| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
11.22 am
Mr. Alan Clark (Kensington and Chelsea): In congratulating the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office, on his elevation, I also commiserate with him on having landed feet first in a pretty tough, broad-spectrum assignment. We have heard a number of extremely interesting contributions, many of which deserve a full, considered response.
I intend to draw the attention of the House--it will not be difficult--to another case where the Government have not fulfilled their manifesto commitment. In 1996, the year before the election, a paper entitled "New Labour: New Life for Animals" was published. Animals do not have a vote, but there is a lobby--not the activists, but a general aura of sympathy--that disapproves of abuse and of cruelty. That feeling is widespread in the electorate and, if it had not been, the Labour party would not have bothered to compose and publish a paper.
The essential premise of the paper was the promise of support for a royal commission on the justification and effectiveness of experiments on animals. That promise was repeated in the manifesto on which the Labour party was elected. Others have drawn attention to the failure to fulfil that promise, although it is no part of my intention to advocate the devices in which those hyper-enthusiasts--to give them a polite term--have and are indulging in. As hon. Members know, someone in prison at present has been starving himself for many days. That is evidence of the high degree of commitment--the House must accept this--that pervades certain sections of society on the issue.
I do not know whether other hon. Members saw "Dispatches" on television about 10 days ago. It used its standard technique of infiltration and betrayal of the trust that the infiltrator had acquired. There was selected editing, cutting and presenting, and a totally biased image was produced, focusing on individuals who, admittedly, probably would not shrink from breaking the law. The programme, however, did not bother to say that those people are the very tip of an iceberg of a large number of well-intentioned and genuinely concerned individuals.
We were told that the royal commission would be ineffectual because it would be expensive, cumbersome and time consuming. I detect in that--and so will the Minister quite quickly, if he does not think that impertinent--the language of the civil service. It will have put before him reasons for not doing anything. A royal commission probably would be inconvenient, time consuming and troublesome for the Government, but there is also a risk that, if it discharged its duties properly, it would conclude that a large tranche of animal experiments are repetitious, cruel, unnecessary and indifferently supervised in the various and scattered laboratories where they take place, and that an enormous proportion are still being conducted purely for the commercial gain and profits of a large number of powerful corporations--or even multinational corporations--in the private sector.
I hope that the Government will think again. I recognise that that would be difficult for them in the atmosphere that is being created, where the temperature is being raised in some quarters and they find themselves under the kind of pressure that we--who are democratically legitimate in this place--should never either bow to or endorse. None the less, it would be a fine gesture if they admitted that a royal commission is necessary, that there is substantial public demand for that and that they committed themselves to it in their manifesto.
I shall conclude by quoting one of our leading essayists, who wrote recently:
The essayist continued:
Mr. John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington):
I apologise for my delayed entry into the Chamber. There was gridlock in west London this morning and I was on the school run.
I congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping), on his appointment. My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) caught in him a whiff of the awkward squad. I see less of that and more the sinew of principle. I am sure that he will serve us well in government.
Before we enter the Christmas recess, I want to raise briefly two injustices. First, I draw attention to the plight of my constituents who, for the past three years, have been in dispute with Hillingdon hospital, and who, this year, will be on the picket line for their fourth Christmas. The dispute involves Hillingdon hospital cleaners, which some will recall I raised previously.
More than three years ago, the cleaning service was privatised, and the company that took over the contract was Pall Mall, which immediately introduced a substantial reduction in wages, eradicated certain conditions of service and refused to negotiate. As a result, the cleaners, largely Asian women, were forced to take industrial action. Throughout, Pall Mall refused to negotiate. Now, after three years, the Hillingdon Asian women strikers have won the right to reinstatement and full compensation at an industrial tribunal.
Unfortunately, the new company which took over from Pall Mall, Granada, refused to implement the industrial tribunal's decision. That means, as I have said, that this Christmas the strikers will once again be out in the cold on the picket line. The women have lived off donations, not social security benefits, and limited strike pay for nearly four years.
As a result of that experience, we should consider our industrial relations legislation and the worst offenders. The fairness at work programme that the Government are introducing will overcome many of the problems that we have seen in past industrial disputes--
Mr. Alan Clark:
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, particularly as I have just finished speaking on a completely different subject. Does he agree that a strange anomaly is present in Granada, which is a great supporter of the Labour party, which he represents, yet displays a particular expertise in ripping off the consumer and abusing its work force whenever it suits it?
Mr. McDonnell:
I am surprised at the way in which Granada is treating these women. We hoped that, when Granada took over the contract from Pall Mall, it would
It is with extreme disappointment that we now find that Granada is seeking to challenge the industrial tribunal's decision and to overturn, not necessarily the compensation order, but the reinstatement order. It is on the principle of reinstatement that the women have stood for three and a half long years.
As we debate the new legislation, we need to ensure that we design it so that it tackles the worst employers, rather than just ensuring that we have standards for the average employer to abide by. We must consider the hard cases.
The second injustice which I want briefly to mention has already been referred to the House on a number of occasions, most recently by the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) and the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey). It relates again to the Inntrepreneur cases. I have in my constituency a Mr. and Mrs. Luke, the landlord and landlady of the Crown public house in the beautiful village of Harmondsworth, one of the last lovely villages around Heathrow. They took over the pub 11 years ago and have run it successfully ever since. Their original lease was with Courage breweries.
Mr. and Mrs. Luke agreed a business plan for the pub on the basis of a five-year lease, plus a five-year continuing lease, with a contract to sell a certain barrelage. During the past 11 years, Mr. and Mrs. Luke have worked hard. They have invested their own money in the pub. They have an excellent new kitchen, serve food, have increased their clientele and have been in the "Good Beer Guide" for the past 10 years. For Mr. and Mrs. Luke, this was their investment for retirement which they plan in the next five or seven years.
Inntrepreneur took over the contracts and leases from Courage breweries and immediately increased the barrelage and renegotiated the contract on an unrealistic level, a process which has occurred in many constituencies. As a result, an impossible demand has been placed on Mr. and Mrs. Luke. The lease and rent prices have been forced upwards, again to an unrealistic level, and the company's response to an attempt to negotiate a reasonable level which could be expected from the pub is, "If you don't like it, walk away and leave the keys."
Mr. and Mrs. Luke now face the loss of their pub, their investment, their retirement nest egg and their home shortly after Christmas. This is a tragic story. There will be no room at the inn for Mr. and Mrs. Luke after Christmas. They will be evicted.
Inntrepreneur is now part of the Nomura bank, which is going further in ensuring that the barrelage rates for other landlords are forced up even higher and the renegotiated terms inflict more damage on individual pubs. In addition, it refuses to renegotiate sensible rates at a sustainable level.
"Passionate belief in the rights of animals may seem quirky and extreme".
I have had no diffidence about admitting to being an animal freak throughout my political career, and I made my maiden speech many years ago in support of a Bill
introduced by the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara). In my brief period away from this place, I was behaving as I could not behave once I was again a Member of Parliament--going to animal rights protesters' funerals, going on picket lines and so on.
"passionate belief in our responsibilities to and for them, whether in laboratories, battery sheds, farrowing stalls, milking parlours, in transit by road and sea, in abattoir, Islamic slaughter-house or farmyard should inform the judgment and behaviour of all men and women who lay claim to reason and compassion."
11.29 am
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |