Employment Injury Assistance Steering Group minutes: June 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 

Apologies 

• Rachel Thomson, Equality Officer, Scottish Trades Union Congress (STUC) 
• Barbara Donegan, Welfare Rights Worker, Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG) 

Scottish Government officials 

• Matthew Duff, Team Leader, Social Security Policy 
• Daniel Rennie, Policy Social Security Policy 
• Mimi Nicholls, Social Security Policy

Items and actions

Welcome remarks by Co-chairs and introductions

1.1 The Co-Chairs, Tressa Burke and Elma Murray welcomed members to the first meeting of the Employment Injury Assistance Steering Group. Members and officials were then invited to introduce themselves.

1.2 The Co-Chairs set out the Scottish Government’s commitment that the Group should identify priorities for longer term reform of Employment Injury Assistance to ensure that it better meets the needs of disabled people in Scotland. They set out that there was an opportunity for the Group to improve outcomes for disabled people.

1.3 The Co-Chairs outlined the political context in which the group will be operating, particularly in relation to disability benefits, before opening the floor for introductory discussion. Members provided opening remarks about the current Industrial Injuries Scheme (IIS), their interest in the policy area, and what they expect from the Group.

1.4 In doing so, members noted the:

• low level of occupation health and vocational rehabilitation provision in Scotland compared to other countries
• range of equalities issues for the group to consider, particularly in relation to gender and race 
• conditions and occupations either not widely applied for or not covered by the IIS at all, including certain cancers and silicosis, and that there were gaps in research in both these areas

1.5 Members agreed that the current IIS is very medicalised, and that Employment Injury Assistance should aim to align with the social model of disability in line with the disability benefits that the Scottish Government has delivered to date. However, it was noted this will be a challenge due to the complexities, age and entrenched nature of the medicalised model within the IIS.

Terms of Reference and workplan

Terms of Reference 

2.1 The Co-Chairs provided an outline of the Terms of Reference and Workplan before inviting comments from the Group.

2.2 There was some discussion about how the Terms of Reference referred to the transition to a new system and how this would take place, accounting for the anxiety felt by current clients about the transfer of awards from the UK Government to Social Security Scotland.

2.3 There was also discussion about the scope and whether this was sufficiently broad to consider prevention and rehabilitation. It was felt that the Group needs more research and background information on this topic. Indeed, the lack of research was identified as a wider issue, and it was suggested that the Group could consider different examples of models of industrial injuries benefits and occupational health schemes from different countries.

2.4 The Group discussed the range of implications of case transfer (the moving of awards from the UK Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) to Social Security Scotland), identifying this as a major consideration and source of complexity. They discussed previous precedents such as the Scottish Government’s Disability Assistance and within Local Government. The Group acknowledged the potential anxiety of current clients around reform and possible disruption to their award.

2.5 The Group asked officials if they will have access to Scottish Government analysts to support its work. Officials confirmed this would be the case and offered to invite them to a future meeting.

2.6 The Group agreed on the need to request ad hoc attendees with specific expertise relating to certain agenda items.

2.7 The Terms of Reference were agreed to by members, subject to a minor addition to the scope, and it was agreed that minutes will be anonymised and published on the Scottish Government website once cleared by members.

Workplan

2.8 The Group broadly agreed to the workplan although it was noted that the timeline is ambitious give the scale of the challenge and complexities to work through.

2.9 The Group discussed how to make sure the workplan accounted for the input of lived experience. It was agreed that members could use their existing networks to assist with gathering data and views from those with experience of the IIS. 

2.10 It was agreed that officials would flesh out the workplan to account for the key themes and priorities identified during the meeting, namely prevention; security of current awards; equalities; and data and research.

