Meeting of the Parliament 18 April 2024
Thank you, Presiding Officer. I appreciate that.
I understand why there is frustration and impatience, but that is why I wish to be able to introduce the consultation shortly and to move on with getting people round the table and working out what the new benefit would look like. Again with the greatest respect, I say that we do not need the bill—or, indeed, any other statutory footing—to get people around the table to design a benefit. We have not needed that for any other benefit that we have co-designed, and we do not need it for this one. Rather than putting the Government under an obligation to set up a council, which would be the case if the bill were to become an act, we could already be getting people round the table and having discussions without the bill, and I am happy to confirm that we will be doing so.
The committee has raised important questions about whether the model for a statutory advisory council that the bill proposes is the right option for employment injury assistance. The bill seeks to set up a council; it does not simply seek to set up a body that advises on the development of a benefit. The committee believes that the creation of an advisory council could add to the advice and scrutiny landscape across the UK, which can already be confusing. I want to take time to consider that carefully, including whether and how a future advisory council might work with the Scottish Commission on Social Security. I therefore agree with the committee’s conclusion that the bill does not represent the most effective way of meeting the aspirations of the many people who wish to see change in the new system.
Replicating a fundamental aspect of the UK system, which has been so widely criticised, in the absence of proper considerations of the wider purpose, structure and administration of employment injury assistance is not the right approach. However, as I said, I appreciate that some people are keen for changes to be made more quickly. I have made no secret of how complicated replacing the industrial injuries scheme will be. Many of the changes that stakeholders want, including a greater emphasis on the prevention of workplace disease, are not possible with the powers that we currently have.
The scheme as it stands was introduced in 1948 and is delivered almost entirely using a paper-based system. That contrasts with the digital systems that we use for benefits that have been devolved to date. Developing a paper-based replacement will have costs attached. If we include any digital actions of replacement, that will also have costs attached.
In addition, the up to 150,000 files relating to Scottish awards are held in bulky paper case files going back many years. We need to consider carefully how, given the age, condition and location of those files, we can undertake case transfer. That is important work that we will continue with the UK Government.
We are considerably constrained in our ability to make changes in the short term, but I am committed to exploring how employment injury assistance can be reformed so that it meets the needs of the people while protecting payments to current clients. To that end, in the coming weeks we will launch a consultation on employment injury assistance that will be focused specifically on the immediate next steps. That is an important first step in what will be a comprehensive process of engagement with stakeholders and, crucially, people with lived experience of the current scheme. In the weeks following the launch, meetings with disabled people’s organisations and trade unions will be set up, should they wish to take part, to discuss the range of challenges with replacing the scheme and our next steps, as well as the opportunities that come with that.
In line with our commitments, and depending on the outcome of the consultation, that will be followed by the establishment of an advisory group. Again, I stress that we do not need the bill to have that type of group established. The group will consider the responses to the consultation, along with many of the issues that have been raised during the evidence sessions on the bill. Given the understandable interest that has been generated by the member’s bill, I agree with the committee that it is important that the advisory group carefully considers those offers.