---

Postal Services Bill [HL]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, puts his case always with such reasonableness that it makes it so much harder to resist what he is saying—harder but not impossible, I am afraid, because, as he acknowledged, what can start off as speedy and cheap when you are creating new regulatory machinery can very easily become slow, costly and cumbersome. Noble Lords will recall that we have already considered appeals in Committee. Currently under the Bill, any decision by Ofcom other than a price-control decision is subject to judicial review. In our view, this represents an improvement on the current position under the Postal Services Act, where the grounds of appeal are limited because they are set out in the Act. As a result they do not benefit from recent developments in jurisprudence on judicial review. It is well established that a decision based on a material factual error can be challenged by means of a judicial review; for example, where a public authority has relied on something irrelevant or has disregarded something which was relevant to its own decision. As has also been said before, the High Court has the experience and is well versed in balancing all of the factors that Ofcom must consider before making regulatory decisions. It is the right tribunal to hear appeals on regulatory decisions. There is no need in our strong view to create an entirely new one. Where necessary, the High Court is able to hear cases very quickly on an expedited basis and, given the public importance of issues relating to the universal service, we would hope that such cases would indeed be heard quickly. Requiring more regulations to determine a new appeal body and new rules of procedure is simply unnecessary and would add to regulatory uncertainty. Furthermore, the significant additional cost and resource requirements associated with the establishment of such a body would be disproportionate when compared with Ofcom’s other sectors of responsibility. The sole exception to this general principle is decisions relating to price controls where the detailed, complex and specialised matters involved in such regulatory decisions make them less appropriate for judicial review. This is why we have provided for a specific appeal of such matters to the Competition Commission which is better placed to undertake the complex economic assessment required in such cases. I would also like to reassure the noble Lord that, before making any regulatory decisions, Ofcom must consult and consider every representation made. They will only impose regulatory conditions where necessary or appropriate to meet specific purposes. In the light of the explanation and assurances I have provide—and knowing that the noble Lord takes a practical and common-sense approach when it comes to seeing these matters in proportion and not wishing to create machinery that becomes surplus to requirements and certainly expensive at a time when we are all trying to watch the pennies as well as the pounds—I hope the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, will be able to consider withdrawing his amendment.