Plenary, 03 Jun 2004

Meeting date: Thursday, June 3, 2004

Official Report 771KB pdf

---

Asbestos-related Illnesses

The final item of business today is a members' business debate on motion S2M-866, in the name of Des McNulty, on asbestos-related illnesses. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.

Motion debated,

That the Parliament notes with deep concern recent projections regarding the increasing prevalence of asbestos-related illnesses in Scotland; notes that the historic concentration of heavy industry on Clydeside has left a devastating health legacy, affecting many former shipyard and engineering workers and their families; notes that although former shipyard communities show the highest incidence of asbestos-related disease, evidence now shows that ever-increasing numbers of workers from other parts of Scotland have also become victims of asbestos-related illnesses due largely to the past use of asbestos in construction; considers that the Scottish Executive should give urgent consideration to bringing forward an integrated strategy to assist all those affected by asbestos-related illnesses, which should combine screening and testing people who may have been at risk in order to ensure early diagnosis, counselling and support for victims and their families, and the provision of specialist palliative care, and further considers that the Scottish Executive should work along with COSLA, NHS boards and other key bodies, including the Health and Safety Executive to ensure that necessary information is made available to potential sufferers from asbestos-related illnesses and all those professionals in health, local government and other services who may be in the position of assisting victims and their families.

Sam Irvine, the long-standing chairman of the Clydebank Asbestos Group, died earlier this year. He worked for various employers in Clydebank, including the Singer sewing machine company and the John Brown shipyards, and he spent some time in the building industry as a master joiner. He was an asbestos victim and he suffered many of the classic symptoms of acute respiratory disease, but in his later years he devoted much of his time to campaigning for justice along with other members of the Clydebank Asbestos Group, Clydeside Action on Asbestos, the Scottish Trades Union Congress and its affiliates. That justice was all too often denied victims and their families as a result of the machinations of former employers and insurers such as Chester Street Insurance Holdings and Federal Mogul, which sought to evade liability for the damage that had been done.

My Westminster colleague Tony Worthington MP has played a prominent role in those campaigns, along with other MPs, including Margaret Ewing when she was a member of the House of Commons. As a result, new legislation has been introduced, the most recent example of which is the Control of Asbestos at Work Regulations 2002 (SI 2002/2675), part of which came into force only a fortnight ago on 21 May. The regulations aim to reduce the risk of exposure to asbestos in the work place and require anyone who is responsible for maintaining commercial, industrial or public property to check for asbestos and take appropriate action if it is discovered.

It is estimated that 500,000 properties in the United Kingdom contain asbestos, which was widely used in properties that were built or renovated between 1950 and 1980. Its use was especially widespread on Clydeside, where asbestos was used as insulating material in much of the rebuilding after the war. However, it was the widespread use of asbestos in fitting out and repairing ships that gave West Dunbartonshire the highest percentage of deaths from mesothelioma of any area in the UK.

The mortality rate in West Dunbartonshire from asbestos-related disease is more than six times higher than that in the rest of the UK. East Dunbartonshire, Fife, Glasgow, Inverclyde and Renfrewshire are all disproportionately affected, but the scale of the damage that asbestos has wrought throughout the UK means that every elected member must take the issue seriously.

One in every 100 British men who were born in the 1940s will die of malignant pleural mesothelioma, which is almost exclusively a consequence of exposure to asbestos and has a lag time that is rarely less than 25 years and is often more than 50 years from first exposure. Half of all the people affected are now over 70 years old, and 80 per cent are men.

For men who were first exposed as teenagers and who remained in high-risk occupations, such as insulation, throughout their working lives, the lifetime risk of mesothelioma can be as high as one in five. More than 1,800 deaths occur from the disease per year in Britain. The disease causes about one in 200 of all deaths in men and one in 1,500 in women, and those proportions continue to increase.

The peak of the epidemic has not been reached and is expected to occur between 2015 and 2020, when the death rate is likely to be 2,000 per year in the UK. The situation in Europe is similar and in some parts of the world it is worse. My namesake, Dr Jim McNulty, played the leading role in identifying the ingestion of asbestos as the cause of the level of mesothelioma in Western Australia, which is the jurisdiction with the highest level of asbestos-related disease in the world.

In much of the developed world, asbestos use and removal are subject to stringent regulation that limits new contamination, but in the developing world, asbestos continues to be imported and used. That will store horrific health problems for the future.

Since the Parliament was established, steps have been taken to speed court processes. In the past, Scottish courts took so long to process claims that many sufferers died before their cases were dealt with. I thank members who supported the Clydeside Action on Asbestos petition and the then ministers—Richard Simpson and Hugh Henry—who responded positively and sympathetically.

However, we need to do more, especially to address the health and welfare needs of victims and families. Relatively short periods of exposure to asbestos can lead to tumours 30, 40 or 50 years later. Mesothelioma is a particularly distressing and painful condition that inevitably results in death, but other forms of asbestos-related disease can also be profoundly debilitating and can sharply reduce the sufferer's quality of life.

Asbestos-related diseases are a quiet epidemic. We know how many people are affected and we can make well-founded estimates of the number of people who are likely to be affected in future, given that most victims have carried the carcinogen in their bodies for at least 20 years. As I said, the peak of the epidemic is still to come and we urgently need a strategy to assist those patients. The demand on the health service to treat people with asbestos-related illnesses will grow, and we should put resources and policies in place to deal with the needs of victims and their families. I would like dedicated support to be given to those people by specialist nurses who have experience of dealing with asbestos-related disease. Some parts of Scotland already have specialist nurses for sufferers of multiple sclerosis. Those nurses deal not only with their patients' health needs, but with the social consequences for victims and their families. That is a good model that can be translated into support for victims of asbestos-related disease and their families.

In 2002, Westminster approved a fast-track system for mesothelioma sufferers to access welfare benefits. It is no longer necessary for sufferers to wait to be examined by a doctor whom the Department for Work and Pensions has appointed before industrial injuries disablement benefit can be awarded. As soon as a diagnosis of mesothelioma is confirmed by the patient's consultant, 100 per cent entitlement to IIDB is awarded. A claim for disability living allowance can immediately be processed under special rules. I think that this Parliament should be able to introduce parallel fast-track health and counselling support—which does lie within its powers—to assist mesothelioma sufferers in particular and victims of asbestos-related diseases more generally.

My motion suggests

"screening and testing people who may have been at risk in order to ensure early diagnosis".

Scanning technology exists that would not only allow early diagnosis, but would put people's minds at rest if they had symptoms that could be associated with asbestos-related disease.

We could also provide better funding for counselling and support for victims and their families, and we could consider the provision of specialist palliative care.

I suggest in my motion that

"the Scottish Executive should work along with COSLA, NHS boards and other key bodies, including the Health and Safety Executive to ensure that necessary information is made available to potential sufferers from asbestos-related illnesses and all those professionals in health, local government and other services who may be in the position of assisting victims and their families."

Excellent work is going on through the short-life working group of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities on asbestos, which is considering local government's involvement in tackling problems arising from the legacy of asbestos use. I am sure that the minister will not allow the national health service to lag behind in paying specific attention to victims of asbestos-related disease. There is much that can be done, especially in developing partnership working, towards the development of an integrated service. I look forward to hearing my colleagues' contributions to the debate. These people deserve our support.

There is quite a long list of members wishing to speak, so I must restrict speeches to a maximum of four minutes.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. I hope that I am not going to get a lecture from you on how to make speeches—given your intervention during question time this afternoon.

I congratulate Des McNulty on his extensive motion, which covers a series of aspects of the problems that asbestos-related illnesses bring to families. I emphasise the point about the hot spots—we all know where they are. Generally, they are concentrated around the Clyde, which is because of its traditions. However, as the member for Moray, I can assure members that cases from that area have been brought to my attention. Many of the people concerned have worked in the Royal Navy, or have been carpenters or joiners. The problem affects every constituency the length and breadth of the United Kingdom.

I wish to explain how I became involved with asbestos-related illnesses. When I was first elected for East Dunbartonshire, way back in 1974, I was approached by Nancy Tait, who is a well-known campaigner on the subject and who has written many articles and books on it. That took me into being a long-term campaigner on the subject. In the beginning, many people thought that Clydebank was in the then East Dunbartonshire constituency. It was not, although many of my constituents travelled back and forth to Clydebank. The more I read and heard about asbestos-related illnesses, the more my eyes were opened to what we had done to a generation of workers.

Essentially, we are dealing here with the health aspects of asbestosis and related illnesses, and I congratulate Pauline McNeill on the sterling work that she did on fast-tracking justice when she was convener of the Justice 2 Committee in session 1. That committee's report concerning asbestosis victims was excellent, and it moved things forward for people seeking compensation.

We all know that, when asbestos was invented, it was viewed as a great post-war development—as a substance that could be used in a variety of ways. There was a fast-build programme at that time, and asbestos was used in it a great deal. At the time, we did not have the same health and safety strictures that we do now. We did not have the same education that we do now, so people did not realise the dangers of the substance with which they were working. That also applied at home. I vaguely remember my mother having an ironing board with asbestos in it, because it was seen as a good lining material. The legacy of those times is with us still, and we owe a debt to those who are suffering.

We can look at all the old movies of Clyde-built ships being launched, and we can be proud, but that pride is detracted from by people's lingering illnesses and very painful deaths. Between 1997 and 2001, some 1,800 people died in Scotland as a result of asbestos-related illnesses. As Des McNulty pointed out, we are sitting on a time bomb: there will likely be a peak in 2015 to 2020. I entirely agree that diagnosis and help must be given. We spend a lot of time in the chamber discussing waiting lists and waiting times, but time is running out for many people who are affected and we must ensure that there is good diagnosis, treatment and support in all aspects. General practitioner training, nurses' training, screening and scanning should all be made available to such people as a thank you for their work in the past.

On specialist palliative care—I promise that this is my final sentence—I might take up with Michael McMahon the possibility of the Scottish Parliament cross-party group on palliative care considering this particular issue.

I, too, congratulate Des McNulty on securing such an important debate and support his call for the Scottish Executive to work with COSLA, the NHS and other bodies to assist those who are affected by asbestos-related illnesses.

I would like to make a couple of points in my brief speech. First, I pay tribute to the Scottish Trades Union Congress, trade unions such as the Union of Construction, Allied Trades and Technicians and the GMB for their commitment to alleviating the suffering of many trade unionists who have been unknowingly exposed to the foul threat that is posed by working with such materials. The blunt but sensible advice to its members from UCATT is to stop work immediately if they believe at any point that they are working with asbestos and to get things checked out and get out. That is sound advice indeed.

Des McNulty mentioned another group of men and women that has tirelessly campaigned down the years on behalf of people suffering from the dreadful illness that we are discussing—Clydeside Action on Asbestos. Some of its members have also been sufferers. That group, with the assistance, as has been said, of MPs such as Margaret Ewing, Tony Worthington, Frank Field and—dare I say—Norman Godman, managed to persuade Westminster Governments that were indifferent to asbestosis sufferers for too long to change the law on claims on behalf of people who had died during lengthy court proceedings. Westminster Governments and insurance companies are not exactly covered in glory in respect of the speed of response to the utterly innocent victims of asbestosis.

Once somebody has met a constituent who has been made ill by this occupational disease, they cannot be other than deeply committed to the defence of such innocent victims, and to the campaign to eliminate such toxic materials from our industries, buildings and work places.

I ask the minister what the Scottish Executive has done to ensure that insurance companies and courts cannot slow matters down. I remind him of the Clydeside action group's petition, with a request—which should have been a demand—that those suffering from the ravages of asbestosis should receive compensation within six months of litigation. It continues to have to monitor things.

Before the law was changed in Scotland anent court proceedings, it was commonly believed—with justification—that insurance companies procrastinated on the basis that a case for compensation dies when the victim dies. I thank God that those days are over. Delays in legal proceedings should be kept to a minimum—that also goes for other aspects of compensation cases. A person suffering from such an awful illness, which is often terminal, should not suffer stressful and undignified delays in having his or her legitimate claims met. Down the years, employers, their insurance companies and Westminster Governments betrayed the concerns and legitimate claims of many working people and their families, including many people in Port Glasgow in my constituency.

I urge the Scottish Executive to use what powers it has to do what is right by fellow Scots. I refer to what Des McNulty said about counselling, support, special nurses and all the measures that can be implemented through the auspices of the NHS. The Executive must do all that is in its power to ensure that younger people are not exposed to an invisible and lethal danger that has affected the lives of many people and their families.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to take part in the debate not because I can contribute a great deal to it, but because I know that there is a lot that I can learn from members who have more experience of asbestos-related diseases than I have.

These members' business debates are a feature of the Parliament that has impressed me greatly since I came here just over a year ago. Many of them cover health-related issues, often the cinderella diseases that do not grab public attention or hit the headlines but which, nonetheless, devastate the lives of those who are unfortunate enough to have to live with them and, sadly, die from them. I have been humbled by my relative ignorance of the impact of some of the diseases, and I have become increasingly concerned by the degree of unmet need—whether for information, counselling, specialist nursing or palliative care—that is experienced by those who are suffering from those diseases throughout Scotland. I hope that earlier diagnosis and better support services will be the end result of our raising awareness generally and highlighting the gaps in provision.

Today's debate is a case in point. When a motion is signed by more than third of all MSPs and when a health issue is the topic of a members' business debate for the third time in the first five years of the Parliament, there is clearly awareness and concern within this institution, and quite rightly so. What we are discussing is of extreme importance to the victims and their families.

Asbestos-related illnesses used to be looked on as a tragic legacy of Clydeside industry, and they were rarely encountered in my neck of the woods. Indeed, one of the only two people whom I have known to die of mesothelioma had spent most of his working life on the Clyde before he retired to the north-east of Scotland. However, we are now reaping the results—throughout the country, as Margaret Ewing said—of the popular use of asbestos in construction work in post-war Britain. Workers were exposed to its fibres at a time when the hazards were not fully appreciated. That risk of exposure continues today as many buildings from that era come to require renovation or demolition. Fortunately, the risks are now well known, and health and safety measures are in place to deal with them.

Nevertheless, the legacy is still there, and the number of people who are ending their days in pain or gasping for breath as a result of exposure to asbestos has, sadly, not yet reached its peak. People who have been exposed to it are sitting on a time bomb. People who are diagnosed with asbestosis, lung cancer or mesothelioma are, essentially, living with a death sentence. Anything that can be done to help them and their families to cope with that state of affairs should be done.

The second person whom I knew who had mesothelioma was a constituent of mine when I was an Aberdeen city councillor. I had known her for most of my life, and I have no idea when or how she was exposed to asbestos. She bravely accepted her death sentence, following diagnosis, and got on with her remaining life. Her main worry was that the cemetery in which she wished to be buried was nearly full. She was afraid that the new graves that were due to be created there by the council would not be ready in time. My contribution was small, but I was able to get reassurance for her that she would find her last resting place where she wanted it. I think that the peace of mind that that gave her helped her through her final few months as the disease took its unrelenting course.

It is extremely important that information, help and support, of whatever nature, is available to victims and their families. If today's comprehensive motion is acted upon, the lives of future sufferers of asbestos-related diseases could be made more bearable and their families and friends could be better prepared to cope with the diagnosis and its consequences. I am, therefore, more than happy to give the motion my full support.

Like other members, I congratulate Des McNulty on securing the debate. In all the years that I have known Des, he has long championed the cause of those who have asbestos-related illnesses—as have many MPs who have been mentioned this evening. All are to be commended for their tenacity in pursuing the issue.

As Margaret Ewing has said, it is estimated that around 1,800 people have died from asbestos-related illnesses in Scotland. That is an incredible number. Clydebank is recognised as the cancer capital of Europe because of the devastating impact that asbestos has had on the town—a tragic legacy from the days of shipbuilding. As has been mentioned, West Dunbartonshire has the highest death rate from asbestos poisoning in the UK. We cannot take any pride at all in any of those statistics.

As Des McNulty said, from the mid-1950s to the mid-1980s, asbestos was a common component in building materials. That means that, for many buildings, asbestos can and will be a problem for us in the future with the slightest disturbance. As many members will be aware, the danger of asbestos lies in the fact that it is made of microscopic particles that become airborne when they are disturbed. It is worth reminding ourselves of the ease with which such particles can enter people's lungs. That was highlighted for me by the astonishing stories of women who became infected through washing the clothes of shipyard workers.

