This government has often seemed to panic at the merest puff of public opinion (or, more precisely, the merest huff of a Daily Mail columnist). We should therefore applaud its sturdy response to the unholy combination of farmers, hauliers, oil companies and police (the last being curiously reluctant to invoke powers that they used so readily during the miners' and Wapping disputes of the 1980s) that, within a few days, threatened to paralyse the country. The farmers have almost no case at all. They are already heavily subsidised, not least through the duty on red diesel for tractors which, at 3p a litre, is a tiny fraction of that paid on other fuels. They provide clear examples of the dangers of dependency culture and of addiction to subsidy. The hauliers' case is dubious. The Freight Transport Association and the Road Haulage Association, questioned by the New Statesman, could provide no figures for or examples of bankruptcy among their members. If they are hit by UK petrol prices that are higher than on the Continent, they also benefit from payroll taxes that are lower.
Yet the extent of public support for cuts in petrol duty suggests that ministers have failed badly to make their case. Instead of robust policies, vigorously presented, we have a terror of upsetting the "motorist", who seems to have replaced the "housewife" in the politicians' gallery of forces that can bring down governments.
Petrol prices are not too high. They are too low. The proof of that is the 12 per cent growth in British motoring over the past decade, despite the above-inflation rises in petrol duty, introduced from 1993. To deduce, as some sages do, that this shows that higher prices are ineffective in reducing car use is simply perverse. The increased cost has been outweighed by the increased convenience and comfort of the private car when set against the alternatives. In real terms, private motoring is actually no more expensive than it was 25 years ago; yet private cars are infinitely more reliable and more luxurious. Train fares, meanwhile, have risen by more than 50 per cent, bus fares have nearly doubled, and both forms of transport have become more unreliable. If petrol is indeed so cripplingly expensive, why are increasing numbers of British children driven to and from school each day? Why are out-of-town supermarkets and malls not losing custom? Why have housing markets in the countryside or the suburbs not collapsed? Why do Range Rovers, and similar large vehicles, continue to be so popular? Why do theme parks and heritage centres flourish; why do people not stay quietly at home instead and play chess or Scrabble?
Even to list these questions is to show how far we have to go to reduce our dependence on motorised transport. Petrol taxes are, in principle, good taxes. They are simple to collect, hard to evade. They do not hit the very poorest members of society, who do not own cars. They encourage the more efficient use of a scarce resource. They spur people to walk or to cycle, with consequent benefits to health and fitness. They discourage urban sprawl. They tax noise, fumes, excessive speed, pollution of the planet, congestion and despoliation of the countryside. They do not tax hard work or enterprise. A centre-left government should be shouting their merits from every broadcasting studio. These are Third Way taxes, with the potential to bring about desirable goals without the government having to ban or directly regulate anything.
Yet ministers have apparently forgotten that they came to office with promises to reduce the number of miles travelled by road. They try to justify petrol taxes by threatening cuts in schools or hospitals, when voters know that the windfall from higher VAT receipts on petrol has left the Chancellor with ample funds.
It is indeed depressing that the public is so heedless of the "green" dimension to petrol consumption; but it is hardly surprising, when ministers themselves are so reluctant to make the connection. Here, there is indeed a case for change. If ministers were to set the "right" overall price for petrol, so that the taxation element (within limits) automatically fell when oil prices rose and vice versa, they could present their policy as a specifically environmental one. Motoring would be constrained, not by the vagaries of the oil price, but by a political judgement about how much, as a society, we should discourage use of cars. Companies, including hauliers, would be able to plan ahead with greater confidence, as the cost of a highly volatile resource would be stabilised. But the right price for petrol is a high one; motoring is a luxury, not a birthright.
Post this article to
We want to encourage people to comment on our content and to exchange views with other readers and hope this will be done on a courteous basis. However, if you encounter posts which are offensive please let us know by using the 'report this comment' facility or by emailing comments@newstatesman.co.uk and we will take swift action where necessary.
