Legal Services Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 3: Page 1, line 9, at beginning insert ““subject to the objectives in paragraphs (a) to (c),”” The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 3 inserts the expression ““subject to the objectives in paragraphs (a) to (c)”” at the beginning of Clause 1(1)(d), so that it would read, "““subject to the objectives in paragraphs (a) to (c), promoting competition in the provision of services within subsection (2)””." Promoting competition is clearly a desirable objective. It is of particular importance in the Bill in regard to alternative business structures, to which we shall turn later on in Committee. However, our view is that the introduction of such structures, or indeed any other matters concerning competition, should not be capable of overriding the three principles expressed inClause 1(1)(a) to (c); that is, supporting the constitutional principle of the rule of law, improving access to justice, and protecting and promoting the interests of consumers. Only in the context of the achievement of those three objectives should the competition objective be given free rein. Quite apart from that point, I have two other issues on Clause 1(1)(d) I want to raise with the Minister. The first is that Clause 1(1)(d) refers to, "““the provision of services within subsection (2)””," which draws our attention to services that are provided by authorised persons. As a consequence of Clause 1(1)(d), will the OFT have responsibility—the responsibilities of the OFT are excluded from supervising services provided by authorised persons—or will the Legal Services Board and the OFT have co-responsibility for competition in this area? I am not sure of the position. I also ask the Minister about the expression ““promoting competition””. I suggest to her that it is not desirable for the LSB to have a role in actively promoting competition. I understand that the LSB ought to be alert to anti-competitive practices and have the power to act where it identifies them. That is quite different from the active promotion of competition, however. The market, the authorised persons who want to engage in certain activities, should be free to do so. Only if they engage in those practices in an anti-competitive way should the Legal Services Board be able to act. It should not in itself be able to take initiatives which seek to enhance competition. The Minister has not been given notice of that observation, and I understand if she wants to reserve her position at this juncture. We must at some stage, however, be clear about the relationship between the Legal Services Board and the competition powers in the Bill. I have said enough to give the Minister a basis upon which to respond, and I beg to move.