Employment Injury Assistance Steering Group minutes: July 2025

Attendees and apologies

• Co-chair: Tressa Burke, CEO, Glasgow Disability Alliance (GDA)
• Co-chair: Elma Murray CBE, Chair, Young Scot
• Rachel Gallagher, Strategy and Development Manager, Clydebank Asbestos Group 
• Phyllis Craig, Director, Action on Asbestos 
• Anna Ritchie-Allan, Executive Director, Close the Gap 
• Ian Tasker, CEO, Scottish Hazards 
• Ian MacCorquodale, Welfare Rights Manager, Glasgow Disability Alliance (GDA) 
• Sholen Macpherson, Policy and Research Officer, Coalition for Racial Equality and Rights (CRER) 
• Professor Ewan Macdonald OBE, Consultant Occupational Physician
• Dr David Haldane, Consultant Occupational Physician, Faculty of Occupational Medicine Scotland 
• Rachel Thomson, Equality Officer, Scottish Trades Union Congress (STUC) 

Apologies

• Barbara Donegan, Welfare Rights Worker, Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG) 

Scottish Government officials present

• Matthew Duff, Social Security Policy 

• Daniel Rennie, Social Security Policy 
• Mimi Nicholls, Social Security Policy 
   

Items and actions

Welcome and introductions

1.1 The Co-Chairs, Tressa Burke and Elma Murray welcomed members to the second meeting of the Employment Injury Assistance Steering Group. Members and officials were then invited to briefly introduce themselves to new attendees. The Co-Chairs formally welcomed Rachel Thomson from the Scottish Trades Union Congress to the meeting.

Approval of minutes from last meeting and update of work by Co-chairs and officials to date

2.1 Members approved the minutes from the previous meeting subject to a minor amendment. Members agreed that point 3 on page 4 should be amended to “Concern at low take-up of IIS and that a future benefit must consider how to reach everyone as well as seldom-heard and under-represented groups“ to reflect a more inclusive approach prior to publication. Agenda points are also to be numbered going forward for ease of reference.

2.2 Officials agreed to share the Scottish Government web page created for the group with members.

2.3 Co-chairs requested that an issues register be created and used alongside the action log.

2.4 Officials confirmed that progress has been made on papers considering data analysis as requested by members and will be presented in the next meeting.

2.5 Co-chairs confirmed that contact had been made with a representative from the Scottish Chamber of Commerce. A meeting has been arranged between officials, a co-chair and the representative to discuss their potential involvement in the Steering Group. There was also discussion around involvement of representatives from the legal sector and how best to capture their relevant expertise.

2.6 Officials confirmed that papers could be printed, and physical copies provided should members request this.

Social Security Charter Q&A

3.1 Co-chairs confirmed that all members received the papers sent out prior to the meeting. The papers suggest a number of points to aid the discussion on Steering Group principles, with reference to the Social Security Charter, the Social Security (Scotland) Act, the Public Sector Equality Duty and the Christie principles. The co-chair highlighted that while some of these are enshrined in law (the Act and the Charter), others might also be worth embedding in the work of the group. The co-chair emphasised the Social Security Scotland Act principle of continuous improvement to be of particular importance for reform. 

3.2 The following general points were raised in response to how these principles might be applied in practice:

• the key role for welfare and advocacy groups to support and help communicate changes to recipients of the current Scheme 
• the difficulty organisations encounter when raising feedback to Social Security Scotland. This has the potential to make continuous improvement challenging
• the under-reporting of disease and injury caused by employment
• the degree to which the protection of current awards should be a priority for the group i.e. whether a safe and secure transition can be guaranteed 
• the need for Employment Injury Assistance to be widely promoted to encourage people to apply
• principles should be designed to be outcome focussed 
• any policy development should be supported by thorough equality impact assessments to ensure the consideration of a full range of data and evidence is taken into account

Discussion on Steering Group principles

4.1 Members agreed that the principles of the Charter and the Social Security Scotland Act, and the Christie principles should be adopted by the group. While the relevance and importance of these principles were acknowledged, some members noted that they were vague and not enforceable. 

4.2 Members highlighted that in line with the Christie principles, any work must be done in partnership with those who receive the benefit. It was also highlighted that the Group had a responsibility to rectify inequality present in the current Scheme under the Public Sector Equality Duty.

