Port tax is ‘attack on industry’ (From Daily Echo)

I can't recall 'the City business leaders and the marine community' being united in preserving jobs for british sailors on their ships, or objecting to firms that registered their ships abroad for economic reasons.

I guess that this tax increase dents their profits, while foreign registration and foreign sailors increased them.

Money talks with a very loud voice.

and how many of the small, pleasure craft pay light dues?
I would guess at none.
Let them pay their way with a small annual charge.

If you're currently shipping at least 9 cargoes of 50,000 tonnes, then the rate will rise by (41/35)=17% and the frequency is (9/7)=29%. So the total is 1.17*1.29=1.50. The maximum rise is 50%, not 67%. What am I missing (apart from a life).


Is the 50,000 tonnes the size of the ship? And the tax is on the net weight of cargo? This story needs more clarity.

The cruise ships put so much into our city that they could uproot and dock else where. Southampton as whole would suffer badly. Yet again a stupidly bad decision by our useless government. They should get their own houses in order before messing with others !!!

Linesman wrote:
I can't recall 'the City business leaders and the marine community' being united in preserving jobs for british sailors on their ships, or objecting to firms that registered their ships abroad for economic reasons.

I guess that this tax increase dents their profits, while foreign registration and foreign sailors increased them.

Money talks with a very loud voice.

very true linesman. when it was british seaman, a lot more of the money was spend here. thats was only because most live local. most off there money was spent with in the city or bank here. seaman can only leave a ship when it was there home country, when in a over sea port you needed permission to leave the ship, and perssion was only given to so many off the crew would be allowed to leave the ship. the same applys to foreign crews they will need permission to leave the ship while in port here. and that would only be the ones that had time off like day off or half a day. and thats a very small number. in the evening the capt can give a block permission for crew members to leave the ship after when all the day work compleated this would happen about 8pm or after, all depends on what dept you was in stewards are the last ones to finish so by the time you cleaned up and got your self ready to leave most places was closed aprt from bars and clubs,

Has anybody written to ask the City's two labour MPs why British port taxes are still paying for all light and navigation aids in the Republic Of Ireland - (a oountry that has received more EU aid than any other over the last 15 years and which has now been a separate state for over 90 years?)? If this oversight was rectified we would not need to raise port taxes at all. This Irish subsidy is going to cost many jobs in this country and the labour government as always are paralysed by indecision and ineptitude. A constituent has to raise this issue with them before it is too late.

southy wrote:

Linesman wrote:
I can't recall 'the City business leaders and the marine community' being united in preserving jobs for british sailors on their ships, or objecting to firms that registered their ships abroad for economic reasons.

I guess that this tax increase dents their profits, while foreign registration and foreign sailors increased them.

Money talks with a very loud voice.

very true linesman. when it was british seaman, a lot more of the money was spend here. thats was only because most live local. most off there money was spent with in the city or bank here. seaman can only leave a ship when it was there home country, when in a over sea port you needed permission to leave the ship, and perssion was only given to so many off the crew would be allowed to leave the ship. the same applys to foreign crews they will need permission to leave the ship while in port here. and that would only be the ones that had time off like day off or half a day. and thats a very small number. in the evening the capt can give a block permission for crew members to leave the ship after when all the day work compleated this would happen about 8pm or after, all depends on what dept you was in stewards are the last ones to finish so by the time you cleaned up and got your self ready to leave most places was closed aprt from bars and clubs,

As always Southy you are just quoting lots of facts that exhibit no understanding of the issue. Nobody sacked British seamen for the sake of it. Laskars, Malays and others working for foreign shipping companies were prepared to work longer hours for far less money. It was simple economics. You could have kept British seamen on their British ships but the ships would have been laid up with nowhere to go because foreign ships would be carrying all the cargoes for half the rates. So then what are you going to do - ban them entry to British ports? What would that have achieved apart from destroy trade and the standard of living in this country?

more to it andy. your right they did't get sack they used a change in the law in the 80's to have them replaced. being a seaman the pay was bad it was never a good paying job, and it was long hours, if you was not on watch duty, your day started at 6am and would not finish till 8pm later than that some times. only the diffrence is that work for less and they are much easyer to sack, if they are ill or any thing like that theres no sick pay or any thing else, they are ill treated and risk to there health and well being is not cared about. they are not in any unions so they cant get help from a union, theres no compention if they involed in an accident wheather if its there fault or not, they are treated no more than a slave.
the main reason why we pay for ireland is because its manily ships coming into british ports.

