The post you are reporting:
Yes Peter, you are right.
Following up my representation in its mentioned relevant part, I've proposed how the legal constraints could be overcome, and how it would not negatively affect Dover's competitive position.
And also some viable examples on what the money would be used for.
The bodies needed to administer the schemes for Community regeneration, however, may possibly need the consent of Local Government too, as these bodies would have to respond to one or another governing Authority and be accountable at all times for their conduct.
They would need a clear definition from the start, a plan, a regular auditing process on their accounts, and would need to adhere to existing regulations, be it health and safety or whatever.
At this point, it is not up to me to go any further, as the final decision making has to depend on the Government, or relevant Secretary of State, and any related Ministry.
I strongly dispute that any money committed to Dover and District from Port revenues would disappear into the maw of Central or Local Government, as the needs of Dover's regeneration, some of which I've outlined to the DfT, would not be financially covered if this happened.
In other words, once it is agreed that a stream of financial income from the Port is committed to Community regeneration, it cannot be diverted for other purposes.
But obviously, once the Government makes the decision to accept my proposal, it will be up to the Authorities to make legal arrangements, which is why I do not contact financial institutions or other persons or offices who are in no position to make decisions on how a revenue should be invested here.
Most importantly of all, my proposal has nothing to do with borrowing money or placing the Port in a debt situation to finance either Port expansion, Port maintenance or Town and District investment.