ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS AS TO CONTROL OF EXECUTIVE BY COUNCIL

HC Deb 19 May 1969 vol 784 cc121-36

Captain W. Elliot

I beg to move Amendment No. 10, in page 14, line 23, leave out 'a substantial outlay on capital account' and insert: 'an outlay on capital account in excess of such a sum as may from time to time be determined by the Council'. The Amendment has the effect of giving to the Greater London Council a closer and more specific control of capital expenditure by the London Transport Executive. The word "substantial" is a relative word; "substantial" in a small business is a very different thing from "substantial" in the executive. The Amendment would oblige the executive to set a specific sum, and this would be a discipline to the executive and to the council.

The executive will be an enormous concern which will control and operate a vast transport complex, with a variety of services, many of which, hon. Members who have not been on the Committee will probably be surprised to hear, will be outside the London area.

In those circumstances it would be difficult for the G.L.C. itself, which is concerned with many other great tasks in running the Greater London area, to keep in close touch with the operations of the Transport Executive. The Amendment will ensure consultation and give specific control to the G.L.C. over the outlay on capital account by the Transport Executive.

The Government undertook in Committee to look again at the point. We shall be glad to hear what the Parliamentary Secretary has to say.

Mr. Lubbock

The disadvantage of the Amendment is that it could only be agreed what such sum should be in respect of all capital expenditure by the executive, and different limits could not be fixed to apply to various classes of items.

For example, it might be convenient for the G.L.C. and the executive to agree on certain maxima in respect of buildings and other maxima in respect of the vehicles themselves. The Amendment would restrict their freedom, and I hope that the Minister will reject it.

Captain W. Elliot: I do not know that the hon. Member has it quite right. The executive has to refer the sums to the council if a substantial outlay is involved. We are merely defining it more specifically to give greater control to the G.L.C.

Mr. Lubbock

I am not a lawyer, so perhaps somebody else could assist the House on the legal point. But, if I read the Amendment correctly, there could be only one limit placed on the sum since the Amendment says: an outlay on capital account in excess of such a sum as may from time to time be determined by the council". It does not say that such sums shall be in respect of different classes of capital expenditure.

If the Amendment had used such words, there might have been some force in it. The words which are already in the Bill, a substantial outlay on capital account", allow these different classes of expenditure to be treated differently by the G.L.C. and the executive. They give greater flexibility to the arrangement between the two bodies.

Mr. Bob Brown

It is true that in Committee I promised to have another look at this matter but, having done so, we decided not to amend the Bill. There is nothing that the hon. and gallant Gentleman has said tonight which would cause me to change my mind.

If the G.L.C. had had any anxieties, knowing of the discussions which took place in Committee upstairs, I imagine that they would have let us know. The Bill was drafted in consultation with the G.L.C. and the council expressed no concern in this respect. Since the discussions took place in Committee the council has not approached the Minister about the possibility of amending the Bill.

It is the Government's view that none of the fears which have been expressed will, in fact, be realised. These are two responsible public bodies and they should be given reasonable discretion. We see no reason to provide for a different relationship in this matter between the council and the executive from that which is already provided for in Section 15(1)(c) of the Transport Act, 1968 in respect of P.T.A.s and P.T.E.s

Mr. Michael Heseltine

There appear to be two points on this Amendment. The first was referred to by the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) He said that the Amendment would mean a fixed relationship of capital expenditure in relation to all classes of capital.

This point was not discussed in Committee, but everybody's interest would be met if the Government were to agree to consider this matter in another place and to produce a suitable adjustment to cover that contingency. I can only advocate the flexibility which a redraft would achieve. My hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton (Captain W. Elliot) put the nub of the matter, namely, the relationship between the G.L.C. and the London Transport Executive. That relationship is crucial and lies behind the Amendment.

The Minister's letter to my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) on 16th May, in reference to this particular point, uses the following words: In general, it seems to me right to leave the Council and the Executive as responsible public bodies to settle these matters between themselves. That is the view of the Minister. It certainly is the view which I advocated in Committee, and which I still hold. It is not the responsibility of these two organisations to decide between themselves the level of capital expenditure on each particular occasion. It is the responsibility of the G.L.C. to lay down capital requirements and the criteria which it wishes the L.T.E. to follow. It is entirely the G.L.C.s responsibility.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield

That is what is being said.

Mr. Heseltine

That is not what is being said. It is said that this is an agreement which should be reached in partnership between the two organisations.

This is not the way in which it should be implemented as a matter of managerial intention. What should happen is what would happen in a commercial organisation. The G.L.C., as the board of directors of the L.T.E., should lay down the criteria within which the L.T.E. operate. This undoubtedly would contain a list of the capital expenditure relating to the various types of expenditure within which the officers of the executive would operate and to which there their authority would extend. That is the demarcation which should be injected into the legislation.

But that is not what is in the legislation. The word "substantial" in the Bill is imprecise. It leaves it open to the L.T.E. to argue with the G.L.C. as to what the discipline should be and to use its own discretion as to what it thinks is or is not substantial. This will leave an area of muddle in legislation, which tighter drafting would not have permitted.

This is not a monumental point, but I am convinced that, in practice, when the G.L.C. comes to impose its will on the L.T.E. it will feel that what is being advocated on this side of the Committee will be the way in which the whole operation should be conducted. I should like to see it in the Bill at once.

Amendment negatived.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Michael Heseltine

I beg to move Amendment No. 11, in page 14, line 32, at end insert: (2A) Where the Executive shall submit to the Council, proposals as to the general level and structure of fares to be charged under subsection 2(d) of this section, and such proposals are approved by the Council, but where as a result of a recommendation of the National Board for Prices and Incomes the implementation of those proposals is delayed by the Minister, then the Minister shall have power to make good any loss of revenue to the Executive which may result. The purpose of the Amendment is to envisage a situation in which the London Transport Executive, backed by the G.L.C., has applied for an increase in fares and where the increase has been referred to the Prices and Incomes Board. It may be that, for a range of reasons, the P.I.B. would decide that the application should not be granted and that the Minister would intervene to prevent its being granted. In this sort of situation a substantial loss could accrue to the L.T.E., against the wishes of the executive or the G.L.C. There are dozens of different reasons which might attract the Prices and Incomes Board so that the additional revenue which could be raised from a fares increase is withheld.

I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary will not hesitate to make the point that the Prices and Incomes Board has just approved a £8 million increase in fares, but it may not be so well known to the House that at the same time it rejected an application by the London Transport Board to increase its fares on the country buses and Green Line coaches.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield

A Tory Government did it.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Heseltine

The point about a Tory Government doing it is an argument on my side and not the hon. Gentleman's. I am concerned that where a national Government intervenes, for whatever reason, to prevent the elected representatives of the people of London increasing their fares to balance their books, it should be the national Government that "carries the can" and not the ratepayers of London. This is a perfectly reasonable suggestion.

It is probably arguable in principle in general terms that where the Government intervene they will do so not for local but for national reasons, and if they intervene for national reasons the taxpayer is a more appropriate person to finance any deficit arising in the targets which we discussed earlier, and not the local ratepayer.

There is nothing mandatory in the Amendment making it essential for the Minister to contribute money where he has intervened to prevent a fares increase. It merely gives him the option to make the grants about which we are talking where he feels that he has intervened for this purpose. Therefore, it is in no way compulsory.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield

Is the hon. Gentleman saying that my constituents and his should help out the London Transport Executive in its difficulties rather than the London ratepayers?

Mr. Heseltine

The hon. Member was very happy to accept that situation in Committee. All hon. Members opposite voted for the legislation realising what we are putting on to the backs of the British taxpayer.

It is true that there is capital write-off in the legislation which will hand over from the taxpayer a permanent annual subsidy to London Transport. The hon. Gentleman knows this as well as I do. He understands the figures, and accepted them without demur.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield

The hon. Gentleman realises quite well that the capital write-off is a fixed and definite sum.

Mr. Heseltine

I do not think that that makes it any easier for the taxpayer to bear. The mere fact that there is a 90 per cent. write-off on the capital, the interest on which must be transferred forever to the Treasury, in no way lightens the load of the taxpayer who must bear it. I doubt whether the taxpayers of Nuneaton, who, I am sure, will reflect on the hon. Gentleman's intervention, will find it easier to bear simply because it is a fixed and permanent sum.

