Schedule
2
The
reserved legal
activities
Question
proposed, The this schedule be the Second schedule to the
Bill.
Mr.
Bellingham:
I have one point to make on schedule 2.
Paragraph 5(1) mentions “Reserved instrument activities”,
about which I made a point when we discussed clause 12 and will
writing. Will the Minister elaborate on paragraph 5(1)(c), which states
that “reserved instrument activities” means, among other
things,
“any other
instrument relating to real or personal estate for the purposes of the
law of England”?
To what
does “other instrument” refer? We were discussing making
over property, transfers, contracts and dispositions of property, but
will the Minister tell us more about paragraph
5(1)(c)?
Bridget
Prentice:
I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was out
of the room when I responded to his questions on the matter—it
is possible that he missed what said. I explained that a will is a set
of instructions as opposed to a disposition. In that sense, it
contrasts with gifts or conveyances when dealing with the transfer of
property. Real property left in a will would require further formal
transfer. We are dealing with similar matters in paragraph 5(1)(c), but
I shall write to him with some specific examples so that we can move
the debate on.
Mr.
Bellingham:
I am grateful to the Minister and mortified at
my insubordination. I left the room to track down the Conservative
Whip.
Schedule 2
agreed
to.
Clause
13
Entitlement
to carry on a reserved legal
activity
Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Simon
Hughes:
I have one question apart from the observation
that, if we lived in a world in which we had the responsibility of
tracking down the party Whips, we might be much happier.
Will the Minister address my
earlier question andsay whether she is satisfied that the Bill
makes it clear when and where people can represent themselves, and
therefore the circumstances in which they would not need to operate
under a regulatory
regime?
Mr.
Bellingham:
I have a question on clause 13(4), which
states:
“Nothing
in this section or section 23 affects section 84 ofthe
Immigration and Asylum Act 1999...which prohibits the provision of
immigration advice and immigration services except by certain
persons.”
Section 23 will
concern
“transitional
protection for non-commercial bodies”.
Why does that mention the Immigration and
Asylum Act 1999 and not, for example, the relevant housing, employment
or agricultural holdings legislation, which also give certain persons
the power and authority to provide advice in certain circumstances? I
am bemused why the measure applies to only one piece of
legislation.
Bridget
Prentice:
First, I apologise to the hon. Member for North
Southwark and Bermondsey. He is right that an individual acting on his
own behalf would not have to be regulated when conducting legal
activities.
The
reasoning behind clause 13(4) is that, as thehon. Member for
North-West Norfolk might remember, there were some horrific examples of
dubious characters giving appallingly bad advice to people regarding
immigration and asylum. The Government considered those examples and
are now trying to ensure that people who give advice are properly
qualified to do so. That is why such matters have been
specified.
Simon
Hughes:
I am grateful to the Minister. Does the Bill
actually say that, if people want to represent themselves in such
activities, they do not have tohave authority? I want to
ensure that the Bill is clear. Clause 13
states:
“The
question whether a person is entitled to carry on an activity which is
a reserved legal activity is to be determined solely in accordance with
the provisions of this Act.”
There should be a sentence after that
saying that nothing in the Bill will prevent an individual from acting
for himself in any of the reserved activities, when the law
permits.
2.45
pm
Bridget
Prentice:
Paragraph 1(6) of schedule 3 covers such
matters. It sets out a list of people who are exempt and will deal with
the hon. Gentleman’s worry about whether the individual can
conduct activity on his own behalf. Paragraph 1(10) might give more
details.
Simon
Hughes:
I am happy to look more carefully at the schedule
and to come back to the Minister, if necessary, but whether going to
schedule 3 to discover the answer to my question rather than finding it
up front under clause 13 is right, I do not
know.
Bridget
Prentice:
The provision “E is an individual”
under paragraph 3(3)(a) of schedule 3 might provide the information
that the hon. Gentleman
needs.
Simon
Hughes:
I am grateful to the Minister. It seems fine.
However, it might have been better to have said up front rather than
under the schedule that individuals who do their own thing are exempt
from the regulations. It would make matters clear for those who wonder
whether they have to go through regulatory control. However, I leave it
to the hon. Lady to reflect on the
matter.
Question
put and agreed
to.
Clause 13
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
14
Offence
to carry on a reserved legal activity if not
entitled
Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
John
Mann:
I have two observations to make about the clause.
The impersonating of a solicitor can lead to an individual being locked
up and further increase the pressures on the prison community. Clearly,
that is in order but, as for solicitors being disciplined, last year
there were 743 matters against 1,094 individuals that had a
disciplinary issue recorded against a solicitor and a further 495
matters involved 529 individuals that referred to other bodies,
including the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal and the Association of
Chief Police
Officers.
Often, such
matters do not need to be put in the public domain. For example,
disapprovals, warnings, reprimands and severe reprimands can be kept
private and confidential. The public—even the initial
complainant who has provided information— need not be, and often
is not, informed of that. Does the Minister consider that the issue
needs to be looked at further even though the law is more than
protecting the solicitor or other legal professional as it rightly does
under the clause with appropriate strict measures? I commend her on
that. We must also ensure that in a large number of cases—much
more than has been suggested in Committee—such matters should be
made public.
My second
point concerns when the Government have acted as an employer through
the Department of Trade and Industry in coal mining cases. There have
been several examples when people have gone to those
whom they believe to be solicitors and the Government have entertained
cases being brought forward as ifon a common law basis,
including more than 10,000 industrial deafness cases brought by a
private company called Vendside Ltd. People often think that
theyhave a solicitor representing them when they do not.
Should not the Government look at their own practises that may be
encouraging people whom some of my constituents, and many others,
believe to be impersonating solicitors? That is apparent both in the
hearing loss claims and in respect of claims handlers, who people are
still coming to me about, believing them to be solicitors when they are
not, who have been allowed to take cases to the Government under the
coal mining claims handling
agreement.
Simon
Hughes:
Once the Bill becomes law, does the Minister
envisage that she or I, or anybody, would be able to go to a website
and check the name of somebody who said that they were John Mann or
Simon Hughes, for example, and were competent as a probate solicitor,
or whatever? Will there be one place where people can check on an
up-to-date, guaranteed-to-be-correct database whether people are
approved and regulated? Again, if we are trying to make life easy, we
need a list, giving details of who is legitimately carrying out the
activities, which can always be relied on, then people would be much
less likely to carry on activities illegally and end up in the courts
as a
result.
