Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Richard Burden (Labour) in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 2 July 2008. It occurred during Debate on bill on Finance Bill.


Finance Bill

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.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
478 c911 
Session
2007-08
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Accountancy Capital gains tax Business Corporation tax Competition Budgets Income tax Insurance companies Excise duties Fuels Double taxation Domicil Economic situation Motor vehicles Parliamentary scrutiny Public participation Prices Small businesses Tax allowances Taxation VAT Shareholders Revenue and Customs Carbon emissions
Legislation
Finance Bill 2007-08
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk