Asbestos-related Diseases
The final item of business is a members' business debate on motion S3M-5391, in the name of John Park, on Scotland's role in national research into asbestos-related diseases. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament welcomes the publication of the National Centre for Asbestos-Related Diseases (NCARD): A Strategy Document on 30 November 2009 by the NCARD Development Group; considers that this important document is significant for the future of research into asbestos-related illnesses and the treatment of such conditions; believes that Scottish involvement in the development of asbestos research in the United Kingdom would be beneficial; notes with deep concern that, according to the Health and Safety Executive, exposure to asbestos is the biggest single cause of work-related deaths and that the number of people dying of an asbestos-related disease is rising and is yet to peak; further notes that NHS Fife has reported that 239 people from Fife have been diagnosed with asbestos-related illnesses in the last five years; is reminded that asbestos-related disease is by no means a problem of the past; recognises the important work of support organisations across Scotland, and sends a message to victims and their families in Scotland that MSPs will continue to work to improve awareness, research and treatment of asbestos-related diseases.
I appreciate the opportunity to open the debate, particularly as it is on an issue that I know many MSPs have taken a great interest in since the Parliament first met in 1999. We can all be very proud of our record of dealing with asbestos issues; it is an area of work that has shown the Parliament at its best, particularly in recent years. We have worked on a cross-party basis to pass important pieces of legislation that have made and will continue to make a difference to people with asbestos-related illnesses and their families.
Individual members have introduced proposals for bills to address loopholes in the law with regard to asbestos damages. Des McNulty introduced the Rights of Relatives to Damages (Mesothelioma) (Scotland) Bill, which was passed in 2007. I was pleased to work alongside him on the bill when I worked for the Scottish Trades Union Congress. Similarly, Stuart McMillan proposed a damages bill in this session of the Parliament. It, too, had significant cross-party support. People across the political spectrum and the wider public continue to campaign for an outcome at United Kingdom level similar to that which we have achieved here in Scotland—I hope that that campaign is successful.
The Administrations at the time have recognised the importance of the proposed legislation and ensured that the resources of the Scottish Government have eased the passage of bills through the Parliament. The proposals were successful not only because MSPs were prepared to work together on a cross-party basis but because of the campaigns outside the Parliament, which were driven by the asbestos groups, trade unions, those suffering from asbestos-related illness and their families, and the legal professionals working on their behalf. Our work on asbestos in this Parliament shows that we can act positively on an issue that is relevant and concerns thousands of Scots.
In recognising our proud record of dealing with the damages aspect of asbestos-related illnesses, the Scottish Parliament must also recognise that there is still a desperate need for research into the causes and treatment of those illnesses. At present, the majority of patients do not receive any form of active anti-cancer treatment after their diagnoses. Without such treatment the outlook is extremely negative for someone diagnosed with mesothelioma, which is one of the most common asbestos-related illnesses. Current average survival is less than nine months across the United Kingdom—that figure includes patients who undergo the most aggressive treatment. A number of treatments, including chemotherapy and radiotherapy, can help in a small way with quality of life and can sometimes lead to a modest increase in the length of life, but all too often it is too late.
Like most people who have lived their lives in and around our former industrial communities, I have former colleagues and friends who have suffered in some way from an asbestos-related illness. My motion, which I am pleased a number of members have signed, refers to the figures for NHS Fife, which reveal that 239 people have been diagnosed with asbestos-related illnesses in the past five years. That means that 239 families have been affected. It is important that we address the issue.
Another former Rosyth dockyard employee, Alex Falconer, a former member of the European Parliament who has also done an awful lot of work on the matter, has encouraged Helen Eadie and me to research the issue and look into the details behind the figures. Gathering that information and meeting people has been a sobering experience. When I began to look into the issue to find international and UK comparisons, I came across the work that was being carried out by John Edwards, who chairs the development group of the national centre for asbestos-related diseases, and Michael Clapham MP.
The strategy document makes for very interesting reading and I think that there is little to disagree with in it. It suggests that the national centre for asbestos-related diseases could be a collaborative organisation of research groups—a virtual centre rather than a team based at a particular research location—that provides an umbrella under which a national research strategy can be co-ordinated and delivered.
It would aim to prevent duplication of functions in connection with research, thereby offering better value for money than would be achieved by disparate projects. It would also be ideally placed to promote and facilitate research and trials, nationally and internationally. The proposed centre would consist of a director, an operations manager, a strategy board and a scientific advisory committee. I encourage members who have not yet read the strategy document to have a look at it, even if they just read the executive summary. Members will see that it is a serious piece of work on a serious proposal, which contains a number of good suggestions.
Asbestos remains a serious issue. The Health and Safety Executive says that exposure to asbestos is the biggest single cause of workplace deaths. Some 20 tradespeople die every week in the United Kingdom from asbestos-related diseases. I welcome the HSE's recent campaign to highlight the dangers of working with asbestos. In my constituency work, I meet people who tell me that they have come across asbestos in their homes and workers who tell me that they have come across it in their day-to-day work—even now. As most members know, the number of asbestos-related deaths has yet to reach its peak.
I want to ensure that the issue is taken forward on a constructive, cross-party and cross-border basis. That is why I appreciate the opportunity to raise the issue in the Parliament. I look forward to hearing what the minister will say in her response to the debate.
I hope to meet Michael Clapham MP soon, to discuss the proposals in more detail. I would be more than happy to provide the Government's health department and relevant ministers with an update on the work that he and John Edwards are doing. John Edwards, who chairs the national centre for asbestos-related diseases development group, has been in touch with the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing. It is clear that the people who are developing the concept are willing to engage positively with the Scottish Government.
The national centre for asbestos-related diseases is still at proposal stage. It would benefit Scotland and it would benefit from Scottish expertise and experience. If the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government support the proposal, the centre will have a greater chance of moving from proposal stage to reality.
Ultimately, better research into asbestos-related diseases could provide hope where there is currently no hope. Research could provide hope to the many thousands of people who have been exposed to asbestos but have yet to suffer the consequences. I look forward to hearing from the minister.
I congratulate John Park on securing tonight's debate.
When one starts to research a subject it is always helpful to discover that a little more research has been done since the previous occasion on which we considered the topic.
Asbestos-related diseases have been the subject of several debates since the Parliament's inception, and rightly so. In 1999, when the Scottish Parliament met for the first time, there was a major development. That was the year when the importation and use of asbestos was banned in the UK, even though the dangers had been highlighted to the Westminster Parliament 100 years earlier, in 1898. It is unfortunate that not every country bans the use of asbestos. In 2007, more than 300,000 tonnes were imported into India. Throughout Asia, usage continues to rise.
Asbestos-related deaths are still rising and have not yet peaked. According to the national centre for asbestos-related diseases strategy document, on which John Park's motion centres,
"A peak incidence of 2500 deaths per year from mesothelioma is expected in about 2015 … At least 70,000 people already exposed to asbestos in the UK will die from mesothelioma".
That is alarming.
I was interested to read paragraph 3.3, which says:
"Pleural plaques … may become hard and calcified ... They are an indication of exposure to asbestos but evidence is lacking that the presence of pleural plaques increases the risk of malignancy over and above the existing risk as a result of that exposure."
That has been the subject of debate here and in other Parliaments, but I will move on to an issue that John Park raised: the use of asbestos not only in domestic properties but in schools and public buildings. Such use has already been highlighted in region that I represent, the Highlands.
The Highland News has been particularly vigorous in investigating Highland Council and questioned how many schools have been surveyed for risk from asbestos. There have been high-profile examples of asbestos in schools in Highland. Last year, contractors working on the roof at Nairn academy dislodged asbestos flakes, and there were fears in the school back in 2007 when teachers were told to stop using drawing pins in walls for fear of disrupting asbestos. We still have real problems—the structure of Wick high school has been discussed several times in this Parliament and worries about asbestos in Kingussie high school remain.
The local authority's reluctance to carry out surveys of its schools leads to concerns for parents, children and teachers. As one of the leading campaigners on the subject, Michael Lees, said,
"Without knowing what asbestos is there, a school cannot manage their asbestos."
The situation with Highland Council got so bad that, in May last year, the Health and Safety Executive placed an order on the council to improve its record keeping to reduce the health risks and to do so within a year.
For all those reasons, I welcome the debate. However, because of the nature of asbestos, it can be decades before exposure issues are discovered, by which time disease has already taken control and the prognosis can be serious for many.
Legislation on asbestos is a reserved matter and all parts of the UK live with the same fears about exposure to the substance. The strategy document recognises that asbestos-related diseases are among the most under-researched diseases, although the consequences now and in decades to come are immense. If the proposals in the document can improve research, we welcome them warmly, given that it took a century from the first health warnings on asbestos to the banning of the substance.
Like Mary Scanlon, I congratulate John Park on securing a debate on asbestos-related diseases. I wish to reflect not only on what he said, but on the Parliament's record on asbestos issues, which is positive. On asbestos issues, we are at the leading edge of legislators in the world.
As John Park did, I highlight the work that Michael Clapham has done at Westminster. He has been fighting the good fight on asbestos for 20 years to my knowledge, and has been a doughty fighter on behalf of sufferers of asbestos-related diseases.
A series of surgeons, including John Edwards, have specialised in the care of asbestos patients. They have done sterling work in highlighting the circumstances and causes of the diseases, as well as possible treatments, and they have done that while recognising that treatments for asbestos-related cancers do not provide large profits for pharmaceutical companies. Not a lot of money is to be made from creating new drugs to help treat asbestos-related diseases or developing new procedures for treating mesothelioma. There is no cure for mesothelioma; treatment just slows down the progression of the disease. Nonetheless, I feel strongly that we need research and we need expert people to improve treatments for sufferers of mesothelioma and other asbestos-related diseases. Expertise is central to doing what we need to do—ease the circumstances that people face following the diagnosis of such diseases.
The point has been made that the asbestos epidemic is not yet at its peak. Increased numbers of mesothelioma and other asbestos-related disease cases will be reported until 2015. Then, of course, there will be the long tailing-off of people who are diagnosed with those diseases. Almost all of them now have the fatal fibre in their body that will kill them. It is gradually working away in their lungs or other parts of their body to create the different forms of disease. In the case of mesothelioma, that will result in an agonising death. It must be terrible for someone to walk round with a death sentence in their body. With most cancers, people maybe get a year or two between the first signs and it becoming serious, but in the case of mesothelioma, the foreign fibre is often in the person's body for 20, 30 or even 40 years before there are signs of disease.
How much better it would be for individuals if we could identify those who have the fatal fibre in their body and provide early diagnosis, so that as soon as they showed the first signs of disease we could give them appropriate treatment. That might not save them, but it might ease the process of the onset of the disease and how it is handled.
Does the member share my concern that, unless people know that they have been exposed to asbestos—for example, in public buildings or schools—they will never dream of being tested for it and will not get early diagnosis?
That is right. Pleural plaques are a predictor of disease, but it is not certain that the outcome will be mesothelioma. That is why the work that we have done in the Parliament on pleural plaques is particularly important.
I know that the Minister for Public Health and Sport is sympathetic to the issue of treatment for mesothelioma sufferers. One of her first meetings as minister was with me and asbestos campaigners. We were arguing for the only mesothelioma treatment that was then available to continue to be allowed by the Scottish Medicines Consortium. That was a step forward in Scotland, which was then taken elsewhere. I would like to see the same kind of commitment to participation in the development group. Is it not ironic that the Golden Jubilee hospital, which is the centre for heart and lung treatment in the west of Scotland, is on the site of the former asbestos works in Clydebank? How good it would be if the source of the problem was also where the cure was found.
I congratulate John Park on securing this members' business debate. He made a very good speech, which outlined not only the work that he has done to get to this stage but, more important, the work that he is willing to do to take this important issue forward. I wish him well in that endeavour.
As members will be aware, asbestos-related diseases are not only a problem of the past; they are an issue now and for the future. Figures from the HSE demonstrate the scale of the problem throughout Britain. More than 35,000 people died from the asbestos-related cancer mesothelioma between 1997 and 2007. To put that figure in context, it is equivalent to more than half the population of Dunfermline. The number of people dying from the disease is increasing. The latest annual figures show that 2,156 people died from the disease in 2007 alone, which is up 5 per cent on the previous year. Those figures are shocking, to say the least.
John Park's motion states:
"NHS Fife has reported that 239 people from Fife have been diagnosed with asbestos-related illnesses in the last five years".
I am sure that other members will have figures from their own health boards that show the current levels of concern.
Recent figures show that around a quarter of the 4,000 or so people who die from asbestos-related diseases each year in Britain are tradesmen such as joiners, electricians and plumbers—about 20 lose their lives each week. However, for those who have lived with someone who was exposed to asbestos there is also an increased risk of contracting asbestos-related diseases, usually through contact with their work clothes. The figures prove that the number of people who are dying of asbestos-related diseases is rising. That is a sad legacy of workplace and home practices.
Like John Park, I served an apprenticeship in Rosyth dockyard, and I continued to work there for many years on ships and submarines. I am not sure whether John Park was exposed to asbestos during his time there, but I was unfortunate enough to be in a ship's compartment at Rosyth when another worker removed lagging from pipework that was thought to contain asbestos. As a precaution, the compartment was evacuated and isolated until the presence of asbestos could be clarified. Unfortunately, asbestos was present in the lagging and all employees who were in the compartment during the incident were placed on the asbestos register. Such incidents have occurred a few times; fortunately, strict evacuation and isolation procedures should have minimised any risk of infection.
Most of us know someone—a friend, relative or colleague—who has developed an asbestos-related illness. That is quite a sobering thought for them, their families and me.
I congratulate John Park on securing this important debate on an innovative and imaginative approach to dealing with the scourge of asbestos-related diseases. We all know about his consistently hard work on employees' rights—the motion is another example of that work.
It has been mentioned that Parliament has a proud record of standing by victims of pleural plaques, asbestosis and mesothelioma. That was recognised in October last year by the award of honorary membership of Clydeside Action on Asbestos to a number of MSPs from across the parties. Des McNulty was one recipient of that award. My colleague Stuart McMillan, who unfortunately could not stay on tonight, and Gil Paterson also received it, and they have asked me to mention their support for the aims of the NCARD strategy document.
Members know that asbestos-related diseases are a scourge in our society as a result of previous industrial experience, but they are also on-going pestilences. Asbestos is still to be found in a myriad of places, from ships and mechanical equipment to houses, factories, hospitals and schools. What should we do about that? It is, of course, important that we ensure that people who exhibit the effects of asbestos exposure are given the legal support to claim insurance rights. We in Parliament ensured that last year in relation to pleural plaques.
It is also important that medical staff are afforded appropriate training so that they can recognise the symptoms of asbestos-related diseases and refer patients to the most effective treatment centres. However, to ensure that we are doing our best for fellow citizens who have contributed much to the industrial development and intrinsic wealth of our society, we should take advantage of all the potential areas of collaboration that are now available and which the introduction of NCARD looks to develop.
It is important that Scotland, which has been disproportionately affected by asbestos-related diseases as a result of our industrial heritage, should be at the forefront of developments to identify, to treat and, I hope, eventually to eradicate such diseases from society. The sharing of top-level research in Scotland, the UK and throughout the world is the way forward in dealing with such diseases, which are, sadly, far from reaching their peak. Cases of asbestos-related diseases will continue to grow for at least the next decade.
A mesothelioma registry to track processes and outcomes and a mesothelioma biobank that supports the development of live cell-line collection with pre-diagnosis, pre-treatment, post-treatment and all-important follow-up are the way forward, and NCARD would bring that. Those things should be open to all NCARD researchers so that collaboration would be as wide-reaching as possible. That would be an invaluable tool in tackling these terrible illnesses. I hope that the Scottish Government can evaluate the benefits of such a strategy and see where we might be able to contribute best to the establishment of NCARD, as proposed in the strategy document.
I join others in congratulating John Park on his continued actions on behalf of workers and workers rights, and I welcome the publication of the "National Centre for Asbestos-related Diseases: A Strategy Document", which makes the case for a virtual centre for research into asbestos-related diseases that would bring together the best research groups in the United Kingdom in a constructive and efficient manner.
As other members have said, asbestos is certainly not a problem of the past, and will not be for some time. Mesothelioma, lung cancer, asbestosis, pleural plaques and diffuse pleural thickening will, because of people's inhalation of asbestos fibres, be with us for a considerable time. The problem will remain one of the most serious occupational health problems in Scotland for some time to come.
As Mary Scanlon said, although asbestos has been banned here for some time, many countries still use and trade asbestos. It is worth re-emphasising the point that people need to be aware that the fact that they have been exposed allows them to have regular screening.
Between 1981 and 2005, 2,617 Scottish men died from mesothelioma and, across Britain, about 20 tradesmen die from asbestos-related diseases every week, and the number is still increasing. Estimates vary, but about 70,000 people who have already been exposed to asbestos may well die from mesothelioma in the future. The problem is disproportionate in Scotland because of our background in heavy industry; hence, the debate today and the repetition of our call for our Government to support this area of work.
During my period as a minister, I was involved, at the behest of Des McNulty, in encouraging the judiciary to make more rapid progress in cases that were coming forward under Lord Mackay. I know that Des McNulty has been engaged in this work and has been fighting for people with asbestos-related problems for a long time. It is, therefore, only right that he should have had his work, along with that of others, acknowledged by the asbestos groups.
As other members have said, the problem is that the full condition is not curable. The plaques might not lead to the full condition, but there is an expectation that they will. Of course, the stress of living with the plaques, in the knowledge that they might well lead to the full-blown condition and, therefore, to a premature end to life, makes things extremely difficult for people.
Anti-cancer management is important and, in this session, the Government has taken action to allow treatment to continue with new drugs. Of course, those drugs can only prolong life: they cannot provide a cure.
The proposal that the national centre should be a virtual one is important. If we can get the Government to get behind that proposal, that would be valuable.
It might be possible to recoup the costs of the centre from the insurance companies. I understand that they are under pressure and are trying to avoid paying costs in respect of the conditions. Nevertheless, it should be possible to impose the costs on them, because the condition is man-made, so we as a society and the insurers have considerable responsibility for it.
I thank John Park for raising this important issue and acknowledge his long-standing interest in it, as well as that of many members who are in the chamber this evening.
The Scottish Government welcomes last November's publication from the national centre for asbestos-related disease development group. Such publications help us to focus on what is important and what further action the Scottish Government can take to help those who suffer from asbestos-related conditions. It is deeply concerning that the latest information from the Health and Safety Executive shows that the total number of mesothelioma deaths in Scotland in the 24-year period to 2005 was 2,995. We also know that because of the latency time—up to 40 years or more—for asbestos-related diseases to present, that number will unfortunately continue to rise, with a predicted peak in 2016. That is a shocking and appalling toll of death in Scotland, and each of those deaths represents terrible suffering.
The Scottish Government is committed to supporting those who are affected by asbestos exposure, and I will outline some of the work that we are doing—including on compensation and legislation—to help people who are suffering from asbestos-related diseases. I emphasise our commitment to supporting research into asbestos-related diseases, to further improve treatment for people with such conditions. I reassure members that we are working with the HSE to raise awareness of the risks of asbestos exposure as part of our wider cancer prevention work.
The effects of asbestos are an appalling legacy of Scotland's industrial past, and of the negligence of some employers. Financial compensation cannot erase the physical and emotional consequences of asbestos exposure, but it can offer some practical assistance to make daily life a little easier for the individuals and families who are affected.
