UK Parliament / Open data

Legal Services Bill [Lords]

Proceeding contribution from Vera Baird (Labour) in the House of Commons on Monday, 4 June 2007. It occurred during Debate on bills on Legal Services Bill [Lords].
Caution is the Government’s watchword, and we will proceed with monitoring as we go along, but silly research that is intended to support a wrecking amendment will not be tolerated; the Bill will make progress at the appropriate rate. Let me turn to the issue of trade unions. My noble Friend the Lord Chancellor has made it clear that we in no way intend the Bill to regulate lay trade union representation in the workplace, whether full time or part time. Nor do we intend it to put additional burdens on unions that provide legal advice to their members. However, contrary to what was suggested, that does not mean that union members will have no protection, for a number of reasons. First, any reserved legal activities that a union undertakes will have to be carried out by lawyers and will be subject to regulation. We are talking about not regulating the union as an entity, rather than not regulating the lawyers who work within it. In addition, the exemption applies only where the union is providing legal services deriving from its membership. If the union wanted to provide legal services to the public at large, it would have to be regulated as an entity and would have to get an ABS licence. The Royal Automobile Club, the Automobile Association or any other members’ organisation would be in the same position; as long as it provided services only for its own members, and as long as its membership was not so wide that it amounted to a section of the public under clause 15(6), it, too, would not have to be regulated. It is common for members of unions to be referred to outside firms with which the union has arrangements, but where trade unionists have a complaint about the way in which they have been represented, they can of course go to the certification officer, if there is a breach of the rulebook; that remedy is not available to somebody who is being represented by a citizens advice bureau. The issue of not delegating complaints-handling to the Bar Standards Board is central to our policy of creating a single, independent complaints body. The office for legal complaints should deal with all complaints of up to £20,000, although that limit can be increased. My hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw talked about the need for it to be higher. The Law Society’s current ceiling is £15,000, so the provision is better than that, but we will certainly consider the points that he made. The OLC will be free to seek advice or assistance from anybody, including approved regulators; that is important, and it means that the much lauded expertise of the Bar Standards Board will not be lost. It is imperative that the OLC be independent. It is a new redress system; it is not the Bar Standards Board. There must not be the impression that the profession is judging itself, and there will be no delegation of complaints-handling down to the Bar Standards Board. This important legislation will put in place a regulatory framework that puts the consumer at its heart.

About this proceeding contribution

Reference

461 c103-4 

Session

2006-07

Chamber / Committee

House of Commons chamber
Back to top