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

Conclusions

Most respondents agreed that the UK IIS is not fit for purpose and needs to be reformed.

Of those who expressed a preference, the majority of respondents supported Option 2, to prioritise reform to deliver an updated benefit and a modernised approach to delivery. Taking into account those who didn’t express a preference for either of the two options provided, almost half of respondents stated a preference for Option 2. Just under a third of respondents stated a preference for Option 1, to prioritise a like-for-like benefit delivered with full case transfer and benefit reform to follow in the longer-term

There were calls for the Scottish Government to modernise the IIS. Some respondents specifically wanted to see the application and assessment processes modernised to be more in line with other benefits being delivered by Social Security Scotland. This included some organisations raising the need for a fast-track system for people with terminal illnesses to be introduced, in line with Child Disability Payment and Adult Disability Payment. While many respondents called for significant reform, some took the opportunity to emphasise the importance of the benefit payments to those who receive it and urged caution going forward.

There was confusion from some individual respondents about the Scottish Government’s intended aims and a significant degree of concern was expressed about the transfer of current awards and continuity of payments from both individuals and organisations. Some asbestos organisations raised concerns about any future changes to eligibility for EIA and how this would interact with eligibility for lump-sum payments which are reserved to the UK Government.

Equality concerns were raised by half of respondents, with calls on the Scottish Government to address the disparities that are currently present within the client group. Gender was a focus for many of these responses, with concerns raised that current eligibility does not accurately reflect the illnesses and injuries experienced by women.

Several organisations called for a Scottish replacement for the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council and criticised the Scottish Government’s recent opposition to the Scottish Employment Injuries Advisory Council Bill. Many organisations stated that additional diseases and conditions should be added to the prescribed list to modernise the benefit.

There was some support for the Scottish Government’s proposal to establish a non-statutory stakeholder steering group and many stakeholders offered to provide input in this respect. Feedback on the proposed timeline for Option 2 was mixed. Some respondents criticised this for taking too long while others felt this was too ambitious.