I intrude in the debate a little tardily but feel it is important to indicate to the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, in particular that he will not stand alone in putting forward his amendment. It was not intended entirely as a probing amendment at this stage.
It is fair to point out that competition is normally advantageous to the consumer, which makes it appropriate as an objective for the regulatory provisions of the Bill, but it is not necessarily universally so, and it is possible that the body would have to pick and choose between different regulatory objectives in reaching a decision, even in the interests of the consumer. It would be possible to lose sight of the consumer in promoting competition. It would be theoretically—indeed, more than theoretically—possible to promote competitive behaviour in order to benefit the providers of the services. It is clear that if it came to an evaluation of which criteria and objectives should be given weight in the event of a conflict between the regulatory objectives of promoting access to justice and promoting competition, then the promotion of access to justice would clearly appropriately be given priority. I see no harm in spelling that out in the Bill.
Legal Services Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Maclennan of Rogart
(Liberal Democrat)
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 c130-1 Session
2006-07Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 12:40:09 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_367949
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_367949
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_367949