With a mailing going to all members of the Club this week urging them to sign the petition on the HMRC red diesel declaration proposals, many have replied with additional comments and views and opened up the discussion in the Club.

Martin Chivers and his family cruise extensively in the waters off Wales and Cornwall. Martin says:

" I believe your considerations understate the problem and its absurdity by some degree. I take your point that a vessel could whiz from and back to these shores with dyed diesel, raising the suspicions of Brussels's bureaucrats, but the problem, created by HMRC, goes far deeper than that that created by Brussels. We have cruised the waters off Wales and Cornwall extensively for some 30 years, and have never ever seen an option of white diesel supply. Every year, we also spend some 3 months cruising the Atlantic (as opposed to channel) coast of France. Ironically we therefore use, on these travels, more French diesel than British. French customs make cordial visits to check on paper work or even bring friends to look at the boat. They have no interest in our fuel tanks and everything is friendly and sensible as it should be. The HMRC proposal is a total own goal, going far further than any real problem and threatening to wreck the entire UK marine industry for cruising boats in one incredibly stupid and ill conceived idea. Without even the option of white diesel, they are simply saying:” No UK based boats to go more than 12 NM off shore”. It is as bleak as that. May I add also that dyed diesel is designed to be detectable in the smallest traces, while by contrast fuel tanks should be kept full in the winter in order to prevent condensation.

Thank you again for your mail but may I ask you to take an even more vigorous approach. We are not just talking about not being able to pop over the channel for some Chardonnay here, but something far more far reaching and damaging."

Meanwhile, Roger Exwood wrote expressing his concern at the LSC pursuing this direction:

"I think the mistake was the UK fighting a silly campaign to keep red diesel in the first place. There is no moral reason why yachties should pay less than low income familes who are struggling to fill their car. Red diesel for sale in harbours and marinas should be fully taxed at the point of sale, and commercial fishermen can then apply to HMRC for a refund  So, let's be encouraging HMRC to ditch the 60:40 procedure."

In response, David said:

"I actually agree with you that there is no excuse for leisure boaters to have access to cheap fuel, I think the RYA was wrong to campaign in favour of it. However, that is not what I am campaigning for. We have a situation where the use of partially duty paid diesel is legal in the UK and for which a specific derogation was negaotiated with the European Commission. We now have our Government seemingly trying to get skippers to sign a declaration which will say that red diesel may be illegal in some jurisdictions - they cannot have it both ways, it is either legal or it is not. The Government will not now support the situation that they themselves negotiated and have put in place, they are leaving it to the skippers to sort out for themselves.
 
"This is not something that I felt I needed to canvas members on, it is self-evident that the Government is wrong, it is not an argument about the rights and wrongs of cheap fuel for yachties, it is whether or not the Government will support their own decision in the face of opposition from Belgium and other EU states."

  • What do you think?
  • Is the RYA doing enough?
  • What line should the government take – allow continued use of red diesel, or insist that fuel suppliers provide both dyed and undyed at all commercial ports and marinas?
  • Should duty-reduced diesel be scrapped altogether and farmers and fishermen be forced to pay the full amount?

This is a member-only story so sign in and post your comments. Join the diesel debate....