House of Commons Hansard Debates for 28 Jan 1992

Mr. Leighton : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Secretary of State should have some knowledge of these matters, but he has said that I am sponsored by a union that does not exist.

Mr. Howard : I perhaps should have said SOGAT 82.

The hon. Gentleman asked about timing, but I answered the question about timing that was raised by the hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Stephen) on behalf of the Liberal Democratic party. Each of the measures that I have announced today is designed to deal with a particular abuse that needs to be dealt with. The Labour party's Front-Bench spokesman was not prepared to deny that, or to say that his party disagrees with the actions that I propose.

Mr. Tony Favell (Stockport) : The hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton), with whom I have a great deal in common, has just suggested that we should look to the future. What would my right hon. and learned Friend think of the future if his Department was in the hands of somebody who has described a trade union ballot as

"a scandalous and undemocratic measure against the trade union movement"?-- [ Official Report, 8 November 1983 ; vol. 48, c. 210.] Mr. Howard : That is exactly what the hon. Member for Sedgefield said about union ballots, and that is the kind of future-- [Interruption.]

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours (Workington) : Not true.

Column 822

Mr. Howard : Oh yes, it is all on the record. That is what the country could look forward to if the Labour party won the election and the hon. Member for Sedgefield were to occupy my office.

Mr. Spencer Batiste (Elmet) : Is it not clear that my right hon. and learned Friend's announcement will be widely regarded as a fair, sensible and logical step forward in our trade union legislation, and that many people will contrast it favourably with the chaos that would follow a return to the 1970s-style legislation advocated by the Labour party? In particular, will not the proposal to allow union members to join the union of their choice be a significant restraint on extremist trade union leaders who will otherwise face the mass exodus of their members to unions that more accurately reflect the aspirations of their members?

Mr. Howard : My hon. Friend, who has considerable experience of these matters, has correctly identified one of the advantages of that proposal. It is noteworthy that, while my hon. Friends have been prepared to comment and give their views on the proposals that I identified in the statement, all that we have heard from the Labour party is a generalised rant.

Mr. Stan Crowther (Rotherham) : Does the Secretary of State not understand the simple point that giving people the right to join a union of their choice is meaningless unless the union of their choice has the right to negotiate on their behalf? Will he accept that most people in those circumstances would prefer to join a union with such a power? Why is he not introducing a provision that applies in many other European countries and that ensures that the union that represents, within a company, a majority of the people whose jobs are appropriate to that union has a guaranteed legal right to be recognised as the negotiator?

Mr. Howard : The hon. Gentleman, who is sponsored by the Transport and General Workers Union, confuses the right to join a trade union with recognition. Under the proposals that I have announced, any trade union member will be able to join the union that has recognition rights at that workplace. Increasingly, there are many other reasons why workers wish to join trade unions. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman does not recognise that fact.

Mr. James Lamond (Oldham, Central and Royton) : As a Member sponsored by the Manufacturing, Science and Finance Union, I can tell the Secretary of State that many thousands of members of my union expect him to turn what talent he has to increasing employment--a far more important priority than this window dressing for election purposes.

I wish to explore a point of detail. Did the Secretary of State say that the members of a union should be allowed to decide for themselves whether the check-off system should be applied to their wages, because some of the money taken in check-off had never reached the unions? If that is so, the money must have remained with the company that checked off the wages. Even if employees decide to have this system, how does that protect them from the company stealing from the unions?

Mr. Howard : No, on the last point. If the hon. Gentleman reads the report in the Sunday Times of 8 December, he will see that there was no question of the money staying in the hands of the employer or of the

Column 823

company on that occasion. It was diverted from the trade union for which it was intended. Therefore, it was diverted not by the employers but by those who collected it--those to whom it was entrusted by the employers.

I want to deal with the important point raised by the hon. Gentleman, that about jobs. Perhaps the most important contributor to an environment in which we can create jobs and employment in the 1990s, after the conquest of inflation, is the creation of stable industrial relations and a strike-free economy. That is what the Government have achieved, and that is what would be destroyed by the election of the Labour party.

Mr. Peter Viggers (Gosport) : Did my right hon. and learned Friend note the extraordinary contrast between the angry, non-constructive outburst by Labour Back Benchers and the articulate vacuum of the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) who, to paraphrase W. S. Gilbert, is a man who says nothing in particular and says it very well? Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that much of what has been achieved over the past 12 years might be at risk if we were to find ourselves governed by a party whose 233 existing Members of Parliament include 155 who are sponsored by trade unions?

Mr. Howard : I entirely agree. The hon. Member for Sedgefield is good at putting a covering of thin tissue over the raw nerve that is clearly exposed whenever Labour Back Benchers speak on that subject.

Mr. Alexander Eadie (Midlothian) : As a Member of Parliament sponsored by the National Union of Mineworkers, of which I have been a member for 58 years--having joined it before the Secretary of State was born--I am extremely proud of its traditions and history. The right hon. and learned Gentleman's proposed legislation is neither an industrial relations charter nor an industrial relations Bill, but an anti-trade union Bill.

The Secretary of State flings charges about paymasters. In the shoddiest display that I have seen from a member of the Government Front Bench in 26 years, the right hon. and learned Gentleman is introducing a Bill on behalf of his paymasters. There must be a change of Government, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman and people like him must be defeated.

Mr. Howard : The Bill will protect the people. It will protect ordinary members of trade unions. I invite the hon. Gentleman to cast away his slogans and to consider the detailed provisions that we propose, which are designed to remedy specifically identified abuses. If the hon. Gentleman will do so, with his background he will recognise that steps must be taken if ordinary citizens and trade union members are to enjoy the protection that they properly deserve.

Mr. Graham Riddick (Colne Valley) : I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on extending real choice to individual workers, so that they may decide for themselves whether or not to belong to a trade union--and which trade union they join. Is it not the case that Labour has opposed every item of this Government's trade union legislation, and cannot be relied upon to look after the interests of individual union members?

Mr. Howard : It is certainly the case that Labour has opposed every trade union reform that we introduced over the past 12 years. This party and this Government will

Column 824

continue to do whatever is necessary to protect individual members of the public and trade union members, so that they are not bullied and taken advantage of by those who have more power than they do.

Mr. Bruce Grocott (The Wrekin) : The Secretary of State made his statement today with the same air of intense sincerity that he adopted when he introduced the poll tax. Perhaps I may test the sincerity of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's statement that he wants to respect individual rights. Will he approach the Secretary of State for Defence, who unilaterally decided to withdraw Transport and General Workers Union negotiating rights from those employed at COD Donnington in my constituency --who, for the whole of their working lives, have served this country's defence industries through their work in depot security ?

Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that it is entirely ludicrous for him to claim that he will continue to recognise the individual's right to be a member of a trade union when that union will cease to have negotiating rights ? Will he approach the Secretary of State for Defence about that matter, so that we may see whether or not there is any sincerity in his commitment ?

Mr. Howard : The hon. Gentleman genuinely misunderstands the position. There was a reclassification of the workers concerned, and the group into which they were reclassified is one for which the National Union of Civil and Public Servants traditionally has recognition rights. That union's general secretary said : "it should also be accepted that, since Ministry of Defence security guards are now regraded as non-industrial civil servants, NUCPS has negotiating rights in that area."

The workers concerned can continue to be members of the unions to which they have always belonged, but the logic of the

reclassification is that the NUCPS should have recognition rights.

Mr. James Paice (Cambridgeshire, South-West) : The Green Paper that gave rise to today's statement also included the proposal that trade union leaders' salaries and perks should be declared, so that union members could see where their subscriptions were going. If that is still my right hon. and learned Friend's intention, does he agree that union members should also know just how much is being spent on the sponsorship of Labour Members, including all those in the elected shadow Cabinet ?

Mr. Howard : As my hon. Friend suggests, it is still our intention to legislate on the basis of the original proposal for the disclosure of salaries of trade union officers. I did not mention that in my statement, because it has aroused little controversy or disagreement. As for my hon. Friend's suggestion about the sponsorship of Members of Parliament, it is certainly an intriguing thought ; at present, however, we have no plans to legislate in that regard.

Mr. Robert Litherland (Manchester, Central) : Do not the Secretary of State's attacks on the trade union movement, his manipulation of the television coverage of today's statement and the use of the race card represent the policies of discredited regimes? I am reminded of the 1930s. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is Dr. Goebbels incarnate : this is a squalid statement from a squalid Minister.

Column 825

Mr. Howard : The hon. Gentleman, who is sponsored by SOGAT '82--

Mr. Litherland : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. There is no such union as SOGAT '82.

Mr. Howard : I am relying on the Register of Members' Interests for information about the hon. Gentleman's trade union membership.

Mr. Litherland : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker

Mr. Speaker : Order. This is taking up time. I think that the House accepts that there is no such union, if the hon. Gentleman says that that is the case.

Mr. Litherland : Let me put the Secretary of State out of his misery. My union is the Graphical, Paper and Media Union.

Mr. Howard : No doubt that information will reach the Register of Members' Interests in due course.

The point about the hon. Gentleman's question is that, like other questions from Labour Members, it was couched in generalities--not very agreeable generalities, but generalities none the less. When will the Labour party address the specific problems that gave rise to the Green Paper and the solutions that we suggest are appropriate, so that we can improve the protection given to ordinary members of the public and ordinary trade union members? That is the purpose of our proposals.

Mr. Tim Janman (Thurrock) : As my right hon. and learned Friend will know, today's announcement will strike a chord with the majority of the British people--hence the unreconstructed gibberish that we have heard from Labour Members.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that, towards the end of last year, thousands of my constituents were caused considerable inconvenience and distress by unofficial action on the Fenchurch Street line? The management of British Rail did not have the guts to do anything about it. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that his statement will offer hope to my constituents? Once the new laws that he proposes have been introduced, those constituents will have the opportunity to do what British Rail's management are too gutless to do.

Mr. Howard : My proposals would certainly cover the circumstances described by my hon. Friend. No doubt he will draw his constituents' attention to Labour's reaction to those proposals, and will make it clear to them that we, unlike Labour, are prepared to act to protect them.

Mr. Jimmy Wray (Glasgow, Provan) : As a former trade union officer, I get the impression that the Secretary of State has never worked in industry in his life. I used to deal with union members who were on the check-off system, and not once was a check-off allowed to be taken from a person's wages without that person's express permission. Members also had the right to end the facility whenever they wished. The Secretary of State suggested that money might not reach a union after a check-off system had been imposed. I challenge him to hand over his facts to the police : that would be fraud, and would bring not only employers but trade unions into disrepute. Because of Tory legislation, employers in my constituency are starting people but

Column 826

sacking them after two years so that they are outwith the employment legislation, and then restarting them the following day. If the Secretary of State is interested in the rights of workers, he should ensure that he is in favour of rights for every worker and does not merely attack the trade unions. In addition, he should get the unemployment down in my area, because it is a disgrace.

Mr. Howard : I remind the hon. Gentleman, who is sponsored by the Manufacturing Science and Finance Union, that it was a Conservative Government--

Mr. Mike Watson (Glasgow, Central) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker : Is it about sponsorship? I think that we have heard enough about that.

Mr. Watson : Is it in order for the Secretary of State to refer continually to the trade unions by which hon. Members are sponsored without pointing out that, like the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) who is feeding him the information, he is a director of one company and a consultant of two others? He gets paid for that, but we do not get personal money from sponsorship

Mr. Speaker : Order. Sponsorship of all kinds is in the Register of Members' Interests. This takes up a lot of time.

Mr. Howard : I thought that members of the Opposition were proud of their links with the trade unions, but I was dealing with the point raised by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Wray). I remind him that a Conservative Government first introduced the right to obtain compensation for unfair dismissal, and he should bear that in mind.

On check-off, he said that, to his knowledge, employees--trade union members--were asked at, I think, regular intervals for their consent. That is not a universal practice. If that is a practice of which the hon. Gentleman approves, surely he will approve of this proposal to make it a universal practice and ensure that individual trade union members have the opportunity to give their consent at regular intervals. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that that is a good idea, why does he not support the proposal?

Mr. Phillip Oppenheim (Amber Valley) rose --

Mr. Campbell-Savours : Sponsored by Lloyd's.

