Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
I assume you are speaking for all DPPT there...
Guest 1694- Registered: 24 Feb 2016
- Posts: 1,087
Alex, you were invited, as was every other stakeholder and interested party, it was an open invite made by the Secretary of State last year in a written statement. You just did not respond to the invite.
I have never said that DPPT are the local community. I have said that DPPT are representative of the local community and will become more so as new members continue to join from across the district. There is a difference between being the local community, representing the local community and being representative of the local community. Being representative of the community does not mean that the entire community agree with us, obviously some don't. It does mean that we have as members people who live and/or work in the local community who hale from all walks of life, from Peers of the Realm to waiters in restuarants, and from a multitude of political persuasions and we are as a result representative of the community as a whole.
Members of the community, elected representatives from town, district, county and nation from all political and business persuations are involved with the DPPT project and actively support its aims and objectives, as do the other major stakeholders in the port.
You do not agree with our aims and objectives, fine, we can all disagree.
You have your own proposals and ideas for which you can actively demonstrate neither popular or stakeholder support, you have failed to take part in the ongoing consultations, ignoring a key invitation from the Secretary of State along the way. Below is the invite that you ignored:
"Delivered by: The Rt Hon Philip Hammond MP
Publisher: Department for Transport
Delivered date: 15 September 2011
Type: Written statement
Mode/topic: Shipping, Ports, UK shipping industry
The Secretary of State for Transport (Philip Hammond): On 3 August 2011, I announced the criteria that the Government will consider particularly relevant to the appropriateness of the sale of a major trust port in England or Wales under the Ports Act 1991. This followed the consultation that I announced on 16 May 2011 [Official Report Column 4WS] and which closed on 27 June. I regret that it was not possible to announce this first by Written Ministerial Statement to the House, but I did not wish to delay consideration of the application by Dover Harbour Board for a transfer scheme.
I am aware that Dover Harbour Board has now considered the criteria, intends to proceed with its application for a transfer scheme under the Ports Act 1991, and proposes to submit a new set of documents containing a further elaboration of its scheme for decision by the Minister of State under the new criteria. If interested parties would find it useful and seek my department's assistance, we would be happy to consider ways in which properly to facilitate discussions on all the options before the Dover Harbour Board submits its elaborated proposal."
It goes on a bit after that.
It is impossible to find any evidence of your own campaign on the local or national TV news, in the local or national newspapers or on local or national radio, so what campaign? Have you tested your ideas in the white heat of expert opinion? Have you done financial modelling for your ideas and had those models stress tested by independent experts? Have you spent at least 20 hours a week for the last two and a bit years gaining a full understanding of how a wide range of UK Legislation will impact on your ideas and the way in which the port may be able to invest and grow as a result of implementing them? Have you applied in depth expert knowledge of ports industry and maritime sector to support your argumentation in favour of your ideas? Maybe you have, I really hope so.
As I've said before, I believe that the DPPT model is the best way to deliver stability of ownership that is fully accountable to the local community, through its membership, and the port's major stakeholders, through its governance model and that it is also the best way to do this whilst allowing free access to the private capital markets to raise funds as and when required to ensure the port's growth and prosperity.
Alex, it is clear that you don't agree.
Guest 1694- Registered: 24 Feb 2016
- Posts: 1,087
Alex, Charlie's petition was against the privatisation of the port as proposed by DHB and the retention of it as an asset which should benefit the community. At the time when Charlie's petition was doing the rounds, the DHB privatisation had only just gone public and people, including Charlie, were still formulating their ideas, no clear, viable alternatives supported with industry based evidence had been put forward at that time, so the only course was to say no to DHB. What swiftly became clear during the first consultation was that just saying no to DHB would not see any result except for the success of the DHB proposal. Gwyn Prosser knew it, Bob Goldfield was confident of it, Lord Adonis was convinced of it and the rest of us, whilst being downcast, would have had to accept it.
Your comments appear to ignore and fail to appreciate the dynamics of a campaign that is informed through genuine consultation and the changes in emphasis that are naturally engendered when new discoveries are made about the application of existing governing legislation, national audit office rules, increased knowledge of ports and harbours, injections of new expertise and international research and so on. DPPT grew out of the initial consultation period and as a response to views and part proposals expressed by a range of stakeholders.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Neil, I will study your posts in full tonight, have some work going still regards a painting and decorating job.
But just to be clear for now, I have never written that DPPT claim to BE Dover's Community, but said they claim to be representative of it. I dispute DPPT are representative of our Community.
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
#21. Alex, Neil is chairman of DPPT and therefore speaks for the entire organisation.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
two different issues here peter.
alex is saying that dppt is not representative of our community, you are saying that neil is representative of dppt.
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
I was replying to post 21 in isolation Howard.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Guest 1694- Registered: 24 Feb 2016
- Posts: 1,087
From Alex Post #16 "The fact is, DPPT is not the local community." Suggesting that you believe that we have claimed to be.
You may dispute that DPPT is representative of the local community, your disputation doesn't change the fact that as an organisation with members from all walks of life from across the district, the DPPT is indeed representative of the community. Dispute away.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
many thanks to neil for his well informed and unfailingly courteous posts.
a lot of the business speak goes over my head so i must ask for clarification on a couple of things.
i would imagine that a formal bid would cost a lot of money and if it fails then it is money down the drain.
i cannot see the tenners that keith refers to raising anything like the sum to mount a bid.
Guest 651- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 5,673
#20 - there you go again Alexander - you take a passing comment as the absolute truth....
Been nice knowing you :)
Guest 705- Registered: 23 Sep 2010
- Posts: 661
Howard- please study Neil's first post again! It describes in depth the method of finance! Why does everyone in possession of half truths keep banging on about tenners. DPPT will be accused of running jumble sales and whist drives next! When is every forumite going to understand that DPPT is a highly proffessional organisation that will not let us down.
One or two of the doubters out there must've really been stung by somebody in their lives to eminate such scepticism and suspicion.
In such a situation a balanced view and an entitlement to opinion are a paramount requirement-but to say that you haven't had the answers to your questions is somewhat unreasonable.
Never give up...
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Have just checked post 16, and indeed yes, Neil, you did write that DPPT is the local community, as your words imply just that:
""whilst taking decisions over the ownership out of the hands of an out of touch executive and central government and placing them into the hands of the local community and the port's other stakeholders permanently."
Guest 705- Registered: 23 Sep 2010
- Posts: 661
The new order is coming...
Never give up...
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
All members and directors of DPPT are also members of the local community. Membership is open to the whole community.
Members of the community will benefit (whether they become members or not) if the bid is successful.
While DPPT may not at present claim to formally represent every single member of the community, everything we do is for community benefit. At least we can claim the backing of 97%+ of Dover Town voters who turned out for the referendum vote.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Neil, having gone through some reading, I firmly believe the Department for Transport would have had to write to me and inform me of any further public consultation process, as I was already part of it. I have NOT ignored any invitation, I simply never received one!
It would be probably better for the Transport Dep. to clarify this and the whole issue of my participation, and I expect to hear from them in the coming days.
They cannot just ignore my request, because if they do, I shall take the request to other offices until I receive a reply.
Clearly, my rail link proposal, the port-toll proposal to finance local Government, and the proposal that the Port of Dover pass to local Government, have been part of my official and public campaign.
I am of the opinion you want to take some of these proposals off me and claim them for yourself, in particular the rail link one. I gather this from your denial of any public campaign of mine and your assertion that I have "ignored" an invitation to be part of a public consultation.
Perhaps you could clarify to us all now if you do have any intention of taking over my rail-link plan for Western Docks, in particular for freight transport.
Your reply to this would be helpful.
However, the replies sent to me from the Transport Department are full proof in my favour, they have legal value, and my proposals cannot be taken away at a later date and attributed to DPPT or any other person or group.
As for technical expertise, the idea would be that local Government nominate experts to administer the Port of Dover and to consult with any other experts on technical matters where relevant.
Further to the claims that there is an imminent sale plan to Dubai or any other potential buyer, there is still one factor to take into consideration: the Government would risk a constitutional crisis.
The carbon emission laws do not validate the DHB reasons for privatisation, which are, according to the official DHB statements as released on the Dover Express in 2010, a 100% increase of road traffic through the Port of Dover within 30 years starting from 2010, or, as later stated by DHB, a 70% increase of road traffic over 27 years.
