Clause 15
Legal Services Bill [Lords]
2:45 pm
Bridget Prentice (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Ministry of Justice; Lewisham East, Labour)
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.