International Workers Memorial Day
The final item of business today is a members' business debate on motion S1M-2615, in the name of Cathy Peattie, on international workers memorial day—28 April 2002. The debate will be concluded without any question being put. I ask members who wish to speak to press their request-to-speak buttons.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament notes that 28 April 2002 is International Workers' Memorial Day, a commemoration of those who have died or suffered accidents or ill health as a result of work, and calls for this day to be widely observed in Scotland through action to improve safety and provide a healthier working environment.
"Mourn for the Dead, Fight for the Living" is stated on a poster, produced by the American Federation of Labor-Congress of Industrial Organizations, which shows firefighters among the wreckage of the World Trade Center towers.
Workers risk their lives daily. Sometimes it is a calculated risk, which is taken in an attempt to save others and to make the world a better place. Often the risks are unnecessary and are the product of negligence and a lack of safety consciousness among workers and employers. Sometimes the risks are the result of deliberate ignorance of safety by employers who put profits ahead of people.
In the United Kingdom, 25 million working days are lost every year as a result of work-related accidents and ill health. More than one million workers are injured every year. Asbestos causes 3,000 deaths every year. One and a half million workplace premises still contain asbestos.
Workers memorial day is an international event, which originated in Canada in 1985. The Scottish Trades Union Congress adopted it in 1993, the Trades Union Congress adopted it in 1999 and the Health and Safety Executive adopted it in 2000. Canada, Spain, Thailand and Taiwan have officially adopted the day, and a significant announcement is expected on 28 April about making it an official International Labour Organisation day within the United Nations system. I would like to thank the trade unions for the work that they have done in raising the profile of workers memorial day and for highlighting the reasons for its existence.
Internationally, more than a million people die every year from accidents or illness caused by bad working conditions. How many more people are hidden from those statistics? How many child labourers and other hidden workers are the victims of their employment or, in some cases, their slavery? Laws should protect people from hazards, yet often they protect employers and make it hard for people to refuse dangerous work. Even without such anti-labour laws, poverty and bullying are there to keep people working in unsafe conditions.
A paper by Woolfson and Beck declares:
"Scotland's workplace health and safety record is poor."
Since Piper Alpha, there have been another 60 deaths in the North sea. In 1998-99 there were 34 reported fatalities and nearly 2,400 major injuries in Scotland. That does not include deaths from causes such as heart attacks at work, fatalities related to work travel or deaths from work-related diseases.
Analysis of figures for the late 1990s shows that the rate of major injuries in Scotland exceeds that of Britain as a whole. In 1998-99, the rate for Britain was 92.9 injuries per 100,000 employees, but for Scotland the rate was 114.7. That was a worsening of our rate compared to the British figure. Between 1996 and 1998 only 6.4 per cent of Scottish injuries resulted in prosecution, compared to 10.4 per cent for Britain as a whole. The figures for deaths were 12.8 per cent in Scotland and 18.8 per cent in Britain. The average fine following a fatality was £14,575 in Scotland and £18,032 in Britain. The average fine for all cases was £3,005 in Scotland and just under £5,000 in Britain.
As a nation, we need to examine seriously those figures and understand why they exist. We need to focus attention on our health and safety practices and the problems of health and illness at work. For example, all workers should be able to access occupational health advice, yet such advice, largely from non-specialists, is available to only 30 per cent of UK workers. We need to bolster the work of the Health and Safety Executive and local authority enforcement through environmental health departments. We also need to consider how we treat those who have suffered from their employment in terms of health and other services. We must recognise the lack of support that such people get from the legal system when they seek redress from their employers.
I recently met Mrs Thelma Steel, a constituent in Bo'ness. Her husband, Eddie Steel, died recently, having suffered from mesothelioma. Eddie Steel was a Korean war veteran. I often met him at my supermarket surgery in Bo'ness. He told me about his working life, his health problems and his legal battle. In spite of all that, Eddie Steel was always optimistic—laughing and joking—and was well liked by all he met. He came into contact with asbestos as a pipe fitter working for BP. In those days, workers were told not to worry, even when the evidence started to accumulate. Mr Steel started a court action, but that is a long and protracted affair and he lost his race against time. Now his wife and sons cannot take up the case where he left it; they will have to start from the beginning. What a way to treat people who have already suffered so much.
The Scottish Executive can take the lead in tackling these problems. For a starter, as a mark of its serious intentions, it can formally adopt international workers memorial day. That would be an appropriate way of promoting activity and ensuring that the debate about health, safety and welfare stays on the agenda. To use the words of Mother Jones, I think that such a step would be an appropriate way to remember
"the dead, and fight like hell for the living".
Quite a few members wish to speak. If we have four-minute speeches, we might be able to fit everyone in. We might need a short extension later, but we will see how we get on.
I will be brief. I thank Cathy Peattie for securing this debate. International workers memorial day is certainly worthy of discussion. When Cathy mentioned that more than a million workers throughout the world die every year, I began to wonder whether there are any physical memorials for those who die at work in the same way as there are war memorials for those who die in battle.
We must also consider the struggle that workers face in some parts of the world. Most of my own work on that subject has centred on south and central American countries, where people on the fruit plantations work in horrendous conditions. In Guatemala and Puerto Rico, even as we speak, workers are being persecuted for seeking better working conditions or for trying to prevent the use of certain insecticides that cause birth deformities and lower life expectancy.
Trade unions exist in those countries and they are trying very hard to improve the rights of workers. MSPs have met a few of the folk involved in that work. I particularly remember Gilberth Bermudez, who has visited the country a few times to talk to parliamentarians and trade unions. At the moment, Gilberth is in hiding in Latin America. His life is in danger because he is trying to organise workers and to secure a better deal for them.
Moreover, about a year and a half ago, another trade union activist called Doris Calvo spoke to the SNP conference. Doris was attacked on her way to the airport to catch her flight to the United Kingdom. Her passport was stolen, obviously with the intention that she would be prevented from leaving the country.
The awful thing is that the multinational corporations—the everyday names that the whole world has heard of—allow such acts to be perpetrated. I am talking about companies such as Del Monte Foods and Dole. We see Del Monte's produce on the shelves everywhere we go and those terribly jolly adverts in which the man from Del Monte says yes. In actual fact, the man from Del Monte says no. He says no to trade union and workers' rights and safety legislation in the fruit plantations that the company deals with.
I pay tribute to the volunteers and workers of the World Development Movement, which constantly tries to raise such issues on behalf of international workers. I also pay tribute to our own trade unions, which lobby very hard on behalf of those workers and form strong partnerships with other trade unions across the world, particularly those in Latin America.
I again thank Cathy Peattie and apologise for having to leave as soon as I finish. I have another engagement that I must attend. Before I finish, I want to say that this day should not pass without our paying tribute to those throughout the world who work in extremely adverse conditions. We must all do our best to raise awareness of their situation and to change the way of the world.
I also congratulate Cathy Peattie on securing this evening's debate. I am a member of the Transport and General Workers Union and have declared that interest in the Register of Members' Interests, just to keep myself right.
I want to concentrate on health and safety at work and how that impacts on women. In June 1888, Annie Besant, who became leader of the Matchgirls Union, heard a speech on female labour at a Fabian Society meeting in London. She was absolutely appalled to learn of the plight of women working at the Bryant & May match factory. The pay and conditions involved working a 14-hour day for a wage of less than 5 shillings a week. The workers did not even necessarily get their full wages because fines were levied by management for such heinous crimes as talking, dropping matches and daring to go to the toilet without permission. If the girls were late, they were fined half a day's pay.
Annie Besant went along and interviewed some of the women and discovered that their appalling working conditions had also affected their health. The use of yellow phosphorous caused yellowing of the skin, loss of hair and phossy jaw, a particularly horrible form of bone cancer. At that time, yellow phosphorous was banned in the United States and Sweden, but the British Government refused to ban it on the ground that it would restrain free trade.
Annie wrote an article entitled "White Slavery in London" in her newspaper, The Link, in which she said:
"Born in slums, driven to work while still children, undersized because under-fed, oppressed because helpless, flung aside as soon as worked out, who cares if they die or go on to the streets provided only that Bryant & May shareholders get their 23 per cent and Mr. Theodore Bryant can erect statues and buy parks?"
Strangely enough, that caused management to try to force their workers to sign a statement saying that all was well and that they were happy at work. A group of women refused, the organiser was sacked and that resulted in a strike by 1,400 women at Bryant & May and the subsequent formation of the Matchgirls Union.
That month, The Times reported:
"The pity is that the match girls have not been suffered to take their own course but have been egged on to strike by irresponsible advisors. No effort has been spared by those pests of the modern industrialised world to bring this quarrel to a head."
Thank goodness for pests. Within a few weeks, the match girls won improvements in working conditions, and their example encouraged a new wave of unionisation of general and unskilled workers across the country. The match girls are an early example of unorganised workers becoming organised labour and thus winning improvements at work.
I turn now to 21st century Scotland. In many factories and call centres today, going to the toilet without first seeking permission is still a heinous crime, some workers in garages are fined out of their wages when people drive off without paying, conditions are unacceptable in many workplaces, particularly those that are not unionised, and substances hazardous to health are still used unsafely despite the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations.
Repetitive strain injury, sexual harassment, bullying and stress are just some of the modern-day hazards that are particularly relevant to women. Safety for workers is not just about accidents. Sexual harassment can blight the lives of women at work and cause great distress. Bullying at work is becoming an increasingly prominent issue, which causes stress and illness and sometimes results in loss of employment.
I take this opportunity to commend the trade unions, which have historically been the champions of the workers in fighting to secure health and safety as a sensible approach to industrial relations. I say sensible, because a healthy, happy and well-trained work team will perform more effectively than a sick, stressed set of individuals.
While we commemorate those who have died, have been injured or have suffered ill health as a result of work, we must also take steps to ensure that the incidence of work-related accidents and ill health is minimised in future. Health and safety at work must not just be paid lip service by employers, some of whom seem to care more about their profits than they do about people. Good health and safety practices must be an integral part of the culture of workplaces in 21st century Scotland. I am pleased to associate myself with Cathy Peattie's motion.
I, too, offer congratulations to Cathy Peattie on securing this debate. Perhaps my line on this issue is slightly different from that of other members. I was a trade unionist and took great pride in that throughout my working life. At the same time, I ended up in a management structure that had responsibility for the health and safety of a work force.
I probably have greater experience than anyone else in the chamber of various working environments, having come from a dockyard environment in the 1950s. At that time, when a ship was to be stripped out, the apprentices, not recognising the effects of asbestos, would make it their first task to gather as much asbestos as they could to line their houses during the winter and keep the cold out. Nobody recognised that the threat from asbestos existed but, as I went through my working life, that threat became known and was recognised by employers and work forces. The trade union movement played a part in that, but so did many responsible employers. The state also played a part, as it was in the state's interest to recognise the problems.
It is not only in workers' interests, but in management's interest to ensure the health and safety of workers and reduce the number of accidents, the number of days lost through accidents and the amounts that are paid out for sickness. I believe that most managements in the United Kingdom, irrespective of the financial aspect of health and safety, care about their work forces.
Many members might be surprised to know that I was in the electricity supply industry as it worked towards privatisation. One effect of moving towards privatisation was the industry's recognition that its accident rate was deplorable and did not match requirements. However, the privatisation format meant that we had to meet particular criteria for health and safety. There was a mass drive to improve the industry's accident rate. It should not have taken that to make us put so much effort into the training and awareness raising of work forces.
I refer to awareness raising because workers often ignore the rules that management establishes. The construction industry, for example, has much non-contracted, self-employed labour. On Lesley Riddoch's radio show yesterday, a guy made the point that, to earn more money, he took short cuts in his work and avoided the safety representative on site. We must make workers aware of the risks of workplace accidents. I fully approve of international workers memorial day. However, people should be aware every day of the year of accidents in the workplace.
Members raised points about situations in other countries of which we should also be aware. I commend the fair trade movement, which recognises that conditions everywhere are not as they should be. Cathy Peattie's motion refers to the international aspect of accidents and fatalities in the workplace. The motion emphasises that we should all take on board that issue and should encourage efforts to improve the situation.
I thank Cathy Peattie for giving us the opportunity of having this debate. International workers memorial day will be a time for reflection for people throughout the world; it will be a time to remember friends, workmates, and constituents, such as those who died in the Piper Alpha disaster; it will be a time to remember those who simply left for work early one dark morning and never returned home, leaving so much unsaid and so much pain in the family. The memorial day will also be for those who suffered from asbestos-related disease and had a painful, preventable and unnecessary death.
We must remind ourselves that the memorial day is not simply a day to remember, but a day to give thanks for those groups who work with the victims of asbestos-related disease, and those groups, some of whom are in the public gallery, who give advice to workers on health and safety and employment rights. There are also groups, such as Phase 2 in my constituency, which deal not with the victims of old industry, but with victims of the electronics industry, one of the so-called new industries. Those groups provide a campaigning edge, but also provide vital support and a network for the victims and their families.
We must also remind ourselves that the memorial day is not simply an annual event. We, as elected representatives, have a responsibility to act on behalf of the victims.
I do not say this out of self-satisfaction, but I am pleased that we have had the opportunity for such debates in the chamber over the past three years and that people have been able to meet and lobby ministers. I am also pleased with the hard work of the Justice 2 Committee on the asbestos petition. We have also pressured the Health and Safety Executive and employers. Although many of those matters are reserved to the UK Parliament, I am pleased that they have been part of the work of this Parliament. Let me end on this vein: although we remember and give thanks, we must also act.
I want to finish with a question for the minister. Will he give us an update on the £3 million that was promised for occupational health, which was to be particularly targeted towards small businesses? Such a service would raise awareness of health and safety issues in the workplace and would prevent workplace accidents and disease. Where is that money and how will it be spent effectively to meet those objectives?
I associate myself with the comments congratulating Cathy Peattie on securing tonight's debate.
Although health and safety at work is a reserved matter, I hope that the minister will comment on the need for legislation to make employers culpable on health and safety matters. In particular, we need to be able to carry out prosecutions against employers. In Dorset at the end of last month, the Health and Safety Executive visited 60 construction sites in a two-day blitz. Twenty of the construction sites were subsequently closed down because of serious breaches of health and safety regulations.
The gas workers union, the GMB, recently produced a report in which it warned that Transco's threat to lay off 2,400 workers
"will put employees and the public at risk. Currently, gas workers are working overtime to ensure the safety of the public but these further cuts will threaten this delicate balance. Transco should review these cuts with the Health and Safety Executive in order to evaluate the situation before they are allowed to proceed."
Obviously, with investigations under way on the incidents at Larkhall and Dundee, the Transco situation is also serious for us in Scotland.
Reference has been made to asbestosis, which still claims 3,000 workers' lives a year. Reference has also been made to the fact that the workers who lost their lives on Piper Alpha have never properly been remembered because Occidental Oil Company, which was the company responsible, has never been in the dock.
The Simon Jones Memorial Campaign designated yesterday as employment agency day. Some members may have heard of Simon Jones, who was sent by an employment agency to work in Shoreham docks despite the fact that he had never worked in the docks in his life. He died on his first day, because he had no training or experience. The problem is that employment agencies up and down the country continue to do such things without fear of being prosecuted for their culpability in such deaths.
Given Transco, Railtrack, Paddington, Ladbroke Grove and those 20 construction sites that were closed down because they were in breach of health and safety regulations, it is my view that we need a legislative framework that allows the prosecution of companies that have been negligent in preventing the death of workers. The worry that I share with many members is that, until we have such a framework, safety at work will be neglected in the pursuit of maximum profit.
Until we get that legislative framework for workers, I fear that we will continue having discussions on international workers memorial day, but we will unfortunately be remembering more and more workers who have lost their lives at work.
I thank Cathy Peattie for giving us all the opportunity to say something on this important subject. I am a trade unionist and a member of the GMB.
In our dealings with trade unions, we politicians often meet full-time, paid officials who act in the interests of their members. Speaking in support of the motion and of the suggestion that we adopt 28 April as international workers memorial day, I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the thousands of shop stewards and unpaid officials who have dedicated their lives to protecting the health and safety of colleagues at their workplaces. Without their intervention, there would be more accidents and more loss of life. We should appreciate the fact that we often rely on volunteers for that intervention.
In my work as a GMB official, I dealt with many workers in the national health service, and I can tell members that hospitals are hazardous places in which to work. We often do not think about the support staff in hospitals, such as those who make the laundries run or sterilise the instruments, nor about the hazards that face them in their daily work. Hundreds of porters and domestics suffer needlestick injuries every year, which is down to sloppy practices, and the stress of waiting for the results of hepatitis B or other tests following such an injury leads to psychological damage. Elaine Smith raised that important point. Such stress can also be suffered by staff who deal with contaminated laundry from theatres or with contaminated surgical instruments—not to mention the thousands of nursing staff who get back injuries because the proper equipment for lifting patients is not available.
Workers need organised trade unions in their workplaces to ensure that the best and safest practices are adopted. As many shop stewards will know, their powers under health and safety legislation are greater than those under some employment legislation, but we need to make them stronger still.
The adoption of the working time directive has made an important contribution, because it has at its heart a reduction in working hours, which is a health and safety issue. A simple breach of health and safety law and good practice can have a devastating impact on workers' lives. I hope that we can continue to conduct current or live research on modern employment issues, so that new working practices do not have a lifelong effect on workers.
I draw particular attention to the establishment of many call centres in my constituency. The jobs are welcome, but I would like more research to be done into the repetitive nature of that type of work.
As we know, many workers have died because of sloppy work practices. No one should die just because they are doing their job.
The Justice 2 Committee is considering petition PE336, which relates to victims of asbestos poisoning. As convener, I can report to Parliament that the committee is giving the matter the highest priority that it has given to any petition that has come before it. We intend to act with haste. We do not believe that it is credible for the Court of Session to have a fast-track procedure for commercial cases, but not for personal injury cases in which people are literally dying while waiting for their cases to be heard. I know that the Parliament will support the committee in that work, and I think that the message has been made loud and clear.
