Employment Injury Assistance (EIA) delivery – next steps: consultation analysis

Executive Summary

Background

Since April 2020, the Scottish Government has been responsible for the Industrial Injuries Scheme (IIS) in Scotland. The scheme consists of several benefits with the main benefit being Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit (IIDB) which provides financial support to those who have become disabled or have developed a long-term health condition as a result of their employment. There are currently around 24,000 people in receipt of an IIS benefit in Scotland.

The Scottish Government has committed to replacing the UK Government's IIS with a new benefit called Employment Injury Assistance (EIA) to be delivered by Social Security Scotland.

Consultation Process

The Scottish Government ran a public consultation^[1] to gather views on the next steps on EIA. The consultation sought feedback on options for delivering EIA and will be followed by a comprehensive consultation on more detailed proposals at a later date. The consultation ran for 8 weeks, between 30 April 2024 until 25 June 2024 and asked three questions in total.

A total of twenty-eight written consultation responses were received – ten from individuals and eighteen from organisations (including Disabled People's Organisations, Advisory Organisations, local authorities, third sector charities/groups and others). In addition to the online consultation, the Scottish Government ran three online stakeholder engagement events in order to maximise opportunities for stakeholder representatives to participate and share their views on the options outlined in the consultation. A total of 12 organisations attended these events and feedback from these events was gathered by the Scottish Government for consideration alongside written responses to the consultation.

Key themes

The consultation’s first question asked if respondents agreed or disagreed that IIS was not fit for purpose.

The second question in the consultation sought feedback on two options:

• Option 1: Like-for-like benefit delivered with full case transfer and benefit reform to follow.
• Option 2: Prioritise fundamental reform of Employment Injury Assistance.

Of the twenty-eight responses to the consultation, ten expressed a preference for Option 1, twelve expressed a preference for Option 2 and six gave no preference (don’t know, neither or not stating a preference). Discussion at the accompanying events discussed criticisms of the current Scheme, concerns about continuity of payments, interactions with lump-sum payments reserved to the UK Government and priorities for reform.

Criticisms of the Industrial Injuries Scheme

A majority of the written responses expressed criticisms of IIS. Many responses stated a preference for Option 2 to prioritise longer-term reform over immediate delivery of EIA on a like-for-like basis with IIS. The most prevalent theme among those who expressed a preference for Option 1 was concern about the continuity of current payments, whereas those in favour of Option 2 prioritised modernising the benefit. It should be noted, however, that responses from individuals and those from organisations varied significantly in terms of concerns about the current scheme and priorities for reform, with the majority of individuals supporting option 1 whilst the majority of organisations expressed a preference for Option 2. There was also criticism by many respondents over the length of time it has taken to deliver EIA to date.

Many respondents shared their views on how IIS is administered currently and set out their priorities for reform. Organisations shared their experience of helping clients to apply and to successfully appeal decisions. To this end, they called for changes to be made in line with Social Security Scotland’s commitment to get decisions right first time.

Case transfer

The consultation received one response from a current recipient of an IIS benefit and one from a family member of a current recipient. These individuals were most concerned about ensuring they continued to receive payments following the introduction of EIA. Many organisations additionally called for current payments to be protected. Several organisations called for greater consideration to be given to future interactions with other benefits, such as the UK Government lump-sum payment schemes for asbestos-related conditions.

Equality issues

Equality concerns were a theme throughout many responses, particularly from organisations, with gender being a particular focus. It was felt that the eligibility criteria does not adequately account for the illnesses and injuries experienced by women at work. Some respondents linked gender disparity within IIS to specific conditions not currently covered by the scheme, such as Long Covid. Some respondents also called on policy development for EIA to take an intersectional approach, including to consider the experiences of minority ethnic women.

Advice and eligibility

The Scottish Government has committed to establishing a stakeholder steering group to input into the next phase of policy development for EIA. Many responses called for groups of workers to be represented on this group, specifically women, ethnic minorities, trade unions and those with lived experience of Long Covid and asbestos-related diseases. Views about the timelines for establishing this group were mixed, with some calling for it to be established sooner while others found the proposed timelines ambitious.

Similarly, many organisations raised the issue of the UK Industrial Injuries Advisory Council (IIAC) and a potential replacement statutory advisory body in Scotland. Several respondents felt there was a need for a new Scottish advisory council and there were calls for this body to have research powers and to be sufficiently resourced. It was strongly suggested by several people that this group should also seek the input of people with experience of receiving an IIS benefit.

Many organisations considered the eligibility criteria, specifically the prescribed list of occupational diseases, to be out of date. A range of reasons and some examples were provided of why it does not reflect the modern workforce. This included specific conditions, groups of people and types of employment that are not covered at present by the UK scheme.

Consultation feedback

As part of the consultation, feedback was also sought on:

1) How satisfied respondents were with the consultation

2) How would respondents rate using Citizen Space to respond to the consultation

Responding to both questions was optional and not all respondents chose to respond. 17 responded to the first question and 16 to the second. Responses to the first question were largely neutral, with ten respondents saying they were neither satisfied or dissatisfied. Some responses were negative, with five stating they were either very disappointed or slightly disappointed and two stating that they were slightly satisfied. Two individuals criticised the Scottish Government for not publicising the consultation to IIS benefit recipients. One of these respondents criticised the consultation for not providing enough detail on proposals or how current recipients would be treated. The other individual respondent called for those with lived experience to be on advisory panels and questioned how individuals could join. One organisation used the free text box to reiterate their disappointment at the Scottish Government for not supporting the Scottish Employment Injuries Advisory Council (SEIAC) Bill.

When asked to rate how they found using Citizen Space to respond to the consultation, the majority of responses were neutral, with nine saying they were neither satisfied or dissatisfied. Some responses leaned towards positive, with five saying they were either slightly satisfied or very satisfied, compared to two who were very dissatisfied. Only some respondents chose to provide reasons for their answers. One organisation criticised Citizen Space as it did not allow them to use the formatting that was used to upload their response on their own website.