A matter of Trust

The UK’s Trust ports issue has certainly had its fair share of pages in the press recently. But there is more than one point of view on the subject – not least, “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”.

Captain Mark Sansom, harbour master of Falmouth, a Trust port somewhat smaller than the big six, believes the Trust model is a good one for smaller ports, the system benefitting from initiatives that build on the “mature base” of the Trust model.

He makes the point: “Private ports are bound to charge commercial rates that are not aimed at providing benefits to the smaller user, whereas Trust Ports share the benefits around to a broad range of stakeholders in a way that private ports can’t, and don’t, aspire to.”

Capt Sansom continues: “There is a case for arguing that there is a responsibility, given by port’s geographical uniqueness, to make sure the benefits should be delivered broadly – to all the stakeholders in the wider community – rather than a narrow shareholder base.“

He understands there are strong advocates of privatisation because of the immediate economic benefits it brings, in particular money for expansion. “However, the longer term view can often be quite different,” he says, adding that shareholders look for a fairly quick return on their investments wherever possible, “while trust ports, by their nature, are able to take a longer view than many other businesses”.

It’s relevant to the topic that Falmouth recently acquired a new pilot launch – right in the middle of a relatively quiet trading period. Capt Sansom says that if he had gone cap in hand to a private board to ask for money for a new boat, he probably wouldn’t have been shown anything but the door. However, he adds: “if we hadn’t gone ahead then, we would not be in the position of continuing to provide the required level of service to the vessels that are now coming in.”

Although smaller operations like Falmouth wouldn’t be in line for a first round of selling off, it doesn’t mean that the impact of a privatisation drive wouldn’t be felt by them. One (nightmare) scenario is that groups of smaller ports would be deemed “inefficient” to be run as separate businesses, herded together under an umbrella company which might then decide there was overcapacity or doubling-up of facilities, and strip assets – finally declaring these smaller ports “uneconomical” and closing them.

Capt Sansom makes one final point: “A few years ago privatisation advocates were saying that Trust ports were not efficient in their use of capital… with too much cash kept back. Then came the recession – and you know, suddenly it became obvious that those with a cautious outlook were better placed to survive the downturn.”

However, some are blaming “a lack of transparency”, interwoven with the structure of the Harbour Commission for recent problems at Lymington. The harbour rests within a salt marsh of Special Scientific Interest which is suffering from the introduction of heavy new ferries.

Michael Derrick, a master mariner with over 40 year’s experience of commercial shipping and a longstanding user of the river, says that Lymington’s current harbour master and chief executive was a key figure in Wightlink’s operations during the design stage of the ferries and in full knowledge of the design criteria. “The question that could be asked is whether the harbour commission should have been made aware of the proposed ferry specifications so that it could be discussed and perhaps designed more suitably for the special character of the river while still satisfying the ferry operator’s commercial ambitions.”

The lack of action by the relevant authorities resulted in an incensed local group taking the case to court using the Habitats Directive. The judge found that the ferry company had acted unlawfully by introducing the ferries without an appropriate assessment. Interestingly, as well as finding that the EU directive hadn’t been fully transposed into UK law (an omission now corrected) the judge also ruled that Wightlink, as a Harbour Authority in its own right, had a public duty that should override its commercial interests.

But would things have been any different if run on a ‘business’ basis? Well, possibly not, because although in the past, Trust ports have sometimes had a shadowy accountability, this was swept clear by the Modernising Trust Ports paper in 2000. Capt Sansom concludes “The DOT Trust Ports guidelines are as robust and effective as anything you can find in the commercial sector.”