Future cost of boat licence?

[costalot]

Looking at the CRT 2013 financial figures I noted that Boat licence and mooring income was £26.4m which represented 22% of the annual income and paid for 27% of the CRT 2013 costs.

CRT actually earned more from investment income and the DEFRA grant (which will eventually cease). So whilst boaters make a significant contribution they are not the largest contributor are appear to be subsidized.

After several wet winters I was thinking that the government couldn’t allow the canal network to fall into disuse because it was essential for flood relief. Then I realised the canals were built to retain water rather than release it. It would appear that the government could allow a gradual closure of the network where the only adverse impact would be on the boaters. The ‘non navigable’ canals could be left for non-boating recreation.

So if the network is to be saved for future boating then where will the income come from? As the boaters are the group most at risk it is possible the annual licence will significantly increase.

For example; the loss of the DEFRA grant may have to be recovered from boaters. This would mean a required increase in boater revenue from £26.4m to £55.7m. With 33,227 boats currently licenced it means an annual licence will cost on average £1676 at 2013 rates.

CRT Income

2013

Total 122.1m

Investment Income 31.1m

DEFRA Grant 29.3m

Boat Licence & Mooring 26.4m

Utilities 17.4m

Maintenance Income 10.4m

BWML 5.2m

Other sources 1.4m

Donations 0.9m

CRT Expenditure

Total 96.1m

Maintenance & minor repairs 17.2m

Major works 14.5

Support costs 10.4m

Operational building 10.2m

Vegetation & waste 10.1m

Customer Service 7.8m

Technical & Engineering 6.9m

Restoration 5.9m

Training 5.7m

Other 4.2m

Dredging 3.3m

Museum & attractions 1.9m

[b0atman]

I totally agree with you on this.

We need to accept that CaRT are a charity now.

So everyone who has a boat in the water within CaRT area should pay for a licence, all Marinas should pay a connection charge but based on a more sensible charge system.

The Rivers only licence seriously needs looking at.

[Paul C]

 

So if the network is to be saved for future boating then where will the income come from? As the boaters are the group most at risk it is possible the annual licence will significantly increase.

 

 

Simple answer: yes.

[kevinl]

I totally agree with you on this.

We need to accept that CaRT are a charity now.

So everyone who has a boat in the water within CaRT area should pay for a licence, all Marinas should pay a connection charge but based on a more sensible charge system.

The Rivers only licence seriously needs looking at.

CRT is a charity in name only, it's a privatised government department made so that the government can distance themselves from it. Charities feed the hungry, put a roof over the heads of the homeless and a refuge for battered wives they're charities, CRT is just a pretend and it's interesting to see how they and some on here play the "we're a charity" card as an excuse so often, it's a business nowadays pure and simple.

K

[BEngo]

The whole theory behind CART is that charitable donations will make up the difference between the DEFRA grant and what CART need.

 

Long term DEFRA are hoping that the charitable income will allow them to reduce or eliminate the grant at the next round of negotiation.

 

I do not believe in flying pigs, but Robin Evans apparently did and the current CART Trustees apparently still do.

 

CART recognise that jacking the licence fee up to replace the grant is simply not practicable- the number of unlicensed boats would soar, the boaters would demand a commensurate say in the running of the Trust and all hell would break loose politically. It is also necessary to somehow recognise that there is a cost to maintaining the waterways for the millions of users who do not pay at the point of use and that that is one thing the grant covers. Another is drainage benefits. Easier for CART to wait until the next round of negotiations and then present DEFRA with the costs for the next grant period. If they don't like it CART can hand back the canals and walk away.

 

The legislation that transferred responsibility from BW to CART transferred all of BW's rights and responsibilities. To change these- say to eliminate River only licences or to compel all of us to pay for a mooring would require primary legislation. CART were refused any changes as part of the enabling legislation. Any new legislation to change CART's powers could not be a Government Bill but would probably be a Private Bill or maybe a Hybrid Bill. Last time BW tried for a private BILL it took ages to make its way through Parliament, because of the objections from users, and many others. It was substantially amended in order to get through- one of those amendments is the section about 'bona fide for navigation' In addition, BW had to give a series of binding undertakings to limit the way in which they would use the powers they did mange to obtain.

