Kings Dock - Press Release April 02

Kings Dock

Blue Kipper has been involved with the "Everton for Kings Dock" movement from the start.

EfKD issued a press release on 2nd April in response to Early Day Motion (EDM) 923 put down in the House of Commons by Peter Kilfoyle, Labour MP for Walton, and six other Merseyside MPs. The Motion is in two parts, stating support for the Kings Dock project but questioning whether public funds, particularly monies from the European Union (EU) should be used for the development.

EfKD was pleased to note support for the project but rejected the implication that the project is not a suitable EU Objective 1 scheme.

Two responses have now been received from Peter Kilfoyle, copies of which are appended hereunder. One was received by the Blue Kipper fans website and the other by Phil Pellow, Co-ordinator of EfKD. It is important to read these before reading this press release.

George Howarth sent a reply that merely referred to Mr. Kilfoyle's response. EfKD have not received any response from any of the other local MPs signing the Motion (Joe Benton, Frank Field, Edward O'Hara, Robert Wareing and Shaun Woodward).

The Labour MP for Liverpool Riverside, where the development is located, Louise Ellman, did not sign the Motion and supports the project.

EfKD deplores any attempt to put politics before the economic and social needs of our city and our citizens who include Everton football club and its fans. We reject the EDM'S transparent and misleading attempt to endanger a truly outstanding and catalytic regeneration project, which will benefit the whole of Merseyside. EfKD believes the EDM and Peter Kilfoyle's responses to our subsequent press release are factually inaccurate and designed to mislead. In particular:

* Mr. Kilfoyle has made no attempt to deny any of the facts previously established by EfKD regarding the use of EU Objective 1 Funds.

* Mr. Kilfoyle continues to ignore the expressed views of a massive majority of Evertonians. 86.5% of our fans voted for relocation to Kings Dock in an open ballot conducted by our club. Many of our fans live in Merseyside, including many in North Liverpool and Mr. Kilfoyle's own constituency of Walton.

* The MPs who signed the EDM, led by Mr. Kilfoyle in particular, fail to accept or acknowledge that the Kings Dock project is a revolutionary public/private partnership. Mr. Kilfoyle appears unable or unwilling to provide any evidence to challenge the propriety and social responsibility for the public sector to take a 50% stake in this project. Mr. Kilfoyle appears to advocate market-testing for a project that is specifically and consciously designed to meet EU Objective 1 programme criteria for economic and social benefit in order to justify a long-term public sector shareholding. If this market-testing was applied en- masse to EU Objective 1 projects it would ensure the death knell of any such project in any Merseyside constituency, including Walton. This is a curious and surely indefensible position for an MP in a socially deprived constituency with little or any prospect of raising money on the so-called "open market." Market-testing does nothing to regenerate either Merseyside as a whole or specific in-need communities such as Walton and is a complete irrelevance given the facts about the nature of the Kings Dock project set out in the EfKD press release.

* Mr. Kilfoyle accuses the EfKD press release of being "…very misleading" and of suiting "…your own prejudices" but nowhere details either accusation. Our press release detailed verified and checkable facts in response to the misleading rhetorical nonsense of the EDM. Mr. Kilfoyle has again responded with rhetoric. It should be noted that Jim Gill, CEO of Liverpool Vision, confirmed on national radio (on 9 April 2002) EfKD's understanding of the key aspects of the EU Objective 1 funding situation and the nature of the Kings Dock development. We stress again that Kings Dock is a public-private partnership designed to provide a massive regenerative boost to Merseyside as a whole. EfKD will be delighted to engage in a detailed debate when and if Mr. Kilfoyle or any other signatory of the EDM finally decides to deal in facts. We cannot debate empty rhetoric.

* Mr. Kilfoyle claims to offer support for the Kings Dock project but was reported in the Liverpool Daily Post of February 19th to be in "bitter opposition" to the project. The reporter (Tariq Tahir) has confirmed from his interview audio tapes that Mr. Kilfoyle said he was opposed to the project if the Walton constituency did not receive compensatory European funding when Everton relocate, making clear his true objection to the scheme.

