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

Advice and Eligibility

The consultation paper sought views on both issues with the current Industrial Injuries Scheme and on next steps for developing EIA. Respondents highlighted a number of priorities for a new system, including a statutory advisory council and changes to the eligibility criteria.

Statutory Advisory Council

Many respondents commented on the need for a statutory advisory council to be considered as part of future reform through the delivery of EIA. Several respondents also raised concerns about the IIAC lacking the resources and funding for research. They called for a new council to be representative of those with relevant expertise in industrial and workplace injury, including occupational health experts, as well as those with direct lived experience. They all said the current system is not fit for purpose and needs to be modernised and that a statutory council would help bring about meaningful reform.

‘Having a dedicated and adequately resourced body would ensure that relevant expertise, and the necessary gender competence, was engaged at the start of the development process so that the new EIA system is fit for purpose’ – Close the Gap

‘One of the positive elements of the IIAC is the tripartite approach taken to their work. The problem is that the IIAC is under resourced, has no research function and the opportunity for any preventative strategies are missed. Scottish Hazards position is that we would support Option 2 with a strong recommendation that a council, independent from Government is constituted to advise Government on the design, implementation and ongoing review of Scottish Employment Injuries Assistance on its devolution.’ – Scottish Hazards

‘The FBU believes an independent, expert body should be established to provide oversight ahead of the reform of the Scheme. The need for an advisory body, independently chaired, with trade union and other stakeholder representation with the ability to make its own recommendations is a must to ensure that this scheme benefits such workers.’ – Fire Brigades Union

Several organisations, most of whom where trade unions, criticised the consultation for duplicating the Scottish Parliament’s Social Justice and Social Security Committee’s call for views on the SEIAC Bill. These respondents noted they had already stated their views in response to this Bill. They criticised the Scottish Government’s opposition to the SEIAC Bill, considering it a missed opportunity to create an independent body ahead of any reform. These respondents argued that the body would have been able to better inform policy development ahead of EIA being launched.

‘We believe that passing this Bill would have put in motion opportunities to address fundamental inequalities within the present system. As Unite highlighted in our response to the SEIAC Bill consultation in June 2023, the current industrial injuries system is not fit for purpose. It is discriminatory, inadequate and outdated and is in urgent need of change. We believe the proposals to establish a SEIAC, represented the best solution to address the problems evident in the current system.’ – Unite Scotland

Research

Some responses highlighted the role of research in determining how eligibility for EIA should be developed.

Of the respondents that supported establishing an independent advisory council, some specifically noted the need for this body to have a research function. These responses stated this was important for EIA to respond to trends in occupational health and safety over time and to potentially provide targeted financial support to those who need it. Some respondents discussed this in relation to prevention of industrial diseases. In addition, two responses highlight how the advisory council could be a tool to address gender inequalities as a priority if it could carry out its own research.

‘The 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’ – Close the Gap.

The prescribed condition list

An overarching view expressed throughout the consultation, including from many written responses, was that the IIS eligibility criteria is not fit for purpose. It was stated by many of the respondents that additional diseases should be added to the prescribed list as an industrial injury to better reflect the modern labour market.

‘The prescribed disease list which determines eligibility for receiving

IIB is outdated, and no longer fit for purpose.’ – Close the Gap

Social Model of Disability

Several organisations highlighted the medical assessments carried out as part of the decision-making process for IIDB. They noted that this does not align with the Scottish Government approach and would like to see EIA adopt the social model of disability through a reformed application process and eligibility criteria.

It was suggested that by applying the social model of disability, decisions on an application could be made quicker. One asbestos support group said that individuals could provide information from a consultant which proves they have an asbestos related condition. They argued that this eliminates the need for further medical checks, and that relying on supporting information to make a decision rather than undertaking a medical assessment on every application could save time and costs.

Long Covid

Some conditions and occupations were mentioned specifically. Long Covid was the most mentioned condition, with several of the respondents calling for this be added to the list of prescribed diseases. The majority of these responses identified a link between gender and Long Covid, which has already been discussed in more detail in the ‘Equality’ section of this analysis.

‘The COVID pandemic has shown that employees can become seriously ill as a result of their work, leading to long-term absence, and yet have no suitable access to support from the state.’ - NASUWT

Head injuries in footballers

There was some mention of neurodegenerative conditions such as dementia in footballers. Some trade unions who responded to the consultation expressed support for such conditions to be covered by a reformed benefit.

‘There is still a need for a no-fault compensation scheme for disablement arising from injuries or disease caused by work – including new and emerging workplaces injuries and disease, such as…brain injuries linked to professional football, and a range of other modern-day industrial injuries.’ – Scottish Trades Union Congress

Other Areas for Expansion

Some responses identified other specific conditions to be considered for the introduction of EIA. These were repetitive strain injuries, muscular skeletal conditions, mental health conditions and noise induced hearing loss. The respondents called for these conditions to be added to the prescribed list to better reflect the modern workforce.

‘The Industrial Injuries Scheme is not fit for purpose in that it does not reflect the workforce. The nature of workforce has changed significantly in 76 years as has the way in which we work.’ – The Musicians Union

One respondent said that people who work in creative industries and the Arts are under-represented and many of the occupational hazards they are exposed to, including mental health, are not recognised as an industrial injury. Furthermore, there were calls from some of the organisations to recognise the increasing number of people who are self-employed.

‘Due to the physical nature of the work of a musician (as well as other industry-specific elements) both in terms of managing, carrying and operating large pieces of equipment as well as the repetitive nature of the work physically, there are many occupational conditions which particularly affect musicians including a higher propensity to mental health issues.’ – Scottish Trades Union Congress

Some stakeholders who attended the consultation events were interested in whether any forecasting had been done on specific changes to the eligibility criteria. They said that more detailed information on the extent of possible reform and costs would be helpful before expressing a definitive preference on the options presented in the consultation.