My Perennial Whinge About VED

I have mentioned this before in NECPWA News, but make no excuse for reminding people of the situation.

This is the basis of a letter I sent to my MP in the middle of Feb. 2013. As is usual with these things, he replied to say that he had passed it to a Minister of Transport who is better qualified to reply.

I know exactly the kind of reply I will receive (eventually and written by some young researcher), so am under no illusion that any action will be taken to address the injustice mentioned.

One of the most important aspects of our lives, I am sure you will agree, is a sense of fairness and justice, so I am writing to inform you of what to me is a gross unfairness.
I own a so-called classic car (it’s a mere 27 years old), for which I have just received notification that I must pay £220 in VED. For everyday transport, I use a modern mid-range car, of the same engine capacity, for which the rate of VED is £170. This is based on the Carbon Dioxide output, presumably as some sort of incentive to get me to either purchase transport, which has at best no emissions (e.g. an electric car), or at least fewer emissions, or to use my personal transport less, thereby reducing total emissions.
I fully understand that the modern technology means that emissions are slightly better in the everyday car, but the main point is that, whereas I drive my modern car about 8,000 miles per year, I drive my classic fewer than 800 miles per year - less than one-tenth those of the modern.
Therefore, in terms of the amount by which I release emissions and pollute the atmosphere, my classic car actually does so by a factor of (shall we say?) 12%, compared with the modern, and yet I am charged VED for it at 130% of that of the modern.
Can you explain to me where the fairness or justice is in that?

I didn't hear anything for about three months, so emailed my MP again. He said that when he forwarded my letter, it had been acknowledged, but on sending a reminder, was told that they had no record of it! Anybody surprised so far?
[As of 26.07.2013] Anyway, the DoT said that they had now passed it to the Treasury, as it was a fiscal matter. Eventually, I received on 28th. May, the following letters from my MP and from Sajid Javid MP, the Treasury Minister responsible. The quotes are the main arguments and I have added my own comments in red.

From my MP:
I am very sorry that it has taken so long to get a reply to your original letter of 14th February concerning Vehicle Excise Duty. I believe my staffer Philip has been in touch to explain that my letter of 22nd February to the Secretary of State for Transport was passed onto the Treasury for reply which is why there was such a delay.
I have now received the enclosed response from Sajid Javid MP, the Minister who leads on this issue. I hope that you find this informative although I appreciate that the reply does not bring the exemption for your car which must be a C / D reg. (E, actually, but no matter. But there's the bottom line already!)
I would however like to underscore the Minister's point that fuel duty does ensure those who drive further pay more tax and consequently your tax suggestion according to miles driven is already partially in existence. (Yes, I know that. What I want is that they pay a little more tax in order to remove the necessity for VED!) I also hope that you gain some reassurance in learning that the Chancellor has not ruled out your proposal for a vehicle tax exemption on all cars that are over 25 years old. (Well, that'd be something - mind, at a one year change annually, some of us will have added to atmospheric pollution - or pushed up daisies - long before we reach exemption....)

