Budget move could raise taxes on high-emissions cars and vans
It says that if applied across the upper VRT bands – 11 to 20 – covering the price of new and imported used cars, it 'would affect only cars with above-average emissions' and could raise €28 million based on 2024 registrations.
Advertisement
The group also suggests increasing the NOx surcharge on new and imported cars by €5 per mg/km, potentially generating another €15.5 million.
On Benefit-in-Kind tax (BIK), the paper proposes creating a new zero-emissions category, with rates ranging between 6 and 15 per cent, depending on annual business mileage.
A higher VRT rate of 15 per cent is also suggested for vans and light commercial vehicles emitting more than 260g/km of CO2. This would sit above the recently introduced two-band emissions-based VRT system, where the top rate currently stands at 13.3 per cent for vehicles over 120g/km.
The TSG notes that future reforms could include emissions-based BIK rates for vans, potentially retaining the current 8 per cent rate for low-emission models, with higher rates for those over a certain CO2 threshold.
Advertisement
The latest TSG paper revises a proposal made last year on an additional VRT surcharge based on a vehicle's weight.
Modelled on a system currently operated in France and Norway, an additional charge would be imposed on vehicles above a certain weight threshold, with various potential reliefs for the likes of fully-electric or hybrid models.
The TSG states: 'It is well documented that the scale of the proposed electrification of the national fleet will entail significant revenue risk, with the growth in EVs expected to erode Exchequer receipts from motor tax, VRT, VAT and fuel excise, particularly if the current tax structures remain unchanged.'
It estimates that revenue from taxes on fossil fuel use and related transport will fall by €1 billion by 2030, down from €5.3 billion in 2022.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Times
22 minutes ago
- Times
Palestine pledge could break the law, top lawyers warn Starmer
Some of Britain's most prominent lawyers have warned Sir Keir Starmer that his government's pledge to recognise a Palestinian state risks breaking international law. Their intervention, signed by 40 members of the House of Lords, said a Palestinian state would not meet the criteria for recognition as set out under the Montevideo Convention, a treaty signed in 1933. The letter, seen by The Times, was sent to Lord Hermer, the attorney-general and the government's top legal adviser. The signatories point out that Starmer's pledge risked undermining the government's commitment that international law goes 'absolutely to the heart' of its foreign policy. Among those who signed the letter were seven KCs, including Lord Pannick, one of the UK's most respected lawyers. Pannick represented the government in its Supreme Court battle over the Rwanda relocation scheme. The peers, including some of parliament's most prominent Jewish voices, wrote to Hermer: 'We call on you to advise him [Starmer] that this would be contrary to international law. 'You are on record as saying that a commitment to international law goes absolutely to the heart of this government and its approach to foreign policy. 'You have said that a selective 'pick and mix' approach to international law will lead to its disintegration, and that the criteria set out in international law should not be manipulated for reasons of political expedience. 'Accordingly, we expect you to demonstrate this commitment by explaining to the public and to the government that recognition of Palestine would be contrary to the principles governing recognition of states in international law. We look forward to your response.' The 1933 treaty, signed in the Uruguayan capital, laid out the four key criteria for statehood in international law. The treaty says a state must possess a permanent population, a defined territory, a government and the capacity to enter into relations with other states. The letter added that there is no certainty over the borders of a proposed Palestinian state, while the government would face difficulty continuing to recognise millions of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza as 'refugees', given recognition of statehood would mean they were in their own territory. They also argued that there is no functioning single government, and it has no capacity to enter into diplomatic relations. Hamas is a proscribed terror group in the UK. Among the 40 peers to sign the letter were prominent legal figures including Lord Collins of Mapesbury, a former Supreme Court judge, Lord Verdirame KC, a leading barrister and professor in international law, Lord Faulks KC, a leading human rights lawyer, and Lord Banner KC, whose report on radical planning reforms are being accepted by Starmer to speed up major infrastructure projects. Labour signatories include Lord Mendelsohn, Lord Turnberg, Lord Shamash and Lord Winston, while Lord Harrington of Watford, the former refugee minister, and Lord Walney, the government's former adviser on political violence and disruption, also signed the letter. Former cabinet ministers include Lord Pickles, Lord Lansley, Lord Ellis KC, Lord Hamilton of Epsom and Baroness Foster of Oxton. Several former Labour attorney-generals are also said to be supportive of the letter. Starmer insisted on Wednesday that Britain's recognition of Palestinian statehood is 'not a gesture' but will secure a viable two-state solution as he embarked on a diplomatic push to secure support for his Middle East peace plan. In a round of calls with world leaders, Starmer said 'recognition needed to be rooted in a process of change that made a material difference to the situation on the ground'. He told his Australian counterpart, Anthony Albanese, that 'recognition was not a gesture, but a driver for real change that ensured a viable two-state solution', Downing Street said. Starmer also stressed the need for a ceasefire, the release of all hostages, the acceleration of aid and ensuring Hamas played no role in a future state. Starmer's announcement has been widely criticised by both Jewish