:00:47. > :00:57.In the South: It's port wars as Southampton and
:00:57. > :00:57.
:00:57. > :34:14.Apology for the loss of subtitles for 1997 seconds
:34:14. > :34:21.This is it? Yes, these are some of the mementoes from that particular
:34:21. > :34:29.trip. Say that is from San Francisco? Entering the Golden Gate
:34:29. > :34:35.Bridge, yes. It is an immense problem and it deters people from
:34:35. > :34:39.going on some of these cruises. More people from the North would be
:34:39. > :34:43.willing to come to Liverpool than go to Southampton's. This is the
:34:43. > :34:49.cruise terminal and we are walking along the Langley stage...
:34:49. > :34:56.The modest terminal was opened in 2007, for many visitors their first
:34:56. > :35:00.glimpse of Liverpool. It has attracted big ships. At the moment,
:35:00. > :35:06.whilst the visitors that do come spend a lot of money while they are
:35:06. > :35:11.here, they are only here for one day, a so what does multiply the
:35:11. > :35:15.economic impact if we can do that. It would also create more jobs
:35:15. > :35:19.because there would be a lot of servicing of the additional
:35:19. > :35:26.passengers coming through the cruise terminal if we got
:35:26. > :35:29.turnaround says to us -- status. letter has emerged from the
:35:29. > :35:34.European Commission saying it would want some of its original
:35:34. > :35:38.investment back. They would have a reasonable case that, if there was
:35:38. > :35:43.a partial refund to the UK authorities, they should be a
:35:43. > :35:48.parallel partial refund to the community so I have no idea how it
:35:48. > :35:58.will come out or what percentage that repayment might be, but they
:35:58. > :36:00.
:36:00. > :36:04.do seem to have a reasonable That is still being decided but if
:36:04. > :36:14.Liverpool wins, many people here would feel that the ships have
:36:14. > :36:15.
:36:15. > :36:18.returned home. Well, that's the view from Liverpool's perspective.
:36:18. > :36:28.But Newcastle and Southampton have reacted as angrily as a cruise
:36:28. > :36:28.
:36:28. > :36:33.passenger being told the kitchen's closing.
:36:33. > :36:37.There are lorryloads of fresh food and drink, coach firms and taxes,
:36:37. > :36:45.wages are earned every time a cruise ship docks in Southampton.
:36:45. > :36:50.It is the lifeblood of the economy. New businesses have arrived.
:36:50. > :36:54.Americans like to travel back and forwards on the ships so they bring
:36:54. > :37:02.that posh frocks and tuxedoes but when they get to the UK they might
:37:02. > :37:07.not need them so we send them back. The idea that Liverpool could take
:37:07. > :37:12.the Cruise Line work angers Colin. If they're going into a growing
:37:12. > :37:16.market, why do they need subsidy to enter it? We have set a new
:37:16. > :37:21.business up. We have not taken subsidies. We will take it out of
:37:21. > :37:25.our profits. Southampton port owners have shelved plans for a 5th
:37:25. > :37:30.terminal but they are worried that what they see as unfair competition
:37:30. > :37:35.from Liverpool City Council could hit them hard. The issue is not
:37:35. > :37:43.complicated. It is an issue of whether it is privately funded or
:37:43. > :37:47.state funded. Ports in general, are owned by private companies. We
:37:47. > :37:51.should be investing in crews terminals. That is what we do. We
:37:51. > :37:56.do not get grant aid to do that. That should be the case in
:37:56. > :38:02.Liverpool as well. They are Southampton Chamber of Commerce
:38:02. > :38:06.believes Liverpool should be able to stand on its own. They believe
:38:06. > :38:11.the Liverpool port is wealthy enough to pick up the tab without
:38:11. > :38:15.help from the city council. Why do you think they are not doing it?
:38:15. > :38:21.Would you pay for it if you thought you did not have to? Are they have
:38:21. > :38:25.got a business to run. It is a very successful business. If they
:38:25. > :38:29.believe that Liverpool could give them a cruise terminal worth
:38:29. > :38:35.millions of pounds for nothing, I cannot see many businesses turning
:38:35. > :38:40.that down. The Queen Mary 2 has been in port for just a few I was.
