Chamber
Plenary, 21 Mar 2007
21 Mar 2007 · S2 · Plenary
Item of business
Rights of Relatives to Damages (Mesothelioma) (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3
I apologise, as I will have to leave the debate before the conclusion of the final speeches to go to a meeting of the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body.
The Scottish National Party heartily concurs with the minister. This is a short but significant—indeed, vital—bill. To some extent, the bill has been fast tracked, which is as it should be, and there were no stage 3 amendments.
Although the bill is short and limited in what it does, it has huge significance for the few individuals involved. We have had debates at stage 1 and elsewhere, but discourse has been limited because the matter is clearly one on which there is unity in the country and in the chamber.
We are aware that our proceedings are heating up as we approach the elections. It is often thought that a gladiatorial amphitheatre is replicated in the chamber at First Minister's questions, when politicians have battles over their respective ideologies. However, sometimes members clearly recognise that, irrespective of the political party that they belong to and the ideology that they profess, some things are manifestly wrong and unjust, such as the outcome of the decision by the House of Lords. Irrespective of where someone sits in this chamber or what political ethos they subscribe to, the situation was unacceptable and it was necessary that we acted with all speed.
As the minister correctly said, great tributes go to those who have been involved with the bill: Hugh Henry; Des McNulty; those involved on the committee; and those who have pursued a battle not only over the bill but over the whole issue of asbestosis. It is a battle that has been fought for more than a generation. Sadly, the struggle will probably continue because, as was mentioned during stage 1, cases are springing up in areas where we had not thought that there would be the possibility of related diseases.
When new technologies and new construction practices were first used many years ago, nobody started out with the deliberate thought that they would set out to make people sick, whether in the shipyards or in the construction industry. However, that was the consequence. Blame can be attributed to some companies that have acted shamefully. The bill will provide some solace for individuals, but some companies have acted appallingly, and some may continue to do so. We must pay tribute to those in Clydeside and elsewhere in Scotland who have fought tenaciously—often with little support from Government or political parties—to raise the issue. The credit goes to them, but, as I said, it also clearly goes to others, such as Des McNulty, who picked up the baton and ran with it.
We had a full debate at stage 1, when members clearly recognised the wrong that had come about. The chamber is frequently divided, but I hope that there is no division over this debate, because we all recognise the injustice involved. It would be perverse if we were to have petty party squabbles over something that matters so much to the individuals affected. The Hobson's choice that those individuals faced—either to seek some recompense in their lifetime or to leave it to their families to pursue recompense thereafter—was manifestly wrong.
We have not necessarily resolved all the problems; doubtless, significant problems will arise for others. I mentioned during the stage 1 debate that, when I had the pleasure of being in the company of Harry Benson, he told me of an outcome of the 9/11 tragedy that I had not known about. Many of the photographers who took the pictures that we have all seen in newspapers and elsewhere got dreadful diseases related to asbestosis because of all the problems that occurred in the atmosphere in and around downtown Manhattan.
Such issues will continue to arise, but—this is perhaps fitting as we come to the end of the session—as members of the Scottish Parliament, we must bury our differences and recognise that there is more that unites us than divides us and that we are here to address problems that exist in Scottish society. It is necessary for all politicians to recognise that some things transcend party ideology and must be sorted out. That is why the bill has had our full support and why it will have our full support at 5pm.
The Scottish National Party heartily concurs with the minister. This is a short but significant—indeed, vital—bill. To some extent, the bill has been fast tracked, which is as it should be, and there were no stage 3 amendments.
Although the bill is short and limited in what it does, it has huge significance for the few individuals involved. We have had debates at stage 1 and elsewhere, but discourse has been limited because the matter is clearly one on which there is unity in the country and in the chamber.
We are aware that our proceedings are heating up as we approach the elections. It is often thought that a gladiatorial amphitheatre is replicated in the chamber at First Minister's questions, when politicians have battles over their respective ideologies. However, sometimes members clearly recognise that, irrespective of the political party that they belong to and the ideology that they profess, some things are manifestly wrong and unjust, such as the outcome of the decision by the House of Lords. Irrespective of where someone sits in this chamber or what political ethos they subscribe to, the situation was unacceptable and it was necessary that we acted with all speed.
As the minister correctly said, great tributes go to those who have been involved with the bill: Hugh Henry; Des McNulty; those involved on the committee; and those who have pursued a battle not only over the bill but over the whole issue of asbestosis. It is a battle that has been fought for more than a generation. Sadly, the struggle will probably continue because, as was mentioned during stage 1, cases are springing up in areas where we had not thought that there would be the possibility of related diseases.
When new technologies and new construction practices were first used many years ago, nobody started out with the deliberate thought that they would set out to make people sick, whether in the shipyards or in the construction industry. However, that was the consequence. Blame can be attributed to some companies that have acted shamefully. The bill will provide some solace for individuals, but some companies have acted appallingly, and some may continue to do so. We must pay tribute to those in Clydeside and elsewhere in Scotland who have fought tenaciously—often with little support from Government or political parties—to raise the issue. The credit goes to them, but, as I said, it also clearly goes to others, such as Des McNulty, who picked up the baton and ran with it.
