13/11/2011 The Politics Show North West

And in the North West. Battleships. Southampton and Liverpool square up

for the final fight over the lucrative cruise market. We bring

you both sides. And claims that the Government's

plans to tighten up housing benefit rules could worsen the region's

Apology for the loss of subtitles for 1984 seconds

Liverpool was the premier port in the age of the line and its

maritime domination was gradually eroded. There was a decision made

to move so many services across Atlantic to Southampton. Their

number of reasons for this but the main one was that it was easier to

get to that for the wealthy people. It was a change that started as

Southampton crew as an emigration port and for the growing market in

luxury truffle. The very early days of the cruise ships, that is when

it started. I have never been in here before but you can see the

shadows from the past. We are in the old Cunard building. It was

from here, the 5th floor boardroom, that the company commissioned Queen

Mary and controlled the great ocean-going liners of the age.

Since then, Cunard has moved to Southampton along with the vast

bulk of the cruise market. Now Liverpool is campaigning to win a

larger share of it back. The Queen Mary might have long ago departed

British waters but her flag still flies in Crosby. It was presented

to Gervais Stringer, who's been on about a dozen cruises. First the

first for which would have been around the world. These are some of

the mementoes from the first trip. Entering the famous Golden Gate

Bridge. But having to board in Southampton was less enjoyable.

is an immense problem and has deterred some people from going on

these cruises. Poor people from the North would be willing to go to

Liverpool then come from Southampton. The walking along the

landing stage... The modest terminal was opened in 2007 - for

many visitors their first glimpse of Liverpool. It's attracted the

big ships and success has floated ambition. At the moment, while the

visitors that do come spend quite a lot of money, they are only here

for the day, there do not stay overnight. It would multiply the

economic impact for us if we could do that. It would create more jobs

because there would be lots of servicing of the additional

passengers that were coming through if we got turnaround status.

this week, a letter's emerged from the European Commission suggesting

that it would want some of its original �8.5 million investment

back. They would have a reasonable case that if there is safe partial

refund to the UK are authorities there should be a partial refund to

the community authorities. I have no idea how it will come out or

what percentage than repayment may be but they do seem to have a

reasonable position, looking at the legal texts. That, of course, is

still being decided. But if Liverpool wins, many people here

would feel the ships have returned home.

Well, that's the view from Liverpool's perspective. But

Southampton have reacted as angrily as a cruise passenger being told

the kitchen's closing. Time to hear their arguments, here's my

colleague in the South of England, Peter Henley. Southampton has

invested nearly �40 million to meet the growing demand for the cruise

trade. Ships like this bring in more than a million pounds every

time they start to finish at journey here in the port. When a

cruise ship comes in an army of workers spring into action. Dozens

of stevedores move into your luggage, lorryloads of fresh food

and drink from local suppliers, coach firms, taxis. The wages

earned each time a cruise ship docks is a phantom of the lifeblood

of the economy. And new businesses have developed around the wealthy

passengers requirements. Americans like travelling backwards and

forwards and they tend to bring their tuxedos and posh frocks and

when they get to another part of Europe they do not do -- need those

and we set them back home. The idea that Liverpool could take

Southampton's crews work angers Colin. It there are going into a

grey market why do they need subsidy to enter it? We have set a

new business up and we have not taken a subsidy to do this, we will

have to take it out of our profits eventually. Plans had been shelved

for a multi-million pound 5th terminal. There were worried that

what they saw as unfair competition from Liverpool could hit them hard.

The issue is about whether it is privately-funded or state funded.

Ports owned by private companies should be investing in cruised

terminals. That is what we do. We do not get any grant aid in

Southampton to do that and there should be the case in Liverpool as

well. The Queen Mary to has been in port for just a few hours and now

passengers arriving for the trip to New York. How would you fail to

saying to New York from Liverpool instead of Southampton? And there,

I would prefer a Southampton. the home of cruising, the Isle of

Wight, the Solent, it has always been here. A bit like afternoon tea,

it is part of the experience Forest. Liverpool has afternoon tea!

don't know, I've never really considered the, to be honest with

you. I do not think any of us understand why the government are

even considering this. The previous Labour administration turned his

application down. It was only a matter of weeks after the coalition

were elected at that Liverpool are submitted another application. I

cannot believe that a Conservative lead administration would even

contemplate to invest. As a deep water, sheltered saw -- port, with

close connections to the Continent, Southampton has many natural

attributes but it is worried for competition from Liverpool.

So, with a Government decision expected soon it's all to play for,

but who will emerge the winner? We thought we'd get the leaders from

both City Councils to argue their case. So joining me from Liverpool

waterfront is Councillor Joe Anderson, while in Southampton is

Councillor Royston Smith. What is your real complaint here? Is it

that Liverpool could benefit unfairly from public money or is it

that you wanted to the monopoly on cruises in this country? It is

nothing to do with monopoly. I am but a humble leader of the council,

not a private businessman and a lookout for the people I represent

and I want to protect their jobs. I don't mind if people want to

compete, that is healthy, but they must compete on a level playing

field. Southampton has no public subsidy to export or its cruise

business and Liverpool should be the same. It should be private

money competing with private money. If Liverpool pay back all the

public funding that it has received from Europe and from the UK

government, which you then be happy to get these turn around right?

would be perfectly content with that we have to acknowledge that

this is still public money. Liverpool City Council would be

using public money to pay back other public money. What we are

saying is that the private operator that will benefit from this should

be the ones that pay for the terminal. It is straightforward.

Public money should never be used to compete with private sector

investment. Councillor Andersson, you were given this money on the

proviso that this was just a visiting Port, and you are now

trying to change those conditions. We believe rightly so. The market

is at growing market, Liverpool has a facility which uses the lock

system here in Liverpool which means that we cannot allow some of

the picture to come in and visit the city. But he knew that when you

got the money. But things have changed. We got the money over five

years ago. We are offering to pay that money back and we have

negotiated with the government what we believe to be a fair price. We

are offering to put 5.3 million bag. When councillor Smith talks about

the private sector, the private sector are not involved or engaged

in this at all. It is run by Liverpool City Council and it is

Liverpool City Council that will continue to run it. I would like

him to explain why he believes the private sector are involved in this

because the state was a quite false. I would ask him the question, if we

pay they supply back, is he going to leave Liverpool a loan? We have

offered that the Government. He asks us to pay back the European

funding but the fact is your do not want the funding back. They are not

asking me for the money back. not troupe that the commission has

said they will look very seriously at asking for some money back if

the condition is changed? European Commission have not so

that to us. We have approached the European Commission. Other ports

around the country have had European funding. Is it right that

the European Commission has said that they would look, if there was

a change of use, at financial correction? They have said that and

they would say that because this money was much funding. You had the

Regional Development Agency and you had a �10 million investment from

the European Commission. That was on the basis of much funding. So it

Liverpool have to pay back the regional development agency money,

the UK government money, then the commission will quite rightly look

at their match funding and that is only to be expected. What we are

saying, it simply, is to the private sector company were to make

money from this than they should pay for it, not the public sector.

The ports are not going to make any money from it. He is not listening.

With regards to the European Union I would hope that councillor Smith

would not wish to interfere in trying to force a local-authority

in financially difficult times to pay back money to Europe when they

have not asked us for it. If you're come and speak to me and talk to me

about it then we will discuss it with them but at the moment they

have not done that. We're not trying to make Liverpool pay it

back, we are trying to make the company pay it back. Southampton

have 75% of the cruise line trade. At the risk of sounding like a

parent telling of children, could you not just share? Is there not

enough business out there for most of you? There is plenty of business

out there and we are more than happy. Why would we not be happy

for cruises to start and finish in Liverpool? That is nothing to do

with it. You have an event heard me make any comments about any other

town at any other time, apart from when you are going to use a public

subsidy to compete with a private- sector company. That will put

private sector investment at risk. Associated British Ports have been

complaining all the time. That is a private company. We are willing to

sit down and talk about the subsidy that we have had, the state subsidy,

and we will discuss it with people and not with Southampton. If you do

have to pay back any of this money, how is Liverpool going to afford

this? You have only this week said to have got to make 50 million cuts.

How would you fund it? That is why it is obscene when one council try

to force another, in difficult times when we tried to get

ourselves out of the recession, to force us to give money back to the

Exchequer. But we have negotiated with the governor what we believe

is a fair price based on depreciation. If you buy a new car

for �10,000 or not be worth �10,000. We believe we have negotiated a

fair price with the government. As far as the European Union is

concerned, the councillors that let the European Union discuss it with

this if they wish. Thanks very much. Now, it was meant as a measure to

stop the tax payer funding empty rooms in other people's homes. The

Welfare Reform Bill will clamp down on housing benefit for people in

social housing who have unoccupied bedrooms. But the region's foster

carers say some of them could end up losing up to �700 a year. And

that's because foster children aren't considered part of a

household. The issue's been highlighted by Crewe MP Edward

Timpson, who heads the All Party Parliamentary Group on Fostering

and Adoption. More than 20 children have called

these rooms their home. Yvonne and her husband Alan live in a three-

bedroom house and need the space to look after vunerable children.

Under new welfare reforms, they could be forced to lose some of

their housing benefit or move to a smaller house. You only get a

certain amount of money to look after these children and the cost

of leaving is so high so they're going to take this money virtually

off the children. It is off the children, you're not going to go to

get them as much. Long waiting lists and a shortage of social

housing is at the root of the matter. The idea behind the Welfare

Reform Bill is to give famillies who need the space suitable

accomodation. According to the Welfare Minister a spare room in a

house is a luxury society can no longer afford. It is difficult to

know what impact this could have but the big concern is whether

society can afford to have more children growing up in care homes.

I am keen to make sure that particularly in towns like prudence

at least like Liverpool and Manchester where there is a greater

need for foster carers, that we do not put the foster carers who

currently provide that service in a difficult financial situation which

may you can have and to give up providing that service. St Helens

in Merseyside is an area that could feel the impact- there are

currently 158 foster families, but with 22 in social housing the

implications could be far reaching. Sometimes these foster homes can

have up to four or five children, siblings, so it is not to 22

children, could be far more than that. This will drive us back into

the independent sector. The independent sector does not give

that family experience. People are working ships in a building but it

is not a family. It could lead to more and more children going back

into children's homes and we all know the outcomes of children being

placed in children's homes. One of the other things could do today is

a big campaign to recruit adoptive parents and and fostering. Last

week, David Cameron warned that councils who didn't tackle the

number of children needing to be adopted or fostered would be named

and shamed. Today, The Fostering Network say he needs to get his own

house in order. We had two government departments are going

over this. The Department of work and pension say the foster care

allowance should cover housing but they minimum allowances proposed by

the Department for Education do not contain any element of housing.

These are causing an immense problem for foster carers.

Fostering is more than a job, it really is. You have got to want to

look after a child and make a difference to their life. So I

think we should be given by all the back-up that foster carers deserve.

Without foster carers, where what does children to play? The Welfare

Reform Bill is currently going through the committee stage of the

House of Lords. But there is concern that some of the measures

could force families to close the door on fostering.

Well, the Department for Work and Pensions has given us a statement.

It says: Under the reforms foster carers will continue to be treated

in the same way as now. They will be able to receive Housing Benefit

but the foster child will not be included in the assessment and any

income from fostering allowances will be disregarded in full. They