to the
Motorways of the Sea; not the 10%/50% standard
TEN-T funding.
Q56 Mr David Jones: Mr Mendola, you have
referred in your submission to the Committee about
maritime tourism, which has been a major catalyst
for economic development in coastal areas; and you
referred also to the study that the Commission has
launched to “analyse the benefits for ports to invest
in infrastructure”. I understand this study is to be
published in September of this year. How do you
anticipate this work will help encourage port
operators to invest in the facilities required to
develop the cruise market?
Mr Mendola: The study is not ready and again,
unfortunately, it is a study about which I am aware
but it is followed in a diVerent context within the
Commission. It is part of this holistic approach of
the Blue Paper on maritime policy, which is not only
focussed on traditional maritime transport—which
is what we mainly deal with in our Directorate, the
transport of freight—but of diVerent possibilities for
coastal regions. The market for cruises is one of these
possibilities; and possibly it could be at the origin of
interesting development, especially in certain areas
of the community where classic, so to say, transport
of freight is less important. What I can say about
investment—because it is much closer to my files, so
to speak—is that investment in this field will be
mainly private investment in facilities. The building
and the operation of a cruise terminal is the kind of
activity which has a commercial nature that we will
possibly address in future guidelines of State aid to
ports, to be adopted this year or next year. I cannot
anticipate the result of the study on this. There is an
internal draft but I have not had the occasion to
read it.
Q57 Mr David Jones: I appreciate it is early days and
the study is not published yet, but given that you
have just said you anticipate most of the investment
in cruise facilities to be private investment, is there
any likelihood at all that the Commission will be
able to provide any financial mechanism to help
develop cruise facilities?
Mr Mendola: I do not know whether this would be
mentioned in the study. It is not the first time here, in
my context, about the possibility of funding facilities
relating to cruises. You mean EU funding?
Q58 Mr David Jones: Yes.
Mr Mendola: Honestly, I do not think that this
would be an item for EU funding, considering the
instruments as they are now which much more tend
to encourage modal shift or the development of
trans-European networks. This is something which
is really of a commercial nature, and which, in my
personal view, could hardly be funding by means of
EU funding or even by State aid, except in very
special circumstances, such as to outermost regions,
islands which are completely outside the natural
itinerary even of a cruise.
Q59 Mr David Jones: So you would not regard Wales
as an outermost region?
Mr Mendola: It is not. The outermost regions are
listed in Article 299 of the Treaty.
Mr David Jones: That is encouraging!
Q60 Hywel Williams: Good morning, Mr Mendola.
Could I ask you some questions about security.
Firstly, what are the main obligations on EU ports in
respect of security legislation; and, secondly, how do
you assess the security of Welsh ports in particular?
Mr Mendola: There are two sets of obligations since
there are two instruments. The older one is a
regulation of 2003 which concerns security measures
for specific facilities, like terminals, and the
measures were already conceived at an international
level, the so-called ISPS code, and the regulation
improves and makes mandatory recommendations
included in the Code. The second one is the more
recent Directive which has a large scope of
application and concerns the implementation of
security measures to the port area as a whole, and
implies that Member States establish a list of ports
and fix the boundaries of those ports for the general
measures to be implemented. I will not comment
about security measures in Wales. I know that there
is an ongoing (and I can say so because we are at the
stage where it is no longer confidential) infringement
procedure for non-communication of implementing
measures relating to the Directive by the United
Kingdom. This is rather at a general legislative level
than regarding implementing measures. I will not
comment about the level of security measures in
Wales.
Q61 Hywel Williams: There is a delay in transposing
the Directive. What are the implications of that?
Mr Mendola: There are many infringement
procedures over Europe—that is part of our job. The
final stage is a judgment of the Court of Justice and
possibly the application of penalties if that judgment
is not obeyed by the Member States; but I am sure
that even before the judgment there would be
notification of the measure by the United Kingdom.
Processed: 29-10-2009 19:46:27
Page Layout: COENEW [O]
PPSysB Job: 435922
Unit: PAG2
Welsh Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 15
9 June 2009 Mr Giovanni Mendola
Q62 Chairman: When we talk about “Motorways of
the Sea”, which is an interesting concept, and you
relate that specifically to the Celtic Sea, at what point
would we be able to say that there would be
developments that would link those motorways to
Ireland and to Wales?
Mr Mendola: The initiative to launch Motorways of
the Sea is in the Marco Polo context up to the private
undertakings backed by one or two Member States.
The Commission does not take initiatives in this
field. It gives money, so to say, and has fixed a
framework for launching new initiatives in this field;
but it is not up to the Commission to start the new
initiative. It is not bottom down, it is the other way
round: it is a process which starts from the lower
level, from the level of undertakings, and then at the
level of the Member State according to the
framework which is used. Marco Polo is more for
undertakings; TEN-T is more for the Member
States; and then the Commission makes an
assessment and makes a choice on the project, in the
case of Marco Polo; and leaves it to a committee
composed of Member States in the case of TEN-Ts.
Chairman: Thank you very much for your evidence
today. It has been very refreshing to get a wider
European perspective. We tend to be a little too
introspective on some of our discussions. We look
forward to sharing our report with you. If you feel
there are some issues which we have not covered
adequately we would be very pleased to receive a
further memorandum from you. Thank you very
much.
Witnesses: Mr Robin Smith, Welsh Representative, Rail Freight Group; Mr Christopher Snelling, Head of
Rail Freight and Global Supply Chain Policy and Mr Stephen Kelly, Head of Policy Midlands, Wales and
South West, Freight Transport Association; and Mr Michael Farmer, Regional Director, Road Haulage
Association, gave evidence.
Q63 Chairman: Good morning and welcome to the
Welsh AVairs Committee. Please do not be afraid to
raise your voices as there are very poor acoustics in
this room. For the record, could you introduce
yourselves, please?
Mr Kelly: My name is Stephen Kelly. I am Head of
Policy for Wales, Midlands and the South West
representing the Freight Transport Association.
Mr Snelling: Christopher Snelling, also from the
Freight Transport Association. I am Head of Rail
Freight and Global Supply Chain Policy.
Mr Farmer: Mike Farmer with the Road Haulage
Association. I look after Wales, the West Midlands
and the Southwest.
Mr Smith: Robin Smith. I am the Welsh
Representative for the Rail Freight Group.
Q64 Chairman: Could I ask a very straightforward
but rather broad question to begin with. Could you
comment on the eVectiveness of UK Government
and Welsh Assembly Government in working
together coordinating policy, particularly with
regard to ports policy and also, more widely,
transport policy and its framework?
Mr Kelly: I think we have mentioned in the past that
coordination and communication could be
improved between central government here in
Westminster and the Welsh Assembly Government
down in CardiV. As an example of that, some of the
work that we have done as the FTA has looked at
Delivering a Sustainable Transport Strategy, the
recent publication looking at transport 2014 and
beyond; and, when you look at what they have
identified in terms of strategic national corridors, it
seems to stop at the border. Obviously that strategy
is not focussed on cross-border issues, which is an
inquiry that this previous Committee held as well
and something that we raised as a concern. In
essence, there does need to be more communication
especially on transport issues, because as far as
freight is concerned it does not know borders; a
shipment coming into Fishguard does not
necessarily stop at Newport, it will go beyond into
England and beyond into Europe as well. The thing
we want to flag up is that we do have concerns that
delivering a sustainable transport strategy, whilst it
is to be applauded, is only looking at England
necessarily and is not focussed upon Wales.
Q65 Chairman: That is what you would call Anglocentric, I suppose?
Mr Kelly: It could well be.
Mr Farmer: I agree with what Stephen has said.
There needs to be much more linkage; but I would
add a further factor: there needs to be also greater
linkage at local level and local authority level as well,
because that is a major building block of the
development of ports et cetera.
Q66 Mrs James: Just to tease out a little bit more
about that, what impact has the Department for
Transport’s ports policy, which appears to be letting
the market decide where ports-related developments
should happen, had on the movement of freight
through Welsh ports?
Mr Snelling: I think the market-led approach has led
to the greatest eYciency in the way that freight
moves: particularly when we are looking at deep-sea
intercontinental deliveries, they all want to come to
a certain location and there is actually a limited
amount that government can do to prescribe them to
come to a diVerent area. I think working with the
market is the best way to get eYciencies out of ports.
I think what you would need to do in working with
those market conditions is to work to the strengths
and to try to accentuate those.
Q67 Mrs James: What balance do you think is
needed between private and public sector
involvement for port development or in developing
ports?
Processed: 29-10-2009 19:46:27
Page Layout: COENEW [E]
PPSysB Job: 435922
Unit: PAG2
Ev 16 Welsh Affairs Committee: Evidence
9 June 2009 Mr Robin Smith, Mr Christopher Snelling, Mr Stephen Kelly and Mr Michael Farmer
Mr Snelling: I think developments need to be private
sector led as they will, through market forces, be the
best judge of where the traYc is going to be for the
greatest eYciency of the economy, which depends on
good flows to ports. We also expect that private
developers should be responsible for the cost of
developing those ports. They are private facilities
which can make money; and they should be
responsible for doing that. Where we would like to
see the public sector come in is really in two places:
one is in a planning framework which enables the
eYcient development of ports—and by that we do
not necessarily mean a planning system that says yes
more often, but a planning system that gives a yes or
a no more quickly and with less expense, so that
generally the development of ports can be planned
more eYciently; and the second thing we would like
to see from the public sector is greater support for
development of inland infrastructure connections,
rail and road links. The guidelines that have been
outlined by DfT are perfectly reasonable. What they
stand or fall on is how much money the Government
actually puts behind it. We would like to see a lot
more money put behind it, because certainly what we
see is the ports in the UK are severely disadvantaged
because their rival ports on the Continent get all
these links provided for free, as well as being given
money to carry out development as well.
Q68 Mrs James: Really it is the transfer of goods
from the port on to the next stage of its journey, and
obviously I am very interested in rail access to the
mainline et cetera, which is essential; those improved
facilities at dockside, in eVect?
Mr Kelly: Yes, I think so. I think where Welsh ports
suVer is that they are not rail-linked to a certain
extent, or to any extent as a matter of fact, and that
is due to the rail infrastructure itself in terms of the
loading gauge requirements. For example, in terms
of some of the bigger sized containers, rail in Wales
is not equipped for that. That has been highlighted
in the rail utilisation strategy for Wales.
Mr Snelling: Just to make that point about port
development—if you as the public sector improve
road and rail links, that improves the prospects of
the port and the return developers would get on their
money. That does not mean that they, therefore, just
make lots of extra profit to their own advantage.
What tends to happen is it means they expand the
port more because they can attract more business
because the business case for those companies is so
much the better. Obviously the infrastructure
connections you are looking at have got to be
suitable for the kind of traYc that the port can
potentially attract.
Mr Smith: I would like to speak from a rail freight
point of view. We also would support a market-led
system, rather than a prescriptive system from
central government. We would fully support what
our FTA colleagues have just said regarding the fact
that government can provide a framework within
which development can take place, because trade is
international and trade patterns can change.
Therefore I think ports and their infrastructure and
their hinterland infrastructure need also to be able to
react quicker than seems to be the case at the
moment. I would certainly go on to support the
comments regarding loading gauge issues. If you
look in the freight utilisation strategy, as published
by Network Rail, the network within South Wales
and North Wales to Holyhead are fairly restricted at
the moment and there are no plans, certainly in the
next five-year period, to enhance that loading gauge,
which will constrain port development, particularly
for containers.
Q69 Mr David Jones: You mentioned the
importance of adequate road infrastructure at ports;
and you also mentioned earlier that you had
concerns about the lack of coordination of transport
policy between the Welsh Assembly Government
and the Department of Transport. To what extent is
the fact that ports are not devolved and road
infrastructure is devolved a complicating factor in
your opinion?
Mr Kelly: I suppose it is a Catch 22 scenario more
than anything, in that the Scottish Executive and
Northern Ireland do have responsibility for their
ports; whereas the Welsh Assembly Government
does not, basically. I suppose the fact that the Welsh
ports are policy-led by DfT eVectively whereas
Welsh roads are policy-led by the Welsh Assembly
Government in terms of their trunk road forward
programme, one would have to question if there is
any cohesiveness there more than anything. The
Welsh Assembly Government will have their
forward programme in terms of road improvements
for the next 10 years eVectively and, if the plan is for
the DfT to support Welsh ports, does that fit in with
the Welsh Assembly Government policy in terms of
their forward programme and access to these ports
eVectively?
Q70 Mr David Jones: Am I to infer from your
answer that you regard it as a complicating factor?
Mr Kelly: I think it is complicating this. We do not
particularly have a view as to whether Welsh ports
policy should be devolved to the Welsh Assembly
Government.
Q71 Mr David Jones: No, I was not asking you that.
What I was interested in was the practical
consequence of this?
Mr Kelly: Yes, I think it is a concern, in that left arm
and right arm are not working in coordination with
each other.
Q72 Mr David Jones: Your answer again appears to
me to underline the point that it is necessary for the
DfT and the Welsh Assembly Government to act
more in concert in the development of road freight
policy?
Mr Kelly: I just think it is essential.
Q73 Alun Michael: Could I just be clear on that final
point, because I think answers to questions are
sometimes open to misinterpretation. Are you
identifying a lack of cooperation and cohesion
between the Welsh Assembly Government and the
Processed: 29-10-2009 19:46:27
Page Layout: COENEW [O]
PPSysB Job: 435922
Unit: PAG2
Welsh Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 17
9 June 2009 Mr Robin Smith, Mr Christopher Snelling, Mr Stephen Kelly and Mr Michael Farmer
Department for Transport; or are you saying the fact
that it is two diVerent bodies might lead to a lack of
coordination?
Mr Kelly: I think there is more of a need for better
communication between the two parties.
Q74 Alun Michael: We understand the need; I am
asking you whether you were identifying actual
problems, or merely stating that problems might
arise from the fact that it is two separate bodies? If it
is the former it would be helpful to the Committee if
you were to identify what those are; and if it is more
detail than can be done in a single sentence perhaps
you could provide us with some supplementary
evidence?
Mr Kelly: I can take that away, yes.
Mr Farmer: Perhaps I might comment on that.
Clearly there is a disconnect there; and I suspect it is
more of a perception rather than a reality. I would
expect there to be very good linkage between the
Welsh Assembly Government and the DfT. I would
think that commonsense ought to prevail with
regard to the importance of the ports to Wales, and
thus the importance of the road links, and indeed rail
links, to those ports. I suspect it is perception but
from a business point of view it does not make sense
to have separately devolved areas.
Q75 Alun Michael: There obviously are decisions
taken by local authorities in relation to ports, and
the relationships with the wider environment by the
Welsh Assembly Government and by the
Department for Transport. I think quite a big ask in
terms of some other developments leads us to ask the
question: what is the potential for moving greater
volumes of freight through Welsh ports? Would that
justify, for instance, the change in the rail
infrastructure which would be quite a significant
investment? What is the potential in this
marketplace that you have described for growth in
volumes of business in Welsh ports?
Mr Snelling: I would say that there is the
opportunity for what you might describe as “healthy
growth”, but I would contrast that, for example,
with the container ports in the Southeast of England,
where the kind of potential we are looking at is
talking about doubling capacity. I do not think there
is necessarily a potential in the short-term of that
kind of order in the Welsh ports; as we are looking at
greater use of the Irish Sea trade and expanding
some of those ro-ro services, rather than the massive
deep-sea container movements that you would see at
those kinds of points. There is the potential for
growth but, you are right, before any money is spent
or any decisions are made about how things should
be administered, you have got to do adequate
demand forecasting to estimate exactly what those
possibilities are.
Q76 Alun Michael: To what extent are you able to
make that sort of forecast in relation to what is quite
a varied number of ports? There are big diVerences,
are there not, between the nature and the strengths
of our diVerent ports in Wales, and presumably also
the degree to which individual ports have a
potential?
Mr Snelling: Yes, absolutely, and the growth
potential for diVerent ports will vary completely
depending on what kind of business it is that they are
into. You have to take each kind of trade, each kind
of commodity on its own merits and assess it in
that fashion.
Q77 Alun Michael: Again, perhaps if it is more detail
than could be given in a simple answer, to what
extent are you able to outline what you see as the
growth potential of diVerent types of freight and in
relation to diVerent ports around Wales?
Mr Snelling: In diVerent areas for freight movements
there is a lot of demand forecasting that has been
done. We could certainly look into what is available
on that and supply the Committee with any
information.
Q78 Alun Michael: I think that would help to make
sense of the general replies for us. Another question
really is how decisions get taken. How do freight
forwarders and shippers decide which UK ports to
use; and what potential is there for Wales to improve
its attractiveness?
Mr Snelling: For a freight forwarder particularly to
make a decision, as it will typically be the freight
forwarder making a decision about which port to
use, the main factors will be its connectivity towards
the next destination. If we assume that something is
arriving at a Welsh port to go to a further destination
somewhere inland within the UK, it will be about the
relative connection times of the ports on oVer; a
further factor would be the cost of using that port;
ports have diVerent charges depending on how they
are operated and how they are set- up; and a third
factor would be the eYciency of that port, which
could mean not only the speed that you get through,
but also its reliability. Frequently when UK ports get
congested, the same with other bits of the transport
network, as soon as you have a small problem
everything can grind to a halt. Those would be the
generic factors that would drive a decision. I think
the most important one of those is the linkage to its
onward destination. There is no point arriving,
getting something unloaded very eYciently in a port
if it is then going to be a long, unreliable journey to
get on to the West Midlands or the north of
Scotland; people will simply look for alternatives.
Mr Smith: I would support the three that
Christopher has actually advanced as key criteria.
The other one that I would add in is the general
patterns of trade. At the moment they are well set,
and most of the forecasting that has been done by the
Rail Freight Group and the Freight Transport
Association is based around no significant change in
shipping routes away from the Southeast; but there
are potential developments on the Tees at Liverpool
and at Bristol, all of which could have some eVect on
patterns of trade. Unless and until we know the
extent and the success of those developments it
Processed: 29-10-2009 19:46:27
Page Layout: COENEW [E]
PPSysB Job: 435922
Unit: PAG2
Ev 18 Welsh Affairs Committee: Evidence
9 June 2009 Mr Robin Smith, Mr Christopher Snelling, Mr Stephen Kelly and Mr Michael Farmer
would be very diYcult to give other than broadbrush figures, I believe, for future patterns of trade
that would underpin significant developments.
Q79 Alun Michael: I suppose the question is really to
what extent Welsh ports are currently meeting the
needs of the freight transport industry; how are they
doing, against the triggers for decision-making that
you have referred to; how do they need to adapt for
the future; and will they be able to adapt; have they
got the capacity to adapt at the rate that is needed to
increase their market share?
Mr Kelly: From an FTA members’ perspective we
have not had any feedback to say there are problems
at Welsh ports at the moment in terms of standing
times on docks et cetera. Just to echo what my
colleague said, I think there is quite a lot more
capacity at ports at present before they reach that
saturation point more than anything. With that
extra capacity there, I would not foresee the need to
change anything drastically at the moment. Once
you start reaching that saturation point you need to
look at access to ports, you need to look at rail
interchanges and so on and so forth. At present I
have not heard from major members of the FTA—
like the Association of British Ports themselves who
operate ports down in South Wales—that they are
crying out for more traYc at the moment. I think the
extra capacity is there, and at present the size of the
ports is adequate I would assume.
Q80 Mark Williams: This question is to Mr Smith.
In your memorandum in the section on demand
forecasting you seemed critical of the Department
for Transport and their projections. You talked
about “some consideration of scenarios with
increases in transhipment, but little consideration of
scenarios where ports in other areas increase in
relative significance”. What did you mean by that?
Mr Smith: I have just borne that out in the previous
answer I have given to Alun Michael. All the current
forecasting, both from the Department and from the
industry, is based on no significant change in trade
patterns. It is based on growth in trade, as
Christopher has just talked about, significant
growth through the Thames, Felixstowe and
Southampton but not necessarily on a change in
shipping patterns. We are not criticising the
Department; that was made as a statement of fact
reflecting the current situation, that there is no
perceived significant change happening or likely to
happen.
Q81 Mark Williams: It may be a statement but it is
nonetheless pretty serious, is it not? To what extent
do those forecasts, skewed as they are, limit the
freight transport sector? How much credence do we
put on those forecasts?
Mr Smith: The forecast from the Department and
the joint forecast from the FTA and the Rail Freight
Group have been used by Network Rail in particular
to underpin their freight utilisation strategy and
their regional utilisation strategies, which is why we
are engaged in work like gauge enhancement
between Southampton and the Midlands; why work
has been done between Felixstowe and the Midlands
et cetera. It is on the basis of those forecasts, which
have been in the public domain for a long time and
are seen to be robust, that people like Network Rail
are making significant investments.
Q82 Mark Williams: Put that into a Welsh context.
You have talked of English examples there.
Mr Smith: At the moment, because of the patterns
of international trade, it is not seen that there are
likely to be any significant increases in demands
within South Wales or North Wales ports. Growth,
yes—I think the word Christopher used was
“growth”—but not significant changes in patterns.
Q83 Hywel Williams: I think there is something of a
theme in some of your answers about the split
between the Assembly’s responsibility and
Westminster’s responsibility about who is
responsible for roads, about the spare capacity that
is already available in ports. Can I just ask you the
plain question: are the existing road and rail links
putting Welsh ports at a disadvantage, aVecting their
competitiveness and so on?
Mr Farmer: I think they have to be a large factor.
The two specific ones—the A55 North Wales, good
dual carriageway but it is let down by having a
bottleneck right at the end into the port. The bulk of
the journey fine; the last mile congested. The A40
Fishguard; the A477 Pembroke: the A40 is still a
single carriageway road heading for a port which is
a ro-ro port which develops a lot of lorry traYc. I
think that is a distinct disadvantage. Obviously,
Wales being on the periphery, the ports being on the
periphery of Wales, you need those road links; and
that, for us, is the limiting factor for a number of
ports.
Mr Snelling: The right way to look at it is the quality
of the inland infrastructure, those connections, is not
a kind of black and white issue where once you reach
a point where it is good enough then it ceases to be
a factor. It is a scale whereby the better the links are
the more competitive the port is. If you make the
links amazingly wonderful then the port will become
even more competitive. It is quite a moveable feast
in that sense. You would certainly increase the
competitiveness of Welsh ports if the links to them
were improved. You cannot ignore the road links in
that, given the kind of trade that is going to come
into ro-ro and ferry ports particularly.
Mr Smith: Of the ports that are currently raillinked—Newport and CardiV are operational;
Swansea has a link that is not used at the moment;
the Port Talbot Harbour has links through the Corus
site et cetera—the rail links are there; but we touched
on earlier that the loading gauge would be an issue
if the traYc were to be containers. The tracks are
generally able to support the heaviest wagons but
not the biggest wagons. Yes, again, it is a little bit of a
chicken and egg. Improved links would improve the
competitiveness of the ports but the question mark
is that, unless trade patterns change, how much use
would be made of those links?
Processed: 29-10-2009 19:46:27
Page Layout: COENEW [O]
PPSysB Job: 435922
Unit: PAG2
Welsh Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 19
9 June 2009 Mr Robin Smith, Mr Christopher Snelling, Mr Stephen Kelly and Mr Michael Farmer
Q84 Mrs James: Just to go slightly oV on a tangent
from that—I am very aware in Swansea in particular
of the competing need for the land around the ports.
We are seeing more and more development on port
land; we are seeing more and more housing; and
there is a huge capacity there. What is your opinion
of these competing needs for the land? I feel strongly
that we need to preserve for the land or dock activity
but it is not very popular in my constituency; they
would like houses on it, please.
Mr Farmer: I think any port with a developed
hinterland has got to be of benefit to the local
community, because an active thriving port will
actually generate local business. It is always going to
be this clash between the economy and the
community. I do not think there is any set answer,
but this comes back to a point I made right at the
beginning that local authority planning and such
like I think has a major part to play in this. It is one
of the things that we would like to see, more landside
development. One particular point I made in our
memorandum was facilities for HGV drivers. At the
moment they are parking in public car parks with no
facilities or anything down at Fishguard and up in
Holyhead, and it is criminal that we each rely on
each other but there is no ability at the moment or
desire to put facilities for the drivers at the ports.
That is one use that could be made of this land and,
again, it could generate business: lorry drivers have
to eat et cetera, so I think it could all work together
quite well. As you say, the perception is sometimes
not the reality.
Mr Smith: Could I add to that that other ports
around the country are developing a concept; one in
particular (I do not think it is copyright) is called
PortCentric Logistics, which is where people like
Tescos are encouraged to put distribution centres on
port estates, partly so the goods can be imported
through that port but partly also to generate
employment in the area. Such developments on a
port estate in Swansea, for example, even if they are
not totally export or import related, might be the key
to generating improved rail links. The port estate
can become the catalyst, rather than just pure import
and export activities over the quayside.
Q85 Mr David Jones: Pursuing the theme of links, do
you agree with the Government’s guidelines on
developing links to port, that is the developer should
pay the cost; and, if not, what alternatives would you
put forward?
Mr Snelling: I think for the development of
infrastructure connected to a port to link it the
guidelines that were set out by DfT as to how
developer contributions should be assessed and how,
alongside that obviously, Government contributions
should be assessed, we do not have a problem with
the guidelines themselves; they seem like a
reasonable way of making that assessment.
Obviously ideally we would like the Government to
pay for everything on the grounds that that gives us
a more level playing field with the Continent, except
that we are not quite there.
Q86 Mr David Jones: Pausing briefly there, on the
Continent the Government pays for all the links?
Mr Snelling: Yes. They frequently pay for the
development of the ports as well. Yes, it would be
100% of the links. There is the example even where
the Dutch Government has paid to upgrade railways
in Germany because they are of benefit to Dutch
ports. That is simply how it is operating on the
Continent, and it is not a model that we have
followed here, which is a shame and has led to
British ports being less competitive compared to
Continental ones. Given that—if we work within a
context that Government policy is that developers
have to pay a contribution, the guidelines themselves
and the way they are worked seem fine; but the key
issue is, how much is the Government actually going
to put into this fund to provide its share? Essentially
what the guidelines set out is an order of priorities
for how the Government should spend its money. If
it only puts £2.50 into that pot then the fact that they
have set out nice and clearly what their priorities are
does not really help if there is no money to spend;
that would hinder port development. If there is
generous funding of it then the guidelines can work
and the developers can get a contribution
commensurate to the public benefit from those same
infrastructure upgrades.
Q87 Mr David Jones: Clearly to that extent you
would need fairly close liaison between the port
developers and the Government to ensure that the
forward budget is available for the infrastructure
funding?
Mr Snelling: That is one of the many imponderables
that port developers have to face, in that they know
what the guidelines are but they have no idea what
kind of funding is behind it. Obviously governments
set their budget each year and that is just a fact of
life, but that does mean you cannot plan five years
ahead and know that by applying this formula we
know we will get government funding, because the
Government could simply turn round and say,
“We’ve run out of money this year, you’ll have to
wait for around five years’ time before you can get
that funding”.
Q88 Mr David Jones: How could the present system
be improved?
Mr Snelling: I think it is about political will and the
commitment actually from all sides in politics that
this is an important issue which would require
funding. Obviously in the current financial climate
this is a diYcult time, but the more that there is seen
to be a political will behind that, and therefore a
likelihood of reasonable funding, then the more
surety that developers have and the more confidence
they will have, and the more likely it is that the UK
will get the inward investment of developers’ money.
You have to remember these developers are always
multinational companies who are choosing where in
the world to invest in ports. It is a question of where
they will get the best return that will get their money.
Processed: 29-10-2009 19:46:27
Page Layout: COENEW [E]
PPSysB Job: 435922
Unit: PAG2
Ev 20 Welsh Affairs Committee: Evidence
9 June 2009 Mr Robin Smith, Mr Christopher Snelling, Mr Stephen Kelly and Mr Michael Farmer
Q89 Mr David Jones: Give that, to what extent are
local authorities in your experience giving
consideration to the needs of ports and their
development in developing their local plans,
specifically in a Welsh context?
Mr Kelly: I think that is where the regional consortia
have a role to play. Obviously we have the four
regional consortia in Wales. We have obviously
produced the Wales Freight Strategy last year and
are looking to take that forward and deliver the
action plan that is against it; but a lot of those
actions are against the regional consortia. Once
again, it is all subject to funding eVectively, and
whether the Welsh Assembly Government is willing
to put up funding for any developments or provide
the funding for the regional consortia to take
forward.
Q90 Hywel Williams: Given that we are talking
about money, are there any ballpark figures for any
of this? Is anybody saying, give it to individual ports
in Wales, or to Wales in general? How much would
any particular improvements to road or rail
actually cost?
Mr Kelly: Millions!
Mr Farmer: A lot!
Q91 Mr David Jones: Mr Farmer, you have raised
concerns about the risks that face hauliers when they
leave their loads at ports for significant periods of
time. How would you like that issue to be addressed,
and by whom?
Mr Farmer: We believe this to be incumbent upon
the port operators. They rely on the lorries and the
rail—I am not being diVerential there but obviously
I am focussed on the road side—to bring the goods
into and out of the port. Talking to one of our
members the other day at CardiV, his operating
centre is leased from the docks people but he is not
included in the dock security. They will not put the
perimeter to include his premises, where he has got a
lot of lorries parked with loads et cetera. I think that
is the responsibility of the port operators, to be
inclusive with regards to looking after, in a sense, the
suppliers to that port. That is the security side. That
is one example, but I hear of other ones from other
places as well.
Q92 Mr David Jones: Just pausing briefly there, why
do ports not provide that level of security?
Mr Farmer: I cannot prove it but I think this is down
to cost. A lot of port land, as I understand it, is leased
to other businesses. There was just this one example,
because obviously we were talking to our members
in preparation for this, and he made this specific
point: “I lease the land; I operate part of the docks;
but I am exclusive to the dock perimeter and the
dock security”.
Q93 Mr David Jones: Surely arrangements could be
made through the leasing agreements for a
contribution, for example?
Mr Farmer: It would appear not. That is just one
specific example. I think security is a major issue
because not just the cost of the lorries, the average
artic is coming in at £75,000-£80,000, a load of a
quarter of a million on the back; we are talking
serious money here which needs to be secured—let
alone, obviously the anti-terrorist security et cetera
which has to prevail at the docks. The other issue, as
I have already mentioned, is the parking facilities for
lorries. At the moment, if they are early, late or
having to wait because the ship coming in is delayed,
essentially they are outside the docks; they are on
their own; there is nobody there to help them, to look
after them, to oVer them parking spaces.
Q94 Mr David Jones: Is there not a wider issue there
too, for example on the A55 where I believe there are
no truck stops at all?
Mr Farmer: There is the odd one. There is a small
truck stop on one of the junctions of the A55. I think
that brings us into another realm, and how long have
you got if you are going to starting talking about
motorway service areas and truck stops. It is
probably not directly relevant.
Q95 Mr David Jones: At the very end of the A55 is
the Port of Holyhead; this must surely be a
significant concern of yours, given that most of the
lorries going along the A55 I guess ultimately will
end up in the port?
Mr Farmer: Absolutely. The problem we have is this
perception again, frankly, nobody wants a lorry park
in their backyard. We see this time and time again. I
am sorry to bring it back but this comes back to the
local authority planning. If the local authority will
not oVer planning permission, or what have you, we
are on a hiding to nothing because if you mention
lorry park to the general population they start
running for cover.
Q96 Mr David Jones: Ought this not be something
that the relevant local authorities incorporate in
their local development plans?
Mr Farmer: I believe it should be. The Welsh
Assembly Government, and DfT for that matter,
should be cognisant of the fact so that they can
factor it in to all their discussions.
Q97 Mr David Jones: Is this a matter that you are
raising with local authorities, because they are now
of course developing their local development plans?
Mr Farmer: Yes we are and, as I say, truck stops is
not a word that goes down well when you start
talking to local authorities, sadly.
Mr Kelly: I would echo Mike’s comments there in
that there are some basic facilities along the A55 but
when we say basic we are talking about lay-bys
eVectively more than anything. There is no dedicated
lorry parking facility. Obviously we were hit with the
bad news a couple of months ago about the initiative
to set up a lorry park/truck stop which was denied by
Flintshire County Council, I believe. I would go one
further from what Mike said in that when you are
looking at new industrial developments and new
industrial estates, et cetera, part of the planning
procedures should be an inbuilt lorry parking facility
Processed: 29-10-2009 19:46:27
Page Layout: COENEW [O]
PPSysB Job: 435922
Unit: PAG2
Welsh Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 21
9 June 2009 Mr Robin Smith, Mr Christopher Snelling, Mr Stephen Kelly and Mr Michael Farmer
in that, and that would mean section 106
agreements, et cetera, so there is a need to look at it
from a national planning legislative perspective but
also the local authorities have a duty, I think, in
terms of road safety more than anything just to
provide basic lorry facilities so that drivers are not
abusing their hours regulations and so on and so
forth.
Chairman: Thank you very much for your evidence
this morning and also for the memoranda that you
have provided. The memoranda have been very
helpful in preparing for this session. As I say to all
witnesses, if you feel that you have not covered all
the points then we would be very pleased to receive
any additional memoranda in future. Thank you
very much.
Processed: 29-10-2009 19:48:10
Page Layout: COENEW [SE]
PPSysB Job: 435922
Unit: PAG3
Ev 22 Welsh Affairs Committee: Evidence
Tuesday 23 June 2009
Members present
Dr Hywel Francis, in the Chair
Mr David Jones
Alun Michael
Albert Owen
Hywel Williams
Mark Williams
Witnesses: Mr Matthew Kennerley, Port Director, South Wales Ports, Associated British Ports, Mr David
Whitehead, Director, British Ports Association and Mr Ted Sangster, Chief Executive, Milford Haven Port
Authority, gave evidence.
Q98 Chairman: Good morning and welcome to the
Welsh AVairs Committee. For the record could you
introduce yourselves, please?
Mr Sangster: Ted Sangster, Chief Executive, Milford
Haven Port Authority.
Mr Whitehead: I am David Whitehead, Director of
British Ports Association.
Mr Kennerley: I am Matthew Kennerley; I am the
Port Director for ABP, South Wales Ports, so
CardiV, Barry, Newport, Port Talbot and Swansea.
Q99 Chairman: Could I begin by asking a pretty
straightforward question. Obviously ports policy is
a reserved matter whilst many of the relevant
economic and transport policy areas are actually
devolved. How does this aVect the development of
Welsh ports?
Mr Whitehead: I will start on that, Chairman. I think
it is a complicated picture in terms of policy for
Wales. Basically the overall policy is driven from
London; we have an English and Welsh ports’ policy.
Some parts of the licensing regime are operated from
CardiV. Harbour Revision Orders, which are a very
important part of development and licensing, are
operated from London; so there are a few grey areas
here and potential for confusion. If you look at the
figures, Wales handles about 10% of the total UK
throughput; England handles 400 million tonnes—I
cannot give you the percentage, but a very high
percentage—so inevitably there could be a tendency
towards a concentration of English issues. And if
you take Harbour Revision Orders there is a very
small team in London dealing with those, so
resources is a big issue as well.
Mr Sangster: Just a comment to add on to David’s.
Ports operate in a UK market—in fact a European
and global market—and as such require recognition
and support that takes that into account. There is
some benefit in being part of a UK responsibility
from that point of view but it does require, as David
has touched upon, an understanding for the Welsh
Assembly Government of the value and importance
of ports in Wales in delivering to the Wales priority
and the Wales economy as well. So as ports we have
to balance that relationship between our
accountability and responsibility in dealing with the
UK Government, whilst also keeping the Welsh
Assembly Government informed and working with
them on those issues that are devolved and also
provide value to them as well; so it is a two-way
process that we have to balance and manage at the
moment.
Q100 Mr David Jones: The Committee has had
evidence previously about the importance of the
planning side infrastructure to ports and of course
roads are a devolved issue in Wales. To what extent
are you finding that there is coordination in policy
between the Department for Transport, which is
responsibility for ports, and the Welsh Assembly
Government which is responsible for roads, in
connection with the development of ports in Wales?
Mr Whitehead: I will start. Just taking strategic
national corridors, for example, which have been
identified in England, the map suddenly disappears
when you get to Wales. We have been told that there
will be a similar consultation for Wales fairly soon—
we have not seen it yet—so we assume the links
will come.
Q101 Mr David Jones: We will be touching on that
later, by the way.
Mr Whitehead: You are absolutely right. Ports, quite
frankly, are only as good as their infrastructure
connections. We have a TENs route identified in the
north, not yet completed but at least identified—and
my colleagues will come in—but certainly the
southern route really suVers from lack of investment
there. It is not just Wales. We talked about
integration of policy; the problem that ports have is
that because they are not a part of public spending
they are essentially private sector. They are always a
little bit at the margins when big decisions are made
about transport spending and getting them to the
forefront and getting them round the table when the
big decisions are made is one of the big issues for us.
Mr Kennerley: Just speaking on behalf of the ports
that we operate in South Wales, road connectivity
has improved over the years in specific areas: for
example, the southern distributor road around
Newport enables good access on to the motorway
system. The one area that requires continual work is
the M4 and that provides linkage right through to
the western most ports in Wales. There is a process
ongoing at the moment for a new M4 route and we
encourage improvements on the M4 but that has to
be balanced in terms of its negative impact on the
port and at the moment that M4 route is currently
crossing the centre of Newport Dock, which
obviously presents a number of operational
Processed: 29-10-2009 19:48:10
Page Layout: COENEW [O]
PPSysB Job: 435922
Unit: PAG3
Welsh Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 23
23 June 2009 Mr Matthew Kennerley, Mr David Whitehead and Mr Ted Sangster
commercial challenges. So it is having the right
balance in terms of proper solutions and making
sure that road development does not accidentally
hinder port development at the same time.
Q102 Mr David Jones: I can see the problem. What
I wonder is whether it is being addressed in a
coordinated manner between national government
and the Welsh Assembly Government.
Mr Sangster: If I may just comment on that? Just
building on what Matthew has said regarding the
M4 corridor being of advantage to ports in South
Wales, if you look further west at the ports at
Fishguard, Milford Haven and Pembroke Dock,
whilst that route is identified as part of the TENs
network, so it has European acknowledgement of
the strategic value of the route and UK support and
Welsh Assembly Government for that, where there is
a failure is in delivering to that in the particular
context of the failure of the Welsh Assembly
Government to fulfil the expectations and the needs
of the Pembrokeshire economy in those ports in
dualling the A40 beyond St. Clare’s, which is a
significant dampener on potential investment
opportunities in west Wales and the use of those
ports and a detractor from the use of the ports and
the traYc making use of those ports.
Q103 Albert Owen: Mr Whitehead, you have
mentioned the licensing arrangements and you are
aware that the Marine Bill is going through
Parliament today and that a new body is going to be
set up. Do you have concerns that certain measures
that will be devolved under the Marine Bill will go to
the Assembly and that you will still be dealing with
two separate departments and there might be some
gold plating; or do you see an advantage of going to
CardiV first?
Mr Whitehead: That is a good $64,000 question.
Q104 Albert Owen: It is a good time to ask it.
Mr Whitehead: You are absolutely right. The
Marine Management Organisation for English ports
will sweep up Harbour Revision Orders and
licensing and so forth. The situation in Wales, as we
understand it, is that those functions could well go
to CardiV. It is a question of resources and expertise
because the Marine Bill sets up a huge marine
planning process; it is putting all the licensing
expertise together in one organisation. It seems to us
that it would make sense for all applications to go
there and not to be split between two centres. But,
you know, this is a calculation for us and where our
best interests lie and if the decision goes to CardiV we
would say exactly the same—the resources have to
be suYcient to be able to carry out this work. Ports
fundamentally depend on these licenses.
Mr Kennerley: And the way that those organisations
operate needs to be consistent as well across the UK
because Welsh ports are not just serving Wales, they
are serving a much broader hinterland into the
Midlands and into the M4 corridor and are therefore
competing with other ports in the rest of the UK. So
if it is fully devolved it would need to be properly
coordinated with what is going on in the UK as a
whole.
Mr Sangster: UK ports fully support the Marine Bill
and the principles behind it—the application of
spatial planning to the coastal environment—and
there is a very real opportunity being presented for a
simplification, as you touched upon, and bringing all
the consent processes into one well resourced and
specialist body to do that. Wales is perhaps not
taking full advantage of that and therefore Welsh
ports are going to be not as advantaged as other
ports in the UK because we will still have devolved
responsibilities—and it looks as though we are going
to be looking to CardiV; and for non-devolved
responsibilities to the MMO. I fully understand and
support the need behind the principle of things in
Wales need to be managed in Wales, but we have
been urging the Welsh Assembly Government to
take the pragmatic view of perhaps engaging with
the MMO to make use of the high level of skills and
resources that will be put in there for the MMO, to
act on behalf of Wales to not put Welsh ports at a
disadvantage in having to go to two diVerent
organisations or parts of the country for their
processes.
Q105 Alun Michael: Just in parenthesis I am inclined
to observe that the activity and the economic
importance of the ports in some cases, particularly
the case in CardiV, is dramatically greater than it was
25 years ago, and perhaps this report might highlight
that and any evidence that you would like to give us
that would assess that would be useful. I just wanted
to touch on two questions in relation to
competitiveness. Witnesses have said to us that the
UK ports are less competitive than those on the
continent due to the lack of a public subsidy for
ports’ development. Do you agree?
Mr Whitehead: Yes; that is a certain disadvantage.
The picture is not all gloom for the UK. The UK
private sector ports industry system is a system that
the industry is quite comfortable with and wants and
we get clear advantages from that. Where we fall
down is that we do not get the investment that the
continental ports get, and especially they get road
and rail connections relatively easily to their ports,
paid for by the government, in a much more
coordinated way than we do.
Mr Kennerley: It is a very diYcult thing to measure
as well in that continental ports are feeding into a
much bigger hinterland, so there is a natural
economy of scale for shipping to move in larger ships
and therefore they have an advantage that they are
feeding into a bigger population. But that can also
present opportunities for UK ports and ports in
Wales in that we can oVer alternatives in terms of
feedering cargoes and avoiding some of the big calls
into the UK, possibly, and avoiding then long road
haul links across the country and with associated
environmental benefits as well. So there are
opportunities there that might come out of feeding
into a lower population, basically.
Processed: 29-10-2009 19:48:10
Page Layout: COENEW [E]
PPSysB Job: 435922
Unit: PAG3
Ev 24 Welsh Affairs Committee: Evidence
23 June 2009 Mr Matthew Kennerley, Mr David Whitehead and Mr Ted Sangster
Mr Sangster: But there are other competitive
disadvantages with container ports as well. One is in
some of the support that David touched upon. In
some aspects some continental ports get subsidy or
the dredging is undertaken for them, rather than
being the responsibility of the port. Secondly, a
number of ports, such as mine in Milford Haven—
and I believe that some of those in South Wales—are
subject to the Habitats Directive and all our port is
designated a Special Area of Conservation. The way
in which the UK has gone about that is diVerent to
the way in which many European countries have
gone about it, in that in the UK we follow the letter
of the Habitats Directive and the whole of the port—
60 square miles of the port is an SAC. In continental
administrations such as Germany, Holland, France
and so on the navigation channels and the ports
themselves have been not put in the SAC in
recognition of the economic and social value of the
ports and not imposing this extra layer of
environmental hurdles and legislation upon them.
So that is an approach that the UK Government
decided to take in following the letter of the Habitats
Directive, which a more pragmatic approach, as
taken by some of the continental countries would
not have given us these extra hurdles, as it were.
Another point of that of course, looking at the
continent and the UK and Wales, are light dues. It
does not aVect ports directly but it aVects the
customers using the ports and the way in which the
UK Government requires shipping companies to
pay light dues and has recently increased those by a
significant amount can put UK ports at a
disadvantage in attracting some shipping calls,
albeit, as Matthew has indicated, that can create
secondary opportunities in terms of feeder services;
but in the UK economy those feeder services
probably cost extra in terms of servicing the basic
economy requirements so there is a cost to the UK
economy in doing that, whilst there might be an
advantage to some UK ports.
Q106 Alun Michael: Each of your answers have
indicated that there are swings and roundabouts.
Mr Kennerley: There are, yes.
Q107 Alun Michael: If there were specific concerns
that you wanted to highlight we would be open to
hearing about them.
Mr Kennerley: Just to add on to that and just
building on what David was saying, we are funded
very diVerently than a lot of diVerent continental
ports and we rely on meeting certain financial
criteria in terms of port investment and some
continental ports, because of the way they are
funded, do not need to follow those specific criteria;
so there is a diVerent financial model then played out
in terms of how the customers are charged and
therefore which way their cargoes move through
those facilities.
Q108 Alun Michael: The other issue at the moment is
on the horizon rather than just outside the port, but
perhaps particularly to Matthew Kennerley, the
prospect of the Severn Barrage. You actually cover
quite a range of ports so you have a variety of
diVerent responses probably.
Mr Kennerley: Yes.
Q109 Alun Michael: Do you see it as full of
opportunities or problems or challenges?
Mr Kennerley: At the moment we are still looking at
what various alternatives there are. There have been
five schemes put forward now into phase 2 of the
assessment and it will very much depend on which
one of those schemes comes out. But if we are talking
about a barrage across the Severn, which seems to be
the scheme that everybody is more focused on, then
clearly any obstruction that slows or has an eVect on
a ship’s passage through to its destination or from its
loading port creates a competitive disadvantage with
a port that does not have that obstruction. So in
terms of ongoing business then there is probably a
negative impact on most of the business coming up
beyond that barrage and that includes CardiV,
Newport and the Port of Bristol. The ports outside
that barrage then are obviously clearly not aVected,
and we have Port Talbot down in the west that could
benefit from that in that some of those ships might
see that as a more viable alternative rather than
coming all the way up the Estuary. There is a positive
side to it as well because during the construction
phase any port facilities in the Severn Estuary are
clearly going to have a role to play in that in terms of
moving materials and the whole logistics of building
such a huge structure; so there is a potential positive
there as well. I think providing the marine
restriction, angles of that and how we get ships in
and out of it eYciently without causing delays and at
no extra cost, providing those things can be covered
then it does not mean to say that a barrage could not
be accommodated and our ports could not operate
in a viable manner, but there is a lot to think about.
Q110 Alun Michael: So are you saying that CardiV
and Newport in particular would be aVected clearly,
but would still have a business?
Mr Kennerley: They could still operate providing
those issues of access through the barrage can be
addressed and that there are no additional costs then
presented to the ship owners, who will compare
Newport with coast ports outside the barrage on the
south coast or east coast even, or further round on
the west coast.
Q111 Mark Williams: I would like to turn to some
of the future opportunities available to the ports. We
have heard in some of the submissions we have had
about the future or the cruise market, the supply and
generation of energy sources, energy generation on
land adjacent to ports. What actions as port owners
have you taken and continue to take to harness some
of the new development opportunities at ports
themselves or in terms of the development of trade
routes? And fundamental to that what is the role of
government? You have touched on the Welsh
Assembly Government; what is the role of
government to promote those opportunities?
Processed: 29-10-2009 19:48:10
Page Layout: COENEW [O]
PPSysB Job: 435922
Unit: PAG3
Welsh Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 25
23 June 2009 Mr Matthew Kennerley, Mr David Whitehead and Mr Ted Sangster
Mr Sangster: To answer your last question by
answering the first part of it, to give an example—
cruise. There is a very real opportunity for Wales as
a whole to benefit significantly in more active
participation in the growing and expanding cruise
market in which the market itself is expanding, and
the interest in northern Europe and the British Isles
as a cruising ground is expanding as well—it is
growing at about 8% or 9% a year—the figure is not
in my mind. Wales is under represented in terms of
its participation and yet the reason why cruise
passengers are attracted to north Europe and the
British Isles are exactly the sort of things that Wales
can provide—the culture, the history, the scenery, the
atmosphere, the crafts and so on as well. So what has
been happening over the past number of years is that
ports working together in Wales, together with the
Welsh Assembly Government and other tourist
bodies from county councils-related, have been
working together to promote Wales as a cruise
destination, recognising that any one of us acting by
ourselves are not going to be successful because no
cruise company is going to want to send a ship to one
port—it has to be a port as part of a package, part
of a seven-day cruise or whatever. Indeed, that sort
of partnership needs to go beyond Wales, so we
forged links with Ireland, for example, and we
recently, led by Anglesey County Council, were
successful in getting an Intereg bid for about 1.4
million Euros for a three-year programme for
marketing the Celtic Sea for cruise. So that is a very
real example of a market opportunity and the way in
which ports in the private sector and the public
sector locally and the Welsh Assembly Government
can work together on behalf of, in this case, the
whole of the Wales tourism industry.
Q112 Alun Michael: What are the origins of that
initiative? Was it from the Assembly Government or
was it yourselves as operators?
Mr Sangster: We as a port started 10 years ago in
promoting and selling the port and south west Wales
to the cruise industry. We joined Cruise Europe, an
organisation for European ports. We were one of the
founder members of Cruise UK and from that and
the contacts that we had and similar recognition
happening elsewhere we were one of the founder
members of Cruise Wales, in which the Wales Tourist
Board, as was, was a driving force and that has been
carried forward.
Mr Kennerley: We are similar. In terms of the cruise
in particular we see cruise developing in Wales along
the lines that Ted has described there, to build on to
some of the attractions that Wales can oVer in terms
of its coastline and the various heritage sites and
cities in the country. Longer term potentially for
regional departure points so that as some of the
bigger ports become focused on some of the bigger
cruise lines then some of the more regionally
operating cruise lines operating in more niche
markets can use ports in Wales to embark and
disembark their passengers at the start and the end
of their cruise, and that is a diVerent prospect
altogether. We genuinely believe that in the future
there is a potential for that. For ports in the scale
that we are talking about, speaking frankly here,
cruise ships do not tend to be huge revenue
generators for ports; they are fairly limited. But they
are potential huge revenue generators for the local
authorities and for the local cities in terms of their
oVering. Whilst we have those facilities available to
us we are actively encouraging that because that
helps with the economic development of the areas
around which and in which we are operating. So
whilst it is not going to deliver huge financial
advantages to our operations unless you are in the
scale of, for example, Southampton, where we are
handling up to 300 cruise calls a year, we believe it is
still a useful addition to the port and it helps to
promote the port and people have a diVerent vision
of what is going on inside the port as well. So there
are societal improvements as well.
Q113 Mr David Jones: This Committee has
recognised that from Members of this Committee
standing on the quayside at Stockholm last week
with a huge cruise liner and there were thousands
of people.
Mr Kennerley: It generates a lot of interest and it is
an area we are supporting.
Mr Whitehead: The renewables industry is another
big opportunity. You referred earlier to what does
the industry do with the government, there has been
some good material issued by DECC in terms of
which ports are suitable places for servicing oVshore
wind farms and so forth. I think there are about four
in Wales that have been identified, and then it is up
to the ports to step forward with the investors to take
that on. Matthew was saying that perhaps the cruise
industry in its visits to ports does not generate a lot
of money but with the renewables industry there
could be a real opportunity there and it is something
we are looking at. In terms of cooperation, we now
have a system where every port is encouraged to
produce a master plan, which identifies the pressure
that that port will put on the local infrastructure, on
the planning system and so forth. This was
developed jointly with the DfT, so this again is ports
perhaps speaking more clearly about what they are
going to do and what their markets are going to do;
so there has been some quite useful cooperation.
Mr Kennerley: Can I just go back to the question of
energy—and I think Ted will comment on his area
anyway—that energy is a big part of what we already
do in terms of supplying energy producers,
generators with power station, coal or other fuel
sources. We see that the ports are well positioned
from a land holding point of view, from the vessel
access point of view as more generators rely on
imported fuel supplies, whether that be coal, oil or
biomass. Ports are unique in a way in that very often
they are well connected into the local energy supply
grids as well as the National Grid and we see that
right across our South Wales ports, so there are
opportunities in Wales to develop additional energy
resources and there is talk of an energy gap in the
UK within the next 10 years or so or perhaps even
sooner than that, and we see that our ports are in a
very good position to provide locations for
generators to build new power stations, whether
Processed: 29-10-2009 19:48:10
Page Layout: COENEW [E]
PPSysB Job: 435922
Unit: PAG3
Ev 26 Welsh Affairs Committee: Evidence
23 June 2009 Mr Matthew Kennerley, Mr David Whitehead and Mr Ted Sangster
they are biomass, multi-fuel, peaking plants,
whatever—we have the facilities that can
accommodate all of those things and it is one area
where we have seen some fairly interesting
developments. Prenergy, for example, in Port Talbot
now have planning for a 350 megawatt woodchip
burning power station. You mentioned the
government and what their involvement is; I think
what we need to see from the government is a
consistent approach to planning to make sure that
our ports which are industrially zoned we can
continue to develop them as port locations, and
whilst recognising that there are other leisure related
activities in and around their boundaries that we are
port locations and we have unique facilities here and
we need to make sure that they are promoted in
that way.
Q114 Mr David Jones: To revert to the point you
were making about the economic benefit of the
cruise industry, has any research been carried out as
to the per capita spend of cruise passengers in this
country? The reason I raise it is that when we were
in Tallinn in Estonia last week we were told that the
average per capita spend was only ƒ29 in the port.
Mr Kennerley: We did a study in Southampton—I
spent some time working in that port—and a study
was carried out there with the assistance of the local
authority, I believe. An attempt was made to
measure the economic value and if I recall—and
again this would need to be checked against the
documentation—it was anything between £50 and
£100 per passenger and when you look at
Southampton handling 650,000 passengers per year
that is a significant impact into the local economy. I
am not sure if anything has been done in Wales.
Mr Sangster: As part of Cruise Wales, as I
mentioned, one of the first things that Cruise Wales
did was to commission a study as to the market
opportunity for cruise in Wales, commissioned from
a company called GP Wild. As well as identifying the
market opportunities one of the things they looked
at was exactly that spend and they came up with
figures, similar to those that Matthew has
mentioned, between £80 and £100 from each
passenger going ashore and about £30 from each
crew member as well because you had crew members
going ashore, stretching their legs and going to the
restaurant and getting a beer or going and getting
some groceries or toiletries, whatever—they are a
part of that spend as well.
Q115 Mr David Jones: Would it be possible for you
to point the Committee Clerk to that piece of
research?
Mr Sangster: Yes.
Q116 Albert Owen: What is the impact of the trends
of the international market and the increase in
freight and container use and do you have any plans
for future growth?
Mr Kennerley: There are three or four strands to our
strategy moving forward and each one of our South
Wales ports is slightly diVerent in its hinterland and
its capacity, but certainly for CardiV and Newport
there is a potential to develop more unit load
business and from that encourage inward investment
to develop facilities for logistics and distribution for
secondary manufacturing that can build on a unit
load operation. So instead of containers perhaps
being routed through east-cost ports in the UK from
deep sea lines, which all call on continental ports as
they are coming through, there may be an
opportunity to oVer a more local port of entry for
those cargoes, which would reduce road haulage and
enable a longer sea journey basically. With that we
see some of our port areas potentially and peripheral
areas around—and this is the important thing, to
make sure that local authority plans are engaged
with the Port Master plans to make sure that those
areas are also their potential to do this sort of
additional processing and manufacturing and then
get the value out of the goods that are coming
through the port maximised. It is important to keep
that value in the location where it would count.
There will always be an element of through traYc
serving a broader hinterland but we think that ports
can play a much greater role in that economic
development scene.
Q117 Albert Owen: So what you are describing is this
new business or is it business that goes in via road or
ship and across land more on to sea?
Mr Kennerley: As an island a lot of this business
comes by sea anyway and that is really what we are
talking about, oVering alternative routes that means
we can reduce the amount of road miles involved in
some of the traYc that is coming into Wales, most of
which now will have to come—when I am talking
unit loads here, primarily heading for the retail
sectors or secondary manufacturing—on a fairly
long road haul at the moment or by rail from an east
coast port. What we think there is potential to do is
to oVer a more locally based port option for those
sorts of cargoes.
Chairman: Can I ask you, with all due respect, to
answer the questions in a somewhat shorter form
because we have a large numbers questions to ask
you.
Q118 Albert Owen: Going on to the cruise business,
the original question was what has been the role of
government and obviously there is need for
assistance with infrastructure. Some of these vessels
that we have seen now and the potential for growth
in the future are going to require deep water and they
are going to require longer berths, which are hugely
expensive to build, particularly, as Mr Whitehead
said, it is not great business for the port itself. So do
you see the role of Cruise Wales to facilitate between
yourselves as the operator and the government to get
a package together?
Mr Sangster: Yes. If Wales is to realise the full
potential of cruise Wales needs to have berths that
can accommodate cruise ships up to 300 metres in
length. It does not at the moment. Wales of course
Processed: 29-10-2009 19:48:10
Page Layout: COENEW [O]
PPSysB Job: 435922
Unit: PAG3
Welsh Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 27
23 June 2009 Mr Matthew Kennerley, Mr David Whitehead and Mr Ted Sangster
can take ships up to about 150 to 200 metres and we
can take them longer than that but they have to
anchor and tender their passengers ashore, which is
increasingly less acceptable, as you will probably be
familiar with. So the Welsh Assembly Government
have indicated through the work that they have been
doing with Cruise Wales there are possibilities for
such developments in North Wales at Holyhead and
in South Wales in Milford Haven, where in
Holyhead there is a facility with the Rio Tinto Jetty,
which can be converted, and work is being done on
that and in Milford Haven there is a site currently
owned by Pembrokeshire County Council which we
are working with the County Council and the Welsh
Assembly Government in developing that site for
multi use and one of those uses is a deep water, large
cruise ship berth.
Q119 Albert Owen: Just on that, you said about the
growth being 8% to 9% expanding business. Is it not
the case though that the bids for cruise liners in two
or three years have to be done now in the
international market, and is there clarity that these
berths are going to be ready by then?
Mr Sangster: You are quite right that cruise ship
marketing is a slow burn, so if you were talking to
cruise customers now you might get them in four or
five years’ time. Once you have credibility they will
make bookings for you a couple of years ahead. One
thing that Holyhead has found, with the indication
that they are on their way to providing what has been
looked at for a long time, an alongside cruise ship
berth, is that their bookings for the intervening
period have increased significantly. So if you can
work with the cruise industry and show that you are
working with them and you are finding a solution
they will then come back and they will partner with
you to enable you to build up to that. But you need
to be quite firm about it and to demonstrate that
what you are saying will be delivered.
Q120 Albert Owen: You mentioned Cruise Europe,
Cruise Britain, Cruise Wales: is there not a niche
market for Celtic—you touched on it. We saw the
Baltics coming together and having destinations to
four or five unique destinations. Is there a plan that
Cruise Wales has to adopt that on the western
seaboard?
Mr Sangster: Absolutely and that is the basis of the
Intereg bid that I mentioned of ƒ1.4 million to
market the Irish Sea—a partnership between the
south west of England, Ireland and Wales and
around the Mersey and the Isle of Man, to promote
a cruising ground, if you like, in the Irish Sea.
Q121 Mark Williams: Just to go back to the issue
again about who is responsible for the promotion of
development opportunities—this is addressed to Mr
Kennerley. In your written submission you noted
about a large number of business with extensive
supply chains have been encouraged to locate in
Wales and you cited the example of Amazon, but
you gloomily went on to point out that companies
have not been made aware of the oVering of ports
and what ports are able to oVer them. How big a
concern is that and, again, should that promotional
work be the role of government or local authorities
or the port operators themselves?
Mr Kennerley: It should be a joint eVort really.
Clearly we are out there marketing our own facilities
but I think those introductions could be made
sooner to many operators or many potential
business development proposals.
Q122 Mark Williams: Who would you look to
facilitate that?
Mr Kennerley: It should be coming through WAG
really who are making those introductions and
thinking about the port resource—this is the point I
made earlier—that is on their doorstep and making
sure then that thereafter everything else then, the
planning regimes that apply are conducive to that
sort of development to bring that value added
benefit into the local economy.
Mr Whitehead: If I might add a point? Perhaps one
of the diYculties has been getting the Welsh ports
collectively to come together and express themselves
as Welsh ports. And we have just set out a Welsh
ports group, which met at the beginning of June and
there were WAG oYcials there, all around the table
talking together about opportunities and the
relationship with WAG and the relationship with
DfT, so we regard that as a really important step so
that maybe things like inward investment can be
addressed by that group and they can start to
produce material and a website and so forth to do
that; so the industry has started to get together a
bit more.
Q123 Hywel Williams: Good morning. Can I ask
you about the use of land and how do you balance
the shorter term demands that you might have with
the longer term expansion aims of the port itself, for
example in Milford Haven. Is there a tension there?
How would you achieve that?
Mr Sangster: You are quite right, there is; and I can
point to ports elsewhere in the UK in which short
term decisions are being taken which develop land
for other uses, maybe housing or warehousing,
whatever, that then deny its use for port
development in the future. In our own local context
there are not many sites with access to the water. Our
policy is to work with the county council to identify
these sites and with the county council identify
appropriate use for those sites, making use of access
to the water. One of the largest sites is actually owned
by the county council so our arguments fell on to
very receptive ground and we are working
collaboratively with them to ensure that that site is
developed appropriately; but there are other smaller
sites as well that, if allowed to be developed for
particular uses, could deny opportunities for
expansion even in a leisure capacity for more
marinas and moorings and so on in the future, and
that is in the forefront. The planning system can
help—and certainly in our own context, the way in
which the county council and the National Park are
Processed: 29-10-2009 19:48:10
Page Layout: COENEW [E]
PPSysB Job: 435922
Unit: PAG3
Ev 28 Welsh Affairs Committee: Evidence
23 June 2009 Mr Matthew Kennerley, Mr David Whitehead and Mr Ted Sangster
going about their development plans to identify such
sites, we have had the opportunity to put in our
views as indeed have others as to appropriate
development.
Q124 Hywel Williams: Is this the case generally for
other ports apart from Milford Haven? I am
thinking in my own area of a very small leisure
development in Pwllheli where there have been
problems in developing the quayside for the marina
because of the uses that have been allowed over the
years and clearing all that away is hugely
problematic. Thinking in entirely another context—
the building of a car park is going to probably make
it diYcult to have a cargo handling facility in a
particular place. To the other two witnesses, do you
think that there is suYcient recognition within local
planning policies of participating in planning in
this respect?
Mr Kennerley: There are issues there and I can think
of some examples in Swansea where we have seen the
development of SA1 and the potential marin there
with leisure and retail around it and clearly that is
very close to some of the port activities and some of
the port areas that we see as having continued
commercial potential for biomass power stations,
for example. I think that the planning regime does
create some issues there in terms of how schemes like
that which could generate a bit of noise and bit of
dust now and then are potentially perceived locally.
Clearly our master planning process is about
identifying those areas and making sure that we
protect our interests in those areas and keep them
available for commercial development.
Mr Whitehead: I am not aware of any particular
problems. Obviously once you develop waterside
land that is it, you have lost it; and it is a very
precious commodity—quite a rare commodity as
well in many ways. So the planning system has to be
thoughtful about what it does. I come back again to
this issue of master planning—each port articulating
what it wants to do in a clear way so that all the
planners and everyone involved—potential
investors—can see what the picture is.
Q125 Mr David Jones: Can we return to the national
corridors that we touched on earlier in this evidence
session? The BPA’s submission raises concerns of
course about the fact that Welsh road routes are not
part of the Strategic National Corridors; how do you
think that that could be resolved?
Mr Whitehead: We wait expectantly for this new
consultation actually. When this group met in June
we were told that the arrows do not disappear at the
Welsh border and in fact there will be something
there, there will be proposals there. So obviously it is
diYcult to comment on something that we have not
seen. But these north and south routes, it is said so
often are so fundamental to the ports themselves and
as Eddington showed the investments in links to the
ports produce excellent value for money as well; so
these things are all tied in.
Q126 Mr David Jones: You did not quite answer my
question though. The question was how do you
think it should be resolved? Clearly it would appear
that on your evidence there is a disconnect between
the road infrastructure in England and Wales.
Mr Whitehead: First of all, we have to see what the
plans are and then we have to see where the funding
might come from, and that might be TENs funding
or other sources of funding. It could be that there is
a turn to developer contributions. One of the
diYculties we have in England is that if you want to
develop a port infrastructure connected to a port
then the port is expected to make contributions to
those developments; so that is possibly another
option that we have. We are waiting to see what the
proposals are.
Q127 Mr David Jones: To what extent and how do
you feel that Welsh ports could be more involved in
consultation on transport spending decisions?
Mr Sangster: If I can put things in a local context I
mentioned the A40, because the Welsh Assembly
Government is in total control of that. What is
needed there is active consultation between us and
the government and the south west Wales business
community, the ports, the county council and so on,
and working to find a satisfactory solution which
has not happened. There is a patchwork of partial
development taking place which does not really
address in any satisfactory manner the real needs
that this could bring about. In the context of the
relationship between your original question to
David about the Department for Transport and the
Welsh Assembly Government, the answer in the
current situation is that of close collaboration and
working together. Working in concert to the same
sort of time scales rather than the impression given
at the moment with a diVerence in the levels of time
scale and also detail as well. It may well be all going
very well behind the scenes but like a swan sitting on
the water there is lots of activity happening
underneath but our impression is that there does not
appear to be much happening on the top.
Q128 Mr David Jones: Do you have any evidence
that anything is going on behind the scenes?
Mr Sangster: The confirmation that we have had
from our discussions as the Welsh Ports Group with
the Welsh Assembly Government is that there will be
a statement coming out very soon which will
demonstrate the way in which they are in accord
with linking up with the work that is being done in
England.
Q129 Alun Michael: Could I ask you particularly
about Milford Haven. What changes you are
experiencing particularly in relation to security
requirements as a result of recent developments and
do you feel that the level of policing and security
arrangements is adequate?
Mr Sangster: As a port, having operated ferries since
the 1970s to Ireland we are well used to terrorism
security provisions under the various requirements
Processed: 29-10-2009 19:48:10
Page Layout: COENEW [O]
PPSysB Job: 435922
Unit: PAG3
Welsh Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 29
23 June 2009 Mr Matthew Kennerley, Mr David Whitehead and Mr Ted Sangster
in that part of our business. Having supported major
sites with the oil refineries over the years they and
therefore we are well used to the security provisions
regarding those sites. You are quite right, there has
been an increase in the level of interest and an
increase in the level of perceived risk associated with
changes that have taken place and physical changes
with the new LNG terminals being built, now on
stream, and that has provided a sharper focus.
Running alongside that was the introduction of the
International Shipping and Freight Port Security
Code about four years ago and, more recently, the
European security requirements as well. The
terminals comply with all the existing regulations
and requirements and the plans are actually
exercised and demonstrated. We in our port have
also taken the lead in coming together as individual
operators to work collaboratively with TRANSEC,
the security part of the Department for Transport,
and other agencies including the police and Special
Branch, to share information and to have a
concerted approach. In the context of you
mentioning the police and their resources, I know
that Dyfed Powys Police have been making
representations for improved resources to enable
them to better deliver to what they see—
Q130 Mr David Jones: It is a long established
tradition I have to tell you.
Mr Sangster: Quite rightly, yes. They have made a
very good case to us and we support that case. They
have made it elsewhere; they have yet to get an
answer to it, I understand. If you have not already
you will be receiving their case in evidence from
them. We and the port community, including the
LNG and the oil terminals in Milford would support
the case they are making for a greater range of assets,
particularly in marine assets, to enable them to
undertake security responsibilities.
Chairman: Thank you very much for your evidence
today and also thank you for your written evidence.
I apologise for rushing you earlier on but we have a
very tight schedule today and I hope you appreciate
that. If you feel that there are other matters that you
would like to raise with us we will be very happy to
receive a further memorandum from you.
Witnesses: Mr Bryan Graham, Head of Planning Services, City and County of Swansea, Mr Richard
Workman, Director of Technical Services, Carmarthenshire and Mr Kefin Wakefield, Head of Economic
Development, Pembrokeshire County Council, gave evidence.
Q131 Chairman: Good morning and welcome to the
Welsh AVairs Committee. Could you for the record
introduce yourselves, please?
Mr Workman: Good morning; I am Richard
Workman, Director of Technical Services at
Carmarthenshire County Council and the current
OYcer Chair of SWWITCH, which is the Regional
Transport Consortia for south west Wales.
Mr Graham: Good morning; I am Bryan Graham,
Head of Planning Services in Swansea Council.
Mr Wakefield: Good morning; I am Kefin
Wakefield, Head of Economic Development for
Pembrokeshire County Council.
Q132 Chairman: Thank you very much. Could I
begin by asking you a straightforward question: as
local authorities what influence or impact or
involvement do you have at the Welsh level and at
the UK level in terms of port development?
Mr Graham: If I could start—and obviously I am
speaking specifically from a Swansea perspective?
The council through the planning process provides
the land use planning framework, the spatial
planning policies for the development of the port at
Swansea and its hinterland. In my evidence and
submission I have described that process in relation
to the preparation of the council’s Unitary
Development Plan, which was adopted last year, and
obviously there was an extensive consultation
process that that involved, including, for example,
consultation with the Department for Transport in
England, which obviously has responsibility for
policy in relation to ports; but, more specifically, the
Welsh Assembly Government and the Association
of British Ports. So, very briefly, that is a description
of the role of the planning process.
Mr Workman: From the Transport Consortia
auspices, Chairman, obviously we are putting
together a Regional Transport Plan within the
context of the Wales transport plan, which actually
sets the context for priorities within the region. All
of those priorities are not necessarily in our own gift
to deliver because the trunk roads and the rail system
are within WAG’s auspices. However, what the
Regional Transport Plan will enable us to do is to
deal with the issues of connectivity that we have been
hearing about from previous evidence and access to
the ports in trying to build the network to give better
access to the ports and egress from the ports.
Mr Wakefield: In Pembrokeshire many of the
developments along the Milford Haven Waterway
have been of a scale that has taken them outside of
normal planning regulations. More recently—or
most recently—the approval of the new power
station which was 2,000 megawatts fell within the
remit of DECC. The process took approximately
four years from submission through to consent. The
local authority influence is principally through the
local development planning process and through the
transport network which services the roads around
the Haven as opposed to into the county. We also
have interests within some of the environmental
controls and regulations and a special area of
conservation in and around the Milford Haven
Waterway.
Q133 Alun Michael: I think you have set the context
in terms of the planning processes, both locally and
more widely but I wonder if I can ask more in terms
Processed: 29-10-2009 19:48:10
Page Layout: COENEW [E]
PPSysB Job: 435922
Unit: PAG3
Ev 30 Welsh Affairs Committee: Evidence
23 June 2009 Mr Bryan Graham, Mr Richard Workman and Mr Kefin Wakefield
of the needs of ports and how they get promoted.
Where you see the ports and where they lie in your
authority’s priorities, is the importance of the ports
something that is going up, going down or standing
still? How do you proactively seek to ensure that the
ports in your authority’s area are the ones that are
successful?
Mr Wakefield: If I may start, Chairman? We have
just done some work through our own county
council scrutiny committee to look at the impact of
the energy sector; clearly the energy sector along the
Milford Haven Waterway is a consequence of the
deep water facilities of the port itself and led to the
establishment of the port authority as an authority.
So the impact is very considerable. The energy sector
employs over 2,000 people and generates £100
million a year into the local economy. The marine
sector on top of that will generate additional jobs
and additional spend and the diversification of that
marine sector, particularly into marine leisure, is
something that we encourage and we see as having
further growth potential. The diYculty, as Mr
Sangster referred to, is looking to the future and
trying to understand how you accommodate the
changing needs of ports in an uncertain world. He
referred to a particular site which has reasonable
access to deep water, which we are working with the
port authority to try and find a way of bringing that
forward for development; but the nature and cost of
that development has many variables—how big that
site should be, how much reclamation, what are the
access and services costs for serving it, what the end
use might be and is it a viable proposition to bring
forward are all imponderables at this stage, which we
are starting to address. It is a complex challenge to
try and look into the crystal ball to see what the
optimum development might be for the future of the
port and wider economy.
they no longer required. Certainly a fundamental
principle that we adopt is that we rely on ABP to tell
us what land and facilities they need because of the
importance that the authority does attach to the
port’s continuing success as an operational port. In
economic development terms we also have regular
meetings with the ABP operators and provide what
support we can for local firms to use the port
facilities and also to benefit from tourism derived
initiatives, such as the Swansea-Cork ferry and
services to Devon, which are due to come into eVect
next year.
Mr Workman: From a SWWITCH perspective
obviously we work under the auspices of all four
local authorities in the region, so we are promoting
the aims of the four authorities. A lot of what we do
is look at east-west connectivity as a whole that you
mentioned, which, by definition, has a general
benefit to the ports because, again, as we heard
earlier, those are the routes which need to be
improved. More specifically our Regional Transport
Plan, which is due to be submitted in September,
identifies a number of priorities which will have a
direct impact on the ports. So, for instance, there is
significant investment continuing to go into the Port
Talbot distributor road, which will provide a much
better access into the facility there, and that is
planned in the next two to three years. We are
continuing to promote Assembly Government
improvements to the A40. There are some
improvements taking place but we are promoting
further improvements. Some of the local access
issues around Pembrokeshire and Milford Haven,
again it is contained within the Regional Transport
Plan. So the Regional Transport Plan does directly
address the issue of ports and, more generally,
addresses the issue of accessibility; so there are
specific examples of how we are promoting that.
Q134 Alun Michael: And that is something that the
local authority, if I understand you correctly, is
taking a lead on rather than being reactive?
Mr Wakefield: Very much. We work strongly in
partnership with the port authority because they are
more than a port authority; they are a vehicle for
regeneration as far as we are concerned and are
therefore key partners within the planning process
for the Pembrokeshire economy.
Q136 Alun Michael: Can I ask you about the role of
the public sector in relation to private ports?
Mr Graham: ABP is obviously a private company
but I would not say that that has any eVect in the way
that we deal with them.
Q135 Alun Michael: In Swansea of course there is a
diVerent situation.
Mr Graham: Yes, I think that there is an extensive
and ongoing liaison associated with British ports to
try and ensure that we meet their requirements,
whether it is in terms of land use planning, the
safeguarding of operational land and the
importance of striking a balance between the
retention of that land and the marina development,
of which there has been quite a lot in Swansea, as you
are probably aware, and reference was made by one
of the previous speakers to the potential conflicts
that that can generate; although I would stress that
that development eVectively went ahead with the
blessing of the port to the extent that it was surplus
land, it was redundant land that was released which
Q137 Alun Michael: No issues?
Mr Graham: Not that I would say.
Mr Wakefield: In terms of Fishguard, which is a
private port, again I think we have a very positive
working relationship with Stena, and we share
development objectives for the port and
diversification of the port, which to some extent was
triggered by the Welsh Assembly Government and
their regeneration response to a major closure in
Fishguard, which resulted in a regeneration plan for
the town in which quite clearly the port played an
important role. So a positive working relationship.
Q138 Alun Michael: Could I finally ask about the
approach in Pembrokeshire to suggestions of
privatisation of Milford Haven?
Mr Wakefield: I think our concern is that there may
be pressure for privatisation, and the port as I
mentioned earlier is more than just a Port Authority.
I think our concerns would be found at a number of
Processed: 29-10-2009 19:48:10
Page Layout: COENEW [O]
PPSysB Job: 435922
Unit: PAG3
Welsh Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 31
23 June 2009 Mr Bryan Graham, Mr Richard Workman and Mr Kefin Wakefield
levels. I think the first level is that clearly the port, or
the operations which are dependent on the port, are
there largely in the national interest and that the
management of the port should not be allowed to
hold those operations to ransom in any way; so there
is a national interest concern: but the more local
concern is that the operations along the port are
intrusive within the landscape, and to some extent
some of the operations are intrusive from a
community point of view. The Port Authority can
pay back and oVset some of that negative eVect
through its own investments in refurbishing areas
which have become derelict, and there are two
examples, I suppose: the first would be Milford
Docks which, in the decline of the fishing sector, was
left derelict; the Port Authority was instrumental in
finding a new use and bringing that forward in a way
which helped to add value to the town, by
diversifying the town’s oVer; and, secondly, within
Pembroke Dock, where the legacy of many
Georgian structures were decaying, the Port
Authority again became involved in helping to
restore some of those structures. It is also involved
in helping to diversify the oVer in Pembroke Dock,
again through its engagement in some marinarelated
developments
and
port-related
developments.
Q139 Alun Michael: You would see those sorts of
things put at risk, would you?
Mr Wakefield: Yes, I think we acknowledge, we
would recognise, that some of that investment in
regeneration does not oVer a return on investment in
the strict sense, at least in the short-term. We also
have the view that much of the Welsh Assembly
Government’s priorities for investment lie further
east; and this helps to restore some sense of balance
in terms of investment in infrastructure within the
county.
Q140 Mark Williams: Mr Wakefield has actually
pre-empted my question in terms of the community
engagement dimensions of this. How do you balance
the port’s need for eYcient freight movements with
the needs of the community and the needs of the
environment more generally? You talked about an
investment by the Port Authority back into those
communities. Could you say any more specifically
on that, or your colleagues?
Mr Wakefield: I think we are fortunate in having a
Port Authority which is proactive in the way in
which it deals with both the community and its
environmental challenges. There is a very good
communications team and a good public relations
programme of activities which help to bridge the
gap, and therefore puts the Port Authority as part of
the Haven community. Similarly, in terms of the
environment, the Port Authority has been proactive
in hosting activities—the Marine Forum, for
example, and the Pembrokeshire Coastal Forum.
They will host these activities within their own
oYces with infrastructure and support them in an
open-handed and fair way. I think there are a lot of
public relations benefits in this.
Q141 Mark Williams: If there was likely to be a
predicted increase in traYc flows to your port, to
Milford Haven, or Fishguard for that matter, would
the county council proactively engage with the
community and alert them of that; or would there be
a response from the community—predictable
pressure groups emerging and then campaigning in
that way?
Mr Wakefield: It depends upon the nature of the
business. Once you start talking about LNG, which
is highly specialised, I think we prefer that the
engagement is led by the experts who have the
responsibility for managing that activity. Clearly we
have our own engagement processes with our
communities and structures in place; and in the
normal course of events we would discuss these
things and reach a sensible conclusion on the best
way forward.
Mr Graham: I think it is undeniable that in Swansea
there are tensions, and there have been historically,
between the operational activities of the port and the
adjacent communities. I am talking not just about
SA1—which is the generic name for the regeneration
of the eastern side of the Tawe River; the
redevelopment and regeneration initiative that has
gone on over the last seven or eight years—but also
the existing communities of St Thomas and Port
Tennant which are to the north of the dock on the
other side of Fabian Way. I do not know if members
are familiar with Swansea at all, but this is an area of
inter-war housing which actually overlooks the
docks, and historically there have been issues with
port activities, particularly in relation to the
movement of aggregates and coal and associated
environmental problems that have occurred. In
terms of the Authority’s response and role, I think it
is fair to say that has again been largely carried out
through the planning process. I do not think there
have been any wider community-based initiatives.
Reference was made by a previous witness to a
biomass application. This was a planning
application for a biomass plant within the docks that
was actually refused planning permission by the
council. I had actually recommended it for approval,
but there was a tremendous weight of local
objection, and members of the planning committee
decided to refuse it because of their concerns over the
perceived adverse impacts that it would have. I
suppose fundamentally there is a lot of local member
engagement, representation and interest in the
operation of the docks. I would say that currently,
and given that there are still activities at the port
associated with the transfer of coal and aggregates,
there are not any ongoing environmental or socalled pollution issues; so it is something that we are
able to balance.
Q142 Hywel Williams: I did ask the previous
witnesses about land use and would like to ask you
the same sort of questions. Mr Graham, you said
earlier on that you had extensive consultations in the
planning process and also that you worked with
Associated British Ports?
Processed: 29-10-2009 19:48:10
Page Layout: COENEW [E]
PPSysB Job: 435922
Unit: PAG3
Ev 32 Welsh Affairs Committee: Evidence
23 June 2009 Mr Bryan Graham, Mr Richard Workman and Mr Kefin Wakefield
Mr Graham: Yes.
Q143 Hywel Williams: How do you identify—
perhaps in Pembrokeshire as well—what surplus
land is available? How can that be put to use without
compromising the future developments of the ports?
Mr Graham: I think it is fair to say that we have
relied on ABP to identify land that they consider to
be surplus and we have not carried out any objective
or empirical analysis of our own to decide how much
land the port needs for operational purposes; we feel
that is ABP’s business, frankly. With the Unitary
Development Plan, if you look at the end of my
evidence I included an extract from the proposals
map and it shows not just where the SA1
regeneration development has taken place and is
scheduled to expand, but also there is some pink land
there which is employment land; that is vacant land
at the eastern end of the Kings and Queens Docks,
which again has been identified with ABP’s
approval. As I say, we rely on them to identify their
operational requirements, and then the regeneration
and the use of land that is surplus is put forward
based on what is considered to be the most
appropriate use of that land. The fact, as I say, that
the port still carries on as an operating port and new
development is taking place it does seem to coexist
reasonably comfortably. I think it is interesting that
when a planning application comes in, such as the
biomass, then public consultation takes place and
that will then provoke a reaction based on fears of
what the impact may be. In terms of existing issues,
the uses seem to coexist reasonably well.
Mr Wakefield: In Pembrokeshire the existing
Unitary Development Plan is a joint one with the
National Park. There are policies, which you have
received in evidence, which set out our position. We
try to be proactive, in the sense that in considering a
marina development at Fishguard it has been
possible to look at how such a development could
result in an extension of land for the port. There is
an added value to the port from a leisure
development, and I think that is a happy
coincidence. The new Local Development Plan is at
a stage at which people have been invited to submit
candidate sites. We, as an authority, and the Port
Authority, have flagged up areas of interest within
that process; but we are still at a stage at which they
are purely aspirations on a piece of paper; so it is
rather premature really to talk about the conclusion
to that planning process.
Q144 Hywel Williams: On a diVerent tack, could I
just ask all three of you if you have any thoughts on
the potential for the cruise markets as far as Wales is
concerned?
Mr Workman: From a transportation viewpoint,
clearly there are issues in terms of developing the
cruise market. Tourism plays a major role in the
whole region’s economy. Within an hour of ports—
and again this comes back to improving local access
to visitor facilities within the region, bearing in mind
the expenditure we were hearing about earlier—I
think there are issues about ensuring that if that
particular area is developed then people have good
access to the facilities and opportunities they would
wish to take once they actually arrive at the ports.
Mr Graham: Cruise ships have started to visit
Swansea; it is a recent development. My
understanding is that it does benefit the town, the
city, perhaps in a more direct way than necessarily
the ferry terminal did. Obviously people came across
when the Swansea ferry was open and I am glad to
see that it is due to reopen next year. A lot of users
will arrive at the port and head oV away; whereas
with the visits of the cruise ships they will focus on
Swansea, the Gower Peninsula and the spend that
comes in is retained in the town. That is my
understanding.
Mr Wakefield: There have been cruise liners visiting
Milford Haven and Fishguard over a number of
years in relatively small numbers. We see it as
important for the spend that they bring to the local
economy. We see it as important because it opens up
Pembrokeshire as a destination to new largely
international markets, which is a good thing. As a
local authority we work with Stena or with the Port
Authority to support them, particularly on the
landward support side, whether it is encouraging
shopkeepers to open their doors maybe when they
are used to closing them on a Wednesday afternoon;
or, indeed, supporting and assisting in terms of
guides, transport or whatever is needed.
Q145 Alun Michael: I wonder if I could return
specifically to Swansea, because I am a little bit
puzzled between the earlier answer that Mr Graham
gave and I wonder if he would like to have another
go. You said there are no problems with the public
sector support for developing Swansea Docks; your
later answer seemed to be much more about leaving
it to ABP—let them decide how they want to use the
land; yet you have acknowledged yourself, in talking
about the potential of tourist ships and so on, that
there is a much wider implication than just
implications for business in the port by some of the
activities that can be developed. Surely the City of
Swansea has to be very positively engaged, does it
not, in projecting the future, looking at the
opportunities that can be grasped and so on, as well
as reacting to any plans from ABP about how they
use their land?
Mr Graham: Absolutely. The point I was trying to
make was that we rely on APB through the
development plan process to identify the land that
they need to carry out their dock operations.
Q146 Alun Michael: That will have changed over
recent years. The dock’s operations have changed a
lot. There were hardly any in CardiV 25 years ago;
there is an awful lot happening now and it is
expanding.
Mr Graham: Bear in mind we are talking about a
substantial area of land and impounded water at
Swansea. They have been able to declare land
surplus to operational requirements and still retain
significant landholding facilities there.
Processed: 29-10-2009 19:48:10
Page Layout: COENEW [O]
PPSysB Job: 435922
Unit: PAG3
Welsh Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 33
23 June 2009 Mr Bryan Graham, Mr Richard Workman and Mr Kefin Wakefield
Q147 Alun Michael: Could I just explore the other
bit of engagement, because one of the things we said
to the earlier witnesses was that there was evidence
of, in some cases, finances available in the local area
to ports in Europe which are not available to ports
in Wales. What sort of support does the City of
Swansea give to the port? Has there been any issue
of public sector funding, for instance, under EC or
state aid support at any time?
Mr Graham: I do not think so. I have to qualify my
response because it is not my area of responsibility.
I am reasonably certain that the Authority has not
provided financial support to the Port Authority. I
can verify that and come back to the Committee.1
and Irish Government planning processes has been
joined up. For example, our understanding is that
the Irish Spatial Plan process seeks to reduce the
congestion in and around Dublin and encourage
growth points more extensively around the country.
Whilst TENs covers the northern and southern
routes, it is not immediately obvious how the Irish
Government aspiration to reduce congestion in
Dublin ties in with investment on the southern
corridor as one way of helping to reduce that
congestion. I think we would welcome some further
clarity really around that issue, and indeed how the
TENs review, which is shortly to commence, is going
to consider that question.
Q148 Alun Michael: How about transport facilities
related to the docks? Again, we heard in earlier
evidence that a dock is only as good as the transport
for getting stuV out and away. Is that a priority as far
as Swansea is concerned?
Mr Graham: I think Swansea is well placed in terms
of connectivity, to use the phrase, given that there is
a dual-carriageway link literally from the entrance to
the docks, to the M4, to the motorway network.
Clearly reference has been made to problems
elsewhere further down the M4; but in terms of
accessing the motorway network it is probably no
more than two or three miles at most from the
entrance to the port to the nearest M4 junction.
There is also a dedicated rail link to the port. I do not
believe it is in use at the moment but it is there and
it is safeguarded. Fabian Way, which is the dualcarriageway link from the port, is due to be trunked
by the Assembly.
Q151 Mr David Jones: Thank you. You have also
mentioned in your memorandum that you would
wish this Committee to look very carefully at the
response capability of the Dyfed Powys police given
the recent expansion of the number of port-related
installations that may be regarded as critical
national infrastructure. What are your specific
concerns about Dyfed Powys police’s capability?
Mr Wakefield: In preparing evidence for this
Committee I consulted with other colleagues,
including our emergency planning oYcer; I think the
point has probably been covered by Mr Sangster.
The increase in installations of national and
international interest and importance has expanded.
The UK economy is, to a significant extent,
dependent upon the energy installations along the
Haven; and it is a concern, I think, which has been
talked about elsewhere that there needs to be
adequate police resources to respond to issues which
may arise in the future.
Q149 Alun Michael: As a city do you have a vision
for the future of the port within the future of the
wider docks area? Is it a vision you share with ABP?
Mr Graham: I think it is. Not just in the Local
Development Plan but in the Council’s Economic
Development Strategy and reflected in the Wales
Spatial Plan there is an acknowledgement of the
importance that the port plays in terms of the
prosperity of the town as a whole.
Q150 Mr David Jones: A couple of questions for Mr
Wakefield. The memorandum that you supplied to
the Committee highlights the opportunities
provided by the TENs review. Why would you say
that such opportunities had not been provided in the
past; and what do you think could be done
diVerently this time?
Mr Wakefield: It has not been immediately obvious
to us as a local authority how the prioritisation of
TENs within UK Government, Welsh Government
1
Not printed
Q152 Mr David Jones: Do you have doubts about
the capacity of Dyfed Powys police in this regard?
Mr Wakefield: Certainly Dyfed Powys police have
expressed concerns about their capacity.
Q153 Mr David Jones: That is a concern you
share, clearly?
Mr Wakefield: Yes.
Q154 Mr David Jones: What about the emergency
services, apart from the police?
Mr Wakefield: I am not terribly well qualified to talk
about fire, ambulance and health facilities in general.
There have been concerns voiced in the past but I am
not really in a position to quantify or detail those
concerns.
Chairman: Thank you all for your evidence this
morning, and also for your written evidence. Again,
I would repeat what I said earlier, if you feel there are
points which we have not covered today we will be
very pleased to receive a further memorandum
from you.
Processed: 29-10-2009 19:51:07
Page Layout: COENEW [SE]
PPSysB Job: 435922
Unit: PAG4
Ev 34 Welsh Affairs Committee: Evidence
Tuesday 30 June 2009
Members present
Dr Hywel Francis, in the Chair
Mrs Siân C James
Mr David Jones
Alun Michael
Albert Owen
Hywel Williams
Mark Williams
Witnesses: Ms Margaret Llewellyn, Cruise Wales, and Mr Jon Pinnington, Business Development Manager,
Isle of Anglesey County Council, gave evidence.
Q155 Chairman: Good morning and welcome to the
Welsh AVairs Committee and our inquiry into ports
in Wales. For the record, could you introduce
yourselves, please?
Ms Llewellyn: I am Margaret Llewellyn and I am
representing Cruise Wales.
Mr Pinnington: I am Jon Pinnington and I am
representing the Isle of Anglesey County Council.
Q156 Chairman: Thank you. Mr Pinnington, could
I begin with you and ask a question about Holyhead
Port. We visited Holyhead Port recently and we were
very impressed with what we saw. It is a key driver of
the economy in Anglesey. What specific actions
should the Government take to improve the support
it provides for the development of ports, particularly
Holyhead, and what are the failings of Government
policy currently?
Mr Pinnington: I think so far as cruise is concerned,
if I can start with that, the absolutely fundamental
necessity is to have an alongside berth for cruise
ships in the port. We have operated a number of
years now with tendering out, with the cruise vessels
anchoring oVshore. That has led to several
cancellations due to bad weather and is something
which clearly is not favoured by cruise lines. It is
becoming increasingly diYcult to persuade cruise
lines to visit in those sorts of conditions, so the
alongside berth is an absolute essential. I think
perhaps in some respects Margaret is probably better
able to answer that question than I am because my
involvement is much more on the onshore side, but
certainly I would say that the Council has a very
good working relationship with the port operator,
Stena, and is looking to co-operate with them in
terms of a number of aspects of the development of
the port, for example the repair of the Holyhead
breakwater, which is essential to the continued
operation of the marina, and certainly support from
Government would be very welcome, likewise.
Q157 Hywel Williams: We did visit Stockholm a
couple of weeks ago and saw an absolutely
enormous cruise ship, huge, and we were told that
they needed a certain meterage in order for that boat
to come in.
Ms Llewellyn: Let me explain to you. It is not
necessarily the length of the quay, it is the ability to
secure the vessels. At the moment we are doing
studies in Holyhead, including simulations of
masters bringing in vessels. We have actually
managed to simulate bringing in the Queen Mary,
but she would have to go on the opposite side of the
berth to the present Anglesey Aluminium jetty. What
would be required is one dolphin so that the stern
lines can be secured away from the jetty, but
essentially the jetty which exists, with some
modification—improvements to fendering, bringing
up to scratch, if you like, the navigational channels
which in fact we are in the process of doing, and
probably one additional dolphin will actually secure
any size cruise vessel with the exception of the Oasis
of the Seas, which is the new 240,000 ship. Many of
the big cruise lines are working with us by giving us
all the profiles of their vessels’ depths so that we can
actually simulate those alongside at Holyhead.
Holyhead has very good potential to take any of the
cruise vessels that you have seen.
Q158 Hywel Williams: What is a dolphin?
Ms Llewellyn: A dolphin is basically a very large
piece of concrete which sits into the sea bed by which
the vessel’s lines are secured to it, so it does not mean
that her stern or her bow moves around. Basically,
that is what it is. You have already got one if you
look at Holyhead. There is a stern dolphin already in
place which would be able to take the big bulk ships,
but once you get over 300 metres then you will need
an additional dolphin to be built alongside.
Q159 Albert Owen: Just to continue on that theme of
additional investment required, do you feel that the
Government is doing enough, moving quickly
enough, so that we do not lose out on the potential
market?
Ms Llewellyn: Well, of course we lost a year really. If
we are really honest, Holyhead is the first port
probably in the UK which has worked totally as a
joint venture with Anglesey Aluminium, Stena as the
port, and the Welsh Assembly Government and the
Council. We work as a complete team and it is quite
clear that without Anglesey Aluminium’s cooperation in allowing us to build their berth we
could not have done this, because if we had started
from scratch you would have been talking of a
minimum of probably £40 million. If you look at the
most successful cruise ports in the UK, at the
moment the majority, if you think of Dover,
Harwich, Newcastle, are all government ports
because there is not the demand for profitability that
there is in private ports and therefore they are
allowed to reinvest any profits they make into the
Processed: 29-10-2009 19:51:07
Page Layout: COENEW [O]
PPSysB Job: 435922
Unit: PAG4
Welsh Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 35
30 June 2009 Ms Margaret Llewellyn and Mr Jon Pinnington
facilities they require. We suVer from that, if you like,
in Wales because with Stena being a private
company and with their core business not being
cruise, it is very diYcult for them to justify. The real
problem for cruise lines—and you have probably
learned this from your tour—is that once you get to
30 or 40 vessels a year then of course you justify the
sort of capital investment that is required, and once
it is made it lasts for 50–100 years, but it is getting to
that investment and you cannot get to that
investment other than by credibility. Of course, only
by us trialling diVerent sized vessels, learning how to
handle diVerent size passenger numbers, can we do
that and actually get the cruise lines to accept what
we are capable of doing, so that is our problem.
Q160 Albert Owen: I think I am going to come on to
that, but what I specifically need to know is, in
relation to the joint venture you talk about, the
majority of the money will be coming from the
public sector, coming via the Council or Assembly
grants to modify the jetty to make it adaptable for
these larger vessels?
Ms Llewellyn: That is right, yes. Basically it is one
dolphin, what they call Yokohama fenders, which
are just these rubber fenders, a gangway and just
improved dredging, and once that is done we can go
ahead. But we have had to be a bit cute in the way
that we do it because it is a private port and because
of the issues of state aid. What we intend to do is, the
American cruise lines have agreed that in other ports
in the world they have, if you like, a port
improvement tax—it can be a tax or a fee—whereby
they charge a price per passenger, which can be
levied so that that money can go back to the
government. So in fact essentially one would hope
that we will have suYcient passengers to pay back all
the money.
Q161 Albert Owen: Just on that point, do you think
Wales is currently attractive enough as a destination
within the EU, and do you have any figures for
advanced bookings over the next, say, three years?
Ms Llewellyn: Yes. We do not have the same image
as Scotland and Ireland and I think that is one of our
hardest issues. Part of the reason why I became
involved and International Business Wales became
involved was because we did not have an identity in
the cruise market, as other parts of Great Britain did,
and so this has taken time and really we are only into
our third year of that. Next year we have 10 vessels
booked for Holyhead and that will be our real
proving ground. That phase, which we call phase
two, where the largest vessel will be the Westerdam,
which will take 2,500 passengers, which we intend to
bring alongside, we will be judged in the industry by
how we do it. It is interesting that with those vessels
which have come to Holyhead in the past, such as
Princess, they found that 88% of all passengers took
tours, so it was very comforting to the lines. Many of
them took half-day tours and then in the afternoons
they would then go into town to visit the local area.
So the revenue earning potential of the cruise lines is
very great if we can get them to come, but it is going
to be for us to prove that we have the right oVering.
Q162 Albert Owen: On that point, you talked about
the potential for the spend ashore. We have heard
that with large cruise liners the average passenger
spend can be as much as £100 per visit. Have you
done proper studies into this and can you tell us who
would benefit, both in the locality but also generally?
Ms Llewellyn: There are various numbers thrown
out, and of course it depends on the quality of the
line, so we would say at the lower end, if you like, the
three-star vessels, you would be looking at about
£40–£45 per passenger spend, but if you go up to the
very top quality, for instance, next year we have the
Crystal Symphony coming in and she is a five-star
plus vessel and £100 could be the lower end because
they look for very specific tours on, for instance,
stately homes where they will pay a lot of money.
They will go for helicopter tours. So they are at the
high end of that. Then the other part of the economic
development, which is what often people forget, is
that the crew goes ashore and usually about half of
the crew numbers on each vessel will go ashore and
will shop. They look for their Tesco or their Aldi,
they like Argos—they were all in Argos when we did
the ship the other week—so there is this added value.
Then, of course, you can sophisticate it outwards
because if they will take stores, or food or drink, and
even water, I mean the Seven Seas Voyager
purchases water oV Anglesey Aluminium when she
calls, so there are a lot of economic benefits which are
not just the obvious just for passengers.
Q163 Albert Owen: Has there been a localised study
for these sorts of things?
Mr Pinnington: Yes, we did a study on the Princess
visit, I think it was two years ago now, and there was
a very wide variation from as little as £10 or £15, but
over the top to £120 to £130, so clearly there is a
willingness to spend. I think where it goes depends,
by and large, on whether we are talking about tours
which are pre-booked, possibly on board, possibly
even before the crew starts. I think the best revenue,
certainly for the immediate locality, is passengers
and there are increasing numbers of them who come
oV the ship without any pre-booked tour or idea of
what they want to do. They are looking for ideas, so
it is part of our local role to be on the dockside to
advise them where to shop, to put on local
excursions, even if it is just to South Stack, half a
mile or so up the road, to bring them back into the
town centre so that they will spend money there. I
think part of the development work which the
Council, with the Welsh Assembly Government,
needs to do over the next few years is to give retail
confidence in the locality so that increasing numbers
of crew and passengers will encourage local retailers
to diversify their stock. That, in turn, will create a
virtuous circle so there will be more spend on the
island. When Margaret talks about 10 ships being
booked, that is booked now. I think I am right in
Processed: 29-10-2009 19:51:07
Page Layout: COENEW [E]
PPSysB Job: 435922
Unit: PAG4
Ev 36 Welsh Affairs Committee: Evidence
30 June 2009 Ms Margaret Llewellyn and Mr Jon Pinnington
saying that the smaller ships do tend to book later,
so we could still find 14 or 15 ships booked in total
for Holyhead.
Ms Llewellyn: But the economic impact of those 10
ships is roughly about £800,000.
Mr Pinnington: We do, yes.
Q164 Albert Owen: On those figures finally, if I may,
you said 10 next year, there could be more, but do
you have any sort of advance projections beyond
that?
Ms Llewellyn: We have already got our first ship
booked for 2011 and we have two other indications.
Q169 Mrs James: I am very interested in looking at
developing the cruise market more widely in Wales
and you have talked quite extensively about
Holyhead, for example, but on a Wales basis what
do you think we need to do to enable cruise ships to
come, because there is a lot to oVer in South Wales
as well, in Swansea, my constituency?
Mr Pinnington: Yes.
Ms Llewellyn: There is, yes, and in fact I was a
stevedore on a cruise ship in Swansea, so I am very
partial to Swansea. Let me just explain to you that
whilst CardiV and Swansea are very attractive ports
for cruise lines, they have one problem and it is called
the lock and the fact that there are some cruise lines
which do not like entering locks because things can
go wrong, the ship can get damaged going into the
lock and there is a time element in it which they
would prefer not to do if they had the choice. Having
said that, I do believe that Swansea and CardiV do
have a place in the cruise business and in fact the new
SilverSea vessel which is a five-star plus vessel, the
Silver Spirit, will be going to CardiV in 2010 along
with The World, ResidenSea, and I have been in
discussions with Seabourn for them to go to
Swansea. I think it has to be a targeted market, it has
to be a certain size of vessel and we have to educate
them far more in their experience of what they are
going to see. With regard to Swansea, I think
Swansea in many ways could be marketed as a port
for CardiV as well because it is very easy to get to
CardiV and yet it is much easier in terms of steaming
to go into Swansea, it is an easier port to enter
marine-wise and also you can actually go in and out
tidally much easier. So we are hopeful that we will be
able to develop both ports, but you will only ever get,
I believe, probably about 10 calls a year, but 10 calls
in each of those ports would be excellent.
Mr Pinnington: Anglesey is leading on a European
funding bid under the INTERREG Programme
called Celtic Wave and there are six ports involved in
that, Swansea, Milford Haven and Anglesey on the
Welsh side and Cork, Waterford and Dublin on the
Irish side. The whole purpose of that Celtic Wave
project is to develop an Irish Sea brand to work
together, to co-operate, to market the whole of the
Irish Sea as one cultural experience, if you like, or a
number of cultural experiences within the overall
brand.
Q165 Albert Owen: That is how the market works, it
is usually two years in advance?
Ms Llewellyn: Yes, it is, 18 months in advance they
will start to indicate. If you like, what our
aspirations are, aspirationally by 2013 we would like
to see 30 ships per annum, and we do not think that
is too aspirational because at Clydeport in Greenock
they already do 30 and Dublin does over 70, so I
think we are not aiming too high.
Q166 Chairman: How does that compare with, say,
five years ago or 10 years ago?
Ms Llewellyn: Well, you see, the problem was that
when Princess came, in terms of passenger numbers,
Princess came and anchored in Holyhead and
provided the wind did not blow and they actually
came you enjoyed quite a good revenue five years
ago. But then when Liverpool built its berth and they
kept having to cancel their vessels, they decided they
would go to Liverpool instead, so all of the big
vessels which used to anchor in Holyhead have been
lost. It is now up to us to start to generate people’s
confidence to come back.
Mr Pinnington: There is no doubt that Liverpool
being the Capital of Culture in 2008 led to a lot of
cruise lines wanting to be part of that and to take
their cruise ships into Liverpool. I think it is also fair
to say that what cruise lines look for is variations in
their oVer, so I have no doubt at all—and certainly
it is part of the work which the Council does with
Cruise Wales to meet with cruise line representatives
in the sea trade conferences, which are sort of the
marriage bureaux of the destinations with the
lines—here is a huge interest in Holyhead from a
wide range of cruise lines, not just the more budget
end but the luxury end as well, and that is a market
we are very keen to tap into. I think the challenge
then is, if we do go up to 30 cruise lines a year, and
one thing that Anglesey and Wales is very good at at
the moment is giving them a really good onshore
welcome, possibly being met with a local choir, food
taster sessions, all sorts of things laid on, plus mobile
tourist information, and so on. That needs to
continue because I think that is part of our edge, the
quality of the welcome that we give, and that is a real
challenge if we go up from 10 to 30 ships a year.
Q167 Chairman: Do you have the support of your
Member of Parliament?
Q168 Albert Owen: Oh, I will come and welcome
them myself!
Mr Pinnington: You do indeed, yes.
Q170 Mrs James: Similar to the Baltic.
Mr Pinnington: Yes.
Ms Llewellyn: Exactly! We want to be the next
Baltic. That is our ambition.
Mr Pinnington: That is very exciting because we
have just had funding approval for that, so the
project is underway now and the next big marketing
event I think is called Seatrade Med but it is actually
being held in Hamburg—
Processed: 29-10-2009 19:51:07
Page Layout: COENEW [O]
PPSysB Job: 435922
Unit: PAG4
Welsh Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 37
30 June 2009 Ms Margaret Llewellyn and Mr Jon Pinnington
Ms Llewellyn: No, it is the northern one, Seatrade
North.
Mr Pinnington: I beg your pardon, Seatrade North,
in Hamburg in September/October.
Ms Llewellyn: September, yes.
Mr Pinnington: And the Celtic Wave project will be
there marketing the six ports and the Irish Sea
programme.
Q171 Mrs James: Well, the MP for Swansea East is
pretty happy to come along!
Ms Llewellyn: The good thing about that is that
Waterford, of course, is a similar size of port but an
established cruise port, so we hope they will share
their ideas and connections to help Swansea and
CardiV. If we touch on Milford, because we should
not forget Milford Haven, Milford Haven has the
potential, of course, to have an alongside berth, but
it will not be cheap. It will probably be the
Blackbridge site, as I see it, as part of a general cargo,
general user, in fact almost a new port within
Milford Haven, and the land is owned by
Pembrokeshire Council. It will be a big project
moving forward, but there is potential there to do it.
Q172 Mrs James: Just a few more questions. For the
record now, because obviously it will be very helpful
for us, what are the basic facilities you think all these
ports need? What size ships, what size vessels do you
think they can accommodate? There are diVerent
sizes of cruise ships. We obviously saw them in the
Baltics. I think it was the Emerald Isle we saw in
Stockholm and it was huge, 3,500 passengers. Could
we be that aspirational? We have already talked
about opportunities in Holyhead but really what are
the minimums and maximums? What sort of
resources do we need? What do we need to provide
these ships with?
Ms Llewellyn: In CardiV and Swansea you are
talking round about 25,000 tonnes, passenger
numbers about 750, you might get up to 950, but
that is the sort of size. Actually, to be honest, in
Swansea if you dress up one of the warehouses that
you have and you open up the gates into the new
SA1 area you have got a very nice operation for
relatively little spending actually, because the beauty
of Swansea as I see it in the long term is that the
cruise will be part of the regeneration of Swansea. If
you think about a walking tour from when they get
oV the ship around the Maritime Museum, and I
have been in discussions with the Council about
perhaps having shuttle buses with diVerent stops on
the way for them to be able to get into the area, I
think Swansea for the right type of market could be
very, very attractive. For instance, Seabourn are the
well-travelled, well-heeled end of the market and this
is something that we have done, to answer one of
Albert’s questions. Every time I see a line I ask them
to profile their market in terms of the age group and
the types of tours they like. If you have got young
people obviously they like to do cycle tours. What
we are trying to do as part of Cruise Wales and the
Celtic Wave is to work the tours to meet the market
of the diVerent lines. If you look at Seabourn, for
Swansea I think they are very suitable because half
of their passengers—you are only talking about
250–300—never take tours, they like to explore on
their own. Now, a place like Swansea has a lot to
oVer. We could create walking tours or shuttle bus
tours. So I think this is where we need to refine it
specifically for diVerent markets.
Mr Pinnington: If I can add to that, it is all about
thinking it through from the customer perspective.
So you imagine them coming down the gangplank
and once they are on dry land they are yours, as it
were. They need to be safe, so if they are looking for
their coaches for their booked tours, or whatever it
is—and with a large ship you might have 30 coaches
turning up—they have to find the right coaches, they
are leaving and they have to be, as I say, safe at all
times. The independent explorers (as they are known
in the trade), the people with no pre-booked
destination are coming oV looking for information.
I think there is research which shows that the average
age of cruise passengers is getting younger and
younger. Two or three years ago it was 49 and it is
now down to 46, so there is a diVerent mix in the
market that needs to be created, more activity tours,
diVerent interests in culture and heritage, and so on.
So there needs to be visitor information close at
hand, taxis for those who want to take taxis, car hire.
There is a range of provision that needs to be
onshore as well as oVshore and, as I say, it is
important to view it from the customer perspective
and, as always, to provide the right quality and meet
the customer expectations.
Q173 Mrs James: The SA is one way in particular
now leading straight into the city, so there is ample
opportunity for that.
Ms Llewellyn: Yes.
Q174 Hywel Williams: Can I ask you a little bit
about the partnership in Anglesey but also
throughout Wales. Firstly, just looking at the
funding, can you explain a little bit more about how
the funding works because you said that the
government-owned ports in England do not have
the same problems as private ports in Wales, so how
was that sorted?
Ms Llewellyn: It is really to do with trust ports and
in fact Milford Haven is a trust port, so if they only
made a profit, which they do not or they make very
little, but if they were a profitable port—I do not
know whether you know my background, but I was
Deputy Chairman of Dover and Dover, if you look
at it 30 years ago, was not a cruise port, so much of
the profit which was taken, if you like, from the ferry
business, when it was decided that we would develop
into cruise then we were able to use that money to
develop into the cruise business. Now, if you took it
as a commercial basis, of course you would not get
8% or 10% return on the capital investment. You
cannot, because when you are starting oV you do not
know how many vessels are going to come. So if you
are a quasi-government organisation you are much
Processed: 29-10-2009 19:51:07
Page Layout: COENEW [E]
PPSysB Job: 435922
Unit: PAG4
Ev 38 Welsh Affairs Committee: Evidence
30 June 2009 Ms Margaret Llewellyn and Mr Jon Pinnington
freer to do those things than you are if you are a
private organisation. For instance, Stena would not
do that in their own right and we are just very
fortunate in Holyhead that there is this berth. But to
be fair, Stena and Anglesey Aluminium are not
looking for a commercial return at all. At the
moment they are prepared to try and develop it, if
you like, for the community and it will not be really
until we get to about 30 vessels that they will see any
commercial return on the work they are doing. In
fact, I think at the moment it has probably cost
Anglesey Aluminium about £100,000 to actually do
what we are doing, but it is superb that they have
been prepared to work with us.
Q175 Hywel Williams: So it is that model of
partnership and looking to the longer term than
would usually be the case in commercial conditions?
Is that applicable elsewhere, say in Milford Haven or
in Swansea ?
Ms Llewellyn: Yes. I think you have a problem with
Milford Haven, I will be honest with you. I think it
is absolutely appalling that it does not make the sort
of returns it should make for the type of throughput
and tonnage that you do. If you only got it to give
you proper commercial returns, let me say to you
that I was on the board of Dover for nine years and
when I joined Dover we were sort of nice to the
community and we did not really make any profit,
but in time we became more commercially viable,
which actually benefits the community because
when you do that it allows you to invest and Dover
now has two big cruise terminals and this year I
think it has got 155 vessels. You would not have been
able to have done that without having the right
format of port to be profitable. There are issues, I
think, in Milford because it does not perform as it
should do as a port. It is not a secret. I am blunt
about it because I just think it is disgraceful. To give
you an idea, the LNG does not have any minimum
tonnage guarantees. How you can have a port of
that calibre with the sort of investment which has
gone on without any minimum tonnage guarantee is
beyond me. I just think that something needs to be
done. It has huge potential but it is not managed
correctly.
Q176 Albert Owen: The oral evidence and the
written evidence we have had from other witnesses
talk about the Welsh Assembly setting up a port
group within the Assembly. Do you think that is the
kind of vehicle which is needed to have a strategy for
the whole of Wales?
Ms Llewellyn: Yes. We are diVerent, actually, to the
Department for Transport, because I went to see
them and they do not have any port strategy. I said,
“Well, I’m sorry, but we have to have that in Wales
because it so happens that certain ships will not fit
into certain ports and certain cruise lines will not
come to those ports, so you cannot go in hope, which
is how you have approached it before, hoping that
somehow somebody will turn up just because we are
there.” That is not how it works and I am sure that
Matt will tell you that as a customer he does not
come to Wales as much as we would like him to
because the facilities have not been available for
him.
Q177 Albert Owen: Just on the port group, do you
think local authorities and Cruise Wales will have a
positive input or do you think the port operators will
dominate?
Ms Llewellyn: I think it depends on the port
operator, to be honest. We are hoping, actually, that
by showing the model of Holyhead and also by them
working with the Irish ports—because the Irish
ports are very supportive, they have been there and
done that 10 years ago, so we can learn a lot from
them. They can introduce us to the right lines. They
can show us how not to over-invest and overengineer facilities. I think this is an area where we
will learn by our Celtic Wave initiative and hopefully
it will teach some of the ports that working in
partnership is much more successful than trying to
take the line themselves.
Q178 Hywel Williams: In Caernarfon does the
partnership extend over the—
Ms Llewellyn: Yes, it does, and in fact we are hopeful
that the Hebridean Princess will be coming to
Caernarfon. There is this little berth which you have
and she does not want to go to Holyhead because
they are very high end, as you know, and they pay
about £8,000 for a week’s holiday and they have
asked and we have been in discussions with the
harbourmaster there, and hopefully she will then sail
on to Fishguard, Pembroke and then into Swansea.
So that is earmarked for next year as a Welsh cruise.
Normally, as you know, they are up in Scotland but
they are venturing down into Wales for one cruise.
Mr Pinnington: I would give a slightly diVerent
answer to that question in the sense that on the
marketing and fulfilment side now, in other words
the softer onshore side, it is very much Anglesey led.
We have the regional tourism partnership, tourism
partnership North Wales, who draw down money
from Visit Wales, the national body, and they put I
think it is on average about £30,000 into Anglesey to
support that side of the business. In terms of the
local authorities, we have been talking for some
years with Gwynedd and Conwy in particular, and
Snowdonia National Park, about having a greater
partnership operation. We are only just really
waking them up, I think it is fair to say.
Ms Llewellyn: They are not very good and they do
not really understand what the potential is. In fact I
oVered two weeks ago to actually sit down with them
to try and educate them, but so far we have not
managed to get a meeting. So anything you can do,
now that you have seen how other people operate,
because they have as much to benefit, as you
appreciate, than Anglesey.
Mr Pinnington: Just as an illustration of that, the last
cruise ship we had in, the Seven Seas Voyager, we
had, I think, 500 people come up. It was a fairly
small visit. Four coach tours left the dockside. One
went to Bodnant Gardens in Conwy, one went to
Processed: 29-10-2009 19:51:07
Page Layout: COENEW [O]
PPSysB Job: 435922
Unit: PAG4
Welsh Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 39
30 June 2009 Ms Margaret Llewellyn and Mr Jon Pinnington
Snowdonia, one went to Caernarfon Castle and one
went to Beaumaris, so in terms of Anglesey’s input
we got one out of four. I know we have local trade as
well and that is clearly very beneficial to us, but it
does spread the benefit much wider than just the
island of Anglesey.
Q179 Hywel Williams: I was concerned when you
said about Holyhead losing trade to Liverpool. Is
there anything in particular that attracted them to
Liverpool in the way that they provide a terminal
and facilities?
Ms Llewellyn: Well, it is the alongside berths. At the
end of the day, you know, the real issue is if you go
to anchorage—and Milford Haven has the same
issue—and the weather changes or if you have got
elderly passengers, there are always health and safety
risks of putting people into tenders. It is not an
attractive option. In fact, some of the newer cruise
ships, for instance the Independence of the Seas, do
not have tenders so they will never be able to come
to a port which is just an anchorage. When a vessel
is at anchorage the master or the mate has to stay on
the bridge for the whole time, all the crew are having
to work with the tender operations. It is a very
intensive operation, so if people have an option they
will choose to go in an alongside berth. As we also
say, Liverpool and Holyhead are so diVerent that
actually in terms of, if you like, an Irish Sea cruise
experience you can oVer both, as we say. Even if you
look at Pembroke, Swansea and CardiV, they are
very, very diVerent areas which we can sell in one
cruise actually. There was a ship last year, the Spirit
of Adventure—and she is doing it next year again—
that did a garden-themed cruise for gardens and
went all the way around Wales and Ireland. So these
are the sorts of areas we can look at for the future.
Q180 Hywel Williams: Is there anything about the
partnership in Liverpool, the way they have
developed alongside facilities, anything in particular
that we would want to learn from that for Wales?
Ms Llewellyn: Well, the council paid for the
investment from what I can understand. I do not
know about it, you can ask them, but I understand
that was the council. Yes, if Pembrokeshire Council
would like to build at Blackbridge in Milford Haven
then I am sure we would all be happy, but I do not
think they would be prepared to do that. I think they
are prepared to enter into a joint venture, even if it
would be an infrastructure fund, and the Milford
Haven Port Authority, but only as partners because
of the huge investment involved.
Mr Pinnington: I think we have to accept that the
cruise lines will want to see their brochures look
fresh, new and diVerent every year, so again to quote
an example, Princess Cruises were very, very good in
coming to Holyhead two, three years running, I
think with two or three ships a year, and then in 2008
they said, “We’re very sorry, we’re going to
Liverpool because it’s a special year, the Capital of
Culture,” but we know they will be back,
particularly if we have the alongside berth, and I
think that is the nature of the business and the nature
of the relationship which we as destinations need to
build up with the cruise representatives. It is a longterm relationship we need to have.
Q181 Chairman: You have had a number of very
enthusiastic questions and I am taking advantage of
the Chair here by asking you about Port Talbot and
its deep water harbour. We have heard about CardiV
and Swansea, but have you ever considered docking
at Port Talbot?
Ms Llewellyn: I have definitely considered it,
because of course it could take the Queen Mary, and
I have spoken to ABP about it because there is a layby berth in Port Talbot and of course people always
say, “Ah, but it’s an industrial port.” Well, so is
Anglesey Aluminium, although you do not see it and
actually, to be fair to Neath and Port Talbot Council,
they have always been very supportive and said that
they would even organise tours of the steel works.
The issue is, of course, that ABP, I think, are quite
reluctant to consider it. I have spoken to one of the
main board members, who happens to run
Southampton, and he has not said no to doing it. To
be quite honest, it would be the natural port to
develop if you were starting again in that area
because, of course, you can take any size vessel. That
is where we get the policy between the Port
Authority and the ambitions, if you like, of Wales.
Q182 Chairman: Could I thank you for that answer.
We will certainly write to ABP giving that evidence
you have just provided. I think it is an excellent idea
for you to think about tours of the steel works, but
also we have the beautiful Elan Valley and Margam
Country Park and we are actually nearer to the
Beacons then Swansea is.
Ms Llewellyn: Exactly. Actually, joking aside, eight
people went on a tour of Anglesey Aluminium at the
last tour and they loved it because they were pilots
for American airlines, so they flew aluminium
planes, so they wanted to see it, and they asked if
they could pay! Obviously it was done free of charge,
but it shows the potential in industrial heritage
tours.
Chairman: I would love to continue this dialogue,
but we have other witnesses. Could I thank you for
your written evidence and your oral evidence this
morning, and thank you for your vision and your
enthusiasm.
Witnesses: Mr Matt Grimes, Director, Planning, Ports and Logistics, Fred Olsen Cruises, and Mr Keith
Blundell, Head of Tourism, City of Liverpool, gave evidence.
Q183 Chairman: Welcome and good morning.
Could you introduce yourselves for the record,
please.
Mr Grimes: Certainly. My name is Matt Grimes and
I am Director of Planning, Ports and Logistics for
Fred Olsen Cruise Lines.
Processed: 29-10-2009 19:51:07
Page Layout: COENEW [E]
PPSysB Job: 435922
Unit: PAG4
Ev 40 Welsh Affairs Committee: Evidence
30 June 2009 Mr Matt Grimes and Mr Keith Blundell
Mr Blundell: I am Keith Blundell. I am the Head of
Tourism for Liverpool City Council.
Q184 Mark Williams: I would like to hear a bit more
from witnesses about the size of the UK market and
the potential for the growth in that market.
Certainly in the figures you supplied to the
Committee from 2007 to 2009—there is a tail-oV in
2010 so far as Liverpool is concerned, but they
nonetheless represent a really big growth in the
market both in terms of vessels and passengers and
the economic impact. Can you tell us a bit more
about the UK perspective, please?
Mr Grimes: Yes. Speaking for Olsen, we have grown
our capacity by 40% in the last 12 months, so we now
have 40% more lower berths than we did a year ago.
That is an unusually large growth in a short period of
time, but nonetheless over the last 10 years the cruise
industry in the UK has been growing at a very
healthy, strong rate, I think at around about 15% per
year. That growth is also true not only of the UK
market but also of our North American
counterparts, where we continue to see more new
ships launched every year and those new ships, of
course, are larger in size than the previous ships. So
cruising is a very strong growth sector of the travel
industry at present.
Mr Blundell: I have really very little to add to what
Matt has said. Using the annual survey which is
conducted by, amongst other things, the Shipping
Association, last year’s growth was somewhere in
the region of 23% between 2007 and 2008, so there is
a lot of growth and one of the things when we started
looking at this some nine years ago now is that we
can see the growth pattern had been established for
a number of years. You can also see from the cruise
line’s own data that customer satisfaction and repeat
visits are very, very high. So there was a very sort of
self-sustaining growth. We are obviously in diYcult
economic times at the moment. Notwithstanding
that, I think there will still be perhaps marginal
growth this year and the cruise industry is very, very
well placed for when we come out of this recession.
Q185 Mark Williams: Obviously your marketing
has been enhanced significantly, in the development
in Liverpool particularly, but is that also a reflection
on a more strategic approach to the development of
the kind of partnerships you will have heard in the
earlier evidence session in terms of public bodies and
the companies themselves working together to
develop the potential?
Mr Grimes: Yes, as a cruise line we would greatly
encourage a dialogue between all parties concerned,
particularly in the early stages with the cruise line. So
many times around the world we hear about a new
facility just after it has been built and we go and see
it and find they have spent far too much money on
the wrong things, facilities that we will not use to
their full potential, simply because we have no need
for them. So this is very encouraging to be invited
along today at the early stages to be able to put
forward the list of requirements needed.
Q186 Mark Williams: Where does that
responsibility lie for that early information?
Mr Grimes: It lies with the ports, I would say. We do
not have the resources as a company to investigate
every potential port that we might call to. We call to
something like 370 ports a year across the five ships
in the fleet, so we are hard pressed to service the
needs of the ports we are already calling at, let alone
research and develop in partnership with new
destinations.
Mr Blundell: I concur. That was one of the things we
tried to do, particularly with the lines which were
already calling to the Mersey, in particular with
Carnival UK. When we were at the early stages of
design we entered into consultation with them, either
directly or through our committed design teams to
make sure that all the building was fit for purpose
and adequate for what we were doing. Matt is
absolutely right. When one is considering any kind
of development it always pays to talk to the
customer and that was what we tried to do, and so
far it seems to have paid oV.
Q187 Albert Owen: What facilities do you think the
cruise terminal at Liverpool oVers visiting vessels?
You must have got something right to have the
numbers exceeding your expectation?
Mr Blundell: Well, it is actually relatively simple. It
is 250 metres of floating concrete with two
dolphins—and you now know what dolphins are,
and I did not know what dolphins were either—and
that extends to 350 metres with suYcient draft to
enable us to take the Queen Mary II, which was our
specification. We have a small passenger handling
facility which for the opening of that we got 200
people in there, but I think comfortably you would
want about 120, it is not very big, and the supporting
infrastructure in the river, so we have got a vehicle
link span and two pedestrian link spans, a relatively
simple but rather expensive piece of equipment. The
other keys to it are obviously having the right people
and having a decent range of shore excursions. It was
touched on in the earlier session that the range and
quality of the shore excursions is very, very
important to the cruise lines. They make a lot of
money from those, so the ability to have variety is
very attractive to them when they are making
decisions as to where they are going to deploy their
vessels. That is another one. I think the other thing
which tends to get forgotten and we, to be honest,
did not manage it particularly well in year one but we
have improved significantly this year, is the
supporting shore-side infrastructure. Where are you
going to put 50 coaches and how are you going to
manage the flow of 50 coaches in the middle of the
rush hour in a city the size of Liverpool, and things
like that. It was an interesting challenge last year, but
we have got over that for this year and next year.
Those are the physical things. I think it was touched
on again by Jon from Anglesey, the human factor
that then kicks in. We have got a very good team.
Angie Redhead is in my team as Cruise Manager and
has proved very good at building relationships,
building trust and reliability because we were on the
back foot. We had been talking about this thing for
Processed: 29-10-2009 19:51:07
Page Layout: COENEW [O]
PPSysB Job: 435922
Unit: PAG4
Welsh Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 41
30 June 2009 Mr Matt Grimes and Mr Keith Blundell
a long time and it eventually arrived in 2007, and we
had been really talking about it properly since 2005,
so people knew it was coming, so there is that issue
in terms of trust and confidence because you are
dealing with a small marketplace. Your customer
base is about 50 people, and the decision-makers
probably no more than 30, so you have got the
opportunity to build very strong relationships with
those people and that was important. Secondly,
Princess has been mentioned. We, through training
programmes and a general kind of local warmth and
friendliness, have been able to record extremely high
satisfaction scores. Princess are our biggest
customer. We were sixth in Europe on their customer
satisfaction ratings last year and we are targeting a
slight percentage increase in that for this year. The
other key influences are in terms of redeployment.
What did our passengers think of this port is
extremely important for the cruise lines. I think that
probably covers it.
Mr Blundell: I think it was a help. I think it was
probably more of a help in terms of the construction
phase and the deadline. We opened in September
2007. I think it was one of those things that the city
was conscious it had to have in place for 2008. I am
not convinced it was absolutely critical in terms of
the deployment decisions we got last year, although
obviously you have heard slightly diVerently from
Anglesey. We did not get that information from
Princess, it was more about the ability to come
alongside and the other oVer, but I am absolutely
certain that it provided a deadline for the
construction so it was important in that regard.
Q190 Albert Owen: A final question. You mentioned
a few challenges, the logistics of getting coaches, et
cetera. Has that been resolved? Secondly, something
we saw in Stockholm in particular. They were
building on the dockside tents, marquees and
everything for events and permanent structures. Is
that something you see developing in the future? You
mentioned people visiting the vessels, but when the
vessels are not there can that area be used for events
throughout the year?
Mr Blundell: Do you mean the pontoons?
Q188 Albert Owen: So those using the facility are
happy with it. What benefits has the surrounding
area got, because you had quite a wide partnership
in developing the new berth and obviously they did
not want to see people just shipped oV the quay or
people joining a vessel and coming oV a vessel. So
what has the benefit been in economic terms to the
surrounding area?
Mr Blundell: We estimate by the end of this year we
will have had about £40 million worth of gross
expenditure and that is based on passengers, crew
and spectators to the vessels. The majority of
funding came from the Regional Development
Agency and it came from the North West
Development Agency and we promote the facility as
the cruise gateway to the North West, so excursions
are oVered to the Lake District, Cheshire,
Manchester, Lancashire and North Wales. Chester
and North Wales is a very common excursion from
Liverpool. So we promote it on that basis to try and
maximise the revenue. It is always a balance. The line
would prefer to sell more excursions and have more
people coming ashore; the RDA would prefer to
have a lot of excursions going in the diVerent
regions. As the local authority, we would prefer to
have as many people as possible staying in the city,
so we have a balance, we have a tightrope to walk,
which we do reasonably well. What we are finding is
that because of the strength of what is available
locally we are getting a lot of half-day excursion
bookings and then people going back to the city in
the afternoon, so that keeps most people happy.
Q191 Albert Owen: No, I mean they actually have
purpose-built holding bays, if you like, for people
when they were coming oV the vessels in adverse
weather. When they saw these were such a success
they were using them for concerts and various
events.
Mr Blundell: But there are two things about where
we are. One is that we are located right up against the
pier head, so we are right in the city centre, so there
is a lot of that kind of thing right in the city anyway.
There is the Arena and all the other stuV. Secondly,
obviously the land values. We are attached to private
land by and large in the ownership of Peel Holdings
and the land values they are seeking to generate from
that development land do not really fit with those
kinds of uses. They are looking more at commercial,
residential, hotels, that kind of thing, so it is not
really something we would consider. What we have
been able to do—and again it was something we did
not really look for—is we have become a very
successful port of call for the Royal Navy and the
Navy are now talking about using Liverpool as a
base for major Naval events. There is an event in
October this year, Fly Navy 100, the centenary of the
Royal Navy starting to fly because, as they keep on
telling us, they were flying before the RAF. So that
is their big thing and they are coming to Liverpool to
do that.
Q189 Albert Owen: How important do you think the
City of Culture status was in getting the new berth?
Was that something that you were selling?
Mr Grimes: For us with predominantly British
passengers it did not feature in our itinerary
planning thought process. However, having
previously worked for American lines I can see that
that would have been a great pull for the foreign
passengers.
Q192 Albert Owen: Just on the challenges, you
mentioned, as I said, the logistics of getting coaches
in there. Were there any other problems you had to
overcome?
Mr Blundell: Yes. I do not know how familiar you all
are with the pier head area. We share the sort of
pontoon family, if you like, with the Isle of Man
Steam Packet Company, which runs a twice daily,
sometimes daily service to the Isle of Man, so we
have a bit of that and we have issues around
Processed: 29-10-2009 19:51:07
Page Layout: COENEW [E]
PPSysB Job: 435922
Unit: PAG4
Ev 42 Welsh Affairs Committee: Evidence
30 June 2009 Mr Matt Grimes and Mr Keith Blundell
TRANSEC and restricted areas, they shut bits down
and let bits oV and things like that, which we had to
work through last year and we have now got
solutions in place through negotiations with
TRANSEC where the cruise passengers are not
inconvenienced. I have mentioned the transport. We
have actually been pretty successful overall. I think
it has gone very well. Those are the key issues for us:
one, the land side and the shore side; two, actually
managing the spectators, the volume of spectators
and the demand for the Royal Navy visits was
something which, again outstripped ours and the
Navy’s expectations. The first time Ark Royal came
in we had 50,000 people come and look and 9,000 on
the ship. It is the most successful ever visit. Somehow
or other we kind of touched something in the Scouse
psyche and all these people appeared from nowhere
to try and get on the ship, so we had a little bit of ex
post facto event planning to deal with, which we have
now got in place as we are now heading towards the
end of our second—
Q193 Albert Owen: That is the ex-seafarer saying, “I
used to work on a liner, can I come in and look?”
Mr Blundell: Yes. If it was Ark Royal, you see, it was,
“My grandad was a welder at Laird’s,” and with
Cunard it is always, “My grandad was a steward,” or
a stoker. The Cunard vessels in particular tend to
drag them out. We had 60,000 for the opening event
and probably as many again on the Wirral side. I
think that is the other impact which you cannot
really put in writing, but the sort of demonstration
eVect, local confidence, that feeling of regeneration
really happening, as a symbol of regeneration. There
is a lot of extraordinary things have happened in
Liverpool in the last eight years, shopping centres,
arenas, this, that and the other, and actually just to
see the big white ships floating there is enormously
important to our local population. It is one of the
reasons why it is the City Council that is doing it.
Albert Owen: That is interesting. Thank you.
Q194 Mrs James: I have got two questions to go
through with you but my main question is on your
evidence about the key factors as to what you, as
cruise operators, consider essential and what should
form part of the cruise oVer. To what extent do you
think the Welsh ports can oVer these facilities?
Mr Grimes: Currently in terms of the alongside
facility, the actual physical tying up and securing of
the ship, very little. Ports like CardiV and Swansea
have adequate facilities once we can get into the port
but, as Margaret alluded to, because they are entered
through locks that brings with it certain
disadvantages, namely timing, as we can only enter
and leave at various states of the tide, and also the
weather. It is not unknown for ships to enter
successfully and then be stuck in port for a number
of days waiting for the weather to abate so that they
can leave again. Therefore, we approach locked
ports with some trepidation, almost as much as
tendered ports in fact, as we can not really rely on the
weather being right on the right day to execute the
call. I think if you look at the evidence I gave, I
quoted a figure of, I think, 53 calls to Dublin over a
five-year period and in the same amount of time we
called six times, I believe, to Wales. What that
demonstrates is that our ships are sailing right past
Wales on a regular basis and it is purely the lack of
facility that prevents us from calling.
Q195 Mrs James: You have talked about the tours
and obviously the range of tours available at the port
was very important. What I am not clear about is,
what is the travel distance? What is the maximum
travelling distance from that port that people are
prepared to take?
Mr Grimes: It is not uncommon for a full-day tour,
which will last between eight and 10 hours, to have
at least two hours of travelling either way. For
example, we operate a tour from Warnemunde in
Germany to Berlin and the transfer to Berlin is two
and a half hours each way. So clearly if the attraction
is strong enough passengers are more than happy to
make the journey. Typically, though, what works
best, as Keith has spoken about, is half-day tours
where a passenger can go oV at 8.39 in the morning,
come back to the ship for lunch—that is always very
important for a cruise passenger!—and then in the
afternoon they can wander ashore independently to
invariably buy souvenirs, or postcards, or just to
take in the local surroundings. So an ideal tour
would be four hours long with roughly half an hour
transfer each way.
Q196 Mrs James: The beauty of Wales obviously is
that within an hour or half an hour of any of our
ports you can be in very, very diVerent places. There
is an immediacy in Wales, we are quite compact and
there are lots of diVerent places you can go to.
Mr Grimes: Yes, certainly as a cruise line we
recognise Wales as being a “must see” destination. It
is just that we do not have the means to be able to get
the ships in there. That is the great shame.
Q197 Mrs James: The other thing you talked about
and Mr Blundell talked about quite eloquently was
the welcome and the farewell. My mother was a great
cruise fanatic and I remember going to
Southampton on several occasions to see oV her
cruise ships and there was a great excitement, with a
band playing and lots of streamers, et cetera. Why
are you talking about the welcome and the farewell?
What exactly does that entail?
Mr Grimes: You have to view the cruise experience
through the eyes of the passenger. For some cruisers
it is a once-in-a-lifetime holiday. It will be the only
time they walk down the gangway. We do not have
gangplanks any more, I hasten to add. So when you
step onto the shore you want it to be a memorable
occasion which will stay with you for ever. Now, that
can be something grand like a marching band or it
can be quite simply the town crier, for example,
shaking your hand and saying welcome. What
constitutes a great welcome is down to the individual
and we recognise that ports cannot sustain a
prolonged programme of providing marching bands
and a great hoorah and fire tugs and everything else,
Processed: 29-10-2009 19:51:07
Page Layout: COENEW [O]
PPSysB Job: 435922
Unit: PAG4
Welsh Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 43
30 June 2009 Mr Matt Grimes and Mr Keith Blundell
but often it can come down to the demeanour with
which the people ashore greet and farewell the
passengers.
Q198 Mrs James: But you consider those to be quite
essential and you would work with the local
authority and the tourism people?
Mr Grimes: Yes. I think from the passenger
perspective the most essential ingredient is that the
community in the port wants the cruise ships to
come, because if the community are not behind the
visiting cruise ship then you will not get the
spectators coming to the port, you will not get the
taxi drivers turning up, you will not have the street
vendors or street performers, people coming down
to chance their luck and try and sell something. So it
is really important that the communities are behind
these calls. I understand you went to Stockholm The
community does not need to be behind a call to
Stockholm because it is a major city and it is wellestablished, but if you are a burgeoning cruise port
which is trying to get oV the ground you really need
everyone in the vicinity to be behind it, not just the
port authority but the community themselves.
Mr Blundell: I would concur with that. One of the
things we put a great deal of eVort into—and again
partly it is down to the skills of the people we
recruited who have got a sort of resort management
background from the private sector—is we put
together not just the organised shore excursions but
for the passengers who come ashore on their own
there is always a range of bespoke oVers or
incentives. It does not have to be about the expense,
it could be about the bespoke experiences and
exclusive experiences so that there is that genuine
feeling from their point of view that Liverpool is
welcoming them, it is rolling out the red carpet, it is
making a special eVort. The businesses have been
extraordinarily supportive for the reasons we have
gone into in the previous session. These people do
spend and spend well, so we have been pushing at an
open door but it was down to us to co-ordinate that.
Q199 Hywel Williams: Just one question, I think to
Mr Grimes. You said that some ports had spend
money on matters they really did not need to spend
that money on things you told them you do not need.
What sorts of things were they putting in that were
not needed then?
Mr Grimes: I think there is a perception in some
areas of the world that if you want to attract a cruise
ship you need to build a terminal, and that is not the
case. In my written evidence I have made the
distinction between turnaround calls and transit
calls and the vast majority of our calls, of course, are
transit calls where we just come in for the day, the
customers go on tour, and we sail away again. In
order to achieve a facility for a transit call you
literally need to be able to tie the ship up securely but
you do not need a berth that is as long as the ship—
we all know about dolphins now—you just need a
safe means to secure the ship, and you do not need
any buildings or structures on the quayside. It is only
when you go down the road of turnarounds that you
really need to invest in some infrastructure in terms
of buildings and facilities. To put that into
perspective, here in the UK we really have two major
cruise ports in terms of turnaround, Southampton
and Dover, and whilst our company uses a great
number of smaller ports around the country they
represent a very tiny amount of turnarounds,
whereas most of the business in those other ports are
transit calls. So to chase after turnaround calls is
probably the wrong direction for Wales, it is the
visiting cruise ships, and I think, from my company’s
perspective, we would be most interested in that sort
of facility.
Q200 Hywel Williams: I thought that was what you
were going to say. In Holyhead, of course, there is a
terminal there which serves the Irish ferries. Is there
the potential for that being developed so that people
could board at Holyhead rather than just calling for
the day?
Mr Grimes: The port tells me so, but I have yet to
visit the facility. I would say that we operate from
Newcastle, though, from a ferry terminal and also
from Rosyth from a ferry terminal, so clearly there
is some potential there, but of course you need the
market living around the Holyhead area to draw on
to fill a ship of 400, 500, 600 passengers.
Q201 Mark Williams: I also want to ask you about
infrastructure and facilities and why in your
memorandum
you
had
highlighted
the
disproportionate number of calls in Wales as
opposed to the UK but you have talked about the
weather and the geography. I was going to ask you
who is responsible for that, but I will not go down
that line! But you did talk about—and again you
have just alluded to it—if there were facilities
available at the right cost you would be prepared to
look at both turnaround and transit visits in more
depth. Again, the question of responsibility for that.
What would be the stimulus in a Welsh context for
that to happen?
Mr Grimes: I will give you an actual example. ADP
CardiV approached me with a view to operating
turnarounds in their port, so I went up and we had
a look and a good chat. Currently, we do not believe
there is a suitable facility there, but clearly the onus
lies with the port to approach the cruise line, as
Holyhead have now done with respect to
turnarounds there. Fred Olsen believes there is
potential to operate a limited turnaround
programme in Wales—and by “limited“ I mean two
or three turnarounds a year—but we believe there is
a greater potential for transit calls exceeding that
number, perhaps five, six, seven calls a year across
our fleet.
Chairman: Could I thank you both for your evidence
today and your earlier written evidence. It has been
most illuminating and Wales will benefit enormously
Processed: 29-10-2009 19:51:07
Page Layout: COENEW [E]
PPSysB Job: 435922
Unit: PAG4
Ev 44 Welsh Affairs Committee: Evidence
30 June 2009 Mr Matt Grimes and Mr Keith Blundell
from your evidence, I hope, and we look forward to
including it in our final report. If you feel that we
have not covered any points—and I have said this to
all witnesses today—we would be very pleased to
receive a further memorandum from you. Thank
you very much.
Witnesses: Mr Paddy Walsh, UK Ports Manager, Irish Ferries, and Mr Tim Reardon, Chamber of Shipping,
representing Stena Line, gave evidence.
Q202 Chairman: Good morning and welcome to the
Welsh AVairs Committee. For the record, could you
introduce yourselves, please.
Mr Walsh: I am Paddy Walsh. I am the UK Ports
Manager for Irish Ferries responsible for our
operations in Holyhead and Pembroke Dock.
Mr Reardon: I am Tim Reardon. I am Passenger
Issues Manager at the Chamber of Shipping, the
trade association for the UK shipping industry. I am
here today on behalf of Stena Line.
Q203 Chairman: Mr Walsh, could I begin with you?
You mention in your evidence that “decisions made
by Governments can have a disproportionate
impact on trade”. Could you tell us how have
investments in links to and from the ports in West
Wales aVected trade patterns?
Mr Walsh: It was not specifically investments,
Chairman, it was more in the context of the changes
on 1 January 1993 when the full EU status was
achieved and the customs borders were removed.
That was a positive and beneficial impact for ports
in Wales. It enabled us to compete on more of a level
footing with the Northern Ireland ports which had
enjoyed the lion’s share of the business. Prior to that,
for reasons of expediency, border controls were such
that if there was no issue over terrorism, shall we say,
associated with the movement of vehicles, the
statistical side and the paperwork side was given
much more expediency than it would have been at
the ports. At the ports the statistical and revenue
checks and examination of vehicles would take
place, so it was common knowledge in the industry
that it was a faster clearance in transit time by the
Irish land boundary, so the decision made by UK
Government at the time, along with the rest of the
EU, to remove the borders was beneficial. I was
using that point to illustrate that if the common
travel area proposals are introduced they would be a
significant negative impact on business, particularly
to the Welsh ports, perhaps at the expense of traYc
going back via the Irish land boundary.
Chairman: Thank you for clarifying that.
Q204 Albert Owen: Stena, in your submission you
talked about security and that the policing of Welsh
ports is already very strong. What kinds of measures
are in place for the average passengers and vehicles
which they have to undergo at your port? You say it
is very strong. Do you think it is adequate, do you
think more can be done, or do you think it is of a
higher standard than many other ports or many
other areas of the United Kingdom?
Mr Reardon: The security array that exists, for
example, at Holyhead is certainly extensive and
there are several diVerent parts to it. Special Branch
of North Wales Police is there in strength, I think 55
oYcers based in the port with further oYcers
supporting them in headquarters in Colwyn Bay, 14
oYcers based at Fishguard and also covering
Pembroke in the south—a significant deployment,
much bigger, for example, than you would find on
the English Channel ports—supplemented by
deployment from the UK Border Agency.
Historically that has been a Customs intervention
rather than an immigration service. The two are now
being combined statutorily under the Borders Bill,
but they have got about 18 personnel, I believe,
based up in Anglesey with others coming in from
Manchester Airport and elsewhere for targeted
operations every now and again. On top of that you
have the port security staV who are employed by the
port as well, 40-odd up in Holyhead, and again that
is replicated down south, each looking at particular
diVerent areas of interest; Special Branch clearly
looking at counter-terrorist operations and seeing
who is coming to and from the Irish Republic. They
keep a monitoring brief over all traYc. Every time I
have passed through Holyhead there have been a
couple of policemen there keeping an eye. They have
full power, and occasionally exercise it, to require
those embarking or disembarking to complete a
landing card so that there is a record kept of when
they pass through. The UK Border Agency is there
doing its targeted anti-smuggling controls and
periodic passport controls and the port’s own
security personnel are there essentially to look after
the security of the site and the security of the ship.
Their role is to undertake random searches of
vehicles entering the terminal, passengers entering
the terminal—to act as a deterrent first of all, and
secondly to ensure that nothing is brought into the
terminal which could cause harm. All of those
deployments are subject to ongoing review. Clearly
it is up to the North Wales Police how many oYcers
they deem it appropriate to deploy to Holyhead, just
as it is up to the Constabulary in Fishguard to
determine how many are appropriate there. The
scale of the port’s own security presence is discussed
and agreed with the Department for Transport’s
Transport Security Division, and they make
frequent audit visits to the port to see that the port
is doing what it is supposed to do and that what it is
supposed to do is adequate to the task. It has never
been suggested that it is not.
Q205 Albert Owen: So you think yourself,
representing the port operators—and I will come to
Mr Walsh as a customer of the port in a minute—
that the balance between security and movement of
passengers and freight is about right?
Processed: 29-10-2009 19:51:07
Page Layout: COENEW [O]
PPSysB Job: 435922
Unit: PAG4
Welsh Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 45
Mr Paddy Walsh and Mr Tim Reardon
Mr Reardon: It works at the moment. Clearly, our
dream would be for the traYc to flow completely
unimpeded. That is not on the agenda at the
moment. We recognise it is not on the agenda and we
work with the agencies that are there to ensure that
what is there is not disruptive to the flow of traYc
and the customer experience.
Q206 Albert Owen: Mr Walsh, as a port user do you
think the balance is about right?
Mr Walsh: Yes, I would support what my colleague
Tim Reardon has said. You have to bear in mind that
the majority of people travelling through the Welsh
ports to and from Ireland are holidaymakers. As I
identified in my evidence, 61% of them are resident
in the UK, so they have already been viewed going
out of the country and they are coming back at the
end of their holidays and the CTA proposals as such
are quite draconian and they would propose to hold
up all cars on return.
Q207 Albert Owen: Look at the freight business as
well. There is a lot of freight going through the ports
and this is something that you have highlighted are
checked?
Mr Walsh: Yes.
Q208 Albert Owen: So do you feel that that is right?
We are coming on to the CTA shortly, but is there
other legislation at a European level or at a UK level
which you think is going in a direction which can
perhaps impede on the free movement of freight?
Mr Walsh: There is a wider context of e-borders,
which of course is currently being discussed, and
UKBA have made no secret of the fact that if CTA
is introduced then at some stage e-Borders would
roll in behind it for the Irish Sea, which would again
be a further detrimental impact on trade. Currently
the checks, as my colleague has said, seem to be
adequate and TRANSEC on the checks they have
done on the port are satisfied that we meet all the
requirements. We do a percentage of searches in the
cars and of the cabs of lorry drivers at a level dictated
by TRANSEC, a percentage level dictated by them
based on the threat level at that time.
Mr Reardon: Chairman, if I may follow up on that,
there is a statute on the books, section 33 of the
Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006,
which provides for ferry operators to be required to
provide information about freight carryings. That, if
it were ever exercised, would be significantly
disruptive to the flow of trucks through the port in
either direction. Fortunately, it is not being exercised
at the moment and the Home OYce shows no sign
of resuscitating it. If it ever were to be, then there
would be, as I say, significant disruption and a large
hoo-ha. Also, there are the checks which are
maintained by the Vehicle and Operator Services
Agency on the roadworthiness and loading of freight
vehicles. They are particularly interested in lorries
registered in the Irish Republic—and clearly there
are a lot of those coming through Welsh ports— and
they operate very intensive controls, at particular
times, on lorries discharging from ferries,
particularly at Holyhead, and that does cause
problems. It causes problems particularly in
Holyhead and on the A55; they have their big site at
Caergeiliog, as I am sure you know. There are
concerns, too, that the intensity of operations which
are undertaken there is greater than is undertaken on
competitor routes, so that is a concern.
Q209 Albert Owen: I am fully aware of that, but I am
also aware that there are more unroadworthy
vehicles coming through the port at Holyhead and a
percentage of those are stopped as well, so it is a
diYcult one to square.
Mr Reardon: It is. That is what VOSA say.
Q210 Albert Owen: Those are the oYcial statistics
that I have got which are passed on to the port
operator.
Mr Reardon: Indeed. The responsibility under
European law for ensuring the roadworthiness of
freight vehicles lies with the national authorities of
the country that registers them and that in this case
is the Irish Republic. We would prefer that the issue
was tackled at source rather than when it lands in
Wales.
Q211 Albert Owen: Just a final point on that. So you
agree that the European level would be better, if it
was done, rather than just down to individual ports?
Mr Reardon: Yes, indeed.
Q212 Mrs James: In your evidence you talked about
targeting smuggling operations and periodic border
controls, so obviously that would be concentrating
on Customs arrangements, et cetera. So have you
experienced any notable change in the Customs
arrangements and border control following the
establishment of the UK Border Agency?
Mr Reardon: I would say that changes are in the
pipeline. The most obvious and easily identifiable
one is that the UKBA is recruiting more staV. That
implies to us that that means they are going to be
doing more because they will have more resources
with which to do things. Whether they will operate a
fundamentally diVerent control I think depends very
largely on whether the Common Travel Area clause
which is currently in the Borders Bill is enacted or
not, because to do more than they do now or more
than they have historically done, changes to primary
law are required, so whether that happens is clearly
up to this building.
Q213 Mrs James: Where I was a bit confused was
that you were talking about targets and relying much
more on intelligence now than just stop and search,
for example?
Mr Reardon: Indeed. The Border Agency operates
through both means. Ferry operators at Welsh ports,
as elsewhere in the UK, provide the UKBA with
access to their manifest systems to provide them with
an information base on which to target or to identify
vehicles they would wish to look at. That is the way
some of the UKBA Customs work is done. They also
have the option, of course, to exercise professional
judgment and stop something on the nose, as it were.
Processed: 29-10-2009 19:51:07
Page Layout: COENEW [E]
PPSysB Job: 435922
Unit: PAG4
Ev 46 Welsh Affairs Committee: Evidence
Mr Paddy Walsh and Mr Tim Reardon
Mr Walsh: The UKBA have certainly increased their
presence at the ports and they have done specific
target exercises just to get a measure of what controls
would do to the operation and in one of the ports at
Pembroke it caused a significant delay and they had
to abandon their proposed level of checks at that
time. It was purely an exercise to test the temperature
of the water. I understand from my colleagues in
Stena Line they did a similar exercise in Fishguard
and this was the proposal to stop every vehicle and
check it. TraYc quickly backed up onto the ship.
One of the crucial things for ferry operators, and it is
in my evidence, is the turnaround time for the vessel.
There are only so many hours in the day and if the
ship is four hours at sea and two hours in port, if
those two hours in port become three hours in port
because of exercises by the authorities, then you lose
time in your schedule which you simply cannot
make up.
Q214 Mrs James: Just a last piece to this. How many
Customs oYcers are usually on duty in your ports?
Mr Walsh: It varies. As my colleague said, there is a
team which flows between Fishguard and Pembroke
Dock and there are approximately 18 people in that
team as I understand it currently, but in Holyhead
there are significantly more because obviously the
volume of traYc is significantly more. I think in my
colleague’s evidence it is something in the order of
about 60, is it, in the ports of Holyhead?
Mr Reardon: That is policemen. It is about 18 for
the UKBA.
Q215 Mark Williams: Just one little question about
specific checks on crew members. What
arrangements are in place there?
Mr Walsh: If we go back to the Passenger
Registration Directive which was introduced some
time ago on the basis of safety so that the authorities
had to know the names of all the passengers and the
crew members on board so that in the event of an
incident at sea casualties could be properly reported,
at that time procedures were put in place which really
just enforced the unoYcial arrangements in place for
us to share that information with the authorities and
we now provide a crew list for every sailing. We also
supply to the authorities dates of birth and other
such information as required. So there is a crew list
provided for every sailing.
Q216 Hywel Williams: You have already referred in
passing to the proposals for the Common Travel
Area and we were looking at the statement from DfT
and they said that they were going to work to ensure
that the reforms are practical and eVective and that
any negative impact on the public is minimal, but
you raise serious concerns about the potential
impact of the proposals, so what do you think the
additional cost would be if they were brought in?
Mr Walsh: There is a number of issues really but I
will just summarise the key issues for ourselves.
Firstly, there is port infrastructure costs to change
the layout of the port to suit the requirements. We
cannot put a figure on that yet because to date
UKBA have not told us exactly what is required.
The impact on vessel turnaround I have already
explained to the MP here and that has a significant
eVect. If that were to continue that would have a
serious detrimental eVect on our business. There is
also a disincentive to travel. People would be less
likely to travel if there were going to be significant
delays, particularly with the day trip market, and in
my colleague’s evidence we have mentioned the day
trip market on the southern corridor in particular.
There is also definitely the issue of loss of traYc to
the Northern Ireland route, and again I have given
information on that in my evidence. Finally, there is
a carrier liability fine of potentially £2,000, per
person, for every person who does not have proper
identification and that could be somebody
conceivably who left the UK two weeks ago on
holiday and has lost or mislaid their passport. So the
direct answer to your question is, I cannot specify
the cost at this moment in time because the picture
has not been made clear.
Q217 Hywel Williams: The DfT are saying that these
diYculties will be minimised. Are you aware of
discussions with DfT in order to minimise the
potential problems that you identify?
Mr Walsh: All we have been told so far is that the
checks will be risk-based and intelligence led. That is
quite a broad phrase which does not give us any
more information. They have also said that the
border controls will be random controls, so again, as
I put in my evidence, it is eVectively building a house
with only three walls. So if you wished to transit
from Ireland to the UK and you have got some
illegal purpose then clearly Northern Ireland would
be the way to go. It does leave the back door open,
that is my concern.
Mr Reardon: If I may, our concern about the risk of
immigration controls at Welsh ports stems from our
experience of them at English ports. If one takes, for
example, the port of Portsmouth, which has a traYc
profile which is not dissimilar from that at
Holyhead, it has not been unusual for tourist cars to
be kept waiting for up to an hour at the immigration
checkpoint on disembarkation from the ship and at
peak times passengers have been held up for up to
two hours simply to get to a passport checkpoint.
Clearly that is a significant disruption to the journey,
and if it is a day trip a significant disincentive to
making that journey. There are discussions going on
behind the scenes about what the Home OYce may
or may not be wanting to do. Significant concerns
were expressed in relation to their earlier
consultation document issued last summer that the
replication of the controls that currently exist at
English ports would be thoroughly unwelcome and
the Home OYce’s response document contained the
phrase which Mr Walsh referred to, that it would be
“risk-based, intelligence-led controls”. However, it
also said that every passenger would be required to
demonstrate their nationality and identity. If every
passenger is being required to do something, how
can it be a risk-based intelligence-led control? There
is a contradiction there within the Home OYce
proposals and our concern is that what the Home
Processed: 29-10-2009 19:51:07
Page Layout: COENEW [O]
PPSysB Job: 435922
Unit: PAG4
Welsh Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 47
Mr Paddy Walsh and Mr Tim Reardon
OYce is trying to do is find a form of words to
placate concerns without actually fundamentally
changing their plans.
Q218 Hywel Williams: That is interesting. I am a
regular traveller to Dublin mainly on both your
services. It is an informal and very convenient way
of getting over, but unfortunately I could not get on,
I think it was the Stena boat recently when the
Committee went to Dublin and I had to fly from
Manchester and when I flew from Manchester I had
to show my passport, of course, which is what you
were referring to. What would be the disincentive
then to people to show their passports when they go
on the boats? They do it when they go on planes, so
what is the big deal?
Mr Reardon: The disincentive is twofold that we see.
Firstly, the logistics of checking passports for people
travelling in groups in vehicles are very diVerent
from the logistics of checking a pedestrian’s passport
when he walks up to a desk and claims his
reservation or his boarding pass. That is a one-onone transaction and it is all about who the person is.
Where somebody is travelling as a family in a car or
as a tour party in a coach that operation logistically
is about moving the vehicle, and the reservation,
again, is centred on the vehicle, not around the
people within it. So adding a passport element for
each passenger of that vehicle to the transaction
would significantly extend the transaction time for
checking in the vehicle. So there is the potential to
create disruption and a choke on the flow of vehicles
through the terminal. The second element of
deterrent that we see is simply that some people who
do not currently have a passport will have to get one.
