No Future In It
Page 45
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
WITH the best of intention, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has deprived road users for the time being of a vision of the future compared with wnich the programme of road development announced by the Minister of Transport in February was no more than a pilot scheme. At least Mr. Boyd-Carpenter gave the impression that the Government were making a start with what should have been done many years ago. Now, unless the Chancellor changes his tune, there seems little chance of following up the first modest and, taken by themselves, inadequate proposals.
At first glance the Chancellor's recent statement about future capital expenditure on transport seems reasonable. On the previous day he had faced a difficult task. He had had to tell the House of Commons that the rising tide of prosperity, for which he could claim some of the credit, might recede unless something was done to curb the purchase of goods in this country. We were at present, he warned, absorbing too much of our production at home. Increased production and prosperity required increased imports, which in turn must be paid for by increased exports.
For the time being, the Chancellor went on, the primary aim must be to reduce home demand in order to leave room for the extra exports needed. He summed Lip in a sentence what should be done. " All who can must try to spend less in order to save more."
Thrift, like charity, the Chancellor might have added, begins at home, and he was only too eager to demonstrate how the Government were willing to play their part in those directions where they had complete or partial control of expenditure. Among other items he included expenditure by the Government themselves, by local authorities, and by the nationalized industries.
Serious Blow
The following day he went into more detail, and announced what road users can only feel as a serious blow to their hopes. The railway modernization programme, involving an expenditure of /1,200m., must go on, said the Chancellor, but he could not see his way to allow any more expenditure on roads than had already been announced. The position would be reviewed in the autumn, or whenever he considered the economy could bear an extra road programme.
The last phrase is revealing. It shows clear traces of the frame of mind, still not completely eradicated even from the highest places, that once regarded road making and mending as a kind of cushion against unemployment, to be pursued vigorously when the economy is slack, and to be put on one side when production is booming. One would be happier to hear from the Chancellor an acknowledgement of the true position, which is the negative of his own turn of phrase. The Government should rather consider whether the economy could bear the strain of not having an Aequate road programme.
Mr. Butler glossed over the essential difference between the plans so far announced for road and rail. The railway programme is complete. The Commission themselves have said that, when it is fulfilled, they will have " a thoroughly modern railway system fully able tri. meet both the current needs of trade and travel and those of the foreseeable future."
Nobody would dare say as much for the expanded road programme announced by the Minister of Transport in February. It is no more than a beginning, as Mr. Boyd-Carpenter admitted in introducing it to the House of Commons. "But it is the Government's firm intention," he hastened to add, "to continue with a substantial programme of road construction and improvement until the roads of this country are adequate for the traffic they have to bear." .Since the Chancellor's more recent statement, the intention seems much less firm than it did six months ago.
The deficiencies of the Boyd-Carpenter programme have been ruthlessly analysed by the British Road Federation in their recent publication " Make Way Ahead." The programme is an improvement on its predecessor, but it does not even keep pace with the rapidly increasing volume of traffic on the roads. The urgency of the problem is not matched by the proposed speed. particularly during the first two or three years.
Equally Happy
The Federation also point out that past and projected capital expenditure of £257m. for major road improvements and new construction between 1945 and 1960 is far below the,totals of £2,180m. for electricity, £610m. for coal, and £570m. for gas during the same period. Generally speaking, these public utilities, as well as the railways, are satisfied with the capital commitments they are to be allowed to incur, but the public can hardly be equally happy about the future of the roads.
The Chancellor has stated that he has no intention of interfering with any programme already announced "unless a nationalized industry can with reason and without doing any harm slow it up." Such a statement is cold comfort to road users, and they have every reason to complain that the Government are going back on the spirit, if not the letter, of their promises.
Without meaning to do so, the Chancellor has made out the perfect case for those interests that are pressing for the formation of a national highway authority. This body, it is proposed, would have powers to raise road loans, very much in the same way as the gas and electricity industries find money for their development. A sum of £750m. has been estimated as the requirement over the next ten years for new construction and development.
Not all the money would be wanted at once. One Version of the plan suggests the raising of road loans at an annual rate of £.75m. a year. The loans would be repayable over 30. years, •so that the annual cost of repayment, at 5 per cent, interest, would not exceed a maximum of £50m. a year. This is the equivalent of perhaps one-seventh of the annual taxation. levied on road transport at the present time, and the fraction will become smaller each year, assuming no change in the rate of taxation.
If the national highway authority were already in existence with their long-term plans complete, the Chancellor would no doubt have had to treat them on the Same lines as any other public utility, and allow the plans .to continue without the threat of an economy axe. His equivocation on the subject of further road development should be a stimulus to the growing demand that an authority be set up to ensure continuity.