East Midlands Freeport

Time to clear up some freeport facts (a thread) 1. We are here to attract international investment to 3 sites. To globally compete, we offer 4 tax reliefs: * Business rates (5 years) * Employer NI contributions (3 years) * Stamp Duty * Discounted Structures & Buildings Allowance

The latest East Midlands Freeport Board meeting minutes (July) are now available on our website: emfreeport.com/board-and-comm…

@PROT_DISEWORTH @EuropeanPowell @Hack4Labour @MJSquiresReform @craig_smithUK @NWLeics @CllrJohnLegrys @CllrDTaylor @CllrChrisHills @carlbenfield @CommunityPlann1 @greenbeltsal @IsScotland4Sale @edcollard1 @ITVCentral @CentralBylines @PrivateEyeNews @CharlesAPugsley Turn of phrase - our goal is to see these sites developed. But no we don't own the land and whatever planning processes are used is a decision for the developers/landowners to take.

@EMidsFreeport @EuropeanPowell @Hack4Labour @MJSquiresReform @craig_smithUK @NWLeics @CllrJohnLegrys @CllrDTaylor @CllrChrisHills @carlbenfield @CommunityPlann1 @greenbeltsal @IsScotland4Sale @edcollard1 @ITVCentral @CentralBylines @PrivateEyeNews @CharlesAPugsley You aren't developing anything, you don't own any land, as you have previously said numerous times.

@EMidsFreeport what land have you included in 160 hectares?If it's land south of A453 you fail to state NO planning exists on this land. It's currently being farmed! Transparency @EuropeanPowell @Hack4Labour @MJSquiresReform @craig_smithUK @NWLeics @CllrJohnLegrys @CllrDTaylor

@PROT_DISEWORTH @EuropeanPowell @Hack4Labour @MJSquiresReform @craig_smithUK @NWLeics @CllrJohnLegrys @CllrDTaylor @CllrChrisHills @carlbenfield @CommunityPlann1 @greenbeltsal @IsScotland4Sale @edcollard1 @ITVCentral @CentralBylines @PrivateEyeNews @CharlesAPugsley No, it can't. Only the Government can alter the tax sites. We have no power/ability to do so. Yes that's right. Only the land designed in our tax sites will be the freeport's focus. We'll support projects, but we will not develop outside of the tax sites.

@EMidsFreeport @EuropeanPowell @Hack4Labour @MJSquiresReform @craig_smithUK @NWLeics @CllrJohnLegrys @CllrDTaylor @CllrChrisHills @carlbenfield @CommunityPlann1 @greenbeltsal @IsScotland4Sale @edcollard1 @ITVCentral @CentralBylines @PrivateEyeNews @CharlesAPugsley Any land in your area can be designated should landowners and councils propose it surely? What you're suggesting is that the 3 sites designated will be the only ones?

@PROT_DISEWORTH @EuropeanPowell @Hack4Labour @MJSquiresReform @craig_smithUK @NWLeics @CllrJohnLegrys @CllrDTaylor @CllrChrisHills @carlbenfield @CommunityPlann1 @greenbeltsal @IsScotland4Sale @edcollard1 @ITVCentral @CentralBylines @PrivateEyeNews @CharlesAPugsley That is simply not true. We are only developing land in our tax sites. We have no reason/desire to develop anywhere outside of them. The 45km is the area in which we will support projects funded by the income generated by the freeport, agreed by only public sector Board members.

@EMidsFreeport @EuropeanPowell @Hack4Labour @MJSquiresReform @craig_smithUK @NWLeics @CllrJohnLegrys @CllrDTaylor @CllrChrisHills @carlbenfield @CommunityPlann1 @greenbeltsal @IsScotland4Sale @edcollard1 @ITVCentral @CentralBylines @PrivateEyeNews @CharlesAPugsley Yippee for the loss of agricultural land. That makes it fine then. Meanwhile food security is an issue. Take note people if you live within 45 kms of a Freeport all land is up for land grabs!! It's only sin is that it's in the Freeport boundary! Happy Friday!!