At £72 a pop that is a significant disincentive if you
are looking to travel. We are concerned that a
significant part of our customer base lives in a part
of the country where people do not readily have a
call for a passport. These are not people who are
going to go regularly to Stansted Airport at the end
of a working week and take a low-cost flight to
somewhere new. These are rural communities where
the most frequent, sometimes the only, international
journey undertaken will be to the Republic and they
have no need of a passport to get there now. We
would foresee that that significant cost impact could
deter people from travelling.
Q219 Hywel Williams: I have to say I took my
constituency oYce on a works outing to Dublin last
year. It was fantastically enjoyable, but it was the
informality and speed of getting through which was
one of the reasons why we went, apart from the
delights of Dublin itself.
Mr Reardon: Indeed, and those excursions to Dublin
will compete with trips to Liverpool, trips to
Manchester, and in order to remain competitive you
need to oVer something which people will want to
do, and clearly nobody wants to stand in a queue for
an hour.
Q220 Mrs James: You say in your paper that a
“proper assessment” of border control needs to be
conducted, so what type of assessment was
conducted in developing the CTA proposals? What
were its weaknesses and how do you think it should
have been undertaken?
Mr Reardon: To answer the first question, what
assessment was undertaken, I have to say I do not
know. The assessment which was undertaken was
undertaken by the Home OYce and I can only
deduce what they did from what they said in their
consultation document. The big weakness of the
consultation document is that it makes absolutely no
reference to the existing operations run by either the
Police or the historical Customs function. The
situation is presented as being an entirely open door
with no oYcial controls on it at all, and clearly that
is not the case. Secondly, there is an assumption that
the checking of a passport is necessarily a good and
useful thing. I do not think that is a case that has ever
been advanced or tested or scrutinised. What we
would like to see is a clear articulation of the risks,
security or otherwise, associated with travel across
the Irish Sea, a clear analysis of the existing array of
controls that are in place and the extent to which that
existing array addresses the risks that are seen and
then, if you like, a gap analysis to see if there is a gap,
what it is, how great it is and what would be the
appropriate way to address it, rather than simply
start from the preconception that passport checks
are necessarily a good thing and “because we do
them elsewhere around the UK let us do them in
Welsh ports as well”.
Chairman: Thank you very much for your evidence
today and for your earlier written evidence. As I said
to other witnesses, if you feel we have not covered
everything then we would be very pleased to receive
a further memorandum from you. Thank you very
much.
Processed: 29-10-2009 19:52:50
Page Layout: COENEW [SE]
PPSysB Job: 435922
Unit: PAG5
Ev 48 Welsh Affairs Committee: Evidence
Tuesday 7 July 2009
Members present
Dr Hywel Francis, in the Chair
Mrs Siân C James
Mr Martyn Jones
Alun Michael
Albert Owen
Hywel Williams
Mark Williams
Witnesses: Assistant Chief Constable Colette Paul, Protective Services, Detective Chief Inspector Andy JenksGilbert, Strategic Ports Lead, Wales Extremism and Counter Terrorism Unit, Association of Chief Police
OYcers Cymru; and Mr John Whyte, Director Central Region, UK Border Force, and Mr Bob Lyne,
Assistant Director for UK Border Force Central Region, Wales, UK Border Agency, gave evidence.
Q221 Chairman: Good morning and welcome to the
Welsh AVairs Committee and our inquiry into ports
in Wales. For the record could you please introduce
yourselves. Be aware that the acoustics are not very
good in this room so please enjoy projecting your
voices.
Mr Whyte: John Whyte, UK Border Agency.
Mr Lyne: Bob Lyne, UK Border Agency.
Assistant Chief Constable Paul: Colette Paul,
Assistant Chief Constable from South Wales.
Detective Chief Inspector Jenks-Gilbert: Detective
Chief Inspector Andy Jenks-Gilbert, WECTU
Strategic Ports Lead for Wales.
Q222 Chairman: Thank you very much for that.
Could I begin by asking you about the updated
National Security Strategy which was published
recently in which there was an increased focus on
maritime security as a result of emerging threats.
Much of this was focused on shipping and trade but
could you tell us about the scale of threat facing
Welsh ports and how does this vary across Wales?
Assistant Chief Constable Paul: The National
Security Strategy identifies that terrorists aspire to
attack our critical national infrastructure and are
always looking for new methods of attack, so there
is a large number of facilities at ports of national
significance. Terrorist groups have no single chain of
command. It is not a single organisation but a wider
network of aYliated groups, which makes it much
more diYcult to combat, and they only have to get
lucky once. However, we do not know what we do
not know is the truth of it as well. When you look at
some terrorist acts that have taken place in other
countries where there was no intelligence before, you
do not know what you do not know. I think that is
crucial to this debate. What I do know however is
that ourselves, SOCA, UKBA and other partners
are working very, very closely (i) to actually identify
the threats and (ii) to work together to mitigate
them. In terms of threat management we are
identifying them and working together.
Mr Whyte: From the UKBA perspective it is a quite
wide-ranging set of risks. We have illegal entry into
the UK, we have people traYcking, drugs
smuggling, drugs going one way, cash smuggling
coming the other, cigarette smuggling and road fuel,
so it is a very, very wide remit.
Q223 Chairman: Does this vary across Wales?
Mr Whyte: North Wales probably sees more of it I
think than South Wales but it can be anywhere.
Q224 Mr Martyn Jones: A recent report of the
Defence Select Committee entitled Defence
Contribution to UK National Security and Resilience
raised concerns regarding the level of resources
devoted to identifying threats to aspects of
important infrastructure, such as ports. The report
also raised concerns about the lack of strategic
oversight and ministerial accountability for
maritime security. Do you agree with the assessment
in that report?
Assistant Chief Constable Paul: The ACPO lead for
maritime issues is Chief Constable Hogan-Howe
and he did give evidence to that Committee and
ACC Donellan is obviously the national coordinator. I would say that strategically and
operationally it works well and has been tested in
operations and exercises that we have carried out.
Obviously in terms of ministerial oversight I think
that is for politicians to decide rather than police
oYcers.
Q225 Mr Martyn Jones: You could agree that we do
not have enough if you like.
Assistant Chief Constable Paul: I think that is a
matter for politicians.
Q226 Mr Martyn Jones: That was a very good
politician’s answer by the way! Has the UK Border
Agency anything to add?
Mr Whyte: I think in Wales we are actually seeing a
lot of co-operation and perhaps that report does not
reflect what we are seeing on the ground. Because of
its size we are actually able to do a lot more in terms
of working together than perhaps we can elsewhere.
Q227 Alun Michael: I wanted to ask a question
basically about co-operation between diVerent
authorities and I want to ask what may be a silly
question: how does TRANSEC operate?
Assistant Chief Constable Paul: I think we have
already said that the co-operation is very, very good
in Wales. We co-ordinate our activity very
thoroughly. TRANSEC do come to our meetings
and to our portal group meetings and contribute
across there.
Processed: 29-10-2009 19:52:50
Page Layout: COENEW [O]
PPSysB Job: 435922
Unit: PAG5
Welsh Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 49
7 July 2009 Assistant Chief Constable Colette Paul, Detective Chief Inspector Andy Jenks-Gilbert, Mr John Whyte
and Mr Bob Lyne
Alun Michael: Can you define it for me; it is just a
word.
Q228 Mr Martyn Jones: It is not even a word!
Assistant Chief Constable Paul: Basically they are
the security agency for transport for the Ministry of
Transport so they look at protecting ports and
making sure that ports and all of us work together in
terms of ensuring that ports are protected.
Q229 Alun Michael: What I realised as I started to
ask the question is that I am not absolutely certain
where they are located. Is this within the Department
for Transport? Are they an agency of the
Department for Transport? Are they separately
managed?
Assistant Chief Constable Paul: My understanding is
that they are within.
Mr Whyte: That is my understanding as well.
Q230 Alun Michael: So they are an internal part of
the Department?
Mr Whyte: The security arm of the Department of
Transport for aviation security to start with, with
MATRA agreements and maritime agreements.
Q231 Alun Michael: But they are not a separate
agency with separate accountability, they are
internal to the Department?
Assistant Chief Constable Paul: Yes.
Q232 Alun Michael: Thank you very much indeed
for that clarification. Coming to the actual cooperation what is the nature of the co-operation and
to what extent are there cross-Wales aspects of cooperation and to what extent is it just local?
Assistant Chief Constable Paul: I think we have a
unique situation in Wales. We have what we call the
Welsh Counter Terrorism Unit where all our Special
Branch ports oYcers and our Special Branch oYcers
across Wales are ringed-fenced and work together
very, very closely with our Welsh Counter Terrorism
Intelligence Unit.
Q233 Alun Michael: So these would be oYcers who
are part of each of the four forces but then brigaded
together as a team?
Assistant Chief Constable Paul: Absolutely, they
certainly are. You almost get the central tasking and
control but local delivery out to each of the forces,
which I think is essential. Then because we have that
sort of arrangement it means that we work very, very
closely with our partners, including all the
authorities. We run two portal groups but in
addition from the Welsh side of the business we have
a Holyhead local intelligence meeting where the
agencies come together, we have a Pembroke local
intelligence meeting and a CardiV Airport local
intelligence meeting. Some meet weekly, some meet
biweekly and some will meet every three weeks. We
have then got a regional border management group
and on that it has got all the key partners, SOCA,
UKBA, HMRC, WECTU, the Welsh Counter
Terrorism Unit for the ports, MCA and Strategic
Roads Policing as well. A lot of the partners from
across Wales come together in that. Then that links
directly into the national structure. That goes to the
Irish Sea Portal Group and the Bristol and Cardigan
Bay Portal Group, which links to the National
Seaport Commanders Group and then up to ACPO
Maritime. There is a real governance structure
around multi-agency working.
Q234 Alun Michael: Looking at it from the other end
of the telescope as it were, Mr Whyte, a few moments
ago when you were asked about whether activity and
threats are the same across the whole, you suggested
that there is more activity in North Wales, so how do
you within this integrated approach make sure that
for instance you are dealing with the diVerentials of
threat and experience?
Assistant Chief Constable Paul: Can I stress that I
would not say it is just North Wales. It is actually all
of the Welsh ports. By the fact that we co-ordinate
and task throughout Wales we can help support
each other.
Q235 Alun Michael: To be fair, I picked up merely
that there was perhaps a proportionate risk.
Mr Whyte: There is risk everywhere.
Assistant Chief Constable Paul: Absolutely.
Mr Lyne: The volume of traYc in Holyhead is the
greatest.
Mr Whyte: From a UKBA perspective we took the
deliberate decision to make Wales one command.
We had had criticism in the past because part of
South Wales used to link in with part of England and
there was no identity or definition and no way
actually for us to look at Wales as an entity or to
assess the risks, so it was a very, very upfront
decision that we took from the opportunity that
UKBA’s starting gave us. We believe that has
worked well because we attend all of the bodies that
Colette has mentioned but we attend with one
command, if you like. It may be diVerent people but
it all comes together under one person.
Q236 Alun Michael: So Collete’s description of the
way you link into the wider UK approach would
apply to the Border Agency as well, the link in North
Wales to Merseyside and South Wales to Bristol for
instance?
Mr Whyte: That is correct.
Q237 Alun Michael: That is helpful. Going back to
your helpful clarification about what TRANSEC is,
can I ask how they work with you at an operational
level? Is there a good understanding of the
description that you have both given of the way
you work?
Assistant Chief Constable Paul: ACPO actually
signed an MoU in 2008 with UKBA in terms of how
we operate together and then TRANSEC come in.
Basically they operate at all levels with us. They
come in at our Bristol and Cardigan Bay Portal
Group, they also come to the Irish Sea Portal Group
and they come to the National Seaport
Commanders Group, so there is a real connectivity
Processed: 29-10-2009 19:52:50
Page Layout: COENEW [E]
PPSysB Job: 435922
Unit: PAG5
Ev 50 Welsh Affairs Committee: Evidence
7 July 2009 Assistant Chief Constable Colette Paul, Detective Chief Inspector Andy Jenks-Gilbert, Mr John Whyte
and Mr Bob Lyne
with TRANSEC and we work very, very closely
together. They also come to our port security
committees which are run by the port facility
security oYcers. They come and inspect the ports
and inspect what we do just to make sure that the
security is appropriate. What they did report was a
good standard of compliance by Welsh facilities. The
European Commission conducted a positive security
inspection in Wales as well at Milford Haven.
TRANSEC are integral in terms of some of the
activity. What I would say is obviously they have got
limited resources too so they do support our
meetings but obviously they have got limited
resources.
Q238 Alun Michael: Just to be clear, these are
security experts within the Department as distinct
from generic civil servants?
Assistant Chief Constable Paul: They are absolutely
security experts, yes.
Q239 Alun Michael: What about the ways of
assessing risk? We have four police forces, we have
the Border Agency, we have a variety of other
players. Presumably they have diVerent in-house
methods of assessing risk. How do you deal with
those sorts of issues? What problems arise with that?
Assistant Chief Constable Paul: One of the things we
are working very closely to do is to come up with
joint risk assessments. It is not perfect at the moment
but that is what we are moving towards and it
certainly came out in the new strategy that ACPO
are looking at in terms of how we all work together.
In terms of our meetings we share risk on an
operational basis because obviously we are sharing
intelligence and sharing risk through our
operational meetings and that is, as I say, on a
weekly, bi-weekly and tri-weekly basis depending on
which local intelligence meeting that you go to. Our
long-term aim is to have joint risk assessments for all
of the ports. It is shared on an operational basis but
we have still got more work to do and we are doing
that.
Q240 Alun Michael: You referred specifically to
intelligence-sharing through these meetings. How
eVective are the current arrangements for
intelligence-sharing between the diVerent players? I
ask this against the background that we ended up
having to put a specific clause in the 1998 Act to tell
local authorities and the police that they could share
information for the purposes of preventing crime
and that does not seem to have reached all aspects of
all public bodies, if I can put it politely. Are your
intelligence-sharing arrangements sophisticated and
eVective?
Assistant Chief Constable Paul: I certainly think they
are. I will ask Andy to step in here because he chairs
some of the local intelligence meetings.
Detective Chief Inspector Jenks-Gilbert: I think the
structure that we have outlined before in terms of
local intelligence meetings is a massive leap forward
in terms of the co-operation and collaboration
between the agencies. That is right down at the
tactical level, so on a regular basis all the individuals
from the diVerent agencies meet and the intelligence
is shared and there is joint working. There are a
number of examples on a weekly basis where we are
doing things together overlapping the diVerent areas
of responsibility and working together with that.
The structure that is in place is eVective at the
moment. It certainly can be developed and at a
strategic level the border management group
meeting that we have mentioned feeds up into that
and so there is oversight of that as well. I am sure
Bob agrees that our view was practically to get it
working together and that is how it is done.
Mr Lyne: Because we are looking for something out
of profile. It does not matter which organisation will
benefit from it. We are looking for that clue. We do
not want to overlap and use our resources
duplicating eVort. We want to find something that
we are looking at which is out of a profile and then
go on and see what organisation is most interested in
the intelligence that we get.
Q241 Alun Michael: It sounds as if you are saying to
me that the intelligence-sharing is at the level of
commonsense that we would expect, but do not
always see, so would you regard this as a case study
in how to do things? It sounds to me that is how you
are describing it.
Mr Whyte: I think it is very practical. That would be
the word that I would use. Let me give some
examples on criminal cash. Taking criminal cash out
of circulation has a big impact, much more than
taking the product out, and there is lots of sharing of
intelligence and sharing of results because if
intelligence comes up and we do not have people
around we will share it with the police and vice versa,
to the detriment of the criminal.
Q242 Hywel Williams: You gave an account a
moment ago to Alun Michael of the sharing
arrangements and the links between all the diVerent
bodies. I am sure that is perfectly coherent and
understandable to you at least, if not to me, but then
there has been this idea of having a single national
policing body or a service. What is your response to
that sort of proposal?
Assistant Chief Constable Paul: ACPO are obviously
doing an awful lot of work at the moment around
active enhancement of our border policing response.
From the Welsh position I wrote a paper to ACC
Donellan and to ACPO Maritime about what we are
doing in Wales because we think we have got a very,
very good process and structure and that we cooperate very eVectively in Wales. We have submitted
that to that review. They are looking at nine key
areas to enhance border control and border policing
and border support to other agencies and I think
Wales has got a really good product to sell actually.
Mr Whyte: I would agree there. It depends how far
you go with this. Bringing the UK Border Agency
together which has three elements—part of the
Foreign OYce, part of HMRC and part of the Home
Processed: 29-10-2009 19:52:50
Page Layout: COENEW [O]
PPSysB Job: 435922
Unit: PAG5
Welsh Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 51
7 July 2009 Assistant Chief Constable Colette Paul, Detective Chief Inspector Andy Jenks-Gilbert, Mr John Whyte
and Mr Bob Lyne
OYce—has its problems. Trying to add a police
element into that if we are looking at a police-led
border force would be quite diYcult.
Q243 Hywel Williams: This idea was last floated last
year and it is a model that operates in other
European countries, is it not? Perhaps I should not
be asking you this, you might be asking me, what do
you feel is the political state of play on this as far as
the Home OYce is concerned?
Assistant Chief Constable Paul: If you were starting
from scratch you would probably create a very
diVerent service to what we have got at the moment
potentially. I think we have got very good
relationships now and we have built up working
relationships. I think we have a very, very good
structure and I think we can improve it through
active enhancement. In the lead up to the Olympics
anyway you would not want to be changing agencies
and swapping things around. We should be focusing
on business and focusing on delivering our
capability for the Olympics.
Q244 Hywel Williams: It is very reassuring that in
Wales it works.
Mr Whyte: The region I cover is the whole of central
England and I would have to say in terms of cooperation the comment was made earlier about
whether it was a model to follow. It is a working
model and on a practical level it delivers. We do not
see that everywhere across the regions.
Hywel Williams: Thank you.
Q245 Albert Owen: As a supplementary before I
move on, we were in the Baltic ports looking at their
arrangements there and there was a lot of connection
between what we call the coastguards as well. What
role do you see the coastguards playing and in the
future do you think they may need to be upgraded to
deal with certain issues of working in close
collaboration with yourselves?
Assistant Chief Constable Paul: I think the
coastguards are crucial and they certainly support
our multi-agency meetings and they are very, very
much involved. When you reduce those resources
obviously it does have impact. I think the
coastguards are very important.
Mr Lyne: We have an initiative that we are hoping to
launch some time in late autumn which is Operation
Coastwatch which is going to be basically gaining
intelligence. We are putting it out to small marinas
and wharfs and asking the general public and
trawlermen and anybody really working at ports to
use their eyes and noting to the Agency anything
that is suspicious. It is a completely joined-up
approach with the Coastguard and with local
councils in case somebody is going on to a beach and
just dumping litter. It could be anything really. It is
that total approach that we are looking to be joinedup on and it is jointly funded and we will launch it
some time in late autumn.
Q246 Albert Owen: Have there been any discussions
about merging them with the UK Border Agency
because what worries me is there is a downgrading of
the coastguards at the moment and there are lots of
small vessels, as you know, that they identify first.
Are there any discussions?
Mr Whyte: Only through the Coastwatch umbrella.
We recognise with the resource we have we cannot be
everywhere and with the coastline that Wales has we
need help and the Coastguard would be very much
part of that picture.
Q247 Albert Owen: It is just that in the Baltic
experience they took the lead on many of the
presentations that we went to and they were actually
armed and they were certainly a step up.
Mr Whyte: We have our own cutters. We have a
cutter on the Western approaches all the time and
there is good co-operation between the cutters and
the Royal Navy and with the Coastguard but a direct
conversation with HM Coastguard, no.
Q248 Albert Owen: Just moving to ACPO. You have
touched in an earlier answer to Mr Michael on the
roles of Special Branch. How are their activities coordinated in Wales?
Assistant Chief Constable Paul: It is co-ordinated
through the Welsh Counter Terrorism Unit. We have
our ports lead here who co-ordinates the activity
right across Wales. This is new. It does not happen
anywhere else in this way. I think that is a real credit
to Wales that they have pulled everything together
and a credit to the four Chief Constables that have
actually worked together and said that they will cooperate in that fashion. It operates through coordinating tasking meetings.
Q249 Albert Owen: I am aware of it in briefings that
I get in the port but for this Committee and for our
inquiry it is a coming together of the four forces and
it is about shared intelligence and, as you have
indicated, it is cross-border as well. One of the issues
which you raised in the written submission was
concerns about the fact that key performance
indicators only talk about dedicated work to the
terrorist agenda and there are many duties that
Special Branch oYcers have in the ports that are not
given the credit that you think they deserve. Could
you explain that a little?
Assistant Chief Constable Paul: Of course I can step
in and then, Andy, you can add as well. It is true that
we are now starting to collect KPIs on both CT
matters and other matters to allow for transparency
just around the funding, so we will be collecting them
on both. It is recognised that SB oYcers can do other
work but the ability to do so is limited obviously
because it now comes under the ACPO (TAM)
umbrella. However, what they have said they will do
is take into account a whole range of other
responsibilities. They have reassured me because I
had exactly the same thoughts and worries.
Processed: 29-10-2009 19:52:50
Page Layout: COENEW [E]
PPSysB Job: 435922
Unit: PAG5
Ev 52 Welsh Affairs Committee: Evidence
7 July 2009 Assistant Chief Constable Colette Paul, Detective Chief Inspector Andy Jenks-Gilbert, Mr John Whyte
and Mr Bob Lyne
Q250 Albert Owen: If you could explain what are
those other responsibilities. Mr Whyte talked about
immigrants coming through and those types of
things that are not recognised.
Assistant Chief Constable Paul: And serious
organised crime matters that come through the ports
and child abduction, Special Branch have a
requirement to be involved in those. There are other
matters where Special Branch are not involved and
there are things like general policing duties at ports
and also some of the protective security is not a
Special Branch role, so there are certain roles that
Special Branch do and certain ones they do not.
That means that it is a requirement for the force to
actually fulfil those other criteria around general
policing. When you look at the DSP funding
formula, they have reassured me and they have
said—
Q251 Albert Owen: The what, sorry?
Assistant Chief Constable Paul: The DSP funding
formula, for dedicated security posts, which actually
funds port policing in terms of the Special Branch
posts. Obviously that cannot be used for other
activities so there is all this funding that you have to
find for those other activities.
Q252 Albert Owen: Another question, and again it is
something that I have raised locally on behalf of the
Chief Constable and others, which is the balance
between local police and port policing. Where do
you prioritise? Obviously there is a limited resource.
I know this unit has been set up centrally that liaises
with the four police forces, but is there not a danger
that local communities who are having this extra
investment could lose it, to port security for
instance?
Detective Chief Inspector Jenks-Gilbert: I do not
think so personally because the dedicated security
funding, the CT grant, is eVectively ring-fenced
specifically on this occasion for ports and the Special
Branch security functions. So the contribution that
the Home OYce gives to ACPO (TAM) to give to the
police forces is ring-fenced for that and therefore our
staYng levels at ports are determined to some degree
by the funding and also by the risk obviously. It is a
separate issue to the police force. What we are doing
is saying this is the risk to this particular port or
Wales as a region, this is where we think our
resources come from, and that is where the dedicated
funding comes in which is separate to anything to do
with normal operation policing.
Q253 Albert Owen: I understand if from your
perspective but again from the local police
perspective they feel they are getting dragged into
the ports on many occasions. You mentioned the
additional responsibilities that Special Branch have.
Is there not a lot of pressure on local community
police now to be dragged into ports?
Assistant Chief Constable Paul: There are some
general policing requirements that do belong to the
four forces and that would be done by local
neighbourhood policing teams and it would be done
by the local police, and that is quite right, and that is
the way that it is actually structured anyway, so local
policing would do that. The dedicated resource goes
into the SB resources at ports so it does not come
away from local policing.
Q254 Albert Owen: Okay. One final point on the
security that the ports themselves provide, do you
work closely with them?
Assistant Chief Constable Paul: We certainly do,
absolutely.
Q255 Albert Owen: They are the ones that people
see, the uniforms that people see. Are they a
deterrent in any way?
Assistant Chief Constable Paul: We work very
closely again through our protection groups and the
portal groups and obviously we have good
relationships with the ports in both agencies actually.
Q256 Mark Williams: I was going to ask this later
but I think it is an appropriate time to ask. We had
some oral evidence from Pembrokeshire County
Council expressing concern about pressures on
policing in that area with the development of LNG
at Milford Haven. Is there anything specific you
would like to add to what you have just said?
Assistant Chief Constable Paul: I cannot
overestimate the importance of the concern about
capacity for Dafyd-Powys and therefore for Wales as
far as I am concerned because, as I said, the four
Welsh police forces work very closely together. DPP
is the largest force area in the country and I know
that members of your team have actually visited to
have a look at the area and look at the diVerent
threats and issues for Milford Haven. The force
cannot meet the target times. There are graded
criteria around threat and risk and you have to try
and meet it within a 10-minute period. This is a force
that is 170 miles from the west border to the east
border and it can take up to three and a half hours
to actually get that distance. 20 minutes is about the
average in terms of responding to incidents, so we
would not be able to meet those and that is a real
concern to the Chief Constable but to all of us in
Wales in terms of the Milford Haven site. The Chief
Constable has made it really clear that he does need
some extra support and help in terms of protective
security for this area. He has said that he needs a
dedicated armed response to actually assist there,
and that comes to about £700,000, but he has
emphasised that he needs a vessel as well in terms of
that area. That is probably nearer £1.5 million in
terms of training and a vessel. It is a lot of money.
Additionally, I wanted to raise that even if you do
that you still need all the CCTV, the ANPR, the
back-up support around strategic co-ordinating
centres, so there is a lot of back-up and support work
to actually support incidents that take place at ports
and elsewhere obviously throughout Wales.
Q257 Mark Williams: What response is he getting to
date to those requests?
Processed: 29-10-2009 19:52:50
Page Layout: COENEW [O]
PPSysB Job: 435922
Unit: PAG5
Welsh Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 53
7 July 2009 Assistant Chief Constable Colette Paul, Detective Chief Inspector Andy Jenks-Gilbert, Mr John Whyte
and Mr Bob Lyne
Assistant Chief Constable Paul: I would say very
limited.
Q258 Mark Williams: Predictable perhaps. Are there
discussions with the private sector that operate at
Milford Haven as to whether they would contribute
towards the need for added police in the area?
Assistant Chief Constable Paul: Obviously there are
lots of conversations going on around that. I know
that the Chief Constable is very, very keen because
he is concerned about the risk and threat to this
particular area and he is looking at whatever way he
can to get the resources to meet that threat.
Q259 Mark Williams: There are discussions going
on to that eVect?
Assistant Chief Constable Paul: Yes, conversations
going on, absolutely.
Q260 Mark Williams: What time-frame are they
working towards, is it endless?
Assistant Chief Constable Paul: I cannot give a
timeframe, no.
Q261 Mrs James: We have already taken some
evidence on the Common Travel Area and the issues
of risk-based intelligence-led security. The ferry and
port operators are concerned that in developing the
CTA proposals, little consideration has been taken
of the checks and security arrangements currently in
place at Welsh ports which they believe are robust
enough. How do you respond to this?
Mr Whyte: I think we would say that they are helpful
but they are not comprehensive enough. To target
and actually eVectively police the Common Travel
Area—it is not travellers from Ireland per se, it is
people from elsewhere coming through Ireland that
are abusing it—we need accurate manifest
information. We do not always get that at the
moment. Some of the checks perhaps could be
stronger that they are putting in place. eBorders will
give us this information when it comes in for
maritime and there is a dialogue that has now
started. There has been a dialogue going on for a
couple of years with the maritime industry but
because E-Borders was not commencing until 2010
it was not very intense, it is now winding up a bit. We
will look for the data as part of E-Borders so we will
be looking to gather that data whatever happens,
CTA or not.
Q262 Mrs James: Do you think that will help plug
the gaps because it was very unclear how the Home
OYce got this information about where the gaps
were, et cetera?
Mr Whyte: I do not understand about the gaps.
Q263 Mrs James: Very little has been done on the
evidence that we have taken to identify the gaps in
existing arrangements when developing the
proposals for the CTA. I was a little bit concerned
about that. How can you say what the gaps are if you
have not done the research on that?
Mr Whyte: There is lots of research that has gone on
and we have been in consultation with both ferry
operators for a number of years. Irish Ferries have
only just given us manifest information. That has
taken a long time to achieve. It is the accuracy of it.
The last thing we want to do is disrupt activity at the
port we need accurate information and the ability to
use that to target eVectively. The majority of
travellers will go through unencumbered. We will be
looking at the car details, we will be identifying the
car. We will not for CTA travellers be looking at
every passport or document but for those we
consider are abusing the system then we will. We
need anything that helps us to identify them, I do not
think we would be coming looking for CTA changes
if that information was there already and was
accurate enough and we could work on it. It is not at
the moment.
Assistant Chief Constable Paul: From an ACPO
perspective we broadly supported the enhanced
controls. We submitted our submission to the CTA
review and we did support that. In terms of the
eCrime side of it and the eBorders side, that will have
a knock-on impact in terms of the Police Service
having to respond to the alerts that you get from
eBorders. I see that as very positive because it means
that we are catching the right people in terms of
criminals coming through but obviously it is a
resource for each of the forces and that is something
that we are looking to plan for.
Q264 Mrs James: Just to recap slightly then, you are
very keen not to stop and search every vehicle. You
want to utilise other intelligence-led information
and make it as easy for the traveller as possible?
Mr Whyte: We invited all of the Welsh port
operators and carriers to a meeting on 19 June. Some
came, some did not, but we made it very clear to
those who attended that it is not our intention to
look at every passport. We have looked at the
logistics of the port. I have been up to Holyhead a
number of times, as Bob has, and if we were to look
at every passport they would not get oV the boat, we
know that, so there has to be a diVerent way. We have
had dialogue with the carriers and the port operators
to try and identify that. We gave them an assurance
on 19 June that we would not look at every passport.
To enable us to do that we have to have accurate
information about who is on board, the vehicles and
the people.
Mrs James: Thank you.
Q265 Albert Owen: To carry on that theme, you said
a little earlier that eBorders were coming in
regardless of the CTA and one of the concerns when
the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Bill was
going through that was raised in the House of Lords
was the fact that there could be displacement.
Criminals could basically be going through the
north and across into Scotland and if you had
eBorders, I presume you would have eBorders at
those locations, so the Common Travel Area could
produce its own problems as well?
Processed: 29-10-2009 19:52:50
Page Layout: COENEW [E]
PPSysB Job: 435922
Unit: PAG5
Ev 54 Welsh Affairs Committee: Evidence
7 July 2009 Assistant Chief Constable Colette Paul, Detective Chief Inspector Andy Jenks-Gilbert, Mr John Whyte
and Mr Bob Lyne
Mr Whyte: It may. Certainly there will not be
eBorders on a land border.
Q266 Albert Owen: Would you favour the whole of
the isle of Ireland coming under the CTA?
Mr Whyte: No, I would not. I think politically it
would be enormously diYcult.
Q267 Albert Owen: Should you not be looking at
security rather than the politics? Leave the politics to
the politicians. Displacement through Belfast is a
serious issue.
Mr Whyte: I appreciate that.
Q268 Albert Owen: It is not just about losing trade
because it could be slower; it is about criminals using
a diVerent avenue to get into the United Kingdom.
Mr Whyte: We recognise the land boundary. Do I
think it should be? I do not know whether it should
be or not. I think we have to deal with the situation
that we have. The police in Northern Ireland would
be set up to carry out various checks. Other parts of
the UK Border Agency, the immigration
enforcement side, would also be carrying out checks
legitimately for people who are in the country for the
wrong reason, so if they are entering the UK by a
diVerent route because it is open we would look to
police that and we would strengthen our controls on
that side as we go through. The Irish do immigration
checks on their side of the border at the moment and
have done for some time, so I do not see any problem
with us doing it in Northern Ireland for the traYc
going between the two but not at the border.
Q269 Albert Owen: I just need to push you, in your
written evidence you suggested an increase in the
number of people attempting to use Ireland as a
backdoor to the United Kingdom. What
methodology do you have to produce that
information?
Mr Whyte: We do not attend every sailing. At the
moment those sailings that we do attend we are
finding attempts to enter the UK illegally on
virtually every crossing that we go to. Our
impression—and it is an impression—is that this has
grown over the last few years. We believe with
eBorders it will grow even more because of the
controls that will place on other means of coming
into the UK. I say “impression” because we do not
keep the stats and we have not done because it was
a Common Travel Area in the past, but we have seen,
we believe, increased abuse over the last few years.
Q270 Albert Owen: But your co-operation with the
Irish authorities, you will have some data from them;
are they coming through small ports in Ireland are
they coming through major airports?
Mr Whyte: I think they are coming through major
airports. At the last meeting we had with the Irish we
spoke to them about a certain case and we asked
them why they let them in and with their legislation
they just could not stop them. I think they knew that
they were not coming to Ireland for two days and
were then going to return to wherever they had come
from. They were going to look at coming to the UK.
We are trying to gain that information as far as we
can. We are trying to get information on Eurolines
Coaches (which are a known method of entry) from
the Irish, and they are very helpful and very cooperative, but their legislation does not allow them
to send away people that they think may abuse the
system. They have to let them in if they have the right
paperwork and meet the right criteria.
Q271 Albert Owen: Should not the high politics be
to resolve that business so the Irish authorities deal
with that problem?
Mr Whyte: That is a diVerent country.
Q272 Albert Owen: I realise that but it is a common
problem and terrorism is international.
Mr Whyte: We are working with them and we are
trying to do something on common visas so that if
have individuals are coming either to Ireland or the
UK it is the same visa and they meet the same criteria
so, yes, there are things we can do, but our view is to
actually strengthen the border and stop this abuse of
the CTA we need to be certain that the legislation is
there, hence the BCI.
Q273 Albert Owen: I put it to you again that if this is
organised and there are people coming in via major
airports, if they know it is going to be tough at the
Welsh ports they are going to drift up to the north
and across into the UK in that way.
Mr Whyte: So we approach it in a diVerent way.
Q274 Albert Owen: But in a diVerent way. Would it
not be best to have a uniform way?
Mr Whyte: If it could be done, yes, but I have not
seen anything that leads me to believe that it can
be done.
Q275 Mrs James: Just on that point, we have had the
announcement yesterday that there is extra money
going to come into the French routes where there are
going to be much more stringent checks at play. Do
you think that it might spread out because we have
that displacement that my colleague from Anglesey
has just talked about and they will try other areas?
Mr Whyte: Certainly our fear is that as eBorders
grows then it will become a much more attractive
route to the UK if you are determined to get here
without following the normal procedure.
Chairman: Thank you very much for your evidence
this morning. I think that we have covered most
points. If you feel that we have not covered
everything then we would be very pleased to receive
a further memorandum. We are now going into
private session and we will break for two minutes.
Processed: 29-10-2009 19:57:40
Page Layout: COENEW [SO]
PPSysB Job: 435922
Unit: PAG6
Welsh Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 55
Tuesday 14 July 2009
Members present
Dr Hywel Francis, in the Chair
Nia GriYth
Alun Michael
Albert Owen
Hywel Williams
Witnesses: Paul Clark MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Transport, and Mr Robert Davies,
Policy Adviser, Ports Division, Department for Transport, gave evidence.
Q276 Chairman: Good morning and welcome today
to our inquiry on ports in Wales. For the record,
could you introduce yourselves, please.
Paul Clark: Good morning, Chairman. My name is
Paul Clark and I am the Parliamentary Under
Secretary of State at the Department for Transport.
Mr Davies: Robert Davies from the Department for
Transport, Ports Division.
Q277 Chairman: We would like to begin by
exploring the relationships between the Department
for Transport and the Welsh Assembly Government,
and this may sound rather a negative question, but
would it be the case that there is no strategy for the
development of ports in England and Wales, as such?
Paul Clark: Perhaps, in answering that, let me say
that there is a strategy for ports development, but it
is one where we believe that the development of
ports very much should be a free market-led
development, so that is the principal underlying
concern. However, having said that, we want to
make sure that ports operate in a safe manner, safe
clearly to users of the port, whether they be
employees, passengers or operators in terms of cargo
and so on and so forth, so that is underlying there,
and then, in terms of the environmental delivery of
the agenda which of course is critically important,
Chairman, for all ports within the United Kingdom,
to operate on the environmental agenda. Then, in
terms of, I think, the outset of your question which
was very much about the relationship between
Westminster and the Welsh Assembly Government,
I believe that there are good relationships there, and
indeed an example of that of course is that the
current Secretary of State, as Minister of State, on 13
May had one of the regular meetings with the
Deputy First Minister to discuss issues cross-border
in terms of road and rail, and there has been a
healthy dialogue, I believe, at ministerial level, as
indeed there is at oYcial level.
Q278 Hywel Williams: Good morning, Minister. It is
very reassuring to hear that there are good relations
with Wales. However, to get to the fundamental
point, the Wales Freight Strategy which the Welsh
Assembly Government has drawn up and says it
wants to develop, and an active ports policy, have
you squared that with your objectives? You
mentioned safety and environmental concerns, but
essentially a free market-led policy was what you
referred to earlier on. Is there any problem there?
Paul Clark: With the Ports Strategy that is there
currently on the stocks, let me say that my
understanding is that the Welsh Assembly
Government has broadly agreed with the principles
of that, and indeed there has been no active
campaigning to change in fact the goals of the
settlement and so on, the settlement arrangements
for devolution, on that issue. Having said that, we
have always had clear consultations at diVerent
levels in terms of the development of indeed that
strategy and of course you will be well aware that we
are developing clearly the National Ports Policy
Statement for ports and again there have been
regular meetings and so on to discuss that with our
Welsh counterparts. Having said that, I think what
we do agree in Westminster and in Wales is that what
of course is one of the fundamentally important
parts of developing and allowing ports to develop is
of course what is in the hinterland in terms of those
links inland, whether that be on road or whether that
be on rail, and indeed that is where of course a great
deal of work and consideration does go on in making
sure that we have those good links to make sure that
ports thrive and develop.
Q279 Hywel Williams: Some of those are developed
and some, I suppose, are not, so, when you think
about economic development, planning, transport
and those sorts of fundamental influences on the
development of Welsh ports, how do you and your
oYcials ensure that the Welsh context is taken into
consideration and how do you do your necessary
consultations in Wales with the Assembly
Government, but also perhaps otherwise as well?
Paul Clark: Well, I think through the mechanisms
that do exist in terms of, for example, as I say, at the
highest level, ministerial level, Secretaries of States
meeting to have those cross-border discussions and
recognising very clearly where there are devolved
issues, rightly so, as part of those arrangements with
the Welsh Assembly, and equally there are then those
issues which are clearly reserved and need to be
discussed, though still jointly, with ourselves and
representatives at the Welsh level. At oYcial level, as
I say, there are routine meetings that happen to
identify the work that needs to be done and that is
done routinely. Even so, I think the relationship at
oYcial level is indeed such that, even if an issue
arises, it is easy for people to identify their
counterpart and actually be able to have that
dialogue because of the general closeness that goes
on, so I think in that way, but equally there have been
Processed: 29-10-2009 19:57:40
Page Layout: COENEW [E]
PPSysB Job: 435922
Unit: PAG6
Ev 56 Welsh Affairs Committee: Evidence
14 July 2009 Paul Clark MP and Mr Robert Davies
a number of bodies set up to actually try and draw
together the cross-border working. We have
changed, for example, discussion in terms of rail
franchising and so on and there is now a requirement
with any rail franchise involving obviously services
that will go cross-border with Wales to make sure
that there is full discussion involved at that level, so
that is a change. In fact, there is a forum which has
been set up on cross-border issues with local
authorities, which again is another forum to make
sure that the views and involvement of Wales and
English regions on the border side actually do come
together to try and get a joined-up and constructive
dialogue going on common issues.
Q280 Hywel Williams: It is a slightly speculative
question, but, given the diVerence possibly, as I
identified earlier on, between your approach and
that of the Welsh Assembly Government, have there
been any instances, to your knowledge, of the Welsh
Assembly Government wanting to intervene before
breakfast, lunch and dinner, as it were, and putting
that to yourselves, and what was the outcome? Have
there been any such instances?
Paul Clark: I have not had any experience of that
happening. I would expect, hope and intend to
continue, as you will appreciate, I am four weeks
into the post, a constructive dialogue and a robust
dialogue with clearly colleagues in Wales. That is
obviously clearly at Member level, but equally with
my ministerial colleagues across the border. I am not
aware, but there will obviously be challenges ahead
and we will all want to deliver undoubtedly the best
for England, Wales, the United Kingdom plc and, in
my view, the issue about ports being viable and
thriving is important not only for local economies,
but certainly for regional economies as well and
indeed with national input as well. Again though,
Chair, thinking about at oYcial level whether there
have been those discussions, Robert might want to
add in terms of that question.
Mr Davies: If I may, Chairman. In terms of ports in
Wales having their say in the national policy, they are
of course very much part of the ports of the United
Kingdom and come under the UK-level ports policy.
You have heard from the British Ports Association,
who are one of two associations representing the
ports industry, the other being the UK Major Ports
Group of which ABP is a member, and ABP owns
several of the important industrial ports on the south
coast of Wales, so they have significant input
through those groups and we meet them very
regularly, the industry associations, and it is good to
know that the Welsh ports have now formed their
own forum which will make an input through that
route as well. I think, as the Minister says, from the
UK point of view, the emphasis of the Government
is on letting the industry and the market lead on the
development of ports. The shipping companies will
go where they want to and we cannot direct ships
into ports, but we recognise all the same that there
are local interests and regional interests in ports and,
therefore, a need to provide for their prosperity.
Q281 Nia GriYth: Obviously, you have hinted,
Minister, at the fact that it is really the private sector
that needs to be developing the links to the
infrastructure from the ports. We have been told that
in some other countries that does not necessarily
have to be the case and, therefore, that could be
putting the UK at a disadvantage. Do you really feel
that the current guidelines are enough of an
incentive? Also, could you address the issue of both
road and rail because we in South Wales have
certainly got a long industrial history where we have
had very good rail link supports, but some of those
have fallen into disuse or disrepair, and again is there
really enough incentive for these developers to
develop the necessary links for the ports to develop
both through road and rail links?
Paul Clark: What I said earlier on which, as a
Government, we believe is right is that we look at
investment in the hinterland support in terms of
good links, whether that is road or rail and indeed
through various facility grants of waterborne and so
on, more coast-to-coast movement and inlandwaterway movement wherever possible; this is also
about modal shift as well. I think that is where it is
important that the Government looks to see where
obviously those critical points are in terms of
bottlenecks because it is no good having a very
successful port with the best facilities in terms of
deep water or whatever it be for a given mode and
for given cargoes and so on if the customer then
cannot get it out from there because of bottlenecks
on the road or in the rail system or whatever.
Therefore, very much the work that we have done,
again jointly with the Welsh Assembly and so on in
terms of developing obviously the Utilisation
Strategy and the Welsh Utilisation Strategy, is
absolutely critical in identifying those hotspots and
those pinch points in terms of the major critical
routes to and from a given port. Now, we have,
through resources, and that may be through regional
funding allocations where it is cross-border and
equally obviously through Welsh resources, been
able to invest in some of that strategic network as
well. I do think obviously there is a role for, for
example, development contributions under section
106 of the 1980 Town and Country Planning Act to
be brought in to develop some of the infrastructure
and so on immediately around a given port or a
given facility, but I do think it is a role which, clearly
government-wise, then looks at those wider
requirements and that, I think, we have been doing.
One of the reasons I was indicating earlier the setting
up of the forum where the English local authorities
with cross-border issues actually have a dialogue is
because some of this may well fall on their RFA
funds that they have to decide as a priority at a
regional level, and it is about making sure that some
of that cross-work can actually happen and deliver
exactly what, I have no doubt you and I want to see,
is a robust structure that is there to support the
movement of goods and people to and from a
successful port.
Q282 Alun Michael: I want to unpick this a little bit
because I am a bit puzzled now. Mr Davies told us
that the Welsh ports come under the UK ports
Processed: 29-10-2009 19:57:40
Page Layout: COENEW [O]
PPSysB Job: 435922
Unit: PAG6
Welsh Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 57
14 July 2009 Paul Clark MP and Mr Robert Davies
policy, but in your first answer, Minister, you
eVectively agreed with the Chairman that there is not
an England and Wales ports policy and you said that
it is very much led by a free-market approach. Now,
if we set aside the issues of the environment, of
security and health and safety, which you did
specifically refer to, is there actually an England and
Wales ports policy and, if so, is it in a written-down
form that you could make available to us?
Paul Clark: Yes, the answer to that is I can make it
available to you most certainly. If we go back to
2000, we set out Modern Ports which set out that
regulatory framework for encouraging a continuing
market-led investment into our ports and it did set
out operating though in a safe and environmentally
responsible way, which was all laid out there in the
2000 Modern Ports document. As I say, broadly that
has been accepted by the Welsh Assembly
Government and there has been no pressure to
change the Devolution Settlement on that. We
conducted then a review of that policy over 2006/07
which led to a further statement, and again let me say
that in terms of the development of that part of that
review that process involved representatives from
the Welsh ports, it involved representatives of the
Welsh Assembly Government and other key
stakeholders, but that led to our expectation that
ports will continue to grow, albeit where we are
currently within the economic cycle, but they will
continue to grow over the next period, we will
commission revised forecasts every five years which
will be undertaken, we suggest using masterplans on
major ports and that is where we also talked about
introducing new guidelines for trust ports, so that is
very clearly laid out. In fact, I have a copy here of the
relevant document and I will make sure that that is
supplied to the Committee, Chairman.1
Q283 Alun Michael: That shows good forward
planning. The question though which I then come
back to is the fact that your evidence refers to the
importance of high-quality inland infrastructure for
the development of ports, and this is an issue which
has come up time and time again. For instance, the
Port of CardiV, which I know best, feeds into the
Midlands very considerably, so it depends on the
South Wales and the Midlands road network for its
continued economic success. Witnesses have told us
that a number of Welsh ports are less competitive
because of poor connectivity to provide those
transport infrastructures, as my colleague Nia
GriYth mentioned, both in terms of road and rail, so
what are you doing to improve this situation? What
does your plan, as originally set out for the ports and
any revisions that have been made to it, say to this
question of improving the links into the inland
infrastructure?
Paul Clark: A number of ports, I can think of, within
Wales have been successful in terms of developing
their strengths and so on. I could take Milford
Haven, for example, in terms of the development of
1
www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/shippingports/ports/portspolicyreview/
portspolicyreviewinterimreport
LNG and the support there in terms of energy and
there are other ports that have played to particularly
their strengths and that development—
Q284 Alun Michael: Forgive me, I understand that,
that ports are trying to play to their strengths and we
have a very segmented set of ports in Wales, but the
question I am coming to specifically is what the
Department for Transport’s strategy is within your
planning to link better into the internal
infrastructure of England and Wales?
Paul Clark: Well, in support of those developments,
to make sure that we are absolutely fully aware, both
the Welsh Assembly Government where it is a
devolved matter in terms of certain transport
provision and at the Westminster level where there
are reserved areas, for example, in terms of rail, to
actually be able to deliver and know where those
pinch points are, as I was indicating earlier, to be
able to address those issues. Now, obviously there
will be joint working, for example, between the
Highways Agency of England and the relevant
authorities within England and Wales to develop
and make sure that the strategic network is actually
up to scratch and meets the requirements, so clearly
there is joint working and so on going on and work
going on in terms of the M4 and the M48 and
obviously the Severn Bridge Crossings, for example.
Obviously, then there will be other roads which, like
anywhere else, are matters for a local or regional
level to actually be worked through as to what is
required in that way. Now, that may involve then
trying to develop obviously development
contributions, or it might be that it is a matter which
clearly comes from the pot of money that is within
Wales. In terms of railways, particularly on the
freight side, you are well aware that there are the
freight facility grants that are available and I believe
that we have made some £200 million, if I recall
correctly and I will check on the figures shortly,
actually available in terms of actually helping to
develop freight facilities where there is a demand
for them.
Q285 Alun Michael: But that is at the port itself.
Paul Clark: Absolutely.
Q286 Alun Michael: Whereas one of the issues is the
limitations on expanding both the transport of
people and the transport of freight on the rail service
generally.
Paul Clark: Well, I think, Chairman, the right
honourable Member will be well aware in terms of
investment in passenger services that obviously
developments that take place may be the other side
of the border, so investment in the West Coast Main
Line at some £8.9 billion, investments that are going
on in terms of Reading Station, investment leading
to an express programme of delivery and potential
electrification clearly can have major benefits for
many areas within the United Kingdom, none more
so than within Wales where some of those
developments I have already mentioned that are
being developed are already actually having eVect in
Processed: 29-10-2009 19:57:40
Page Layout: COENEW [E]
PPSysB Job: 435922
Unit: PAG6
Ev 58 Welsh Affairs Committee: Evidence
14 July 2009 Paul Clark MP and Mr Robert Davies
terms of additional services, more services, and
faster services to and from and so being able to link
up to many of the places that are of concern in Wales.
Q287 Alun Michael: Coming to roads for a moment,
how do you and your Department co-operate with
the Welsh Assembly Government and what is the
role of English regions in this policy? As you will
appreciate, Wales and the Welsh road network
borders on to three regions for whom economic
development obviously is a crucial issue there as
well. How do you deal with that?
Paul Clark: Well, one of the ways of doing it, and I
will deal with probably the more diYcult area, I
suppose, in terms of where you have got English
regions and clearly the joint work that needs to go on
on cross-border routes and partly because this then,
on the English side of the border, comes into the
regional funding allocations and, invariably, a need
for prioritisation to happen, is bringing together the
elements in terms of housing development,
development in terms of business and the economy
with a given region and the priorities that need to be
identified, and what might necessarily be a priority
in that region may not necessarily be the same
priority obviously the other side of the border.
Q288 Alun Michael: That is my point.
Paul Clark: Well, that was exactly why there was the
bringing together of the forum of English local
authorities with cross-border issues to actually be
able to try and do some of that working together.
Indeed, you can look at, I believe, if I am right in
terms of one of the areas I was reading about, the
A458 which is a classic example where there have
been issues and diVerences of opinion about the
importance of it. I think we are talking about some
£750,000 in terms of part of the provision, but that
has been agreed from the RFA, so we have found
that way through by that hard work and that joint
work that needs to go on. The business case which
needs to be built up for any road scheme or any
transport development, we have got that worked up
and I think actually we are waiting for the Welsh
Assembly Government to see if they now want to
proceed and so on to actually take this forward, so it
is possible to do, but it obviously takes work and
that joint commitment and that is why we set up that
forum. I have already mentioned, for example, our
strategic road network with the Highways Authority
working with Welsh counterparts clearly on those
critical routes.
Q289 Alun Michael: Perhaps I should ask you, other
than security, should ports generally remain a
reserved matter?
Paul Clark: Yes, I think that they should. Ports are
important, and you mentioned security-wise, to the
whole of the United Kingdom and in terms of
security issues—
Q290 Alun Michael: No, I said apart from the issue
of security.
Paul Clark: Sorry, I misheard what you said. Yes, I
think it is right that ports should remain a reserved
matter; they are part of our national infrastructure
as a maritime nation and indeed some 95% of all our
goods and so on come through the ports of the
United Kingdom, so they are pretty critical to us as
a nation.
Q291 Alun Michael: Well, what about port
development? Do you think that should remain a
reserved matter?
Paul Clark: Well, I think in terms of port
development and so on that these are matters which
obviously can be best taken on board in terms of the
local requirements and so on and the local demands
of being able to achieve that in a sensible way. As you
will appreciate, in terms of strategic developments
and major areas some of those will be aVected by the
new planning regime that is coming in. I do not
know whether there is anything else in terms of that
which Robert will want to add from an oYcial point
of view.
Mr Davies: I do not think so. The national planning
framework, obviously on grounds of equal
treatment of ports everywhere, will require it to be
handled at the national level, and it is the same with
environmental considerations, that fair treatment of
ports in diVerent parts of the country requires that.
Q292 Alun Michael: Mr Davies, perhaps it is a
slightly mischievous question, but, in view of the fact
that a free market is the Department’s preference for
planning, why not let the Welsh ports and the
Assembly plan their competition in any way they
like?
Mr Davies: I am not sure I understand what you
mean by “plan their competition”.
Q293 Alun Michael: Rather in the way that we plan
to play our rugby matches, I would think!
Paul Clark: Yes, I think you can plan, but you can
plan the development of the ports within Wales to
meet growing demand, and indeed I know that one
of those areas, looking at development in terms of
Cruise Wales and so on, is exactly one of those
examples of playing to the market, the market that
is out there, whether there is a chance for Wales at
particular areas to be able to get, if I may say, a slice
of the action, and certainly we would be supportive
of that anyway, but it is certainly an initiative that is
happening at a Welsh level.
Q294 Hywel Williams: Perhaps I could get on to the
cruise market. We have been very impressed, I think,
in our investigations so far of the developed cruise
market in other places, particularly in the Baltic, and
the potential for developing cruise markets on the
western side of Britain, but tourism is a devolved
matter and ports are not. Is there a fundamental
tension there and, if there is, how is it resolved? If
there is not, how do you work together in terms
specifically of tourism, and is there here a for
instance where there might be an interventionist
policy from the Assembly?
Processed: 29-10-2009 19:57:40
Page Layout: COENEW [O]
PPSysB Job: 435922
Unit: PAG6
Welsh Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 59
14 July 2009 Paul Clark MP and Mr Robert Davies
Paul Clark: Well, I am not aware of any tension at
all. I positively think it is right to be able to capitalise
on what is an important potential market there in
terms of coastal work, in terms of the short sea
cruises and so on demand there, and indeed I saw
some figures to say that the average age of a person
on a cruise has fallen now by some, I think, three or
four years, which actually means an even bigger
market than potentially is out there for all these
people that study the statistics and trends and so on.
I think it is absolutely critical to be able to try and
develop and capitalise on that market and certainly
we are supportive of that. You are right, it is a
devolved issue in terms of tourism, and certainly I
am well aware of the work that is going on to try and
identify through Cruise Wales the number of ships
that are there, the size of those, how you actually
plan, how you actually put into operation the
support mechanisms that are required for people if
they are just on call-in destinations, people staying
12 hours, all the logistics that are involved, so we are
very supportive in that way. Obviously, what will be
significant is the balance, that we get it right in how
can we help, I suppose, in terms of the security and
the issues there, that we get the balance right for
people coming to those ports and get the balance
right in terms of proportionality and practicality
along with risk assessment of the requirements in
terms of security issues around the operation of our
ports, whether it be in Wales, Dover or in Scotland.
Q295 Hywel Williams: Can I give you another for
instance then. As a North West Wales MP, I am
particularly interested in the development at
Holyhead because I think there that the potential for
the cruise market in North West Wales and North
Wales in general is enormous, but we have been told
repeatedly that further development is required in
Holyhead and elsewhere so that cruise ships can
come alongside and that tendering people in just is
not on these days. Furthermore, the cruise lines are,
I suppose, quite promiscuous in the way they
approach these matters, that they will go wherever
the facilities are available and they are not
particularly interested in developing the landside
facilities themselves, for obvious reasons. Our
witnesses have told us that they see investment on
the landside facilities as coming from the public
sector, and that is what we have been told repeatedly,
so how again does that square with UK policy, and
is there any danger here that the UK in general, not
just Wales and North West Wales, but that the UK
in general is missing out on the cruise market and
missing out on potential economic good, for those
reasons? I am sorry to be so long-winded.
Paul Clark: Let me say, I understand your particular
interest in Holyhead and I now know that Holyhead
is one of those ports that particularly could stand to
actually capitalise here because of the facilities that
it has already got, the deep water and so on and 24/
7 operation, yet there are the issues about boats
coming in, alongside berthing and so on. Now, I
understand that one of those things that is being
investigated at this very moment is the possibility
and the feasibility of creating alongside berthing. I
do not know what the outcome of that assessment is
going to be at this stage and what costs might be
involved and where that goes, but that needs to be
done first of all, but what is good is that actually that
work is being done to actually be able to make sure
that you can get the package right to make sure in
this case clearly that it is at the forefront in terms of
the cruise market. In terms of why there are other
issues there, this is a matter obviously which no
doubt is exercising, or could be an issue to exercise,
the DCMS, particularly on the tourism front where
I know they are looking at a number of issues across
tourism in England, and it is certainly a matter
which I will take on board from this Committee,
Chairman.
Q296 Hywel Williams: Just to get back to the
investment issue about tourism, looking at your
submission to us, and I have used the term that is
used, would the public investment in Holyhead
result in “competitive distortion” and, if so, who
would be aVected by that distortion? Would it be
other ports in Wales or other ports in the UK?
Paul Clark: As we have indicated earlier, we cannot
direct where ships will call and at which ports they
will call because they will go where clearly the
provision is there.
Q297 Hywel Williams: So, if the provision is there,
they will go there and, if it is not, they will not.
Paul Clark: But, equally, let us be honest, geography
is critically important as well and it is something that
we cannot change with investment, so, if it is
geographically in the right place, and indeed
Holyhead could well be in the right place, that will
be a factor and, therefore, there will actually be joint
work at public and private level and genuine
partnership which actually might be able to find the
solution to the issues which Cruise Wales, for
example, is taking forward in establishing what
issues are involved here to be able to deliver that
good package and then looking at how we actually
might need to do that, whether it is through all
public investment or through a combination and
how we do that. I think that is the genuine way
forward.
Q298 Hywel Williams: May I just press you on this
point, therefore. If we have a potential cruising
market in North Wales, which would be greatly
developed by having cruise ships calling, and, if the
cruise ships are interested, but will not call because
the alongside facilities are not there, if that vital piece
of the jigsaw is missing and can only be provided by
public investment, then tell us what you think
about that.
Paul Clark: Tourism of course, as you rightly said at
the beginning, is a devolved matter, a matter for the
Welsh Assembly Government. If there are matters
that are about access to and from which cover clearly
strategic routes and so on, then that could well be an
issue that is not a devolved issue and becomes an
issue for Westminster, but I do say to you that
tourism per se is actually a devolved matter for the
Welsh Assembly Government and will be a matter
Processed: 29-10-2009 19:57:40
Page Layout: COENEW [E]
PPSysB Job: 435922
Unit: PAG6
Ev 60 Welsh Affairs Committee: Evidence
14 July 2009 Paul Clark MP and Mr Robert Davies
that they will take on board, but it partly depends on
what is the small bit that is missing in terms of where
it falls and what dialogue can be had with both the
Welsh Assembly Government and the Westminster
Government and the private sector as well.
Q299 Hywel Williams: Can I ask you, Mr Davies,
therefore, have there been discussions with the Welsh
Assembly Government on this particular issue?
Mr Davies: Yes. In fact, we visited Holyhead a few
weeks ago and met the port and Members of the
Welsh Assembly and we were looking at the
potential and the facilities and we have a discussion
going on at the moment about the appropriate ways
forward. We understand that they are planning to
put together a business proposal which is something
we shall have to discuss. Clearly, the cruise market is
an extremely interesting one and there are complex
issues of competition because in some cases, if you
do something at one port, it actually helps another,
but in other cases, if you do something at one port,
it can divert the traYc from another, so it is quite
complex, but we will be looking with the Welsh
Assembly at the proposals they come up with for
Holyhead.
Chairman: Perhaps we can now turn finally to port
security.
Q300 Nia GriYth: When we heard from the
Association of Chief Police OYcers in Wales, they
then talked about a very good level of co-operation
on an operational basis, but they did highlight the
fact that the diVerent authorities involved in port
security use diVerent ways for assessing risk. I
wondered whether you have looked in any way at
this, and would you agree with their view that they
need to take a more joined-up approach and, if so,
how would you see the Department perhaps
facilitating that?
Paul Clark: Let me say at the outset, and I have
already alluded to it in terms of the security measures
that we need to take, that we need to be
proportionate to the assessed risk or the security
threat that there is and we need to get that right for
the travelling public so that they are protected and
yet not inconvenienced unnecessarily, and also
whether you do it through protection or through
deterrence or it is about detection against
prevention, so it is getting those balances right. You
are absolutely right in terms of the policing of the
ports in Wales, that it is undertaken by local police
forces and there is not a dedicated service to the
ports, it is as and when required, though of course
there would be support required through various
other agencies and indeed through, for example,
Special Branch as and when required in those needs,
but we are talking about the general day-to-day.
Obviously transport security inspectors run a
routine of regular inspections of all ports, including
ports in Wales to make sure that there are measures
in place; that there are procedures that are there to
deal with incidents when required and that the
resources are there equally as well to deliver the
security issues. It is absolutely true that there is not
a uniformity of a risk assessment system that is used
in each and every port in terms of security issues.
Indeed, if I am right, I do not think that there is even
within individual police forces. Is that an issue? I
think if we have a system that is actually delivering
the security and the measures in a proportionate
balance then there may not necessarily be anything
to be achieved through harmonisation. However, it
will not surprise the Members, Chairman, that
obviously these matters are always kept under
review and in discussions with those practically
delivering in our ports or wherever it may be. I do
believe that a number of the ports do operate a
system which is called Multi Agency Threat and
Risk Assessment, but you are absolutely correct that
it is not uniform. I think at this stage keeping it under
review through the relevant agencies is probably the
right way forward. As I say, I am not certain that
harmonisation will bring in a greater resource than
we actually have currently under the system.
Q301 Nia GriYth: Can I move to explore the issue of
if what we are doing is appropriate with the rationale
that obviously the Government wishes to try to have
tighter border controls, particularly within the
Common Travel Area, how do you see the real
problem issues there; what are the problem issues;
what needs to be done and do we have the resources
to do it?
Paul Clark: In terms of the Common Travel Area I
think the provisions that we can see are about again
judging what are the issues that we have to deal with
and how do we deal with those in a proportionate
manner? We are concerned about making sure that
any provisions that do come through the Bill that is
currently in Parliament are actually introduced in a
way that bring minimum disruption to all
concerned, all users, and yet making sure that the
security and the checks are those required. I do know
that—and as indeed we were just talking about
Holyhead and two of the organisations particularly
involved, Stena and Irish Ferries, have some
concerns about resources that may well need to be
involved and whether there are going to be the
provisions there to be able to deliver on these
requirements. That is why, in a sense, anything that
comes through in terms of the Common Travel Area
is work in progress and will be work that we will do
in conjunction with the critical players. I know that
the Welsh Assembly Government, for example,
Chairman, have a concern about facilities that
would physically need to be required for holding
repatriation and so on, and those are currently being
discussed with the UK Border Agency as we meet
here today about how would you be able to deliver
in those ways. My best answer to you is that there are
a number of issues to which we are sensitive; that we
recognise are practical day-to-day issues that have to
be worked through, and yet the security issue we
have to deal with is constituents and businesses
within these areas, constituents using these ports and
so on want to feel safe and secure in a proportionate
way. But there are diYculties to be overcome and
Processed: 29-10-2009 19:57:40
Page Layout: COENEW [O]
PPSysB Job: 435922
Unit: PAG6
Welsh Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 61
14 July 2009 Paul Clark MP and Mr Robert Davies
there is no dispute about that, but that is about
having the dialogue to make sure that we minimise
that disruption and that we minimise those
problems.
Q302 Albert Owen: If I could just push you on that.
The Welsh ports will obviously be aVected directly
with the Common Travel Area and what is
concerning the companies you spoke about and
indeed in South Wales as well is the fact that some of
this traYc may be displaced through Stranraer if the
Common Travel Area applies to the Welsh ports but
not to the Scottish ports. Would you have any input
in that with the Border Agency or other agencies?
Paul Clark: I am sure that there will have been
discussions on that. I do not think I can respond to
specifics about that and I do not know whether
Robert is aware; but I would certainly like to clarify
that. There would and have been some discussions
because there will be implications then of resources
required and so that planning is absolutely critical
that you get it right; so I am sure it would have been
taken into account but I can certainly write to clarify.
Albert Owen: I appreciate that.
Chairman: One final point in relation to Mr Davies’
comment about fairness between the ports. If you
look at the jetty development at Holyhead for
alongside cruise ships, if that development had an
adverse eVect on Liverpool, how would you define
fairness there—would you side with Holyhead or
Liverpool?
Q303 Albert Owen: That is Holyhead every time!
Paul Clark: Chairman, I want to see a thriving ports
operation within the United Kingdom, which is
good for local, regional and national facilities. So I
want to make sure that whatever port it is thrives and
delivers the services that are wanted by the people of
this country and the businesses of this country.
Chairman: Thank you for your diplomatic answer
and thank you for your evidence this morning and
also for your earlier memorandum which was
extremely helpful in preparing for today’s session.
Witnesses: Mr Ieuan Wyn Jones AM, Deputy First Minister and Welsh Assembly Government Minister for
the Economy and Transport, Mr James Price, Director Transport and Strategic Regeneration, Mr Keith
Thomas, International Connectivity Manager, and Mr Tim James, Director Integrated Public Transport,
Welsh Assembly Government, gave evidence.
Q304 Chairman: Bore da and welcome to the Welsh
AVairs Committee and to our inquiry into ports in
Wales. For the record, could you please introduce
yourself?
Mr Wyn Jones: Bore da. My name is Ieuan Wyn
Jones; I am the Deputy First Minister and for this
purpose today perhaps more importantly the
Minister for the Economy and Transport. To my left
is James Price, who is the Director of Transport and
Regeneration. To his left is Keith Thomas who is
charge of Transport Connectivity; and to my right is
Tim James, who is in charge of Integrated Transport
for the Welsh Assembly Government.
Q305 Albert Owen: Ports, as you know, are a
reserved matter and the majority of policies are
actually devolved. For the purpose of this inquiry,
could you tell us how do you work with the
Department for Transport on port issues and are you
satisfied with the level of consultation between the
Welsh Assembly Government and the Department
for Transport on port issues?
Mr Wyn Jones: Can I first of all say that I have not
actually had any ministerial meetings with ministers
from the Department for Transport on port issues. I
know that Keith has had a number of meetings with
his counterparts in the Department for Transport
and I will ask him in a minute to explain how they
work at an oYcial level. But, yes, ports are a very
important part of the economy. It is not a devolved
issue but obviously there are a number of issues
which are very important to us. I just heard the tail
end of the evidence, for example, about the cruise
ship market; there is obviously the freight market
and therefore we need to have conversations around
freight, and obviously increasing commercial traYc
through any of our ports in Wales. So there is a lot
of discussion going on. What we are trying to do here
is that although the prime responsibility and the sole
responsibility for ports is in the Department for
Transport, where there needs to be connectivity and
improvements to the economic performance of the
ports then obviously we need to liaise with them.
Keith, I think you have had a number of recent
meetings?
Mr Thomas: We have had a number of meetings
recently and Robert previously alluded to the
meeting in Holyhead to discuss the implementation
or the procedure that we can go by to recommend the
use of cruise ships in Holyhead and indeed
Fishguard. On a number of levels we have worked
very closely with DfT, because obviously they are
reserved matters, to ensure that we have joined-up
thinking for the development of Wales as a whole
and that we are not left behind; and that is what we
look towards.
Q306 Albert Owen: Minister, do you envisage any
bilateral meetings in the future as policies develop
in Wales?
Mr Wyn Jones: Yes. Clearly if there are important
issues that need to be resolved at ministerial level
then obviously I would be very happy to arrange
ministerial meetings. In fact in the recent past there
have been a number of ministerial meetings on a
range of issues and obviously if there are others to be
had on this particular issue then obviously we would
do that.
Processed: 29-10-2009 19:57:40
Page Layout: COENEW [E]
PPSysB Job: 435922
Unit: PAG6
Ev 62 Welsh Affairs Committee: Evidence
14 July 2009 Mr Ieuan Wyn Jones AM, Mr James Price, Mr Keith Thomas and Mr Tim James
Q307 Hywel Williams: Bore da. The creation of the
Wales Ports Group has been welcomed by many of
our witnesses and was referred to by the Minister
who was here before you. How will this group relate
to the Department for Transport?
Mr Wyn Jones: I am not sure that there would be a
direct relationship between the Welsh Ports Group
and the Department for Transport; what they would
probably be doing is working with us in order to put
cases for Welsh ports in terms of their development
and to see how we can actually develop those ports
for the benefit for the economy of Wales and for the
logistics industry and obviously for improved use of
those ports. I think there is a whole range of
organisations now that are coming into the picture.
There is not only obviously the Welsh Ports Group,
which I think is a sub-group of the Welsh Freight
Group. What I have found very useful for me as a
Minister is to have had an engagement with the
Freight Group on which some of the port operators
are represented, and then for us to be formulating
our policy in the light of their experience because I
have to say that the Welsh Freight Strategy which we
announced in May last year was very much worked
up with the freight sector, of which the ports formed
a key part. I think the discussions that we had were
then reflected in the strategy which we published. So
I would imagine that the relationship would
normally be with us and then of course we would
reflect their views in discussions through oYcials
with the Department for Transport.
Q308 Hywel Williams: Some of the earlier discussion
before you arrived was around the Department for
Transport’s own policy which the Minister said was
free market led and I am interested in any tensions
that there might be between yourselves and the
Department for Transport, given that you have
stated in the Wales Freight Strategy that you want to
develop an active ports policy. Could you explain
what that means and is it diVerent from the policy
that the Minister outlined earlier on?
Mr Wyn Jones: Obviously all I can say is what our
policy is in relation to ports. Our position, as I think
has been made clear not just in the Wales Freight
Strategy but also in other documents that we have
presented, is that we want to develop the potential of
Welsh ports. The potential, of course, is diVerent
relating to where each port is located geographically,
its historical patterns and how you then develop that
into the future. So for example if you are talking
about the development of short sea crossings to try
to bring some of the freight from mainland Europe
into Wales, using the ports in South Wales as feeder
ports would be one way that we would want to see
those develop, and discussions are ongoing and I
have had discussions with port operators myself
around that. If you are talking about the cruise
markets then it is other ports again, as I think you
have heard evidence being given. If we are talking
about, for example, just the logistics of actual freight
traYc, primarily these days of course by vehicles, by
lorries, then you are talking about other ports as
well. So we actually would then look at the business
case to see whether or not any investment could be
justified. We would not be putting in investment
purely in terms of speculation; we would want to do
that based on a business case. So what we are doing
is talking to port operators—or they are talking to
us—and asking if there is a business case for putting
in investment. Obviously I just came in to the tail end
of the questions which did include the potential for
developing the cruise facility at Holyhead, where
that is something that we would look at in a business
case sense: in other words, is the case there to justify
some investment? But it is not quite as easy as that
because there are other issues involved such as state
aid, which need to be overcome before you can do it.
Q309 Hywel Williams: The Westminster Minister
has referred in his submission to market distortion.
Perhaps you might not be able to answer this at
present but are any developments that you have in
mind in danger of falling foul of those sorts of
consideration about distortion?
Mr Wyn Jones: When you are thinking about any
public sector investment, whether that is on the
transport side or indeed on the business support
side, a number of factors have to be borne in mind—
state aid has to be borne in mind—and displacement
does need to be looked at, you cannot simply ignore
displacement because displacement will be a factor
that you need to look at; as well as, of course, the fact
that if you did invest that the business you were
attracting came, or at least you had a good case for
saying that the business would come. So you would
have to consider all those particular aspects. What
we are trying to do here obviously is to look at the
development of the cruise market in Wales from a
very, very, very low base and to build that up, and
anything that we can do to assist that within the
constraints that we have we would obviously be keen
to do it.
Q310 Hywel Williams: I think our concern is that
there is potential for new business not only for Wales
but in the UK context which is under-developed
compared to what we saw in the Baltic when we were
there. I am concerned—and I think the Committee
might share that concern—that a fundamental
stance against intervention might just prevent the
last piece of the jigsaw being put in place.
Mr Wyn Jones: What we would do would be to ask
ourselves is there a business case for doing it? And
provided you could overcome the state aid and
displacement issues then we would support it on that
basis. Keith, could you tell us where we are at in
terms of the Holyhead run? But it is on the basis that
if we can overcome those issues then we would like
to support it.
Mr Thomas: We have been looking at the Holyhead
opportunity for probably 18 months now in diVerent
guises with diVerent people coming towards us
saying, “Could you invest?” We have done a
significant amount of work looking at the business
case and whilst it is not completed yet, the view that
we have is that largely it does stack up, and
dependent upon the amount of money needed from
the Assembly Government that it would stack up for
us to invest, and provided that we can get around
Processed: 29-10-2009 19:57:40
Page Layout: COENEW [O]
PPSysB Job: 435922
Unit: PAG6
Welsh Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 63
14 July 2009 Mr Ieuan Wyn Jones AM, Mr James Price, Mr Keith Thomas and Mr Tim James
some state aid issues—and other parts of the UK
appear to have done that so we believe we can—then
we ought to be able to invest in that to allow that
investment to come forward. The key thing with that
is not just having the impact in the port itself; it is
bringing in a large number of passengers who are
having an economic impact within Wales as a whole,
which of course forms part of the business case.
Q311 Alun Michael: Can we look at another aspect
of the competitive situation of Welsh ports—and this
would apply to English ports as well. We are told
that they are struggling to compete with their
counterparts on the continent, which receive higher
levels of public funding.
Mr Wyn Jones: My discussions with port operators
have been on the basis of attracting new business to
the ports, which are currently, I think we would all
accept, under-utilised. There is a capacity there to
expand business through the ports. What I have
been discussing, particularly in the ports in South
Wales is apart from just trying to attract new
business there and assist them to do that, is to see
how we could, for example, feed oV the business that
comes in through other ports in the south of England
to see whether we could actually have shorter sea
crossings to come across from there to, let us say, the
ports in Newport, CardiV, Swansea and so on.
Q312 Alun Michael: Do you think that that would
lead to an equivalence between the high levels of
public funding in the Continent and what you want
to do?
Mr Wyn Jones: No, I think probably the scale of that
would be diVerent; but, nevertheless, what I am
saying is that—
Q313 Alun Michael: Is that a problem then?
Mr Wyn Jones: Before we decide on the level of
public investment I think we have to look at the
business opportunities. So if you actually look at the
business opportunities that are there, then you have
to determine whether the size of the public subsidy
for that business opportunity is proportionate. So I
think the concept that I have—certainly speaking to
port operators—is that that is one area they would
like to see developed. So what we would say to them
is that if they can put a business case up for that and
we think that there is a good case for public subsidy
to assist in that, then we would be prepared to look
at it. What I think it would be diYcult for us to do
is to look at a level of subsidy when there is not a
business proposition being put to us.
Q314 Albert Owen: Can I follow on from what Mr
Williams and Mr Michael were asking there. When
we went to the Baltic ports we saw the Baltic concept
about diVerent countries working together. Is there
a model for the Irish Sea? When we took evidence
from Cruise Wales they were excited about working
in Scotland, Ireland and indeed the north-west of
England. Do you see that sort of concept and would
that get around some of these issues that we are
talking about with state aid rules or displacement
between diVerent ports on the west coast seaboard
and indeed in Ireland? Is that something that will
have to come up in a business case that you are
determining? Who would lead that for the individual
ports, or is there an Irish Sea package or concept?
Mr Wyn Jones: I would start oV by saying, as I have
said to Mr Michael, that if there is a business
proposition to be looked at it would primarily have
to come from the operators themselves, and if it
came from the operators themselves on, say, a panCeltic approach, then it would make a lot of sense
for us to be talking to our Irish counterparts and our
Scottish counterparts and we could then discuss how
that should be led. I think there is a lot of merit in
doing that because I think that the point you make
is well made in the sense that then the issue of
displacement does not become so apparent and
could actually be helpful. Obviously I heard the tail
end again of that evidence session where it says
sometimes having a cruise ship coming in actually
helps other ports as well. So I think that there would
be merit in having that sort of approach. But the
initial approach has to come from the operators with
us then being in a supportive role and seeing what we
could do to assist.
Q315 Hywel Williams: Minister, a very basic
question. The Department for Transport has made
it clear that their view is that ports should remain a
reserved matter. Given the potential economic
benefits from developing ports in Wales, do you
think that port development might be something
that might be devolved?
Mr Wyn Jones: It is not our policy at the moment as
a Government to actually seek devolution of the
powers over ports, but it may well be that other
people will be starting to make a case for this—not
anticipating what the Committee might be saying.
There are people out there who are actually now
making a case for that to happen and obviously we
would need to respond to that. It is not part of our
policy as a coalition government to seek it but if
there are discussions around it then obviously it is
something we would need to consider.
Q316 Alun Michael: Something that is already in
your portfolio, witnesses have said that they think
that more should be done to improve the road links
to the major Welsh ports and that this is a hindrance
to the development of the hinterland. How do the
trunk road and rail forward programmes provide for
freight transport to and from ports?
Mr Wyn Jones: If we talk about roads first,
obviously the A55 is the main route into Holyhead
and I think that there are three areas on the A55
which we will be looking at. One of course is the
furthest away which is the Deeside area, which is the
A55/A494, which is a particular problem. Then of
course you have the Britannia Bridge crossing over
to Anglesey and then you have the access to the port
itself in Holyhead. I am a little bit at a disadvantage,
Chairman, because I will actually be making an
announcement on a National Transport Plan
tomorrow, so I cannot actually give details of
individual road schemes.
Processed: 29-10-2009 19:57:40
Page Layout: COENEW [E]
PPSysB Job: 435922
Unit: PAG6
Ev 64 Welsh Affairs Committee: Evidence
14 July 2009 Mr Ieuan Wyn Jones AM, Mr James Price, Mr Keith Thomas and Mr Tim James
Q317 Alun Michael: Even if we promise not to tell
anybody!
Mr Wyn Jones: Even if you promise not to tell
anybody! But let me just make it clear that those are
the three areas at which we have been looking. In
terms of the South Wales ports then obviously I have
seen some of the evidence around the improvements
to the A477 to Pembroke Dock and the A40 to
Fishguard. In terms of the A477 we have made
certain improvements to the entrance to Pembroke
Dock and there are others in our Trunk Road
Forward Programme, particularly the section
between St Clears and Red Roses, which is also in
our programme. On the A40 also we have two
schemes which we are currently pursuing. I know
that there has been a case put forward by
Pembrokeshire County Council and no doubt the
port authorities that would like to see the A40
dualled. We have looked at the business case for that
and it simply currently does not stack up for
dualling. However, what we have done is to make
sure that the improvements that we are currently
undertaking could accommodate a dual carriage
way road if at some future date the case for dualling
can be made—in other words, that there is an
economic case for it. So we have that in place,
although I am sure that it is not going to be enough
for some of the ports authorities; but that is where
we are.
Q318 Nia GriYth: Minister, can I thank you very
much indeed for your recent announcement to look
at safety on the A48 in the Cross Hands area, and
indeed not so very long ago another announcement
about investment in the rail west of Swansea. You
have referred now to some very, very diYcult areas
on the A477 St Clears to Red Roses and the A40.
What are we doing about more rail investment to try
to get some of these huge lorries oV these very small
roads and is there a case for further rail investment
and more encouragement by the ports to actually use
those services?
Mr Wyn Jones: I have to admit that this is a diYcult
issue for us because we have made it quite clear in
our Transport Strategy and in our Freight Strategy
that we would like to see more freight move from
road to rail. The current diYculty we have is that we
do not have the facilities in the ports to enable us to
actually do that easily. Unless of course we can
persuade the operators, the ports and Network Rail
to actually invest in those then as a government we
cannot do it on our own. Of course, again, the
problem we have is that because to be perfectly blunt
carrying freight by road is a lot cheaper than
carrying it by rail—particularly over short
distances—then a lot of the freight operators
currently do not have the appetite to actually shift
their freight on to rail. I think it is beyond our remit
as the Welsh Assembly Government to create the
conditions by which we could do that, but it is
certainly something that we as a government would
like to see developed, and it has to be done at a UK
level. I very much agree with the sentiment behind
the question but we feel that there is not much more
that we as a government can do to pursue that
because the facilities are not there. I have seen the
evidence that you have also received from
representatives of the freight industry saying that
they agree that the facilities are not there, but the
question you then have to ask is that even if they
were there would the freight operators actually use
them? I have not seen any evidence currently that
they would.
Q319 Alun Michael: The question there is there a
proper business case, is it, for what they are asking?
Mr Wyn Jones: I suppose it is but the discussions
that we have had with logistics companies is that the
two advantages that they cite for road over rail is
cost and convenience—those are the two issues.
There is not much you can do around the cost
because if it is cheaper to do it then the likelihood is
that the freight operators will want to use that
option. Where it becomes more marginal—in other
words, that the cost between the two becomes more
marginal—then I think that environmental
considerations would come more into play and we
could actually argue the case. Currently I have not
seen anything stacking up that would allow us to
actually be doing more than we currently have
planned, although that very much pains me because
I would like to see it happen.
Q320 Alun Michael: The Department for Transport
has issued guidance requiring developers to make
contributions to any surface access links that might
be necessary between a port and the main transport
infrastructure. How eVective is that guidance in
your view?
Mr Wyn Jones: I do not think we have that guidance
ourselves, do we?
Mr Price: We use similar guidance but it does not
just relate to ports, it relates to anything, so if you
had a significant development occurring beside the
motorway—and we had an example of that
recently—we would put planning conditions on the
developers so they have to contribute towards the
cost of improving the motorway, for example. That
can be eVective. How eVective it is, is obviously very
dependent on the amount of profit the operator can
make out of the improvement they are looking to
put in.
Q321 Alun Michael: And your experience?
Mr Price: On the ports side, we have not had that
much.
Mr Thomas: We have not had that much. For ports,
for instance, we have seen some looking for
something like a 10 times return on their investment.
Q322 Alun Michael: If there is an issue with links of
that sort, is the Welsh Assembly Government able to
provide any financial support?
Mr Price: Through Freight Facilities Grants,
working with DfT, yes, is the answer. But again it
requires the company to come forward or us to be
working with a company on a project which actually
stacks up. I guess in the current economic climate it
is more diYcult than it has been before. The other
thing we should say is that whilst it is very diYcult to
Processed: 29-10-2009 19:57:40
Page Layout: COENEW [O]
PPSysB Job: 435922
Unit: PAG6
Welsh Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 65
14 July 2009 Mr Ieuan Wyn Jones AM, Mr James Price, Mr Keith Thomas and Mr Tim James
find operators who are willing to go forward and
take the modal shift, where we have got facilities—
Wentloog is an example—we are working to try and
make sure we do maximise the facilities we have got,
which I do not think is the case currently.
Q323 Nia GriYth: You talk very much in your
evidence about wanting to facilitate the
infrastructure to help ports feed in and out from
their local areas, but what in practice has the
Assembly Government been able to do to encourage
better use of the ports?
Mr Wyn Jones: I know for example that lots of
discussions go on. I have had them myself, both in
my current position, when I was just Assembly
Member for Ynys Mon and previously as a Member
of Parliament. Port operators very often lobby very
hard indeed for improvements to the road
infrastructure, primarily for road infrastructure
because currently that is how the vast majority of
freight is carried through Wales. What we try to do
is to make sure that if there is an economic case for
actually improving road access to a port, then we will
look at that. Obviously the A55 in Anglesey has been
concluded but there are still two parts on Anglesey
which need to be looked at, which is the access to the
port itself and Britannia Bridge, and I have indicated
the improvements to the others. The ports
themselves are very active in pursuing these
improvements because it will help them to develop
their throughput of freight, and what has tended to
happen is that each improvement in the
infrastructure improves the attractiveness of that
port for freight traYc. I have certainly seen that just
anecdotally across the island and across North
Wales. Every time there was an improvement to the
A55 more freight came through the port of
Holyhead. If you look at the figures, the increase in
freight traYc through Holyhead has been dramatic
in recent years. What we have seen in the two South
Wales ports—Pembroke Dock and Fishguard—is
that we have not seen similar levels of growth and the
majority of Irish freight traYc tends to come across
the central corridor, and therefore the case for
dealing with the A40 does not stack up in the same
way as the A55 did.
Q324 Nia GriYth: If we look at the UK Ports
Prospectus, they talk about developing ports such as
Mostyn, Milford Haven, Port Talbot and Swansea
for the oVshore renewables industry. What is the
Welsh Assembly Government doing to promote
thinking about that? It is a chicken and egg situation
because until you know what is going to be out there
it is diYcult to push the port and be up-front and
grab the business.
Mr Wyn Jones: I think that is a very important point
that you make, because we have to look at the whole
range of business opportunities there are for ports.
We have tended to concentrate in our evidence so far
on things like the cruise market and short sea
crossings, but I think the point you make about
renewables is equally valid because we could actually
be using our ports as points of entry for much of the
infrastructure which is necessary for this new
technology. We know, for example, some of the most
attractive locations for renewables are oV the Welsh
coast and I would be very keen to be working with
my colleague, Jane Davidson, in order to facilitate,
if you like, the development of the Welsh ports for
renewable energy. I know, for example, that some
talks have already taken place and I would be very
happy to support that.
Q325 Nia GriYth: You hinted earlier at the idea of
getting transport round the sea instead of coming
across the roads, especially to South East England.
Is that really a realistic option in terms of trying to
persuade people to do that? You have mentioned the
cost of rail as opposed to road freight and
presumably the issue here is the time it takes to go
round by sea. What attempts were made when
Amazon sited itself right on the Swansea port to
encourage it to make use of sea transport?
Mr Wyn Jones: Actually the Amazon development
happened before I came into post, and I do not know
whether colleagues have any information on that.
You are right, the business case would have to stack
up for the port operators to actually use it, but the
problem we have is that if you simply look at
investments in port infrastructure without looking
for the business opportunity which will arise once
you have done it, then you could be accused of
wasting public money. So we have to see whether
there is a proper case which can be identified.
Certainly I think there is value in pursuing it, and so
do the ports, because they think of the congestion
they hit if they are bringing traYc from ports in
certain parts of South England to our region, and it
could save them a lot of time by doing it via a short
sea crossing. I have to admit that these are early
days, we have not gone very far in these proposals,
but it is something I am very keen to explore.
Q326 Hywel Williams: Mr Price mentioned earlier
the study in Holyhead, are you doing any other
studies or do you intend to on the potential of the
cruise market in Welsh ports?
Mr Wyn Jones: Yes, we are looking particularly at
Milford Haven, and it was interesting that there was
a report in the newspaper today that a cruise ship
had been to Newport. I think cruise ships have also
visited CardiV; I am not sure about Swansea.
Mr Thomas: Yes, I think so.
Mr Wyn Jones: Maybe Swansea. So the cruise
market is something which is under development in
Wales and we are very happy to be looking at
opportunities wherever they may arise. If there are
opportunities for us to be using more than one port
in a visit, we could obviously maximise those
opportunities.
Q327 Hywel Williams: You did say earlier that it is
up to the operators really to take a lead, but is there
a role for the Welsh Assembly Government to act as
a catalyst or a co-ordinator for bringing together
Processed: 29-10-2009 19:57:40
Page Layout: COENEW [E]
PPSysB Job: 435922
Unit: PAG6
Ev 66 Welsh Affairs Committee: Evidence
14 July 2009 Mr Ieuan Wyn Jones AM, Mr James Price, Mr Keith Thomas and Mr Tim James
companies which might potentially be interested in
calling which on their own might not want to take
that development forward?
Mr Wyn Jones: What I have found, and I am not an
expert on the cruise industry, is that, because there
are more and more people now looking for holidays
by cruise, the cruise operators are looking for new
destinations all the time, and they do not want to
keep going to the same destinations because they
have people going more often now and they want
new experiences. So the port operators themselves
recognise now there is a real opportunity for looking
at areas such as the Celtic countries, so I think the
interest is there. What is important for us is that we
do not miss the opportunity as a result of that
interest, and working with them I think is the way to
do it. I think the interest is there, but do we have the
facilities to meet the demand of the sector. I think
James was absolutely right when he said that we
should be looking at this not simply in terms of the
immediate location where the cruise ship lands but
also the immediate area, the region, around it as a
way of capturing more tourism traYc and spend of
course, which is very important.
Q328 Hywel Williams: As a Caernarfon MP I am
particularly interested in that potential. What is the
role of Cruise Wales in this?
Mr Thomas: Cruise Wales is the facilitator and the
co-ordinator. What we are trying to do is match the
facilities with the ambitions, so they size the market,
quantify it, and then look at how we can deliver it
and, as previously stated, there are the financial
implications and also the state aid implications.
Mr Price: I think the group that is Cruise Wales is
doing that, trying to bring industry together, and
then we are trying to say, “How can we, from a
transport perspective and a regeneration
perspective, import the facilities necessary to
deliver that.”
Q329 Hywel Williams: Can I ask you about a body
which I was not aware of, and that is Celtic Wave,
which I understand is a marketing organisation. Do
you have any involvement with them and, if so,
what?
Mr Thomas: Personally we do not have involvement
with them, but our colleagues do within
International Business Wales, the inward investment
arm of the Welsh Assembly Government. Interreg
involves Ireland, Wales and Scotland as part of that
and that Interreg looks at developing the Celtic Sea
and to cruises around the Celtic Sea. Then, as James
said, we are looking to develop the facilities to ensure
we can actually accommodate those particular
cruises when anything comes about.
Q330 Chairman: Thank you very much for your
evidence this morning. It would be remiss of me not
to mention the importance of the Port Talbot deep
water harbour as well.
Mr Wyn Jones: It is very important to me,
Chairman.
Q331 Chairman: I am very grateful to you for
endorsing those comments. Thank you for your
evidence today and thank you also for your written
memorandum. I hope when we do produce the
report in the autumn, we could have a further
dialogue about its contents.
Mr Wyn Jones: We look forward to that.
Processed: 29-10-2009 23:00:04
Page Layout: COENEW [SO]
PPSysB Job: 435922
Unit: PAG7
Welsh Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 67
Written evidence
Written evidence from Associated British Ports (ABP)
1. Introduction
1.1 This submission is made on behalf of Associated British Ports (ABP). ABP is the UK’s leading and
largest ports group with 21 port facilities and other transport related businesses around England, Wales and
Scotland. ABP is a privately owned company.
1.2 ABP very much welcomes this inquiry into Ports in Wales and the interest it shows in a sector of major
strategic and economic importance.
1.3 Associated British Ports operate five major ports in south Wales: Newport, CardiV, Barry, Port Talbot
and Swansea. These ports are important gateways for trade and also support major manufacturing on sites
contiguous to the ports, such as Corus, Dow Corning and Celsa. The five ports lie on the northern shore of
the Bristol Channel and are established as major ports in South Wales but also importantly as a key hub for
servicing a hinterland that extends to the Midlands, south west of England, M4 and M5 corridors and
London.
1.4 Seaports are unique assets in providing multi-modal hubs to users, combining connections between
road, rail and sea. The south Wales ports all have direct links to the national rail network, the UK motorway
system, combined with deep-water berths able to accommodate some of the largest ocean going vessels.
1.5 In addition to being nodal points for import and export of cargo, ports provide locations for value
added employment and investment from logistics providers through to manufacturers and retailers, and
form part of the regional oVering for attracting both UK and foreign investment. Ports close to the origin
or destination of cargo can also minimise the environmental impact by utilising shipping, widely regarded
as the most environmentally benign mode of transport.
2. Policy Framework for the Development of Welsh Ports
Many of the specific policy issues are dealt with under the themes highlighted by the inquiry, but there are
a number of themes that ABP would like to raise.
2.1 Licensing and MMO
The establishment of a new Marine Management Organisation (MMO) under the Marine and Coastal
Access Bill has been supported by United Kingdom Major Ports Group (UKMPG) of which ABP is a
member. The UKMPG has recognised the potential benefits in consolidating a number of licensing regimes
through a single body in order to streamline the process.
2.2 Local development plans
ABP believes that it is essential that the strategic importance of ports is recognised through local
development plans and regional plans. This submission provides further detail of the contribution of ports
to their local and regional economies, and their role in stimulating inward investment.
3. Contribution of Welsh Ports to their Local Economies
3.1 The importance of ports to the economy is identified in a recent research paper Associated British
Ports and the Welsh Economy (Welsh Economic Research Unit, CardiV Business School and Welsh
Enterprise Unit, University of Glamorgan, June 2004, updated 2009). The research provides some key
findings that illustrate the importance of ports as economic drivers for the region. The fact that the activity
of ABP and its tenants in South Wales directly and indirectly support £79.8 million per annum with a GVA
of £34.2 million, and the activities of ABP’s port tenants account for an estimated 9,711 FTE jobs, with a
direct and indirect output of £2.78 billion and GVA of £902.5 million (2% of the Welsh total) clearly
illustrates the salience and potential of the seaport.
3.2 The south Wales ports are key assets to the region and the industries within, and have capacity for
substantial growth bringing employment and inward investment to Wales.
4. The Potential to Increase the Scale and Range of Trade with Other Countries
4.1 Welsh ports have evolved in recent times, driven by the increasingly global nature of trade and the
economy as well as the decline of the UK manufacturing sector and mining industry in Wales. In the last
decade trade has generally grown steadily in the south Wales ports, closely reflecting prevailing economic
conditions; in 2007 the Port of CardiV handled its largest annual volume since the early 1970s. There are a
number of key areas in which there is potential for substantial growth in the scale and range of trade in south
Wales, most notably in the energy sector and container traYc connecting Welsh ports with other European
countries.
Processed: 29-10-2009 23:00:04
Page Layout: COENEW [E]
PPSysB Job: 435922
Unit: PAG7
Ev 68 Welsh Affairs Committee: Evidence
4.2 Ports are key links in the UK’s energy supply chain. The Port of Newport plays a pivotal role in the
support of power generation within Wales, handling coal imports for Aberthaw and Uskmouth power
stations. The Port of CardiV is a major distribution centre for transport fuels, supplying the region’s
forecourts with petrol and diesel, a significant proportion of which is moved by coastal shipping helping to
reduce road miles.
4.3 The geography of electricity generation in the UK has traditionally been based around coal reserves
and access to North Sea gas resources. The dynamic is changing as the U.K. becomes increasingly reliant
upon internationally sourced and imported fuel supplies. Generators are increasingly exploiting the
connectivity of ports to meet their supply chain demands.
4.4 The brown-field development land within and directly adjacent to the port estate provides prime sites
for locating energy generation plants, particularly for renewable energy schemes. A number of such
developments have recently received planning approval including the world’s largest biomass power plant
at Port Talbot, which will import feedstock using the tidal harbour.
4.5 There is also an opportunity to develop facilities for energy production on ports and contiguous sites,
for example for biofuel production sites such as the bio-diesel production facility that recently received
planning approval at the Port of CardiV. Ports will also play a crucial role in supporting the development
of oVshore energy resources, providing construction sites and supply bases for exploiting wind, wave and
tidal power. One of the zones identified by the Crown Estate for Round 3 of the oVshore windfarm-leasing
programme lies a short distance from the south Wales coast.
4.6 Documents such as the recently published Bioenergy Action Plan for Wales fail to recognise the
advantages oVered by ports in the energy supply chain. All aspects of energy policy in Wales should reflect
the strategic importance of ports.
5. Potential to Increase Freight Movements through Welsh Ports
5.1 Good transport connectivity and sustainable freight networks across all modes is vital to achieving
competitiveness for retailers and manufacturers in Wales. The eYcient movement of both industrial and
retail freight is a necessary component for achieving the region’s full potential. As multi-modal hubs, the
ports in south Wales have great potential and adequate capacity to stimulate growth in freight movements,
particularly Containers and Roll On/Roll OV traYc. Ports provide access to continental and international
markets for manufacturers and allow raw materials to be sourced from suppliers globally. For the retail
sector in Wales, the cost of delivering goods to market directly impact the price on the shelf edge and as such,
connectivity is crucial to maintaining the competitiveness of retail in Wales.
5.2 A number of very large businesses with extensive supply-chains have been encouraged to locate within
Wales in recent times, for example Amazon. It is apparent that these companies are not being made aware
of the oVering of the ports within the region and the advantages that they aVord. Promoting ports as part
of the oVering to potential investors in the regional hinterland may make Wales more attractive and these
types of investment are more sustainable.
5.3 The globalisation of the economy and decline in UK manufacturing has lead retailers and
manufacturers to re-examine supply chains and distribution networks The brown-field development sites in
and adjacent to port estates present an opportunity to stimulate investment and employment in South Wales
through the concept of “Port-centric logistics”. Rather than transporting imported goods many miles inland
to national distribution centres, distributors should be encouraged to establish regional distribution centres
within and adjacent to ports. This presents significant environmental benefits in reducing road miles and the
carbon footprint of supply chains and encouraging a modal shift to short-sea shipping from hub ports to
regional ports. This type of development also has the benefit of value added activity for the region.
5.4 Sea transport is recognised by many as the most environmentally benign mode of transport and
further reduces congestion on the busy road and rail infrastructure. Through the Wales Spatial Plan, local
development plans and other policies the strategic importance of ports and their ability to facilitate inward
investment and catalyse sustainable economic growth should be recognised. Applying a “presumption in
favour principle” to consents for developments in and around ports that encourage this would make
investing in Wales more attractive.
5.5 CardiV Container Line
ABP commenced operation of CardiV Container Line, a door-to-door container service connecting the
UK and Ireland, in October 2008. The service oVers up to three calls per week transporting maritime
containers between CardiV and Dublin. ABP is actively pursuing opportunities to expand the range of
services calling at the terminal. In particular the possibility of feeder services, linking South Wales directly
with deep-sea European hub ports, where containers could be transhipped from the deep-sea liner services
to/from the Far East and North America to smaller vessels calling at CardiV.
Processed: 29-10-2009 23:00:04
Page Layout: COENEW [O]
PPSysB Job: 435922
Unit: PAG7
Welsh Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 69
5.6 Port Talbot Tidal Harbour
Port Talbot Tidal Harbour is a national strategic asset to the region as one of only three “cape-size”
facilities in the UK.1 With globalisation and advances in maritime architecture, the size of vessels engaged
in international trade continues to grow as shippers look increasingly to exploit economies of scale. Port
Talbot has the potential for significant growth into new markets including energy, renewable and containers.
As discussed further in section 5.8 the importance of maintaining rail links within the region and rail
connectivity beyond the region is crucial to exploiting this asset fully at both a regional and national level.
5.7 Wales Freight Group
ABP has been an active member of the Wales Freight Group that has worked in partnership with the
Welsh Assembly Government to publish the Wales Freight Strategy, to deliver a “modern, eYcient freight
transport system in ways that will support and balance economic, social and environmental objectives, in
line with the Wales Transport Strategy”. The purpose of the strategy is to assist regional transport consortia
in the development of regional transport plans and this document should form part of the policy framework
for the development of Welsh ports. ABP believes the establishment of both the Wales Freight Group and
the Welsh ports sub-committee has been a very positive step for developing freight strategy in Wales.
5.8 Encouraging sustainable modal shifts
Grant funding is important in encouraging sustainable modal shifts in favour of short-sea shipping
initiatives. The existing grant system is flawed in that it is often infrastructure based and not that easy for
larger business to access. A revenue based scheme that actively encourages freight to utilise more sustainable
modes of transport perhaps may be more applicable. South Wales ports are well placed for access to major
population centres in both Wales and England and can play a key role in developing this type of activity.
5.9 Road links
5.9.1 Whilst recognising the need for major improvements to the M4 to ensure adequate connections to/
from South Wales are maintained, particularly the restrictions imposed by the Bryn Glas tunnels, ABP is
extremely concerned that the current proposals for the new motorway to bisect Newport Docks will
adversely impact upon trade through the Port of Newport. This submission has already highlighted the
socio-economic contribution of ports to their local economies and any scheme proposed should not
adversely aVect existing trade or future development prospects. ABP is fully engaged in the consultation
process with WAG on this subject.
5.9.2 ABP would also like to highlight the strategic importance of a number of local road enhancement
projects. In particular, the completion of the Port Talbot peripheral distributor road, the Fabian Way
infrastructure enhancement works at Swansea and the Eastern Bay Link Road in CardiV all of which help
to improve transport infrastructure to the immediate hinterland.
5.10 Rail links
5.10.1 It is essential for the continued development of ports and sustainable freight networks that rail
freight paths are retained and protected. It is also vital that work involving Network Rail, freight operating
companies, Government and other key stakeholders continues to remove capacity and capability
constraints for freight on the rail network. These include removing freight network pinch points (in
particular the Severn Tunnel) and addressing gauge issues in Wales.
5.11 The EU Trans-European Networks (TENs) system should be considered to support the connectivity
between ports and the hinterlands, particularly links extending beyond Wales.
6. The Development of Tourism and the Potential for Attracting Cruise Ships to Wales
6.1 ABP is an active member of Cruise Wales, a public-private sector partnership, which has been
established to promote and market Wales as a cruise destination to international passengers. The
partnership is made up of representatives from government, tourism and port organisations from all of the
major ports in Wales. Cruise ships have potential to bring economic benefits to the region and its tourist
based economy.
6.2 In addition to “transit” day call visits of cruise ships, ABP believe the south Wales ports oVer
significant potential as regional departure ports for cruise lines. The proximity of the region to major
population centres makes this a viable prospect in the future as cruise operators develop more regional
departure points.
1
A cape-size vessel is a bulk carrier that is too large to navigate the Panama or Suez Canal and is in excess of 150,000
deadweight tonnes.
Processed: 29-10-2009 23:00:04
Page Layout: COENEW [E]
PPSysB Job: 435922
Unit: PAG7
Ev 70 Welsh Affairs Committee: Evidence
7. The Adequacy of Security and Policing Provisions at Welsh Ports
7.1 The ABP South Wales ports comply with the International Ship and Port Facility Security Code
(ISPS), a comprehensive security code that has introduced a range of measures to protect the ship/shore
interface. These measures include fencing, restricted access (to ports/vessels), guarding and notification
procedures. The ports will shortly have to comply with the EU Security Directive, which will be implemented
through new regulations later this year. Security at Welsh ports is generally adequate, but we recommend
that more support and improved relationships with police forces at a local level would be of benefit in dealing
with specific issues as they arise.
8. Severn Tidal Power
8.1 ABP is currently engaged in a consultation process looking at the potential impact of various
proposals for the construction of tidal power schemes in the estuary. Some of these proposals could greatly
aVect ports in Newport, CardiV and Barry, and their future as strategic gateways capable of supporting
economic growth and sustainable distribution. In the event that any scheme is progressed that leads to trade
being displaced from ports, best endeavours should be used to ensure this trade remains within the region.
May 2009
Written evidence from Dr A K C Beresford
Historic Influences on the UK Port System
The ports of the UK have served the country’s needs extremely well for centuries. This is evident not only
in terms of the ports providing safe havens for vessels, cargo handling capability and managerial expertise,
but also by the ports’ ability to change and adapt to best fit the conditions and requirements of the time.
Historically, this was seen at, for example, CardiV when, in the early 20th century, some of the world’s largest
sea locks were built to accommodate the new generation of steam-driven ships. In parallel, one of the world’s
densest freight rail networks was developed in South Wales to cater mainly for the huge volumes of export
coal—peaking at around 20 million tonnes in 1913—passing through the South Wales ports (Beresford,
1995). The scale of this eVort should be judged against the relatively modest size of the towns of, for example,
CardiV, Newport and Swansea at the time. Interestingly, the Port of Rotterdam handled exactly the same
volume of cargo in 1913 as CardiV: around 12 million tonnes.
More recently, following the well-documented steep decline in bulk exports in the mid-20th century, a
number of west-facing ports demonstrated a strong will to survive, and a commendable ability to innovate,
with parallel strategies of concentration, diversification and integration according to circumstances. The
decline of traditional industries, reduction in trade with the colonies, and the emergence and enlargement
of the European Union, led to a pronounced east-west split with most ports in the east of Britain, especially
the south east, seeing growth in their traYc and those in the north and west generally experiencing shrinkage.
This pattern was most pronounced from the mid-1960s to the mid-1980s. The technological shift towards
unitisation and containerisation during that time further encouraged concentration of the higher-value
trades, both near sea and deep sea, into the container terminals of Felixstowe, Tilbury, Thamesport (open
late 1980s) and Southampton. Liverpool consolidated its position as a North America “specialist”. RO-RO
terminals at ports such as Immingham, Hull, Harwich, Dover and Portsmouth also saw trade grow rapidly
mainly based on a healthy mix of passengers and freight flows. Several of these ports also developed “feeder”
links with the big continental ports, enabling them to “lock into” the maturing logistics systems which were
increasingly linking the Far East manufacturing countries with the huge European market. “Facing
Rotterdam” had become a key aspect of UK port logistics.
Patterns of Port Development: The Core-Periphery Model
Probably the most enduring model of economic development which can be readily applied to ports, is the
“core-periphery” model first applied in the context of European urbanisation and agglomeration in the early
20th century (Clout 1981). The model essentially links economic opportunity to development so that in
Europe, for example, GNP per capita, employment, regional development and other socio-economic
variables resolve into a broad pattern of “favoured” and “less favoured” regions. Although this has long
been recognised as a gross simplification, nonetheless the pattern has endured, with some variation, over
several decades and has formed the basis of long-term regional policy at national and supra-national levels.
With specific reference to ports, the core-periphery model manifests itself in Europe and elsewhere in the
following ways:
— Where population density, market size, regional output or natural resources are at a maximum,
opportunities for port development are also at a maximum. Thus, in “core” areas, there tend to be
more ports, bigger ports, and ports with a wider range of cargoes and handling facilities.
— In “peripheral” areas, where markets are smaller, or more widely dispersed, where natural
resources are not available and where output is less, ports tend to be fewer, smaller, more widely
separated and more specialist.
Processed: 29-10-2009 23:00:04
Page Layout: COENEW [O]
PPSysB Job: 435922
Unit: PAG7
Welsh Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 71
The validity of this thesis, and the persistence of this pattern, can be judged by comparing the location,
size and functions of ports in the 1980s, with the blueprint around twenty years later (Beresford and Dobson,
1989; Aldworth, 2007). The relevance of the core-periphery model, as applied to ports, extends well beyond
Europe and it can be seen in virtually any region of the world. This is not to say that ports in peripheral areas
cannot be large or that they cannot be successful, but they do tend to be, on average, smaller and/or more
specialist (Eddington, 2006; Pettit and Beresford, 2008).
Port Ownership
The early 1990s saw the first clear evidence of overseas interest in our major ports with Hutchison Ports
Holdings acquiring Felixstowe then Thamesport. The UK model of port ownership, based largely on
variants of private operations, was not only oVering new “internal” opportunities for fresh capital and
entrepreneurship, but was proving to be very attractive to the UK non-port or part-port companies and to
overseas terminal operators. Internal examples in the 1990s were: TBI (airports) showing interest in
Shoreham, Langham Industries (construction) particularly in Portland Port, Govan Davies (property) in
Pembroke Dock, and more recently, Peel Holdings’ purchase of Mersey Docks and Harbour Company in
2005. Peel Holdings have a diverse property portfolio including the TraVord Centre in Manchester;
Liverpool—John Lennon Airport; Clydeport; and the Manchester Ship Canal. Examples of buying into UK
ports from overseas were: Hutchison Port Holdings’ (Hong Kong) purchase of Felixstowe then Thamesport
in the 1990s, Dubai Ports World’s acquisition of P&O Ports (hence acquiring major terminals at
Southampton and Thames Gateway), and the recent Admiral Consortium purchase of Associated British
Ports (ABP). It could be contended that no other country in the world would be so open to overseas
participation in a key strategic industry such as seaports. This is a measure of the flexibility of our systems
from a legislative and commercial point of view, and of the attractiveness of many of our ports as viable
businesses. This is especially true in south east England where the greatest range of ownership type is to be
seen (Pettit and Beresford, 2009).
Welsh Ports
In South Wales, we see the newest example of overseas participation with the unique Qatar-UK LNG joint
venture, linking the South Hook Terminal at Milford Haven to the National Grid via pipelines, opening up
a new sea-pipe “intermodal link” between the Middle East and Wales/England.2 This link capitalises on:
supply from Qatar, demand mainly in England and a port/pipe “bridge” through Wales. Wales and England
are thus interlocked. Milford Haven’s main assets are: deep water, marine accessibility and a sheltered
harbour. Although understandably, it has environmental sensitivities, it is remote from large population
centres. Logistically, a sea-pipeline combination is right for large volume, long-term LNG import.
Elsewhere, there are many examples of the interdependence of Wales and England in the context of freight/
passenger movements, and of Welsh ports acting as international gateways:
— Welsh ports handling English cargo:
— Holyhead—Roll on, roll oV.
— Milford Haven—LNG, oil.
— CardiV/Newport—Unit loads.
— English ports handling Welsh cargo:
— Dover/Portsmouth—Roll on/roll oV.
— Southampton/Bristol—containers, cars.
— Liverpool—bulks, general cargo, containers.
— Welsh ports serving Europe:
— Airbus wings manufactured at Broughton exported to France via Mostyn.
— Welsh Ports, notably Holyhead, Fishguard, Pembroke and Swansea, historically acting as
“landbridge” modes between Ireland and England/continental Europe.
In all of these, road links and/or rail/pipeline to/from the ports are also vital components of the transport
chain, particularly where cargo value or freight volumes are high, or where passenger movements are large.
Thus much of Wales’ port capacity and capability is actually serving England, Ireland and continental
Europe. Likewise, several English ports are vital to the well-being of the Welsh Economy, especially when
an appropriate multiplier is applied (Bryan et al, 2006). It is suggested that ABP ports alone generate nearly
£1.7 billion of activity in South Wales and the indirect impact of this extends well beyond Wales alone.
2
The Admiral Consortium consists of:
— Goldman Sachs, Wall Street Investment Bank, USA;
— GIC, Singapore Government Investment Company;
— Borealis, Canadian Pension Fund; and
— Prudential, Infrastructure Division, UK.
Processed: 29-10-2009 23:00:04
Page Layout: COENEW [E]
PPSysB Job: 435922
Unit: PAG7
Ev 72 Welsh Affairs Committee: Evidence
The overall British port system, therefore, is interlocked, especially for mobile or footloose cargo such as
unit loads. We are not in a situation where Welsh ports simply serve Wales and English ports simply serve
the needs of England.
Port Value Added Services: ABP Connect
How port logistics services fit into overall supply chains varies case by case, and ports are often key
components of several supply chains running simultaneously and in parallel. ABP’s formal recognition of
the business potential in supply chain value addition came in 2001 with the establishment of ABP Connect.
A subsidiary company focused on customer-tailored logistics, ABP Connect sees itself as a “one-stop-shop”
for transport, shipping and storage with bespoke facilities at four ABP ports (CardiV, Hull, Immingham
and Southampton) and at one inland site: Hams Hall, West Midlands. Target flows are high value goods
such as perishable food stuVs, cars, paper and steel.
The vision of ABP Connect is to simplify logistics by combining its existing cargo handling expertise with
the company’s national and international reach. Amongst its capabilities is: unit load solutions,
temperature-controlled supply chains, integrated information and date handling, abnormal load transport
and chemical logistics. ABP Connect at CardiV have emphasised cold-chain logistics management;
elsewhere, the emphasis varies according to need: at Immingham, car-handling is important business and
intermodal unit load traYc is the main business at Ham’s Hall where both port-related and Channel Tunnel
consignments are received and despatched. The Ham’s Hall terminal is linked to the port of Felixstowe by
rail and motorway/dual carriageway. This cross company co-operation was strengthened further in 2004
when the terminal was licensed to operate full customs clearance procedures in deep sea cargo enabling it
to act as a fully-fledged inland container depot (ICD). ABP Connect has therefore contributed considerably
to the diversification of the company’s traditional marine-focussed portfolio.
Container Shipping Networks
The most important influence on UK container ports development is the increasing dependence on import
flows from the Far East which acts as a “lead” trade lane with the biggest ships, the largest volumes of cargo
and the biggest influence on container port development in Europe. By implication, UK and European port
policy as applied to container ports is influenced considerably by trends in deep sea shipping and ship
building. Typically, a very large (5th or 6th generation) fully laden container ship discharges a quarter or
one fifth of its load in the UK and the rest in ports of continental Europe. This roughly reflects the size of
the respective markets but it is also determined in detail by a ships port-call sequence (“rotation”) and by
the number of port calls a major line may choose to make in Europe.
In general, major lines need call at only one UK port but are happy to call at several European ports within
a week or so provided that the volume of cargo justifies the high costs (port dues and cargo handling charges,
plus time related costs) incurred in port. Port-call strategies vary, but are driven by maximising cargo pick
up/drop oV, ship load factor maximisation, and strategic issues such as market coverage and “having a
presence” in as many major ports as possible. If cargo volumes do not keep pace with the growth in ship
size, there is considerable pressure to reduce main-line calls (perhaps to only one) and serve an area via
smaller “feeder” ships. As container ships have inexorably grown bigger with each “generation”, fewer and
fewer ports have been able to accommodate them. Currently, 15m water depth is roughly the global standard
for accommodating sixth-generation containerships fully-laden. Felixstowe and Southampton are the UK
ports best suited to this key requirement: Thames Gateway will also be able to handle such super-large ships
in combination with a handful of continental European ports.
The lock systems and tidal regimes at South Wales ports leaves them way short of this minimum standard:
they can never be incorporated into the north European mainline deep sea shipping schedules. Facing
westwards, away from Rotterdam with lock and marine access constraints, the South Wales general cargo/
container ports slot into niche roles rather than fulfilling a national gateway function in the way that
Felixstowe and Southampton do, and the former Shellhaven site is expected to. Most high-value unitised
freight coming into Wales originates from either the Far East or the EU; in both cases, the majority arrives
via east coast ports or Southampton; exports likewise go mostly eastwards. Road and rail links between
Wales and England are therefore of paramount importance for Wales’ economic well-being, as well as road/
rail links to the Welsh ports themselves. High value freight logistics solutions are invariably multimodal over
long distances.
Observations on Port and Transport Policy
In contrast to airport policy, where successive UK governments have applied a medium-to-firm steer, the
policy approach to ports has largely been light touch. The 90 or so Trust Ports (fishery plus non-fishery) are
interspersed with the 60! local authority “municipal” ports which are mainly small and concentrated in
southwest England, West Wales and Kent. These are themselves inter-mingled with a diverse group of fully
privatised ports which range from small regional facilities (such as the Trent ports) to some of Europe’s
biggest and most important hubs such as Southampton, Immingham, Felixstowe or London. Growing
numbers of UK ports or port groups are under non-British ownership. Despite this extreme diversity, the
combination of ownership models appears to deliver a high quality of service and, overall, good value for
money. For the UK, the long-running mostly “hands-oV” policy has generally allowed enterprise-driven
Processed: 29-10-2009 23:00:04
Page Layout: COENEW [O]
PPSysB Job: 435922
Unit: PAG7
Welsh Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 73
initiatives, and logistics concepts from outside the port industry, to influence port operations very positively.
The increased focus on integrating ports into supply chains has served to highlight certain capabilities and
capacity gaps, however. For example, on the British freight rail network several “capacity gaps” have been
identified (Network Rail, 2006 & 2007) which impact, or potentially impact, the ports notably on North
Humberside and on the Thames Gateway and Haven Ports routes to the Midlands. In Wales, logistics
operations are dominated by two east-west corridors which both serve local, national and international
needs. Although congestion on these routes is far less than that seen in North West England, the Midlands
and South East England (Eddington, 2006), delays and unpredictability still threaten the eVectiveness of
regional logistics services, including delivery of freight to/from the ports. The Port of CardiV lacks an ondock rail freight terminal for containers, and low-capacity roads and rail links to Fishguard, Pembroke and
Milford Haven are also potential pinch-points. With a high proportion of transport costs for high-value
unit-load freight being time or distance related, delays or unpredictable schedules translate immediately into
higher distribution costs. And as distances between Welsh ports and the main UK and European centres of
production/consumption are long, “ineYciency” costs accumulate rapidly and potentially disadvantage the
economy of Wales in relation to England quite significantly.
Conclusions and some Policy Pointers
Government policy towards Welsh ports cannot be, nor should it be, dramatically diVerent from that
applied to other British ports. Collectively, they form the British port system which itself is bound tightly
into the European port system and this in turn is driven largely by macro-forces such as intra-European
Union trade patterns, globalisation and the dominance of the Far East for deep sea exports into Europe and
the UK. However, there are certain important diVerences between Welsh ports and English ports, eg in the
profile of port ownership (private/trust/municipal), the landbridge function performed by several Welsh
ports, the extreme tidal regime constraining ship size and marine access in the Severn Estuary, the strategic
importance of just two key corridors in Wales, and the relative disadvantage Wales has, by virtue of its westfacing aspect, in relation to core EU trade. Port policy for Wales must take account of these diVerences. The
vulnerability of certain ports to economic downturn (eg Port Talbot for raw material imports for steel
manufacture) also needs to be born in mind. On the other hand, there are opportunities for capturing new
traYc, or developing existing flows, in RO-RO (freight only or freight/passenger) and cruise shipping.
Likewise, land-land logistics, exploiting the road and rail networks and strategic industrial sites on the dock
estate, could be further exploited to supplement and compliment existing sea-land logistics services.
Three parallel strategies therefore should be encouraged:
— Concentration: in CardiV and elsewhere, an ongoing review of asset utilisation, with a view to
increasing yield per square metre/per hectare is to be encouraged. This could lead to the ports
focussing on certain key cargoes and reducing the port’s footprint.
— Diversification: continue, where possible, the move away from lower value traditional cargoes and
towards other freight oVering value-addition opportunities consistent with the business
philosophy of ABP Connect.
— Integration: supply chains are increasingly required to be multi-faceted and multimodal, run as
“chain partnerships”. Sea-rail-road (eg for steel), sea-road-rail (containers) and sea-pipeline
(LNG, oil), are examples.
It is important to take account of the full range of logistic systems within which the ports fit when
reviewing the position of Welsh ports; in many cases they are locked into international supply chains and
thus must be viewed in a Welsh, British, European and global context at the same time.
June 2009
Written evidence from the British Ports Association and the UK Major Ports Group
Executive Summary
— Ports in Wales are major contributors to prosperity and employment.
— They crucially depend on their infrastructure connections to the transport network.
— They require full engagement with policy makers to ensure that policy delivers the conditions
for success.
1. This submission is made on behalf of the British Ports Association and the UK Major Ports Group
whose members account for the overwhelming majority of cargo and passengers handled by ports in Wales.
Both Associations very much welcome the inquiry, the interest it shows in this important sector and the
potential to establish a new relationship between WAG and the industry.
Processed: 29-10-2009 23:00:04
Page Layout: COENEW [E]
PPSysB Job: 435922
Unit: PAG7
Ev 74 Welsh Affairs Committee: Evidence
2. Cargo throughput for the latest recorded year (2007) was 57 million tonnes, equivalent to just under
10% of total UK throughput. Passenger movements totalled 3.1 million, equivalent to 13% of the UK total.
3. The Welsh Ports industry can be broken down into four main component parts. There is the ro-ro and
passenger traYc handled by Holyhead, Fishguard and Milford Haven; there is the significant oil and energy
sector traYc handled by Milford Haven, the largest port in Wales; there are the ports of Newport, CardiV,
Berry, Port Talbot and Swansea on the South coast owned and operated by Associated British Ports
handling dry and liquid bulk, forest products, iron and steel products and some lift-on lift-oV container
traYc; there is a range of smaller ports which are significant for leisure activity.
All in all, Wales hosts a broad cross section of port activity. In addition its links with Ireland provide a
strategically vital trade route between Ireland, the UK and the Continent.
4. Ports in Wales should be seen in the context of the totality of the UK ports sector, which is the largest
within the EU; over 95% of UK imports and exports by volume pass through ports. UK ports are estimated
to support 362,000 jobs, including direct, indirect and induced impacts. Ports therefore have significance
which goes far beyond their immediate cargo and passenger handling roles.
5. The UK ports industry is characterised by its strategic and financial independence. The three main port
models—privatised, trust and municipal—are all strongly represented in Wales. The privatised sector is
sizeable in Wales with ports owned by both ABP and Stena Line. Trust ports such as Milford Haven have
recently undergone a review of their Guidelines, which will be published shortly. Municipal ports, which
include Burry Port and Tenby, were reviewed as a sector in 2005. The connecting thread between all these
ownership models is common statutory responsibilities to provide safe navigation, appropriate facilities for
users and to have regard to the environmental impacts of operations and developments.
Policy Framework for the Development of the Welsh Ports
6. Currently, ports policy in Wales is non-devolved. However, important decisions on infrastructure
connections are devolved to the Welsh Assembly, although the funding is allocated centrally from London.
This is quite distinct from Scotland and Northern Ireland where ports policy is a devolved matter and where,
as a result, significant diVerences are emerging. In broad terms, ports in Wales support current ports policy in
as much as it is based on private sector, free market principles with a minimum of government involvement.
Nevertheless, this arrangement still demands a strong relationship with government which, as already
mentioned, makes ultimate decisions on road and rail spending and which issues licences and consents on
which the proper functioning of the industry depend.
7. The development of Welsh ports therefore is substantially a matter for the ports themselves, identifying
market opportunities, providing the right facilities and competing with other ports both within the region
and throughout the rest of the UK.
There is very little legislation directly aimed at ports; most is of a general nature, such as the
Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations. However, specific legislation includes measures on
reception of marine waste, security and dredging. The Water Framework Directive will also introduce a
rigorous water quality regime which will impact on ports.
8. Links between individual ports in Wales and the Welsh Assembly Government are strong and
productive but generally not conducted on the basis of ports acting jointly. The Wales Freight Group, whose
members include port operators, developed a Wales Freight Strategy published in 2008. At the beginning
of March a group of Welsh ports met the Deputy First Minister to look at a range of issues confronting the
industry. As a result a Welsh Ports Group has been established which will meet for the first time in CardiV
on 3 June and will involve Welsh Government oYcials.
9. There are two particular policy areas which the Group would like to identify at this stage. The first is
the future of the planning and licensing system. Under the Marine and Coastal Access Bill a new Marine
Management Organisation (MMO) will be set up. This has been supported by both the BPA and the
UKMPG in as much as it will streamline the licensing system and bring together various parts of government
which at the moment work separately. We are therefore concerned about the implications of a
recommendation proposing that the functions of an MMO should be a WAG responsibility. The MMO
brings together functions and personnel within one organisation with a clear remit; any diversion of these
functions elsewhere could undermine the principle of a “one stop shop”. Equally, we believe there is a real
danger that the recommendation will simply perpetuate the status quo with responsibility for licensing split
between various departments. Tied to this is the issue of cost and resources; we are concerned that there may
not be suYcient resources for WAG to create the necessary change.
10. The second issue is the adequacy of infrastructure connections. In England, Strategic National
Corridors (SNCs) have been identified and maps published. These take into account the major influence
ports have on traYc patterns, closely reflecting the recommendations of the Eddington report which
highlighted the value generated by good links to ports. The maps published by the DfT show SNCs trailling
oV at the Welsh border. It is vital that links, especially through North and South Wales connecting to the
rest of the UK and subsequently to Ireland and the Continent, are recognised for their strategic value and
are fully funded. The EU Trans-European network initiative (TENs) has benefited road links in North Wales
through their identification as Priority Project 13 (although some parts are still not completed). Of equal
Processed: 29-10-2009 23:00:04
Page Layout: COENEW [O]
PPSysB Job: 435922
Unit: PAG7
Welsh Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 75
importance are the South Wales connections. If identified as a TENs priority, they could provide a major
boost for transport, freight and local communities. More generally, we wish to play a bigger collective role
in transport spending decisions with ports at the table and fully consulted.
11. In summary, we believe that much more information about the needs of ports could be exchanged
between the ports acting collectively and WAG; these discussions should be on the understanding of the
importance of ports both to Wales and to the UK economy.
The Contribution of Welsh Ports to the Local Economy
12. We have already referred to the impact of ports on employment. Although it would be simplistic to
allocate 10% of all the benefits generated throughout the UK to ports in Wales as handlers of 10% of the
UK’s throughput, nevertheless, the economic contribution will be significant in terms of employment, the
value of connected services and other impacts such as tax receipts. To take one example, port operations in
Holyhead account for a significant proportion of the estimated 19,000 jobs in Anglesey. Of the 4,500 jobs
located in Holyhead itself, the port is responsible for direct employment of over 25% of the local work force
with an even larger number of indirect employment impacts created elsewhere on Anglesey. ABP ports
support over 16,000 full time equivalent jobs and generate £1.7 billion in value.
Potential to Increase Scale and Range of Trade with Other Countries
13. Ports themselves are not normally initiators of traYc; they are logistics hubs serving the needs of
passengers and freight owners. Port markets, though substantial, can be volatile and unpredictable. They
closely reflect prevailing economic conditions; they are a barometer of levels of economic activity. Many of
the changes for ports in Wales have been driven by the decline of the manufacturing sector, the needs of the
energy sector and the fortunes of the Irish economy. Whilst total throughput has remained remarkably
steady over the past 10 years, renewable energy and sustainable distribution represent significant
opportunities going forward. These include container traYc with the Continent and other parts of the UK,
and ro-ro links with Ireland. Ports policy has to create a framework that provides the conditions for success;
this will require a continually improving partnership between WAG and Welsh ports focusing on eVective
transport links and promoting sustainable distribution.
The Potential to Increase Freight Movements
14. One potential source of new business is the oVshore energy sector. The government’s commitment to
renewable energy has been backed up by publication of a report, UK Ports Prospectus which identifies four
ports in Wales (Mostyn, Milford Haven, Swansea and Port Talbot) as possible sites for servicing the oVshore
renewables sector. This will be substantially new business and apart from the movement of equipment, will
require storage and oVshore servicing facilities.
15. In addition to the opportunities identified in paragraph 12, more productive use could be made of the
Freight Facilities Grant Scheme and EU initiatives such as “Motorways of the Sea”. Both require good cooperation between ports and government.
Tourism and Cruise Ships
16. Cruise Wales has been recently set up and its members are Holyhead, Milford Haven, Fishguard,
CardiV and Swansea. These ports are at various stages of attracting cruise traYc but their cooperation under
the Cruise Wales banner, which includes government partners, represents an important initiative. For
example, Milford Haven is studying the possibility of developing a new multi-purpose berth facility. In
Holyhead 2008 saw the first call of a major cruise ship and WAG is commissioning a feasibility study for
berth site facilities. CardiV and Swansea both specialise in smaller, medium size cruise ships.
17. The arrival of a cruise ship can provide a major boost to local economies, but significant investment
is required in alongside berths to ensure the volumes of cruise calls are realized in Wales. It is estimated that
a cruise ship with 2,500 passengers is worth in the region of £200,000 to the local economy. The marina and
leisure harbour sector is also strong in Wales.
Adequacy of Security and Policing in Welsh Ports
18. Under the UK Borders Citizenship and Immigration Bill there are proposals to disband the Common
Travel Area and introduce immigration controls, passports and carriers liability. All these are likely to have
a significant eVect on the eYcient movement of freight and passengers and we will see the end of the
significant benefits that current CTA arrangements have generated. We are concerned that the requirements
for all ferry passengers to have a passport will have a significantly greater impact on customers resident in
rural parts of Wales than elsewhere in the UK; this could certainly aVect tourism. Strong concern about the
Bill’s impact has been expressed in recent debates in the House of Lords, to the extent that the CTA proposals
were removed as a result of a vote in the Lords in April. We fully expect that these provisions will be reintroduced in the Commons, but this removal shows the strength of feeling and also the view that current
CTA arrangements do not pose any significant security threat to the UK.
Processed: 29-10-2009 23:00:04
Page Layout: COENEW [E]
PPSysB Job: 435922
Unit: PAG7
Ev 76 Welsh Affairs Committee: Evidence
19. All ports in Wales will comply with the Port Security Regulations and will shortly have to comply
with the EU Security Directive which will be implemented through new Regulations later this year. We
believe that security and policing at Welsh ports are strong but that provision should always be mindful of
a fair balance between providing security and eYcient freight and passenger movement.
May 2009
Written evidence from CardiV Harbour Authority
CardiV has an active port with many businesses based within the port boundary and these contribute to
the local economy through employment and trade with other local businesses. In addition to traditional
business links CardiV Council actively works with the owners, Associated British Ports, to promote the port,
the capital and the region for cruise ship calls and turnarounds.
Promotion includes attendance at trade shows, a web presence, PR, production of brochures and
itineraries, and direct sales activity resulting in familiarisation trips. The joint work between the port and
destination is vital. The port has to provide appropriate facilities and services and the destination is the
“magnet”. Tourism professionals have the knowledge of the best fit attractions for the target market, often
advising ground handlers.
From an operational point of view, the Council assists in providing the welcome, in provision such as
banners, singers, bands, knowledgeable tourist information staV, shuttle busses etc.
On the all Wales front we work together to promote CardiV and appropriate South Wales ports with
Holyhead and Milford Haven under the Cruise Wales banner.
It should be noted that the other ports have recently achieved European funding as part of an Interreg
bid. Unfortunately CardiV is disadvantaged as a non designated convergence area and therefore is unable
to access this source of funding to assist the development of the Port.
The Council also works closely with the port over major events. Port land is often used for car parking and
other event infrastructure storage and the use of the main docks are also used for the berthing and display of
naval and other feature vessels that can be made accessible to the public.
July 2009
Written evidence from the Chartered Institute of Logistics and Transport (UK) Cymru Wales
Executive Summary
1. Ports are an important part of the Welsh economy, providing opportunities for businesses to access
overseas markets. However, in contrast to Scotland and Northern Ireland, the policy framework results in
ports coming under the jurisdiction of the Department for Transport. Ports have also diversified their roles
within modern supply chains and provide more than a transfer point between sea and land transport. This
has emphasised the need for an eVective distribution network within the hinterland to facilitate the
movement of goods in an eYcient manner. As a result of these changes, research suggests that the value of
the ports network within Wales exceeds 15,000 jobs and £1.7 billion of output (Bryan et al, 2006).
About CILT(UK) Cymru Wales
2. The Chartered Institute of Logistics and Transport (UK) is the pre-eminent independent professional
body for individuals associated with logistics, supply chains and transport planning. The Chartered Institute
of Logistics and Transport (CILT) International—formerly The Chartered Institute of Transport—was
formed in 1919 and was granted its Royal Charter in 1926. Growth of its overseas sections led to a
restructuring in 1994 under which 10 national councils were established in various parts of the world. The
Institute operates as a co-ordinating body and custodian of the Royal Charter. The Institute of Logistics
and Transport was formed in June 1999, following the integration of The Institute of Logistics and The
Chartered Institute of Transport in the UK. In April 2004 the Institute’s membership voted in favour of
ILT adopting the word “Chartered” into its title. In May 2004 the Institute oYcially became The Chartered
Institute of Logistics and Transport in the UK—CILT(UK).
3. In Wales, CILT(UK) Cymru Wales is responsible for the organisation of events for local members and
also comments on transport policy issues which apply to Wales. It is on this basis that we are providing
evidence to this Committee. We have over 600 members within Wales, including a number employed directly
in the ports industry and also supporting activities such as transport planning and academia.
Processed: 29-10-2009 23:00:04
Page Layout: COENEW [O]
PPSysB Job: 435922
Unit: PAG7
Welsh Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 77
Introduction
4. Overall, CILT(UK) welcomes this inquiry into the ports industry within Wales. Given the current
economic climate, it is essential for the Welsh economy that the logistics network can help support
manufacturing industry within the country. Ports provide essential gateways between Wales and the rest of
the world, strengthening their importance within the network. Our evidence particular comments on the
following areas of the inquiry:
— The policy framework for the development of Welsh ports, including co-operation and coordination between the UK Government and the Welsh Assembly Government.
— The contribution of Welsh ports to their local economies, including:
— the potential to increase the scale and range of trade with other countries; and
— the potential to increase freight movements through Welsh ports and the adequacy of the
transport infrastructure linking ports to their hinterlands and markets, including those
outside Wales.
5. We firstly comment on the policy framework for Welsh ports before discussing the role of ports today
and finally highlighting some of the economic benefits they bring.
Policy Framework for Welsh Ports
6. In terms of policy, Wales currently diVers from the other devolved governments in terms of its
jurisdiction over port policy. In both Scotland and Northern Ireland, the devolved governments have
responsibility for setting port policy. In Wales this responsibility remains with the UK national government,
although there is coordination with the Welsh Assembly Government. Indeed, the Wales Freight Strategy3
includes substantial reference to ports within it, and it is important that this is reflected in policy decisions
from the Department for Transport.
7. However, within the context of this inquiry, we would advise the Committee to consider the benefits
from devolving policy making for Welsh ports to ensure their continued competitiveness. Indeed, whereas
there may be limited competition between English ports and those in Scotland and Northern Ireland (except
for some commodities such as coal), there is much more choice between English and Welsh ports. For
example, Holyhead and Mostyn have to compete with Liverpool, while the south Wales ports compete with
those on the opposite side of the Severn Estuary, and particularly CardiV, Newport and Bristol.
8. Having said this, it is also important that any Welsh strategy aligns with the UK to ensure no unnecessary competition and wasted investment in duplicate facilities that then become under-used.
Role of Ports
9. Traditionally, the role of ports has been the transfer of goods between surface transport modes (such
as road and rail) and water borne transport, and this has influenced the nature of their development and the
commodities with which they are associated.
10. As an illustration of this, we would refer the Committee to the academic journal paper written by Dr
Anthony Beresford4 which provides a detailed analysis of the development of CardiV until the mid-1990s;
Beresford, A (1995) Redevelopment of the port of CardiV, Ocean and Coastal Management, Volume 27,
Number 1–2, pp 93–107.
11. Nowadays, ports provide a much wider role than just modal transfer. This includes:
— warehousing for imports, exports and domestic traYc;
— value-adding activities such as final processing. For example, at the port of CardiV, cat litter is
mixed and bagged according to customer requirements before being despatched; and
— modal-transfer between surface transport modes. An example (although no longer current) would
be the transfer of aluminium ingots between rail and road transport at the port of Newport on
behalf of Alcan.
12. Key to supporting port development are connections to the hinterland by land transport modes. In
Wales, connections for the onward movement of freight by land transport are varied:
— Barry, CardiV, Mostyn, Newport, Port Talbot, Swansea—road, rail.
— Milford Haven—road, pipeline.
— Pembroke, Fishguard, Holyhead5—road.
3
4
5
Wales Freight Strategy available from http://wales.gov.uk/topics/transport/publications/wfs/?lang%en
A member of CILT(UK) Cymru Wales.
These ports do have passenger rail connections; these are currently not used for freight and would require investment to make
them suitable to be so.
Processed: 29-10-2009 23:00:04
Page Layout: COENEW [E]
PPSysB Job: 435922
Unit: PAG7
Ev 78 Welsh Affairs Committee: Evidence
13. For the south Wales ports, one of the major challenges for onwards movements by rail is capacity in
the rail network. Freight movements to Barry are constrained by the intensive passenger service on the
CardiV Valleys network, particularly through Cogan Junction, while there are also capacity constraints on
the main line from CardiV to Swansea. The future aspirations of SEWTA6 are likely to put further pressure
on the rail network east of CardiV.
14. The connectivity of ports to the global shipping networks can also influence development, especially
container shipping. Currently, the majority of container traYc is transported by road and rail to
Southampton and Felixstowe, as these are regularly served by the largest container vessels on global
routings. The location of Welsh ports makes it less likely for these services to call, given the orientation of
current networks to the English Channel and the Le Havre-Hamburg port range. However, there may be
opportunities to encourage feeder ships to these ports, especially additional calls on services from west
Scotland and Irish ports.
Economic Contribution
15. In looking at the economic contribution of ports to the Welsh economy, we would like to draw the
Committee’s attention to the following paper: Bryan, J, Munday, M, Pickernell, D and Roberts, A (2006)
Assessing the economic significance of port activity: evidence from ABP operations in industrial South Wales,
Maritime Policy and Management, Volume 33, Number 4, pp 371–386.
16. In this, the authors look to quantify the wider impact of Associated British Ports’ operations in south
Wales (Newport, CardiV, Barry and Port Talbot). Amongst their conclusions are the following impact
assessments:
— ABP directly employs around 200 people and contributes £45 million to the Welsh economy.
— Through the industries that either use ABP’s facilities and land, the indirect contribution of the
ABP Ports is 15,700 jobs and £1.7 billion of output.
Consequently, it can be seen that having an eVective port network within Wales can make a significant
contribution to the wider economy and support many local businesses.
Conclusion
17. CILT(UK) believes that this inquiry is timely in terms of recognising the importance of the port
network to the Welsh economy, especially given the current economic climate. Through this evidence, we
hope to have demonstrated the variety of roles the ports now play and their wider contribution to the local
economy. Therefore, it would seem appropriate to consider in some detail whether devolution of port
strategy to the Welsh Assembly Government would enhance this contribution, by allowing the alignment
of ports policy with other transport and economic development policies.
April 2009
Written evidence from Callum Couper, FCILT, Chair, Wales Freight Group
Firstly I would like to thank the Committee for the opportunity to make a written and oral submission
regarding the Ports in Wales inquiry.
I am attending in my capacity as Chair of the Wales Freight Group, a role I have held since its inception
in November 2005.
By way of background I am employed by Associated British Ports at South Wales Ports and have specific
responsibility for management of ABP’s Ports of CardiV and Barry. During the past 23 years I have held a
number of senior management posts at ports in the UK and have also been involved with development of
freight strategies, including the Wales Freight Strategy and North West Regional Freight Strategy, and sat
on several freight advisory organisations.
Wales Freight Group
During November 2005 a meeting was organised by the Welsh Assembly Government to receive views
from Highway Authorities, freight organisations and freight companies concerning establishment of a Wales
Freight Group.
Overwhelmingly formation of a freight group was supported reflecting the desire for planners, providers
and users of freight services in Wales to participate in a strategic partnership to represent and develop freight
transport across all modes in Wales.
Concurrent was legislation to devolve rail and road functions to WAG and development of the Wales
Spatial Plan.
6
See the SEWTA Final Draft Regional Transport Plan (2008), available at
http://www.sewta.gov.uk/PDF/FinalDraftRegionalTransportPlan.pdf
Processed: 29-10-2009 23:00:04
Page Layout: COENEW [O]
PPSysB Job: 435922
Unit: PAG7
Welsh Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 79
The Wales Freight Group has approximately 40 participating organisations including Welsh Assembly
Government, Regional Transport Consortia, Network Rail, Freight Transport Association, Road Haulage
Association, Rail Freight Group, port and shipping operators, airport, rail and road haulage and logistics
companies, Skills for Logistics, and the Sustainable Development Commission Wales.
Specific to ports a Wales Port Group representing almost all commercial ports in Wales is in the process
of being established within the existing Wales Freight Group structure.
Wales Freight Strategy
During its first two years the Wales Freight Group focussed on development of the Wales Freight Strategy
which links to the Wales Transport Strategy and it is designed to:
— assist Regional Transport Consortia in the development of Regional Transport Plans;
— identify and promote factors supporting sustainable distribution systems;
— support Welsh industry and commerce with a reliable and cost eYcient network for raw materials,
and manufactured and consumer goods;
— anticipate and respond to fundamental changes in the supply chain and markets;
— identify weaknesses and constraints in the existing freight network which may impact on the Welsh
economy; and
— integrate and maximise use of existing freight infrastructure, using all transport modes to the
benefit of the environment and economy.
The strategy is broken down modally into road, rail, ports & shipping, air and pipeline.
Ports are considered regarding environmental benefits of sea borne freight, surface transport links,
regional and international connectivity and trade, economic development potential, trends in supply chain
and market shifts and opportunities for Welsh ports.
Welsh Ports
Ports are essential to trade and facilitate investment and employment. At their simplest they are the land
sea interface where cargo can be loaded and discharged from vessels however ports also have storage and
transit facilities, act as distribution hubs, support value added activities and in some cases full scale
manufacturing on or close to the port estate.
Ports may be quite specific in their function, specialising for example in containers, ro-ro, oil, or exhibit
a broad range of cargo types delivering into an extensive hinterland. They are economic drivers important
to the region, or nationally, and are key to the manufacturing, retail, energy, agricultural and construction
sectors also permitting ships to be positioned closest to the point of destination or origin of cargo,
minimising onward distribution costs and environmental impacts.
An eYcient port with good surface transport links provides a cost eVective route to market and raw
material access for indigenous manufacturing and retail businesses and can also be a strong part of Wales’
inward investment oVering in a competitive global economy.
During 2007 ports in Wales handled 56,597,000 tonnes of cargo c 10% of total UK seaborne trade.
Two key facilities of UK national significance are Milford Haven and Port Talbot, the latter being one of
only three harbours in the UK being able to accept fully laden cape size vessels. Crude oil/products at
Milford and raw materials for steel production at Ports Talbot comprise c 75% of Welsh seaborne trade.
Wales plays a key role for unit load trade to Ireland both UK origin and land bridge traYc. The three key
ports of Holyhead, Fishguard and Pembroke (Swansea currently attempting to re-establish Cork services
and Mostyn has a dedicated ro-ro berth) handle this in roll-on/roll-oV mode in addition to container services
from CardiV. Unit load comprises 5,171k tonnes which, stripping out the Milford and Port Talbot bulk
cargo is c 38% of Welsh port volumes.
The remaining trade is concentrated on the South Wales ports at Swansea, Barry, CardiV and Newport
that handle a broad range of cargoes and service hinterlands beyond Wales into the Midlands, M4 corridor
and South West.
The main Welsh commercial ports and their trade characteristics, including 2007 throughput, are:
— Mostyn. 154k tonnes. Airbus 380 wings, steel coil and wind farm projects. 79% exports. Ro-Ro
capacity.
— Llanddulas and Penrhyn. 398k tonnes. Majority limestone export at Llandullas and some
aggregate/dry bulk at Penrhyn. 88% exports.
— Holyhead. 3,468k tonnes. Ro-Ro port for driver accompanied freight and passenger traYc to
Southern Ireland. Also dry bulk imports for aluminium smelter & visiting cruise vessels. 54%
exports.
— Fishguard. 571k tonnes. Ro-Ro port for Southern Ireland trade. 41% exports.
Processed: 29-10-2009 23:00:04
Page Layout: COENEW [E]
PPSysB Job: 435922
Unit: PAG7
Ev 80 Welsh Affairs Committee: Evidence
— Milford Haven. 35,495k tonnes 96% of which comprises liquid bulks, including crude oil, oil
products, LNG. Ro-Ro services at Pembroke for Southern Ireland. 54% exports.
— Swansea. 683k tonnes. Dry bulks including coal, fertiliser and cement, steel, aggregates forest
products, projects. Ro-Ro capacity. 24% exports.
— Neath River. 420k tonnes. Aggregates, steel, scrap. 32% exports.
— Port Talbot. 9,052k tonnes. Iron ore, coking coal, limestone some general cargo and aggregates.
3% exports.
— Barry. 456k tonnes. Mainly liquid bulk chemicals also forest products and scrap. 26% exports.
— CardiV. 3,057k tonnes. Petroleum products, chemicals, steel, scrap, forest products, container
services, dry bulks. 17% exports.
— Newport. 2,328k tonnes. Steel, scrap, forest products, dry bulks including coal, cement and
fertiliser, aggregates, projects, military stores. 24% exports.
— Usk River. 515k tonnes. Steel, dry bulks, scrap, aggregates. 10% exports.
Key Issues
The headline message is that ports act as economic drivers within a region and provide opportunities for
existing and future economic activity that enhance competitiveness and investment. Ports can also facilitate
environmentally sustainable development when sea and/or rail transport is utilised and/or development
takes place close to the port.
Grouping some of the key issues together:
Road and Rail Infrastructure—EVective road links to the motorway network, freight corridors,
regional and strategic. EVect of Severn Crossing tolls.
Future capacity and capability of the rail network for freight (including W 10 loading gauge
capability).
Connectivity—International connections for Welsh manufacturers and retail trade may be
achieved through feeder vessel connections to deep-sea container hubs. Strengthening transport
links to global services and intercepting other UK trade into the Midlands/M62/M4 corridors.
Economic and Transport Planning—Understanding ports as economic drivers as part of the inward
investment oVering. Prominence of port facilities in Regional Transport Plans and LDP’s. Linking
strategic employment sites with port oVering. Potential for port centric logistics and value
added activity.
Sustainable Distribution—Ports can oVer great opportunities to promote sustainable distribution
of goods by coastal shipping and feeder services, thereby reducing environmental impacts and
pressure on congested road and rail networks. Many ports in Wales are working hard to realise
this potential; however, the right environmentally focussed policy framework and support from
government is also essential.
Energy—Import of fuels, fossil and renewable. Bio fuel processing and electricity generation on
or close to port estate. Wind farm construction/service base. National grid connection points/
capacity/reinforcement.
Cruise—Currently cruise vessels make port calls at Holyhead, Milford and occasionally Swansea/
CardiV benefiting the local economy. Future potential for UK based cruise departure/return to
Welsh ports.
Grant Regime—Environmental benefits of sea transport over long haul road. Limitations of TENT Marco Polo/MOS grant regimes to UK projects.
Dredging—Most ports require their navigation channels and berths to be dredged to maintain
vessel access and the spoil disposed of at licensed disposal sites in their proximity. This process has
been ongoing as long as the port itself and is essential for port operation. Restrictions on disposal
of dredged arisings may severely limit a port’s ability to operate with trade being displaced to other
ports out with the hinterland increasing long distance road haulage.
21 May 2009
Written evidence from Cruise Wales
Objective
To develop and promote Wales as a major cruise destination in northern Europe and to achieve that vision
by building new alongside berths at Holyhead and Milford Haven to accommodate the largest cruise ships
in the world and by using the existing port facilities at CardiV, Pembrokeshire and Swansea for the smaller
niche cruise lines.
Processed: 29-10-2009 23:00:04
Page Layout: COENEW [O]
PPSysB Job: 435922
Unit: PAG7
Welsh Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 81
Cruise—The Market Potential
Introduction
The cruise industry has shown dramatic growth over the last 10 years with demand for cruising more than
doubling. Its potential to continue to grow remains, with as yet only 3% of the US population presently
cruising and in the UK only 2%. Furthermore, other European markets are seeing large growth in the cruise
sector. Notably, Germany growing by 19% in three years, Spain by 24% and Italy by a staggering 49%. In 10
years from 1995 to 2005 the numbers of Europeans cruising trebled and this is predicted to continue apace.
Northern Europe as a cruise ground has grown as the industry has developed and is particularly attractive
to the cruise lines as it produces the highest yield per cruise passenger (price of cruise and the highest revenue
for shore excursions).
In 2005 87 cruise ships were active in Northern European waters, 24 were deployed by North American
lines and 49 vessels from European cruise lines. Since then even more operators have entered the arena,
notably Carnival (homeport Dover 2008), MSc Cruise Line (homeport Dover 2007 with additional vessels
in 2008), RCL/Celebrity (homeports Harwich and Southampton), NCL (home port Dover and
Southampton). New vessels have also been introduced by existing operators (eg Fred Olsen (Boudicca and
Balmoral), Cunard (Victoria)).
The justification for developing the strategy includes:
1. The need for new cruise grounds
50 new vessels are due to be launched into the market between 2007–12. The new builds represent
from Carnival 141,000 berths, RCL/Celebrity 69,348 berths, Star Cruises/NCL 30,000 berths,
MSC 13,256 berths. It should be noted that some 90% of the cruise line fleet in the world is
controlled by these four companies.
New cruise grounds will be needed to satisfy the demands of the lines and their customers and the
Welsh ports can form part of a number of itineraries:
— the Irish Sea Cruise (developing upon the already established Ports of Cork and Dublin);
— the round British Isles Cruise (Holland America already call at Milford on such an
itinerary);
— the Celtic Fringe Cruise including Northern Iberia, the Bay of Biscay and the Irish Sea;
— Irish Sea and Iceland Cruise (Irish Ports are already part of this itinerary); and
— Irish Sea to/from Northern America (Transatlantic).
2. Increasing Size of the Ships in European waters
If Milford and Holyhead build alongside facilities they will be able to handle any cruise ship
operating worldwide. Cruise ships of over 300 metres carrying in excess of 3,000 passengers are
now being introduced into the Northern European Market. The Irish Sea will have a unique
opportunity to oVer a cruise for these mega ships (eg Southampton as the home port a cruise could
include Cherbourg, Cork, Holyhead, Greenock and Milford Haven).
Originally, it was assumed that the new mega cruise ships would be deployed in the Caribbean and
the displaced smaller vessels (250 metres LOA, 2,500 passengers) would be put in the European
cruise area. However, 2007 and 2008 have shown this not to be the case with new vessels being put
straight into the European market.
3. Cruise Season
The season in European waters has lengthened, now commencing in April and going through to
October. Turnaround calls in the UK are now operating throughout the year and the introduction
of mini-cruises (three to four days) to develop the market are not only growing but taking place
throughout the year.
4. Passenger requirements
The Irish Sea cruise ground has huge potential to expand because it oVers unique opportunities
for all areas of the market:
— the Americans seeking out their roots or wanting to travel to English speaking countries
for their first trip abroad;
— the Spanish/Italians seek a colder climate in the height of their Summer (this also applies
to US passengers living in the humid Southern states);
— the Germans, Dutch and Scandinavians, who are often well travelled so seek more culture
and wildlife tours;
— children (a growing and targeted group by the mass market lines) activity based tours—
cycling, white water rafting, canoeing, horse riding, etc; and
— the untapped markets of Eastern Europe and the Far East.
Processed: 29-10-2009 23:00:04
Page Layout: COENEW [E]
PPSysB Job: 435922
Unit: PAG7
Ev 82 Welsh Affairs Committee: Evidence
5. Potential Cruise Calls
If potential cruise calls had been assessed two years ago, it would have been estimated that the
likely number of calls for Wales would have been around 30 per year. However, the market has
changed and the lines are hungry for new itineraries and therefore the potential for growth is
considerable. Sixty calls per annum is a more than achievable target with the possibility of growth
of up to 80 calls per year. Whilst the Welsh ports will remain a Port of Call, it is also possible that
some of the larger cruise lines will allow Welsh passengers to board the cruise at the port. The
Italian Lines of MSC and Costa have already started embarkation/disembarkation at all ports on
a cruise. Holyhead is particularly suitable for this at it already possesses a modern under-utilised
passenger terminal and therefore further investment for turnaround calls are not necessary. In the
smaller ports of Swansea and CardiV refurbished warehouses can be used to handle the passengers.
Whilst long term contracts with the lines are not usually forthcoming, it will be possible to do three/
five year agreements and incentives for multiple calls. Fred Olsen has already requested charges
for regular calls and it is hoped that they would do a longer term deal for the right package. The
largest cruise line group Carnival have also indicated that they would accept a passenger port
improvement fee similar to that which they already operate in the Caribbean if facilities were
developed and Holyhead’s proposals have already been discussed with all the lines in their group.
6. Other factors influencing a Cruise Call
Given the increased cost of bunkers and its impact on the overall profitability of the lines, the Irish
Sea cruise ground should oVer an attractive opportunity. The area oVers short steaming distances
between ports yet is able to provide very diVerent tour oVerings at each destination. Milford
Haven’s ability to oVer attractive fuel provisions will also be a major reason for the lines wanting
to call. Furthermore, given available tank storage near the proposed development, the easy
disposal of grey water and the provision of fresh waters will also be an attraction.
The retail outlets and visitor attractions within walking distance of the ship are important to the
lines, not only for the passengers but for the crew who exert considerable spending power. All
Welsh ports oVer free shuttle buses to the town centres; with the exception of Holyhead these are
funded by the local councils. In Holyhead the Port Authority Stena provide the transport.
All cruises oVer themed night dinners to reflect the port of call. These will provide opportunities
for the sale of Welsh produce (lamb, beef, fish, etc). Regent Seven Seas purchased water at
Holyhead this month and Silverseas who will be calling in CardiV in 2010 have already indicated
their intention to purchase stores.
June 2009
Written evidence from the European Commission
Terms of Reference
The Welsh AVairs Select Committee has agreed to undertake an inquiry to examine:
— The policy framework for the development of Welsh ports, including co-operation and coordination between the UK Government and the Welsh Assembly Government.
— The contribution of Welsh ports to their local economies, including:
— the potential to increase the scale and range of trade with other countries; and
— the potential to increase freight movements through Welsh ports and the adequacy of the
transport infrastructure linking ports to their hinterlands and markets, including those
outside Wales.
— The development of tourism and the potential for attracting cruise ships to Welsh ports.
— The adequacy of security and policing provision at Welsh ports.
I. European Port policy—Favouring appropriate port development as a general policy
1. After a thorough consultation of the sector, in October 2007 the Commission adopted a
Communication on European Ports Policy.7 The Communication:
— sets out the main lines of the European Ports Policy;
— includes the assessment by the Commission of the current situation and indicates its general
objectives. One of those objectives is port development, balancing the needs of the market, spatial
planning by national authorities and environmental protection;
— sets up an action plan for the realization of the objectives in question with specific actions in the
diVerent fields; and
7
COM(2007)616
Processed: 29-10-2009 23:00:04
Page Layout: COENEW [O]
PPSysB Job: 435922
Unit: PAG7
Welsh Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 83
— includes an interpretation of the Treaty rules on freedom of establishment and freedom to provide
services to the port sector, namely to port concessions, technical-nautical services and work in
ports.
2. The action plan includes the adoption of guidelines on State aid to port infrastructure and on the
application of environmental rules to port development.
II. Specific instruments for port and maritime trades development : State aid to short sea shipping
3. In order to encourage the modal shift from road to sea, a new category of State aid has been introduced
in the 2004 Guidelines on State aid to maritime transport (Chapter 10 of the Guidelines).8
4. Aid up to 30% of the operational cost and up to 10% of investments may be granted for the start-up
phase—ie, three years—of new initiatives in this sector. Initiatives may consist of new maritime links—
domestic or intra-Community—or the enhancement of existing ones. Recipients (in principle shipping
companies) will have to be selected by means of a tender procedure.
