Diesel car drivers face toxic fumes tax

Labour’s mistake on lower fuel duty must be erased to cut pollution, says minister

DIESEL drivers will be hit by tax rises to cut air pollution, the Transport Secretary suggested last night.

Patrick McLoughlin said raising the duties affecting them “is something the Chancellor will need to look at” to reduce toxic levels of nitrogen oxides and prevent deaths in cities.

His comments will worry drivers, many of whom bought diesel cars believing they were the more environmentally friendly option.

Road haulage companies last night warned that any increase would make UK businesses less competitive and increase prices in the shops.

The Government has already rejected calls for a diesel scrappage scheme, offering incentives to trade in diesel cars. Asked about air pollution and the impact of diesel engines, the Transport Secretary said: “It’s something that we’ve got to address. We are addressing it through the Government’s air quality strategy.”

Air pollution is responsible for more than 40,000 early deaths in Britain every year, a report by the Royal College of Physicians has said. It blamed the rise from a previous estimate of 29,000 early deaths on the popularity of diesel cars, which were encouraged as a way to reduce carbon emissions.

Gordon Brown, the former Labour chancellor, cut low-sulphur diesel duty by 3p in his 2001 Budget and the number of diesel vehicles rose sharply. Any decision to increase fuel duty again would be made by George Osborne, the Chancellor, in a future Budget.

There has been increasing concern since the VW emissions scandal last year revealed that low-emission diesel engines had been programmed to fool tests and appear cleaner than they are.

Tests by the Department for Transport found that diesel vehicles sold in Britain pump out six times more than the legal limit for nitrogen oxides under real driving conditions.

Mr McLoughlin said it had been a “mistake” for Mr Brown to cut the duty on diesel. Raising tax on diesel has widespread support from other politicians, including Labour.

Treasury sources last night played down Mr McLoughlin’s comments, made to the Evening Standard. Mr McLoughlin is understood to have been referring both to possible fuel duty cuts and to raising the lower vehicle excise duty applied to cars that produce less carbon dioxide.

But an AA spokesman said: “Drivers really feel that once again they’re just being milked for the cash. It feels like whenever there’s a pollution scare, it’s just a green light to pile more tax on the motorist.”

The Road Haulage Association warned that Britain already has the highest diesel duty in the EU. Jack Semple, its director of policy, said: “Ratcheting up fuel duty means we will see even more foreign lorries on our roads and the Chancellor will reduce his revenue from British lorries.”

There are more than 11 million diesel cars on British roads. Many of the motorists who purchased those vehicles did so believing they were doing the environmentally responsible thing. After all, they were told explicitly by the government that diesel engines emitted fewer harmful chemicals, especially the carbon dioxide that was the focus of environmental orthodoxy at the time. Tax rates were reduced accordingly, to provide a financial incentive to virtuous motoring.

Gordon Brown’s tinkering with duty to make it cheaper to buy led, unsurprisingly, to a huge increase in diesel sales. Since that decision in 2001, it has emerged that diesel emissions are more harmful than those from petrol-powered motors.

Even before the latest intervention from Patrick McLoughlin, the Transport Secretary, many diesel drivers were feeling aggrieved, and justifiably so. Revelations that the car industry systematically lied about the emissions from diesel engines have left many people feeling misled and let down.

Now Mr McLoughlin suggests that diesel drivers should pay higher tax, to deter them from driving. This will not do. People who bought diesels did so in good faith and with the clear encouragement of the government. The government may well have been mistaken, but it does not follow that motorists should be penalised. To draw an analogy, the minister’s suggestion is no more acceptable than forcing bank customers who were missold Payment Protection Insurance to pay for the fines levied on those banks by way of punishment.

The Treasury may seek to play down Mr McLoughlin’s suggestion, but such whispered assurances will do little to allay the fears of motorists, who still have painful memories of being treated as cash-cows by ministers whose chauffeur-driven cars are funded by taxpayers. The Government would be wise to make a quick and explicit promise that Mr McLoughlin’s plan will never be implemented.

There are two lessons to be drawn. First, it is always wise to be sceptical of scientific consensus. True scientific inquiry never stops, meaning the facts that are widely accepted today can always be changed by discoveries tomorrow. Secondly, always be suspicious of ministers offering a deal that looks too good to be true, because when politicians make mistakes, they almost invariably look to taxpayers to bear the costs of their errors.