Guest 766- Registered: 7 Aug 2012
- Posts: 18
I've watched this thread with interest and tried to keep an open mind on the responses from some, but Alex it would appear that your complete solution to this issue is a toll road !!! Don't think so, the issue goes much deeper, and as for your thoughts that the present DHB senior management team could continue to run the port in some form is incomprehensible. If we don't remove them soon the only staff left working for them will be a handful of managers in harbour house, Bobs landlord port, a vision that makes port staff so very angry and justifiably so
Guest 776- Registered: 1 Oct 2012
- Posts: 95
There are so few local people working for The Port OF Dover, now, and possibly forever into the future. It cannot now be regarded as a major economic buffer within our economic region.
The abject failure to diversify against the competition of the Channel tunnel, is now being made very clear. The management of the Tunnel is very tough and successful. Difference is, the Channel Tunnel has to answer to their share-holders and the Banks.
The Dover Harbour Board, appears to have to answer to no-one, what an ideal situation to just rot away as the port is doing.
I may be wrong, but I do not see a reduction in management within Harbour House, yet there is less to manage.
Very sad state of affairs.
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
I would like to see most for the workforce in the port working direct,but do not forget that the work still has to be done,and it is still local companys doing it==
REPAIRS to port and ships,and local companys that bring goods into port for the ships and ferrys,not all bad news still 100s if not 1000s work in or for the port or ships that the port and most of them men,women are local.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Gary, I don't know the DHB management personally, It would be up to the DfT to make a decision on whether the present management should remain. I had only mentioned the DHB as such, without any reference to the senior management.
In other words, I was referring to the institution as a structure, to the staff in general.
If there is an outcry against the senior management, I'd suggest this be addressed to the DfT, as they are ultimately responsible for the Port. My point was, that in the future, the management of the Port should be appointed according to their skills by Gov. central or local.
If there is an issue on methods of employment and salaries at the Port, I would vigorously put the case forward at the appropriate levels in high, and also publicly, but this should be something for the concerned employees to do or to request that it be done on their behalf (Union representatives? spokespersons?).
In my representation this year I did mention the DHB management's claims in their renewed bid are contradictory, as they talk of "privatising the Port in order to motivate the staff" and some other bla bla, and pointed out that if this were the case, then it would suggest that, to date, the staff are not sufficiently motivated, and that perhaps this would require an investigation on the part of the DfT.
All in all, I did talk tough and in a straight forward fashion regards DHB's renewed bid.
Did you also suggest to the DfT an investigation into the conduct of DHB management, Gary, regards motivating what would appear to be under-motivated staff?
Guest 766- Registered: 7 Aug 2012
- Posts: 18
Alex, I do know DHB senior management, as I was the senior steward for unite with the DHB for over 8 years until goldfield tuped me and my colleagues out of the company. Some of us work for Ocs some for G4s and some went to P&O. This was the beginning of the deceit and the removal of large pockets of staff from the pay roll. This and many other things have been raised by myself and my union colleagues to senior ministers and shadow ministers alike, who are involved in this process.
At the risk of repeating myself, we need to establish a secure future, not only for the port but for the local community, we need people with a passion for this town not carpet baggers like goldfield and his henchman who just want to fill their bank accounts with our ports money, so we need to install guarantees for the future which stops the port from being passed from one fat cat to another and that can be done with the people's port model. For the sake of our legacy to young people from this area we must act now, let's stop DHB's proposal and save the future of our port from further sell offs.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
That is the reason, Gary, why from Feb. 2010 in my first representation I proposed clearly to the DfT the Port of Dover be transferred to the Local Community, as a local asset, proposing that this transfer - free of charge!!! - be made to one or more of the local Councils.
What some people seem to misinterpret, is the idea of "council". By council, I mean a local unity within the national State.
Whereas the State represents all the citizens of the Country, the Council unit represents all the citizens/inhabitants/residents of that particular local administrative area.
Unfortunately, some people keep thinking that by "council" i mean "the councillors and some officers - period".
In fact I mean the WHOLE local Community!
The fact is, Gary, when I made this proposal in my first representation in February/March 2010, I was probably the only person to have presented such a request out of all the representations presented. Namely, that the Port of Dover be transferred - free of charge - to the local Community. And I always maintained this stance in all following phases of the public consultation, in all my successive representations.