Bridget
Prentice:
I just want to make the Committee aware that the
penalties are consistent with those in the Compensation Act 2006 in
respect of regulated claims management. Criminal convictions are a
matter of public record and in that sense would be available to all. I
cannot go as far as the hon. Gentleman has asked me to and guarantee
that the relevant information would be available or that people could
see on a website whether a person has the right to carry out a reserved
legal activity. However, that matter runs parallel with another that he
raised earlier, about people being able to know when they walk through
the solicitor’s door what individuals do. People can check their
solicitor’s credentials by going to the Law Society’s
website. It maintains a list of all solicitors that are properly
qualified. This part of the Bill extends that provision to cover
everyone involved in the new
framework.
Simon
Hughes:
If I want somebody to do some plumbing, I know
that the person who comes to do the central heating boiler, or
whatever, will need to conform with the CORGI registration scheme,
under which plumbers are CORGI-registered. Again, I should like the
Minister to reflect on whether the objective should be for people to be
able to check at any time whether anybody in the legal services field
is, on that date, registered to do the job on the official list. Data
systems are never perfect. However, given that the purpose of the Bill
is to establish an umbrella in relation to reserved legal activities,
with the Legal Services Board regulating all the people involved, the
consumer interest must be that people should be able to go to one place
and should not have to duck and dive. We are talking about people who
are not familiar with
the places the professionals inhabit and do not necessarily understand
the distinction. Perhaps the Minister could reflect on that, because if
we could achieve that it would benefit the whole
system.
Bridget
Prentice:
I am happy to consider a simpler way in which
that could be
achieved.
Question
put and agreed
to.
Clause
14 or
dered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
15
Carrying
on of a reserved legal activity: employers and employees
etc
Bridget
Prentice:
I beg to move amendment No. 108, in
clause 15, page 7, line 15, at
end insert—
‘( ) Where P is
an independent trade union, persons provided with relevant services by
virtue of—
(a) their
membership or former membership of P,
or
(b) another person’s
membership or former membership of
P,
do not constitute the public
or a section of the
public.’.
The
Chairman:
With this it will be convenient to discuss
Government amendments Nos. 109, 110, 138, 115 to 117, 126 to 128, 202
and
205.
Bridget
Prentice:
The amendments are designed to give effect to
the policy that my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer set out on
Second Reading in the other place. He said:
“We do not intend the
Bill to regulate in any way lay trade union representation, whether
whole or part-time in the workplace, nor to place additional burdens on
those unions that provide legal advice or representation to their
members.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 6
December 2006; Vol. 687,c.
1167.]
We are doing
that because unions are in a different position from most legal
services providers. They carry out a great deal of work through
officials in the workplace, who are usually elected by colleagues
rather than professional union staff and are working at some distance
from the union’s head office, and they do it in a specific
context.
I need to say
this not so much for my colleagueson the Government side of
the Committee but for Members of the Opposition who may not be as aware
of trade unions and their remit as the rest of us are. Although a union
official may give advice, the purpose is not just to help the member.
It is part of the wider role of fostering good labour relations. The
officialin that situation can advise only members, retired
members and family members and no one else. The union does not offer
that service to the general public. I want to say that up front because
that might be an area in which some of the argument will be fought out.
The union is giving advice only to its own
members.
One other
feature that the Opposition need to remember is that unions are already
regulated by the certification process. The work of officials is
governed by the union’s rule book, and that is enforced through
the certification officer. Therefore, unions that provide
legal services do not need the same degree of regulation as bodies that
are offering services more widely or
commercially.
Mr.
Djanogly:
For those of us who clearly have so little
knowledge of unions, will the Minister explain what a member is in the
context of union
membership?
Bridget
Prentice:
A member of a union is someone who pays the
union levy, abides by the union rulebook, and works
collectively with other members of that union and, sometimes,
inter-collectively with colleagues in other unions. It also applies to
relations of a particular member and people who have been members of a
union but are now
retired.
Mr.
Burrowes:
The Minister is using the principle of
not regulating a legal service that applies in a limited way. Is that a
definition that she would like to apply to other legal services as
well?
Bridget
Prentice:
I do not think that that applies in other legal
services. I am looking specifically at the role of trade unions here
and why we are exempting them in this part of the
Bill.
Mr.
Burrowes:
Just to make it clear, the
Minister’s description of this type of legal service was on the
basis that it was limited and non-commercial. Surely if there was a
competing legal service or a new service, the regulation would be
applied in a very limited way to its members on a non-commercial basis.
Would they also be exempt from regulation in the same way as
unions?
Bridget
Prentice:
It would certainly be the case that if other
organisations were providing legal services that were not reserved
activities, they would be exempt. If the hon. Gentleman goes back to
schedule 3, he will see all the opportunities for exemption
there.
Also,
regulating a union in such a dispersed set-up would be both impractical
and inappropriate. The amendment would remove the requirement for the
independent trade unions to be regulated as
entities.
3
pm
Mr.
Bellingham:
The Minister mentioned the speech made by the
noble Lord Falconer of Thoroton on Second Reading in the other place. I
am trying to find the part in the debate where he apparently made those
comments about trade unions and about his desire, at that stage, for
those Government amendments, but I cannot find it—perhaps he
spoke on Third Reading. Can the Minister say why those amendments were
not moved in another place? Did they require so much work and effort
that the Government had to wait until the Bill appeared
here?
Bridget
Prentice:
I do not know which part of the Lords debate the
hon. Gentleman is referring to. It was during the debate on Second
Reading that the Lord Chancellor signalled that we would exempt trade
unions. We have had continued discussions with the TUC and the Law
Society, which has raised concerns about the issue. That is why the
amendments have come
forward at this stage—in part, because the TUC was concerned that
the way in which the Bill was originally set up did not achieve what
the Lord Chancellor said that it would achieve. In fact, if the hon.
Gentleman refers to column 1167 of the Official Report of the
Second Reading debate in the other place, he will find what the Lord
Chancellor said. We have had important discussions with the TUC and the
Law Society about the position of trade unions. That is why it has
taken some time to come to the present position.
The provision will allow
employed lawyers to work, for example, for bodies linked to their
employers, such as subsidiary companies, for colleagues, or on a pro
bono basis, without their employers needing to be treated as providers
of legal services. The Bill will enable the work of those employed
lawyers to continue as now. However, there are tight restrictions on
that exception, which applies only if the provision of legal services
to the public is not part of the employer’s
business.
