Chamber
Plenary, 11 Mar 2009
11 Mar 2009 · S3 · Plenary
Item of business
Damages (Asbestos-related Conditions) (Scotland) Bill
I expect an element of justice to be reinstated for the people of Scotland shortly after 5 pm this evening. I expect the Damages (Asbestos-related Conditions) (Scotland) (Bill) to be passed by the Parliament, which will once again send a message to Scotland and elsewhere that the Scottish Parliament is prepared to act in the interests of the people of this country.
I will take particular pleasure in casting my vote this evening because I have been involved in moving the campaign and the bill forward since before the bill was introduced to Parliament. Shortly after I was elected, Councillor Kenny MacLaren of Renfrewshire Council arranged for me to meet Phyllis Craig of Clydeside Action on Asbestos. The impending House of Lords decision and its ramifications for sufferers of pleural plaques was explained to me and I was asked to assist. With the help of Councillor MacLaren, we started to put the wheels in motion.
I offered to introduce the draft bill as a member's bill, but we agreed to try first to convince the Scottish Government to introduce the bill, as that would guarantee it speedier progress through the Parliament. Thankfully, the meetings between Clydeside Action on Asbestos, Frank Maguire of Thompsons Solicitors and the Scottish Government were successful. Gil Paterson, Bill Kidd and I invited Phyllis Craig and Frank Maguire to the Scottish National Party conference in 2007 to lobby all and sundry. I do not think that many SNP MSPs left the conference without meeting them and realising what pleural plaques were and what the implications of the House of Lords decision would be. When I was informed that the Scottish Government was to introduce the bill, I was delighted, but I realised that there was still a lot more to do.
During the early stages of the bill, when I was a member of the Justice Committee, it was obvious that there was unanimous cross-party support for the bill. It was also obvious that there was a sense of injustice, and that the committee could do something about it. I am proud of the scrutiny that we gave the bill and of the report that we published.
At this point, I pay tribute to the members of the Justice Committee for their work in scrutinising the bill. I was, of course, disappointed to hear Bill Aitken's comments. I respect the fact that he queried the financial aspects of the bill throughout the committee process, but I take this opportunity to urge the Conservatives to change their decision. I advise them not to paint themselves as they were in the 1980s, which is what they will do if they vote against the bill this evening.
I was born in Barrow-in-Furness in England, but I grew up in Port Glasgow, as my parents decided to return to the town. My father was a coppersmith and worked in the shipyards, as did many other family members. Health and safety conditions in the yards were not as stringent as they are now, and some of the raw materials that were used then would not be used now—the main one, obviously, being asbestos.
If I were given a pound for every story that I have heard about the white mice—not only in the past but since I have been involved in campaigning with Clydeside Action on Asbestos—I would be a wealthy man. The stories shocked me, but I was shocked even more by those about women contracting asbestos-related conditions as a result of shaking their husbands' overalls before washing them. That brought home to me just how potent and dangerous asbestos is, and how indiscriminate it can be. It can affect the whole population.
I am pleased that the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament have listened to the arguments. I am sure that the vast majority of the people of Scotland will support the decision that we make on the bill. I know that they will support us in doing the right thing tonight, just as they supported us when we did the right thing two weeks ago and voted for Jackie Baillie's Disabled Persons' Parking Places (Scotland) Bill.
During Bill Kidd's recent members' business debate on action mesothelioma day, I urged the insurance industry to work in tandem with organisations such as Clydeside Action on Asbestos and the Clydebank Asbestos Group, instead of fighting claims at every single turn. Today, I again ask the insurance industry to be proactive in moving this issue forward and not to challenge the will of the Parliament in the courts, as the media has reported might happen. If we pass the bill, there is no reason whatsoever for the insurance industry to mount a legal challenge to the will of the Parliament.
Before I close, I welcome to the public gallery representatives of Clydeside Action on Asbestos, particularly Phyllis Craig, who is a rock for the charity; Frank Maguire of Thompsons Solicitors; representatives of Clydebank Asbestos Group; and Councillor Kenny MacLaren. Their hard work will be rewarded. More important, I want to welcome all those in the public gallery who suffer from pleural plaques and other asbestos-related conditions. Today is about allowing them the opportunity to obtain an apology for their condition—a condition that was contracted because they went to work and someone else neglected health and safety regulations. Today is about them being able to move on with their lives. Most important, today is about them obtaining justice—justice that they deserve. Part of Scotland's industrial legacy will be put right today.