It is the taxpayer who is "carrying the can" because it has been decided as an act of national policy to transfer the London Transport operation to the G.L.C. I am not arguing the decision, but I am saying that if, as another act of national policy, there should be another intervention the burden of that intervention should fall not on the G.L.C. but on the taxpayer, who would be represented in this House, where we could discuss the matter.

Therefore, the point is quite clear. The Amendment gives the Minister only an option, where he has intervened in the national interest, to make good the costs of his intervention to the ratepayers who would otherwise have to finance it.

Mr. Gresham Cooke

I would like to draw attention to the tragic position of London Transport as it was left as a result of the Government and Transport Tribunal action in 1966. In 1968, London Transport made a loss of £10 million. I believe that unless the Bill had been introduced, and the G.L.C. had insisted on the position being put right, it would still be running at a loss, which would come back to the taxpayer in due course.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will also quote the instance in 1953 when, the Transport Tribunal having approved a fares increase for London Transport, the Tory Government of the day turned it down and put it on the back of the taxpayer because of the local elections.

Mr. Gresham Cooke

I admit that this has been done before, and that the position is worse now. But this does not justify its being done again in the future.

In paragraph 16 of its recent Report No. 112, Cmnd. 4036, the Prices and Incomes Board stated: An increase to 6d."— in the basic fare— from the then existing level of 4d. was included in the proposals dealt with in our previous report. The Transport Tribunal, however, limited this fare to 5d. because they thought an increase of 50 per cent. at one time might cause too great a loss of passengers and defeat its own ends. They added that if the fare had been increased from 4d. to 5d. in 1966 or early 1967 the time might have been ripe in 1968 for a further increase to 6d. The kindness of the Transport Tribunal in thinking of the interests of London Transport, and the miscalculations the Tribunal made, led to London Transport having a loss of £10 million last year.

We know very well that boards like the Prices and Incomes Board are tremendously sensitive to consumer and public opinion, and do not look at the problems of the supplier. We also know that the G.L.C. has been trying to raise council house rents in the London area, in my view quite justifiably. It has been limited by the Prices and Incomes Board; it wanted an increase of 10s., and this has been limited to 7s. 6d. This sort of action could be taken by the Prices and Incomes Board in the future in relation to London Transport, and if it does London Transport will be forced into the red.

If that is done by Government agencies such as the Prices and Incomes Board, it is the fault of the Government, and the Government will have to stand the racket. That is why it is of paramount importance that the Amendment should be made, to prevent the Prices and Incomes Board from making the kind of stupid mistakes it has made in the past and will very likely make again in the future.

The Amendment would prevent it from making such mistakes and from thus stopping London Transport from being commercially viable. It would make it clear that if such action happens the Government must pay for the mistakes being made by their own boards, just as they are having to pay for the mistakes of the Transport Tribunal in 1966, when fares were not put up when they should have been, as a result of which they are introducing the Bill and writing off the losses.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield

The argument the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) has just advanced is rather sinister. He has suggested that in certain ways the Prices and Incomes Board is virtually told what to do by the Government. I totally reject this suggestion. Everybody who has read any of the board's reports knows that their whole basis is that the board is entirely independent of anything the Government tell it to do.

But if, on the basis of that suggestion, the hon. Gentleman is to say that my constituents and those of his hon. Friend the Member for Tavistock (Mr. Michael Heseltine) should help to bale out London ratepayers, this is something I am bound to resist. We have had many cases where the London Transport Executive's application for a fares increase has been rejected out of hand or dithered with for political advantage. Both parties have done it. But if we are to have this type of thing in the future I want the results of such decisions to be confined locally and not spread over all the taxpayers.

I am not at all against general taxation making certain fixed and definite contributions to the London Transport Executive's general finances, provided those contributions are fixed and known.

If the lion. Gentleman is coming to the House and saying that my constituents, through their income tax contributions, should help his party, or any party, to win local elections in London—this is what it comes down to—I am totally against it. We are dealing with a situation where fares increases and applications for fares increases are bound to be among the most sensitive decisions with which the new body, which is controlled by the Greater London Council, will have to deal. Other organisations like this throughout the world have had similar difficulties about the fixing of the levels of fares and the way in which, if they are not allowed to go up, they are to be subsidised.