@PROT_DISEWORTH @EuropeanPowell @Hack4Labour @MJSquiresReform @craig_smithUK @NWLeics @CllrJohnLegrys @CllrDTaylor @CllrChrisHills @carlbenfield @CommunityPlann1 @greenbeltsal @IsScotland4Sale @edcollard1 @ITVCentral @CentralBylines @PrivateEyeNews @CharlesAPugsley None of the sites had planning permission prior to the bidding process, this wasn't a factor in their selection. They are development sites. Landowners and local authorities put forward plots of land to be part of the freeport, this was assessed and agreed by the Govt.

@EMidsFreeport @EuropeanPowell @Hack4Labour @MJSquiresReform @craig_smithUK @NWLeics @CllrJohnLegrys @CllrDTaylor @CllrChrisHills @carlbenfield @CommunityPlann1 @greenbeltsal @IsScotland4Sale @edcollard1 @ITVCentral @CentralBylines @PrivateEyeNews @CharlesAPugsley LAnd south of the A453 has not been given planning permission. The inclusion of this land as part of the Freeport is questionable as to why. You'll no doubt quote your updated business case? Land not in current local plan, why are you intent on destroying agricultural land? Food?

The latest East Midlands Freeport Board meeting minutes (April and June) are now available on our website: emfreeport.com/board-and-comm…

@PROT_DISEWORTH @Hack4Labour @MJSquiresReform @CllrDTaylor @craig_smithUK @CharlesAPugsley @ClaireWard4EM The £1bn is the forecasted retained business rates we are expected to generate and reinvest across the East Midlands during our lifespan. Decisions on how this is spent will be made by our public sector Board Members. The evidence is in our FBC - emfreeport.com/wp-content/upl…

Where is the 1 billion figure from? Supporting evidence? Interestingly the focus in this article puts air and rail links first. @Hack4Labour @MJSquiresReform @CllrDTaylor @craig_smithUK @CharlesAPugsley @ClaireWard4EM linkedin.com/posts/east-mid…

@PROT_DISEWORTH @EuropeanPowell @Hack4Labour @MJSquiresReform Publish Data: We will do shortly. Displacement: Businesses must apply for business rates - those wanting to cash in by moving, will not be approved. Job Costs: This was the select cttee's analysis. We don't track this. Engagement: You've been invited to our community forums.

@EMidsFreeport @EuropeanPowell @Hack4Labour @MJSquiresReform Answer the questions raised if you're happy to speak to anyone please.

Here we go again now 28,000 jobs! Talk about a moveable feast @EuropeanPowell @EMidsFreeport @Hack4Labour @MJSquiresReform Let's pick a number, any number. Meanwhile no one can state how many jobs the Freeport have created to date. linkedin.com/posts/east-mid…

@EuropeanPowell @PROT_DISEWORTH @Hack4Labour @MJSquiresReform Our target comes from our Govt agreed business case. The data in the select cttee report is from 2023. We were created in March 2023, so our data was not available. Our stats will be published soon. Happy to speak with anyone about the freeport and what we're here to do.

