I support my noble friend’s amendment. I invite the noble Baroness to explain fully—as she always does—government thinking on this important matter and to consider teasing out a little further between now and Third Reading whether we have this right. The idea of alternative business structures coming in could well be beneficial. The liberalisation of the conveyancing market some years ago was generally beneficial and did not—at least it was not my impression—cut down access to other forms of justice and services; in fact the whole market became a good deal more liberalised.
On the other hand, there is a genuine risk here that large businesses coming in looking for volume may cream off some of the more standard work and consequently remove the legitimate earning power of those who provide a wider service. The amendment concerns that aspect. I have racked my brains to provide a specific example; I do not think that we are in specific-example country here. It is a question of whether there will be enough small to medium-sized genuine firms of solicitors providing a good general service to those who literally need access to justice, as opposed to needing the more mass-produced services that can be provided. I much look forward to hearing what the noble Baroness has to say.
Legal Services Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Lyell of Markyate
(Conservative)
in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 6 February 2007.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Legal Services Bill [HL].
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
689 c628 Session
2006-07Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 12:04:11 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_376492
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_376492
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_376492