Legal Services Bill [Lords]

I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming) on his amendment, which is the lead amendment in the group. He recognises that in the exemption set out by the Government, there is an issue that needs to be addressed. He has already said that his drafting does not necessarily cover all the points that we wish to raise. He is right, but that does not reduce the effectiveness of his arguments. This is an appropriate time to say how much I appreciate the work that he and my hon. Friend the Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) did in Committee and on previous stages of the Bill. There is a serious argument to be had about the very wide exemption proposed by the Government for trade unions, and only trade unions among not-for-profit entities. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley spoke about mutuals and others. The argument does not revolve around the specific topics identified by the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones). The hon. Gentleman is right to say that it is not true that in the provision of legal services trade unions will be unregulated. That is transparently not the case. In support of his contention that they are regulated, he argues, first, that the individual practitioners are regulated by their professional bodies. Yes, that is correct. The hon. Gentleman argues, secondly, that trade unions are subject to litigation instigated by those to whom they owe a duty of care in the provision of those services. Yes, again, that is true, but both arguments are true of any other body regulated by the Bill. If it is argued that bodies—alternative business structures or others—require additional regulation beyond—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman says they do not. It is a rather worrying development for the Minister if the view from the Back Benches is that alternative business structures need no regulation beyond the professional regulation of individual practitioners and the threat of litigation in the case of a failure of duty to care. I do not believe that that is what Ministers are suggesting in the context of the Bill.