The 1980's you say, southy? And who, pray-tell, might be responsible for every thing which happened during that decade? I'm sure you've mentioned a name a few times but I can't quite recall who it might have been....

Andy Locks Heath wrote:

southy wrote:

Linesman wrote: I can't recall 'the City business leaders and the marine community' being united in preserving jobs for british sailors on their ships, or objecting to firms that registered their ships abroad for economic reasons. I guess that this tax increase dents their profits, while foreign registration and foreign sailors increased them. Money talks with a very loud voice.

very true linesman. when it was british seaman, a lot more of the money was spend here. thats was only because most live local. most off there money was spent with in the city or bank here. seaman can only leave a ship when it was there home country, when in a over sea port you needed permission to leave the ship, and perssion was only given to so many off the crew would be allowed to leave the ship. the same applys to foreign crews they will need permission to leave the ship while in port here. and that would only be the ones that had time off like day off or half a day. and thats a very small number. in the evening the capt can give a block permission for crew members to leave the ship after when all the day work compleated this would happen about 8pm or after, all depends on what dept you was in stewards are the last ones to finish so by the time you cleaned up and got your self ready to leave most places was closed aprt from bars and clubs,

As always Southy you are just quoting lots of facts that exhibit no understanding of the issue. Nobody sacked British seamen for the sake of it. Laskars, Malays and others working for foreign shipping companies were prepared to work longer hours for far less money. It was simple economics. You could have kept British seamen on their British ships but the ships would have been laid up with nowhere to go because foreign ships would be carrying all the cargoes for half the rates. So then what are you going to do - ban them entry to British ports? What would that have achieved apart from destroy trade and the standard of living in this country?

And I suppose it was the 'highly paid' british seamen that asked for their ships to be registered abroad.

I cannot believe that any Council have the authority to make such decisions and absolute control of our City. I still feel they are puppets on a string. but who is Big Brother? we are all speculating because all governing bodies do not give the why's and wherefore and surely a bunch of Councillors should not be making such decisions. I am constantly accusing the EU, wrong maybe, but they certainly appear to have strings to every part of our lives.

goard

Couple of observations here.
Linesman - like many you will have strong views on John Prescott. One thing I understand he did achieve was to in troduce the Tonnage Tax as part of the 2000 Finance Act. This provided Shipping Companies with significant Financial incentives to register vessels in the UK and ...'reverse the decline of the UK shipping Fleet'..Generally speaking this has been a successful incentive.

Goard - if I read your post correctly, you lay blame at the feet of local councillors. If so you are very wide of the mark. This is entirely a Central Govt 'initiative'

10 Minute Man - Light Dues are raised on the Net Tonnage of a ship. Nothing to do with the cargo carried.

Southy - I have dreadful visions of you as a Capt Pugwash type character with a parrot on his shoulder swabbing the decks, whistb traversing the tropics on a general cargo ship in the 60's. constantly telling your shipmates that the Captain hasn't a clue!!

ben to under stand what its like deep sea, you need to serve on a ship. ships crew is one off the lowest paid jobs going. the only befit is that you had food and a bed, your pay is work out for 24 hours even if you was not working and off duty, you still could be called on to work even when your asleep.

Ben Doone wrote:
Couple of observations here. Linesman - like many you will have strong views on John Prescott. One thing I understand he did achieve was to in troduce the Tonnage Tax as part of the 2000 Finance Act. This provided Shipping Companies with significant Financial incentives to register vessels in the UK and ...'reverse the decline of the UK shipping Fleet'..Generally speaking this has been a successful incentive. Goard - if I read your post correctly, you lay blame at the feet of local councillors. If so you are very wide of the mark. This is entirely a Central Govt 'initiative' 10 Minute Man - Light Dues are raised on the Net Tonnage of a ship. Nothing to do with the cargo carried. Southy - I have dreadful visions of you as a Capt Pugwash type character with a parrot on his shoulder swabbing the decks, whistb traversing the tropics on a general cargo ship in the 60's. constantly telling your shipmates that the Captain hasn't a clue!!

Yes, I do have strong views on John Prescott, with the majority of them supportive.

The Tonnage Tax was introduced for the best of reasons, but still the shipping companies registered abroad because, for one thing, the labour laws are more lax and imagine that their profits are also salted away in the country of registration as well.

Southy

It seems that everytime I contribute, I have to contradict you. You say that they have no union - the National Union of Seamen may have had a word or two of disagreement about that. Ask Harold Wilson about the seamens' strike. The NUS was later absorbed into the RMT.
Seafarers, of all ranks and disciplines may go ashore in any port in the world outside their working hours - except where the local regulations prevent it. To keep some one on board outside their working hours required paying "captive time" - similar to overtime. Whilst you are correct about the catering dept being the last ashore in the evening, that was normally true - however most of them had at least a couple of hours in the afternoon to go ashore.

As far as replacing the British seaman with foreign, the simple truth is that the Brits out-priced themselves- mainly on conditions of service rather than straight pay. Incidentally, seamen do get paid overtime. If they get sick, their Shipping Company is legally required to ensure that they receive medical care anywhere in the world - and be repatriated if the cure is not readily available, or not a high enough standard.The ship may not work a seafarer for longer than 14 hours, except in an emergency - hours worked by everyone have to logged and available to State Port Inspectors, anywhere in the world.

The trouble with John Prescott was that he was a hapless buffoon who didn't have the capability to make things happen. Any fool can stand up and bluster meaningless phrases at party conferences (and many do) but the real work is in setting up complex structures with the right set of leverages, delegations and influences to achieve the right outcome. He was capable of delivering none of that. Prescott set up the Strategic Rail Authority. Good idea in theory except he never thought to establish whether it reported to the Rail Regulator or Vice versa. Result was 10 years of bickering betweeen Alastair Morton and Tom Winsor until it was quietly killed off. And let's not forget that the nonsensical greenfield housebuilding "eco towns" are a result of his arbitrary Stalinist housebuilding quotas. Do you rememember the Railtrack fiasco? Stephen Byers took the rap but who was Byers' boss?
Perhaps Linesman you could tell us about his actual achievements and outcomes rather than his intentions? But I suspect you just like him for the same reason that Southy hates Thatcher. Political support reduced to the level of football support.
I have to laugh at the contortions labour supporters are going through to try and convince us that none of what we are seeing is in any way their fault.

Andy
John Prescotts Dept was ultimately responsible for turning down the Dibden bay project. I have it on reasonably good authority that Mr Prescott subsequently went round saying what a bad decision this was. Of course he could temper his views dependent on what company he was in but if he truly believed it was a bad decision it beggars belief he didnt intervene at the appropriate time!!

Old Man of the Sea, seven seas, you just shown that you never been deep sea, you are subject to ship contract agreement, whitch is part ship,part company and part government rules. try reading the full item and not just the bit off paper that you sign, with in that bit off paper are rules with in rules, and its the governments rules that say no crew member is allowed to leave the ship with out permission, its also part of the international martime laws for immergration. working hours was set up in such away that it was 24 hours 7 days a week, the only time when a crew member could leave a ship while in a "captive time" port was when they where on ship leave or with permission.captive time could only apply if a person was kept aboard while they was in there home country or when a person should off been on ship leave while in a foreign port.
and has for out pricing them selfs that is BS asking for £75 per mth was not out pricing them selfs, when people ashore was earning 4 times that amount per mth

sorry made an error the words "captive time" should off been "foreign"
captive time was not over time, it was a bonus, there was not over time on a ship, your pay was for 24 hours a day.

