Clause 15
Legal Services Bill [Lords]
4:15 pm
John Mann (PPS (Rt Hon Richard Caborn, Minister of State), Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Bassetlaw, Labour)
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.
John Hemming rose—