Clause 15 — Carrying on of a reserved legal activity: employers and employees etc
Legal Services Bill [ Lords] (Programme) (No. 3)
House of Commons debates, 24 October 2007, 1:00 pm

David Heath (Shadow Secretary of State for Justice & Lord Chancellor, Ministry of Justice; Somerton & Frome, Liberal Democrat)
As the House may recall from our previous discussions on the subject, we had two problems with the Government's proposal. First, the blanket exemption was far wider than we were prepared to accept, because in the provision of legal services by trade unions, it would have allowed what I would term trading in the open market. There is nothing to stop trade unions offering legal services on the basis of a general legal practice, rather than on the specific areas that were relevant to members.
The other issue for us was the position of other mutual organisations and how they might be accommodated. We still do not have satisfaction on that, but I accept that it would be extraordinarily difficult to draft an appropriate amendment to the Bill which did not effectively provide a get-out clause for a great number of organisations that would want to provide legal services on a commercial basis. Although I still think that there is a substantial argument that what is right for the trade union goose should be right for the mutual gander, I have yet to persuade myself that I can draft something that adequately makes the point in legislation. I therefore do not criticise the Government for acknowledging the point but failing to accommodate it.
On the position of trade unions, I welcome the amendment moved by the Minister. It represents a substantial reduction in scope from the previous drafting. I find little difficulty in accepting the Minister's amendment as being very close in spirit and in letter to that which was proposed by noble Lords in another place, and it achieves the same results. Mr. Djanogly shakes his head, but I look at the Lords amendment and at what the Minister has produced today, and I do not see a substantial difference between them. Of course there are still issues of definition. We know that there always would be, because it is impossible to provide a schedule to the Act that lists every single potential activity of a trade union. I accept that there are still problems of definition.
However, I do not have the same sort of problems, which seem to be reaching phobic proportions on the part of the hon. Member for Huntingdon, in respect of trade unions providing services to their members. I acknowledge the valuable work that they do. I shall therefore recommend to my right hon. and hon. Friends that they support the Government amendment. I have quarrels with the Minister later, so she should not feel too complacent. I applaud the considerable movement that the Government have made in our direction and see the amendment as an acceptable compromise.
Annotations
John Robertson
Posted on 3 Nov 2007 6:41 pm (Report this annotation)
I visited my Liberal Democrat MP, Mrs Kramer, in mid September and she has conducted a small letter-writing campaign for me on this very point, including a letter to Mr Alexander, Liberal shadow secretary of state for work and pensions headed "consituents concerns over union legal representation and employment tribunals".
I would have been happy to re-write a draft law at no cost. Organisations like Just Fight On and the Andrea Adams trust which provide support to people who have been Machiavellied out of jobs over long periods and had worse than useless union backing could have provided dozens of volunteers. All it takes is a line through the parts of the bill that remove equality before the law and give unions privelaged right to provide fake legal services and to have no clear contracts with members.
There is no complication. There is no difficulty. There would be no restriction on the volunteer-co-ordinator roll of union officials, or their collective action, or their representations to management teams on behalf of members, nor would volunteer union reps be restricted. All of these could be done a lot better if backed by a minimum standard of lawyer.
The Labour speaker suggests that there is something magic about a mutual - Co-Operative Insurance say - providing a legal service and the spell would be broken by a contract. Ask anyone who has been a union rep or been in a union whether the paid staff are sufficient, are skilled enough, or even interested in providing the feintest useful service and you will get a common answer, which I think will be "no".