:38:40. > :38:44.Passengers are arriving for the trip to New York. How would you
:38:44. > :38:49.feel about going from Liverpool rather than Southampton? No, I
:38:49. > :38:54.prefer Southampton. It is the home of cruising, the Isle of Wight, the
:38:54. > :38:59.Solent, all the yachts. It has always been here. A bit like
:38:59. > :39:05.afternoon tea, it is part of the experience for us. Liverpool can do
:39:05. > :39:09.that to! I know. I have never really considered it to be honest.
:39:10. > :39:17.I do not know why any of us understand -- I do not think any of
:39:17. > :39:21.us understand why the Government is considering this. It was only a few
:39:21. > :39:24.weeks after the Coalition were elected that Liverpool Reece
:39:24. > :39:31.admitted their application. I cannot believe that a Conservative
:39:31. > :39:36.lead administration would even contemplate doing this. It was a
:39:36. > :39:46.Labour government in 2007 that initially rejected the waving of
:39:46. > :39:50.
:39:50. > :39:53.the subsidy. Joining me now here in Southampton
:39:53. > :39:58.is the leader of the City Council, Royston Smith, and up in Liverpool
:39:58. > :40:02.the leader of the city council there, Joe Anderson. You are not
:40:02. > :40:06.against them running cruises? think help the competition is a
:40:07. > :40:11.good thing. A lot of people in Southampton feel it is unfair
:40:11. > :40:17.competition. Yes, we have had public subsidy from the last Labour
:40:17. > :40:23.government. It was �8.5 million. We have negotiated with this
:40:23. > :40:30.government to pay back public support -- sub -- subsidy back.
:40:30. > :40:34.With depreciation we have agreed to pay �5.3 million back. If you buy a
:40:34. > :40:40.new car you do not expected to retain its value. We have agreed a
:40:40. > :40:46.fair price. That is what we intend to pay back. If we pay any more
:40:46. > :40:49.back, all it does is go to the Exchequer and it punishes Liverpool
:40:49. > :40:53.city ratepayers which is where the money would come from. That is not
:40:53. > :40:58.fair for Southampton to ask us to do it. It is a curious thing to say
:40:58. > :41:03.you have an agreement from the Government. As somebody said you
:41:03. > :41:08.can go up ahead with cruises? have agreed at her -- we have
:41:08. > :41:12.agreed a price. It is going out to consultation. Who has agreed the
:41:12. > :41:17.price would you? The central government. The mandarins in
:41:17. > :41:20.Whitehall have spoken to us and calculated how we repay the money
:41:21. > :41:26.back in terms of the amount we pay back. That is what we have done and
:41:26. > :41:31.we think it is a fair price. It is only �3.5 million short of the full
:41:31. > :41:35.asking price but we think it is there. Liverpool has a crews
:41:35. > :41:41.facility here. We are not talking about building a brand new one. We
:41:41. > :41:44.have got one and we used to have a 5% of the cruise liner trade.
:41:44. > :41:50.Because we have an antiquated system with the lock system, we
:41:50. > :41:54.think it is a restraint. We want to resolve the hit state aid issue and
:41:55. > :41:59.it is only Southampton that is dissatisfied with it. It is other
:41:59. > :42:02.ports as well. Southampton will be hard hit. We must acknowledge it is
:42:02. > :42:07.not just Southampton that is not happy about this there are other
:42:07. > :42:12.ports around the country. The port alliance was headed by Southampton
:42:13. > :42:18.and myself but it was not just Southampton. Why do you want them
:42:18. > :42:22.to pay more money? The depreciation point is and reasonable one. A want
:42:22. > :42:27.them to pay it all back because of a private operator will make a
:42:27. > :42:31.profit from this money. Public money will be used to allow a
:42:31. > :42:37.private operator to make money. Do not forget that even if Liverpool
:42:37. > :42:42.pay this money back in its entirety or partially, they will be paying
:42:42. > :42:46.it back from public money. Public money will be used to compete with
:42:46. > :42:52.a private-sector company and that is where we disagree. It is an
:42:52. > :42:57.unfair playing field. Let me deal with those points. Royston is not
:42:57. > :43:02.telling the truth here. The issue is that from our point of view, we
:43:02. > :43:07.have had, like Southampton, a lot of support from government in terms
:43:07. > :43:14.of grants. Southampton has had a lot of money in terms of the road
:43:14. > :43:18.and traffic infrastructure... is not the same as the ports!
