Employment Injury Assistance (EIA) delivery – Next Steps: Analysis of Consultation Responses

Criticisms of the Industrial Injuries Scheme

This analysis shall now move onto a thematic analysis of responses.

Age of the scheme

‘There is a clear need for a modernised system for employment injury assistance to better meet the needs of a modern society and workforce’ – Equality and Human Rights Commission

Many respondents criticised the current scheme as outdated and in need of modernisation. The reasons given covered a range of views. For example, several respondents expressed their concerns that IIS does not reflect the current workforce. Some responses referenced the age of IIS and its focus on heavy, historically state-owned industry which overwhelmingly employed men.

Promotion and take-up

Another criticism of IIS by some respondents was lack of publicity of the scheme. Concerns were raised by some respondents that many who suffer from workplace injuries are not aware of the existence of the IIS. These respondents therefore felt that EIA should be better promoted.

‘We suspect that a proportion of individuals who should be eligible for the benefit are not claiming it. There are fewer than 1,000 new applications per year under the Scheme in Scotland, according to the consultation paper. In contrast, there are an estimated 136,000 work-related ill-health cases (new or long-standing) annually.’ – Association of Personal Injury Lawyers

In addition, several respondents cited gender inequalities as a reason for low take-up. This will be covered in more detail in the ‘Equalities’ section of this analysis.

Application and assessment process

This benefit is essential to those who receive it, providing vital support where a person is injured through their employment. We suspect that a proportion of individuals who should be eligible for the benefit are not claiming it’ – Association of Personal Injury Lawyers

The current paper-based application process for IIS was mentioned by several respondents. Some responses thought that the application process should be modernised and made more accessible.

Some respondents also noted concern about the amount of time people are having to wait for a decision on entitlement when applying for IIDB. It was implied that this issue had recently got worse and was having a negative impact on people applying.

Terminal illness

Some respondents raised the need for a fast-track application system for people with a terminal illness. One organisation noted that some people with a terminal illness have waited nine months for a decision on their IIDB application from DWP and that they were unable to speak to someone to request information about these applications.

‘We would like to see a fast-track system in place for those with a terminal illness – as it is for other disability benefits.’ - Asbestos Victims Support Group Forum

Assessments

Some respondents mentioned the medical assessments that are currently required for IIDB.

‘We support our members with Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit applications and colleagues working on this report long waiting times, largely due to there not being enough medical assessors, and also inconsistent waiting times and decision making.’ – Royal College of Nursing

These respondents stated that the Scottish Government should reform assessments to align with some of the changes to the application and assessment processes that have been made through the introduction of Adult Disability Payment which does not use private sector assessments. The need to reform assessments was given as a reason for support for Option 2.

‘I know that ADP etc have been done with fairness, dignity and respect at the heart and part of that has been a different approach to assessments. the core approach to that (no assessments by private companies, which I wholeheartedly agree with) can still be applicable for EIA… and to have assessments fairly undertaken by medical professionals employed by the Scottish Government.’ - Individual

Appeals

Some respondents raised concerns about the number of appeals on entitlement decisions for IIS. These respondents stated that this can have a significant negative impact on clients, further delaying access to entitlement.

Alternatively, some other respondents referred to the changes that the Scottish Government have made through the delivery of other benefits, including the commitment to get decisions right first time. Some of the respondents said that appeals take too long because staff do not have the relevant training or specific knowledge of industrial injuries to get decisions right on the initial application.

‘We have high levels of success with mandatory reconsiderations when applications are unsuccessful – this suggests the decision making the first-time round was flawed and inconsistent.’ - Royal College of Nursing

‘Whatever EIA looks like, staff should be fully trained on all aspects of this complex benefit, including its interaction with other benefits and payments to ensure that the law is interpreted correctly by decision makers. It would also reduce the number of cases needing to be heard at appeal.’ – Action on Asbestos Support Group Forum