To return to
the point about other bodies thatmight be non-commercial, the
problem would be in identifying that the work that such bodies were
doing was absolutely confined to members only. However, if such bodies
were working for a section of the public, they would not secure an
exemption under the Bill.
Robert
Neill:
The Minister makes the point about such bodies
being limited to advice given to members, but can she help us on how
“members” will be defined in that context? I ask that
because, in a debate referring to miners’ compensation claims,
the hon. Member for North Durham properly highlighted the extraordinary
situation of the National Union of Mineworkersin Durham, which
had a large number of associate members. It seemed that they were
members of the union, but they paid only an access fee, simply for some
legal services, and had no voting rights within the union, as far as
was ascertainable. How will she ensure that what appears to have been,
in effect, a bogus membership arrangement is dealt with? Could unions
provide legal services to associate members, such as those in the
Durham NUM, without being caught by the
provision?
Bridget
Prentice:
The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point on the
issue that my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham has rightly
raised in the past. As I have described, members are people who pay the
full union levy, their families and retired members. Associate members
are not covered by the
clause.
Robert
Neill:
I am sorry to press the Minister, but will she
point out the specific wording that gives that important definition? If
that will be the case, it is important that it be spelled out
unequivocally.
Bridget
Prentice:
I hope that, during my remarks, I shall be able
to spell it out unequivocally for the hon.
Gentleman.
Mr.
Jones:
This is an important point, and I raise it although
I support the amendments. The definition of membership is an issue to
consider. I accept that the certification officer regulates trade
unions, but I say to
my hon. Friend the Minister that I got a letter today from the
certification officer telling me that the fully paid-up membership of
Durham NUM is seven members, even though in its return to the
certification officer, it claimed to have 15,000
members.
Bridget
Prentice:
My hon. Friend makes a good case for the robust
way in which the certification officer deals with the matter. That is a
good example of why we do not need further regulation of trade unions
on the
issue.
Mr.
Jones:
I do not want to labour the point, as I accept the
amendments, but it needs pinning down. Unfortunately, the certification
officer’s letter to me did not answer my question about what
rights the individuals concerned have. I do not think that they are
covered by the definition of a member of a trade union, which, as I
understand it, means someone who voluntarily joins a union to get its
benefits. They joined on associate membership with no rights whatever,
so the matter needs clearing
up.
Bridget
Prentice:
I have no doubt that my hon. Friend will pursue
this further with the certification officer, because my
understanding—I hope that this will answer the question asked by
the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst—is that members are
defined in the rulebook of the independent trade unions
concerned.
John
Mann:
I refer Members to the Register of Members’
Interests and the occasional use of an office provided for me, not
least for this kind of work, by the GMB union for meetings of large
numbers of my constituents and
others.
Will the
Minister give a written note of guidance on the role that the
certification officer will need to play in the context of the clause,
so that there is no ambiguity for the union member, the certification
officer or the general public about how the officer will be expected to
ensure consumer rights in respect of reserved legal activities? I
accept the Minister’s point that a dualityof systems
would constitute over-regulation, so the certification officer needs to
be very clear about his
remit.
Bridget
Prentice:
That is a very good suggestion. I am happy to
provide that guidance, and I hope that I will do so during the
Committee stage, but if
not—
3.9
pm
Sitting
suspended for a Division in the
House.
3.24
pm
On
resuming—
Bridget
Prentice:
I want now to move on to the concerns that
certain hon. Members raised on Second Reading and to reassure the
Committee that the Government have no intention of leaving union
members unprotected or less well protected than others. The important
point is that reserved activities
will still need to be carried out by authorised persons—in other
words, by qualified lawyers. They will still be subject to full
regulation by the Law Society or by whichever other
approved regulator is appropriate, and they will still be subject to
all the rules of the relevant regulator.
John
Hemming:
As a union member, I am not totally unaware of
what unions do. However, it might be interesting for us to hear some
examples of the reserved legal activities that unions
undertake.
Bridget
Prentice:
That is a very good point. As far as individual
members are concerned, unions do not deal very often with reserved
activities. Reserved activities tend most often to be dealt with by the
union head office, and most unions use outside law firms, which are
clearly regulated already, to deal with
them.
John
Hemming:
What sort of reserved activities is the Minister
talking about when she refers to reserved activities that are dealt
with through a union head
office?
Bridget
Prentice:
A union could be involved in litigation, or it
might have to appear in court. Rightsof audience are a
reserved legal activity, and those involved in court appearances must
therefore be properly regulated.
John
Hemming:
I am sorry to labour the point, but to what
extent do unions currently employ barristers to go into
court?
John
Hemming:
Is that quite common? I am trying to get an
understanding.
Bridget
Prentice:
My hon. Friend the Member for North Durham said,
from a sedentary position, that it happens every day. I do not know
whether that is the case, but I know that it happens fairly regularly.
The most obvious example is that of personal injury cases, which
involve trade union attendance in court on behalf of members. I am told
that the unions use outside firms to conduct that litigation most of
the time.
The use of
qualified lawyers is already subject to all the rules of the
regulators, and any rule change made by those regulators would apply
equally to the union lawyers as to everyone else. It would always be
open to a trade union to seek to be licensed under the low-risk
provisions in part 5 of the Bill, and they mightchoose to do
so if they wished to provide services commercially or to a wider
section of the public. I suspect that they would not, because it would
probably not be in their financial interests to do so. However, a
further situation in which they might seek a licence would be if they
were not content with the rulesunder which the approved
regulators regulated their employed
lawyers.
It might also
reassure the Committee to know that the Office for Legal Complaints
will be able to handle
complaints about union services. Many unions provide only a very basic
legal service to their members and use outside firms for other
work—often one with which the union has a special
arrangement.
Mr.
Jones:
Will the Minister give
way?
Bridget
Prentice:
I knew that I would interest my hon. Friend as
soon as I made that comment.
Mr.
Jones:
I should like to my hon. Friend to clarify what she
just said about recourse to the Legal Complaints Service. The position
that she outlined would apply only if the union employed an outside
lawyer, or, as is the case for some unions, if the union employed an
in-house lawyer to act for it. Is that not the
case?
Bridget
Prentice:
Yes, but such an in-house lawyer would be
regulated by the Law Society, so that the relevant member would have
the same redress as anyone else. In any event, union members are not
obliged to use the union lawyer and can use other
providers.
Mr.
Jones:
I am sorry for being a bit of a pain this
afternoon, but will the Minister explain something—if not now,
then later in writing? I understand how the lawyers employed from an
outside firm will be regulated, but what about the individuals? Some
unions still employ in-house lawyers. Would they be regulated by the
Law Society, or would they be exempted by the bar proposed in the
amendment?
3.30
pm
Bridget
Prentice:
No, any lawyer employed who was conducting
reserved activities would be regulated by the regulator. I imagine that
even an individual lawyer would almost always be regulated by the Law
Society, although they could be regulated by one of the other
regulators.
Mr.
Djanogly:
Is the Minister saying that, in such
circumstances, the lawyer would in effect be disbarred or whatever, and
that the union would get off
scot-free?
Bridget
Prentice:
I am not sure whether I fully understood the
hon. Gentleman’s question. Will he expand on
it?
Mr.
Djanogly:
If a union used an in-house lawyer to give legal
advice, would it be untouchable in such a situation, because only the
lawyer would be subject to
regulation?
Bridget
Prentice:
Only the lawyer would be subject to regulation
because the union would not be an entity as defined in the
Bill.
John
Hemming:
I am confused. As I understand it, offering
advice is not a regulated legal activity. It is a legal activity, but
not regulated. Although there are issues of negligence, about which I
shall talk later, I have difficulty in understanding how a union could
not
have an in-house lawyer who could offer legal advice, whether or not
they were an authorised
person.
Bridget
Prentice:
The in-house lawyer could certainly offer legal
advice, but in terms of regulated activities they would have to be
regulated. That is the point that I have been trying to
make.
I move on to the
final part of the reason for the
amendments—
John
Mann:
I am not absolutely clear. Let me give two examples,
on which the Minister may not like to comment, but I am sure will be
prepared to. What about the case of the canteen women, when the NUM and
Scargill disgracefully
lost—
The
Chairman:
Order. Can I be certain that this is an
intervention and not a
speech?
John
Mann:
Absolutely; I am asking a question of the
Minister.
The
Chairman:
Be brief,
please.
John
Mann:
Thank you, Mr. Cook. This is purely a
question for the Minister. I am asking her about the 1,400 claims that
Scargill lost for canteen workers. Some 1,400 women had potential
claims, but not against the solicitor. The solicitor took the cases
forward, but not for those 1,400 because their claims disappeared. To
whom would those women complain? A similar case would be one in which,
say, an individual was advised by the union that they did not have a
case, even though they
did.
Bridget
Prentice:
In that instance, the individuals could have a
claim against the union itself through the union mechanism. If a lawyer
gives legal advice in the capacity that my hon. Friend mentioned, the
complaint could go through the Law Society’s complaints
mechanism. The Law Society could even, for example, make its rules more
restrictive. That would limit the union’s ability to provide
reserved services. There would be two mechanisms—the first
through the certification officer and the other through the lawyer
following the rules of his or her legal authority—in this case,
the Law Society.
John
Hemming:
Will the Minister give
way?
Bridget
Prentice:
I shall only do so one more
time.
John
Hemming:
Would there be a third mechanism: an action for
negligence through the courts?
Bridget
Prentice:
I made the point earlier that an individual
member of a trade union may seek independent legal advice. They may
decide to take the matter through the courts either on their own or
after receiving further legal
advice.
Finally, I
wish to emphasise that the measure relates only to independent trade
unions as defined in the 1992 legislation. Other trade unions are not
dealt with—they
will have to be authorised and licensed to provide any reserved legal
services, even to their members. I wish to make it absolutely clear
that organisations such as that described in early-day motion 847,
which mentions the
“launch by the British
National Party (BNP) of a trade union front
organisation”,
are not
defined as independent trade unions. Such organisations would not
therefore qualify under the measure, even if they in some sense became
a proper
organisation.
The
amendments will ensure that unions are able to continue to provide
valuable services to their members and that members have proper
protection. They will not mean that union members receive a lower
standard of work than other consumers; on the contrary, this is another
opportunity for union members to receive the standards of service that
they
deserve.
Mr.
Djanogly:
The Government amendments to clause 15 and other
measures winged their way to the Opposition a few days ago from out of
the blue. Frankly, they have come as something as a shock to us. Rather
than making special provision for unions within the regulatory
framework, the amendments go further to explicitly exclude unions from
regulation. Is that justified? We say that it is not. The amendments
are a clear example of the Labour party kow-towing to its union
paymasters, flying in the face of reason, considerations of fairness to
the consumer, and frightening recent experiences, not least those
highlighted by the hon. Member for North Durham in a recent Adjournment
debate in which I also
spoke.
I hope that the
hon. Member for North Durham will speak on the issue. In the debate on
coal health claims on 23 May, he showed how certain trade unions abuse
their unregulated position. For the Government to amend the Bill to
abolish regulations on trade unions is
outrageous.
Let us
talk about vested interests. The Conservatives have no objection to the
mechanisms by which trade unions and commercial entities may provide
legal services, as long as there is proper regulation to protect the
public and individual consumers. Under the original Bill, trade unions,
like every other non-lawyer body wishing to provide reserved legal
services, would have to do so as an alternative business structure
firm. The Bill now makes special provisions for trade unions to reflect
their constitutions. In particular, it excludes trade unions from the
requirement for a head of financial administration or a head of legal
practice. That approach arose from the Government’s view that
trade unions should be able to provide reserved legal services, rather
than having them establish ring-fenced subsidiaries to do so, as
commercial providers of legal services are likely to
do.
Despite those
special provisions for trade unions in the alternative business
structure regime, the TUC has apparently been unhappy about the
principle of trade union legal services being subject to any
regulation. It argues that it would be inappropriate for unions to be
regulated by a legal services board, and claims that unions are
effectively regulated by the trade union certification officer. The
TUC, however, has no
difficulty with the proposition that individual lawyers providing
services will be regulated as individuals by the relevant approved
regulator. I shall return to the matter of the trade union
certification
officer. The trade
unions point in particular to the possibility that, if they were
required to become an ABS under the Bill, advice on potential
employment disputes given by lay shop stewards could fall within the
ambit of regulation. That is arguable. From their point of view, it is
undesirable for such advice to fall within legal services regulation.
However, there are two ways in which such advice could be exempted
without needing to exempt trade unions from the provisions of the Bill
altogether. First, trade unions could provide reserved legal services
through a wholly owned ring-fenced entity, which would obviously not
include the lay advisers. Secondly, there could be a specific provision
in the Bill exempting lay ‘shop floor’ advice from the
ambit of
regulation.
