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

Questions

Question 1

Question 1 consisted of two parts. The first, a drop-down menu, and the second a free text box for respondents to expand on their answer.

Views from individuals were mixed. One person used the free text box to stress how important the benefit had been on a personal level while some others raised concerns about the intention behind reform and what it might mean for their own payments.

‘II[D]B has been a lifeline for me and without it I wouldn’t be able to survive.’ - Individual

Organisations largely agreed that the current IIS was not fit for purpose, with 77% answering ‘agree’ to question 1. They cited the scheme not reflecting the modern workplace, inequalities and not aligning with Social Security Scotland’s principles of ‘fairness, dignity and respect’ as reasons for this view.

Question 2

Question 2 likewise consisted of two parts. The first, a drop-down menu, and the second a free text box for respondents to expand on their answer.

Responses to question 2 were more varied. Organisations showed a small preference for reform, with 44% in favour. Those in favour of Option 2 cited the need for reform, in line with their answers to question 1.

‘From the two options laid out in the paper: Next steps on delivery of Employment Injury Assistance, Option 1 will merely prolong the current system which serves the interests of traditional male-dominated industries and fails to meet the needs of a modern industrial economy or the needs of a significant proportion of the people of Scotland.’ – Unite Scotland

Of the organisations who stated a preference for Option 1, reasons given included concerns about the impact any reform could have on eligibility for the UK Government lump-sum payment schemes and concerns about efficiency in the short-term.

The six organisations who did not give a preference gave reasons including a need for further consultation and engagement with people with lived experience. A couple of unions rejected the idea that there were only two options to choose between.

‘It rather looks as if the options being given are more rapid implementation with minimal and unspecified consultation remit and demographics, or a more extended period of consultation with no clear outcomes for at least a year. This needs to be re-examined. Again, worker and trade union input can help design both and effective timeline with overlapping priorities for shorter- and longer-term implementation and reform, and effective delivery and monitoring regimes.’ – SNP Trade Union Group

Individuals were less likely to support reform, with 60% stating their support for Option 1. Individuals gave concerns about continuity of payments and expressed confusion around the Scottish Government’s intended aims with reform of the benefit. The Scottish Government has previously made clear that working with the UK Government to ensure the protection of current payments is its utmost priority.

Question 3

The third question sought feedback on proposed timelines for both options. Only qualitative answers were sought for this question, with respondents filling in an open text box. From the written responses sent in, 75% of respondents opted to give feedback on these timelines. Responses from individuals to question 3 continued to express a high level of concern over the continuity of current payments and eligibility for a future reformed scheme.

‘Please think carefully about people already on IIB, it can be a lifeline for some who no fault of their own are unable to do a job of work and need this benefit to live.’ - Individual

Only one individual respondent chose to provide their views on the timelines in more detail:

‘I think ministers need to understand this benefit is particularly complex and a push to complete to regulations and go live in a relatively tight timescale (which option 1 is) is not wise. The emphasis should be on doing it at an appropriate speed to get it wholly right operationally and legally, including re any advisory body - not get it partially right and have to fix it later legally and operationally.’ - Individual

Several organisations expressed frustration at the length of time it has taken to

deliver EIA to date and criticised the extended timeline for Option 2.

‘Looking at the timeline for option 2, reformed delivery, the proposition that this benefit will not be in place until June 2025 is unacceptable. Indeed, it is an affront to key workers, including teachers, many of whom won’t see justice for many years, if at all: for some this will simply be too late.’ – NASUWT

On the other hand, some organisations raised concerns about the timeline for Option 2, believing that there was:

‘the potential for delays within this timescale given the complexity and extent of reform needed’ - Close the Gap.

They urged sufficient time and resource be allocated to the reform to prevent this. Furthermore, one respondent described the timeline for Option 2 as ‘improbable’.

Some organisations called for the stakeholder steering group to be established faster than the three months laid out in the timeline for Option 2. These responses stated that the group should produce its first reports in a shorter period than outlined in the consultation.

The consultation sets out that the establishment of the stakeholder group would happen later if like-for-like delivery were prioritised. The rationale for this was questioned by respondents. One respondent argued that the stakeholders are already well known and that ‘there is a pressing need’ to introduce this group before the end of 2024. The Scottish Government have outlined that Option 1 would require detailed work to determine precisely the resources required and the timetable for delivery, however, they have stated that it is likely that a like-for-like benefit could be established before May 2026.

Some respondents called for more detail on what would happen when the agency agreement between Social Security Scotland and the UK Government, through which IIS is currently delivered, ends in 2026. Some respondents considered the timeline for Option 2 incomplete, with one respondent calling for the Scottish Government to set out a further timeline for implementation of EIA ‘at the earliest possible opportunity’.

‘We note that the consultation states that proposals for high level options for employment injury assistance will be published 12 months after the close of this consultation. Unfortunately, that is the end of the timeline. Scottish Hazards would imagine there will be a further consultation and period of stakeholder engagement.’ – Scottish Hazards

Two respondents proposed approaches not listed as options in the consultation; one individual called for the consultation to be extended and promoted to current recipients, while the Association for Personal Injury Lawyers believed that the planned stakeholder group should be established prior to the Scottish Government deciding which option to proceed with.