Legal Services Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 322: 322: Schedule 15 , page 212, line 16, leave out sub-paragraph (2) The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment No. 325 as well. Both amendments address the relationship between the Lord Chancellor and the Office for Legal Complaints. They were debated at some length on 21 February, as reported at columns 1088 to 1094 of Hansard. Your Lordships will be relieved to hear that I have no intention of rehearsing the arguments advanced at that time. I will simply summarise our submissions on the matter. Amendment No. 322 would take away from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor the power to alter the number of members of the Office for Legal Complaints. We do not agree with the Minister’s analysis in Committee when she said: "““The Secretary of State … is best placed to do that?.—[Official Report, 21 February 2007; col. 1090.]" This function should really be undertaken by the board. The Office for Legal Complaints is directly answerable to the board, not to the noble and learned Lord. The vote on Monday, protecting the independence of the board, adds a great deal of weight to my case. It should be an independent board that takes administrative decisions over the Office for Legal Complaints. I agree with the analysis in Committee of my noble and learned friend Lord Lyell of Markyate that the principle raised by Amendment No. 325, which relates to the removal of the chairman of the Office for Legal Complaints, is, if anything, the more fundamental of the two in this group. Both amendments would reduce the Lord Chancellor’s inappropriate influence over the Office for Legal Complaints in the Bill. As I indicated in Committee, if the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor were to disagree with the Legal Services Board on either the chairmanship or the number of members of the Office for Legal Complaints, it would be appropriate for him to take up the issue with the board, not to have the power to act on his own behalf. I beg to move. Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am concerned that the amendments stem from a worry that the Lord Chancellor would have undue influence over the Office for Legal Complaints and I genuinely do not believe that that is the case. The role of the Lord Chancellor in setting the size of the board or in consenting to the removal of the chairman of the OLC is non-interventionist. He will not change the size of the OLC of his own volition nor can he remove the chairman of the OLC. The OLC is a non-departmental body and as such is ultimately accountable to Parliament. It therefore must be right that the Lord Chancellor have the minimum of involvement in how the OLC is constituted. But when I say ““minimum?, I mean exactly that. The Lord Chancellor has no role in approving any of the rules that the OLC makes in setting out how complaints can be handled, with only one exception: the rules on case-handling fees. He certainly has no role in appointing ombudsmen to determine complaints or in handling individual complaints. Therefore, any concern that he would have undue influence over the OLC is not substantiated. I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.