Janus comments
Page 70
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Paying the piper
GOVERNMENTS conduct their financial affairs in what for the ordinary person would be a dream world. They take each year as much money as they think they will need and spend it in whatever way they think fit.
To some extent this unbusinesslike procedure is inevitable. The cost of education, for example, must be met from general taxation. Parliament has to decide what education should be provided and at what cost to the taxpayer. The public may disagree with the way in which the money is disbursed but not with the method of raising it.
There is more argument where a close relationship can be seen between specific items of taxation and expenditure, as with road finance and administration; or where the responsibility of Parliament has been delegated to a semi-official body. Both considerations apply to the Road Transport Industry Training Board.
The Minister of Transport, Mr. Richard Marsh, cannot have supposed that he has given a completely satisfactory answer to the proposals from the British Road Federation for financing and organizing the road programme. It is a long-standing grievance among road users of all kinds that they are paying more and more in special taxes levied on them as road users while the amount spent annually on roads lags ever farther behind.
Ministers will relate the two items when it suits their purpose. Not so long ago special taxation on heavy goods vehicles was said to be justified by the extra wear and tear they caused to the roads.
View changes The point of view changes when the relationship leads to the suggestion that some proportion at least of road taxation should be earmarked for a long-term roads programme preferably carried out by a separate roads board so as to make the progress even more independent of political vagaries.
Hypothecation of some part of the fuel and vehicle licence duties to road expenditure "remains unacceptable in principle to this Government as to its predecessors," says Mr. Marsh. He at once qualifies the statement. "No Government," he says, "can be expected to surrender control of a large part of its ordinary revenue unless there is some outstanding public advantage to be gained."
Needless to say he can see no such advantage in the BRF proposal. He puts up a moderate and reasonable defence of the present system, reminds the BRF that more money is being spent on roads now than a few years ago and draws attention to his ideas for a new inter-urban road plan now published as a Green Paper for public discussion.
No doubt the Minister is aware that some of the steps in his argument are treacherous. He points out, for example, that "roads are not an isolated factor but part of the total transport system having an impact on other parts such as ports, railways and the whole question of urban congestion". His conclusion from this is that serious administra tive problems would arise if some of the highway authority functions of the Ministry and of local authorities were transferred to a semi-independent "non-elected body".
Problems there would certainly be. The Minister fails to recognize that there are other different problems under the present system.
It is precisely because the existing bodies are elected and not independent that their policies are subject to change in ways which rule out the pursuit of a unified road programme. A demand for less public expenditure may lead to arbitrary cuts in the programme. One Government may have a different attitude from that of its predecessor towards the railways or other factors in the transport system.
Lord Chcsham. chairman of the BRF, sums up the point in his statement replying to the Minister. "I do not believe," he says, "that the Minister can be content to see the present system continue as it now is. I believe that our proposals are workable, but whether they are accepted or not it is clear that the system has to be changed in some way. As Government expenditure on roads increases the present faults and weaknesses become more and more evident."
Thankless task Complaints against the RTITB are of a different kind. Some operators believe that the Board was given a thankless task but the general verdict is that it is carrying out its task efficiently. The main object is to the size and distribution of the levy. From this arises the suspicion that, as with the roads administration, the structure of the Board is not appropriate.
The field covered by the Board includes road passenger transport, road haulage, vehicle repair and service, local government transport, schools of motoring, warehousing and furniture removal. These interests are represented by 10 Board members from employers' organizations, 10 members from interested trade unions and seven members classified as "educational".
How these members reach their decisions is not known. However, single interest could not readily establish a significant point of policy to which the other interests were either hostile or indifferent.
Hauliers have made no secret of their opinion that the levy ought not to be at the same rate for road operators whose employees are nearly all drivers and for motor repairers almost exclusively staffed by fitters and mechanics who may need intensive and costly training over a long period. The view has been expressed forcibly on each occasion when the Board has announced its proposal for the next levy.
Successive Ministers have apparently shown some sympathy for the objectors and have asked the Board to take into account the possibility of a differential based on the character of the undertaking.
No concession has so far been made. Last week the Board issued its proposals for the next levy. There is indeed to be a differential but not on the basis demanded, The smallest firms will pay 0.75 per cent. of their total payroll; for those with a payroll of between £5,001 and £15,000 the proportion will be 1.5 per cent.; and 2.2 per cent. for the larger firms.
Naive In comparison with the sophisticated techniques which are being impressed on operators the Board's public statements may seem naive as well as jejune. No explanation is given of the reasons for the fairly marked change from the previous scale of contributions.
Almost as a diversion the Board indicates how many operators will be affected in each category. Out of the total of 62.000 firms on the Board's books there will be 19,000 on the lowest rate. 10,000 in the middle bracket and presumably 33.000 paying at a level of 2.2 per cent.
It would be more interesting to know within each category the proportions of the various activities coming within the scope of the Board. Also relevant would be a statement of the total payments in the past in respect of each activity compared with the total disbursements. If, as one suspects, the statistics show that hauliers have made a bad bargain they would have a powerfu: argument for the kind of differential they favour.
The Board's next annual report ma) present the figures. In the meantime Mrs Barbara Castle will no doubt have had tc give her decision on the latest proposal foi a levy the first instalment of which is to bi collected next July.
Although in theory the last word rest with the Minister and with Parliament it cai happen only very rarely that a recommen dation from a body such as the Board is no accepted. Part of the feeling which operat ors have against the Board springs from thi fact that in practice they have no contra over it. They pay the piper and cannot cal the tune. Their representatives can alway be out-voted and there is no real possibilit: of bringing about a change of policy 13: democratic means as in a general election.
There is merit in the suggestion some times made that more autonomy should b given to the different interests covered b the Board.