Chamber and committees

This session has been helpful. The picture that is emerging shows that, although structures are in place in the Health and Safety Executive, as Lucy Kenyon mentioned, they may not be sufficient for the ambitions that Professor Macdonald has regarding the data that we should be collecting, for example. There are systems in place, but there appears to be a weakness regarding the jobs that they should be doing. The question is whether the bill is the way to plug that gap, or whether there are other ways to do so. That is something that we have to wrestle with as a committee.

What the bill is silent about—for some, it is the elephant in the room—is whether the new SEIAC will, at some point, make recommendations on who should get industrial injuries benefits when the criteria for that are looked at again by the Scottish Government, or whether another body should do that.

My question is about the different approach that SEIAC might take in relation to those kinds of things compared with IIAC, which is, of course, looking at the same evidence and has the same experts deciding whether there is “reasonable certainty”, which is a very general expression. I suppose that that is a long way of asking whether you think that SEIAC would necessarily take a different approach to IIAC when making decisions. I am not talking about data collection, Professor Macdonald—we are admitting that there is a gap in that—I am being more general. If SEIAC and IIAC are looking at the same data, would you expect them to come to different conclusions as to whether there was reasonable certainty?

I think that Professor Macdonald had Anton Muscatelli texting to prompt him to put that on the record. That was helpful for completeness.

Good morning to both witnesses. The function of the Scottish employment injuries advisory council, as proposed, is to

“investigate and review emerging employment hazards that result in disease or injury”.

That might duplicate activities of other organisations. Professor Macdonald helpfully mentioned the Health and Safety Executive, and it is imperative that it give evidence to the committee, given its crucial role. This should surely be its bread and butter, and, imperfect as occupational health might be in Scotland and across the UK, the data that you get should be used to inform the work of the HSE. Irrespective of whether it is the IIAC or the SEIAC—we love acronyms in this place—whatever the advisory board or council is, the information that occupational health gets from workplaces is vital, and it has to drive action.

I am conscious that employment law is reserved and that the HSE has a direct remit here. Is there the possibility of duplication when the SEIAC is in place? Can you say anything about your role and how we should use the vital data that you want to be collected to drive the change that you want to see? Perhaps we should take Lucy Kenyon first.

That is very helpful.

Sorry, convener. I will be brief.

It is my understanding—I am sorry if I have got this wrong—that the DWP has said that experts who sit on IIAC cannot also sit on any Scottish advisory board. I think that that might be the situation. Do you have any views on that? I would compare that with the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence and the Scottish Medicines Consortium—the bodies that deal with UK health approval and Scottish health approval—which have something called multiple technology appraisals, through which they do things jointly from time to time.

There appears to be a barrier there. Do you have any thoughts in relation to that barrier? Please be brief, or the convener really will give me a hard time.

Thank you.

My question was not inspired by nappies, although I should declare an interest as I have a two-year-old and it would be a significant burden on me to move to non-disposable nappies. However, I am willing to be convinced for the sake of environment. It is more about the point that Kim Pratt made that we identify straws, bags or cups case by case, and move at a relatively slow pace, knocking off one at a time.

Is there a need for the bill to cover, or for Government more generally to legislate on, a cluster of items for which we can all agree that single use should not exist, rather than simply asserting that all single-use items should be banned as a matter of course? Is there a better way of doing it than moving forward one campaign at a time? We could bring a cluster of items together and try to legislate on that.

I want to ask about enforcement and the guidance on that.

Glasgow City Council—certainly in my constituency—is very good. I have constituents who use wheelchairs and mobility scooters and who had no access to local services. The council had a direct conversation with them about their lived experience and put in dropped kerbs to allow them to go about their lives.

However, when it comes to enforcement, there are breaches from drivers. I get that enforcement has to be intelligence led, practical and cost effective. That might lead to enforcement in areas where other enforcement is already taking place—where there are clusters of potential driver breaches. In addition, it might not be in their local communities that those on a mobility scooter or in a wheelchair have their lives devastated by not being able to cross the road. A constituent of mine has had to travel an alternative route of almost one mile because of breaches involving dropped kerbs.

What guidance is there that local authorities should not focus their enforcement only on clusters of potential breaches or on areas where enforcement is cost effective, but should carry out enforcement where there are individual breaches that could absolutely devastate the lives of those with mobility issues?

I had no interest to declare but, as I was listening to the questions, I thought that perhaps I should mention that I am patron of the Glasgow Access Panel, which is based in Maryhill in my constituency, and that there is a crossover in some of the work. Although that is not formally declarable, I put it on the record for the sake of transparency.

I have a couple of questions. My first relates to the education and awareness campaign. Most people accept that pavement parking is pretty inconsiderate—drivers know what they are doing, but they are a bit inconsiderate. We have to change that culture. However, drivers are often oblivious to dropped kerbs. That is an unintended consequence, which is due not to wilful ignorance but to a lack of awareness. Will the education campaign take that on board? There is a difference in where drivers are in relation to those things.

Thank you, convener. It is a pleasure to be a member of the committee. As usual, I draw members’ attention to my entry in the register of members’ interests, but I do not think that anything there is particularly relevant to the work and proceedings of this committee.

The deputy convener has worked through most of the questions that I was going to ask; however, I will take the opportunity to put something additional on the record. We have talked about needing different business models, particularly from large manufacturers and retailers, and not only in Scotland but internationally, rather than having a “take, make and dispose” economy. I am conscious that the word “use” is not always part of that, given what we have been talking about.

Do you want to say any more about the business models that are really damaging our environment and the circular economy? It would perhaps be more constructive to talk about business models that are being developed that the bill could incentivise or drive, if we could make it stronger. I put that on the record; the deputy convener has covered most of what I wanted to ask.