Legal Services Bill [Lords]

I oppose the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly) on trade unions. I thought that the hon. Gentleman was a clever chap, and that he might have learned something from our debates in Committee. If he had at least listened to them he would understand how trade union legal services are provided. He made a statement in The Times this morning—and he repeated it in our debate—that the Bill will mean that trade unions will not be regulated at all. That is just not true, so I have to go through the educational process with him again and repeat what I said in Committee. Trade unions are a key institution in offering legal services to vast numbers of people. They have secured justice for mineworkers, as we have heard, and from my previous job, I know that without them many people would not have gained justice or cheap access to legal services. Trade unions provide legal services in various ways. Most trade unions employ a panel of solicitors who are accessible to members. Those solicitors are legally qualified and fall within the ambit of the Bill, so anything that they do will be covered by the regulation that we are putting in place. It is not the case that trade union legal services offered in that way are not regulated. Another way in which trade unions provide legal services, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming), is by providing advice and guidance on a lay basis on, for example, employment issues in the workplace. If the hon. Member for Huntingdon is suggesting that regulation should apply to any advice given by any shop steward on the shop floor, that would be unenforceable. The hon. Gentleman gives the impression that there is no recourse for people who are not satisfied with the advice that they get from a trade union lay member or a full-time official. Again, that is not the case. I shall cite a couple of examples. First, there is the trade union certification officer. I have some criticisms about the system's lack of teeth, having dealt with such officers recently in connection with the Durham National Union of Mineworkers, but they are there to deal with members' complaints. If someone is given bad advice by a trade union lay official or full-time official, a situation that I encountered when I was a trade union legal officer, they can sue, as happened on at least three occasions on my watch. Another aspect to consider is lay representation on industrial tribunals. People ask what recourse is available to someone who is given bad advice in that situation. Most cases are handled by solicitors, and the client can use the Legal Complaints Service procedure. On one occasion that I know about, when someone was given very bad advice, the individual took legal action against the trade union and was successful. The hon. Member for Huntingdon does not understand how trade union legal services operate. The amendment seeks to extend regulation right down into the relationship between the shop steward and the member on the shop floor. First, that would not be practical. Secondly, it would not be good regulation. On the other point that the hon. Gentleman makes, I feel a little guilty. I think I may have set off his train of thought with my examples about the NUM in Durham, which does not present a happy scenario. The Durham NUM employed Thompsons Solicitors to deal with miners' compensation cases and charged a 7.5 per cent. levy, which was given to the Durham NUM. According to the hon. Member for Huntingdon, those people had no recourse by which to get the money back. Yes, they do. I have lost count of the number of individuals for whom we have got their money back by making a complaint to the Legal Complaints Service about Thompsons. In the early days Thompsons resisted giving the money back, but is now doing so voluntarily. That is a case of the union employing a regulated solicitor. The hon. Gentleman mentioned a problem related to associate membership, which may also stem from the Durham NUM case. People were asked to join the NUM as associate members. They did not have full legal rights as NUM members, but they were accessing legal services to take forward their cases in the mineworkers' compensation scheme. That was a unique case. The complaints of those individuals were dealt with—very well, in my opinion—by the Legal Complaints Service. It made no difference whether they were a full member of a trade union or an associate member. To suggest that trade unions will start offering legal services such as conveyancing, which they do now by giving lay advice, is nonsense. Most trade unions offer legal services such as conveyancing and will-writing via the panel of solicitors which they retain or to which they pass work. The hon. Gentleman says that the Bill will ensure that trade union legal services are not regulated in any way—far from it. They are covered by existing legislation applying to trade unions and fall within the ambit of the Bill.