John
Hemming:
I am confused, again, about regulated legal
services and legal services. A few moments ago, it appeared that advice
was not a regulated legal service. If that is so, informal advice from
the union convenors would never be regulated, unless it were added as a
regulated legal service under clause 24. Therefore, most of the debate
about advice is
otiose.
Mr.
Djanogly:
The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. I
shall be interested to hear the Minister’s views on that. I
speculate that such advice would probably be in connection with
litigation, but I look forward to the Minister confirming that that is
so.
The trade unions
pressed for a wider exemption. However, the Government’s
intention to concede that only appeared in the Minister’s
statement on Second Reading. I put on the record that the Conservative
party is thoroughly unimpressed with the
Government’s lack of transparency and their lack of consultation
on this issue.
I have
been told that, in discussions with the Ministry of Justice and the
TUC, the Law Society considered the possibility of an exemption for
legal work that was ancillary to the trade unions’ collective
bargaining role. That would mean that the trade union would not be
required to become an ABS to pursue litigation arising out of an
employment dispute, an injury at work and so on. Even then, the
individual lawyer would, of course, be regulated. However, on advice
from the SRA, the Law Society concluded that it is unwise for there to
be such an exemption. I shall return to the SRA’s view on that
later.
The SRA is,
with the Law Society’s support, increasingly moving towards the
regulation of the entities through which legal services are provided,
rather than just the regulation of individuals. It is difficult to
regulate to ensure proper quality of service and client care by
regulating individual lawyers alone, rather than the entity through
which they provide legal services. The hon. Member for Bassetlaw gave a
good example of that. Accordingly, it does not make sense for services
provided by trade unions to be exempted from that approach and it
certainly cannot be assumed that there are no problems with services
provided by
trade unions. Some unions’ roles in the miners’
compensation cases has caused particular
concern. The question
is to what extent the certification officer can regulate the union. We
agree with many, including the Law Society, that any regulation
undertaken by the certification officer cannot possibly fill this gap.
The certification officer cannot realistically deal with issues about
client care or quality of service as they relate to legal services.
Indeed, the certification officer does not appear to have been able to
help with the issues arising in the miners’ compensation cases.
The Minister, in her earlier remarks, failed to deal with that or with
the related point made by the hon. Member for
Bassetlaw.
John
Mann:
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the
certification officer could not act in relation to the miners’
compensation claims because the claimants were not members of the
union, but ex-members? On that basis, he said that he could not take up
the
case.
Mr.
Djanogly:
In the particular circumstance that the hon.
Gentleman mentions, I accept that that may be
so.
We do not accept
that unions do not, in practice, sometimes act as claims handlers. This
matter arose in the debate secured by the hon. Member for North Durham,
as my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst mentioned in
his earlier
intervention.
Mr.
Jones:
But if unions act as claims handlers, as the Durham
National Union of Miners certainly does, they would have to be
registered under the new Compensation Act 2006—and I understand
that they have gone for regulation under that
act.
Mr.
Djanogly:
Again, I agree that those are particular
circumstances in relation to claims handling for which regulation may
well be
appropriate.
The
Government amendment goes far beyond even what was discussed by
officials. It will exempt trade unions from the requirement to become
an ABS in relation to all services provided to members, former members
and relatives of members, provided that those services were part of the
membership package, whether or not they were part of the employment
relationship.
The
Government have emphasised that trade unions will have to provide
reserved services through qualified persons. I think that the Minister
confirmed that earlier. We assume that those qualified persons will be
fully subject to the regulatory requirements of their professional
bodies. If that assumption is correct, the SRA or another regulatory
body may conclude that the public interest requires lawyers to provide
particular reserved services to trade union members only in a regulated
environment. In that case the SRA could, as it can now, make rules to
that effect. Those rules would, of course, require the approval of the
Legal Services Board and could therefore be made only if there were a
demonstrable regulatory need for them and the proposed restriction was
a proportionate
response.
3.45
pm
The Government
amendments do not preclude a trade union from becoming an ABS or
establishinga separate, wholly owned vehicle that would itself
become an ABS to provide reserved legal services to members.
Accordingly, if regulators concluded that lawyers employed by trade
unions should provide particular reserved services to members only
through a regulated entity, unions would readily be able to adapt.
There is thus no risk that such a decision by regulators would preclude
trade unions from providing particular legal services to members. Will
the Minister confirm that that is the intended effect of the
amendments? Having
discussed those matters with the Law Society, I then thought that I
should approach the SRA, as it has an important part to play and its
view is pertinent to the issue. It is important to put its response on
record. It asks hon. Members to reject the amendment, which it
says
“will have the
effect of exempting trade unions from being regulated in the same way
as other bodies who provide legal services to the extent that they
provide such services to their
membership.
The SRA
are opposed to any route that would exempt trade unions from Part 5 in
relation to reserved legal activities. The SRA’s view is that
trade union members deserve the same protection in relation to reserved
activities as any other consumer of legal
services.”
It states that
it opposes an amendment effectively stating that activities are
reserved legal activities when done by an in-house solicitor but not
when done by a union. The issue, it states,
is
“a matter of
principle—the principle that the Bill is seeking to achieve for
the future, and the principle envisaged by the Clementi Report. This
principle is that any organisation providing reserved legal services to
the public or a section of the public needs to be properly and
proportionately
regulated.”
Stephen
Hesford:
I am listening with care to what the hon.
Gentleman is saying. Is he making a point about competition—that
the amendments will somehow give trade unions an unfair competitive
advantage—or a consumer protection point? If it is the latter,
does he have any evidence from union members that they want protection
from their own unions? Or is he making both
points?
Mr.
Djanogly:
I had not thought about the competition aspects,
but that might be an angle tobe considered. Has the Minister
received any representations on that? It might be a relevant issue to
discuss. On the hon. Gentleman’s second question, we can take
the issue of miners’ compensation. Thousands of so-called
members have a serious problem with the way they have been treated, and
many of them want their membership subscriptions returned to them by
their unions.
The
Clementi report considered that the new principle whereby both bodies
and individuals are regulated should apply to both new commercial
bodies providing reserved legal services and not-for-profit
organisations such as law centres and trade unions. It recognised that
otherwise, there would be gaps in the regulation intended to protect
consumers and the public interest. The SRA has argued that exempting
certain providers of reserved services from the consumer protections of
regulation should be done only in exceptional circumstances, when there
is clear evidence of public interest. To do otherwise would be to place
the interests of providers above those of consumers. The example of
abuse by trade unions
during the coal miners’ compensation scandal shows why exemptions
are
dangerous. According
to the SRA, the concessions already made in the Bill in relation to the
regulation of trade unions and other low-risk bodies will ensure that
the regulation is proportionate. It agrees that the concerns of the TUC
about the position of lay advisers in the workforce are legitimate. The
SRA believes that the non-reserved legal activities of lay advisers can
safely be exempted from the ambit of part 5 of the Bill on the proviso
that the union organises the activities of such advisers so that they
are not subject to the supervision of a solicitor or an authorised
person. It assumes that that is currently the case for shop stewards,
other local representatives and elected national
officials.
