Employment Injury Assistance Steering Group minutes: October 2025

Attendees and apologies

• 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

Apologies

• Co-chair: Tressa Burke, CEO, Glasgow Disability Alliance (GDA)
• Dr David Haldane, Consultant Occupational Physician, Faculty of Occupational Medicine Scotland 
• Rachel Thomson, Equality Officer, Scottish Trades Union Congress (STUC) 
• Fiona McKee, The HR Practice

Scottish Goverment officials

• Matthew Duff, Social Security Policy 
• Daniel Rennie, Social Security Policy 
• Shelley Smith, Social Security Policy
• Allan McWatt, Operational Research Analyst

Items and actions

Welcome and introductions

Co-Chair, Elma Murray welcomed members to the third meeting of the Employment Injury Assistance Steering Group.

Elma confirmed that Fiona McKee from The HR Practice agreed to join as a new member of the EIA Steering Group to represent business interests although she is not in attendance today.

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

Members approved the minutes from the previous meeting and agreed to their publication on the Scottish Government web page for the group. This page was shared with the members prior to the meeting.

The Principles paper has been updated following the last meeting and members confirmed they were content with this. It was agreed that changes can still be made as the work of the group progresses.

Officials provided an update on the latest commissioned Industrial Injury Advisory Council (IIAC) report called “A review of the evidence of women’s health and occupation” that has recently been published. 

The Co-Chair talked through the action log and issues register and members agreed to close specific actions that have been completed. 

Industrial Injuries Scheme and reserved payment schemes mapping paper 

Co-Chair Elma Murray thanked members for their work on the mapping paper. Members discussed the challenges of moving away from a medical model of disability used in the current scheme, and towards a social model of disability used in Social Security Scotland benefits. 

Data paper

Officials summarised available and accessible data on recipients of IIDB in response to questions raised during previous meetings. There was also a discussion of the limitations on available data given the reliance on what the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) collect and publish.

Members raised the lack of available data on successful applications as an issue as data generally focussed on applications in general. The usefulness of data on appeals was also discussed. Officials agreed to carry out more work on this and raise information sharing requests with DWP if necessary. 

Members cited the importance of potential variation between the Block Grant Adjustment (BGA) received by the Scottish Government for IIDB and the Scottish Fiscal Commission forecasts for spend in Scotland. The narrative around social security spend, and scrutiny of disability benefits spend in particular, was acknowledged.

Members discussed the potential usefulness of international comparisons to understand different options for reform. This led to discussion about issues with the current eligibility criteria, specifically around whether occupations and conditions be prescribed on the balance of probabilities or, as in the current system, on the doubling of risk to workers in those occupations.

Equalities 

Officials gave a presentation on high level equalities considerations to support the paper provided in advance of the meeting, focusing on gender, age and race disparities.

The paper and presentation sparked a wide-ranging discussion on current gaps in understanding and data, the need for further analysis, and whether further disparities need to be considered. For example, the characterisation in the paper of women’s work often existing in the ‘informal’ sector, and thereby excluded from research and official statistics, was challenged. Instead, the exclusion of women and gender was said to be structural and across sectors.

A differentiation was identified between race disparity and the specific challenges faced by migrant workers. It was noted that these disparities often overlap but that they are distinct. 

The group agreed that migrant workers face specific challenges including being at higher risk of industrial injury and more likely to be discriminated against. Members discussed the lack of reporting of industrial injuries by migrant workers especially when an accident occurs. 

Members also identified incidents involving agency workers, which often include a higher proportion of migrants, to be under reported in the available data to determine the inequalities represented for this group of people. The under-reporting through RIDDOR (the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations) means that data does not capture the level of incidents for certain groups.

Members then discussed poverty, rurality, and class as barriers that can intersect with race, age, and gender. Discussion centred on how this might decrease access to the current Scheme alongside lower general awareness and promotion of the Scheme.

To address this concern suggestions, were made to add a question to the Adult  Disability Payment (ADP) application form regarding whether the disability or health condition was caused by work. This could allow Social Security Scotland to signpost individuals who identify as having has an industrial injury to Employment Injury Assistance (EIA).

Members then discussed how the current list of prescribed diseases and occupations is the main barrier to many people applying for benefits under the Scheme. It was noted that resolving this would very likely widen eligibility.