:43:18. > :43:23.course it is the port. If you enhance the availability of the
:43:23. > :43:27.road and improve the road system to -- support the port then that his
:43:27. > :43:31.state aid. Let us go with the issue where he claims that a private
:43:31. > :43:36.company will make money out of this. It is run by Liverpool City Council
:43:36. > :43:41.and we would run it. It would not be any private company. I have
:43:41. > :43:44.offered to meet Royston and come down and discuss the issue. It
:43:44. > :43:49.benefits nobody. It does not benefit Southampton or Liverpool if
:43:49. > :43:53.we have to pay money back to the Exchequer. Let us deal with the
:43:53. > :43:58.European issue. He wants us to pay all the money back and I find that
:43:58. > :44:01.totally unfair because what he expects me to do his knock on the
:44:01. > :44:05.European Commissioners door and ask them to take the money off me. They
:44:05. > :44:09.have not approached me or the council and asked us to pay their
:44:09. > :44:15.money back. I am quite sure that other Portswood be in a similar
:44:15. > :44:19.position. I would go so far as to say that I think it is obscene that
:44:19. > :44:25.Southampton are demanding that we pay the money back when nobody has
:44:25. > :44:30.asked for it. It is obscene that you asking for money! I am
:44:30. > :44:36.disappointed that he has said that what I am saying is not true. I am
:44:36. > :44:40.not a liar. You cannot pick things in isolation. We have not had huge
:44:40. > :44:44.investment in our roads. We have recently secured a regional growth
:44:44. > :44:50.fund the bid and that is not for the port, that is for Southampton
:44:50. > :44:55.and the water run -- waterfront and it is for redevelopment and
:44:55. > :45:00.tackling a specific congestion problem. There are containers that
:45:00. > :45:08.do not need to go on the road and that neutralises any of the subsidy
:45:08. > :45:16.that Joe talks about. We simply do not have one. This is not fair.
:45:16. > :45:19.we you go to lawyers? We may still seek a judicial review. If it goes
:45:20. > :45:27.against you will you continue to aim for cruise liners? Yes we will
:45:27. > :45:31.fight it all the way. If we pay all the money back, up Royston would
:45:31. > :45:39.have no objection and especially if the European Union do not want the
:45:39. > :45:44.money. If he is asking us to find another �3.5 million then he would
:45:44. > :45:48.have no objection? You are trying to put words in my mouth. If you
:45:49. > :45:53.pay it all back I will have no objections at all. If the European
:45:53. > :45:57.Union do not ask you for the money, then that is for them. The only way
:45:57. > :46:01.for this to be there would be if you pay it all back. Thank you very
:46:01. > :46:04.much. As we mark Remembrance Sunday, this
:46:04. > :46:06.year is rather a special one for the town of Carterton in
:46:06. > :46:09.Oxfordshire. It recently became the new route for military
:46:09. > :46:13.repatriations and as Emma Vardy reports, many people have begun
:46:13. > :46:16.turning out to pay tribute. For four years the bodies of
:46:16. > :46:20.military personnel passed through the Wiltshire town of Royal Wootton
:46:20. > :46:23.Bassett. Hundreds of people began to line the streets to honour
:46:23. > :46:32.fallen soliders and these scenes of silent tribute became famous around
:46:32. > :46:37.the world. Now RAF Brize Norton in West Oxfordshire has taken on these
:46:37. > :46:40.duties. This week the local town of Carterton hosted its fourth
:46:40. > :46:50.repatriation and here too people have been turning out to pay their
:46:50. > :46:53.
:46:53. > :46:59.respects. We decided we had to go. We are glad we did go. We hope we
:46:59. > :47:05.do not have to go to aid the poor. I went up for two of them. I have
:47:05. > :47:10.been brought up with the army life and the RAF life and to me it is it
:47:10. > :47:14.nature to go up there. It was something out of the ordinary and
:47:14. > :47:24.you would not want to be the family stood there. It is gut-wrenching
:47:24. > :47:28.singing that. It sends shivers every time. When you speak to
:47:28. > :47:32.people in Carterton you get a sense of how seriously the community has
:47:32. > :47:36.embraced its responsibilities. This memorial garden was built by the
:47:36. > :47:43.local council alongside the repatriation route and it is here
:47:43. > :47:46.that the family's stand to watch the cortege passed by. We have
:47:46. > :47:50.never tried to be the equal of Wootton Bassett. They did it our
:47:50. > :47:55.way and we have done it the Oxfordshire Way. It is a community
:47:55. > :47:59.event and it is working well. Oxfordshire has also pledged its
:47:59. > :48:07.support for the military in the form of a new government --
:48:07. > :48:10.covenants and by the county council. The agreement aims to encourage
:48:10. > :48:12.local charities and businesses to offer support to service personnel
:48:12. > :48:14.and their families. The government is offering financial grants to
:48:15. > :48:17.encourage other authorities to do the same.