 

Given that history, and the general shortage of Parliamentary time I think that CART have very little hope of getting a Bill through parliament and have to live with what they have.

 

 

N

[b0atman]

Look to the past when commercial traffic was moved to the Roads and Railways the government was not bothered about the decline of the canals.

People power was the reason for the reopening of waterways and the change of Government attitude.

BW basically was against the leisure industry by utilising poor management and bad decisions .

We are now under "charity" status as is the National Trust but we have no say in the running of this "charity" .

Boating groups need to stop brown nosing and start lobbying for a major change in how this "charity" is run and funded.

Just my opinion.

[David Schweizer]

CRT is a charity in name only, it's a privatised government department made so that the government can distance themselves from it. Charities feed the hungry, put a roof over the heads of the homeless and a refuge for battered wives they're charities, CRT is just a pretend and it's interesting to see how they and some on here play the "we're a charity" card as an excuse so often, it's a business nowadays pure and simple.

K

 

Whist I would challenge you rather narrow concept of what constitutes a Charity, I agree with your first sentence. CaRT has been created by the Government and has been franchised wioth the responsiblity to run a national asset. The canal network is still owned by the Natio, and caRT would not be in a position to close down sections of it without Government consent.

[DaveP]

CRT is a charity in name only, it's a privatised government department made so that the government can distance themselves from it. Charities feed the hungry, put a roof over the heads of the homeless and a refuge for battered wives they're charities, CRT is just a pretend and it's interesting to see how they and some on here play the "we're a charity" card as an excuse so often, it's a business nowadays pure and simple.

K

 

Charitable purposes were changed in 2006 with the new Act - superseding the 1601 one. Now they cover

 

The 13 descriptions of purposes listed in the Charities Act are:

(a) the prevention or relief of poverty

(b)the advancement of education

© the advancement of religion

(d) the advancement of health or the saving of lives

(e) the advancement of citizenship or community development

(f) the advancement of the arts, culture, heritage or science

(g) the advancement of amateur sport

(h) the advancement of human rights, conflict resolution or reconciliation or the promotion of religious or racial harmony or equality and diversity

(i) the advancement of environmental protection or improvement

(j) the relief of those in need, by reason of youth, age, ill-health, disability, financial hardship or other disadvantage

(k) the advancement of animal welfare

(l) the promotion of the efficiency of the armed forces of the Crown, or of the efficiency of the police, fire and rescue services or ambulance services

(m) any other purposes currently recognised as charitable or which can be recognised as charitable by analogy to, or within the spirit of, purposes falling within (a) to (l) or any other purpose recognised as charitable under the law of England and Wales

 

Even the old Act covered the first three and the last head, not just the poverty that you believe should benefit....

 

[This is why public schools got in a tizzy a few years back as they had to demonstrate that there was a 'public benefit' to their activities - they needed to change some of their criteria/costs of entry along with making facilities available to a wider user base than their enrolled pupils]

[Graham Davis]

CRT is a charity in name only, it's a privatised government department made so that the government can distance themselves from it. Charities feed the hungry, put a roof over the heads of the homeless and a refuge for battered wives they're charities, CRT is just a pretend and it's interesting to see how they and some on here play the "we're a charity" card as an excuse so often, it's a business nowadays pure and simple.

K

 

Sorry, but that is much too a narrow description of what a Charity does. I suggest you do a bit more research before making silly statements.

[carlt]

all Marinas should pay a connection charge but based on a more sensible charge system.

 

I'm not sure marina moorers would be happy about the connection charge being increased to fall in line with what EOG or CRT online moorers pay.

[Athy]

Sorry, but that is much too a narrow description of what a Charity does. I suggest you do a bit more research before making silly statements.

Come on, cheer up Graham, your lot had a great victory at the weekend after all.

I think Kevin means that he feels that those are the most important functions of charities to him, and to a large extent I can sympathise with his view. We all have our personal priorities regarding charities. I like the idea of protecting hedgehogs and I'm sure there's a charity which does so, but if I had to choose between saving a woman from being battered and saving a hedgehog from becoming part of the road surface, well, goodbye hedgehog.

[churchward]

CRT is a charity in name only, it's a privatised government department made so that the government can distance themselves from it. Charities feed the hungry, put a roof over the heads of the homeless and a refuge for battered wives they're charities, CRT is just a pretend and it's interesting to see how they and some on here play the "we're a charity" card as an excuse so often, it's a business nowadays pure and simple.

K

I think I know what you mean but as others have said you have a very narrow perspective on what is a charity or rather what organisations have charitable status.

 

There are many organisations apart from CRT who are registered charities but would not fall into your criteria one example being The National Trust.

 

To answer the OP I do think that there will be more pressure on the licence fee. However, although no specific competition for CRT market forces also apply. That is if they charge too much for the licence some people will give up and go to far you can end up with ever increasing licence fees but an ever decreasing supply of licence payers as they give up their boats or move to other waters.

 

As with the national trust CRT have to become a lot more creative in how they get their money and some of the income must come from other canal users/supporters not just boaters.

Edited February 24, 2014 by churchward

[kevinl]

 

Sorry, but that is much too a narrow description of what a Charity does. I suggest you do a bit more research before making silly statements.

Try looking in a dictionary they all say the same thing

noun (plural charities)

• 1an organization set up to provide help and raise money for those in need:

Boaters aren't (in the main) in any way in need, nor are public schools. The continual use of the emotive term charity is may suit CRT but it's a business now, the charitable status was simply a convenient way of the government dumping it. Public schools are charities because the rich send their kids there so it's a bit of a subsidy. It might have been better if the waterways had been sold off, companies value customers CRT just see you as cash cow.

K

[Paul C]

I believe when BW morphed into CRT, one of the items which came up for discussion by the ministers was the boat licence, the percentage of income it forms, and the possibility of increasing it well above the inflationary rate. CRT then argued that it would be unwise to increase it, seeking out other funding to fill the gap. Going forwards, if that other funding is underwhelming, expect an increase in boat licences. It was commented upon that boaters are a fairly captive market and would be more/less forced to stump up a larger licence fee, no matter how unfair it may seem.

[David Schweizer]

 

Try looking in a dictionary they all say the same thing

noun (plural charities)

• 1an organization set up to provide help and raise money for those in need:

Boaters aren't (in the main) in any way in need, nor are public schools. The continual use of the emotive term charity is may suit CRT but it's a business now, the charitable status was simply a convenient way of the government dumping it. Public schools are charities because the rich send their kids there so it's a bit of a subsidy. It might have been better if the waterways had been sold off, companies value customers CRT just see you as cash cow.

K

 

 

So does mine, but it is wrong, well not wrong, they just give an incomplete definition. There is nothing new about the range of organizations that are recognised, and often registered, as Charities. I worked with the Voluntary sector for more than twenty years of my adult life, and the recognised definition of a Charity has always been much wider than your ( and my) dictionary suggests.

[churchward]

 

Try looking in a dictionary they all say the same thing

noun (plural charities)

• 1an organization set up to provide help and raise money for those in need:

Boaters aren't (in the main) in any way in need, nor are public schools. The continual use of the emotive term charity is may suit CRT but it's a business now, the charitable status was simply a convenient way of the government dumping it. Public schools are charities because the rich send their kids there so it's a bit of a subsidy. It might have been better if the waterways had been sold off, companies value customers CRT just see you as cash cow.

