Official Report 618KB pdf
Under agenda item 2, the committee will take evidence on the statement of reasons that has been lodged to accompany the draft proposal for a Scottish employment injuries advisory council bill and decide whether it is satisfied with the reasons that the member in charge of the proposed bill has given for not reconsulting on the draft proposal. At this stage, the committee is not required to give its views on the contents of the proposed bill.
I welcome to the meeting the member in charge of the proposed bill, Mark Griffin MSP, and Mary Dinsdale, senior assistant clerk, from the Scottish Parliament’s non-Government bills unit.
I refer members to paper 1 and invite Mark Griffin to make a short opening statement.
Thank you for inviting me to attend the committee to talk through the statement of reasons that accompanies my draft proposal.
The bill proposal was lodged in response to reports that thousands of people were suffering from long Covid that they had contracted at work—most likely, workers in health, social care, retail and public transport, whom we all depended on and applauded throughout the pandemic. In the absence of any action from the United Kingdom Industrial Injuries Advisory Council, a Scottish council could commission research and come up with recommendations on how to support people such as nurses, care workers and supermarket staff who caught Covid, now suffer with long Covid and are no longer fit for work.
When I looked further into the industrial injuries system, it became clear that it is completely out of date. It really only recognises injuries and illnesses of male workers in occupations that were common in the previous century, it does not recognise modern occupations and it completely fails female workers. Only 6.5 per cent of applications under the prescription route come from women.
The purpose of this evidence-taking session is for the committee to decide whether to accept the statement of reasons that I have provided on why I consider it unnecessary to carry out a further consultation, but I wanted to give a flavour of the motives behind the proposed bill.
I note that the committee has received a letter from the Scottish Government. I hope to work with the Minister for Social Security and Local Government to overcome any policy differences and timetable issues. However, as the committee knows, nothing in his letter is relevant to the statement of reasons.
It is less than a year since the draft proposal was lodged and consultation began. It is only six months since the consultation summary was lodged ahead of Parliament rising for the election recess. That consultation was undertaken with the non-Government bills unit’s support, my thanks for which I put on record.
The proposal is broadly similar to the one that I lodged last November
“to establish a Scottish Employment Injuries Advisory Council”.
However, I have improved the wording to sharpen up the proposal and to reflect more precisely the purpose and role of the proposed council that was consulted on and the outcome of that consultation. There is nothing new that was not previously consulted on or on which views were not sought.
The additional terms in the proposal confirm that the council would be a statutory body, as was explicit throughout the consultation document and at question 1 in the consultation questions, and that it would have the ability to commission its own research, as was also made clear in the aims of the proposed bill and specifically consulted on at question 2. They also confirm that the bill would define the council’s membership, which was the focus of question 5.
The consultation on my previous proposal ran for 12 weeks and received responses from a range of individuals and organisations from relevant sectors. I wrote to a number of academics, civil society and third sector organisations, professional associations and business organisations, as well as occupational safety campaigns and, of course, trade unions. There is a breadth of responses across those sectors, which provides new, positive engagement in the social security space.
The consultation was publicised in comment pieces and blogs, notably in The Herald, in the Daily Record and on Reform Scotland’s Melting Pot blog. Media coverage in which I highlighted the issue raised in the consultation document—that Covid-19 should be prescribed as an industrial disease—was raised with the First Minster in December 2020. Close the Gap blogged about the gaps in provision for women under the existing benefit and about women’s health and safety more widely, and it also covered the issue of Covid-19 in the workplace. Two events, which were conducted on Facebook and via Zoom, were hosted by the GMB’s health and safety group. Separate focus groups were arranged with women members, who shared their experiences of health and safety in the workplace.
The consultation closed in February this year, and I do not believe that respondents’ views will have changed since then, or that there have been any material changes to the case for an advisory council. The UK advisory council has since refused to prescribe Covid-19, which perhaps strengthens the case for evolution of the benefit here, and the Scottish Government has not yet made any legislative commitment to establish a new council.
For a process that has been carried out so recently, repeating the consultation would seem to me to be an unnecessary duplication of work and effort, including for those organisations and individuals who took the time to respond to the previous consultation.
I hope that members will agree that further consultation is not necessary. I am more than happy to expand on any of the points that I have made, and to take questions.
Thank you very much, Mr Griffin. I thank all those correspondents who have been in touch ahead of today’s meeting. My inbox has been rather full of emails on the subject.
I invite colleagues to ask any questions.
Thank you for setting out the position, Mark.
As the convener has said, we have received a number of emails that call for Covid-19 to be made an industrial disease under the new benefit; others have said that women make up just a fraction of the applicants and that the benefit must start to recognise women’s injury and disease in the workplace. Your bill does not propose to do that, so could you tell the committee how it will contribute to dealing with those issues?
I am glad to hear that your inboxes are so full, although I am sorry for your staff who are dealing with that. It shows the strength of feeling in support of the proposals.
Ms Duncan-Glancy is right that the proposal will not, in itself, change any of that, but it is the first step on the road. The current entitlement is fit for the 20th century, not the 21st century. An employment advisory council would have the expertise of people with lived experience of 21st century workplaces. There would be expertise from epidemiologists and other experts in the field. There would be a gender balance on the council to ensure that illnesses and injuries in workplaces that are predominantly female were reflected. As I said in my opening statement, only 6.5 per cent of applications currently come from women. If an equality impact assessment was done of the benefit today, it would immediately say that that was entirely inappropriate.
For me, all those aims and objectives are the end point, but the starting point is to establish the council, with its expertise and its ability to commission research, to start to address those challenges.
I note from the minister’s correspondence that it is the Government’s intention to introduce legislation to bring about employment injury assistance. He suggests that your proposed legislation is therefore “unnecessary”. How would you respond to that?
The minister has set out that he intends to introduce legislation to establish employment injury assistance. That is obviously something that the Government has to do as a result of the Scotland Act 2016 and the Social Security (Scotland) Act 2018. What the minister has not mentioned, and what the Government has not committed to, is establishing an advisory council to scrutinise the regulations on the new entitlement that the minister would lay. I believe that it is crucial that research is carried out in advance of that entitlement being established.
We can either lift and replicate what I feel is a failed and completely out-of-date UK system or we can get the expertise on board early, set up the council, advise the Government and scrutinise the regulations. All the parties in the Parliament and the Government have accepted that it is right to have an independent statutory body to scrutinise social security legislation—indeed, that is why we have the Scottish Commission on Social Security. I am just asking us to go a step further and create another body that has the expertise to look in depth at the range of injuries and illnesses in Scottish workplaces, with the aim of updating the benefit in question to ensure that it best serves the people of Scotland.
You do not feel that SCOSS could provide that scrutiny or advice.
I am proposing that the membership of a Scottish council include representation from the trade unions. It will take primary legislation to change SCOSS’s role to mandate that it have trade union membership so that it can consider workers’ lived experience of illness and injury at work. As the committee knows, SCOSS already has a lot of work on its plate, and I think it important that we create a new body that has not only the ability to look specifically at the very detailed nature of employment injury assistance, but a research function to look at illnesses and injuries that are emerging across the developed world and ensure that the Scottish system is fit for the 21st century, not the last one.
That was very helpful. My only other question before we decide whether to allow you to proceed without having to reconsult is about your intentions with regard to liaising with the Scottish Government before you reintroduce your proposed bill.
When I raised the issue in the chamber with the First Minister, I think that I received a sympathetic response. I also flagged up to the minister the consultation response and my intention to introduce legislation, but at that point he was only two or three days into the job, so the issue might not have been at the top of his list.
I really want to work with the minister on this. He has set out his concerns about policy and timetabling, but with my British Sign Language (Scotland) Bill, I have a track record of working with the Government to ensure that there are no concerns on either side. I would want to open a discussion with the minister and his officials and take a joint working approach to ensure that my proposal is right and that it works for the people of Scotland.
Thank you very much. The committee will now decide whether it is satisfied with the statement of reasons. I thank Mr Griffin and Mary Dinsdale for their time this morning and invite them to step away from the table while the committee comes to an agreement.
I suspend the meeting briefly.
09:12 Meeting suspended.
The committee is now required to decide whether it is satisfied with the statement of reasons and that a further consultation on the proposal is not necessary. At this stage, we are not required to give our views on the proposed bill’s contents.
Is the committee satisfied with the statement of reasons?
Members indicated agreement.
The minutes will reflect that decision. Before we move on, I again thank Mr Griffin.