by Graham Tutthill

gtutthill@thekmgroup.co.uk

Ferry operators say they feel they have been treated as second-class citizens by Dover Harbour Board.

The accusation was made at the start of the public inquiry into the ferry companies' objections to the level of charges made for the use of the port for 2010 and 2011.

P&O Ferries, SeaFrance and DFDS Seaways - usually fierce competitors - have joined forces to ask the Transport Secretary to rule that the increased fees imposed by the harbour board are unreasonable.

Lloyd Rodgers, the inspector holding the inquiry at the Dover Marina Hotel, has been told that the charges amount to more than a 30% increase and possibly as high as 35%.

The three ferry companies have not been able to agree on the figure they feel would be reasonable, but their individual suggestions are said to be reductions of between 14 and 20 per cent.

However, these figures had not been handed in when the inquiry started on Tuesday, and the hearing was adjourned so that the harbour board officials could study them.

Tom Hill, representing the board, said he was disappointed the figures had not been made available the previous week.

Fergus Randolph, for the ferry companies, said he was disappointed at Mr Hill’s disappointment, and said the new document only amounted to three or four pages.

There was a flavour of the evidence to come as both sides laid out their arguments.

Mr Hill said it was up to the ferry operators to prove that the harbour board had improperly exercised its "very broad discretion" in setting the charges.

And he told the inspector that it was not the Secretary of State's role to revisit or second guess every decision made by the harbour board in recent years which might have an impact on the fees.

Mr Hill said evidence would be given that the charges were below those which were "commercial, competitive, fair and equitable", the four terms which the Inspector said he would be considering.

Mr Hill said the charges were also "significantly below" those charged at Calais.

"No part of this analysis supports the proposition that the dues set for these years were excessive," said Mr Hill

"The objections are multi-faceted and often expressed in unnecessarily hyperbolic terms. The harbour board naturally regrets that the objections have been made."

He said there was also a danger that the ferry companies might use this inquiry to put forward their objections to the possible privatisation of the port.

"That is a wholly separate issue and one which must not be confused with the harbour board's on-going statutory responsibilities to set dues as a trust port," said Mr Hill.

Mr Randolph said the ferry companies felt sorrow rather than anger that they had to submit the objections.

"They don't wish to fight with Dover Harbour Board but feel they have no choice," he said.

"Over a sustained period of time, the board has failed to listen to their concerns and has acted in contradictory ways."

He said the operators were originally told that the increase in charges was to build up funds for the development of a second ferry terminal. But when that plan was put back, he said the board changed its tune.

"It said the cash surplus, presently standing at some £60 million and likely to increase to some £90 million by 2015, would instead be used for terminal one improvement works.

"This could lead to the operators being charged twice for the same works, given that they have already been charged for terminal two development works, only to see the board decide to spend it on something else.

"The board has made clear that some of the cash surplus derived from the increased tariffs will be used in the privatisation process.

"This raises the key issue as to whether the board is entitled to use revenue raised from tariffs for such purposes. The operators say strongly not."

Mr Randolph said 75 per cent of the board's income came from the ferry operators.

Accusing the board of failing to disclose critical documents, he said: "The operators feel they are being treated as second-class citizens by an overweening board.

"They have no other option than to use Dover Harbour. They can not take their ferries elsewhere if they wish to provide the key services on the short sea route between the UK and France. They have ferries that are specially designed for use at Dover Harbour."

Trust ports, he said, could be compared to having an heirloom - a valuable asset to be safeguarded and handed on to succeeding generations.

"Far from passing on that heirloom, the board will be selling the family silver," said Mr Randolph.

The Inspector made it clear that he had not ruled out the possibility that the two sides might be able to reach an agreement during the course of the inquiry, and the objections might be withdrawn.