The SRA
believes that that may be achieved by providing that legal
advice—not a reserved legal activity—given by union
representatives who are employees and not acting in the capacity of
authorised persons or under the supervision of an authorised person
should be defined as not being “legal activities” for the
purpose of the Bill. It believes that amendments could be made to
ensure that such work would be entirely outside the concerns of part
5.
The SRA says that
the Government believe that the regulation of the individual lawyers by
their respective approved regulators is sufficient. The SRA disagrees
with that view. Its powers in relation to the individual solicitors it
authorises do not provide full consumer protection. Also, in-house
teams include individuals who are regulated by different approved
regulators and subject to different rules and protections. The
Bill’s main objective is to provide that the same consumer
protections and rules benefit those receiving legal services from an
organisation. It should not matter whether the service was provided by
a solicitor, barrister or licensed
conveyancer.
The
current situation in which in-house solicitors can do restricted types
of work because the organisation is not subject to regulation is very
much a second best for consumers. It is the lesser of two evils under
the current statutory framework, and we do not believe that it gives
appropriate scope for the work of the union solicitor, nor that it
gives the right level of protection for the client and the public.
Ensuring that a trade union that chooses to provide such reserved legal
services through authorised employees is within the part 5 regime would
perfect the current imperfect powers of the SRA and other approved
regulators.
To give an
example, based on experience, the SRA sets out what it hoped would be a
rare, but possible, scenario. A trade union provides, through its
in-house legal team, litigation and advocacy services relating to
occupational disease cases. There is evidence that a union employee has
written to members making claims, telling them precisely what to say to
medical examiners, apparently whether true or not. It is not clear
whether the in-house lawyers providing the litigation and advocacy
services were aware of or complicit in the sending of the letters, or
whether union officials were aware or whether it was simply the work of
one employee. It goes without saying that writing
such a letter in the context of litigation goes to the heart of
upholding the proper administration of justice and is a serious
matter. If, in the
example, the SRA regulated only the in-house solicitor and not the
union, and the Bar Council regulated the in-house barrister, then any
investigation would have to relate to that individual solicitor and
barrister. Problems may arise in seeking information, documents and
explanations from other employees or union officials to be able to get
a complete picture of who was responsible for what. Any interview with
others to help find out what the solicitor’s involvement was
would largely
voluntary.
If there
was evidence that the solicitor was complicit, disciplinary action
would be taken against the solicitor, which might result in the
solicitor being struck off. That would take the solicitor out of the
union, but would not prevent the union from continuing to provide
reserved legal services through other authorised persons.
If an in-house barrister was
also a member ofthe team, the Bar Standards Board would have
to undertake a separate investigation into the conduct of that
barrister. No action could be taken by the SRA or the Bar Standards
Board against any union official or employee. They could not prevent
the union from providing reserved legal activities through authorised
employees.
If the SRA,
or another licensing authority, regulated both the union’s legal
activities and the lawyers, the powers of investigation under the part
5 regime would allow for a full investigation of all involved. There
would be rights of access to all documents and rights to interview all
employees. That would allow the SRA to determine appropriate
responsibility. It could take disciplinary or regulatory action against
the lawyers and it could take action in relation to non-lawyer
employees and in relation to the union itself. If there were concerns
about the union’s fitness to provide reserved legal services,
its licence to provide those services could be withdrawn. The current
situation is a disgraceful state of affairs and wholly without
justification. I shall recommend that my hon. Friends vote against the
amendment, with the aim that the Government have a rethink, but this
time, I hope, with consultation.
In recent days, a group of
concerned regulators has been asking the Minister for clarification on
how such an unacceptable set-up would work in practice. I therefore end
my comments with an excerpt from a letter that the president of the Law
Society sent to the Minister three days ago, on 11 June. I shall not
quote the whole letter, but just the key points, which
state:
“the Government
has proposed an amendment to the Bill which goes far beyond even what
was discussed between officials. The Government’s amendment
would exempt trade unions froma requirement to become an
ABS...As you made clear on2nd Reading, trade unions will
have to provide reserved services through qualified persons. As we read
the amendments,the qualified persons concerned will remain
fully subject to the regulatory requirements of their professional
body. So if the SRA...concluded that the public interest required
that lawyers should provide particular reserved legal services to trade
union members only through a regulated environment, they
could—as they can now—make rules to that effect. Any such
rules would of course require the approval of the Legal Services Board,
and so could only be made if there was a demonstrable regulatory need
for them.
As we read the amendments, there
is nothing to stop a trade union from becoming an ABS—or from
establishing a separate, wholly owned vehicle which would itself become
an ABS—in order to provide reserved legal services to members.
Accordingly if regulators did conclude that lawyers employed by trade
unions should provide particular reserved services to members only
through a regulated entity, trade unions would readily be able to adapt
to that, and continue to provide whatever legal services they wish to
their members.”
Now we are getting
down to the nub of the situation. I would appreciate hearing whether
the Minister agrees with what the Law Society said.
The Government need to be more
transparent about their intentions, which remain opaque. If the
intention is that the Bill should entrench trade unions’ ability
to provide legal services to their members through lawyers without any
need for regulation of the entity through which those services are
provided, that would represent an unjustified special treatment of
trade unions that would be contrary to the public and consumer interest
and difficult to understand on any rational basis. If, however, the
intention is simply to leave the questionof the extent to
which trade unions’ legal services should be provided through a
regulated entity to be determined by the structures established by the
Bill, that would less problematic, although we should still like the
Government to set out exactly what they
propose.
Mr.
Jones:
Actually, I support the amendment. The hon. Member
for Huntingdon has just shown his lack of understanding of how trade
unions operate, although he has raised some points that I agree with,
and which I should like the Minister to clarify. The way in which trade
unions are organised is quite different from how commercial operations
are organised. My experience, as someone who used to run legal services
for a trade union, but who is not a legally qualified solicitor, is
that most of the time, most trade unions employ lawyers and barristers
to fight cases in courts and tribunals.
