Before the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, replies—and I think that the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, also wishes to intervene—I may have unintentionally confused the noble Baroness. I am suggesting not that we should expunge Clauses 111 to 118 from the Bill, but that some of those clauses might need amending to conform with the principle that the noble Baroness has laid down—that the Office for Legal Complaints is, in effect, a creature of the Legal Services Board.
On Clause 115 in particular, I am not suggesting that we do not need the information that the annual report would contain laid before Parliament, as set out in that clause. I am, however, suggesting that that information ought to be contained in a report made not by the OLC but by the Legal Services Board. That is because Parliament may well take views on the annual reports of the Legal Services Board and of the OLC that are not consistent, which would create much confusion. I therefore suggest to the noble Baroness that we would be better to have a single report presented by the Legal Services Board incorporating what the OLC report would have said.
Legal Services Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Kingsland
(Conservative)
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 c1101 Session
2006-07Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 11:08:47 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_378848
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_378848
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_378848