As a person who does not claim to be at all familiar with the law, the legal professions or legal services, I am a little puzzled by the need to distinguish the public interest and the interest of consumers. I do not intend to make heavy weather of that. I have listened carefully from the beginning to the arguments that have been advanced. As a consumer of legal services and many other things, I welcome the reference to the interest of the consumer in a Bill of this kind, while not remotely arguing that one interest should take preference over another.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said that the consumer interest may be best defined as people wanting to find the cheapest services that they can, which may not always be services of quality. That may be so in respect of certain consumers of certain services, but we should remember the phrase ““caveat emptor””—let the buyer beware. Certainly the cost of services, legal or otherwise, needs to be taken very seriously. So I shall listen carefully to the Minister’s arguments as to whether the amendment is appropriate and necessary.
I have no objection as a consumer to placing the interests of the public above that of consumers provided that the interests of the consumer are treated equally fairly and on the same line as the public interest. After all, we are at a stage and an age when the provision of legal services is always subject to very close scrutiny. Rightly, the legal profession, in its many forms, has its own monitoring and scrutiny arrangements. We shall come later to how those services can be better used to protect the interests of the public and the consumer.
I cannot see the Minister’s body language from the back, but I have listened carefully and I hope that we do not make very heavy weather of whether the interests of the consumer or the public are paramount. As a member of the public, I fully subscribe to all that has been said about the interests of the public but I hope that I have made as strong a case as I can that the interests of the consumer are entitled to be considered equally.
Legal Services Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Graham of Edmonton
(Labour)
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 c120 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_367927
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_367927
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_367927