UK fined £32m Euros over use of Red Diesel In Private Pleasure Boats

[Tim Lewis]

UK fined €32m over yacht fuels used in last days as EU member | Brexit | The Guardian

[Tonka]

in Northern Ireland

[Momac]

Will the UK be paying the fine?

[Arthur Marshall]

4 minutes ago, MartynG said:

Will the UK be paying the fine?

Why wouldn't it? It comes under the court's jurisdiction, and broke the law. The fact that the government did it deliberately doesn't create a defence. Though it could be interesting if it did.

"Did you moor your boat on a water point for six months?"

"Yes".

"Why shouldn't we revoke your licence?"

"Because I wanted to moor there & couldn't be bothered to move."

"OK."

 

[Jen-in-Wellies]

11 hours ago, Arthur Marshall said:

Why wouldn't it? It comes under the court's jurisdiction, and broke the law. The fact that the government did it deliberately doesn't create a defence. Though it could be interesting if it did.

"Did you moor your boat on a water point for six months?"

"Yes".

"Why shouldn't we revoke your licence?"

"Because I wanted to moor there & couldn't be bothered to move."

"OK."

 

So breaking the law in only a limited and specific way turned out not to be OK after all. Who would have thunked it.

[Tony1]

24 minutes ago, Jen-in-Wellies said:

So breaking the law in only a limited and specific way turned out not to be OK after all. Who would have thunked it.

 

How dare you insult the dear leader?

I am offended, in a limited and specific way. 

 

Edited October 3, 2023 by Tony1

[Mike Tee]

Just send the Euro whatever a note saying 'of course we love you and the cheque is in the mail'.

[JungleJames]

So the problem is all down to the fact the fuel was red?

 

The correct duty and VAT had been paid apparently. But the fuel was the wrong colour?

Bit petty if you ask me.

 

So, would this mean 2 fuel tanks would be required? One for propulsion and one for domestic.

One with white diesel and one with red.

 

What happens to all those boats already built which only have 1 tank?

 

Or do you just get rid of red altogether?

 

Either way, it really is a case of going after someone to prove a point.

 

 

 

 

[Alan de Enfield]

53 minutes ago, JungleJames said:

So the problem is all down to the fact the fuel was red?

 

The correct duty and VAT had been paid apparently. But the fuel was the wrong colour?

Bit petty if you ask me.

 

So, would this mean 2 fuel tanks would be required? One for propulsion and one for domestic.

One with white diesel and one with red.

 

What happens to all those boats already built which only have 1 tank?

 

Or do you just get rid of red altogether?

 

Either way, it really is a case of going after someone to prove a point.

 

 

 

 

 

Are you new to boating ?

 

Leisure boats are allowed to use red diesel as long as the relevant VAT & duty is paid.

Have a read up about the legislation, there are 100s of posts about it on the forum.

 

Previously we had an EU exemption allowing us to use Red, but that expired without renewal, and even tho' we paid the Tax & Duty the law stated it could not be 'marked' (dyed) fuel.

 

Brexit sorted it out and we (England Scotland & Wales) are now free to do as we wish.

[peterboat]

Definitely the rubber cheque is in the post

[JungleJames]

2 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Are you new to boating ?

 

Leisure boats are allowed to use red diesel as long as the relevant VAT & duty is paid.

Have a read up about the legislation, there are 100s of posts about it on the forum.

 

Previously we had an EU exemption allowing us to use Red, but that expired without renewal, and even tho' we paid the Tax & Duty the law stated it could not be 'marked' (dyed) fuel.

 

Brexit sorted it out and we (England Scotland & Wales) are now free to do as we wish.

I'm a bit lost what wasn't clear in my post.

But let's try it again, this time making obvious the bits we all know anyway.

 

The article says it was the colour of the fuel that was the problem. Not the duty/ tax paid on it.

 

Now, as we pay full tax on propulsion, but reduced tax on domestic (itself to keep the EU happy), it was decided we would keep using red, but with the famous 60/40 declaration. This saves having to buy 2 lots of fuel, and have 2 tanks.

 

From what I gather, it is the fact this fuel is still red which sent the EU into an unnecessary hissy fit. They accept we pay full tax on propulsion. That's ok. It's the colour of the fuel (perhaps they are bulls and don't like red?)

Or so I gather from the article anyway. 

 

Now had we still been in the EU, I assume the easiest option would be to do away with the red dye.

 

Clearly my suggestion of 2 tanks was a little unnecessary.

 

This really smacks of:

"That'll teach you to leave our party"

 

Honestly. All over the colour of the fuel? 

 

 

[Arthur Marshall]

12 minutes ago, JungleJames said:

I'm a bit lost what wasn't clear in my post.

But let's try it again, this time making obvious the bits we all know anyway.

 

The article says it was the colour of the fuel that was the problem. Not the duty/ tax paid on it.

 

Now, as we pay full tax on propulsion, but reduced tax on domestic (itself to keep the EU happy), it was decided we would keep using red, but with the famous 60/40 declaration. This saves having to buy 2 lots of fuel, and have 2 tanks.

 

From what I gather, it is the fact this fuel is still red which sent the EU into an unnecessary hissy fit. They accept we pay full tax on propulsion. That's ok. It's the colour of the fuel (perhaps they are bulls and don't like red?)

Or so I gather from the article anyway. 

 

Now had we still been in the EU, I assume the easiest option would be to do away with the red dye.

 

Clearly my suggestion of 2 tanks was a little unnecessary.

 

This really smacks of:

"That'll teach you to leave our party"

 

Honestly. All over the colour of the fuel? 

 

 

The EU passed a law outlawing the use of red diesel in pleasure boats. For three years, the UK broke it.

The EU were justifiably peed off about the UK happily breaking law after law and treaty after teaty and agreement after agreement, as it still does as it pushes the implementation of bits of the Brexit agreement further and further into the future (usually to the detriment of UK traders), and so imposed the relevant penalty.

Oddly enough, you can't simply ignore laws you don't like and then whinge that it's petty when authority treads on you. Actions have consequences.

[David Mack]

1 hour ago, JungleJames said:

The article says it was the colour of the fuel that was the problem. Not the duty/ tax paid on it.

 

Now, as we pay full tax on propulsion, but reduced tax on domestic (itself to keep the EU happy), it was decided we would keep using red, but with the famous 60/40 declaration. This saves having to buy 2 lots of fuel, and have 2 tanks.

Not quite. The EU said all propulsion fuel must be duty paid and so duty free diesel (red in the UK) must not be put into tanks supplying propulsion engines. Which means any non-propulsion appliances would either have to use the same white diesel or be supplied from a separate tank. The EU view was that the UK split declaration did not meet the requirements of EU law, and the continuation of this after the end of the derogation was therefore a breach of EU law, until Brexit, at which point the UK was no longer obliged to comply. Obviously, with the UK moving towards Brexit, there was no way the UK government was going to impose the requirement to use white diesel/separate tanks for the relatively short period between the end of the derogation and Brexit actually happening, so this is the inevitable outcome.

[JungleJames]

5 hours ago, David Mack said:

Not quite. The EU said all propulsion fuel must be duty paid and so duty free diesel (red in the UK) must not be put into tanks supplying propulsion engines. Which means any non-propulsion appliances would either have to use the same white diesel or be supplied from a separate tank. The EU view was that the UK split declaration did not meet the requirements of EU law, and the continuation of this after the end of the derogation was therefore a breach of EU law, until Brexit, at which point the UK was no longer obliged to comply. Obviously, with the UK moving towards Brexit, there was no way the UK government was going to impose the requirement to use white diesel/separate tanks for the relatively short period between the end of the derogation and Brexit actually happening, so this is the inevitable outcome.

Ah ha.

Right. I was under the impression the 60/40 was keeping the EU sweet. Clearly not. My mistake.

 

The article also mentions a UK government spokesman saying the case was only about the marking of the fuel. Your comments would suggest that is untrue. But that is where my question arose. Could they be so petty as to complain about the colour of the fuel? 

 

So accepting the case could have had merit (albeit I suspect only brought about because we were leaving the club), we come to the EU rule itself.

 

It seems to ignore the fact a propulsion engine can also supply domestic power. In that regard, the split declaration seems perfectly sensible. 

 

Then as I first mentioned. What do you do regards vessels already built that only have 1 tank? Forced to buy 100% fully taxed diesel unnecessarily?

It would seem as though the aim of this rule was to increase costs for a lot of boaters. 

