Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Clause 117 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Stewart Hosie: I beg to move amendment No. 9, page 8, line 4, at end insert
(3A) In paragraph 1C (the reduced rate)
(a) in sub-paragraph (1) for or C substitute C or D;
(b) after sub-paragraph (4) insert
(4A) Condition D is that the vehicle is a working vehicle.; and
(c) in sub-paragraph (6) insert at the appropriate place
working vehicle has such meaning as may be prescribed by the Treasury in regulations made by statutory instrument,.
The Temporary Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 10, line 17, at end add
(subject to subsection (7)).
(7) The amendments made by subsection (3A) shall come into force on a day which the Treasury may by order appoint..
Stewart Hosie: I have no ideological or intellectual difficulty with using price to change behaviour, such as the Government want to do with fuel duty, or with using price and changes to vehicle excise duty to encourage car manufacturers, for example, to create low-emission vehicles and to encourage people to buy them. However, I do have difficulty with the implementation of provisions such as those in the Bill, particularly where the consideration of those provisions seems to have taken place without considering the groups of people on whom they may have a disproportionate impact. I suppose that in respect of that argument, there is a similarity with how the Government went about the abolition of the 10p rate, seemingly not understanding the impact that it would have on 20 per cent. of households in the country.
The groups about whom I am concerned in relation to VED are mainly in agriculture, forestry or similar occupations and they work mainly in remote and rural areas. They tend to be employees on low, agricultural wages, although they may be self-employed; they may be small farmers, for example. Many such people need 4x4 vehicles simply to get to or do their work. However, they are unlikely ever to be able to afford a brand new
4x4 with lower emissions, even if such a vehicle existed. They are therefore unlikely ever to benefit from the lower rates of VED.
Although the lower rates will apply to vehicles registered before 21 March 2006, many of those who can least afford the additional cash for the higher rate may be forced to find it in future, as vehicles registered after that date, still roadworthy, become affordablein five, 10 or 15 years timeto people on low wages in the sectors that I have mentioned. By that time, those vehicles will attract the higher rate.
Amendment No. 9 would substitute the reduced VED rate for designated working vehicles. It would allow the Treasury to define working vehicles by regulation for that purpose and the regulations to be approved by statutory instrument. That would allow scrutiny but enable the definitions to be done quickly. Amendment No. 10, an associated amendment, would allow the changes brought about by amendment No. 9 to come into force on a day that the Treasury may appoint, without a vote in the House, to ensure that they can be introduced speedily.
I said that working vehicles would be defined by the Treasury, but I envisage that they would include the vehicles of such people as farmers, particularly hill farmers, and those in associated sectors in remote and rural areas. I hope that some of the comments that I shall cite, from the National Farmers Union Scotland and others, demonstrate not only the desirability but the need for such a measure.
It is worth putting it on the record that many of the people affected by the higher rates of VED, who live in remote rural areas, are already paying very high prices on very low wages, not least for fuel and energy. I think particularly of fueldiesel is routinely hitting £1.30 a litre.
John Thurso (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD): The hon. Gentleman has talked about remote rural areas, and I am sure that he would include the county of Sutherland in that description. He will be aware that crofters, who I hope would be included in his description of those affected, have a particular problem. Very often, the working vehicle is the only vehicleit is what takes the ewes to market and the children to school. The county is the area with not only the highest diesel price, but the greatest distance between filling stations. Taken together, those factors create real need, and there is no public transport to ameliorate the difficulty.
Stewart Hosie: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right in every regard, including his comments about Sutherland. Crofters are defined in a number of ways; there are Acts that define crofting. Crofting is employment, but in a sense it is also a way of life. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that the vehicle is not only necessary for the job of crofting; given the location of some crofts, it is also absolutely essential to get to the front door from what passes as the main road.
I turn to the support for the measure that I propose, or one similar to it. Jim McLaren, president of the National Farmers Union Scotland, said:
The Chancellor is clearly trying to penalise those driving big cars in city centres, but hikes in excise duty...will also be penalising those who have no alternative. Particularly after the
dismal year faced by many farmers in 2007, an extra showroom price hike on what is an essential business tool is another slap in the face.
Anna Davies of the NFUS put it more clearly when she said only two weeks ago:
The NFUS has long stressed that 4x4 vehicles are essential for farmers and changing the tax bands to penalise more heavily polluting vehicles will penalise farmers who have no choice but to use these types of vehicles. The key for farmers is band G. An increase in the band G rate vehicle excise duty will have a detrimental impact on farm businesses, since farmers are not able to purchase a vehicle that has lower CO2 emissions and is still able to do the job required of it around the farm.
When she sums up, I hope that the Minister will comment on that technical matter. The NFUS says that farmers have no alternative, and that they simply cannot purchase vehicles with lower emissions that are able to do the job on the farm.
In addition, I hope that the Minister will be a little more generous than she was when she responded recently to a senior Member of the House. In answer to an oral question, she said that he was
the epitome of Range Rover man.[ Official Report, 24 April 2008; Vol. 474, c. 1449.]
I shall spare the hon. Gentlemans blushes, Sir Nicholas, but that answer suggests that the Government believe that all the people who drive 4x4sbe they brand new Range Rovers or a beat up old Land Rover on a hill farmare really just versions of the same person, and that they drive the same cars for the same reasons. That, of course, is wholly and utterly wrong.
The National Gamekeepers Association has said that it is worried about the impact of increased 4x4 taxes on what it considers to be essential rural work. Alex Hogg, chairman of the Scottish Gamekeepers Association, said that four-wheel drive vehicles were
essential tools for Scotlands gamekeepers, and rarely travel further than rough tracks or estate roads. Gamekeepers use these vehicles for 365 days of the year, and like farmers we simply couldnt do our work without them. We are concerned that an increase in taxation would not only be unjustified in our case, it would also add an extra burden on the sector which is already under serious pressure.
Once again, I hope that when she sums up the Minister will say something about the essential nature of 4x4 vehicles, and that she will take on board the assertion by the Scottish Gamekeepers Association that they
rarely travel further than rough tracks or estate roads.
They are clearly working vehicles, doing precisely what they are designed for. The people who use them do not earn big money: many are self-employed and bear the full burden of the costs, and I hope that the Minister will take that into consideration in her reply.
I want to say something about two other small groups of peopleone, the employees of Scotlands five ski resorts, is very small indeed. They are a tiny group in the big picture, and people such as ski lift operators earn very low wages, but they are essential to keeping the ski resorts operating. They also ensure that nearby resorts and towns remain tourist destinations for 12 months a year.
Next Section | Index | Home Page |