|
Sir Colin Marshall, Chairman
Government Task Force on the Industrial Use of Energy
Room 50/3, HM Treasury
Parliament Street, London, SW1P 3AG
18 July, 1998
Dear Sir Colin
I have the distinct impression (from a runaround on the Treasury & DTI switchboards looking for your Task Force) that the label [ 50 / 3 ] is securely attached to a large wheelie bin strategically placed at the entrance to Treasury Chambers so that the postman has not too far to go to discard his onerous load.
This is addressed to you as a fellow engineer (I was a Junior in BEA Battersea in the ‘50s) and, who knows? it may even get to you. For two reasons. There is more than a sporting chance, judging from the high proportion of engineers who have understood, supported and contributed to the Proposition that follows, that you will appreciate it. We both know the footling cavorting that is endemic to official procedures and if this is going to die the death of a thousand evaporations, then I would like to feel that at least one brain, that might eventually be able to do something about it, had been exposed to it.
It is, of course, most likely that these ideas will be adopted elsewhere - as often happens with British innovation. The leader of a minor German political party told a meeting in Vienna a year or so ago that, having heard all the arguments, this one, (pointing at me) was so obvious as to be inevitable. I see now (from the Wuppertal Bulletin) that Deutscher Naturschutzring, the umbrella organisation of over 100 German nature conservation and environmental organisations with over 2.8 million individual members is proposing reform based on an energy tax. This, in turn draws on the 1994 calculations of Deutsches Institut für Wirtschaftsfortschung which follow the pattern we set for UNITAX. I mention this because your Task Force, with an eye to E.U. complexities might find it more amenable to import its conclusions. However, the DNR proposals, while having the inestimable advantage of being geared to the realities of a pretty inept political system, are technically systemically flawed.
The Resource Economics Proposition has been worked out by some very knowledgeable people. It has neither technical nor practical flaws, and it completely satisfies the declared objectives not only of your Task Force (I’ve checked the list), but of this and previous governments. It also meets the real needs of the people of this country. But it requires courage and vision and the ability to cut through the cold treacle of Whitehall. I feel I should be out playing golf.
This discovery has been laid before Tony Barber and every Chancellor since.
I found early on that while engineers welcome solutions, politicians are far happier with the problems. So, call it public duty and because so many friends have urged me to reply to the consultation paper "Economic Instruments and the Business Use of Energy".
I respectfully draw your attention to the system of unified national indirect taxation (UNITAX) which members of the Resource Use Institute with others have been examining and developing for nearly forty years. The mechanisms provided by this instrument so exactly comply with your aims and objectives, while completely avoiding the difficulties which have been mooted for "ecotaxes", that, if it were not for my cynicism about your operation, I would feel confident you will need to consider this in more detail than can be expressed in this brief submission.
You, of course, start with the immense advantage of knowing the true meaning of "energy" and its all-pervasive effect in society and in all economic activity. You will probably know how much of a deterrent to wealth creation are our present taxation systems - being leaky, oppressive and counter-productive - as well as being inadequate. I hope you agree that our resources are hopelessly undervalued - to the point of encouraging profligate, wasteful and inefficient application. We hear ministers priding themselves on a reduction in household fuel bills so that we can get rid of our billion year old resources as soon as possible.
The main thrust of this submission is that we have sufficient space, in dismantling the old systems, so as to achieve an absolutely painless and delightful transition. Could even be vote-winning! By switching labour taxes on to energy we have a simple, unevadable, and complete revenue system. With the few safeguards contained in the Proposition and some careful phasing, we can be assured of a cleaner, wealthier, more equitable and somewhat more sustainable future than is possible by any re-jigging of classic or monetarist methods.
In short, while some apparent boldness is required to initiate these proposals - they are indeed radical - there in no risk whatsoever providing the relatively simple safeguards are observed. Furthermore, there is hard evi€
|
