Light Dues

[tome]

I see that DTLR have published a consultation document which proposes the levying of light dues on pleasure craft, see:

http://www.shipping.dtlr.gov.uk/consult/light/index.htm

on the dubious basis that commercial operators consider themselves "better equipped" and so less reliant than pleasure craft on lights and buoys. What a load of baloney - the sprawling mess which is DTLR now wants to add pleasure boat regulation to their bloated portfolio.

I for one will make my views known - this is the thin end of a large wedge of regulation which I don't want to see in my lifetime.

 

[vyv_cox]

My overall impression on reading the Pleasure Craft section is that they don't think it will fly. Economic justification looks tenuous and outweighed by the collection costs. Interesting that they go along with Government indications that registration would be difficult and expensive to apply, therefore the implication must be that Light Dues would be similarly difficult and uneconomic.

I see the only consultee on "our" side is RYA, anyone heard anything from them on this subject?

 

[tome]

Just checked the RYA site and found this:

"Kathryn Burnett, the RYA Cruising Manager said, 'The Government's discussion document on this issue will be open to the general public for comment too. I would urge everyone to log on to the DTLR's website and have your say - don't hope that someone else will do it on your behalf. It's our sport and we're being given the chance to make our point on this issue.'"

which seems to say it's up to us as individuals to register or views and the RYA will take a back seat?

 

[chrisc]

ahh.... but if it came to pass I bet the RYA would be involved in the Buerocracy

 

[BarryD]

So are you saying Tome that you don't use any of the Navaids provided? Or that they should be provided free of charge for your personal use?

Go left, YOUR OTHER left for pete's sake
(IMHO, BTW, FWIW and NWGOI)

 

[tcm]

Re: Welfare state

ah but barry, no problem at all in paying for them....cept what's all the tax for? Or, since the tories collected a massive £290 billion a year in 96-97 (when the navaids were there) and now the labour lot collect over £440 billion and navaid-wise have removed the channel buoys?

Seems to me we pay a ton of tax for education, transport, health and police...but then pay again privately if we want a decent school (in london anyway), to arrive anywhere on time, to have operations quickly, or to have monster insurance premiums cos things get nicked.

Best answer is of course to get governement to use normal rules of economics. Instead of looking for new ways to nick tax, just dump the tax and that's that. Fire loads and loads of civil layabouts - don't callem "servants" cos they won't answer the phone. retutn to whatever system we had when we controlled 25% of world's wealth via empire and only 10,000 civil servants. For starters, get rid of income tax, avoided by the rich anyway and accounting for a measly 20 percent of tax take. Then we'd all be fine about paying for the navaids.

Or just sod navaids, as gps should mean that it's only the crap old rustbuckets with no gps these days, so natural selection would quickly remove all the dangerous hulks, and just have a RN ship popping a few rounds across the bows at each end of the channel to keepem awake. You know it makes sense.

 

[nightjar]

Re: Welfare state

Ever thought of standing for election ? My votes with you !

 

[Mirelle]

A serous answer

1. Pleasure craft registered under part 1 of the 1894 Act used to pay Light Dues. This was abandoned due to cost and difficulty of collection.

2. Pleasure craft do use navaids more than commercial vessels do.

3. Lights are NOT paid for out of general taxation in the UK (they are elsewhere) but out of Light Dues paid by ships calling at UK ports. A large container ship pays about Pds 60,000 per port call. Basically, this is a tax on UK trade, to benefit you and I.

 

[tcm]

Re: A serous answer

is that right - sixty thousand quid to visit a port? Wow.

 

[Jeremy_W]

Re: A serious answer

At sixty grand per container ship your beloved Felixstowe probably pays for all the lights and buoys in UK waters in a couple of weeks.

 

[NigeCh]

Extracted from the Doc

"2.3 The GLAs are responsible for providing marine aids to navigation, mostly outside port and harbour boundaries. The payment name – light dues – rather understates the level of service provided and necessary to maintain safe navigation. The GLAs provide 1,268 aids to navigation including:

350 lighthouses, many of which provide other navigation services.

690 buoys.

Around 220 beacons.

The marine Differential Global Positioning System.

Provides an immediate response to mark new shipwrecks to protect other vessels."



I don't believe that there are just 690 lit buoys around the UK - There have to be more. I reckon that there are at least 300 lit buoys/beacons from say Ipswich to South Goodwin .... So who is paying to maintain all the other lit buoys?

Having read the whole document, I don't disagree with either its principles or its content. It's mainly about setting out 'fact', previous legislation, previous/current collection methods and begging responses to a number of insidious questions.

I think that I already pay a small amount of money each year to a harbour trust that maintains the buoys and the lights. From what I've gleaned that trust is self funding for that particular purpose and does not garner any moneys from the GLA or the GLF. All boats registered in that trust are subject to that impost. All visiting boats, where dues are collected with that trust's area pay a small amount to the trust's general fund.

I think that reading between the lines in the pleasure boat section, that the thrust of the 'requests for comment' are leading to compulsory registration of all pleasure boats ... so that the data collected can be given to other agencies for yet more stealth taxes.

You don't think I'm right? How much are potatoes taxed? - And yes they are taxed by a set of hidden taxes.

BTW, I also think that we should tax foreign lorry drivers for using our roads and street lights.

 

[hlb]

Re: A serous answer

Well if thats the amount they collect. A tenner a piece off us lot would do a fat lot of good.

No one can force me to come here-----------
----- I'm a Volunteer!!!

Haydn

 

[kimhollamby]

Dues 40p/ton

I'm straying right outside of an area I haven't played with since the late 1970s but how does that £60k figure arise...a quick check around on the internet seemed to be indicating 40p/ton for cargo ships actually carrying cargo on scheduled calls with a max of £16k per voyage. Are there other charges such as port dues included in that?

The 40p/ton figure is ref The Merchant Shipping (Light Dues) (Amendment) Regulations 2002 that came into force 1 April.

That's reduced from 41p/ton, presumably because the GLAs state they are operating at a surplus currently?

Incidentally, to jog memories the government looked at a flat fee charge for all pleasure vessels back in the early 1990s similar to the system used for tugs and fishing boats over 10m loa and rejected it then.

kim_hollamby@ipcmedia.com<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1>Edited by kimhollamby on Tue May 14 19:56:23 2002 (server time).</FONT></P>

 

[EdEssery]

Coincidentally I went to a talk by Kathryn Burnett at Yateley Offshore Sailing Club yesterday evening. Light Dues was one of a number of topics she spoke to.

The RYA are lobbying hard on our behalf amongst a bunch of other factions most of whom don't really understand the needs of pleasure craft use.

She suggested that as the opportunity was open for us to comment individually we should avail ourselves of it - the more people who comment the better. Let's not have a French election scenario!

Kathryn's arguments against Light dues can be summarised as follows:

1. According to a New Zealand Coastguard Survey two years ago, the UK has the best safety record in the world for deaths in our waters bar none. The survey showed that there was no safety pay off at all in countries where legislation and/or light dues were paid by users.

2. Big Ships say that they do not need Navigation Aids because of the accuracy of Satellite Navigation. With GPS sets starting at £100, by the same argument nor do pleasure boat owners HOWEVER if a pleasure boater goes aground, he can put the kettle on and wait for the tide - no big deal but if a big ship goes aground you have an ecological disaster on your hands.

3. A significant percentage of pleasure boaters never venture beyond the boundaries of their harbour authority and therefore never avail themselves of the facilities provided by Trinity House. The only Nav Aids they use are within the confines of their harbour which are funded by the Harbour Authority and paid for in Harbour Dues.

4. Nobody has yet come up with a way of charging Light Dues in a manner where the cost of collection does not exceed the revenue which will be raised - thus the question on this topic on the consultation. Hint: Don't give the government any ideas about how to tax us further even if you do have an idea which might be cost effective.

To see the consultation document go to http://www.shipping.dtlr.gov.uk/consult/light/index.htm. To comment send e-mail to julio.varela@dtlr.gsi.gov.uk.

Ed

 

[Mirelle]

Sorry, typo.

Kim is right. 16, not 60. Still a huge amount of money.

 

[tome]

Read all the posts with interest. Still think we should be making strong individual representations, but some specifics:

BarryD - I don't object to making a payment for facilities used (perhaps to replace the ludicrous £20 VHF fee?)

NigeCh - Who uses DGPS signals now that SA has been switched off, and how much use do we really make of GLA (as opposed to LHA) facilities? I shall check, but am reasonably certain that my harbour dues cover the cost of navaids.

hlb - a tenner a piece would raise more than 15% of the £70 million GLA costs

EdEsery - Thanks for the useful summary, but I wouldn't assume we don't have a fight on our hands

Kim - Just because they rejected the idea in the 90's...

Point is that unless we stand up against unnecessary regulation, the control freaks now occupying the corridors of power will see our un-regulated activities as red rag to a bull. Even if they don't initiate legislation in this country, they will give tacit approval to European initiatives so that, before we know it, there will be a harmonisation directive slipped in via the Brussels back door. We're an Island nation and we should defend our precious freedom (one of our few remaining).

Sorry to say that I just don't trust this matter to the RYA

 

[Guest]

How sad that you don't trust this matter to the RYA. They have far more clout than you, or any other individual or group of individuals, has and have already kept the subject of light dues at bay over the years. What's changed that you don't trust them?

 

[AndrewB]

How many buoys do yachtsmen actually need?

Unfortunately the DTLR have no real appreciation of the needs of yachtsmen. If yachtsmen now make most use of navigational aids, why are the vast majority of buoys laid to mark deep water channels of greatest use to shipping? For example, the Medway entrance is marked by about 40 buoys (excluding the Richard Mongomery wreck) and it is not difficult to count that of these around 6 are laid to indicate shallow water channels, boundaries and obstacles - those are the only ones of real value to yachtsmen and fishermen.

I find it difficult to see how we can legitimately oppose making some contribution to light dues, but on the 'no taxation without representation' principle we ought also have opportunity to say what we wanted, and what we didn't. If that happened, I have a hunch the General Lighthouse Authorities would find their empires considerably diminished.

 

[NigeCh]

Yes, How many buoys ....

Andrew, I don't think that have got across what you were trying to say, just as I didn't get it across either. I thin that we both agree that every user of the seas should contribute a small part to the necessary buoys both lit and unlit - However, we do have a representative voice to voice discontent - It's called the RYA or should it be called the FITA? (that's Far* in a Th*nderstom A**ociation)

The Consultative Document is a fair doucument, but IMO it's secondary purpose is insidious.

Nige

 

[tcm]

Re: the nature of tax

but the nature of tax on individuals is always initilally reasonable, as income tax started to pay for a war and so on. If there ever was (say) a device to automatically avoid rocks, and/or a rock-proof hull material and/or a press-button force field , the record shows that the tax would stay. Taxes have increased quite spectacularly since the country has been at relative peace, and even more so since governemnts have been able to compare notes with one another as to what they've been able to get away with, and harmonize (upwards) accordingly.