Mr. Oppenheim : Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, just as the Opposition opposed every piece of this Government's trade union legislation, they will begin by opposing this legislation tooth and nail, but that they will then go rather quiet and perhaps do a rather shifty U- turn when they see how well it works, as they have done with previous legislation?

Mr. Howard : I am not as optimistic as my hon. Friend. When the Opposition pretend to do a U-turn, one is well advised to look at the small print. One then finds that there is an appearance of a U-turn but that the small print would take things back to what they were in the 1970s. That is the Opposition's position, and we must ensure that everyone understands that.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing (Moray) : Does not the Secretary of State realise that today he has done a great disservice to the development of industrial relations by the nature and

Column 827

timing of his remarks? Does he realise that, by moving from the Green Paper to proposals for legislation which he well knows cannot possibly be achieved in the lifetime of this Parliament, he is undermining the rights of trade unions? Why can we not have a White Paper which would include the possibility of considering trade union immunities, the rights of workers--women and part-time workers--and minimum earnings, so that we have an overall picture to ensure that industrial relations in the 1990s are not the victim of cheap electioneering by those on the Front Benches?

Mr. Howard : Surely the hon. Lady will agree that, having issued a Green Paper and received responses to that consultation exercise, it was right that I should report the outcome and the Government's intentions to the House. I had a duty to do that. If the hon. Lady is against such proposals as giving members of the public the right to stop unlawful action, against providing for seven days' notice of strike action and against giving individual trade union members the right to give their consent before money is taken from their pay packet, I can understand her hostility to the proposals. If she is not against those issues, she should support them.

Mr. Julian Brazier (Canterbury) : Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the measures he has proposed build on a long list of enhancements of the rights of ordinary trade unionists? To see that this is so, we need look no further than back to the miners' strike, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) referred, when the might of the National Union of Mineworkers was successfully tackled in an action started by one ordinary mineworker with all the legal assistance of the high street solicitor who conveyanced his house.

Mr. Howard : My hon. Friend recognises that all the great advances in this area have been won by individuals prepared to stand up for their rights. The purpose of these proposals is to help those individuals. That is why we want to take them forward.

Mr. Terry Rooney (Bradford, North) : For the avoidance of doubt, will the Secretary of State, accepting that there is another arena for party political broadcasts, tell the House what he thinks about the situation in which a majority of the work force at a single place, having been free to join any trade union, are in one trade union but the employer refuses to negotiate? What would the Secretary of State say to those employers, employees and trade unionists? What advice and legislation is he providing for them?

Mr. Howard : What I would say is that that is a matter for them to resolve and that when, in the past, attempts have been made to introduce legislation to govern these matters, they have been a lamentable failure. The provision in the Employment Protection Act 1975 that represented the last Labour Government's attempt to introduce such a right was repealed in 1980 at the request of the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service because it was found to be totally unworkable.

Mr. Anthony Coombs (Wyre Forest) : Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that these proposals are a sensible extension of the kind of legislation that, over the past 12 years, has buttressed the position of individuals, both inside and outside trade unions? Does he agree that

Column 828

it is a gross indictment of the Labour party that it has opposed every single piece of industrial relations legislation which we have introduced over the past 12 years, and which have given us a strike record that is the envy of Europe and far below the European average?

Mr. Howard : My hon. Friend correctly identifies the difference between the two parties. It was Opposition Members who supported legislation that was responsible for the mob rule of the 1970s and the closed shop, with all its consequences for individual liberty. There is no point in the hon. Member for Sedgefield frowning : he knows perfectly well that that is what happened in our country during those years. It is from that fate that the Conservative Government have rescued the country.

Mr. Chris Mullin (Sunderland, South) : The Secretary of State will be aware that Sunderland contains the headquarters of the North of England building society, whose employees have twice voted, in secret ballots organised by the Electoral Reform Society, to join the very moderate Banking, Insurance and Finance Union. On both occasions, the management have told the employees to get stuffed. Does the Secretary of State have any plans to give those employees any rights as citizens, or is this all a fraud?

Mr. Howard : I said a few moments ago that previous attempts to legislate on this matter had failed miserably. As a consequence of the legislation that I have mentioned, it was discovered that there is no workable way of providing rights of the kind to which the hon. Gentleman has referred.

