A new angle on Red

[Nick_H]

One angle I haven't heard much about is to stage the duty increase over a number of years. The only argument that seems to have even registered with the UK government is the potential affect on the marine industry, because that's the only area where they could lose out (less corporation tax, more unemployed etc.) The EU have already accepted the "means to an end" principle by allowing the delay in implementation to Nov 08.

So why not petition to have the duty increased from current 7p to future 57p in 5 annual steps of 10p. This gives the industry time to adjust, potentially softens any capital loss impact on boat owners, and the gov't and EU can demonstrate they are adhering to the principle of harmonised taxation. As we've already agreed that boaters are the only users of this fuel, there's no conflict with other users, and if the fuel is still dyed red its no more open to abuse than it is currently.

When the fuel hits full duty in 5 yrs time, then leisure only fuel outlets can switch to ULSD, and reduce duty by 7p.

 

[rickp]

Its a good idea, but I suspect that the EU will claim that 2 years is more than enough, considering the first derogation was provided to give us time to migrate. The other countries that lost the derogation have already changed I believe, certainly Belgium has.

Rick

 

[PowerYachtBlog]

today on Euronews
there was a clip where the EU was calling and sugesting to help and promote all forms of Marine Transport and operations by reducing taxes
this article also suggested that there is less expense, traffic problems and ambiental problems and the EU is not very competitive in the area
I hope reduced fuel costs for Boats will be on one of the agendas....

 

[Kipper]

Although this is a great idea i feel we have probebly passed that mark now. A compromise over a couple of years might fly though and i still dont see why it has to taxed at roadside prices or above. After all there is no real tax harmony in europe , Is there?

 

[T43]

My understanding (which of course could be wrong) is that the EU have set a minimum rate of duty of 27 pence per litre, which means to comply our goverment only need to increase the duty a further 20p per litre.

No mention was made that it had to come into line with road duty.

 

[KevB]

[ QUOTE ]
My understanding (which of course could be wrong) is that the EU have set a minimum rate of duty of 27 pence per litre, which means to comply our goverment only need to increase the duty a further 20p per litre.

No mention was made that it had to come into line with road duty.

[/ QUOTE ]

They are not allowed to differentiate between different forms of transport so they have to charge DERV tax.

 

[Hurricane]

Surely, they dont have to ask the EU for permission, Rick?

 

[rickp]

I think we have already requested the 2 years (until Nov 2008) to handle the change over - John Healey said at the time:

[ QUOTE ]
I made it clear to the Commissioner that it is important to allow the UK a suitable period in which to translate the Commission's decision into the implementation of the changes required. The Commissioner acknowledged that point, and we will work with the boating associations on that in the coming months.

[/ QUOTE ]

I doubt we'd be granted a further 5 years. As we signed up to this in 1992 (under the Energy Products directive), we've had plenty of time. The EU can fine us if we do not come into line with the agreement we've already made.

Rick

 

[T43]

Kev ! the fuel we buy for our boats is not simply road deisel with pink dye in, it is of a different quality altogether.

 

[Kipper]

If this is the case why are able to double the price of Diesel then?

 

[Nick_H]

Well that accepts (maybe correctly) that we are completely beholding to the EU in a way that France, Germany etc are not. If the UK Gov't wants to protect its marine industry, and that's a big if, then they could inform the EU that that is what we're doing. There would be a bit of sabre rattling for sure, and then everyone would accept they get what they want in the end, without a need for any further process, so no one has really lost too much face.

 

[gjgm]

well, its the tax, not the product cost that is doubling.
As I understand, we have crapy red diesel, and lovely road diesel. Crapy diesel gets taxed even more bcz its so dirty (flash-up green credentials). You cannot tax differently for different use. SO, if we were to get clean road diesel, we would pay (as it happens) the same tax level as road users- or any other user of this fuel, if there are any. But we will get crapy disel instead, so we get taxed even more.
So why dont they supply us with clean road diesel? I didnt really understand the arguement, but it was something to do with suppling remote areas with only this clean diesel, and er..economics, unfair,mutter mutter...
Actually, presumably MDL isnt renown for filling up the fishing fleet, so why dont they only supply road diesel, for example? Any one know, or asked them?

 

[DogsBody]

[ QUOTE ]

Actually, presumably MDL isnt renown for filling up the fishing fleet, so why dont they only supply road diesel, for example? Any one know, or asked them?

[/ QUOTE ]

I was under the impression that MDL (at least at their thames marinas) already supply ULSD dyed red.

 

[neale]

Surely any marina that only sells to leisure boats will be able to choose to fill their tanks with white ULSD. That will make it 7ppl cheaper. Now assuming the roadside garages are making a few pence per litre, we have to believe that to buy white ULSD trade you pay around 94ppl. With Premier selling fuel to their bertholders at cost, that is what we should be paying next year if they take this route. /forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif