Compensation Bill [Lords]

New clause 1 would ensure a statutory basis for the conditions in clause 5, so that a decision to exempt an individual or body from the regulation to which claims farmers are subject would have statutory form. The amendments give teeth to the code of conduct that the Minister proposes for those who are exempt from regulation. I agree that some bodies need to be exempted from part 2, and it is right that organisations that are covered by other regulators—for example, insurance companies, insurance brokers and their agents are covered by the Financial Services Authority—should be exempted, because there is no point in having duplicate regulations for one body. However, we should ensure that everyone plays by the same rules and is subject to similar standards. We need a clear set of conditions to follow when deciding on the issue of exemption; it should not just be the say-so of the Secretary of State. In January, in a written answer, the Under-Secretary confirmed—and Baroness Ashton said the same—that the Government intend to exempt trade unions by means of secondary legislation. The Constitutional Affairs Committee criticised that decision in its report, ““Compensation culture””. It said that it did not ““see any benefit”” in exempting trade unions, and I agree, but the Minister has said that the Government will not go down the route of regulating trade unions. There will be a different system for them—a code of conduct, which will be voluntary. I accept that trade unions play an important part in society and that they have, like many who manage claims, helped numerous people to obtain the justice that they deserve. However, like some claims management organisations, some trade unions have abused their clients’ trust for their personal gain. I am not alone in thinking that. The hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) has referred to his constituent, Mrs. Beckett, who approached Raleys, a firm of solicitors. She was told:"““‘NUM funding is available only through this firm’””." Mrs. Beckett had nothing to do with the National Union of Mineworkers. She had not gone through the NUM; she just contacted Raleys using the Yellow Pages. As we heard from the hon. Gentleman, she was told:"““‘You are of course at liberty to explore other types of funding arrangements, however we cannot guarantee that they will protect you from the need to pay any expenses or from the amount that your solicitor may recover from your compensation’””—" to which the hon. Gentleman said, ““Not true!”” He referred to another of his constituents, Mr. Dunstan, who was told:"““‘If you do not wish to take up the option of Union backing then it will be necessary for us to consider alternative funding arrangements. If you are not eligible for legal aid then it will be necessary to discuss funding your case by either private funding or through a conditional fee agreement.’””—[Official Report, 8 June 2006; Vol. 447, c.482.]" We should not forget the other examples provided by the hon. Gentleman, who concluded that they showed that the scandal of the miners’ compensation continues. The hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) was explicit about the problem. He agreed with me:"““The hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) asked whether trade unions should be covered by the Bill if they act as claims handlers. I believe wholeheartedly that they should be.”” —[Official Report, 8 June 2006; Vol. 447, c.495.]" Last November, The Times published an article that exposed the deceptive and disingenuous actions of the NUM and stated that"““elderly men suffering from chest diseases and a crippling hand condition were advised to allow the National Union of Mineworkers to fund their legal claims in return for paying part of their eventual compensation to the Union. But what the miners were never told was that in reality, the Government—and not the union—was paying the legal bills for successful claims.””"