A particularly tragic consequence of asbestos inhalation is mesothelioma, which is a painful disease that is largely resilient to surgery. An astonishing fact that I had not known was that it can take as long as 50 years for the cancer to develop. Doctors have warned that, because of the length of the incubation period, the number of cases has still to peak.

On what can be done to help those who are affected by this ticking health care time bomb, I think that the motion's call for an integrated strategy of care gets to the root of the matter. Those who have developed asbestos-related illnesses need counselling and the families of such victims need support. However, that should be provided alongside specialist palliative care. Des McNulty is absolutely right that early diagnosis of the disease is vital. Early screening and more information is needed to help that process.

At the moment, support groups such as the Clydebank Asbestos Group play a vital role in raising awareness of asbestos-related illnesses, in supporting victims and their families and in helping sufferers to obtain compensation. The impact of such groups has already been outlined by other members, so I do not propose to add to what has been said on that.

I echo Trish Godman's sentiments on the positive role that trade unions have played, which I am sure will continue. Like her, I support the need for COSLA, health care professionals and the whole health service to work together alongside the Scottish Executive in providing practical help and assistance. We need to ensure the wide availability of information about where asbestos can be found, what its effects are and how those who are suffering from asbestos-related illnesses can be helped. An integrated strategy is our best chance of helping the lives of both present and future sufferers.

I have no hesitation in supporting the motion. Like others, I urge the Executive to do all in its power to effect change.

I join others in congratulating Des McNulty on securing tonight's debate on what is a very important subject.

Data from the Health and Safety Executive show that asbestos is the greatest single cause of work-related death in the UK, with up to 3,500 people dying each year as a result of asbestos-related illnesses. The bulk of those who suffer painful and distressing deaths from such illnesses were first exposed to asbestos in the workplace.

Like many others, I have been appalled to read about the conditions in which people had to work, particularly on Clydeside. Thousands of shipyard employees, boiler-makers and insulators were routinely exposed to great clouds of asbestos. People had to cut up asbestos with knives and were given only limited protective equipment. As previous speakers have outlined, many such workers have gone on to develop asbestos-related illnesses.

The tragedy is that many of those deaths and illnesses could have been prevented. The risks of asbestos exposure were well known, but up until the 1970s workers were still handling asbestos without proper protective equipment. Much of the blame for that must lie with the management of the many companies, such as the cement works in Dumbarton, that let workers deal with asbestos without proper protection.

One Clydeside insulator put it like this:

"If you put a guy into a car and push him down a hill with no brakes in it and it crashes at the bottom and kills him, you've murdered him. Well, it's the same with us. They made us work with poisonous materials that were killing us, and never told us."

That is a damning indictment.

Although we now know the truth about the deadly legacy of asbestos and we no longer use it routinely as we once did, there remains a great deal of asbestos in ships, factories and buildings. I have a particular concern about the way in which developing countries are attempting to deal with the problem. There are now four ghost ships in Hartlepool that were considered too toxic and contaminated with asbestos and other chemicals such as dioxins to be dealt with in the United States. Nine such ships still remain in the United States. The US companies are desperately trying to find somewhere to get rid of those ships in order to dismantle them. Such problems must be dealt with. We cannot hope to export our legacy of asbestos to developing countries.

I congratulate Des McNulty on the measures that he outlines in his motion. There must be an integrated approach to the treatment of asbestos-related illness, not only to treat the symptoms but to recognise the causes. Every worker must be made aware of the risks of asbestos exposure and every former worker or their relatives must be made aware of the proper support that must be made available.

It took many years for health concerns about asbestos to be translated into effective regulations and health protection and I recognise the role that trade unionists and local members of Parliament played to achieve that. As we become aware of other potentially dangerous substances, we must learn the lessons of asbestos and not wait so long to act next time.

I thank Des McNulty for bringing the debate to the chamber. The prevalence of asbestos, lung cancer and mesothelioma in the west of Scotland is one of the greatest injustices suffered by the working class in that area. It is not as if people did not know about it. We can now read the minutes from board meetings in the 1950s and 1960s at which it was said, "Keep a lid on it." Employers denied that those illnesses existed and they denied that there was any link between asbestos and the deaths that occurred.