2.11 Discussion of the workplan prompted several other points relating to the priorities of the group including: 

• how to reach people who do not receive but may be entitled to Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit (IIDB) – it was noted that many people in underrepresented groups are unaware of their rights and available support
• the need for further research into occupational ill health and disease in relation to how much this costs the Scottish economy. This cost should be factored into discussions of affordability
• the need to engage business representatives to get a better understanding of employer responsibility in relation to industrial injury and potentially with representatives from the legal and insurance sectors
• the need to pro-actively consider equalities issues from the outset

Discussion of priorities for the Group

3.1 Officials gave a presentation on the background to the IIS and on policy development to date. This was to inform members’ discussion on the current challenges of devolving the IIS and on priorities for reform.

3.2 The Scottish Government’s preferred approach is for future longer-term reform of the structure and framework of the IIS. However, the Group noted that consideration of how Employment Injury Assistance is delivered, and the transfer of awards should be given as part of these discussions.

3.3 The Group discussed first priorities. It was noted that the delivery options were already largely known. It was therefore agreed that officials would provide a paper outlining the different delivery options, including high level options for case transfer. 

3.4 The Group sought clarity from officials about the Agency Agreement with DWP for delivery of IIS in Scotland. Officials confirmed this has been agreed until March 2027 and that the Scottish Government will continue to work closely with the DWP regarding the expected requirement to extend beyond this date. Members agreed there should be a set of principles that underpin the work of the Group. This should align with the Social Security Charter and take into account the principles set out in the Social Security (Scotland) Act 2018. The Group agreed to hold a further, shorter meeting in July to agree these principles.

3.5 It was noted that the work of the Group should also align with the Public Sector Equalities Duty alongside other statutory duties and that there may be a need for knowledge building on these which could be led by officials. 

3.6 The Group raised and sought clarity on a number of issues as part of this discussion, including:

• cross border eligibility, for example people moving between England and Scotland and vice versa. Officials explained that legislation exists for other benefits such as Adult Disability Payment that sets out residence and presence conditions
• the existence of research and/or data on trends in how many women receive IIDB and whether this has increased or decreased in recent years 
• 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
• the need for consideration of reform to take into account impacts on passported benefits, included the lump-sum payment schemes that are reserved to the UK Government
• the fact that the current IIS does not cover self-employed workers, including workers in the gig economy

3.7 The Group agreed that there should be an update on data at each meeting, provided by officials. This is to ensure the Group are considering and monitoring relevant research to help identify any gaps. 

Ways of working

4.1 It was acknowledged that substitutes may be necessary given external pressures. However, the Co-Chairs advised that all substitutes be fully briefed in order to actively participate in discussions.

4.2 Members agreed other subject matter experts can be invited on an ad hoc basis as required to provide evidence when discussing certain agenda items. This will be agreed in advance of meetings. 

4.3 The Group asked officials to create an action list to keep track and allocate ownership of tasks.

4.4 Most members are Glasgow based. A preference for in-person meetings was expressed although it was recognised that hybrid meetings will be useful. It was agreed that future in-person meetings can be in Glasgow. 

4.5 The Group discussed the length of future meetings. Consensus was agreed to keep the meetings to a half day but remain flexible to make amendments depending on the agenda items for that meeting. 

Any other business and close

5.1 Officials to schedule the next EIA Steering Group meeting, provisionally agreed for 15 July. 

5.2 The Co-Chairs sincerely thanked all members for their attendance and for their valuable contributions throughout the day, noting the range of experiences and level of technical expertise in the Group. 

5.3 The Co-Chairs closed the meeting.

Actions

1. update Terms of Reference
2. members to engage with their existing client base and networks to develop approach to getting input of people with lived experience
3. officials will engage with Scottish Government analysts for any research related request from the Group
4. officials and Co-Chairs will continue to seek the input of business organisations
5. officials to send the presentation slide deck to all members
6. the Co-Chairs will draft the set of principles for the Group which will be discussed at the next meeting. Officials to support with this work
7. officials will provide a briefing paper for the next meeting which sets out the high-level delivery options for Employment Injury Assistance
8. officials will create an action list