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

Case Transfer

Option 1 proposed a like-for-like delivery for EIA, with safe and secure transfer of current awards. Option 2 did not involve the transfer of current awards in the short-term and prioritises fundamental reform. 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).

There were a mix of views on how to address the complexities related to case transfer. Although 36% of respondents stated a preference for Option 1 (i.e like-for-like delivery with case transfer), the respondents who went into detail about case transfer were divided on whether clients’ awards should be moved to Social Security Scotland. Some respondents were not in favour of a case transfer, provided reasons included the high financial and operational costs involved. Some organisations referenced Value for Money, one of the key principles of the Social Security Charter, ensuring resources are allocated fairly and efficiently across the devolved system.

‘While transferring existing files to digital databases will make the system quicker, it would not be considered a good use of public funds given the rate at which existing claimants are decreasing, and the rate at which new claimants are expected to gain access should the criteria be widened.’ – GMB Scotland.

On the other hand, some organisations suggested that the proportion of digital files have been significantly underestimated and would present a more realistic option for the Scottish Government.

Indeed, there was support from many for IIS case files to be digitised after being transferred to Social Security Scotland in line with the approach seen to be taken with other Scottish Government benefits.

‘Due to the large cost of delivering a like for like benefit and the time and logistical cost of physically transferring up to 150,000 paper files which would ultimately need reform in the future, we see option 2 as [a] more practical choice.’ - ASLEF

Protection of current awards

The main priority relating to case transfer for many of the respondents was the continuation of entitlement for those with a current IIS award. This concern was raised by respondents regardless of the delivery option they preferred.

‘It is also crucial that those who currently access the scheme continue to do so – and do not lose out – as the benefit is devolved’ – Scottish Trades Union Congress

Several respondents raised concerns at the prospect of the IIS being reformed or altered and the potential impact on current recipients of an IIS award. This was particularly common among individual respondents.

‘You can’t just change something overnight, it needs to be a long term approach. Those that receive the benefit at present should not be disadvantaged by being reassessed’ - Individual

This was also a theme that was raised during consultation events. Some of the attendees questioned whether broadening the criteria could lead to an unintended consequence of any current recipients no longer being eligible.

The importance of the Scottish Government communicating with individuals with an IIS award to help to alleviate these concerns was noted by one written response and an organisation during the consultation events.

Respondents provided mixed views on how EIA should interact with the administration of the current IIS in Scotland in the future. Some respondents expressed concern that a new benefit could mean a ‘two-tier system’ in which clients were subject to different eligibility rules, resulting in increased complexity and confusion. For example, one individual highlighted the potential difficulty for those experiencing a change of circumstances while interacting across two different systems.

However, some respondents suggested maintaining the current rules for eligibility for those who currently have an award under the IIS while developing a reformed benefit for new applications. Another individual suggested that a reformed EIA could target those with a current award under state pension age, while maintaining the current Scheme for those over state pension age.

UK lump-sum payment schemes

People in receipt of IIDB can be entitled to a one-off payment through lump-sum payment schemes and some respondents provided details about how they helped people to apply. Five organisations highlighted the need to maintain eligibility, through the 2008 Mesothelioma Act, the DMPS, the Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers Compensation) Act 1979, and the Coalworkers Pneumoconiosis Compensation Scheme 1974. This concern stems from the perceived risk that if significant changes are made to the eligibility criteria, individuals in Scotland in receipt of EIA may not be able to access the reserved lump-sum payment schemes in the same way as people in receipt of IIDB in the future.

‘If EIA is reformed, we may find a situation in Scotland where claimants of EIA will fail to meet the criteria for PWC [Pneumoconiosis Workers Compensation Act] lump sum payment. We would not want to see the development of a two-tier system with asbestos sufferers in Scotland being unable to apply for PWC’ – Asbestos Victims Support Group Forum

Asbestos Related Conditions

Concerns about how EIA would interact with these payments was of particular concern to Asbestos organisations.

‘A particular concern to AVSGF is the lump sum payment under the Pneumoconiosis Workers Compensation Act (PWC). To qualify for this payment a claimant must be in receipt of IIDB. However, given that PWC is reserved by the UK government if EIA is reformed, we may find a situation in Scotland where claimants of EIA will fail to meet the criteria for PWC lump sum payment. We would not want to see the development of a two-tier system with asbestos sufferers in Scotland being unable to apply for PWC through the application process for EIA.’ – Asbestos Victims Support Group Forum

‘We cannot and must not underestimate the financial worth of IIDB and the 79 Act for the individual receiving this. Our overriding concern is that those currently in receipt of IIDB retain their current entitlement. We are also concerned about the numbers of future claimants, who would potentially lose the only route to compensation should the link between IIDB and the 79 Act be broken. Should a new scheme be adopted we would advocate for transitional protection for existing claimants.’ – Action on Asbestos