southy wrote:
Old Man of the Sea, seven seas, you just shown that you never been deep sea, you are subject to ship contract agreement, whitch is part ship,part company and part government rules. try reading the full item and not just the bit off paper that you sign, with in that bit off paper are rules with in rules, and its the governments rules that say no crew member is allowed to leave the ship with out permission, its also part of the international martime laws for immergration. working hours was set up in such away that it was 24 hours 7 days a week, the only time when a crew member could leave a ship while in a "captive time" port was when they where on ship leave or with permission.captive time could only apply if a person was kept aboard while they was in there home country or when a person should off been on ship leave while in a foreign port. and has for out pricing them selfs that is BS asking for £75 per mth was not out pricing them selfs, when people ashore was earning 4 times that amount per mth

Southy
I am afraid that your perception of my job is way off the mark. I started "Deep Sea" in the sixties, and have sailed in virtually every trade except liners and tankers. The ship contract which you are referring to is "The Articles of Agreement", regulating hours of work, victualling accommodation, repatriation, length of voyage and wages. I have signed on and off, in front of the Shipping Master when they were doing the job, ever since. As Master, I have opened, closed and amended the Articles.
One of my jobs as 3rd mate was to do the overtime calculation for the crew.
If you had read my post, you would have seen that I said conditions of service were the main factor. Flying seafarers round the world every four months just got too expensive, when Philipinos were doing 9 month trips.
Now you know my history -what was your position at sea, and for how long?

article was signed for a trip(voyage) whitch could mean a number off years, or 12 mths or if less than that it was for port you signed on and back to that same port,or to port of your country of birth (working passage), or a country off choice has long you had the right paper work:-ie visa off entry ect(working passage). flying seafarers around the world is a compampy(ship owners) choice and agreement they chose to make and put in to the ships articles contract, and if you amended articles then you was doing it under captains orders and was a personal choice off that captain, what he can not do with out permission is change items higher up the command.
i personaly was signing a 12 mth articles,being a rigger should tell you what i was while working on the ships,and my history with the sea has not finished yet, and will not till i fully retire, being a seafarer runs in my blood, family history being going to sea a very high number of hundreds off years, and when they do come ashore that tie is not broken, they tend to stay with in the marine industry or with in the rigging industry.

Southy

You being a rigger has explained a lot - there is nothing like a little knowledge being dangerous! I now realise that you are NOT a traditional, qualified seaman.
Re-read my post. I was the Master (the correct title as endorsed on the Certificate of Competency). I amended articles as the Company Representative not out of personal whim.
Flying seafarers round the world was not a philanthropic gesture by the ship-owners. It was forced upon them by the negotiators of your non-existent seafarers Union, and thus helped price the British Seaman out of contention.
Your understanding of the Articles is almost correct, certainly close enough not to get picky about. However you still haven't said how long you were at sea?

crew members tend to know more on how to run a ship and to run it rightly, thats why officers just say i want this done, and not know how to do it. its the crew that knows how its done, and keeps you safe, you give orders but it dont mean that you know how its done or the right way off doing it, thats the crew members job, and its the crew members who teach the younger ones. the best officers are the ones that start at the very bottom and work there way up, whitch are very few off,how many captains do you know that stated there sea life has a deck boy, working a mans hours for half the pay.
it was down to the ship owners when they change crew, not the unions, there was oil companys that change crew every 8 mths and was still doing this up 10 years ago, and has far has i know they could be still doing it. lost contact with the person i know. the main reasons why companys change to asian crews was the fact that they could order them about and put the life at risk, and have jobs done there way whitch may mean not the right way, hence probley why that seaman lost his life a while back because off orders above and the person giving the orders did not know the right way, and it cost an asain crew member his life. a british crew member would off question this order, and would off said it need to be done this way for reasons. and this is what it was all about really, why the change off type off crew, when an order is wrong and often it is, officers dont like to be question on the safty off an order, they want it carried out right away and the way they say, even when its wrong and might cost a life/s.

