By Jenny Dickson, partner and solicitor advocate, public sector team at Morton Fraser
IT’S an advert we see regularly on daytime TV. “Have you been in an accident or do you have an illness because of work? If so we can help you claim!”
For thousands of individuals across Scotland, it is a welcome message, particularly for those who have been in and out of hospital due to various illnesses contracted as a result of their work environments.
In its 70 years, NHS Scotland has had to treat many thousands of people for industrial disease-related illnesses, and it continues to spend significant amounts of money on these treatments. While NHS Scotland has high costs for treating these illnesses, it has had no opportunity to recover the associated costs.
New legislation entitled The Proposed Recovery of Industrial Diseases Bill has been put forward by Stuart McMillan MSP and has been designed to address this issue, by giving ministers the power to recover certain costs for NHS Scotland that are associated to treatment of these illnesses.
If the bill is approved, it is hoped that NHS Scotland will be able recover these costs in the same way they can recover costs for treating injuries from other causes, such as those caused by road traffic accidents.
Whilst the bill has been warmly received, and is likely to receive cross-party support due to the massive benefit it could have to the NHS in Scotland, there are various questions being raised around how it will be used in practice.
With little or no effect on individual claimants, many will argue that this bill is a no-brainer. The NHS will still be free at the point of delivery and businesses will not be paying directly back to NHS Scotland – their insurers will – which could mean raised premiums, but that might not necessarily greatly affect them.
However, the practical application of the bill could cause confusion from a legal perspective.
Take asbestos as an example: there could be difficulty determining what illness or diseases are directly caused by asbestos exposure. Also, since the bill isn’t retrospective, it can only recover costs incurred after exposure to asbestos. This means that the NHS won’t be able to recoup money spent on patients exposed to asbestos before the bill is passed.
With general safety around asbestos increased, it is difficult to determine how much NHS Scotland will benefit from the bill in the future, particularly when a disease from this kind of exposure can take many years to come to fruition.
Other industrial diseases currently covered by the bill include noise-induced industrial hearing loss and skin conditions from working with chemicals or even certain types of rubber. However these diseases are also in decline as employers become more aware of the effects on employees.
Looking ahead, we can’t predict what the next industrial disease could be, and this bill would safeguard NHS Scotland from footing the bill for that unknown – which, if it’s something like asbestos, could recover a lot of money in future.
The bill would be a pilot for best practice as there are no current plans for similar bills for NHS England and Wales, and could make a significant difference to the NHS Scotland going forward. However, it’s unclear whether it will deliver what it’s intended to when put into practice – we will just have to wait and see.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules here