---

Legal Services Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 139A: 139A: Clause 155 , page 80, line 26, leave out ““offices”” and insert ““office”” The noble Lord said: I must apologise to the House for not being here earlier in the Committee’s deliberations to deal with Amendment No. 118D. I know that my noble friend Lord Maclennan of Rogart dealt with it, and I shall read the Minister’s response with considerable interest. The amendment arises out of the fact that the Government have failed to replace the position of the Legal Services Complaints Commissioner and of the Legal Services Ombudsman. That is what Clause 155 is all about; it abolishes those two positions, which are currently held by one person. The Legal Services Complaints Commissioner dealt with service complaints, but in her other capacity as the Legal Services Ombudsman she dealt with disciplinary complaints. Those were the two hats that she wore as a person completely independent of the regulatory bodies, the Law Society and the Bar Council in their various functions. It is our view that it is entirely misconceived to remove independent review of the Office for Legal Complaints altogether. It was for that reason that we proposed Amendment No. 118D to give the Legal Services Board the power to make intervention directions in relation to the Office for Legal Complaints. In that instance we were concerned that, with service complaints, the Legal Services Board itself would act as the independent reviewer. It would be able to deal with the Office for Legal Complaints if it was failing in that regard. When it comes to disciplinary matters, we feel that it is necessary for the position of the Legal Services Ombudsman to remain. The purpose of the amendments in this group is to retain the position and functions of the Legal Services Ombudsman, but, because the new Bill already has an ombudsman working as the chief functionary of the Office for Legal Complaints, it is necessary to rename that individual. Consequently, we suggest that the Legal Services Ombudsman—the independent reviewer—should be called the independent reviewer of legal services complaints. Currently, the power of the Legal Services Ombudsman to review the handling of all cases dealt with by the professional bodies, including those that concern allegations of serious misconduct, should remain. We think there is considerable danger in the Government’s proposal to remove that external and independent appeal body without the Office for Legal Complaints first proving itself to be an efficient and effective complaints body. We hope that in due course the OLC will be efficient and effective. However, I have in previous Committee sittings made quite clear my view of the proposed Office for Legal Complaints being set up on the corpse of the failed Law Society complaints body. I do not propose to go further at this stage. I look forward to hearing why the Government think it necessary to remove independent review of the Office for Legal Complaints, even in its earliest stages. I suggest that the amendment should be accepted. I beg to move.