I am pleased that the noble Lord believes—reasonably, I am sure—that the legal profession is for the consumer, but it is important in these debates that we do not try to differentiate the roles. The point I was making was entirely linked to the statement that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, is the lone voice of the consumer. I do not deny that the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, passionately believes that his distrust of this part of the Bill is based on his desire to serve the consumer well. I was merely making the point that it is a pity if we find ourselves in this Committee trying to differentiate our roles in that way—and I think that it is a pity especially if it comes from the Liberal Democrat Benches. That is the point I was making.
I do not believe that the provision is a diminution of the legal profession—that is not the intention. This is about enabling the legal profession to go into partnership with bodies with which it may have a connection, and which are then able to support it by investment and working closely with it to provide better services. I agree with the noble Lord that if we fail to achieve that, this process will not have been satisfactory and the structures will not have delivered what is important.
I referred earlier to the Netherlands and the august figure of Neelie Kroes, the European Commissioner for Competition. She is a highly respected woman who serves the Commission well and is regarded as one of the best commissioners. It is not as if the Netherlands were going to encroach on our legal professions but the competition commissioner is interested in the work going on here. I hope that the noble Lord has the benefit of meeting her at some point, as I have had, and seeing the quality of the way in which she approaches her work.
I am not suggesting that the Legal Services Board should look around the country and invite people to come forward. I am suggesting that there may be cases—we can already think of circumstances in which that might happen—where people believe that they can provide services in conjunction with those from the non-legal world. The assumption that this must be anti-legal profession or anti-consumer worries me. Were anyone to seek that, we believe that the safeguards in the Bill—with the proviso I gave about looking again at them—will and should deal with that effectively. It is about better services for the professions and for consumers; it is overarchingly in the public interest.
Those who wished to enter into such arrangements would go to the licensing authorities and set out their reasons. The authorities would look at their circumstances in the context of the regulatory objectives and make a decision. We should not make assumptions about the detriment to the high street; we should not make the assumption that the high street always provides all the services that people want at the quality and price they want. We are looking for better opportunities but within the context of making sure that access to justice is preserved alongside the other objectives.
The noble Lord asked me, and I put my hand up, whether I go to a high street bank and whether I ever meet my bank manager. Yes I do. I have the phone number of my local bank and there is a person I can speak to. It is not because I am special but because that is how they do it. It is possible to have business structures which provide a highly individualised service. I accept that we have to ensure that that is the case. I also accept what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, who is no longer in his place, said in Committee and to me privately. He would worry if we lost the personal touch. I understand that and will think about it further. I do not accept that there will necessarily be cherry-picking, but I accept that we have to guard against it. That is partly in the Bill.
I have had many discussions with the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, who is no longer in your Lordships' House, and I know that he has been talking to a number of noble Lords. I wish he were here to talk about the Bill.
Legal Services Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Baroness Ashton of Upholland
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 23 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 c1082-3 Session
2006-07Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 11:20:59 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_372430
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_372430
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_372430