groups and the families of Britons who were held captive, and who have accused the government of reducing hostages to a 'bargaining chip'. On Wednesday evening, Sir Ephraim Mirvis, the Chief Rabbi, accused Starmer of fundamentally undermining the peace and security of both Israelis and Palestinians and said that the announcement at a time when hostages remain captive can 'only disincentivise Hamas from agreeing to a ceasefire'. Writing in The Times, Kemi Badenoch, the Conservative Party leader, warned that Starmer's 'knee-jerk recognition of Palestinian statehood will embolden our enemies at abroad and at home'. The letter was announced after Palestine Action won permission to challenge its ban by the UK government. The High Court ruled that the decision by Yvette Cooper, the home secretary, to proscribe the group as a terrorist organisation should be reviewed in the courts. Huda Ammori, Palestine Action's co-founder, lodged a bid to challenge the proscription, which was made under anti-terror legislation. The proscription was announced by Cooper after the group claimed responsibility for breaking into RAF Brize Norton on June 20 and inflicting millions of pounds of damage to two Voyager aircraft. In a major ruling at the High Court, Mr Justice Chamberlain said it was 'reasonably arguable' that the proscription 'amounts to a disproportionate interference' of Ammori's rights to freedom of expression and freedom of assembly. He concluded that a substantive hearing at the High Court should be held in order to decide the legality of the decision to proscribe the group. Yvette Cooper, the home secretary, said: 'The court has confirmed the continuation of the proscription order against Palestine Action Group in line with its previous judgement, while allowing permission for a further hearing under the normal judicial review procedures. 'The decision to proscribe was based on strong security advice and the unanimous recommendation by the expert cross-government Proscription Review Group. This followed serious attacks the group has committed, involving violence, significant injuries and extensive criminal damage.' She added: 'Those who seek to support this group may yet not know the true nature of the organisation. But people should be under no illusion — this is not a peaceful or non-violent protest group.'
The Guardian
25 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Palestine Action co-founder wins permission to challenge ban
The co-founder of Palestine Action can bring an unprecedented legal challenge to the home secretary's decision to ban the group under anti-terrorism laws, a high court judge has ruled. Mr Justice Chamberlain said the proscription order against the direct action group risked 'considerable harm to the public interest' because of a potential 'chilling effect' on legitimate political speech. The judge cited the case of Laura Murton, who the Guardian revealed had been threatened with arrest by armed officers for holding a sign saying 'Free Gaza' and a Palestinian flag. Chamberlain's decision is the first time that an organisation banned under anti-terrorism law has been granted a court trial to challenge proscription. The judge said: 'If, as the claimant says, the proscription order is likely to have a significant chilling effect on the legitimate political speech of many thousands of people, that would do considerable harm to the public interest. 'Reports of the kind of police conduct referred to … are liable to have a chilling effect on those wishing to express legitimate political views. This effect can properly be regarded as an indirect consequence of the proscription order.' He continued: 'I consider it reasonably arguable that the proscription order amounts to a disproportionate interference with the article 10 and article 11 (European convention of human rights) rights (freedom of expression and assembly, respectively) of the claimant and others.' The group's co-founder, Huda Ammori, called it a 'landmark decision … especially at a time when protesters – mostly elderly citizens – are being dragged off in police vans, held in detention for more than 24 hours, having their homes raided and face criminal prosecution, simply for holding signs that they oppose genocide and expressing their support for Palestine Action'. More than 200 people are believed to have been arrested since the 5 July ban on Palestine Action, the first on a direct action group, placing it alongside the likes of Islamic State and Boko Haram. The three-day hearing in November will increase scrutiny on the decision-making of the home secretary, Yvette Cooper, and casts uncertainty over the fate of those recently arrested under the Terrorism Act in relation to Palestine Action – or who might be arrested in future. The Home Office had argued that the proper forum for Palestine Action to challenge the ban was the POAC (Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission), which parliament had designated precisely for that purpose, rather than judicial review. But Chamberlain said POAC would be unlikely to be able to hear the case before the middle of next year whereas a judicial review could be heard this autumn and there was a strong public interest for it to be determined authoritatively as soon as possible. Otherwise, people charged with criminal offences under the Terrorism Act might seek to challenge the legality of the proscription order in courts that might reach different decisions, creating 'a recipe for chaos', he said. The second ground on which Chamberlain granted permission for judicial review, in addition to concerns about freedom of speech and protest, was that Cooper had not consulted Palestine Action before proscribing it, finding it reasonably arguable that there was a duty to consult. The judge refused Ammori permission to challenge the government on six other grounds, including a claim that the home secretary had failed to gather sufficient information on Palestine Action's activities or the impact of the proscription on people associated with the group. Chamberlain referred in his judgment to the 'deteriorating humanitarian situation in Gaza'. He quoted from a