Poll: Do you Agree with this Motion?
As many as are of the opinion, aye. (15)
36.59%
Of the Contrary, no. (15)
36.59%
Abstain. (11)
26.83%
This discussion is closed.
Andrew97
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 1 month ago
#1
M637 – Kent Freight Motion 2020; 04MR17 MPThis House recognises that the port of Dover is an incredibly important place for UK trade, imports, exports and the economy generally.

This House also notes the challenges and difficulties faced by many lorry drivers, companies and tourists utilising the port of Dover, on account of the congestion caused by security checks - particularly during busy periods.

This House is alive to the possibility that such congestion is presently unacceptable and may become even worse as a result of the UK's exit from the European Union.

This House also recognises the opportunities that new trade deals could have for the UK's ports across the North of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland

As a solution, this House advocates for any of the following measures to be used to alleviate the congestion and general over-reliance on the port of Dover:

1. Provide financial incentives for companies to use other ports along the South coast for freight or passenger travel

2. Work with local authorities to invest in road and rail links in other ports on the South coast

3. Review possibilities to boost trade through ports in all regions of England and Nations of the UK using new trade deals post-Brexit




Notes:
Spoiler:
Show


It is time that as a Parliament we recognise how Dover-heavy our national port infrastructure is. Dover was the largest passenger port in 2018 (p11). If the congestion develops any where near as badly as official reports estimate then passengers will be put off using Dover altogether, and freight companies may do similar if it is causing their company problems.

If anything were to happen that might cause Dover to become unusable temporarily, there could be significant economic damage to imports and exports. We need to take the opportunity of Brexit to consider what goods we can bring into Southampton, Portsmouth, Hull, Liverpool, Swansea, Belfast, Glasgow and more - and that the trade deals that we strike with the rest of the world in the future reflect our desire to diversify our port infrastructure to more than just Kent and London. As an island nation, we can do more to allow the whole UK to benefit from imports and exports, not just the South of England.

Furthermore, reduced congestion on the roads of Kent is likely to be a positive for Kentish residents and the local economies in the county too.

https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/brexit-po...ternal-border/
https://www.theguardian.com/politics...orries-in-kent
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-54260470


0
Jammy Duel
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#2
Report 1 month ago
#2
May
This motion merely demonstrates a lack of understanding of even the most basic economics and logistics
0
Gundabad(good)
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#3
Report 1 month ago
#3
Nay.
0
Saracen's Fez
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#4
Report 1 month ago
#4
No, diverting RORO freight to other ports that require longer ferry crossings is not economically sensible.
0
Theloniouss
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#5
Report 1 month ago
#5
I can see the arguments for and against, so abstain.
0
Jammy Duel
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#6
Report 1 month ago
#6
(Original post by Theloniouss)
I can see the arguments for and against, so abstain.
What arguments for that don't require shredding economics for dummies, business for dummies, and logistics for dummies?
0
Theloniouss
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#7
Report 1 month ago
#7
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
What arguments for that don't require shredding economics for dummies, business for dummies, and logistics for dummies?
The arguments.

Reliance on a single port seems unsensible, mainly. I think there were others, but since no government is obliged to respond to this motion, it hardly matters.
0
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#8
Report 1 month ago
#8
One is rather torn here, on the one hand the objections to the motion are duly noted. On the other, it can be considered a mater of national importance that goes beyond "economics for dummies" (as our economically illiterate member noted). Ensuring diversified ingress/egress points for RORO trade seems to be a very basic matter of national strategy, aptly summed up with the phrase 'don't put all your eggs in one basket'.
With that in mind i see no reason not to support this bill. After all, it isn't calling for the curtailing of freight at Dover, in of itself, merely the building up of other ports as well - something that is hard to argue with.
0
Miss Maddie
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#9
Report 1 month ago
#9
Generally aye to points 1 and 2. In times of austerity I can't bring myself to approve of that. It's a cost that doesn't pay dividends for ages and may never do so

I'll abstain
0
CatusStarbright
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#10
Report 1 month ago
#10
No I'm afraid.
0
Jammy Duel
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#11
Report 1 month ago
#11
(Original post by Theloniouss)
The arguments.

Reliance on a single port seems unsensible, mainly. I think there were others, but since no government is obliged to respond to this motion, it hardly matters.
And this proposes no practical alternative to the "unsensible" one port option.
0
Theloniouss
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#12
Report 1 month ago
#12
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
And this proposes no practical alternative to the "unsensible" one port option.
What would a practical alternative be other than different ports?
0
Jammy Duel
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#13
Report 1 month ago
#13
(Original post by Theloniouss)
What would a practical alternative be other than different ports?
Well there isn't really a practical solution, to make any sense the port would have to be close to Dover and in practice it would probably take the form of an expansion of Dover whether at the current site or a new location. The geography just does not work, case in point it is only just slower to drive from Portsmouth to Dover, cross there, and then drive to Le Havre than it is to get the ferry direct.

Of course the bigger question is this: is there even a problem in the first place and if so what is the specific nature of the problem?
0
04MR17
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#14
Report 1 month ago
#14
Well this is looking tight
0
Andrew97
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#15
Report Thread starter 1 month ago
#15
Order, Order!

The Ayes to the right: 15
The Noes to the left: 15
Abstains: 11

The Noes have it, The Noes have it. Unlock!
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Are you travelling in the Uni student travel window (3-9 Dec) to go home for Christmas?

Yes (91)
27.91%
No - I have already returned home (43)
13.19%
No - I plan on travelling outside these dates (62)
19.02%
No - I'm staying at my term time address over Christmas (32)
9.82%
No - I live at home during term anyway (98)
30.06%

Watched Threads

View All