I thank colleagues for listening and again thank Cathy Peattie for giving us this opportunity.
I join other members in thanking Cathy Peattie for securing this debate on her motion.
I want to say a few words about my father's experience as a pipe fitter, working in the 1960s, 1970s and early 1980s in sites across Scotland and England, offshore and in many plants, including Grangemouth. He witnessed a number of tragic deaths that were clearly down to major breaches of health and safety regulations.
We may well reflect on whether things have dramatically improved. Certainly, the figures that Cathy Peattie gave in her speech indicated that there may be a long way to go to ensure that workers are working in safe conditions.
I want to tell a story about someone I used to work beside when I was a community worker. He was a community activist, who had worked as a fitter at many sites in Scotland. One day, when he was working with a mate in a pipe in a nuclear power station, that pipe was—unbeknown to them—being flushed with radioactive water. The first they knew of it was when they came to the end of the pipe and found the back of a sign. They saw that the front of the sign said, "Keep Clear—Radioactive Water." They got soaked and had no protective clothing. He contracted leukaemia when he was in his 40s and had leukaemia when I knew him. He died a few years after he contracted the disease, having struggled with ill health for all those years. To his dying day, he blamed his contraction of leukaemia on that one-off event. Whether that is the case or not, the accident should clearly never have happened and was down to the sloppy health and safety practices in that plant.
That is only one story and there are a great many others. Many of those stories have tragic consequences, not only for the people involved but for their families. For example, wives who were washing clothes that carried asbestos were also affected and the lives of their children were put at risk.
It is important that we commemorate international workers memorial day. I would like health and safety matters to be the responsibility of this Parliament, as there is a lot that we could do. However, even within our powers, we could do a lot in relation to occupational health through the powers of local authorities and environmental health legislation. I look forward to hearing from the minister about some of the issues that he will take up in the interests of strengthening the health and safety of the Scottish work force.
I make reference to my entry in the Register of Interests of Members of the Scottish Parliament, which shows that I am a member of Amicus Amalgamated Engineering and Electrical Union. I congratulate Cathy Peattie on securing this debate.
Workers' rights and unions matter, because accident, injury and disease are hard to bear, place terrible strains on families and cause upset and grief. They do so to an even greater extent when they are occur because of fault, negligence and breach of statutory duty.
As a solicitor and a trade unionist since 1984 and as an advocate in practice at the Scottish bar since 1993—trade union members have litigated in the Court of Session and elsewhere under the aegis of trade union legal aid schemes—it was my honour and duty to appear regularly in the supreme courts on the instructions of trade unions and their members. Many of my comrades have touched on perhaps the most distressing cases, about which it was hard to be dispassionate as a counsel: those involving damages claims brought by the victims of asbestos victims and their families. Cathy Peattie mentioned the toll of asbestos on her late constituent and his family.
Contrary to Phil Gallie's suggestion, it was known as long ago as 1910 that workers who were exposed to asbestos risked injury and death. The first asbestos regulations were introduced in 1931. I made those averments day in, day out as a junior counsel. By the 1940s, it was known to major employers that asbestos was linked to lung cancers. By the 1960s, it was known that exposure to asbestos caused mesothelioma, one of the ugliest and most awful ways to die—I will never forget any of the commissions that I attended to take evidence from a dying pursuer who had been exposed to asbestos.
However, workers on the Clyde and elsewhere continued to be exposed negligently and deliberately through the 1970s and into the 1980s, at a terrible price to them, their families and us all. It was trade unions who spoke up for their members and took on powerful and wealthy forces, including heartless insurance companies who, to their eternal shame, adopted tactics that spun out claims to which there was no legal answer. They did so wilfully and in expectation of their victim dying. What died with the victim was his right to claim compensation for his injury and suffering. It was trade unions and their allies across the labour movement who campaigned to change the law and who are working now to speed up claims and secure fair compensation. I trust that we will continue our campaign across the UK—our campaign for justice for victims of workplace injury and disease, including exposure to asbestos, and for improvements to health and safety throughout industry, particularly the construction industry.
I know the good and solid work that the Justice 2 Committee is doing. I know that our Labour Government is carefully considering the extension of the workers compensation scheme to cover mesothelioma sufferers. I also know that there will be great sympathy for using legislation at Westminster to ensure that no worker and no family suffers should it be the case that the current appeals against the Fairchild decision are unsuccessful and the injustices that were perpetrated in the Court of Appeal persist.
