Steam Packet Warns Of Disruption To Sailings

[Steve_Christian]

7 hours ago, Jarndyce said:

Well, yes - in theory, that’s how it’s supposed to work.   But the politicians can’t stop interfering and meddling!

Because many of those they represent expect it and rather than educate them as to what arms length means, they interfere. It’s a lose lose for the MHKs and the SPCo 

[Gladys]

1 hour ago, Two-lane said:

We, the Treasury, the MHKs, I, have no control unless we know what is going on.

Ugland threw a wobbler because he was asked 6 questions. He refused to answer questions from the shareholder because they were not in the interests of the shareholder.

Well, that's my interpretation.

Who are you defining as the shareholder?

[Holte End]

4 minutes ago, Gladys said:

Who are you defining as the shareholder?

Well if were a main shareholder, the first thing I would do is sack the managing director and the board.

The Company was brought for £ 120million with annual returns of £16million pound profits, all in hansard when it was purchased, those profit were suppose to pay for the business in the long term, they then purchase a boat for £80 million  which seems to have  issues. So, yes sack the board and the managing director. You don't have to be Elon Musk to see the island been sold a pup. 

[Manxman1234]

13 minutes ago, Holte End said:

Well if were a main shareholder, the first thing I would do is sack the managing director and the board.

The Company was brought for £ 120million with annual returns of £16million pound profits, all in hansard when it was purchased, those profit were suppose to pay for the business in the long term, they then purchase a boat for £80 million  which seems to have  issues. So, yes sack the board and the managing director. You don't have to be Elon Musk to see the island been sold a pup. 

Not the board and Managaging directors fault government and over paid for, the most valuable asset was access to link span, which with out that the company was worthless, other than the book value or the vessels 

[Gladys]

5 minutes ago, Holte End said:

Well if were a main shareholder, the first thing I would do is sack the managing director and the board.

The Company was brought for £ 120million with annual returns of £16million pound profits, all in hansard when it was purchased, those profit were suppose to pay for the business in the long term, they then purchase a boat for £80 million  which seems to have  issues. So, yes sack the board and the managing director. You don't have to be Elon Musk to see the island been sold a pup. 

But you aren't and that does not answer the question anyway. 

The shareholder is the Treasury (or some other entity used as a vehicle for such investments).  We do not know if it is questions from the shareholder which are not being answered or questions, perhaps under FOI, from members of the public which are not being answered.  There is a real commercial issue here and if those commercial sensitivities aren't respected, it could have a detrimental impact on the business apart from the time taken in answering the questions. 

There are three points of access - the user agreement, the rights arising as a shareholder and the loan agreement and, IMV,  IOMG is the right party to seek the information they are entitled to under those agreements.  

[Manxman1234]

I see someone over again this week from Northlink ferries. Is the Ben off to northern Scotland? 

[code99]

11 hours ago, asitis said:

Arms length to me seems an ideal excuse for our lame politicos to say "not me guv, it were them "

I agree with you. The Government’s arm’s-length arrangements rarely work out well for the public, e.g. the UK's Post Office aka the Horizon IT scandal and here – Manx Care.

[Gladys]

46 minutes ago, code99 said:

I agree with you. The Government’s arm’s-length arrangements rarely work out well for the public, e.g. the UK's Post Office aka the Horizon IT scandal and here – Manx Care.

Not sure the Post Office scandal is the result of arms length, but rather a very old institution with anachronistic powers, without the skills to use them,  and, it would seem, some bad players who put reputation ahead of truth. 

[code99]

12 minutes ago, Gladys said:

Not sure the Post Office scandal is the result of arms length, but rather a very old institution with anachronistic powers, without the skills to use them,  and, it would seem, some bad players who put reputation ahead of truth. 

"Given the Post Office's status as an arms-length body – a private company owned by the government – Kevan Jones (one of a group of parliamentarians who had long been campaigning on behalf of constituents affected by the scandal, and is a member of the independent Horizon advisory board which oversees compensation related to the scandal) believed there was a fundamental issue with the way such bodies are governed. There are hundreds of other arm's-length bodies, including state-owned enterprises such as Channel 4, Network Rail, and Ordnance Survey."

https://www.civilserviceworld.com/professions/article/post-office-horizon-scandal-labour-mp-arms-length-body-review

[Gladys]

47 minutes ago, code99 said:

"Given the Post Office's status as an arms-length body – a private company owned by the government – Kevan Jones (one of a group of parliamentarians who had long been campaigning on behalf of constituents affected by the scandal, and is a member of the independent Horizon advisory board which oversees compensation related to the scandal) believed there was a fundamental issue with the way such bodies are governed. There are hundreds of other arm's-length bodies, including state-owned enterprises such as Channel 4, Network Rail, and Ordnance Survey."

https://www.civilserviceworld.com/professions/article/post-office-horizon-scandal-labour-mp-arms-length-body-review

Yes, it may be arms length but that of itself does not make it wrong or vulnerable to abuse.  Arms length does not mean no oversight at all, it requires high level oversight and accountability which does not inhibit the independence and purpose for which it was created.  

I worked for many years for a UK statutory corporation set up after the original body (established in the 1830s) which had no properly defined status, ran into issues, shall we say.  It was turned into a statutory corporation and was prohibited from doing certain things without Ministerial consent, subject to that department's oversight,  reported to Parliament annually and had its non-executive and executive boards appointed by the Minister. 

However, day to day commercial decisions within the vires under the Act were the decisions of the board and provided the clear parameters were met, was run at arms length.  There was little political interference as the relationship with the Minister and their department was open and constructive. 