Mrs. Alice Mahon (Halifax) : May I tell the Secretary of State that I am very proud to be sponsored by the National Union of Public Employees, and not by Greek fascists? Can he tell me how this statement will help the workers--trade unionists--at Coloroll in my constituency, who at an industrial tribunal won the right to more redundancy pay but 12 months later have not received payment because his Department does not have civil servants to process the claims? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell me where those people will get jobs, given the horrendous rise in unemployment in my constituency?

Mr. Howard : If the hon. Lady writes to me about the particular case to which she has referred, I shall certainly look into it. We have taken steps to try to ensure that the period for which some people have had to wait for redundancy payments is kept to the absolute minimum.

As for the prospect of those workers finding other employment, I hope that the hon. Lady will reflect that one of the best ways in which we can encourage the creation of more jobs is to create a strike-free environment. Our reforms have contributed greatly to the achievement of that objective. The legislation introduced by the party that the hon. Lady supports had precisely the opposite effect.

Mr. Dave Nellist (Coventry, South-East) : The Secretary of State describes the statement as aiming for the protection of millions, but is it not a fact that he is talking not about individuals and their rights but about the level of profit that employers make out of the weakness of trade union rights which almost 13 years of his Government have brought about? More than 200 Tory Members are sponsored by those employers.

Column 829

The Secretary of State prattles on about the level of trade union wages. For almost 20 years, I have said that trade union leaders should, as I do, take only the wages of the average member they represent. The 200 Tory Members refuse year after year ever to declare the level of their directorships or their consultancy fees, and who pays them for what they say in the Chamber. The weakness of people's rights is not a problem caused by trade unions being too strong. The reason is that the powers of collective action have not been used often enough in the past 10 years to rein in the Secretary of State and his Government.

Mr. Howard : The hon. Gentleman's views are well known. I suspect that they are shared by a number of Labour Members far greater than the number who will own up to the fact. I fear that the hon. Gentleman's views would lead to consequences opposite to those which, I am prepared to concede, he genuinely desires.

Several Hon. Members : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker : Order. I am on my feet at the moment. I remind the House that questions to the Department of Employment may be tabled today for answer on 11 February.

Column 830

Points of Order

4.32 pm

Several Hon. Members : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker : It will delay matters. I ask hon. Members to raise points of order--

Several Hon. Members rose --

Mr. Speaker : Please sit down. I ask hon. Members to raise points of order with which I can deal and not questions that might have been directed to the Secretary of State.

Mr. Harry Ewing (Falkirk, East) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My point relates to Prime Minister's Question Time. I do not know whether mathematics is one of your strong points, and I do not expect an answer to the point today, but you will have noticed that the first five questions to the Prime Minister on the Order Paper today were tabled by Labour Members. Can you explain to the House how it was possible for seven Conservative Back-Benchers to be called? Only the five Labour Members who had tabled questions were called. That is an almost impossible situation to create.

Mr. Speaker : I know that the hon. Gentleman is usually very helpful and I am quite good at mathematics. It is unusual for all the questions on the Order Paper to come from one party, and it does not help the Chair. The Leader of the Opposition asked three questions today, and a member of one of the minority parties was called. That is why Conservative Members were able to ask seven questions--[ Hon. Members :-- "He is challenging your ruling."] It is not a challenge ; I am giving an explanation. I say to hon. Members who shouted earlier, "Marginal constituency", that these days many constituencies are marginal. I seek to call Members who have not asked the Prime Minister a question this Session. Those who have do not stand quite such a good chance.

Mr. Ewing : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker : No more, Harry.

Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I know of your concern for the reputation of the House. So that there is no misunderstanding, would you, from your knowledge of debates and interventions when you have been in the Chair and before, confirm that, when sponsorship is involved--almost every time Labour Members asked questions, the Secretary of State for Employment responded "Sponsored, sponsored, sponsored"--literally not a single penny goes into the pockets of hon. Members? We are not ashamed of our involvement. I have been involved in my own union now for 40 years, and proud of it, but not a single penny has ever gone into my pocket, or ever will.

Will you also confirm that, in the case of hon. Members on the Government Benches, where there are business engagements, involvements and the rest-- 90 per cent. of Tory Members are involved in such matters--all the money goes into their pockets? That is the difference.

