S4M-09697 Recovering Health Costs for Asbestos-related Conditions and Diseases

The Deputy Presiding Officer (John Scott): The final item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S4M-09697, in the name of Bill Kidd, on recovering health costs for asbestos-related conditions and diseases. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.

Motion debated,

That the Parliament welcomes the proposals by Clydeside Action on Asbestos regarding the recovery of costs to the NHS of treating people with asbestos-related conditions and diseases and considers that these proposals would address these health issues here in Scotland and, in doing so, help the constituents of Glasgow Anniesland, the home of generations of shipyard and engineering workers and their families, many of whom were exposed to asbestos-related illness during their lives.

18:16
... ... ...
18:30

Stewart Stevenson (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP): The subject that we debate tonight is one that I and others have spoken on over the past decade. Hanzala Malik mentioned a couple of our predecessors: Des McNulty and Bill Butler. It is worth saying that on the Tory benches Bill Aitken was assiduous in pursuit of this issue and, on my own benches, the late Margaret Ewing pursued the interests of her constituents, who were mainly in the defence-related industries, on this issue.

In addition, on this one occasion—if on no other—I commend the actions of Johann Lamont, who was the Deputy Minister for Justice when the Rights of Relatives to Damages (Mesothelioma) (Scotland) Bill was taken through this Parliament in 2007. She was very much on the case and supportive of what we needed to do.

Hanzala Malik focused on some of the practical difficulties that there may be for those who end up having to pay, in terms of the motion before us. Let me just say that I have rather less sympathy than perhaps he has. We have heard that awareness of the dangers associated with asbestos dates back to 1946. We have learned more in the meantime, but we have known about the dangers since then. Someone who started work in 1946 is unlikely to be any younger than about 85 or 86 today, so very few people will suffer disease from industrial exposure to asbestos that predates our knowledge of its risk in 1946. Let us get that on the record and in our minds right at the outset.

Let me compare and contrast with another way that the health service pays out costs needlessly: in relation to road traffic accidents. There is already legislation on that, and if members read their insurance policies very carefully, they will see that the NHS can claim against their car insurance to pay for the costs that it incurs. We are not breaching a new principle here: that is already the case in law, and we are extending the principle to people affected by asbestos.

The debate is timely and appropriate. Mesothelioma, which was the subject of the 2007 bill, is a very unusual disease: a condition of the mesothelium, which sits between the lungs and the outside part of the body, which is only caused by asbestos. There is no other known cause, so the responsibility for either of the variants of mesothelioma should be entirely at the door of those who caused it.

How many people will be affected? In 2006 the British Journal of Cancer suggested that there would be 90,000 deaths between 1968 and 2050. However, the numbers in any given year are not many. In 2007, when the regime changed, Frank Maguire from Thompsons Solicitors said that he reckoned that he had 100 active cases. There may not be many at any one particular time, but there are significant numbers over the considerable length of time concerned.

In this Parliament we often have quite robust debates, but there has always been very significant consensus across the Parliament that this is an important issue on which we can seriously contribute something.

In 2006, Johann Lamont said:

“It is only right that we do all we can to minimise the distress this problem causes to those suffering from this disease and to their families as speedily as possible.”

It is now the NHS’s turn to have its rights respected. I have great pleasure in supporting the motion that is the subject of tonight’s debate.

18:34