howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
if the dppt bid fails then alex will be proved right.
Guest 1694- Registered: 24 Feb 2016
- Posts: 1,087
If the DHB proposals are approved by the DfT then the port will be sold to who-ever and concentrate on generating profits for its overseas shareholders and nothing is proved except the short sightedness of our political masters in Westminster. The opportunity for port and town to grow harmoniously with community benefit and ownership embedded in perpetuity will have passed forever.
Fortunately the wind does not appear set in DHB's favour and the final outcome will be decided by Parliament outside of the Ports Act 1991.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
neil
do you know if the minister is prepared to dispense with the ports act, has he intimated that to you?
Guest 1694- Registered: 24 Feb 2016
- Posts: 1,087
Hi Howard, I don't get intimations from Ministers of the Crown. The Government obviously intends to observe the law of the land and see the Ports Act process through to its conclusion.
If the DHB proposal is turned down by the Minister, that will be the end of the Ports Act process and the Government will be free to use the powers that exist under the Public Bodies Act 2011 which explicitly contains a clause allowing the Secretary of State to make an order about the Dover Harbour Board requiring them to wrap up their activities and make a transfer to an approved body as directed under the provisions of that Act. This order will be subject to 24 weeks of Parliamentary scrutiny before being served as directed by Parliament.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
neil
you hide your light under a bushel, only a few weeks back you were in the company of a peer of the realm - lord adonis.
Guest 1694- Registered: 24 Feb 2016
- Posts: 1,087
Lord Glasman is pictured above, he's helping with the campaign. Lord Adonis was the Minister for Ports and Shipping that encouraged DHB to start the privatisation process.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
apologies neil i get confused with all these aristocrats.
Guest 1694- Registered: 24 Feb 2016
- Posts: 1,087
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
I came across the below text under Public Bodies Act 2011, and wish to ask Neil or Richard, or Peter or any other DPPT manager some information, as it is not quite clear to me:
Who would the £200 million for the Port of Dover be paid to, the Treasury, or to the Port itself?
"Memorandum submitted by The Dover People's Port Trust Limited (PB 06)" September 2011
"At the end of last year we lodged a proposal to purchase the Port of Dover following professional advice from City funding advisers and lawyers. The essence of our proposal, which has funding support in principle from three international banks, is payment of a net £200 million for the Port plus £50 million and share of profits for regeneration."
Guest 1694- Registered: 24 Feb 2016
- Posts: 1,087
Should be perfectly clear Alex, nothing different from DPPT bid and offer for the port made on November 1st 2010. The Treasury is the recipient for the purchase price of the port (£200m net). That the Treasury get the purchase price of the port has been made quite clear in the public domain since the Government of the day, then Labour, encouraged DHB to put forward a privatisation proposal.
I think that you will find that Richard is not a manager or officer of the DPPT, although, along with thousands of others, he has shown support for our proposals.
Guest 688- Registered: 16 Jul 2009
- Posts: 268
I must confess Alexander,you do intrigue me on what your ultimate agenda is.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
So then from where does the money come for a T2. Neil?
John, my representation to the DfT asks for a transfer of the Port to the local Community free of charge, with no payment to the Treasury. If they accept my proposal, this will prevent the Port of Dover having £200 million of Public Debt transferred to it.
I cannot understand why Charlie and DPPT asked the DfT to inflict a £200 million purchase tag on our Port.
Guest 1694- Registered: 24 Feb 2016
- Posts: 1,087
Alexander, T2 funding has been explained previously on this forum, in the newspapers, on TV and on Radio. I am not about to explain it to you again.
The Treasury require 'fair market value' for the port, as do the DfT. Neither Charlie or I asked that this be the case and, in fact, have argued that the port should be endowed. However, the criteria around Trust Ports require that the treasury receives 'fair market value'. Insisting on getting the port for nothing would have achieved nothing except for a swift transfer under the DHB scheme and loss of the port forever into the hands of remote private equity owners. The DfT, Cabinet Office and the Treasury all made this abundantly clear.
The only opportunity at getting a land trust endowment of the port is to be taken seriously enough to ensure that the DHB proposals are rejected by making a funded, viable bid for the port at 'fair market value'. Once DHB proposals are out of the way and the next stage of the process, under the Public Bodies Act 2011, can be engaged, then, in Parliament, the chance exists to achieve a community land trust endowment of the port. However, if Treasury, the DfT and Cabinet Office insist on fair market value, then we know that that is achievable.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
I do not believe at all, Neil, that the DfT, the Cabinet Office and the Treasury made clear what you stated, nor that the Port of Dover would have by now been privatised if no offer were made to give the Treasury money in a Port transfer.
The DHB made of their own accord a sale bid in 2010, Labour did not put the Port up for sale.
This I have made clear in my representation, that our Port should remain a State asset, however transferred from Central to Local Government, as a local asset, run by a competent authority on behalf of the Local Government, be it DHB or whoever.
Because this would NOT be privatisation, nor a Port-sale, and not a transfer outside of the State's Authority, no money would need to be paid to the Treasury in order for such a transfer to take place.
It is DHB and DPPT who are asking for a Port sale.
Dover must wake up and realise this!
Charlie had campaigned for the Port to remain a State asset, he even made a petition for this, which I signed, among various petitions. Then, on being elected, Charlie turned coat and lobbied the Government and Parliament for a Port sale.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
There are many things Charlie had campaigned for, and then on election went the opposite road.
