 The final item of business today is a member's business debate on motion number 9697, in the name of Bill Kidd, on recovering health costs for asbestos-related conditions and diseases. The debate will be concluded without any questions being put, and I would invite those members who wish to speak in the debate to please press the request-to-speak buttons now or as soon as possible. I would once again further invite those members who are leaving in the chamber to do so quickly and of the essence quietly. I now call on Bill Kidd to open the debate, please. Seven minutes, please, Mr Kidd. As you can see, the sun shines on the righteous. I am pleased and yet saddened to bring forward this member's debate to the chamber today. I am pleased because I am very proud of the Scottish Parliament's commitment across the parties here to see justice done for the victims of asbestos exposure and asbestos-related illnesses. I am saddened, obviously, because, as I know we will hear from other contributions, the rate of death from asbestos exposure continues to rise. This is a disease that can work on a victim without many, if any, outward signs for a long period of time. Therefore, it can lead to a diagnosis and registration as a victim of asbestosis well after the initial exposure occurred. Thus, people continue to be identified with asbestos-related symptoms. As well as this, even today in public buildings, including in schools, there is often asbestos in the fabric of those buildings, and there are dangers of exposure continuing if this is disturbed in any way. Therefore, it is incumbent on us in this place to speak out on behalf of our fellow citizens who, through the work of generations, built the economy of our country and, in doing so, were left exposed to this dangerous material and to suffer the consequences later in life. That would be consistent with calls from Clydeside Action on Asbestos, Scottish Hazards and the STUC for the recovery of costs and compensation to those affected. The medical evidence is very complex, but the truth is that a large number of people are ill, very ill or even terminally ill, and need a swift resolution to any claims for compensation. Also, given that although the levels of knowledge of the dangers of asbestos have been known since at least 1945, the difficulties of diagnosis are due to similarities with other conditions, and the issues that are often raised by legal invisibility arising from workers having had a number of employers where they may have contracted exposure and illness from asbestos, we still know that, in spite of all that, we still know that asbestos diseases exercise a terrible hold on the lives of many. Therefore, I have felt the need to again raise here the issue of asbestos in the lives of Scottish communities, such as those in my constituency of Glasgow Annie's land, which I think most people will know has a background of shipbuilding and heavy engineering, where asbestos exposure was rife over many years. Worryingly, as I say, there is now also the issue of potential and indeed actual exposure of pupils and teachers in school buildings of a certain vintage, where the maintenance of those schools potentially has not been kept up to the standards that we might hope for. That, as I said, is not something that is going to go away, and indeed, as I also said, the numbers of those affected are actually rising. I know that my colleague Stuart McMillan will particularly pick up on that. Meanwhile, the NHS is left to pick up the medical costs that should, by rights, be covered by the employing companies and their insurers. Therefore, I fully support the considered proposals of Clydeside action on asbestos for the recovery of those treatment costs to the NHS and compensation to be consistent with the damage suffered by victims and their families. We owe a very great deal to those people who, over the years, worked long and hard in very difficult industries, and we owe their families who were often exposed to the asbestos dust that was brought home on people's boiler suits and then washed at home. That exposed both the wives and partners and the children of those people. It is incredibly important that we do not forget, under any circumstances, the duty that we owe to people who have suffered in this way, whether it be pleural plaques, whether it be asbestosis or whether it be misothelioma. Everyone who has suffered from the outrage of being exposed to asbestos and not being properly recompensed deserves our support and the NHS that finds itself having to care for people in this circumstance should not be left unsupported financially from those who should have actually been giving a greater duty of care to those workers. I now call on Stuart McMillan to be followed by Hanzala Mallick. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer, and the outset I want to declare my interest, as per my register of interests. I congratulate Bill Kidd for securing this member's debate and, certainly, commend him for raising this important issue today. I have been working closely with Clyde side action on asbestos and Thomson solicitors to bring forward a member's bill on this very issue, and I would like to highlight just a few points surrounding the actual bill. As Bill Kidd said, Scotland's proud industrial history is scarred by the legacy of asbestos-related disease, which has caused so much harm to so many people over the years. It is easy to assume that the health impact of our industrial past is nearing an end, and that the number of Scottish citizens and families who will be damaged and killed by asbestos-related diseases will diminish in number to zero in the near future. That is not, however, the nature of the diseases. Scottish families and communities will continue to suffer because of asbestos-related disease and the NHS who provide the immeasurable care and support to those families will continue to bear