Long Live the Republic?

South Yorkshire PTE has submitted information to the Competition Commission enquiry. This initial response gives us a flavour or a glimpse of what local transport authorities are thinking. Or, perhaps it confirms what we already know: the idea of a quality contract for Barnsley or Doncaster was promoted by SYPTE last autumn.

SYPTE argues that there should be competition for the market (franchising), not in the market (on-street). There should be greater regulatory control. It points out that where there’s competition its positive effects are limited and those areas without competition are worse off. Indeed, SYPTE argues that there are no benefits that spread across the entire network and that head on competition on key routes leads to buses chasing passengers. The regime, they say, has failed.

We mustn’t forget that South Yorkshire was one of the prime reasons why the government deregulated bus services in the first place. The authority’s guiding principle, as the former South Yorkshire County Council, was to increase public transport subsidy to phenomenal levels. In the network support era before 1986, it was the only PTE *not* to increase fares to reduce subsidy levels. There were good social reasons for this policy though it went far further than simply pegging fares. It placed South Yorkshire at odds with the government of the day.

The post-1986 PTA sold its operator to its employees in 1993, though I think I’m right in saying, at the time, the PTE retained the freehold to garages. In 1995, one of the groups took a 20 per cent stake, with First taking over completely three years later.

Though this week’s SYPTE arguments in favour of spreading the benefit through franchising may seem compelling, the point about the history lesson above is that the PTA sold its PTE operator and thus abrogated responsibility for direct bus operations, other than for socially necessary services the PTE saw fit to buy to fill socially necessary gaps. By promulgating a regulation and franchising argument, SYPTE seeks to control, without due compensation, an organisation it willingly sold. Referring to moves within West Yorkshire to embark on franchising, TAS called this “larceny” or wrongfully depriving the current owners of their business; an appropriation.

Further, if franchising comes at a cost to the taxpayer (a debatable point, actually), we might even see a return to that epithet given to the high spending pre-1986 former county council of the People’s Republic of South Yorkshire.