:48:17. > :48:20.Tom Hedges is president of the Royal British Legion in Ramsden,
:48:20. > :48:24.and says now the repatriation route has moved to nearby Carterton he's
:48:24. > :48:32.proud to see the community turning out to mark each one, and hopes the
:48:32. > :48:36.tributes will continue. I do not see why it shouldn't. It is quite
:48:36. > :48:39.wonderful. As we mark Remembrance Day, for Tom
:48:39. > :48:46.the modern repatriations are also a reminder of how much things have
:48:46. > :48:51.changed since the First and Second World Wars. It is vastly different.
:48:51. > :48:58.We did not have television. We had the radio. You can see things
:48:58. > :49:03.happening there. You actually see the terrible conflict. It is
:49:03. > :49:06.brought in to your homes. Homecomings like this may become a
:49:06. > :49:13.familiar sight for the people of Carterton. And many say they'll
:49:13. > :49:17.keep up the tradition, gathering to acknowledge each life lost. It is
:49:17. > :49:21.something we can all do as a community without there being
:49:21. > :49:27.really no reason behind it. Hopefully it will stay exactly the
:49:27. > :49:33.same as it has been, if not more successful. There is not many of us
:49:33. > :49:37.oldies left that were in the war. There are not many of us. It is all
:49:37. > :49:46.the sons and daughters and their grandson's and their granddaughters
:49:46. > :49:49.that a really becoming involved. Last week the Government announced
:49:49. > :49:55.it was halving the feeding tariff made -- paid to those who had
:49:55. > :49:58.installed solar panels. It is the subsidy for feeding electricity
:49:58. > :50:03.into the national grid. The government said the original price
:50:03. > :50:07.was unsustainable and the industry says it will cost jobs. People who
:50:07. > :50:12.have signed up for this tariff will continue to get it for 25 years so
:50:12. > :50:17.it is a generous scheme and very successful, just what you wanted.
:50:17. > :50:21.It has been very successful. It always was the idea that the amount
:50:21. > :50:26.provided for under writing would go down over the years and there is a
:50:26. > :50:29.review coming up next year. Do you think this is damaging? It is very
:50:29. > :50:34.damaging because the Government has stated that the price for the
:50:34. > :50:38.underwriting is going to be half that within six weeks time and that
:50:38. > :50:42.is too short a period for anybody who has got their scheme under way
:50:42. > :50:45.at the moment to get it completed an end in time. There are
:50:45. > :50:49.businesses who have got solar panels on the break from Tyne and
:50:49. > :50:53.they will not get them in in time so the orders may be cancelled.
:50:54. > :50:58.was talking to one of those companies yesterday. They have a
:50:58. > :51:01.large number of solar panels on the sea as we speak and they will be
:51:01. > :51:04.completely redundant and there will be a large amount of job losses in
:51:05. > :51:10.the industry and a number of people who will simply not be able to get
:51:10. > :51:14.their schemes finished. There is indeed a further reduction for
:51:14. > :51:19.community schemes over and above. Some of the schemes in places like
:51:19. > :51:23.Southampton will not be able to happen. It really is and are
:51:23. > :51:27.necessary catastrophe, I think. It is something that even now could be
:51:27. > :51:31.rectified. The anger is growing. Do you think they will have to back
:51:31. > :51:36.down? The least they would have to do is make sure there is sufficient
:51:36. > :51:39.time to get their schemes under way. They have got to review the whole
:51:39. > :51:44.way of doing this in the future because if we keep having these
:51:44. > :51:51.policy lurches, it will create complete uncertainty and mistrust
:51:51. > :51:54.for the future. No one will ever believe what is said about
:51:54. > :51:58.renewable energy schemes and that could be quite disastrous. Thank