This moved the discussion to a wider consideration of occupation health, including preventive measures in the workplace and enforcement of health and safety laws which could ultimately reduce the amount of applications for IIDB. It was noted that the group will consider prevention and rehabilitation in a future meeting.

The group identified that there needs to be a deeper analysis and use of more sources to consider the intersectionality between disparities. It was also agreed that the input of people with lived experience was crucial. 

Officials set out that the paper was a starting point for discussion and consideration and it was agreed that work would continue on the basis of the discussion. Members agreed to share ongoing work and research, as well as further contacts, to support that work. 

Delivery options paper

In response to a previous request from the group, officials provided an overview of different delivery models for EIA and high level approaches to reform. These options were not exhaustive, rather they were frameworks identified by ongoing and previous work of the Scottish Government. 

It was acknowledged that this agenda item touched on a number of areas that the group are planning to discuss in more detail. Therefore, no final decisions were intended to be taken on models of delivery.

While responses to the public consultation largely favoured longer-term reform over a like-for-like replacement of IIDB, some members noted that a like-for-like replacement may be seen as beneficial for current clients, enable issues with administration of the Scheme to be addressed, and make future reform easier. 

There was shared concern around potential negative impacts to current clients as a result of some of the options. These included any option which meant current clients had to apply, even with enhanced support. There was therefore a preference for automatic case transfer. The importance of protecting current awards was emphasised.

The group returned to the challenges of case transfer which will need to be addressed with the UK Government. Different precedents were raised, including negative experiences as part of the UK Government’s migration of awards onto Universal Credit and more positive experiences associated with the case transfer of people’s awards from Personal Independence Payment (PIP) to ADP.

The issue of whether a Scottish advisory council, potentially with an equivalent or similar role to the current UK Industrial Injuries Advisory Council (IIAC) was raised. There was a general preference for the establishment of a Scottish body which could advise EIA specifically. It was noted that this could have a wider remit than IIAC to address the issues identified above.

There was discussion of the current system of prescribing diseases and occupations and criticism of the length of time this takes, as well as the threshold which needs to be met for prescription to occur. It was suggested that reforming the occupations, rather than the conditions, could make a significant difference in widening access.

Lived experience 

Co-Chair Elma Murray discussed the requirement as per the Terms of Reference to engaging with both from those with experience of applying for and receiving IIS benefits, and those who do not to ensure the group are identifying barriers. Members discussed ways in which their organisation can help in addition to the suggestion of using Social Security Scotland client panels to gain an understanding of peoples’ experience of the wider social security system.

The co-chair referred to the Adult Disability Payment Independent review as an example of how to engage and receive the input of people with lived experience.

Due to the complexities and vulnerabilities of clients the group agreed any approach to lived experience must be practical and adaptable to meet the needs of disabled people.

A number of members agreed to use their existing networks to reach individuals that currently receive IIS benefits and those that do not but may qualify but are unaware of the current Scheme. These included Action on Asbestos’ network which meet across Scotland and could contribute to the work of the group, and Glasgow Disability Alliance which has 6,000 members.

Another approach considered by the group was the use of questionnaires, but it was noted that this has some pitfalls such as low-quality data or a lack of engagement but could be an additional resource.

To ensure that the group reaches the widest possible cohort of individuals with lived experience, it was agreed that  engagement with trade unions and anti-poverty organisations would be helpful. For example, trade unions could provide input from different and specific sectors such as health and social care. The value of engaging with unions that represent zero contract workers and workers in the ‘gig economy’, who are more at risk of accidents at work, alongside organisations like “Better than Zero” was also recognised. This would also allow the group to try and make sure it is as inclusive of people within the inequalities identified with the current scheme. 

Another consideration by the group, was how to reach people with mental health conditions which are not prescribed for the current Scheme. Members provided some helpful suggestions for organisations and contacts. 

Workplan

All members were in agreement with the updated workplan. 

Any other business and agree next meeting

Co-Chair Elma Murray advised the next meeting will be held on 11 November in Glasgow. 

Officials will organise invitations and papers will be sent out in advance of the next meeting.

Actions

• update action log and issues register
• take forward work on equalities analysis, with members’ contributions
• take forward work on data on the back of the above discussion
• develop plan for lived experience on the back of the above discussion
• contact IIAC member and invite them to a future meeting
• share papers for next meeting, including papers on international comparisons
• share relevant papers and research commissioned or carried out by members relating to the above discussion
• contact networks and provide officials with any contacts to help the work to develop a plan to engage with lived experience