Yes, I admit it, I agree with Labour
Dear Theresa Villiers,
Your below-par performance as Shadow Transport Secretary has left you very vulnerable should David Cameron decide to reshuffle his cabinet. Justine Greening has outshone you at every opportunity. I was almost feeling sorry for you, but after reading about your opposition to road pricing this morning in the Telegraph, I am more than happy for you to disappear into the political wilderness. Road pricing is exactly what this country needs.
The government is apparently pushing ahead with their plans for a national road-pricing scheme, including their contentious ”spy in the sky” technology, with eight areas of the country scheduled to run pay-per-mile trials starting in 2010. Rumour has it that motorists face paying up to £1.30 a mile during peak periods on the busiest roads. I don’t mind you pointing out that Gordon Brown and Ruth Kelly are putting together a disjointed front on this issue, as they keep saying that the scheme has been scrapped but are obviously still working on it behind the scenes. The Department of Transport has made it clear that “any proposal for national road pricing would need to address the legitimate concerns people have” and there are indeed legitimate concerns. For example, you rightly highlighted the impending feeling of an “IT disaster waiting to happen” – a tag that most major government projects attract – and no doubt motorists will be terrified at the prospect of yet another tax increase on top of the VED hikes, petrol price rises and the new showroom tax that will be introduced shortly. However, your belief that a national road pricing scheme is”unnecessary and unwanted” is just plain wrong.
Road pricing is unquestionably the best way of dealing with congestion on our roads. Forget the London congestion charge, forget motorway tolls – road pricing is the answer to a lot of difficult questions. Imagine this: road pricing is introduced nationwide. Everyone pays a monthly bill depending on how many miles they drive in addition to a premium for busy roads, congested times of day and their CO2 emissions. People who travel on busy, congested roads will therefore pay more than those driving on open roads at off-peak times. All motorist taxes such as VED and showroom taxes are scrapped. Road pricing will be a revenue-neutral scheme so that the total money raised will not exceed current tax revenues received by the Treasury. The data on car movements will be confidential and no-one will be allowed access to it. The money raised from road pricing is ringfenced to be reinvested in transport programmes such as road building, improving railway infrastructure and R&D on greener technology. Now, does that sound like a problem to you? I should hope not.
Labour have destroyed our faith in using taxation in the right way because they have abused green taxes and the goodwill of motorists to cover their tracks as they screwed up our economy. Road pricing offers the best solution by far when it comes to financing our national transport infrastructure, addressing environmental concerns over air quality, encouraging people out of their cars while still leaving the decision in their hands and, perhaps most importantly, taxing motorists in the fairest way possible. Obviously there are concerns over the safety and sharing of the data collected but a firm stance in favour of civil liberties should solve that one. Time to open your mind, Theresa.
Yours sincerely,
A.Tory
Witanagemot Blogs
“Imagine this: road pricing is introduced nationwide. Everyone pays a monthly bill depending on how many miles they drive in addition to a premium for busy roads, congested times of day and their CO2 emissions. People who travel on busy, congested roads will therefore pay more than those driving on open roads at off-peak times. All motorist taxes such as VED and showroom taxes are scrapped.”
Two problems with this. First, the woeful experience of government so far in building big, unwieldy databases. Second, I doubt that last part (the part I bolded!).
“The data on car movements will be confidential and no-one will be allowed access to it.”
So was the child benefit data….
You cannot ever hold that kind of data and call it 100% secure. Better to not collect and hold it in the first place.
In addition, I suspect more people will be required to run and police a scheme like this that can currently be accounted for at the DVLA. In the current economic climate, vastly increasing either PFI or the government payroll (particularly the pensions forecast) is total madness…
I agree that road pricing makes fantastic economic sense, particularly when considering reducing congestion. Also that VED needs to be scrapped to make it truly effective. Wouldn’t it be nicer if there was some way we could apply it without eyes in the sky, though? Like, perhaps, some kind of expensive consumable resource that people needed to use in order to make their cars work.
Petrol prices could be made higher (possibly only for cars and motorbikes) with a road-pricing tax – the only problem is the amount we already pay in VED. Scrap road tax and replace it with a petrol duty for cars. Road-pricing without the scary satellites or ’secure’ databases.
I take your concerns about government databases, but I think we have to put Labour’s record in context.
For example, France has a ‘carte vitale’ for every French citizen to prove their entitlement for healthcare. This card contains personal details in order to confirm someone’s identity, yet you don’t hear about data going missing. Germany has a similar system. Both France and Germany run social insurance as their chosen method of funding healthcare, which involves data sharing between government departments on a vast scale – yet things just don’t seem to go wrong.
I admit that Labour’s record is catastrophic and is good reason to be wary of new projects that require data storage on this scale. However, this is not a sufficient reason to sideline a scheme such as road pricing. This scheme would need to be run by a government-funded organisation instead of the private sector but overseen by an independent committee (perhaps comprising of cross-party MPs) and kept out of the government’s hands.
“This card contains personal details in order to confirm someone’s identity, yet you don’t hear about data going missing. “
Absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absense. The draconian media restrictions in France and the French lack of desire to badmouth the state might have a little to do with that…
True, but like I said the issue of data security is something that has been overcome in other European countries in different guises.
Although I’m not suggesting any individual scheme is perfect as I don’t know enough about it, I think Labour’s track record is due in large part to poor planning and implementation which (theoretically at least) can be considerably improved.
“I think Labour’s track record is due in large part to poor planning and implementation which (theoretically at least) can be considerably improved.”
Hopefully, this is true. It could hardly get any worse…
Data security is the red herring here.
