Oral Answers to Questions

Grahame Morris Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd May 2012 Commons Chamber

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I strongly agree. That was a very important moment, as it underlines something that has been quietly building for some time: a real return to form for British manufacturing. The fact that as a country we are now exporting more cars than we are importing for the first time since the 1970s shows that, notwithstanding all the anxieties and concerns about the economic situation generally, this is an area of emerging strength for Britain.

[Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

T6. May I refer the Deputy Prime Minister to an answer he gave a few moments ago, and ask whether he is aware that figures have been placed in the House of Commons Library this morning showing that public sector debt has risen from £12,500 per head in May 2010 to £16,200 per head in April 2012? Is this figure—[Interruption.] It’s higher. Is this higher figure a result of the Deputy Prime Minister having taken his eye off the ball by concentrating on Lords reform instead of getting on with jobs and growth and getting our 1 million young people back to work?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

The reason for those figures is the shocking state of the public finances left by Labour. Today’s IMF report very precisely identified three reasons why the British economy still faces real headwinds: first, increasing global commodity prices last year, which was not something we could control; secondly, the uncertainties of the eurozone, which is also not under our control; and thirdly, the hangover of monumental public and private debt, which was, indeed, a debt crisis made in No. 10—the No. 10 of Gordon Brown, aided and abetted by the backroom boys, the current Labour leader and shadow Chancellor. It is they who created the crisis in the first place.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Attorney-General]

I am afraid that I am not in a position to give the right hon. Lady those details, but I will see whether subsequently I can supply her with further information. I entirely agree that the case revealed some very worrying features indeed, and I can assure her that the Director of Public Prosecutions takes those aspects very seriously and wishes to get to the bottom of them. I have no doubt that we will be better informed when we have those reports.

[Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

9. What recent discussions he has had with the Director of the Serious Fraud Office about the future of that organisation.

[The Solicitor-General (Mr Edward Garnier)]

I have had many, both with the new director, Mr David Green, and with his predecessor, Mr Richard Alderman. The SFO has a bright future.

[Grahame M. Morris]

In view of the really bad press that the Serious Fraud Office has been getting of late, has the Solicitor-General had an opportunity to consider the failure of the Department for Work and Pensions properly to assess the risk of fraud at A4e and, in particular, to obtain key evidence relating to internal audit documents, as identified by the National Audit Office this week? Does he believe that there is a role for the SFO in providing specialist help to Departments?

[The Solicitor-General]

No, the Serious Fraud Office has a remit to deal with high-end fraud, international fraud and corruption. The work of the Department for Work and Pensions is a matter for the Department for Work and Pensions.

Outsourcing (Government Departments)

Grahame Morris Excerpts

Wednesday 25th April 2012 Westminster Hall

[Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

I am grateful, Mrs Main, for this opportunity, and it is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship for what I believe is the first time. Today, I hope to raise a very important issue, put down a few markers and seek some answers from the Minister to a series of questions that I will pose. I want to place on record my thanks to the Public and Commercial Services Union, the TUC and Unison for various pieces of briefing information that they have provided in support of my efforts today.

When the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General was Financial Secretary to the Treasury under John Major, he sought to

“extend competition in the provision of public services further and faster than ever before”.—[Official Report, 18 November 1991; Vol. 199, c. 25.]

He said that he would do so with no bias between public and private sector providers. It must surely have been a setback for him personally that, shortly after setting out that agenda, his then constituents in the North Warwickshire constituency decided to ditch him at the 1992 general election in favour of Labour representation. However, in 1997, he returned to Parliament in the far safer Conservative seat of Horsham and he waited patiently for 13 years in opposition before returning in 2010 to his privatisation agenda of 20 years earlier to make private everything that is public.

I give this preamble only to set out the context of the debate: we can all understand that an individual who has waited 20 years to achieve his ambition may be more keen to implement his policies and to do so somewhat quicker than otherwise would be the case. Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman has made his intentions clear. In June 2011, he spoke to the business community on the subject of public service reform, saying:

“Spending cuts are one-offs. What we need to do, and are doing, is fundamentally change the way we operate.”