Sometimes, test cases are taken
that the individual would not be able to fund without the support of
the trade union. I sometimes used to wince when I had to sign cheques
for expensive barristers, but on certain occasions they were well worth
it, because of the amount of compensation in the test cases that they
won and because the precedents set were important. In those cases,
although a trade union is employing those solicitors, it will be
covered by regulation. The unions are not exempt at all, and I would
think that that would be the bulk of their work.
The other side of the matter is
something that I do not think that it would be helpful to bring into
legislation, and that is the advice given by the trade union in
workplaces by lay representatives at internal disciplinary meetings and
industrial tribunals. I usedto go to industrial tribunals
every week, even thoughI was never legally qualified, unlike
some of the esteemed barristers against whom I used to come up. I had a
good strike rate, and beat a few of them.
4
pm
There is an
issue about in-house lawyers, and I need it clarifying in my own
mind.
If they are a qualified lawyer, they will
clearly be regulated, because they will be a member of the Law Society
and will fall within the ambit of the regulation.
My confusion is over whether a lawyer acting on behalf of a trade union
and conducting work solely on behalf of that union is exempt as an
individual. We need some clarification. I suspect that the answer is
that they are not. If we are not careful, we could take regulation into
areas where it would not help to bring access to justice for many
people, nor good industrial relations.
John
Hemming:
The hon. Gentleman has experience of trade
unions, and when he said that they frequently employ barristers I took
that to mean that the barristers were employed by the trade unions as
employees. He is saying now that the trade unions contract with
solicitors who contract with self-employed barristers. There is no
contract between the trade union and the barrister, not that that is
particularly relevant. However, it is relevant that it would not even
fall under regulated legal services because the trade union employees,
acting for the trade union, might offer advice but would not conduct
litigation or exercise a right of audience. The employees of the trade
union would give that work to a firm of solicitors. The hon. Gentleman
has more experience of trade union legal services than I do, so will he
tell me whether there are any circumstances in which a trade union has
an employee who is a barrister who goes to court to represent members
of the trade
union?
Mr.
Jones:
I do not speak on behalf of every trade union, but
I have never been aware of a barrister who is employed directly by a
trade union. What used to happen in the cases on which I used to engage
barristers was that we got to know some of them quite well, so we would
select them to do specialist work on specialist pieces of law. They
were not employees of the union, but were engaged case by case.
However, when unions have to deal with certain areas of industrial
injury law, certainly, they employ the same barrister on quite a few
occasions because they are usually the best for the job.
Another area that needs
clarifying is what is defined as membership. The certification of an
officer is weak. I do not want to over-regulate the sector, but, for
example, people buy into so-called membership of Durham area
NUM—they are associate members. They have no rights as a defined
member, but pay £20 a year to access a legal service. The hon.
Member for Huntingdon will wonder how they get redress, and I have got
redress for them so far by going after the solicitors through the legal
complaints service, to the great anger of the law firm in question as
it has to pay the money out rather than the NUM. At the moment, that is
how I can get justice for those members.
Mr.
Djanogly:
Clearly, that leads to the question of whether
it is fair that the solicitors have to pay for the
union.
Mr.
Jones:
The answer is yes, because they should have known
better than to enter into such a relationship with the NUM.
The canteen lady case and the
Durham NUM case are useful in illustrating that a gap exists. If people
have no trade union rights by means of which they can vote
people out or have any say, where do they go? I support the exemption,
but we need clarity on the meaning of membership. Things can get a bit fuzzy in
the area of the legal services that are provided for family members and
in the definition of family members. Some trade unions have a wide
definition, whereas others restrict the definition to spouses and
immediate family. A related matter is that of the time when someone
becomes a member. I am aware of cases in which people have joined a
trade union to obtain legal services, even though the legal services
started first and the people concerned might have stopped paying.
Again, some clarity is needed.
However, union legal services
are being extended, and I do not think for one minute that we should
diminish the access to justice that they provide—at low cost to
the public purse—to many thousands of people every year who
otherwise would not have access to justice. The hon. Member for
Huntingdon made a point about trade unions gathering steam. I can say
from personal experience that, if a trade union gives bad legal advice,
there is recourse for the individual to sue the trade union for
negligence. In the case of my own union, such an action cost it quite a
lot of money on one occasion. There are one or two routes that are open
to individuals to obtain redress for bad advice, other than through
certification
officers.
I urge the
Minister none the less to clarify the position on associate members,
because that is an issue that could come back to haunt us, and I want
to avoid situations in which we leave grey areas or loose ends that
could discredit the great work done by the majority of trade
unions.
John
Hemming:
I admit that my confusion remains, because it
still appears to me to some extent that the debate on trade unions is
about solving a problem that the Bill does not create. If the trade
unions offer legal services, they are not regulated, although I agree
that, if they offer regulated legal services, there is an issue. We
have not identified any of the services that the unions
offer.
Mr.
Jones:
The unions are regulated. The bulk of the work that
I used to deal with was representational and was performed by
barristers or qualified solicitors, and was therefore regulated. The
other large element of work was in industrial injury cases, for which I
believe most trade unions do not employ in-house lawyers, but use
contracted-out services. There is a whole host of activities that will
be regulated by the
Bill.
John
Hemming:
They are regulated, but the important point, and
the reason why the people to whom the hon. Gentleman referred could sue
the solicitors, was because the clients of those solicitors were the
union members rather than the union. The union might pay money and
underwrite cases, particularly for test cases, and that is right. The
union might underwrite a test case because an individual member might
not be able to afford the cost. However, the actual client of the
solicitors’ firm would be the union member rather than the
union.
Litigation involves signing
documents, such as claim forms and so on. The claim form can be signed
by a litigant in person or by a solicitor on behalf of his client. I am
not aware that a trade union can currently sign a claim form on behalf
of a union member. It can sign one on behalf of itself, but not on a
member’s behalf, and to that extent the litigation that is
initiated by a member is not being conducted by the union. There are
issues around case management and claims management, and where the
responsibility for that should lie, but that is probably not within the
ambit of the Bill.
I
have a certain amount of experience of working with trade unions, for
instance in employment representation matters involving Unison. Unison
might customarily go into internal disputes in which there is a hearing
in a city council or some other organisation. That is not regulated.