We had a full debate at stage 1, when members clearly recognised the wrong that had come about. The chamber is frequently divided, but I hope that there is no division over this debate, because we all recognise the injustice involved. It would be perverse if we were to have petty party squabbles over something that matters so much to the individuals affected. The Hobson's choice that those individuals faced—either to seek some recompense in their lifetime or to leave it to their families to pursue recompense thereafter—was manifestly wrong.
We have not necessarily resolved all the problems; doubtless, significant problems will arise for others. I mentioned during the stage 1 debate that, when I had the pleasure of being in the company of Harry Benson, he told me of an outcome of the 9/11 tragedy that I had not known about. Many of the photographers who took the pictures that we have all seen in newspapers and elsewhere got dreadful diseases related to asbestosis because of all the problems that occurred in the atmosphere in and around downtown Manhattan.
Such issues will continue to arise, but—this is perhaps fitting as we come to the end of the session—as members of the Scottish Parliament, we must bury our differences and recognise that there is more that unites us than divides us and that we are here to address problems that exist in Scottish society. It is necessary for all politicians to recognise that some things transcend party ideology and must be sorted out. That is why the bill has had our full support and why it will have our full support at 5pm.
In the same item of business
The Presiding Officer (Mr George Reid):
NPA
The next item of business is a debate on motion S2M-5628, in the name of Cathy Jamieson, that the Parliament agrees that the Rights of Relatives to Damages (...
The Deputy Minister for Justice (Johann Lamont):
Lab
The Rights of Relatives to Damages (Mesothelioma) (Scotland) Bill is a short but significant piece of legislation that will help a small group of people who ...
Mr Kenny MacAskill (Lothians) (SNP):
SNP
I apologise, as I will have to leave the debate before the conclusion of the final speeches to go to a meeting of the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body.T...
Margaret Mitchell (Central Scotland) (Con):
Con
It is a pleasure to speak in support of this short and unusual bill. It is a measure of the unanimity of the support for the bill that there were no stage 3 ...
Mike Pringle (Edinburgh South) (LD):
LD
I am pleased to speak at stage 3 of the Rights of Relatives to Damages (Mesothelioma) (Scotland) Bill.I have been in the Parliament for only four years, wher...
Pauline McNeill (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab):
Lab
I think that the member is correct. I cannot recall a previous occasion on which there were no amendments to a bill at stage 3—although I am sure that I will...
Mike Pringle:
LD
Absolutely—without question.The non-contentious nature of this bill was clearly evident in the shortest ever briefing from the Law Society of Scotland. I was...
Mrs Mary Mulligan (Linlithgow) (Lab):
Lab
I, too, am pleased to speak in the debate. As members said, many people should be congratulated on their support for the bill: my Labour colleagues Des McNul...
Shona Robison (Dundee East) (SNP):
SNP
As I have said before, we whole-heartedly welcome the bill as a means of bringing some justice to those who are affected by mesothelioma and their relatives....
Eleanor Scott (Highlands and Islands) (Green):
Green
In my brief speech, I will record my party's support for the bill. This is a short, circumscribed but very important bill, which, because it has received sup...
Frances Curran (West of Scotland) (SSP):
SSP
The Scottish Socialist Party very much welcomes and supports the bill. Politics is about power: who has it and how they use it. Although I am part of the con...
Pauline McNeill (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab):
Lab
Members know that there has been a long history of tackling the injustice of mesothelioma. The Parliament has attempted to use its powers to reform the law, ...
John Swinburne (Central Scotland) (SSCUP):
SSCUP
By the law of averages, I have no right to be standing here, because I worked in the shipyards. In 1947—60 years ago now—I worked in the city of Johannesburg...
Mike Pringle:
LD
The Deputy Minister for Justice set out all the essential details of the bill, so I will not go over them again. She made an extremely good point about an is...
John Swinburne:
SSCUP
I think that it was not so much that the employers did not know, as that they did not care. That is the difference.
Mike Pringle:
LD
I agree almost entirely with that point. That shows how irresponsible some of our industries were, given that the facts were known a long time ago.This is a ...
Bill Aitken (Glasgow) (Con):
Con
I declare a technical interest, in that I am the beneficiary of an insurance company pension. I am sure that this is the first time that anyone in the Parlia...
Stewart Stevenson (Banff and Buchan) (SNP):
SNP
It is no great secret that we have some fairly confrontational debates in this place from time to time and that, although we speak this afternoon in a spirit...
The Deputy Minister for Communities (Des McNulty):
Lab
I am delighted to have the opportunity to wind up this debate on the Rights of Relatives to Damages (Mesothelioma) (Scotland) Bill, which takes forward the w...