joint statement last week by the foreign secretary, David Lammy, and the foreign ministers of 27 other countries in which they said 'the suffering of civilians in Gaza has reached new depths'. Sign up to First Edition Our morning email breaks down the key stories of the day, telling you what's happening and why it matters after newsletter promotion Documents in the case showed that Cooper held private discussions with aides for three months before she took the decision to ban Palestine Action. On one occasion, she decided to ban the group but reversed course two days later. She finally decided to ban the group on 20 June, hours after Palestine Action said its members had broken into the RAF's Brize Norton airbase and defaced two military aircraft with spray paint. On 7 March, the Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre (JTAC), a government body based within MI5, produced a secret report. It concluded that the majority of Palestine Action's activities would not be classified as terrorism on the grounds that the group 'primarily uses direct action tactics', which typically resulted in minor damage to property. 'Common tactics include graffiti, petty vandalism, occupation and lock-ons,' it added. Nonetheless JTAC concluded that Palestine Action should be banned, arguing that its protests had been escalating, citing three protests it said constituted acts of terrorism. Whitehall officials supported a ban too, but conceded that proscribing the group would be 'relatively novel' as 'there was no known precedent of an organisation being proscribed on the basis that it was concerned in terrorism mainly due to its use or threat of action involving series damage to property'. From late March officials recommended on a series of occasions that the group be banned, but Cooper made no firm decision, often requesting more information. On 14 May she backed the ban but two days later delayed implementing it as she wanted more details on Palestine Action's recent activities. A Whitehall minute recorded that by 2.15pm on 20 June, Cooper had decided that Palestine Action was to be banned 'at pace'. An application by Ammori's lawyers to suspend the effect of the proscription order until the trial has taken place in November was rejected by Chamberlain. The judge also refused a request by the Home Office to bring an appeal over his decision about POAC. At last week's hearing, lawyers for Ammori also highlighted the arrest of a man in Leeds for carrying a placard reproducing a graphic from Private Eye magazine, which said: 'Unacceptable Palestine Action: spraying military planes. Acceptable Palestine Action: shooting Palestinians queueing for food.'
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
June ‘strongest month of 2025 so far for current account switches'
June was the strongest month this year so far for current account customers moving to a new provider, according to a switching service. Some 88,146 switches were processed through the Current Account Switch Service (Cass) in June, with 996,344 switches facilitated over the past 12 months. The service recorded 216,519 switches completed between April and June 2025. This follows 222,805 switches in the first quarter of 2025. The latest figures also indicate that Nationwide Building Society was the biggest 'winner' from customers using the service between January and March 2025. Figures provided voluntarily by banks and building societies showed that Nationwide made the highest switching gains among customers using Cass to move their account in the first quarter of this year. Nationwide was followed by Monzo and HSBC UK. Customers using Cass to switch their current account automatically have payments moved over to the new account and get the benefits of a guarantee that they will not be left out of pocket if anything goes wrong with the switch. Some current account switches take place outside of Cass and the figures provided do not include those switches. Andrew Hagger, a personal finance expert from said Nationwide had 'outperformed its peers by a country mile', adding: 'It had a £175 switching incentive in place for the whole of the three months in question, which no doubt helped boost recruitment, however the £100 annual fairer share payment is no doubt also having a positive impact on customer retention.' Nationwide also has a 'branch promise' and 5.7 million customers visited its branches last year – a 4% annual increase. Since the switching service launched in 2013, it has facilitated more than 11.9 million switches and redirected in excess of 166.8 million payments. Cass said customer research indicates that access to online or mobile app-based banking is the most frequently cited reason for preferring a new account, followed by interest earned, customer service, spending benefits and account fees or charges. John Dentry, product owner at owner and operator of Cass, said: 'The fact that the top three spots are occupied by a legacy bank, long-standing building society and a neobank shows the depth and diversity of the UK banking system. 'With nearly a million switches in the past 12 months, the Current Account Switch Service continues to play a key role in facilitating a healthy and competitive banking market. I look forward to seeing how the landscape evolves across the latter half of this year.' Here are the net current account switching gains or losses made by banks and building societies between January 1 and March 31 2025 by customers using Cass. The figures do not include switches made outside Cass. AIB Group UK (includes Allied Irish Bank brand switches), minus 414 Bank of Ireland, minus 311 Bank of Scotland, minus 1,850 Barclays, minus 22,334 Co-operative (includes the Smile brand switches), 1,022 Citibank UK, minus two Danske, minus 187 Halifax, minus 15,707 HSBC (includes First Direct brand switches), 5,621 JP Morgan Chase, minus 4,059 Lloyds Bank, minus 4,710 Monzo, 8,850 Nationwide Building Society, 55,578 NatWest, minus 13,086 RBS (includes Coutts and Isle of Man brand switches), minus 3,627 Santander, 1,546 Starling Bank, minus 1,284 Triodos Bank, 33 TSB, 1,277 Ulster Bank, minus 487 Virgin Money, minus 3,353
