Employment Injury Assistance Steering Group minutes: March 2026

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)
• Dr David Haldane, Consultant Occupational Physician, Faculty of Occupational Medicine Scotland
• Moira Escreet, Welfare Rights Officer, Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG)
• Professor Ewan Macdonald OBE, Consultant Occupational Physician

 

Apologies

• Rachel Thomson, Equality Officer, Scottish Trades Union Congress (STUC)

 

Panel of Solicitors

• Bruce Shields, Thomsons Solicitors
• Euan Love, Digby Brown

 

Scottish Government officials present

• Matthew Duff, Social Security Policy
• Risga Summers, Social Security Policy
• Shelley Smith, Social Security Policy
• Daniel Rennie, Social Security Policy
• Daniel Birrell, Social Security Policy
• Jack McAllister, Social Security Policy

Items and actions

Welcome and Introductions

Co-Chairs welcomed members to the seventh meeting of the Employment Injury Assistance (EIA) Steering Group.

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

Members requested that the word “overlapping” on page 5 of the minutes be changed to a more specific description of how Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit (IIDB) interacts with other benefits to prevent misunderstanding. This is because “overlapping” has a separate and specific meaning.

Members approved the revised minutes from the previous meeting and agreed to their publication on the Steering Group web page.

Members asked for clarification from officials on the definition of the “open” classification in the action log. Officials confirmed this means “in progress.”     

Members sought an update on the draft initial recommendations. Officials responded that this work is in progress and that it captured multiple areas in which there had been some agreement through the course of the group’s discussions.

International comparisons sub-group

Members provided an update on the first meeting of the sub-group on international comparisons, noting New Zealand as being of particular interest. They also shared their conclusion that a completely open model would not be appropriate for Scotland due to the high complexity involved, and wider social security landscape in which EIA will sit. 

Members spoke about examples of different funding models from different countries. State insurance funded options and private insurance funded options were discussed, with members agreeing that there was limited value in exploring privately funded models further. 
    
Officials advised that a detailed minute from the International Comparisons subgroup would be given to members ahead of the next meeting and be published on the Steering Group web page.

Lived experience

Officials advised that they have arranged a lived experience event with Clydebank Asbestos Group and will provide an update at the next meeting.

Members noted the benefits of hearing the perspective of younger people and considered methods of facilitating this. 

Members discussed the possibility of engagement through unions, including an upcoming STUC conference. Officials mentioned that discussions with STUC are ongoing about different options for engagement through their networks.

The Co-Chairs raised the subject of racial inequality in regard to benefit take up. Members suggested specific community organisations and law centres who may be able to facilitate engagement. Members and officials agreed to contact the identified organisations. Officials also highlighted the work of the Benefit Take Up Stakeholder Reference Group of around 50 organisations, including seldom heard groups such as ethnic minority communities who have links to particular community specific organisations.

Solicitors panel

Following introductions, Bruce Shields (Thompsons Solicitors) and Euan Love (Digby Brown) began the discussion by highlighting that Asbestos related diseases are still a very current concern due to the legacy of shipbuilding and construction since the 1960s.

The panel advised that asbestos exposure still happens today, noting the level of exposure faced by tradespeople who work in buildings built using asbestos.

The panel noted the increasing number of women diagnosed with mesothelioma and lung cancer and that doctors are misdiagnosing some cases as smoking-related lung cancer. A view was expressed that more doctors should be better able to recognise cases of serious respiratory illnesses caused by asbestos exposure.

The panel shared that their primary client group is mostly those recently retired after a life of employment. They are consequently unfamiliar with the process of applying for benefits and might be uncomfortable at the idea of “taking from the state.” 

It was set out that the current forms required to apply for Industrial Injuries Scheme (IIS) benefits are “off putting,” and that there are third sector organisations and charities that assist in filling out these forms for clients. 

The panel noted that the industrial injury benefits are a significant positive contributor to the quality of life of people experiencing asbestos related illnesses.

The panel expressed support for the formation of a Scottish Industrial Injuries Advisory Council, calling this vital for positive long-term change. 

The panel were asked about how clients come to them. They confirmed that medical professionals will refer specialist cases they are treating on to relevant charities, who then refer on to solicitors.
Equalities issues and uptake 

The group asked the panel for their opinion on the low uptake of IIDB among women. The panel said that for the conditions and occupations currently prescribed for, there is no peer reviewed evidence that shows women are under-represented relative to their presence in the professions that cause increased risk. This lack of research and evidence was therefore considered to be the biggest barrier. The group re-stated their preference for funding to be set aside for epidemiological research for any future advisory council.

The group discussed known examples where women have been exposed to asbestos but are currently considered ineligible to receive IIDB. Examples discussed were when women wash their partners clothes which are contaminated with asbestos, and of a chemistry teacher who is exposed through classroom scientific equipment. Both experience asbestos exposure because of its existence in workplaces but are not entitled to IIDB.

The panel also noted that young people have little knowledge of industrial injuries or the wider Scottish benefits system, which is a barrier to them applying.

The 1978 Pearson report was raised as containing positive recommendations which were not acted on. It encouraged the adoption of an “individual proof system” as another route to receive IIDB where an illness or disability is caused by workplace exposure but not detailed on the prescribed list. This would open up the benefit to potentially address some of the barriers and disparities identified by the group.

The group noted that self-employed workers are not currently eligible for IIDB. The panel agreed they should be eligible for assistance because many workers who are classed as self-employed work directly for companies who provide their PPE and materials, and should therefore be covered as “employed earners.”

The panel raised the point that a number of BME workers are employed through employment agencies who do not provide adequate access to safety equipment and information or have knowledge of IIDB.

Benefit take up strategy

A representative of Scottish Government benefit take-up policy gave a presentation on the benefit take-up strategy.

The Co-Chairs asked if consideration is being given to engaging with trade unions. Officials responded that there was trade union involvement in the original benefit take up strategy, but this has since discontinued. The benefit take up team are looking to re-engage with trade unions in the future. 

The group asked if there were plans to engage further with medical professionals in increasing benefit take up, and increasing awareness of industrial injuries, not just illness. Officials responded that engaging in a more joined up approach that involves medical professionals, and also better checks for EIA eligibility during screening for other benefits such as Adult Disability Payment, could be explored further in the future.

The group discussed reaching potential clients where they are most likely to be, such as reaching out to young people by raising awareness on social media and going out to large employers to raise awareness of industrial injury benefits especially among women in the workforce.

AOB and next meeting

The next meeting will be held on 26 May 2026 at Social Security Scotland’s High Street office and via an online link.

The group discussed Fiona McKee leaving the Group, and the possibility of inviting a replacement business representative. It was agreed that it was too late to bring in a new group member given the stage discussions had reached. Instead, a session with employers was suggested, similar in set-up to the solicitor’s panel. Organisations that employ a large proportion of women, and organisations representing care workers, were highlighted as potential areas of particular interest.

Reflecting on the success of the panel structure, noting that it enabled a rich discussion with subject matter experts, it was agreed that holding two further panels would be beneficial, one with employers and one with unions.

Co-chairs thanked members for their time and closed the meeting.

Actions

• amend previous minutes
• provide minutes of the first meeting of the International Comparisons sub-group to the Group
• arrange an update about the upcoming lived experience event with Clydebank Asbestos Group for the next meeting
• contact the organisations identified by the group to discuss lived experience and benefit take up for BME clients
• officials to bring together a list of employers and unions for panel sessions at future meetings
• officials to email the group for further suggestions for panellists
• Action on Asbestos to provide officials with completed questionnaires from lived experience events conducted so far
• GDA to feed back on questionnaire questions ahead of sharing with members