(24 May 2016, 2:26 pm)Greg in Weardale wrote Go Ahead have got it right - partnerships are the way forward, not franchising. The local authorities should set specifications (the frequency and start/finish times for various types of services, use of inter-operator tickets, etc) but operators should be able to run services they wish commercially and set the fares for their own routes. However there should be a veto available to authorities to limit unnecessary competition over the same routes so where two operators want to run a particular route the one who offers the best proposal would be the one who gets it.

I must admit, I didn't know "Enhanced" Partnerships were an option, rather than Franchising. The problem is that local circumstances vary so much (hence Devolution), so Deregulation has worked better in some areas than others (mainly medium sized, middle income towns down South), and Enhanced Partnerships might work better in some conurbations than others. Mind you, Partnerships are also subject to changes in policy of both Operators and Authorities/Mayor. For instance, if this Bill had been published a year after the 2010 Election, TFGM/C and the then Management of the "Big Three" would probably have said "Yes, we could make this work". But now..........!

For instance, you mention Operators setting their own fares. Should that include higher fares(per miile) in the poorer, low car ownership suburbs, than in regenerated, "trendy" city areas?