International Workers Memorial Day
The final item of business is a members' business debate on motion S3M-1710, in the name of Elaine Smith, on remember the dead, fight for the living. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament recognises the importance of International Workers Memorial Day (IWMD) held on 28 April each year; considers that the official slogan "remember the dead, fight for the living" is particularly apposite and helps to ensure that all those who have died as a result of work are not forgotten whilst at the same time encourages renewed efforts to ensure that such tragedies are not repeated; welcomes events around Scotland to commemorate this important day and, in particular, the unveiling of the North Lanarkshire Workers Memorial at Summerlee Heritage Park in Coatbridge; encourages relevant authorities to fly official flags on public buildings at half mast; hopes that all workplaces will observe a one-minute silence at 12 noon on 28 April 2008; commends the STUC and the trade unions for their work in building trade union organisation and campaigning for stricter enforcement with higher penalties for breaches of health and safety laws to help in the struggle for safer workplaces, and supports the call for recognition of IWMD as a national day of remembrance for those who have been killed, injured, or made ill by their work.
I have registered interests that are relevant to the debate.
I am pleased to have secured this important debate to commemorate international workers memorial day, which was held on Monday. The serious matters that will be discussed tonight might even receive press coverage after the return to Scotland of the Morning Star as a daily paper.
I thank all the members who signed my motion and who have stayed for the debate—they are mainly Labour members. The debate is appropriate to May day, which is an occasion to remember and learn from past workers' struggles against poverty, oppression and injustice. Of course, poverty and exploitation are particularly relevant to the debate.
My comrade Cathy Peattie held a debate about international workers memorial day in 2002 and I commend her for her constant work with trade unions and as the convener of Labour's trade union group. I also thank the Scottish Trades Union Congress, trade union members—including those in North Lanarkshire trade union council—and the families who have made the effort to come here to support the motion. That highlights the importance of the Parliament recognising international workers memorial day. To that end, it would help if, in responding to the debate, the minister made a commitment to meet me, other interested members, the STUC and families of those who have been killed at work to discuss formal recognition of the day.
To recognise the day on Monday, measures were taken throughout Scotland—including a minute's silence at 12 noon in many workplaces and the flying of official flags at half-mast in several areas—and various events took place. One was an inaugural event in my constituency, where the North Lanarkshire workers memorial, which was funded jointly by North Lanarkshire Council and North Lanarkshire trade union council, was unveiled. I was privileged to speak at that event, which was attended by several MSPs and councillors, Tom Clarke MP and Grahame Smith, the STUC's general secretary, and at which we also heard a heartfelt plea for better legislation from Dorothy Wright of families against corporate killers.
The memorial is situated at the gates of Summerlee heritage park, which will reopen this year after major refurbishment. Visitors to Summerlee will see the excellent way in which the museum has preserved and interpreted the history of the local iron, steel, coal and engineering industries and of the people and communities that depended on them for a living. Working in those industries was dangerous. Our ancestors frequently faced the anguish, despair and heartache of losing their loved ones in industrial accidents and disasters. At Summerlee, we can reflect on the hard work and sacrifice of the working class of Scotland's central belt over hundreds of years and we can remember the difficult circumstances in which those people worked and lived. Scotland's prosperity was built on their blood, sweat and tears and that should never be forgotten.
My constituency has a great mining tradition but, tragically, that has meant first-hand experience of disaster for many of my constituents. Next year marks the 50th anniversary of the Auchengeich colliery disaster on 18 September 1959, when 47 men lost their lives.
Of course, it does not take a disaster for lives to be lost at work. Accidents happen, and some deaths at work are accidents. However, the Health and Safety Executive estimates that more than 70 per cent of major or fatal workplace injuries are the result of senior management failure, which is often systematic and over a period. The vast majority of deaths at work could and should have been avoided.
The theme of this year's international workers memorial day is occupational health. According to the Health and Safety Executive, work-related stress accounts for more than a third of all new instances of ill health. Study after study shows a sharp increase in hours worked, which causes rising stress. Only today, we heard that the number of people—and particularly women—who must take second jobs to make ends meet is increasing.
Increased flexibility in the labour market has led to a feeling of powerlessness among workers. They suffer as a result of impaired mental health, long hours, work intensification and oppressive management. It is clear that there is a price to be paid for tailoring the workforce to meet the market's every whim. Employees are being squeezed to the point of illness to allow unrealistic targets to be met; it is a case of workers' health for employers' wealth.
Employers have a duty to their staff. When those duties are not met, serious penalties must be imposed. Only then will companies take health and safety seriously and make genuine efforts to reduce the number of cases of death, injury and disease at work. Too often, profit is put before people.
I again draw the Parliament's attention to the possible outsourcing of occupational health services at Greater Glasgow and Clyde NHS Board to an American firm. Such privatisation—that is what it would amount to—would undoubtedly be a short-sighted and retrograde step, and would do nothing to ensure better health among the board's employees.
Over the past 30 years, market deregulation has taken place to an extent that would never have been tolerated in previous eras. When Margaret Thatcher swept away workers' protection, she systematically dismantled the network of legally enforceable rights that safeguarded employees against gross abuse and exploitation, rights that had been long fought for and hard won.
Unfortunately, although some commendable advances have been made, Labour has not yet fully reinstated those rights or overturned the majority of anti-trade union laws. The enactment of the trade union freedom bill that John McDonnell MP has proposed would be a good start in redressing the balance between the unions and big business, but a fundamental shift in power and a major change in the economic system are what are really needed. Capitalism cannot meet the basic needs of the world's people, half of whom live on less than $2 a day, despite the record profits for big business.
The role of people who represent labour cannot be simply to respond to an increasingly pro-business agenda. We must go on the offensive by challenging injustice and inequality both inside and outside the workplace. The issue is undoubtedly one of class, and it is important for members of the Labour Party to continually reflect on the party's traditional purpose—the advancement of the interests of ordinary working people. Our party was founded on the need to protect the rights of people who sell their labour and over the years has been responsible for the major legislative advancements that have been made in favour of the working class. I commend comrades who, at last week's STUC congress, highlighted the need to dismantle the anti-trade union laws, and I associate myself with the calls to repeal those laws.
Formal recognition of international workers memorial day ought to be implemented to act as a constant reminder of the annual toll of workplace deaths and an impetus to take action. I look forward to a response from the minister about a meeting to discuss that subject. We must all continue to fight in the hope that people who sell their labour can do so with the full protection of the industries and organisations that profit from their toil. I join in solidarity with all members who are present to remember the dead and to fight for the living.
As the debate is oversubscribed, I ask members to stick to speeches of four minutes. It would be preferable if they took even less time.
Like Elaine Smith, I draw members' attention to my entry in the register of members' interests. I will heed the Presiding Officer's comments about how tight we are for time.
Back in October 2000, when I was a fairly new member, I convened a small conference in the Parliament on health and safety in the workplace. I have continued to maintain an interest in the subject.
We all know that Scotland has an unacceptably high rate of workplace deaths. HSE figures show that, since April 2001, 187 Scottish workers have been killed at work. It is interesting that the HSE's figures include serious injuries and fatalities in areas in which people might not expect such events to happen. Given my background and the constituency that I represent, I am well aware of the dangers in the mining industry, which includes surface or opencast mining, and in the construction and quarrying industries. Everyone knows about those dangers, but if we drill down into the HSE's figures, we find that fairly significant proportions of injuries and fatalities arise in the agriculture sector, the manufacturing sector and, indeed, the service sector.
Of course, trade unions have always played a crucial role in delivering a healthy and safe workplace. My trade union, the Transport and General Workers Union, which is now part of Unite, continues to highlight health and safety issues, not only in the traditional sectors but in the agriculture and forestry industries. The union has also been at the forefront of promoting and developing roving safety representatives, which we should have more of in future. Taking care of all aspects of health and safety in the workplace will lessen the likelihood of serious injuries as well as deal with day-to-day issues.
There are several concerns that we ought to think about in the current climate, in particular the safety of migrant workers, who not only might be vulnerable to exploitation but might find themselves at more risk because of issues such as language difficulties and unfamiliar working practices. In terms of exploitation, working conditions are one aspect of life for migrant workers, but the living conditions that are faced by many of those who come to this country to work in some of our seasonal industries are appalling. I welcome the fact that the trade unions have taken a particular interest in that situation.
I compliment my colleagues at Westminster on the Temporary and Agency Workers (Equal Treatment) Bill, which will give agency staff improved health and safety conditions.
I will finish with a point that I made during trade union week here in the Parliament. As the Minister for Justice at the time, I took a close interest in the corporate killing legislation and convened an expert group of academics, trade unionists, people in the legal profession and others who came together to consider the issue in more detail. With the passage of the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 at Westminster, we need to continue to focus in Scotland, so I ask the minister to discuss with her colleagues the possibility of reconvening that group to examine whether we can do anything else in legislation that would be meaningful. The worst possible thing would be to have unworkable legislation that does not deliver for the families who have lost their loved ones. It would be worth looking at that.
It is with great pleasure, tinged with sadness, that I speak in tonight's debate as part of the Scotland-wide campaign to mark international workers memorial day. Along with Elaine Smith, I attended the event on Monday that was held by the North Lanarkshire trades council, and I put on record my appreciation of the work of the trades council and the trade unions involved in organising a very successful day.
It was interesting to hold such an event at Summerlee heritage park because it marks Scotland's industrial history and the steel and mining industries. As Elaine Smith said, those two industries suffered people dying and being maimed by losing limbs at work. The event brought back a memory of when I first moved to Coatbridge 25 years ago. An old comrade of mine had Coatbridge described to him as "hell with the lid off" because of the number of steelworks in the area. Lives were lost in the steel industry and in the mining industry that serviced it, many of which we will commemorate next year on the anniversary of the Auchengeich pit disaster.
As Elaine Smith highlighted, we have to remember that we have to build up resources for our workers today. We must ensure that procedures are put in place, such as occupational health services. One of the best examples of good practice in Scotland, if not in the United Kingdom and Europe, is provided by Salus Occupational Health & Safety, a company based in Coatbridge. It provides occupational health support to a number of organisations, including Greater Glasgow and Clyde NHS Board, and draws in income for Lanarkshire NHS Board through its consultancy work. That is a good example of how we can raise the issues of workers' health and wellbeing.
We must also ensure that the HSE is strengthened in its role of protecting workers. Too often, we hear of accidents happening and deaths occurring that could easily have been avoided if the HSE had been able to do its job of protecting workers in the workplace. In light of Cathy Jamieson's comments about migrant workers, the HSE's role is even more relevant today. Especially in rural industries, seasonal workers risk being maimed because unscrupulous employers disregard health and safety issues in the workplace.
As I said, I welcome the fact that Elaine Smith's motion finally gives us an opportunity to commemorate and pay tribute to the many workers who lost their lives building the Scotland that we have today. Many died needlessly and many workers were maimed. We must also remember those who suffered industrial illness due to the work that they were engaged in: the miners who suffered pneumoconiosis and the steel workers and those who worked in shipbuilding who suffered asbestosis. We need to mark such occasions so that we remember what work can do to individuals and ensure that such things do not happen in future.
I apologise that I will need to leave the debate early. I refer members to my entry in the register of interests.
I thank Elaine Smith for bringing such an important debate to the Parliament. Further, I thank the STUC for its fantastic work on international workers memorial day and on the vital work that it does on workers' safety.
Another day, another dollar—another 6,000 work-related deaths, or one death every 15 seconds. Work kills more people than wars. Globally, almost 270 million accidents are recorded each year, of which 350,000 are fatal. If we add to that the deaths from work-related illnesses, the total increases to more than 1 million deaths every year. Many of those could be prevented.
Among European states, the UK has the lowest rate of work-related fatalities and injuries. Even so, 2.2 million people in the UK suffer from work-related illnesses. Some 30 million days are lost due to work-related illnesses and 6 million days are lost due to workplace injury.
Despite improvements, Scotland is persistently above the UK average—the so-called Scottish safety anomaly. In 2006-07, 31 workers were fatally injured at work in Scotland, as were five members of the public. There were more than 12,000 injuries to employees and 1,250 injuries to members of the public. Scotland also has fewer successful prosecutions and smaller fines.
However, those figures do not reflect the full extent of workplace dangers. Many accidents go unreported. In the UK in 2006-07, some 140,000 injuries were reported but surveys show that nearly twice that number of injuries occurred.
New risks are constantly emerging. For example, call-centre workers are subject to long hours of sitting in front of a screen, suffer poor ergonomics and are put under high pressure. That results in a wide variety of ailments, from varicose veins to throat disorders, fatigue, stress and burn-out.
Biological risks are widespread and often poorly understood. As well as more obvious risks, there are other dangers such as asthma, allergies and skin problems from moulds and bioaerosols. About 7 per cent of European workers report hearing loss due to work.
As Elaine Smith said, stress is the second most common work-related health problem. The condition affects 22 per cent of European workers and is responsible for more than half of all lost working days. The annual economic cost of stress in the European Union has been estimated at €20 billion.
Many are subject to new terms of employment and job insecurity. We have an ageing workforce. With jobs becoming complicated and demanding, it is more difficult to balance work with family life. All of that contributes to stress.
Internationally, how many people are outside the statistics? How many child labourers are victims of employment and, in some cases, slavery? Employment laws should protect people from hazards, but they protect employers.
International workers memorial day is an international event that was first supported in Canada. The day was adopted by the Scottish Trades Union Congress in 1993, by the Trades Union Congress in 1999 and by the Health and Safety Executive in 2000. Canada, Spain, Thailand and Taiwan support international workers memorial day. It is time for the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government to adopt it as an appropriate way of actively ensuring that the debate about health and safety and welfare stays on the agenda, and of marking the words of Mother Jones—remember the dead and fight like hell for the living.
