No Vat on Bikes Petition - response from the government



M

Marc Brett

Guest
On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 14:39:15 +0100, Matt B
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Ekul Namsob wrote:
>> Yes. Do you have any evidence that they 'bend over backwards to appease
>> cyclists'?
>>
>> Do you have any evidence that they 'wasted no time'?

>
>The petition closed 18 June 2007, the response contained the statement:
>"We have now carefully considered stakeholders views and on 15 June laid
>before Parliament revised versions of rules 61 and 63, as follows:..."[1]
>
>Now, if humbly changing the rules as demanded isn't "bending over
>backwards", and if getting it done three days before the petition closed
>isn't a good example of "wasting no time", I don't know what is! ;-)


Did they do it in response to the petition, or was it in response to the
pressure of the CTC, other cycling groups, fellow MPs, and the thousands
of letters from individuals? And where do you get "humbly" ?!? They
arrogantly claimed for weeks that there was no problem, and then did the
bare minimum requested of them. Badly. Crowed about it afterwards,
too.

A "cave in" rather than a "bending over backwards", methinks.
 
E

Ekul Namsob

Guest
Matt B <[email protected]> wrote:

> Ekul Namsob wrote:
> > Matt B <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> Ekul Namsob wrote:
> >>> Matt B <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> The government usually bend over backwards to appease cyclists - they
> >>>> certainly wasted no time in reworking the highway code, after the close
> >>>> of the petition demanding that.
> >>> ROTFLMAO.
> >> Well, _was_ the HC draft changed after the petition closed, or not?

> >
> > Yes. Do you have any evidence that they 'bend over backwards to appease
> > cyclists'?
> >
> > Do you have any evidence that they 'wasted no time'?

>
> The petition closed 18 June 2007, the response contained the statement:
> "We have now carefully considered stakeholders views and on 15 June laid
> before Parliament revised versions of rules 61 and 63, as follows:..."[1]
>
> Now, if humbly changing the rules as demanded isn't "bending over
> backwards", and if getting it done three days before the petition closed
> isn't a good example of "wasting no time", I don't know what is! ;-)


Ah, so I was wrong. The HC draft was not changed after the petition
closed. It was changed before the petition was submitted to the
Government.

Now please justify the qualifier 'usually'.

Cheers,
Luke


--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>
 
T

Tom Crispin

Guest
On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 16:47:35 +0100, "vernon" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>For those with the hope of cheaper bikes - the response crushes any hope of
>17.5% 'discount'


I wonder if there could be anything to gain by re-wording the
petition, and call for the zero rating of children's bikes, other than
BSOs, in line with other children's sporting equipment such as
football boots and running shoes.
 
N

Nigel Cliffe

Guest
Tom Crispin wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 16:47:35 +0100, "vernon" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> For those with the hope of cheaper bikes - the response crushes any
>> hope of
>> 17.5% 'discount'

>
> I wonder if there could be anything to gain by re-wording the
> petition, and call for the zero rating of children's bikes, other than
> BSOs, in line with other children's sporting equipment such as
> football boots and running shoes.



No, at least two reasons why its a waste of time.
a) because it requires renegotiation of a fundamental EU law on VAT which
goes back to the 1970's. Countries cannot extend the range of goods covered
by the zero band.
b) because excluding BSO's would be a restraint of trade, so fails on both
EU and WTO rules.

What might work is a petition for a reduction of VAT for cycles (or
children's cycles) to 5%, which is within the power of the UK government to
grant.



If wanting to get rid of BSO's, the route is via the standards for bicycles,
or the enforcement of the existing standards more carefully. But that might
inadvertedly kill off other types of bicycle, so be very careful.



- Nigel

--
Nigel Cliffe,
Webmaster at http://www.2mm.org.uk/