Schedule
15
The
Office for Legal
Complaints
Mr.
Bellingham:
I beg to move amendment No. 300, in
schedule 15, page 222, line 35, leave
out sub-paragraph
(2).
Schedule 15
details the arrangements for setting up the Office for Legal
Complaints, and deals first with membership. It
states:
“The
OLC is to consist of the following members...a chairman appointed
by the Board with the approval of the Lord Chancellor, and...at
least 6, but not more than 8, other persons appointed by the Board
after consultation with the
chairman.”
Paragraph
1(2)
states:
“The
Lord Chancellor may by order amend sub-paragraph (1) by substituting,
for the limit on the maximum number of persons for the time being
specified in paragraph (b) of that sub-paragraph, a different
limit.”
The
amendment would remove the provision that enables the Secretary of
State to alter the number of members of the OLC. Why should the
Secretary of State have any role in fixing that number? Such a
provision might have made sense as an emergency power over the LSB but,
plainly, it is totally unnecessary here.
The LSB is in charge of the OLC; the OLC is responsible to it. It does
not make any sense to have the Secretary of State in the chain of
command. The amendment would simply delete paragraph
1(2).
Bridget
Prentice:
The amendment is similar to one that was tabled
twice in the other place. It would completely remove the power to
change the maximum size of the OLC by order. There seems to be a fear
that the Lord Chancellor would have undue influence over the OLC by
setting the size of the membership. I do not believe that to be the
case, or that the amendment is
necessary.
The
OLC is a non-departmental public body and as such is ultimately
accountable to Parliament. It must therefore be right for the Lord
Chancellor to have a minimum involvement—I deliberately used the
words “minimum involvement”—in how the body is
constituted. The Lord Chancellor does not have a role in approving the
OLC’s rules, such as those about how claims will be handled,
apart from the rule on case handling fees. He will also not have a role
in handling individual complaints. I do not see that the fears about
the Lord Chancellor having undue influence are substantiated.
I hope that hon. Members will
appreciate, even if the amendment does not, that there is a need for a
mechanism by which to change the size of the OLC membership. Such a
mechanism is important because it will allow the OLC to adapt to
changing demands, for example, by increasing its expertise and
knowledge. It was suggested in the other place that such action could
be taken if the matter was left to the LSB; I do not
agree.
The OLC is a
non-departmental public body—I shall not call it an NDPB because
I am worried about the number of abbreviations that I am using, and
concerned that I might be beginning to speak a different language
altogether. A non-departmental public body is described in
“Public Bodies: A Guide for Departments” as
a
“body which has a role
in the processes of national government, but is not a government
department, or part of one, and which accordingly operates to a greater
or lesser extent at arm’s length from ministers...The
distance of NDPBs from government means that the day-to-day decisions
they make are independent as they are removed from ministers and Civil
Servants. Ministers are however ultimately responsible to Parliament
for a NDPB’s independence, its effectiveness and
efficiency”.
As the Lord
Chancellor will ultimately be responsible to Parliament for the Office
for Legal Complaints, he, not the board, should have a role in changing
its size. In practice, he will not make that decision without the board
giving its views; that is obvious because the board will have to make
the
appointments.
3
pm
Even
if the Lord Chancellor wanted to be mischievous and to create a board
twice the size of the one that is presently constituted without telling
the Legal Services Board, he could not do it, because the board is
under no obligation to make those additional appointments. For those
reasons, it cannot just be left to the Legal Services Board. The hon.
Gentleman and his noble Friends should have more faith in the Lord
Chancellor and how he exercises his role. On that understanding, I ask
the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the
amendment.
Mr.
Bellingham:
We do not have a great deal of faith in this
Lord Chancellor and I suspect that he will not be around for much
longer as things stand. But it isnot for us to speculate on
that matter in this Committee.
Conservative
Members, especially under our new leadership, believe in smaller
Government, and we do not believe in Ministers having so much power. On
the other hand, our leader has told us not to be confrontational, so I
will be Cameron-compliant on both counts. I beg to ask leave to
withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn.