5. It should be borne in mind that the Guidelines have retained a notion of short sea shipping which only
includes transport between ports located in the EU.
III. Financing of Motorways of the Sea under the Marco Polo Programme
6. The European programme Marco Polo II (EU funding)9 aims at promoting the shifting of freight
carried by road to more environmental friendly modes of transport, including maritime transport. The
programme encompasses five sets of actions, one of them being the development of “motorways of the sea”,
specifically aimed to shift freight from road to short sea shipping or a combination of short sea shipping
with other modes of transport. Main features of motorways of the sea projects are:
— maximum subsidy is 2 EUR per 500 tonne-km shifted oV the road;
— minimum project size is 1,25 billion tonne-km shifted over the total length of each contract;
— subsidy rate can be up to 35% of eligible costs;
— subsidy is available for up to five years;
— preparatory measures and infrastructure ancillary to the action can be supported;
— supported action has to be innovative; and
— the project has to be viable after the end of the subsidy (which therefore only covers the start-up
period).
7. Marco Polo is open to private and public undertakings (legal persons or entities) engaged in
commercial activities. Participants may come from EU Member States, or “close third countries”. Projects
must demonstrate a European dimension to be eligible for support. They must cover an international route,
either only involving EU territory or EU territory and the territory of a close third country.
8. The latest Marco Polo call was closed on 8 May 2009. Next call will be at the beginning of 2010.
9. It should be noted that with respect to Marco Polo selected projects for which no EU funding is
available or the available EU funding is less than the maximum amount that can be granted to the initiative,
Member States may provide complementary State aid in order to achieve the maximum intensity and
duration (35% over five years).10
IV. Financing of Motorways of the Sea under TEN-T
10. Under the TEN-T Guidelines11 Motorways of the Sea, as priority projects, can benefit from the
multi-annual programmes (some 310 millions Euros available over the period 2007–13). Intensity of funding
is 20 or 30% maximum for works and 50% for studies. For start-up aid (investments), funding is 30%
maximum during two years. Member States may provide complementary State aid in order to achieve this
maximum intensity and duration.
11. Both private and public undertakings and public authorities can apply for funding to the TEN-T
programme. However, projects have first to be pre-selected through calls for proposals organised jointly by
at least two Member States and have to be explicitly approved by the Member States. The North Sea states
organised such a call in 2008 but did not receive project proposals. They may organise a new call in 2009.
8
9
10
11
Commission Communication C(2004) 43—Community guidelines on State aid to maritime transport (OJ C 13, 17.1.2004,
p 3)
This programme was established by Regulation (EC) No 1692/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24
October 2006 establishing the second “Marco Polo” programme for the granting of Community financial assistance to
improve the environmental performance of the freight transport system (Marco Polo II).
See Communication from the Commission providing guidance on State aid complementary to Community funding for the
launching of the motorways of the sea (OJ C 317 of 12.12.2008, p 10.
Decision 1364/2006/EC laying down guidelines for trans-European energy networks. See also Regulation 1159/2005 laying
down general rules for the granting of Community financial aid in the field of trans-European networks.
Processed: 29-10-2009 23:00:04
Page Layout: COENEW [E]
PPSysB Job: 435922
Unit: PAG7
Ev 84 Welsh Affairs Committee: Evidence
12. TEN-T Motorways of the Sea projects link infrastructure works to upgrading of maritime links and
involve at least two ports and a maritime operator. Facilities and infrastructure open to all users on a nondiscriminatory basis can be funded. These can include elements such as:
— dikes, breakwaters, locks and other high water protection measures;
— lights, buoys, beacons; floating pontoon ramps in tidal areas;
— infrastructure for utilities up to the terminal site;
— direct land and sea access to port, including short connecting links to the national transport
networks or to the TEN-T network and connections to intermodal centres with a high potential
of concentrating freight on the MoS, port facilities, eg equipment available to all users;
— electronic logistics management systems;
— information systems, including traYc management (VTMIS) and electronic reporting systems;
— safety and security measures;
— administration and customs;
— waterways and canals linking two European Motorways of the Sea or two sections thereof,
substantially shortening sea routes;
— facilities for dredging; and
— icebreakers and facilities for icebreaking for winter access.
13. The TEN-T Guidelines will be reviewed next year and a broad consultation in this respect is already
being carried out.
V. Ports funding under the TEN-T
14. Under the TEN-T Guidelines12 Ports can only benefit from the annual programmes (some 100
millions Euros available annually), as only priority projects have access to multi-annual programme (some
6 billions Euros) and port projects are not.
15. Both private and public undertakings and public authorities can apply for funding. However, projects
have to be backed by the relevant national representative in the TEN-T Financial Committee. For this
reason almost all the projects are “public”. Calls for ports are normally published in March each year and
are open for two months. Intensity of funding is 10% for works and 50% for studies.
16. Works regarding access infrastructure are funded with priority, such as breakwaters, fairway
dredging, as well as TEN-T hinterland connections from ports to the rest of the TEN-T network (locks, rail
and road connections). Adaptation of ports to environmental requirements is also financed (eg areas for oil
and waste dumping). Terminals are in principle not funded.
17. As mentioned, the TEN-T Guidelines will be reviewed next year.
V. Study by the European Commission on tourist facilities in ports
18. The Communication “An Integrated Maritime Policy for the European Union”13 stresses the
importance of reconciling “economic development, environmental sustainability and quality of life” within
coastal regions. “The sea is determinant for coastal and maritime tourism, which has been a major catalyst
for economic development in coastal areas of Europe. The Commission will work more actively with
stakeholders in developing a sustainable tourism policy that takes coastal and maritime tourism into
account.” (Section 4.3).
19. Against this background, the Commission has launched a study to analyse the benefits for ports to
invest in infrastructure and facilities for receiving tourists, notably through cruise tourism. The study will
provide:
— clear facts on the benefits and costs of investing in tourist facilities in ports;
— more clarity about the opportunities and threats associated with investments in sustainable
tourism facilities in and around ports;
— insights in the costs associated with compliance to the increasingly stringent environmental rules
or to provide environmentally sustainable facilities; and
— an indicator to calculate the “return on investment” when investing in tourist facilities in ports.
20. The study will be published in September 2009.14
12
13
14
Decision 1364/2006/EC laying down guidelines for trans-European energy networks. See also Regulation 1159/2005 laying
down general rules for the granting of Community financial aid in the field of trans-European networks.
Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social
Committee and the Committee of the Regions—An Integrated Maritime Policy for the European Union UCOM(2007) 574
final).
Information on this ongoing study is available at
http://ec.europa.eu/maritimeaVairs/tourist facilities en.html
Processed: 29-10-2009 23:00:04
Page Layout: COENEW [O]
PPSysB Job: 435922
Unit: PAG7
Welsh Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 85
VI. Maritime security
21. Three Community legislative measures apply to port security: Regulation 725/2004, Directive 2005/
65 and Regulation 324/2008.
22. The main objective of the Regulation is to enhance ship and port facility security in the face of threats
posed by intentional unlawful acts. The Regulation is intended to provide a basis for a harmonized
interpretation and implementation of special measures to enhance maritime security adopted by the
Diplomatic Conference of the International Maritime Organization (IMO) in 2002.
23. The Directive completes the mechanism provided for under the Regulation by establishing a security
system for all port areas, in order to ensure a high and comparable level of security for all European ports.
The aim of the Directive is to improve security in port areas not covered by the Regulation without creating
additional obligations in areas already governed by the latter.
24. Finally, inspections conducted by the Commission in order to monitor the implementation of the
above-described provisions are currently governed by Regulation 324/2008.
June 2009
Written evidence from Fred. Olsen Cruise Lines
Introduction
1. Fred. Olsen Cruise Lines (FOCL) is part of the Fred. Olsen Group of companies listed on the Oslo
stock exchange which includes cruise and passenger shipping trade as well as ships’ crewing, shipbuilding
and oVshore industries.
2. The cruise company operates five cruise vessels, Balmoral, Braemar, Black Watch, Boudicca, Black
Prince. The headquarters are based in oYces in Ipswich, SuVolk.
3. The company carries over 100,000 passengers per year across approximately 125 cruises. 95% of the
passengers are British, the remainder being predominantly European and American.
4. FOCL conduct turnaround operations in the ports of Southampton, Portsmouth, Dover, Newcastle,
Rosyth, Greenock and Liverpool and call to many other ports in the UK during cruises.
Fred. Olsen Cruise Lines invite the Committee to consider the following submission.
Executive Summary
5. Fred. Olsen Cruise Lines has been steadily increasing the number of cruises that call at UK and Irish
ports. The number of Welsh calls on these itineraries is disproportionally low when compared to other parts
of the UK and Ireland.
6. The company has already investigated the possibility of operating cruise turnarounds in Wales but was
unable to find a location with adequate facilities.
7. FOCL has a desire to conduct limited turnaround operations in Wales and to increase the number of
transit calls subject to facilities being made available at economic costs.
Fred. Olsen Cruise Lines’ Operations in Wales
8. Since 2004 FOCL has made two calls to Holyhead and three calls to Milford Haven. We have one
further call planned in 2010 to Milford Haven.
9. In the same period (2004 to 2009) FOCL has made a total of 53 calls to Dublin and numerous calls to
Scottish and English ports on UK cruises.
10. In May 2008 FOCL visited the port of CardiV to establish if vessel turnarounds could be conducted.
Regrettably we found that the port did not have adequate facilities and we have shelved any plans to operate
cruises from the south Wales region. FOCL believes there is suYcient demand in the region to operate a
limited number of cruises from a Welsh home port.
Facilities Development
11. The requirement for facilities falls into two clear categories according to the nature of the cruise call.
Transit calls (sometimes referred to as way-port calls) and Turnaround calls.
12. Transit calls occur part way through a voyage. Typically the vessel will arrive between 0800 and 0900
and it will depart around eight hours later. Passengers will undertake organised shore excursions or explore
the port independently. The European Cruise Council (ECC) estimates that such calls are worth ƒ50 per
passenger carried to the local economy.
13. Transit calls can be made at anchor and the passengers transferred ashore by the vessel’s tenders or
local boats. As a cruise line we prefer to avoid tendering passengers as the process can be slow and there is
an increased risk that the call would have to be abandoned in poor weather conditions.
Processed: 29-10-2009 23:00:04
Page Layout: COENEW [E]
PPSysB Job: 435922
Unit: PAG7
Ev 86 Welsh Affairs Committee: Evidence
14. Turnaround calls occur at the start and end of each cruise. Typically the vessel will arrive before 0700
and discharge baggage and garbage. Passengers will disembark and normally the vessel will be clear of
passengers by 1000. The vessel will often take on stores and bunkers (if available) and the embarking
passengers will begin to arrive around 1300. The vessel will then depart on the next cruise at around 1700.
The ECC estimates that such calls are worth ƒ100 per passenger carried to the local economy.
15. Transit calls therefore require little in terms of facilities. The essential requirements are:
(i) A safe approach in a wide range of conditions.
(ii) Towage available but not compulsory.
(iii) A suYciently long, well fendered berth, in good condition, free of hazards.
(iv) An area immediately adjacent to the vessel in which to marshal and dispatch excursion coaches
and shuttle buses.
(v) Fast and eYcient customs and immigration clearance.
16. Turnaround calls require a lot more in terms of facilities and equipments. In addition to the points
above, in order to eVect a good turnaround the vessel must be provided:
(i) Baggage handling and screening equipment.
(ii) Provisions marshalling area.
(iii) Provisions handling equipment.
(iv) Car Parking.
(v) Check-in areas.
(vi) Waiting lounges with PA systems.
(vii) Refreshment outlet and toilets.
(viii) Passenger screening equipment.
(ix) Skilled staV.
17. FOCL would conduct more operations in Welsh ports if the above facilities were made available at
economic costs.
What Makes an Attractive Destination
18. The “destination” is not limited to the area in the immediate vicinity of the port. It is not unusual for
the port to be some distance from the main attractions. For example Civitavecchia is often used for making
visits to Rome, some two hours away by coach transfer.
19. The following are the essential ingredients for making a port attractive to both the cruise line and its
passengers:
(i) A community that really wants us to call.
(ii) EYcient ship’s clearance by Customs & Immigration oYcials.
(iii) Economic port charges.
(iv) A great quayside welcome when the ship arrives.
(v) Well trained guides.
(vi) Good quality transportation.
(vii) Free shuttle service from the port to town.
(viii) A good tourist information service.
(ix) Tour operators who fully understand what cruise lines want.
(x) Interesting attractions within easy reach of the port to suit all age groups and abilities.
(xi) A friendly and exciting send oV for the ship to end a successful day’s visit on a high note.
20. The area immediately surrounding the vessel should be pleasant in appearance. It is not possible to
disguise a working port as anything else but thought should be given to the general tidiness and cleanliness
of the berth.
Processed: 29-10-2009 23:00:04
Page Layout: COENEW [O]
PPSysB Job: 435922
Unit: PAG7
Welsh Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 87
21. The destination will need to have at least four excursion options, examples of such (from St Peter Port
and Belfast) are contained within the annex.
June 2009
Annex A
GUERNSEY, CHANNEL ISLANDS
Tour A
Island Tour
Duration: 3 hours
Participants: Limited to 160
Experience the historic sights and beautiful scenery of Guernsey as we enjoy a panoramic tour around
the island.
Departing from the pier, we will drive alongside the harbour seafront, past the 12th century church of St
Peter Port and up to the top of Las Val des Terres. We continue through St Martins Village and to the Little
Chapel, which is the smallest consecrated church in the world, built as a labour of love. The design, based
on the Grotto at Lourdes, is decorated as a mosaic with shells and donated fragments of Wedgewood and
Royal Doulton china.
Following a brief stop here, we continue through country lanes to the west coast, where we will make a
photo stop to capture the beautiful seascape from the high vantage point of Pleinmont cliVs. We shall view
Les Hanois Lighthouse, and the ruins of an ancient watchtower where the French author Victor Hugo
received inspiration for his epic work Toilers of the Sea.
Descending the hill, we will see the natural fishing harbour of Rocquaine Bay and the Martello Tower
of Fort Grey. We shall then stop for refreshments and a slice of traditional Guernsey Gache at a tea room
overlooking the beautiful bay.
Our coach continues along the west and north coasts, past the glorious sandy beaches of L’Eree and Vazon
and huge granite rock formations at Cobo Bay, before turning inland and returning to the harbour.
Tour Notes: There is very little walking involved in this tour—approximately 300 metres (985 feet) at the
Little Chapel, 50 metres (165 feet) at Pleinmont Point and 10 metres (33 feet) at our refreshment stop. There
are approximately 12 steps to negotiate at the Little Chapel. Unfortunately the Little Chapel is not
wheelchair accessible, however passengers can remain outside or on the coach if they wish. Toilet facilities
are available at the tea rooms. To avoid congestion at the sites, this tour may operate in a diVerent order to
that described.
Tour B
Floral Guernsey
Duration: 4 hours
Participants: Limited to 30 per departure
On this tour we can experience the sights and sounds of a Freesia Centre, relax amidst five acres of
beautiful landscaped gardens at the Gold & Silversmith Workshop and visit a privately owned award
winning cliV top garden in the country parish of St Martins.
Departing from the pier, we shall drive to the Freesia Centre, where we shall see the freesias at diVerent
stages of development. One of the large glasshouses here is kept in full bloom for us to enjoy the scent and
colours of this delicate flower.
Next, we travel along the west coast and through Kings Mills, an area of natural beauty with many
traditional Guernsey farmhouses, before reaching the Gold & Silversmith’s Workshop. The workshop is
situated in a country lane amidst five acres of landscaped gardens. Here, at the Pavilion Restaurant, we shall
have a cup of tea or coVee and a piece of traditional Guernsey Gache.
Once refreshed, we shall drive past the Little Chapel (viewed from the coach only) and on to the cliV top
garden in St Martins parish. Here we will have time to enjoy the sights, scents and colours of the diverse
plants, which thrive in the Mediterranean climate, on our private visit to this award-winning garden.
For those who wish to experience a short cliV walk, our guide will walk with us from the garden to the
cliV path and viewpoint above Fermain Bay. Please note that, should our call fall between April and early
June, there will also be a chance we can instead view the exquisite, natural Bluebell Wood. Alternatively we
may stay in the garden or wait on the coach.
After the optional short walk along the cliV path, or through the wood, we return to our coach and drive
back to the harbour.
Processed: 29-10-2009 23:00:04
Page Layout: COENEW [E]
PPSysB Job: 435922
Unit: PAG7
Ev 88 Welsh Affairs Committee: Evidence
Tour Notes: This tour involves a moderate amount of walking. There is approximately 300 metres (985
feet) of walking at the Freesia Centre, 100 metres (330 feet) at our refreshment venue, 500 metres at the
Private Garden in St Martins over sloping ground (and an optional walk of 800 metres which is sloping and
uneven). There are approximately 10 steps to negotiate at the refreshment stop. Toilet facilities are available
at the Freesia Centre, our refreshment stop and at the Private Garden.
Tour C
Herm Island Tour
Duration: 3 hours
Participants: Limited to 50 participants
Just three miles oV the coast of Guernsey and a quick 20-minute boat ride away lies this beautiful little
island paradise with a beautiful coastline, wild flowers, sparkling blue sea, pretty harbours and white sandy
beaches. Herm Island, which measures just a mile and a half long and half a mile wide, has all we could wish
for—there are no cars, no crowds and definitely no stress.
Upon arrival at the harbour, we will take an approximate 60-minute walk across the common to Shell
Beach, where we won’t be able to resist walking along the strand looking for shells. The path continues to
Belvoir Bay, a little sandy lagoon, perfect for relaxing with an ice cream on a hot day. A woodland path
stretches up to the top of the island, where we can visit the little church of St Tugual, which dates from the
10th century.
Once we have descended the hill, we can purchase a snack if we wish (at our own expense) and enjoy some
free time to explore the small shops, which stock a variety of gifts and souvenirs.
We return by boat to either Guernsey harbour or the Rosaire steps (depending on tidal conditions).
Tour Notes: This tour is not suitable for wheelchair users or passengers with limited mobility, as it is
predominantly a walking tour. A variety of terrain will be encountered, including steep slopes, cliV paths,
beach paths and grass. Public toilet facilities are available outside Mermaid Tea Gardens and at Shell Beach.
Passengers are advised to wear comfortable shoes and to come prepared for the weather conditions on
the day.
Tour CX
Herm Island Tour
Duration: 5 hours
Participants: Limited to 50 participants
Just three miles oV the coast of Guernsey and a quick 20-minute boat ride away lies this beautiful little
island paradise with a beautiful coastline, wild flowers, sparkling blue sea, pretty harbours and white sandy
beaches. Herm Island, which measures just a mile and a half long and half a mile wide, has all we could wish
for—there are no cars, no crowds and definitely no stress.
Upon arrival at the harbour, we will take an approximate 60-minute walk across the common to Shell
Beach, where we won’t be able to resist walking along the strand looking for shells. The path continues to
Belvoir Bay, a little sandy lagoon, perfect for relaxing with an ice cream on a hot day. A woodland path
stretches up to the top of the island, where we can visit the little church of St Tugual, which dates from the
10th century.
Once we have descended the hill, we can purchase a snack if we wish (at our own expense) and then enjoy
our free time. We may wish to relax on the beach near the harbour, watch the boats or venture onto the
cliV paths overlooking the small island of Jethou. There are small shops, which stock a variety of gifts and
souvenirs.
We return by boat to either Guernsey harbour or the Rosaire steps (depending on tidal conditions).
Tour Notes: This tour is not suitable for wheelchair users or passengers with limited mobility, as it is
predominantly a walking tour. A variety of terrain will be encountered, including steep slopes, cliV paths,
beach paths and grass. We should have a couple of hours of free time. Public toilet facilities are available
outside Mermaid Tea Gardens and at Shell Beach. Passengers are advised to wear comfortable shoes and
to come prepared for the weather conditions on the day.
Processed: 29-10-2009 23:00:04
Page Layout: COENEW [O]
PPSysB Job: 435922
Unit: PAG7
Welsh Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 89
BEACH ACTIVITY TOUR
Duration: 3 hours
Participants: Maximum of 32
Enjoy an organised beach party with your family, on one of Guernsey’s most spectacular beaches. All you
need to bring is your towel and swimsuit and leave the rest to us!
Choose from a selection of kayaking, beach games, raft building and volleyball—all will be organised and
closely supervised by professional instructors who will make sure that we get the most out of our time on
the beach.
On the day of our visit we will have a fun filled two and a half-hours on the beach, after the transfer to
our chosen location. Once there, we will be welcomed by the group leader and divided into teams—which
will be alternated throughout the activities in order to have as much fun as possible.
At the end of the time on the beach, we will be transferred by minibus back to the harbour.
Tour Notes: Children MUST be accompanied by an adult. This tour is most suitable for children aged
eight and over, although all are welcome to participate. Come already wearing swimwear under casual
clothes and bring towels and sun protection—a warm jumper or jacket is also advised. There are no changing
rooms or showers, but public toilets are available. It is a good idea to bring a bottle of water.
BELFAST, NORTHERN IRELAND
Tour A
Belfast City—A Historic Tour
Duration: 3° hours
Belfast, the capital of Northern Ireland, has mixed modern development with historic buildings to create
a lively and attractive city. Belfast welcomes all visitors with open arms and invites us to explore its rich
heritage. This orientation tour highlights the city’s famous landmarks.
Passing through the city, we shall have a photo stop at the City Hall which dominates Donegall Square.
Built in grand classical renaissance style, it looks like the American State capital building with the addition
of a statue to Queen Victoria. There is also a memorial of the sinking of Titanic—built at the Harland and
WolV shipyard in the city. Continuing on to the leafy suburbs of this Victorian City, we stop at Queen’s
University and take a stroll through this seat of learning to the Botanic Gardens. Here we will have time to
enjoy the splendour of the famous Palm House, which dates from 1839, before rejoining our coach.
Our tour then moves on a circular route of the city, taking in many of Belfast’s famous landmarks. These
include the political wall murals located on the Protestant Shankill Road and the Catholic Falls Road, which
are a unique cultural experience. There will be time here for photographs. We will also see the former
Crumlin Road Court House and Crumlin Jail (both of these venues were for political oVenders only) and
The Peace Line. A short distance outside the city we shall see Stormont Castle, seat of the Northern Ireland
Assembly. A symbol of progress from Northern Ireland’s troubled past, the power sharing executive with
responsibility for Northern aVairs rule from this impressive building.
Tour Notes: This tour involves a moderate amount of walking—approximately 300 metres at Queen’s
University and the Botanic Gardens. It should be noted that Stormont will be viewed from the gates—traYc
is not permitted in the avenue leading to the building itself. The order of sights seen may vary.
Tour B
Mount Stewart House & Gardens
Duration: 3² hours
Participants: Limited to 80
We travel from the port of Belfast to Mount Stewart, an impressive 18th century mansion now owned by
the National Trust. The property boasts one of the greatest gardens in Britain and Ireland. Home of the
influential Londonderry family, the famous gardens span 98 acres and include Sunken, Shamrock and
Italian Gardens as well as the amazing Dodo Terrace and the Temple of the Winds—a hilltop banqueting
house designed by James “Athenian” Stuart in the 1780s.
Situated on the Ards Peninsula, the Mount Stewart Gardens—nominated as a World Heritage Site—were
designed by Lady Londonderry for her children, in 1920. Today there is a significant series of outdoor
“rooms”, vibrant parterres and lush borders that contain exotic plants, which thrive in the area’s
microclimate, together with breathtaking vistas across the central lake.
After a guided tour of the house, we can stroll through the gardens and enjoy refreshments in the tearoom
(at our own expense) or browse through the gift shop.
Processed: 29-10-2009 23:00:04
Page Layout: COENEW [E]
PPSysB Job: 435922
Unit: PAG7
Ev 90 Welsh Affairs Committee: Evidence
On our way back to Belfast, we travel through the wealthy suburbs of Hollywood, and return to our
awaiting ship.
Tour Notes: Please note that the upstairs of Mount Stewart House is not accessible to wheelchairs. There
are approximately two hours of walking involved. Refreshments are not included.
Tour C
The Giant’s Causeway
Duration: 5 hours
Participants: Limited to 160
We depart from the port of Belfast and drive inland through the Northern Counties of Down and Antrim,
en route passing Ballymoney and Ballymena. We shall then be able to visit the World Heritage Site, the
Giant’s Causeway.
This natural phenomenon is one of Ireland’s most extraordinary attractions. The world famous cluster
of basalt columns is nestled on the Antrim coast surrounded by dramatic sea cliVs. It is the result of volcanic
activity that altered the face of Ireland. A quirk of geology or, if you believe local mythology, a result of a
battle between the Irish giant, Finn MacCool, and his rival in Scotland—we will leave you to decide . . .
Following our memorable visit to this top visitor attraction, we will rejoin our coach and guide for the
return drive to our awaiting ship. Time permitting, a photo stop will be made at the ruins of Dunluce Castle
before turning south for Belfast.
Tour Notes: Please note that this tour is not suitable for wheelchair users. There is a shuttle bus that
takes us from the visitor centre to the Giant’s Causeway, but if you choose to walk the path is uneven. Flat,
comfortable walking shoes with non-slip soles are highly recommended.
Tour D
Panoramic Belfast
Duration: 2° hours
Belfast is a city of industry and elegance and boasts a rich and varied past. Its origins go back to an ancient
fort controlling the ford across the River Lagan, which flows through the city. Our panoramic tour of the
city will introduce us to the many features of Northern Ireland’s largest city. Built with 19th century
industrial money, many fine buildings from this era grace the city still and are reminders of its prosperous
past.
We shall see such sights as the Grand Opera House and the Albert Memorial, before passing Queen’s
University and the Botanic Gardens. Located in these gardens is the Palm House—a superb structure of cast
iron and curved glass panels built even before Kew Gardens opened in London in 1839.
We will drive past Belfast City Hall x an impressive building with a 300-foot long façade of Portland
stone, which dominates Donegall Square. A stop here will allow photographs of what is perhaps the most
noteworthy of the statues in the grounds. It is the marble figure of “Thane” on a granite pedestal, sculpted
by Sir Thomas Brock and commemorating the Titanic, the ill fated Belfast built liner.
We will travel a short distance outside the city to see Stormont Castle, seat of the Northern Ireland
Assembly. A symbol of progress to Northern Ireland’s troubled past, the power sharing executive with
responsibility for northern aVairs rule from this impressive building.
We will also journey to Cave Hill to view Belfast Castle. Cave Hill, with its familiar outline visible from
many parts of the city, has captivated generation after generation. Indeed the hill is one of the most
celebrated landmarks of the city. Belfast Castle, sited on the lower slopes beneath Cave Hill, is one of
Belfast’s most outstanding and historically significant buildings. There are beautiful gardens and an
adjoining country park. Do not miss the splendid views of Belfast Lough and the city below. “Mac Art’s
Fort”, a rock where United Irishmen planned the rebellion of 1795, overlooks the Castle.
We then return to Belfast Port and our awaiting ship.
Tour Notes: This is a panoramic coach tour and, as such, is suitable for all (passengers must be able to
board the coach unaided). It should be noted that Stormont will be viewed from the gates—traYc is not
permitted in the avenue leading to the building itself. The order of sights seen may vary.
Processed: 29-10-2009 23:00:04
Page Layout: COENEW [O]
PPSysB Job: 435922
Unit: PAG7
Welsh Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 91
Tour E
The Ards Peninsula
Duration: 4 hours
Participants: Limited to 80
The Ards Peninsula, an area of immense beauty and spectacular scenery, curls around the western shore
of Strangford Lough and at 18 miles long is one of the largest sea inlets in the British Isles. The coastal road
along the southern shore of Belfast Lough plays hide and seek with the sea, like the railway that runs
alongside it. A place of great natural beauty, the peninsula is a bird sanctuary and wildlife reserve, and is
home to many species of marine life.
We will drive from Belfast to Newtownards, the principal town of this area situated at the northern end
of Strangford Lough. From here, we will drive along the coast road to Grey Abbey x named after the
Cistercian Abbey founded here in 1193. We will stop to view the substantial remains. Unfortunately Grey
Abbeys’ annals did not survive but what little history is known is none-the-less intriguing.
From Grey Abbey, we will traverse the peninsula to Ballywalter. Formally a fishing village, Ballywalter
is now typical of the tranquil lifestyle enjoyed by the inhabitants of this area. Local fishermen still lay pots
or creels for lobsters and crabs during the summer months.
Turning north, we follow the coastal route through the town of Millisle to Donaghadee. A stop will be
made here, to visit a local hostelry for Irish coVee. Afterwards, time permitting, we will have some free time
to explore this pretty little hamlet independently. Donaghadee boasts a long seagoing history, therefore it
is not surprising that it still maintains a special relationship with the sea, proving very popular with water
enthusiasts, anglers and those who simply like to be beside the seaside. From Donaghadee we have the
opportunity to enjoy spectacular views across the Irish Sea when, on a clear day, we can see all the way to
Scotland. In the harbour is Donaghadee’s impressive lighthouse, which was built in 1836 and was the first
lighthouse in Ireland to be lit by electricity.
Rejoining our coach and guide, we will make the return journey to Belfast.
Tour Notes: There is limited walking on this tour—approximately 45 minutes at Grey Abbey, over
uneven ground, and at passengers’ discretion during the free time in Donaghadee. Some steps will be
encountered. One Irish CoVee per person will be included at the refreshment stop.
FAMILY FRIENDLY TOUR
Belfast Duck Tour
Duration: 1® hours
Participants: Maximum of 40
We will experience “Big Yellow”—the world’s most advanced amphibious vehicle for a fun yet
informative ride, which promises to have us amazed and appeals to all ages.
Our one-hour land and sea adventure includes downtown Belfast, its shopping districts, the many
monuments and the historically significant buildings that dot the Belfast skyline. A slow drive through the
Titanic quarter with a brief stop by the Harland and WolV dry dock where the Titanic was fitted and of
course the story of Belfast shipbuilding. An exciting splash down into the River Lagan is followed by a slow
cruise up and back down the river. Children will be oVered the opportunity to “skipper” the vessel on the
return portion of the voyage. We return to the port after a delightfully funny and interactive narration
provided by one of Belfast’s best tour guides.
Tour Notes: These brand new vehicles are wheelchair accessible and suitable for all ages, and will be
accessed from the port. They accommodate up to 50 passengers in aircraft style seats—the tour may not be
exclusive to Fred. Olsen passengers. This tour includes approximately 20 minutes on the River Lagan, and
approximately 40 minutes on roads. Depending on numbers for this tour, we may be allocated another
vehicle rather than “Big Yellow” but our experience will be equally enjoyable.
Written evidence from the Freight Transport Association (FTA)
Introduction
1. Freight Transport Association (FTA) represents over 14,000 companies engaged in the transport of
freight both domestically within the UK and internationally. Their interests range from those as operators,
carriers, freight service providers, through to customers—suppliers of raw materials, retailers,
manufacturers, and wholesalers, covering all modes of transport—road, rail, water and air.
Processed: 29-10-2009 23:00:04
Page Layout: COENEW [E]
PPSysB Job: 435922
Unit: PAG7
Ev 92 Welsh Affairs Committee: Evidence
Background—UK Ports
2. Unlike the rest of Europe the UK has a market lead ports sector. Owners include private operators,
local authorities and trust ports. The UK ports operate without Government funding, unlike competitors
on the continent. There are diVerent kinds of services used by the freight operators:
— Ferry services—which concern trucks and drivers as well as other passengers.
— Dedicated freight Roll-on Roll-oV services—Which typically send trucks and trailers
unaccompanied.
— Container services—where the freight is loaded and shipped in standardised containers, this service
dominated the deep sea service from the Far East.
— Bulk—For the shipment of products such as grains, oil and aggregates.
UK ports compete with each other for all these services as well as competitors from the continent.
3. The current freight and logistics industry has changed significantly over the past 10 years. This change
has been driven by several factors, including:
— globalisation;
— internet and web enabled supply chain management tools;
— bar coding, stock control and inventory management systems;
— information communication technology applications;
— consolidation;
— retailer-led supply chain dominance in European market (ie From “push” to “pull” supply chain
economics); and
— service industry importance in economy.
4. Given the scale of the change, the assumption can be that the rate of change in the freight and logistics
industry in the next 10 years will at least equal, if not exceed, that of the last decade, albeit some of the major
ports have shown a reduction in their 2008 throughput as a result of the recent down turn in the economy.
5. Total freight traYc through UK ports in 2008 was 563 million tonnes (Mt), a fall of 3.3% on 2007.
Inwards traYc fell by 3.1% to 347 Mt, whilst outwards traYc fell by 3.5% to 216 Mt. As shown in figure 1:
TRENDS IN TRAFFIC THROUGH THE TOP 10 PORTS IN 2008 IN TERMS OF TONNAGE ARE
SET OUT BELOW
Grimsby and Immingham
London
Tees and Hartlepool
Southampton
Forth
Milford Haven
Liverpool
Felixstowe
Dover
Medway
1998
Million tonnes
2007
2008
48.4
57.7
51.5
34.3
44.4
28.8
30.4
30
17.7
15.5
66.3
52.7
49.8
43.8
36.7
35.5
32.3
25.7
25.1
15.4
65.3
53.0
45.4
41.0
39.1
35.9
32.2
25.0
24.3
15.0
% change between 2007 and 2008
"1.5
!0.5
"8.8
"6.4
!6.5
!1.1
u/c
"2.7
"3.2
"2.6
6. Since the economic picture can and does change over time, sometimes suddenly, it is important to keep
the freight flow forecasts under regular review to ensure the investment priorities funded by the public remain
informed and appropriate to the needs of the economy.
Ports and Wales
7. Ports policy in Wales, unlike Scotland and Northern Ireland, is administered by Westminster although
decisions regarding land side access to and from the ports are a matter for the Welsh Assembly. Therefore
FTA recognises the importance of robust polices within Wales that look at improving and making best use
of existing infrastructure which are consistent with the aims of Eddington.
8. Welsh ports are diverse by nature dealing with a variety of goods and passenger activity. Ports reflect
economic activity, especially the industrial activity of their hinterland. The busiest decades in terms of traYc
in the ports of CardiV and Swansea mirror the industrial activity associated with mines and steelworks.
Holyhead has been much more dependent on trade between the UK and Ireland, and Milford Haven has
developed a role for petrochemicals traYc. Port activity in Wales includes:
— Holyhead, Milford Haven and Fishguard—HGV activity with Roll on/Roll oV (Ro-Ro) and
passenger traYc;
Processed: 29-10-2009 23:00:04
Page Layout: COENEW [O]
PPSysB Job: 435922
Unit: PAG7
Welsh Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 93
— Milford Haven the largest port in Wales—oil and energy sector traYc;
— Newport, CardiV, Barry, Port Talbot and Swansea (owned and operated by Associated British
Ports) primarily handling dry and liquid bulk, forest products, iron and steel products and some
lift-on lift-oV (Lo–Lo) container traYc; and
— smaller ports engaged in the leisure industry.
9. Welsh freight ports have a significant impact on the Welsh economy representing around 10% of total
UK trade. The ports provide direct employment opportunities, and benefit related businesses, including
local sub-contractors and suppliers. They comprise 6.6% of EU loading and unloading, 16% of “all other
short sea” and 11% of “all deep sea” traYc.
10. Welsh port unitised traYc transported by road goods vehicles makes up 1% of all UK empty units,
10% of loaded units and 8% of the weight of goods through UK ports. Welsh container traYc accounts for
0.5% of all UK units and 0.4% of the weight of all UK goods traYc. Liquid Bulk throughput represents 15%
of all the liquid bulk traYc in the UK.
11. The port of Holyhead provides an important link in the European road infrastructure between Ireland
and the mainland and in consequence it draws traYc from a large hinterland.
12. Ports themselves clearly oVer employment to regeneration opportunities. It is crucial to remember
however that the most important economic aspect of them is what they facilitate—most importantly the
eVective international trading of goods. The ability to export eYciently is a key component of a region being
seen as an attractive place in which to base economic operations. Equally the ability to import to a region
helps maintain and develop the standard of living available to the population. Consequently the importance
for other UK ports to the Welsh economy should not be neglected. To a large extent, Wales’ major container
ports are, and will continue to be, Southampton, Felixstowe and the London ports. Connections from these
ports to Wales, via both sea and land should be a key aspect of Welsh policy.
Policy Framework for the Development of the Welsh Ports
13. Ports on the whole are privately owned and as a result their development is a commercial decision
based on location and the needs of the market. Current practice incorporates a lengthy planning approval
system that discourages developments, with a new requirement on the promoters of particular port
development proposals to pay for inland infrastructure developments.
14. As many of the ports are owned by foreign companies this could have a discouraging aVect on future
investment decisions as it places UK ports at a competitive disadvantage to Continental ports, which
typically do not have to bear these infrastructure costs. See table below.
Existing port
New project
2004 capacity (TEUs)
New port capacity: private funding
New port capacity: public funding
Felixstowe
Felixstowe South and Bathside Bay
2.7m
100% of all port development costs
Share of road/rail costs
0
Southampton
3.7 million TEU capacity
1.4m
100% of all port development costs
Share of road/rail costs
0
Rotterdam
Maasvlakte II
8.3m
ƒ1.6 billion
ƒ1.1 billion for port development
100% for rail link
Hamburg
7.0m
Superstructures only
ƒ788 million for port development
100% funding of road/rail links
Antwerp
Deurganckdok
6.1m
ƒ930 million
ƒ680 million for port development
100% funding of road/rail links
Bremerhaven
3.5m
Superstructures only
ƒ59 million for port development
100% road/rail links
Le Havre
Port 2000
2.2m
ƒ275 million
ƒ693 million for port development
ƒ101 million for road/rail links
Sources: Ocean Shipping Consultants, ESPO, ISL, as quoted by Dft
15. Government cannot ignore the greater economic benefits from private port developments. Whilst it
is not for Government to decide where it wants the freight to flow and where it wants the private
developments needed to support the transport of freight and goods, it is the proper role of Government to
facilitate the developments.
16. The DfT’s guidance on Funding transport infrastructure for strategically significant developments
(published April 2009) has set out a framework for determining the extent of public contributions to
necessary infrastructure upgrades (ie road and rail links). But the key question that will determine the success
or otherwise of this policy will be the extent to which the Government provide funds for such improvements.
17. The Planning Act 2008 will see the introduction of the Infrastructure Planning Commission, which
will make impartial decisions on proposed major developments including ports, in line with UK and Welsh
policy. Guidance issued under the provision of the Act about the desired developments of infrastructure will
be a welcome simplification to the planning system.
Processed: 29-10-2009 23:00:04
Page Layout: COENEW [E]
PPSysB Job: 435922
Unit: PAG7
Ev 94 Welsh Affairs Committee: Evidence
18. It is important for the future development of Welsh ports that the close working relationship
developed with the Welsh Assembly Government through forums such as the Wales Freight group and in
the future, the Ports Group are maintained. Policy makers must be able to enter into dialogue with operators
to ensure that future decisions regarding ports and importantly, access, are based on the needs of industry.
Such an approach would establish a strategic freight policy that is based on the needs of the freight and
industry, identified by industry, rather than the aspirations of politicians, civil servants and others that might
seek to prejudice decisions on investments in strategic infrastructure.
19. Ports already comply with a number of regulatory requirements which cover dredging operations,
security and disposal of waste matter. The introduction in the future of two new pieces of legislation namely
the EU Water Framework Directive and the Marine and Coastal Access Bill, will add to the compliance
burden on operators.
20. The Wales Freight Strategy15 contains 10 clear recommendations aimed at future guidance for policy
makers, these recognise the importance of ports to the Welsh economy. However it is important that the
Welsh Assembly Government working closely with DfT make a clear commitment to ensuring funding to
carry forward these recommendation which include road and rail routes and intermodal sites.
21. Road remains the dominate method of carrying freight, many factors will need to be considered if
this trend is to be reversed and more goods encouraged to use rail or shipping, therefore access to and from
ports, and the infrastructure to accommodate additional freight/passenger movements, is an important
priority of any future policy.
22. Location of ports will have a direct bearing on the potential for growth; the southern ports in England
traditionally serve as the main routes for container traYc links to Europe and the global shipping networks.
The potential of Welsh ports is therefore limited however opportunities to encourage feeder shipping services
have been discussed at the Wales Freight Group.
Potential to Increase Scale and Range of Trade with Other Countries
23. Ports by their nature supply a service to their customers and are therefore susceptible like all
businesses to external factors such as the down turn in the economy. This world recession has seen a marked
reduction in manufacturing and consequently goods coming through our ports. Welsh ports have been
subject to change before and have consequently adapted. Irish traYc now enters along the north and
southern corridors via Fishguard and Holyhead with Milford Haven as a major port with oil/energy
imports.
24. Plans to develop the container terminals at Portbury which will accommodate some of the largest sea
going vessels (subject to a decision of the development of the Severn Barrage), and a similar scheme on the
Mersey will eVectively reduce the viability of a similar container terminal development in Wales. These two
terminals will essentially service North and South Wales, North West England and the Southwest, reducing
the lorry miles of some other ports.
25. It is important for Government to communicate with the industry through regular reviews as port
traYc is a good barometer of the economic state of a nation.
The Potential to Increase Freight Movements
26. The development of oVshore energy is a potential area for increased freight movements in Wales. The
construction of wind farms in Mid Wales will see ports in North Wales handling the import of component
parts. Plans to establish wind turbines in the Severn estuary could mean expansion for a port in south Wales
not only at the construction stage but also for ongoing maintenance/servicing.
Adequacy of Security and Policing in Welsh Ports
27. All ports in Wales will comply with Port Security Regulations however are also adaptable to change
dependant on the security status at any given time.
May 2009
Written evidence from Professor Frank Gregory
1. This evidence is submitted in response to the “policing and security” aspects of the Committee’s “Ports
in Wales” inquiry. The evidence covers: an overview of the relevant legislative and national policy strategies
(paras 2–3); an analysis of the threat spectrum (paras 4–10); and an overview of the national and local
arrangements for the delivery of security and policing in maritime areas and ports (paras 11–15).
15
One Wales—Connecting the Nation, The Wales Freight Strategy, May 2008
Processed: 29-10-2009 23:00:05
Page Layout: COENEW [O]
PPSysB Job: 435922
Unit: PAG7
Welsh Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 95
2. As the Committee will be aware, the determination of both the national security policy and the ports
policies are not devolved government matters but remain the responsibility of central government. Since
2000, in response to both natural and human agency caused disasters or major incidents, the UK has been
developing a range of specific policy strategies, instruments and legislative provisions which provide a
significant part of the relevant framework for the policing and security aspect of this inquiry. These are: the
Civil Contingencies Act 2004, the Aviation and Maritime Security Act 1990, the various Terrorism Acts, the
National Security Strategy (2007), the National Risk Register (2008) and the “Contest” Counter-Terrorism
strategy (Cm. 6888, 2006, latest version Cm. 7547, 2009). The other part of the framework can be found in
the more ports specific and maritime transport related risk management systems established with reference
to the International Maritime Organisation’s (IMO) International Ship and Port Facility Security Code
(ISPS) which formed the basis for EC Regulation 725/2004 and the 2004 International Labour Organisation
code of practice on enhancing port security which forms the basis of EC Directive 65/2005. EC Directive
65/2005 is currently being transposed into UK law.16 The UK has not met the EU’s timetable for the
transposition of this Directive into national law but this does not reflect any disagreement on issues of
principle but rather the eVects of the process of consultation and reflection on the optimum format for the
requisite Port Security Authorities. The Department for Transport hopes to be able to transpose the
Directive by c July 2009.17 The Committee may wish to ask the Ministry for indications of the likely nature
of the Port Security Authorities which are being planned for the Welsh ports.
3. Thus the arrangements for the security of UK maritime areas and ports security are currently being
developed in accordance with international, EU and national requirements. For the purposes of this
evidence the EU’s security objectives will be taken as providing a description of the broad maritime related
threat spectrum facing the UK. The EU’s objectives, in both the Regulation and Directive mentioned above,
are to continuously improve “. . . prevention, protection and response measures to counteract the new
threats arising from terrorism, piracy or any other illegal act”.18 These objectives are similar to those in the
UK’s first “National Security Strategy” (NSS) which regards “strong borders” (not defined) as “essential to
protect against terrorism, crime and illegal immigration” and the NSS has the aspiration to create a
“modern, intelligence-led border control and security framework”.19 In the maritime security area, part of
the intelligence-led provision on both ship and people movements is provided by the National Ports Analysis
Centre. Information from that source and from the Coastguard is also shared with the Naval intelligence
staV at Northwood.20
4. In relation to these types of threat the UK uses a three level security alert system for sea areas, foreign
ports and UK ports. These are level one (normal), level two (heightened) and level three (exceptional) and
these correspond to the EU port security risk levels of: normal, increasing and high. The UK security levels
and maritime terrorism threat assessments (established by the Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre (JTAC)) are
not published but are made available to shipping and ports operators by the Department for Transport’s
Transport Security and Contingencies Directorate (TRANSEC).
5. With respect to the UK Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), territorial waters and ports areas the
following is an open sources based maritime and ports related assessment but it reflects JTAC’s overall
assessment of the terrorism threat to the UK as “Severe”. With regard to maritime terrorism,21 defined here
as terrorist actions in port areas, on ships at sea, ship hijacks (as bargaining counters or for the ship to be
used as a weapon) or ship-borne Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs), this category of terrorist acts is
relatively small compared with the dominant forms of land based terrorist incidents. However, that does not
imply that facilities such as ports are not part of the Critical National Infrastructure, which they clearly are,
or that a terrorist attack on a port area would have a lesser consequence than an attack on a city centre.
Clearly that cannot be the case where many port areas are adjacent to large urban concentrations. For the
UK itself, based upon the general level of terrorist threat to the country and the global pattern of maritime
terrorism it can be postulated that there is a low to mid-spectrum level of probability of a maritime terrorism
threat to the UK but that if an attack occurred it might have a high impact.
6. The types of suspect maritime terrorism threats that might face the UK via its maritime areas, of which
the “Bristol Channel” and “Irish Sea” areas are of relevance for the Welsh ports, are, to date, statistically
of very low frequency. Since 2001 the only recorded fully investigated suspected terrorist ship-borne threat
was the Port of London bound bulk sugar carrier MV “Nisha” incident of December 2001. The “Nisha”
case22 was an intelligence led operation but one which was without specifics in terms of the vessel or nature
of the threat. The “Nisha” simply best fitted the profile of the likely threat from the available intelligence as
en route the “Nisha” had stopped at Djibouti near suspected Al-Qaeda “aYliates” “bases” in Somalia.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
See further: Department for Transport, A brief overview of the United Kingdom National Maritime Security Programme and
EC Commission Report from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament—Report assessing the
implementation of the Directive enhancing port security, COM(2009) 2 final, 20/1/09.
Information from TRANSEC, 25/5/09
COM(2009) 2 final, op cit, p 6, para 7
National Security Strategy Cabinet OYce 2008: 56–57
Defence Committee, Sixth Report of Session 2008–09, The Defence contribution to national security and resilience, HC 121,
Q287–Q291
A useful source is CRS Report for Congress, Maritime Security: Potential Terrorist Attacks and Protection Priorities, P W
Parfomak & J Frittelli, RL33787, US Congressional Research Service, 14 May 2007.
See F Gregory, “Intelligence-led Counter-terrorism: A Brief Analysis of the UK Domestic Intelligence System’s Response to
9/11 and the Implications of the London Bombings of 7 July 2005”, ARI No. 94/2005, Real Elcano Institute, Madrid, 2005.
Processed: 29-10-2009 23:00:05
Page Layout: COENEW [E]
PPSysB Job: 435922
Unit: PAG7
Ev 96 Welsh Affairs Committee: Evidence
Apart from the “Nisha” there have only been a very small number of “ship alerts” relative to the total
number of ship movements through UK waters. For example, in 2008 there were only two recorded “ship
alerts” and in both cases no counter-terrorism response was required.23 Although there are issues around
the variable timescales encountered in verifying ship identifying transponder details. Transponders must be
carried on all commercial vessels over 500 tonnes.
7. The final terrorism related issue that is of relevance to this inquiry is the matter of the extent to which
there is any evidence of particular patterns in the use of Welsh ports as entry points into mainland UK by
persons whose names may appear on “terrorist watch-lists”. Evidence to the Committee (para 18) has drawn
attention to the possible implications of proposals that were in the current Borders, Citizenship and
Immigration Bill,24 to disband the Common Travel Area between the UK and the Irish Republic and
introduce immigration controls. The Committee may wish to seek further evidence on this point and ask
whether there are implications for the resource levels currently deployed to Special Branch ports policing in
Wales and, in particular, the adequacy of the Dedicated Security Post funding allocations.
8. Piracy, defined as “any illegal acts of violence or detention, or any act of depredation, committed for
private ends by the crew or the passengers of a private ship . . . and directed . . . on the high seas, against
another ship, . . . persons or property in a place outside the jurisdiction of any State . . .”25 occurred in the
sea areas outside UK territorial waters in the 18th and early 19th centuries. However, the consensus of
current expert opinion is that piracy is a most unlikely occurrence in the waters around the UK today. This,
of course does not mean that ship operators based in Welsh ports do not need to take account of the threat
of piracy in overseas areas. Guidance to ship operators on this matter is available via TRANSEC in the form
of “Maritime Guidance Note 298”.
9. The EU’s category of “. . . other illegal acts . . .” covers a wide spectrum of security related issues that
may occur in port areas. For example, the ordinary crimes of theft, malicious damage and arson and the
public order oVences that might occur during protest activity related to, for example, environmental or
animal trade issues. In the latter instances the UK has experienced protest activity in port areas or adjacent
waters in respect of seaborne nuclear weapons, toxic materials and the trade in live animals. The South Wales
Police area experienced just such a problem with respect to seaborne Greenpeace protests in 1999
(radioactive materials transport by sea) and 2004 (GM products). In the latter case, in June 2004, the
Panamanian registered MV Etoile which was carrying GM maize gluten from the USA to Bristol docks was
boarded in the Bristol Channel, whilst underway, by Greenpeace activists based on four Rigid Inflatable
Boats (RIBs) who unfurled protest banners. The activists were subsequently charged with public nuisance
oVences and oVences under section 106 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995.26 As a result of the 2004
incident the three southern Wales police forces carried out a major contingency planning exercise, Operation
Oyster Catcher, to determine the optimum response format and its resource implications. The Committee
may wish to seek further information on this point from the South Wales Police. This “other illegal acts”
category can also cover the specific border controls related crimes that are raised as matters of concern in
the NSS: drug traYcking, alcohol and tobacco smuggling and the various forms of illegal immigration,
particularly people smuggling and human traYcking. In the context of these crimes, related to attempts to
evade border controls, the Committee may wish to seek evidence from the UKBA about the relative position
of the Welsh ports, in comparison with English ports, with respect to detection of attempts at illegal entry,
port seizures of illicit drugs and revenue protection work at Welsh ports.27
10. With regard to the threat types discussed in the above paragraphs the Committee has received
evidence from the British Ports Association and the UK Major Ports Group which contends (para 19) that
all the Welsh ports are moving to full compliance with current and pending regulatory frameworks. Their
evidence further expresses the belief that “. . . security and policing at Welsh ports are strong”. The
Committee may wish to ask for further evidence to substantiate this claim.
11. The delivery of UK maritime areas and ports security, in conjunction with the relevant private sector
bodies, is the responsibility of several government “lead departments” and their associated public sector
agencies.28 Unlike the USA, the UK security governance structure does not contain a “super-ministry” like
the US Department of Homeland Security. In the UK the oversight and coordination of the security
responsibilities of “lead departments” is assigned to the National Security Secretariat of the Cabinet OYce.
General security responsibilities reside with the Home OYce through its OYce of Security and CounterTerrorism (OSCT), the Home OYce responsibility for police forces in England and Wales, the UK Border
Agency (especially the c 9,000 strong UK Border Force of immigration and customs oYcers) and the Home
OYce oversight of MI5 via the Home Secretary’s approval of MI5’s annual prioritisation of its objectives.
Transportation security is the responsibility of the Department for Transport through its Transport Security
23
24
25
26
27
28
Defence Committee, Sixth Report of Session 2008–09, The Defence contribution to national security and resilience, HC 121,
Q306
See Explanatory Notes to the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Bill [Lords] [Bill 15 (2008–09)–EN]
Article 101(a) UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (1982) as cited in: K Kittichaisaree, International Criminal Law, Oxford,
OUP, 2002, pp 14–15
IMO, “External Relations (c) Relations with non-governmental organisations, Council 93rd Session, Agenda item 17 (c), C 93/
17 (c)/Add 3, 26 October 2004
See further: F Gregory, UK Border Security: Issues, systems and recent reforms, London, IPPR, March 2009
On “lead department” issues see: F Gregory, Ch 6, in P Wilkinson, (ed), Homeland Security in the UK, London,
Routledge, 2007
Processed: 29-10-2009 23:00:05
Page Layout: COENEW [O]
PPSysB Job: 435922
Unit: PAG7
Welsh Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 97
and Contingencies Directorate (TRANSEC) and the Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA). All the
public sector stakeholders are represented on TRANSEC’s National Maritime Security Committee.
Additional protective security advice is available through the Centre for the Protection of the National
Infrastructure (CPNI) working with specialist police oYcers in the National Counter-Terrorism Security
OYce (NaCTSO) and the associated local police force Counter-Terrorism Security Advisers (CTSAs).
12. In the UK and within UK territorial waters the initial response to all forms of crime including
terrorism (except in border entry points where legislation on immigration related matters or importation of
goods controls provides for primary responsibility to be with UKBA staV) is a local police force
responsibility, supported where they exist in port areas either by the MoD Police or a non-Home OYce port
police force. In particular all police forces with ports within their areas of responsibility maintain Special
Branch ports policing units but these are variable in size. The police forces participate in regular annual
cycles of various levels of counter-terrorism exercises which can include in their scenarios an incident with
a port related component. However, the national standards for counter-terrorism policing were described,
in 2006, by the Chief Constable of North Wales as “. . . particularly demanding . . .” and he suggested that
the “. . . view of the Force is that as drafted the standard will be forever unattainable . . .”.29 The Committee
may wish to seek current evidence on this point from the Welsh police forces.
13. However, with regard to terrorism the police response is partly delivered through ACPO national
bodies and the national role of the Metropolitan Police Counter-Terrorism Command (SO15).30 The ACPO
Terrorism and Allied Matters Committee (ACPO-TAM) is at the apex of this structure. Under ACPO-TAM
there is a National Coordinator for Terrorist Investigations (NCTI) who is currently a Metropolitan Police
DAC. The NCTI will take the “Gold lead” in relation to actual or suspected terrorist incidents oV the UK
coast. If an incident came into English or Welsh waters and thus into a local police force area then the local
Chief Constable will take control of the immediate incident location.
14. In the maritime/ports areas ACPO has a specific response structure under the ACPO Maritime
Committee, currently chaired by Chief Constable Hogan Howe of Merseyside Police. Working to that
Committee and to ACPO-TAM is an ACC ranked oYcer holding the post of National Co-ordinator Ports
Policing (NCPP) he also holds, under ACPO-TAM, the post of police National Coordinator PROTECT
under the “Contest” counter-terrorism strategy. For maritime security purposes the police have divided the
UK into nine “portal control” areas representing nine coastal areas around the UK. The two relevant to
Wales are the “Bristol Channel” and “Irish Sea”. Each portal area has a regional ACC who coordinates the
relevant portal area police commanders. The Committee may wish to ask ACPO Maritime for the relevant
outcomes of the February 2009 police peer review assessment of the work of port area police commanders.31
15. In conclusion, the Committee will be aware that the Defence Select Committee of the House reported
on maritime security issues on 5 May 2009 in their Report on “The Defence contribution to UK national
security and resilience”.32 In this Report the Defence Committee expressed concerns about “. . . strategic
oversight and ministerial accountability . . .” with regard to maritime security.33 The Committee may wish
to ask ACPO Cymru for their views on this matter and whether they agree with Chief Constable HoganHowe’s comment, on the arrangements for responding to maritime security incidents, that “. . . we seem to
be potentially disorganised, but it works well.”34
May 2009
Written evidence from Irish Ferries (UK) Limited
1. Irish Ferries—Routes, Ships and Services
Irish Ferries is a ferry company, carrying passengers, cars and freight vehicles, between Ireland, Great
Britain and France. Irish Ferries is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Irish Continental Group, which is
registered on the Irish Stock Exchange.
Our current ships and routes are:
— Holyhead to Dublin. MV “Ulysses”, which is 210 metres long and has a gross registered tonnage
of 51,000 tonnes. This ship has the capacity to carry 1,900 passengers, 1,342 cars or 240 freight
vehicles, per sailing;
— Holyhead to Dublin. MV “Jonathan Swift”, which is a High Speed Craft, 87 metres long, with a
gross registered tonnage of 5,989 tonnes. This ship has the capacity to carry 745 passengers, 200
cars and up to 10 coaches, per sailing at speeds up to 40 knots; and
29
30
31
32
33
34
North Wales Police, Report by the Chief Constable to the Police Authority on Narrowing the Gap: The Provision of Protective
Services in North Wales, 28 July 2006, p 24
Defence Committee, Sixth Report of Session 2008–09, The Defence contribution to national security and resilience, HC 121,
Ev 47
ibid, Q261
ibid
ibid, para 42
ibid, Q241
Processed: 29-10-2009 23:00:05
Page Layout: COENEW [E]
PPSysB Job: 435922
Unit: PAG7
Ev 98 Welsh Affairs Committee: Evidence
— Pembroke to Rosslare. MV “Isle of Inishmore”, which is 183 metres long with a gross registered
tonnage of 34,000 tonnes. The ship has capacity for 1,260 passengers, 710 cars or 122 freight
vehicles per sailing.
In 2008 we carried 1.3 million passengers, 319,000 cars and 260,000 freight vehicles on 3,930 sailings
between Ireland and Wales.
We also operate a ferry service from Rosslare to Cherbourg and RoscoV.
2. Irish Ferries Investment in Ships and Ports
Since the mid 1990s Irish Ferries has invested over ƒ400 million in new ships and port facilities.
In Holyhead the port investment was a joint project with Stena Line Ports, the owners of the Port of
Holyhead. Irish Ferries share of the development costs was over £20 million.
In Pembroke Dock, the investment was a joint project with the Milford Haven Port Authority, at a cost
of over £11 million.
Both of these port developments were primarily privately funded, with very little grant aid being made
available.
3. Traffic Flows and Routes—Island of Ireland
The following table outlines the typical annual volumes of passengers and vehicles moving between the
island of Ireland and the UK mainland, by sea. These are the 2008 totals.
Corridor
Northern
Central
Southern
RoI Irish Sea Totals
Island of Ireland Totals
Passengers
Cars
Freight Vehicles
2,076,000
2,167,000
900,000
3,067,000
5,143,000
533,000
488,000
250,000
738,000
1,271,000
804,000
722,000
134,000
856,000
1,660,000
The Northern Corridor figures are the totals handled through the ports of Belfast, Larne and
Warrenpoint, from the ports in Scotland and Northern England.
The Central Corridor figures are the totals handled through the Ports of Dublin and Dun Laoghaire, from
Northern England and Holyhead.
The Southern Corridor figures are the totals handled through the Port of Rosslare, from Pembroke and
Fishguard.
Passengers and freight traYc are down about 7% versus 2008, but the loss of business accelerated sharply
in the final quarter of 2008. The first quarter of 2009 also reflects the current economic position.
From the totals shown above, the percentages carried to and from Northern Ireland and the Irish
Republic are:
Area
Northern Ireland
Irish Republic
Passengers
Cars
Freight
40%
60%
42%
58%
48%
52%
Prior to January 1993, the freight market was considerably diVerent, with an even greater proportion of
the business carried on the Northern Corridor. 564,000 (72%) of freight shipped on the Northern Corridor
with the balance of 28% (215,000) on the Central and Southern Corridors.
It is important to bear in mind that decisions made by Governments can have a disproportionate impact
on trade. To illustrate this, and to highlight one of our concerns, we would like to refer back to significant
changes in the 1990s and their impact on business.
The EU Single Market 1 January 1993
Prior to the introduction of the EU Single Market on the 1 January 1993, the Northern Ireland Ports
carried 72% of the freight traYc for the Island of Ireland. The two primary reasons for this were:
— the significantly better customs clearance times at the Irish Land Boundary; and
— the lack of freight capacity on the direct routes to Southern Ireland.
Movement of freight vehicles across the land boundary was a matter of expediency, in view of the political
issues at that time, whereas vehicles travelling on routes to/from UK ports direct from Ireland would be
subject to greater delays and the rigours of more in depth customs controls, on documentation and physical
examinations.
Processed: 29-10-2009 23:00:05
Page Layout: COENEW [O]
PPSysB Job: 435922
Unit: PAG7
Welsh Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 99
The removal of these controls in January 1993 and the increase in capacity on Central and Southern
Corridor routes from the mid 1990s has helped to level this “playing field”. This encouraged investment by
the ferry operators on the Central and Southern Corridors, causing a shift of traYc from the Northern
Corridor to these routes.
4. Key Issues for Irish Ferries Services in Wales
A. Valuation OYce Agency Proposals
The VOA issue at all of the UK Ports has been well documented and debated. Therefore I propose to limit
this section of the report to the impact on Irish Ferries of the VOA review.
In both the port of Holyhead and Pembroke Dock, Irish Ferries do not specifically occupy, or have
exclusive rights to any parts of the ports. We do have time slots agreed with the owners of the properties.
Holyhead
The owners of the Port of Holyhead are Stena Line Ports and we have a commercial agreement with them
to operate our ferries, from certain berths at certain times of the day. They also operate a similar
arrangement with Stena Line, the ferry operator. Both Ferry Operators, Irish Ferries and Stena Line, have
their own facilities, but from time to time, are required to use one another’s berths, eg in the case of weather
disruption or berth repairs. It is the decision of VOA that Irish Ferries operation in Holyhead does not
warrant being separately assessed for rates.
Pembroke Dock
The owner of the Pembroke Dock Ferryport is the Milford Haven Port Authority and we have a
commercial agreement with them to operate our ferry, at certain times of the day. Currently, Irish Ferries is
the only ferry operator using the Pembroke Dock Ferry Terminal. However there have been other users since
2005 and the Port Authority is in the process of developing a ferry service direct to Ferrol in Spain.
It is the decision of the VOA that Irish Ferries operation in Pembroke Dock should be separately assessed
for rates, backdated to 2005, with a rateable value of £660,000. This gives Irish Ferries the following
liabilities:
— 2005–06 £277,860
— 2006–07 £285,120
— 2007–08 £295,680
— 2008–09 £307,560
In addition there will be a similar liability for 2009–10, not included in these figures.
Central Government has indicated that companies may be given eight years to pay the backdated element
of these charges, however we would still have to pay over £600,000 this year for 2008–09 and 2009–10.
As part of our arguments against the separate rates assessment for Pembroke Dock, we have quoted the
example of Terminal 5 at Heathrow, where British Airways is the only airline using that facility, yet the rates
are paid by the airport authority.
Irish Ferries has not accepted the validity of these charges and continues to contest them. If implemented,
these charges will have a crippling eVect on Irish Ferries Pembroke Dock operation.
B. Common Travel Area and E Borders Proposals
B1. UK Border Agency Controls—Proposals for the Irish Land Boundary
The UK Border Agency has stated that it will not introduce fixed immigration controls on the Irish Land
Boundary, but will consider introducing ad hoc immigration checks on vehicles on the Northern Ireland side
of the land border.
We can draw a direct parallel between what is proposed for passenger immigration controls, with what
previously happened with the freight market prior to January 1993. In summary:
— although it has now said that checks will be “risk based and intelligence led”, the UK Border
Agency consultation documents indicate that it expects delays to occur at ports, therefore travel
via the Irish Land Boundary will become more attractive, with the potential to cause significant
displacement of traYc to the Northern Corridor;
— passengers wishing to avoid immigration checks, for whatever purpose, will be encouraged to use
the Northern Corridor, creating a “back door” controlled by “ad hoc vehicle checks”; and
— freight drivers wishing to avoid delays at UK Ports, may avoid direct services, in favour of
Northern Ireland routes.
Processed: 29-10-2009 23:00:05
Page Layout: COENEW [E]
PPSysB Job: 435922
Unit: PAG7
Ev 100 Welsh Affairs Committee: Evidence
B2. UK Border Agency Controls—CTA and E Border Proposals for UK Ports—Commercial and
Financial Impact
As stated earlier, in addition to the investment in new ships since the mid 1990s, Irish Ferries has made
significant investments, in association with the Port Authorities, in the port infrastructure in Holyhead and
Pembroke Dock. The ports were re-designed to take account of the larger ships and the subsequent increase
in freight business and to allow for growth in passenger traYc at that time. All of these changes in ports
infrastructures were made in light of the Single Market Changes, which gives us, at the Ports, the ability to
respond flexibly to changes in the freight or passenger markets, in terms of land use within the termini.
The above mentioned investments also give us the ability to make fast turnarounds of ships in ports, to
maintain schedules and meet customer’s expectations.
The scenario envisaged by the UK Border Agency, which intends to implement checks on documentation
for every passenger, either Passports or National ID cards, is likely to have the following detrimental eVects
on our services and customers:
— cause significant delays in the processing of passenger traYc and driver accompanied freight traYc,
encouraging both traYcs to use the Land Boundary Routes;
— impact on land use within termini, to the extent that the discharge or loading of ships will have to
be delayed due to “traYc jams” from ships to the Border Agency Control points caused by stopping
all traYc. Ship/Terminal operations will have to be suspended until traYc clears the
checkpoints; and
— there is a very real risk that it will have a detrimental impact on vessel turnaround times, to the
extent where we cannot maintain our existing schedules, in turn reducing the number of sailings
that we are able to achieve.
In addition, there are direct financial costs associated with the Common Travel Area (CTA) and E Borders
proposals. These include the imposition of £2,000 Carrier Liability Fines and the cost of the scanning
equipment required to implement the E Borders Controls.
The “Carrier Liability” Fines of £2,000 per passenger could be imposed ie in a case where a passenger
could not prove his/her identity on arrival in the UK. When you consider that the majority of Irish Sea
passengers are UK or Irish residents, this is clearly disproportionate. An analysis of Irish Ferries passenger
carryings for 2008 produces the following statistics:
— 61% were resident on the British Mainland;
— 32% were resident in the Irish Republic;
— 2% were resident in Northern Ireland and
— of the balance of 5%, 1.1% was German and 0.3% was French, leaving a balance of 3.6% of other
nationalities.
Irish Ferries is concerned over the potential impacts of the CTA and E Borders proposals. The nature of
today’s multi-purpose passenger and freight vessels requires fast and eYcient turnarounds in port, which are
critical for the successful deployment of large vessels. Such developed improvements have provided better
productivity and economies of scale, and lower freight and passenger fares, all of which are critical to the
economy of both Islands.
C. IMO Resolution for Sulphur Content Reduction 2015
As part of MARPOL Annex VI, in April 2008, IMO agreed that the sulphur limit in marine fuel must be
reduced to 0.1% by 2015 in Environmentally Controlled Areas. The impact will be a 68% increase in fuel
costs. There may also be an issue over the availability of what is essentially gas oil.
The proposal is due to apply in the Baltic, North Sea and English Channel, to any type of vessel with
more than 12 passengers. Should similar be extended to the Irish Sea, it would have serious and dramatic
consequences for access via sea costs between both islands for all ferry operators.
D. Road and Rail Infrastructure in Wales
D1. Holyhead Road Access
The dualling of the A5 across Anglesey has provided major benefits to the Port of Holyhead and has
significantly improved access. When this was in the process of completion, to connect the port to the A5, an
issue arose over the ownership of the land immediately at the exit from the Port. The land was owned by
part of the former British Rail Group and this was not resolved. Now, to exit the port, you must turn right
at a set of lights and within 100 metres turn left at another set of lights, to join up with the A5.
At busy times, when ships are discharging, this causes a bottleneck eVect, backing up into the port. The
port owners are reviewing traYc flow options from other parts of the port, in an eVort to resolve this.
However until the position on CTA and E Borders is clarified, it does not make sense to implement any
changes.
Processed: 29-10-2009 23:00:05
Page Layout: COENEW [O]
PPSysB Job: 435922
Unit: PAG7
Welsh Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 101
D2. Holyhead Rail Access
Foot-Passengers (non vehicle passengers) enjoy the easy access to the railway station at the port entrance.
However, with the abolition of Duty Free for intra EU travel in 1999, and the continued growth in cheap
air fares, the foot passenger market is in serious decline and is not a significant element of traYc.
For freight traYc, there are no links or facilities for rail transfers. In the 1970s containerised rail-freight
to Lift on/Lift OV Vessels, was a major feature of UK Road Haulage. However with the growth of Roll on/
Roll oV ferries, from the 1980s onwards, the Lo/Lo operations could not compete with the speed of Ro/Ro.
Therefore, when the port was developed to provide the land for the new generation of ferries in the 1990s
all available land was utilised for this.
Irish Ferries has taken part in a number of consultation exercises to look at transferring Ro/Ro traYc to
rail, the most notable of which was the “Piggyback Consortium” in the 1990s. However the punitive costs
of upgrading the North Wales Rail Network to reach the West Coast Mainline at Crewe, and the lukewarm
reaction from the road haulage industry, eliminated this as an option.
D3. Pembroke Dock Road Access
From the M4 and the A48M, the A40 dual carriageway leads to Carmarthen and on to St Clears.
From St Clears the single lane carriageway A477 takes vehicles on the remaining 23.5 miles to
Pembroke Dock.
From St Clears the single lane carriageway A40 goes to Haverfordwest and vehicles then take the A487
to Fishguard, a total of 35 miles from St Clears.
The A477 has been improved and the A40 to Haverfordwest is in the process of being improved, however
this is primarily to improve the roads at accident “black-spots”.
There are no plans to dual the A40 to Haverfordwest in the near future, despite local political pressure to
do so.
This would not be in Irish Ferries interests as it may give customers choosing Fishguard a faster transit
time.
In terms of the business carried on the two “Southern Corridor” routes, Irish Ferries have the larger ship,
so carried 63% of the freight on this corridor in 2008. However as Stena supplement their conventional vessel
with a High Speed Craft in summertime; they carry a greater majority of passenger traYc, with 57% in 2008.
This split of traYc between the two ports will continue to have a negative impact on any proposals to dual
the A40 to Haverfordwest.
D4. Pembroke Dock Rail Access
The position is much the same as reported in respect of Holyhead, but slightly worse as the railway lines
now terminate about 2 miles away from the Port.
June 2009
Further written evidence from Irish Ferries
Irish Sea Ferry Routes and Operators 2009
There are up to 100 sailings per day between Ireland and the UK mainland, with 54% of them operating
via Northern Ireland. The number of sailings do vary, based on seasonal traYc flows.
The final section of this table lists the services and routes, from the Irish Republic, direct to mainland
Europe.
Island of Ireland Port
Operator
British Mainland Port
Larne
P&O
Belfast
Stena
Stena
Norfolk
Warrenpoint
Seatruck
Ardrossan
Cairnryan
Fleetwood
Stranraer
Heysham
Liverpool
Heysham
Sailings
Up to . . . Daily
4
18
6
12
4
4
6
54
Processed: 29-10-2009 23:00:05
Page Layout: COENEW [E]
PPSysB Job: 435922
Unit: PAG7
Ev 102 Welsh Affairs Committee: Evidence
Island of Ireland Port
Operator
British Mainland Port
Dublin
Norfolk
Seatruck
P&O
Stena
Irish Ferries
Stena
Stena
Irish Ferries
Heysham
Liverpool
Liverpool
Liverpool
Holyhead
Holyhead
Holyhead
Fishguard
Pembroke
LD Lines
Celtic Link
Irish Ferries
Coblefret
Brittany Ferries
Le Havre
Cherbourg
C’Bourg/RoscoV
Zeebruge
RoscoV
Dun Laoghaire
Rosslare
Rosslare
Cork
Sailings
Up to . . . Daily
2
4
4
6
8
8
2
8
4
46
1
1
1
1
1
5
Population Spread UK and Irish Republic
The number of passengers and freight vehicles travelling through the Northern Irish Ports is
disproportionate to the population of those areas.
Eg Scotland has a population of 5.1 million and Northern Ireland has 1.8 million, yet 2.1 million
passengers travelled on these routes in 2008. England and Wales have a population of 51.1 million and 3
million respectively, but only 3.1 million passengers travelled on the direct services routes to the Irish
Republic in 2008. Therefore freight and passenger traYc, originating in or destined for England, does travel
through the Northern Irish Ports.
One other factor to consider is the geographical spread of the Irish population. The following table
summarises the population totals for Britain and the island of Ireland. Of the total population of 4.3 million
in the Irish Republic 52% live within two hours drive of Belfast. Therefore it follows that a significant
proportion of freight traYc in Ireland is collected and delivered in this general area, ie from Dublin to the
North and partly to the West, up to the Irish Land Boundary.
If you take into account traYc congestion problems in the City of Dublin and the general port area, it is
clearly expedient and competitive to bring freight and passenger traYc from the Irish Republic, to and from
the Northern Irish ports.
The crossing times and frequency of services are other factors which encourage the use of the Northern
Irish ports to access the Irish Republic. There are up to 100 sailings a day in and out of the island of Ireland
on 16 routes, with 54% of the crossings in Northern Ireland.
Crossing times from the ports in Scotland can be as short a 1 hour 45 minutes. Some customers may prefer
a longer road journey, followed by a shorter sea crossing.
The attached table shows the recent population totals and spread, UK and Ireland, and focuses on the
accessibility of the Northern Irish Ports in relation to the population spread, in the Irish Republic.
Area
England
Northern Ireland
Scotland
Wales
UK Total
Republic of Ireland
Province of Leinster
(East Coast), includes:
Dublin County
Within two hours drive to Belfast
Other Areas,
Within two hours drive to Belfast
Other Areas,
More than two hours to Belfast
Population 2007
51,100,000
1,800,000
5,100,000
3,000,000
61,000,000
2,300,000
1,200,000
713,000
396,000
Processed: 29-10-2009 23:00:05
Page Layout: COENEW [O]
PPSysB Job: 435922
Unit: PAG7
Welsh Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 103
Area
Population 2007
Province of Ulster
North Irish Republic,
Within two hours drive to Belfast
268,000
Province of Connacht
North West Ireland,
More than two hours to Belfast
504,000
Province of Munster
South West Ireland.
More than two hours to Belfast
1,174,000
Irish Republic
Total Population
4,255,000
Sulphur Content Reduction Marine Fuel Oil
The Marine Environment Protection Committee of the International Maritime Organisation has
introduced further “MARPOL” controls to reduce the sulphur content in fuels.
Additionally the EU has, through Directive 2005/33/EC, also introduced stricter controls within its
jurisdiction.
These measures are designed to reduce the pollutant eVects of Sulphur Dioxide, which include
Acidification, local air quality and the emission of sulphate particles. The key dates that aVect the shipping
industry are:
— 1 January 2010—ships in port for more than two hours are not allowed to run their engines on
heavy fuel oil, and must operate on marine diesel (0.5% sulphur content);
— 1 July 2010—Sulphur cap in SECA’s (Sulphur Emission Control Areas) to be reduced to 1.0%;
— 1 January 2012—Global Sulphur cap reduced to 3.5%;
— 1 January 2015—Sulphur cap within SECA’s to be reduced to 0.10%; and
— 1 January 2020—Global Sulphur cap to be reduced to 0.50%.
Irish Ferries conventional ships currently run on fuel with 1.5% sulphur content, in line with the current
EU position. This grade of fuel is still classed as heavy fuel oil or residual fuel oil.
As the permissible sulphur content in fuel is reduced, there will be an issue for the shipping industry, to
fund this significant increase in costs, for the higher grade of fuel. However there will also be an issue for
the oil refineries, not only to produce suYcient quantities of low sulphur content fuel, but also how they deal
with the residual heavy fuel, which is produced as part of the refining process and will no longer be required
by the shipping industry.
Currently, in European waters, the SECA’s are defined as the Baltic Sea, the North Sea and the English
Channel. The volume of ships on the Irish Sea is considerably less than these areas, so at present there are
no plans to nominate the Irish Sea as a Sulphur Emission Control Area.
Time
Arrived
1310
0100
1310
0115
1320
DOA
Sat 9/5
Sun 10/5
Sun 10/5
Mon 11/5
Mon 11/5
1435
0235
1430
0235
1455
Time
Sailed
P16D
70 !
2 coaches
37
52
65!
2 coaches
80
Cars
7
23
22
35
53
8
nil
35
1
34
INWARD TRAFFIC
Freight
Freight
Acc
Unacc
253
128
145
181
253
Total
Pax
17
54
91 !
2 coaches
42
70
Cars
17
20
14
15
22
16
nil
4
1
50
OUTWARD TRAFFIC
Freight
Freight
Acc
Unacc
SUMMARY OF SAILINGS SUBJECT TO 100% CHECKS ON CARS BY UKBA
313
149
314
117
253
Total
Pax
Last car 1353
Last car 0145
Last car thru
car hall 1350
Remarks
Processed: 29-10-2009 23:00:05
Page Layout: CWMEM1 [E]
Ev 104 Welsh Affairs Committee: Evidence
PPSysB Job: 435922
Unit: PAG7
Processed: 29-10-2009 23:00:05
Page Layout: COENEW [O]
PPSysB Job: 435922
Unit: PAG7
Welsh Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 105
Irish Ferries Concerns
— The ferry business in general is suVering severely as a result of the economic recession, down over
25% overall YTD. The market is extremely price and service sensitive. The unwarranted targeting
of pax traYc on a particular route, causing delays, will have a negative impact on our business,
causing passengers to choose the many alternatives available.
— UKBA checks, in the context of the proposed CTA changes, are said to be “risk based and
intelligence led”. What was the basis and justification for stopping all pax traYc, the majority of
which were UK and Irish citizens?
— The impacts of the recession can be seen by examining the traYc columes. The law car figures are
self explanatory. I have highlighted the drop trailers or “freigh unacc” in bold, because this is
normally a substantial part of our business, with turnrounds of 130 drops per port operation, at
the same time last year, ie 65 drops in and 65 drops out. The layout of the vessel means that deck
3 would take 4 rows of 9 drops, leaving 29 drops to go on deck 5, so the deck 5 operation in
Pembroke would be to discharge 29 drops from deck 5 and load 29 drops, in addition to any
hazardous cargo/running fridges. The actions of UKBA in stopping all of the cars coming oV deck
5, caused all of the traYc to back up onto the ship, preventing access to deck 5. Setting aside the
issue of emergency access to this deck, the act of preventing access to deck 5 would have
significantly delayed the turnround of the ship. To highlight this, look at the turnround for Sat 9/
5, where we had to handle an 84 drop turnround. The ship was 25 minutes late leaving, which would
have been considerably worse if the freight and passenger numbers were back to normal.
— If you project the actions of the UKBA onto busier passenger sailings and busier freight sailing,
you will see the exact results that Irish Ferries have predicted would occur. It will inevitably cause
delays in the turnrounds that will directly impact negatively on our business.
Irish Ferries are not satisfied that the actions of UKBA are reasonable and fair and they appear to take
no account of the concerns already raised over the proposed actions under the CTA proposals.
On the latest statistics available for our car passenger traYc in 2008, this really is “a sledgehammer to
crack a nut”. In 2008 our own statistics showed the following:
— 61% of pax were resident on the British Mainland;
— 32% were resident in the Irish Republic;
— 2% were resident in Northern Ireland;
— this left 5% non UK or non Irish, of which 1.1% were German and 0.3% were French; and
— this leaves a balance of 3.6% of other nationalities.
July 2009
Written evidence from the Isle of Anglesey County Council
Executive Summary
Anglesey faces serious economic challenges, and local deprivation is concentrated around its port areas.
Holyhead port is a critical generator of jobs and income for the local economy. Government should support
projects which will safeguard this, and more eVectively exploit and develop the port’s potential and
contribution to the local economy. Key projects in this respect include the proposed cruise ship terminal, the
planned direct road link between the port and A55, and the need for a lorry park facility. The extensive
harbour has many uses with scope for more, and the waterfront area is subject to ambitious development
plans.
1. Introduction
1.1 Anglesey County Council welcomes the Welsh AVairs Committee’s decision to hold an inquiry into
the issue of Ports in Wales. Anglesey has a number of ports and harbours located around our coastline, but
most of our evidence inevitably relates to the port of Holyhead due to its size and status.
2. Economic Context
2.1 Anglesey faces a number of significant economic challenges, and now has the highest unemployment
rate of any county in North Wales. The Island has seen the erosion of its industrial base in recent years. This
will be added to by the closure of Eaton Electrical in late 2009, and a decision on the future of Anglesey
Aluminium is expected shortly, both in Holyhead.
Processed: 29-10-2009 23:00:05
Page Layout: COENEW [E]
PPSysB Job: 435922
Unit: PAG7
Ev 106 Welsh Affairs Committee: Evidence
2.2 There is generally a correlation between economic prosperity and proximity to the mainland. The
Island’s socio-economic problems are particularly severe in the wards surrounding the port of Holyhead,
and also that of Amlwch Port. Of the 10 LSOA’s on Anglesey with the highest unemployment rates, seven
are in Holyhead, and one is in Amlwch Port. These areas account for five of Anglesey’s six Communities
First wards.
2.3 It is important that government encourages and supports plans to more eVectively develop the
economic potential of ports, especially in areas of high socio-economic need such as Anglesey.
3. Ports and Harbours of Anglesey
3.1 Holyhead
Holyhead is a major strategic port of great importance as a link between the UK and Irish Republic, and
it is dealt with in detail in the remainder of this report.
3.2 Amlwch
The narrow harbour of Amlwch was originally developed to serve the copper industry. During the late
1970s it was improved to serve the needs of oil importation from tankers, for transfer to the nearby
Rhosgoch tank farm, and from there via pipeline to Stanlow in Cheshire, but this operation was shortlived.
The nearby Great Lakes (previously Octel) bromine works was the town’s major employer—it has now
closed, but there are plans by gas company Canatxx to use it to land and refine Irish Sea gas. The main users
of Amlwch harbour today are private leisure craft, boat excursion operators, and commercial fishing boats.
The harbour also provides a base for pilot vessels of the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company, assisting
large ships travelling to Liverpool. There are plans to develop the historic harbour area as a tourist
destination. Anglesey County Council is the local harbour authority.
3.3 Beaumaris
Although historically a port, Beaumaris now lacks a sheltered harbour. Current facilities include a leisure
pier, moorings, and a boatyard, which are used by private leisure craft and by tourist or fishing boat
excursion operators. A proposal for a new marina has recently been thwarted due to opposition by mussel
fishermen and related agencies, and the decision has thrown in doubt the legality of some 400 Menai Straits
moorings.
3.4 Menai Bridge
The modern pontoon pier is used by research vessels of the nearby University of Wales Marine Science
department, and by some leisure and small commercial craft. As in Beamaris, the pier and moorings are
owned and managed by the County Council.
3.5 Cemaes
There is a small sheltered harbour in Cemaes which was built to serve the needs of local past industry. It
is now used by leisure craft and a small number of fishing boats and charter boat operators. The harbour
is owned and managed by local trustees.
3.6 Other Harbours
There are various small-scale jetties, slipways, and other maritime facilities around the Anglesey coast,
mostly related to leisure craft usage.
4. Holyhead Port
4.1 Holyhead’s Harbours
Holyhead’s use as a harbour dates back to Roman times. Its development as a major port was linked to
the building of the A5, the extension of the railway from Chester, and the Admiralty’s decision to create a
large harbour of refuge. Holyhead’s role as a strategic transport node has been reinforced by the building
of the A55 dual carriageway from Chester, part of a designated Euroroute (E22). Recent port infrastructure
developments have been focussed on the East Dock side of the Inner Harbour, and on Salt Island from where
deeper water can be reached.
4.2 Port Employment
Holyhead Port is one of Anglesey’s major employers, providing approximately 900 jobs. Stena accounts
for well over half of these, with the remainder being in Irish Ferries, port service companies, transport and
other businesses, together with some public sector staV in the port police and customs. Stena has sited some
of its UK-wide service and support operations locally. Given other job losses, it is essential that government
supports port employment.
Processed: 29-10-2009 23:00:05
Page Layout: COENEW [O]
PPSysB Job: 435922
Unit: PAG7
Welsh Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 107
4.3 Ferry Services
Holyhead is the busiest ferry port in Wales, handling about 2.3 million passenger movements each year.
There are two ferry companies operating a total of five ferry vessels, and both have invested heavily in
developing new berths and port related facilities. The ferries carry foot passengers, cars, coaches, and lorries,
varying by vessel. Foot passenger numbers has declined in recent years, but the number of lorries using the
ferries has increased very significantly.
4.4 Sea Freight
The bulk of sea freight activity via Holyhead involves lorries using the ferries to transport goods to and
from Ireland. (There used to be a sea container facility on the East Dock, but the company withdrew and
the site was later redeveloped for ferry uses). Other significant freight operations involve the import of fuel
to the port and of aluminium ore to Anglesey Aluminium, and the export of aluminium ingots. The ore is
landed on a purpose-built jetty, and is transported via underground conveyer to the smelter (the possibility
of also using this to import wood chip for a power station is now being considered). There are other
occasional freight uses, eg the export of stone for marine works. It is hoped that storage and distribution
facilities and related jobs can be attracted to the new Parc Cybi business park.
4.5 Port—A55 Link
4.5.1 The growth in ferry traYc, especially lorry numbers, has led to stresses on the transport network.
Problems occur at the Britannia Bridge, and in some other locations along the North Wales coast. A
particular problem for Holyhead is the “missing link” between the port and the A55 dual carriageway. The
access to and from the port for road traYc needs to be improved to avoid conflict with local traYc, and to
reduce congestion, especially for traYc exiting the port.
4.5.2 A scheme has been prepared to address this by creating new direct road link between the port and
A55 Junction 1. This will require the relocation of the existing railway depot from near the town centre, and it
is proposed to relocate this to land adjacent to Anglesey Aluminium. With support and funding from WAG,
Anglesey County Council have been working for several years to plan and design up this project, which now
has a cost of about £20 million. A bid for EU Convergence funding has been made, and it is vital that funding
is provided to allow the scheme to proceed.
4.6 Lorry Park
Due to the volume of freight traYc using the A55, there is a need for a suitable truck stop/service area for
lorries. Drivers are now forced to use normal roadside lay-bys to stop and rest to achieve their mandatory
breaks, which has resulted in environmental and other problems in those locations as there are no facilities.
A lorry park would address this problem and could generate local economic benefits.
4.7 Environmental Impact
There are inevitably some localised environmental impacts due to port operations and traYc. The London
Road ward has the worst scoring on Anglesey in terms of the WIMD 2008 health indicator. It is expected
that pollution levels in local residential areas will be reduced if the rail depot is relocated, and if lorries can
access the A55 directly without having to queue slowly over Black Bridge.
4.8 Port and Rail
About 0.5 million people use Holyhead station each year, most being ferry users. Ferry and train times
are reasonably well timed, but the locality benefits from some delay. The Town Council operates a left
luggage facility to encourage ferry/rail users to visit the town rather than wait in the terminal. The railway
station has seen some limited improvement works, but is clearly in need of a significant physical upgrade,
including updated signage and information for passengers.
4.9 Rail Freight
There are currently no rail freight facilities at the port of Holyhead. The North Wales Rail Strategy Study
includes the option of a rail freight terminal at Holyhead, which should reduce the large number of heavy
lorries that now operate along the A55. The North Wales railway line is not currently used by container
traYc, and there are gauging and terminal issues to overcome. A rail gauge upgrade is a possible longterm option.
4.10 Cruise Ships
4.10.1 About 5–10 cruise ships have been calling into Holyhead each year, most carrying a few hundred
passengers, but there have been several calls by larger ships with around 2,000 passengers. Most cruise
passengers tend to go on day or half-day coach excursions, and the cruise ship companies receive much of
their income from these.
Processed: 29-10-2009 23:00:05
Page Layout: COENEW [E]
PPSysB Job: 435922
Unit: PAG7
Ev 108 Welsh Affairs Committee: Evidence
4.10.2 Typically 25% of passengers from large ships will not go on coach excursions and will walk around
the town or visit other places by taxi. Many crew members will also come ashore and spend in local shops.
The County Council has arranged events in the town centre on large cruise ship call days. Related initiatives
have included customer care courses for taxi drivers, training local “green badge” tourist guides, and
arranging short local excursions.
4.10.3 The Cruise Wales partnership aims to develop Wales’ potential as a cruise destination. Economic
studies have been undertaken to measure the economic impact of cruise calls and predict how this is likely
to increase in the future. Anglesey County Council is an active member, and will lead the EU Interreg funded
“Celtic Wave” joint marketing project for several Irish Sea cruise ports.
4.10.4 Smaller cruise ships berth alongside in the Inner Harbour, but larger cruise ships must anchor
outside the port and transport their passengers ashore via small tenders. This is very time consuming and
risky. Several large cruise ships have cancelled the landing of passengers using tenders due to conditions on
the day being unsuitable. Most cruise lines have now decided to avoid tendering in. The development of an
alongside cruise berth is therefore essential to ensure that Holyhead attracts cruise ships in the future, and
we are most anxious that this project receives full government support.
4.11 Marine Leisure
The 24-hour outer harbour is well used for marine leisure activities, and there is space and potential for
further usage. The local sailing club has a large membership and manages yacht moorings. A private
yachting marina has been established which now has a blue flag and about 200 berths, together with an
onshore development of commercial units and apartments.
4.12 Tourism
The port makes a significant contribution to tourism in Wales and Ireland. EVorts have been made to
increase the level of ferry passenger spend on Anglesey by providing visitor information on the HSS ferry,
in A55 lay-bys, and at the ferry terminal, and further marketing initiatives are planned. Holyhead benefits
from spends by tourists who are en-route to or from Ireland, and local guest houses rely on ferry users for
much of their business. A budget hotel has recently been built, and there is further hotel interest.
4.13 Local Spend by Ferry Users
Ferry users generate a significant level of spend in Anglesey service sector businesses in Holyhead town
centre, Holyhead retail park, and other places along or near the A55. The relocation of the port access from
the west to the east side of the harbour during the early 1990s adversely impacted on spend in the town
centre, and the planned new port access road link scheme on the west side should see many more car and
coach-based ferry users stopping and spending in the town.
4.14 Ferry Timings
Ferry frequencies and timings have a significant impact on how many ferry passengers visit the town and
how much they spend. Timings are currently not as favourable as they used to be for return day trips between
Wales and Ireland. Ferry delays or cancellations can result in a significant influx of passengers into the town.
4.15 Port Heritage
The port includes a large number of historic buildings and structures, many of which are listed as being
of historic interest, and a study has been undertaken in conjunction with Cadw. The care of these buildings
and structures largely fall on Stena Ports Ltd as port authority. An excellent Maritime Museum is operated
by local volunteers in a building leased from Stena, and there are plans for a large expansion to show more
of the many artefacts.
4.16 Other Port and Harbour Users
There are very many other users of the port and harbour. These include the RNLI, RAF, Customs, Navy,
visiting ships, survey vessels, Sea Scouts, small boating associations, leisure divers, outdoor pursuits
operators, among others.
4.17 Holyhead Breakwater
The 1.5 mile long breakwater is a dramatic historic structure which forms the large Outer Harbour, dating
back to the early 1800s. The structure is now in need of a major strengthening and restoration scheme.
Without these works, the breakwater is in danger of partial collapse. It is hoped that the scheme will also
provide for leisure and amenity use of the structure.
Processed: 29-10-2009 23:00:05
Page Layout: COENEW [O]
PPSysB Job: 435922
Unit: PAG7
Welsh Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 109
4.18 Port and Regeneration
Recent urban regeneration works by the County Council have targeted run-down areas facing the port,
and further works are planned. These schemes will integrate with the planned Port Access Road scheme.
The recently built Celtic Gateway bridge provides an easy and DDA compliant link between the town centre
and foot passenger ferry terminal/railway station, and is also well used by Morawelon area residents. Stena
is an active partner in the local regeneration partnership and related initiatives.
4.19 Waterfront Potential
Holyhead’s extensive waterfront has been recognised as a key asset for the future regeneration of the town.
Port owner Stena has formed a joint venture property development company with London based developers
Conygar, and plans for an ambitious mixed-use development for part of the Outer Harbour waterfront are
in preparation.
4.20 OVshore Developments
Holyhead is well sited to be a base for servicing oVshore developments, and large drilling rigs are
sometimes seen in the harbour. Further windfarms are expected in the Irish Sea, together with marine
turbines. There are currently constraints in terms of uses that would require very large areas of portside
standage.
4.21 Marine Industry
The closure of the Marine Yard in the 1980s was a severe blow, but its tradition continues on a smaller
scale. Holyhead Boatyard employs about 60, involved in specialist boatbuilding and repairs, but also in
many shipping and overseas activities. There are also many other smaller marine businesses in and around
the harbour, and this sector clearly deserves to be encouaged and assisted to grow.
4.22 Fishing Industry
Holyhead is North Wales’ most important commercial fishing port. It is a base for small inshore vessels,
but also sees calls by larger trawlers. Almost all fish landings (c£3 million per annum by value) are
transported direct for sale outside Wales. The DEFRA Fisheries oYce for North/Mid Wales and the North
Wales Fishermen’s Association are both based in Holyhead. There are several facilities for fishing boats,
including a Council managed Fish Dock, and EU fisheries funding is available for related works.
4.23 Port Authority
The statutory port authority is Stena Ports Ltd, a port management company which is part of the
international Stena group. Although a private company, the functions of Stena Ports Ltd reflect those of
a public sector authority in many respects. The port authority’s status as a privately owned company has
constrained the availability of public funding to some important projects due to funders concerns and
uncertainty about EU state aid regulations.
June 2009
Supplementary written evidence from the Isle of Anglesey County Council
Following the oral evidence session at the House of Commons on Tuesday, I have a further point which
I would ask the Welsh AVairs Committee to consider as an annex to the Council’s evidence.
It was clear from the Committee’s line of questioning that it wished to focus on the UK Government’s role
in respect of cruise development. However, while ports in Wales are indeed a UK government responsibility,
responsibility for tourism (including cruise) is devolved to the Welsh Assembly Government.
As such, there is a danger that both policy and implementation will be less than fully “joined up”.
Margaret Llewellyn did mention the prospect of devolving responsibility for ports in Wales to the WAG,
and I would support this for this reason.
July 2009
Processed: 29-10-2009 23:00:05
Page Layout: COENEW [E]
PPSysB Job: 435922
Unit: PAG7
Ev 110 Welsh Affairs Committee: Evidence
Written evidence from Milford Haven Port Authority (MHPA)
1. As an introductory background, Milford Haven Port Authority (MHPA) operates the largest port in
Wales and the sixth largest port in the UK (as measured in the tonnage of cargo through the port). The
turnover of the port in 2008 was £18.5 million producing an operating profit of £740K and a profit before
tax of £4.4 million. As a trust port with no shareholders, MHPA is statutorily required to operate as a
commercial, profit making business but with the profits invested for the benefit of existing and future users
and stakeholders of the port.
Policy Framework
2. Ports other than what are termed fishing ports are not a devolved responsibility and therefore MHPA
has a formal relationship with UK Government at Westminster, through the Ports Division of the
Department for Transport. Our act requires that we provide our audited annual accounts to the Secretary
of State for Transport and the appointment of the 10 non-executive members on the Board of the Authority
(alongside the three executive members) are made by the Secretary of State—through a process that complies
with standards of governance, Nolan Principles etc. Indeed the DfT has identified and recently updated
through a review of ports policy the standards of governance and performance expected of trust ports and
as issued in the document “Modernising Trust Ports 2” which itself builds on a similar document produced
following a review of trust ports in 2000. MHPA complies with all the requirements of these standards and
will continue to do so.
3. A current issue outstanding with UK Government is the fact that over four years ago, a ruling by the
OYce of National Statistics identified MHPA along with a number of other large trust ports as having public
corporation status and therefore ostensibly subject to public sector borrowing requirements. This was a state
of aVairs that neither we, nor indeed the Department and Treasury required and on the Department’s advice
a Harbour Revision Order was promoted to removed the two criteria which the ONS decision had been
taken—the ability of the Government to compulsory privatise under a clause in the 1991 ports act and the
view that the port was Government “controlled” because the majority of Board members were appointed
by the Secretary of State. This HRO was objected to by private ports and therefore the Department put it
in suspension, awaiting outcome of the recent ports policy review which would identify new and updated
standards for trust ports. It is expected that the HRO will therefore be resurrected and passed during the
middle of 2009, thereby removing the threat to the investment and development capability of MHPA.
4. Whilst not a devolved responsibility, MHPA recognises that increasingly Welsh Assembly Government
sets the framework within which we as a business, located in Wales have to operate. It is therefore important
that we build communication and partnership at a number of levels, so that we both promote an
understanding of the value and role of the port in the Welsh economy to feed into policies and strategies
being developed by WAG and also have an opportunity to make our views known as part of the process of
establishing such strategies.
5. As well as informal and formal links that we have established with WAG at a variety of levels and in
various departments, a more recent move has been the agreement to establish a Welsh ports group to have
regular if not frequent contact with WAG and be a means of communication, discussion and identification
of relevant issues. The first such meeting will take place in June of this year.
Contribution of Welsh Ports
6. The overall contribution of Welsh ports has been covered in the response to this inquiry made by the
British Ports Association, of which MHPA are members.
7. As a port MHPA supports two refineries that produce over 20% of the UK’s production of petrol and
diesel, the largest tank farm in the UK and Irish Ferries one of the major ferry operators on the Irish Sea,
running between Rosslare and Pembroke Dock, in addition MHPA is the largest fishing port in Wales, with
around 4,000 tonnes of fish landed each year in Milford Docks. More recently the well heralded advent of
Liquefied Natural Gas shipping into the port has taken place with the recent opening of the South Hook
Terminal and the expected opening of the Dragon LNG Terminal this summer. Between them, these two
terminals have the capacity to provide over 25% of the UK’s gas requirements for decades to come.
8. On top of that, MHPA employs 200 staV, which whilst small in one sense is nevertheless a significant
employer in the local context, given that Pembrokeshire is very much a small enterprise economy.
Increased Trade with Other Countries
9. Cargos of crude oil to the two refineries are mainly sourced from the North Sea nowadays but with
occasional cargos from elsewhere eg West Africa. It is expected that with investment in the refineries enabling
them to deal with diVerent ranges of crude oil and with the decline in output from the North Sea, that there
will be an increase in crude oil coming from other parts of the world in increasing measure in years to come.
One refinery in particular, sees opportunity for bringing more crude oil from the Caspian.
Processed: 29-10-2009 23:00:05
Page Layout: COENEW [O]
PPSysB Job: 435922
Unit: PAG7
Welsh Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 111
10. The refined product of the refineries goes out in the main by sea in smaller coastal tankers to serve
the UK, Ireland and Northern Europe. Smaller proportions go out by pipeline, rail (Murco) and a very small
amount by road. A significant proportion of petrol produced also goes to the USA, particularly from
Chevron, which is a reflection of the imbalance between production capacity and market demand for petrol
and diesel in Northern Europe and indeed in the USA. Murco have plans to increase capacity and a likely
consequence of that will be exports to the USA.
11. The SemLogistics tank facility imports and exports from a wide range of sources.
12. Irish Ferries services used in the port provide a link within the southern TENS route running through
Wales and like other ferry operators are experiencing a downfall in traYc particularly rated to the even more
significant reduction in the Irish economy than that in the UK and elsewhere in Northern Europe.
13. As a port, we recognise we have spare capacity in our ferry terminal and are actively pursuing other
routes and opportunities and in particular are working with the Port of Ferrol in North West Spain to
develop a new freight service for unaccompanied freight vehicles.
14. We are also looking to expand other general cargo in the port which as we do not have an industrial
hinterland nor good road/rail connection to the rest of Wales and the UK, is largely focused on local
agriculture and engineering sector in West Wales.
15. Very real and significant opportunities exist however for the port and Pembrokeshire to establish
facilities to serve the emerging marine renewable energy industry which will see massive explosion over the
next decade as the UK seeks to meet its CO2 targets (and these for Wales are even more challenging). The
key to opening up the potential is the development of the last significant brownfield site with water access
which is currently owned by Pembrokeshire County Council with interest from WAG with both of whom
we are working hard to bring this about.
Increase in Freight Movements and Adequacy of Transport Infrastructure
16. The Port of Milford Haven and indeed the Pembrokeshire economy is one of the two strategic TransEuropean routes identified in Wales of which the northern corridor, along the A55 to Holyhead has received
significant attention, support and investment by Welsh Assembly Government in recognition not only of its
strategic value in the European context but also the benefit that such improvements bring to the economy
through North Wales and into Anglesey and Holyhead.
17. On the other hand there has been a continuing and significant failure by WAG in failing to follow
through on expectations raised of a similar approach to the southern corridor, particularly focused on the
dualing of the A40 from St Clears. This not only hinders the development of increased freight and indeed
other vehicle traYc through the ferry ports of Pembroke Dock, (within Milford Haven) and Fishguard, but
also holds back the Pembrokeshire economy in the perception that this third grade level of infrastructure
gives to potential developers.
Tourism
18. There is a very real potential for Wales to participate in the still expanding cruise market. MHPA have
been seeking to promote the port and West Wales to the cruise industry for the past 10 years, through
attendance at the annual Seatrade exhibition conference in Miami and membership of Cruise Europe, Cruise
UK and being one of the founder members of Cruise Wales. We have had modest success with 6 or 7 cruise
ships using the port of Milford Haven each year and through research and work undertaken by Cruise Wales,
see potential for significant increase in this providing that we can obtain the necessary infrastructure ie an
alongside berth for vessels up to 300 metres in length to meet the full needs of the cruise ships. At present
only ships of 150 metres can go alongside at Pembroke Port. Above this size they anchor and tender their
passengers into Milford Docks, which is perfectly feasible but expensive for the ship operator and indeed
the port and also does not maximise the potential for the local economy in making it as easy as possible for
passengers and crew to come ashore, experience the locality and of course spend their money and perhaps
in so doing decide to come back again as individual tourists.
19. Another aspect of tourism is that of marine leisure in which the 60 square miles of sheltered waterway
in the port of Milford Haven are an existing and increasing attraction; supported by the 2 marinas, one in
Milford Docks, owned by MHPA and the other privately owned in Neyland. In addition the Authority
manages over 1,200 moorings throughout the waterway and planning permission has been granted for a
new housing development, supported by a 300 plus berth marina at Pembroke Dock. A proposed marina
at Fishguard will also enhance the marine leisure facilities in South West Wales and be part of what Welsh
Assembly Government have previously identified in their marine leisure strategy as moving towards a
necklace of marinas thus increasing the potential for greater tourism use of one of Wales’ major assets, its
coastal waters.
Processed: 29-10-2009 23:00:05
Page Layout: COENEW [E]
PPSysB Job: 435922
Unit: PAG7
Ev 112 Welsh Affairs Committee: Evidence
Security and Policing
20. As a port that has had ferry links to the Republic of Ireland since the 1970s MHPA has operated
within the Aviation and Maritime Security act for decades, with the terrorism threat of the IRA. More
recently with the introduction of the International Ship and Port Facilities Code (ISPS) which was brought
in July 2004 as an international response to the USA’s requirements for extra security provision following
9/11, the port and all facilities within it operate under the requirements of this code. This is monitored by
TRANSEC and each facility within the port provides and manages a plan to meet TRANSEC’s
requirements which are then tested and practiced on a regular basis.
21. On top of this of course with the major COMAH sites of the three oil terminals and now the two LNG
terminals which operate under similar very strict security regime monitored by the security services, there is
an obvious link between the port and terminal security provision.
22. Whilst the ISPS Code does not work in this way, we as a port have through our initial participation
in the MATRA pilot project worked in a collaborative way, sharing information and indeed assets rather
than in isolated silos. This is undertaken through the Port Security Committee which is chaired by MHPA’s
Chief Executive and on which each of the terminals, together with the police, special branch, TRANSEC,
civil contingency oYcers and others serve. With the European Security Directive for ports coming in in the
near future, this model will be easily transposed to its requirements.
23. Another concern for Welsh ports is the UK Border Agency’s move to stop the unfettered sea travel
between Eire and the UK which has been in place for over 80 years and enforce passport style security
requirements. Whilst this obviously has political dimensions in our relationship with the Republic of Ireland
and has come under criticism from the EU in introducing diVerential standards between EU states, it also
poses severe operational problems for ferry companies and ports.
24. I hope the above gives a brief response to the primary areas of investigation, but I would be happy
to expand on any and if required to give further comment or evidence in due course.
June 2009
Supplementary written evidence from Milford Haven Port Authority
Port Rates
A point which I think the Committee are aware of but we did not have time to explain in any detail is that
of the change to the rating system for ports in England and Wales and in particular the unfair manner in
which significant extra charges are being backdated to 2005.
At Milford Haven we only recently received the results of the revaluation exercise by the Valuation
OYce—one of the last ports to be informed.
We are facing potentially significant increases in our costs going forward and have engaged specialist
advisors to help us review these and work with us on our response to the valuations now received.
I expect that the result of this is that we will be discussing the new valuations with the Valuation OYce
and challenging some of their assumptions and calculations and if we cannot get agreement as a result then
be looking at entering into the formal appeals process—although I understand that to do so one needs to
pay any outstanding amounts before an appeal will be considered.
The real problem however is the backdating to 2005 coupled with the change in tactics/system from the
Valuation OYce to separately assess tenants in ports for business rates whereas previously they were part of
an overall assessment for the port.
This means that as well as now facing rate demands which they did not receive before, our tenants are
also facing backdated demands for payments from 2005 of which they had no previous knowledge and had
run and priced their businesses accordingly. Thus whilst they can take a view on how to manage their
business going forward to take into account this new, extra cost being imposed on them as a result of the
change in the system they have no means of recovering the outstanding demands from 2005 other than as
an immediate hit on their current financial position.
There have been reports from various parts of the UK (or rather England and Wales as I understand that
the Valuation OYce in Scotland did not operate in such an inept, ineYcient and unfair manner as their
counterparts south of the border) as to the eVect of this on ports and businesses within ports with some
businesses folding and/or laying oV staV because of the retrospection.
With us the position is only now becoming clear and leaving aside the increased costs on business going
forward (and this at a time of increasingly diYcult times for all businesses in the current economic situation,
but especially those businesses involved in trade and transport) it looks as though Irish Ferries are facing a
backdated bill of over £300k which is a big hit for them when ferry traYc to/from Ireland is falling heavily.
Processed: 29-10-2009 23:00:05
Page Layout: COENEW [O]
PPSysB Job: 435922
Unit: PAG7
Welsh Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 113
In Milford Docks the actual amounts and sizes of the businesses aVected are much smaller (and very small
when compared with some of the headlines elsewhere in England/Wales) but nevertheless given that
Pembrokeshire is an SME economy the results can be no less dramatic and concerning to the individuals
involved as elsewhere.
Thus in Milford Docks there is a 30% increase in business rates required going forward compared to the
previous situation. This increase is coming from what is now a separate assessment on four of our tenants
who were not charged rates previously as we paid rates for the whole of Milford Docks in our ownership
assessment and the rental agreements we had with these tenants was set at a level to take this into account.
Now our bill going forward is the same as it was previously so we are neither getting a rebate to oVset some
of the extra costs being levied by the new system nor are we in a position to reduce the rents to our tenants
to help them to meet the extra costs they are facing.
When you add to this the lump sum backdated bill then it is causing such tenants problems.
One of our tenants is a one man operation—a joiner/kitchen fitter. He is facing over £3,000 as a backdated
bill which to him is significant as he makes the point that he sets his charges to take into account his
overheads, he is on the limits of cash flow and profitability in the present circumstances and to him an extra
£3,000 could be critical. There is no way he can go back to his previous clients and say that because he has
just received a backdated rates bill covering the time when he did work for them, of which he knew nothing
before and therefore had not priced in to the job he requires them to pay some more.
Another is a small fish processor which is facing a £6,000 backdated demand and will really struggle to
find the means to pay it.
Yet another is the Waterfront Gallery which subsists on a knife edge of viability (after support from us
and others) and is facing a demand for £19,000. They have approached Pembrokeshire County Council who
apparently tell them that whilst they might have some discretion in dealing with a charity on a running basis
going forward they have no such discretion on this backdated payment demand. The outcome of this for
the gallery is quite simply that if £19k is not removed the Gallery will close.
Yet another is an engineering company who employ 26 skilled engineers and welders and who face a
backdated bill of £20,000 which is a significant cost to a business of their size, and they also tell me that if
they do have to pay this they will have to look at reducing costs which will probably mean laying people oV
or moving some from full to part time.
So in summary in this tiny area of Milford Docks alone we are looking at the consequences of this
backdating a charity/community enterprise closing, an engineering company laying people oV and small
entrepreneurs really struggling to keep their heads above water at a time of massive other pressures on their
cash flow and their businesses.
This has been taken up by the Treasury Select Committee and the House of Lords both pointing out the
unfair nature of the backdating and recommending that the change to the new system does not take place
until 2010 thus allowing ports and businesses time to prepare and price in any increase in costs. Both our
local MPs have taken up the issue as have many others with port interests and there is an industry wide
protest across England and Wales.
Margaret Llewellyn’s Evidence
I was surprised to read some of the evidence put forward by Margaret Llewellyn on behalf of Cruise Wales
of which Milford Haven Port Authority is a member, and indeed currently supplies the Chairman.
Some corrections to her comments on Milford Haven. She is not correct in stating that MHPA do not
make a profit, nor in my view is she correct in drawing an unfavourable comparison with the “proper
commercial returns” made by Dover and inadequate returns made by MHPA. The two ports are very
diVerent in the way they operate and the traYc handled so comparisons are as she correctly implies more
about levels of profitability and return than overall quantity. However she has her facts/opinions wrong. In
2008 Dover’s turnover was £60.8 million and made a profit before tax of £16.6 million, which was 27%.
Milford Haven Port Authority had a 2008 turnover of £18.5 million and a profit before tax of £4.7 million,
which was 25.3%—by no means dissimilar.
Border Agency Evidence
I have read reports of the evidence given by the UK Border Agency and would comment that the full
picture is not being given, indeed the evidence is potentially misleading. For example the figure of 179
refusals of entry last year in some 4,700! arrival sailings into Welsh Ports, and almost 3 million passengers
is actually a very low level indeed—less than 0.012% of passengers are illegal immigrants, and rather than
illegal immigrants being found on “virtually every crossing” if each of the 179 travelled on a diVerent
crossing less than 4% of crossing would be involved.
The reason put forward for the proposed change to the Common Travel Area, which would cause severe
operational problems for Welsh ports and ferry operators, is that the immigration controls in the Republic
of Ireland are not working thus allowing backdoor entry into the UK. All EU states are meant to operating
equally with such controls. What representations have UKBA made to the EU of their view of the Republic
of Ireland’s failure to comply?
Processed: 29-10-2009 23:00:05
Page Layout: COENEW [E]
PPSysB Job: 435922
Unit: PAG7
Ev 114 Welsh Affairs Committee: Evidence
Where is the logic of imposing controls over the sea crossings between the UK and Eire but not over the
land boundary through Northern Ireland? Only imposing such controls on sea crossings between say Belfast
and Stranraer would first of all leave part of the UK (Northern Ireland) unprotected from the perceived risk
that such measures would be intended to resolve and also introduce passport style controls for sea travel
between two parts of the UK. Is that acceptable?
July 2009
Written evidence from the Port of Mostyn Ltd
1. Summary
1.1 Regulatory Regime
1.1.1 The UK and Welsh ports policies are not suYciently robust to give developers guidance and
confidence when considering potential investments.
1.1.2 The existing regulatory system for obtaining the necessary consents for the development and
operation of ports is fragmented and ponderous. This situation is likely to be exacerbated in the coming
months by organizational changes and additional legislation.
1.1.3 With the decline of manufacturing in Wales, alternative business for ports must be secured. The
emerging oVshore renewable energy sector presents a good opportunity but this will require port projects to
be consented and constructed in a timely manner. Failure to do so may result in investment being made
outside the UK.
1.2 Port Development Opportunities
1.2.1 Opportunities to develop large scale bulk and conventional cargo handling facilities in Wales is
likely to be confined to bulk liquid handling.
1.3 Cruise Market Opportunities
1.3.1 Development in Welsh ports of dedicated cruise terminals as turn-around ports is hampered due
to insuYcient passenger numbers and geographic location. Opportunities for cruise ship transit calls can
developed but the economic benefit these will bring to the port and local economy will be limited.
1.4 Container Terminal Opportunities
1.4.1 Similar to the bulk cargo-handling sector, declining industrial and manufacturing activity makes
container terminals in Wales unnecessary. Global container services can be operated using Portbury and
Mersey facilities alongside feeder services from major UK and Continental ports.
1.5 Policing and Port Security
1.5.1 My knowledge of other Welsh ports on this matter is limited. However from my experience at
Mostyn, policing and security measures in place are not unduly intrusive.
2. Introduction
2.1 I am Jim O’Toole, Managing Director of The Port of Mostyn Ltd in Flintshire. I am a Deputy
Lieutenant to the Clwyd Lieutenancy and a past Chairman of the North Wales CBI, which I represented on
the North Wales Economic Forum. I am also a member of the Bank of England Advisory Panel for North
Wales, and also represent Welsh ports and industrial interests on the Dee estuary relating to the Water
Framework Directive. I have more than 50 years experience in the shipping and ports industries.
3. Regulatory Regime
3.1 Ports is a reserved matter and current UK policy is contained in the document “Modern Ports”—a
UK Policy, Nov 2000. The Welsh Assembly Government‘s parallel policies on ports are contained mainly
in two policy documents: The Wales Freight Strategy, May 2008 and Wales Transport Strategy, April 2008.
Neither of the Welsh documents contain what could be regarded as firm policies for Welsh port development,
indeed the Transport Strategy document makes no more than a passing reference to ports and sea transport.
3.2 The Wales Freight Strategy document provides an overview of the Welsh ports sector and contains
10 policy statements. However, scrutiny of the policy statements shows they are little more than intentions
to “continue to review” and to “continue to monitor” various strategies for potential port development.
3.3 I am therefore not convinced that the Welsh Assembly Government fully appreciates the importance
of ports to the Welsh economy, hence its lack of firm policies, which the industry can rely upon when
considering development plans.
Processed: 29-10-2009 23:00:05
Page Layout: COENEW [O]
PPSysB Job: 435922
Unit: PAG7
Welsh Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 115
3.4 The necessary regulatory consents which all UK ports must obtain in order to carry out both capital
and maintenance works in their harbours and navigational channels are usually a Section 34 Consent under
the Coast Protection Act 1949 (CPA) to carry out the dredging works, and a consent under the Food and
Environmental Protection Act 1985 (FEPA) for the disposal of the material being dredged.
3.5 In some cases, such as at Mostyn, a further consent, being a Land Drainage Consent to disturb the
riverbed must also be obtained from the Environment Agency (Wales) (EAW) under the Water Resources
Act 1991. Moreover, in addition to these consents, an “Assent” from the Countryside Council for Wales
(CCW) under the Countryside Rights of Way Act 2000 to carry out works within the harbour is also required.
3.6 About 70% of the UK’s ports are located on estuaries, which invariably are subject to one or more
conservation designations under the EU Habitats and/or Birds Directives. The interpretation of these
Directives by the UK Regulators is seen by the ports sector as very restrictive when compared against the
interpretation used by our European competitors.
3.7 For example, in other EU countries, harbour areas and navigational channels are generally excluded
from conservation designation, whereas in the UK they are totally included, resulting in a direct conflict
between industry and nature conservation which makes it considerably more onerous, time consuming and
expensive to obtain the necessary consents for our ports to develop.
3.8 It is often said that when Directives arrive in Westminster from Brussels they are then gold plated by
the UK Regulators. I would add that when they arrive in CardiV the Assembly gives them a coat of platinum
for good measure, making Wales the most diYcult country within the EU to obtain consents to develop and
operate a port. Surely this must ultimately be to the detriment of the Welsh economy.
3.9 To complicate matters, the processing of applications under FEPA is currently undertaken by the
Marine and Fisheries Agency (MFA) in London on behalf of the Assembly. Moreover, the scientific and
technical expertise required to assess Environmental Impact Statements which dredging and disposal
consent applications inevitably require, is not readily available in Wales and this work is therefore usually
carried out by the Centre for Environment, Fisheries & Aquatic Science (CEFAS) based in Lowestoft.
3.10 In my experience, there is a reasonable degree of co-operation between the numerous regulatory
organizations involved in dealing with consents. However, the extended administrative chain inevitably
results in more time and resources being demanded not just of the Regulators, but also of the applicants in
order to process consents for channel and harbour works at Welsh ports.
3.11 Whereas the present arrangements make life diYcult enough for ports to gain consents to undertake
essential works, the situation in the near future is likely to be even more complicated and more onerous for
the following two reasons.
3.12 The first reason being that in addition to the existing legislation under which ports are presently
regulated, two new pieces of legislation are approaching the Statute Books. These are the EU Water
Framework Directive which is currently at a public consultation stage, and the Marine and Coastal Access
Bill, (Marine Bill) which is due to come into force later this year.
3.13 When in force, these two additional pieces of legislation will add greatly to the onerous regulatory
burden already on ports, and at a time when major changes are taking place in the structure of the regulatory
bodies concerned.
3.14 This leads directly into the second reason why I believe the regulatory regime may become more
onerous and complicated. In 2007 the Welsh Assembly Government established its own Marine Consents
Unit (MCU) based in CardiV, which at some time in the future will process applications from Welsh ports
under the provisions of the Marine Bill, including CPA and FEPA consents.
3.15 Moreover, prior to the transfer to CardiV, consents currently processed by the MFA in London will
be transferred to Newcastle upon Tyne into the new Marine Management Organization (MMO) to be
formed later this year. It would have been sensible if the transfer of these functions directly from London
to CardiV had been arranged thus avoiding the short-term diversion to Newcastle.
3.16 Furthermore, historically there has been a high turn-over of MFA staV in London with
responsibility for processing consent applications. The major administrative changes soon to take place will
likely lead to a loss of those experienced staV due to their unwillingness to re-locate to Newcastle.
3.17 This will be at a time when applications for marine works consents throughout the UK is expected
to be exceptionally high due to the additional demands resulting from the emerging oVshore wind farm
industry.
3.18 Indeed there is anecdotal evidence that ports are already pre-empting a slowing down of application
processing in anticipation that these changes will cause a log-jam and delays within an already ponderous
system.
3.19 From a ports industry standpoint, it is important that due recognition is given by both the
Westminster and the Welsh Assembly Governments to the impact this introduction of additional legislation
coupled with the changes to the administration will have on the consents regime.
Processed: 29-10-2009 23:00:05
Page Layout: COENEW [E]
PPSysB Job: 435922
Unit: PAG7
Ev 116 Welsh Affairs Committee: Evidence
3.20 Whereas it is acknowledged there is now considerable pressure on the public purse, both
governments should endeavour to make available suYcient time and resources and to ensure the transfer of
responsibilities for marine consents is not detrimental to the ports industry.
3.21 It may be argued that the introduction of the Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC) due to come
into being later this year will help alleviate this situation, as it will have powers to determine all of the
necessary consents required for marine works over a certain threshold, which in itself is a very welcome move
insofar as it goes.
3.22 However, the IPC can only determine marine works applications for projects over a very high
threshold, namely projects related to container terminals with a minimum throughput of 500,000 containers
per annum, liquid and general cargo handling facilities with a minimum annual throughput of 5 million
tonnes, or a power generation project exceeding 50 Mw for land based generation or 100 Mw for oVshore
power generation.
3.23 With the possible exception of Milford Haven where high volume liquid cargo projects are possible,
bulk/general cargo handling developments at Welsh ports are likely to be significantly below the threshold
to qualify for determination by the IPC.
3.24 It therefore seems that the majority of Welsh ports will have to continue operating under the present
cumbersome processing system in the hope the situation does not deteriorate while the administrative
changes take place and the additional legislation is introduced.
3.25 In considering the regulatory restrictions and administrative burdens imposed on the UK’s ports
relative to ports in Europe, which are generally state owned, it should be recognised that the majority of
UK’s ports, including those in Wales, are now owned by foreign companies with considerable ports and
shipping interests elsewhere.
3.26 Unless consents to develop and operate the UK’s ports are processed in a timely and eYcient
manner, it is not unreasonable to expect that future investment will be redirected to those countries which
are regarded as more understanding and accommodating towards the ports sector.
4. Port Development Opportunities
4.1 There is little disagreement of the importance of ports to local and regional economies. Historically
ports have developed in support of local industries such as coal exports, steelmaking, agriculture and ferry
terminals. In the case of the Port of Mostyn, these traditional businesses have all but disappeared, and its
survival has only been possible by the decision a few years ago to diversify into construction and service base
facilities for the oVshore renewable energy sector.
4.2 It is Government policy to erect 7,000 wind turbines oV the coast of the UK over the next 10 years.
In order to achieve this target, considerable investment will have to be made in port infrastructure.
4.3 Success will only be achieved if it is recognised by both the port operators and Government bodies
that this industry requires bespoke harbour infrastructure and very considerable areas of port land adjacent
to quays. This will not happen if port development plans continue to be impeded by a fragmented and
ponderous regulatory system.
5. Cruise Business Opportunities
5.1 Unlike some of its contemporaries, Mostyn has not heeded the siren promise that untold riches will
come the way of the port operator who provides cruise lines with very expensive turn-around port passenger
terminals. This lack of belief stems from the fact that Wales simply does not have the catchment area and
mass of population to support turn-around cruise operations other than for the smallest ships, which are
also small in number.
5.2 Furthermore, the costs of providing sophisticated baggage handling and security screening
equipment together with experienced personnel for a few odd days business per season is proportionally
prohibitive. Whereas turn-around calls may provide a little income to a few supporting service providers
such as coach operators, this business is best left to the larger ports with established passenger terminals and
good inland transport connections to attract suYcient passenger numbers.
5.3 I do believe however that there is a limited amount of business to be had from transit calls, always
providing they can be accommodated using existing cargo berths and quayside facilities. Many of the cruise
calls made at regional ports are “culture cruises” which originate from other UK ports such as Southampton,
Tilbury or Harwich.
5.4 The majority of passengers who take this type of cruise are usually from the upper quartile of the age
profile who do not like to travel by aircraft. Whereas this sector of the cruise market provides some revenue
for the port (typically about £20k from a 1,000 passenger ship), very little of this filters through to the local
economy. This is because most passengers will be whisked away from the ship by coach to the particular
cultural location, (stately home/garden) and returned to the ship without visiting the port’s local town or city.
Processed: 29-10-2009 23:00:05
Page Layout: COENEW [O]
PPSysB Job: 435922
Unit: PAG7
Welsh Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 117
6. Container Handling Opportunities
6.1 Regarding the potential for container terminal development in Wales, the relatively low volume
annual throughput of import and export container traYc is not suYcient to support a major investment in
a Welsh port. Furthermore, the proposed new Panamax facility for Portbury (Bristol) and a similar project
on the River Mersey will serve the future needs of businesses in both north and south Wales respectively.
Trade routes, which are not served from either of these ports, can adequately be provided by feeder services
from Southampton, Felixstowe or Continental ports into existing coastal vessel sized terminals.
6.2 Whereas this may mean additional inland transport costs for Welsh businesses, to some extent these
costs would be oVset against the higher charges an under-utilised global shipping sized Welsh container
terminal would need to charge to maintain viability. It is therefore unlikely that a large Welsh terminal to
handle global container shipping would be commercially viable in the foreseeable future.
7. Policing and Security
7.1 I cannot comment on policing and security at other Welsh ports. However, the combined H.M.
Customs and Revenue, Immigration and Port Security establishment at Mostyn works well and is not
unduly intrusive into the Port’s business.
8. Recommendations
8.1 Welsh ports policies are reviewed and strengthened to give confidence to port operators considering
investment proposals.
8.2 Measures are put in place to ensure the pending administrative changes and additional legislation
does not result in the processing of consents becoming more onerous.
8.3 A review of the eVects the application of the Habitats and Birds Directives is having on port
development to be carried out with the purpose of achieving a more equitable balance between the
requirements of industry and conversation interests.
8.4 Government encouragement should be given to the development of small-scale container terminals.
April 2009
Written evidence from Pembrokeshire County Council
Pembrokeshire County Council is grateful for the invitation to submit evidence to the Welsh AVairs Select
Committee in respect of its inquiry into Ports in Wales. The key points that we would wish to draw to the
Committee’s attention are:
1. The UK Government response to the TENS review should recognise the importance of further
upgrading road and rail access to service the Southern corridor link to Ireland via the
Pembrokeshire Ports of Fishguard and Pembroke Dock.
2. There is a need and an opportunity to improve the strategic distributor road network linking major
industrial sites and port infrastructure on the north and south banks of the Milford Haven
Waterway. The Milford Haven Waterway hosts the UK’s largest energy hub comprising two oil
refineries, an oil storage depot, two liquified gas terminals, a 2,000MW power station (under
construction) and development land to host emerging wind, wave and tidal power developments,
all with deep water access.
3. There are significant opportunities for further commercial and marine leisure development along
the Milford Haven Waterway and at Fishguard, including new marina developments, increased use
of these ports by cruise liners, port related activities linked to the Motorways of the Sea concept
and service base facilities for emerging alternative energy developments.
4. Pembrokeshire County Council is concerned that there may be moves to privatise Milford Haven
Port Authority (MHPA) which we consider would be of considerable disadvantage to local and
regional stakeholders and the wider economy.
5. There is significant evidence that the local commercial property market requires public sector
support to stimulate speculative investment. Enterprise Zone designations have been used
successfully in the past to address the investment viability gap and should be used to help bring
forward new port infrastructure and related property investment in Pembrokeshire.
1. Introduction
1.1 The County of Pembrokeshire is strategically located as part of the UK’s south western approaches
with a long history of port and defence related activity, including the operation of a Royal Dockyard at
Pembroke Dock during the 19th century and early 20th century.
1.2 Today the county hosts two port operations of international significance together with a number of
small fishing and leisure harbours.
Processed: 29-10-2009 23:00:05
Page Layout: COENEW [E]
PPSysB Job: 435922
Unit: PAG7
Ev 118 Welsh Affairs Committee: Evidence
1.3 The larger port is the Trust port of Milford Haven comprising a variety of dedicated jetties servicing
five oil and gas installations together with dock, dry dock and quayside facilities at Milford Haven and
extensive quays, support facilities and an Irish Ferry terminal at Pembroke Dock. The commercial areas of
the port extend over a distance of approximately 12kms.
1.4 The smaller port of Fishguard is owned by Stena and hosts their Irish Ferry Service which has a
shorter sea crossing than the Pembroke Dock service and includes fast ferry services during the summer
months.
2. Policy Framework
2.1 The recent Wales Freight Strategy (May 2008) which is part of the wider “Connecting the Nation”
Wales Transport Strategy identifies the importance of enhancing international connectivity, improving
infrastructure and better road and rail freight connections to main freight ports.
2.2 The South West Wales Regional Transport Plan will address identified transport problems for the
period 2008–13 and the objectives include improving access to employment, business opportunities and
tourism to encourage sustainable growth and to improve the eYciency, reliability and sustainability of the
movement of freight within and beyond south west Wales.
2.3 The Community Plan for Pembrokeshire which is under review includes “improving communication
links” and “delivering economic growth” as two of its priorities.
2.4 The Milford Haven Port Authority is appropriately designated as a Trust Port since the management
of the Milford Haven Waterway goes beyond the management of navigation and port services to include
a wider responsibility to key stake holders including and especially those aVected by its wide-ranging port
operations.
2.5 The County Council has supported MHPA in its representations to the Department of Transport in
respect of the Modernising Trust Ports—A Guide to Good Governance Consultation Document. The report
describes a Trust Port as “a valuable asset presently safeguarded by the existing board, whose duty it is to
hand it on in the same or better condition to succeeding generations. This remains the ultimate responsibility
of the board and future generations remain the ultimate stakeholder”. The County Council acknowledges
that the current port management embraces the good practice advocated in the consultation document. The
Cabinet’s support for the MHPA included the proviso that “the Council requests that the reserved rights
of Pembrokeshire County Council to nominate two Milford Haven Port Authority Board members should
continue in the interests of local democratic accountability, and that the Department of Transport be advised
of the County Council’s views about the inappropriateness of privatisation.”
2.6 The County Council currently has two nominated members on the MHPA Board and works closely
with MHPA to maximise the potential of the Milford Haven Waterway as a commercial and leisure resource
and an important environmental asset. The Milford Haven Waterway is a natural resource that bisects the
county and which has had a profound influence on where and how towns and communities have developed
in the county.
2.7 Over the last 20 years the Milford Haven Port Authority role has evolved from port operator to major
developer and in recent years the Port Authority has become an important deliverer of economic and
community regeneration projects linked to its waterfront land holdings. OYcers of the Port Authority are
represented on many strategic public sector partnerships including the Community Planning Partnership,
Spatial Plan partnership and regeneration master planning processes.
2.8 The Pembrokeshire Haven Spatial Plan, updated in 2008 by the Welsh Assembly Government,
acknowledges the distinctiveness of the area as “a network of strong communities supported by a robust,
sustainable, diverse economy underpinned by the Area’s unique environment, maritime access and
internationally important energy and tourism opportunities”. One of the key strategic priorities of the Wales
Spatial Plan is “overcoming the area’s peripherality by improving strategic transport links and economic
infrastructure including improved telecommunication links and maximising the potential of the Area’s
maritime assets and proximity to Ireland”.
2.9 The County Council has also worked closely with Stena as owners of Fishguard harbour to identify
ways of improving port infrastructure and facilities.
2.10 In 2003 the Welsh Assembly Government and the County Council jointly produced a regeneration
strategy for Fishguard which aimed to strengthen and diversify the local economy following the closure of
a major employer in the town. Whilst most of the identified projects were successfully implemented and the
unemployment rates reduced, the improvement of Fishguard Port and possible development of a quality
marina, with all-tide access, remains a priority.
3. Contribution of Welsh Ports to the Economy
3.1 The Pembrokeshire ports have a disproportionate impact on the UK economy as a result of the
importation, processing, storage and distribution of oil and gas which generate massive revenues to the UK
Treasury through taxation and to a lesser extent business rates. Both ports are part of the strategic Trans
European Road Network (TENs) connecting Ireland through the UK to mainland Europe. Milford Haven
also has general cargo handling facilities for import and export and is the largest fishing port in Wales.
Processed: 29-10-2009 23:00:05
Page Layout: COENEW [O]
PPSysB Job: 435922
Unit: PAG7
Welsh Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 119
3.2 The impact on the local economy is also considerable. The MHPA employs over 200 staV and
supports an extensive supply chain. The greatest impact however is from the establishment and operation
of the energy companies around the Haven which collectively will employ approximately 1,000 permanent
staV with a further 1,000 on-site contractors. Over £1 billion has been spent on recent LNG developments
with an additional £1 billion on the new 2,000MW power station and other upgrades. It is estimated that
collectively the energy companies inject £100 million per annum into the local economy through wages and
the local supply chain.
3.3 There is significant potential for further growth across all port and marine related sectors if the
necessary infrastructure improvements can be secured.
4. Increased Trade with Other Countries
4.1 The Milford Haven Port Authority is actively promoting the port for a range of uses including cruise
liners, port related activities linked to the Motorways of the Sea concept and as a service base for emerging
alternative energy development. There are significant opportunities for further commercial and marine
leisure development along the Milford Haven Waterway and at Fishguard.
4.2 There is a shared concern by MHPA and Stena that the lack of a dual carriageway A40 link to the
M4 is an impediment to future growth and this concern is exacerbated by the lack of clarity concerning how
Strategic National Corridors and the TENS review will be taken forward in Wales.
5. Increase in Freight Movements and Adequacy of Transport Infrastructure
5.1 There is a strongly held feeling amongst local communities that developments which have been
approved in Pembrokeshire “in the national interest” do not necessarily result in a long term legacy for the
county. Specifically the county suVered during the 1980s and 1990s from major closures in the defence and
energy sectors which resulted in male unemployment exceeding 30%, considerable dereliction and economic
hardship that extended over nearly 20 years. Whilst Enterprise Zone status was granted in 1984–94 to
stimulate investment around the Milford Haven Waterway, there has been minimal investment in improving
the A40 west of Whitland (until recent months) and WAG refusal to support dualling. This approach
contrasted greatly with dualling the whole length of the A55 to Holyhead and the acknowledgement of the
catalytic impact, over time, of good communications on trade and economic growth in the locality.
5.2 The Port of Milford Haven comprises a mix of traditional dock facilities with commercial quays at
Pembroke Dock and Milford Haven plus a range of specialised jetties to service Chevron, Murco and more
recently the Dragon and South Hook LNG sites.
5.3 The main distributor highways servicing the extensive range of strategic waterside sites on the north
and south banks of the Milford Haven Waterway are inadequate. The main access to South Hook LNG
site and Murco Refinery is by way of a single track road with passing places. WAG has acknowledged the
inadequacy of the access arrangements and funded initial design work to bring them up to standard. At the
present time there is no confirmed funding to implement the scheme, though options are being explored.
5.4 The County Council has recently been able to negotiate a Section 106 contribution from RWE
npower to enhance the Southern Distributor access route as part of the DECC Section 36 approval and
discussions are taking place with the WAG to provide match funding to complete this project.
6. Tourism
6.1 The tourism potential of the ports are being developed in two ways, by attracting cruise liners and
through waterfont regeneration activities including the development of new marinas.
6.2 MHPA and Stena have both been involved in encouraging and hosting cruise liners on the Milford
Haven and at Fishguard. MHPA have seen year on year growth in the cruise market and have ambitious
development proposals to improve facilities and to handle larger cruise liners.
6.3 Milford Haven is an exceptional marine leisure resource strategically located for oV-shore cruising,
but with 24 miles of reasonably sheltered navigable waterway. There has been steady growth in the number
of boats moored at marinas and swinging moorings and some expansion of support services. There is
significant growth potential and a need for improved infrastructure to service this high value market.
6.4 Fishguard also oVers significant potential for further marine leisure development and is a strategically
important “safe haven” for Cardigan Bay and the Southern Irish Sea. Planning consent has been granted
for a 500 berth all tide marina which could be developed in tandem with port improvements. There is a
concern that the public funding support required to underwrite some of the infrastructure costs is no longer
ring-fenced within Welsh Assembly budgets as part of the agreed regeneration strategy for the town.
6.5 The Enterprise Zone designation in Milford Haven in 1984–94 was a catalyst for the regeneration of
Milford Docks. Similar designation would greatly assist the viability of new port infrastructure and marina
developments in the county and stimulate new investment and job creation.
Processed: 29-10-2009 23:00:05
Page Layout: COENEW [E]
PPSysB Job: 435922
Unit: PAG7
Ev 120 Welsh Affairs Committee: Evidence
7. Security and Policing
7.1 The County Council would urge the Committee to look very carefully at the response capability of
the Dyfed Powys police given the recent expansion of the number of port related installations that may be
regarded as critical national infrastructure.
7.2 The Committee may also wish to consider the wider impact of these installations on other emergency
services including Fire and Ambulance services.
June 2009
Written evidence from the Rail Freight Group
Executive Summary
1. Rail Freight Group (RFG) is pleased to submit this evidence to the Welsh AVairs Select Committee
inquiry into the Welsh Ports. This submission covers only those areas of the remit that come within RFG’s
scope, specifically the role and development of inland links for freight from ports, forecasting of rail
volumes, and the responsibilities for developing links from ports. We have commented on the General Policy
Framework within which the inquiry is being undertaken and on recent studies of demand forecasting for
rail freight. The current capacity and capability of existing rail links to the ports are summarised and there
is a section on the funding of enhanced links and the extent to which contributions should be sought from
developers. There is a short final section regarding the environmental impact of ports.
Introduction
2. Rail Freight Group (RFG) is the representative body for the UK rail freight industry. Our objective is
to grow the volume of goods moved by rail freight in a cost eVective way. We work to influence Government
and rail policy in support of rail freight and to help our members develop their rail freight services.
3. In submitting this evidence, RFG has restricted its comments to issues that impact on the movement
of rail freight to and from the Welsh ports and those factors which aVect RFG members’ decision-making
in respect of rail freight. We have not commented on other areas of the inquiry which are outwith our scope.
General Policy Framework
4. RFG notes that, unlike most other aspects of transport policy, ports’ policy for Wales is not devolved
and remains the responsibility of the DfT. Continuing close co-operation and co-ordination between
Department for Transport (DfT) and Welsh Assembly Government (WAG) is therefore essential to ensure
that the latter’s policies regarding road and rail links between Welsh Ports and their hinterlands and markets,
including those in England, are complementary to UK Port Policy.
5. RFG believes that a competitive, commercially led market place works most eVectively for rail freight
and therefore does not favour models where Government specify the precise framework for port
development across the UK. Patterns of international trade are unlikely to respect regional and local
development plans if they do not fit easily with global distribution patterns and cost considerations.
6. RFG believes that Government should, however, set consistent and clear incentives and frameworks
to deliver outcomes which are deemed to be in the national interest. In this context, it is hoped the National
Policy Statements for Ports, and for National Networks, due to be published in summer 2009, will provide
clarity on these issues.
Demand Forecasting
7. DfT developed and maintain forecasts for port traYc in the UK, and the impact on inland distribution.
Generally, these forecasts are based around the current situation, where the South East ports tend to
dominate. There is some consideration of scenarios with increases in transhipment, but little consideration
of scenarios where ports in other areas increase in relative significance.
8. These forecasts have underpinned the development of rail freight forecasts used in the Network Rail
planning framework and by DfT in their “Developing a Sustainable Transport System” strategy. As such,
these work streams are also predicated on the continued dominance of the south east ports.
9. However, other ports are seeking to develop their capabilities—including Bristol, Liverpool and Tees.
Such developments could generate a shift in distribution patterns to and around the UK. Developments at
Bristol and Liverpool are likely to be of interest to Welsh ports if they succeed in attracting vessels towards
the west coast of the UK. It is not for RFG to comment on the viability of such schemes, but should they
progress, forecasts for inland distribution may need to be adjusted.
Processed: 29-10-2009 23:00:05
Page Layout: COENEW [O]
PPSysB Job: 435922
Unit: PAG7
Welsh Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 121
10. The forecasts are based on existing road and rail cost structures which are still broadly valid. A change
in the assumptions (for example, assumptions about the level and form of road user charging) could make
significant diVerences to the modal shares of road and rail. It is entirely possible that in such circumstances,
rail may be able to compete more eVectively over shorter distances. The recent reduction in freight access
charges should also result in rail gaining market share.
11. Development of Welsh ports for new and additional traYc could therefore generate additional rail
traYc. Many of the Welsh ports including some of smaller facilities are already rail connected and some
viable rail services could be developed.
12. The potential for developments to generate additional activities on the port estates can also increase
demand for rail services. Changes in supply chain patterns, including the establishment of regional and
national distribution centres at ports, are already occurring elsewhere in the UK. In addition, the role of
Welsh ports in relation to traYc flows between Ireland, the UK and the rest of Europe is an area for
development to which rail could contribute significantly.
Surface Access to Ports
13. Analysis undertaken by Network Rail during development of the Freight Route Utilisation Study
(FRUS) clearly demonstrated that parts of the current rail network are not able to accommodate the
expected level of growth emerging from the rail freight forecasts. However, no such issues were identified in
respect of the main lines in Wales including those directly serving the principal Welsh ports and also those
providing connections to/from adjacent areas of England.
14. Nevertheless upgrades of the network will be required if rail is to fulfil its potential role in the
transport of goods to/from the Welsh ports. The Wales Route Utilisation Strategy (WRUS) published in
November 2008, shows that while the North and South Wales main lines, plus the Marches Route from
Newport to Chester and Crewe are capable of handling traYc loaded to the maximum axle weight, all these
routes plus the vital connections from South Wales through the Severn Tunnel and to Gloucester have a
restricted ‘loading gauge’ that would constrain rail movement of many of the larger containers now used in
both deep-sea and short-sea shipping without the use of specialised wagons.
15. The FRUS indicates a long term aspiration to enhance the gauge capability of the lines from the
Severn Tunnel and Gloucester to CardiV to accommodate the largest containers currently in use. Extension
of this capability westwards to Port Talbot, Swansea or Milford Haven would become an aspiration in the
event of a port development at any of these locations, as would provision of this capability along the North
Wales main line if there were a major development at Holyhead.
16. However, the FRUS shows that no lines in Wales are included in the current priority schemes for
gauge enhancement, and the more recent development of the Strategic Freight Network also seems entirely
to by-pass Wales.
17. The recent review of the potential for electrification of the line from London through the Severn
Tunnel to CardiV and Swansea would, if the scheme is viable, also provide a rail link with full loading gauge
capability. Similarly, the putative HS3 serving Bristol and South Wales (via a second Severn rail crossing)
could provide that opportunity (subject to such routes being capable of taking freight traYc at aVordable
charging levels).
18. In the event that neither of these schemes proceeds, the freight community would look to DfT and
WAG to provide funding for gauge clearance in its own right. It is diYcult at present to determine whether
DfT or WAG that should take the strategic overview of rail freight needs in supporting increased traYc to/
from Welsh ports, including where relevant, the need for enhanced capability.
Funding of Improved Links to Ports
19. DfT has recently published revised guidance on the funding of significant infrastructure. This
perpetuates the policy of developer contribution, and sets out guidelines on assessing the distribution of
benefits between parties. For ports, it indicates that generally the port developer should pay for
developments on the inland links, as it is deemed to be the sole beneficiary.
20. While RFG would agree that there is a role for developer contributions towards the inland
infrastructure, it does question whether this should extend to the strategic trunk network (road and rail)
rather than being limited to the local or regional requirements which can be more closely linked to the specific
growth from the facility. RFG would expect a developer contribution to upgrading a branch line and/or
connection to a port, but questions whether they should be expected to fund upgrades of major routes, which
could extend some considerable distance away from the facility itself.
21. The costs of rail enhancement schemes are significant and, if the port developer is expected to fund
in full the capacity it will use, it is likely that the level of costs could become a barrier to the port investment
itself. Care must be taken to balance the expected contributions against the need for developments to
proceed and where such developments are expected to provide wider economic benefits to the region we
would expect this to be taken into account.
Processed: 29-10-2009 23:00:05
Page Layout: COENEW [E]
PPSysB Job: 435922
Unit: PAG7
Ev 122 Welsh Affairs Committee: Evidence
22. There are several sources of Government funding which could be used to fund upgrades of the rail
network. These include Transport Infrastructure Fund (TIF), and, to support traYc flows, the Sustainable
Distribution Fund (SDF). Freight Facilities Grant (FFG) scheme is also available, with WAG administering
the scheme in Wales. Whilst these are all welcome, they present a fragmented and sometimes transitory
source of funding (for example, the SDF budget is not yet confirmed beyond 2010). In looking at
infrastructure schemes with long development and construction timescales, a longer term view of funding
is required. The links with any upgrades for passenger rail should also be considered to ensure maximum
synergies.
Environmental Impact of Ports
23. Rail freight can make a significant contribution to reducing emissions generated by inland
distribution from ports. For example, rail freight produces around 15 grams/tonne km of CO2; whilst the
equivalent number for HGV is around 180 grams/tonne km (see DfT website http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/
groups/dft foi/documents/page/dft foi 612027.pdf ). Comparable data also shows rail freight to deliver far
lower levels of other pollutants such as CO, NOx, and VOCs.
Conclusion
24. RFG believes that the current rail network in Wales does not present a barrier to development of ports
in Wales, but that investment will be required to allow rail to play a full role in serving any increase in traYc
through those ports. Capacity is not seen as an issue, neither is the ability to handle maximum axle-loads.
However, significant investment in the provision of enhanced loading gauge capability may be required if
the development of the ports is based around handling containerised traYcs. It is essential that the costs of
enhancing the rail network do not bear on the developers to such an extent that the expansion of the ports
becomes unviable.
April 2009
Written evidence from the Road Haulage Association Ltd (RHA)
Introduction
1. The RHA is the primary trade association representing the hire-or-reward sector of the UK road
freight transport industry. The Association comprises some 9,000 member companies, operating between
them 100,000! lorries and employing some 250,000 staV. Members range from single vehicle owner-drivers
right through to multi-national fleet operators. A number of the member companies are either wholly or
partly employed in the movement of goods through and from the ports in Wales, either by roll on/roll oV
(ro-ro) access or container movements or bulk goods movements. As such the evidence below focuses on
the interests of this type of professional road haulier.
2. It is in the interests of RHA members that the future direction taken by those controlling the port
facilities is planned and organised in conjunction with the Welsh Assembly Government, the UK
Government and relevant local authorities. Adequate and eVective land side infrastructure is essential.
Welsh Ports Inquiry
3. The RHA welcomes this inquiry into Welsh ports by the Welsh AVairs Select Committee following on
from the Wales Freight Strategy published in May 2008.
4. However, as our specialism relates to road transport rather than port operations, we propose to limit
our input to those areas which we believe are relevant to our member involvement with the ports and for
which we have adequate specialist competency to do so. This memorandum is therefore largely focussed on
land side infrastructure, port access and those issues relating to goods vehicle operators involved in port
related activities.
Background to the Welsh Road Haulage Industry
5. The Welsh road haulage sector has an essential role to play in the Welsh economy as part of the overall
logistics sector. Logistics contributes some £2.5 billion per year to the Welsh economy and accounts for 7%
of employment in Wales with 61,000 people directly employed in logistics companies and a further 30,000
in logistics roles for other organisations. According to the Vehicle and Operator Services Agency (VOSA),
there are 7,042 Goods Vehicle Operators’ Licences in place covering 20,216 registered goods vehicles.
The Demand for Port Growth
6. Forecasting the growth in demand for port capacity in Wales is an area in which this Association does
not have any specialist knowledge. However, the DfT forecasts that by 2030, the final origin or destination
of more than 40% of all goods being moved in the UK will be abroad with the great majority passing through
Processed: 29-10-2009 23:00:05
Page Layout: COENEW [O]
PPSysB Job: 435922
Unit: PAG7
Welsh Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 123
the UK’s ports. According to the CBI, some 10% of the UK’s trade currently transits through Welsh ports.
Together with the environmental imperative, there can be no doubt that trade through Welsh ports will
increase.
Short Sea Shipping
7. The European Commission and the UK government both support the increased use of short sea
shipping to reduce movement by road of long distance cargo across Continents. However, in reality it is
unlikely that the commercial sector in the Far East of the globe will increase its existing use of this mode if
it leads to an increase in costs due to the additional handling delays. This is especially so since they have
committed heavily through their own investment to deep sea vessels access at major domestic ports in the
UK, the Netherlands and elsewhere. Although the emphasis across Europe is rightly on policies to reduce
road transport it would be unrealistic to believe that developing countries will have the same mindset as us
for a number of years to come.
8. Furthermore, with the increased ability of deep sea vessels to dock in our ports it is essential that serious
thought be given to their desire to re-load commodities that they will expect to be waiting at the dockside
for the return leg. Additional warehousing and storage will undoubtedly be added to all planning proposals
up to and beyond 2030 if Wales is to attract more trade from the Far East.
What Hauliers Need from Ports
9. Assuming that a significant growth in trade through Welsh ports is a given, the road haulage industry
and other freight distributors have a number of basic requirements:
— Good access to and from the ports. Road haulage operators are governed by stringent regulations
concerning drivers’ hours. Delays in getting to and from the ports can interfere with the hauliers’
delivery schedules and deadlines resulting in additional costs. For example, if replacement drivers
are required as a result of running out of drivers’ time.
— EYcient service within the ports. Any delays within ports must be kept to a minimum in order to
ensure that additional costs are not incurred. If goods cannot eYciently be moved through the
ports, consigners and consignees will seek alternatives.
— High levels of security within ports. Hauliers’ loads are often of very high value and there are
occasions when such loads have to be left in ports for considerable periods. A significant amount
of port traYc is in the form of unaccompanied containers and trailers and the vigilance of port staV
is imperative. This is especially so in light of the increasing number of illegal immigrants trying to
gain entrance to the UK and the resulting fines that can be levied against the haulier.
— Adequate enforcement to create a level playing field. According to the DfT, foreign registered
HGVs are eight times more likely to be involved in a KSI accident than a UK registered vehicle,
three times more likely to be unroadworthy than UK registered vehicles and their drivers are three
times more likely to be in breach of drivers’ hours rules. A large percentage of lorries using the ports
are foreign and it is important that VOSA are able to intercept all lorries either within or
immediately adjacent to the ports. We seek fair and adequate enforcement for all lorries.
— Adequate facilities for drivers. When sailings are delayed or there is congestion within ports, it is
important that drivers have access to toilets and other basic facilities such as food.
Port Access
10. Continued expansion of existing port facilities in Wales presents diYculties when the goods that are
landing must be shipped inland by road and rail at commercially acceptable rates and within customeraccepted timescales. Although we are predominantly concerned with road access, the basic requirements
also apply to rail access. It appears to us that road access to ports is a considerable drawback in many cases.
We do not intend to discuss access to all Welsh Ports but to highlight a number of concerns. Road access to
Holyhead is very good along the A55 but the last mile into the port remains a bottleneck. Improvements to
the A40 to Fishguard have been discussed for many years but it still remains a single carriageway road. These
limitations do not in themselves deter hauliers from using these ports but they do have an impact on cost
and the environment. In the longer term this may well result in a lack of competitiveness between ports.
11. It is essential that realistic and rational consultation is carried out with both local interests and
national stakeholders with regard to how to address this situation. Although environmental considerations
naturally will be a key priority for the decision makers in local and national authorities, the commercial/
economic consequences must also be given serious thought. The perception from industry is that those in
power are uncomfortable with giving equal consideration to commercial needs when this may be seen as
in opposition to environmental concerns, irrespective of the economic benefits to the surrounding area for
commerce to grow.
Processed: 29-10-2009 23:00:05
Page Layout: COENEW [E]
PPSysB Job: 435922
Unit: PAG7
Ev 124 Welsh Affairs Committee: Evidence
Port Efficiency
12. Modern logistics requires up to date equipment and systems in order to achieve maximum eYciency.
It is often the case that as port trade increases the port infrastructure becomes increasingly unable to cope
with the demand. Port operators need to ensure they make the right investments in infrastructure such that
they maintain high levels of eYciency. For example in Fishguard, there are limitations to the size and type
of vessel able to use the port and consequently, the size and height of lorries able to use the port. Clearly,
for the sake of the Welsh economy, such improvements could be greatly facilitated by use of grants.
13. Another matter that has been raised by members is that of non-port related activities being carried
out on port land. Historically, port operators have let port land to businesses that are unrelated to the port
activities and this land take-up precludes the expansion of port related activities.
Port Security
14. There are numerous new security regulations governing ports as a result of the terrorist threat. Our
concerns are predominantly to do with the security of lorries, lorry loads and goods stored within ports.
Lorries are often unable to access the port whilst waiting and are thus forced to remain outside the port in
unsecure locations to the detriment of their security and the local environment.
Enforcement
15. We understand fully the natural reticence of port operators to allow enforcement activity to take place
within ports or indeed immediately adjacent to ports. It is perceived that this could deter certain operators
from using the port. We do not consider this to be a valid argument. Comments by the Chief Constable of
North Wales that greater enforcement activity on the A55 would aVect the competitiveness of Holyhead with
regard to foreign operators are not seen as helpful. Road safety is of the greatest importance and it is illogical
that we should allow unroadworthy vehicles on our roads. Vehicle checks need to be carried out on the
inward journey such that unroadworthy or overloaded lorries do not even gain access to our roads. Carrying
out enforcement on the outward journey when lorries are about to leave Wales is illogical in that they will
already have spent considerable time on the roads. We accept that the less scrupulous operators may be
deterred from using Welsh ports if such enforcement is carried out but consider that it is a price worth paying
to enhance road safety.
Drivers’ Facilities
16. Our members advise us that in ports across Wales much of the existing dock side infrastructure is out
of date and not “user friendly” in an age of heightened Health & Safety and employee awareness. Many of
our members’ employees spend considerable time waiting within the ports and facilities, with regard to rest,
food and hygiene requirements, are often not available or even considered. Professional vocational drivers,
who are heavily regulated when carrying out a service to ensure the continuing success of the ports, should
surely be treated with respect and adequate facilities made available to them as the norm, not the exception.
The Future
17. Improved transport infrastructure in the relevant areas would surely lead to increased demand for
port facilities and in turn greater job creation and additional demand for port related facilities, such as
storage units or manufacturing units. Funding would be required from national and local government, as
well as the commercial sector. We do not believe that ports should be treated in any way diVerently from
other commercial entities. It is not feasible for either the port operators or private investors in the ports to
be expected to provide funding for the entire required infrastructure beyond their boundaries when all road
users will benefit. Our belief is that supporting infrastructure around and close to the ports is not always
given enough thought when expansion is being considered. Furthermore, the position of the ports inevitably
puts pressure on existing and connecting road networks, often because alternative routes are not
commercially or politically viable due to the conurbations that have built up in parallel to the increase in
port activity.
18. Local authorities naturally focus their actions and their available budget on the area where the
constituents they represent live. It is nonetheless essential that some degree of uniformity be seen across all
potential re-generation and additions to the Welsh ports. The need for a Welsh strategic and integrated
transport framework to inform and underpin regional and local transport decisions has never been stronger
and is epitomised in the Wales Freight Strategy.
