OUTSIDE my home on the south side of Glasgow stands my three-year-old 1.6-litre Vauxhall Zafira. To be honest it doesn't cut much of a dash situated as it is in a leafy suburb which boasts more than its fair share of Jaguars, Mercedes' and BMWs.
Muddy, full of sweet wrappers and packed to the gunwales with children, scooters and other paraphernalia, it does pretty much what it says on the tin: it's a modest, functional car just big enough to comfortably accommodate a family of five and a cou
ple of friends.
Many nearby drives contain two or even three cars, but we only have the one – and we clock up just 7,000 miles a year. Taking into account the fact that all seven seats of our Zafira are filled up on a regular basis (leaving us, I have to say, virtually no boot space) I reckon we are as environmentally-friendly as it is possible to be in the circumstances. Unfortunately, the Government seems to think otherwise. Because under its new 'green' banded vehicle excise duty scheme, we – along with around nine million others – face a car tax hike of 24% over two years.
We aren't among the hardest hit. With a CO2 emission rate of 175g/km, we don't make it into the highest car tax bands reserved for gas guzzlers such as Range Rovers, which will cost £455 to tax in 2010. But since there are few genuinely eco-friendly MPVs on the market, we're effectively being penalised for having more children, which seems ironic given we live in a country that is supposed to be facing a demographic timebomb.
My sense of injustice seems to be shared by a large number of motorists who are just beginning to understand the implications of the car tax changes which slipped in under the radar in Chancellor Alistair Darling's budget earlier this year.
Sold as a way to cut greenhouse emissions, Gordon Brown had pledged that the move would benefit the majority of drivers. But last week it became clear the plans, which involve scrapping the exemption on cars registered between 2001 and 2006, would leave vast swathes of drivers out of pocket. Treasury Minister Angela Eagle admitted that from 2010 it would cost more to keep 43% of cars – some 9,423,450 million vehicles – on the road, while only 18% – or 3,944,700 – will see the price of a tax disc fall. Owners of the remaining 39% – 8,546,850 cars – will pay the same.
More than one million drivers of cars registered between 2001 and 2006 will see vehicle excise duty jump from £210 to either £430 or £455, while others face hikes of between £10 and £155.
Ryan and Lynn McHenry, from Glasgow, drive a Peugeot 407 and expect to be paying the maximum car tax by 2010. "This is an awfully big price hike at the worst possible time," says Ryan. "We bought our current car after our baby was born because we needed more space. We couldn't do without one, but we may have to think seriously about downsizing because of the cost. I don't think we consider the environment enough, but I'm not sure punishing car owners is the best way to do something about it."
Many anti-poverty campaigners believe the rise will hit poorest families hardest, as they will struggle to pay the higher tax, but won't be able to afford to buy a more fuel-efficient car, while environmental groups insist the price hike will have little impact on global warming.
"Road tax is a blunt instrument, a tax simply on owning a car which does little or nothing to encourage people to use public transport," says Green Party MSP Patrick Harvie. "It infuriates me to hear ministers describe it as a 'green tax' when their priority is clearly just to raise more money."
One of the key bones of contention is that by increasing vehicle excise duty retrospectively, the Government is making second hand cars less affordable. The company CAP, which supplies the used car industry with data on residual values, claims raising tax on larger cars registered between 2001 and 2006 may be reduced to their scrap value.
"When people find out that it could cost half a car's value just to tax it each year, its value will plummet," CAP's development manager Mark Norman has said. "Poorer families who need a bigger car to transport children and luggage will find their car has lost up to £1,000 of its value. And the sad thing is that perfectly usable cars will be scrapped which could perversely increase overall CO2 because of the emissions from manufacturing new vehicles."
When it comes to poverty the Green Party points out that 25% of the poorest Scottish families have no access to cars (a staggering 60% in the Glasgow East constituency) and so won't be affected by the price rise. "However, there are a lot of people who are on low incomes who have to drive to work or take their children here or there and this will have a serious impact on them," a spokesman said.