That was proper arms length governance which worked well. We do not know if the arms length relationship with IOM SPC is not on a similar footing, apart from those who think that IOMG, and every member of the public, should be delving into every aspect of operations. 

Whether a commercial operation can transition into a private but publicly owned enterprise and whether IOMG can transition into a guardian shareholder of effectively a private commercial enterprise remains to be seen. 

 

Edited April 2 by Gladys

[A fool and his money.....]

17 hours ago, Steve_Christian said:

Because many of those they represent expect it and rather than educate them as to what arms length means, they interfere. It’s a lose lose for the MHKs and the SPCo 

The government has spent vast amounts of our money buying this company - a company which, let's face it, didn't have the best reputation and wasn't particularly liked by the travelling public. The reason given was that it was our lifeline.

What possible benefit can there be from absolving ourselves from any meaningful influence over our very expensive lifeline by the nonsense that is "arms length?"

We simply shouldn't be bankrolling something we have no influence over, let alone something we're not allowed to ask questions about, it's just wrong.

I also think that given the MD's handling and dubious version of the truth during the recent industrial dispute, it should be a major red flag that he seems reluctant to questioning from a democratic chamber - what is he trying to hide?

[A fool and his money.....]

14 hours ago, Gladys said:

Yes, it may be arms length but that of itself does not make it wrong or vulnerable to abuse.  Arms length does not mean no oversight at all, it requires high level oversight and accountability which does not inhibit the independence and purpose for which it was created.  

I worked for many years for a UK statutory corporation set up after the original body (established in the 1830s) which had no properly defined status, ran into issues, shall we say.  It was turned into a statutory corporation and was prohibited from doing certain things without Ministerial consent, subject to that department's oversight,  reported to Parliament annually and had its non-executive and executive boards appointed by the Minister. 

However, day to day commercial decisions within the vires under the Act were the decisions of the board and provided the clear parameters were met, was run at arms length.  There was little political interference as the relationship with the Minister and their department was open and constructive. 

That was proper arms length governance which worked well. We do not know if the arms length relationship with IOM SPC is not on a similar footing, apart from those who think that IOMG, and every member of the public, should be delving into every aspect of operations. 

Whether a commercial operation can transition into a private but publicly owned enterprise and whether IOMG can transition into a guardian shareholder of effectively a private commercial enterprise remains to be seen. 

 

You're getting caught up in details, you need to look at the bigger picture. Nobody is suggesting the public or Tynwald involve themselves with the day to day running of the SP, this doesn't happen with departments which are not arms length either.

What is being suggested is that "arms length" or any meaningless legal nonsense about private companies should not be used as an excuse for lack of information to the people who are bankrolling the operation.

As for commercial confidentiality, I assume that's a joke? The user agreement ( our user agreement) and our ownership of the SP make commercial confidentiality completely inappropriate and yet another smoke screen for information about the organisation to be held from its ultimate owners.

It's time for some honesty and transparency. Arms length undeniably hinders that for little benefit.

[Gladys]

25 minutes ago, A fool and his money..... said:

You're getting caught up in details, you need to look at the bigger picture. Nobody is suggesting the public or Tynwald involve themselves with the day to day running of the SP, this doesn't happen with departments which are not arms length either.

What is being suggested is that "arms length" or any meaningless legal nonsense about private companies should not be used as an excuse for lack of information to the people who are bankrolling the operation.

As for commercial confidentiality, I assume that's a joke? The user agreement ( our user agreement) and our ownership of the SP make commercial confidentiality completely inappropriate and yet another smoke screen for information about the organisation to be held from its ultimate owners.

It's time for some honesty and transparency. Arms length undeniably hinders that for little benefit.

Yeah, OK. 

[Steve_Christian]

2 hours ago, A fool and his money..... said:

The government has spent vast amounts of our money buying this company - a company which, let's face it, didn't have the best reputation and wasn't particularly liked by the travelling public. The reason given was that it was our lifeline.

What possible benefit can there be from absolving ourselves from any meaningful influence over our very expensive lifeline by the nonsense that is "arms length?"

We simply shouldn't be bankrolling something we have no influence over, let alone something we're not allowed to ask questions about, it's just wrong.

I also think that given the MD's handling and dubious version of the truth during the recent industrial dispute, it should be a major red flag that he seems reluctant to questioning from a democratic chamber - what is he trying to hide?

Even if we have to pile money into it, I’d rather it be owned by IOM gov rather than a Private Equity fund who would squeeze it for profit and then sell it leaving the island in a mess. 

[A fool and his money.....]

10 minutes ago, Steve_Christian said:

Even if we have to pile money into it, I’d rather it be owned by IOM gov rather than a Private Equity fund who would squeeze it for profit and then sell it leaving the island in a mess. 

I quite agree and was delighted when they bought it, even though they paid well over the odds.

However having paid for it, it may as well be put to some use, rather than run exactly the same and shrouded in secrecy.

Obviously the day to day running can be left to the SP but in it could be a huge asset for the island if policies were developed to give some benefit from our ownership.

Tourists could be subsided at certain times of year or to help get certain events off the ground, certain types of manufacturing or whatever could enjoy subsided carriage, the possibilities are endless, it could be a huge asset to the island, worthy of the vast amounts of money we're throwing into it.

As it is we seem to own it because it's better than anyone else owning it, and that's where the benefits end. What a wasted opportunity.

It's a nonsense, pure and simple. You have people like Gladys banging on about legalities of private companies and how arms length works across - it's meaningless, the tail wagging the dog, we're hundreds of millions into this, there's got to be some benefit other than preventing anyone else owning it! Are we really that devoid of imagination or political courage?