19. With so many parties involved from the outset it would surely be beneficial to have an overseer or
body with expertise involved from the start rather than as a last resort when planning permission and road
structure and improvements are being considered. There has been suggestion that local authorities set up
municipal harbour management committee’s within existing Council structures, including external
stakeholders with relevant expertise, much as Freight Quality Partnerships (FQPs) are utilised across
England. This is certainly something that the Road Haulage Association would support.
Processed: 29-10-2009 23:00:05
Page Layout: COENEW [O]
PPSysB Job: 435922
Unit: PAG7
Welsh Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 125
Greater Welsh Assembly Government Involvement
20. We feel that the Welsh Assembly Government has a vital role in making sure planning and transport
infrastructure issues are addressed to benefit the ports and the surrounding regions. As mentioned earlier,
we believe that a mechanism must be provided which allows for commercial interests and the time taken in
planning and consultation to be considered in a fair and reasonable way alongside the growing
environmental demands.
21. However, our conclusions are that care must be taken to ensure that a national policy setting out how
ports should develop is not an inhibiting factor to general development. Ports work in a dynamic and
constantly changing international environment where each port has its unique characteristics. Any national
policy we feel would place a brake on flexibility within this dynamic environment at the same time as not
fully taking into account the individual traits of each port as a separate trading environment.
22. We hope that this inquiry will recommend that serious long term thought be given to the problems
faced in Wales, in relation to acceptable movements to and from the ports. This must be wide ranging and
open to all those with an interest in the relevant areas.
May 2009
Written evidence from the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds
Executive Summary
(i) The RSPB is concerned that the themes set out for this inquiry, centring on opportunities for
economic development, do not include consideration of the potential environmental impacts of
ports. In the context of government commitments on sustainable development, we believe that it
is unwise to make recommendations regarding economic opportunities in isolation from
consideration of the environmental impacts.
(ii) Many Welsh ports coincide spatially with areas that are designated under domestic or EU
legislation for their wildlife importance. It is crucial that these designations are taken into
consideration both at the strategic and local level.
(iii) Over the last 10–15 years, major UK port developments have shown how it is possible to work
constructively with the EU Birds and Habitats Directives to arrive at more sustainable solutions
in the interests of wider society. Today, the UK port sector is an exemplar for the port sector in the
rest of the EU in this respect. Welsh ports should strive to continue this record.
(iv) In particular, the RSPB would suggest that a policy framework for Welsh ports may need to be
subject to Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) under the EU SEA Directive, as well as
strategic level appropriate assessment under the Habitats Directive.
(v) It is also critical that the legislation is robustly applied at the local level, in particular the Habitats
Regulations which apply to European Marine Sites (designated under the Habitats Directive and
the Birds Directive). The tests in the Habitats Regulations provide a framework to facilitate more
sustainable decision making. The RSPB believes there is a need for guidance and training for
competent authorities to ensure that these Regulations are implemented properly, and the integrity
of the Natura 2000 network is maintained.
Introduction
1. The RSPB is Europe’s largest wildlife charity with over one million members; over 50,000 of them live
in Wales. We work to protect and enhance habitats for birds and other wildlife through land management
on our reserves, provision of advice to land managers and through advocating environmentally beneficial
policies to government. The RSPB works closely with ports and their regulators with the aim of ensuring any
potential environmental damage from port related developments is minimised, and correct legal procedure is
followed.
2. At a global scale if, despite the current global recession, trade volumes continue to increase in the long
term, then there is a need to ensure that this occurs in the most environmentally benign way possible. This
inevitably means an increased proportion of goods will need to be transported by ship. At a UK level, this
will require action to cope with the consequences of increased trade and shipping. The RSPB considers ports
and shipping to be a key part of an integrated transport policy. The challenge is making the right decisions
about which combination of transport is the best environmentally.
3. Over the last 10–15 years, UK major port development has shown how it is possible to work
constructively with the EU Birds and Habitats Directives to arrive at more sustainable solutions in the
interests of wider society. Today, the UK port sector is an exemplar for the port sector in the rest of the EU
in this respect and this responsibility has been recognised by the industry itself.
“We work in some of the most sensitive coastal environments in the United Kingdom. Huge
amounts of work and eVort are put into balancing the need to expand ports with protecting some
of the most sensitive sites in Europe.”
Processed: 29-10-2009 23:00:05
Page Layout: COENEW [E]
PPSysB Job: 435922
Unit: PAG7
Ev 126 Welsh Affairs Committee: Evidence
Richard Everitt, Chairman of the UK Major Ports Group and Chief Executive of the Port of
London Authority, 8 January 2008 (House of Commons Committee on Planning Bill)35
Welsh ports must strive to continue this record.
4. While the RSPB welcomes the opportunity to respond to this inquiry, we are concerned to note that
the potential environmental impacts of port development have not been included as one of the key themes.
The Legal Framework for Protecting Biodiversity
5. Over 70% of the coastline and over 30% of the territorial waters (0–12 nautical miles) of Wales is
designated for its biodiversity under domestic or European legislation. Inevitably, therefore, many Welsh
ports are within, or overlap with, one or more designated sites. The main designations are:
(i) Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs), protected in accordance with the Wildlife and
Countryside Act 1981 (as amended)—many SSSIs include intertidal areas, but SSSIs are not
generally designated below mean low water;
(ii) Special Protection Areas (SPAs) designated pursuant to the Council Directive on the
conservation of wild birds (79/409/EEC)—the 1979 Birds Directive;
(iii) Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) designated pursuant to Council Directive on the
Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (92/43/EEC)—the 1992 Habitats
Directive; and
(iv) The Marine and Coastal Access Bill, currently before Parliament, introduces a new
designation—Marine Conservation Zones (MCZs)—oVering protection to nationally
important marine wildlife. Some overlap between Welsh ports and MCZs is therefore likely in
the future.
6. Port related developments can impact upon the habitats and species within these protected sites, for
example by causing damage to or loss of habitats through works including dredging and construction.
Habitats such as intertidal mudflats, of key importance for wading birds, and sub-tidal maerl beds which
provide habitat for a variety of marine species can be impacted.
7. It is therefore critical that any policy framework for the development of Welsh ports gives full
consideration to the need to protect biodiversity. Environmental assessment at the strategic level, as well as
in relation to any individual proposals, is essential if the UK and Welsh Assembly Governments are to meet
their obligations under European legislation, and their commitments to halt biodiversity loss by 2010 and
reverse declines by 2026.36 Early consideration of potential environmental impacts, within the framework
provided by the legislation, can also help to avoid drawn out and costly decision-making procedures. For
example, Associated British Ports estimated that £45 million of capitalised costs were associated with the
approval process for a deep-sea container port at Dibden Bay, Southampton, which was eventually refused
by the UK Government after a lengthy public inquiry.37
8. All of the legislation mentioned above places specific requirements on public bodies and competent
authorities in relation to the conservation and management of these designated sites. This evidence focuses
on the 1994 Conservation (Natural Habitats &c.) Regulations (“the Habitats Regulations”), and in
particular the process the Regulations provide for the assessment of proposals for development aVecting
SACs and Special Protection Areas (SPAs).
Assessment of Plans or Projects Affecting SACs or SPAs
9. Under the Habitat Regulations, any development proposal likely to have a significant eVect on a SAC
or SPA must be subject to an appropriate assessment of the implications for the site, in view of that site’s
conservation objectives.
10. In the light of the conclusions of this appropriate assessment, the competent authority may agree to
the project only after having ascertained that it will not adversely eVect the integrity of the site. In the light
of a negative assessment, a damaging operation may only be able to proceed if it passes the following tests:
(i) The competent authority is satisfied that there are no alternative solutions—the RSPB argues
that the assessment of alternative solutions must include consideration of whether similar
objectives could be achieved with less damage to protected habitats and species, by first making
the best use of existing port capacity before considering the need for new capacity, which could
be at a completely diVerent location within Wales or the rest of the UK.
(ii) If there are no alternative solutions the project can only be carried out for imperative reasons
of overriding public interest (IROPI). It is important to bear in mind that, given the
international level of the European designations, the imperative reasons must be at a
commensurate level of importance.
35
36
37
Public Bill Committee, Planning Bill, 8 January 2008, q62
Wales Environment Strategy 2006
http://www.abports.co.uk/news20042259.htm
Processed: 29-10-2009 23:00:05
Page Layout: COENEW [O]
PPSysB Job: 435922
Unit: PAG7
Welsh Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 127
(iii) Even if the plan were to pass all of the above tests, it can only go ahead if the necessary
compensatory measures are secured to ensure that the overall coherence of Natura 2000
network of internationally important sites is protected.
Implementation of the Habitats Regulations in Wales
11. Although a large proportion of Wales’ inshore waters is designated under the EU Directives, there is
evidence that the protected wildlife within these sites is under pressure. A 2006 report by Countryside
Council for Wales (CCW) estimated that roughly 60% of the features within Wales’ marine SACs and SPAs
are in unfavourable conservation status, due to insuYcient control over damaging human activities.38
12. Wales Environment Link, a coalition of environmental NGOs in Wales of which the RSPB is a
member, commissioned a report to look into the eVectiveness of Wales’ European Marine Sites (EMSs—
SACs and SPAs with an intertidal or subtidal element) in protecting nationally important marine
biodiversity. The report includes two case studies of port-related developments within the Pembrokeshire
Marine SAC, which involved a number of competent authorities, and where it appears that the Habitats
Regulations were not properly applied. As a result, foreseeable damage has occurred to some of the
protected features of the SAC (and associated nationally important biodiversity), but no provisions for
compensatory measures have been made.
13. Both the report commissioned by Wales Environment Link and the aforementioned CCW report
identified a number of weaknesses in the current management of marine SACs and SPAs (collectively
referred to as European Marine Sites, EMSs). Two of these appear to be particularly relevant to ports and
related developments:
(i) Multiple consents in the marine environment. Many developments, including port-related
developments—can require consents and permissions from a number of competent
authorities, which are applied for and assessed separately in relation to their likely impact on
EMS features. This can make it very diYcult for the cumulative impact of all elements of a
development on EMS features to be assessed in a timely way. Furthermore, if the initial stages
of a major project are assessed in isolation, and consented because they are not considered to
have a significant impact on a site, pressure can build for subsequent stages, considered later,
to be consented even though they may cause a significant impact; and
(ii) Lack of understanding of the requirements of the Habitats Regulations within Competent
Authorities. The case studies undertaken for the Wales Environment Link-commissioned
report highlighted a number of instances where it appeared that the Regulations had not been
correctly applied by the competent authorities concerned. CCW’s report suggests that frequent
staV changes and internal reorganisations within competent authorities can hinder eVorts to
embed the Habitats Regulations in their day-to-day work. In addition, for some competent
authorities the requirements of the Habitats Regulations are perceived to be in conflict with
their primary remit or core work—this is thought to be an issue in particular where the
competent authority is responsible for consenting plans and projects that support its own
work, as is often the case for port authorities.
14. Both the CCW report mentioned above, and the report commissioned by Wales Environment Link,
recommend that, in order to assure more eVective management of European Marine Sites, which meets the
requirements of the Habitats Regulations, WAG should provide guidance and training for competent
authorities. This guidance should provide mechanisms to deal with projects which require multiple consents
from diVerent competent authorities. The RSPB hopes that the opportunity arising from new provisions for
marine planning and licensing, coming forward through the Marine and Coastal Access Bill, will be
capitalised upon in this regard.
Strategic Assessment of Environmental Impacts
15. The RSPB would contend that any policy framework or strategy relating to further development of
Welsh ports should be subject to Strategic Environmental Assessment (in accordance with European
Directive 2001/42/EC, “the SEA Directive”). Any strategy proposing specific locations for developments
likely to have a significant eVect on a Natura 2000 site must be subject to a strategic level appropriate
assessment, in accordance with the Habitats Directive. It is essential that biodiversity is taken into account
early in the process of planning for ports and related developments.
Conclusion
16. If sustainable development is to be achieved, it is vitally important that designated sites are properly
protected. The framework provided by the legislation, in particular the SEA Directive and the Habitats
Regulations, is essential to ensure biodiversity is properly taken into account in decision-making.
Assessment of potential environmental impacts must be a key part of developing a policy framework for
Welsh ports.
38
Dernie, K M, Ramsey, K, Jones, R E, Wyn, G, Hill, A S, Hamer, J P Implementing the ecosystem approach in Wales: current
status of the maritime environment and recommendations for management, CCW Policy Research Report No 06/09
Processed: 29-10-2009 23:00:05
Page Layout: COENEW [E]
PPSysB Job: 435922
Unit: PAG7
Ev 128 Welsh Affairs Committee: Evidence
17. In order to ensure that the Habitats Regulations are correctly applied so that European Marine Sites
can be eVectively managed, the RSPB believes the UK Government and the Welsh Assembly Government
should provide clear guidance and training to all competent authorities.
June 2009
Written evidence from the Royal Yachting Association
Introduction
1. The RYA is the national body for all forms of recreational and competitive boating. It represents
dinghy and yacht racing, motor and sail cruising, RIBs and sportsboats, powerboat racing, windsurfing,
inland cruising and personal watercraft. The RYA manages the British sailing team and Great Britain was
the top sailing nation at the 2000, 2004 and 2008 Olympic Games.
2. The RYA is recognised by all government oYces as being the negotiating body for the activities it
represents. The RYA currently has over 100,000 personal members, the majority of whom choose to go
afloat for purely recreational non-competitive pleasure on coastal and inland waters. There are an estimated
further 500,000 boat owners nationally who are members of over 1,500 RYA aYliated clubs and class
associations.
3. The RYA also sets and maintains an international standard for recreational boat training through a
network of over 2,200 RYA Recognised Training Centres in 20 countries. On average, approximately
160,000 people per year complete RYA training courses. RYA training courses form the basis for the small
craft training of lifeboat crews, police oYcers and the Royal Navy and are also adopted as a template for
training in many other countries throughout the world.
4. There are approximately 84 sailing or boating clubs and associations and over 25,000 participants in
the sport in Wales.
5. The RYA invites the Committee to consider the following submission.
Executive Summary
6. The recreational boating sector is a valuable and significant contributor to both the social and
economic pillars of sustainable development and is an integral part of the development of tourism. This is
emphasised in the Welsh Assembly Government’s recent Coastal Tourism Strategy (2008).
7. Recreational boating is an important facilitator to achieve the Welsh Assembly Government’s stated
objective of “an active, healthy and inclusive Wales, where sport and physical activity provide a common
platform for participation . . . which binds communities and the nation.”
8. Welsh boating contributes significantly to the UK’s direct leisure marine industry turnover of £3 billion
and 35,000 jobs. Ports are a major economic driver in coastal regions and policies should be in place to
protect their infrastructure and enable future development, particularly where declining or moribund
commercial activity oVers opportunities for the creation or expansion of recreational boating facilities.
9. Port authorities should be encouraged to develop master plans with all stakeholders, widely defined,
involved in the planning process to ensure proper management of potentially conflicting interests.
General Comments
10. The RYA supports the examination of:
(a) the policy framework for the development of Welsh ports, including co-operation and coordination between the UK Government and the Welsh Assembly Government;
(b) the contribution of Welsh ports to their local economies, including:
(i) The potential to increase the scale and range of trade with other countries;
(ii) The potential to increase freight movements through Welsh ports and the adequacy of the
transport infrastructure linking ports to their hinterlands and markets, including those
outside Wales;
(iii) The development of tourism and the potential for attracting cruise ships to Welsh ports;
and
(c) the adequacy of security and policing provision at Welsh ports.
11. However, while the terms of reference of the inquiry rightly focus on the strategic framework for the
sustainable development of ports in the Wales, against the background of wider central and devolved
Government objectives, and understandably they focus mainly on goods and passenger transport issues, the
RYA considers that the social and economic significance of the leisure and recreational use of ports should
also be included.
Processed: 29-10-2009 23:00:05
Page Layout: COENEW [O]
PPSysB Job: 435922
Unit: PAG7
Welsh Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 129
12. Although considerable recreational boating activity takes place on our inland lakes, reservoirs, canals
and rivers, by far the greatest activity is on tidal waters and it is estimated that 90% of all such activity takes
place, originates or terminates in a coastal harbour.
Social Agenda
13. Recreational boating is an ideal vehicle for delivering central and devolved Governments’ social and
health agendas. The Welsh Assembly Government’s sport and physical activity strategy, “Climbing Higher”,
was launched in 2005 and is supported by the Sports Council for Wales’ “Framework for the Development
of Sport and Physical Activity”. The Welsh Assembly Government’s overall objective of the strategy is
stated to be to achieve “An active, healthy and inclusive Wales, where sport and physical activity provide a
common platform for participation, fun and achievement, which binds communities and the nation and
where the outstanding environment of Wales is used sustainably to enhance confidence in ourselves and our
place in the world” and one of the stated means by which this is to be achieved is by “Investing in the
development and maintenance of more and better facilities for sustainable outdoor and adventure activities
in order to encourage participation, develop sporting success and attract visitors.”
14. The strategy also sets out several targets for sport and physical activity to achieve over the next 20
years and these include:
Target 6 40% of adults will be members of sports clubs or centres.
Target 7 80% of children will be junior members of sports clubs or centres.
Target 8 All public sector employees and three-quarters of all other employees will have access
to sport and physical activity facilities, at or within a 10-minute walk of the workplace.
15. We consider that the achievement of these targets could be supported by the sustainable development
of port and harbour facilities to accommodate and facilitate recreational boating activities. The Welsh
Assembly Government’s 2008 Coastal Tourism Strategy recognises the opportunities for this type of
development and this is also reflected in the Wales Spatial Plan.
Economic Benefits
16. Recreational use of ports also brings considerable economic benefits. The EU Green Paper “Towards
a future Maritime Policy for the Union” states the importance of maintaining the position of Europe as
“the” global maritime superpower, with its pre-eminence in the shipping and yachting industries. It is no
exaggeration to claim the same status for the UK as “the” yachting superpower within Europe. Although
yacht building is now mainly centred in other European states, in all others areas of design, component
supply, service and manning, the UK is the European leader.
17. It is estimated that, within the UK as a whole, recreational boating generates a direct turnover of £3.1
billion and supports 35,200 full time equivalent jobs [British Marine Federation 2008]. Independent studies
indicate that the spend from a cruising yacht making an overnight stop at a “yacht friendly” harbour town
will generate an average £40 per crew spend [Isle of Wight Tourist Board], and that the creation of a new
marina will generate one new job locally for every 20 berths that are filled by “resident” yachts [The Yacht
Harbour Association]. With its wide range of attractive yachting and boating facilities, the Welsh
recreational boating sector is a substantial contributor to these statistics.
Facilities Development
18. Relatively recent marina developments at such places as CardiV, Conwy, Holyhead, Swansea and
Pwllheli show clearly the importance of boating facilities as a catalyst for urban regeneration in Wales. The
economic benefits of developing recreational boating facilities are reflected in the Welsh Assembly
Government’s 2004 “Catching the Wave” watersports tourism strategy.
19. Most Welsh ports have significant leisure use and in many smaller ports leisure boating is the primary
or even the sole use. There should therefore be Government policy recognition of the importance of this in
economic and social terms. There is a particular risk in large commercial ports, where the financial
importance of commercial traYc could lead to their ignoring or putting at risk the needs of leisure boating.
Further if boating is to respond to the Government’s social agenda and the Welsh Assembly Government’s
targets, ports need to include the growing infrastructure—moorings, slipways, and other facilities—in their
future plans.
20. The development of leisure facilities is unlikely to have any downside in employment or economic
terms in the area or the Welsh economy generally. Nor do we consider that the development of leisure
facilities is likely to decrease demand elsewhere. There is considerable unsatisfied demand, particularly for
low to medium cost moorings and facilities, in most parts of the country. Also, experience shows that a
development in one part of an area adds to the attraction of keeping a boat elsewhere in the area, as a greater
variety of local cruising destinations become available.
21. By definition, port activity is a major economic driver in coastal regions and with so many pressures
on coastal land, there should be policies in place protecting the infrastructure of ports to enable future
recreational development to take place. Thus for example, the RYA strongly opposes the infilling of
Processed: 29-10-2009 23:00:05
Page Layout: COENEW [E]
PPSysB Job: 435922
Unit: PAG7
Ev 130 Welsh Affairs Committee: Evidence
redundant ports for development land, or changes of use to boatyards and quaysides, where each such
development represents the permanent loss of an important boating facility for present or future use. In
addition, residents in new waterside developments often then seek to close down maritime activities on land
and water which they see as a nuisance. Planning policies should seek to preserve actual or potential leisure
boating facilities; and require restrictive covenants on any waterside development to prevent purchasers
from objecting to current or future maritime activities.
22. The RYA considers that ports should be recommended to develop master plans for future
development. Many ports, particularly in the municipal sector, are subject to a number of conflicting
interests, with a multiplicity of riparian local and county councils, and conflicting leisure and commercial
interests. One agreed and published master plan document may help in providing a consistent approach to
addressing planning and management conflicts. However to achieve this, it is essential that all stakeholders,
widely defined, have the opportunity to be involved in the planning process. An attempt by port or local
authorities to exclude them would only be a recipe for greater conflict.
23. The potential of small, moribund ports as potential centres for leisure activity has been well
demonstrated in a number of harbour towns in Wales (eg Caernarfon and Bangor in Gwynedd) and there
are numerous examples of Government intervention elsewhere in the UK and on mainland Europe resulting
in a new lease of life being given to otherwise run down and forgotten ports. As ports close and industry
moves away from an area, equal or even better opportunities are created for the imaginative use of
redundant facilities, where necessary supported by a mix of local volunteers (usually through the local yacht
club), commercial, and public sector input.
24. All ports, however small, are part of the basic national infrastructure and should be viewed as such.
It is true that for many small ports, economic and social circumstances may have changed radically since
the port was originally built but the investment put into the port originally should not be lightly thrown
away. Potentially every small port in Wales is capable of development to provide better facilities for the
recreational sector. Doing this is an important way of providing the additional facilities needed for boating
to contribute to central and devolved Governments’ social agenda, the Welsh Assembly Government’s “One
Wales” strategy and the Sports Council for Wales’ development framework. Small ports often also have a
role to play in meeting wider leisure boating needs as harbours of refuge.
Port Management
25. Board members of municipal ports (and potentially members of any consultative or advisory
committee) are subject to the onerous DCLG Code of Conduct for Local Authority Members. In the RYA’s
view, the Code of Conduct severely limits the ability of a municipal port to involve in a management or
supervisory role any individual who has direct experience as a stakeholder of the port and the RYA believes
that this is a significant limitation to the eVectiveness of the port’s management. The RYA would therefore
encourage adoption of a more pragmatic approach to conflicts of interest.
26. The RYA would be happy to provide additional evidence if that would be of assistance to the
Committee.
April 2009
Written evidence from Saga Shipping Company
In 2008, Saga Cruises have made calls at Welsh ports with our three ships (Saga Rose, Saga Ruby and
Spirit of Adventure):
Saga Rose (535 passengers):
6 June 2008
8 June 2008
Holyhead
Pembroke
Saga Ruby (636 passengers):
7 June 2008
CardiV
Spirit of Adventure: (341 passengers):
10 June 2008
11 June 2008
Pembroke
CardiV
No calls are planned to Wales in 2009.
On our ships over 95% of our passengers are from the UK, where our brands are strong and established.
Our product is tailor-made for certain sectors of the UK market—it has appeal to that restricted market
Processed: 29-10-2009 23:00:05
Page Layout: COENEW [O]
PPSysB Job: 435922
Unit: PAG7
Welsh Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 131
segment which sees advantages in not just touring on land. A cruise oVers a fresh port each day, without
packing and unpacking, to enter some glorious harbours from the sea, to obtain an exhilarating opportunity
to get a new vista and perspective on towns that one may have visited from the land side.
Our Celtic ports cruises focus on how the Irish Sea was a “super highway” of the past—linking together
better than roads the Welsh, Irish and Scottish ports community. For foreign guests to the UK this is
potentially a strong market. A number of German cruise lines do venture into the ports of the South West
of England and could be tempted to come further north. More importantly, we suspect that with the
relatively strong US $ clever PR/marketing directed at North American agents would be a real advantage
for Celtic ports. Our small contingent of American passengers on our Celtic cruises has been quite delighted
with the product. For North Americans, the shared heritage and the fact that Pembroke was a major
emigration departure port for their ancestors is a strong theme to market. We are also building a close
relationship with a French tour operator and although they see Scotland as a stronger marketing
proposition, they do have an interest in marketing the “Celtic basin”. The Ryder Cup being in Wales presents
some particular 2010 opportunities.
We make a positive impact on the ports we visit. On an average port call Saga Ruby passengers would
spend in the region of £30,000 on shore excursions.
Saga still benefits from the traditional engineering skills of South Wales. We use several significant South
Wales contractors, notably Harris Pye. Last year we had a major refit on Spirit of Adventure—in excess of
£8 million with major improvements to the ship, including work to enhance her environmental credentials
and to facilitate the use of Zodiacs from the rear deck.
The work was carried out in Malta Dry Dock—although in fact more was spent with Welsh-based
companies than was spent with Malta Shipyard. We would like to support Welsh engineering based
companies more and bring our smaller ship to Wales for dry docking. This would mean many millions more
for the local economy. However, to use this currently redundant facility we would require a financial
incentive to be the first cruise operator in a long while to have their ship dry docked in Wales.
The proposed increase in UK light dues will add extra cost to cruise operators planning to call to UK
ports in the future especially when compared with calling to ports on the near continent where these charges
are not levied on vessel owners. Port costs in the UK are already some of the highest in the world and this
increase in UK light dues does not help attract cruise vessels to our shores.
Our calls to Wales in 2008 were generally very well received by passengers. However, if more cruise vessels
are to be attracted to CardiV and Swansea, more needs to be done to reduce port costs. CardiV tug fees are
at least four times more expensive than any other UK port we visit and at least six times the most expensive
European port we use. CardiV’s very high tug prices make a call there extraordinarily expensive.
We enclose with this presentation copies of our brochures for the ships and our shore excursions.39 Please
note the eVect that must arise from promoting the hinterland of ports by creating or sustaining local
employment for tour guides, bus companies, entry fees for important monuments and buildings. Our
intention is that each visitor to a Welsh port will become an ambassador for future cruisers and other
inbound tourists to Wales—and will return.
July 2009
Written evidence from South West Wales Integrated Transport Consortium (SWWITCH)
Executive Summary
South West Wales ports have key roles in freight, passenger transport, tourism, employment and economic
development. To support and develop these roles there are a number of key requirements and opportunities:
— improvements to road and rail infrastructure serving the ports;
— encouraging and developing freight, passenger services and cruise ship use of the ports;
— increasing opportunities for leisure and tourism related development and activities; and
— maintaining existing and developing new business to sustain and encourage local businesses and
suppliers.
Background
The South West Wales Integrated Transport Consortium (SWWITCH) was set up in 1998 and comprises
the four South West Wales authorities of:
— Carmarthenshire County Council;
— Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council;
39
Not printed
Processed: 29-10-2009 23:00:05
Page Layout: COENEW [E]
PPSysB Job: 435922
Unit: PAG7
Ev 132 Welsh Affairs Committee: Evidence
— Pembrokeshire County Council; and
— The City and County of Swansea.
The SWWITCH area of interest includes all forms of transport and wider issues including land use
planning and access, sustainability and carbon reductions, behavioural change and the health agenda.
SWWITCH is one of four transport consortia across Wales supported by the Welsh Assembly
Government and operates through a number of specific tiers:
— Joint Committee—this meets quarterly and comprises up to three elected Members from each
Council along with a range of stakeholders including transport providers, users group
representatives and economic/business group representation
— Management Group—this meets monthly and comprises the Chief OYcers with responsibility for
Highways and Transportation in all four Councils along with the SWWITCH Co—ordinator and
the transport strategy/policy oYcers from each Council
— OYcer Working Group—this meets weekly and comprises the transport strategy/policy oYcers
from each Council with SWWITCH OYcers
— Sub groups which meet as and when required include:
— Education Transport Group
— Community Rail Partnership Group
— Walking and Cycling Group
Introduction
SWWITCH is pleased to be able to respond to the Welsh AVairs Select Committee inquiry into Ports in
Wales. Ports make a significant contribution to the local and regional economies in terms of employment
and training, support for secondary businesses, supplies of raw and manufactured materials and the visitor
and tourism markets.
However, beyond purely regional concerns the ports in South West Wales contribute to the Welsh and UK
economies as a whole, particularly with respect to vital energy supplies. The ports and regional road and rail
infrastructure are a vital “land bridge” between Ireland, the UK and mainland Europe and this is recognised
in the Trans European Network (TENs) designation of most of the main South West Wales Ports and the
road and rail routes which serve them. The UK Government response to the TENS review should recognise
the SWWITCH priorities in terms of improving infrastructure to serve our ports and support long term
sustainable growth.
The main ports in the area are all in private (commercial) ownership and are as follows:
— Port Talbot—strategically important in terms of the import of iron ore and other cargo;
— Swansea—general cargo and until recently passenger ferry services to Cork in Ireland. There are
plans to restart the ferry service;
— Milford Haven—This is the largest UK energy port and is critical to the security of future energy
supplies. It is also the largest fishing port in Wales. There are passenger ferry services from
Pembroke Dock to Ireland; and
— Fishguard—Stena Line provide RoRo (Roll on Roll OV) links to Rosslare in Ireland for freight
and car/foot passengers.
There are a number of smaller ports in the region which are not included in this response to ensure it
remains focused and short, but these ports are nonetheless important locally and regionally for small freight,
fishing, water sports and passenger movements.
SWWITCH is charged by the Welsh Assembly Government with preparing and delivering a Regional
Transport Plan (RTP) for South West Wales. This plan will provide strategies and policies for improving
transport and access over the next 20–25 years as well as a five year programme of projects to help deliver
the strategy. After an extensive consultation process, SWWITCH is preparing to submit the RTP at the end
of September 2009. The RTP vision, objectives, relevant policies and projects which are appropriate to this
inquiry are attached as Appendix A to this response. It should be noted that the RTP is still subject to final
political approval and so the excerpts in Appendix A are final drafts.
Specific issues relating to each port are covered in more detail below and in the appendices, and common
features and concerns are highlighted in the summary section.
Port Talbot
This is owned and operated by Associated British Ports (ABP) and has rail links to the mainline. It
comprises Port Talbot Deep Water Harbour (capable of accepting vessels up to 170,000 dwt) and smaller
docks for more general cargo use. There is a significant area of land available for port related development.
The main traYc through Port Talbot at present is coal and iron ore associated with the Corus plant at
Port Talbot.
Processed: 29-10-2009 23:00:05
Page Layout: COENEW [O]
PPSysB Job: 435922
Unit: PAG7
Welsh Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 133
The key issues for Port Talbot are:
— Retention of current usage—in the face of declining heavy industry and the shift from rail to road
based transportation of raw material and products for further manufacturing;
— Expansion and diversification—to ensure a vibrant, sustainable future, there is a need to consider
new markets; and
— Road access to and from the port—It is important for Port Talbot docks to have appropriate
highway links to ensure reliable and timely movement of port traYc and also to avoid concerns of
local communities aVected by freight traYc. The current access arrangement to Port Talbot Docks
is not satisfactory and Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council has developed the first stages
of the Port Talbot Peripheral Distributor Road (PDR) with support from the Welsh Assembly
Government’s Transport Grant. The most vital part of the PDR—stage 2—which will eVectively
provide a reliable bypass for freight and other port traYc, avoiding local communities, has been
included in a forward programme for Transport Grant. SWWITCH has urged the Welsh Assembly
Government to ensure that actual construction of the PDR stage 2 begins early in the 2010–11
financial year.
Swansea
This port is owned and operated by ABP and has rail links to the mainline. It has the capacity to handle
vessels up to 30,000 dwt as well as a wide variety of vessels and cargo. It has a passenger terminal for ferry
services and has approved facilities for cruise vessels.
There has been extensive diversification over the last decade with the support of the former Welsh
Development Agency and the Welsh Assembly Government. This has seen much redundant land used to
create a maritime quarter and the SA1 area of mixed accommodation, oYce, leisure and high technology use.
Key issues for Swansea port are summarised below and set out in detail in Appendix B:
— Importance of the docklands regeneration at SA1 and further opportunities to support economic
development activities at the port;
— Trading links opportunities—Inter trading and Port activity—helping SME’s (suppliers) to build
their capacity to secure work locally from public and private sector organisations and ultimately
to compete in the global market place;
— Inter-trading and Ireland—The Swansea to Cork Ferry has previously benefited businesses on
both sides of the Irish Sea, providing a conduit for both goods and customers. The future
resumption of the service provides an additional opportunity to extend international trade and
plans are currently being discussed to host such an event in Cork later this year to promote this;
— Tourism—Tourism is expected to benefit significantly in future from the realisation of a number of
planned initiatives centred on the port in Swansea. These will restore transport links between
Swansea and Cork and will promote additional cruise ship activity. In addition, new passenger
services from Swansea to North Devon are intended to commence during 2010;
— Export/import markets—Port Facilities. There have been several enquiries from overseas
companies in recent years seeking a distribution point for their goods prior to making a decision
on relocating and investing in the UK. Many of these enquiries pointed to the potential of the port
being used as a hub for goods arriving at the dockside but also from other ports courtesy of the
EWS rail links; and
— Road access to the port—The A483 Fabian Way approach to Swansea ports from the M4
motorway is due to be “trunked” by the Welsh Assembly Government. This would mean that
improvements to and the maintenance of the road would become the responsibility of the
Assembly. SWWITCH urges the Assembly to proceed to “Trunk” the road as it provides a strategic
artery to the port and the potential economic development which the port can stimulate.
Milford Haven
The port is a Trust Port operated by the Milford Haven Port Authority which employs more than 200
staV. It is a natural deep water harbour which is connected to mainline rail and the major pipeline network.
Milford Haven is the largest port in Wales and hosts the UK’s largest energy hub with two oil refineries, an
oil storage depot, two liquefied gas terminals and a 2,000MW power station currently under construction.
The Port also includes the Irish Ferry terminal at Pembroke Dock.
Key issues for Milford Haven are as follows:
— there is a need and an opportunity to improve the strategic distributor road network linking major
industrial sites and port infrastructure on the north and south banks of the Milford Haven
Waterway;
— more strategically in terms of the Trunk Road infrastructure, the inadequacy of the current single
carriageway sections of the A40 are of concern to long term plans to build on the economies of
scale which are developing at the port;
Processed: 29-10-2009 23:00:05
Page Layout: COENEW [E]
PPSysB Job: 435922
Unit: PAG7
Ev 134 Welsh Affairs Committee: Evidence
— there are significant opportunities for further commercial and marine leisure development along
the Milford Haven Waterway and at Fishguard, including new marina developments, growing use
of these ports by Cruise liners, port related activities linked to the Motorways of the Sea concept
and service base facilities for emerging alternative energy developments;
— there are concerns that port developments which have taken place over many decades, in the
“national” interest, have failed to take full account of local interests and needs ;
— there are concerns that there may be moves to privatise the Milford Haven Port Authority which
SWWITCH considers would be of considerable disadvantage to local stakeholders, community
engagement, and the wider economy;
— there is significant evidence that the Pembrokeshire local commercial property market requires
public sector support to stimulate speculative investment. Enterprise Zone designations have been
used successfully in the past to address the investment viability gap and could be used to help bring
forward port infrastructure and related property investment; and
— the UK Government response to the TENS review should recognise the importance of upgrading
road and rail access to service the Southern corridor link to Ireland, via the Pembrokeshire ports
of Fishguard and Pembroke Dock.
Fishguard Harbour
The port is operated by Stena Line and provides freight links and passenger services, with the bulk of
traYc related to regular ferry services to Rosslare in southern Ireland.
Planning consent has been given for a 500 berth all tide marina which could be developed in tandem with
port developments.
Key issues relate to:
— taking advantage of opportunities for tourism and marine leisure related developments and
activities;
— the importance of road and rail access improvements being included in the UK Government’s
response to the TENS review (see Milford Haven 7th bullet point), including:
— improvements to passenger rail services to Fishguard (currently only two return journeys
a day and at less than convenient timing); and
— improvements to the A40 (see second Milford Haven bullet point).
Key issues for Milford Haven and Fishguard are set out at Ev 117 which is a detailed response prepared
by Pembrokeshire County Council.
Summary
The ports in South West Wales make a significant contribution to the local regional, national and
European economies and also to accessibility to and from the region, in particular with the strong links to
Southern Ireland.
The use of ports in the region has, and continues, to develop over time and SWWITCH wishes to ensure
that opportunities to secure more trade, to diversify and to encourage inward investment through the use
and development of port facilities are maximised. Whilst each port has specific issues, common themes are
evident and these are summarised below:
South West Wales ports have key roles in freight, passenger transport, tourism, employment and economic
development. To support and develop these roles there are a number of key requirements and opportunities:
— improvements to road and rail infrastructure serving the ports. Improved rail links could help to
improve the overall sustainability of port related traYc and relieve aVected local communities of
high levels of road freight traYc. Improved road links will help to ensure more reliable and
competitive freight traYc and a more eYcient and attractive travel opportunity for passengers.
Road improvements will also help to remove port related vehicles from inappropriate local roads;
— encouraging and developing freight, passenger services and cruise ship use of the ports;
— increasing opportunities for leisure and tourism related development and activities. To support
local and regional economies and bring into productive use under utilised or derelict land that
could not be otherwise used for primary freight or passenger port uses and that are not likely tp
be required for future port activity; and
— maintaining existing and developing new business to sustain and encourage local businesses and
suppliers. A number of SMEs rely on the successful operation of the ports. It is critical that
economic opportunities are maximized related to ongoing port activities and the movement of
people and commodities through the ports in South West Wales.
Processed: 29-10-2009 23:00:05
Page Layout: COENEW [O]
PPSysB Job: 435922
Unit: PAG7
Welsh Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 135
APPENDIX A
RELEVANT EXCERPTS FROM THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT PLAN (RTP) FOR SOUTH
WEST WALES
The RTP Vision
Our vision for South West Wales is to improve transport and access within and beyond the region to
facilitate economic development and the development and use of more sustainable and healthier modes of
transport.
RTP Objectives
1. To improve access for all to a wide range of services and facilities including employment and
business, education and training, health care, tourism and leisure activities.
2. To improve the sustainability of transport by improving the range and quality of, and awareness
about, transport options, including those which improve health and well being.
3. To improve the eYciency and reliability of the movement of people and freight within and beyond
South West Wales to support the regional economy.
4. To improve integration between policies, service provision and modes of transport in South
West Wales.
5. To implement measures which make a positive contribution to improving air quality and reducing
the adverse impact of transport on health and climate change, including reducing carbon
emissions.
6. To implement measures which help to reduce the negative impact of transport across the region on
the natural and built environment including biodiversity.
7. To improve road safety and personal security in South West Wales.
RTP Long Term Strategy
— Improving land use and transportation planning—through the use of Accessibility Planning to
ensure that development is put in the right place.
— Improving strategic east/west road and rail links– to create more reliable internal connectivity and
improved connectivity with rest of Wales, the UK and European neighbours.
— Improving Strategic Bus Corridors—to create more reliable and attractive connectivity between
key settlements.
— Promoting integration—to encourage more sustainable travel choices and reduce the barriers to
interchange.
— Improving safety in transport—to reduce personal injuries and fears for personal safety.
— Providing more and better information— to raise awareness on the range and use of sustainable
transport options.
— Improving linkages between key settlements and strategic employment sites—to create a range of
attractive passenger transport and walking and cycling opportunities linking key settlements with
their hinterlands and with strategic employment sites.
— Improving the eYciency of the highway network—through a range of appropriate mechanisms
including demand restraint.
RTP Policies
Reducing Greenhouse gas emissions and other environmental impacts from transport
— Policy E1—SWWITCH will work collaboratively to ensure that new development is located where
it will reduce reliance on private motoring. For existing land allocations the emphasis will be on
securing realistic alternatives to single car occupancy as part of the development process.
— Policy E2—SWWITCH will facilitate and promote improved rail and bus services, walking,
cycling and car sharing to encourage modal shift and improve air quality
— Policy E3—SWWITCH will work collaboratively with a wide range of organizations in South West
Wales to encourage take up and development of travel planning to reduce single occupancy car
commuting
— Policy E4—SWWITCH will work collaboratively to encourage more sustainable freight
distribution through better use of rail, intermodal facilities and ports.
Processed: 29-10-2009 23:00:05
Page Layout: COENEW [E]
PPSysB Job: 435922
Unit: PAG7
Ev 136 Welsh Affairs Committee: Evidence
Integrating local transport
— Policy IT1—SWWITCH will develop improved interchange facilities, including Park and Ride
schemes, to reduce the barriers to multi modal journeys.
— Policy IT2—SWWITCH will work collaboratively to encourage the development and take up of
smartcards and other multi modal ticketing opportunities.
— Policy IT3—SWWITCH will develop user friendly sustainable travel information to support multi
modal journeys.
— Policy IT4—SWWITCH will facilitate joined up working between agencies and organisations that
provide transport to reduce barriers to more sustainable travel behaviour.
— Policy IT5—SWWITCH will work with agencies and organisations that provide transport to
reduce barriers including those which prevent people with impairments from using public
transport.
— Policy IT6—SWWITCH will develop a range of transport options to meet the access needs of those
living in areas with no appropriate public transport.
— Policy IT7—SWWITCH will integrate Strategic and Local Transport networks to promote
sustainable access to the coast and countryside for tourists and residents.
Improving access between key settlements and sites
— Policy KS1—SWWITCH will develop improved public transport services, including
unconventional and innovative forms of public transport, to link key settlements and their
hinterlands with strategic corridors and strategic and local employment sites.
— Policy KS2—SWWITCH will improve the journey time reliability on and safety of the road
network between key settlements and from them to strategic and local employment sites.
— Policy KS3—SWWITCH will improve walking and cycling links within and between key
settlements, including the development of Safe Routes in the Community.
— Policy KS4—SWWITCH will promote sustainable transport options to reduce car dependency for
local journeys and improve local air quality.
Enhancing International Connectivity
— Policy IC1—SWWITCH will work with the Welsh Assembly Government through the National
Transport Plan programme to improve the Trunk Road Network to facilitate journey time
reliability and support the regional economy.
— Policy IC2—SWWITCH will press for improvements to the rail network in and beyond South West
Wales into Sewta and TraCC to encourage more inward investment and support modal shift for
passengers and freight.
— Policy IC3—SWWITCH will work collaboratively to facilitate more reliable, eVective and
sustainable movement of people and freight to, from and through our ports.
— Policy IC4—SWWITCH will work with the Welsh Assembly Government, Sewta and TraCC to
support the development of good access to regional and national airports in the UK, especially by
public transport.
Increasing Safety and security
— Policy SS1—SWWITCH will seek to reduce the number of road casualties and collisions through
improved traYc management.
— Policy SS2—SWWITCH will work collaboratively to promote safe behaviour by all road and
rail users.
— Policy SS3—SWWITCH will encourage and facilitate more use of public transport, walking and
cycling to increase footfall in our local communities and reduce anti social behaviour.
Processed: 29-10-2009 23:00:05
Page Layout: COENEW [O]
PPSysB Job: 435922
Unit: PAG7
Welsh Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 137
RTP Trunk Road and Rail Priorities
Rail Priorities
Description
Detail
Priority
Improvements to Rail
Services West of Swansea
— Redoubling the line west of Swansea to secure improved
services to West Wales including:
— 3 trains per hour between Swansea, Gowerton,
Llanelli and Carmarthen.
— Hourly services from Carmarthen to Milford
Haven.
— 5 trains per day to Fishguard Harbour.
1
Improving Rail Services to
CardiV, Bristol and London
— Reducing the journey times to CardiV, London and
beyond.
— Improving access to and facilities at mainline stations
drawing on all sources including National Station
Improvement Programme funds and EU Convergence
funding
2
Improving the access to and
use of rail services
— Five trains per day on the Heart Of Wales Line (HOWL).
— Improving the Swanline service.
— Developing new stations where justified and reviewing the
long term role of smaller stations.
— Maintenance and development of the South West Wales
Community Rail Partnership
3
Trunk Road Priorities
Description
Detail
Trunk Road Commitments
—
—
—
—
—
A40 Penblewin to Slebech.
A40 The Kell.
A477 St Clears to Red Roses.
A40 Llandewi Velfrey to Penblewin.
A483 Llandeilo bypass
M4 and Trunk Road priority — M4 junction improvements to reduce congestion and
measures
improve connectivity.
— Consideration of Park and Share sites near to M4
junctions.
— Signalisation of Pensarn roundabout in Carmarthen.
— A48 at Cross Hands improvements.
— Trunking of:
— A4138—between M4 and Llanelli.
— A483—Fabian Way corridor.
A40 improvements
— Improvements to the A40 west of St Clears including
dualling if the business case is proven.
— Access from the A40 to the proposed Carmarthen west
link road.
Trunking and De-Trunking
— Trunking of:
— A485/6—Carmarthen to Synod Inn.
— A476 between Cross Hands and Ffairfach
accompanied by a subsequent de-trunking of the
A483 from Pont Abraham through Ammanford to
Ffairfach/Llandeilo.
— De-Trunking of:
— A40 Salutation Square to Withybush Roundabout.
Priority
1
2
3
4
RTP Freight Component Strategy
Freight Strategy 2010–15
Freight transport plays an essential role in the economy, in terms of delivering raw materials,
manufactured goods, food and refuse. SWWITCH prepared a Freight Strategy in 2002, with updated
forecasts in 2006.
Processed: 29-10-2009 23:00:05
Page Layout: COENEW [E]
PPSysB Job: 435922
Unit: PAG7
Ev 138 Welsh Affairs Committee: Evidence
The prime factor in delivering this Component Strategy is partnership working with the private sector
and appropriate grant interventions from Government. The strategy seeks to achieve where appropriate and
practicable:
— The more eVective and eYcient movement of freight.
— The use of more sustainable modes for the movement of freight.
— A reduction in the distances over which freight is moved.
The Strategy recognises that currently over 90% of land surface freight movements within or starting and
ending in the region are by road and that the movement of freight is driven primarily by highly competitive
commercial pressures in the private sector. Large amounts of freight are also conveyed by sea and pipeline.
Therefore the strategy recognises that for the foreseeable future the vast majority of regional land surface
freight trips will be by road unless there are suYcient Government grant incentives to divert appropriate
flows to rail, pipeline or coastal shipping.
Delivering the Wales Freight Strategy—The basis of all regional Freight Strategies in Wales is the Wales
Freight Strategy (WFS), which seeks to:
— assist Regional Transport Consortia in the development of RTPs;
— identify and promote factors supporting sustainable transport distribution systems;
— support Welsh industry and commerce with a reliable and cost eYcient network for raw materials,
manufactured and consumer goods;
— anticipate and respond to fundamental changes in the supply-chain and markets;
— identify weaknesses and constraints in the existing freight network which may impact on the Welsh
economy; and
— integrate and maximise use of the existing freight infrastructure, using all transport modes to the
benefit of the environment and the economy.
Supporting the Regional Economy—SWWITCH will work collaboratively with WAG, the freight
industry, Network Rail and others to:
— Ensure that the needs of the freight industry in the region and in Wales are taken into account in
making decisions about rail infrastructure and train path allocation.
— Identify, promote and develop a consistent strategic network of regional signed lorry routes that
include local links to local centres of activity such as town centres, ports, other inter-modal freight
interchanges, retail and industrial parks and sites.
— Provide parking for road freight transport (locations, facilities required and pricing).
— Consider specific parking for drivers’ rest areas.
Developing Sustainable Freight Transport—SWWITCH will seek to make best use of the region’s
existing assets, including its ports at Port Talbot, Swansea, Fishguard Harbour and the Milford Haven
Waterway, the trunk road network and a rail network with spare capacity particularly in the west of the
region. As opportunities present themselves, SWWITCH will:
— Seek to mitigate the adverse eVects of road freight vehicles on communities and the environment
generally by implementing appropriate traYc management measures to deal with intrusive HGV
movements.
— Seek to identify pilot freight consolidation centre(s) to serve and enhance the urban environment.
— Encourage appropriate stakeholder partnerships including local and sub-regional Freight Quality
Partnerships (FQPs) to mitigate and deal with identifiable issues of concern to local communities
and the freight industry.
— Increase the carrying capacity of the railway as cost eVectively as possible when developing local
schemes, which have a potential impact on freight transport.
— Identify potential options for road-rail freight facilities.
— Ensure that land-use policies seek opportunities for promoting rail freight facilities and that
potential sites are protected, particularly for road-rail interchanges.
— Promote use of coastal shipping wherever practicable.
— Promote added-value activities at ports, identifying environmental benefits.
— Identify port locations where new facilities could be developed, including in particular potential
multi-modal and port-based inter-modal sites.
— Consider the capacity and availability of the rail network in relation to port-related rail freight.
Processed: 29-10-2009 23:00:05
Page Layout: COENEW [O]
PPSysB Job: 435922
Unit: PAG7
Welsh Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 139
APPENDIX B
DETAILED ISSUES RELATING TO SWANSEA PORT
1. Importance of the docklands regeneration at SA1 and links with the City Centre, and opportunities to
support economic development activities on the significant areas of vacant employment land at the port
The SA1 Waterfront Project demonstrates the following:
— Potential of a redundant dock basin (Prince of Wales Dock) to provide a focus for a comprehensive
mixed use regeneration scheme embracing oYce development/housing/leisure/community based
facilities. The central feature of the scheme is the dock basin which covers an area of 27 acres and
which will provide an opportunity to introduce a 400 berth marina (adding to the established
marina facilities in the Maritime Quarter and the Tawe River basin).
— Feasibility of implementing a comprehensive and prestigious regeneration scheme in proximity to
an operational dock (Kings Dock). This requires a degree of sensitivity in terms of dockside
development so as to avoid the introduction of incompatible uses.
— The value of having a redundant dockland in close proximity to the city centre. This allows for
integrated and sustainable development and raises the economic viability of the regeneration
project.
Anticipated outputs include:
— 40 ha land reclaimed
— 3,000! jobs
— 2,000! residential units (including aVordable units)
— 65,000 sqm business space
— 2 hotels
— Health centres/community church
There are significant other areas of vacant land in the vicinity of the remaining operational dock. The
prudent approach here is to ensure that enough operational land to service any further developments
directly related to the dock function is retained and to allocate any balance of land for general
employment use.
There is an area of some 26 ha located between the Kings Dock and Queens Dock. This area is connected
by rail and there would appear to be potential for enhancing the container function of the port in this
location. An area of some 26 ha to the east of Queens Dock could on the other hand be used for general
employment.
There is a need to maximise the potential of the dock/rail interchange
2. Trading links opportunities
Inter-trading and Port Activity
Swansea has worked with SME’s (suppliers) helping to build their capacity to secure work locally from
public and private sector organisations and ultimately to compete in the global market place.
The Port facility provides an additional focus for this sort of activity on two fronts:
1. The Ferry link with the City and County of Cork, (Swansea has a formal twinning arrangement
with Cork City Council) and the trading advantages oVered by the similarities in culture and
structures.
2. The facilities at the port itself and the potential for a transport and distribution “hub” for Swansea
and the rest of South west Wales.
Inter-trading and Ireland
The Swansea–Cork Ferry has previously benefited businesses on both sides of the Irish Sea, providing a
conduit for both goods and customers to and from each region. Previously the City and County of Swansea
along with Cork City and Cork County Councils organised inter-trading events involving their respective
SMEs with the ferry service providing a logistical back drop to the whole venture. Tourist operators have
also long recognised the benefits that the ferry link created.
The future resumption of the service provides an additional opportunity to re-present international trade
between Ireland and Wales and plans are currently being discussed to host such an event in Cork later this
year to do this.
Processed: 29-10-2009 23:00:05
Page Layout: COENEW [E]
PPSysB Job: 435922
Unit: PAG7
Ev 140 Welsh Affairs Committee: Evidence
3. Tourism
Tourism may benefit significantly in future from the realisation of a number of planned initiatives centred
around the port in Swansea, which will restore/create transport links between Swansea, Cork and North
Devon and promote additional cruise ship activity:
— Swansea–Cork Ferry—A Cork tourism co-operative has secured funding and an “agreement to
purchase” from a Finnish bank a vessel which will be used to restore the Swansea Cork Ferry
service. The £9 million 340 cabin ferry will be capable of carrying 1,400 passengers, and launch of
the service is estimated for 1 March 2010. The previous service was terminated in 2006 with an
estimated loss to the Swansea economy of over £800,000 per annum.
— North Devon Ferry—Developer Mariners Trading Ltd intends to commence passenger ferry
operations from March 2010, with services planned to operate between Swansea, Ilfracombe and
Minehead (with other linked services involving Penarth/CardiV and possibly Burnham-on-Sea).
Two “Fast Cat” ships 40 metres in length, accommodating up to 360 foot passengers will be
acquired to operate the services. Passage between Swansea and Ilfracombe would take
approximately 50 minutes, and between Swansea and Minehead approximately 1hour and 5
minutes.
— Celtic Wave—A joint European funding bid to support a Cruise marketing campaign on behalf of
the port areas of Anglesey (Holyhead), Pembrokeshire (Milford Haven), Swansea, Cork,
Waterford and Dublin has been approved. The project will further develop the cruise ship industry
across all the above named ports in the Irish Sea. It will create a single managed brand for the Irish
Sea cruise ground, raise the profile of the Irish Sea as a cruise ship destination and create a
consistent welcome for cruise passengers who visit the Irish Sea cruising grounds.
4. Export/import markets
Port Facilities
There have been several enquiries from overseas companies in recent years seeking a distribution point
for their goods prior to making a decision on relocating and investing in the UK. Many of these enquiries
pointed to the potential of the port being used as a hub for goods arriving at the dockside but also from
other ports courtesy of the EWS rail links. At the moment there is one bonded warehouse situated on
Swansea dock that is used primarily to stock steel products. The advantage of a bonded warehouse scheme
being extended to other products and sectors means that importers would only pay the duty on their goods
once they had left for delivery to customers. ABP in recent times presented a strategy outlining such a scheme
for their own development of the facilities in Swansea. The practicalities and feasibility of such schemes
require further consideration, but the potential to develop economic activity using the natural resource and
primary purpose of Swansea docks should be maximised.
Written evidence from Stena Line Ports Ltd
We are responding to the invitation from The Welsh AVairs Committee to submit evidence and
information to assist them in their inquiry into the following subjects:
The policy framework for the development of Welsh ports, including co-operation and co-ordination
between the UK Government and the Welsh Assembly Government.
— The contribution of Welsh ports to their local economies, including:
— the potential to increase the scale and range of trade with other countries; and
— the potential to increase freight movements through Welsh ports and the adequacy of the
transport infrastructure linking ports to their hinterlands and markets, including those
outside Wales;
— The development of tourism and the potential for attracting cruise ships to Welsh ports;
— The adequacy of security and policing provision at Welsh ports.
For clarification we wish to advise that this letter comes to you from The Port of Holyhead which is itself
owned by Stena Line Ports Limited a subsidiary of Stena AB, based in Sweden. Stena AB also owns ships
and operates some 18 important ferry routes for freight and passengers throughout Northern Europe
specifically on the Irish Sea, the North Sea and around Scandinavia and these include:
— Stranraer to Belfast;
— Fleetwood to Larne;
— Holyhead to Dun Laoghaire and Dublin;
— Fishguard to Rosslare; and
— Harwich to Hook of Holland.
Processed: 29-10-2009 23:00:05
Page Layout: COENEW [O]
PPSysB Job: 435922
Unit: PAG7
Welsh Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 141
Stena Line, as well as providing ferry services, are also terminal managers and operators on most of their
routes. In addition to Holyhead, Stena Line Ports Limited are the statutory port authority in Stranraer and
Fishguard.
1. The Contribution of Welsh Ports to the Local Economy
The passenger ferry industry is a vital component of the UK transport infrastructure. It comprises of three
main sectors. They are: UK-Continent routes, UK-Republic of Ireland routes and domestic routes.
The UK passenger ferry market involves significant numbers: 39.6 million passengers and 8.6 million cars
were carried across all services during 2008.
The 12 UK-Ireland services collectively account for 12–13% of ferry passengers, cars and coaches of the
UK ferry market.
At the end of 2008 63 ships operated on UK-Continent and Ireland routes with a capacity 72,800
passengers and on domestic routes 79 smaller ships with a capacity of 28,500 passengers.
In 2008, the UK passenger ferry industry employed approximately 17,700 staV directly. Of these, around
10,200 were seafaring staV.
Freight is a vital component for most ferry operators and this market has seen a large decline in carryings
since June 2008.
UK ports are estimated to support 360,000 jobs, including direct, indirect and induced impacts. Ports
therefore have impacts which go far beyond their immediate cargo and passenger handling roles.
To take one employment example, port operations in Holyhead account for a significant proportion of
the estimated 19,000 jobs available on Anglesey. Of the estimated 4,500 jobs located in Holyhead itself, the
Stena Line operation is responsible for direct employment of over 25% of the local work force eg port staV,
ships staV, border agency staV etc with an even larger number of indirect employment impacts created
elsewhere on Anglesey eg coach drivers, food suppliers etc.
At Fishguard the Stena Line operation is responsible for direct employment of over 249 of the local work
force, making it the largest private employer in North Pembrokeshire. This is at a time when the number of
Jobseeker Allowance claimants in Preseli Pembrokeshire has risen by more than 107% in the last 12 months.
Stena Line has also recently announced its intention to consider a number of potential re-development
options for the Port of Fishguard. The options being considered by Stena Line include the upgrade of the
existing single tier, single width ramp to a more modern double tier ramp, or the construction of another
modern berth and ramp at another location in the Harbour coinciding with reclamation that would create
additional standage for any future new services that Stena, or another operator may introduce to the port.
The Port of Fishguard is also earmarked for a Marina Development which is supported by The Crown
Estate and the Welsh Assembly Government and Pembrokeshire County Council.
Such large scale Port developments will greatly assist tourism, further support the local economy and help
importantly reinforce the route as a strategic gateway to Ireland?
2. The Adequacy of the Transport Infrastructure
Ports form an important part of the supply chain for many UK importers and exporters and although
not always easy to measure it is essential that due consideration needs to be given to the time criticality of
such supply chains.
In England, Strategic National Corridors (SNC’s) have been clearly identified, these take into account
the major influence ports have on traYc flows, and reflect the contents of the recently published
Eddington report.
This report highlighted the value of good and reliable links to UK ports. On reading the report it becomes
apparent that SNCs trail oV at the Welsh border. It is vital that these links, especially through North and
South Wales connecting to the rest of the UK and subsequently to Ireland and the Continent are clearly
identified and are recognised for their strategic value and are fully funded.
On a more local level Holyhead Port are the recipients of many complaints from the users of the A55
expressway. It would appear that the 100 mile or so section of strategic highway which leads from the North
West of England through to Holyhead is always subject to extensive road repair traYc delays. These delays
whilst unavoidable could in our opinion be much better co-ordinated throughout the whole length of the
route so as to minimize the disruption caused.A strategic highway should be treated as such and due
consideration should be given by the various authorities concerned to the full eVects of disruption along its
entire length.
Given that the A55 expressway is a busy TEN-T route Holyhead Port would like to put on record its
concerns regarding the inadequacy of freight specific lay up stops ( Truck Stops). As far as we are aware no
such facility exists within easy reach of Holyhead Port. Freight drivers, being subject to strict driver hour
limitations, are at this time forced to find alternative sites to park up to rest and such sites may not always
be popular with local councils. A very similar problem exists at Fishguard Port. We would ask Government
to support any initiatives that seek to address this problem.
Processed: 29-10-2009 23:00:05
Page Layout: COENEW [E]
PPSysB Job: 435922
Unit: PAG7
Ev 142 Welsh Affairs Committee: Evidence
The provision of suitable road linkages to Ports are also of concern to both Holyhead and Fishguard
Ports.
At Holyhead Port the A55 expressway stops some distance from the Port check-in facilities. This missing
port link although workable results in an excessive traYc build up on the local road network as well as
causing significant delays to freight and tourist traYc arriving at and leaving from the Port.
The A40 starts at Fishguard Port, joining the M4 corridor 43 miles later, west of Carmarthen.
The concerns here are more basic than those of the A55 expressway which has undoubtedly brought
economic benefits to the region. The A40 is a single carriage road for 35 miles, with only one 2 lane section
east bound for overtaking and none west bound. The journey, with no disruption, takes 50 minutes.
Even though the A40/M4 is the economic artery running through South Wales connecting us to Southern
Ireland and the South of England it is not even recognised as a TEN-T route, a lack of recognition that
greatly concerns us.
3. The Adequacy of Security and Policing Provision at Welsh Ports
There are two main areas of concern:
(a) The proposal to abolish the Common Travel Area between UK and Eire
These proposals primarily aVect the three Ports in Wales, where a large volume of passenger and freight
traYc is carried on direct services to the Irish Republic. The original proposals called for fixed immigration
controls, and for all passengers and all vehicles to be stopped, to ensure that they were all carrying approved
identification.
On 15 January 2009, Central Government issued its response to the consultation process, on the same day
that they published their Borders, Citizen and Immigration Bill.
At face value, it would appear that Government listened to the concerns of industry, and removed the
proposals for fixed immigration controls on all passengers at all Irish Sea Ports. Government at this stage
indicated that the following measures would be put in place on direct Irish Sea Services:
— every passenger to carry a passport or ID Card;
— risk based intelligence led immigration controls, at Irish Sea Ports, Channel Islands/Isle of Man
and Irish Land Boundary;
— £2,000 fine to ferry operators (carrier’s liability) for every passenger travelling without a passport
or ID Card; and
— E Borders to be imposed.
Strong concern about the Bill’s impact has been expressed in recent debates in the House of Lords and
elsewhere, to the extent that the CTA proposals were removed as a result of a vote in the Lords in April. We
have also recently been advised by the European Commission that the application of the e-borders scheme
to intra-EU travel (ie all ferry services) has no basis in European Law, that the scheme contravenes the Data
Protection Directive, and that requiring passport data to be provided in advance of travel is incompatible
with the right of free movement within the EU.
We fully expect that CTA discussion will reappear in the Commons soon, but this removal shows the
strength of feeling and also the view that current CTA arrangements do not pose a significant security threat
to the UK.
All ports in Wales will comply with the Port Security Regulations and will shortly have to comply with
the EU Security Directive which will be implemented through new Regulations later this year.
We believe that security and policing at Welsh ports is already very strong. Provision of even more onerous
border controls should always be mindful of a fair balance between providing eYcient and cost eVective
security regimes and most importantly does not hinder the eYcient movement of freight and passengers.
It might be helpful at this point to understand Holyhead Ports existing provision in relation to Border
Checks:
Special Branch Police Unit
North Wales Police OYcers
Approx 60 members of staV
UK Border Agency OYcers
Approx 20 members of staV
Formally HM Customs oYcers, supported on an ad-hoc basis by other visiting UKBA “hit squads”.
Port Security OYcers
Approx 40 members of staV
Required to ensure the Port Authority complies The Ship and Port Facility (Security) Regulations
2004–05—These oYcers are paid for by Port, in 2009 the security staV costs amount to some £750,000
a not so insignificant sum.
From the above summary 120 people are already involved in “securing the border” at the Port. This
number I’m sure the committee will agree is not insignificant.
Processed: 29-10-2009 23:00:05
Page Layout: COENEW [O]
PPSysB Job: 435922
Unit: PAG7
Welsh Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 143
We would consider it is essential that a proper assessment of Border Control is conducted to establish if
the existing controls are adequate and proportionate; and in addition, that it should be conducted together
with port operators and carriers. The evidence presented so far is not convincing.
We believe there would be significant damage to the UK/Wales/Ireland travel industry since a lot of tourist
travel remains quite local to the port areas and make quick decisions to travel, not necessarily planned in
advance. There is no doubt that day trip travel is heavily dependant on there not being a hassle factor to
contend with.
Ferry travellers are likely to have a higher incidence of not owning passports ie older more rural customers
and family units. From our perspective this has the potential to be hugely detrimental to our business—
purchasing passports could add significantly to the cost of travel for many people.
We do not see how border controls in the CTA, designed to capture illegal’s and associated criminal
activity as already declared by government, can be properly eVected without putting in place international
style borders and all the associated facilities/equipment. None of the CTA borders at UK ferry ports have
such installations. So it means that there would have to be a complete redesign of port infrastructure and
many simply do not have the available space to do that without spilling out onto the public highway. There
is insuYcient information at present to determine what costs there might be but the sums will no doubt be
significant and no doubt government agencies will expect Port Authorities to pay. We cannot aVord to do
so without taking drastic actions to recover costs.
(b) The E-borders initiative
This plan has been in the pipeline for years and the real impact on the ferry industry is still unclear.
Changes to ferry operators software reservations systems given their complex nature are always time
consuming and expensive.
No ferry operator has made any adaptation to its systems or processes due to the uncertainties regarding
the implementation of the E-borders scheme. Carrier’s reservation systems software (if they have them
because not all carriers do) will need a major re-design in order to capture passenger and vehicle data not
done today. The last and recent system design change eVected by Stena Line cost in the region of £18 million.
(As an international EU operator it is not just a local change needed but a major re-design.)
4. The Development of Tourism
Given the huge impact of the economic and financial crisis on business and consumer confidence, there
has been a significant knock-on eVect on travel and tourism. Travel patterns have changed: late booking is
the norm, taking a “staycation” is the new “vacation”, the number of individual short breaks will be reduced
in favour of taking one main holiday and value for money has never been more important.
With demand for travel being elastic, travel and destination marketing to boost tourism is vital.
Whilst credit crunch fears prompt many consumers to choose to holiday in the UK, which has the
potential to greatly benefit Wales, the decline in sterling’s value against the Euro has for the first time in many
years made Britain an aVordable destination for the Irish. Just under 0.9 million trips were taken to Wales
by overseas tourists in 2007. With the most popular origins of overseas visitors being the Republic of Ireland,
USA, France and Germany. Ireland is repeatedly the top country of origin for overseas visits to Wales
(197,000 visits in 2007). (Source: WAG website)
Stena Line has been reinforcing the “Better value Britain” campaign message in the ROI market via a
multi-media marketing campaign, emphasising that Britain “has never been more aVordable” and with the
Euro going further for consumers when they get there. This message, coupled with great value travel deals
is a key focus for marketing in a tough economic climate.
Stena Line is proactively encouraging travel to Wales with a number of products created to encourage car
touring, day trip travel, self-catering holidays, hotel breaks, theme parks, activity and event based breaks.
We have recognised that to encourage travel we need to be in the market, with clear and easy to understand
oVers encouraging a destination sell or reason to travel and we need to be there consistently. However the
marketing of these products could be far more eVective with greater collaboration with Visit Wales and the
regional tourism partnerships. The importance of tourist board/carrier collaboration will only be of benefit
to the tourism agenda of Wales.
Visit Wales is responsible for the marketing of Wales as a tourist destination both nationally and overseas,
but it appears that in 2009 the marketing strategy has focused primarily on the domestic UK market. In
January of this year a three month national advertising campaign (due to be extended), which formed part
of a £2.2 million investment was launched. The campaign creative and messaging is one that provides
breakthrough, resonates with the consumer and provides instant recognition. The “holidays unpackaged”
theme lends itself well to the idea of car touring holidays and one which Stena Line is an ideal partner.
However, it is disappointing that the opportunity to launch a clearly defined and coherent diVerentiation
strategy with this campaign overseas was not undertaken.
Processed: 29-10-2009 23:00:05
Page Layout: COENEW [E]
PPSysB Job: 435922
Unit: PAG7
Ev 144 Welsh Affairs Committee: Evidence
Stena Line is always keen to participate in joint partnership marketing campaigns and to date this year
has invested in campaigns with Tourism Ireland, Visit England, Visit Scotland and BVCB to promote the
destination, the ease of getting to there with great value travel and accommodation deals. The only tourist
board we have not been able to partner with has been Visit Wales who will not undertake joint overseas
partnership campaigns with carriers until the autumn. Nearly three quarters of all holiday trips to Wales
occur between April and September, with July and August being the most visited period. The delay in
undertaking an overseas promotional campaign will result in a lost opportunity to help secure the critical
peak tourist season for carriers, accommodation providers, attractions etc. With Stena Line carrying over
370,000 cars, 9,000 coaches and 1,700,000 passengers to and from Ireland via the ports of Holyhead and
Fishguard in 2008, a huge opportunity is being missed to position Wales as a tourist destination in the
ROI market.
The significant and heavy weight investment in marketing other parts of Britain (and Ireland) could have
a serious impact on the appeal of Wales to overseas tourists. Awareness of the exceptionally high quality
standards of the Welsh tourism product will be reduced through a lack of marketing to overseas consumers.
With the exception of 2009, Visit Wales has successfully undertaken strategic overseas destination
marketing campaigns either solely or in partnership with air and sea carriers. These campaigns were aimed
at giving Wales an identity in the same way that Visit Scotland has been successful in its positioning strategy.
Wales was always seen as a doorway to a final destination however the previous campaigns were aimed at
challenging perceptions and expectations and making consumers consider Wales as a place for a great break
with lots to see and do. During the campaign period and for a time thereafter, Wales would have been front
of mind when considering a break. It is essential for Wales to maintain a high profile as a tourism destination
otherwise the success of these previous campaigns will be undone and it’s profile will remain in the shadow
of Scotland, England and Ireland—Wales will “fall oV the map” for overseas visitors. Negative perceptions
of Wales still exist and it is up to Visit Wales to challenge these perceptions and create an identity for Wales
as a destination that is relevant and appealing to modern consumer lifestyles. Perceptions are hard to change
and require continuous investment in branding and marketing to be overcome.
In addition to the product and destination based marketing, new opportunities exist in the Cruise, Golf
and Business tourism sectors. To drive these sectors a joined-up co-ordinated approach to marketing is
critical.
5. Future WAG—Ports Cooperation
Links between individual ports in Wales and the Welsh Assembly Government are on the whole strong
and productive but generally on the basis of Welsh Ports acting independently. The Wales Freight Group,
whose members include port operators, developed a Wales Freight Strategy published in 2008.
At the beginning of March this year a group of strategic Welsh ports collectively met the Deputy First
Minister to look at a range of issues confronting the industry. Following on from this meeting and in
recognition of the need a Welsh Ports Group has been established which will meet for the first time in CardiV
on 3 June 2009 and will involve Welsh Government oYcials. We fully support this initiative and hope it will
be the first of regular meetings and to enable Ports to become far more closely linked to the Assembly
process.
Other Important Issues Affecting Welsh Ports
We are taking the opportunity of highlighting other important issues that will aVect some or all ports in
Wales. It is hoped that the committee will take note of the comments below.
Given the Global Economic downturn and associated issues the Port industry and its core shipping
customers face a continued and very diYcult trading climate. Now is not the time for the UK Government
to be introducing further and more onerous regulatory and financial burdens.
Marine and Coastal Access Bill
Currently, ports policy in Wales is non-devolved. However, important decisions on infrastructure
connections are devolved to the Welsh Assembly, although the funding is allocated centrally from London.
This is quite distinct from Scotland and Northern Ireland where ports policy is a devolved matter and where,
as a result, significant diVerences are emerging. In broad terms, ports in Wales support current ports policy in
as much as it is based on private sector, free market principles with a minimum of government involvement.
Nevertheless, this arrangement still demands a strong relationship with government which makes ultimate
decisions on road and rail spending and which issues licences and consents on which the proper functioning
of the industry depend.
Under the Marine and Coastal Access Bill a new Marine Management Organisation (MMO) will be set
up. This has been supported by both the British Ports Association (BPA) and the UK Major Ports Group
(UKMPG) in as much as it will streamline the licensing system and bring together various parts of
government which at the moment work separately, which sometimes results in tedious process delays.
Processed: 29-10-2009 23:00:05
Page Layout: COENEW [O]
PPSysB Job: 435922
Unit: PAG7
Welsh Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 145
We are therefore concerned about the implications of a recommendation proposing that the functions of
an MMO should be a WAG responsibility. The MMO represents a new start in bringing together functions
and personnel within one organisation with a clear remit; any diversion of these functions elsewhere could
undermine the MMO and the principle of a “one stop shop”. Equally, we believe there is a real danger that
the recommendation will simply perpetuate the status quo with responsibility for licensing still split between
various departments.
Tied to this is the issue of cost and resources. Ports in Wales are naturally concerned that WAG will not
be adequately resourced or funded to implement the MMO changes.
Business rates at UK ports
Increases in port rates and the matter of retrospective charges are a serious financial burden on port
operators.
Prior to the 2005 Rating List the valuation of Ports as a qualifying statutory docks and harbour
undertaking was undertaken by reference to regulations made by the Secretary of State namely the Docks
and Harbours (Rateable Values) (England) Order 2000 (SI 2000/951), and The Docks and Harbours
(Rateable Values) (Wales) Order 2000 (SI 2000/948).
These Orders established a “formula” based approach to the valuation of qualifying statutory
undertakings. The formula took into account the relevant income and expenditure of the undertakings (as
defined in the Orders).
No such Orders were made for the prescription of ratable values by formula when compiling the 2005
Rating List and all Dock and Harbour undertakings in the United Kingdom were valued by reference to
conventional valuation methods.
Following on from the application of this new valuation method, 2005 saw some Welsh Port suVer a
crippling rise in rateable value. Holyhead Port for example saw its rateable value increase from £1,167,000
to a staggering £4,000,000, an increase of over 242%. This rateable value increase translated to a rates paid
increase of some £1.2 million plus per annum at Holyhead.
This sudden and extraordinary rise in business rates was felt immediately at all Welsh Ports since a
decision not to allow business rate transitional relief in Wales was taken at about the same time by the
Assembly. Although this same “new valuation” method was used to revalue all UK ports its should be noted
that our competitor ports in England were given five year transitional business rates relief—a rather unfair
situation I’m sure you would agree.
Calculations carried out by our valuation consultants have demonstrated that Holyhead Port paid a
premium of £3.5 million over the five year listing period for the privilege of being located in Wales. This lack
of transitional relief in Wales has clearly distorted the competitive ports market.
Absorbing business rates year on year of this magnitude is diYcult without adopting significant cost
cutting measures and of course it goes without saying that this rather unfair burden is most definitely an
investment deterrent.
As a footnote to the valuation concerns Holyhead Port is now seeing its contractors being separately
assessed for business rates? Although discussions are still taking place with the VOA as regards the
legitimacy of such assessments we would like to put on record our concerns that should our contractors be
forced to pay business rates then this will only serve to drive the ports running costs upwards since the
contractors will seek to recover such costs from the Port itself.
Light Dues
The announcement made on 10 June 2009 by the new Shipping Minister Paul Clark was most unwelcome.
Light dues are contributions paid by the shipping industry for the provision and maintenance of aids to
navigation, such as lighthouses, buoys and beacons, around the UK and Irish coastline.
Following a public consultation, light dues will rise from 35p to 39p per ship net registered ton (nrt) from
1 July this year with a further increase to 43p on 1 April 2010. The maximum number of chargeable voyages
each year will also rise from seven to nine, with the upper tonnage threshold of 35,000 increasing to 40,000
nrt in 2010–11.
Such significant rises in light dues increases the cost for all shipping companies using Stena Line Ports and
will most surely make port calls to Wales a less than attractive proposition for visiting Cruise Ships. This
increase takes place at a time when WAG and the Cruise Wales organization are trying to encourage more
cruise ships to the Irish Sea.
We hope the above is helpful to the Committees deliberations and of course we will be happy to answer
any further questions at your convenience.
June 2009
Processed: 29-10-2009 23:00:05
Page Layout: COENEW [E]
PPSysB Job: 435922
Unit: PAG7
Ev 146 Welsh Affairs Committee: Evidence
Written evidence from the City and County of Swansea
RESPONSE FROM PLANNING SERVICES
1. Overview
1.1 The Council’s land use planning policies and proposals for future development are set out in the City
and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan (UDP). The UDP was adopted in November 2008. As
such it provides an up to date planning framework to determine applications submitted to the authority and
guide new development and emerging strategies.
1.2 The UDP makes clear the importance of the operational port and dock to the local economy,
providing jobs and future business opportunities. At the same time it also recognises the regeneration
potential and strategic significance of the wider waterfront area that extends eastwards from the River Tawe,
of which the Port is a major element. The UDP facilitates opportunities for non-port related uses at this
location in the future where this is considered appropriate as part of an overall regeneration strategy for
the area.
1.3 The UDP takes account of the aims and aspirations of the Wales Spatial Plan (2008), which
establishes the overarching spatial strategy for the region. Revitalising the Swansea Bay Waterfront area and
realising its commercial and tourism potential is a key element of the Spatial Plan, which is clearly recognised
in the UDP.
1.4 Any future planning applications on land within, and adjacent to, the Port will be determined within
the context of this local and national planning context.
2. Relevant UDP Policies and Proposals
2.1 The UDP contains a site specific policy AS12 “Port and Docks”. This states:
Development proposals that enhance the viability of the port, extend the use of the ferry terminal
facilities and increase employment and business opportunities will be permitted, provided that
such proposals are compatible with adjacent development areas, communities, environmental
enhancement schemes, and safeguard the potential canal route corridor.
