Transport authorities are being attacked for failing to back up their allegations of collusion among major bus operators for their call for greater control over services.

National transport operator FirstGroup’s riposte comes as the UK’s competition watchdog prepares for formal hearings in its investigation of the bus market. Challenging authorities’ submissions so far, First- Group singled out local government transport bodies in Manchester, South Yorkshire and Scotland for particular criticism.

It cited a claim by Greater Manchester’s passenger transport executive (PTE) of ‘tacit coordination’ between First and Stagecoach. South East Scotland Transport Partnership had suggested ‘some degree of collusion’ between the principal operators following ‘bus wars’ over a decade ago.

FirstGroup rejected all such allegations and demanded supporting evidence, if any had been submitted to the commission.

In its rebuttal, recently published on the inquiry’s website, the company also denied it overpriced multioperator tickets as claimed by SEStran, South Yorkshire’s ITA and Bath & North East Somerset Council.

Many submissions arguing for greater local control over bus services contradicted themselves, First claimed, notably on the level and effects of competition. PTEs argued that excessive or inhibited competition under deregulation harmed bus users and proposed devolving control to authorities through a franchising system. But no authority had provided any analysis to show why franchising would be more efficient.

Others complained that quality contracts and statutory partnerships were too costly to set up. Yet the costs of a franchising system would be ‘prohibitively high in the current economic and political climate’.

First added: ‘There is no evidence to show that giving greater control to LTAs or PTEs gives better outcomes for customers.’

Franchising would also push out smaller operators unable to bid for bundled routes, despite authorities’ evidence they provided valuable competition.

The pattern and impacts of competition inevitably vary between urban and rural areas and local authorities. But most seem to echo the view of the national association for transport officers, ATCO, that competition should be for routes, and not on routes.

GMPTE argued against breaking up monopolies or any other remedies that would intensify competition on the road, increasing fuel congestion and service instability. Given greater powers to specify services, authorities could coordinate bus services to maximise the benefit for users and taxpayers.

A GMPTE spokesperson added that its evidence was ‘based on 20 years’ experience of deregulation’.