Compensation Bill [Lords]

The hon. Gentleman is right. I was simply quoting what the Minister told us about the TUC in Committee. It is not even as good as that, as the hon. Gentleman says. Inspector Barber is not the answer. If one looks at the sort of cases that have come before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, where we have seen the NUM banking £10 million from the compensation scheme on the basis that solicitors had been representing that it was funding actions which it was not, one can see that there is a real problem that needs addressing. Geoffrey Williams QC, who represented the Law Society, told the tribunal:"““It is not accepted that the only way in which these men could be represented as they were was by union agreement. They may have chosen to do so, but I say that was not an informed decision.””" He went on to say:"““The claims documents triggered the retainer and there was complete failure to explain at the outset why the arrangement with the union was either necessary, which I say it was not, or for their benefit, in which case the benefits were not explained.””" The right hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) has described that as"““a scam from day one.””" He is a former senior NUM official, and he said:"““The NUM has not put a penny into fighting these cases””." There is no justification for unions not to be properly regulated. The Minister acknowledged that trade unions have abused their position. She said:"““I know of and agree with the genuine concerns about the activities of a small number of trade unions””—[Official Report, 8 June 2006; Vol. 447, c. 428.]" If that is the case, is it satisfactory to have an unenforceable code of conduct with the arrangements left to the trade unions, when others who are in exactly the same position will be faced with the full panoply of the law, proper investigators, the police, charges, powers of entry—all the things that I have mentioned? New clause 2, the second of my new clauses in the group, would make it a criminal offence to breach the conditions for exemption, or the code of conduct, for an exempted body. If a body breaches the code of conduct, those involved would face penalties similar to those faced by a regulated claims management company. In Committee the hon. Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping) admitted that the trade unions had acted immorally. He said:"““I make no apology for UDM/Vendside, or for some sections of the NUM. I think that other trade unions have acted irresponsibly as well.””—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 27 June 2006; c. 118.]" As I mentioned, the Minister acknowledged that the trade unions had acted irregularly. The hon. Member for North Durham made a passionate and persuasive speech outlining the numerous cases of abuse. Many Members from all parts of the House accepted that the manner in which the trade unions had conducted themselves was, at least, disappointing. It is wrong to refuse to face the facts and to argue that the trade unions should be exempted simply because there are a small number involved. If I, as a lawyer, said, ““Very few firms of solicitors misbehave. They should not be regulated at all, and we would not have any of the disciplinary powers that the Minister is pressing upon the legal profession in her draft Legal Services Bill””, I would be laughed out of court. It is risible. Are we to be able to say one thing of lawyers and another of trade unions? If these are responsible organisations, surely they ought to be regulated in a responsible and sensible way.