the financial cost for decades to come. Everyone in Scotland agrees that what the victims of asbestos-related disease have been forced to suffer is wrong. Everyone in Scotland agrees that they require the best care and attention, and that only the Scottish NHS can provide. Nevertheless, I do not think that it is fair that the financial burden of providing that cost should rest solely on the taxpayer when the companies who exposed our workers to asbestos are well insured, particularly in those financially austere times. The bill that I propose, along with the support of Clydeside Action on Asbestos and Thomson's, is intended to help NHS Scotland to recover the costs of treating people with asbestos-related conditions from insurance companies who have already settled civil claims with victims. It is estimated that the NHS spends some in the region of £20 million a year on diagnosing and treating people suffering as a result of asbestos exposure—money that will be freed up to treat more people if the bill is successful. The bill is at the early stages and is being prepared for consultation, but I believe that the powers called for within the bill are within the legal competence of this Parliament. I would hope that there would be no attempt by insurance companies or anyone else to drag the bill through the courts to delay its implementation or to attempt to overturn the decisions of this Parliament, as has been the case in the past. There are many reasons why I believe that the bill is necessary, desirable and entirely appropriate. Firstly, Scottish society, industry and our economy have benefited from a proud industrial history. It is a history, however, scarred by industrial injury and disease, seen at none more acutely than our workers who were exposed to asbestos at work. Secondly, we are in financial austere times. I think that it is wrong that the taxpayer should bear the full financial burden of caring for victims of asbestos-related disease when there are compensators who have insurance and on whom the burden ought more fairly and appropriately fall. Thirdly, although the care that the victims of asbestos-related disease receive is one of the highest quality in Scotland, there is always more that can be done. There is always research into asbestos-related cancer that must be undertaken and new forms of treatment and care found and administered. It is important to recognise that my proposal will not create any new class of person who requires to pay compensation arising from asbestos-related disease. The obligation to repay the NHS benefits will only arise where there is negligence or a breach of a statutory obligation, which gives rise to a primary obligation to compensate the victim or, in cases where exposure to asbestos has caused death, the victim's families. We cannot underestimate the need for bringing this issue before the Scottish Parliament. The emotional and physical cost of being diagnosed with an asbestos-related condition can be significant, and it is the welfare of the person with the illness that is paramount. However, in conclusion, there is a substantial cost to the NHS in diagnosing and managing asbestos-related conditions, and that is something that I certainly believe needs to be addressed. Thank you very much. I now call on Hans-Alan Mallick to be followed by Stuart Stevenson. Thank you very much and good evening, Presiding Officer. I thank Dazin Magnanti and Bill Butler, who historically brought this issue to the Scottish Parliament, and now Bill Kidd for securing today's debate. I can't miss this opportunity to take part in this debate today, as I feel that this issue is one that needs to be discussed openly and as widely as possible. I love the NHS. I'm a regular customer. I am sure that everybody in this chamber would agree it is one of the best institutes in that country. The principle of treatment that is free at the point of use is something that I would fight vigorously to protect, and that's that I recognize that it is also an institute that has been struggling, perhaps, to its limits in the past few years. Some may feel that it's time to start looking at how they can recover costs. However, I worry about how this proposal would work in a practical sense. Many of the companies whose employees who are suffering from asbestos-related illnesses have disappeared. They're no longer here. Those companies that have survived or are still operating are struggling in a climate when budgets are tight, and large unexpected costs would mean their closure, as these would mean that different difficulties between affordability would crumble these small companies and organisations. They struggle from trying to ensure that their monthly wage bills are there in place, otherwise they could fail and flop. I therefore question how reasonable and uneconomically feasible it is to try to recoup costs that have occurred due to working practices that we did not know were harmful. We do not have a checklist before treatment, and depending on the cost, I fear that to implement this proposal would start us on a slope of charging for treatment. That said, I do recognise that NHS is struggling to provide costly treatment, and many people suffer from asbestos-related illnesses, and that something needs to be done. I do not accept that this is the only way forward. However, I want to make it clear and on the record that I lend my support to the families who are suffering from the asbestos-related illnesses and for any other serious illnesses for that matter, and their families, because it is important, it is our duty to do so. I think that one needs to be very, very careful and fearful because we need to be fair and transparent. If companies have been guilty in the past and no longer there, there is no way of recovering those costs. If companies are still in operation, we are endangering them. But at the same time, I think it is the government's duty and not the company's duty to find these because there are many other examples of illnesses that people suffer, whether it be passive smoking or any other related diseases. Therefore, whereas I am very supportive, not only on this issue but others as well, I do believe that it is the government's duty and not the company's duty to look after its communities. Colin Stewart Stevenson to be followed by Jackson Carlaw. Thank you very much indeed, Presiding Officer. It is a subject that we debate tonight that I and others in this place have spoken on probably over the last decade. A couple of our predecessors who were mentioned by Hamzell Amaric were Des McNalthy and Bill Butler. It is worth perhaps saying from the Tory benches that Bill Aitken was assiduous in pursuit of this issue. On my own benches, the late Margaret Ewing pursued the interests of her constituents who mainly were in the defence related industries on this issue. On this one occasion, if on no other, I commend the actions of Joanne Lamont, who was of course the Deputy Justice Minister at the time the rights of relatives to damages. Mrs Eleomah, Scotland Bill, was taken through this Parliament in 2007. She was very much on the case and supportive of what we needed to do. Hamzell Amaric has focused on some of the practical difficulties that there are for those who may end up having to pay in the terms of the motion that is before us. Let me just say that I have rather less sympathy than perhaps he has. We have heard that the dangers associated with asbestos date back to 1946. We have learned more since then, but we have known since then. Someone who started work in 1946 is unlikely to be any younger than about 85 or 86 today. There are very few people who will be suffering from this disease from industrial exposure that predate a knowledge of this as a risk in 1946. Let us get that on the record in our mind at the outset. Let me also compare and contrast with another way that the health service pays out costs needlessly. That is in relation to road traffic accidents. There is a ready legislation, and if you read your insurance policies carefully, you will see that the NHS can claim against your car insurance to pay for the costs that it has incurred. We are not breaching a new principle here. It is already the case in law. We are extending that principle to people who are affected by asbestos. It is a timely and appropriate debate. Let me just say that mesothelioma, which is the subject of legislation in particular, is a very unusual disease—a condition of the mesothelium that sits between the lungs and the outside part of the body—only caused by asbestos. There is no other known cause. On that basis, either of the variants of mesothelioma should be entirely at the door of those who have caused it. How many people are going to be affected? In 2006, the British Cancer Journal suggested that there would be 90,000 deaths between 1968 and 2050. Of course, the numbers in any given year are not many. Frank McGuire of Thomson's solicitors in 2007, when the regime changed, said 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 that this happens. In this Parliament, we often have quite robust debates. That has always been a subject where there has been a very significant consensus across the Parliament that it is an important issue and one in which we can contribute something seriously. Let me just end by quoting Joanne Lamont in 2006. She said that it is only right that we all do what we can to minimise the distress that 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 as well. I have great pleasure in supporting the motion that is the subject of tonight's debate. I congratulate Bill Kidd on securing the motion this evening. I am a 55-year-old proud Glaswegian. I am old enough wherever the political tumults that surrounded our industrial heritage to nonetheless have a great respect, affection and pride, particularly in all that Glasgow contributed to the industrial heritage of Scotland. As a young boy, I remember the excitement and pride of going through the Clyde tunnel when it was opened for the first time. I appreciate and respect the enormous shipbuilding industry that was the source of all that we enjoyed on the Clyde. I remember that when John Wayne was the number one box office star, that was when men were achieving those things. At this week, I noticed in one of the newspapers reports of a film that has been released of the construction of the Erskine bridge. It showed a man 150 feet up, moving from one gap to another along a suspended bendy bit of wood disease, only leeway between the two. This is the health and safety of a kind that we do not recognise in the way that things are done today. I have tremendous respect. Stewart Stevenson was right to comment on the cross-party consensus that was surrounded, not the risk of being at 150 feet and walking across a plaque, but of the materials that you were using unknowingly being the source of such a fatal and ghastly illness as mesothelioma has proved to be for so many individuals and so many families. That is why I, along with Hamzala Malik and others in the previous Parliament, agreed that it was important that we ensure that the proper level of compensation was paid, that the whole issue of plural plaques was properly debated and that I was happy to put the support of the Conservative Party, along with Bill Aiken and others as health spokesmen at that time, behind that proposition. I find the proposal contained within the motion before us interesting. I am not yet persuaded, but I am not at this stage inclined to say that I would not be interested in looking at the detail further. I suppose that my concern rests a little around where Hamzala Malik pitched his contribution. It may not be a little disingenuous to say that it is not breaching any new principle, because I think that it would be quite a considerable extension. Would it be the case that those suffering from obesity, that the health service and due course would have recourse against the manufacturers of food? Would it be the case that all those suffering from alcoholism, the NHS, should recover the costs from the industry? Now, there may be attractions in some of that proposition, but it is a fairly dramatic extension. I would say that the national health service is funded by our national insurance contributions. I am not a regular user of the national health service. I am quite happy—I use it occasionally—and it has been enormously valuable to me when I have, but it is a national insurance contribution that I make. The word insurance in that implies to me that it is a health service that we are funding to meet the various risks that arise. Recovering those costs, as has been suggested, will not actually per se benefit the individuals who have suffered for whom I have the greatest respect and would wish to see everything possible done. I am concerned, in fact, that in the courts reform bill we may be making access to justice, that little bit more difficult by pitching it the level at which access comes at £150,000 rather than five. However, in terms of the actual proposal within the bill, I think that it has an interesting aspect to it that I would like to see explored further, but I am not at this stage convinced that that would be the right thing for us to do, given the precedent that I think it would set and the temptations that that might offer. We have a national health service. We contribute to it. It is there to meet those emergencies. What is important, I think, is that those who deserve the compensation and support throughout their lives as a result of what they did on behalf of our country are adequately supported in the life that they lead. Thank you. We are now calling Gil Paterson, after which we will move the closing speech from the minister. I would also like to share my sentiments of my colleagues and congratulate Bill Kidd for securing this debate and what is indeed a very important issue. I would also like to praise all those involved in the Clydeside action on asbestos for the sterling work over a number of decades in supporting those affected with asbestos-related conditions. They certainly have made a difference without a shadow of a doubt. It is also pleasing to note that, no matter our political beliefs or party membership, the chamber can unite to support those sufferers and attempt to gain some justice for what we see as an everyday normal experience, and that is going to work in a safe environment. As I said by Bill Kidd when discussing the effects of asbestos, it is important that we acknowledge that it was not only those who worked in our factories and shipyards who suffered, but that whole families were affected from when the work clothes were washed and when hung out to dry. No one was safe. That is why I support not only this motion, but also the proposal that was put forward by Clydeside action on asbestos. Individuals were not affected by asbestos. Everyone was affected by asbestos-related illnesses. Men, women, children, whole generations of Scots and further afield, I may add. We owe it to these generations to do all we can within our powers to bring some comfort and justice for what is a sad reflection of our past. As a constituency MSP for Clydebank and Mulgyi, I regularly come into contact with large numbers of people who grew up working in John Brown's shipyard and the Singer Sewing Machine Company. There is still a great pride among those people of what they built, not only in terms of ships and sewing machines, but also in the fact that a strong community was established and one that looked out for one another. But where there is pride, there is also anger. Anger that they have been subjected to working conditions that would leave long-term scars not only in their own bodies but also in the lives of their families and loved ones. With anger comes action, and I would like to use this opportunity to praise the volunteers of the Clydebank asbestos group, who have played a vital role both locally and nationally in fighting for those who suffer from asbestos-related illnesses. I am pleased that the Scottish Government, over the course of the past seven years, and indeed this Parliament, have attached a great deal of energy in supporting compensation claims for those who have suffered due to this condition. It was not politically motivated, but morally motivated that they should be congratulated for what they have done. However, as this motion sets out, there is work still to be done. NHS is under a great deal of strain due to the knock-on effects of the welfare cuts, and the proposals by Clyde site action on asbestos would have a valuable impact on the NHS and to help to address the health issues of our country. Finally, I call on Minister Michael Matheson to close the debate on behalf of the Government. I would like others to offer my congratulations to Bill Kidd on securing time for this debate. Bill Kidd and others were right to highlight the significant number of workers in Scotland who, over several generations, have been exposed to asbestos-based material in their workplace. For many of those individuals, it has caused them a great deal of harm through the exposure to those materials. They have suffered terrible, debilitating illnesses and, in some cases, those illnesses have also been terminal in nature. However, when we are considering the issue, whether it be about the issues around compensation, legal action or the NHS's ability to recover costs, it is extremely important that we should never lose sight of the people in the families who have suffered as a result of asbestos-related diseases. Jackson Carlaw was, to some degree, showing tonight his age, but he illustrated clearly the heavy industries in the west of Scotland, particularly in Greater Glasgow, that traditionally exposed workers to asbestos, particularly those industries on the Clyde. Although there were a significant number of people even to this day in the Greater Glasgow area who are affected by asbestos-related diseases, it was not exclusive to Glasgow in the west coast of Scotland, and as Stuart Stevens correctly pointed out, my late colleague, Margaret Ewing, pursued the issue for her own constituents who were affected by asbestos-related diseases associated with the defence industry. That was an issue that affected the whole of Scotland, although I recognise two different degrees in different parts of the country. Of course, as a Government, members would expect the Government to take this matter very seriously. As a Government, we do recognise this issue as being of particular importance. We should consider the possibility of the NHS being able to recover costs, but more importantly, we should make sure that those who have asbestos-related illnesses receive the best possible healthcare. Stuart Stevens? Perhaps, minister, you might care to note that, for many of those who are involved in defence, crown immunity has effectively prevented the kind of recourse that has been available to those who worked in the shipyards. I am aware of that particular point. However, it was useful in illustrating that it was not something that was just peculiar to Glasgow in the west coast of Scotland. As some members have already mentioned, since coming to power in 2007, we have been proactive. We have brought forward with cross-party support the damages asbestos-related conditions Scotland Act 2009, which was passed with cross-party support, which protected the rights of those who have suffered from asbestos-related disease conditions to be able to claim damages due to them. Stuart McMillan, in his contribution, has highlighted the work that he has been taking forward with Clyde side action on asbestos. In his proposal, there are cases where individuals with asbestos-related illness receive compensation for their condition. The NHS should be able to be given the power to recover from the compensator, not the company or the individual, but the insurance company that is providing the compensation, the costs of treating them within the NHS. Clyde side action on asbestos estimates that more than £20 million a year is spent by our NHS diagnosing and treating people suffering from asbestos-related exposure. Although the amount that would be recovered in the NHS here in Scotland would be dependent on the particular approach that is actually taken, the recovery of funds would allow for it to be reinvested in front-line NHS services. That is something that we do with our existing NHS cost recovery scheme that Stuart Stevenson made reference to. Last year, we recovered over £14 million through that particular scheme, and since it was introduced in 2007, the NHS has been able to recover £86.5 million through the recovery scheme. Members will be aware that that is not a new idea. The Welsh Assembly has passed a bill introducing those measures in Wales. The Welsh bill allows for a tariff-based system that is very similar to the recovery compensation system that we already have in the NHS for personal injuries. In Wales, the estimate— Minister, I would just draw your attention. I am sure that you are aware of the subjudice issues with regard to the Welsh Assembly at the moment. I am aware of that. It will draw in around £1 million through that scheme. However, it has been referred to the Supreme Court on its duty to consider it this week. We are watching the outcome from the Supreme Court carefully to consider the issue once the Supreme Court has ruled, which is expected to be in June or July of this year. Any proposals that may provide additional resources to the NHS have to be welcomed because they can be invested in front-line patient care. The Cabinet Secretary for Health and Sport met Stuart McMillan and Clydeside Action on Asbestos last year to discuss the issue, and the cabinet secretary has given an assurance that we will consider some of the issues around its proposal. At this stage, there are clearly a number of questions that would have to be considered. Among them are questions over who would administer such a scheme, the cost of administering such a scheme, questions on operational aspects, such as the treatment period over which costs may be recovered and questions over the total amount that is likely to be recovered by the NHS. Those and many more issues would have to be explored when I can inform members that those are issues that Government officials are already considering. I will draw my remarks to a close. I am sure that all members recognise that Clydeside Action on Asbestos, since its inception, has been a tireless campaigner on behalf of those affected by asbestos-related diseases. The campaigning of this particular charity has led to many successful outcomes, improving the lives of many who have suffered a great deal. It is important that we recognise the work that Clydeside Action on Asbestos has undertaken, not just for the campaigning that they have undertaken over the past 30 years, but also for the practical day-to-day support that they have provided to individuals and families where the provision of resources and information has helped to improve their quality of life. I wish the organisation well in that continued work in going forward, and I hope that members can be reassured that there is a Government that will continue to do what we can to make sure that patients who suffer from asbestos-related illnesses receive the best possible care within our NHS. Of course, we will continue to look at Stuart McMillan's proposal, as it has brought forward in Parliament, to see whether it can add value to the existing scene that we have for the first compensation within NHS Scotland. Many thanks. I now close this meeting up.