---

Postal Services Bill [HL]

My Lords, Amendment 67 follows on directly from amendments tabled in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, and myself, seeking in some way to impose a wider right of appeal against the decisions of Ofcom. In Committee the Minister persuaded me as to the problems that would result from lifting the precedent of the Communications Act straight into this Bill. But I remain hopeful that these problems are not insurmountable. It cannot be beyond the wit of the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform to establish a speedy, cheap and appropriately qualified system of appeal. The amendment is lifted directly from previous legislation and leaves the details of such a scheme almost entirely up to secondary legislation, allowing it to be specifically targeted to the needs of the postal services sector and to be modified easily in the future if problems were to arise. The Minister persuaded me in Committee against the CAT model, but he has not persuaded me against the need for a method of appeal that does not rely on judicial review. I continue to be surprised by the way in which some elements in government feel that judicial review is an appropriate remedy. I recall being "judicially reviewed" unsuccessfully on many occasions, but the one thing of which I became aware as a Minister is that judicial review is highly restricted in the area that it can look at. Their Lordships—well, certainly with me, but not with some of my colleagues—were not disposed to try to second-guess Ministers. So judicial review for someone who feels that they have a right of appeal is not really a useful remedy. It can be useful where a Minister has acted unreasonably or irresponsibly, but in the context of this Bill, there is a need for something a little wider. I remember debates on other Bills where similar amendments have been vociferously resisted by the Government because of the possibility that they would increase the number of cases being sent to an expensive, slow and already overburdened system of review. I happen to believe that the fewer the cases that end up in judicial review, the better. I also do not feel that the requirements on Ofcom to consult and so on before imposing conditions are a replacement for appeal. The very point of an appeal, in particular the kind of appeal to which I am referring, is the need for an objective opinion. If one is being reasonable, I do not think one could decide that Ofcom could be objective about its own decisions. I hope that the Secretary of State has had an opportunity to think about this and is minded to try to find some way of meeting this point, which has been echoed on all sides of the House in previous debates and certainly finds a ready echo outside the House and in the other place. I therefore look forward to hearing what I hope will be a more favourable response to the amendment. I beg to move.