4.3 Members were invited to offer reflections on the discussion paper shared by officials prior to the meeting. Discussion touched upon a range of considerations for the formation of principles for reform, including:

• the need to consider the high-level strategic direction for reform of the Scheme, alongside the operational steps involved in this, in order for work to be efficient and the challenges this will present
• a recognition that the current Scheme is at odds with the principles the group are looking to propose, particularly with its use of the medical model of disability, as opposed to a social mode. 
• how Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit (IIDB) sits alongside Adult Disability Payment (ADP) and other benefits, and the unique purpose and rationale for IIDB in relation to being a form of compensation for a workplace injury or disease
• how a reformed Scheme should sit alongside a well-equipped occupational health service to ensure individuals can access support in a timely manner. 
• the importance of focusing on needs and outcomes
• how shortages in specialists in occupational medicine and in diagnostics in Scotland might pose challenges to certain reforms and how they are implemented

4.4 There was general agreement that no one should be disadvantaged by reform of the Scheme. Some members highlighted that it would be useful to understand the delivery options available to be able to assess whether this principle will be feasible or desirable. It was highlighted that options for full reform might be limited by the need to protect current recipients of the Scheme, of which many have lifetime awards.

4.5 Some members raised the importance of addressing current shortcomings in rehabilitation for those who are able. It was noted that consideration of this should be done with sensitivity to ensure this doesn’t risk people’s awards. The UK Government reforms to Universal Credit were referenced in relation to this. Wider issues around reporting of occupation diseases, and where the responsibility for this lies, were raised. 

4.6 There was some discussion around the typical length of an IIDB award. While many will stay in receipt of a payment for life under the Scheme, rather than losing eligibility following a review, it was noted that some clients will have their award reviewed depending on their condition and expected recovery. Alternatively, others may experience an improvement in their condition but will not be scheduled for a review. It was noted that this is an important factor in considering reform and delivery options.

4.7 Officials were asked whether data on how many people receive IIDB alongside Adult Disability Payment could be shared with the group, as well as the value of these awards. Officials agreed to find out this information.

4.8 Officials were also asked about the rate in which the awards in Scotland for IIDB are decreasing. Officials noted that the caseload has on average been decreasing by around 1000 awards per year.  

4.9 Members agreed that it would be helpful to understand how the work of the Steering Group will sit alongside work currently being carried out on the links between health and employment, as well as the Women’s Health Plan. A member agreed to look into this and provide a summary for the next meeting of the Steering Group. It was noted that there is an opportunity to both align the work of the group with other workstreams and influence them where possible given the important links and potential impact on other areas.

4.10 A member has highlighted that they can approach a colleague who sits on the UK Industrial Injuries Advisory Council to attend a future meeting. Members agreed and suggested that questions should be prepared ahead of this meeting.

Any other business and agree next meeting

5.1 Officials agreed to draft a set of principles based on the discussion. There was agreement that any principles should be reviewed at later meetings due to the likelihood that they may need to be revised in line with emerging evidence.

5.2 Officials to schedule the next EIA Steering Group meeting for August. The agenda for the next meeting is to include consideration of mapping work of the Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit (IIDB) and associated payments submitted by members, the high-level delivery options paper prepared by officials, as well as the data analysis work prepared by officials. 

5.3 Officials reiterated that they could schedule separate meetings for members who cannot attend if requested. Co-chairs agreed to meet with members who sent apologies. 

5.4 Members discussed future use of alternative meeting spaces. Suggestions include the STUC meeting space, the Social Hub, the Social Security Scotland High Street building. 

5.5 Co-chairs highlighted some members are still to submit their personal biographies to officials.

5.6 The Co-Chairs sincerely thanked all members for their attendance and for their valuable contributions and closed the meeting.

Actions

1. Officials to make amendments to the minutes from the last meeting. 
2. Officials to share the Steering Group webpage with members.
3. Officials to create an issues register.
4. Officials to provide data requested within the meeting.
5. Representative from IIAC to be invited to the group for a future meeting.
6. Officials to draft principles based on the discussion in the meeting.
7. Members to submit personal biographies if haven’t already done so.
8. Member to draft a short review on the progress that is being made in Scotland to consider the links between health and work.