Indeed, my Lords, but I like to give the noble Lord credit where credit is due for at least some denting.
I looked very carefully at these issues, because I hope that noble Lords accept that it is my wont, certainly in Committee, to listen very carefully to what is being said. The only issue that divides us on the amendment is whether we define in the Bill at this point how a charging regime might operate, or whether we leave that to the Office for Legal Complaints, which must do it in consultation with the approved regulators, with the consent of the Legal Services Board and of the Lord Chancellor and in line with the regulatory objectives.
The Government’s position is that the latter route is more appropriate in seeking to set out in the Bill how it would happen, not least because it allows for flexibility and it ensures that the charging system can change and adapt over time based on the sort of experience and good practice that noble Lords would wish to see the OLC consider. I know that noble Lords are worried and concerned about how the Office for Legal Complaints would exercise that flexibility, but I emphasise that the flexibility does not happen in an unconstrained way. In drawing up its rules, the Office for Legal Complaints must have regard to the regulatory objectives, including the public interest, and to the ombudsman scheme best practice, which is in Clause 113. It is also under a duty to consult on the content of the rules, which is in Clause 195.
The Legal Services Board will have to give its consent to the rules under Clause 152 and, in doing so, must have regard to the regulatory objectives we have debated at length. The consent of the Lord Chancellor is required under Clause 152 and, taken together, we expect the oversight of both the Legal Services Board and the Lord Chancellor to be an important check, if needed, on how the Office for Legal Complaints drafts the rules to ensure that they are fair and proportionate.
I could add that the Office for Legal Complaints and, indeed, the Legal Services Board are responsible to Parliament for the operation of the scheme, including the system of case fees. They will have to produce the annual report and, if need be, appear before—
Legal Services Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Baroness Ashton of Upholland
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 8 May 2007.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Legal Services Bill [HL].
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
691 c1281 Session
2006-07Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 12:25:36 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_395004
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_395004
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_395004