* EfKD believes the EDM is deliberately contradictory and incorrect in its understanding of the origin of the Kings Dock project and Mr. Kilfoyle perpetuates the confusion. In one of his responses to the press release he says that it is a City Council project. In the other he says it is a private sector project. If he cannot be clear on the entire basis of the scheme we must question his command of the issue. EfKD would also be concerned if Mr. Kilfoyle's attitude towards the Kings Dock project were in any way influenced by the fact that the City Council is not controlled by his own political party.

* If the project does not proceed Merseyside could lose yet another prestigious project, ending the prospect of 3,000 jobs and a 'landmark' development to raise the national and international profile of the city. It should be noted that Merseyside lost the Imperial War Museum of the North to Manchester for precisely this kind of reason. EfKD asks if Peter Kilfoyle and the other local MPs who signed the EDM are intent on adding to this and are seriously prepared to countenance a loss of 3,000 potential jobs. It should also be noted that Manchester City Football Club will inherit a stadium constructed through private/public partnership without "market-testing."

* Furthermore, EfKD notes that EU Objective 1 Funding has been available since 1994 and, given the continuing trend of massive under-spending, EfKD respectfully suggests that local politicians might better serve their constituents by concentrating on promoting positive schemes for EU participation rather than by erroneous and politically motivated criticisms of one of the few schemes actively seeking to provide an economic and social boost to Merseyside.

In summary, EfKD believes that the actions of Mr. Kilfoyle suggest his objective is to impede the most important regeneration project currently on Merseyside. EfKD has no political affiliations but strongly believes that this sort of negative intervention by local MPs takes Liverpool and Merseyside back to an era which every progressive individual and organisation considered to have been left behind.

EfKD challenges Peter Kilfoyle to an open and public debate on the internet on these issues. We would welcome responses from other MPs who signed this confused and ill-informed EDM, who may wish to clarify the factual position as set out in our press release and as contrasted to the inaccurate and misleading responses received from Mr. Kilfoyle. EfKD's opinion is that the views expressed in the EDM and subsequently by Mr. Kilfoyle are factually incorrect, misleading in their presentation, out of line with official Government policy and out of step with the wishes of local constituents and the people of Merseyside.

-----Original Message-----
From: KILFOYLE, Peter [mailto:KILFOYLEP@parliament.uk]
Sent: Friday, April 05, 2002 3:55 PM
To: 'kipper@bluekipper.com'
Cc: BENTON, Joe; FIELD, Frank; O'HARA, Edward; WOODWARD, Shaun
Subject: King's Dock

I call myself an Evertonian, but I am conscious of the needs of the people of north Liverpool. Your report on our Early Day Motion is very misleading. You choose what you want from it to suit your own prejudices. We wish the arena plan well-after all, I have argued for one for the last ten years. It is not as if it is an Everton initiative-the proposal came from the city council. Everton will have the use of the arena for about 20-25 days per
year. The cost of the arena(forget the rest of the developments on the site-they are nothing to do with Everton F.C.) is to be £155million, with £65million coming from public funds. Our argument is simple-good luck to the development, but if it is so good, why can it not the £65million be raised on the open market?

In you undated unaddressed letter, you show a sublime ignorance of the reasons why a number of local Members of Parliament signed EDM923.

Firstly, no one disputes that the Kings Dock project looks very impressive; nor would anyone wish to stand in the way of a commercially viable project. Others will decide on its planning merits, and its putative neighbours will no doubt have their say at the planning stage.

However, your reflections on Objective One funding bear no relevance to the concern expressed in the early day motion - i.e. that public monies which might be better spent on the people of Merseyside are being used to support a private sector initiative about which many have expressed doubts.

Let me put it simply: if the project is such a surefire winner, why can it not raise funds required on the open market? Quite honestly, there can only be two reasons. One is that the market might take a different view; the other is that it is a cheaper way to raise the necessary funding.

I do not know who or what EfKD is; nor do I know who it represents, and with what authority. I do know that Members of Parliament are elected, and have a duty of care towards their constituents' interests. It is not only right that we express their concerns, but it is our duty.