However, the problem with the coalition Government’s approach is that it is not evidence-based; it is ideologically driven. Whether they are outsourcing services, opening them up to a range of providers or decentralising them, the Government are gambling with the nation’s hard-won assets.

[Jonathan Lord (Woking) (Con)]

We seem to be hearing a political diatribe against outsourcing. What would the hon. Gentleman say the previous Government were up to when they successfully outsourced many services? Indeed, many Labour councils, as well as Conservative and Liberal Democrat councils, followed in the footsteps of those pioneering Conservative councils of the early 1980s, by outsourcing services to give people a better service at lower cost.

[Grahame M. Morris]

The basis of my argument essentially is that there is no evidence base for that approach. If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to develop my argument a little further, I hope to illustrate that point.

If we look at the evidence base, it is in fact a constant lesson from history that reform has often come, as the hon. Gentleman has indicated, in the form of privatisations and outsourcing, but it has not always led to service improvement. Whether the justification for such reform has been a desire to bring perceived good practice from the private sector into the public sector or, indeed, the belief that savings can be made through outsourcing, the question that we parliamentarians must ask the Government and that I wish to put to the Minister is this: where is the evidence for those reforms?

I hope that the Minister will address this issue, which is about the economic and social evidence base rather than an ideological base that is behind what seems to be a rush to sell off services and public assets. It is my contention that the Tory-led policy on public services reform that is being followed by the coalition is ideologically driven and light on any such evidence base. I want to develop that point by presenting some evidence to suggest that the Government are on the wrong side of public opinion and, indeed, wrong about the whole issue of public service reform.

I hope that the Minister is aware of a report by Ipsos MORI entitled, “What do people want, need and expect from public services?” The report presents the most up-to-date and detailed data on current public attitudes to public services and public service reform. I want to put three headline findings on the record. First, people

“want public services to be based on notions of the public good, rather than just what’s good for me”.

Secondly, people

“understand the public good largely in terms of universalism, with equality of access to benefits”.

Thirdly, people

“struggle to see a compelling or urgent case for reforming public services to cope with economic pressures and social changes”.

[Gloria De Piero (Ashfield) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that there are different interpretations of public sector reform? For example, Labour set up academies in areas of high deprivation, but the Tory-led Government turned that on its head. Their interpretation is anti the public good.

[Grahame M. Morris]

I agree that there are various interpretations of what constitutes public sector reform, and I will speak about academies in a few moments. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her intervention.

On all three points illustrated in that detailed survey, the Government are out of step with the public on public service reform. Ordinary people want public services in public hands for the public good, but the Government seem to want public services outsourced to business for the good of private profit. Ordinary people want universalism, but the Government want to decentralise, to remove targets and to create local variations and postcode lotteries, so going against standardised and universal access. Ordinary people oppose rapid upheaval and fundamental reform to public services, and a case in point is the opposition to the NHS reforms.

The Government have run amok with the reorganisation of the health service and forged ahead with public service reform and outsourcing at breakneck speed. It is no surprise that when Ministers make speeches on public service reform, they do so to business leaders, never to public sector workers, service users or trade union groups who work in the public sector. I want to place on the record my support, sympathy and admiration for the front-line workers who are so often treated like pawns in a game of chess, facing constant change, reorganisation and regrading, often at the whim of political elites.

Workers across the public sector know that the latest policy move to the mass outsourcing of services and a free-for-all for business will be a last hurrah, because many of the changes will be irreversible. For people who work in the public service, it means an end to job security and to nationally determined pay, conditions and terms of service. Instead, national public services will become ever more fragmented, unstable and variable, offering short-term and risky employment not by the state, but by any fly-by-night private sector operator.

[Jackie Doyle-Price (Thurrock) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman is making a passionate case, but it is framed as public versus private. The reality is that we are looking at any number of models to deliver our public services. We have social enterprises and co-operatives. Surely, we should look at the outcome and not the structure of delivery.

[Grahame M. Morris]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, but there is a danger of fragmentation, even with some of the models that she mentions—for example, in the national health service and social care. If we are trying to promote integrated services, a plethora of private sector and even voluntary sector providers works against that ethos. That is a risk.

