§ 2.51 p.m.
§ Lord Nugent of GuildfordMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
§ The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government what arrangements they are making in the privatisation of bus services in the county of Surrey to ensure that there is a sufficient element of competition.
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara)My Lords, the Transport Act 1985 gives the National Bus Company a main privatisation objective of promoting sustained and fair competition. With this in mind the London Country company was split into four separate companies in preparation for sale. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State looks forward to receiving from NBC proposals for the sale of the London Country (South-West) company, which serves much of Surrey.
§ Lord Nugent of GuildfordMy Lords, I thank my noble friend for that partially reassuring Answer. While I realise that most of the privatisation has gone well in Surrey, is he aware that there are two major anxieties in the county about the disposal of London Country (South-West) which is a very big block? First, it is intended to sell it all in one, and that might diminish competition; secondly, it is proposed to sell the garage property separately from the buses, and that might handicap competition. Can my noble friend reassure me that these two anxieties may not be fulfilled?
§ Lord Brabazon of TaraMy Lords, perhaps I may reply to my noble friend's first point about breaking up the company into smaller units. As I said in my original Answer, the company is itself the result of a division into four parts of the London Country company. The NBC and our advisers have made it clear that further division would lead to weak companies which would harm competition. On my noble friend's second point about splitting the company between the property and the bus operation, we believe that NBC has advertised the sale of the company on that basis, and it believes that that reduces the risk of asset stripping by a possible property developer who might want to buy the bus company just to close it. It makes it possible for people committed to buses to buy the bus company.
§ Lord UnderhillMy Lords, does the Minister recall that his right honourable friend the Secretary of State commented that a report on the monitoring of the 1985 Act, commissioned by the AMA and the PTA group through the Oxford Universities Study Group, was a very balanced report? Does that report not show that very few new competitors came in under deregulation, particularly on the unprofitable routes? Is not the general conclusion of that report that far from increasing competition in some areas there was no increase in competition whatever?
§ Lord Brabazon of TaraMy Lords, I would not want to comment on that report apropos of this particular Question which deals with the county of Surrey. However, the county of Surrey saved £1 million of its budget on subsidised services for last year. There has been plenty of innovation in the 209 county. Minibuses operate in seven towns, and there is competition between three or four different companies. Therefore, in the county of Surrey it seems to have been a reasonable success.
§ Lord GlenamaraIs the noble Lord aware that what my noble friend has said does not apply in many areas? Is he aware that in the city of Newcastle-upon-Tyne 1,000 buses a day now enter the fairly small city centre; and that is competition pushed to the point of chaos?
§ Lord Brabazon of TaraMy Lords, if the noble Lord wishes to ask me a Question about Newcastle-upon-Tyne, I shall do my best to answer it.