There is NO way any government could keep this revenue neutral.
How much of the current VED / fuel duty is spent on the roads?
When the lottery was introduced ALL THE MONEY WILL BE USED FOR GOOD CAUSES AND NOT AS REVENUE STREAM FOR THE GOVERNMENT.. didn’t last long. Olympics being paid for by the lottery among other things such as the NHS.
Then the ‘unfairness’ issue. A family on the school run cannot avoid the congested time to travel. Neither can anyone who goes to work.
Vehicles coming in from overseas pay how much? And how is it collected? Do foreign hauliers pay the same as UK?
Royal Mail could never operate a universal post service if the cost to deliver was so hugely dependent on where a parcel originates.
Cornish pasties delivered to Aberdeen..£6.76 each.
Imagine a future chancellor, as grasping as Fagin Brown, seeing that big pot of revenue that no one who drives can avoid… Oh those hands rubbing together in anticipation.
My only real problem with your excellent post is that it won’t reduce traffic and it will cause the cost of motoring to rise. Whether it will make motoring fairer overall is a mystery.
I totally disagree. The best form of road pricing is free, fair and not distorted by politicians, it is called congestion.
People who use roads at the busiest time of day are inconvenienced by delays that are charged at their personal worth of their time, it covers everyone from cleaners to captains of industry and there is no possibility of free-riding. No black box recording your journeys is required.
If you value your time more highly, then you choose an alternative form of transport, defer your journey or reduce the journey distance by choosing to live closer to work or working closer to home.
The only problem is that this means politicians do nothing and have no juicy contracts to award to suppliers.
Bill, I disagree that it is unfair. People driving on busy roads cause more pollution by cars that move slowly, which reduces air quality. Furthermore, busy roads require additional investment to maintain them. I agree that Labour looked the country in the eyes and lied to them over the lottery, but that is a matter of honesty and accountability rather than being a criticism of road pricing. The issue of overseas hauliers is something that infuriates me as I cannot see how anyone can justify letting them drive on our roads for free, but Labour are far too scared to do anything about it.
Snafu, someone has to pay to maintain the roads and motorways. Surely it should be the people who use the roads most who should pay for this maintenance instead of me paying through it with my taxes, even though I don’t own a car? Your suggestion that we can all choose an alternative form of transport or move house is pure fantasy and does not address the reality of investing in transport infrastructure.
“I agree that Labour looked the country in the eyes and lied to them over the lottery”
That and so many other things…
LFAT, road pricing as you characterise it is clearly A Good Thing. Our roads have to be paid for and such a system would do so fairly. But seriously, given the amount of data involved, the number of people to bill, the number of bills required, and the number of potential bill queries, do you seriously think that ANY government could actually bring the system you describe into effect – let alone Labour?
We all know what would happen if Labour did it. There would be draconian penalties for any failure by the driver, a great army would be recruited to administer it, and the costs would eat into the vast majority of the revenue so that it would in effect be anything but revenue-neutral.
Given that, the fairest alternative form of road pricing is to tax something that is a close proxy for the amount of driving that someone does. Petrol and diesel, for example – which have the advantage that administration and collection are both capabel of being done efficiently. Of course, it seems that fuel taxation is now at the upper limit of what the public will tolerate, which (in a democracy) should tell us something.
Patently
“Higher earners do pay more. 40% of a large number is more than 40% of a smaller number.”
“Given that, the fairest alternative form of road pricing is to tax something that is a close proxy for the amount of driving that someone does, Petrol and diesel, for example – which have the advantage that administration and collection are both capable of being done efficiently.”
You are on fire today… Devastating simplicity.
Have you given Osbourne a ring yet?
Petrol is a close proxy but does not make people think about the pollution their cars are producing or seriously consider alternatives because often the alternatives don’t exist thanks to our woeful record of investing in transport infrastructure, particularly the rail network.
The congestion charge has been a terrible failure in terms of raising revenue, but the charging system has actually worked out alright. Shame the private sector are making such a mint out of it instead of the promised rejuvenation of London transport.
It’s interesting that not many people have complained about the theory of road pricing and have instead concentrated on the possibility of Labour introducing road pricing as the biggest cause for concern!
LFAT, two points. Motorists pay £45bn per annum in taxes whilst only £5bn is spent on roads so you don’t subsidise me. It’s a shame that I am expected to subsidise railways despite never using them however.
Secondly, are we looking for short term solutions or long term solutions? I prefer long-term solutions, if you build more roads, people are bound to use them more if they are more convenient.
If road pricing does work and streets are as empty as they are on a Sunday morning, do you think more people would use them at 8.30am on a Monday morning!?!
Alan B’stard approves this opinion.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/c/cb/New_Statesman-rick.jpg/180px-New_Statesman-rick.jpg
Bill:
>> Have you given Osbourne a ring yet?
I’m waiting for him to call me….
Now lets see: the easisest way to defeat the system is to clone a car.
Since everything is automated it will take ages to detect.. apart from the original user whose car was cloned..
And of course, forein registered cars will not count.
I think that – given past incompetence – it will prove a great source of income for criminals,
As for not using the data, the police will of course and the councils and there willl be zero privacy…
Sales of small explosive devices to destroy road mounted sensors would soar away…
…and their CO2 emissions…
So whats wrong with lots of CO2 ?
IF IF it makes the earth warmer we are going to need much much more of it to head off the coming ice age.
As usual ANYTHING touched by our rulers is a shambles from beginning to end.
Keep all government out of it.
Understand this that Transport policy is not a Competence of our Provincial government.
EU Directives have been promulgated and it is not within the remit of westminster to defer.