UK Parliament / Open data

Legal Services Bill [HL]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for explaining what lies behind this slightly, on the face of it, odd provision. It is a transitional arrangement written into the Bill, but of course there will be a price to be paid. I understand what she says about the rights and interests of those currently employed in the Law Society’s consumer complaints service, but they are taken care of in the law—the noble Baroness referred to TUPE. The main concern that this gives rise to is the perception that the Government are making less of a change than had been heralded by making such a remarkable provision in primary legislation to ensure that the location of the OLC does not lie in its hands for a number of years to come, and that it will be where it has been determined in the manner that the Minister described. However, she has elucidated the thinking, and it is a matter of judgment whether that perception vitiates the wider purpose of the Bill and the wider purpose of seeking to strengthen not only the appearance of independence, but also the actuality. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. [Amendments Nos. 116 and 117 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.] Schedule 15 agreed to. Clauses 112 to 117 agreed to. Clause 118 [Performance targets and monitoring]:

About this proceeding contribution

Reference

689 c1097 

Session

2006-07

Chamber / Committee

House of Lords chamber
Back to top