The policy amplification emphasises that proposals which enhance facilities and operations at the
Ferryport, or increase commercial docks activity, will be supported where development has suitable regard
to issues of amenity, land use compatibility and environmental impact. The policy recognises that
considerable Permitted Development (PD) rights exist for docks related development, but that where
proposals are subject to Environmental Impact Assessments Regulations the PD rights will not apply. The
policy also specifies that future development within the port must have regard to the potential for future
enhancement of the rail freight network and also safeguard the canal route protection corridor that aims to
link the Tennant Basin with the Prince of Wales Dock (UDP Policy HC31 refers).
2.3 Policy AS12 highlights that future development of the port and dock will be an important
consideration in the ongoing work to develop a waterfront regeneration masterplan for the wider Swansea
Bay area. This links to the aims expressed in the UDP Spatial Strategy, which states that supporting
appropriate redevelopment opportunities and regeneration initiatives at the urban waterfront area will
contribute to the Plan’s sustainable settlement strategy. The UDP Spatial Strategy specifically highlights
that:
“the extensive area of brownfield land on the eastern approach to the City, south of Fabian Way
and east of SA1 Swansea Waterfront, oVers considerable regeneration opportunities. Land within,
and adjacent to, the existing Queens Dock may become surplus to requirements during the lifetime
of the Plan. Redevelopment of these areas has the potential to create a major mixed use destination
in order to:
— enhance linkages between a number of sites and locations along the Fabian Way corridor;
— build upon the success of SA1 Swansea Waterfront;
— provide opportunities for potential new tourism, leisure and commercial developments in a
range of settings; and
Contribute
—
to the creation of a strong sustainable transport corridor.”
2.4 Outside the Port, the land south of Fabian Way and east of SA1 Waterfront is generally promoted in
the UDP as being suitable for future commercial/business development. The area is considered to have
potential as a strategic employment area that can contribute to the growth needs of the local economy and
support the objectives of the Council’s Economic Regeneration Strategy. This area is shown on the UDP
Proposals Map as land either unallocated (“white land”) or designated for employment development under
UDP Policy EC1 Employment Site 5 “Docks”.
2.5 The UDP also features site specific policy EC2 “SA1 Swansea Waterfront”. The Policy identifies this
high profile, prestigious destination for further mixed use development. Regeneration of this 40 ha former
Processed: 29-10-2009 23:00:05
Page Layout: COENEW [O]
PPSysB Job: 435922
Unit: PAG7
Welsh Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 147
dock has already transformed the eastern approach to Swansea and once completed is anticipated to include
a new marina, 2000 residential units, around 600,000 sq ft of commercial space and a leisure element. The
policy emphasises that:
“the redevelopment of SA1 is suitably integrated with adjoining areas, particularly the existing
Maritime Quarter and retained commercial docks. Development within these areas must be
compatible with existing land uses and not inhibit redevelopment proposals and strategies.”
2.6 Relevant extracts from the UDP are attached to this note as Appendix A.
3. UDP Public Inquiry
3.1 The UDP was subject to a Public Inquiry, which closed in August 2007. Objections to the treatment
of the port area in the UDP were submitted to the authority during public consultation stage, prior to the
Public Inquiry.
3.2 Objections from Associated British Ports (ABP) were submitted regarding the form of wording to be
used in Policy EC1 “Employment Sites (Site 5—Docks)”, Policy AS12 “Port and Docks”, and also the UDP
Spatial Strategy expressed in Part 1 of the Plan. ABP conditionally withdrew their objections in advance
of the Inquiry commencing, since the company was satisfied with the Council’s proposed revisions to these
elements of the Plan. These revisions were reached via negotiations between the parties before the Inquiry
was held. The Inquiry Inspector confirmed in his report of recommendations that he also supported the
Council’s proposed revisions, which were subsequently published as “Post Inquiry Modifications”.
3.3 The former Welsh Development Agency (now Welsh Assembly Government) and BP also submitted
objections relating to the Waterfront area (UDP Part 1, and Policies EC1-2 refer). These essentially asserted
that the UDP does not contain a suYciently explicit policy framework for the future development of land
at this location. The Council rejected these assertions and, aside from the modifications agreed following
negotiation with ABP (which were proposed by the Council in advance of the Public Inquiry), no further
changes to the UDP were made. The Inquiry Inspector confirmed in his report that he supported the
Council’s position on this issue.
3.4 A summary of the objections submitted to the UDP by ABP, BP and the former WDA together with
the Council’s response are attached as Appendix B.
4. Conclusions and Further Planning Issues
4.1 The UDP provides a clear framework for the consideration of future planning proposals at the port
and adjoining areas. Redevelopment of port land considered surplus to requirements may be considered
appropriate subject to the criteria and safeguards set out in the UDP, and provided the viability of the wider
port is not compromised.
4.2 The UDP confirms the Council’s commitment to contributing to the emerging masterplan on a joint
basis with the Assembly Government, adjoining authorities and other partner organisations, in line with
the recommendations of the WSP. It is important for this work to move forward on a joint basis and that
a collaborative approach is taken to formulating an overarching strategy for land south of Fabian Way. This
will give coherence to the significant planning proposals and initiatives that have been proposed, or are
emerging, for this area. These include:
— proposed Swansea University Campus on land south of Fabian Way;
— proposed Biomass facility; and
— use of Queens Dock for large ship decommissioning.
4.3 The UDP is to be replaced within the next four years by a new form of development plan known as
the Local Development Plan (LDP). The Council is to formally begin preparation of the Swansea LDP later
in 2010, which will set out the Council’s strategic vision, aims and objectives for the use and development
of land over an ensuing 15 year period. It is possible that land within and adjacent to the port is submitted
to the authority as a Candidate Site for development consideration.
4.4 Finally, any future proposals that may have an impact on the designated Crymlyn Bog Special Area
of Conservation (SAC) will need to be carefully assessed with regard to the Habitats Regulations.
APPENDIX A
SELECTED EXTRACTS FROM UDP WRITTEN STATEMENT
Spatial Strategy
(xi) The Spatial Strategy is summarised in Diagram 1 and amplified with site specific detail in the
Proposals Map. It eVectively determines the sustainable settlement strategy for the UDP, which is to:
— capitalise on the redevelopment opportunities aVorded by brownfield land and the Waterfront
area;
— support regeneration initiatives within the urban area and free standing settlements with good
transport links; and
Processed: 29-10-2009 23:00:05
Page Layout: COENEW [E]
PPSysB Job: 435922
Unit: PAG7
Ev 148 Welsh Affairs Committee: Evidence
— limit development opportunities within the countryside areas of Gower, Gower Fringe and Lliw
Uplands to that which supports local needs and appropriate sustainable tourism.
(xii) The Spatial Strategy reflects WAG’s vision for the regeneration of Swansea Waterfront, which
emanates from the WSP. The extensive area of brownfield land on the eastern approach to the city, south of
Fabian Way and east of SA1 Swansea Waterfront, oVers considerable regeneration opportunities. SA1 lies
adjacent to the commercial docks, which make an important contribution to the economic infrastructure of
the County. Land within, and adjacent to, the existing Queens Dock may become surplus to operational
requirements during the lifetime of the Plan. Re-development of these areas has the potential to create a
major mixed use destination, in order to:
— enhance linkages between a number of sites and locations along the Fabian Way corridor;
— build upon the success of SA1 Swansea Waterfront;
— provide opportunities for potential new tourism, leisure and commercial developments in a range
of settings; and
— contribute to the creation of a strong sustainable transport corridor.
(xiii) In line with the recommendations of the WSP, any future proposals for the redevelopment of such
a significant brownfield waterfront and coastal area will be considered with the benefit of the waterfront
regeneration masterplan for the wider Swansea Bay area. This will be prepared on a joint basis between
adjoining Authorities and relevant partners to provide an overarching development framework for the area.
General Employment Sites
Policy EC1
Employment land is allocated at the following locations to
meet the growth needs of the local economy:
ha
Strategic Business Park
1 Felindre
190.0
Strategic Mixed Use Sites
2 SA1
18.0
3 Swansea Vale
25.0
Strategic Sites
4 Swansea West Industrial Park
60.0
Local Sites
5 Docks
34.0
6 Swansea Enterprise Park
14.2
7 Bryngwyn Works, Gorseinon
3.0
8 Players Estate, Clydach
2.5
9 Garngoch Industrial Estate
5.0
10 Land at Bryntywod, Felindre
15.8
11 Crofty Industrial Estate
4.0
12 Penllergaer Business Park (no B8)
8.2
Total
379.7
(5) Docks
The Docks are owned and managed by Associated British Ports (ABP) and make an important
contribution to the industrial infrastructure of the City. The remaining operational docks and general
industrial side of the port provides opportunities, primarily around the Kings Dock and Queens Dock, for
B1, B2 and B8 uses. Development within the area is technically constrained by a notified hazard
safeguarding zone around the BP sphere. This installation is in the process of being removed and the Council
is negotiating with BP to rescind the hazardous substance licence, until which time the zone must remain on
the Proposals Map.
Port related activities within the operational docks are exempt from planning control. However some land
to the eastern side of the docks alongside Fabian Way, which is one of the main approach corridors and a
key gateway to the City, has been disposed of by the docks operators. Planning control exemptions do not
therefore apply, and within this sensitive area the Council will seek substantial environmental improvement.
Care will need to be taken to minimise the visual and physical impact of any proposed land uses/
developments and to ensure the proposed canal route corridor is safeguarded and an attractive frontage is
created for it. Development that would compromise the potential redevelopment of adjoining areas will not
be supported.
There is potential for further releases of land within the Queens Dock for development other than port
related activities. The WSP emphasises that the revitalisation of significant brownfield sites in this coastal
location should be delivered with the benefit of a waterfront regeneration masterplan for the wider Swansea
Bay area. The Council will contribute to the formation of this masterplan on a joint basis with adjoining
Processed: 29-10-2009 23:00:05
Page Layout: COENEW [O]
PPSysB Job: 435922
Unit: PAG7
Welsh Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 149
authorities and relevant partners, to provide a suitable development framework against which to consider
future proposals for redevelopment. Any proposals to alter the water level within the Prince of Wales Docks
will be carefully assessed via the Habitats Regulations as there is a direct hydrological link between Crymlyn
Bog SAC and the Kings and Queens Docks and Tenant Canal.
SA1 Swansea Waterfront
Policy EC2
A major redevelopment area is identified at SA1 Swansea
Waterfront for mixed employment and residential
development together with supporting leisure, tourism,
community uses and ancillary services.
The development of the site should:
(i)
be comprehensive;
(ii)
integrate with the Maritime Quarter;
(iii)
complement and not compete with the City Centre;
(iv)
be of a high standard of design;
(v)
embrace principles of sustainable development;
(vi)
provide high quality employment opportunities;
(vii) increase the range of housing choice;
(viii) make appropriate provision for a network of
pedestrian and cycle routes; and
(ix)
safeguard the potential canal route corridor.
2.3.7 A robust and comprehensive policy context for considering proposals within SA1 Swansea
Waterfront is set out in adopted SPG. This guidance has been augmented by an outline planning consent
for the site and a Design and Development Framework prepared by the former WDA (now WAG). Together
these make clear the broad characteristics and objectives that development within the site must adhere to,
emphasising the importance of high quality design and principles of sustainable development. Development
of the site will need to be comprehensive in land use and urban design terms, with the aim of achieving a
suitably integrated mix of land uses, rather than a disjointed collection of unrelated development.
Additionally, development proposals will not be supported where they would undermine the attractiveness,
vitality or viability of the City Centre.
2.3.8 It is important that the redevelopment of SA1 is suitably integrated with adjoining areas,
particularly the existing Maritime Quarter and retained commercial docks. Development within these areas
must be compatible with existing land uses and not inhibit redevelopment proposals and strategies.
2.3.9 A programme of infrastructure work is planned with a view to bringing the dock into use as a major
marina facility. The SPG and Development Framework provide detail on the use of water areas within the
Prince of Wales Dock basin, including the type of uses and activities that are envisaged. Any proposals to
alter the water level within the Prince of Wales Docks will be carefully assessed via the Habitats Regulations
as there is a direct hydrological link between Crymlyn Bog SAC and the Prince of Wales Dock and
Tenant Canal.
2.3.10 The development of an integrated regional waterway, based on the 35 miles of Neath, Tennant and
Swansea Canals and linked via the Docks and Swansea Basin, is considered a unique tourist and recreational
opportunity within the area. Development within SA1 will be required to safeguard the route linking the
Tennant Canal to the Prince of Wales Dock and Tawe Barrage basin.
Port and Docks
Policy AS12
Development proposals that enhance the viability of
the port, extend the use of the ferry terminal facilities
and increase employment and business opportunities
will be permitted provided that such proposals are
compatible with adjacent development areas,
communities, environmental enhancement schemes,
and safeguard the potential canal route corridor.
Amplification
5.3.49 The operational port and docks is an important commercial asset, providing jobs and business
opportunities that contribute towards economic regeneration Proposals for enhancing facilities and
operations at the Ferryport and increasing commercial docks activity will be supported where development
has suitable regard to issues of amenity, land use compatibility and environmental impact. Whilst
considerable Permitted Development (PD) rights exist for docks related development, where proposals are
subject to Environmental Impact Assessments Regulations the PD rights do not apply. Any proposals to
Processed: 29-10-2009 23:00:05
Page Layout: COENEW [E]
PPSysB Job: 435922
Unit: PAG7
Ev 150 Welsh Affairs Committee: Evidence
alter the water level within the Prince of Wales Docks will be carefully assessed via the Habitats Regulations
as there is a direct hydrological link between Crymlyn Bog SAC and the Kings and Queens Docks and
Tennant Canal.
5.3.50 Development within the port must safeguard the canal route protection corridor, which aims to
link the Tennant Basin with the Prince of Wales Dock and the River Tawe. Additionally, proposals must
have regard to the potential for future enhancement of the rail freight network.
5.3.51 The future development of the port and docks will be an important consideration in the proposed
waterfront regeneration masterplan for the wider Swansea Bay region. The Council will contribute to the
formation of this plan on a joint basis with other relevant authorities and partner organisations, in line with
the recommendations of the WSP.
APPENDIX B
SUMMARY OF RELEVANT OBJECTIONS SUBMITTED TO UDP AND CITY
AND COUNTY OF SWANSEA COUNCIL’S RESPONSE
SPATIAL STRATEGY
Consultee
Objection
Council Response
BP
186/1
186/2
186/4
186/5
Redraft section to ensure the UDP
recognises the strategic context of
the area, which extends from SA1
to Llandarcy Urban Village and
Baglan Energy Park, as identified
in the WSP. The promotion of this
strategic vision is fundamental to
the achievement of local and
strategic objectives and should be
supported by appropriate Part 2
policies, which will need to ensure
that community needs are fully
addressed given the historical
nature of activities in the local
area.
Section B makes clear that the aims and aspirations
of the WSP are a key facet of UDP policies and
proposals to revitalise waterfront areas. This
section sets out the overall regional context of the
UDP strategy and makes specific reference to the
development of an integrated waterfront
regeneration masterplan, which the WSP
emphasises will be central to the revitalisation of
brownfield sites in coastal locations within the
wider Swansea bay area. The Council will
contribute to the formation of this masterplan,
which will provide the overarching development
framework to consider the suitability of proposals
in this area. The recommendations of the
masterplan will inform subsequent revisions to the
UDP. Section C states that a revitalised waterfront
area is a core element of the UDP spatial strategy
and focuses on the emerging SA1 development.
Consider amendment to Section C, paragraph (i),
to emphasise the development potential of adjacent
areas to the south and east of SA1. It is considered
premature to insert new Part 2 policies relating to
this issue prior to the formulation of a clear
strategy at the regional level. There are a range of
UDP policies that require development proposals
to give appropriate consideration to the impact
upon nearby communities.
WDA
42/1
42/2
42/3
42/5
Amend to define and promote the
Fabian Way corridor as a strategic
development opportunity in line
with the recommendations of the
WSP.
Section C states that a revitalised waterfront area is
a core element of the UDP spatial strategy,
focussing on the emerging SA1 development.
Consider amendment to Section C, paragraph (i),
to also emphasise the development potential of
adjacent areas to the south and east of SA1. Part 2
policies and proposals also recognise that the
eastern approach to the city is one of the key
gateway approaches into Swansea, and that the
Fabian Way frontage is a sensitive area where the
Council will seek substantial improvement. Part 2,
Section 2.2 in particular makes clear that
waterfront regeneration is one of the key themes of
the UDP economic strategy to revitalise Swansea
and the wider south west Wales region. It identifies
a number of strategic activities that are seen as the
means to deliver this aim, which includes
promoting improvements and developments at
appropriate locations around Swansea Bay.
Processed: 29-10-2009 23:00:05
Page Layout: COENEW [O]
PPSysB Job: 435922
Unit: PAG7
Welsh Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 151
Consider amendment to Section 2.2 (Part 2) to refer
to the integrated waterfront regeneration plan for
the wider area.
WDA
42/4
Policy SP5 should be amended to
define and promote the Fabian
Way corridor as a strategic
development opportunity in line
with the recommendations of the
WSP.
Policy SP5 includes a commitment to bring
brownfield land in accessible waterfront locations
back into beneficial use, which is pertinent to sites
along the Fabian Way corridor. No change
proposed.
WDA
42/18
Support the Council’s strategic
approach to developing
its economy through alignment
with key policies and strategies.
However, in addition to the
discrete goals set out, the desire to
achieve holistic and integrative
regeneration needs to be
recognised. It should be stated
that, through the JRI, the Council
and the Agency aspire to
integrating all aspects of
regeneration, including physical,
economic and social aspects to
maximise the eVectiveness of
resources in delivering holistic
regeneration in Swansea.
Support noted. Consider amendments to paragraph
2.2.2 as suggested.
ABP
51/M/1
It is land within and around the
existing Queens Dock that may
become surplus to operational
requirements, rather than land
within the existing dock per se.
Propose minor amendments to text
to reflect this.
Accept. Amend accordingly.
POLICY EV41
Consultee
Objection
Council Response
WDA
42/6
42/16
The BP Chemicals installation at
Queens Dock has been removed
from the list of notifiable
installations and should therefore
be omitted from this paragraph.
Until the licence is rescinded the Hazardous
Consultation zone and reference to the area within
the policy remains. If the license is rescinded during
the Deposit Period then the
plan and written statement can be amended prior
to inquiry/adoption. No change proposed.
POLICY EC1
Consultee
Objection
Council Response
ABP
51/1
Policy should allow for vacant
operation land in and around
Queens Dock to be released for
redevelopment, prioritising portrelated uses. If no suitable port
related uses can be implemented,
the policy should allow for
development compatible with uses
in the residual port. A new policy
should be introduced to cover the
potential release of operational
land, which should be informed by
discussions with ABP, BP and
other interested parties to
It is considered premature to insert a new UDP
policy relating to this issue prior to the formulation
of a clear strategy at the regional level. The WSP
emphasises that the revitalisation of significant
brownfield sites in coastal locations should be
delivered with the benefit of a jointly prepared
waterfront regeneration masterplan for the wider
Swansea bay area. The Council will contribute to
the formation of this masterplan, which will
provide an overarching development framework
within which UDP policies and proposals can be
formulated. Until such time as the masterplan
strategy is forthcoming, white land allocations will
provide maximum flexibility in considering
Processed: 29-10-2009 23:00:05
Page Layout: COENEW [E]
PPSysB Job: 435922
Unit: PAG7
Ev 152 Welsh Affairs Committee: Evidence
formulate a strategic overview of
available land east and south of
SA1.
redevelopment proposals for non port related uses.
Redraft amplification paragraph 2.3.4 (v) to refer
to the potential release of land within the existing
operational port for development other than port
related activities.
BP
186/6
186/10
Object to the exclusion of part of
BP landholdings at Queens Dock
from site EC1 (5). The policy
should be more closely aligned with
the WSP, which promotes a subregional integrated waterfront. In
this regard, the opportunity exists
for a strategic review of the wider
area to the east of Queens Dock.
Part 1 of the UDP highlights that the aims and
aspirations of the WSP are a key facet of UDP
policies and proposals to revitalise waterfront areas.
As such, the Council is to contribute to the
formation of a waterfront regeneration masterplan
for the wider Swansea Bay area, which will set out
an overarching framework against which proposals
for the future development of the dock can be
considered. In the meantime, the current white land
allocation is considered appropriate to provide the
necessary flexibility for assessing development
options. Amend paragraph 2.3.4 (v) to refer to the
preparation of an integrated waterfront
regeneration plan and its implications for land to
the south and east of SA1.
BP
186/3
186/7
186/8
186/9
The policy should place a greater
emphasis on the potential role of
the docks in regenerating the wider
urban waterfront area and omit
any reference to a notified hazard
safeguarding zone.
Part 1 of the UDP highlights that the aims and
aspirations of the WSP are a key facet of UDP
policies and proposals to revitalise waterfront areas.
Amend paragraph 2.3.4 (v) to refer to the
preparation of an integrated waterfront
regeneration plan and its implications for land to
the south and east of SA1. Until the licence is
rescinded then the reference to the Hazardous
Consultation Zone will remain. If the licence is
rescinded during the Deposit Period then the plan
and written statement can be amended prior to
inquiry/adoption.
ABP
51/M/2
Should further land be released for
development within the
operational port, the priority for
ABP would be to identify “port
related” uses. Request minor
amendments to text to reflect this.
Accept. Amend accordingly.
POLICY EC2
Consultee
Objection
Council Response
WDA
42/9
42/10
42/14
(i) The EC2 designation should be
extended to include the area
immediately to the east of the
Kings Dock, as this is included
within the SA1 outline planning
consent and Development
Framework for the site. (ii) The
“finger” of land at the eastern end
of the currently allocated site is not
owned by the WDA, as is not
included within the SA1 outline
planning consent or the
Development Framework for the
site. As such, UDP should
distinguish between this parcel of
land and the wider SA1 site.
(i) Accept. Amend accordingly. (ii) Accept that the
parcel of land south of Fabian Way and east of the
access road is not included within the SA1 outline
planning consent, the Development Framework, or
the SPG for the site. As such, amend the allocation
of this parcel to white land. The land south of
Fabian Way and west of the access road is allocated
for service uses in the Port Tawe and Swansea
Docks SPG. As such, the land forms part of the
proposals for SA1 and the allocation should be
retained.
WDA
42/11
42/17
The WDA request that an
additional policy be inserted
after Policy EC2 on Water Based
Activity within the Prince of Wales
Dock. This additional policy
Not accepted that a separate policy relating to
Water Based Activity within the Prince of Wales
Dock is required. The SA1 Development
Framework and Port Tawe and Swansea Docks
SPG provides detail on the use of water areas
Processed: 29-10-2009 23:00:05
Page Layout: COENEW [O]
PPSysB Job: 435922
Unit: PAG7
Welsh Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 153
should define the dock as a marina
and set out the acceptable uses and
activities associated with it.
within the Prince of Wales Dock basin. These set
out the uses and activities that are envisaged,
including its use as a marina with associated
activities. Consider amendment to amplification for
purpose of clarification.
POLICY HC31
Consultee
Objection Council
Response
WDA
42/15
The location of the proposed link
between the Prince of Wales Dock
to the River Tawe is inappropriate
and should be revised in
accordance with the approved
Development Framework.
Accept. Amend Proposals Map accordingly.
POLICY AS13
Consultee
Objection
Council Response
ABP
51/3
Object to the first proviso, which
implies a presumption against
development at the Port to protect
adjoining areas. This is not based
on any scientific analysis of
evidence and potentially constrains
development and use of the Port.
Development within the Port is
subject to appropriate licensing/
assessment, at which time impact
can be properly assessed and
measured. The use of the term
“properly integrated” in paragraph
5.3.42 is not suYciently amplified
to be self explanatory. Health and
safety implications and provisions
of the International Ship and Port
Facility Security Code 2004 and
other legislation should take
precedence for development within
the Port and Docks.
The policy is rolled forward from the Swansea
Local Plan (Policy T17 refers). It is important that
proposals within the port do not unacceptably
prejudice the likelihood of development schemes
coming forward within SA1 and that a suitable
level of amenity is safeguarded for adjoining
communities. Amend paragraph 5.3.42 to provide
further explanation relating to the requirement for
integration with SA1 and highlight the importance
of ensuring development is consistent with aims of
the emerging waterfront masterplan for the wider
area.
Written evidence from the Department for Transport
Introduction—The UK Ports Industry
1. The Department is pleased to submit this memorandum to help provide the context for the
Committee’s inquiry into Ports in Wales.
2. The Department’s White Paper Towards a Sustainable Transport System recognised that ports are
vitally important to our economic success. The United Kingdom ports sector is responsive and successful,
despite the short term eVects on trade of the present economic downturn. Over the past three years consents
for new container terminal capacity indicate that ports are continuing to respond to long-term growth and
there is still plenty of interest in long-term investment in ports infrastructure.
3. Ports are gateways to the rest of the world, and in 2008 the 120 or so commercially active ports in the
UK handled the movement of nearly £450 billion worth of international trade. In terms of freight, the 563
million tonnes of foreign and domestic traYc that passed through the UK’s ports make the industry the
largest of its kind in Europe. These volumes are generated by a diverse industry, which is driven by a
competitive market and which has experienced sustained year-on-year growth.
4. Ports policy for Wales is reserved to the UK Government except in respect of smaller fishing harbours.
The Department for Transport liaises routinely with the Welsh Assembly Government on ports matters that
are relevant to Wales.
Processed: 29-10-2009 23:00:05
Page Layout: COENEW [E]
PPSysB Job: 435922
Unit: PAG7
Ev 154 Welsh Affairs Committee: Evidence
Ports in Wales
5. Just as the ports industry throughout the United Kingdom thrives on diversity, Wales is well endowed
with ports, handling a wide range of cargoes from raw materials through to containers, as well as passenger
and roll-on roll-oV vehicle services to Ireland. Tables in the Annex show the evolution of traYc at major
Welsh ports from 1965.
6. Milford Haven is one of the largest UK ports, but handles mainly oil and petroleum products, the
inland movement of which can largely be handled by pipeline. Recent investment has led to the development
of two Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) terminals which are expected to account for a significant part of the
UK’s gas consumption.
7. The ports on the Bristol Channel have a historical base in steel and related industries. But there is
diversity. Port Talbot (one of the few deep water harbours in the UK) is utilised primarily to import iron ore
and coal for the steel industry, whilst Newport is a general cargo port. In North East Wales, the Port of
Mostyn handles general cargo, as well as the specialist export of Airbus A380 wings manufactured at
Broughton. The major North Wales port is Holyhead—one of three ferry ports that provide services to
Ireland—the others being Pembroke Dock, and Fishguard. These ports are part of the Trans-European
Network, reflecting their strategic importance in linking Ireland, Great Britain and mainland Europe. Both
ports and ferries have been upgraded in recent years, reflecting the significant growth in freight traYc across
the Irish Sea.
National Ports Policy and Issues
8. In 2000, the Government published Modern Ports, its key statement on ports policy, and whilst the
industry has since experienced significant change, the main thrust of that policy has remained the same and
was reiterated in the Interim Policy report on ports policy of July 2007 following a major consultation and
review. This endorsed a regulatory framework that encourages continuing market-led investment while
ensuring that ports develop and operate in a safe and environmentally responsible marine sector.
General Prospects and Forecasts
9. The main growth sectors are in containers and roll-on roll-oV services, demand for which has been
forecast to more than double by 2030. The growth is mostly import-led. The present economic downturn
has caused a short-term decline in these sectors and eased the capacity pressure at deep-sea container ports
but a number of major capacity enhancements have been consented in recent years and whilst present
economic conditions are depressing demand temporarily the MDS40 demand forecasts out to 2030,
published in 2006 and updated in 2007, still remain a sound basis for assessing longer term need.
10. Growth in bulk and general traYc is much slower. An exception is liquefied natural gas, a major
import at Milford Haven, which is expected to grow rapidly but from a small base.
11. Ensuring that the industry will be able to develop, sustainably, to meet emerging demand is crucial if
the economy is to continue to benefit as it does from the success of UK ports. Inevitably, this will require a
particular focus on the related requirements of the planning system, and the provision of surface access.
Regional Ports Policy
12. The Department recognises that ports are significant local employers and can make an important
contribution to the regional and local economy. In association with the review of ports we examined a range
of regional issues that might need to be addressed within an overall national approach. These issues are
generally taken into account in Regional Spatial/Transport Strategies and in Regional Economic
Strategies.41 As stated in the Interim Report, a detailed policy on how and where the Government wishes
to see ports develop in each region would add little if anything to this.
Public Funding of Ports
13. In our Interim Report on ports policy, we stressed that subsidy to port operations should generally
be avoided, as it tends to distort competition and is unnecessary for the provision of suYcient capacity. Only
in extreme circumstances of demonstrable market failure, environmental impact or significant net
regeneration eVects, should it be considered.
14. The Department’s focus is rather on ensuring there is an adequate strategic network for inland
movements of goods to and from ports. The Department continues to undertake work on end to end
journeys and identifying the key inter-urban corridors and the key international gateways that are the most
economically significant parts of the network and are showing signs of increasing congestion and
unreliability. The provision of high quality inland infrastructure, linking ports with importers and exporters
in the hinterlands, is a key issue for the ports industry. To freight shippers the attractiveness of a port is
heavily influenced by the relative eYciency and reliability of its inland connections.
40
41
The Department’s consultants who produced these forecasts and updated them in 2007.
In Wales a separate strategic planning regime has been established, based around the Assembly Government’s Wales Spatial
Plan as well as its economic and transport strategies.
Processed: 29-10-2009 23:00:05
Page Layout: COENEW [O]
PPSysB Job: 435922
Unit: PAG7
Welsh Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 155
15. The Future of Transport set out the Department’s strategy for delivering a transport network for 2030,
built around the central themes of sustained investment; improved management; and planning ahead.
Mechanisms such as the Regional Funding Allocations (RFAs), Sustainable Distribution Fund (SDF), and
now the productivity tranche of the Transport Innovation Fund (TIF), exist to support the costs of road
and rail infrastructure.
16. An important aspect of the inland access issue centres upon the eVectiveness of developer
contributions—the system under which developers, through agreements under planning and highways
legislation,42 are obligated to contribute financially to the road and rail upgrades that the proposed
development will necessitate. DfT has published new guidelines on developer contributions in England
following consultation last year. The aim is an equitable and transparent approach that ensures developers
contribute in respect of the impacts they and their customers impose on transport networks, without
discouraging worthwhile investment.
Surface Access—Wales
17. The Minister of State (Lord Adonis) met the WAG Deputy First Minister (Ieuan Wyn Jones) on 13
May to discuss cross border road and rail issues. OYcials have frequent routine contact.
18. The Department for Transport is responsible for specifying and funding the infrastructure outputs
that the Government wishes to buy from Network Rail in England and Wales and specifying and funding
the franchised services operated by Virgin West Coast, First Great Western and Arriva Cross Country. The
Railways Act 2005 requires the Secretary of State to consult the Welsh Assembly Government about
proposals for such cross border franchises before issuing invitations to tender. The Welsh Assembly
Government is responsible for specifying and funding the ATW services that operate wholly in Wales and
across the Wales-England border. It also has powers to purchase additional services for Wales via franchises
let by DfT, and to invest in rail infrastructure.
19. Similarly for the planning of rail services the Department continues to work with the Welsh Assembly
Government, Network Rail and other stakeholders to ensure the needs of the freight industry in Wales are
taken into account in making decisions about rail infrastructure.
20. The development of a strategic rail freight network (SFN) announced in the White Paper Delivering a
Sustainable Railway in 2007 for England and Wales, with a funding allocation of £200m, will be a progressive
programme of network enhancement to increase the logistical eYciency of the railway. Enhancements will
range from small scale incremental ones to major infrastructure schemes that will especially benefit
freight services.
21. Wales has important but entirely separate links in the north and south. In the north the passenger
service to Holyhead is a very important link to Ireland, whilst in the south the rail service to Fishguard
provides a similar though less heavily used connection. Freight services also feed south Wales ports. DfT
has recently funded a Freight Facilities Grant jointly with the Welsh Assembly to achieve environmental
benefits from modal shift at Barry Docks.
22. The Department for Transport’s Highways Agency has the role of operating, maintaining and
improving the strategic network in England. The Welsh Assembly Government is similarly responsible for
the strategic network in Wales. The Welsh Assembly Government is similarly responsible for the strategic
network in Wales and works closely with the Highways Agency on cross-border issues with the aim of
ensuring road connections such as the M4 and M48 Severn Crossings are as seamless as possible. Any
activities on these and other strategic routes into and out of Wales are planned and pursued via well
established liaison channels that ensure a continuity of service.
Environmental Impacts of Ports
23. Like much of the United Kingdom, Wales has a precious coastline with important natural habitats.
The Department for Transport has stated its goal as being the development of a ports sector that is
compatible with the Government’s social and environmental objectives. A wide-range of domestic and
European legislation now exists to govern the environmental obligations of ports, particularly with respect
to their expansion. The Government has seen its own role, in keeping with its overall market-led approach
to the industry, as one of making ports aware of their obligations while trying to avoid unnecessary and
disproportionate burdens. In 2006 a discussion document sought views on how far ports succeed in meeting
their environmental duties, in particular with respect to air pollution, noise and waste management, and
what further action might be taken to ensure fulfilment of such duties.
42
Notably section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended, and, in the case of roads, section 278 of the
Highways Act 1980.
Processed: 29-10-2009 23:00:05
Page Layout: COENEW [E]
PPSysB Job: 435922
Unit: PAG7
Ev 156 Welsh Affairs Committee: Evidence
Planning and Major Infrastructure
24. The Planning Act 2008 has established a new structure aimed at streamlining the planning process
for nationally significant infrastructure projects (NSIPs), including major ports. Preparations are well
advanced for the establishment of the new Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC).
25. The Government intends to produce a National Policy Statement (NPS) on ports to set out the policy
context for the NPS to take on the role of decision-maker for such projects. Work is in hand on developing
this NPS, and there will be public consultation on the details in due course. The intention is that it will be
fully consistent, in all fundamentals, with the policy as set out in the Interim Report.
26. DfT has also issued guidance on the preparation of port master plans.43 As with the creation of the
IPC, this responds to the need for greater clarity and expedition in the planning system as a whole. In
particular, we strongly encourage ports to engage with local authorities, development agencies, network
providers and others from the earliest stages of planning of major development. This can help produce a
better designed development proposal, minimising adverse environmental and transport impacts and
securing improvements where possible.
Port Governance and Ownership
26. Wales has five trust ports—Caernarvon, Milford Haven, Neath, Newport and Saundersfoot, the
largest being Milford Haven. Trust ports are independent statutory bodies, run by independent boards, for
the benefit of stakeholders. They do not have shareholders or owners, any surpluses are used exclusively for
the safe and eVective operation of the harbour. The Government has issued guidance to the trust port sector
which aims at setting the standards we expect trust ports to achieve in terms of governance and
commercial activity.
27. The Government has no wish to use its powers to compulsorily privatise any trust port. But it
emphasises that trust ports must be seen to be competing fairly, by promoting transparency of commercial
and wider objectives. On 7 April this year we completed a consultation exercise on revised guidance on
Modernising Trust Ports to assist this. We issued Municipal Ports Guidance. In May 2007, the Department
published Opportunities for Ports in Local Authority Ownership, which encourages the sector to follow the
approach taken in Modernising Trust Ports, in particular establishing harbour management committees.
28. The guidance has specifically requested that Milford Haven, and other of the larger trust ports, in
England, report to the Government on their analysis of structural change. This is not a prelude to forced
privatisation but a desire to see the trust ports analysing their corporate structures and keep them under
review with a view to identifying opportunities to enhance their eYciency and get value from their assets.
We have asked for reports to be with us within the next 12 months.
29. Opportunities for Ports in Local Authority Ownership, was published in May 2007 by the Department
and Welsh Assembly Government. This Review encourages the sector to follow the approach taken in
Modernising Trust Ports, in particular establishing harbour management committees. We are currently in
discussion with the Welsh Assembly to update this Review.
30. Notwithstanding this approach, the majority of ports in the United Kingdom, including in Wales,
may be classified as “small ports”, and while a number of these are active in freight traYc, the small ports
sector is largely focused on fishing, leisure and tourism. Thus, the link between small ports and local
economies is pronounced. In formulating ports policy, the Government is conscious of the need to allow
small ports the independence and flexibility to respond to evolving markets. Small ports also have a
significant role to play in coastal shipping, allowing goods to be landed near their eventual destinations
following transhipment, thereby alleviating congestion on the inland networks.
Cruise
31. The cruise industry has strong expectations for growth in the UK cruise market. There are distinct
segments of the cruise business. The array of terminals at Southampton, for example, serves mainly
Mediterranean or more distant deep sea destinations. But there is an important market for coastal or short
sea cruises from UK and other ports serving a growing number of call-in destinations in the UK and Ireland.
The major incentive for facilitating these services is tourism. Interest has been shown in the south west of
England, Holyhead, Liverpool and other ports in promoting calls, driven by a potential contribution to the
tourism business in the hinterland or catchment area of the port. This is entirely to be welcomed but, of
course, in keeping with Government policy on competition and funding of ports, it is important that new
developments should not be undertaken with public subsidy, which is likely to result in deadweight loss to
the taxpayer and to competitive distortion.
43
http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/shippingports/ports/portspolicyreview/portmasterplans/guidanceportmasterplans1
Processed: 29-10-2009 23:00:05
Page Layout: COENEW [O]
PPSysB Job: 435922
Unit: PAG7
Welsh Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 157
Border and Security Issues
32. Holyhead, Pembroke, Fishguard and Swansea ports operate ferry and freight services to and from
various ports within the Common Travel Area (CTA). The CTA is an immigration arrangement providing
for free movement within the UK, Republic of Ireland and the Crown Dependencies (Isle of Man and
Channel Islands). The UK Border Agency undertook a full UK public consultation exercise on
“Strengthening the CTA” earlier this year and the results were published on 15 January. A number of
industry specific and regional stakeholder events were held and representatives from the Welsh ferry ports
attended these events. As a result of feedback the Government recognised that the changes to the CTA must
be viable and it is clear that traditional fixed immigration controls will not be introduced on any CTA route
at this stage.
33. The Border Agency will continue to work with stakeholders throughout implementation to ensure
that the reforms are both practical and eVective and that any negative impact on the public and industry is
minimal—including passenger delays.
34. Security provision at Welsh ports is a reserved matter and is part of the UK-wide maritime security
policy. The security measures applied at UK ports are proportionate to the assessed security threat and in
accordance with international and EC requirements. The balance has to be found between facilitating the
travelling public and trade, and providing protection through a range of deterrent, detection and
preventative measures.
35. Transport Security Inspectors conduct a regular programme of inspection activity throughout the UK
to ensure that the right resources, plans and procedures are in place, and ports in Wales are regularly
inspected.
36. Welsh ports are policed by local police forces and funded through business rates. Local forces do not
provide a dedicated port service but respond to incidents when called. If necessary, they would be
supplemented or overseen by Special Branch resources.
June 2009
Million
tonnes
20082
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2006
2007
Port Talbot
Newport
CardiV
Swansea
Barry
Neath
Penarth
Milford Haven
Holyhead
Mostyn
Fishguard
Anglesey
Caernarfon
Others
3.7
4.5
2.7
6.6
2.0
..
0.3
24.8
0.3
0.1
0.1
–
0.1
..
3.7
3.7
3.7
8.1
1.8
0.3
0.4
41.3
0.3
0.2
0.1
–
0.1
..
3.7
3.5
3.2
6.5
0.8
0.3
0.2
44.9
0.8
0.1
0.2
–
0.1
..
2.4
2.0
2.6
5.4
0.8
0.2
0.2
39.3
1.2
0.1
0.3
6.8
0.1
0.6
6.8
2.5
2.0
5.2
1.1
0.8
0.1
32.4
1.2
0.2
0.3
7.8
0.1
0.9
8.9
3.2
2.5
4.9
1.0
0.9
–
32.2
1.2
0.3
0.4
–
–
0.9
11.0
2.5
2.4
4.0
0.4
0.5
–
32.5
2.3
0.1
0.5
–
–
0.9
11.7
2.7
2.7
1.0
0.6
0.5
–
33.8
3.4
0.3
0.4
–
–
0.8
8.6
4.0
2.5
0.7
0.4
0.4
–
37.5
4.1
0.2
0.5
–
–
0.4
8.7
3.8
2.9
0.6
0.5
0.5
–
34.3
4.2
0.2
0.6
–
–
0.4
9.1
2.8
3.1
0.7
0.5
0.4
–
35.5
3.5
0.2
0.6
–
–
0.4
8.1
3.2
2.6
0.6
..
..
..
35.9
3.4
..
0.6
..
..
..
Total1
45.9
64.2
64.7
62.0
61.4
56.4
57.1
57.9
59.3
56.7
56.6
..
1
2
Page Layout: CWMEM1 [E]
1965
Processed: 29-10-2009 23:00:05
FREIGHT AT WALES PORTS, TONNAGE, 1965 TO
Ev 158 Welsh Affairs Committee: Evidence
Annex
20081
Estimated for earlier years where figures for some ports not available
2008 figures are provisional
PPSysB Job: 435922
Unit: PAG7
Processed: 29-10-2009 23:00:05
FREIGHT AT WALES PORTS, UNITS, 1965 TO 2008
thousand
units
20081
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2006
2007
Newport..
CardiV
Swansea
Barry
Milford Haven
Holyhead
Fishguard
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
50
0.0
0.0
3
52
278
120
61
–
42
3
78
390
206
11
11
78
–
107
519
174
0.3
29
55
–
204
713
234
0.2
34
43
–
174
788
195
0.3
42
33
–
189
789
198
0.1
28
1
–
218
836
208
..
..
..
..
..
..
Total
..
..
..
..
503
780
900
1,235
1,234
1,251
1,291
..
Provisional figures published in May 2009 are for tonnage only.
Page Layout: CWMEM1 [O]
1
PASSENGERS ON SHORT SEA ROUTES AT WALES PORTS, 1965 TO 2008
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2006
2007
..
..
893
343
..
..
447
359
..
..
791
280
–
289
1,142
430
1
239
1,594
529
72
247
1,622
757
163
341
2,125
945
124
463
2,518
832
100
321
2,173
590
81
333
2,057
584
–
379
2,138
597
–
345
1,996
554
..
..
..
1,861
2,363
2,698
3,574
3,937
3,184
3,055
3,114
2,895
PPSysB Job: 435922
Total
1970
Unit: PAG7
Welsh Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 159
Swansea
Milford Haven
Holyhead
Fishguard
1965
Thousand
passengers
2008
Processed: 29-10-2009 23:00:05
Page Layout: COENEW [E]
PPSysB Job: 435922
Unit: PAG7
Ev 160 Welsh Affairs Committee: Evidence
Written evidence from the UK Border Agency
Introduction
The United Kingdom Border Agency (UKBA) was established as a shadow agency in April 2008 to create
a strong new force at the border by bringing together immigration, customs and visa checks to strengthen
the UK Border. Full agency status was achieved in April 2009. This brought together the main three elements
of government that operated to control border and immigration activity, the Detection element of HM
Revenue and Customs, UK Visas and the Border and Immigration Agency from the Home OYce. The new
agency works under the Home OYce umbrella.
Operationally at the ports and airports, UKBA is represented by the UK Border Force (UKBF), made
up of ex Immigration and ex Customs OYcers. It is a uniformed service and work is currently underway for
all oYcers to move to a new UKBA uniform.
UK Border Force
Wales falls within Central Region Directorate of UKBF and an early decision was taken that it justified
a separate command led by an operational Assistant Director, allowing one person to assess risks, deploy
resources and represent for the entire Principality.
Whilst this Assistant Director has his own allocated resource in terms of people and funding, he also has
a seat at the Central Region Management Board, allowing him access to regional resources if necessary.
Bringing together the two main agencies who previously worked at the border gives real opportunities for
a more flexible approach to border activity in order to provide enhanced coverage. Port Operators and other
stakeholders have made positive comment on these changes as it simplifies their dealings with the control
authorities.
The remit of UKBF at the border is very wide, dealing with immigration matters at the frontier, fiscal
matters, identifying prohibition and restrictions and addressing attempts to import counterfeit goods.
To increase flexibility in dealing with all of these matters, a significant training programme has been
initiated and the training of staV from legacy areas in the skills necessary to allow them to be deployed on
most aspects of our work at the frontier is well underway. This will greatly increase our ability to respond
to risks and generally increase flexibility at the border to the benefit of the innocent traveller by minimising
queues and to allow us to focus on these imports, passengers or vehicles where we may need to spend more
time in satisfying ourselves as to legitimacy. As part of these changes UKBF are developing a border zone
concept. This will entail travellers being assessed during their primary contact with Border Force oYcers.
Some travellers will be deemed worthy of further checking and will be referred for secondary examination
but most travellers will be able to progress without further involvement from UKBF staV.
Part of this assessment process will be the continuing development of the e-borders programme which will
allow UKBA to export the border. Many checks will be carried out prior to the departure of the traveller
thereby either allowing action to be taken overseas, if that is appropriate, or much more targeted activity
on arrival in the UK. This project is very advanced with regard to air travel and, as part its continued
expansion, the intention is that it will in time encompass sea travel.
Meanwhile UKBA continues to develop its intelligence databases on freight movements to allow us to
target high risk traYc into the UK. These databases are remote from Wales but they allow targeting of lorry
and container freight arrivals throughout the UK, including traYc arriving at Welsh Ports.
UKBF have also developed close relationships with the police at Welsh Ports and where appropriate, joint
exercises are run. In addition meetings to share intelligence and plans are held on a weekly basis at the largest
ports in Wales. An initiative involving the Police, UKBF and other agencies that is currently being worked
on to enhance the security of the welsh coast line is “Coast Watch Wales”. The objective is to work in
partnership with the maritime community to identify and promote the reporting of suspicious maritime and
irregular coastal and maritime activity and is due to be launched in the autumn 2009.
UKBF also attends regular meetings with WECTU (Wales Extremism and Counter Terrorism Unit) as
well as meetings of the Bristol Channel and Cardigan Bay Portal Security Group. Both these meetings are
forums for discussing emerging risks at the ports in Wales and how, in partnership, any such threats are best
addressed.
Stakeholders
UKBF took steps early on to engage with Port Operators and with shipping companies to establish how
we could best work together to secure the border but also to ensure that traYc flows were kept as smooth
as possible. All port operators were oVered the opportunity to sign a Service Level Agreement, covering
matters of interest to both sides. Within this document was a section on queue times, where we would look
to agree standards with the operator. At present, Port Operators in Wales have not formally signed oV these
agreements but the spirit of the document has been recognised and both parties are clear about respective
roles and expectations.
Processed: 29-10-2009 23:00:05
Page Layout: COENEW [O]
PPSysB Job: 435922
Unit: PAG7
Welsh Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 161
Recent Changes
StaYng levels in Wales have been increased during the past year, allowing UKBF to set up a fixed base
at Pembroke Dock to address the risk at that port as well as in the Haven and at Fishguard. This has been
welcomed by the Ports and the Police based there. The staYng position in Holyhead is supplemented by the
attendance of mobile immigration teams and at all ports in Wales additional mobile UKBF resources are
sent when required. For example regular visits are made by national dog teams to Welsh ports who work
with local staV to look for cash and Class A drugs in particular. Attendance at ports is risk based and this
serves to enhance our control in respect of traYc from Ireland, particularly in relation to abuse of the
Common Travel Area.
Results in Last Year
The changes brought into place following the formation of UKBA and the Border Force deployment have
shown a good return. Two of the highlights last year were the seizure of 24 million cigarettes at CardiV Docks
(this was the largest single seizure of cigarettes in the UK last year) and the seizure of 11kgs of cocaine from
a ship that had arrived at Port Talbot from South America. Following a successful prosecution at Swansea
Crown Court the cocaine smuggler was jailed for 16 years. In addition there were 179 people refused leave
to enter the UK via Welsh ports last year and three Algerians were prosecuted by Dyfed Powys Police for
various forgery/counterfeiting oVences having been caught attempting to enter the UK through Fishguard.
Common Travel Area
One other major risk relates to abuse of the Common Travel Area arrangements, in place between the UK
and Ireland. UKBA has seen increased levels of abuse by air and by sea with a number of people attempting
to use Ireland as a back door into the UK. Talks have taken place with the Irish authorities to develop a
collaborative approach and we are working very closely with them to allow targeted interventions to take
place.
Our own analysis of risk has identified high risk arrivals and regular action is taken to meet ferries in this
category.
Legislation in the form of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Bill is before Parliament and we await
its outcome.
Preliminary discussions with Port Operators have taken place to examine options.
If there were to be discussions as a result of this inquiry which look at the infrastructure of Welsh Ports,
UKBA would welcome an invitation to get involved in the process at an early stage.
July 2009
Written evidence from Unite
Introduction
This submission is by Unite the Union. Unite is the UK’s largest Trade Union with 2 million members
across the private and public sectors. The union’s members work in a range of industries including
manufacturing, financial services, print, media, construction, transport and local government, food,
agriculture, education, health, not for profit and of particular relevance to this guidance the docks, rail,
ferries and waterways sectors.
The docks, rail, ferries and waterways sector has just under 19,000 members and is continuing to grow.
Most port-based or coastal maritime activity, as well as the British Waterways canals, are all organised by
Unite which by virtue of its dominance in this sector is actually the biggest maritime union in British waters,
uniting masters and ratings.
Unite has members who are tug boat operatives and masters in companies like Svitzer. Unite also
organises ferries in Scotland, Liverpool and Southampton, dredging companies and a host of port related
maritime activity. Of particular relevance to this consultation Unite has members in Svitzer, Milford Haven
Port Authority and Newport Stevedore. Therefore Unite is pleased to submit a response to the Welsh AVairs
Select Committee on its inquiry into ports in Wales.
Milford Haven Port Authority
Unite believes that Trust Ports in Wales like Milford Haven Port should be about creating new and
improved port infrastructure and facilities to benefit the economy locally and nationally, which is the aim
in other countries; not simply as a mechanism used to remove Trust Port assets from public ownership. The
wider purpose of seaports in facilitating trade and generating economic and social benefits is best stressed
by public-owned Trust Ports like it is in other countries. Unite does not believe there is evidence that Trust
Ports like Milford Haven Port should go into private ownership and never believes there will be.
Processed: 29-10-2009 23:00:05
Page Layout: COENEW [E]
PPSysB Job: 435922
Unit: PAG7
Ev 162 Welsh Affairs Committee: Evidence
Milford Haven Port Authority plays a very important role in the local community, not just through
employment but in other social areas as well. Unite believe that it is of the utmost importance that it remains
in the control of the Government and any threat to privatise or sell of any part of it will be resisted as
vigorously as possible.
A great deal of the shipping that comes into Milford Haven Port is naturally coming to the refineries and
is now coming to the LNG sites as well. Due to this Milford Haven Port Authority are performing well in
these diYcult times and there should be no question of any short time working or of any lay oVs, which we
have seen elsewhere.
Holyhead
There is the potential to increase the amount of cruise liners at Holyhead. However at the moment
Holyhead is at a disadvantage because cruise liners can’t disembark at the port side. Unite believes that this
should be urgently rectified to allow Holyhead to have a better opportunity to compete with other ports in
this regard.
Transport Infrastructure
The Government has a fundamental responsibility to the transport infrastructure for UK major roads,
railways and rivers and canals. Its responsibility lies not only in the renewal and, where required, the
expansion of this infrastructure, but also in ensuring that the freight that moves on it can do so easily, quickly
and in a sustainable way.
The road services in West Wales needs improving and although progress is being made to the A40 and the
A477 to Pembroke Dock there is still a lot more that needs to be done. Unite believe that Pembroke would
benefit greatly from improvements in the infrastructure through increased tourism. Although Unite does
accept that some would argue that it is attractive due to its rural nature and because it is not overdeveloped.
The A55 to Holyhead should take about 2.5 hours from mid Wales however whilst improvements are being
made it is taking more like 4.5 hours. This type of delay and inconvenience is aVecting freight transport
routes to and from ports and in Wales. Therefore, the Government should develop an integrated freight plan
as a matter of urgency for Wales to put right these problems.
Environmental Concerns—Rising Sea Levels
A rise in sea levels and other changes fuelled by global warming threaten roads, rail lines, ports, airports
and other important infrastructure in the UK but particularly in Wales. A new study is to consider whether
Welsh coastal towns may simply have to be abandoned in the face of rising sea levels. With scientists
predicting sea levels will rise by about a metre by the end of the century, the Assembly-backed study will
consider how viable it will be for people to go on living along the coast.
The study will focus on Pwllheli, in North Wales, and Barry, in the Vale of Glamorgan, and assess whether
in the long term it is worth improving their sea defences to avoid scenes like those predicted by Lord Byron.
But experts have warned it may be time to start thinking the unthinkable—that they simply have to be given
up to the sea. Both Barry and Pwllheli experienced severe flooding in 2000 and the study will also examine
the more immediate question of how this can be prevented in future.
So what can ports and terminals in Wales do to significantly improve their environmental profile?
Sources of Air Pollution in Ports:
— ships movements and alongside, on own power;
— port activity—cargo handling, etc;
— port/cargo-related transportation;
— port/cargo-related process & storage industry;
— distribution transportation; lorries and trains; and
— intra-port traYc, including tugs, patrol/pilot boats.
Types of Air Pollution in Ports:
Air Pollution in Ports areas arises principally from:
— diesel engines and other combustion processes involving fossil fuels;
— carbon dioxide—CO2;
— particulates PM10, etc;
— hydrocarbons—HC;
— oxides of nitrogen—NOx; and
— sulphur products—SOx.
But other pollutants may also be present: Chemical vapours/gases from industrial processes.
Processed: 29-10-2009 23:00:05
Page Layout: COENEW [O]
PPSysB Job: 435922
Unit: PAG7
Welsh Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 163
“Cold Ironing” The solution or merely a panacea?:
— “Shore power” is nothing new—NATO and former Warsaw pact navies have used standard
equipment in all major naval bases, for over 40 years.
— 440V, 3 phase, 3 wire, 60 Hz.
— Standard bolted connections to cables.
— For merchant ships, the lack of world-wide class standards for power systems creates diYculty in
providing shore power to a wide variety of ships,
— “Cold-Ironing” is a way towards reducing emissions of ships in port but:
— it is more suitable for longer-term turn-around visits, especially where dedicated berths are
provided to one company or class of ships; and
— the environmental benefits are largely localised, rather than total.
Other means of reducing pollutants while Alongside:
— Shore-side diesel generators—better matched to load, so lower “signature” but still producing key
pollutants.
— Shore-side LPG powered generators—successful Pacific Gas and Electric Company trials in
Oakland, USA, July 2007: Better but still not “Carbon- Neutral”.
— Shore power will not always be possible, so we should identify other areas of sea and port activity,
in which “oVset” or other benefits can be obtained.
Cargo-Handling:
— “Specific Power” (power needed to move 1 tonne of cargo 1Km) reduces as ships’ sizes increase.
— Do ports need to invest in dredged access and cargo handling facilities for the largest container and
bulk vessels?
— Increased Vessel Productivity to Reduce Time in Port—Double-Cycling and Twin/Tandem Picks
for Quay Cranes.
Container Yard:
— Double-cycling of yard tractors.
— Quay crane double-cycling.
— Yard tractor double-cycling.
— Pooling of tractors serving groups of quay cranes.
— Intelligent route planning: Minimization of travelling distance yields increased productivity and
reduced fuel consumption.
— Storage buVers at on-dock rail yards.
— Depending on terminal layout and the type of lift and transport equipment used, the benefit of
double-cycling on a long drayage route may oVset any extra lifts in a grounded buVer area.
— Enables double-cycling of dray vehicles.
Port transportation:
— Cranes/container movers increasingly electrically driven.
— Trucks, etc. likely to remain fossil-fuel powered but Euro 4/Tier III engines available (reduced
PM10s, HCs and Nox) Currently these are all typically powered by diesel fuel.
Port-based process and storage facilities:
— Not only economic sense (adding value from real estate).
— But sound environmental benefits to be gained (reduced transportation: Tonne-Kms).
Port-located power generation:
Available industrial land and ports’ permitted development powers lend to:
— Wind turbines;
— “Biomass”; and
— “Waste to power” generating plant.
Processed: 29-10-2009 23:00:05
Page Layout: COENEW [E]
PPSysB Job: 435922
Unit: PAG7
Ev 164 Welsh Affairs Committee: Evidence
Reduce the need for cargo onward double transportation?:
— Ports should be developed with adjacent space for distribution facilities serving local markets.
— This needs Government understanding, recognition and support for planning, at both UK and
local levels.
Co-Located Ports and Distribution Parks?:
— Combination of port adjacent to major distribution park.
— Typical of the European model but less usual in the UK.
Look to new technology to provide low-emission vessels for port:
activity
— Seek eYcient, modern tugs, running on low-sulphur MGO?
— Encourage intra-port cargo services to renew their fleets or upgrade propulsion machinery to Euro
IV/Tier III standards?
— Operate low-emissions pilotage and patrol vessels?
Outside Lorries:
— Reduce the number of truck visits for a given throughput.
— Enable trucks to perform two transactions per port visit.
— Web-enabled dispatch/container move matching systems.
— Virtual container yard (reduces empty re-position moves)—Reduce gate process time and queuing/
idling time.
— Web-based pre-process and pre-advise.
— Optical Character Recognition (OCR).
— RFID tagging of trucks—spread the workload to the container yard.
— Extend gate (and yard crane) hours.
— Increase average truck travel speed on the road.
— Appointments aimed at avoiding congestion hours.
May 2009
Written evidence from the Welsh Assembly Government
Introduction
1. Ports form a vital part of the economic and transport infrastructure of Wales. They act as economic
drivers, attracting and supporting a wide range of business activity. Ports are also transport interchanges,
providing a gateway to the worldwide distribution network in an increasingly globalised economy.
2. Wales is well endowed with ports. The ABP-owned ports in South Wales, at Newport, CardiV, Barry,
Port Talbot and Swansea, handle a wide range of cargoes from raw materials through to containers. In South
West Wales, Milford Haven handles mainly petroleum products and, more recently, Liquified Natural Gas
(LNG). In the north east, the Port of Mostyn handles general cargo, specialist equipment for renewable
energy and the Airbus A380 wing-sets manufactured at Broughton. Wales also has three ferry ports with
services to Ireland, namely Pembroke Dock, Fishguard and Holyhead.
3. There are numerous small ports around the Welsh coastline. These can play an important role in local
economies, for example, in supporting specialised trade flows (such as aggregates or slate products) or the
fishing industry. Small ports also provide leisure facilities, such as marina and related housing developments,
which are integral to many coastal tourist economies.
Policy Framework
4. Ports policy for Wales, other than for small fishery harbours, is reserved to the UK Government.
Although this is a non-devolved area, the Assembly Government sees its role as putting in place the right
strategic framework to allow Welsh ports to realise their full potential. It has made it a priority to ensure
that the linkage between ports and the economy is reflected in its wider economic development and
transport policies.
5. As part of this work, transport planning arrangements in Wales have been overhauled following
enactment of the Transport (Wales) Act 2006. The Act imposes a requirement on the Assembly Government
to prepare and publish a Wales Transport Strategy setting out its vision for the transport system. The
Processed: 29-10-2009 23:00:05
Page Layout: COENEW [O]
PPSysB Job: 435922
Unit: PAG7
Welsh Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 165
Strategy, together with the closely-related Wales Freight Strategy, was published in 2008. It will be
implemented by a National Transport Plan and four Regional Transport Plans, which will be published later
in 2009.
6. To ensure that policy reflects the needs of the freight industry in Wales, including ports, a Wales Freight
Group was established in 2006. More recently, a Wales Ports Association has been established as a subgroup, to focus exclusively on ports issues.
Co-operation and Co-ordination with the UK Government
7. The Assembly Government works closely with the UK Government on ports issues. A good example
is the ports policy review undertaken by the UK Government between 2005 and 2007. The Assembly
Government was represented on the Project Board for the review. The UK Government and the Assembly
Government worked together to hold a joint stakeholder consultation event in CardiV.
8. Similarly, the Assembly Government is liaising with the UK Government on the National Policy
Statement on ports, which will set out the UK Government’s policy for the future development of civilian
sea ports in England and Wales. The National Policy Statement will provide the primary basis for decisions
by the Infrastructure Planning Commission in relation to proposals for major port developments in England
and Wales.
Surface Access to Ports
9. In recent years, the Assembly Government has undertaken a number of schemes which will help to
improve surface access to Welsh ports. These include improvements to the A477 in Pembrokeshire and the
completion of the dualling of the A55 across Anglesey. The Assembly Government has also supported a
number of local road schemes that have improved access to ports, including the Southern Distributor Road
in Newport.
10. The current trunk road forward programme, announced by the Deputy First Minister in December
2008, includes a number of schemes which will further enhance port access. In south west Wales these include
the upgrading of the A40 between St Clears and Haverfordwest, which will facilitate access to the ferry port
at Fishguard, as well as further improvements to the A477 between St Clears and Red Roses.
11. In north Wales, the programme includes a number of schemes to improve the A494 and A55. In
addition, the Assembly Government is considering the future of the Britannia Bridge, which links the Isle
of Anglesey to the mainland. The bridge carries only one lane of traYc in each direction and represents a
capacity pinch-point on the A55, which is otherwise of dual carriageway standard. Work is currently being
undertaken to consider the technical and environmental issues associated with a new bridge.
12. The Assembly Government is also supporting a scheme being developed by the Isle of Anglesey
Council to improve access into the Port of Holyhead.
13. The Assembly Government is keen to improve rail access to ports and to encourage the transfer of
freight from road to rail. A Freight Facilities Grant scheme has supported rail freight handling facilities at
the ports of Newport, CardiV and Swansea. The Assembly Government is also keen to encourage the
development of coastal feeder services for container traYc, which should also have environmental benefits.
Potential to Increase the Scale and Range of Trade
14. As noted above, Welsh ports handle a wide range of cargoes, from raw materials through to container
traYc. The degree of diversification varies considerably from port to port. Shipping is a highly competitive,
globalised industry and the pattern of services is determined by market demand.
15. The Assembly Government is aware of a number of changes in supply-chain and distribution
practices that could provide opportunities for Welsh ports. This includes the increasing use of feeder ships
to tranship containers from the major hub ports, as well as the scope to transfer long-haul freight movements
from the Iberian peninsula from road to sea. These developments have the scope to facilitate a significant
reduction in transport-related carbon emissions.
Ferries
16. As noted above, Wales has three ferry ports, at Pembroke Dock, Fishguard and Holyhead. These
ports have a major strategic role, linking Ireland, Great Britain and mainland Europe, which is recognised
by their inclusion within the Trans-European Transport Network. Both the ferries and the ports themselves
have been upgraded in recent years, reflecting the significant growth in freight traYc across the Irish Sea.
17. The Assembly Government has also been working with stakeholders to facilitate the resumption of
the ferry service between Swansea and Cork, which provided a valuable link between South Wales and the
Cork and Kerry region. The service was withdrawn at the end of the 2006 season.
Processed: 29-10-2009 23:00:05
Page Layout: COENEW [E]
PPSysB Job: 435922
Unit: PAG7
Ev 166 Welsh Affairs Committee: Evidence
Cruise Ships
18. The Assembly Government is keen to ensure that port facilities are suitable for the rapidly growing
cruise market, given the potential tourism benefits. A number of Welsh ports have attracted cruise operators,
including Newport, CardiV, Swansea, Milford Haven and Holyhead. A “Cruise Wales” partnership,
involving key stakeholders, has been established to market Wales as a tourist destination and to facilitate
the upgrading of facilities where appropriate.
19. At Holyhead, an assessment is currently being undertaken of the feasibility of creating “alongside”
berthing facilities for cruise ships, based on the adaptation of an existing jetty owned by Anglesey
Aluminium. If the berth is developed, it will avoid the use of “lighters” to oZoad passengers, greatly
enhancing the attractiveness of Holyhead for cruise ships. There is an informal agreement in place to carry
out a series of berthing trials at the existing jetty during 2009 and 2010.
20. At Milford Haven, the Blackridge site is currently being considered for development, including the
construction of a dedicated cruise berth.
Security and Policing Provision
21. The Assembly Government is keen to enhance the safety and security of the transport network in
Wales. Although the maritime security regime and policing are non-devolved areas, we will continue to work
with the UK Government to ensure that there is adequate security and policing provision at Welsh ports.
June 2009
Written evidence from Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council
The current port facilities within Neath Port Talbot consist of the Tidal Harbour, one of only four ports
in the UK that can take vessels up to 180,000 dwt, Port Talbot Docks which can accommodate vessels up
to 8,000 dwt and the Port of Neath which can currently accommodate vehicles up to 4,000 dwt but has plans
to increase its capacity.
In terms of the amount of cargo handled by these facilities, during 2007 imports into Port Talbot were 8.8
million tonnes with exports of 321,000 tonnes and in the Port of Neath in a similar period over 390,000
tonnes of cargo were moved. Across all facilities the types of cargo varied from iron ore and processed slag
to animal feed and sand.
In terms of employment ABP quote direct employees for Swansea and Port Talbot at 41 with an
indeterminate number of people in associated businesses reliant on the port within their 37 tenants at Port
Talbot and the U.K. dredging subsidiary of ABP. Port of Neath has 136 persons directly employed in
maintaining and handling cargoes through the port with a further 50 employees in a manufacturing
company based in Neath relying totally on cargos generated through the port.
It can be seen from the above that the contribution of these facilities to the economic prosperity of the
Neath Port Talbot and wider Swansea Bay area is vital. In current times with a general reduction in trade
all support must be given to ensure these facilities are still fit for purpose following the economic recovery.
In relation to planning policy the following has been developed by Neath Port Talbot County Borough
Council and is quoted. Town and Country Planning Policy through the Unitary Development Plan
promotes development that would enhance their function and protects them and their access infrastructure
(road and rail) from development that would adversely aVect them. This reflects one of the strategic policies:
to encourage the movement of freight by rail and sea as an alternative to road.
Policy T6:
12.10
POLICY T6—PORTS AND HARBOURS
Proposals that would prejudice the potential use of harbours, docks and wharfs for freight
movement (including access by water, rail and road) will be resisted. The retention and
enhancement of the cargo handling, storage, access (by rail and road) and related facilities
will be supported provided no unacceptable impacts would be created.
12.10.1 The Port Talbot Tidal Harbour, Port Talbot Docks and the River Neath wharves represent
major freight facilities. The three facilities within the County Borough each serve very
diVerent forms of shipping. While the tidal harbour can accommodate ships of up to 180,000
tonnes, the town docks can accommodate general cargo vessels of up to 8,000 tonnes and the
tidal River Neath wharf ships of up to 4,000 tonnes. All three oVer the potential for increased
and more varied use and this could both reduce freight movements on land and encourage
port-related industries.
12.10.2 Access to each of them by road is somewhat tortuous. The construction of the Peripheral
Distributor Road (PDR) between the Dock gates and the M4 junctions 38 at Margam and
41A at Baglan will help provide a modern access which will reduce traYc impacts upon the
town of Port Talbot.
Processed: 29-10-2009 23:00:05
Page Layout: COENEW [O]
PPSysB Job: 435922
Unit: PAG7
Welsh Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 167
12.10.3 As a result of their coastal location, particular care will be needed when preparing and
considering proposals for extensions to the ports and harbours to ensure that seascape,
landscape and biodiversity interests both on and oV shore are safeguarded.
Other policies and the allocation of new land uses protect port facilities and activities from encroachment
by sensitive uses that could constrain port activities.
In response to the need to address climate change and secure economic benefits that could accrue through
increased use of the ports, the preparation of the Local Development Plan will examine the potential to
increase the scale and range of trade both through coastal shipping within the UK and with other countries.
The County Borough Council is currently preparing Supplementary Planning Guidance on the Central
Area of Port Talbot which includes the town Docks. This builds upon the potential identified in the UDP
for the comprehensive regeneration of the area and its role in reinvigorating the town of Port Talbot. This
could involve a range of housing, employment, retail, education, leisure and entertainment in waterside
locations. The emerging master-plan will take full account of the need to protect the potential of the
commercial port.
Neath Port Talbot as part of the SWWITCH Consortium fully support the evidence submitted by the
Transport Consortium.
Within Neath Port Talbot Community Plan sea freight is identified as an important element with targets
and monitoring of usage highlighted. Within NPT progress report for 08/09 the issue of the decline in
tonnage moved through the facilities is recognised and reflected in the actual tonnages moved in relation to
the targets set against the baseline in 2004–05 prior to current economic diYculties.
Neath Port Talbot has recognised the importance of good infrastructure to the sustainability of the ports.
We continue to promote completion of the Peripheral Distributor Road which will provide better access for
Port Talbot Deep Water Harbour and Docks along with establishing a better link through to the Baglan
Energy Park and the adjacent Wharfage at Port of Neath. This piece of infrastructure is seen as a major
element of support to these facilities and it is pleasing to see in the recently produced National Transport
Plan the Distributor Road mentioned by the Welsh Assembly Government as one of the major unitary
authority provided infrastructure projects to which WAG give ongoing support.
The Council’s vision for Port Talbot is of an area which plays a significant role as a focus for economic
and environmental regeneration and as a growth point for the development of Port Talbot and the wider
Neath Port Talbot waterfront area. As such the draft master plan supplementary planning guidance for
central Port Talbot including Port Talbot Docks was put out to consultation following a public exhibition
in March 2009 with the period for public consultation ending on the 19fh June. This approach and the extent
of the master plan acknowledges the inter dependency of Port Talbot and the Dock area and addresses the
interface between the two looking to the future development of the area to not only develop Port Talbot
Town Centre but also Port Talbot Docks.
Neath Port Talbot as stated previously fully endorse the evidence supplied through the SWWITCH
Consortium and from the above it is evidenced that the Authority is actively engaging in the delivery of
infrastructure and regeneration to underline the importance in maintaining the port facilities in this area.
July 2009
Written evidence from Liverpool City Council
City of Liverpool Cruise Liner Terminal
Synopsis June 2009
The City of Liverpool Cruise Liner Terminal opened in September 2007. It is owned and managed by
Liverpool City Council.
The project was led throughout by Liverpool City Council with key partner input from Peel Ports and
others.
Total project cost was in the region of £20 million with funding provided by the North West Development
Agency, The Objective One ERDF Programme through Government OYce North West, City Focus SRB
and Mersey Waterfront Regional Park. Mersey Docks & Harbour Company who became Peel Ports made
a contribution to the capital scheme which improved Irish Sea Ferry operations.
The project was delivered in three stages:
— initial feasibility work;
— pursuit of statutory permissions and funding applications; and
— legal arrangements and construction.
Processed: 29-10-2009 23:00:05
Page Layout: COENEW [E]
PPSysB Job: 435922
Unit: PAG7
Ev 168 Welsh Affairs Committee: Evidence
From initial conception to opening the project took about seven years.
The terminal is performing well and receiving more vessels and higher visitor numbers than anticipated.
See www.liverpool.gov.uk
June 2009
Supplementary written evidence from Pembrokeshire County Council
Planning for Port Development in Pembrokeshire
1.1 The planning of port developments in the County has been influenced by a wide range of factors
including government policies, local planning policies, regeneration plans, market forces and the aspirations
of land owners.
1.2 In Pembrokeshire, the UK Government has been instrumental in determining the development of oil
refineries and power stations along the Milford Haven Waterway through various Acts of Parliament
(including the Electricity Act) and in the “national interest”.
1.3 European and UK government decisions in respect of the fishing industry have had considerable
impact on activity at Milford Docks.
1.4 The closure of Ministry of Defence bases at Pembroke Dock and Trecwn have had consequential
impacts on port operations and the availability of sites and premises in key waterfront locations.
1.5 The Government’s designation of Enterprise Zone sites around the Milford Haven Waterway
1984–94 provided a catalyst for the redevelopment of waterfront sites at Milford Haven, Neyland and
Pembroke Dock at a time of major defence and energy plant closures.
1.6 More recently the Welsh Assembly Government’s support for a regeneration initiative at Fishguard
in 2003 has highlighted an opportunity to combine a new marina development with port infrastructure
improvements, to mutual potential benefit.
1.7 Current Local Planning Policies recognise the importance of the County’s coastal environment, deep
water and strategic location in terms of port developments and links to Ireland. A summary and relevant
extracts from the current Joint Unitary Development Plan is attached as Annex 1.44
1.8 A new Local Development Plan is under preparation for the period 2011 to 2021. The proposed vision
for the County acknowledges the importance of maritime access, agriculture, international energy and
tourism as the basis for a prosperous local economy.
1.9 The Council considers that diversification of port facilities for leisure related use is appropriate where
there is clear evidence that this will not prejudice port operations.
1.10 Marine leisure is considered to be a high value diversification activity and Pembrokeshire is a
strategic location for UK coastal cruising and as a centre for a range of water sports.
1.11 In Milford Haven marine leisure has replaced declining fishing port activities, in Fishguard there is
an opportunity to expand the operational area of the port through the use of dredging from a proposed new
marina. In Pembroke Dock a proposed mixed use housing and marina facility may incorporate a new cruise
liner berth.
1.12 Developable waterfront land is a valuable and generally diminishing resource and decisions need to
be taken in the context of long term needs and opportunities.
1.13 The emerging Local Development Plan has a range of candidate sites which will be the subject of
public consultation including strategic waterfront sites.
1.14 The provision of new port and supporting transport infrastructure is expensive and may require
public sector support.
June 2009
Supplementary written evidence from Pembrokeshire County Council
Enterprise Zone Designation—Supplementary Evidence
As part of Pembrokeshire County Council’s submission to the Welsh AVairs Select Committee we
identified Enterprise Zone designation as a potential stimulus to new investment in port related
development. Whilst this point was not pursued during the oral evidence session we feel that Enterprise Zone
designation at key sites in Pembrokeshire would help to address infrastructure shortcomings and stimulate
private sector investment.
44
Not printed, see www.pembrokeshire.gov.uk
Processed: 29-10-2009 23:00:05
Page Layout: COENEW [O]
PPSysB Job: 435922
Unit: PAG7
Welsh Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 169
Background
13 sites were designated between 1984\–994 as Enterprise Zones on land adjoining or close to the Milford
Haven Waterway.
The benefits of Enterprise Zone designation were additional financial incentives and reduced bureaucracy
to encourage new investment. A list of the benefits which were available in 1984-1994 is attached as Annex
1.45 Of particular interest in the port context is the provision for priority consideration of applications for
customs facilities such as “inward processing relief” and customs warehouses.
Past Impacts
The practical aVect of Enterprise Zone designation on port related activity was as follows:
Milford Docks—this rundown fishing harbour was the subject of a comprehensive redevelopment
plan which attracted public and private sector funding to improve the Docks infrastructure,
develop a new marina, update fishing facilities, restore redundant buildings and develop new mixed
use quay-side buildings;
Neyland Quay—this derelict port was the subject of land reclamation and new public and private
sector investment to provide a marina, new fishing and marine leisure service support facilities; and
Pembroke Royal Dockyard—this redundant admiralty Dockyard was in a derelict condition.
Enterprise Zone designation was the catalyst for private sector land assembly, the construction of
new deep water quays and the refurbishment of derelict historic buildings. This new port facility
provided a valuable role in servicing recent energy developments along the Milford Haven
Waterway.
Future Opportunities
There are a number of candidate port related sites for Enterprise Zone designation.
Milford Haven—The Port Authority has ambitious plans for a mixed use expansion of the existing Dock
facilities including cruise liner berthing.
Black Bridge Site—Partially owned by Pembrokeshire County Council, this is probably the last remaining
strategic site on the Milford Haven waterway with deepwater potential and a wider “national interest” role.
Pembroke Dockyard—comprising the existing operational land and additional land recently acquired by
Milford Haven Port Authority from the Ministry of Defence this large site has significant development
potential including service support for the energy sector.
Fishguard Harbour—Privately owned, significant port improvement works are needed. An opportunity
also exists to facilitate a strategic all-tide marina development to provide support facilities and a safe haven
to service Cardigan Bay and the wider Irish Sea.
Conclusion
Private sector investment in more peripheral areas like Pembrokeshire is diYcult to attract because of
lower returns on investment resulting from the additional distance to markets and generally a lower quality
infrastructure. This is evidenced by rental levels which are generally lower than locations further east and
similar or in some cases higher building costs. New investment in peripheral areas, particularly in the current
economic climate, is likely to require a greater stimulus from the public sector. Welsh Assembly Government
priorities appear to be refocused on areas of highest deprivation and there has been a marked reduction in
recent funding support for physical regeneration and related infrastructure provision outside of their
chosen areas.
The County Council believes that the Pembrokeshire ports have potential to help grow local, regional and
national economies and would advocate a review of Enterprise Zone designation in the County as an
instrument for stimulating private sector investment during a period of public sector funding constraints.
45
Not printed
Printed in the United Kingdom by The Stationery OYce Limited
11/2009 435922 19585