Clyde Estuary - Charge for Leisure Vessels !!!!!!

[Bodach na mara]

I think that it will need to be a very cunning plan. In another discussion I read of someone who wrote to their MSP objecting to this proposal and received a response. This stated that the Transport Minister had replied to the MSP and the letter from the Transport Minister was appended. In a nutshell the Minister said that Peel Ports is a private company and can do what it wants!

I am afraid that I am not surprised by such ignorance from the Minister. I used to be a fervent supporter of the SNP but they have been disappointing me in recent years. In this issue I think that their position may be as follows:-
It all stems from the sloppy drafting of the 1965 Act.
That makes it the fault of a Westminster government.
So it's no oor fault and it's no oor business.

I hope that the RYA gets a more reasoned reaction.

On a similar problem I hear that the good folk of Oban are making a good job of preventing the same thing happening in their port.

[marisca]

I wouldn't bet on much help from Westminster

Clydeport - Imposition of Charges for Leisure Craft
Thank you for your recent email to the Rt. Hon. Ian Murray MP, Secretary of State for Scotland, concerning the imposition of charges for leisure vessels using sections of the Clyde by Peel Ports Ltd.
As you can imagine the Secretary of State receives a significant number of letters and emails - as such, I have been asked to respond to you on his behalf.
The Scotland Office does recognise the potential impacts of these measures. However, transport is a devolved matter. It is the responsibility of Transport Scotland to manage policy matters relating to commercial, publicly owned and trust ports on behalf of Scottish Ministers. It would be inappropriate therefore for the UK Government to comment on this matter. To raise this issue with the Scottish Government, the relevant email address is as follows: contactus@gov.scot.
You may also wish to contact your Member of the Scottish Parliament to raise your concerns and assist with your questions. You may have these already but can find your MSPs contact details at: https://www.parliament.scot/msps
Thank you again for your correspondence, and for sharing your thoughts on this important issue.
Yours Sincerely,
Correspondence Officer
Scotland Office

[BlowingOldBoots]

RYA Scotland latest notice on the matter.

https://www.rya.org.uk/news/rya_scotlan ... YRnvXuFIaQ

[Burst Boiler]

I am afraid that I am not surprised by such ignorance from the Minister. I used to be a fervent supporter of the SNP but they have been disappointing me in recent years.

I'm not a fan of Alba, but credit where its due, they seem to have an awareness of the underlying issue and raised it prior to the current conservation charge for leisure vessels issue.
SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT MUST ADDRESS OWNERSHIP AND OPERATION OF SCOTS PORTS
https://www.albaparty.org/forth-and-cly ... and-mersey

[Bodach na mara]

Yesterday I thought I should find out something about Peel Ports and googled it. Reading about the company and the controversies that are linked to it is rather worrying. Clearly Kenny MacAskill is right and questions should be asked about whether allowing this company to control so many ports is advisable and whether they should be allowed to continue running the Clyde facilities into the ground.

[Gardenshed]

Transport Scotland have a monumental task to run the Railways, Ferries, Roads & Airports with all demanding huge sums of money. Will they want to add Ports and Harbours to their list of problems? Unlikely as it's not a vote-catcher.

The rely from Jackie Bailey on the Sailing Cruising Scotland Facebook page (letter of Oct 31) shows that our elected representatives havent' scrutinised or understood the details of the issue. "Its a commercial matter" is an easy answer, but fails to recognise that the scope of the commercial agreement was granted by the government and its their (the Government's) responsibility to ensure that Peel Ports operates within the boundaries of that agreement.

Our MSPs need to be clearly told
1. that the Peel Ports already have responsibility for the items that say this conservancy charge covers
and
2. that the "comprable" charges from other ports are not at all comparable

Mis information from Peel Ports must be called out by those that have th authority to change the HRO and therefore change the commercial agreements under which PP operate

[Burst Boiler]

I'm heartened by Aja's post on TOP. The quotes are considered and coherent. Well done the Holyrood committee and all who contributed.

[BlowingOldBoots]

On the Facebooks group Sailing and Cruising Scotland, link below, there is a file section, where recent documents on this matter can be viewed. For those who don’t use Facebook, a recent comment on progress.

For example, there is an open letter from MSPs to PeelPorts that lays out the case. Three points quoted below.

Firstly, there is a unanimous feeling that the marine tourism economy will be
damaged as boaters will be put off sailing within Clydeports
’ waters.
The River Clyde covers many small communities for whom a small marina,
pontoon or other berthing facilities are vitally important to their economy.
Instigating an additional charge with no clear additional service or facility will
deter some boaters, negating a great deal of hard work and effort that has been
built up by many people over the last 15 years to ensure the marine tourism
sector is fully recognised as an economic opportunity.
This is in part thanks to the first ever marine tourism strategy being published in
2015, which was refreshed and published in 2020, and drafting of the third
edition is currently underway.
A second reason consists of the lack of meaningful dialogue with boaters, which
has led to questions arising over how the fee will be spent. One rationale from
Peel Ports is to help remove wrecks from the river, but many have asked whether
that includes removing the
‘Sugar Boat’ lying just off Greenock’
s shore. We very
much doubt it.
A third reason centres on the progressive increase in charges that will surely
happen if a conservancy fee is implemented. The somewhat limited fee, as
proposed, will inevitably not remain the same in the coming years. In effect, this
fee is considered very much as a
‘
cash grab’ by the recreational boating sector.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/9185008 ... 7229223972

This quote is from the Facebook page, 05 December 2024 at 12:41, if you want to search for it.

Peel Ports Conservancy Fee - response by Parliamentary Cross Party Group for Marine Leisure and Tourism.
Note that SCS were represented at this meeting.
Quote
Scotland’s recreational boating sector rejects plans to introduce fee for sailing on the Clyde
Scotland’s recreational boaters have called out Peel Ports Clydeport for their plans to introduce a conservancy fee – citing concerns that this will restrict freedoms to sail in Scottish waters and will have a negative impact upon marine tourism.
At the Scottish Parliament’s Cross Party Group (CPG) on Recreational Boating and Marine Tourism’s meeting on Wednesday 27 November, members of the leisure boating community and sector representatives expressed their concerns about Peel Port’s proposal and their failure to engage with the CPG about their plans.
After much discussion, the overwhelming feeling was for Peel Ports to abandon their proposal.
Commenting after the meeting, Stuart McMillan MSP who chairs the CPG, said:
“The sector is rightly angry about this proposal, as the rationale for the charge does not appear to stand up to scrutiny.
“Members of the CPG are particularly frustrated that Peel Ports have twice turned down invites to our meetings to explain their proposals, leading the sector to feel like this is being imposed upon them without their input.
“While Peel Ports have said that they plan to begin their consultation with the sector after the New Year, boaters feel like they have been treated with contempt. It was therefore agreed at Wednesday’s meeting that Peel Ports should abandon this proposal.
“Failing this, myself and other concerned MSPs have committed to work with the sector to identify if there are legislative steps that can be taken to challenge this fee.
“I set up this CPG in 2009 and though there have been a range of important issues affecting the sector in that time, the volume of correspondence and level of anger from the sector is nothing like I have seen before.”
Kenneth Gibson, MSP for Cunninghame North, who attended the CPG meeting said:
“The recreational boating sector contributes significantly to Scotland’s coastal communities. The last thing the sector needs is for recreational boaters to be targeted with an unjustified and extortionate fee.
“The Clyde’s waters belong to the people of Scotland – not corporate interests looking to squeeze every penny out of those who enjoy and rely on them. This ill-conceived plan should be abandoned immediately.”
Finlo Cottier, CEO of Royal yachting Association Scotland (RYAS) said:
“This is not about recreational boaters being unwilling to pay for their pastime – sailors have always expected to pay for harbour, berthing and mooring fees.
“This is about the imposition of a fee with no clear provision of service or facility across a huge part of the recreational boating community.
“Peel Ports have tried to equate the proposed fee to those applied in other harbours across the UK, but this does not stand up to scrutiny.
“The Clyde is unique in the UK in its size and character, and the Clydeport area which Peel Port controls extends well beyond the commercial shipping channels.”
Daniel Steel, CEO of Sail Scotland, added:
“Marine tourism and recreational boating are essential to many fragile and rural communities in Scotland. Peel Ports proposals to date have failed to take account of the potential impacts, without proper consultation with our industry and the businesses and communities who would be impacted.
“Much more thought and consideration is required before introduction of any fees, and we call for open dialogue and scrutiny of any plans without delay.”
A representative from Sailing Cruising Scotland (SCS) who attended the CPG meeting, Eric Sweeney, said:
“In discussions with representatives of the members of SCS, of which there are over 13,000, it has become apparent that Peel Ports, as port regulator, need to be regulated themselves.
“In this regard, we believe that relevant Scottish Ministers should issue a Harbour Order to Peel Ports that ensures leisure craft under 24 metres in length are exempt of any port fees whatsoever.
“In addition, there is no appetite among our members to pay this fee and no appetite among marinas to collect the fee. Consequently, there is a danger that leisure vessels will deactivate location devices, which would be a safety concern.
“Fundamentally, Peel Ports’ plan to introduce a conservancy fee is outrageous.”
Ian Macdonald of Clyde Yacht Clubs Association added:
“Representatives of our member clubs and classes already contribute a large amount of volunteer time to help Peel Ports fulfil their statutory responsibilities and commercial functions including submission of detailed information on organised events and contributions to the Clyde Moorings Committee.
“It is also difficult to see how any fees such as those proposed could be collected economically or equitably.”
Alan Kohler from Cruising Association Celtic Section said:
“The area proposed to be subject to this new fee appears to be quite unprecedented in Scottish, and indeed UK terms. This covers a huge area of waters, most of which is not recognisable as a “harbour” in common usage, and indeed much is, by contrast, remote and beautiful waters with minimal commercial traffic – such as the Kyles of Bute and the entire length of Loch Fyne.
“As cruising sailors, we don’t object to paying for services which we use. However, it is not clear what, if any, services Clydeport would actually provide to leisure craft in return for these proposed charges, particularly in the areas well away from the commercial shipping ports. A lot has changed in the wider Clyde since Clydeport was given such a wide remit in 1965.”
Sarah Kennedy, Chair of British Marine Scotland, added:
"British Marine Scotland members are appalled by Peel Ports’ proposed industry destructive quasi tax.
“British Marine Scotland which represents the leisure marine business in Scotland, supporting a wide range of businesses including marinas, engineers, small boat yards, charter companies, training centres and many more, has just surveyed its members regarding the recently proposed so-called “conservation fee” to be levied on all boats in the Clyde area by Peel Ports. Members are so far unanimously opposed to the new charge.
“There is significant concern that the proposed charge will likely impact up to 50% of the boats in Scotland and in so doing seriously damage Scotland’s marine tourism industry.
“This industry has large economic benefits for Scotland as a whole, in particular the many remote, coastal communities heavily reliant on marine tourism.
“We would urge Peel Ports to simply cancel this unlooked for charge or, as a minimum, carry out a proper, genuine consultation with all relevant stakeholders including British Marine, RYA Scotland, Scottish Tourism Alliance, VisitScotland, coastal local authorities and mooring associations.
“Individual boaters and marine businesses are also encouraged to raise concerns with their Constituency and Regional MSPs."
ENDS
Unquote

[BlowingOldBoots]

This link lets you find your MP, MSP and the list MSPs

https://www.theyworkforyou.com/msp/


The list from the Scottish Parliament, as a pdf file. Says it all really about accessibility.

https://www.parliament.scot/-/media/fil ... region.pdf

[mm5aho]

