We think it is for the regulator to determine in a particular set of circumstances which objective is weighed in the balance against which. If one was ranking the objectives, there are organisations that would wish to see consumer interest, for example, ranked as number one, but other organisations would rank other objectives first.
Our view is that, when faced with a particular proposition, one should look at the objectives in that context. Competition is important. Noble Lords may feel that it is less important generally but, in a particular set of circumstances, it might for particular reasons become extraordinarily important because of what it is providing for the consumer, public interest and so on. It is in the public interest to have competition. All we are really arguing about is who should deal with it. Our view is clear: it should not be for your Lordships’ House to determine the ranking. Points have been well made about the sets of circumstances the regulator needs to look at, how it should weight the objectives in the balance, and which are relevant, which are not and which should carry more weight. That is absolutely right and proper. It does not mean that I disagree with what the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, said.
Legal Services Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Baroness Ashton of Upholland
(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 c131 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_367950
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_367950
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_367950