DoI not fit for purpose

[Non-Believer]

From today's Independent. Under Tynwald questions from Stu Peters, Tim Crookall admits that the term "Active Travel" had become "confused" under the previous administration and has led to various schemes being included and "thrown into the mix" when they should have been part of other schemes - like footpaths etc.

The whole Active Travel strategy to be reviewed over the next couple of months.

[Declan]

35 minutes ago, Non-Believer said:

From today's Independent. Under Tynwald questions from Stu Peters, Tim Crookall admits that the term "Active Travel" had become "confused" under the previous administration and has led to various schemes being included and "thrown into the mix" when they should have been part of other schemes - like footpaths etc.

The whole Active Travel strategy to be reviewed over the next couple of months.

That question wasn't covered that well in the run up to Tynwald by Manx Radio, making it look a stereotypical bit of Stu chuntering. But the question itself prompted an interesting exchange. I wonder whether question was primed because the minister seemed happy to announce a review of active travel. 

[Stu Peters]

18 minutes ago, Declan said:

That question wasn't covered that well in the run up to Tynwald by Manx Radio, making it look a stereotypical bit of Stu chuntering. But the question itself prompted an interesting exchange. I wonder whether question was primed because the minister seemed happy to announce a review of active travel. 

Nope. We all know it's often not the initial question that's important (which is notified in advance), it's the supplementaries (which, certainly in my case, weren't).

[Declan]

I thought that unlikely but it did seem to be welcomed by the minister. The supplementaries did make it look like the there's been mission creep on the active travel strategy and that the minister listened to that. It'll be harder when it is the minister's decisions and not his predecessor's that are up for criticism, but I thought that was kind of how questions are meant to work. 

(Apart from Moorehouse and Crookhall's differing perspectives on what constitutes the North). 

 

[cissolt]

3 hours ago, Stu Peters said:

Nope. We all know it's often not the initial question that's important (which is notified in advance), it's the supplementaries (which, certainly in my case, weren't).

Stu, how much money was received in car tax or whatever they are calling it? And how much was received on fuel?  Can we have a breakdown on what was spent where?  The active travel brigade seem to think that road maintenance is paid by their tax rather than road tax or fuel tax

[CallMeCurious]

See they paid £75k (although Bill it was only £65k) to Beach Buddies or was it

https://www.gov.im/news/2018/may/04/beach-buddies-scheme-to-help-maintain-more-of-the-islands-footpaths/

No tender process as Nick Black signed the waiver and 3 years later we now have a footpath Tsar because of the atrocious state of the footpaths. Guess that is value for money then? Though to be fair on the scale of incompotence and wastefulness in the DoI it's only five figures.

Notice BB wasn't willing to disclose his salary as exective of the charity after moaning about how much it had cost to buy sit on mower etc. Maybe hold a fund raising event or two then? Isn't that what charities normally do? Not bad when you get free labour from volunteers and the community service by the sounds of it.

Sounds like a right scheme to me. Wonder how much I could get from a charity set up to re-paint road markings, uncover and clean road signs and fix potholes with a cheque from the DoI. Maybe call it  Save The Islands Highways Locally ~ STIHL. That'd be good for a sponsorship deal at least.

 

 

 

 

 

[Non-Believer]

I see from the "Letters" in the Independent that Trevor Cowin has been doing a bit of digging (not literally) into the KM red zebra crossing.

It would appear that in order to establish this crossing as a legally compliant entity, the DOI were obliged to introduce a Traffic Regulation Order to give it correct legal status, as zebra crossings are otherwise legally obliged to be in black and white carriageway markings with flashing belisha beacons, in accordance with the Pedestrian Crossings Guidance Document.

Except they didn't, the TRO was only ever drafted and never taken forward and implemented.

This meant that up until the point that it reverted to black and white,  pedestrians were using a crossing that had no legal status nor was even compliant with the DOI's own guidance.

Edited November 18, 2021 by Non-Believer
typo

[GreyWolf]

So would I be right in thinking because it had no legal status, therefore in the event of an accident the DOI or persons in charge would be liable. 

 

[Happier diner]

59 minutes ago, cissolt said:

Stu, how much money was received in car tax or whatever they are calling it? And how much was received on fuel?  Can we have a breakdown on what was spent where?  The active travel brigade seem to think that road maintenance is paid by their tax rather than road tax or fuel tax

Who or what is the active travel brigade?

