The North East of England has always known what it means to build. With a proud industrial heritage rooted in shipbuilding, steel, and chemicals—and a present defined by clean energy, advanced manufacturing, and a net-exporting economy—this region has never stood still. Our geography has shaped us, but more importantly, it positions us to shape what comes next.
Today, we are home to some of the most advanced industrial clusters in Europe: the chemical and process powerhouses of NEPIC, the green energy frontier in Blyth, and the EV transformation centred around Sunderland. From the legacy of British Steel and ICI to innovation hubs like CPI and ORE Catapult, the North East is forging its future with ambition and purpose.
But as the UK government introduces new tools to stimulate regional growth—most prominently, the reintroduction of Freeports—we must ask: do these initiatives match the scale and nature of our potential? Are Freeports fit to be the launchpads for our global ambitions, or are they simply a political repackaging of old ideas with limited economic return?
Repackaging an old idea
Freeports are not new. But their post-Brexit reinvention gave them renewed political prominence. Relaunched in 2021 as part of the government’s “levelling up” agenda, Freeports were billed as a cornerstone of regional renewal offering investment, jobs, and a gateway to global markets.
In theory, Freeports allow businesses to operate in special customs zones near ports or airports where goods can be imported, processed, and re-exported with reduced tariffs and streamlined regulation. In the UK model, this is bolstered by:
- Capital allowance and tax reliefs
- Simplified planning rules
- Public-private governance boards
But unlike many successful international examples, the UK’s approach diverges from best practice. Several designated sites are inland. Actual customs activity is minimal. And economic strategy often appears shallow, improvised, or secondary to political optics.
One striking example is the unsuccessful Freeport bid from the North of Tyne Combined Authority (NTCA). Backed by a strong public-private coalition and aligned with the clean growth potential of the Northumberland coast, the proposal reflected the region’s ambition to integrate trade with offshore wind, green hydrogen, and innovation. Yet it was not selected.
The implications are twofold: it raises questions about how Freeport locations were chosen, and whether strategic fit or political favour played the greater role. More importantly, it highlights a missed opportunity. A bid designed to catalyse genuinely sustainable growth was passed over, despite being built on precisely the kind of industrial future the UK claims to champion.
What have Freeports delivered so far?
Jobs and Investment:
The UK government claims that Freeports have unlocked £6.4 billion in investment. But only £2.9 billion is confirmed. In terms of jobs, between 6,000 and 7,200 are listed as created or committed across all English Freeports. Independent estimates suggest only 1,200–1,500 of these are genuinely new rather than relocated, reclassified, or displaced from elsewhere.
That’s less than 2% of the original promise of 86,000 jobs.
Customs Use:
Despite customs simplification being a headline benefit, uptake has been minimal. By late 2024, only six businesses had signed up across all English Freeports. The reason is simple: UK tariffs are already relatively low, and the paperwork often outweighs the marginal gains.
Cost and Value:
The public cost of Freeports—through tax reliefs, seed funding, and infrastructure—is estimated at £2.5 billion and rising. That equates to between £347,000 and £1.6 million per job created—well above the cost-effectiveness of other targeted economic interventions.
Governance and Trust:
Freeports have also been dogged by concerns over transparency and public benefit. The Teesside Freeport faced scrutiny over how public land was transferred to private developers. A 2023 review found no legal wrongdoing, but raised red flags about oversight, governance, and public value.
International lessons: what actually works
Freeports can succeed—but not by accident, and not through tax breaks alone.
Globally, the most effective Freeport-style zones are built on long-term industrial strategies, sector focus, skills development, and strong public governance. They are not simply deregulatory experiments; they are carefully designed engines of economic transformation.
- Singapore and South Korea embed Freeports in national industrial policy. These zones are tied to infrastructure, research, and skills—allowing firms to scale up in high-value sectors.
- The Netherlands and Ireland link Freeports to workforce and education strategy, ensuring local people, not just investors, share the benefits.
- Poland delivers transparent governance and ongoing performance monitoring.
- In the United States, Free Trade Zones thrive when aligned with regional clusters: automotive in Michigan, aerospace in the Carolinas, logistics in Texas.
The common thread? Success requires more than incentives. It depends on alignment to sector strengths, integration with skills systems, and governance that earns public trust.
Could Freeports work in the North East? Yes—but not like this
The North East has all the ingredients for a globally relevant Freeport model.
Our ports—Blyth, Tyne, Tees, Sunderland, Hartlepool—are not just gateways; they are embedded in thriving industrial ecosystems. We export advanced manufacturing, offshore energy, and engineered solutions to the world. The infrastructure is here. So is the talent.
What’s missing is a Freeport model that works with the grain of that success.
Right now, Freeports in the UK are being shaped by short-term politics and headline metrics. Without strategic alignment to skills, supply chains, and local priorities, they risk becoming isolated zones—disconnected from the very economies they’re meant to accelerate.
The North East needs more than tax breaks. It needs:
- Investment in clusters that already perform globally
- Integration with the skills system, from technical colleges to university R&D
- Transparent, accountable governance
- A meaningful role for local and combined authorities in shaping strategy
The failure to support the North of Tyne Freeport bid was more than a setback. It exposed the misalignment between local vision and national policy. That bid offered a blueprint for how Freeports could support a green, inclusive industrial future. Its rejection speaks volumes.
A better model is possible; one that builds from place, not just policy.
The North East is ready. The question now is whether national strategy is ready to catch up.
CLICK HERE TO SUPPORT THE BYLINES NETWORK CROWDFUNDER!
