Legal Services Bill [HL]

I was not going to intervene on this amendment but was saving my fire for the next group. I will forgo that plan and say what I wanted to say now. This group of amendments—this run of amendments—seems quite dangerous. I declare an interest as chair of the National Consumer Council. By raising the threshold of potential intervention, we are taking away from the Legal Services Board its judgment on how serious the need for intervention might be. In speaking to this group of amendments, Members of the Committee have talked about explicitly raising the threshold, and the noble and learned Baroness has just talked about a situation where the public interest might overrule the consumer interest. That is a matter of judgment for the board. In the next group of amendments it is a matter of judgment for the board to decide whether something is ““significant”” or important and whether the word ““significant”” adds anything to that process. I am deeply suspicious of these amendments because they undermine the board’s ability to intervene. I remind the Committee that one reason for the Bill is that the very body which will now be an approved regulator has thoroughly failed to protect consumer interests for many years; namely, the Law Society. It is therefore important that the intervention of the Legal Services Board is subject to its judgment and not to undue restraint in the Bill.