Mr. Speaker : That is not a matter for me to comment on, but all these matters should be declared in the Register of Members' Interests.

Column 831

Mr. Terry Lewis (Worsley) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Going back to the statement of the Secretary of State, I have no doubt that it is the presence of television cameras which persuaded him not just to make a statement but to wrap it up in such a way that it was like a party political broadcast. I do not think that it does the honour of the House any good whatever for a Secretary of State to conduct business in that way, and I think that you should use your good offices to restrain Secretaries of State who abuse the House as this Secretary of State has done.

Mr. Speaker : I am not responsible for whether or not statements are made. If the hon. Member feels strongly about it, it is a matter for the Select Committee on Broadcasting and he should draw it to the Committee's attention.

Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker : And a final point of order.

Mr. Skinner : You said last week that you were concerned about balance and impartiality in the run-up to the election. You showed obvious concern, and we all understood. What I suggest is this. Can you make arrangements, to provide some balance to what we have had today, something which has passed its sell-by date, for us to have a statement, from anybody --we will do it on the Opposition side--which looks into moonlighting by 250 Tory Members and then into the Economic League and the Freedom Association? To top it off, we can look into the freemasons as well.

Mr. Speaker : I think that we will move on.

Column 832

Animal Experimentation (Cosmetics)

4.36 pm

Mr. Jimmy Dunnachie (Glasgow, Pollok) : I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prohibit the use of animals in the development and testing of cosmetics.

The Bill would end animal testing for cosmetic purposes. I am asking the Government to give offical support to a view that is widely held by hon. Members and their constituents.

In the 1988-89 Session, more than 300 hon. Members from all parties signed early-day motions calling for an end to animal testing for cosmetic purposes. A recent survey showed that more than 50 per cent. of Conservative Members and more than 75 per cent. of Opposition Members supported such a ban. Some 85 per cent. of people interviewed in a recent opinion poll felt that this type of animal testing was unacceptable. That strength of feeling was reflected in last November's rally in Brussels, when 4,000 people from all over Europe protested against it, lending support to the 2.5 million-signature petition which was delivered to the European Parliament. Support from Members of the European Parliament was so strong that the Parliament is likely to recommend a ban soon.

At home, the Prime Minister was drawn into the debate when, in a letter dated 27 November 1989, he admitted to being a member of the Fund for the Replacement of Animals in Medical Experiments, an organisation that seeks to find methods of research that do not use live animals. He said :

"The general public can play a very considerable part by refusing to buy cosmetics unless they are clearly stated to have been made without the use of tests on live animals."

What sort of goods are we talking about? It is not just colour cosmetics such as face powder, eye shadow and lipstick but a host of everyday toiletries. How many hon. Members could look round their bathrooms and recognise those products : toothpastes such as Ultrabrite, Colgate, Blue Minty Gel, Mentadent and Signal ; shampoos which include Alberto Balsam, VO5, Cream Silk, Head and Shoulders, Timotei and Silkience ; other hair products such as Harmony, Clairol, Nice n' Easy, Glints, Sunsilk, Free Style and Recital ; Deodorants such as Mum, Fresh and Dry, Right Guard and Sure ; soaps such as Camay and Palmolive ; and items such as Pond's cold cream, vaseline, Ambre Solaire and Cutex nail products?

At Christmas, how many bought loved ones cosmetics by Helena Rubinstein, Vichy or Lancome ; stocking-fillers by Studio Line ; and perfumes such as Safari, Fiji, Anai"s Anai"s, Armani and Shiseido? How many bought Cachet, Rave or Impulse? How much Lynx, Denim and Polo aftershave was bought?

Those are only some of the brand names of companies such as Alberto-Culver, Cheesebrough-Ponds, Colgate-Palmolive, Elida-Gibbs, Gillette UK Ltd., Bristol-Myers, Proctor and Gamble, L'Oreal UK Ltd. and Shiseido--all of them listed among the chief offenders in the animal-testing stakes.

L'Oreal, for example, while claiming that it prides itself on "respecting animals and avoiding any suffering and stress to them"

Next Section

Home Page