UK Parliament / Open data

Compensation Bill [Lords]

Proceeding contribution from Andrew Dismore (Labour) in the House of Commons on Monday, 17 July 2006. It occurred during Debate on bills on Compensation Bill (HL).
My hon. Friend has had plenty of time to make his point. I am going to try to make mine briefly. Generally, since the Access to Justice Act 1999 and conditional fee agreements were introduced, it has been possible to do without deductions. Occasionally, however, they are required, especially in test cases involving group litigation, which are not party to parts of schemes but are often involved in major, complex and expensive litigation. Of course, deductions are nothing new. Under the civil legal aid scheme, before it was removed from personal injury cases, deductions were made, for instance, for disbursements not recovered or payments in. After-the-event insurance schemes that operate now still apply deductions in exactly the same way. Regulating trade union schemes does not affect the dodgy law firms that we have heard about or the claims handling company, as those would be caught under the new arrangements anyway. In relation to the definition of members, we should also take into account that many trade union schemes extend to members’ families. I remember the debate in my old law firm in the 1980s about whether we could afford to offer such a scheme to trade unions for the benefit of members’ families, as was eventually provided. Trade unions are already regulated under the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, unlike claims handlers, who are not. The certification officer has a right and a duty to inspect trade unions’ accounts. Details of trade unions’ officers have to be filed, and any complaints over breach of rules, including over legal services, can be investigated by the certification officer. Of course, the trade union rule book, of which union legal schemes form part, is a binding contract between the member and the trade union and can be independently enforced through the courts if necessary. Unlike claims’ handlers, trade unions have their own internal appeals and complaints systems, which can include whether cases are being turned down. Trade unions do not encourage their law firms to turn cases down but to fight on, unlike claims handlers. They also use specialist law firms, which generally know what they are doing. The only beneficiary of regulation will be the insurance industry because trade union legal systems will not operate as effectively as they have done over decades to provide justice for trade union members. I very much hope that the Government will see sense, as they seem to be doing, and accept that trade unions have generally provided an excellent service for a long time. We should not allow one bad experience, albeit involving a lot of people, to affect the whole system of trade union legal support.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
449 c90-1 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Back to top