Let us now praise ... the Dip!
Page 67
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
IT CANNOT be denied that the tone of much that appears in this column is highly critical of those whose activities are commented on. The operators' associations, the trade unions, the EEC — all come under the severe Janus eye.
But the major victim is inevitably the Department of Transport. This is simply a reflection of its vast influence on the industry, and not because it is noticeably more wicked or wayward than any of the other bodies.
However, lest you doubt it, Janus is a kindly person at heart. He would much prefer to praise than to blame. It therefore gives him genuine pleasure to find a DTp document which deserves unstinting commendation.
The pleasure is all the greater because of the unpromising nature of the document's subject-matter. The allocation of road track costs and the vehicle excise duty structure for lorries are not topics which cause the average CM reader's heart to leap with joyful anticipation when faced with a 37-page paper dealing with them. But this document (summarised on page 3 of CM, November 5) is a surprisingly good read.
It fulfils the promise given by David Howell after this year's Budget, in response to protests by operators at the enormous increases they had to bear, and the threat of more of the same to come next year.
Readers should not get carried away. The paper does not promise the abolition of ved. Nor does it undertake to spend• all road-based taxes on building new roads and properly maintaining those we already have. Indeed, it announces no decisions of any sort. It is not
intended to, for it is a consultation document.
First, the paper sets out clearly, with a welcome absence of jargon, the criteria applied by the Government to the calculation of lorry track costs. There are many tables of figures, but these are well presented, and their significance is explained in everyday language.
Then it discusses ways in which these criteria might be varied, and the effect that each variation would have on the total tax receipts from lorries.
It then goes on to discuss possible changes in the structure on ved on lorries. Again the language is clear, and jargon is avoided. The majority of this section deals with the question of down-licensing. As if to support previous claims that the Department's mind is genuinely open on this subject it not only gives the arguments for and against, but even sets out in . an annexe how such a scheme might work in practice. And it states frankly that "any fall in revenue due to down-licensing would need to be offset by some increase in ved rates for lorries not down-licensed".
The paper poses questions on which it seeks the opinion of interested parties. And it would be difficult to think of any consultation docUment emerging from Marsham Street which gives those parties more relevant information on which to base their comments.
The sole fault is that it only gives those consulted just over one month in which to submit their comments. Although the paper presents the issues clearly, as well as providing much useful background information, the subject is both complex and vitally important to operators. It is a pity that the associations will, to some extent, have to reach snap judgments on important points without a full opportunity to consult their rank-and-file membership. The DTp realises this, but explains that the timetable must be observed if any resulting changes are to be introduced in the next Budget.
Does this very welcome combination of frankness and clarity herald a new era in the DTp consultation process? We shall have to wait and see. But it ought not to be a unique occasion. We live in a mature democracy. Those affected by the law are surely entitled to understand the reasons far the imposition of that law. This applied especially to a group whose activities are as closely regulated as road hauliers.
Yet in practice we live under one of the most secretive Government machines in the democratic world. The various attempts to open up the system have almost all come to nothing. It suits the governors — politicians and civil servants — to keep the public in the dark.
Or at least, that is what the governors used to think. But Britain's continued economic decline has opened to ridicule the former claim that "the man in Whitehall knows best". And pressure to give the public more facts has increased to an extent where there are signs of movement.
It has to be admitted that one of these signs is a growth in the number of documents leaked to the Press by "moles" inside Ministries. This is not only illegal; it has genuine dangers for the nation as a whole. For once a climate has been created inside the civil service which tolerates leaks of documents relating to non-security matters, it is only a short step over the boundary to the leak of defence secrets, which few of the most fervent supporters of open Government would want.
Having said nice things aboi_ the DTp, Janus can take an eve more surprising step and prais another body commonly revile — the EEC. For the Common Market is at the opposite pole c the British system. Any Eurocn will happily tell anyone what is going on in his particular area policy. The only exceptions arE the obvious ones of personnel matters and commercially sensitive negotiations. But policy options are frankly state with pros and cons.
Can it be that the DTp's taxation paper has been influenced by the experience which dozens ef DTp officials now have of working in Brussels? They have seen that the roof does not fall in if responsible trade associations and other interest groups are given the facts. On the contran it enables them to make a mon positive response, thus leadin. to a better decision.
So the response of the industry to the recent lorry taxation paper will have an importance going even beyon( the weighty topic itself. Wild swipes at the larger target revealed through the paper's clarity, frankness and comprehensiveness will simpl strengthen the position of thos who still privately believe, against all the evidence, that if man in Whitehall really does know best.
Of course, it could all be a cynical move to deceive. The Government may have alread), made up its mind what it is going to do about lorry taxatio and simply put round an apparently frank paper as a smoke screen. If so, a surprise( Janus will sadly eat his words. Watch this space after Budget Day "1984.