---

Legal Services Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 252: 252: Clause 81 , page 47, line 25, at end insert— ““( ) appropriate provision requiring the licensing authority to consider the likely impact of a proposed application on access to justice when determining the application,? The noble Lord said: My Lords, we had a good debate on this amendment in Committee. Since then we have given the matter further thought and tabled Amendments Nos. 253 and 254 in addition to Amendment No. 252. All these amendments would require that the impact on access to justice is fully considered when decisions on licensing prospective alternative business structures are taken. For all the benefits of the new regime, the Government cannot hide from the fact that there are clear risks that external ownership of law firms by bodies such as supermarkets or insurance companies could harm access to justice. It is evident that some of the less attractive legal services could get left behind and, as the Joint Committee noted, the new rules could well reduce the geographical availability of legal services. It is essential that the potential impact on access to justice, particularly in rural areas, is taken into account before any licensing decisions which could do permanent damage are taken. That point is worthy of development, but I do not need to do so on this occasion because your Lordships had the benefit of the trenchant and forthright views of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, on these dangers, which were expressed, too, in the debate that flowed from his introduction. I have already thanked the noble Baroness for tabling her Amendment No. 248, but she will have concluded from what I said that we do not believe that the Government’s amendment to require licensing authorities to prepare statements of policy is sufficient. It fails to point authorities explicitly to the particular risks to access to justice posed by alternative business structures. I recall that, in Committee, the noble Baroness was concerned that, "““there may be unintended problems if we say access to justice is the overarching objective?.—[Official Report, 6/2/07; col. 634.]" However, Amendment No. 252 does not intend to create such an overarching objective. It is merely intended to ensure that the licensing authorities consider the possible effect of access to justice and give the issue full weight when determining applications. It would be desirable for licensing rules to contain provisions requiring consideration of the impact of access to justice on a continuing basis; that is to say, in renewal decisions as well. We on these Benches still prefer our original amendment in Committee, which is now Amendment No. 252, but our new wording in Amendments Nos. 253 and 254 is designed to allay the Government’s fears that the change might require access to justice considerations automatically to trump all other regulatory objectives. These amendments also highlight that the particular concern is for comparatively disadvantaged consumers, whose circumstances require particular protection. These amendments are absolutely essential to ensure that Part 5 of the Bill will operate in the public interest. I beg to move.