Vestigial Appendix
Page 61
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
CHANGES in the way of thinking. aboutt.a.. problem take place from time to time for reasons it is not always easy to 'understand. All that„carr. be said is that . an argument on . which a. pyramid of briefs and memoranda has been built suddenly seems old-fashioned and..even-spurious. The less sophisticated public may continu.e tO use it for seyeral years longer, but at the level where -the, -decisions are made there is a more or less tacit agree ment that the point is:.nolonger valid.
Something of the kind may even now be happening with the familiar contrast between what the Government collect in taxation from road users and what is spent on building and maintaining the roads. The temptation to make the contrast has been irresistible in the past, particularly because the Road Fund, when it was instituted in 1909, was intended to receive the proceeds of vehicle and petrol taxation and spend them on road improvement.
Stage by stage the original purpose of the Fund was modified, until it became no more than a convenient heading for the amount that the Government proposed to set aside for the roads each year. Taxation revenue was diverted into the general exchequer. The Fund was formally abolished in 1956. It had long since become vestigial, like the appendix, but remained a focus for irritation among road 'users. It still influences a large number of them, who continue to complain that they are paying £500M.; and receiving back from national funds not much more than one-tenth of that amount. .
With • the expanded road. programme now gathering momentum, the discrepancy between revenue. and expenditure may be decreasing slightly, but Will never disappear While taxation remains at the pl'esent"'llevel.. Even the .British Road Federation, who are Unlikely to err in the direction of asking too little, are suggesting in their recent memorandum to the Chancellor'of the Exchequer that what is needed over the next four or five years is a capital sum in the region of three times the present allocation of £280m. for the: period that.began in 1958 and will end in .1962, during which time the Chancellor may expect from road users over £2,000M. at the present level of taxation.
. .Country's Economy ' , . ..
For what may possibly be the first time,-the B.R.F. have made no reference to 'taxation. They have based their claim for road investment entirely upon the needs of the country's economy. They have in their support the advice given by the experts at the conference sponsored by the Institution of Civil ;Engineers in November, -1957... • It wasargued on that occasion that delay caused by inadequate roads was costing the nation £500m. a year, and that the figure was increasing at double the rate of the increase in traffic. What this increase is likely to be may be gathered from the fact that the number of vehicles on the roads of Britain has approximately doubled in the past 10 years. The conference looked forward another 10 years; and calculated that between now and then £3,500m. should be spent to provide a system of motorways and improvements to many miles of road.
To reconcile this figure with the later proposal by the B.R.F. for spending about three times £280m. in up to five years would require a long and perhaps tedious analysis of the way in which the two sums are made up. What is of immediate importance is that the Minister of Transport is rapidly committing all the money made available to him, and intended in theory to last until some time in 1962.
Not a great deal has actually been spent, because so .many of the schemes are still on paper or will take several years to complete. The B.R.F: point out however, that in 1958-59, the first year of the current programme for which £280m. has been allocated, more than £106m. will be earmarked for specified schemes. This leaves £174m. to cover the remaining three years up to 1962, an average of less than £60m. ayear. As more and more of the works already authorized are put in hand, the actual expenditure will go up, and it will seem on paper as though the expansion of the road programme is continuous. With less than £60m. a year to play with, the Minister will run out of promises long before the Exchequer can fulfil them. The volume of work in hand will rise to a peak and then descend.
Apart frorn the anti-climax, such an end to an ambitious programme would be out of keeping with what the public have been led to expect. The number of vehicles will continue to increase steadily almost irrespective Of what is done to the roads. The formidable task force of men and equipment that is beginning to make -a habit of building roads far ahead of schedule will be dispersed, and it would take some time to get it into working order again.
Telling Comparisons
It hardly seems credible that the Government will not fairly soon -accept in principle the advice that the KR.F. are giving, and announce the allocation -of another sum of money for a further period of years. The B.R.F. make a .number of telling comparisons to -show that the 'amount should be substantial. They estimate'. total capital expenditure of £500m on roads between 1954-6/ Over somewhat longer. periods the gas industry are to spend £610m. and the railways £1,500:n. The figure for the National Coal ..Board is £1,000m., and for the electricity industry £3,350m.
Whatever claims these industries may have, the B.R.E. point out that there is a huge current and expanding demand for modern highways. Some 13.5 per cent. of national income went into the running costs of all forms of'. road transport in 1957, whereas in the Same year investment in new road construction represented only about 1 per cent. of gross, fixed capital .formation. Even the present road programme at its peak will not raise the proportion to more than 2 per cent.
Other countries are spending on roads far more per inhabitant than the United Kingdom. In the period 195355, each inhabitant of this country on the average invested annually £8 14s. in vehicles. Among European countries only Sweden spent more. While this was going on the BritiSh Government invested in roads no more than 5s. 5d. per inhabitant per annum. No other country spent less than Li, and most nations spent more than twice as much. At its highest point the present road programme will involve expenditure of about £70m. a year, say the B.R.F., and this will be about £1 8s. per inhabitant. 11 is not likely that in the meantime other countries will be standing still, so that at best Britain may still remain at the bottom of• the list. • A few years ago the B.R.F. would have continued by pointing out how much the British road user paid in special taxes, and would perhaps have set out this point also on a European scale. The argument is not greatly missed. There seems an overwhelming case for continuing With the road programme and for accelerating it. The decision is needed now to make the money available several years hence. If there is any difficulty in raising it, the B.R.F. have the solution in a road loan.