Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
13 September 2010
13:0270275#1
I have got back now the Summary of representations received by the Department for Transport.
There are some 64pages of representations made up till 22July 2010, I am going to print out some of them so you can see what was said by the local public on the above scheme,this will take all week to cover on top of this there have been two petitions presented.
{1} The first asked the Secretary of State for Transsport not to sell the Port of Dover or the other Trust Ports,(Harwich, Tyne, Poole Milford Haven or Shoreham). as they are vital national infrastructure and sought investment in them as soon as government finances recovered.
It collected a total of 2,832 signatures.
(2)An e-petition on the No 10 website, which read."We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to not sell the port of Dover or any of six Trust Ports"had collected 610 signatures by the time it closed on the 10June 2010.
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
13 September 2010
14:1570278#2
Representation No1
We should improve the productiveness and earning potential of our export economy.
Then we will raise enough government funds to develop national equipment without having to sell the family silver.
It should not be assumed that government has to be inefficient in running infrastructure.Government should be more imaginative in developingand running all these ports.
Offering the local community inducements in the forum of local community regeneration projects seems a cynical ploy to buy off local opposition.
People beyond Dover,when they hear about your plans ,feel stirred to oppose them even when not directly affected by local prt hinderland issues.
Selling Dover would depress the nations morale even futher.
We should not sell Dover or the other ports because we need them as national infastrure essential to doing our work and living our lives and;particularly,to exporting our goods for sale once our industry and economy recover.
We need them to earn our living. They are tools for doing our job.
If we sell them we,d lose control of the ports.The price of using them would surely rise. We would lose control of tariffs.
The "Privatisation"or sale is partly motivated by the unavailability of government funds to develop the western docks. We should hold onto the port and then,when our economy has started to recover, we should proceed with the western docks Terminal 2 development if that still seems to be needed,paid for out of general taxation.
Please refrain , therefore, from selling off:
Dover Harbour Board, Milford Haven Port Authority, Harwich Haven Authority, Poole Harbour Commissioners, Portof Tyne and Shoreham.
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
13 September 2010
14:5570279#3
Representation No 2
A democratic vote for Dovers Community seems a good solution to prevent Dover,s ports and harbour and promenade being taken from the town and sold into private ownership.
For this reason it would be advantageous to request a law of democracy enabling British citizens to take part in the decisions proposed and made in their local areas,including the right to contest proposals, present other proposals and call for a local public vote.
It would be right that Dover harbour and Dover,s ports, being national sovereign territory with adjacent sovereign waters(the harbour),be recognized officially as integral part of Dover,and administered by the Dover Town Council or Dover District Council.
I further propose that a new port-service toll be introduced by way of which every heavy commercial goods vehicle transiting through Dover,s two ports-except those passing through for charity purposes_pay fifty pounds in return for the port -service and transit that Dover supplies by way of any of its ports.Of this sum, I propose that five pounds be for the Dover Town Council,fifteen pounds for the Dover District Council,fifteen pounds for Kent County Council and fifteen pounds for the national Treasury.
The port-service toll would be added to any existing expenses that commercial freight vehicles already have to pay to transit through Dovers docks.
The new port-service toll, which would be very advantageous to local economy and could be applied in all British ports if a new national law is requested by the people, would be similar to motorway and tunnel tolls that are exacted in many countries in Europe, and therefore could not be considered as unfair towards trade and commerce. It would be a fair compensation for using British commercial ports ,each of which belongs to the town and district of its location,not being the private property of private pwners.
If adequate port revenues were to be paid into the respective treasuries of local and national Goverment,it would be to the greater benefit of the public. The proposed sum of fifty pounds per heavy goods vehicle would be too fractional to have an effect on retail prices,corresponding on average to about quarter of a pence per kilogramme of transported products,depending on the amount of freight being transported.
One heavy goods vehicle can in fact carry more than twenty tonnes of freight.Each day,thousands of heavy goods vehicles transit through Dover,s Streets in order to use the docks. As a result,some of the streets have been practicallyboarded and shut down to local housing ans business,depriving Dover,s community of the use of part of the town.
There is no way you have a mandate to carry this project.