Unions matter and workers' rights matter, because work remains central to the everyday lives of most Scots. It is a source not only of income, but of satisfaction, identity, dignity and status. In the absence of effective rights for workers to organise and act collectively, our democracy is greatly compromised. Freedom of association, collective endeavour and solidarity are as fundamental to our democracy as freedom of speech is. I am pleased to support the motion.
I, too, congratulate Cathy Peattie on securing another excellent debate, this time to mark international workers memorial day. It is appropriate that the debate is held on a motion in her name, given the sterling work that she does as convener of the Labour trade union group in the Parliament. I am not at all jealous that she secures so many debates and I secure none.
It is important that democratic Parliaments around the world take time to consider those workers who have died, suffered injuries or suffer serious ill health because of being forced to work in poor and dangerous conditions. That is not given the prominence that it should, not only in Scotland but around the world. That has particularly been the case in recent years, in which the focus has been very much on the new partnership between Government and business. Although many may welcome that new focus, it creates a danger of forgetting that the most important partnership, certainly for any Labour Government, is the partnership with the workers—the people whom the Labour party was brought into existence to represent.
We should never allow ourselves to forget that fact. It is not forgotten in Dundee, where the council has taken the excellent initiative of establishing an annual lecture on international workers memorial day. I think that Jaquie Roberts, the chief executive of the Scottish Commission for the Regulation of Care, is giving the lecture in Dundee tomorrow on health and safety in the area for which she is responsible. Dundee is very much a trade unionist's city. I was delighted to hear that Phil Gallie had been a trade unionist. I hope that he is still a trade unionist, because he is still working—well, he is supposed to be working. In Dundee, there has always been an emphasis on looking after the interests of workers. Among many other outstanding trade union leaders, the late Harry McLevy came from the city.
I take the opportunity to mention the 167 men who died in the Piper Alpha disaster. The discovery of oil in the North sea is often regarded as a great boon in Scotland. It was certainly good for the Treasury and the oil companies, which profited handsomely from it. It has been good for the United Kingdom economy, which has been given a great boost. Indeed, it has been good for releasing the pressure on public spending in our country over many years. However, that has all been achieved at a price—a high price indeed for those men who lost their lives in that terrible disaster.
I know that some good came out of the Piper Alpha disaster. I know that a public inquiry was held and that health and safety rules in the North sea have been tightened up. I also know that trade unions there are better organised than they ever were before. Even with all that, as Cathy Peattie pointed out, 68 men have died in the years since the Piper Alpha disaster.
As Tommy Sheridan pointed out, there has never been an inquiry into the actions of those whose negligence was criminally responsible for the loss of those 167 lives on Piper Alpha. The remit of the original public inquiry deliberately did not include consideration of who was responsible for the disaster. That injustice remains and it must be put right.
I pay tribute to Gavin Cleland, who has campaigned ceaselessly over the years to have such an inquiry into Piper Alpha. I do not think that anyone could have attended any political gathering in Scotland in the past 10 or 15 years without knowing who Gavin Cleland is. He is always there with his big banner, making sure that we never forget the men of Piper Alpha. He is right to do that.
I lodged a motion on the issue, but I was unsuccessful in securing a debate on it. However, I have lodged a new motion—S1M-2906—on criminal responsibility and the Piper Alpha disaster. Five members have signed the motion so far, and I plead for as many other members as possible to do so, in order that we may secure the debate that we want to have.
I am glad that there is an international aspect to the motion that we are debating this evening. Scottish manufacturing industry has been in decline for many years, but that is not the result of a lack of demand for our manufactured products. Companies are switching production away from places such as Scotland where trade unions are well organised and where there are health and safety regulations to parts of the world where there are no or very weak trade unions and where Governments turn a blind eye to health and safety regulations. In those countries, companies can profit from putting workers' lives at risk. That is the international situation that we confront as we debate this issue in the Scottish Parliament.
I hope that the Parliament will take a stand and that ministers will indicate that they intend to do something about the situation that I have described. It is a disgrace that the likes of Nike can be seen as respectable companies in this country and can appear on television sponsoring football matches and so on, when at the same time they are exploiting workers around the world in sweatshops where there are no trade unions, colluding with right-wing Governments to murder and kidnap people, and giving workers a very hard time. It is time that we confronted such companies and stopped working in partnership with them, because they do not deserve it.
To fit in all members who would like to speak, we need to extend the debate until 5 past 6. I would be happy to accept a motion without notice to that effect.
Motion moved,
That, under Rule 8.14.3, the debate be extended until 6.05 pm.—[Mr Duncan McNeil.]
