HL Deb 29 January 1975 vol 356 cc478-81
Baroness STEDMAN

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

The Question was as follows:

To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware that—

  1. (1) the allocation of 95 per cent. of the public transport revenue support part of the Transport Supplementary Grant to London and the metropolitan counties where fares have been held down over the past two years, and
  2. (2) the allocation of only 5 per cent. of that part of the grant to the non-metropolitan counties served by the National Bus Company where fares have risen by the maximum amount permitted under price restraint,
have inevitably caused further reductions in bus services in smaller towns and rural areas; and whether they will take steps to redistribute the grant in favour of non-metropolitan counties.

Lord MELCHETT

My Lords, the Transport Supplementary Grant has already been distributed in accordance with the Rate Support Grant (No. 2) Order 1974. That distribution cannot now be altered. So far as grant related to revenue support for buses is concerned, the same basis of distribution was applied to all counties.

Baroness STEDMAN

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his reply. But would he not accept that it was a grossly unfair allocation of the transport revenue support grant, in that the Greater London Council had £10 per head of the population in London while in counties like mine, which is Cambridgeshire, it worked out at 21p per head?

Lord MELCHETT

My Lords, I do not accept that this was grossly unfair. The amounts accepted for the revenue support element for each county were those estimated for 1974–75 in the county's TPPs—with some minor changes, in particular for counties supporting rural buses—but increased by about 20 per cent. This accepted expenditure was a safeguard to ensure that it attracted the Transport Supplementary Grant.

Baroness STEDMAN

My Lords, will it not nevertheless still mean that the metropolitan counties and London get 95 per cent. of the grant when they cover 40 per cent. of the population; while the non-metropolitan counties, covering 60 per cent. of the population, receive only 5 per cent. of the grant?

Lord MELCHETT

My Lords, as I have said, the level of the grants was based on the authorities' own estimates of their expenditure. Although that was the case, the Government based the amount of the grant given on the 1974–75 estimates, because the 1975–76 estimates were felt to be too high.

Viscount RIDLEY

My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether the local authorities' associations were consulted about this grossly unfair distribution of the grant?

Lord MELCHETT

My Lords, I have said that I cannot accept that it was grossly unfair. The grants were allocated on the basis of the local authorities' own estimates of expenditure.

Lord ELTON

My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the long-standing concern over the inadequacy of rural bus services has been rendered acute by the present fuel crisis, the high cost of fuel for private transport and the urgent need to restrict private consumption? Does the noble Lord propose to do anything about this?

Lord MELCHETT

My Lords, this is slightly outside the scope of the original Question. The grant allocation that was asked about relates to 1975/76 and cannot therefore have yet caused any cuts in rural bus services. I can tell the noble Lord that an urgent review is taking place of what action is needed to enable the National Bus Company to overcome their present financial difficulties; but that under Section 203 of the Local Government Act 1972 the prime responsibility for local transport policies remains with the county authorities.

Lord ELTON

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that defensive reply. May I ask whether he is aware that the National Bus Company is a State-owned company—this could scarcely have escaped his notice—comprising 40 subsidiary State-owned companies, and that there is no central body representing the interests of their passengers to the National Bus Company? Does he agree that this fragmentation of the interests of the consumers leaves the consumer unprotected in the case of the National Bus Company?

Lord MELCHETT

My Lords, I think that is a different question. The extent to which services are affected will be decided by local authorities in consultation with various subsidiaries of the National Bus Company.

Lord ELTON

My Lords, I should like to press this point, for I do not think it is a new question. We are considering future policy for the protection of consumers. This is not being done—except by the Traffic Commissioners in the sense of an Ombudsman—by any central body. If the noble Lord cannot suggest a means of remedying this, will he undertake that the Government themselves will defend the consumers by increasing rural bus services to the benefit of the rural communities, and by reducing the use of motor fuel spirit to the benefit of the community as a whole?

Lord MELCHETT

My Lords, this Government are always anxious to defend the interests of all consumers.

Lord INGLEWOOD

My Lords, does the noble Lord think that the people of London to-day get a fair return for the lion's share of this support grant spent in their area?

Lord MELCHETT

My Lords, again I think that that is a different question.

Lord PLATT

My Lords, am I right in thinking that the cost of petrol is not relevant to the bus services since they run on diesel fuel, the cost of which has not gone up? Am I right in thinking that?

Lord MELCHETT

My Lords, I am not certain about that. I imagine that, on the whole, that is true.