Out and about in Glasgow's Royal Exchange Square, it is impossible to find anyone who is in favour of the car tax increases. Joe McDonald, from the city's East End, doesn't own a car himself, commuting to the city centre every day by bus.
But he still believes the Government is punishing the wrong people. "I think it is young working couples like my son and daughter who are going to suffer most," the 55-year-old says.
"They both have cars – they need them for work. My daughter has a BMW and drives to work because it would take her two or three buses to get there, while my son works in the construction industry and travels round the country in his company car. OK, so they probably wouldn't consider buying second-hand cars because they are very much into their designer labels and status symbols, but, even so, they work hard, why should they be punished for it?"
Elizabeth and David Breakley emigrated to Australia 13 years ago and say the car tax hike is just one more reason they won't be moving back to Scotland. They have three small children, aged six, four and two, and own a 3.5-litre station wagon, which costs them £250 a year to tax. In the UK, it would cost closer to £500.
"We are into saving fuel and energy and sometimes you do need a stick to galvanise you into action, but this seems like a very big stick," says Elizabeth. "And besides you can only do your best. We did look for a car with a European-sized engine, but we couldn't find one with enough space to get three car seats in the back. We are looking into converting it to liquid petroleum gas, though."
Certainly, when I tried to track down an environmentally-friendly larger family car it was far from easy. The best known – the Toyota Prius – has CO2 emissions of just 104g/km – so car tax would be cut to just £20. But, it seats just five, costs £17,780 – several thousand more than the Vauxhall Zafira – and is well above many people's budget.
And if you are looking for a seven-seater, the challenge is even greater. The first to make it into consumer website WhatGreenCar's league table – the Skoda Roomster – comes in at a lowly 39. It has a CO2 emission rate of 137g/km and will set you back around £13,500.
This is why MPVs are seen as pariahs. But if you take into account that they are often used to ferry large parties of people from one place to another, could they not be considered greener than cars with lower CO2 emissions which carry only a driver or perhaps one passenger? This is one reason the Green Party opposes vehicle excise duty. Another is its failure to take into consideration how many miles each car is clocking up. "An upfront tax provides no incentive for the driver to leave the car at home," a spokesman said.
Environmental groups have alternative proposals for cutting down on CO2 emissions. Friends of the Earth wants the Government to invest in improving and subsidising the public transport system. This is a proposal welcomed by McDonald who works shifts and often has to use buses late at night.
"The service is terrible. The buses are infrequent and dirty and the people on board are often abusive," he says. "And the trains are no better. Last week, I had to travel to Warrington for work and it cost £65. By the time we got to Carlisle the train was stowed out and the toilets were stinking. On the way back I had to stand most of the way. Until these problems are addressed, it's going to be impossible to persuade people to leave their cars at home."
The Green Party would like to see car drivers taxed for usage rather than ownership and wants every household to be given a carbon account and the responsibility of balancing its own energy budget. Under their proposals, families with low carbon emissions would be able to sell their leftover allowance to those with high carbon emissions. "This would provide an incentive for lower usage and allow families to decide their own priorities," a spokesman says. "And, unlike the car tax rise, it would ensure carbon emissions actually came down."
Even Alan Davidson, from East Kilbride, who recently downsized from a Mercedes petrol car to a BMW diesel, says the cost of car tax played a minimal part in his decision. "Changing my car has allowed me to cut it from £200 to £100 a year, but the price of petrol was the main problem. When I had the Mercedes, it was costing me £55 a week to commute to my work at Glasgow Airport – now it is closer to £35."
And, let's face it, the 28-year-old has a point. Owners of larger cars may rail against having to fork out up to twice as much for their car tax in 2010, but when you consider it costs more than £60 every time you fill a tank, even £200 a year is a drop in the ocean.