Although I suspect what led to it, was the fact a lot of EU countries (I believe Belgium were one of the first to kick off) didn't like the fact fuel was cheaper for private boaters in the UK. This led to boaters Coming over here to fill up.

But is that really a problem?

Ships and boats always go to the cheapest source of fuel. That's life. 

As a deep sea ship, try getting fuel in the UK. You can't. The market is dead as Rotterdam has cornered it.

 

Ships would take detours to Russia purely to fill up, as the fuel was tax free (and actually better quality). 

That was life. 

 

Yes, before some people shout. I know there are differences, but the point is, did it really matter? Was there any need to worry about how much we taxed the fuel?

 

[David Mack]

1 hour ago, JungleJames said:

What do you do regards vessels already built that only have 1 tank? Forced to buy 100% fully taxed diesel unnecessarily?

Yes. Apparently that's what happens in the rest of Europe. But as the level of duty on fuel is lower it doesn't have as much impact as it would here.

[GUMPY]

Only one tank ?

Simple just fit a second tank it's not difficult. Parglena was built with one 800L tank, in 2005 I fitted a second 500L tank for propulsion in case  we lost red.

It's not difficult. I also had two water tanks one of which could have been repurposed to cope with grey water if that rule had ever come in. 

All it takes is a bit of planning.

[Alan de Enfield]

30 minutes ago, GUMPY said:

Only one tank ?

Simple just fit a second tank it's not difficult. Parglena was built with one 800L tank, in 2005 I fitted a second 500L tank for propulsion in case  we lost red.

It's not difficult. I also had two water tanks one of which could have been repurposed to cope with grey water if that rule had ever come in. 

All it takes is a bit of planning.

 

 

With the knowledge of upcoming legislation my boat was built with 3x fuel tanks (1 x 1000 litre and 2 x 900 litre) we also have a black water tank and a grey water tank (to comply with the 'Med' legislation that is apparently ever expanding)

Edited October 4, 2023 by Alan de Enfield

[David Mack]

38 minutes ago, GUMPY said:

Only one tank ?

Simple just fit a second tank it's not difficult. Parglena was built with one 800L tank, in 2005 I fitted a second 500L tank for propulsion in case  we lost red.

It's not difficult. I also had two water tanks one of which could have been repurposed to cope with grey water if that rule had ever come in. 

All it takes is a bit of planning.

It's not just that though. Every boatyard, marina and fuel boat that sells diesel would either have to install a second tank and pump so they can supply both red and white, or just convert their existing red facilities to white (involving an expensive clean to remove all traces of the red dye), and then they would only be able to supply white diesel anyway.

[GUMPY]

16 minutes ago, David Mack said:

It's not just that though. Every boatyard, marina and fuel boat that sells diesel would either have to install a second tank and pump so they can supply both red and white, or just convert their existing red facilities to white (involving an expensive clean to remove all traces of the red dye), and then they would only be able to supply white diesel anyway.

Despite all the whining it would have happened. Some marinas choosing white and some, where there was the demand for heating,  choosing red and some both.

 

[peterboat]

10 hours ago, JungleJames said:

I'm a bit lost what wasn't clear in my post.

But let's try it again, this time making obvious the bits we all know anyway.

 

The article says it was the colour of the fuel that was the problem. Not the duty/ tax paid on it.

 

Now, as we pay full tax on propulsion, but reduced tax on domestic (itself to keep the EU happy), it was decided we would keep using red, but with the famous 60/40 declaration. This saves having to buy 2 lots of fuel, and have 2 tanks.

 

From what I gather, it is the fact this fuel is still red which sent the EU into an unnecessary hissy fit. They accept we pay full tax on propulsion. That's ok. It's the colour of the fuel (perhaps they are bulls and don't like red?)

Or so I gather from the article anyway. 

 

Now had we still been in the EU, I assume the easiest option would be to do away with the red dye.

 

Clearly my suggestion of 2 tanks was a little unnecessary.

 

This really smacks of:

"That'll teach you to leave our party"

 

Honestly. All over the colour of the fuel? 

 

 

None of this is my concern really I use very little diesel in my genny, I have a full tank of HVO because it's got a 10 year life, knowing what I know now I wouldn't have HVO as its anything but green! Chopping down rainforest to plant palm trees is an ecological disaster and shouldn't happen. The HVO that can be created cleanly should be fo farm use, the rest of us have to be weaned off fossil fuels 

[mrsmelly]

5 hours ago, GUMPY said:

Only one tank ?

