Mr.
Heald: So the exemption will be for all trade unions, but
what would happen if, for example, the Union of Democratic Mineworkers
or the National Union of Mineworkers in Durham misbehave? Will the
Minister change the exemption so that it reads, “All trade
unions except the north Durham miners, the NUM or Vendside.”?
How will it
work?
Bridget
Prentice: It will work quite simply. If the TUC tells the
Secretary of State that a union has not risen to the standard it
expects and it is not following the code of practice, the Secretary of
State can remove the exemption. The union will then have to apply for
authorisation under the regulations. If it does not apply, it will not
be able to practise in that fashion. That is how the proposal will
work.
Mr.
Hamilton: I thank the Minister for giving way. I take her
point about the TUC, but the Scottish Trade Union Congress is a
separate body. As the proposal will, I hope, be rolled out throughout
the UK, it will have to be discussed with the STUC, as
well.
Bridget
Prentice: I take my hon. Friend’s point. I will
ensure that the STUC is also involved in the discussions.
We should remember that all
trade unions have to comply with general consumer protection law as
well as with the specific legislation relating to trade unions and
their conduct. As some of my hon. Friends have argued, it could be said
that trade unions are already extremely well regulated by a raft of the
laws that relate directly and solely to them. If Members think that
trade unions will be let off the hook, I can assure them categorically
that that will not be the
case.
Mr.
Heald: As I understand it, the Minister is saying that the
TUC will be the regulator. For everybody else, regulators can knock the
door down, go in with a search warrant, require documents and so on,
but the TUC is not equipped to do that to Vendside or the UDM, is
it?
Bridget
Prentice: The hon. Gentleman is missing the point. The
point regarding the exemption for trade unions is that there will be a
code of practice. If an individual trade union does not behave in line
with that code, the TUC can report it to the Secretary of
State—the regulator—who can then withdraw the
exemption.
Mr.
Kevan Jones: Is it not the case that if a trade union
refused to agree to the code of conduct, it would be regulated
automatically? However, may I urge that matter not be left solely to
the TUC? The Secretary of State should be able to decide whether to
withdraw the exemption based on complaints from consumers or Members of
Parliament.
Bridget
Prentice: I can answer yes to both those points. I think
that I said on Second Reading, in relation to those who would be
regulated, that the Secretary of State does not have to wait for a
national audit decision, but can, through Members of Parliament or
other individuals, look into a case if there is a suggestion that
someone is not behaving
reputably.
John
Mann: The UDM is in a unique position, because there are
no consumer rights for those who did not go through solicitors. Such
consumers cannot even see their client file, unlike those who go
through a solicitor. Will the Minister ensure that when the Bill is
enacted, those consumer rights will come into place for those who
currently have
none?
Bridget
Prentice: That will happen. The
UDM-Vendside—whichever is the company—would have to be
regulated. As a company acting in that fashion, it would have to apply
for authorisation.
Mr.
Heald: I am surprised to hear the Minister say that
because the UDM is a union, although not a member of the TUC. She says,
“acting in that fashion”, and that trade unions will be
exempted. How will that work?
Bridget
Prentice: I am saying that the
organisation—UDM-Vendside, as a number of Members have called
it—is clearly a commercial claims farming company and therefore
would be subject to regulation as laid out in the
Bill.
Mr.
Kevan Jones: Is it not the case that the organisation
would be covered because it would not be able to meet the code of
conduct as outlined? Likewise, if complaints were made by Members of
Parliament, as they have been, clearly the Secretary of State would not
exempt
it.
Bridget
Prentice: My hon. Friend makes a good point. The
organisation would have to comply with the code of practice and, like
trade unions, as I have described, show that it is prepared to abide by
that code. The TUC will have a role in monitoring the activities of its
affiliates and in informing the Secretary of State about any behaviour
that it believes falls below the required
standard. The code of
practice will provide an objective public benchmark against which trade
unions will be judged. If there is sufficient evidence that the
standards of service offered by certain unions has fallen below the
requirements in the code, the Secretary of State will withdraw the
exemption.
Simon
Hughes: Will the Minister give
way?
Bridget
Prentice: Let me answer the point about putting an
exemption in the Bill raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley,
West and Penistone. I do not want an exemption to be put in the Bill
because that would not give the Secretary of State the flexibility to
deal with rogue behaviour in the way that I have described. If the
provision were in the Bill and rogue behaviour occurred, we would have
to have to act through primary legislation and the consumer could
continue to
suffer.
Simon
Hughes: Will the code make it clear to any union member
that they can at any time see any file of theirs held by any law firm
without any
cost?
Bridget
Prentice: I have been asked questions like that in the
past and have had to be careful when speaking about the role of
solicitors and their files and what they consider to be confidential
documentation and what is not. I would like to return to the hon.
Gentleman on that specific issue, because it might relate to
solicitors’ rules and I do not want to make a statement that
might not be
accurate. I hope that
I have clarified the Government’s position. My hon. Friends have
made a very powerful case for exempting trade unions and other
not-for-profit organisations. I hope that, as a result of this
comprehensive debate, the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire, who
admires the work that trade unions do, will feel sufficiently reassured
to be able to withdraw the
amendment.
Mr.
Heald: Equality is equity, as they say. There should be a
level playing field. The last thing I want to do is to embarrass the
hon. Members for North
Durham and for Bassetlaw, who have taken a brave stand; equally,
however, I do not want to give the Minister a signal that we are happy
with what is going on, because we are not. The idea is that the code,
which we have not seen, allied to the TUC will be an adequate remedy,
but I just do not see
it. If a body
regulated by the regulator—the Secretary of State—does
anything in breach of the codes of conduct issued by the regulator, a
massive raft of powers become available to the regulator to investigate
abuses. We know from what has been going on that it is quite hard to
investigate abuses. It has been hard to get hold of the files, people
have been obstructive, and obstructive actions probably continue. I am
sure that that is why the Minister has the draft Compensation (Claims
Management Services) Regulations 2006 and has put into them all the
powers for the regulator to act if information is not being provided
and there is, on the face of it, a credible allegation of contravention
of the codes of conduct.
I do not see that that is in
any way equal to what is proposed for trade unions. If there is no
investigator and no powers of investigation, how will Brendan Barber of
the TUC get to the truth? That just does not stack up. If the UDM is to
be exempted, who will get in there and investigate Vendside? The hon.
Member for Bassetlaw has had a heck of a job to get the least
information out of Vendside—at least, that is my understanding
of what he has been saying—so where are the powers? As far as I
can see, there is no question but that Vendside-UDM—I think the
provisional wing is called Vendside—will be exempt. What a
ludicrous notion.
Mr.
Kevan Jones: The hon. Gentleman does not quite understand
what is proposed, because it will not be exempt. Let us say that a
trade union signs up to the code and then acts in the way Vendside-UDM
have acted. The hon. Gentleman asks what the powers will be. The
Secretary of State will withdraw the exemption and then the regulator
will be able to kick the doors in, as the hon. Gentleman says, to find
out what has been going
on.
Mr.
Heald: No. Let us compare the two situations. Let us say
that the organisation is regulated—not exempt—and that an
apparently credible allegation is made of a contravention of the code
of conduct that the regulator issues, there are powers to obtain
documents, powers to search and a whole raft of other powers. That is
the first position.
6.30
pm The second
position is that the organisation are exempt. Let us say that the hon.
Member for Bassetlaw hears an allegation and wants to investigate it.
Will he be given the file? Well he has not been so far. He has had to
struggle to get the files. Will anybody be able to come in and help him
to investigate—Brendan Barber, for example? Why would the UDM
let him have anything? Equally, if it were the NUM, how satisfied is
the hon. Gentleman after what went on in north Durham that he would get
all the co-operation he required? There need to be some teeth. If
Ministers are saying that we need all these powers of investigation,
why should these cases not be covered in the same
way?
Mr.
Kevan Jones: In the case of the Durham NUM, I accept, like
my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw, that the present position is
very difficult because there is no method of getting redress for these
individuals apart from through the Law Society. If in future the union
were signed up to a scheme, it would have to abide by that code of
conduct. I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I want to be clear what is in
the code of conduct. To protect the consumer it needs to have both a
complaints procedure and a system to remedy complaints. That would
solve the problems of those individual cases. If it got to the stage
that we have reached in Durham and Nottinghamshire with Vendside and
that number of complaints, surely the Secretary of State would have to
act to withdraw the exemption. That would lead to the draconian powers
of kicking doors in that he described being able to be used against
those
unions.
Mr.
Heald: I do not know exactly how long it has taken to
investigate the Vendside claims and to get hold of the files, but I
know that it is years. Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that we have an
agreement for the trade unions, including the two that have misbehaved,
which means that if they want to they can sign up to the code saying,
“Oh yes, of course we will behave,” and when allegations
are made can be difficult about it saying, “We have done nothing
wrong, why should we produce our files?” Who will make them do
so? Nobody. One would
not have a panoply of regulations like the Compensation (Claims
Management Services) Regulations 2006 if they were not
needed—well, I do not think that the Government would do that in
this instance, or at least I hope not. If this is necessary to tackle
these sorts of people why should it not apply to the sort of people in
north Durham and Vendside-UDM who we know have been misbehaving. It
seems daft to let them
off.
Paddy
Tipping: I do not want to pursue Vendside
endlessly—I leave that to my hon. Friend the Member for
Bassetlaw—but it is clear that as things stand, Vendside could
not be exempted. First, it is a claims handler, secondly it is a
limited company, not a trade union and, thirdly, the bulk of its work
is not for members, but for a wider audience. I would be pursuing the
Minister hard if there were any chance of Vendside being exempted in
its present form. It will have to change its behaviour
fundamentally.
Mr.
Heald: Forgive me for being a suspicious old lawyer, but
when Claims Direct was sued as a claims handler, it started arguing
that it provided insurance services. It is not beyond the bounds of
possibility that if the powers do not apply to trade unions, Vendside,
which, let us face it, is a union—it is the UDM and a creature
of the union—will maintain that it is a union. I am sure that it
will. In fact, I think that it is doing so. Those people are prepared
to be inventive. We know that claims handlers are already setting up in
Fuengirola so that they do not have to comply with the regulations. We
should not simply accept that these sorts of people who have a lot of
money at stake will behave in a decent way.
Mr.
Hamilton: We are talking about 6 million trade unionists.
For the past half hour, the hon. Gentleman has been referring to an
industry with less than 5,000 people. Why does he not say what he
really means? He is attacking the trade unions, as he always
does.
Mr.
Heald: Let me put it the other way. I am a lawyer; there
are about 100,000 lawyers, and I do not suppose that more than a
handful could be criticised in the area under discussion.
Raley’s, Thompsons and perhaps two or three other firms have
been mentioned, but I accept that the entire legal profession should be
properly regulated. The question for the hon. Gentleman is, what is he
afraid of? Why does he want an easy deal—easy street—for
the trade unions? The people who are affected have been described as
consumers, but they are the victims of poor health and safety provision
in the workplace. He said that he has been a trade unionist his whole
life, so I would have thought he would have cared about
that.
| 
