Legal Services Bill [HL]

rose to move, as an amendment to the Motion that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 4, leave out from ““House”” to end and insert ““do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 4 but do propose Amendment No. 4A in lieu””. 4A: Page 7, line 15, at end insert- ““(5A) Where P is an independent trade union, persons provided with relevant services do not constitute the public or a section of the public in the circumstances specified in subsection (5B). (5B) The circumstances are- (a) the persons are provided with the services by virtue of- (i) their membership or former membership of P, or (ii) another person's membership or former membership of P, (b) the services are provided to the persons in connection with any matter which arises out of the terms and conditions of their employment, their treatment by their employers, their workplace relationships or their workplace or other working conditions, and (c) any such employment, employer or workplace is one in respect of which P represents, or seeks to represent, workers as a trade union.”” The noble Lord said: My Lords, your Lordships have never seen these amendments before; they suddenly featured in Committee in another place. Their aim is to exempt trade unions from the requirement to become licensed as ABS firms in order to provide reserved legal services to their members. In other words, although the individual lawyer would continue to be regulated by whichever regulatory board to which he belonged, the entity itself would not be regulated. This is, as I understand it, contrary to the whole principle of regulation enshrined in the Bill. The Government’s answer is to say that the exemption is necessary to avoid advice given by lay union officials being caught by the regulatory scheme. On the assumption that that is desirable, why did the Government not provide simply for that? As it stands, the exemption now embraces any legal services that a trade union may offer its members. For example, it will now be possible under the Bill for a trade union, operating entirely outside the regulatory structure, to provide conveyancing services or representation in divorce proceedings. Moreover, there is no statutory restriction, as far as I am aware, on who can be made members of a trade union; so unions could enrol new members solely for the purpose of providing legal services. That is a potentially significant gap in the elaborate regulatory structure deemed by the Government to be in the public interest. Accordingly, we have tabled an amendment that limits the exemption to the provision by a trade union of legal services ancillary or incidental to its principal function. I beg to move. Moved, as an amendment to the Motion that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 4, leave out from ““House”” to end and insert ““do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 4 but do propose Amendment No. 4A in lieu””.