DPPT did not exist in Feb/March 2010, they only came into existence in August 2010, and so I cannot be expected to change my representation and adapt it to DPPT's views, who made their first appearance well after my first representation.
Guest 1694- Registered: 24 Feb 2016
- Posts: 1,087
Road Toll levy at ports of entry: This has been proposed by the DfT to be a levy that cannot be rescinded by the courts in the same way as pevious attempts to impose one have been as a 'restraint on trade within the EU'. To do this it needs must be levied by central government as a Road Tax which must be paid by all drivers on UK roads. UK registered vehicles already pay road tax, so it could perhaps have been levied and paid into the DVLA by foreign registered vehicles that do not normally pay UK Road tax at ports of entry and would have had to be proportional to the amount of time/distance spent on UK roads by the foreign driver. However, there has been a Govt consultation on this issue (did you take part in it Alexander, especially as you are so interested in this subject and have thought deeply about it in order to come up with a comprehensive and well constructed proposal on the future of the port and possibility for regeneration locally?) and EU rules mean that the levy will have to be charged on all freight vehicles using UK roads (both UK registered vehicles and foreign vehicles). This means that the scheme will be futher complicated by providing UK registered vehicles with a rebate on their road tax to compensate for the additional charge. The issue is then further complicated by EU rules on 'State Aid' which UK freight firms could come a cropper on as a result of the government rebate.
Road Toll levy at ports of entry (revenue): Best estimates indicate that such a levy will raise approx. £24m (gross) per annum.
Road Toll levy at ports of entry (admin costs): Because of the complexity involved in gathering the levy without transgressing EU treaty laws on barriers to trade and travel, it is anticipated that administration costs for the levy will be in the region of £4m.
Cost of Highway maintenance (just Kent): annual cost is in the region of £26.5m just for routine maintenance, safety and road management costs another £15m approx. So total for roads and highways in Kent alone is £41.5m.
The Road Toll levy will go to central government funds and be redistributed from there. If it is redistributed to areas proportionately in relation to the volume of foreign registered vehicles using their roads, then Kent will get approx. £1.2m per year from this fund. That is for the whole of Kent, Alexander - £1.2m additional. If we factor in inflation and take into account the reduction in budgets that is ongoing over the next several years, almost the entire amount is swallowed up by inflation in costs (using the Govt target figure for the BoE on inflation as a guide). Where are your millions for regeneration Alexander?
KCC have indeed requested a vehicle landing charge for vehicles coming into Dover; did you actually read the entire document "growth without gridlock" Alexander? because the document also talks about how and where new road developments are needed, I have a copy of it here on my desk top if you would care to read it in full as I have had to. The KCC request will have to go through the DfT which, as you can see above, has already gone through its own consutation on the issue, the results of which are now known. Any and every port/region specific levy on foreign registered freight and tourist traffic in this country has been challenged in the courts by the freight, manufacturing and tourism industries and has had to be withdrawn.
Guest 1694- Registered: 24 Feb 2016
- Posts: 1,087
On your representation to transfer to Local Government ownership - shows that you have failed to grasp at the most basic level why DHB were given the nod by the last government to proceed with privatisation. A transfer from one type of government ownership to another does not adddress the fundamental reason behind the perceived desire to sell to private equity and such a transfer (to local Govt) will only see the same basic issues causing problems again in just a very few years time.
Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
lets see how the govt does on the harbour board fiasco
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Neil, that's an interesting read above.
In my representation, there has never been a distinction between British and foreign lorries, they'd all pay the same.
The Government has recently hinted it would reduce/abolish road tax so as to charge road tolls.
However, the estimated figures presented as a possible total revenue from lorries is far too small, the actual figure would have to be much higher than that, bit this I've explained carefully in my representation.
My point to the DfT is that these revenues should be divided between Central and Local Government, otherwise we can forget all forms of Localism, which would just become a dead letter, a defunct idea of no use at all to us.
As the Government has made Localism a basic part of its strategy for the future, and this happened to correspond with what I was also working on in 2009 when I was living in Eastern Dover, I consider myself as seeing eye to eye with Gov. on Localism, which however needs to be implemented through economic measures too, and this MUST mean a higher share of revenue going to local Gov, and a bit less to Central Gov.
Therefore, I DO NOT envisage the Government deciding to introduce a road toll whereby all the revenue goes only to the Treasury, but rather accepting my proposal, whereby a road toll can be a Port Toll where there are commercial ports, and the revenue is distributed, as I suggested, between both Central and Local Authority.
The reason, Neil, why I am confident that my proposal will be accepted, is that, otherwise, the Government might as well pick up the Loacalism Act and fling it in the waste-paper bin, as we'd only be sticking to the old dinosaur system of Central Government cashes in almost all monies and redistributes them, loosing half of the money in the process through lack of accountability.
A basic part of the Localism Bill, Neil, is that Local Government is an arm of Central Government in implementing its policies.
Therefore, my whole representation, which envisages Port Tolls to be divided centrally and locally, and a transfer of the Port form Central (DfT) to Local Gov. authority, is completely in line with the Localism strategy of the Government.
Adding to this, my freight by rail proposal for a T2 at Western Docks is also in line with Government policy, which requires a reduction, and not an increase, in carbon emissions.
I feel confident that my representation will be accepted in full, otherwise the Government would have to renege its very own identity and everything it ever stood for!
As stated, my representation is comprehensive, well-thought out and 100% in line with Gov. policy on everything it mentions.
Guest 1694- Registered: 24 Feb 2016
- Posts: 1,087
I suggest that you read the Localism Act 2011 and make sure you understand it before trying to tell me what its basic parts are Alexander. Because eveything that you've said about the Localism Act 2011 above, including its name, is incorrect.
May I also suggest that you take notice of some very important consultations (which you appear to have missed either taking part in or any notice of) on road tolls that closed earlier this year and which have already reported back so that you can see for yourself how wide of the mark your comments on tolls are, including the revenue that they'll raise. The numbers that I've used in my post are sourced from the official consultation documentation and Government estimates.
Everything to do with Roads and Rail is of interest to the modern port developer and it is part of what I do to keep myself up to date to read consultations, policy and legislation in these fields. No realistic plan for a port can be built without the application of such knowledge.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Neil, I haven't disputed the figures you have given on estimated road toll revenues, but written that these figures which have been presented to the Government are by far insufficient and unrealistic. I've read the report myself. Gov. has not made any definitive decision yet on this matter, it's still being looked at.
As for the Localism Bill, or whatever you wish to call it, we live in a democratic society, and there has been quite some talk by people who have supported the idea even before the last General Election, suggesting it must be developed into an economic function, that the Government cannot just leave it to a series of words without meaning.
Only the other night I was reading an article written by a Scottish personality - haven't got the name in memory - who spoke with Dave Cameron before the last G.E. and advised him on Localism and how to present it as an Election campaign. This same person is now saying that the Government has not kept to the original spirit of the idea, has not implemented practically anything of it, and that it needs to be implemented with economic reforms. It's not just me saying this.
My guess is, Neil, the Government is taking so long in making a decision on Dover Port, for the simple reason that they know full well they have different options before them, and that includes choosing between road tolls OR port tolls, and choosing between a public body such as DPPT claims to be, or a local Council solution such as I propose.
If everything you have presented was so perfect and THE ONLY solution, the Government would have long ago accepted it, but they haven't. So we must assume they are pondering on what decision to make, especially considering that the DHB privatisation bid has involved a lot more than just the DfT, having long ago got to 10 Downing Street and to the Communities Secretary too.
So clearly, Neil, they are all pondering on which decision to make, which means there is more than one option on the table, doesn't it? And for all we know they may be pondering on other representations too, not just yours or mine, as well as on the DHB bid.
I don't think neither you nor I, nor Vic, nor any other person who made a relevant representation, can PROVE to the Pubic to have convinced the Government. But it's only DPPT that keeps claiming to the Public to be the only alternative.
Where is the proof for that from any Government representative, Neil?
Your word is as much valid as mine or Vic's or of any other entity that made a representation!
If you claim that DPPT is the only alternative to the DHB bid that the DfT is considering, then prove it with official Government statements!
I can prove the opposite.
