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

Equality Issues

Equality issues were widely discussed in responses. Many organisational responses discussed equality issues and the IIS’s outdated nature as reasons for why they supported reform. No individual responses mentioned inequality.

‘The Scottish Government should explicitly commit to close the gender gap in the outdated benefit: women’s health and safety cannot continue to be ignored. Just 7% of claims for industrial injuries benefit are made by women: it was a benefit designed for men’s work and systematically ignores the illness and disease women experience at work such as asbestos-related ovarian cancer, Long COVID, musculoskeletal disorders and breast cancers caused by shift work.’ - NASUWT

Alongside this, many organisations linked the underrepresentation of groups with protected characteristics within the IIS to conditions that are not on the prescribed list of conditions set out in the relevant legislation. While some of these conditions have already been discussed earlier in this analysis, it is worth specifically noting the equality issues relating to these.

Gender

According to DWP data, women only make up 19% of IIDB recipients.

‘the Industrial Injuries Scheme (IIS) in its current form is not fit for purpose and should be reformed. It does not deliver for women, and the transfer of EIA represents a critical opportunity to create a system that recognises women’s occupational injuries and illnesses and addresses the gendered inequalities that permeate the system.’ - Close the Gap

Some of the responses which called for Long Covid to be covered by the IIS linked this to addressing the gender disparity within the current scheme. One organisation called for IIS to be modernised in order to better reflect woman in the workplace.

‘A modernised system for injury and disablement benefits is necessary to close the gender gap by being inclusive of the injuries and disablements of women dominated roles, such as Long Covid.’ – GMB Scotland

This was a typical view expressed by organisations, with one organisation referencing a TUC report^[3] from 2023 which ‘highlighted the severity of Long Covid as a workers and equalities issue, noting that disabled people and women are more likely to contract the condition’. Teaching was also identified as an occupation by some organisations which was particularly vulnerable to Covid-19 and one in which women make up a large proportion of the workforce.

Additionally, some organisations noted specific occupational illnesses that are not currently covered by IIS that predominantly impact on women.

‘low-paid, and precarious female-dominated occupations such as cleaning and care’; and ‘disease and injuries commonly experience by women’ including musculoskeletal injuries, breast cancer cause by shift work, and asbestos related ovarian cancer as conditions that should be covered under the scheme.’ – Close the Gap

‘ailments and injuries which are typical in roles predominantly carried out by women such as social care.’ – GMB Scotland

Many respondents were in favour of changing eligibility via the prescribed list, however, some argued that if the Scottish Government tried to address the gender disparity by adding to the list of prescribed conditions, there would need to be value for money considerations as this would lead to increased costs. Both the Asbestos Victim Support Group and Action on Asbestos proposed that expanding the current eligibility criteria, via amendments to existing regulations, would be easier than delivering an entirely new benefit. The Scottish Government has previously set out that any changes to the criteria that expanded eligibility through the introduction of EIA would lead to increased costs that would have to be met from elsewhere within the Scottish Government’s budget.

Intersectionality

Gender was not the only inequality discussed by respondents. For example, one organisation linked Covid-19 and Long Covid with race, noting the disproportionate impact of COVID on the black population. The Equality and Human Rights Commission pointed to their own inquiry^[4] which found that Ethnic Minority workers in health and social care faced greater risk in the workplace.

Several responses noted the discussion in the consultation paper regarding age and race being factors in lower benefit uptake, with one respondent urging more consideration for the underlying reasons behind this. Close the Gap noted a link with gender and age, pointing to research from King’s College London which found that women aged 50-60 are at the highest risk of developing Long Covid^[5].

‘As an example our inquiry reported that Ethnic Minority workers were asked to undertake more risky tasks and were redeployed in Covid-19 wards more than their White or White British colleagues, putting them at greater risk of Long Covid.’ – Equality and Human Rights Commission

Embedding representation

There was some discussion around how to approach equality issues in the next phase of policy development and beyond.

For example, a Scottish replacement for the IIAC was identified as a possible route to addressing disparities by several respondents. As part of the Social Justice and Social Security committee call for views on the SEIAC Bill, stakeholders specifically called for illnesses and diseases which disproportionately affect women to be considered as part of the terms of reference for a new statutory advisory council, with workers voices embedded in this. Some respondents called for women to have equal representation on this body and called for this group to have research powers to address the gender disparities that are currently present within the IIS.

‘There is a particular lack of intersectional research, which would provide evidence on the experiences of occupational health and safety between different groups of women, such as older women, disabled women, and racially minoritised women. This lack of research around women’s occupational risks, coupled with the gender-blind approach within the current IIDB, means women’s needs are not being fully considered, putting them at risk of avoidable injuries and illness and without a path to financial recourse. In addition, the lack of gender-specific research means that any decisions made to add new illnesses or injuries to the prescribed list will continue to ignore women’s occupational risks’. – Close the Gap

Similarly, some referenced gender when talking about the Scottish Government’s planned stakeholder steering group. These responses called for the lived experience of women to be represented on the stakeholder group. They also called for the group to take an intersectional approach in order to consider the way different protected characteristics such as race, disability and gender intersect and how these could impact a person’s ability to access EIA.

‘An intersectional approach must also be adopted, whereby keyworkers, trade unionists, women, black workers and those with Long COVID who currently have no permanent, independent role have their voices heard. It is critical that this body should include direct representation of the lived experiences of those who should be entitled to benefit from a reformed system and this means sufficient representation of trade unions.’ – NASUWT

Equality Impact Assessments

Under the Public Sector Equality Duty laid out in The Equality Act 2010 (Specific Duties) (Scotland) Regulations 2012, the Scottish Government is required to carry out Equality Impact Assessments (EQIAs) to assess the impact of applying a proposed new or revised policy or practice against the needs of groups with protected characteristics^[6].

The Equality and Human Rights Commission stated the importance of EQIAs being carried out at the beginning of the policy development process to embed consideration of protected characteristic groups throughout this work. The Scottish Government has previously committed to undertaking a thorough EQIA in advance of delivering EIA.^[7]

Other areas for consideration

Close the Gap provided a response which covered a number of additional areas not mentioned by other respondents. These included work-related violence against women; the difficulties women can have in proving that an illness or injury was caused by work; the interaction between unpaid work and caring responsibilities with employment history and how this impacts eligibility for the IIS; and the different ways workplace injuries and illnesses can manifest for women.

Close the Gap’s response additionally raised occupational health and safety concerns including the lack of appropriate, well-fitting Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) and workplace equipment for women. It should be noted, however, that while the Industrial Injuries Scheme has been devolved, many areas relating to occupational health and safety are still reserved to the UK Government.