Motion agreed to.
My interest in speaking in this debate is the fact that hundreds of families in my constituency are affected by industrial injury. Long after the shipyards have gone and the engineering industries to which John McAllion referred have declined, and long after the removal of Scotland's only asbestos factory, we face the tragedy that, year after year, more people emerge with mesothelioma, other asbestos-related diseases and other industrial injuries.
There is a great deal of evidence to suggest that there is an epidemic of industrial injuries 30, 40 and sometimes 50 years on from the incidents that caused them. Our society has a responsibility to recognise the cause of those illnesses and to deal with their consequences, rather than leaving victims and their families to suffer in silence. Considerable research is required into asbestos-related disease and other industrial diseases. The scientific and medical communities can do a great deal to identify the causes of those diseases, to develop better ways of treating them and to prevent them in future, as people are still contracting asbestos-related and other industrial diseases. That must be an important priority for us.
It is worth pointing out, especially in the context of today's debate, that industrial injury is not a parochial issue. It affects many communities in Scotland and many communities internationally. On international workers memorial day last year, I took part in a demonstration at the Springburn factory of Cape Calsil Systems Ltd, which was responsible for many cases of asbestos-related disease in South Africa and elsewhere in the world. Through the efforts of campaign groups in South Africa and the UK, some South African workers have received a certain amount of recompense for their injuries. Industrial injury is an international issue and we need to find ways of dealing with it.
A great deal of work has been done by organisations such as the Clydebank asbestos group and Clydeside action on asbestos, which are seeking social justice for sufferers and their families. In large measure, those people have been denied justice by the activities of insurers and the companies responsible for their injuries. It has become a pattern for companies to package up their liabilities into one vehicle and their assets into another, leaving victims with no money to claim. That is what was attempted in the case of Chester Street Insurance Holdings. I am grateful to my Westminster colleague Tony Worthington, to Helen Liddell and to others who campaigned at Westminster with the groups that I have mentioned to tackle the Chester Street situation.
The Fairchild case, which has also been mentioned, is another attempt at avoidance by the insurers and the companies, which say that it is impossible to show which employer was responsible for a person getting an asbestos-related disease. That attempt to deny responsibility completely leaves the victim in the lurch. I believe that such injustice is not acceptable and that the Government and people in society must ensure that it is not allowed to continue.
In Scotland, we have a particular responsibility to speed up the wheels of justice, which have been grinding exceedingly slowly in relation to ensuring that victims of asbestos get the money to which they are entitled. Some efforts have been made and there has been some progress—the appointment of Lord Mackay to take forward some of the cases is one example. Why can we not get equal treatment for asbestos victims in comparison with the treatment that is applied to commercial companies? Why can we not have an analogous system that would allow the cases of people who suffer from asbestos-related diseases to be treated with the same priority, in the same time scales and with the same system of judicial management as apply to commercial cases? Companies demand that the wheels of justice move quickly, and a fast-track process has been put in place. I want a fast-track process for the victims of asbestos-related disease, who often do not have long to live or to benefit from the compensation to which they are entitled. We should move quickly to establish such a system.
People who suffer from asbestos-related diseases deserve the consideration not only of judges but, given the scale of the awards, of juries who could consider the hurt, the damage and an appropriate level of compensation. A jury-based system for considering compensation values is long overdue and would provide a more realistic measure of the compensation that people deserve. It is important that we act on this issue, which is both humanitarian and political. To that end, I hope that all members will support the work of the Justice 2 Committee and the groups that are trying to make progress with the petition.
I thank Cathy Peattie for lodging her motion, which has stimulated a positive and constructive debate. Many useful contributions have been made from around the chamber, allowing us to focus on some important issues.
As we approach international workers memorial day, it is right that members of the Scottish Parliament should remember those, in Scotland and internationally, who have died or been injured seriously at work as a result of avoidable and preventable accidents, which account for 90 per cent or more of all accidents at work. Events organised by trade unions, local authorities and others will take place throughout Scotland. Mary Mulligan will attend a ceremony in Bathgate at the recently erected workers memorial day sculpture. I look forward to welcoming Cathy Peattie to my constituency when she visits the workers memorial garden at Persley on Sunday, 4 May.
Linda Fabiani asked earlier in the debate where the workers memorials are. Sadly, there are two in Aberdeen where, in addition to the memorial garden, there is the Piper Alpha memorial, which a number of speakers have mentioned and which commemorates our worst offshore disaster. There are memorials not only in the north-east but throughout Scotland. For example, trees were planted across Lothian in 1992 by Lothian trade unionists—the inspiration for that initiative was Jim Swan of the Scottish hazards campaign group, who joins us in the gallery.
