---

Public Transport

I am afraid that I have not seen this week's Sunday Post, which is very remiss of me, but again, that is not an isolated incident, as there are many concerns about the accuracy of ticketing. Finally, the other problem looming is the cost of the scheme, inflated by additional passengers, to bus operators themselves, as they face the double whammy of increased petrol costs and so forth—irrespective of whether the buses are run on recycled chip fat or whatever other wonderful environmentally friendly schemes are happening—because local bus companies are increasingly appealing against local authorities on the amount they can claim for bus fares. The scheme is very good and well intentioned, but it is facing real problems. That is why, when my local authorities went to see the Minister, they basically said, ““Great scheme, but we don't want to run it. We want all our council tax payers to have the benefit of it, but we don't want our council tax payers to have to pay for it as well, given that this is supposed to be fully funded.”” My local council leaders would prefer the scheme to be taken out of their hands and to be run nationally or by some other body—[Interruption.] This may well appear to be ““Stalinist”” to the hon. Member for Telford (David Wright), but I do not often hear him or members of his party speaking up against Stalinism. The problem is this: why should my council tax payers in Worthing and Adur have to pay for a scheme that is supposed to be fully funded by the Government? As I have explained, the councils are saying that the scheme is great, but they do not want to have to run it and pick up the tab. The Government have to acknowledge that however well intentioned the scheme, and whether or not £1 billion is or is not sufficient to run it nationally, in certain parts of the country—Adur and Worthing are not untypical—councils are having to pay a substantial amount to run it. I urge the Government to look again at the formula and see whether they can better reflect journey usage. They need to refine the formula and ensure that a good scheme does not become a victim of its own success, leading to the law of unintended consequences, whereby my council tax payers effectively have to pay twice. I am not saying that I want the scheme reduced in any way. I want to ensure that it achieves its intended purpose of enabling more pensioners and disabled people to get out of their houses, use essential services or go out for pleasure journeys or whatever; at the same time, however, it should not be unfair to other council tax payers who have to foot a bill—in the case of Adur, a bill of 4.5 per cent., which could have wiped out the council tax increase this year. I urge the Minister to think again about enacting a review of the formula, in no more than the two years suggested by my colleagues when the Bill went through the House last year. Will she consider doing so more urgently, to ensure that moneys are being fairly distributed where they are needed for the scheme, and that councils are not pursuing a profit-making venture, which was not the Government's intention?