Red diesel petition

[cuthound]

49 minutes ago, smiler said:

Quick question.....

What is the difference between red diesel- ie used in boats, agriculture, construction etc and oil used for central heating?

Is it different?

 

44 minutes ago, GRLMK38 said:

About 40p per litre (in favour of heating oil) ?  Somebody will be along with a technical answer but diesel and kerosene (heating oil) are different products.

 

Viscosity.

 

Red diesel is also known as 35 second oil, whilst kerosene is also known as 28 second oil.

 

The "xx second oil" refers to the time a measured amount takes to flow through a standard "British Standard" orifice.

[robtheplod]

sorry I'm new but I have to ask what a British Standard orifice is?    what sort of world have I entered! 

Edited September 6, 2019 by robtheplod

[cuthound]

2 minutes ago, robtheplod said:

sorry I'm new but I have to ask what a British Standard orifice is?    what sort of world have I entered! 

 

 

From http://gas-n-fuels.com/oil-info.html

 

SO WHAT IS ALL THIS "SEC" STUFF ANYWAY?

Viscosity of Hydrocarbon fuels can be expressed as the number of seconds taken for 50ml,  flowing under controlled conditions through a hole of set dimensions. The fuel in the holding cup is heated to 40°C by an electrically controlled water jacket.  When all conditions are correct, the ball blocking the hole is lifted and the stop watch started, when 50ml has flowed into the lower flask the watch is stopped and the seconds taken for this (called Redwood seconds) gives the number of the viscosity. If the refining process has been done right at 28 seconds then we have Premium kerosene, if between 28 and 32 seconds then we have standard kerosene. At least  35 seconds and under 38 seconds and we have Diesel fuel or Gas Oil, which has added red dye to show it is not for road use. The test equipment used is called the Redwood Viscometer.

[Guest]

17 minutes ago, cuthound said:

Surely the point is that if you use oil for heating and hot water in your house you dont pay extra duty on it, even of it is a holiday let,. So why should liveabords and leisure boaters?

 

Other leisure pursuits don't use a significant portion of their diesel for heating.

I agree that it is unfair that as liveaboards we will have to pay propulsion prices to heat water and charge batteries, when we wouldn't in a house.. We can of course fit equipment that will legally run on red for these purposes, but at high cost, when we already have a capable CHP/propulsion unit in the boat. "Doubling up"on equipment is also a poor idea from the environmental point of view.
I think the propulsion thing is more difficult to argue.
To my mind a reasonable split and continue with red is a fair compromise (though I would much prefer red prices all round!)

Edited September 6, 2019 by Guest

[robtheplod]

11 minutes ago, cuthound said:

 

 

From http://gas-n-fuels.com/oil-info.html

 

SO WHAT IS ALL THIS "SEC" STUFF ANYWAY?

Viscosity of Hydrocarbon fuels can be expressed as the number of seconds taken for 50ml,  flowing under controlled conditions through a hole of set dimensions. The fuel in the holding cup is heated to 40°C by an electrically controlled water jacket.  When all conditions are correct, the ball blocking the hole is lifted and the stop watch started, when 50ml has flowed into the lower flask the watch is stopped and the seconds taken for this (called Redwood seconds) gives the number of the viscosity. If the refining process has been done right at 28 seconds then we have Premium kerosene, if between 28 and 32 seconds then we have standard kerosene. At least  35 seconds and under 38 seconds and we have Diesel fuel or Gas Oil, which has added red dye to show it is not for road use. The test equipment used is called the Redwood Viscometer.

thanks, I'm quite relieved!

[cuthound]

15 minutes ago, catweasel said:

I agree that it is unfair that as liveaboards we will have to pay propulsion prices to heat water and charge batteries, when we wouldn't in a house.. We can of course fit equipment that will legally run on red for these purposes, but at high cost, when we already have a capable CHP/propulsion unit in the boat. "Doubling up"on equipment is also a poor idea from the environmental point of view.
I think the propulsion thing is more difficult to argue.
To my mind a reasonable split and continue with red is a fair compromise (though I would much prefer red prices all round!)

 

I agree the propulsion component is virtually impossible to argue unless it is for a commercial purpose. However one option that the government could adopt if we have to use white diesel, would be to give a rebate (perhaps based on the 60%/40% split which they seem happy with) to boaters on an annual production of receipts, (bit like completing a tax return).

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, cuthound said:

 

I agree the propulsion component is virtually impossible to argue unless it is for a commercial purpose. However one option that the government could adopt if we have to use white diesel, would be to give a rebate (perhaps based on the 60%/40% split which they seem happy with) to boaters on an annual production of receipts, (bit like completing a tax return).

Maybe an option there. I expect that they would argue that the administration costs would make it ineffective, but perhaps there is hope.
In our case, should the worst happen, we have decided that we will travel less and save fuel that way, hence reducing annual cost. The genny will be used more, possibly with gas conversion (though the savings there are debatable, judging by prices we have obtained. Safer though.)
My biggest concern is that people will be carting DERV in drums etc to save money (canal side pumps won't be able to compete with ASDA.,) some of which will end up in the cut. Not good.

[Chewbacka]

17 minutes ago, catweasel said:

Maybe an option there. I expect that they would argue that the administration costs would make it ineffective, but perhaps there is hope.
In our case, should the worst happen, we have decided that we will travel less and save fuel that way, hence reducing annual cost. The genny will be used more, possibly with gas conversion (though the savings there are debatable, judging by prices we have obtained. Safer though.)
My biggest concern is that people will be carting DERV in drums etc to save money (canal side pumps won't be able to compete with ASDA.,) some of which will end up in the cut. Not good.

That happens already where it’s quicker and easier for some living on towpath moorings to go by car to collect red diesel.  Also as it’s going into tubs/cans etc I think there is no need to make a boating declaration.

 

added - I agree that this will make it more common and as you say, some canal side places will stop selling, forcing everyone in the area to collect in cans.  Spillage can only increase.

Edited September 6, 2019 by Chewbacka

[Momac]

2 hours ago, Chewbacka said:

I didn’t sign it because it basically says that boating diesel will increase in tax by 30p per litre and we don’t want to pay.  Had it briefly stated why this is unfair then I would, but it just sounds like rich hobby boaters wanting to pay less tax on their hobby.  So I hope it doesn’t get enough signatures to trigger a debate, because it could turn public opinion against and then when it needs sensible discussion it will be more difficult to get a sensible result.

There have been several similar petitions that have not had enough signatures. Therefore this one could be a last chance .

 I don’t understand why anyone owning a boat with a diesel engine would want to not sign.

[PeterCr]

Can't sign it, I'm not a citizen or resident. But I'm still a boater. ?

[cuthound]

24 minutes ago, catweasel said:

Maybe an option there. I expect that they would argue that the administration costs would make it ineffective, but perhaps there is hope.
In our case, should the worst happen, we have decided that we will travel less and save fuel that way, hence reducing annual cost. The genny will be used more, possibly with gas conversion (though the savings there are debatable, judging by prices we have obtained. Safer though.)
My biggest concern is that people will be carting DERV in drums etc to save money (canal side pumps won't be able to compete with ASDA.,) some of which will end up in the cut. Not good.

 

I agree, pollution will become much worse if people buy from roadside fuel stations. Given that a litre of diesel spilt into water spreads to cover an area the size of a football pitch, we can look forward to cruising on multicoloured canals.

[Chewbacka]

5 minutes ago, MartynG said:

There have been several similar petitions that have not had enough signatures. Therefore this one could be a last chance .

 I don’t understand why anyone owning a boat with a diesel engine would want to not sign.

Because when it is debated it will be presented along the lines of - my constituents have to pay £1.40 a litre to get to work where they are paid minimum wage, most of the tax from fuel is used by the nhs & education, but rich boaters don’t think they should have to pay this tax, effectively they want their hobby subsidised by the working man.

 

I think the petition should have focused more on poor people living on boats, now being charged a tax for keeping warm, that would have generated a lot more support.

 

[Guest]

42 minutes ago, Chewbacka said:

That happens already where it’s quicker and easier for some living on towpath moorings to go by car to collect red diesel.  Also as it’s going into tubs/cans etc I think there is no need to make a boating declaration.

 

added - I agree that this will make it more common and as you say, some canal side places will stop selling, forcing everyone in the area to collect in cans.  Spillage can only increase.

Agree. I should have said there would be an increase in such activities.

19 minutes ago, Chewbacka said:

Because when it is debated it will be presented along the lines of - my constituents have to pay £1.40 a litre to get to work where they are paid minimum wage, most of the tax from fuel is used by the nhs & education, but rich boaters don’t think they should have to pay this tax, effectively they want their hobby subsidised by the working man.

 

I think the petition should have focused more on poor people living on boats, now being charged a tax for keeping warm, that would have generated a lot more support.

 

Very likely.

[Guest]

43 minutes ago, MartynG said:

There have been several similar petitions that have not had enough signatures. Therefore this one could be a last chance .

 I don’t understand why anyone owning a boat with a diesel engine would want to not sign.

