Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Kingsland (Conservative) in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 6 March 2007. It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL) and Debate on bill on Legal Services Bill [HL].


Legal Services Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 157A: 157A: Schedule 22, page 300, line 29, leave out paragraph 4 The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 157A would remove the transitional provision that allows the Lord Chancellor to appoint an interim chief executive of the Office for Legal Complaints. The Bill sets out a sequential and ordered process for the appointment of the chair, members and chief executive of the Legal Services Board. They will in turn determine the composition of the Office for Legal Complaints and the appointment of its chair. As this process has been prescribed, we would argue against the need for the inclusion of an interim chief executive, as provided for in Schedule 22. The structure, processes and service standards of the Office for Legal Complaints should be for the first chief ombudsman to determine with assistance from other members. We cannot see any benefit in appointing an interim chief executive in the short time that it should take between the formation of the Legal Services Board and its appointment of the Office for Legal Complaints’ members—which should certainly be one of the first tasks that it undertakes. The fear must be that the establishment of an interim chief executive would give the Legal Services Board the unwelcome opportunity to delay its appointment of the members of the Office for Legal Complaints. This is a possibility that we do not wish to facilitate. Furthermore, if there must be an interim chief executive, we would question whether it is appropriate for the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to make that appointment. There is no mention of any consultation he must make or approval he must seek, which must again raise questions over the independence of the Office for Legal Complaints. If the noble Baroness is keen to press for an interim chief executive, we would certainly seek some assurance over the appointment process. Would there be open competition for the position? How would that be ensured? Would the noble and learned Lord be required to consult at all? I beg to move.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
690 c214 
Session
2006-07
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Complaints Disciplinary proceedings Disclosure of information Charities Companies Conveyancing Costs Business Legal profession Finance Fees and charges Licensing Immigration Exemptions Law Society Payments Public bodies Patents Small businesses Regulation Rural areas Solicitors Trade marks General Council of the Bar Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal Legal Services Board Office for Legal Complaints
Legislation
Legal Services Bill (HL) 2006-07
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk