Clause 15
Legal Services Bill [Lords]
4:00 pm
Kevan Jones (North Durham, Labour)
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.