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Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 116 and 117 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]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]:
Legal Services Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Maclennan of Rogart
(Liberal Democrat)
in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 21 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 c1097 Session
2006-07Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 11:08:46 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_378841
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_378841
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_378841