1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136 
Political Commentary
Page 84
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Why Pick on Roads?
By JANUS
ONE of the inexpensive pleasures of life is to advise other people how to spend their money. If the exalted office of Comptroller arid Auditor-General permitted its holder to indulge in cynicism, Sir Frank Tribe might have made some such observation in the course of his recent lecture on Parliamentary control of public expenditure, a congenial subject before a congenial audience, the Institute of Municipal Treasurers and Accountants.. He drew attention to the change in the past 25 years in the general attitude of Parliamentary back-benchers to questions of expenditure. The number of M.P.s who now consistently pressed economies on the Government was much smaller than it was. The general tendency was to persuade the Government to spend more,
Sir Frank Tribe had one or two possible explanations for the change. The vast growth and complexity of public expenditure, and the interest of the Treasury in nearly every political issue, might diminish the back-benchers' sense of financial responsibility. The Parliamentary system might encourage a divorce between considerations of income and expenditure, except at Budget time.
In general, Sir Frank Tribe .must be heard with respect. Nobody knows the subject better than he. It is possible to question the propriety of his examples. To point the paradox in the situation where back-benchers simultaneously call upon the Government for greater economies and greater expenditure, he quotes as a typical economy the reduction of staff in the civil service, and as a typical expenditure the building of new roads.
Futile and Illogical
The paradox is by no means perfect. If the staff of Government departments were cut down, there might be more money to spare for roads. The lesson of Sir Frank _Tribe's remarks goes deeper than this. He shows, although that may not be his purpose, how futile and illogical is the present system of road finance.
It is entangled in the complicated web of Treasury audit and bureaucratic inertia.. No doubt the need to provide, say, another £50m. a year for new roads might disturb the poise of the Exchequer, but this is scarcely a complete argument for not finding the money.
When winding up the debate on roads a month ago, Mr. Hugh Molson did his best to put the case for the Treasury. He opposed the suggestion of a road loan, and what his arguments lacked in conviction they made up in number. The loan, if it were as much as £500m., he said, would upset the money market and" embarrass the Treasury." Motorists by means of another special tax would have to pay the interest. The Chancellor of the Exchequer would no longer be. able to vary the rate of road construction "to deal with a state of deflation or of inflation." More men working on the roads would mean fewer in other industries.
Mr. Matson appeared to be saying in a polite and roundabout way that the road system existed for the benefit of the Government and not of the users. It is a melancholy
n38
fact that the users do not own the roads, and the Government have no intention of accepting any plan that might reduce their control on road construction and maintenance. It is hard to imagine that an increase or decrease in the number of men working on the roads, at present under 100,000, would have much effect on the labour situation as a whole.
Nor is it easy to understand why a loan even of £500m. spread over at least 10 years should throw the money market into confusion. British Railways will very likely be spending a similar amount of capital in the same period. The British Electricity Authority and the Gas Council have plans for capital expenditure of nearly £1,800m. in the next seven years, and two-thirds of this will be raised by external borrowing. It seems unkind to set against these figures the annual expenditure of £5m. on new roads, possibly rising to £14m. when the Government's promised campaign begins to take full effect.
Tied to Apron Strings
The great industries supplying fuel and power are nationalized, but should be pleased they are not tied to the apron strings of the Treasury like the road user. It is interesting to note that among the points picked out by Mr. D. C. Greer, state highway engineer of Texas, as particularly important in the development of a highway system are the establishment of a non-political administration of highway affairs and the "correlation of the financial support of a highway system with the volumes of traffic to be handled."
It might be difficult to adopt in this country the form of administration that has been found so suitable in Texas, but the financial correlation can be the same the world over. The fuel tax in Texas is a little under 4d, per gallon (plus the federal tax of 2d.). Three-quarters of the tax and the whole of the licence fees go to develop and maintain the roads. The rate of tax has been the same for 25 years but the revenue has increased substantially. "ft is a sound principle," said Mr. Greer, "in that the more motor vehicles we have, the more roads we need and the more revenues we receive from this same tax base."
Mr. Greer is aware that practically the only likeness between Texas and Great Britain is the size. Most of Texas is not served by rail. There is one motor vehicle to every three inhabitants. Local communities are keen on having new motor roads, and will often provide the necessary land in the knowledge that adjacent property will rise in value.
• Why did Sir Frank Tribe choose the building of new roads as his example? Presumably because the naming of any other target might have been taken amiss. He could not easily have questioned the propriety of requests by backbenchers for expenditure on housing, schools, Civil Defence or old-age pensions. His choice may be regarded as an unconscious recognition that roads are politically neutral and the burden of their administration should he taken off the shoulders of the Exchequer.