Simple just fit a second tank it's not difficult. Parglena was built with one 800L tank, in 2005 I fitted a second 500L tank for propulsion in case  we lost red.

It's not difficult. I also had two water tanks one of which could have been repurposed to cope with grey water if that rule had ever come in. 

All it takes is a bit of planning.

Due to following numpty eu laws which was fair enough when we were under the cosh, my last boat was built with twin tanks. One was plumbed to the propulsion engine and the other to the webasto heater. The boat was built in 2008. Its no big deal on a standard narrowboat to fit a baffle plate into the usualy arse end fuel tank. 

[GUMPY]

Why should boats be allowed to use red for propulsion? Boaters don't deserve a tax break any more than caravan/motorhome users do.

If it's propulsion it should be taxed and using white diesel is the simplest way to make sure you all comply.

Before anyone waffles on about declaring what you use for propulsion and paying the tax I don't know of anyone that declared that correctly🤔

[nb Innisfree]

1 hour ago, GUMPY said:

Before anyone waffles on about declaring what you use for propulsion and paying the tax I don't know of anyone that declared that correctly

🤔

I fitted an hour counter to record when prop was turning, two reasons,

1: to be honest,

2: to give a reasonable record of hours spent. cruising. 

As liveaboard ccers we recorded an average of 20%  cruising and 80%, domestic, we once went from Skipton to Devizes in a few days (approx 8 hrs daily) the split was exactly 60/40!

Edited October 4, 2023 by nb Innisfree

[IanD]

28 minutes ago, nb Innisfree said:

I fitted an hour counter to record when prop was turning, two reasons,

1: to be honest,

2: to give a reasonable record of hours spent. cruising. 

As liveaboard ccers we recorded an average of 20%  cruising and 80%, domestic, we once went from Skipton to Devizes in a few days (approx 8 hrs daily) the split was exactly 60/40!

Do you mean 80% of the engine hours or 80% of the fuel use was domestic? Fuel consumption per hour when charging moored is likely to be lower than when cruising, and so is the fuel consumption...

[JungleJames]

11 hours ago, GUMPY said:

Only one tank ?

Simple just fit a second tank it's not difficult. Parglena was built with one 800L tank, in 2005 I fitted a second 500L tank for propulsion in case  we lost red.

It's not difficult. I also had two water tanks one of which could have been repurposed to cope with grey water if that rule had ever come in. 

All it takes is a bit of planning.

No it needn't be difficult.

But in some people's case it could be an unnecessary expense.

 

It's rare I say the UK government had the best solution for trying to appease everybody. Just a shame the EU couldn't see it that way.

 

 

9 hours ago, peterboat said:

None of this is my concern really I use very little diesel in my genny, I have a full tank of HVO because it's got a 10 year life, knowing what I know now I wouldn't have HVO as its anything but green! Chopping down rainforest to plant palm trees is an ecological disaster and shouldn't happen. The HVO that can be created cleanly should be fo farm use, the rest of us have to be weaned off fossil fuels 

Or in certain cases, we accept there is no alternative to fossil fuels.

Canal boats being one example. 

 

HVO is a difficult one.

But yes, until the world can be trusted (which it cant) you have to question where your HVO comes from.

It can be fine. But it also may not be.

5 hours ago, GUMPY said:

Why should boats be allowed to use red for propulsion? Boaters don't deserve a tax break any more than caravan/motorhome users do.

If it's propulsion it should be taxed and using white diesel is the simplest way to make sure you all comply.

Before anyone waffles on about declaring what you use for propulsion and paying the tax I don't know of anyone that declared that correctly🤔

What about the domestic heat supplied by the engine?

That part of the fuel can be red, or at least, rebated fuel.

 

Hence why the 60 40 should have been a fair compromise.

 

5 hours ago, mrsmelly said:

Due to following numpty eu laws which was fair enough when we were under the cosh, my last boat was built with twin tanks. One was plumbed to the propulsion engine and the other to the webasto heater. The boat was built in 2008. Its no big deal on a standard narrowboat to fit a baffle plate into the usualy arse end fuel tank. 

One of the benefits of having twin tanks.

You can use Kerosene for heating.

Edited October 4, 2023 by JungleJames