HL Deb 18 October 2001 vol 627 cc749-50

5.53 p.m.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 19th July be approved [5th Report from the Joint Committee].

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this order can fairly be described as a small technical measure. It amends the principal order in the manner promised when we debated the order last March.

Noble Lords will recall that the principal order specifies the way to determine turnover for the purposes of calculating the maximum penalty that the regulator—the Postal Services Commission, or PostComm as it is now generally known—can impose in the event of a licensee breaching his licence conditions. The general principle of setting a limit on the maximum penalty has been widely accepted by your Lordships' House, and indeed the provisions were introduced following representations made during the debates on what is now the Postal Services Act.

Unfortunately, as I acknowledged when we debated the principal order on 21st March, there was a small glitch in the order. Generally, the turnover by reference to which the maximum penalty is calculated is based on a licensee's annual turnover in the licensed area. However, for breaches lasting more than 12 months we had provided for the turnover in question to be based on twice that annual turnover where the breach continues for a period of more than one year but fewer than two years. In a case where the breach continues for a period of more than two years, we had provided for the turnover in question to be based on three times the annual turnover. But we made no special provision for a breach of exactly two years, so the maximum penalty would be based on only the annual turnover. I admitted that that was not intended.

The amendment order removes the anomaly, by including, in circumstances where turnover is based on twice the annual turnover, cases where breaches last exactly two years, as well as the period of more than one year but fewer than two years. There will therefore be a steady escalation of the maximum penalty. I trust that noble Lords will consider that to be perfectly fair.

I commend the order to the House.

Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 19th July be approved [5th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Sainsbury of Turville.)

Lord Rotherwick

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. The Minister said that the Government would correct this error as soon as was convenient. My only comment is that this is yet another instance of the Government legislating in haste and having to amend at leisure. It has taken seven months. We do not oppose the making of this amendment order.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville

My Lords, I am very grateful for that comment. As this order cannot have any effect until two years after the passing of the original Act, it was felt that it was not an issue of the greatest moment.

On Question, Motion agreed to.