Amendments
made: No. 42, in schedule 15, page 224, line 29, at end
insert—
‘The terms
of appointment of the chairman or any other member may provide for the
Board to pay, or make payments towards the provision of, a pension,
allowance or gratuity to or in respect of that person. If the Board
thinks there are circumstances that make it right for a person ceasing
to hold office as chairman or another member to receive compensation,
the OLC may pay that person such compensation as the Board may
determine.’.
No.
43, in
schedule 15, page 224, line 42, at
end insert—
‘The
OLC may pay compensation for loss of employment to or in respect of an
ombudsman (or former ombudsman), or a member (or former member) of
staff appointed under paragraph
11.’.—[Bridget
Prentice.]
Simon
Hughes:
I beg to move amendment No. 227, in
schedule 15, page 226, line 15, leave
out paragraphs 21 and
22.
This is another
straightforward amendment to delete a two-part restriction on the
powers of the Office for Legal Complaints, which effectively says that
it cannot have any dealings with land in that respect. Life should be
simple whenever possible, and I see no justification for the proposal.
It is entirely reasonable that if a body is being set up it should be
given the power to do what it needs to do; even though one cannot
envisage the circumstances, such a power might be needed in the future.
I am intrigued to know why the Minister thinks we need to tie the hands
of the new body so that it cannot do something for five years. It is
likely that three and a half years down the track, it will discover
that it needs to do something and amending legislation will be
necessary to put that right. Would it not be better to take out the
appropriate paragraphs, as the amendment
suggests?
Bridget
Prentice:
The amendment would remove the requirement on
the OLC to obtain the Lord Chancellor’s consent in the
acquisition or disposal of any interest in land during the first five
years and the provision that it cannot borrow money except with the
general authorisation of the board and the consent of the Lord
Chancellor.
I am
resisting the amendment because the location of the OLC is important;
it has implications for the successful establishment of the ombudsman
scheme and for the staff working within the present framework. In
recognition of that, on 26 June last year, I made a written ministerial
statement to the House explaining that the Government’s
preferred location for the OLC is the west midlands.
That statement
also made it clear that Leamington Spa would not be considered. That
was to ensure that the OLC will be seen to be a new organisation,
independent of the existing framework, and that it will be able to take
advantage of a larger local labour market and the benefits associated
with moving to a new site. The business case for the west midlands was
extraordinarily strong—far stronger than that for any of the
other four locations that we considered. It was built on the
availability of suitable skills and experience, value for money,
commitment to the principles of the Transfer of Undertakings
(Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981, and the enforced
presumption against locations in London and the south-east following
the Lyons review.
Schedule 15(21) deals with the
acquisition and disposal of land, and its intention is to ensure, in
legislation, that the OLC is bound by the Government’s
announcement. In light of the strong business case on which that
announcement was based, it is appropriate and necessary. However, I
recognise what the hon. Gentleman says about changing circumstances and
the requirement on the OLC to seek authorisation from the Lord
Chancellor that is imposed by paragraph 21, which is a sunset
clause.
On
the conditions placed on the borrowing powers of the OLC, paragraph 22
provides that any borrowing must be subject to safeguards. It must have
the consent or general authorisation of the board, and the board must
have the consent of the Lord Chancellor. Amendment No. 227 would remove
that requirement. Removing those appropriate precautions would mean
that, should the OLC face exceptional circumstances that require it to
borrow money, it would be able to do so without first requiring the
express consent of the board and the Lord Chancellor. We expect the
levy to be the OLC’s principal source of funding. Consequently,
we do not expect the OLC to exercise its borrowing powers often if at
all. However, unforeseen circumstances could arise in which borrowing
is the most appropriate way to deal with an issue. It is entirely
sensible, therefore, to provide for the OLC to borrow money. It is
equally sensible and necessary to comply with Government accounting
regulations dealing with borrowing by public bodies to ensure that any
borrowing that is done is subject to the appropriate safeguards. In the
case of the OLC, it is clear that that should be provided through the
oversight and control of both the board and the Lord Chancellor. For
those reasons, I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the
amendment.
Simon
Hughes:
I am grateful for the Minister’s reply and
I understand it. I shall not seek to divide the Committee. However, I
shall be grateful for just one more bit of information along the lines
of those that the Minister has volunteered.
All Committee members know that
there was a debate about where the new office for dealing with legal
complaints would be. I accept that there was a proper assessment and
that the best business case was that for the west midlands. However,
the Minister knows what the political issue is. It is that part of the
complaints system for solicitors has for some while been in Leamington
Spa. It has changed its name, title and organisation, but effectively
it is still the same sort of organisation in the same place. There is a
concern about whether this is a fresh start or a continuation of
the old system and not just a rebranding or a repackaging that comes
afresh.
Do I assume,
as I have always assumed from what the Minister says, that the TUPE
rules will apply, and that all the people currently working at
Leamington Spa will be subject to the obligations of the new
organisation to seek to employ them, and transfer them? If that is the
case, can the Minister remind us how many people currently work for the
organisation in Leamington Spa dealing with solicitors’
complaints and how the Minister and the Government hope that there can
be a fresh start? It is going to be in the same region, although not in
the same town—a matter of 20 or 30 miles away—but will be
perceived as being a continuation of the same organisation, just around
the corner, up the road. I would be grateful for facts and numbers,
confirmation about TUPE, and the Minister’s intention for a new
start from what is a continuation, as a result of us passing the Bill
later this
year.
Bridget
Prentice:
I shall take those three things in reverse
order. First, although I have said it before in a written ministerial
statement to all stakeholders, I make it absolutely clear that, under
no circumstances, is this exercise to be a rebadging of Leamington Spa.
If that were to be the case, it would greatly undermine some of the
thrusts of the Bill. I want to make that absolutely
clear.
Secondly, the
hon. Gentleman, who, like me, represents a London constituency, may not
have the best knowledge of the transport links in the west midlands. I
am told by some of my colleagues that although the new site might not
seem that far away from Leamington Spa, it is not necessarily the most
straightforward area, geographically, in which to get from one place to
another. I shall have to leave it to others to be more precise about
that.
I hope that the
hon. Gentleman will agree that it is only right that we use TUPE. It is
good employer practice and, although we are not the employers, we want
the future employers to uphold good employment practice. That is why I
said earlier that despite the fact that we are not obliged to do so, we
would use TUPE to deal with the matter.
Thirdly, I should say that the
OLC will be different in that it will have its own chief executive and
a new board. That will make a big difference, so there is no way that
there will be just a straight transfer of staff. In terms of numbers,
my understanding is that in Leamington, there are about 300 members of
staff. We envisage, according to the last figures that I have received,
that up to 80 per cent. of staff will transfer. Some will take early
retirement, some will do other jobs and some will decide that they have
had enough of dealing with complaints about solicitors. Those are
decisions that individuals and their families will have to make. I want
to ensure that in the transitional period, we deal sensitively with all
the people involved, because it is a time, or for some an opportunity,
to think about what they want to do in terms of their careers. We must
be responsible about giving them the support to do that properly, and
we must be sensitive about people’s needs in that area. That is
why we are trying to do this in this fashion, and I hope that that
satisfies the hon. Gentleman.
3.15
pm
Simon
Hughes:
I am grateful for the Minister’s
confirmation about the answers. I entirely understand and agree with
her points about the need to ensure that both the attitude of
Government Ministers and parliamentarians is sensitive to the
individual circumstances of all those who work there. They obviously
argued that they should be allowed to continue, but that was rejected.
I have argued a similar
view
We need to have
an end and a new start. It would help to have confirmation that,
although it is not obligatory, two people should apply. It seems
sensible. A move of location is clearly one way to indicate a new
start. Things need to be done differently, even if with some of the
same staff. Although I am not an expert, my recollection of the old
geography—in old money, as it were—is that Leamington Spa
and Coventry were both in Warwickshire. So far as I know, they still
are. The minds of the people therefore cannot be far away, although I
remember from bitter experience that, as we all know, traffic jams
happen just as much in that part of the world as elsewhere. I beg to
ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave,
withdrawn.
Schedule
15, as amended, agreed
to.
Clauses 115
to 120 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
| 
