Finance Bill

I rise to oppose new clause 3. I am afraid to say that it is all too typical of the unprincipled politicking of the modern Conservative party, which has abandoned all its pretences at trying to claim the green agenda. Indeed, it repudiates the Conservative Chair of the Select Committee on Environmental Audit, under whose chairmanship it produced a report in February that begged the Treasury to increase taxes on motoring. It stated clearly:"““Some motoring organisations have begun calling for the next planned increase in fuel duty to be scrapped””" but said that the Treasury"““must not defer its planned rises in fuel duty.””" The report gives the rationale behind its criticism of the Government and the Treasury. On page 11, it states:"““By 2009–10, main fuel duty rates will…remain 11 per cent. lower in real terms than they were in 1999.””" Lower down that page, in paragraph 19, it warns that"““road traffic emissions in England went up by 12 per cent. between 1997 and 2006””," and it links those emissions to that previous statement. And, as the report makes very clear on page 12:"““The forthcoming Budget is a test of the Treasury's environmental credibility: it must not defer its planned rises in fuel duty.””" It might have been a test of the Treasury's environmental credibility, and my colleagues passed with flying colours. As a test of the credibility of Conservative policies, it showed them to be woefully inadequate. In a previous report, the Committee stated:"““The Government should increase the differentials within Vehicle Excise Duty between the most and least efficient cars””." I think that that is what the hon. Member for Putney (Justine Greening) would call eco-stealth taxes. The Conservative MPs on the Committee, who are notable for their absence today, included the hon. Members for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Hurd), for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard), for Beverley and Holderness (Mr. Stuart), for Wantage (Mr. Vaizey), for Bridgwater (Mr. Liddell-Grainger) and for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker) and, of course, the Chair, the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo). All those Conservative MPs signed up and, to embellish the green credentials of their party, ensured that that unanimous report argued strongly for higher fuel duties. The first report that I referred to made an interesting point that reflects on the debate when it asked the Treasury to consider ways to put the formulation of environmental issues outside the arena of electoral politics to some degree. Why, I wonder? Was it because the 2007 report of the quality of life policy group, co-chaired by Zac Goldsmith and the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), stated their proposals on vehicle excise duty very clearly? Their report said that"““we propose increasing the VED differential between the top and bottom bands of emissions performance””" and that that change was"““aimed primarily at influencing the used car market””." The synthetic concern about backdating that we hear from Conservative Front Benchers is contradicted in the document that they paraded before Friends of the Earth and other green groups, which specifically said that the party had to aim primarily at the used car market. The document also proposed a new graded purchase tax, which would put 27.5 per cent. purchase tax and VAT on some larger cars, second hand or not. Things have not changed so much since the Committee's report, which was produced in February. It reflected a considerable increase in fuel prices, but since February those prices have gone up even further. Are the Conservatives rowing back to take account of those prices, as some are urging? Far from it. This morning, on the BBC, the Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for South Suffolk, was asked a direct question by Mr. Naughtie, who said:"““What about the back-dating which is very controversial””?" The hon. Gentleman replied:"““It is controversial; it is not of course back-dating in the traditional sense””," but, he said,"““3 times as many people buy a second hand car as buy a new car so if we are going to use bigger differentials in Vehicle Excise Duty to influence our purchasing decisions they have to apply to existing second hand cars as well as to new ones””." That has been the consistent policy of the Conservative Members who have a track record of championing green issues, but there are very few of them. The challenge is this: I expect to see the seven Members of the Conservative party who pressed the Treasury not to back-pedal on vehicle excise duty or fuel duty in the Lobby with us, voting against the new clause. This evening, we will see whether even some Conservatives are willing to repudiate their Front-Bench team or whether, as the hon. Member for Putney suggested earlier, they will toe the party line and betray the environment.