I agree with everything that was said by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, and my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral. However, I have one reservation about Amendment No. 1, which relates to access to justice. Amendment No. 2 is preferred because, as was pointed out so clearly by my noble friend just now, the public interest qualifies the consumer interest. Having said that, the only justification for this Bill as amended is if it is in the public interest, which includes the interests of the client now referred to as the consumer.
The width of public interest, which comes within the remit of the board, is fantastic. Before it makes any of its administrative decisions—be they on directions, public censure, financial penalties, interventions, cancellations, designation, policy statements, practising fees, regulatory conflicts or, indeed, the licensing—it has to take into account the public interest. It is a very wide remit. The amendment is of crucial consequence because it stands as guardian over all the other amendments to the Bill. My noble friend Lady Butler-Sloss—she was once my learned friend—said on Second Reading that consumer interest, if contrary to the public interest, is subservient to it. That is recognised by the drafting of Amendment No. 2.
This is all very well, but there has been a fantastically wide delegation of powers to the board, which has been commented on by the Delegated Powers Committee. This raises the question of whether it should remain a matter of policy without some form of judicial supervision. It is a crucial consequence that the public should have confidence in the way that this proposed regime works. I suggest that they cannot have confidence in these circumstances, which are wholly exceptional, if there is no judicial control by way of judicial review.
There are two aspects of public interest touched upon by my noble friend Lord Hunt. The first is the interest of the client to have independent and quality advice, which is in the public interest, too. The second is the standing of our legal professional as seen by other countries in the world.
Legal Services Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Campbell of Alloway
(Conservative)
in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 9 January 2007.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Legal Services Bill [HL].
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
688 c118-9 Session
2006-07Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 12:06:41 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_367924
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_367924
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_367924