Hansard

I am pleased to contribute to the debate on behalf of the Social Justice and Social Security Committee. I thank everyone who sent submissions in response to the committee’s call for views, and I thank the organisations and individuals who attended committee meetings to provide evidence. I also thank the clerks for all their assistance in producing an excellent report.

In scrutinising the bill, the committee first heard from the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council and the Scottish Commission on Social Security. We then took evidence from witnesses representing trade unions, occupational health services, academia and campaign groups.

The bill proposes the creation of an independent employment injuries advisory council that would, among other functions, scrutinise regulations on employment injury assistance, which is the planned equivalent of the industrial injuries disablement benefit. The current industrial injuries scheme and associated benefit have been in place for more than three quarters of a century: the scheme was created for a world that is very different from the one that exists now. Unite the union, in particular, has described it as “outdated” and “laborious”. Other witnesses to whom we spoke were similarly critical of the system that is in place and highlighted its shortcomings.

The weaknesses that were cited include the facts that the system is slow to effect change, that it fails to deliver for women and ethnic minority workers, and that it does not take account of modern occupations and diseases. The Scottish Trades Union Congress characterised the system as

“inherently unequal and inaccessible”,

with

“a hugely disproportionate impact on women.”

What came through clearly in evidence was that the system needs to change, and that there is considerable support for the bill among stakeholders. The Fire Brigades Union Scotland said in evidence that having an advisory council in place is

“essential to reform the benefit so that it is properly devolved and fit for purpose in the modern day.”—[Official Report, Social Justice and Social Security Committee, 23 November 2023; c 6.]

Despite the strength of sentiment from witnesses, members of the committee felt uncertain whether the bill could bring about the change and modernisation that stakeholders want. There was concern about whether the advisory council would be able to deliver its aims and address gaps in data collection, given the limited research budget that was proposed as part of the bill.

Members also questioned whether it would be possible to recruit the expertise that is needed for an advisory council, given that the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council and the Scottish Commission on Social Security indicated that recruitment has been an issue and the advisory council would seek people with similar expertise.

There is also the question of timing. The Scottish Government argues that introducing the bill’s provisions and the associated advisory council before employment injury assistance is in place is impractical and financially inappropriate. That is because the Scottish Government’s agency agreement with the Department for Work and Pensions to deliver the benefit until case transfer is complete means that it must abide by DWP policy. Ministers would therefore be unable to act on any of the council’s recommendations, even if the bill were passed.

The Scottish Government has also said that, once employment injury assistance is in place, it will still not make changes to it while some claimants’ awards are being delivered by the DWP. That is because doing so would risk the creation of a two-tier system, with some people potentially being better off than others.

Another point of opposition is that the Scottish Government has said that it is committed to holding a public consultation on its approach to replacing the industrial injuries scheme in Scotland. It considers that that is a more appropriate way of considering whether to enact the creation of a new public body because the question whether to create such a body can be considered alongside other questions related to the new scheme.

In its stage 1 report, the committee noted the concern that the creation of an advisory council could add to an already cluttered policy landscape. Either way, the committee is very concerned that it is still not clear when the consultation will begin, so it calls on the Scottish Government to urgently provide information on that. The committee notes that, in the cabinet secretary’s written response to the stage 1 report, she said that the Scottish Government intended to publish its consultation in early 2024. Given that it is now April, the committee urges the Scottish Government to provide updated timings.

An associated issue that arose during the committee’s scrutiny was the time that will be required to complete case transfer for the benefit, because more than 100,000 paper files need to be converted to a digital format. Although the cabinet secretary picked up on that point in her response to the committee’s stage 1 report, we seek a further update on progress and on the expected completion date.

I return to the merits of the bill. Although the committee recognises the good intentions of the member in charge of the bill in introducing it, ultimately the majority of the committee could not support it. Although we were all persuaded that major reform of industrial injuries benefits is needed, most members of the committee remain unconvinced that the bill can deliver the reform that is sought, and we do not want its passage to falsely raise expectations.

It also felt that the timing was not right. Given the expected Scottish Government consultation and the fact that ministers will remain constrained by the agency agreement with the DWP until case transfer is complete, it would not be possible for recommendations that the advisory council makes to be acted on.

For those reasons, the committee recommends that the general principles of the bill not be agreed to.