Proceeding contribution from Lord Carter of Barnes (Labour) in the House of Lords on Monday, 27 April 2009. It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL) and Debate on bill on Postal Services Bill [HL].
Postal Services Bill [HL]
Securing the provision of the universal service is, as we have discussed on a number of amendments, at the heart of the Bill. Clause 37 provides for general universal service conditions and recognises that to secure the provision of the universal service it may not be sufficient to impose conditions solely on the universal service provider—if not now, then at some probably surprising date in the future—and that therefore other postal operators providing services within the scope of the universal service may also have to have conditions imposed on them. The purpose of subsection (5), which this amendment seeks to leave out, is to make clear that while the clause does specify that certain matters can be included in general universal service conditions, this does not mean that other matters cannot. It is, as the noble Lord rightly points out, to ensure that Ofcom has a degree of discretion—not a limitless discretion, but a degree of discretion—as the guardian of the universal postal service under this regime, thereby giving it the scope to do the task at the heart of the Bill, namely to secure the universal service. The amendment would remove that discretion from Ofcom. It would not in future be able to impose any other conditions even if it judged them to be necessary for the purpose of securing the universal service. Perhaps I may digress from my speaking notes to say that in telecommunications, for example, the regulator has a similar discretion albeit it is subject to the same restrictions of proportionality. We know and have discussed that the postal market is changing very quickly. In those circumstances, this restriction could in future threaten the universal service. I also remind your Lordships that for the imposition of any regulatory conditions there are strict tests that Ofcom is required to have met. It is not our view that this subsection either removes or in any way reduces the need for those strict tests to be met. I hope I have provided the noble Lord with reassurances that Ofcom already must meet tests before imposing regulations. To tie its hands now could put the universal service at risk in the future, or at worst slow it down in the process of reassessing the need for its provision. I would therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 710 c21-2
- Session
- 2008-09
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords chamber
- Subjects
- Compensation Consumers Appeals Disadvantaged Audit Costs Bank services Business Closures Competition Correspondence Borrowing Finance Fees and charges EU law Investment Private sector Low incomes Protection Public sector Post offices Prices Postal services Parcels Ofcom Postal Services Commission Post Office Standards Regulation Royal Mail Universal service obligation
- Legislation
- Postal Services Bill (HL) 2008-09
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-04-22 00:25:02 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_550349
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_550349
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_550349