i did tell you that i not finished with the sea yet and probley will not till i fully retire, but mine started in 72

Andy Locks Heath wrote:
The trouble with John Prescott was that he was a hapless buffoon who didn't have the capability to make things happen. Any fool can stand up and bluster meaningless phrases at party conferences (and many do) but the real work is in setting up complex structures with the right set of leverages, delegations and influences to achieve the right outcome. He was capable of delivering none of that. Prescott set up the Strategic Rail Authority. Good idea in theory except he never thought to establish whether it reported to the Rail Regulator or Vice versa. Result was 10 years of bickering betweeen Alastair Morton and Tom Winsor until it was quietly killed off. And let's not forget that the nonsensical greenfield housebuilding "eco towns" are a result of his arbitrary Stalinist housebuilding quotas. Do you rememember the Railtrack fiasco? Stephen Byers took the rap but who was Byers' boss? Perhaps Linesman you could tell us about his actual achievements and outcomes rather than his intentions? But I suspect you just like him for the same reason that Southy hates Thatcher. Political support reduced to the level of football support. I have to laugh at the contortions labour supporters are going through to try and convince us that none of what we are seeing is in any way their fault.

As you have so ably demonstrated Andy. Any fool can stand up and bluster meaningless phrases!

Southy,

Yet again you display uneducated prejudice, this time against 'The Old Man of the Sea' who is well known to me and is a Master Mariner with decades of deep-sea experience. In a difficult situation aboard ship - and given the choice of an opinionated, semi-literate rigger and an experienced Master Mariner to entrust my life - who should I choose?

One of life's no brainers!

Long in the tooth wrote:
Southy,

Yet again you display uneducated prejudice, this time against 'The Old Man of the Sea' who is well known to me and is a Master Mariner with decades of deep-sea experience. In a difficult situation aboard ship - and given the choice of an opinionated, semi-literate rigger and an experienced Master Mariner to entrust my life - who should I choose?

One of life's no brainers!

the crew off the ship. its is very rare for a master off a ship to know, all the deck hands jobs, and how to do them the right way, and the ones that do know have started at the very bottom ie deck-boy and gone up though the ranks, alot off them only make to 3rd mate after that they are to old or they are block, but once in a blue moon one do get though to the top, and are not like by big companys because they really know what its like and will question them.
one thing with sea going riggers is that they can bring a ship back to port, most can navigate like my self the old fashion way and the modern way, know the meaning off lights and flag signals and know how to set them up the right way, they can operate the radio shack inc morse code. why do you think that RN carrys ship riggers for on all there ships, for the fun of it, well its not its for there wealth knowage and there experience, and will ask questions if some thing looks wrong. thats why there has been cases though out history where the crew has brought a ship home with out officers and never the other way round.

Southy
I am intrigued by your last comment.
Name me one occasion when a modern ship has been safely navigated by its crew in the absence of Officers.
I can probably imagine a scenario where a sailing ship could be steered and navigated by crew but not a modern naval or commercial ship, they are too technical.
I'm just grateful that you never took to the air as a career.

Question
If you were a passenger or ship owner who would you want as your crew. A polite, well educated Philipino or the uncle arthur/ramlin sid rumpole carachter aka southy, who doesnt believe anything he reads in books (written by office wallahs who dont no nuffin) and is unable to write the Queens English (bit like me!!)

