Discussion on Papers 13 and 14

Mr A. E. Naylor, West Yorkshire Metropolitan County Council

I believe that the TPP is the best thing that has happened to transportation in the UK. It has acted as a catalyst and has concentrated the minds of professionals and politicians on the implications and inter-relationships that make transportation tick.

I agree with Dr Burns about the need for partnership between local authorities and the DoE. The concept is right, but what is happening to it? The Treasury has, I suspect, seen the potential of the TPP as an instrument of detailed control, and this it was never intended to be. Instead of the flexibility which was to replace the specific grants, control is emerging, particularly on revenue support for public transport—buses—and highway maintenance. The rest of the TPP is basically concerned with highway construction, improvements in traffic management and capital expenditure for public transport. The national network itself has been safeguarded because trunk road work is not in the TPP, and is wholly under the control of the DoE. So the remainder of the work is essentially local. Why, then, cannot each local authority decide what is best for its locality within the total transport budget? Why should authorities also be told to cut public transport support by 50% in three years ? If a local authority prefers to do that than to build a road it is its own business. In this particular respect the cut is in relation to passenger transport—buses. The revenue support for buses in the West Yorkshire TPP amounts to £5 million for 48 million people. At the same time, the local rail service, on which 1200 000 passengers travel, costs £4 million. Why should not each local authority be allowed to decide where to make cuts in its own area? What is wanted urgently are better ways to evaluate each section within the transport budget.