I urge the Parliament to vote with one voice and unanimously back this bill.
I will take particular pleasure in casting my vote this evening because I have been involved in moving the campaign and the bill forward since before the bill was introduced to Parliament. Shortly after I was elected, Councillor Kenny MacLaren of Renfrewshire Council arranged for me to meet Phyllis Craig of Clydeside Action on Asbestos. The impending House of Lords decision and its ramifications for sufferers of pleural plaques was explained to me and I was asked to assist. With the help of Councillor MacLaren, we started to put the wheels in motion.
I offered to introduce the draft bill as a member's bill, but we agreed to try first to convince the Scottish Government to introduce the bill, as that would guarantee it speedier progress through the Parliament. Thankfully, the meetings between Clydeside Action on Asbestos, Frank Maguire of Thompsons Solicitors and the Scottish Government were successful. Gil Paterson, Bill Kidd and I invited Phyllis Craig and Frank Maguire to the Scottish National Party conference in 2007 to lobby all and sundry. I do not think that many SNP MSPs left the conference without meeting them and realising what pleural plaques were and what the implications of the House of Lords decision would be. When I was informed that the Scottish Government was to introduce the bill, I was delighted, but I realised that there was still a lot more to do.
During the early stages of the bill, when I was a member of the Justice Committee, it was obvious that there was unanimous cross-party support for the bill. It was also obvious that there was a sense of injustice, and that the committee could do something about it. I am proud of the scrutiny that we gave the bill and of the report that we published.
At this point, I pay tribute to the members of the Justice Committee for their work in scrutinising the bill. I was, of course, disappointed to hear Bill Aitken's comments. I respect the fact that he queried the financial aspects of the bill throughout the committee process, but I take this opportunity to urge the Conservatives to change their decision. I advise them not to paint themselves as they were in the 1980s, which is what they will do if they vote against the bill this evening.
I was born in Barrow-in-Furness in England, but I grew up in Port Glasgow, as my parents decided to return to the town. My father was a coppersmith and worked in the shipyards, as did many other family members. Health and safety conditions in the yards were not as stringent as they are now, and some of the raw materials that were used then would not be used now—the main one, obviously, being asbestos.
If I were given a pound for every story that I have heard about the white mice—not only in the past but since I have been involved in campaigning with Clydeside Action on Asbestos—I would be a wealthy man. The stories shocked me, but I was shocked even more by those about women contracting asbestos-related conditions as a result of shaking their husbands' overalls before washing them. That brought home to me just how potent and dangerous asbestos is, and how indiscriminate it can be. It can affect the whole population.
I am pleased that the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament have listened to the arguments. I am sure that the vast majority of the people of Scotland will support the decision that we make on the bill. I know that they will support us in doing the right thing tonight, just as they supported us when we did the right thing two weeks ago and voted for Jackie Baillie's Disabled Persons' Parking Places (Scotland) Bill.
During Bill Kidd's recent members' business debate on action mesothelioma day, I urged the insurance industry to work in tandem with organisations such as Clydeside Action on Asbestos and the Clydebank Asbestos Group, instead of fighting claims at every single turn. Today, I again ask the insurance industry to be proactive in moving this issue forward and not to challenge the will of the Parliament in the courts, as the media has reported might happen. If we pass the bill, there is no reason whatsoever for the insurance industry to mount a legal challenge to the will of the Parliament.
Before I close, I welcome to the public gallery representatives of Clydeside Action on Asbestos, particularly Phyllis Craig, who is a rock for the charity; Frank Maguire of Thompsons Solicitors; representatives of Clydebank Asbestos Group; and Councillor Kenny MacLaren. Their hard work will be rewarded. More important, I want to welcome all those in the public gallery who suffer from pleural plaques and other asbestos-related conditions. Today is about allowing them the opportunity to obtain an apology for their condition—a condition that was contracted because they went to work and someone else neglected health and safety regulations. Today is about them being able to move on with their lives. Most important, today is about them obtaining justice—justice that they deserve. Part of Scotland's industrial legacy will be put right today.
I urge the Parliament to vote with one voice and unanimously back this bill.
In the same item of business
The Deputy Presiding Officer (Alasdair Morgan):
SNP
The next item of business is a debate on motion S3M-3542, in the name of Fergus Ewing, on the Damages (Asbestos-related Conditions) (Scotland) Bill.
The Minister for Community Safety (Fergus Ewing):
SNP
The Damages (Asbestos-related Conditions) (Scotland) Bill is short and its aim is simple—Interruption.
The Deputy Presiding Officer:
SNP
Order. Will members leave the chamber quietly if they are not participating in the debate, and will ministers continue their discussions outside the chamber?...
Fergus Ewing:
SNP
The Damages (Asbestos-related Conditions) (Scotland) Bill is short and its aim is simple: to defend a right that has been understood to exist for some 20 yea...
Richard Baker (North East Scotland) (Lab):
Lab
The Parliament has acted in unity before to protect and advance the rights of workers who have been recklessly exposed by their employers to asbestos, whose ...
Gil Paterson (West of Scotland) (SNP):
SNP
Do the member and the greater number of colleagues agree that the impact of passing the bill will be felt furth of Scotland? I firmly believe that passing th...
Richard Baker:
Lab
First, let me pay tribute to Gil Paterson for his efforts on the issue. Having attended a number of members' business debates on the sufferers of asbestosis ...
Bill Aitken (Glasgow) (Con):
Con
As has already been canvassed this afternoon, the Parliament cannot, in any legislative activity now and in the future, fail to take into consideration the f...
Robert Brown (Glasgow) (LD):
LD
On behalf of the Liberal Democrats, I am glad to agree with the proposition that Parliament should agree to pass at stage 3 the Damages (Asbestos-related con...
Stuart McMillan (West of Scotland) (SNP):
SNP
I expect an element of justice to be reinstated for the people of Scotland shortly after 5 pm this evening. I expect the Damages (Asbestos-related Conditions...
Bill Butler (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab):
Lab
I support the motion in the name of the minister. As a Justice Committee member, I put on record my gratitude to the clerking team and to SPICe for their ste...
Bill Kidd (Glasgow) (SNP):
SNP
It seems like such a long time since we set out on the road of reversing the ill-considered judgment of the House of Lords on the right of asbestos victims w...
Des McNulty (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab):
Lab
This morning, I spoke at a Clydebank Seniors Forum meeting. There were between 80 and 100 people—mainly women—in the room, many of whom had friends or relati...
Nigel Don (North East Scotland) (SNP):
SNP
I echo everything that has been said. This late in the debate, there is not much to say, and I do not want to repeat everything for the sake of it. I take me...
Duncan McNeil (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab):
Lab
I welcome the bill. More important, it will be welcomed by my constituents in Greenock and Inverclyde who have been diagnosed with pleural plaques and who ha...
Mike Pringle (Edinburgh South) (LD):
LD
I am sure that this is the final chapter—at least, I hope that it is—in legislation on the asbestos-related condition mesothelioma. I congratulate Clydeside ...
John Lamont (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con):
Con
Today's debate has again brought to the Parliament's attention the possibly horrific consequences of an asbestos-related condition. None of us would dispute ...
Fergus Ewing:
SNP
Will the member clarify whether the Conservatives have decided that they cannot support the bill because they think that the ultimate liability may be substa...
John Lamont:
Con
The key point is that estimates vary—the number of claims that may be made in the future is unquantifiable. There is no reliable way of estimating how many i...
Stuart McMillan:
SNP
I fully appreciate the cost issues that the member has highlighted, but does he think that pleural plaques are a good thing?
John Lamont:
Con
I am not arguing that pleural plaques are or are not a good thing; the point is what they lead to. Having pleural plaques is not a medical condition; the ill...
Paul Martin (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab):
Lab
We have heard powerful speeches, particularly from members who support the bill.The Justice Committee, of which I am a member, carefully considered a wide ra...
Bill Aitken:
Con
Does Mr Martin accept that it was entirely coincidental that Mr Brownlee lodged his amendment to the Damages (Asbestos-related Conditions) (Scotland) Bill? S...
Paul Martin:
Lab
Conservatives have proposed a template for scrutinising legislation in the future. I look forward to hearing more about their proposals.The Parliament has fa...
Fergus Ewing:
SNP
I thank members for their contributions to today's proceedings. Like the entire passage of the bill, the debate has been conducted in a constructive and thou...
Gil Paterson:
SNP
As the minister is aware, just before the House of Lords rescinded the relevant legislation, there was a massive amount of publicity about the issue but no d...
Fergus Ewing:
SNP
I agree entirely with the member's point, which is the third argument that I would adduce in support of my argument that the costs are likely to continue as ...