Tranona
Well-Known Member
Maybe not, but the legislation now exists, as OldHarry has pointed out. I would not bet on them being put off by cost of implementation; after PFI and many other cockups, it is quite clear that politicians, civil srvants and consultants are all prepared to fudge the numbers to justify whatever they want to do, and protecting citizens from enjoying their freedom seems high on their list of precautionary nannying policies - all strictly in our own best interests, of course. Also, now that the MMO exists, it must have something to do, and widening its own remit to increase its staff numbers, budget, influence and, quite coincidentally of course, the salary grade of its chief executive, is an important part of that. BobPrell's take on the Aussie experience should give us all pause for serious thought.
Government has always had the option to set up a system of registration. There is nothing in the new legislation that makes it any easier. One of the difficulties is that there is no single definition of what registration is. There are (at least) 5 different purposes of register.
1 Register of title (as in current Part 1)
2 Register if ships nationality (as in Part 3 SSR and Part 1)
3 Identification for safety reasons (similar to the current voluntary CG66)
4 Identification for purposes of raising tax
5 Identification for ensuring compliance with appropriate laws including bye laws.
The Irish proposals seem to indicate that they want to cover the first 3, but doing that would also allow the last two - which is what concerns many people.
It would be a real challenge to design a registration system that would satisfy all those purposes, never mind implementing it given the huge number of unregistered boats that are already in existence.
Given the current government's resistance to any new legislation that expands the cost of government without an increase in income to cover it it is likely only to happen if it is forced by the EU or there is potential revenue raising.