Your recent post on July 3, 2025, claiming 28,000 jobs over 25 years for the East Midlands Freeport is an unrealistic target. publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm5804/cmse… However, as a stakeholder interested in the region’s economic future, I urge a deeper look at the data and transparency to ensure these projections hold up under scrutiny, especially given concerns raised by myself and @PROT_DISEWORTH in this thread. Current Data and Progress The report indicates that all eight English Freeports have collectively created 5,600 jobs since early 2023, representing just 4% of the national target of 214,000 jobs by 2043 (Page 14, Paragraph 15). For East Midlands specifically, current employment data is marked “N/A” (not publicly disclosed), and only £175 million in private investment has been secured to date—significantly lower than Teesside (£1.1 billion) or Humber (£516 million) (Page 15, Figure 3a). With the Freeport operational since early 2025 (per emfreeport.com, March 2025 launch), this lack of reported progress raises questions about the 28,000-job timeline’s feasibility, especially in its first months. Displacement and Net Job Creation My assertion that two-thirds of the 5,600 national jobs may be displaced (approximately 3,733 jobs) finds support in historical precedents. The 2011 enterprise zones saw at least one-third of jobs displaced (Centre for Cities, 2019), and Professor Steve Fothergill’s evidence to the Committee suggests a two-thirds rule of thumb for deadweight or displacement (Page 12, Paragraph 18). While mitigations (e.g., targeting undeveloped sites, limiting tax breaks to new employment) are in place, their effectiveness remains unproven. If this pattern applies to East Midlands, the net new jobs from your 28,900 target could be as low as 9,633 over 25 years, assuming a similar displacement rate. As an inland Freeport, the risk of job relocation from nearby regions (e.g., Nottinghamshire) rather than new investment could further erode this figure. Cost-Benefit Analysis The report estimates a public subsidy of £2,500 per job based on a £500 million total cost over 10 years (Page 14, Paragraph 15), a figure subject to high uncertainty due to tax relief uptake. For East Midlands, if £175 million in private investment yields no jobs yet, and public funding (e.g., £25 million for land remediation per policy, Page 10, Paragraph 8) is added, the cost per job could escalate without clear output. @PROT_DISEWORTH ’s request for a per-job cost breakdown is valid—without it, taxpayers can’t assess value for money, especially if many jobs are displaced. Long-Term Context and Risks Your 25-year horizon (to 2050) extends beyond the report’s 20-year estimate (to 2043), suggesting optimism tied to regional strengths like logistics and Net Zero sectors (e.g., Hydrogen Skills Academy, per gov.uk, 2022). However, the report warns that success depends on long-term political commitment, cluster formation, and worker relocation (Page 7, Summary; Page 12, Paragraph 19). The focus on advanced manufacturing—a non-services sector less prone to clustering (Page 16, Paragraph 17)—could hinder spillovers. Additionally, the Teesside Freeport case (Page 28-32, Appendix 1) highlights governance risks, with £560 million public investment yielding 2,295 direct jobs, underscoring the need for robust oversight. Transparency and Next Steps. The Committee’s report criticises the lack of published business cases and delays in the 2023 Annual Report (Page 26, Paragraphs 51-54), recommending quantitative impact assessments and dashboards. East Midlands’ “N/A” data fuels scepticism, as noted by @PROT_DISEWORTH To address this: Publish Current Data: Share the number of jobs created since March 2025 and a breakdown of the £175 million investment. Address Displacement: Provide evidence on mitigations’ effectiveness or a displacement estimate for East Midlands. Cost Transparency: Detail public and private funding allocations per job, aligning with the £2,500 benchmark. Engage Stakeholders: Respond to calls for a per-Freeport analysis, as suggested by @PROT_DISEWORTH , to build trust.

@PROT_DISEWORTH Thank you for the feedback. We have now updated our website with details of the upcoming meetings: emfreeport.com/board-and-comm…

@EMidsFreeport Hoping for an answer to how the general public would know you didn't hold a meeting in May. There is nothing alluding to this in your last minutes. Is this information in your website?

@EMidsFreeport no latest minutes?

@EuropeanPowell @PROT_DISEWORTH @Hack4Labour @CllrJohnLegrys @Andrew9Boswell @LeicsCountyHall @glenfieldconse2 @TheCanaryUK We've already committed to publishing the data you and Protect Diseworth have requested. This will happen shortly and will be updated with the latest figures at regular intervals. The point we have made re: tax timescales is valid and corrects the inaccuracy in your article.

You can continue to deflect and nit-pick, but you are painting yourself into a corner here. Long-term projects do often take time to yield results, but the lack of interim data to show progress undermines your position. If even a fraction of the promised jobs had materialized, sharing that data could bolster your credibility. The absence of such figures, despite months of promises, supports my transparency critique. The data on job shortfalls and displacement is particularly damning, and the Freeport’s failure to provide updated figures weakens your defense. For communities like Diseworth, the immediate environmental and social costs seem to outweigh the benefits so far, especially if jobs aren’t accessible to locals. The broader debate in my Canary article about Freeports mirrors historical skepticism about their effectiveness, suggesting policymakers need to reassess their approach to ensure they deliver genuine, equitable growth. We will continue to amplify community voices and push for environmental accountability while keeping the pressure on. This isn’t just about one Freeport, it’s about whether such policies can truly "level up" regions without leaving communities behind. You are obliged to inform the public when questioned about all freeport developments, good and bad, you must release detailed jobs data immediately, broken down by new vs. displaced jobs and local vs. non-local hires, to address transparency concerns.

@eastmidlandsfreeport you are partial to debunking Freeport myths! Any response? Provide figures for how many new jobs you've created thus far? @Hack4Labour @CllrJohnLegrys @Andrew9Boswell @LeicsCountyHall @glenfieldconse2

@EuropeanPowell @PROT_DISEWORTH @Hack4Labour @CllrJohnLegrys @Andrew9Boswell @LeicsCountyHall @glenfieldconse2 @TheCanaryUK Again - it is not a misstep. It is the window available for businesses to apply not the duration of the business rates relief. This remains capped at five years. The details are here: gov.uk/government/pub…

Your response is a textbook example of the evasive tactics Freeports, LEPs, and councils have perfected—deflect, delay, and dismiss. But communities like Diseworth aren’t buying it, and neither should taxpayers footing your £19.78bn bill. Let’s cut through the noise with hard facts and harder truths. Evasion Isn’t Accountability: Claiming it’s “too early to judge” Freeports after two years is a deflection straight out of the LEP playbook. You projected over 28,000 new jobs for East Midlands Freeport (2023), yet a 2024 House of Commons report shows England’s eight Freeports delivered just 1,244 genuinely new jobs combined—a 96% shortfall. With a 66% displacement rate, most jobs are just relocated, costing taxpayers £896,246 per job. You’ve been promising updated jobs data since May 6 (t.co/65ZcoPXyFf) but still haven’t delivered. This isn’t “early”—it’s a failure to be transparent, a pattern we’ve seen from councils and LEPs for years when their promises don’t match reality. Communities Pay the Price for Your Delays: While you stall, Diseworth suffers. MP Amanda Hack (Derbyshire Live, 2024-08-13) highlighted the traffic, noise, and flooding risks your development brings near East Midlands Airport, with residents fearing their village will be “suffocated” by the “wanton destruction” of their countryside. Poor public transport means most Freeport jobs aren’t even accessible to locals, yet you claim to “deliver opportunities” (great.gov.uk). How does this benefit the community when your job creation is a fraction of what was promised? Your Missteps Undermine Your Credibility: You wrongly claimed tax reliefs are capped at 5 years, ignoring the UK government’s November 2023 announcement extending them to 10 years until 2031. This isn’t a minor error—it’s a sign of either ignorance or deliberate obfuscation, both of which erode trust. If you can’t get basic policy right, why should we believe your unproven claims about future success? This smells like the same lack of clarity LEPs and councils use to dodge scrutiny. Displacement Isn’t Progress—It’s a Scam: The Centre for Cities (2020) warned that Freeports and enterprise zones drive displacement, with at least one-third of jobs moving from elsewhere. Your 66% displacement rate is double that, proving this isn’t “economic renewal” but a reshuffling game that leaves regions hollowed out, as Lesley Brown noted (x.com/BrownLesley784…). Corporate giants like BlackRock, owning 80% of shares in three UK Freeports, win—not locals. Sound familiar? It’s the same story we’ve seen with LEP-led projects prioritizing business over people. End the Evasive Cycle—Show the Data: Freeports, LEPs, and councils have a long history of overpromising and underdelivering while hiding behind vague timelines. You’re following the script to a T. If Freeports are working, prove it. Release your jobs figures now: How many are truly new? How many benefit locals, not just relocated workers or corporate shareholders? And how do you justify the environmental and social costs to Diseworth when you’ve delivered so little? The public deserves answers, not more delays. #EastMidsFreeport #TransparencyNow

