Businesses refuse to take blame for dock tax crisis; Firms 'astounded' at minister.

Byline: BY BEN SCHOFIELD and ROB MERRICK Daily Post Staff

MERSEYSIDE'S port-based businesses were "astounded" yesterday after a Government minister told them they should have been better prepared for an increase in dock taxes.

Local government minister John Healey ignited a fresh row with firms struggling to pay backdated bills of up to pounds 2m by claiming they were partially to blame for the crisis.

But at a meeting of a Mersey pressure group yesterday, company bosses dismissed Mr Healey's criticism.

Dave Pendleton, business development manager at industry lobbyists Mersey Maritime, met port business leaders at the Mersey Dock Rating Group.

The group was formed after it emerged a change in the way rates were paid meant they faced huge bills, backdated to April 2005. Mersey Maritime has warned the city region could lose 3,000 jobs as firms are made bankrupt.

Mr Pendleton said last night: "They were quite astounded.

One of them said 'how do we foresee a bill that's 65% of our turnover?'"

In a Westminster press conference Mr Healey said firms had had plenty of time to prepare to pay the bills. He also unveiled a package that will allow firms to spread payment over eight years, in a bid to minimise job losses.

Another concession will allow bills for the current financial year to be paid over eight years instead of debts up to March 2008, as originally proposed.

And Mr Healey announced plans to meet Peel Ports, who own the Port of Liverpool, to press for companies who have already paid rates to the operator to be reimbursed.

But the minister also switched tack by turning on company bosses for failing to heed clear signals that the shake-up, which makes firms, rather than the port operator, responsible for paying rates, was looming.

He said:"Some of the companies protesting were already paying business rates separately on some properties within the ports and they have professional advisers and lobbyists who should have alerted them to the ports review.

"Furthermore, some of the companies would have been aware there was a legal challenge in Southampton in 2004 and that the outcome might be separate bills."

But the minister could not guarantee his aid scheme would not leave firms technically insolvent.

[e-mail]