 |
The Rt Hon Malcolm Bruce MPLiberal Democrat MP for Gordon |
 |
Employment Relations Bill, House of Commons debate
February 26, 2004 12:00 AM
By Malcolm Bruce MP
By Malcolm Bruce MP
Speaking on the money resolution within the Employment Relations Bill, in which Malcolm Bruce questioned the specifics of public funding for trade unions.
We support the principles of the Bill and we voted in favour on Second Reading, and I am sure that the Minister will testify that we have engaged constructively in Committee. I respect the Minister and his personal good faith, but if he is saying that £5 million or £10 million will be devoted to certain purposes, why does not the money resolution say that, rather than giving an open-ended commitment? Money resolutions usually have a figure attached. I appreciate that they do not have to have one, but it is reasonable for the House to be concerned about being asked to vote for a money resolution that literally has no price tag attached but only the Minister's indication in his speech. As a matter of principle, I believe that the House should expect the courtesy of a figure.
The connection, it seems to me, should be a matter of awkward embarrassment to the Government. It rather has the shape of a reverse takeover. The Labour party was originally the creature of the trade union movement and it is essentially a wholly owned subsidiary of the trade union movement. That is why it is called the Labour party. We now have a position in which the trade unions may become a wholly owned subsidiary of the Labour party through the courtesy of the taxpayer. It is a matter of clear concern and Ministers know perfectly well that the public will draw conclusions from it. Personally, I believe that it is unwise for the Government to take this course. There has been, in several ways, a respectable distancing of the relationship between the Labour Government and the trade union movement, but the money resolution blows away what I had thought was a real division. It now looks more like a façade.
The timing is also uncomfortable. Many of us expect that we are likely to be at the hustings within twelve to fourteen months, and money will change hands between the trade union movement and the Labour party. The reality is that the unions should modernise: unions are modernising and most of us have paid considerable tribute to the change in the character of the trade union movement over the last twenty or thirty years. When I was a member of the Trade and Industry Committee I had experience of taking evidence from trade unions. I recall some extremely constructive engagements in which the trade unions made positive contributions to business interests, relations with management, market developments and all sorts of issues that were extremely beneficial to the good working of the economy. It seems strange that taxpayers' money is now required to achieve that.
To conclude, the Minister might have acquired my party's acquiescence-I doubt whether he would have secured that of the Conservatives under any circumstances-if the wording of the motion had been more specific about the money requirement. However, I still have a concern in principle about whether the Government should be doing this. My warning to the Minister, his Cabinet colleagues and perhaps even the Prime Minister is that I believe that the Government will come to regret their decision because the political damage will far outweigh the financial gain.
What would you like to do next?
-
Subscribe for updates
Follow the party's activity on...
- Twitter:
- Liberal Democrats
- Facebook:
- Liberal Democrats
- YouTube:
- Liberal Democrats
-
Help out or donate
-
Tell us what you think