Ben Doone wrote:
Southy
I am intrigued by your last comment.
Name me one occasion when a modern ship has been safely navigated by its crew in the absence of Officers.
I can probably imagine a scenario where a sailing ship could be steered and navigated by crew but not a modern naval or commercial ship, they are too technical.
I'm just grateful that you never took to the air as a career.

last time it happen was during the WW2 when a tanker was hit by a torpedo, tanker was on fire skipper ordered to abandon ship, 12 hours later the ship had not sunk. the boswain 3 ship riggers 4 ab's and 2 stewards 2 greasers, reboarded her put the fire out got the ship running again and sailed her to a canadain port. that was the last time, but the was reports of it happen also in minor sea battle with the japanese navy again WW2 with the smaller vessels, very unlike to happen now days during peace time, but saying that its still possable with modern day pirates like off the north/east coast off africa or the ones around the islands off indonesia and the philippines.
and why it is written in international maritime law a ship can be sailed with the absence off officers to the nearest safe port or port off registry.

veracity wrote:
Question
If you were a passenger or ship owner who would you want as your crew. A polite, well educated Philipino or the uncle arthur/ramlin sid rumpole carachter aka southy, who doesnt believe anything he reads in books (written by office wallahs who dont no nuffin) and is unable to write the Queens English (bit like me!!)

british crew was all ways polite and can under stand much better when talking in english. let me put it this way to you if theres another war on the same scale has WW2, who you going to get to man those ships that know what they are doing, Philipino will be pulled out unless there country is involved and if they are involved whitch side are they on you could lose a ship/s very quickly. think about it for awhile.

Southy,
I am sure the majority of British crew were and remain polite and upstanding but for many Brits a life at sea does not hold the same appeal as it once did.
As you know all began to go downhill after June 1966 and the number of UK citizens at sea has tailed away since that time.
also if you speak to a lot of the Indian & Goan crew on the P&O cruise ships for example,, a lot of these are very well educated and can speak and write English better than many who post on here.
I suggest your correlation with WW2 is rather incongruous.
God forbid we would ever find ourselves embroiled in another global conflict, but if so then it would be settled in the air not by standing armies or navies.
PS Can you give me the name of the Tanker which was brought home by its crew. I'd like to look it up.

it was called some thing star, or star some thing.
theres all way that chance off another war has big has the WW2 or even bigger, they are not going to go away while there is human greed or dare i say it religion.
a war will not be won in the air but it will go towards in helping to bring it to an end, once they have major controll off the air. and will also need major controll off the seas more so for us being an island, and troops are needed to finish the job off. and for the troops to get there in mass number you will need ships.
goa seafarers are very good seaman by mind you they are portugese trained. the best seamen in the world are british,dutch, portugese, danish, norway sweden and iceland. think you find it was closer to 75 then 66 but the signs was there what was going to happen in the mid 60's, but the seafaring life is in your blood, but giving the chance i think you could fill those ships up with british crew in a short time, people like my self would go back just to train the young ones how to do things the right way. but will never happen not till theres a government willing to back the rules/laws that use to be enforce that was once there.

Southy
Sorry you can't be more specific on the ship.
Any major war will be won in the air as the thousands of missiles currently in store will be unleashed.
By the way June 1966 was the time of the Seamen's strike which heralded the end of the British seaman.

that seaman strike did't do any damage to the marine industry. because the industry was still strong right to the end off the 60's and in to the early 70's. you said the reason before what happen( the start off cheap air travel to new york and the big killer the opening up off cheap air travel to the far east in the mid 70's)( another killer was time factor off traveling from a to b) this hit the regular routes people did not want to spend days on a ship when they could get there in a number off hours.
it will still take more than missiles to win a war, sepecialy after what the australians have shown what can be done to them out off the air and is to use microwave and EMS and the same will work with modern air craft and to line the electronics with lead makes them to heavy so a lot more power is needed and means they will need to be larger and with that they become slower, and if nuclear weapons are used then all sides have lost, there is another point to think about about missiles, if the sun is high in sun spot activity there could be problems if any thing that leaves the earth atmosphere this all ready known about why nassa checks what the sun is doing has do other agencys that have controll over satalites, the sun is very powerful that way, if you remember a while back when the eastern board of the usa had a major black out, this was cause by a sun flare it trip a circuit breaker, whitch in turn over loaded other breakers so that they trip.