13 September 2010
15:1570282#4
Make it stop!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
13 September 2010
16:3670295#5
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
13 September 2010
17:3470313#6
The last line of representation No 2 '' There is no way you have a mandate to carry this project.''
is in fact representation No 3, a very short one, and not part of No2.
Bern, you needn't reed the representations if you don't want to, but some of us do, and need to comment on them! I still have only got half way through!
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
13 September 2010
17:3570314#7
The comments we make go back to London, so we have to be precise.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
13 September 2010
17:3770316#8
Well done, Vic! I knew you too would be in the middle of the fray. Let's just keep it up!
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
13 September 2010
17:4170318#9
quite right vic, can i ask you though to pick out the points that you feel are most relevant to us?
i feel certain that out of 64 representations, many or possibly most will be duplicates in effect.
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
13 September 2010
18:1870342#10
I will try Howard but not easy to do that,anyway more to come later tonight.Thank you Alax for your support to.
Unregistered User
13 September 2010
19:4470353#11
See the transfer made a big splash on the Business Pages of The Times last Saturday. same arguments,personalities and speculative names of potential investors, interestingly British.
Watty
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
13 September 2010
19:4970354#12
spill the beans paul, normally i borrow posh barry's copy of the times, sadly on saturday the paperboy had pushed all the way through the letterbox.
who were the allegedly british potential investors?
Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
13 September 2010
19:5070355#13
at a guess dubi ports and calias coc.
Unregistered User
13 September 2010
19:5270357#14
They named 3i and two private funds. Can't remember which, my Times went out in this mornings recycling.
Problem is I think you have to subscribe to The Times online these days.
Watty
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
13 September 2010
20:0870363#15
Representation 4 and 5.
Concern that the whole consutation process is flawed and is being dealt with in an underhand mammer.
(5)+
I am concerned to discover that a second document exists which has been published locally and appears on the DHB website. This document is entitled "A change of Corporate Structure for the port"(CCS")
THIS DOCUMEMNT CONTAINS NEW INFORMATION WHICH IS NOT COVERED BY THE TRANSFER SCHEME.
Unregistered User
13 September 2010
20:1270364#16
Did you not respond to the new document Vic?
Watty
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
13 September 2010
20:2170365#17
Mr Watkins I am looking at the letter now I have till the 4th of Oct to do just that ,can be done by post or email,at this time I am thinking about what I can add to what I have already said, but yes I will be doing it at some point over the next two weeks.
Ross Miller
- Location: London Road, Dover
- Registered: 17 Sep 2008
- Posts: 3,709
13 September 2010
20:5470375#18
To help - the DHB web site page on the corporate restructure can be found here
http://www.doverport.co.uk/?page=StaticPage-1295 which has all the more recent information on the proposed transfer, including their proposals for dealing with the pension fund defecit
"Dream as if you'll live forever. Live as if you'll die today." - James Dean
"Being deeply loved by someone gives you strength,
While loving someone deeply gives you courage" - Laozi
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
14 September 2010
21:4670691#19
I have left some out,till I came up to this one.
Representation Ref no 6
I believe that wholesale privatistion of any major port infrastructure is mistaken and, in the long term, counter productive for both the local and the nation as a whole.
The current trust status has served the port and the town well for over 400years and has always allowed adaptation and expansion to meet the changing and increasing demands of the shipping services out of Dover.
Trust status is economically efficient because all of the revenues raised are reinvested in the port,unlike private enterprises which are obliged to pay significant sums to shareholders.
Although there is provision in DHB,s proposals for the new structure to include a charitable trust for the benefit of the town there are no details published and no guarantees that it would be established.Without publication of the amounts of funding and percentages of ownership etc the inclusion of the charitable trust is meaningless.
The submission also includes an employee,s trust. This might have represented a meaningful benefit if it included the whole of the workforce but,as stated, the board has laid off 300front line workers so the benefit is limited and there are no details published.Historiclly the port has enjoyed excellent industrial relations and has provided safe secure jobs paying fair rates of pay and supported by fair conditions of service.This is of obvious benefit to individual employees but it also significantly benefits the local economy.
These important benefits will be jeopardised under privatisationbecause in the search to maximise shareholder profits,employees will be laid off, wages will be cut and conditions will be worsened.
This is just part of the above Representation.
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
14 September 2010
22:4370732#20
I hope some of you are reading this.