@EuropeanPowell @PROT_DISEWORTH @Hack4Labour @CllrJohnLegrys @Andrew9Boswell @LeicsCountyHall @glenfieldconse2 @TheCanaryUK Your analysis is based on Govt figures. But they are over a year old. It is unrealistic to expect that we created 28,000 jobs after 18 months into a 25 year programme. We've made no misstep on the tax reliefs. I'm afraid you have misunderstood the Government's announcement here.

As I said previously, it is not an opinion piece , it is a data based analysis based on the UK Governments own findings. Your claim that it’s “a bit early to judge” Freeports’ success after two years of operation is a convenient dodge that ignores the stark reality of your own numbers—or lack thereof. Let’s break this down with the facts you refuse to address head-on. Your Promises vs. Reality: You projected over 28,000 new jobs for East Midlands Freeport alone (2023 figures), yet a 2024 House of Commons report shows England’s eight Freeports have delivered just 1,244 genuinely new jobs combined. That’s a 96% shortfall across the board, with a 66% displacement rate—meaning most “new” jobs are just relocated, not created. At £896,246 per job (total cost £19.78bn for 22,067 jobs), this is an astronomical failure for taxpayers. If you’re sitting on “newer” data to disprove this, why haven’t you shared it despite promising to do so since May 6? (t.co/65ZcoPXyFf) Transparency shouldn’t be this hard. It’s Not “Too Early” When Communities Are Already Suffering: You dismiss the timeline, but for communities like Diseworth, the impacts are immediate. Residents face the “wanton destruction” of their countryside, increased traffic, noise, and flooding risks near East Midlands Airport, as noted by MP Amanda Hack (Derbyshire Live, 2024-08-13). Your development threatens to “suffocate” villages while offering little in return—most jobs aren’t even accessible due to poor public transport, forcing car dependency in an already strained area. How is this “delivering opportunities” for locals, as you claim on great.gov.uk? Your Tax Relief Misstep Doesn’t Inspire Confidence: You nitpicked my article’s reference to 10-year tax reliefs, claiming a maximum of 5 years, but the UK government announced in November 2023 that tax reliefs for English Freeports were extended to 10 years, claimable until 2031. This isn’t a minor detail—it’s a policy you should know inside out. If you’re wrong on this, what else are you misrepresenting? And even if laws are “the same” in Freeports, the deregulatory incentives you rely on (e.g., 0% employer NI contributions, 100% first-year allowances) disproportionately benefit corporations like BlackRock, who own 80% of shares in three UK Freeports, over local communities. Displacement Isn’t Progress: The Centre for Cities (2020) warned that Freeports and enterprise zones encourage displacement, with at least one-third of jobs simply moving from elsewhere. Your 66% displacement rate is double that estimate, proving this isn’t “economic renewal” but a reshuffling scam that leaves taxpayers footing the bill while regions lose their identity, as Lesley Brown aptly noted (x.com/BrownLesley784…). Stop Hiding, Start Delivering: You’ve had years to prepare for scrutiny, yet you deflect with vague promises of “sharing data shortly.” If Freeports are the boon you claim, why not release the numbers now? How many jobs have you created that are truly new? How many directly benefit locals rather than corporate giants? And how do you justify the environmental and social costs to Diseworth when your job creation is a fraction of what was promised?

