report your accidents or else.

[Becky]

In another mag this month (Sailing Toady; am I allowed to mention it here?) is the short report about an EU regulation stating that boats of over 45 metres must report all incidents or accidents. But our wonderful MCA has decided that the EU have got it wrong as usual: what they really meant was ALL boats must report any accident, with a penalty of up to 2 years in prison and/or a £5000 fine.
Seemingly the RYA has taken up the cudgels on our behalf and is taking legal action to obtain a declaration from the High Court that the introduction of the regulation was unlawful and seeks to gain a quashing order.
Does anyone on the Forum have details of this?
Is it true? And if so, what should we do about it?
(I hope this hasn't been aired already, I am sorry if it has.)
Apparently the definition of 'an incident or accident' isn't clear; it could be anything from hitting a racing buoy to knocking down a pier in Southampton Water.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[BrendanS]

Becky

There have been several threads on this. Probably the most informative is on PBO with details of letter from MCGA saying that they will not be enforcing pleasure boaters minor incidents. It's likely that regulations will be redrafted, as the under 45 bit was put in after the consultation exercise, at which time RYA didn't see a need to become involved

<hr width=100% size=1>Me transmitte sursum, caledoni

 

[Becky]

Thank you. I guessed I had missed this. Can't imagine that I found something before the forum had dealt with it!

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[tome]

Wish we had dealt with it, it's a mess.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[jfm]

It would be quite cool to archive somewhere easily accessible a copy of the letter that the poster on the other thread got from MCA. That creates a legitimate expectation (and hence enforceable) that the MCA will not be heavy-handed. Kim can this be done?

That should then see us through till they re-write the regulations, likely by next summer, but there could be delays etc and it could lake longer.

I gotta say I cannot see how the RYA legal action can possibly succeed. It's a judical review. But it seeks to quash an act done by parliament, which is pushing new boundaries to say the least. I dont think it will succeed.

Quite a mess really. This is what our taxes get spent on

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Talbot]

Nobody seems to be saying anything good about the RYA taking this action. They certainly cannot be blamed for the cock-up as the modification to the act to include all leisure boats happened after the consultation process was complete.

We have had several posts recently about how much a waste of space is the RYA, and declaring an end to subscriptions, well people here is a good example of where your RYA subscription is being used - in a court case to help maintain some sanity in the boaty world.

I am an RYA member and will continue to be. They dont do everything I want em to, and do some things I would rather not, but at least they do try on our behalf, and the more members they have, the heavier their voice.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[BrendanS]

Easily done. Will pm the forumite (Trevethan) who received the letter, and see if he can scan and email, or send me a copy, and I'll put on web as an electronic copy accessible to all.

<hr width=100% size=1>Me transmitte sursum, caledoni <P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1>Edited by BrendanS on 30/11/2004 22:49 (server time).</FONT></P>

 

[kds]

There are two obvious responses:
1. Stay cool - you know that EU regulations are a total disaster area - don't let them get to you.
2. Don't read Sailing Today.
Ken

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[ParaHandy]

Judicial review ...

you've said this before, jfm, about the supremacy of parliament in the other thread and i thought it not wrong, exactly, but not how things are, or have, evolved.
eg Lord Denning often took the gov. down a peg when he felt people needed protecting from the unchallenged power of the government and the current challenge to the hunting bill is because the 1911 Parliament Act is for high matters of constitutional law and not because an inconvenience to an intended general election date ....

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[cgull]

Try the crossword puzzle in Jan edition of S-T


<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Cornishman]

For the latest position regarding the RYA legal action see the rya web site at www.rya.org.
The reason they are upset is that the Govt did not consult them first, which they have a lawful duty to do.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[jfm]

Re: Judicial review ...

Hmm yeah that could be right Para. I'm not sure about the RYA jud review thing, I am making the point more as a question than a statement, becuase I dont know the answer. No doubt they've got some good legal advice on it.

I dont actually know which law or policy statement or whatever the "duty to consult before enacting new law"is enshrined in. That obviously has some bearing on this.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[jamesjermain]

Judicial review

It can succeed.

The purpose of a judicial review is to establish that theduly constituted authorities acted in a legal manner and abided by accepted procedures. In this case the RYA is arguing that by including the sub-45m category after the consultation period the EC acted illegally and contrary to its own guidlines and therefore the law is null and void and cannot be put into action by the UK Government and therefore cannot be acted on by the MCA.
If the RYA wins, as I understand it, the whole act falls and has to start again with a new consultation period.

<hr width=100% size=1>JJ

 

[charles_reed]

I wonder why

Yachties think they should be outside the law and any form of regulation or taxation.

It may have something to do with the English tradition of long-standing common-law rights compared to the Europeans' familiarity with absolutist rule,

We'll have to adopt a similar attitude - rules are observed in their breach.

A glut of regulation brings the whole of the law into disrepute.

<hr width=100% size=1>