| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
John Cryer (Hornchurch): Has my right hon. Friend seen early-day motion 1086 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham)?
[That this House notes that on Workers' Memorial Day on 28th April the London death watch unit, a joint initiative of the Battersea and Wandsworth Trades Union Council and the General Municipal & Boilermakers Union, London Region, issued new figures obtained from the Health and Safety Executive listing 191 work-related deaths since 1996 in the London area alone; further notes that the vast majority of these deaths were in the construction and maintenance industries; and believes that these sad new statistics highlight the importance of the Government bringing forward, at the earliest possible opportunity, the long-awaited legislation on corporate killing and the reform of the law on involuntary manslaughter designed to improve the chances of successfully prosecuting those employers known to have flouted health and safety regulations and which have contributed to the deaths of their employees.]
The motion points out that, since 1996, there have been 191 work-related deaths in the London area alone, and most of them were in the maintenance and construction industries. It calls for legislation to make corporate killing a crime, which has been in the headlines a great deal recently because we are approaching the first anniversary of the Potters Bar train crash in which a number of people lost their lives and several were injured. Jarvis, the contractor involved, not only evaded prosecution but briefed the press to the effect that there had been sabotage when there was absolutely no evidence that that had taken place. That is a sign of the kind of people with whom we are dealing. Is it not about time that we had the crime of corporate killing on the statute book?
Dr. Reid: I note what my hon. Friend says and the contents of the early-day motion to which he draws my attention. I am sure that, like many others in the House, I have a great deal of understanding of its contents and sympathy for the sentiments that it expresses. As he probably knows, the Government are committed to reforming the law to increase corporate liability for
manslaughter, and we will do that when parliamentary time allows. Our intention is to provide a clearer avenue for securing successful prosecutions against undertakings whose health and safety standards have fallen far below what could reasonably be expected and where the failure to uphold standards has, in part, been responsible for a death.
Mr. Michael Jack (Fylde): Will the Leader of the House ask the Secretary of State for Defence to make a statement about the Government's relationships with British Aerospace? I ask this because, earlier this week, Sir Michael Boyce, the retiring Chief of the Defence Staff, once again questioned the Government's commitment to purchasing all 232 Eurofighters currently under construction in my constituency. The right hon. Gentleman will also be aware that the Government have yet to give a firm commitment to buy the second tranche of those aircraft, and today British Aerospace put on notice more than 400 jobs at its Brough plant because the Government have yet to make up their mind on buying the advanced jet trainer. To remove those uncertainties from aerospace workers, particularly in the northern half of the country, will he arrange for a statement to clarify the Government's position?
Dr. Reid: I have no doubt that the Secretary of State for Defence will have heard the right hon. Gentleman's comments. However, if I were my right hon. Friend, I would immediately respond by saying it is rather bizarre to question our commitment to providing the resources necessary for our armed forces when, unlike the previous Government, instead of slashing defence expenditure we have—for the first time in a long while—increased it. The right hon. Gentleman refers to British Aerospace, but he might like to recall that not only have the Government provided the biggest naval programme that any Government have ever provided for the Royal Navy but, only recently, we announced the building of two huge aircraft carriers in which the prime contractor will be British Aerospace.
I will draw the right hon. Gentleman's remarks to the attention of the Secretary of State for Defence, but my right hon. Friend may be rather less generous in accepting them than if they had carried more substance.
Mr. Barry Gardiner (Brent, North): I am conscious of the pressure on the parliamentary programme that additional debates on Iraq may have caused, but is my right hon. Friend able to find time for a debate on the Learning and Skills Council's review of the area cost uplift? He will know that, as a result of that review, colleges such as North West London college in my constituency may face a shortfall of up to £1.4 million each year. The criteria that the Learning and Skills Council used in assessing the area cost uplift take into account two conflicting factors. The first is the high cost of living in a particular area, and the other is the possible detraction of a particularly insalubrious area. It seems that the council has been able to use those criteria to argue whatever case suits it when it arrives at the final figures for the area cost uplift.
Dr. Reid: I fully understand the importance that my hon. Friend places on the Learning and Skills Council.
He will appreciate that it is not always possible, even with very important issues, to make time available because of the tremendous strain of business that we have in the House. The House will be aware that my right hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) announced a Commons calendar last October that gave precise, though provisional, dates of recesses. I remind the House—[Interruption.] I shall also remind the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh), if she will listen to what I was about to say, that the dates were provisional and the calendar came with a health warning that it would
- "depend on the progress of business."—[Official Report, 31 October 2003; Vol. 391, c. 1001.]
Mr. Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield): The Leader of the House said a few moments ago—encouragingly, if somewhat tendentiously—that he and the Government are always prepared to allow sufficient time to discuss important issues in the Chamber. In the light of that comment, has he reflected on comments from senior members of the other place about the amount of time that the House discussed the Communications Bill? Lord Fowler of Sutton Coldfield, who is a highly respected and senior member, pointed out earlier this week that many clauses had not been discussed in the House. I spoke on Report about the market dominance of the BBC, and the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport explained courteously to me afterwards that he would have liked to respond to my points but he did not have time in which to do that. Given that the Leader of the House has said that he intends to ensure that the House has sufficient time to consider matters, I hope that he will bear in mind the experience of our consideration of that Bill.
Dr. Reid: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says and I am aware of several things that he mentioned. I understand that the programming of the Bill allowed adequate time to cover several of the issues that he mentioned. If Opposition Members had not spent inordinate time on other matters, those to which he refers could have been covered adequately. He will appreciate that we try to treat such matters as seriously as possible despite the huge constraints that are placed on us. We try to allow sufficient time for consideration, but if Opposition Members spend inordinate time on issues that the hon. Gentleman might consider to be less important, that has an impact on more important issues.
Mr. Andrew Dismore (Hendon): Can my right hon. Friend find time for an urgent statement on the
appalling suicide bombing in Tel Aviv, which was apparently conducted by two British citizens—Asif Mohammed Hanif, who killed three people as well as himself and injured many more; and Omar Khan Sharif, who is wanted in Israel for that attack? The statement should examine the links between those individuals and fundamentalist extremists in Britain such as Abu Hamza and organisations such as al-Muhajiroun. A representative of its leadership, Anjam Choudhury, spoke on Radio 4 this morning and appeared to encourage and endorse suicide attacks in Britain by citizens from overseas. Is it not about time that we got to grips with the appalling problem of Muslim fundamentalism and terrorism in Britain?
Dr. Reid: First, I want to express my deep regret, and that of the whole House, about the events that led to the tragic deaths. Of course, there were more deaths among the Palestinians overnight. I congratulate my hon. Friend on his considerable work to expose the dangers posed by, and the work of, some of the extremists in this country. I was heartened that the Muslim Council of Britain, which claims to represent more than 350 Islamic organisations and mosques in the United Kingdom, condemned the words of al-Muhajiroun on the "Today" programme this morning. The secretary-general of the Muslim Council of Britain, Iqbal Sacranie, said that Mr. Choudhury's comments were inflammatory and would harm community relations in Britain. He said that it was alarming to think that young Britons could be involved in acts of such a ghastly nature. All hon. Members would agree with those words and with the words with which he finished:
- "Let us be absolutely clear. The loss of innocent life is against the laws of humanity"—
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |