Relatives of people killed at work formed this national campaigning group. Fack believes families bereaved because of unsafe and unhealthy workplaces are angry and frustrated. They feel they have been robbed twice: Once of their loved ones in incidents that should have been prevented by employers simply obeying the law on workplace health and safety; and secondly of their right to justice.
I was recently contacted by a constituent of mine who tragically lost her younger brother in a preventable accident at his place of work.
She was not only writing to ensure I was aware of the campaign, fack, and of what more she thought the government could be doing on this issue, but to tell me that she joined the Labour party after listening to contributions made at a labour party conference fringe event on corporate killings.
She said she was inspired by the many contributions made by both those that have been directly affected by this issue and those that have worked hard in the Labour party to fight against corporate killings. She is proud of what Labour has achieved on this but feels more needs to be done.
The campaign is seeking urgent government action to halt the complacency about deaths at work and decent laws which will bring dangerously negligent bosses to justice. fack wants a review of the way work-related deaths are investigated and the way families are treated. In addition, it believes workers and safety reps must be given more rights to protect themselves against exposure to unacceptable risks to their lives and health.
I offer this campaign my full support and will continue to work with colleagues including Cathy Peattie MSP and Karen Gillon MSP who continue to put pressure on the government to achieve the aims and objectives of this very worthwhile cause.
If you believe what you read and hear in the media you will think every MP is pocketing, or "trousering" to use the awful new word, up to £150,000 on top of their salary.
The truth is that the largest part of these expenses are to pay staff and run offices in the constituency providing a service for constituents.
When I was first elected in 1979, there was no such provision. I was one of the few MPs who had an office in the constituency – paid for by the Labour Party. We ran a weekly tote to raise money to pay for rent and employ staff.
Before that, being an MP had been the prerogative of the rich Tory gentry and a few good solid Labour MPs with union backing enabling them to survive.
But, increasingly, the role of an MP has changed from a legislator in London who visited their constituency occasionally, to an advocate and super social worker, taking up issues and solving problems for constituents. That is why the independent Top Salaries Review Committee recommended an "office costs allowance" for MPs to set up offices to serve their constituents' growing needs and demands.
Which brings us to the second major part of the expenses – the cost of travel. No longer can MPs live in London and visit their constituencies from time to time. They are expected to be in the Commons from Monday to Thursday and back with their constituents, and families, at weekends. They cannot be expected to cover that huge cost out of a relatively modest salary.
This brings us, finally, to the third major complaint – the London living allowance. MPs outwith Greater London cannot be expected to travel home each night so need to stay in London during the week. The allowance was originally calculated by multiplying a civil servant's overnight allowance by the number of nights the House of Commons was sitting each year. Because of this, and because salary increases kept being foregone by governments nervous of the public reaction, the London allowance came to be perceived by some as a substitute for those lost salary increases.
It was originally paid in 12 monthly instalments but, paradoxically, the increasing clamour for accountability meant receipts had to be produced to justify it. This is what has led to the current anomalous position and regrettable abuse of the system by a few.
During my 26 years as an MP, I had never heard of the so-called "John Lewis list" and did not have a luxury kitchen or plasma TV on the allowance, but merely covered the real extra cost of having to live in London.
If the office cost allowance was to be cut, it would be the constituents who would suffer, not the MP. All of this has rightly raised the issue of whether the current level of MPs' salary is correct. Currently it is about half the salary of a GP and less than the headmaster of a small school.
Democracy is beyond price. I have seen military dictatorships and communist states and know how vital it is we have a fair, well respected and effective democratically-elected parliament.
In order to get the right people to stand, they need to be properly paid so we can attract people from all backgrounds. The current level of pay will not do that. If we pay peanuts, it is not surprising that we end up with some monkeys. Thankfully, we also end up with great leaders who are willing to accept the sacrifice.
There is, however, a quid pro quo. If a decent salary is to be paid to our MPs then they, in turn, might accept no extra outside jobs and pledge to work full-time for their constituents and in scrutinising legislation. That is only right and should, of course, also apply to MSPs.
I know I am setting myself up here, but please note that proviso. This would apply once elected members – MPs and MSPs – are properly paid. And it would also apply to members of the second chamber at Westminster if they also become full-time elected salaried members.
Tangled web
My experience tells me that this column will be the subject of many comments on the Evening News website.
Most stories get a dozen or two comments, any which criticise the SNP get many hundreds, and I have a few devoted followers who delight in commenting on pearls of wisdom which I very occasionally manage to see.
What is disappointing, however, is the vitriolic nature of some of the comments and the appalling grammar and spelling. They seldom address the issues but seem preoccupied with the perceived personal peccadilloes of the authors, journalist or people quoted in articles.
Astonishingly, they are posted all through the night and, while it is not a prerequisite for supporters of independence to be able to spell the word, it would increase our confidence in their judgement if they might resort to a spell-check from time to time.
Do you remember where and when the last G20 meeting was held.?
I bet the answer with most of you is ‘no'. Because Gordon Brown, almost singlehandedly, has converted the G20 into the World's economic forum.
Previously all the attention was on the G8 which included only the old rich nations, with the recent addition of Russia.
But Gordon, rightly, wanted Brazil, China, India, Saudi Arabia and the other G20 counties to participate in major economic debates, representing as they do the growth areas of the world.
So with the UK due to host the G20 he seized the opportunity and built it into the major world economic forum.