The sale, according to DHB, would finance a T2 terminal at Western Docks to accommodate this increased traffic.
This was their reason for requesting privatisation.
Should the Government accept a sale of the port, they would immediately be challenged on constitutional grounds, I personally am seeing to this.
Adding to that, it should be clear to everyone that Dover would suffer tremendously under the pressure of doubled port road traffic.
All in all, Neil, you should take into account that I have prepared for all eventualities should the Government do a dirty one on us: if they try something that is blatantly unconstitutional, such as flouting the carbon emission laws, I WILL challenge them legally.
Guest 1694- Registered: 24 Feb 2016
- Posts: 1,087
Alex, that sentence does not state that I believe DPPT to be the community, nor could that meaning be inferred by a reasonable person when reading the full context of that post. I repeat again for your easy understanding, DPPT is not the community, no body politic, no one organisation is the community. However, dispute this as you wish, DPPT is representative of the community and, agree or not as you will, once the DPPT proposal is adopted and membership has risen to 3000, 4000, 5000 plus as it will do over time, the port will, in effect be owned by and accountable to the community.
Howard, funding the costs of the bid is not now and will never come from the tenners. Bid documents, due diligence and legal costs associated with mounting the campaign are either predicated on funds contingent (no success, no payment, a sufficiently large number of substantial law, accountancy, banking and technical consultancy firms are sufficiently confident that a DPPT bid will be successful that they have been prepared to sign such contracts), or from individual donations made by supporters of the DPPT and members of the board.
Jan Higgins
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,888
Echoed Sarah as I assume you did not mean #36. It looks like this thread might be going the same way as the Western Heights one.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Guest 1694- Registered: 24 Feb 2016
- Posts: 1,087
Alex, no one is pinching anything that you have proposed. I am an international port operations development professional, I've been working in the maritime and ports sector for nearly 30 years all over the world, rail plays a vital role at many ports around the world, including those that I was involved with developing back as far as the mid 1990's. Rail is not something that you alone have come up with or proposed, linking to rail would be an important consideration for any serious potential owner/operator of the port. The idea that DPPT would wish to poach your ideas and claim them as our own is simply ridiculous. Your proposal on transference to local government ownership does not solve the issue of free access to the markets to raise money as required. Your proposal for a port toll has been tried elsewhere in the Uk and has been successfully challenged in the courts by the freight industry. The ports that tried it have been forced to discontinue.
Where have you been actively campaigning? What broad support for your ideas have you gathered? I ask because campaigns that are likely to be successful normally generate headlines, appear in TV news bulletins, are featured on radio programmes, etc.
The invitation extended by the Secretary of State is a clear one and was publicly made, neither DPPT or any of the other groups and individuals received a personal invitation letter....did you receive a personal invite to take part in the first consultation? I think not. You did not contact the DfT after the Secretary of State issued the invitation, yet others did. This indicates that you were either not paying attention or that you just ignored the invitation. If this is the level of your professionalism and dedication to ensuring that the port is not sold to private equity interests, then there is no hope whatsoever that you will be successful in challenging the government after they have sold the port over your head.
I prefer to try and ensure that the port is not sold to private equity interests by promoting a cogent, funded, well supported campaign to have the port pass into ownership that meets all of the criteria that have been set forward by the government in spirit and truth.
You prefer to sit back and watch the port be sold, after your views have been taken into account of course and then placed on one side as being impractical, failing to meet the basic reasons given for a voluntary privatisation and promoting an idea already discredited in the law courts. Of course, once the port is sold you will be able to raise £6 or £7 million pounds to pay the legal fees required to mount a legal challenge against the government, which, even if successful will take so long to reach a conclusion that the port will already have been releveraged and resold at least once and the people of Dover and its surrounding communities will have, once again, found themselves to have been royally screwed.
If you believe in your proposals and believe that they are deliverable, viable and sustainable. If you believe that they will deliver long term sustainable development and growth to our port and more prosperity to our communities, then prove the ideas, study the legislation, prove the finances and then gather support for them from the other stakeholders and for goodness sake mount a proper campaign.
Guest 1694- Registered: 24 Feb 2016
- Posts: 1,087
Jan, of course I hope that DPPT will be successful. As chair I have to be confident that our proposal will be a success. I indicate that confidence by saying 'when' rather than 'if'