I have a vested interest in that my dad worked in the shipyards. He was a plater who worked among the dust and he died in 1979 at the age of 45. It has only now become clear that he died of mesothelioma because we have more information about the disease. There was nae compensation, nae nothing. There were five months between his going into hospital and his death. Twenty-odd years later, the same thing is happening and we are still having this fight.

I echo the points that Trish Godman made to the minister. A petition has been lodged and there have been meetings between the Minister for Justice and members of the legal profession. However, what can we do to stop those companies that are literally getting away with murder by delaying, twisting and turning? I know that this is a health debate, but the issue of compensation is outstanding.

Asbestos campaigners won compensation from Chester Street Insurance Holdings, which in 2001 called in the liquidator. Chester Street had sold the profitable part of the company—Iron Trades Insurance—to an Australian company and made the other part unprofitable, so that it could not pay the compensation claims. That left many men—although there were some women—without any compensation. The Government stepped in and awarded them compensation, but how are we going to get to court those other companies in America that are also selling off their assets to make themselves unprofitable so that they cannot pay compensation? We need justice for the profits that they made and the lives that they cost over a long period. What can we achieve through the petition and the legal system? We must fast-track the matter in Scotland.

My last points are about health. As soon as someone got a diagnosis of mesothelioma in the past, they knew that that was it—there was no cure and the illness would be short lived. I speak from experience when I say that it is not pleasant to watch someone die from that agonising disease.

We know that death and disease rates have not yet peaked. We need a health strategy, to which Des McNulty referred in his motion. This is where the Scottish Executive Health Department comes in. We do not have to reinvent the wheel. Ten years ago, pioneering work in Australia led to the establishment of a strategy that brought everything under one banner. Those involved then began to experiment with chemotherapy, tumour removal, vaccines and other techniques in order to manage the disease and prolong sufferers' lives.

One of the most interesting techniques that I read about was gene therapy. Surgeons take away as much of the tumour as possible and instead of putting it in a bucket—it was obviously a typical Australian speaking—they grab it and inject it into the patient as a vaccine alongside other vaccines. Such therapy definitely prolongs life and raises the possibility of being able to manage mesothelioma as a chronic disease. However, we are lagging well behind such approaches and highlighting them in such a debate will allow the health service to develop the kind of strategy that we are soon going to need.

Here we are in another debate about asbestos-related diseases. I thank Des McNulty for managing to get the issue on the agenda once again.

Members have already pointed out that Clydesiders have in this matter been victims of their past. Day and daily now, people are presenting with asbestos-related diseases. It is still a huge problem—a recent study has shown that the European asbestos epidemic has not yet reached its peak and that more people are affected by asbestos-related cancers than are affected by, for example, cervical cancer.

Previous debates in Parliament have concentrated on justice and compensation issues and members have already acknowledged the part that was played by the Justice 2 Committee and others in ensuring that this much-maligned Parliament made a difference. Indeed, we should celebrate the fact that we have made a difference to the lives of people who suffer from asbestos-related cancers.

Although it was necessary and right for us to tackle the injustice of the legal system in respect of treatment of asbestos victims, and to focus on issues such as compensation and justice, such an approach might well have sidelined the human and health aspects of the problem. It was as if compensation would dull the pain and erase the sense of bereavement that families felt but—of course—it did not and has not. Des McNulty's excellent and detailed motion takes things a step further by bringing us back to, and making us focus on, the health aspects.

There is no doubt that asbestos-related diseases are horrible but, because of the legal system's adversarial nature, for people who presented as suffering from these illnesses, the matter was almost dehumanised. For example, they were said to have mesothelioma or an asbestos-related disease. Let us call mesothelioma what it is: it is a particularly horrible cancer. It is a cancer like any other cancer, which is why, as Des McNulty rightly points out in his motion, it is essential that people be diagnosed early. After all, early diagnosis prolongs lives—compensation does not.

Obviously, we support Des McNulty's call for the Scottish Executive Health Department to develop a comprehensive strategy to deal with the matter. However, we should also remember that the legal system traumatised the people who were involved. Not only were they presented with horrible medical evidence about how their bodies were breaking up, but they and their families had to sit through discussions about that evidence in courtrooms and with lawyers. We had to deal with such a dehumanising system.

Tonight's motion gives us a real opportunity to get on to the preventive issues and the more human issues, and to offer the support that families need. We need to get on to health interventions, so that we can prolong life and not merely increase compensation.

I want to thank Des McNulty for bringing this very important issue before Parliament this evening. I doubt very much whether anyone else here today has any conception of what it was like to work in conditions in which exposure to deadly material was all too often the norm.

In 1947, a refrigeration boat—or ship, or vessel—was launched from the Barclay Curle shipyard. It was called the City of Johannesburg and was similar in size to the building that we are in now. It would have stretched from the pillar on the left to the pillar on the right and its depth would have been perhaps twice or three times the height of the building. The whole structure was covered by asbestos blocks, which were about 3ft long, 1½in wide and 6in broad. The apprentices would be up in the structure putting on those blocks and, in their naivety, they would break off lumps and have snowball fights, with the lumps battering across the structure. The dust fell like snow and when they went home at night or into the changing rooms, their overalls were pure white. When they took those overalls home at the weekend, their mothers or whoever had to wash them. Jackie Baillie was right to say that innocent housewives, who had nothing to do with asbestos, would very often have it brought into their homes, with dire consequences.

The young apprentices knew no better; it was through pure naivety and devilment that they were throwing the stuff about. The dust lay caked thick at the bottom of the tank top, as it was called. Believe it or not, I worked in that environment, and at the same time smoked about 40 cigarettes a day. I do not know who is looking after me, but someone has done quite a good job so far. I have managed to stop the smoking, but I do not know whether I have managed to get rid of all the carcinogens that I ingested into my lungs. I will just keep on walking up and down the hill in the mornings and hoping that I have.

Asbestosis has wreaked havoc in the lives of thousands of shipyard workers who were unwittingly exposed to a life-threatening hazard. Friends of mine have died of asbestosis—good, close friends. Fortunately, as time has moved on, we have become aware of the dangers, but that has sadly come too late for all too many.

I congratulate Des McNulty on his motion. It is unacceptable that people in this world try to evade their responsibilities and when people are to blame for something as basic as endangering other people's health through exposing them to asbestos or any other evil form of insulation, it is good that something is to be done. I experienced asbestos. It was not pleasant but, at the time, we did not realise the danger that we were in. Thank you, Des.

I join other members in congratulating Des McNulty on securing this debate. The motion gives us the opportunity to debate an issue that is of the deepest concern to many families in Scotland today and which, perhaps even more relevant, is extremely pertinent to Les McNulty's constituency. After all, that is the whole purpose of this parliamentary slot.

The disease and its various implications touch on reserved matters within the domain of the Health and Safety Executive. However, they also touch on devolved functions, which underlines the need for the closest collaboration among all the key interests—an objective that is, of course, at the heart of the motion.

Des McNulty and other members have graphically set out the devastating consequences for those who suffer from asbestos-related illnesses, and the anguish and anxieties of their families and friends. Our past industrial successes—especially in shipbuilding but in other fields as well—have come at a heavy price for many. We owe it to them and their families, as well as to work forces now and in the future, to ensure that regulatory frameworks and working practices are sufficiently robust to reduce the impact of these distressing illnesses. For those who suffer, treatment and care must be of the highest standards.

The facts—some of which we have already heard about—are stark. In the period between 1981 and 2000, there were some 2,000 deaths involving mesothelioma in Scotland. That sobering statistic brings into sharp focus the high cost in human lives that exposure to asbestos can bring.

As has been said, there is a well-established link between mesothelioma and exposure to asbestos in the shipbuilding industry. The areas with the highest mesothelioma excesses in males tended to be those that contained ports and dockyards. In six Scottish local authority areas, all of which can be associated with shipbuilding, the number of mesothelioma deaths in the period that I mentioned was, statistically, significantly higher than expected.

Unfortunately, the number of mesothelioma deaths each year in Great Britain as a whole is continuing to rise. Predictions that are based on the latest statistical model show that the annual total number of deaths from the illness is expected to peak at a figure of between 2,000 and 2,500 sometime between 2011 and 2015. The message from that model is that although the effect of specific high-risk activities in the past, such as shipbuilding, appears to be weakening, other sources of asbestos exposure have developed more recently across a wider range of industrial activity. In fact, nowadays, most asbestos exposures occur as a result of building maintenance and asbestos removal work.

