Local Transport Bill [HL] Bill

I do not often disagree with my noble friend Lord Berkeley on these matters, but I fear that I must do on this one. I am not sure who inspired this proposal, but it appears to be an attempt to introduce quality contracts for bus service throughout the rest of the country, let alone some of the areas that we have discussed. I do not wish to pre-empt the discussion on quality contracts—and I hope that we do not come to that or we may be here a long time—but I suspect that it will prove to be the most controversial part of the Bill. Speaking to an earlier amendment, my noble friend Lord Berkeley referred to the need for new investment in new services, yet he has just moved, as ably as he can, an amendment that would stifle any new investment in new services. Are we really going to create a tendered network zone in which, "““the authority shall propose a network of bus services encompassing commercial, tendered and deminimis local bus services””?" I took exception to the word ““deminimis””. My Latin is fairly sketchy and is based on my very short experience as an altar boy more than 50 years ago, so if we are to use words such as de minimis, they should be explained better for simple former bus and rail men such as me. This new clause does not appear to make any sense at all if the hope is that the industry in general will see an influx of new services in certain areas. It is a bureaucratic nightmare. I have two questions that I hope my noble friend will be able to answer when he speaks at the end of this debate. They relate to the amount of backing that would be needed to enforce such a tendered network zone. How many people would be involved and how much would it all cost? How many new services does he think would come about, particularly as a result of proposed subsection (2) in his amendment?