Clause 71
Legal Services Bill [Lords]
8:10 pm
Simon Hughes (Party President, Cross-Portfolio and Non-Portfolio Responsibilities; North Southwark and Bermondsey, Liberal Democrat)
I have not yet expressed a judgment about the issue. I have so far expressed the argument, which is why the issue is controversial, why it was controversial in the House of Lords and why there is a great deal of interest in it. The answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question, which is also the next logical issue to deal with, is that the arguments are pro-competition, an idea to which I am sympathetic.
The question is whether we allow entirely deregulated competition, which the Bill does not propose, or a form of regulated competition. With the Competition Commission and the Office of Fair Trading, we have a balanced position. Competition is permitted, but there is control, so that people do not acquire too much market share and exercise undue influence.
The issues that arise are how we go from the present position to that which the Bill would allow without threatening the destruction of the sort of services that many hon. Members on both sides of the House regularly complain about in a different context. Downstairs and in Committee, hon. Members bemoan the fact that there are not nearly as many sub-post offices or post offices as there were. In a competitive world, other people are coming in and providing alternatives, such as firms from the Netherlandsand elsewhere providing business deliveries, and organisations such as banks dealing with pensions.
There is competition, but that has not stopped people saying that there is a significant reduction in service for local communities, and it has resulted in many communities losing services. Post offices have gone and an alternative service that people might have liked has not replaced it. That is the debate. In this context, the debate is about how to manage transition, if that is the right way to go, so that good, high-quality outlets—in this case for legal services—are not destroyed in a way that allows a predator in the market not just to be competitive, but to be competitive in a way that destroys alternative valued local providers. That is the issue. The hon. Member for Bassetlaw’s amendment No. 22 addressed how we get from here to there, and that is a proper issue to address.