Guest 673- Registered: 16 Jun 2008
- Posts: 1,388
Re #197:
If DPPT aims to reverse the decline in ferry traffic figures through the Port of Dover as shown in the tables for 1997 and 2011 then these figures need to be viewed in context as a great deal has happened in the intervening period, and not forgetting that in 2011 the UK and Europe were, as now, suffering the effects of the deepest recession in living memory.
The figure of 21 million passengers in 1997 was an all time high. Almost all the rail passengers now travel by Eurostar, 10 million last year, with another 9 million passengers taking the Eurotunnel passenger shuttles. The rise in low cost airlines has abstracted further millions. The loss of duty free in 1999 resulted in a massive drop in daytrippers. Given all that, the figure of 13 million last year seems surprisingly high. With all the alternatives now available, it seems most unlikely that we shall ever see the 1997 figure again.
The drop in tourist cars from 3.5 million to 2.6 million is for much the same reasons. Eurotunnel carried 2.26 million cars last year, and large numbers chose to fly/drive with low cost airlines.
The drop in coaches to 85,000 is mirrored by Eurotunnel which only carried 56,000. Travelling by coach seems to be going out of fashion, maybe due to increased car ownership.
As we all well know, freight has increased by leaps and bounds since 1997, dropping off a bit since the recession started biting. It was the projected increases which inspired DHB to develop the plans for T2 and later to apply to privatise in order to be able to borrow money in view of the urgency of completing T2 post haste in order to handle the anticipated ever increasing flood of freight. Recession changed all that and T2 is now acknowledged as not being required for at least another ten years, if ever. The raison d'etre for privatisation has vanished but the process marches on with big bucks at the end of it for all those involved.
Eurotunnel is the major factor in the disappointing figures quoted for 2011 vis a vis 1997. A total of 284 million people and 57 million vehicles have travelled through the Channel Tunnel since its inception, the great majority in the period under question. Despite the overall growth in the cross channel market prior to the recession, it seems ingenuous to expect that this would not have an effect on traffic through Dover.
One bright spot is the flourishing cruise and cargo business built up over this period. DHB invested in the cruise and cargo terminals specifically as an alternative source of revenue in the face of the challenge from Eurotunnel.
It would be interesting to know what DPPT is apparently aiming to do to reverse the decline in ferry traffic since this is a factor of how much custom the ferry companies can attract and not something the port has any control over.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
one of the things that stood out in those figures was the dramatic decline in passenger numbers but not so much in cars. i would put this down to less foot passengers over a period of time when the euro gained over the pound and the french government hiked up tobacco prices..
i think the same applies to the fall in coach numbers, many just went across for a day out where they could have a drink without worrying about getting back.
Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
Brings us back to
theres only one option on the table at the moment,,,,,,,,,,,,
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 1694- Registered: 24 Feb 2016
- Posts: 1,087
Alexander, you may believe what you want about what has been made clear by Government departments. They have made it clear, that's a fact.
Labour told DHB to re-examine their corporate governance and ownership structure in 2008, the DHB were also told that, should they decide on making major changes and transferring to the private sector, the Government would look kindly on any proposed changes. DHB presented their proposals to the then Labour Government in December 2009 and the public and other stakeholders got to hear about parts of their proposal in early 2010 with further details and amendments in July/August 2010. BG and his team were convinced that they would be successful in March 2010 and remained so until the appearance of the DPPT alternative. If the only opposition had been 'no the privatisation, transfer it for free to the DDC' then 100% the port would already have been sold, BG would have eaten you alive.
The sale is out there, DPPT are trying to make sure that it is Dover and the surrounding area that benefit and not the DHB executive and a small number of remote equity shareholders, we didn't ask for it. And round we go again.
Ed, oddly enough other ports around the world are perfectly capable of attracting new cargo and business streams to their facilities that had previously been considered the function of the shipping lines. My customers' customers are also my customers. A change from sitting back and taking money from the ferry companies for the results of their marketing efforts, to actively marketing the port to freight originators will have some surprisingly good results. But that is just part of the story, the General Cargo terminal in Dover is currently operating above capacity and has no possibility for further growth where it is, there are more opportunities for growth in this sector. There are also other business sectors that the port could serve, but has not even approached as far as I can tell, including the high growth Blue Energy sector, which would serve to promote growth and diversity at the port.
As I have previously said, the DHB 30yr Masterplan is no longer valid or relevant to the changed global logistics market in which we now find ourselves and is in urgent need of a complete review. One of the very first tasks for the new team under DPPT will be to conduct such a review and begin building, modification to serve new market segments, allow expansion of General Cargo and Container, and further growth in Ro-Ro freight with a growing unaccompanied component (the move in this direction is indicated by changing modal transport patterns on the mainland already and we don't have to look too far afield to see other ports in our port range preparing for an acceleration of this change). Efficient Ro-Ro operations are, in the end, achieved through efficient traffic management landside connecting with efficient Vessel Traffic management seaside, the review of the masterplan will consider lay out how combinations of measures both landside and seaside and mixed modal handling facilities will deliver growth and efficiency.
I'm off to Egypt fairly soon to design a new port terminal, freight logistics park and intermodal corridor connections as part of the EU Motorways of the Seas project and I need to do my preparation work, so won't be posting for a bit.
Guest 732- Registered: 8 Nov 2011
- Posts: 128
Neil if you are looking for some help in designing the new port terminal in Egypt, could you not ask BG to accompany you as he has experience in this.
