Clause 5
Compensation Bill [Lords]
4:30 pm
Oliver Heald (Shadow Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs & Shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Assisted By Shadow Solicitor General), Constitutional Affairs; North East Hertfordshire, Conservative)
The hon. Gentleman makes the point even more forcefully than I did. What has happened is a scandal. The hon. Gentleman continued by calling on the NUM immediately to repay all the money that it had acquired through compensation cases, and I echo his comments. As far as we know, however, the NUM still chooses to keep the money.
The hon. Gentleman also pointed to the activities of the Union of Democratic Mineworkers, which shows that the NUM case is not unique. Indeed, there have been 750,000 registered claims so far, 390,000 of which have been settled. The damages total £2.8 billion, and the solicitors’ fees total £665 million.
The hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) cited the two unions for their behaviour and said that Thompsons solicitors had been garnering claims for the NUM and joining people up at £20 a time as so-called associate members. Those individuals then have 7.5 per cent. of their compensation deducted and given to the union for nothing. Unions should not be allowed to conduct themselves in that way; they ought to be regulated. There is no justification for their exemption. The Constitutional Affairs Committee, which after all has a Labour majority, reached the same conclusion in its report entitled “Compensation Culture”. It said that it did not see any benefit in exempting trade unions,
“since all claimants should have protection and the opportunity of redress, where malpractice has occurred.”
And it concluded:
“We would expect that trade union services would be able to comply with any regulatory regime without any difficulty”.
The Minister has said that she can exempt the unions and still apply conditions to them under clause 5(3). She talks of a code of conduct and the possibility of withdrawing exemption if it is breached. Other hon. Members have talked about the role of the trade union certification officer, but that is prescribed in statute and it does not include the area under discussion. We have heard nothing to suggest that his powers will be expanded. We have not seen the code of conduct, and we would question what teeth there are to enforce it. If it is going to be a forceful and satisfactory measure, I am surprised that we have not seen it.
When we talk about teeth to enforce a code of conduct, we should not forget the Bill’s powers that the regulator will use. They are wide-ranging and tough.