I still say that the essence of this new local transport system ought to be to make it locally financially supported; not supported by taxpayers throughout the country, except in very definite fixed circumstances, and certainly not in the general way proposed. For the hon. Gentleman, representing a party which is always advocating cuts in public expenditure, to come forward with a proposal which will increase public expenditure, I find inconsistent, illogical and plain nasty.

Mr. Lubbock

One thing has puzzled me as I have listened to the debate on the Amendment. If a recommendation for fares increases is referred to the Prices and Incomes Board and the London Transport Executive still has to operate within the financial responsibilities that we were discussing on an earlier Clause—

Mrs. Thatcher

It was discussed upstairs.

Mr. Lubbock

The hon. Lady reminds me that it was discussed upstairs. I have not had the opportunity of re-reading that part of the Committee proceedings, so perhaps the Minister will say a word about it.

I do not want to hold up the proceedings, but it seems a point of substance if we have laid down these financial criteria. I argued earlier that it should not be so rigid, but we have passed a Clause which states that the London Transport Executive has to make a profit in one year equivalent to the loss it has made in a previous year. If the recommendation for a fares increase is referred to the Prices and Incomes Board, for reasons of wider public importance, it may well decide that it is not appropriate to make an increase at this time. It could well happen, for instance, that next year the London Transport Executive might find itself in the red again, despite the large increases which the N.B.P.I. is now permitting. But I am sure, having read its recent Report, Cmnd. 4036, that the board would say that it is inappropriate to make any further adjustments to fare levels pending the introduction of decimal currency in February, 1971. It would be correct to reach this conclusion to avoid two lots of fare changes within a short period of time.

I ask the Minister: how will we be able to reconcile the wider aspects of public policy which have to be considered by Mr. Aubrey Jones and his Board with the more limited objectives which we have already specified and laid down in the Bill concerning the London Transport Executive? If there is a conflict here I hope that the Government will give it some attention so that, before the Bill goes to another place, that conflict can be reconciled and we will not ask the Prices and Incomes Board and the Executive to do impossible things.

Captain W. Elliot: In Committee, we had a demonstration of the split political personality of the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield). He seems to argue any way that he likes. Is it sad to see this trait developing in one so young. Of course, the Government often give selective help.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield

I am sure that the hon. and gallant Gentleman realises that, in comparison with the youngest Member of the House, I am now comparatively old.

8.15 p.m.

Captain Elliot

I accept that. Of course, the Government often give selective help. I cannot say offhand, but I should not be surprised if Nuneaton is getting selective help for development. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will confirm or deny that.

Mr. Huckfield

I am grateful to the hon. and gallant Gentleman for giving me the chance to raise this matter. This is one thing that I have long advocated, but have not yet succeeded in getting.

Captain Elliot

That illustrates the hon. Gentleman's split personality. He expects London income tax payers to support Nuneaton, but when the Government interfere, for national reasons, in recommendations for fares increases, thereby possibly imposing a burden on London ratepayers, he suggests that his constituents should not help to make up the difference.

Mr. Gresham Cooke

Nuneaton is fortunate. It gets a very large grant from the Government to the Motor Industry Research Association, which helps to employ—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay)

Order. The hon. Gentleman is getting wide of the Amendment.

Captain Elliot

I think that I had better get on. We are getting a little wide.

The Parliamentary Secretary is now in charge on the Front Bench. We know him to be a most reasonable man. I hope that now that his right hon. Friend the Minister has departed we will get a concession from him over this matter.

I would point out one thing. For all the Amendments that we have put forward the burden of nearly all the arguments from the Government Front Bench and hon. Gentlemen opposite, including the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock), has been that we should not interfere or restrict in any way by writing into the Bill such things as might have that effect on the operations of the G.L.C. and the London Transport Executive. It is argued that we must leave it to them to decide.

If we use those arguments rejecting our earlier Amendments, why, if the Government think it desirable to interfere, for reasons of national policy—and I appreciate we cannot go into the details—and that adversely affects the London ratepayers financially, should not the Government of the day make up the difference?

Mr. Manuel

I am at a loss to understand what the Amendment means. I did not have the benefit of being present during the Committee stage of the Bill. I do not know whether there were great debates about the Prices and Incomes Board. I cannot imagine that they would be in order if there were. I cannot find any reference to the Prices and Incomes Board in Clause 11.

Mr. Lubbock

When Clause 11 was discussed in Committee, the board's recommendations on London fares had not then been published, so I do not think much attention would be paid to it.

Mr. Manuel

This is hypothetical. We are looking into the future. It appears that there is a great possibility there will not be any recommendation from the N.B.P.I. when this comes in. But I do not know. If there are so many "don't knows", it appears to be a hypothetical situation that we are envisaging. Even though this was to come in, I think that it would be wrong to adopt the words in the Amendment which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield) said, would have the result that people in Central Ayrshire would be helping to subsidise London Transport. We may have a few holiday makers coming here occasionally, but their object is not to assist London Members' constituents to run their transport on the cheap.

Captain W. Elliot

The hon. Gentleman was not a member of the Committee, but I mentioned earlier that some hon. Members might be surprised at the ramifications of the London Transport Executive, because it may be working in their constituencies. If the executive is working at a loss, and the G.L.C. is allowed to subsidise certain activities, London ratepayers may be subsidising the hon. Gentleman's constituents.

Mr. Manuel

The hon. and gallant Gentleman is talking about the other extraneous duties to be placed on the executive, and the G.L.C. reaping profits from these various undertakings. I have no fear of that. London ratepayers will be helped. If private enterprise can make a go of filling stations, and so on, as envisaged in the Bill, I am certain that the G.L.C. will make a success of this.

It is not good enough for hon. Gentlemen opposite to underestimate the sagacity and intelligence of the members of their party who are in control of the G.L.C., and not to trust them an inch. They should not try to tie the G.L.C. in this way. They ought to have a little more political faith in these people who work so hard for them in the London area.

Mr. Bob Brown

The implication of the Amendment is that the London Transport Executive should be place in a special position with regard to the prices and incomes legislation, in so far as the Government are to meet any financial shortfall that might be involved as a result of a standstill order. Clearly, this is a preposterous suggestion.

The Amendment accepts that the actual fares charged should conform with what the Prices and Incomes Board recommends, but it goes on to suggest that the Government, rather than the authority concerned, are to take the financial responsibility. If we took the matter to what might be said to be a rather absurd limit, we could have a situation where we had the G.L.C. spoiling for a fight with the Government of the day. The L.T.E. could submit, and the G.L.C. could approve fares increases of a quite outrageous nature, contravening completely the terms of the prices and incomes policy, The Government would then have to pick up the cheque when these increases were properly delayed by the board.

The short answer clearly must be that the Government could not contemplate taking on any such liability. The prices and incomes legislation is to apply to fares increases by London Transport which will no longer be subject to control by an independent tribunal in the form of the Transport Tribunal. It is for the G.L.C. and the L.T.E. as responsible public bodies to take account of the policy in formulating and approving fares increases proposals so as to ensure that no occasion for Government intervention arises.

Mrs. Thatcher

Once again that is a bit of a weak answer. The Minister has a weak case, and it is therefore not surprising that he did not put it very well.

Let us look at the position we have reached. We have said to the G.L.C. "You must not run this outfit at a deficit."

Mr. Leslie Huckfield

No.

Mrs. Thatcher

We have said in the Bill that the G.L.C. must not run London Transport Executive at a deficit. That is in Clause 7. Under subsection (3)(b) of that Clause we have said that the outfit must not run for two years in succession at a deficit, that in the second year any shortfall must be made up. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will look at that subsection. We have laid that obligation on the new authority.

Suppose the new authority says, "If we are not to run at a deficit, we must raise fares in a certain way". The Minister agrees, and then says, as he can do now, "I am going to refer the proposal to the Prices and Incomes Board".

Mr. Manuel

That is hypothetical.

Mrs. Thatcher

It is not. This year a proposal to increase fares has been referred to the board. Last year a proposal to increase fares was also referred to the board. On that occasion the board agreed to an increase, but part of it was delayed by the Minister. This year the board has agreed to an increase to take effect some time in the autumn. We do not know when that "sometime in the autumn" will be, so that is nothing hypothetical about it at the moment. The Minister has power to refer a proposed increase to the board.