He literally toured the globe pushing his Agenda of fiscal stimulus, increased money for the IMF, greater global regulation and a clamp down on tax havens.
And he succeeded first in getting Barrack Obama on side and then neutralizing the French and German reservations.
The final declaration is pure Gordon Brown. And he won't stop there. He is now intent on ensuring that the agreements are implemented.
But although our cynical media have tried to play it down the positive outcome of the G20 has been recognized at home and overseas.
Again and again on our T.V. screens the image of Gordon as a world statesman was projected into every living room.
And although Barrack and Michelle were undoubtedly the super stars of the occasion, Gordon was clearly seen as the architect of the success.
The G20 is now going to be a fixed occasion to rival, or even surpass , the G8 and bring the new economic powers into the room at last.
But even more important that than it provides a route map out of the global recession, and we should be proud it is Britain who has taken the lead.
Why is it some critics are prepared to quote leaders of France or Germany, rather than our own leadership?
Why should some people abandon their patriotism just because it is a Labour government in power.?
After all it was a Labour government, under Clement Atlee, that led us out of post war stringency.
It is not a fourth term Labour should be seeking but the first term of a post crisis government under the only man with the experience to lead us back to prosperity.
I used to be what is described as a ‘nuclear sceptic'. The problem of disposal of radioactive waste, the accidents at Chernobyl and Three Mile Island leaks from Sellafield caused me concern. They still do.
However when I was Minister of State for Scotland I was a member of the Energy Task Force chaired by Brian Wilson, then Energy Minister.
We looked at the future demand for electricity and the forecast installed generating capacity and saw a growing gap.
It was clear also that the gas we were increasingly relying on came less and less from the North Sea and increasingly from less stable areas of Asia and North Africa.
Our remit was to recommend what should be done to ensure the security and diversity of energy supply - to keep the lights in our homes on and the fuel for our economy flowing.
We needed to ensure that more electricity could be generated from reliable fuels, and from a variety of sources.But we also had a responsibility to ensure we achieved our promised reductions in Carbon Dioxide emissions.
Coal fired power stations are not as clean as others even with new technology, but will still be essential with a reduced capacity.
Existing Nuclear Power Stations will reach the end of their planned lives over the next few decades.
Certainly we agreed our first priority should be to reduce projected demand by increased efficiency with insulation etc. and this is being done. It also has the advantage of reducing our domestic electricity and gas bills.
And we recommend a huge increase in all forms of renewables. But these have two major disadvantages the SNP will not face up to.
When the wind stops the electricity supply stops also so it can never be relied on for baseload.
Also it is produced far away from the major cities and the bulk of the demand so many more transmission lines will be needed to criss cross the countryside.
That is why we came to the inescapable conclusion that the only way of closing the energy gap is to build new nuclear power stations on existing nuclear power sites.
But, I hear you shout, what about safety and waste?
Well the good news is that the new generation of power stations are ultra safe and produce a tiny amount of waste compared with the present ones.
Indeed I am told that over 90% of waste that we will ever produce is with us already and has to be stored and dealt with whatever.
So if you don't want the lights to go out, along with TV's, washing machines and the computers that are now part of everyday life we will al have to bite the bullet of new nuclear.
The Proposed End of Life Choices (Scotland) Bill - December 2008
Margo Macdonald MSP has brought a very important but divisive issue to parliament in her proposed End of Life Choices (Scotland) Bill. The proposal that persons who wish to decide when to end their lives should be able to do so, legally, with the assistance of a registered physician has come about because of the experiences of people with degenerative conditions, terminal illnesses and those who become entirely dependent on others following a trauma. The purpose of the proposed bill is to clarify the laws in Scotland relating to the assistance given to end the life of a person requesting such help before death would occur naturally. At present, neither statute nor case law clarifies the circumstances in which it would be legal to provide assistance on the request of someone wishing to end his or her life.
I am basically in favour of the principle of the Bill but have reservations on some aspects of the detail, particularly the suggestion that the law could apply to people who are neither terminally ill, suffering from a degenerative condition nor find themselves unexpectedly incapacitated.
It has become clear from the many letters I have received, the majority of which were from experienced members of the medical profession, that those who are vulnerable, such as the elderly and mentally ill, will be open to abuse if this system is introduced in its proposed format. Their case in this regard is compelling, therefore, I feel it is imperative that the detail here is revised so that these concerns are addressed and the assurances required to make this legislation acceptable are applied to protect the most vulnerable.
I also heard compelling cases for the introduction of a Bill that allows those who are of sound mind and who have been diagnosed with a terminal illness to be granted the legal right to end their own life and die without suffering or a loss of dignity. Where a human being is reduced to begging her own children to smother her is, I feel, an immoral and unethical situation and people should not be expected to suffer in this way indefinitely.
If a balance can be struck between ensuring appropriate safeguards are in place to protect those most vulnerable while allowing those who are sound of mind, fully informed and assessed as terminally ill the right to die, I will support the Bill in its entirety.
George Foulkes MSP
After over 35 years in elected politics, George has seen it all. He’s been a councillor, an MP, is a member of the House of Lords and since May this year an MSP. He remembers both David Miliband and Gordon Brown as teenagers. His “For Foulkes Sake” blog is a step back in time
…with a modern twist.
Accessibility | Privacy | Site map
© George Foulkes MSP