As we have heard, a great deal of good work has already been done to ensure that there are appropriate rights to compensation for individuals and families who have been affected by negligent asbestos exposure. I am pleased to remind members that the Scottish Parliament passed two groundbreaking pieces of legislation on asbestos-related damages claims. However, the Damages (Asbestos-related Conditions) Act 2009 is currently subject to a judicial review, which has been brought about by a number of insurance companies that are seeking to challenge the will of the Scottish Parliament. The 2009 act received overwhelming support in the Parliament, and the Scottish Government believes that it is right both in principle and in law.
Thanks to the Rights of Relatives to Damages (Mesothelioma) Act 2007, which was passed with all-party support, mesothelioma sufferers who were negligently exposed to asbestos no longer face the dilemma of whether to claim in life in order to improve the quality of what life is left to them or to let their family claim after their death.
The on-going judicial review notwithstanding, both those pieces of legislation showed the Scottish Parliament working at its best, with the vast majority of MSPs working together to help those who contributed to this nation's wealth in the past and are now vulnerable.
Much of the work to help those who are entitled to compensation is facilitated by support organisations and I, on behalf of the Scottish Government, acknowledge the important contribution that groups such as Clydeside Action on Asbestos, Clydebank Asbestos Group and Asbestos Action (Tayside) have made. Those groups have quite rightly been praised this evening, and they warrant our thanks as they work tirelessly to help those who are affected by these devastating diseases.
I turn to the work that we are doing to support research into asbestos-related diseases. I remind colleagues that the chief scientist office in the Scottish Government health directorates has responsibility for encouraging and supporting research into health and health care needs in Scotland. I am sure that many members will be aware that the CSO responds primarily to requests for funding research proposals that are initiated by the research community in Scotland, and that role is well known and advertised throughout the health care and academic community.
At present, there appears to be limited clinical interest in or discussion of establishing in Scotland a national centre for asbestos-related disease. However, we are aware of the proposal by John Edwards of the NCARD development group to the UK Government, along with a funding bid of around £5 million.
The UK Government has as yet made no decision about funding the centre, but our officials will continue to liaise with colleagues in the Department of Health as they consider the matter further. If the Department of Health makes the decision to provide core funding for the centre, the Scottish Government will carefully consider how we can best support and benefit from the resulting research and activity. I hope that that reassures members that the Scottish Government is in communication with the Department of Health on these issues.
The chief scientist office is currently funding three research projects into lung cancer at a cost of £630,000, which in turn may lead to further understanding of the condition, including its association with mesothelioma and other asbestos-related diseases. That point was well made by Des McNulty.
We are also working jointly with the Medical Research Council, Macmillan Cancer Support, Cancer Research UK, the Department of Health in England, the Economic and Social Research Council and the Health and Social Care Research and Development Office in Northern Ireland to support an initiative on supportive and palliative care for lung cancer. That initiative has supported nine grants that total £2.25 million over three years, one of which is on the management of mesothelioma-related pain.
Lastly, I turn to prevention and our work with the Health and Safety Executive. The regulation of health and safety may be reserved to the UK Government, but I hope that everyone who is here recognises that the Government works closely with others, including the HSE, to promote the health and safety of our people. In 2008, we worked with the HSE to inform all schools about the risk from asbestos. Our Scottish centre for healthy working lives provides guidance to businesses to prevent exposure to asbestos, including by promoting the HSE's hidden killer campaign.
I am extremely pleased that much has already been done in the past 40 years to control the risks from asbestos. The use, supply and importation of asbestos and asbestos products have been banned, with only extremely limited exceptions, and any significant work with asbestos requires a licence that provides strict conditions to ensure the health of workers and members of the public.
I hope that the work that I have outlined and our willingness to work with the UK Government around the research bid will reassure members that we take supporting people with asbestos-related disease very seriously indeed. We believe that the issue has united the Parliament and that it will continue to do so as we take the matter forward. It has been a pleasure to respond to this evening's debate.
Meeting closed at 17:41.