Suppose the board says, "If you run the organisation in a different way you need not have these fare increases", and the Minister then says, "All right. I shall delay the fare increases." There is here an inherent contradiction. The council has an obligation not to run at a deficit. It then says that if it is to carry out that obligation it must have a fare increase, but the Minister replies that it is not to have that increase.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield

No.

Mrs. Thatcher

I ask the hon. Gentleman to look at the Amendment.

Mr. Huckfield

Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Thatcher

Not at the moment. The Amendment says: … where as a result of a recommendation of the National Board for Prices and Incomes the implementation of those proposals is delayed by the Minister". The Minister says, "I shall delay the proposal for an increase in fares". There is an inherent contradiction. The G.L.C. must not run at a deficit, but the Minister denies the council the increase necessary to enable it to run at a surplus. Therefore at that moment the Minister has power without responsibility. He has power to delay the increase, but he does not have the responsibility of facing the financial implications of his decision.

Mr. Huckfield

Does the hon. Lady admit that though the obligation to be placed on the executive not to run at a deficit will be in the Act, the present difficulties to which she referred are caused basically by the dogmatic insistence of the Conservative G.L.C. that this new body shall make a profit of £2 million?

Mrs. Thatcher

I am sorry, but I did not get the full import of the hon. Gentleman's intervention. As things are at the moment, the Prices and Incomes Board has agreed to an increase to come into effect in the autumn.

Equally, as things are, to the extent that an increase is delayed the Minister already has power, between now and vesting day, to make a grant to cover that deficit. He has that power under Clause 19. The Minister has power at the moment to make a grant from the hon. Member's constituents in order to make up the deficit arising from a delay in the implementation of the proposal.

The Amendment provides that if there is a conflict between the necessity to run at a surplus and a refusal to allow fare increases, the Minister shall have power to make a grant—it is not that he must do so, but that he shall have power to do so—and to make good any loss of revenue to the Executive. Doubtless the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield) and other hon. Members would make representations to the Minister whether or not he used that power, but without it the Minister can stop an increase which is necessary for the G.L.C. to carry out its obligations under the Bill. That is an absolute nonsense.

Mr. Eric Ogden (Liverpool, West Derby)

The hon. Lady is basing a great deal of her argument upon Clause 7(3)(b). Does she agree that although the Prices and Incomes Board can make its recommendations the Minister, whoever he may be, in deciding whether to agree to the recommendations, delay them or refuse them, is also bound by that paragraph?

8.30 p.m.

Mrs. Thatcher

The Prices and Incomes Board may be bound by that paragraph, but it may say, "If the L.T.E. ran its undertaking in a different way we do not believe that a deficit would arise." That is one of the problems that arise in respect of references to the Prices and Incomes Board. The board sometimes makes recommendations on productivity which for many reasons are not easy to carry out. There are many conflicts. It is clear that the hon. Member is really on my side. We are both saying that if there is a resultant decision which prevents a fares increase, which in turn prevents the executive from carrying out its responsibilities under Clause 7(3)(b), the Minister shall have power to make good that loss.

To support my argument I point out that at the moment, until vesting day, the Minister has power under Clause 19. I am asking only that the position should be perpetuated, because any Minister should be made to face the consequences of his own decision.

Mr. Bob Brown

I have listened carefully to all that the hon. Lady has said, and it merely leads me to the conclusion that she is now trying to argue a weak case even harder. I find it difficult to get anything out of what she said. Why should the G.L.C. be treated differently from any other major local authority? Other major local authorities run their own passenger transport systems, and when they run into trouble they have to go to the traffic commissioners for a fares increase. If the traffic commissioners say "No," they have to adopt other courses. The same courses are open to the G.L.C.

Mrs. Thatcher

How many of those authorities are under an identical obligation laid down in Clause 7(3)(b)? That is the relevant point.

Mr. Brown

The same type of thing applies to the passenger transport executives. I ask why the G.L.C. or the L.T.E. should be treated differently from any other passenger transport authority or executive—because they are all charged with breaking even and if they do not succeed they have to impose a rate levy on the constituent authorities. London is in no different position.

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield) about the ratepayers generally. The provincial ratepayers have bailed out London Transport for far too long.

Amendment negatived.