Factcheck: Gordon Brown on car tax
Updated on 11 July 2008
Alistair Darling says the prime minister has got his facts right on car tax many times. FactCheck isn't so sure.
The claim
"What the prime minister said on many occasions was that the majority of motorists would either gain or be no worse off [under new car tax proposals]."
Alistair Darling, Chancellor of the Exchequer,
House of Commons, 10 July 2008
The background
It's the row that just won't go away.
Vehicle excise duty (car tax) changes due to kick in next April will see the most polluting old family cars charged up to £230 more a year.
Cue much criticism from Labour backbenchers, motoring groups and even Greenpeace, primarily because the plans affect cars bought as far back as 2001.
Although drivers of cleaner cars are set to pay less, figures released by the government on Wednesday showed 43 per cent of drivers - around nine million people - would be worse off under the proposals.
In the light of these, shadow chancellor George Osborne called on the prime minister to apologise for saying earlier that the majority of motorists would be better off.
He was building on a question from Conservative MP Andrew Mackay, who asked the chancellor why Gordon Brown had said "the new road tax proposals would benefit the majority of motorists, when figures just published by the treasury make clear that that was patently untrue".
In his reply, Alistair Darling claimed instead, in a neat political sidestep, that the PM had in fact said on many occasions that "the majority of motorists would either gain or be no worse off".
So what did the great clunking fist really say, and when?
The analysis
On 4 June 2008, Brown claimed in prime minister's questions that "the majority of drivers will benefit from this proposal".
The claim - which came back to haunt Brown yesterday - raised FactCheck's eyebrow at the time.
Why? The car tax plans are set out in the Budget, which stated that "as a result in 2009 the majority of drivers will be better or no worse off".
This is a pretty specific statement - the crucial part, which Brown omitted from his claim, being "or no worse off".
And it was actually a pretty slim majority that would be better or no worse off: 55 per cent, treasury minister Angela Eagle told parliament in April.
This week, the government released more detailed figures in parliament, showing what proportion of cars in each band it expected to pay less, the same and more in real terms.
In 2009-10, 34 per cent of cars would pay less, 22 per cent would pay the same, and 44 per cent would pay more.
In 2010-11, 18 per cent would pay less, 39 per cent would pay the same, and 43 per cent would pay more.
Debates, statements and questions on the topic are the realm of treasury ministers rather than the PM.
So it's fair to say that a third of drivers will be better of under the proposals - for a year, at least.
But to tell parliament the majority will benefit, as Brown did on 4 June? Not a chance.
Just a slip of the tongue? Back to Darling's defence yesterday - that Brown had said on "many occasions" that the majority of drivers would be better or no worse off.
The prime minister has spoken on message at least once. The chancellor mentioned one example later in the debate yesterday, PMQs on 14 May, when Brown said "the majority of motorists [would] benefit or pay no more in vehicle excise duty".
But one occasion does not make many. A search of the parliamentary records suggests this is in fact the only occasion, at least in parliament, when Brown has said the majority of motorists would benefit or pay no more.
It's not something he often speaks about in the Commons - debates, statements and questions on the topic are the realm of treasury ministers rather than the PM.
Cameron did try to get Brown to admit yesterday that he'd made a mistake at the dispatch box during a debate on the G8 summit, but Brown's ignored the jibe.
What about in speeches? Brown did mention the "lower rates of vehicle excise duty for cleaner cars" in a speech to the government's low carbon economy summit, but he didn't get into the finer points of who would pay what.
He also bigged up the green credentials of the tax in an answer posted on YouTube yesterday, conceding that "of course that has meant more being paid by the more polluting cars", but again, didn't wield any majority-related claim.
In the interest of balance, we should perhaps point out that the Tories have also made a dodgy claim on how many motorists face inflation-busting increases: in May the party put the figure at 18 million rather than the nine million revealed this week.
This may all seem a bit theoretical - the word on the back benches is that the government will water down rather than push ahead with the plans.
But until it formally announces a change to the car tax plans, discontent looks set to stay in the driving seat. As the 10p tax fiasco showed, the plight of a minority of losers can far outweigh any good publicity for a reform even with a majority of winners.
The verdict
Brown dropped a clanger in June, when he said the majority of drivers would benefit from car tax reforms.
He did get the wording right in parliament three weeks before that, but this doesn't add up to the many occasions that Darling claims.
FactCheck rating: 4
Every time a FactCheck article is published we'll give it a rating from zero to five.
The lower end of the scale indicates that the claim in question largely checks out, while the upper end of the scale suggests misrepresentation, exaggeration, a massaging of statistics and/or language.
In the unlikely event that we award a 5 out of 5, our factcheckers have concluded that the claim under examination has absolutely no basis in fact.
The sources
Column 1449, House of Commons Hansard debates, 24 April 2008
Hansard, excise duties: motor vehicles
House of Commons written answers, 9 July 2008, column 1651W
Hansard, 14 May 2008
Speech to the government's low carbon economy summit, 6 June 2008
Your views
You've read the article, now have your say. We want to know your experiences and your views. We also want to know if there are any claims you want given the FactCheck treatment.
Email factcheck@channel4.com
FactCheck will correct significant errors in a timely manner. Readers should direct their enquiries to the editor at the email address above.
