PLEASE urge all your readers not to slacken their efforts regarding the iniquitous level of tax on motor fuels.

I have recently written twice to my MP, and in his reply to my first letter he carefully lists 13 so-called-facts relating to petrol prices. Only two of these warrant comment. The remainder were simply party-political points.

The very first 'fact' is a complete evasion of the truth, and caused me to respond as follows. Here is my word -for-word second letter to him:

If 'High oil prices, not government action, are driving up prices at the pumps' -- yet 70pc of pump price is tax, this leaves 30pc as the basic retail price.

This means that two thirds of what we pay is tax! Which is the greater, the basic price, or taxation? 70pc tax on any commodity is OUTRAGEOUS, 50pc or even 40pc tax is equally exorbitant especially on essential commodities.

I'm afraid that your list of facts has no bearing on the necessity for this extortionate amount of tax on motor fuel.

If you had said that the intention of the government was to price more motorists off the road,and so cut down the number of vehicles, you might have been nearer the truth, even though it means that those totally reliant on their only source of transportation, and the poorer members of society, would be affected. Not a very attractive attractive vote-puller!

To come to your point that 'a 2p cut in fuel duty would cost almost £1billion'. Who's thinking of a measly cut of 2p? It's going to take more than that off pump prices to get the public less disgruntled.

What is really needed is a completely new approach to raising this level of revenue and 'New Labour' shouldn't be floundering on that score!

What would be more simple than switching the high level of tax from motor fuels and diverting it to another essential commodity like sugar and sugar alternatives.

Let's say a good 30pc off motor fuels could easily be transferred to sugar and the effects of this would be a distinctly beneficial improvement on the public's general health (rich and poor alike!).

It would also,avoid the knock-on effect in terms of all other commodities unconnected to sugar, unlike fuel tax which does affect almost every other aspect of life.

Plus the fact that an improvement in dietary and culinary fields would eventually show a direct improvement in the burden of cost on the Health Service. What do you think of this?

When you consider the extent of the unnecessary use of sugar in a great percentage of food-stuff, it seems almost due for a public health warning about the dangers associated with the over indulgence and dependence on it.

Take the increasing hyperactivity in children, said to have its roots in poor dietary habits with parents allowing youngsters to eat confectionery and sweets at any time.

If it isn't parents at fault then take a look at commercial advertising of foodstuff and confections which contain a high percentage of sugar, and the way they appeal to juvenile and not-so-juvenile minds.

Taxation directed at this over-use of sugar in food would yield a fantastic amount of revenue for schools, hospitals or public transport without burdening the motorist with such responsibilities.

It's time the motorist received a little more consideration in his/her own right.

The motorist must not be made the financial guardian of schools or hospitals or any other of the country's establishments.

It's high time that taxation was spread much more equally among the population and thank goodness the general public, or at least the motoring public, are beginning to see this for themselves. They can, and no doubt will, take whatever action is called for to persuade the Government that enough is enough.

John C Mellor

Winmarleigh Gardens

Pennington

Leigh