Meeting of the Parliament 18 April 2024
I agree with the principles underlying why Mark Griffin is introducing the bill, and I say the following with the greatest genuine respect to Mr Griffin, with whom I have had several discussions on the issue. The concerns that he raised in his opening remarks would not be addressed if the advisory council were to be put in place. The bill would not get us any closer to helping the people whom he spoke about. In due course, I will explain some of the reasons for that.
Until Social Security Scotland started to deliver employment injury assistance, we would not be able to act on the council’s recommendations. It would take time to set up a council, and it would not then have anyone to report to in order to enact its recommendations. There is no possibility of renegotiating the agency agreement with the Department for Work and Pensions, which is required to ensure the continuing payment of existing awards in Scotland. Again with the greatest respect, because I recognise that there is a genuine wish to see a better system in Scotland, I say that we must develop the whole system and not set up part of a system that cannot then have its recommendations put into practice.
It is therefore important to clarify that the bill does not make any changes to the criteria, nor does it mean that the health conditions that are not currently covered, such as long Covid, would be considered industrial diseases. Instead, the bill largely replicates the function of the UK Industrial Injuries Advisory Council, of which the committee has heard extensive criticism. It makes more sense to wait until we have a much better understanding of the level and form of advice, expertise and scrutiny that are required.
I therefore welcome the conclusions of the Social Justice and Social Security Committee’s stage 1 report, which questions whether the body that the member has proposed would deliver on its objectives or aims.