It is right that we should commemorate international workers memorial day in Scotland, and it is also right that it should be commemorated internationally. The international theme for this year's memorial day is that of improving public health through stronger health and safety. In the UK, the TUC is promoting the theme of widening access to occupational health services, which is a matter to which I will return.
Most health and safety matters are reserved to the UK Government, including policy responsibility, which rests with the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions. However, health and safety matters have a direct relevance to many devolved issues, such as public health, local government, transport and the environment, to name but a few. The Scottish Executive works with the Health and Safety Commission and the Health and Safety Executive on many of its regulatory concerns.
It is worth noting that the introduction of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 led to significant improvements in health and safety throughout the UK.
The rate of fatal accidents is less than a quarter of the rate in the early 1970s. Although we should be proud of that achievement, we should not be complacent about it. We should acknowledge that, although the rate of injuries has reduced over that long term, it has begun to rise again in some industries, such as construction. For that reason, the Executive and the United Kingdom Government have recognised the need to take further action to improve our performance in the area.
In the context of the UK's revitalising health and safety strategy, several targets have been set for the next 10 years, to which the Scottish Executive subscribes. Those targets aim to reduce the number of working days that are lost through injury by 30 per cent; to reduce the incidence of people who suffer from work-related ill health by 20 per cent; and to reduce the rate of fatal and serious injury accidents by a further 10 per cent. Those targets are important and the Executive—along with the trade unions, health and safety bodies, responsible employers and the UK Government—has signed up to them.
Several members have spelled out the social cost of health and safety failure. It is also worth noting the annual cost to the Scottish economy of £0.5 billion and the loss of more than 2 million working days every year. We are addressing a workers issue and an issue for the wider economy.
In the past, alcohol was acknowledged as a danger in the workplace. Does the minister have any thoughts on the problems that are caused by drugs in the workplace? Is he able to do anything about that?
My colleagues in the health department will address those issues and Mary Mulligan will respond on that in more detail at an appropriate time.
Duncan McNeil mentioned our existing commitments on occupational health and how we would address that. Although the level of occupational health support in the public sector and in large corporations is considerably higher than it was, the provision of health and safety advice to those who work in small and medium-sized enterprises remains an issue. As Duncan McNeil will know, my health department colleagues commissioned a report on what could be done in that field. I believe that a conference will be held in June this year, at which ministers will respond to that report and will spell out how the Executive's commitment will be delivered. In the year in which occupational health is the theme of international workers memorial day, it is appropriate that we have made such a commitment on occupational health and will take action on that agenda.
Cathy Peattie and Brian Fitzpatrick highlighted issues that are associated with the progress in the courts of cases that involve injury and illness at work. I pay tribute to the work of victim support groups, which have provided great sustenance to individuals who are in such tragic circumstances. I hope that Cathy Peattie's constituents will take advice on the option that is described as sisting, in circumstances in which the main claimant has died. I am sure that if Cathy Peattie were to write to justice ministers about that, they might be able to provide advice on what could be done to avoid having to begin a case again, in the circumstances that she described.
Gas safety, which affects customers and workers in the industry, was also mentioned. The installation and use of gas has been reviewed by the Health and Safety Commission. More than 40 recommendations have been made and the HSC's gas safety group is working on their implementation. Clear targets for reductions in gas poisoning incidents during the next 10 years have been established.
Tommy Sheridan was among the members who referred to prosecution. Members will know that in the case that involved gas at Larkhall, the Crown Office has announced its decision to prosecute Transco for corporate culpable homicide. That decision followed a report from the HSE. The facility for such a prosecution exists in Scots law, but it does not exist in England or Wales. That option should be taken when there is evidence to sustain it. South of the border, the DTLR is introducing proposals to follow Scotland's good example in providing that legal option in circumstances as tragic as the ones that have been described.
We in Government have taken on board the need for action. There are many in the Parliament who have been involved in workers memorial events over the years because we acknowledge the importance of using them to highlight the health and safety issues that are of concern to us all. There is a need to transfer that highlighting of the issue and increase the narrow focus on a single day to ensure that it feeds through into business decisions, into the decisions of Government and into the partnership with trade unions that can play a key role in delivering in the workplace.
It is good for all of us that we implement that agenda. It is good for the economy as well as essential for protecting the rights and interests of those who work in industry. The Executive will continue to work with trade unions, responsible employers and with all those committed to ending the kind of tragedies that will be commemorated on international workers memorial day on 28 April.
Meeting closed at 18:06.