Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-03-15-Speech-3-377"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060315.27.3-377"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
".
Mr President, I am totally in agreement with Mrs Wallis’s conclusion. Let us look for the best and do it together. That is the only way we can face all the clients and potential clients of those professionals that we are talking about.
I should like to re-emphasise some key messages about our aspirations in this area. Our initiative is about better regulation. What does that mean? It means a regulation that is balanced and no more restrictive than is strictly necessary. We want to promote, not hinder, access to justice. That is what really makes sense. Opening the way to greater competition in that sector will do just that; it will result in the emergence of new and innovative types of services. That is surely a great advantage. It will benefit all by releasing the potential of the sector in terms of growth, in terms of jobs, as well as providing better-quality services and more choice for consumers.
I should like to make a more detailed comment on the crucial question of price fixing, which has been put on the table as the main issue this evening. Generally, I do not see how wide-scale price fixing, even for in-court work, can be objectively justified for all consumers and business users. There may be certain limited circumstances in which price regulation is justified: for example, where there is a need to provide special protection for certain disadvantaged groups, including the lower paid. That may require very limited and carefully targeted price regulation. More generally though, consumers and business users are likely to be better off with a number of offers from different service providers to compare and to choose from.
In systems where legal costs are borne by the defeated party, I can, however, see some merit in having a guide for judges when they need to decide on costs. I am not saying that removing price regulation or that lower levels of regulation will automatically lead to lower prices, more choice for consumers or the creation of new jobs.
As to the removal of price regulation in the UK leading to high legal costs, I am not aware of any evidence to show that price deregulation in the UK has meant problems for UK citizens in accessing legal advice and representation, or that UK legal fees have escalated disproportionately as a result. In fact the Law Society in the UK noted in 1999 that introducing greater competition into the area of conveyancing of property transfer led to price falls of up to 24% in the 1990s and opened the way for consumers to shop around to get the best deal. In the country I know best, research in 2002 found that the introduction of competition in conveyancing resulted in fees falling.
Finally, a word on quality. We all want European consumers to have access to quality legal services. That is essential if access to justice for all is to be a reality. But I do not think fixed prices are always essential for this. I am not aware of any evidence to suggest that removing fixed tariffs has led to a deterioration in the quality of legal services in Member States where this has happened, though quality has a price. A fixed price does not in itself guarantee quality. The motto I will take over from Mrs Wallis is: ‘let us look for the best and do it together’."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples