Wider bus fuel grants?
Page 40
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
• More bus operators may be given the Is 7d fuel grant proposed in the Transport Bill.
Mr. Stephen Swingler, Minister of State for Transport, held out some slight hope of an extension of the grant last week—but he warned that there would be no substantial additional public spending.
He made his qualified promises after Opposition MPs had pressed—during Committee discussion of the Transport Bill—for more grants to be paid.
Mr. Swingler gave an assurance that Mrs.. Castle would keep a very close scrutiny on the is minimum fare which distinguished express ser vices which will not receive the grant—from stage services, which will. "We shall consider most carefully any evidence submitted to us that the Is minimum should be raised. That is a matter which we shall consider very carefully in relation to the public expenditure involved."
Mr. Swingler also undertook to see whether —separate from the provisions of the Bill—Mrs. Castle would be able to take any action in response to other suggestions put forward.
Mr. Michael Heseltine, for the Tories, had asked that the remission of fuel duty should be extended to certain express and contract carriages (CM last week) and that the "dividing. line" fare should be 5s.
Mr. Swingler replied that the Government considered that the overriding priority should be given to stage carriage services. The 5s fare level proposed by the Opposition was extravagant, but the representations made by MPs, and the case put to the Ministry indicated that this was a matter which had to be kept under review.
During a discussion of the "new bus grants" Mr. Swingler answered criticisms of the conditions on which this money would be paid. Where aid was given in the form of grants somebody had to decide upon the conditions, he said. Clearly there must be some basis for the eligibility of expenditure.
Here the eligibility was defined in two forms— that the new bus grants should relate to vehicles "of a type approved for the purposes of this Section by the Minister" and that the bus in question should be used "wholly or mainly as a stage carriage".
The vehicles in respect of which the grant was paid had to be defined. The White Paper had said that the Ministry was opening discussions immediately with the bus manufacturers and operators on the conditions of eligibility.
It was the aim to make that grant as an encouragement to the standardization of bus manufacture of high quality, but that did not mean that there would be only one type of bus in respect of which the grant should be made. The discussions were continuing between the manufacturers and the bus operators associations, added Mr. Swingler. It was not a matter -being decided by Whitehall.
Shadow Transport Minister Mr. Peter Walker said Mr. Swingler's explanation of the powers the Minister was taking was completely unsatisfactory. He pointed out a subsection which said that in making a grant the Minister might impose "such other conditions as he thinks fit".
"If that is not an open, blank cheque to impose any conditions that the Minister likes in giving a grant I do not know what is", said Mr. Walker. He argued that the best way of ensuring safety in buses was not by making it a condition of the investment grant. It was best laid down by saying "Whether you have an investment grant or not, your bus or coach must be safe When on the roads, and it must comply with certain regulations".
Which type of bus or coach company was it that we did not want to encourage to go in for new buses and coaches, asked Mr. Walker. Surely an incentive should be given even to the person who was doing nothing else but coach trips and tours?
The Committee rejected a move by Liberal Mr. Peter Bessell to ensure that the grant would be paid to an operator which received a new vehicle just before "the appointed day".
Mr. Swingler said that the Ministry was closely watching the point that there should not be a hiatus in the placing of orders, but they did not see how they could get around the difficulty of some hard cases at the margin, "We hope to introduce the provision in the course of this year in the smoothest possible way."
Another change Mr. Bessell sought also met a similar fate—this was to do away with the complete ban on grants for second-hand vehicles.
But Mrs. Castle accepted a Tory amendment which said that the grant (for new vehicles) should be 25 per cent of the approved capital expenditure. Before this change, the Bill said that the grant should not exceed 25 per cent.
She was not, however, so accommodating when Mr. Besse]] tried to make the fuel grant payable from January 1 this year instead of next, particularly with the rural operators in mind.
Refusing to accept this change, Mrs. Castle said that the purpose of introducing the rebate from next January was that it was very closely linked to the re-equipment grant. If we were to have more modern buses as a result of stimulating the re-equipment of fleets, we had to have more highly powered engines, which consumed more fuel. It was obvious that there would be a disincentive to re-equip if fuel costs were put up, and the rebate was therefore directly linked to the re-equipment programme.
When Mr. Bessell, backed by the Tories, insisted on a vote being taken, Mrs. Castle, by mistake, voted for the change, but the slip of the tongue was corrected in time.
And when her vote was included in the "Noes" it was found that the result was a tie-13 for and 13 against. So, as always happens on occasions like this, the neutral chairman, Mr. R. G. Grant-Ferris, gave his casting vote, against the amendment.