I add my congratulations and thanks to those that have been offered to Elaine Smith for securing this important debate.
Members are aware of the tragedy that occurred in my constituency in 2004, when employees of two companies—ICL Tech and ICL Plastics—died as a result of an explosion. As the trial heard, that explosion could have been avoided if £405 had been spent on replacing a corroded section of pipe. Indeed, if the pipe had been laid in accordance with regulations, it is unlikely that it would have corroded in the way it did. In my view, if the factory had been unionised, it is unlikely that the problem would have gone unnoticed for so long.
Nine people died, 33 were injured—some very seriously—and 17, although not injured, were, in the words of the trial documents, placed at risk of death. One 82-year-old passer-by was injured by flying debris. When the case came to trial, more than three years after the event, the companies involved were fined £200,000 each.
However, for the families involved, the trial was never going to be the end of the story. They knew that, for all the facts to come out, they needed a full judicial public inquiry. After meetings with the Lord Advocate, the First Minister and the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, it was announced that there would be an inquiry that would allow all the facts of the case to be aired and, hopefully, all the lessons to be learned.
The inquiry begins in nine short weeks and will be held in the place where the families gathered while they waited to hear news of their loved ones. However, a new issue has arisen, of which I have made ministers aware. The Inquiries Act 2005 and the Inquiries (Scotland) Rules 2007 contain the statutory basis on which awards of expenses can be made for public inquiries. Of course, ministers have discretion to override the rules. In the case of Stockline, there is already a ministerial determination that has superseded and restricted some of the more general provisions in the rules and the 2005 act. The most important matters arising from that determination are as follows. First no legal expenses will be paid retrospectively; accordingly, fees will be paid only for work that is approved in advance. Secondly, everything that the families' counsel has done until now is free.
The inquiry is only nine weeks away, and there is a huge amount of preparation to be undertaken, especially by counsel. The funding situation must be made clear well in advance of the hearing so that such preparation can take place. Further delays will seriously prejudice the families' case and the ability of their counsel to represent them properly at the inquiry. There is a suggestion that the families will be funded only if they qualify for legal aid. However, if funding is available only on that basis, families will be disfranchised in the inquiry. That position is untenable, because the families fought for the inquiry and are the most important people in the process. Will the minister ask her colleague the Cabinet Secretary for Justice to meet me, my Westminster colleague Ann McKechin, and representatives of the families as a matter of urgency, so that we can make him aware of the issues that I have described and the strength of feeling that exists?
Today we are commemorating international workers memorial day. In 10 days' time, we will commemorate the fourth anniversary of the Stockline disaster. Surely it is not too much to ask that those who were injured and the families of the workers who died should not be required to undergo means testing to allow them to be represented at the inquiry for which they fought.
I, too, want to support, commemorate and celebrate everyone who has worked hard to ensure that we remember international workers memorial day. I declare an interest and I thank Elaine Smith for securing the debate.
I note that only the SNP and the Labour Party are represented in the chamber for this evening's debate. Many of my colleagues on the Labour benches have been shop stewards, branch secretaries and even full-time union officials over the years—I was a union official in the south of England. I pay tribute to the STUC, which has played a more important part in my life than it could ever know, because I met my husband at an STUC summer school.
On a more serious note, in those early days I learned about the health and safety issues that confront many workers around the world. In the UK, the match girls used to suffer from phossy jaw, which was caused by the phosphorus that was used in the factories where they were employed. The match girls' strike was the start of women's activity in the trade union movement—in that context I am pleased that a woman secured this debate. Elaine Smith should be praised for reminding us of our important duties in that regard.
I represent a constituency in which there were more than 60 coal mines. As members said, we must remember issues such as pneumoconiosis and asbestosis, which has affected people who worked in the shipyards of Rosyth and Clydebank. We must applaud all the people who have dedicated their lives to fighting for workers' rights over the centuries. I am dismayed when I read in newspapers or hear on television about the many deaths in coal mines in China. I hope that we can do our job on such issues, in solidarity with workers around the world. We should celebrate the skills of the Cowdenbeath mine survival team, which is called on from time to time when there is a mining accident in another part of the world to help to ensure that there are survivors. The team does tremendous work.
Members talked about eastern Europe. I have great regard for the people who provide workers from that part of the world with advice and information.
