Dover Harbour Board in the UK has this week replied to the recent People’s Port Proposal by saying it is ‘just not credible’ and would not deliver the promised benefits.
In a statement, the Dover Harbour Board (DHB) said that while the overall objectives of the Dover People’s Port Trust (DPPT) align with those of the DHB, it differs in its idea of how this can be achieved.
The DPPT proposal outlined a way for Dover to continue its trust status, through local ownership. The offer was made last week to the government in an initiative led by local Member of Parliament Charlie Elphicke.
However the DHB has poured cold water on the scheme by saying, ‘It is clear from the DPPT letter that the ambitions of the trust are totally unrealistic and undeliverable. The DPPT appears, without any due diligence or business plan, to offer the government £200m for the port.’
The response from Dover continues, ‘The DPPT makes the promise of further investment in the port, to deliver the Terminal 2 investment almost immediately and to lower the tariffs to the customer ferry operators. However, it makes no allowance in its proposal for the required £85m of investment required in the Eastern Docks over the next five years to maintain essential capacity for the Port’s operators, or the £250m needed to build Phase One of Terminal 2.’
The DHB goes on to explain that the existing port business is currently turning over £58 million per annum and that a substantial rise in tariffs is needed to service the debt.
The DHB’s argument is also that financial institutions would be financing the deal and that these are multinational organisations, thus short circuiting the DPPT’s promise that the port would be ‘owned by the people’ of Dover and not financed using ‘foreign money’. However, this section could be seen as a masking of terms, simply because many terminals are ventures that use financial institutions’ money without necessarily giving them ownership.
DHB said that the DPPT appears to be suggesting that a regulator is appointed to oversee the tariffs paid by the operators. This would require a complete change of policy for a market led ports sector, and for the regulatory mechanism to also cover the activities of Eurotunnel, which DHB believes is a totally unrealistic proposal.
DHB also said, ‘The DPPT asks government to override the requirements of the 1991 Ports Act and treat them as a sole bidder, without any competitive or transparent sales tender process. Such a process is not possible under the 1991 Act and would require primary legislation, even if the government were prepared to ignore good governance and best practice and override a competitive bid process.
‘However, if the DPPT does indeed think that it has a credible bid, then it should be challenged to enter the competitive bidding process on the existing DHB scheme when a sales process begins under tried and tested legislation.’