Guest 1694- Registered: 24 Feb 2016
- Posts: 1,087
Alexander, DPPT has never claimed to be the only alternative, the best alternative, yes, the only one - er no. I've told you this before on a number of occasions and yet you persist in repeating the falsehood.
The DfT are ONLY considering the DHB proposal at the moment and doing so in the light of the representations that have been made by the stakeholders. They have only one decision to make at the moment and that is whether to allow the privatisation or not - how many times do you have to be told this simple fact?
Once the decision that we are all waiting on has been announced, then we will see over the course of the ensuing 12 months just how seriously your proposals have been taken by government. However, I would advise you that proposals made in submissions are not generally considered post decision unless they have a mandate and a cost/benefit analysis, so if you want to get further consideration after the decision, you'll need to get working and get your plans a democratic mandate, the endorsement of the major stakeholders and customers of the port and get writing a detailed costed and tested business plan.
The delays have not come about because of prevarication over which alternative to chose by the government (the alternatives are not even under official consideration at the moment), but because DHB went voluntarily to privatisation under the Ports Act 1991 and any rejection of an application for transfer made under that Act must be absolutely watertight.
It is not me that calls it the Localism Act 2011, that is what it is.
You may be thinking of Phillip Blond, with whom I have been in regular contact in the past, who has recently been disillusioned with progress on localism and the apparent hijack of the 'Big Society' agenda by some charitable organisations whose very existence depends on public money and have become cross because the public money stream is drying up. He has recently written in a number of national papers and made an appearance on Newsnight. However, the Localism Act 2011 is a big step in the right direction and does allow local communities and community based charities such as DPPT to do a number of things, including listing buildings and facilities as community assets on which the community has first right of refusal to create a bid to buy and much much more. Unfortunately statutory land holders and the properties controlled by them are exempted...I'll let you work out what that might mean.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
Alexander;
I take the unusual step of being in agreement with Barryw on this one.
local govt of any political persuassion would be the wrong people to even giving a thought to on this proposal.
Neil;
At the moment the only option on the table is that of the D.H.B. and with the dithering of the govt(even before the fiasco of the rail bid) doesn't fill me with much hope that they will get this one right.
The time it will all take(that;s even presuming the govt makes a correct move on D.H.B.) is long
let's hope for Dover's interest a decision at least is made soon.
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 671- Registered: 4 May 2008
- Posts: 2,095
Alex.
KCC etc. losing £19Million to investing in Icelandic banks, does not bode well on their CV for your plan.
"My New Year's Resolution, is to try and emulate Marek's level of chilled out, thoughtfulness and humour towards other forumites and not lose my decorum"
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
doubt it keith, this story will run and run for a long time yet. my feeling is that the transport minister has a lot of other pressures being brought to bear and this is not at the top of the in tray.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
you only had to tell me once
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Philip Blond rings a bell, Neil, that must be the person I referred to. I'll check it out later on the Web. If it's him, he certainly made interesting observations on Localism not coming to anything.
GaryC, Icelandic banks have nothing to do with my representation and don't come into the equation.
Keith, you keep going on about Local Government running the Port, nothing to do either with my representation. I proposed the Port be a local asset run by qualified people, whose appointment would be approved by Government, either central or local, or both. If it became a local asset, it would be best if there were a clause stating it can never be sold off.
It's important this transfer to the local Community comes about free of charge, which is also a fundamental part of my representation. It's better than what Charlie offered the Government, which was that the Port should be sold so as to get £200 million, or something like that, into the Treasury.
Baffles me how this detail seems to go over everyone's head!
Surely my proposal is the one that is in the interests of the Port and the local Community, as it asks for a debt-free Port that CANNOT be sold!
DPPT and DHB are both proposing a sale of the Port with resulting debt in the hundreds of millions of pounds, and then claim they can still regenerate Dover, and even Deal, and....
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
That's the article, Howard:
The whole text is outstanding, and the following line is what I've tried to point out as a necessity for Localism:
"Cameron had the original vision; he must recover it. He should turn to building new moral institutions, re-endow his localism with financial infrastructure..."
Without financial infrastructure, Localism is an empty word.
Paul, how one can borrow to run the Port, pay it back with an interest, and at the same time regenerate Dover and District, I'll leave for anyone who believes in it to ponder upon!
It's an empty promise!