Legal Services Bill [Lords]

This has been a very interesting debate, and it is not surprising that it has divided us in this way. As my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Tony Lloyd) said, perhaps some Opposition Members have not yet come into the real world and understood the role of trade unions within it. I shall begin with the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming) and explain why I do not think that it is necessary or desirable. Yes indeed special provision has been made for trade unions, and it might be tempting to make similar provision for other membership bodies, but it is not necessary and there would be risks in going down that road. Let me deal first with the question of whether the provision is necessary. The reason why we have made special provision for trade unions, as we were at pains to explain in Committee, and as my hon. Friends have said this evening, is to deal with the special position that they are in. A lot of valuable advice is given by non-lawyer union staff to their fellow members. If unions had to be regulated as entities, some of them would be unable to put into position the necessary arrangements and would therefore have to stop their officials giving that advice. The amendments agreed in Committee ensure that there is absolutely no doubt about the unions' position. They give clarity by setting out that services provided to union members are not being provided to the rest of the public. When I explained that in Committee, I mentioned that other types of membership organisation can also benefit from the provisions in clause 15. To remind the House, that clause provides that where a body's employees are carrying out reserved legal activities, the body itself is not doing so if the provision of services to the public or to a section of the public is not part of its business. A membership organisation whose employees are providing services only to members will generally fall within that definition. If there is any doubt about its position, it can seek an order under subsection (7), which defines what is or is not a section of the public. By their very nature, trade unions are unlike other organisations, and I do not consider that there is a case for making a provision such as subsection (6) in respect of other bodies. Even if I were persuaded of that, there are potential problems with amendment No. 152. For example, it singles out bodies whose members are engaged in a particular trade or profession. That is, of course, only one type of membership body. In Committee we discussed others, including motoring organisations and even the Hospital Saturday Fund, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes). If the House were to agree to the amendment, those bodies would still not be subject to specific provision and would still need to use the general provision in subsection (4) and, if necessary, subsection (7). That might work, but it would be unnecessary and would create risks for the clause 15 exemptions. I find it hard to see why we should make special provision for trade bodies and not for others. There are other problems. None of those types of body has the special circumstances of trade unions. If we make special provision for one class of bodies, we risk making life harder for others. That could lead to an increase in attempts to abuse the system, as unscrupulous businesses tried to badge themselves as representing members of a trade or profession. Although the legal services board would eventually root them out, there would be a period of time when consumers could suffer. In addition, some might conclude in future that because Parliament had given treatment to one group of people, it must by implication have intended that other groups should not get access to equivalent treatment. That could make it harder for genuine cases, particularly ones which we are unable to anticipate at the moment, including those who may need to secure an exemption under subsection (7). I do not think that that is what the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley would want to happen. I assure the House that the order-making power under subsection (7) is available to any category of membership body—to make that absolutely clear, should there be any doubt. Without better evidence that other groups need different treatment, I see no reason why we should provide it and risk undesirable consequences in doing so. On that basis, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will feel able to withdraw his amendment. The other amendments in this group are clearly intended to reverse the trade union amendments agreed in Committee. We believed that the amendments to clause 15 were necessary in order to give effect to the policy set out by my noble Friend Lord Falconer in the other place. It is unfair for the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly) to suggest that they were sneaked in during Committee sittings. The then Lord Chancellor made it absolutely clear in the other place that the amendments would be introduced. I am sorry that we were not able to bring them forward sooner, but it is right that we have introduced them. It is really important that we do not inhibit the trade unions' scope to work for their members. They provide a socially useful service to millions of people—one that helps to foster good labour relations while helping union members to stand up for their rights. It seems rather sad that I have to spell that out, but it is obvious that Opposition Members are either deliberately or naively unaware of the important role that trade unions play in our society. To require unions to be regulated as entities and licensed as ABS bodies in all circumstances could cause problems, particularly for the smaller unions. They might have to shut down their legal services altogether, with the result that access to justice, which I know is at the forefront of the minds of Opposition Members, would be reduced, not improved.