From the Minister:
As you may know, your letter of 22 February to Patrick McLoughlin on behalf of your constituent, ****** of ******, about Vehicle Excise Duty (VED), has been passed to the Treasury. I am replying as Minister responsible for this policy area and I am sorry for the delay.
The decisions of successive governments have resulted in VED being structured according to vehicle type and registration date with VED contributing to general taxation revenues. Cars registered before March 2001 are taxed according to engine size, and those registered from March 2001 onwards taxed according to carbon dioxide (C02). The thirteen tax bands in C02 based VED differentiate between the most and the least fuel efficient cars. All cars are measured in the same way and this helps to highlight lower C02 fuel saving choices across all types and classes of car. The Government announced at Budget 2013 that it had no plans to make significant changes to the VED structure for cars and vans in this Parliament.
The previous Government chose to freeze the exemption for vehicles registered prior to 1973. This means that cars and motorcycles dating from 1973 and into the 1980s, which are likely to be valued survivors of once numerous models on the roads, have remained within rates of taxation. (All that, we know! Get to the nitty-gritty, do!)
The most pressing challenge facing the coalition Government is the structural debt we inherited from the previous Government. However, the Chancellor does keep all taxes under review and so recognising classic vehicle owners' wishes we are making an affordable update to the exemption. As announced in Budget 2013, the Government will be extending the cut-off date from which classic vehicles are exempt from VED by one year. From 1 April 2014 a vehicle manufactured before 1 January 1974 will be exempt from paying VED.
(OK, but it won't happen fast enough for many enthusiasts.) Some motorists only cover a limited number of miles during the year, so I understand why Mr ****** suggests that VED should be put onto a miles driven basis. (No, I didn't - see below.) To a large extent, petrol and diesel fuel duty ensures that more is paid by those who drive the most miles in the least fuel efficient cars.
For simplicity and ease of administration VED needs reliable and verifiable yardsticks on which to base rates. Engine size and C02 data provide these.
Adding mileage verification through the annual MOT roadworthiness test would inevitably carry costs for test garages and the Government, increasing the cost of collecting the tax. It could also open up the scope for fraud, requiring a system of checks and balances which may be both costly and burdensome.
(NO! .... I'm going to have to email this guy again. He just hasn't addressed - this is me being disingenuous, you understand - the main point that I'm making: GET RID OF VED ALTOGETHER. RAISE FUEL DUTY TO MAINTAIN FISCAL NEUTRALITY. Then you don't need checks on mileage, garages won't have extra work, the fraud mentioned won't happen and you will get rid of a whole branch of motoring legislation, administration and associated bureaucracy!) Please pass on my thanks to Mr ****** for taking the trouble to make us aware of these concerns. (You're very welcome! If I can be of further assistance....)

Another email is required, I think. As it's holiday time, I may have an answer by Michaelmas; whenever, I will pass it on here.

As emails tend to get "lost" in situations such as this, a hard copy letter was sent on 21st. August. The shortened version was:
I fear that I may not have expressed myself clearly enough, in my original letter, as you do not appear to have understood my main point. This was that the whole concept of VED is unfair, in my case, as above, but also because it is, in effect, a tax on ownership, not use. My suggested remedy is not, as you seem to believe, to vary the VED on the basis of mileage (which, indeed, would add to costs and further time for DVLA, garages, etc.) but to abolish it altogether.
Naturally, to ensure that fiscal neutrality is maintained, additional tax would have to be put on fuel at a level that would ensure this. Your perceived need for “reliable and verifiable yardsticks” (such as engine size and CO2 data) and “mileage verification” (via MOT tests) would both become totally unnecessary. The measure would ensure that “He who travels pays” – the only truly fair provision. Importantly, it would also save time for all, save costs for garages/MOT stations (as per your letter) and, by doing away with an entire level of motoring bureaucracy at DVLA, would save a considerable amount of Government money.

The reply of 2nd. Oct. is as follows, with pleasantries removed. It came in a crumpled, handwritten A4 envelope without the usual identification and is effectively a "Go away and stop bothering us with your whingeing".

I have nothing further to add to the points set out in the letter from the Economic Secretary to your Member of Parliament dated 20 May, other than to highlight that under this Government, VED rate increases for cars are limited to inflation only, meaning that your VED liability remains unchanged in real terms since 2010, You asked about replacing VED with fuel duty. Maintaining VED's link with fuel efficiency alongside fuel duty's link with fuel consumption is consistent with economical fuel use. More importantly, VED revenues make an important contribution to the public finances helping to raise each year about £6 billion. Abolishing VED would require others taxes like fuel duty to be raised significantly to fund the loss in VED revenue. Such a move would have a disproportionate financial burden on certain groups like businesses -including hauliers and coach and bus operators - who will be more adversely affected if VED revenue was replaced entirely by fuel duty. But all taxes are kept under constant review as part of the Chancellor's Budget process and your comments have been noted.

As long as the hauliers' lobby doesn't get its feathers ruffled, that's all right, then.....Well, I tried.