# Light Dues - another stealth tax on shipping!



## Peter Eccleson (Jan 16, 2006)

I apologise in advance if this subject has been covered before but I did search the threads and couldn't find anything on it.
During a spot of research recently I came across the subject of Light dues. This is essentially a tax on ships visiting British ports to cover for the maintenance of buoys, beacons light houses etc. However, rather strangely, it covers Irish Lights as well as British lights and beacons. This type of tax is not imposed by any other European Country.
The tax is based on the net registered tonnage of a vessel and a proposal has been tabled by the Transport Minister to increase this tax from 37p to 41p linked to a rise in the cap from 35,000 tonnes to 50,000 tonnes and applies to all ships visiting our ports for their first nine visits per annum which is an increase from seven visits. The rise was first announced back in March and was to be backdated to February 2009.

Shipping companies say that this unprecedented tax increase will deter vessels from visiting British Ports and cause them to divert to other European destinations therefore having a negative effect on port revenues. Some regular visitors to the UK claim it will add millions to their operating costs (CMA CGM £1.5m, Wallenus £300k). 
Shipowners are also aggrieved that they are paying £16m a year to Irish Lights when many of them do not visit Ireland. The rationale behind the 67% increase is to offset losses made from the strength of the Euro against Sterling - about £20m to date i.e due to Irish Lights.

The Independent Light Dues Forum (IDLF), representing the owners and operators of more than two-thirds of the British flagged fleet of merchant ships, said: "Increases of this magnitude are almost unprecedented and certainly have not been seen over the last two decades". 
ILDF members include some of the world's biggest shipping lines, such as Maersk, Wallenius, Mitsui OSK and NYK Line.

Alister Darling, as Transport Minister in 2007 said that he would abolish the tax! 
However, there is some hope...new calls are being made by Lord Berkeley, a Labour Peer, for the Irish Government to repay £16m back to shipping lines.

Has the British Government gone mad?.......or is this just another nail in our maritime coffin?(?HUH)


----------



## James_C (Feb 17, 2005)

Peter,
This is yet more scaremongering by the Shipowners. If the lights/buoys aren't paid for this way then they'll just have to be paid for in another kind of tax. What the Shipowners really want is for the Population of the country concerned to pay for it, letting them off scot free.
The following letter appeared in the June 2009 edition of the NUMAST Telegraph and is worth a read:


After reading the article in the May Telegraph headlined ‘UK light dues dispute’, I thought your readers may be interested in a view from the sharp end of the day to day provision and maintenance of navigation aids around the UK.
I have worked for the Northern Lighthouse Board (NLB) on their tenders for the last 23 years, sailing as master since 1995. 
Prior to this I was 12 years working worldwide in the Merchant Navy. 
I therefore must declare my interest, but I am also a user of navaids and our normal work pattern involves very close proximity to hazards known and unknown.
Navaids continue to evolve, but nonetheless all mariners need them in one form or another, and the technology today is a far cry from what was available when I started in the 1970s. 
How many deck officers now have to use horizontal and vertical sextant angles, rising and dipping distances, running fixes etc?
All parties are agreed that the vast majority of vessels are now equipped with DGPS and electronic charts, and moves are soon to be made to make carriage of ECIDS compulsory.
Nevertheless, those are all aids to navigation, and ultimately depend on factors outwith the control of the OOW. 
When all else fails, the navigator has fixed navaids ashore and afl oat to help fix his position.
The three General Lighthouse Authorities (GLAs) which cover the UK and Ireland have statutory responsibility to provide and maintain navaids around our coasts.
With the introduction of the Ports Act each individual port or harbour authority now has responsibility for their area, but the GLAs cover the rest of the coast. 
The GLAs take this responsibility very seriously and one of the main concerns is the dependence on GPS,
which is an American owned and controlled system.
We are continually involved in research for alternatives, eg e-Loran and Galileo.
The system of light dues is the responsibility of the government of the day, and is administered by the Department for Transport. 
The GLAs have to work within government spending guidelines and are continually striving to reduce running costs. 
As an example, the NLB is operating at costs of 40% down in real terms since 1993. 
Our mission statement is ‘to deliver a reliable, efficient and cost effective network of Aids to Navigation for the benefi t and safety of all Mariners’. 
The motto of the Board ‘In Salutem Omnium’ — For the safety of all- is still as valid today as it was 223 years ago.
The Independent Light Dues Forum is quite correct in the article by stating ‘Increases… have not been seen over the last two decades’. 
The last increase was in 1993 and the cap reduced to 35,000t. 
There have been no increases in line with inflation — so, in effect, the income stream from light dues has been decreasing in real terms since then.
The worldwide financial climate during the past 20 years has sustained this with investments remaining healthy.
The GLAs have managed their funds very well and were able to modernise their fleet to provide a better, more effi cient service with modern ships. 
This will ultimately reduce running costs, and we are able to work in more extreme weather conditions to better respond to navaid casualties.
The light dues system was completely revised in 1987. 
In the following years the rate per tonne, tonnage cap and number of chargeable voyages has fluctuated. 
Light dues currently stand at 35p per nrt, having been reduced from 39p in 2006. 
This was following pressure from the shipowners, but the understanding was that, should fi nancial conditions dictate, the rate would have to increase. 
As an example, in 1987 a 50,000t vessel on its fi fth visit to a UK port would have paid £86,500. Under the new rates being proposed the same vessel will now pay £102,500. 
This represents an increase of 18%.
During the same period the RPI has increased 207%.
There is much mention made of the fact that there are three GLAs to cover the UK and Ireland. Indeed, if you were to start with a clean sheet today you would go for one authority.
However, the three GLAs work very closely together, sharing research and development on many aspects of our work.
Regular meetings ensure that very little duplication goes on, with none working unilaterally.
The geographical spread from Muckle Flugga in the north, to the Channel Islands in the south, and west to the Shannon means that experience and knowledge of each area is essential.
The size of the GLA fleet has been reduced over the years so that we are now in the situation of having the optimum number to provide 365 days, 24/7 cover to respond to outages, groundings, wreck marking, pollution incidents etc round the coast.
There are no ‘sides’ in this debate — we are all striving to achieve the same aim. 
The shipowner is running a business to make the best profit for his shareholders, the government is responsible for feeding and clothing the citizens of the country, and the GLAs have been charged with ensuring that the seaborne part of the equation is completed safely.

CAPTAIN ERIC SMITH
NLV Pharos


----------



## lakercapt (Jul 19, 2005)

When I was sailing on UK ships I had to pay the light dues to the customs officer from the captain cash. You only had to do it till you reached a maximum amount. Think it was five times but as that is a long time ago I might be wrong.


----------



## Peter Eccleson (Jan 16, 2006)

Jim
Thanks, its good to get a view from the coalface....but it still doesn't answer the question about the link of the Irish Lights and the subsequent effect of the Euro increase against Sterling. Why should this government pay for Irish maintenance?

Pete


----------



## James_C (Feb 17, 2005)

Peter,
The UK gives a subsidy to the Irish Lights and has done since the formation of the Irish Free State in the early 20s.
From what I can see, this was intially a 'temporary' supplement until the Irish Lights was able to settle on it's own two feet so to speak. Like yourself I find it mightily odd that we still pay this subsidy. Granted that the Irish Lights covers the Northern Ireland coastline, however I believe that the grant paid to the Board should be proportionate to the work generated within NI, as opposed to a general grant as it seems to be at the moment.


----------



## Gulpers (Sep 8, 2005)

Just as a point of interest, it is not uncommon for Irish Lights Vessel *Granuaile* *(click here)* to work in Cardigan Bay or off the North Wales coast if she is able to respond to an incident quicker than the nearest available Trinity House Vessel. (Thumb)


----------



## Peter Eccleson (Jan 16, 2006)

The plot thickens! Having visited the CIL website it appears that there is a contribution to CIL from the Dept for Transport in UK but there are Light Dues collected for vessels visiting Irish ports (57 cent) and a suppliment to this from the Irish Government. 
Question: Why is there still a shortfall of some £21m per annum in operating costs attributed to CIL and why is that paid by the Bristish Govt?


----------