That is not legal advice. It is not a right of audience because it is
an internal matter. It may then go to an employment tribunal. That is
not a court. There are no rights of audience; people can turn up and do
their own thing. There is no difficulty. Because individuals are not
exercising a right of audience and the person who initiates the claim
at the employment tribunal is, to a great extent, the member of the
trade union, it is not a regulated legal service. Such an issue is a
legal service, but not a regulated legal
service.
We must get
something good from the Bill. I entirely agree that the work done at a
lower level by convenors, shop stewards and the like in advising people
is not something over which we need a complex regulatory process. Let
us consider the Middlesbrough case when the trade union was sued for
settling on an equal pay claim. That raises an issue about collective
bargaining and whether the law and way in which it has evolved has
undermined it as a way forward. There are great difficulties with such
matters, but they do not fall within the ambit of the
Bill.
Mr.
Jones:
I know that case well. The individual trade union
member did not consider that they had received good legal advice from
the trade union, and was out to get recourse by suing the trade
union.
John
Hemming:
Yes. In other words, that was advice. It was not
a regulated legal service. It was a legal service and thus would not
fall within the ambit of the Bill. The reality is that any sensible
trade union should have a form of negligence insurance to handle claims
against it in respect of the advice that its people
give.
The
Middlesbrough case was about an equal pay claim, which is a major issue
in many urban areas specifically in respect of local authorities. Such
cases have many complications, but they involve a legal service that is
not regulated, so they would not come under the Bill. If we are trying
to solve a problem through the amendments, we must be clear about what
the problem is in the first instance. Will writing is not one such
example, but the amendments would create a situation in which we could
ask the trade union to undertake a conveyancing job. Theoretically, the
amendments require that and want matters done through an individual
rather than through an organisational
agreement.
Mr.
Jones:
The trade union for which I worked did
conveyancing, but we used to give such matters to a qualified law firm
that did it on behalf of the member. The law firm would therefore be
regulated underthe
Bill.
John
Hemming:
Exactly. If we give the work to a law firm to
handle, it would not come under the Bill and the member is the client
of the law firm. Organisations, such as the Federation of Small
Businesses, have a legal insurance scheme. A certain amount is paid
after which it will send people to lawyers for advice. The federation
would not be worried by the fact that it would suddenly have to be
regulated and authorised because the Bill will not change anything. In
essence, a deal is done with various lawyers—insurance-type
schemes and the like—the end result of which works reasonably
well.
The reality is
that trade unions do not offer regulated legal services at present, as
defined under the Bill. Regulated legal services are provided by firms
of lawyers. Trade unions may pay them as a third-party payment, but
they are not providing the legal services
themselves.
4.15
pm
Mr.
Djanogly:
The hon. Gentleman is making a good point, but a
trade union can offer regulated services itself. It could well employ
an in-house solicitor who would carry out the work effectively in the
trade union’s name, but only the in-house solicitor could be
regulated.
John
Hemming:
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention.
I am talking about what happens at the moment and those with the most
experience of running legal services. As the hon. Member for North
Durham said, usually they use a firm of solicitors. No one is saying
that such matters should move in-house. We have not identified the
problem that we are trying to solve, yet we are generating statute to
solve the problem. People may go to the union in the hope that it will
pay for some legal services for them, but the union does not, as a
rule, provide regulated legal
services.
Without
question, legal services are provided by many people. They are provided
informally by convenors, and there are issues about negligence and
being able to sue the union for duff advice and so on. Support is
offered at all levels of employment disputes, and that would not fall
within the provision. We must consider what problem we are trying to
solve and how it is defined in the Bill, before considering
amendments.
John
Mann:
Let me explain the problem as simply as possible.
The Opposition’s opposition to the exemption misses the point
because they have not fully understood the situation and the key
principles, nor has the Law Society. I shall speak about the Law
Society’s lengthy advice, not least because the case cited is
one that I initiated some time ago, so I know it
well.
If a union takes
on a case for a group of workers against an employer for industrial
injury, it can be handled in two ways. One is to have a lawyer, as
defined by everyone and in the Bill, to do the work—forget
in-house and external, because that is not the point. A legal
professional could handle it. The second way is for someone like me to
handle it by putting the case to the employer and negotiating. I would
explain that a group of employees have industrial deafness, I would
have them medically tested, I would demonstrate causation by the
employer, and I would try to negotiate a settlement with the employer.
The advantage for the employer is that the legal costs will not be
high, and the advantage for the individual members is that they will
not run the risk, individually or through their union, of adverse court
costs. The latter way
can be sensible and in this country we call it industrial relations.
They normally work, but if it is impossible to agree, some cases may go
throughthe legal process as test cases, with solicitors and,
if necessary, barristers on both sides fighting the case. That is all
covered. The issue is that the industrial relations side is not
covered, nor should it be.
The amendments seem to be
sensible, but on the question of where the individual union member
should go, the answer seems to be straightforward. If I negotiate on
their behalf, the remedies should be clear, and it would be helpful if
the certification officer could quantify them. It would not seem
sensible from anyone’s point of view for the Law Society to
regulate my industrial relations negotiations—even if I was
acting, in essence, in lieu of a solicitor, because that was the
sanction under which I negotiated. That is commonplace industrial
relations practice.
There is no suggestion that the
Law Society should regulate any of that activity, but unions call
people different things. The union could give me the title, “law
officer”. If one is a solicitor, one is covered, as I understand
the Bill; and if one is not, and one is not performing one of the
reserved legal activities, which is the key point, the situation is
clear. It is importantthat the certification officer is given
clear guidance, because the role currently seems rather too woolly.
With respect to the hon. Member for Huntingdon, that course would have
been the more obvious one to take in order to achieve what he has
attempted with the Bill.
Who knows what mood his party
leader is in today on those issues, but I fear that the hon. Member for
Huntingdon is trying to presume his party’s position on trade
unions, and that he oversells the case, because the vast majority of
the unions are not and never have been affiliated to the Labour party.
Fifteen unions are affiliated, and only two have become unaffiliated
inthe past 40 years. However, there are probably 70
or80 other unions in the TUC, and their number is increasing
mainly through specialist, professional unions, which have nothing to
do with the Labour party either institutionally or in any other
way.
Mr.
Foster:
On a point of order, Mr. Cook, I beg to
move that the sitting be now adjourned.
The
Chairman:
The hon. Gentleman cannot move the Adjournment
on an intervention. Has the hon. Member for Bassetlaw finished his
speech?
Debate
adjourned.—[Mr. Foster.]
Adjourned accordingly at
twenty-two minutes past Four o’clock till Tuesday 19 June at
half-past Ten
o’clock.
| 