What is the Executive doing about the problem? It is clear that a key thrust must be to ensure that the regulatory controls are rigorous and effective. Exposure to asbestos has been regulated in the United Kingdom since the 1930s. The controls were increased significantly in 1969, when new regulations were made in response to increasing knowledge of the risks of contracting lung cancer and mesothelioma. Since then, there has been a progressive tightening of that framework, culminating in a total ban on the importation and supply of all forms of asbestos.

The Health and Safety Executive has been working continuously to improve standards through legislation and enforcement. It is worth mentioning two recent developments. First, the Control of Asbestos at Work Regulations 2002 were a significant development. Secondly, as recently as May this year, a new duty to manage asbestos in non-domestic premises became law under those regulations. The HSE has undertaken a five-year implementation campaign to raise awareness of the duty, which obliges the people responsible to take a range of actions to ensure that any materials on their premises that contain asbestos are properly managed. Given that it is estimated that the new regulation could prevent 5,000 deaths in the commercial sector alone, it is a measure that will make a substantial contribution to reducing mortality from asbestos-related disease.

The motion seeks the introduction of a screening and testing programme for people who have been at risk. Des McNulty is right to draw attention to the benefits of screening, as it is an invaluable tool in the early detection of disease that allows appropriate treatment to be given, where such treatment is available. However, the reality is that, with mesothelioma, there is no established effective screening method. A recently reported method examines markers in blood as an indication of a person's potential to develop the disease, but it is not yet an established and validated measure.

Nonetheless, the Executive is concerned to ensure that the most appropriate treatment and care are given to those who suffer from asbestos-related illnesses. The key is to have a multidisciplinary approach to diagnosis and to decisions about treatment, including symptom control. New avenues are being explored in research trials worldwide. It is the Executive's policy to encourage patient entry into robust clinical trials through the regional lung cancer networks. Indeed, the Scottish cancer research network, which is funded by the Executive to the tune of £1 million per year, is recruiting patients for a number of mesothelioma research projects, including a Medical Research Council trial.

The motion also mentions specialist palliative care. The regional networks that I have mentioned link into palliative care, which is a dimension to which the Executive attaches great importance. Our policy is that everyone who is suffering from an incurable, progressive illness should receive palliative care, regardless of their age. Although that care has traditionally been associated with cancer, it has a role to play in all progressive, incurable conditions, including asbestos-related illnesses.

In order to promote the palliative care approach, the Executive is supporting the development of managed clinical networks in palliative care. A number of those networks for palliative care, with particular reference to pain relief, have been set up across the country and we will work with the Scottish partnership for palliative care to identify other board areas where local MCNs could be established. As I said, asbestos-related illnesses, like any other incurable conditions, come within the range of palliative care, which should be available to everyone who needs it. However, I give Des McNulty the assurance that I will draw the issues that were raised in the debate to the attention of those responsible for the development of the MCNs.

The motion refers to the need for the Executive to work with COSLA, NHS boards and other key bodies, including the HSE, to ensure that all necessary information is made available to potential sufferers and other key interested parties. The Executive agrees that that is important. The HSE produces a range of information for people who have either worked with asbestos or come into contact with it and the HSE website contains a section with current information about asbestos. I also give the assurance that we will discuss with the HSE and other partners whether, in light of the points that were made in the debate, we can enhance the available information.

Like Des McNulty and other members, we are concerned to ensure that claims for compensation from patients are determined as expeditiously as possible by the courts. Des McNulty met the Deputy Minister for Justice on 2 February to discuss that issue. The new rules provide for a diet of proof 12 months from the date on which a case was raised. However, where the life expectancy of a patient is expected to be less than in the region of 12 months, an application for acceleration of that timetable is available. Again, I give the firm assurance that the Executive will keep those rules under careful review.

We are aware of the distressing consequences of asbestos-related disease. Action is proceeding in a joined-up way on a wide front, across the responsibilities of the Scottish and Westminster Administrations. There is a common resolve to do what we can to help those who are affected by this terrible disease and to reduce the risk of people acquiring it in the future.

Meeting closed at 17:57.