I believe that the Government do have some thinking to do in relation to VED, and I will explain some of the reasons why shortly, but there is absolutely no way I will vote for this new clause. It is incoherent. The hon. Member for Putney (Justine Greening) says that this is a simple matter, but it is anything but simple to work out the relationships between taxation on cars based on their performance and their contribution to combating climate change and the influence of those factors on customer behaviour.
Even though I have some problems with the Government's proposals, I question the concept that what is being proposed—regardless of whether it is good or bad or somewhere in between—is retrospective. It is not retrospective. Why do I say that? We first have to ask why it is thought to be retrospective. The concept of retrospection is to do with time. Are we saying that any taxation levied on an existing vehicle is by its nature retrospective? We may agree or disagree with, let us say, either a flat rate or a graduated increase in VED, but they are not retrospective. From the point of view of the headlines, it is great to talk about this being retrospective taxation, but it simply is not.
Finance Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Richard Burden
(Labour)
in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 2 July 2008.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Finance Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
478 c911 
Session
2007-08
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-16 02:13:57 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_489117
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_489117
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_489117