@EuropeanPowell @PROT_DISEWORTH @Hack4Labour @CllrJohnLegrys @Andrew9Boswell @LeicsCountyHall @glenfieldconse2 @TheCanaryUK It is an opinion piece since you offer no right of reply to those referenced and it is your opinion about how Freeports are operating. Quite a bit of what you suggest is not factually accurate. For example, we are a not-for-profit. Our income will be reinvested in the region.

The article isn’t just an “opinion piece” as @EMidsFreeport claim—it’s a data-driven analysis citing government figures, a 2024 House of Commons report, and historical precedents (e.g., Thatcher and Cameron’s failed Freeport experiments). Their dismissal without counter-data looks like an attempt to avoid scrutiny, especially since they’ve been promising jobs figures since at least May 6, 2025, yet still haven’t delivered by May 9. The article also exposes broader systemic issues that @EMidsFreeport ignores, such as Labour’s complicity in continuing Tory Freeport policies and the technopopulist rhetoric (e.g., “levelling up”) that masks corporate favoritism. For the East Midlands Freeport, which operates near East Midlands Airport—a hub for logistics and manufacturing—these critiques are particularly relevant. The airport’s expansion could bring environmental and social challenges for Diseworth (e.g., noise, traffic, land use changes), yet @EMidsFreeport hasn’t addressed how their operations benefit locals over corporations.

@EuropeanPowell @PROT_DISEWORTH @Hack4Labour @CllrJohnLegrys @Andrew9Boswell @LeicsCountyHall @glenfieldconse2 You are basing the idea that Freeports aren't delivering on their output in the second year of them being operation of a 25 year licence. And the data you are basing that on is a year old. We'd argue that it's a bit early to make that judgement.

Quoting my article "These free zones, often near ports or airports, give businesses tax breaks for 10 years and deregulatory frameworks rules to draw them in" This refers generally to SEZs and Freeports. In November 2023, the UK government announced that, subject to each Freeport’s delivery plan, the duration of tax reliefs in English Freeports will be extended from 5 to 10 years, with benefits claimable until September 2031.” This directly contradicts your point. However, this doesn’t negate the core issue: Freeports are failing to deliver. My data, sourced from a 2024 House of Commons report, shows England’s eight Freeports created just 1,244 genuinely new jobs, with a 66% displacement rate, at a cost of £896,246 per job. If these stats are “dated,” where are your updated figures? You’ve been promising jobs data since May 6 (x.com/EMidsFreeport/…) but still haven’t delivered. Claiming “laws are the same” ignores the deregulatory incentives Freeports use to attract businesses, often at the expense of communities like Diseworth near East Midlands Airport. Share your jobs figures now—how many are truly new, and how many benefit locals? #EastMidsFreeport #TransparencyNow

@EuropeanPowell @PROT_DISEWORTH @Hack4Labour @CllrJohnLegrys @Andrew9Boswell @LeicsCountyHall @glenfieldconse2 No. The change was to the timeframe that businesses can apply for reliefs not the duration that they apply. They can now apply for business rates relief up to September 2031 instead of September 2026. The reliefs then apply for 5 years for business rates only.

Your statement that “the maximum is for 5 years” is outdated or incorrect as of November 2023. The extension to 10 years for English Freeports supports my article’s claim of 10-year tax breaks, though this change occurred after your data collection (likely based on the 2024 House of Commons report, which may reflect the earlier 5-year policy). As of November 2023, all 8 English Freeports—including East Midlands Freeport, Freeport East, Humber, Liverpool City Region, Plymouth and South Devon, Solent, Teesside, and Thames—have tax reliefs extended to 10 years, claimable until September 2031, subject to their delivery plans. Prior to this, the duration was 5 years.

@PROT_DISEWORTH @Hack4Labour @CllrJohnLegrys @Andrew9Boswell @LeicsCountyHall @glenfieldconse2 As we said, we'll be publishing our data shortly. The data across all Freeports is reported to the Government.

@EMidsFreeport @Hack4Labour @CllrJohnLegrys @Andrew9Boswell @LeicsCountyHall @glenfieldconse2 Where is the latest data?