It is sad that there is no Liberal member in the chamber to celebrate the life of Samuel Plimsoll, whose work ensured that a load line was painted on ships. At one time, there were terribly overloaded vessels on the open seas, which were known as coffin ships. Samuel Plimsoll realised that being a trade unionist was not enough and he would have to pursue his political convictions in Parliament. When he became a Liberal member of Parliament, he made his proposal for the Plimsoll line. At first, whether and where the line was painted depended on the whim of ship owners—indeed, one ship owner put the line on his ship's funnel. I am thankful that times have moved on and the Plimsoll line is now officially regulated.
I commend Elaine Smith for bringing the debate. I am sure that she agrees that Monday's event at Summerlee was very poignant.
International workers memorial day, on which we commemorate everyone who has been killed at or by their work, reminds us all of the dangers that many workers face at work.
The SNP supported Karen Gillon's proposal for a member's bill on corporate killing in the previous session of the Parliament. I was not a member of the Scottish Parliament then, but I supported her move from outwith the institution, in my position in Unison. Like MSPs, I accepted the position of the Scottish ministers at the time, which was that such legislation was not within the scope of the Scottish Parliament. However, if that is the case we must surely consider where responsibility for business regulation and legislation lies.
For the sake of clarity, I say to the member that the bill was not withdrawn because of any decision of the Scottish ministers but because a bill was going through the Westminster Parliament. It was withdrawn to allow the Westminster bill to complete its progress and to see whether it would be sufficient. In my view, it is not. Therefore, I will look to bring a bill back to the Parliament.
I thank Karen Gillon for that clarification. I am sorry, but that was not how what happened was articulated out there, including by the unions.
The corporate homicide legislation that was introduced in London is, quite simply, inadequate. It cannot be allowed to be the final word on the subject. We cannot allow the matter to rest there. We need to improve the legislation in this country and ensure that it is not struck down by the pen of a Scottish Secretary ruling that the Scottish Parliament has acted ultra vires. We should remember the dead, and fight for the living.
The number of people who are killed at or by their work is perhaps even exceeded by the number who are injured at work or made sick by their employment. We will be looking not only to improve the inadequate corporate homicide legislation that Westminster passed but to improve workplace health and safety legislation. Scottish workers deserve to be protected at their workplace not only from the danger of death but from injury.
Frankly, it is rather disappointing that some employers—I stress that they are in the minority—do not care enough for the safety of their workers. I want to see the legislation improved: both the legislation that covers death at work and that covering injury and danger of injury at work. Those who are responsible for the preventable deaths of workers or their injury should be prosecuted and punished.
As previous Scottish ministers made clear, the power to address that legislation lies in London. London has shown that it is not addressing—or perhaps will not or cannot address—those legislative inadequacies. As the debate demonstrates, there is a clear will in Scotland and in the Scottish Parliament properly to address those inadequacies. Therefore, it is logical that the power to make that legislation should be repatriated to Scotland. If we have the desire to make the workplace a safer place, and we can address the issue in Scotland, it makes sense for us to reform the legislation in Scotland. I will continue to support reform of the law on workplace safety.
The issue is one on which we should continue to reflect, debate and bring forward legislative reform. I will continue to speak out for that reform and to campaign to bring the powers to make the necessary changes home to Scotland.
I congratulate Elaine Smith on bringing the motion before the Parliament and associate myself with many of her comments. It is a little bit disappointing that no Conservative or Liberal Democrat member is in the chamber. In some of the events of the past couple of weeks, members on this side of the chamber have shown whose side they are on when it comes to workforce relations.
I will speak about my experience and give a historical context to the debate. When we debated the Coalfields Regeneration Trust, I touched on my family experience. In 1920, my great-grandfather lost his life in a pithead accident when he was 33 years old, leaving two children under seven. He was an electrician and had decided to go to Argentina to work. Because of his death, a different chain of events unfolded and the family remained in Scotland, staying with relatives.
The accident shaped the lives of the family. I decided to research my great-grandfather's death in the local library in Dunfermline. The person who helped me brought out a book that was an inch thick and contained hundreds and thousands of names. Those deaths have shaped not only where we are now but, over the past few hundred years, the communities that we live in. Mining has left its mark, particularly in Fife, but also in other parts of Scotland. It is quite a frightening prospect that events such as those pithead accidents of long ago have shaped the communities in which we live.
Some of Christina McKelvie's comments on corporate manslaughter were interesting. There was overwhelming support in Scotland for a movement to introduce legislation on corporate manslaughter that would be different from what was proposed down south. There has been a step in the right direction down south, but there is now an expectation, particularly among trade unions and organisations such as families against corporate killers, for more powers. They believe that the issue must be addressed and that a Scottish solution must be found, not least because of what we have gone through over the past couple of years. Issues such as the health and safety anomaly in Scotland and the number of deaths in this country must be addressed.