K

 

I think you are confusing the definition of "charity" and an organisation having charitable status. CRT is ny no means unique in having charitable status and and not conforming to the dictionary definition of "charity" As I mentioned before The National Trust is a particular example of many.

 

I agree it was an easy way of separating government from the running of the canals but I do not agree it would be better to have sold it off to private concerns. This would be a disaster for the canal network and would be subject to business and commercial decisions to make money for owners and shareholders, nothing else. The creation of charitable status of CRT and the remit it has means it must act in the interests of keeping the national network together.

[b0atman]

If licence fees go up will I be exempt a license as my boat is green sorry all of you with blue boats, red boats, etc.

[Alan de Enfield]

This may have escaped your notice - from the 2013 Budget

 

............In addition to the freeze in fuel duty announced in today's Budget, there was good news for owners of classic boats, as the date from which boats are exempt from a licence fee will be moved to 1974.

Previously only boats built before January 1 1973 were exempt from the BW licence fee, after the Government abandoned the previous 25-year rolling scale in 1997. However, from April 2014 any boat manufactured before January 1 1974 will be entitled to a free ( no charge) BW licence disc.

 

Edit to add : Rumour has it that similar changes may be made in this years' budget - rolling the date forward to "manufactured before Jan 1 1975"

Edited February 24, 2014 by Alan de Enfield

[John Williamson 1955]

They may add a congestion charge for honeypot locations? A tenner a day for the Regents canal, pay the boater a fiver a day to go onto the BCN? I'll get my coat....

[b0atman]

Oh what a pity its now a CaRT license.

[John Williamson 1955]

This may have escaped your notice - from the 2013 Budget

 

............In addition to the freeze in fuel duty announced in today's Budget, there was good news for owners of classic boats, as the date from which boats are exempt from a licence fee will be moved to 1974.

Previously only boats built before January 1 1973 were exempt from the BW licence fee, after the Government abandoned the previous 25-year rolling scale in 1997. However, from April 2014 any boat manufactured before January 1 1974 will be entitled to a free ( no charge) BW licence disc.

 

Edit to add : Rumour has it that similar changes may be made in this years' budget - rolling the date forward to "manufactured before Jan 1 1975"

I wish...

 

He says, sitting in a 1969 (Allegedly) Springer and driving a 1968 Land Rover....

[churchward]

I believe when BW morphed into CRT, one of the items which came up for discussion by the ministers was the boat licence, the percentage of income it forms, and the possibility of increasing it well above the inflationary rate. CRT then argued that it would be unwise to increase it, seeking out other funding to fill the gap. Going forwards, if that other funding is underwhelming, expect an increase in boat licences. It was commented upon that boaters are a fairly captive market and would be more/less forced to stump up a larger licence fee, no matter how unfair it may seem.

I agree licence fees will still rise and most likely above inflation however they can't just charge what they like. At some point they will start losing people as they can't afford the prices rises or just don't wish to and sell the boat and/or move to non-CRT waters.

[Alan de Enfield]

Oh what a pity its now a CaRT license.

 

It is C&RT now, but remember this extract is from the 2013 Budget

 

C&RT had only just come into existence and many of the MP's were not fully 'up-to-speed' with the changes, so whilst not defending them, it is an understandable mistake.

[carlt]

This may have escaped your notice - from the 2013 Budget

 

............In addition to the freeze in fuel duty announced in today's Budget, there was good news for owners of classic boats, as the date from which boats are exempt from a licence fee will be moved to 1974.

Except this is the road tax exemption for classic cars.

 

"Historic" boats only attract a 50% discount, they have to be built before 1948 and have to meet certain criteria before qualifying.

Here is the Telegraph link you have paraphrased...

 

Clicky

[Alan de Enfield]

Except this is the road tax exemption for classic cars.

 

"Historic" boats only attract a 50% discount, they have to be built before 1948 and have to meet certain criteria before qualifying.

Here is the Telegraph link you have paraphrased...

 

Clicky

 

Kiljoy