Transport Supplementary Grant (Hansard, 30 July 1984)

§ Lord Underhill
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.

§ Lord Lucas of Chilworth
My Lords, there has been much criticism from local authorities of the present system. In particular, thresholding is capricious and gives no confidence over future support. In addition, the grant has been increasingly used to finance revenue expenditure in excess of public expenditure survey provision to the detriment of capital investment in roads. The Secretary of State wishes urgently to remedy this and to concentrate the transport supplementary grant from central funds on highways capital expenditure of more than local importance.

§ Lord Underhill
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. As the metropolitan counties have been the authorities mainly criticised for their expenditure on revenue support, how is that criticism reconciled with the fact that the very same counties have spent almost up to the maximum of the capital-accepted expenditure under their TSG? Furthermore, how is this circular to the authorities reconciled with the recent statement by the Secretary of State for the Environment urging a voluntary capital moratorium? Finally, this is an important subject: what arrangements will be made to adjust the rate support grant, the block grant settlement, in order to cope with these new changes in transport supplementary grant, bearing in mind in particular that it has been found absolutely impossible up to now to find any GREA formula for highways maintenance and revenue support grant?

§ Lord Lucas of Chilworth
My Lords, the Association of County Councils, the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, the GLC, the London Boroughs Association and the Association of London Authorities were this morning talking with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State about precisely those matters to which the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, refers. As those conversations were when I left the department still in progress, I cannot tell the noble Lord their outcome. With regard to the circular, I assume that the noble Lord refers to the consultation paper. Since that consultation has yet some time to go, I cannot answer him on that one. With regard to the adjustment to the rate support grant, there will be a similar adjustment when TSG is related to capital only—that is, if the proposals contained in the White Paper about which the consultations are currently taking place go ahead. there will be an adjustment. We can see no difficulty in working out an adequate formula for adjusting for both maintenance and other matters which would perhaps previously have been contained in TSG but will not under present proposals be so contained.

§ Baroness Gardner of Parkes
My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether there will be an opportunity for Parliament to scrutinise these proposals directly?

§ Lord Lucas of Chilworth
My Lords, the new system when it comes into effect will be effected by an order under Section 51 of the Local Government Planning and Land Act 1980. The order would of course be subject to the affirmative resolution in both Houses of Parliament.

§ Lord Underhill
My Lords, as my information is that the consultations with the authorities and associations this morning, at least as regards one association, did not give the answers to the very points I raised; 'as the whole problem involves almost the destruction of the present plans for transport policies and programmes procedure, and as the authorities have been given only one month to reply, is this not a sound case for deferring the introduction of the new scheme?

§ Lord Lucas of Chilworth
My Lords, those are not sound reasons. The reason I gave in my original 528 Answer that all authorities had criticised the present system as not being fair is the basic reason for the change. If the noble Lord has information which is more up to date than mine, perhaps he would care to impart that information to the House.

§ Lord Underhill
My Lords, the noble Lord asks me to do so. One association of which I am the president has not made these complaints. It has put to the Minister quite clearly its objections to the proposals and also the very questions which I asked the Minister this morning.

§ Lord Lucas of Chilworth
My Lords, I said that there has been much criticism from local authorities. That does not mean to say that every single local authority has complained. We feel that the present method that is proposed—TSG related to capital-only expenditure —will be of greater benefit to the local authorities, will be of greater benefit to the national roadway system and will not be restricted as it has in the past purely to roads and road building of a local nature which does not connect into a national network.