[finlo]

28 minutes ago, Happier diner said:

Who or what is the active travel brigade?

 

[cissolt]

45 minutes ago, Happier diner said:

Who or what is the active travel brigade?

The usual band wagon hoping mix of local councillors and middle class virtue signalers

[Stu Peters]

3 hours ago, cissolt said:

Stu, how much money was received in car tax or whatever they are calling it? And how much was received on fuel?  Can we have a breakdown on what was spent where?  The active travel brigade seem to think that road maintenance is paid by their tax rather than road tax or fuel tax

Sure thing.

VED income for the last 3 years - £40m (approx revenue figures - you can find the precise amounts in Hansard)
Fuel duty for last 3 years               £86m (ditto)

Roads maintenance spend (3 yrs) £14m
Capital road schemes                     £14m

Oh, and that doesn't include the VAT on fuel, which will be many, many millions.

When I was a schoolboy we were told that RFL HAD to be spent on roads, but that was the UK. Previous DoI Ministers told me on the radio here years ago that ALL of the VED (and more) was spent on roads. That has obviously changed. Obviously we can't prioritise potholes over healthcare, and the pot is only so big, but I firmly believe the motorist is getting a very poor deal.

[Non-Believer]

25 minutes ago, Stu Peters said:

Sure thing.

VED income for the last 3 years - £40m (approx revenue figures - you can find the precise amounts in Hansard)
Fuel duty for last 3 years               £86m (ditto)

Roads maintenance spend (3 yrs) £14m
Capital road schemes                     £14m

Oh, and that doesn't include the VAT on fuel, which will be many, many millions.

When I was a schoolboy we were told that RFL HAD to be spent on roads, but that was the UK. Previous DoI Ministers told me on the radio here years ago that ALL of the VED (and more) was spent on roads. That has obviously changed. Obviously we can't prioritise potholes over healthcare, and the pot is only so big, but I firmly believe the motorist is getting a very poor deal.

A few years back, David Cretney as DOI Minister instigated a big rise in VED with the assurance that it was all (every penny was the expression) going to be spent on the roads.

ETA. Fuel duty has risen on "environmental grounds" etc.

How much has the extra taxation expense dissuaded people from purchasing Fuel?

And what has the take been spent on?

Two questions I think we all know the answers to already.

Edited November 18, 2021 by Non-Believer
extra bit

[Roger Mexico]

I think Stu's misunderstood the figures, which is understandable as Crookall clearly made a mistake with them.  His full answer was:

The income from Vehicle Excise Duty over the last three years is for 2021 £13,503,618; for 2019-20, £13,310,371; for 2018-19, £13,325,034. A total of £40,139,023.

The income from fuel duty over the last three years is – I will do it in the same order for the same years but just not give out the years: £25,497,743; £30,216,065; and £30,335,351. A total of £86,049,159.

Customs and excise record hydrocarbon oil duty receipts which includes all fuel duty receipts, not just those related to road vehicles; for instance, boats, domestic usage, agricultural and industrial. The duty received on road fuel is not recorded separately.

It should be noted that VAT is a shared tax under the Customs and Excise Agreement with the Isle of Man share being calculated in line with the Final Expenditure Revenue-Sharing Agreements, the FERSA.

VAT on hydrocarbon oil sales is not separately identified within the calculation as such, and annual revenue from VAT on hydrocarbon oils cannot be provided.

The annual spend on maintaining roads is as follows; 2021, £4,403,497; 2019-20, £5,451,674; and in 2018-19, £4,293,429. A total of £14,148,600.

In addition to the above there is an expenditure on road-related capital improvement schemes each year that are available in the Pink Book. Of this, the following capital money has been spent on overlaying, surface dressing, and micro-asphalting the road which can be classified as maintenance as well, although they are being funded through capital investment. For those three years as well, the total for those is £14,148,600.

So the capital amount that Stu quoted wasn't the full capital programme (the Prom alone will be a lot more) but only those things that were really maintenance, but they didn't want to admit were.  Probably due to some complicated fiddle.

However as you will have noticed the two 'maintenance' amounts are exactly equal, which seems very unlikely so either Crookall read it out wrong or someone fed him the wrong figures.

[Zarley]

29 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

However as you will have noticed the two 'maintenance' amounts are exactly equal, which seems very unlikely so either Crookall read it out wrong or someone fed him the wrong figures.

As we're talking about the DoI, my money's on Crookall being fed the wrong figures.