A number of SNP members supported such legislation at the time, along with a number of Labour members. Members such as myself and Christina McKelvie, who entered Parliament after last year's election, also support a move in that direction. It will be interesting to hear the Minister for Public Health's views when she sums up.
Questions remain over whether the changes that have been made down south will be enough. I am concerned that they may not be and that leaving it for a time to see whether those changes will have sufficient impact might lead to more people dying in the workplace, which we do not want to happen. If there is cross-party consensus on the issue, members should talk to one another and find a way forward.
I pay tribute to Louise Adamson, who has campaigned as part of families against corporate killers because she lost her brother in 2005. I got to know Louise because of her work on the campaign. She has been very brave and is an inspiration to people. She is prepared to go out and talk about her experiences and build a movement behind what she is trying to achieve on behalf of others who have lost loved ones. She has received support from families against corporate killers and the STUC. We all know that justice is silent, but sometimes the road to justice is not. We must ensure that we agitate along that road.
Given the number of members who wish to speak, I am minded to accept a motion without notice to extend the debate by up to 30 minutes.
Motion moved,
That, under Rule 8.14.3, the debate be extended until 6.06 pm.—[Elaine Smith.]
Motion agreed to.
I add my congratulations to Elaine Smith on securing the debate, which gives us an opportunity to remember those who have died or been injured at work. Members received a helpful briefing from the STUC, which gave us the stark figures for those who have died or been injured. As we were warned, even those figures should be treated with caution because they might not tell the whole story.
The debate gives us an opportunity to consider what still needs to be done to improve health and safety at work. We must also consider the new threats to health and safety that arise through new working practices. I will come back to that issue.
In Bathgate on Monday, as in many other places, people gathered at the workers memorial stone to
"Remember the dead, fight for the living",
as the motion says. The practice, which has spread throughout Scotland, was first introduced to Scotland by the Lothian Federation of Trades Councils and was adopted by the STUC. My friend and colleague Councillor Jim Swan, of West Lothian Council, was at the forefront of promoting workers memorial day. In his role as a leading member of the STUC's hazards committee, he has been a diligent campaigner for safer and healthier workplaces. He has tried to prevent deaths and injuries by being proactive and persuading employers to take proper action and to learn when mistakes are made.
We should acknowledge that improvements have been made in health and safety. My father worked in the building industry and I remember him going off to work each day without any of the safety equipment that we now see regularly on our building sites. However, the figure that I heard being quoted at the Bathgate ceremony on Monday—that there have been 50 deaths in the past 12 months in the construction industry throughout the UK—shows that we cannot be complacent.
We must be aware of the new risks that new industries bring. What action is the Scottish Executive taking to encourage the necessary research into the effects of some of those jobs? This Parliament may not have sole responsibility for health and safety at work, but it is clear that we have responsibility for areas that impact upon it. Our legislative powers have, for example, allowed us to legislate to help sufferers of mesothelioma. However, as I hope I have made clear in my speech, I do not think that it is enough to react: we must be proactive.
This year's theme for international workers memorial day was occupational health. As well as the trade unions throughout Scotland, Scotland's health at work programme, led by Andrew Cubie, has been central to driving the healthy workplace agenda. As the programme comes within the remit of the Scottish centre for healthy working lives, there are concerns that the Scottish Government's commitment to the service is not being matched by funding. I hope that the minister will be able to respond on that point.
When people are ill or injured, their first port of call is usually their general practitioner. It is essential that GPs are aware of the possibility of a workplace influence on a patient's illness or injury. Training, particularly continuing professional development, is essential to ensure that GPs are aware and have the relevant, up-to-date information.
The debate has been positive but there are still many issues to be addressed. I hope that the minister will take the time to reply tonight to some of the clear issues that have been raised.
Like other members, I congratulate Elaine Smith. The number of members who have stayed and contributed to the debate is testimony to the importance of the issue. Also like other members, I draw attention to my entry in the register of members' interests, in particular my trade union membership.
It is worth reflecting on the importance of trade unions in promoting health and safety. Trade unions have existed over the years for three prime purposes: to improve employees' wages, to improve working conditions and to improve the health and safety of people at work. Those three elements are important strands in union work, and the trade unions in Britain and Scotland have a proud record of driving forward those agendas, particularly safety. The first problems with industrialisation came about in Britain, the first industrial nation, and the development of trade unionism has been geared to fighting for improved conditions and, in particular, improved safety.
Many of us who are trade union members are well aware of the importance of safety. Those of us who represent constituencies where there have been specific safety issues are particularly conscious of that. Patricia Ferguson talked about Stockline in Maryhill and I am sure that Karen Gillon will have things to say about the Transco disaster in Larkhall. The issue that is particularly to the forefront in my constituency is asbestos and asbestos-related disease.
