---

Concessionary Bus Travel Bill [HL]

The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, does not have to wait for the Minister to say something because he has expressed the argument more cogently than I could have done. I agree with him entirely. I recognise the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, that any powers accruing to a Secretary of State are to be investigated, examined and challenged in order to see whether they are inthe national interest. We have no intention of implementing a national scheme on the basis of the Secretary of State taking responsibility for it but we are conscious of the fact, as the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, eloquently described, that these are complex operations. There are 291 authorities outside London and potentially each one could have to negotiate schemes with all operators in its area. There is no doubt that the new national scheme will put a greater burden on administering authorities and involve more complex reimbursement arrangements. We are aware that many operators are reluctant to undertake so many negotiations; that they would prefer a single negotiation with government. Full centralisation would provide greater consistency in the level of reimbursement made to operators, which is why they are interested in it. But we have not accepted the argument that we need to implement the scheme on a centralised basis and do not intend to work that way if and when the Bill becomes law. We think it is right to preserve the power because to remove it would remove flexibility from the Bill against a background where we are not, and cannot be, entirely sure that the national scheme can be implemented on the basis of such a large number of potential negotiations being carried out. Local government and bus operators have been working together for a number of years now, with a great deal of success in many areas, and theremay well prove to be a satisfactory implementation of the scheme. No one will be happier than this Administration if that proves to be the case. We do not intend to implement the power unless we are forced to do so but, for ourselves and any future Administration, we cannot see the scheme fail through a breakdown of negotiations. We think it is right to have in the Bill a power for the Secretary of State to act if this important concept proves to be unrealisable through the other methods I have described. That is why I have spoken at great length, but with somewhat less conviction than the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, on why the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, should withdraw his amendment.