Legal Services Bill [HL]

I am grateful to the Minister for her reply, but I confess that I am not wholly satisfied that she has addressed the point with sufficient force to convince me that this series of amendments is misdirected. She seems to recognise that, in the relationship between the OLC and the board, there ought to be some capability to intervene if the OLC is systemically not delivering what it is expected to do. Yet, in order to ensure that that is possible, the Minister is relying on a quite limited power in Clause 153, which allows the board to, "““direct the OLC to … modify its scheme rules””," or to, "““make a specified modification to its scheme rules””." However, the fault that gives rise to concern may have nothing to do with the scheme rules. It may be an operational matter not directly related to them, so an amendment to the framework within which the OLC operates might actually be futile. Under Clauses 111 to 118, it is clear that the Office for Legal Complaints has wide powers that are not necessarily contained within the scheme rules. These powers are set out most widely in Clause 116, which allows the OLC to, "““do anything calculated””—" it does not state whether it is a subjective or objective calculation— "““to facilitate, or incidental or conducive to, the carrying out of any of its functions””." If I were satisfied that the Bill provided for interventions of the kind that I have suggested could be necessary to rectify the continuing dissatisfaction felt and perceived by the board with the performance of the OLC, I would be greatly reassured and would consider again whether these amendments are apposite. But the Minister relied simply on one clause, which by no means covers the situation.