HC Deb 25 February 1985 vol 74 cc1-3
1. Mr. Cohen

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what arrangements exist for formal budget consultations between the London boroughs and London Regional Transport.

The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Mrs. Lynda Chalker)

None, Sir. As with other nationalised industries, London Regional Transport's budget and external financing limit are matters for determination, in the course of the annual investment and financing review, between the Government and the industry.

Mr. Cohen

Has not the initial operation of LRT shown that there has been no consultation with the London boroughs before major decisions have been taken about fares, services and the level of rate, or, indeed, about the Secretary of State's level of subsidy to London's transport? Has not the Minister set up LRT as a completely undemocratic quango, immune from influence from the public or London's local authorities? Is it not a case for the ratepayers of taxation without representation?

Mrs. Chalker

The hon. Gentleman served on the Committee stage of the London Regional Transport Bill and he knows only too well that it is up to the Government to make the decisions for a nationalised industry and for debate to take place, as it did on the levy order, in the House. It was because the GLC deliberately used up to £200 million of the balances in the financial year 1984–85 in order to keep its precept down in 1984–85 that it has left the Government to take the rap for the LRT levy in 1985–86. The £200 million that it used up equates almost exactly with the £212 million which is the ratepayers' levy for 1985–86.

Mr. Tracey

Far from LRT being unrepresentative and undemocratic, does that not apply to the GLC, which is still precepting the same amount from the boroughs this year as last year although it now no longer has responsibility for London's transport?

Mrs. Chalker

My hon Friend is right. The GLC has nobody but itself to blame for its budgeting. It is responsible for the debts that it has built up and for using ratepayers' money in a way that local government never intended to use ratepayers' money. It should be made clear that by manipulating the finances of the ratepayers it is doing a disservice to Londoners everywhere.

Mr. Spearing

The Minister referred to London Regional Transport as a nationalised industry. Is there any other example of a nationalised industry which, through its appropriate Minister, levies local government on a rate precept?

Mrs. Chalker

None of the other nationalised industries were set up in the way that LRT has been set up. Because of that, the London Regional Transport Act required LRT to make available comprehensive information, to consult upon and publish a three-year statement of strategy, to publish an annual business plan, an annual report and accounts, and, indeed, to inform local authorities and the London regional passengers committee each year on what it is doing. That consultation goes far further than of any other nationalised industry.

Mr. Adley

Nevertheless, is my hon. Friend aware that the liberalisation of coach services in London has caused LRT a problem on the timekeeping of its buses in central London? If she cannot and will not consult the GLC, for reasons that we all understand, will any machinery be set up whereby LRT's transport problems can be discussed with the Government?

Mrs. Chalker

It will interest my hon. Friend to know that the GLC has been present at the meetings that I have held with the London Boroughs Association about the way in which coach parking in London can interfere with the passage of buses through London, and we shall continue to discuss that matter together.