Don't shoot the messenger here, but I have read elsewhere that some who go to sea think it is the correct thing to do. I can't remember all of the ins and outs of
it, but it concerns rocking up at foreign ports with red diesel aboard, which I understand is illegal.
Back to inland waterways, it has got to be worth signing to see if we can save at least some of the rebate.
As has been suggested elsewhere, it is because boating is considered the pastime  of the idle rich that this has come about, and perhaps we have focused in the wrong area.
Cue sad violin music; My wife and I will just have to travel less distance in future to save costs, should the increase occur. Stay longer on 48 hr moorings etc
Joking aside, it will hit some people very hard. Probably see more bridge hopping and continuous mooring too.

Edited September 6, 2019 by Guest

[ditchcrawler]

5 hours ago, GRLMK38 said:

I'm surprised at how few have signed this considering how vocal the canal community can be on subjects that have financial implications on boaters.

I think its far to late now. maybe 4 to 5 years ago before the split came in and the EU court said what we were doing was illegal 

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:

I think its far to late now. maybe 4 to 5 years ago before the split came in and the EU court said what we were doing was illegal 

Probably clutching at straws now. Perhaps we can delay things a bit (sounds familiar!)

[furnessvale]

2 hours ago, GRLMK38 said:

Which as a Roving Trader I'm perfectly entitled to do...

Have you read the HMRC consultation?  If your boat is anything other than 100% commercial you WILL have to use white diesel.

 

All the liveaboard roving traders will fall foul of HMRCs interpretation of what is required.

 

George

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, furnessvale said:

Have you read the HMRC consultation?  If your boat is anything other than 100% commercial you WILL have to use white diesel.

 

All the liveaboard roving traders will fall foul of HMRCs interpretation of what is required.

 

George

That is in line with what other roving traders have told me.

[Alan de Enfield]

26 minutes ago, furnessvale said:

Have you read the HMRC consultation?  If your boat is anything other than 100% commercial you WILL have to use white diesel.

 

All the liveaboard roving traders will fall foul of HMRCs interpretation of what is required.

 

George

But - they should be able to reclaim the VAT at 20%

[Momac]

1 hour ago, catweasel said:

Joking aside, it will hit some people very hard. Probably see more bridge hopping and continuous mooring too.

It will certainly impact most on inland waterways boaters who are less well off.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, MartynG said:

It will certainly impact most on inland waterways boaters who are less well off.

Yes it will. That in itself will then lead to other social problems.

[OldGoat]

Methinks  that both the Revenue questionaire and the petition are ill timed - assuming that we are leaving the EU.

 

The regulation is part of the EU rules. In the UK 'Diesel' is subject to  a road fuel duty. If Gas Oil is used for non road transport purposes, then there's no RF duty.

The EU has a different concept for Gas Oil taxation - but we're leaving.... Accordingly there's no need to observise the ECJ ruling and all non road based motive use should revert to the  existing (for convenience sake)  taxation rate for the use of MGO.

The Revenue earlier admitted that the income from applying modified tax rules to private boating was very small indeed and they'd rather not have to control and monitor it.

[Guest]

22 minutes ago, OldGoat said:

Methinks  that both the Revenue questionaire and the petition are ill timed - assuming that we are leaving the EU.

 

The regulation is part of the EU rules. In the UK 'Diesel' is subject to  a road fuel duty. If Gas Oil is used for non road transport purposes, then there's no RF duty.

The EU has a different concept for Gas Oil taxation - but we're leaving.... Accordingly there's no need to observise the ECJ ruling and all non road based motive use should revert to the  existing (for convenience sake)  taxation rate for the use of MGO.

The Revenue earlier admitted that the income from applying modified tax rules to private boating was very small indeed and they'd rather not have to control and monitor it.

I doubt we will ever get this back regardless of our EU status. 

[OldGoat]

12 hours ago, catweasel said:

I doubt we will ever get this back regardless of our EU status. 

I'm inclined to agree with you!

I would be content with the curent regime, however.

A shift to 'white' fuel means not only an increase in costs for 'us' boaters but large increase in costs and security issues for canalside sellers.

Methinks the recent questionaire from HMRC should be answered by (more) boaters as it's an oportunity for 'us' to explain the situation. It takes some effort to respond (lots of questions) and I suspect that the usual apathy will occur....

[Eldog]

21 hours ago, Chewbacka said:

I didn’t sign it because it basically says that boating diesel will increase in tax by 30p per litre and we don’t want to pay.  Had it briefly stated why this is unfair then I would, but it just sounds like rich hobby boaters wanting to pay less tax on their hobby.  So I hope it doesn’t get enough signatures to trigger a debate, because it could turn public opinion against and then when it needs sensible discussion it will be more difficult to get a sensible result.

I rather take exception that all leisure cruisers are rich; suggest you seek medical assistance to get that chip on your shoulder removed. By the way I've signed, mainly because it's grossly unfair on the live-aboard population who I believe in the main get on with us leisure bods.