The post you are reporting:
Basically, there were two issues to be confronted in the DHB privatisation scheme public consultation:
1) how to finance a future T2.
2) how to finance local regeneration from Port revenue.
A few further issues came up in the process:
3) how to finance the DHB pension pot.
4) how to motivate DHB staff with remuneration or wages.
The first two points were of essential interest to the Government-DfT.
I explained in my representations how both points 1 and 2 can be financed, and at the end of the day it means increasing charges on ferry tickets, but in all British ports, which would prevent traffic avoiding one port for another, and give all ports more financial income for development, as well as giving all port communities a financial revenue from port traffic and thus access to local regeneration through port revenues.
And I remained steadfast that this must NOT come about through debts and borrowing or through privatisation.
If DPPT claim to be a community port, their £400 million debt scheme would be a local public debt.
Equivalent to Britain taking on a £1 trillion public debt in addition to the one we already have.
If DPPT had been approved, please believe me, the people's port board would have been very soon BEGGING the Government to introduce additional port tolls to service their debt and pay it off.
Additional port tolls for all British ports would include road and rail freight, and would include a share to be given for LOCAL REGENERATION .
This share would be ENTIRELY independent and distinct from the share going to the ports for maintenance and expansion.
How else would, for example, DHB finance a new T2?
How would local regeneration for port communities otherwise be financed?
Keith, I am sure the Government have understood this, which is what counts, for all that I respect your views.