Debates between Lindsay Hoyle and Grahame Morris during the 2015-2017 Parliament

Royal Bank of Scotland

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Grahame Morris
Thursday 5th November 2015

(8 years, 11 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Grahame Morris Portrait Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I agree with the hon. Gentleman’s point about some of the business practices, but does he accept that the motion is a reasonable and moderate proposal, and the contention of my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Kate Osamor) that we should consider other models, such as the Sparkassen model in Germany? Does he agree that bankers’ bonuses have been a significant factor in driving the misbehaviour that led to the downfall and the financial crash in 2008? Is it not true that the German banking system is geared towards supporting jobs and the real economy, and it would be a far better approach altogether if we did the same?

Lindsay Hoyle Portrait Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
- Hansard - -

Order. Interventions need to be a little bit shorter. I am bothered that hon. Members are all down to speak and they will have nothing to say because everything will have been covered in interventions.

Trade Union Bill

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Grahame Morris
Monday 14th September 2015

(9 years ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Grahame Morris Portrait Grahame M. Morris
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Absolutely. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. A plethora of organisations —[Interruption.]

Lindsay Hoyle Portrait Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
- Hansard - -

Order. I am desperate to hear the hon. Gentleman, but I cannot hear him because there are too many conversations or too many interruptions. Whichever it is, I call Grahame M. Morris.

Grahame Morris Portrait Grahame M. Morris
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I am grateful, Mr Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend’s point was excellent and well made. In modern times, e-balloting is an accepted method of improving participation.

In truth, the Bill is a smokescreen to divert attention away from the Government’s policies of austerity and to limit the response of working people to object to the assault on their pay, pensions and working conditions. My hon. Friend the Member for Blyth Valley (Mr Campbell) and other hon. Members have made interesting comparisons with hedge funds, the banking system and the financial sector. Such organisations and institutions promoted the casino economy that brought Britain, and indeed the world, to the brink of financial disaster. Yet, they seem to be allowed to wield considerable and unfettered political influence, and there is no proposal for similar constraints or levels of transparency. Our recovery is being built on a private debt bubble, and as austerity fails to eradicate the deficit or to improve the income or living standards for ordinary people, it is more important than ever for them to have a trade union to represent their interests.

In addition to significant and unnecessary new burdens, trade unions will also be expected to pay a levy to fund the certification officers’ new role. As we heard from the Secretary of State, the role will be much more proactive. They will have new powers to impose financial penalties and to scrutinise how unions use their political funds and for what purposes. Several Members have talked about the diverse reasons for which funds are used, but I hope that Government Members would agree that HOPE not hate and Bite the Ballot, as well as voter registration and improving public services, are all laudable aims that political funds support.

Unions must secure the continued consent of members to maintain a political fund, but that happens already as there must be a separate ballot every 10 years. Other Members, including the hon. Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy), have mentioned that. Winston Churchill said:

“It has become a well-established custom that matters affecting the interests of rival parties should not be settled by the imposition of the will of one side over the other, but by an agreement reached…between the leaders of the main parties”.—[Official Report, 16 February 1948; Vol. 447, c. 859-860.]

I ask all Members to vote against this most pernicious, partisan and overtly political Bill, which is one of the most objectionable that I have seen in my time in the House. I ask those with a genuine interest in enhancing workplace democracy and improving industrial relations to engage and work with trade unions, not to see them as an enemy. They aim to create safer, fairer workplaces for our constituents and address grievances in an amicable manner—