Local Transport Bill [HL]

My Lords, I am not entirely surprised by my noble friend’s response because I am well aware of the hostility among bus operators to quality contracts. I have had letters from them which indicate hostility to the very idea of them. My noble friend said that he does not think that the amendment would be appropriate and that these matters would end up in the courts. He may be being unduly optimistic if he believes that the procedures outlined in this Bill will not end up as matters in the courts because it is clear that bus operators faced with decisions they do not like from the Approvals Board and the transport tribunal will pursue these issues as far as they can, including through the courts, to get a decision that they have more sympathy with. I appreciate the comment made by my noble friend Lord Berkeley vis-à-vis the situation in London, which is a similar arrangement to that being suggested in the amendment. Issues about levels of subsidy in London—the amount that local authorities may or may not wish to put into bus services—are in fact political decisions that have to be made by politicians; they are not decisions that should be made by bus operators. I have listened carefully to what my noble friend has said, and I do not profess to be shocked or surprised by his words. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. [Amendments Nos. 9 to 16 not moved.] Clause 19 [Notice and consultation requirements]: [Amendments Nos. 17 to 23 not moved.] Clause 20 [Approval of proposed scheme]: [Amendment No. 24 not moved.] Clause 21 [Approvals boards for England]: [Amendment No. 25 not moved.] Clause 22 [Practice and procedure of approvals boards for England]: [Amendment No. 26 not moved.] Clause 23 [Inquiries by approvals boards for England.] [Amendment No. 27 not moved.] Clause 24 [Appeals relating to applications for approval: areas in England]: