Light dues - response from the Minister

[Talbot]

I Faxed my MP abt Light Dues and he fwded this to the appropriate Minister (David Jamieson (david.jamieson@dft.gsi.gov.uk)) The following is his response:

"The Government remains committed to a cost recovery system for funding marine aids to navigation. We do not believe taxpayers should meet these costs. In September 2003, we began a study on the economic effect of light dues on commercial operating and trading patterns. The study has covered both the direct impact of the present charging structure on shipping lines, ports and owners of fishing vessels and pleasure craft and the direct impact on the regional and national economy. A representative of the <font color=blue>Royal Yachting Association</font color=blue> was a member of an Advisory Group of key stakeholders assisting the study.

The report of the study will be published in the next few weeks. We will then consider its conclusions before making an announcement on our reaction to the report and any changes to the future structure of light dues.

In addition, a new more versatile collection system will come into operation in April this year. It will provide an electronic method of collecting light dues, permitting direct payment and removing the manual paperwork of the present system. It is expected to reduce costs and introduce greater flexibility and variations in the charging patterns. But that does not mean that pleasure craft will be charged light dues. It is an option we are considering and will evaluate in the light of the conclusions reached by the economic study"

<font color=red>Anyone else reckon they are being economical with the truth?</font color=red>

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[wakeup]

Sounds like your MP is a total tow the line tosser, vote him out at the next available opportunity.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Talbot]

Think you have missed the point. My MP (Michael Mates) passed all the info over to the minister. It is the response from the minister (or more likely his staff) that I have added to the post.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[wakeup]

Doen't make your MP any less a tosser, surely he should represent your views if you proved your case rather than splurge back the party line, sounds like its a done deal.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[penfold]

The knuckle-dragging moron in charge of this policy should be beaten around the head with a cricket bat, upon which is engraved the inscription, "General taxation is cheap to collect, targeted taxation is not". Being as how the UK was still an Island the last time I checked, most of the stuff people buy travels by sea (we don't make much of anything these days), so everyone is going to be paying the light dues anyway, whenever they buy something shipped in from wherever. Am I missing something here? Oh yes, I forgot, politicians don't have any commonsense.

cheers,
david

<hr width=100% size=1>OMG, Schrodinger's cat is dead!

 

[Birdseye]

What you are missing is that with huge sums being thrown at failing organisations (the NHS, the immigration service, the police, the judiciary etc) the govt needs every penny it can get. So it charges us twice for light dues - through general taxation and through a direct charge.

What the Govt is missing is that foreign ship owners (we have no ships) do not have votes, but yotties do.

<hr width=100% size=1>this post is a personal opinion, and you should not base your actions on it.