My argument is that public sector workers and service users know the difference between private profiteering and public services. Let us not forget that the key difference is that the first duty of a business is to its shareholders and the pursuit of profit.

The coalition Government are trying to do two things in developing their own brand of public service reform, which is quite distinct from what the Labour party did when in office. First, they are trying to tie down companies with more stringent contracts in the belief that setting targets will guarantee performance—ironically, the Government argued against targets in the national health service and wanted them to be ditched by public sector providers. Secondly, they believe that with stricter conditions for private sector providers, there should be no limits on where those providers should be allowed to tread within the public sector.

[Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is developing a pertinent point. If we outsource public services—a public commodity—to the private sector, in some way, shape or form the private sector has to make a profit to give to its shareholders. That seems to be the logic from the Government’s perspective, but it will be impossible for public services to become more efficient or reinvest savings back into the development of the service.

[Grahame M. Morris]

That is an excellent point, and we should be guided by the evidence. If the Minister can demonstrate that that is not the case, I will be interested to hear his response. Certainly, in relation to the national health service, the detailed impact assessment published with the Health and Social Care Bill proved that in-house services were considerably cheaper than those offered by the private sector, as well as being more responsive, accountable and fitting in with the wish for better integration.

A little earlier, different models of provision were mentioned. The coalition Government are promoting different models for outsourcing different services within different Departments—for example, academies and education, the utilities model and the NHS, or payment by result for welfare and benefits. However, although those are different models, the driver is the same. Emergency 999 call centres have been privatised and outsourced together with the administration of the benefit system. The roads on which we drive are the latest to go, as the pace of outsourcing to the private sector speeds up.

[John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)]

Another example is the translation service. Since it was moved into the private sector, a plethora of problems have included translators failing to turn up at court and criminals walking away without being tried because no translator was present.

[Grahame M. Morris]

There are many examples where the proposals for privatisation, outsourcing or whatever models are being piloted have not produced positive results. I do not have the opportunity to list them all owing to a shortage of time, but I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that example.

The Welfare Bill passed through Parliament in March and lays the foundations for billion-pound contracts of five years or more for private companies to run welfare-to-work programmes and the administration of the new benefits system. I believe that the rush to outsource the biggest spending Department—the Department for Work and Pensions—rather than develop a coherent strategy to create jobs and growth in the economy, is a dereliction of duty by the Government.

[Jackie Doyle-Price]

The hon. Gentleman draws attention to a good example of a contract that is working. In that contract, the burden of risk is pushed on to the private provider. If it does not deliver jobs, it does not get money. Surely, that is a good thing.

[Grahame M. Morris]

I am afraid that I do not agree with the hon. Lady. The issue was raised during questions to the DWP on Monday—by myself, I think—and the papers this weekend illustrated a number of examples of service failure. Service users feel huge dissatisfaction with Atos and A4e, and there has been a huge uproar about the quality of service provision in training or retraining ex-offenders.

The evidence base is littered with failures from the private sector, so it is difficult to hold up an example. If there is a good example, I suspect that it might be the exception rather than the rule. Most often, there is a negative impact for employees, with the prevalence of short-term contracts and the use of part-time and temporary staff who are often recruited through employment agencies. Indeed, Unison commissioned a report on the rise of the multi-billion-pound private public services industry and raised significant concerns about the increased dependency on private firms.

The privatisation of public services has already become a huge industry, through which the private sector receives more than £80 billion of taxpayers’ money every year, yet it has become characterised by increased cost, deteriorating quality, the loss of accountability and the greater risk of service failure. The reason why we had the birth of municipal provision in the great northern cities—Manchester, Bradford, Leeds and Wigan—was that the city fathers saw that public provision was more efficient and accountable than the existing private sector provision that was available at the time. Those arguments are not new in that respect.

I want to give another couple of examples. I mentioned A4e, and it would be remiss not to mention the Southern Cross care homes debacle. Other scandals in relation to welfare have also raised such issues and brought this agenda to the fore. That will happen more often as more services are passed over to the private sector. There is also a risk that we will lose control over our public services altogether. Indeed, in 2007, the Local Government Association warned that the amount of local authority spending on external private sector contracts and the ability of local government to make efficiency savings when it has already signed contracts without further damaging services was not realistic.

The Government’s central argument in favour of the increased commercialisation and privatisation of public services rests on the importance of consumer choice as a driver for increased efficiency, accountability and value for money. However, again, that is not supported by the evidence contained in the public surveys that have been carried out. One area that features genuine consumer choice is the provision of utilities. In most parts of the United Kingdom, people can choose a provider of gas or electricity from a handful of companies. However, is that a good example? There is massive public concern that prices have increased way above inflation and that the profits of the energy companies have soared. So the panacea of private-led competition is not everything that the coalition would have us believe it is.

[Jonathan Lord]

The hon. Gentleman is making a delightful speech in favour of socialism, the big state and the state always providing, whether nationally or locally. He talks about the utilities and so on. British Telecom is not perfect, but I remember as a young man when one had to wait weeks and weeks, if not months, to have a phone installed, and I think there was a choice of about three phones. As soon as BT was privatised, it saved taxpayers’ money and gave a much better service to its customers.

[Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)]

I remind the hon. Gentleman that I am sure that he would like to give the Minister enough time to respond to the questions that he has asked.

[Grahame M. Morris]

I would, indeed—thank you, Mrs Main.

There is an awful lot to explore in relation to the subject, but I want to pose a number of questions to the Minister. I want to ask about the evidence. Given that the survey evidence shows that the public seem to reject the individualist consumer approach to public service, why are the Government pursuing that? Can he point to specific pilots or evidence of its success? What protections are in place to stop the spiralling costs of redundancies during this transition period, for example, in the national health service?

In respect of the decentralisation agenda, what specific standards are being developed to ensure accountability, equality of access and provision nationally? With this new landscape of competing service providers from different agencies, with different forms of accountability, how will the needs and interests of service users with complex and multiple needs be protected? I am thinking about the social care sector, where needs dealt with by different providers often require integrated services.

Will the new accountability measures apply to private and voluntary sector providers? As we know, they remain outside of the scope of the Freedom of Information Act. What direct accountability will there be to elected representatives and democratic institutions, nationally and in respect of local government, when such public services are outsourced?

Trade Union Officials (Public Funding)

Grahame Morris Excerpts

Wednesday 26th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hurd]

I said that I would take no more interventions because of the time.

The central point that my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase made, about the 1992 Act, is a matter for Ministers from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills to answer. However, I assure him that I will make them aware of the points that he made and ask them to write to him directly.

In answer to the list of questions that my hon. Friend asked at the end of his speech—about Government plans to end taxpayer-funded full-time trade union work in the public sector, end full-time representatives and require transparency about the costs of trade union representatives—the Minister for the Cabinet Office also announced at the Conservative party conference that the Government intend to consult the civil service trade unions on the following propositions. We will consult on introducing a cap on the amount of facilities time that Departments can offer, to bring it into line with the statutory requirements. We will consult trade unions on the practice of allowing trade union representatives to spend 100% of their time on trade union work paid for by the civil service.

[Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Hurd]

I will not, out of courtesy to my hon. Friend who secured the debate, as I want to try to answer his questions.

We do not think it reasonable for the civil service to pay people purely to do union work. It is arguably impossible for them to represent the views of the staff in their Department adequately if they are not embedded in its work. In some circumstances, Departments go beyond the requirements of the law by giving paid time off for trade union representatives to take part in internal trade union activities, such as executive group meetings, annual conferences and recruitment meetings. To address that we will consult trade unions about any practice of paying for such trade union activities, with a view instead to enabling employees to take reasonable unpaid leave, as required in statute. In order to ensure transparency about the union facility time for which Departments are paying, we will publish information relating to civil service trade union representatives and the amount of paid time spent on union work, as well as the overall percentage of the pay bill for which this accounts.

As for whether we would go further with employment legislation, I have said that BIS Ministers would respond more fully to that point. However, there are no plans for the law on trade union facility time to be changed specifically for the public sector or otherwise. A reasonable amount of paid time off can offer value for money for the taxpayer. For example, it can minimise working time lost owing to disputes and accidents at work. However, it is important that the Government ensure that public sector employers manage the paid time off that they grant their union representatives effectively to deliver those potential benefits, which are the justification for spending taxpayers’ money.

In answer to the last point that my hon. Friend made, about the grant for the union modernisation fund, there are currently no plans to review the Government’s existing commitment to the union learning fund, as set in “Skills for Sustainable Growth”.

In conclusion, as I have said previously, it is important that employees are represented fairly by union officials. However, in the current financial climate, it is right that the vital balance is found between effective representation of trade union members and value for money for the taxpayer. The measures proposed by the Minister for the Cabinet Office will address the current burden on the taxpayer, while wider transparency measures will ensure that other public sector organisations offer value to the taxpayer. It is essential that we achieve a fair balance on behalf of the taxpayer, and I am happy to keep my hon. Friend updated—

Oral Answers to Questions

Grahame Morris Excerpts

Tuesday 11th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

On this question, I call Grahame Morris.

[Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. On the issue of compulsion, the Electoral Commission has already said that to move to individual electoral registration without compulsion will see the registers fall from more than 90%—this is what the Electoral Commission says, and the Deputy Prime Minister is nodding his head—to 65% coverage. Ethnic minorities, young people and the urban poor will be disfranchised. Apart from gerrymandering the constituency boundaries, fixing the election timetable and now letting millions of people fall off the register, what else is he doing to let the Tories stay in power for a generation?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

Instead of lurching towards ludicrous conspiracy theories, the hon. Gentleman should look at the facts. The Electoral Commission did not say what he—[Interruption.] No, the Electoral Commission raised a specific concern about the opt-out. Its specific proposal was that the opt-out should be retained but should be made more difficult. We will now consider either the Electoral Commission’s variant or getting rid of the opt-out altogether. That is what I am saying, in a spirit of openness, that we are reflecting on, and that will be reflected in the final version of the legislation.

Oral Answers to Questions

Grahame Morris Excerpts

Wednesday 7th September 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

My right hon. Friend is entirely right that the Government must take action to reform the banks, and that is what we are doing. We have already set out how we are getting rid of the tripartite structure that failed so badly under the previous Government, how we are putting the Bank of England back in charge, and how we are making sure that, as he put it, we cannot have in the future these catastrophic bank failures that cost the taxpayer so dear. We are looking forward to receiving Professor Vickers’ report. It seems to me there are two vital things we have to secure—a safe and secure banking system for the future, but also proper bank lending, including to small businesses, right now in our economy. That is what Government policy will be aiming for.

[Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

Q10. The Prime Minister will be aware that his Government are consulting on their changes to housing benefit claims under the criteria of under-occupancy. This will adversely affect 450,000 disabled people, including 33,000 in the north-east alone, who stand to lose on average £676 a year. A substantial number will be affected in my constituency. How does this policy meet his Government’s fairness test?

[The Prime Minister]

We are making a specific exclusion to deal with people who have carers living in the home, but we do have to reform housing benefit. I think the whole House knows, frankly, that housing benefit was one of those budget items that was completely out of control. In some parts of London, we had families claiming £60,000, £70,000 and £80,000 in housing benefit just for one family, so this does need to be reformed. It is no good for the Labour party—

Public Confidence in the Media and Police

Grahame Morris Excerpts

Wednesday 20th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I believe that my hon. Friend is right, and this does go to the point about the speech made last week by the former Prime Minister. In the end, Ministers have the responsibility to make these decisions, and I do not think it is particularly noble to try and hide behind and blame your civil servants.

[Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

In his statement, the Prime Minister told us that Neil Wallis, formerly deputy editor at the News of the World, was not employed or paid by the Conservative party, but it has transpired that he advised Andy Coulson, at least in the run-up to the general election. Has the Prime Minister made any inquiries about the exact nature of that advice?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, I have. As the hon. Gentleman says, I was told about that, on Sunday. Neil Wallis was not employed or contracted or paid, but he did offer some informal advice. The reason why that information has come out is that we put it out, and we will be equally transparent when we get to the bottom of this matter.

Phone Hacking

Grahame Morris Excerpts

Wednesday 13th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister has said on several occasions that we should follow the evidence trail wherever it leads. If that includes the proprietors of News International or other media groups, should we not be hardening the terms of evidence? Is it the Prime Minister’s view that Rupert Murdoch should be required to give evidence to the judge-led inquiry?

[The Prime Minister]

The point about the judge-led inquiry is that it must choose who it wants to speak to and it must then call them under oath and make sure that they answer questions accurately. Clearly, it is going to want to talk to editors, proprietors and those who are responsible right across the media. That is going to be the work it does.

Oral Answers to Questions

Grahame Morris Excerpts

Wednesday 9th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Paterson]

I do not know how the right hon. Gentleman has the nerve. When he was sitting in the bunker in Downing street shoring up his former boss, who overruled the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling) when he wanted to raise VAT, the Belfast News Letter found out that I was in Northern Ireland more than he was. We were in the danger zone in May, but thanks to the measures that we have taken, everyone in the UK, including in Northern Ireland and Lancashire, are in a better place as we establish stability in the public finances. We cannot go on spending £120 million a day on debt interest.

[Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

2. What his policy is on the use of stop-and-search powers by security forces in Northern Ireland.

[The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr Hugo Swire)]

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State updated the House this morning on plans to make amendments to powers of stop and search in Northern Ireland. These powers are essential in Northern Ireland for tackling the threat from terrorism. They have prevented attacks, saved lives and led to arrests and convictions. The Police Service of Northern Ireland uses all available legislation to deal with the terrorist threat. Oversight and accountability mechanisms are in place to ensure that powers are used properly.

[Grahame M. Morris]

I thank the Minister for that response and for the statement that has been placed in the Library. The use of section 44 powers has undoubtedly saved lives in Northern Ireland, along with powers under the Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Act 2007. What assurances can he give the House that the PSNI will in no way be hampered in its efforts to disrupt and prevent terrorist activities?

[Mr Swire]

That is an entirely legitimate question. The changes that we are making are to bring legislation in Northern Ireland into line with changes to section 44. The hon. Gentleman should be reassured, because, as he would imagine, we have been discussing these matters closely with the PSNI. It has a range of other powers at its disposal, but I agree that it would be a retrograde step to limit its powers at what is a difficult time in Northern Ireland. The proposed amendment will not do that.

Oral Answers to Questions

Grahame Morris Excerpts

Wednesday 19th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point and that is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has commissioned an independent audit of how transport operations performed during the worst weather in December. We have to look at some particular issues, such as the frozen third rail that affected so many services. She is right to call to account Network Rail and the train operators. We want to make sure that they improve the service that they provide and the way in which they communicate with the public when things are not going right.

[Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

Q7. Does the Prime Minister see the conflict of interest in private health care companies, which stand to benefit most from his health care reforms, donating £750,000 to the Conservative party? Is that what he means by “We are all in it together”?

[The Prime Minister]

Let me tell the hon. Gentleman the big difference between the health reforms that we are proposing and what the Labour Government did. The Labour Government rigged the market in favour of a few hand-picked independent private sector suppliers. That is what they did; what we are saying is that there should be a level playing field. Before the hon. Gentleman complains about it, he should have a look at his own party’s manifesto—and I quote it almost directly— which said that the private sector should be allowed into the NHS alongside the NHS. Those are the words from the Labour manifesto, written by his right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband).

European Council

Grahame Morris Excerpts

Monday 20th December 2010 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend; I am glad that Royal Mail is working effectively. [Interruption.] Opposition Members are shouting, “Where are ours?” Any unhappy Back Benchers who do not feel that they are getting enough love from their Front Benchers can join the love train and get a “Happy Christmas” card from me.

[Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

Bankers’ bonus payments rankle with ordinary hard-working families. Did the Prime Minister discuss—formally or informally—with his colleagues at the summit making a collective EU agreement to limit bankers’ bonus payments?

[The Prime Minister]

Normally, there are long discussions about banks and bonuses. We had a lot of discussion about the need to improve the performance of banks, their balance sheets and their lending practices, but there was no long discussion about bank bonuses. There have been good international agreements on bank bonuses, and we have added to them in this country through the bank levy, which will raise more in every year than the previous Government’s bonus tax raised in just one year.