Postal Services Bill

My Lords, before turning to Amendments 25C and 30 in the name of my noble friend Lady Wheatcroft, I would like briefly to outline the important provisions that they seek to amend. The objective of Schedule 9 is to ensure a smooth transition between the current and the new regime, and to provide as much certainty to the market as possible. It enables Ofcom to carry out certain functions, including work on developing the new regulatory regime, during the transitional period between Royal Assent and the date at which Ofcom takes full responsibility for postal regulation on the appointed day. During the transitional period, Ofcom must determine the initial regulatory conditions, which will apply to postal operators until they are modified—if at all—once the Act fully comes into force and we move from a licensing to a general authorisation regime. Amendment 25C seeks to add a requirement that Ofcom cannot impose any initial, "““conditions that could not have been imposed under Part 2 of the””," Postal Services Act 2000. I would like to reassure my noble friend Lady Wheatcroft that there is no need for such an amendment. The schedule already provides that initial conditions, "““must be to substantially the same effect as the current licence conditions””." There is no chance therefore of involving, say, motor cycle couriers. Given that existing licence conditions stem from the 2000 Act, they will of course need to be compatible with it. It is inconceivable that in practice something could be substantially to the same effect as the current licence conditions without being compatible with the 2000 Act. The schedule also provides that were Ofcom to modify an initial condition, it cannot do so in such a way that was not compliant with the 2000 Act. I hope that this provides my noble friend with reassurance and that she will feel able to withdraw Amendment 25C. Amendment 30, which concerns the Representation of the People Act 1983, would substitute the words ““postal operator”” for ““universal postal service provider”” with the intention of opening up to government the option of utilising any postal operator for the delivery of election material at public expense. My noble friends propose to make this amendment to Schedule 12, ““Minor and consequential amendments””. While we see that there could be merit in opening up this area to competition, the proposed amendment cannot, in the Government’s view, be considered a simple minor consequential amendment as it has significant wider policy implications for the management of elections. We would need to consider carefully all the implications and potential policy consequences before making any such change, and the timing of the Bill does not allow for that. I believe that this is an issue that requires further consideration, including discussion with other political parties, which I am sure will be of interest to the noble Lord, Lord Young. My officials have been liaising with their counterparts at the Cabinet Office, who have given an assurance that the matter is already on their radar for consideration and will be looked at as part of the wider work on the overall operation of elections following the referendum. While I have sympathy with the intention of the amendment, I hope that my noble friend will accept this reasoning and not move Amendment 30 at the appropriate time.