It is no accident that the people who have campaigned on asbestos—there have been many campaigns over the past 15 or 20 years—are the self-same people who fought the industrial struggles on the Clyde. The people who fought on behalf of the Upper Clyde Shipbuilders are at the forefront of the fight for better treatment and better compensation for asbestos workers. Clydebank Asbestos Group has played a particularly important role in raising those issues, not only nationally in Scotland and the UK, but internationally. It has pushed forward the argument that asbestos-related illness needs special consideration and treatment. It has fought the fight for early diagnosis and access to treatment and I am grateful to the minister for taking forward access to Alimta. We fought in the Parliament for the Rights of Relatives to Damages (Mesothelioma) (Scotland) Act 2007 and are now fighting on pleural plaques. We will also fight for safe circumstances for the removal of asbestos from public buildings and houses, because there is a vast legacy of asbestos out there. The people who have to deal with it must be treated fairly and we must ensure that they do not fall victim to asbestos-related illness.
To return to my theme, trade unions have been at the forefront of the struggle not only on asbestos but the whole health and safety agenda. The Parliament needs to support the trade union movement in Scotland in carrying out that vital role. I hope that this debate will record the importance of not only remembering the workers who have died but remembering the trade unions that have fought on their behalf and promoting their role in that struggle.
I draw members' attention to my entry in the register of members' interests and, like other members, congratulate Elaine Smith on securing this important debate.
Day and daily, people leave their homes to go to work, all of them assuming that they will return at the end of their shifts. They do, because we have some of the most stringent health and safety legislation in the world. People assume that their employers will do what that legislation says and ensure that they can work safely, with the correct equipment and safeguards. Of course, accidents happen that cannot be foreseen, as Elaine Smith said, but all too often, if we dig behind the Health and Safety Executive statistics, we find that those people who die at work die because of completely preventable incidents, when profit has been put ahead of workers' safety.
We must strengthen the role of the Health and Safety Executive, ensuring that it is more proactive in the enforcement of legislation. We must provide a framework in which workers are taken seriously when they seek to report breaches or when they urge action to be taken. When people die at their work, it is not just a matter of health and safety; it is a matter of justice, plain and simple. Why should someone be discriminated against by the Scottish justice system simply because they are killed at their work, rather than in some other public place, or because, like the Findlay family, they die in their own home through the negligence of private profiteers?
It is one of my greatest regrets that I was not able to secure the relevant changes to our justice system during the previous session. For the avoidance of doubt, however, there are clear criteria by which a member's bill can be stopped from progressing, one of which is that the UK Government is introducing legislation that will give effect to the member's proposal. That was the view of the previous Scottish Executive. In consultation with the unions and the STUC, I withdrew my bill to allow that process to conclude and the UK bill to be amended and improved by MPs. It is hardly surprising that I would take that course of action—I am a socialist and a unionist, so my preferred position would have been a UK bill to give workers across the United Kingdom better access to justice.
The Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 is now in place, but I am not convinced—nor are the families concerned or the unions—that it is sufficiently robust to do what we wanted it to do. I had hoped that we would have been able to secure cross-party consensus here to enable us to re-examine the issue of corporate culpable homicide. However, the speech by Christina McKelvie of the SNP and the absence of Tory and Liberal Democrat members from the debate seem to make that unlikely. If a Scottish bill would be ultra vires, why was Cathy Jamieson, the then Minister for Justice, able to set up an expert working group on the matter?
It would be for this Parliament to determine whether the proposed amendments to Scots law were within its competence, through the certificate of competence from the Presiding Officer and by the decision of a parliamentary committee. I am disappointed to see the SNP cave in so quickly to the vested interests of the establishment.
It was your own Government.
The SNP could no doubt have argued that the smoking ban was outwith the competence of this Parliament, but the bill that provided for it was framed in such a way as to allow it to proceed. It is not outwith the wit of the Parliament to enable legislation on corporate culpable homicide to be introduced so as to amend our justice system—not our health and safety system—to ensure that people who die as a result of a workplace incident are not treated any differently than others.
For the avoidance of doubt, I have not caved in to the establishment; my resolve remains strong and clear, and I will do all that I can to introduce such legislation this session. I look forward to the SNP working with us on it.
I congratulate Elaine Smith on securing the debate. She has a long and consistent record on the issue.
The health and safety of workers everywhere, particularly in Scotland, is important to us. I join other members in paying tribute to the STUC, which continues to ensure that the subject is of the highest priority for us as politicians. I acknowledge its role, as well as that of Des McNulty, in securing legislation on pleural plaques for people who suffer from mesothelioma. The STUC was without doubt crucial in that, and we in the Government have been happy to respond and progress the necessary legislation.
No one should go to their workplace and come home again running the risk of becoming ill or suffering serious or even fatal injury. We are committed to improving Scotland's occupational health and safety record and to minimising as far as possible the risks to workers in the workplace.
As members have said, there are a number of statistics that show that the overall fatal injury rate in Scotland is generally higher than the UK's. However, it is true to say that figures do not tell the whole story, and do not reflect the extent of workplace risks. We accept that. Research indicates that the difference in the rates can largely be explained by occupational and other characteristics of the workplace. In construction, for example, Scotland's workforce is made up of a greater proportion of manual workers to managers and clerical staff than is England's.
I would like to outline some of the action that we are taking to improve Scotland's health and safety record. As members will be aware, in March this year the "Scottish Action Plan on Health & Safety" was published. It aims to co-ordinate action to reduce work-related injury and ill health between the UK and Scottish Governments, with business, workers representatives and professionals. The Health and Safety Commission and the Health and Safety Executive are supporting its implementation through a stakeholder body called the partnership on health and safety in Scotland—PHASS.
The action plan committed £1.2 million in 2007-08 to improve the health and safety of Scottish workers and the public. It was published in March 2007 as a joint Scottish Government–PHASS document. The Scottish Government continues to support the activities that were initiated under the plan. The plan identifies a range of actions, with timescales, to be delivered by the Scottish Government and by key partners including local authorities, trade unions, employers and regulators.
The commitments for action in the plan include expanding advisory services on health and safety for employers and employees through the existing advisory service of the Scottish centre for healthy working lives, with particular emphasis on reaching small and medium-sized enterprises; developing and promoting worker involvement in workplace health and safety, in co-operation with the STUC; extending the provision of specific information and guidance on the protection of public service workers; undertaking research to link existing data sources, for example on work-related ill health, community health profiles and deprivation indices, to inform evidence; and disseminating sector-specific guidance on fire safety.
The Scottish centre for healthy working lives is a centre of excellence on health and work that was established by the Scottish Government in 2005. It provides an occupational health and safety advisory service via a website and telephone line for all employers and employees, and health and safety advisers provide free site visits to small and medium-sized enterprises. I assure Mary Mulligan that this Government is as committed to the future of that centre as was the previous Administration.
On corporate homicide, the STUC has consistently pressed for separate Scottish legislation on corporate homicide, and worked closely with Karen Gillon on her member's bill in the previous session. I understand that their priorities are the creation of an offence for individual directors who contribute to a death, and the creation of a wider range of penalties.
The UK Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007, which came into force on 6 April, creates a new offence of corporate homicide in Scotland. An organisation will be guilty of the new offence if the way in which its activities are managed or organised causes a death and amounts to a gross breach of a relevant duty of care to the deceased. A substantial part of the breach must have involved the way activities were managed by senior management. Although the act does not create a new offence for individual directors who contribute to deaths, they can be charged with culpable homicide or with other offences under the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974.
I appreciate what Cathy Jamieson and Christina McKelvie said in the debate, but the immediate priority should be to ensure that the new legislation is implemented effectively in Scotland. Karen Gillon referred to people caving in to the establishment. I am not sure whether by "establishment", she meant the UK Government. Her remarks struck a slightly sour note, because we have made it clear that, if legislation were found to be wanting, we would consider what further steps should be taken. I am happy to give that commitment again today.
The minister will know that I lodged a question to ask whether the Scottish Government will consider introducing legislation along the lines that Karen Gillon proposed. The reply said exactly what the minister just said—that it is too early. When will it be time? Each day the Government delays, more and more people will die needlessly. When will legislation be considered?
Of course, such legislation would not be necessary if the UK Government had got it right in the first place. However, we will consider what has to happen beyond the existing legislation if it is found to be wanting.
Patricia Ferguson made some important comments on the Stockline inquiry. I assure her that I will speak to my colleague Kenny MacAskill about the issues that she raised. They are important.
A number of calls were made for international workers memorial day to be officially recognised. It is important to note that the previous Labour and Lib Dem Administration resisted such calls over the past eight years, and that the same calls have been resisted at UK Government level. Our Government takes a similar view. It is more important to focus on the action that we take to improve health and safety in the workplace. That should be our focus.
I am delighted that a range of events took place throughout Scotland during the past week to commemorate those who have died as a result of accidents at work. As I said earlier, the best way for the Scottish Government to commemorate those people is to continue to show its commitment to improving occupational health and safety. I am pleased to do that on behalf of the Government this evening.
Meeting closed at 18:06.