Local Transport Expenditure (Hansard, 2 July 1975)

§ 22. Mr. Fry
asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps are being taken to limit the amount of money available to local authorities for the support of local transport expenditure.

§ Dr. Gilbert
Local authorities are being urged to restrict their expenditure on local transport during 1975–76 within the estimates accepted by the Government for the Rate Support Grant and the Transport Supplementary Grant. The further restrictions on public expenditure announced by the Chancellor in his budget speech will be taken into account in this Department's allocation of resources for local transport in 1976–77.

§ Mr. Fry
Does the Minister agree that there is a danger that road transport grants tend to be used to subsidise public transport to the detriment of necessary road works—for example the building of bypasses—which are essential to the economy of the country and the improvement of the environment? Have local authorities tended to subsidise public transport rather than get on with the job of co-ordinating public transport as a whole in their areas, which could result in better services at less cost to the community?

§ Dr. Gilbert
From the discussions I have had I am most impressed with the progress that is being made by local authorities towards integrating public transport, road and rail. The more important question is the balance of the public subsidy that goes to current operating costs and into investment in public transport, whether road or rail.

§ Mr. Leslie Huckfield
While accepting the present restraints and constraints of public expenditure, may I ask my hon. Friend to bear in mind that, having been encouraged for the past two years to do all they can to make progressive transport plans for the metropolitan counties, many local authorities have already had to make significant cut-backs? Is my hon. Friend aware that if there is any significant reduction, particularly in capital spending, it will mean a severe emasculation of the transport plans of many metropolitan county councils?

§ Dr. Gilbert
I have much sympathy with what my hon. Friend says. I can only repeat what I said in reply to the previous supplementary question—that the balance between subsidies on current operating matters and keeping investment going needs to be examined critically.

§ Mr. Stephen Ross
Is the Minister aware that many of us who represent rural constituencies, contrary to what the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) has said, feel that far too much money is spent on road improvements and that the transport drive should go much more towards assisting rural travellers by public bus and train services?

§ Dr. Gilbert
The Government have long been seized of the problems of public transport in rural areas.

§ Mr. Tomlinson
Will my hon. Friend accept that many of his hon. Friends would suggest to him that in time of public expenditure stringency the Government's priority should be to support public transport and to stop the present extravagance on the motorway programme?

§ Dr. Gilbert
I cannot accept that motorway expenditure is necessarily an extravagance. It frequently represents an extremely high-return economic investment, and it also produces considerable environmental benefit if the motorway is in the right place and is built to proper standards. I take my hon. Friend's other suggestion very seriously. There is a prime need for us to do everything in our power to support public transport, whether by road or by rail.