In wondering why PP might be thinking to change this £120/year they are planning, I took a look at their accounts (last accounts published 31/3/23). Companies House publish accounts lodged by Ltd Companies on line. I'm not an accountant, but some things in company accounts don't take a qualified accountant to read. Here's some highlights.
* They made a profit before tax of £397m and paid corp tax of 0.06% on that. That seems unusually low, but might be offset against poor results the year before?
* There are three directors representing a big shareholder of the parent company. That shareholder is an Australian Pension fund.
* They are not a publicly traded company. they're a private company.
* The UK company Peel Ports Group Ltd is owned by a Cayman Islands company Peel Ports Holdings (CI) Ltd
* Turnover that year was £696.3m
* They have some serious debts of about £3bn. (debts due over 1 year, not short term stuff) They seem to have borrowed a lot in recent years.
* Assets less current liabilities = £1.4bn
* Total equity is negative 1.6Bn.
* They're quite involved in various forms of derivatives. like interest rate swaps, forex swaps etc.
* They paid their directors £4.26m collectively, but the highest paid of them got £2.022m (plus another £4k to the pension).

So I reckon if I was a director, I'd be asking the managers to find all means of increasing income that they could. An alternative is to start making some overhead cuts (jobs).
I think its little wonder then that, even though this won't raise billions, it'll be one of a raft of income seeking measures they'd be taking to try to get to a better position.

If this isn't the main reason for dreaming up this leisure boat tax, then could it be to just make boating unpopular in order to clear out the Clyde of those pesky sailors, and others and free up "their" waters of pests?

[cpedw]

I
* They made a profit before tax of £397m and paid corp tax of 0.06% on that. That seems unusually low, but might be offset against poor results the year before?

* The UK company Peel Ports Group Ltd is owned by a Cayman Islands company Peel Ports Holdings (CI) Ltd
* Turnover that year was £696.3m
* They have some serious debts of about £3bn. (debts due over 1 year, not short term stuff) They seem to have borrowed a lot in recent years.

As I understand it (which isn't great - I'm an engineer) this is the standard tax dodge as exercised by lots of UK businesses - care homes, English water cos and others - take out huge loans with somewhere offshore then all profit is transferred offshore to service the loans and no need to pay tax in UK.
Short of a revolution, (I wouldn't rule it out but I'm a bit old for that) I'm not sure what to do about it.
But there's nothing wrong with the business - £400M profit on £700M turnover seems very healthy to me.

[cpedw]

There's now a petition launched by Stuart McMillan MSP opposing the conservancy fee on leisure craft.

[Bodach na mara]

Been there and signed it. Oppose piracy on the Clyde now!!!

[BlowingOldBoots]

According to a Facebook post in Sailing Cruising Scotland, an article in the Greenock Telegraph, states that the Scottish ministers have rejected a request to intervene, stating that they do not have the powers to intervene.

This current position needs to be challenged and if you feel strongly enough, please write to your MSP requesting them to petition the Cabinet Secretary for Transport, Fiona Hyslop, stating that a HRO can be used to amend the actions of the harbour authorities.

[Gardenshed]

If writing to MSPs or Transport Scotland, its worth making the following points:

1. the Scottish Government should lead the way in the UK in how they regulate and control private enterprises who operate public assets (i.e. Peel Port)
2. The HRO was modified during CoP 26, demonstrating a presentment that the Scottish Government can change the conditions under which a "commercial enterprise" is allowed to operate
3. Peel Ports currently publicly shared proposal does not make reliable comparisons for "similar charges" made by others
4. Under the existing HRO, charges which they propose must be for "services and facilities". i.e. both use be provided. Under the proposed scheme, no facilities are provided.

The HRO was developed and written into law in the 1960s when the Clyde estuary was host to shipbuilding, ship repair and many wharfs, docks and related warehousing. It was a very busy commercial port. The HRO was not written in anticipation of or to support and recognise leisure, tourism and recreational boating. Using the HRO to target these users is an inappropriate use of the legislation.

The Scottish Government, through Transport Scotland, stepped in to remove a "commercial operator" of the rail network, when they were not running the rail services correctly. Whilst not as significant a breach of their responsibilities, this does show that the Scottish Government has the ability to intervene when commercial operators are not serving the public good

Current responses from Ministers and Transport Scotland show a lack of understanding of the issue. If it's presented as a fortunate few trying to avoid additional costs, then there is no political benefit to getting involved or using parliamentary time. If it is presented as the Government regulating private companies who are abusing the position entrusted to them by the government on behalf of the public, then that has more significance.