Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Tunnicliffe (Labour) in the House of Lords on Monday, 11 May 2009. It occurred during Debate on bill on Postal Services Bill [HL].


Postal Services Bill [HL]

My Lords, Amendments 64, 65 and 66 seek to replace the word "may" with "must" in three parts of Clause 46, which deals with provisions under consumer protection conditions. I understand that the intention of Amendment 64 is to require Ofcom, if it sets any form of consumer protection condition, to ensure that the associated postal operator is a member of an approved redress scheme. Amendment 65 would require Ofcom, again if it sets any form of consumer protection conditions, to ensure that the associated postal operator provides information to Ofcom on the levels of compliance with complaints-handling standards and to publish information on the number of complaints made and the way in which the complaints were dealt with. Amendment 66 would require Ofcom to set out the time and manner of publication of such information. A redress scheme and appropriate complaints-handling procedures, including publication requirements, are an important element of regulation in the context of a universal service. Indeed—this is most important—the postal services directive requires us to ensure that the universal service provider and, where appropriate, undertakings providing services within the scope of the universal service publish information on the number of complaints they have received and the manner in which they have been dealt with. However, these amendments risk placing excessive regulatory burdens on postal operators, especially those operating in the competitive areas of the mail market. Most operators say that they already have appropriate customer-complaints procedures in place and that if they did not, their customers would go elsewhere. As currently drafted, before Ofcom can require a postal operator to be a member of an approved redress scheme or to provide and publish information on complaints handling, the Bill states—this is important—that such requirements need to be proportionate and objectively justified. The Bill provides the necessary protection for consumers and allows us properly to implement our obligations under the postal services directive, while at the same time allowing Ofcom the appropriate level of flexibility to ensure that the sector is not overregulated. I would therefore invite the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Belmont, to withdraw his amendments.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
710 c908-9 
Session
2008-09
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Consumers Companies Directors Annual reports Finance Government shareholding Protection Pensions Post offices Prices Postal services Ofcom Post Office Regulation Taxation Royal Mail Reorganisation Universal service obligation Shared ownership schemes TNT Employee ownership
Legislation
Postal Services Bill (HL) 2008-09
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk