 The next item of business is a debate on motion 12882, in the name of Mark Griffin, on Scottish Employment Injuries Advisory Council Bill at stage 1. I invite members wishing to participate in the debate to press the request to speak buttons now or as soon as possible. I call on Mark Griffin to speak to and move the motion around eight minutes. Mr Griffin. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and just to outset make a voluntary declaration of interest as a member of USDOT and Unions. Today I'm absolutely delighted to move the motion in my name and ask that Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Scottish Employment Injuries Advisory Council Bill. Before I properly begin, I'd like to thank the staff in the non-government's bill unit who have worked closely with me to introduce this bill to Parliament alongside members of my own staff past and present. This bill will establish an independent advisory council with permanent trade union and worker representatives. It will scrutinise the legislative proposals and framework for employment injury benefit in Scotland. The bill gives the council the power to investigate and review emerging, industrial and employment hazards that result in disablement through disease or injury. That includes the power to conduct research independently and make recommendations for the ongoing evolution of the devolved employment injuries assistance framework. The council's investigations may lead to the expansion of benefit eligibility to further groups of people who are injured or ill because of where they work. I appeal to every member in this chamber not to turn their backs on the workers who find themselves grappling with injury and disease brought on as a result of their job. Nurses, social care workers, teachers, footballers and shop workers who have become ill directly because of the work that they do, deserve our support. Sheena, a teacher in Dundee who now suffers from long Covid after likely catching the virus in the classroom that she was teaching in. She told me about her invisible disease, which has left her hard of hearing and continually fatigued, unable to return to the job that she loves. Sam, who suffers from an asbestos-related condition, has highlighted the plight of women workers who have been exposed to chemicals, dyes and dust, yet a gendered system effectively prevents their entitlement to the benefits that they clearly need. John Mason? I thank the member for giving way. I think that there is a lot of agreement with what he says that we should absolutely be dealing with some of these issues, but I am right in saying that his bill does not include any money, any costing to pay the teachers, the other people who do deserve such benefits. Mark Griffin? It establishes a council that establishes the workers who are impacted by these illnesses and injuries that gets them round the table to design the benefit. The budget to pay for those conditions has been devolved from the UK Parliament to this Parliament. It is up to this Parliament to take the responsibility of creating a system that is fit for purpose that does not ignore the female workers that have been ignored for the last 40 to 50 years. The female workers, if you had a man who works with asbestos and contracts Mrs Leoma as a result of their exposure, are covered, but if you are a woman who works in an environment with asbestos because you just happen to not touch the asbestos through the course of your work but still inhaled the fumes every day, you are completely ignored by this system and it is people like that that we need round the table to design this benefit as it is introduced, as it is devolved and it is a huge gap in the devolution process so far. I really need to express my sincere thanks to Sheena, to Sam and the countless others who have shared their absolutely heartbreaking stories with me over the years. I am absolutely convinced me of the need, the necessity for this bill. Organisations like the Disabled Workers' Committee of the SDUC, Action on Asbestos, Thompson Solicitors, Scottish Hazards, Lonco with Scotland, Child Poverty Action Group, Close the Gap, Scottish Healthcare Workers Coalition and even the Government's own established fair work convention have all shaped and supported the development of this bill. I am grateful for the endorsement of trade unions, including UNITE, USDOT, GMB, Unison, PFA Scotland, the Fire Brigade Union, all members of the STUC backed this proposal. The SNP trade union group backed this proposal, it is just a shame that the Government does not listen to their own trade union members. Yesterday, the STUC unanimously adopted a motion of support for this bill, calling for the Government to accelerate the delivery of Scottish employment injury assistance and an advisory council. I would also like to mention that the many ex-professional footballers who have supported my colleague Michael Marra's injury time campaign to have brain injuries and football classified as an industrial injury. That is a cross-party campaign, support from SNP MPs down south but does not seem to have the support up here. It is backed by Sir Alex Ferguson, Craig Levine, Gordon Strack and Alex McLeish. All those organisations that work at and support have highlighted the absolute urgency of giving people who are ill because of their job a stronger voice and a fairer deal in terms of employment injury assistance in Scotland. Nobody, absolutely nobody, should suffer unnecessarily because of the job they once did. Firefighters who keep us safe from burning buildings and toxic fumes are now three times more likely to suffer from prostate cancer, leukemia or esophageal cancer. Right now they are entitled to absolutely no support for the Government in recognition of the role their job played in making them ill. Teachers who worked in classrooms with asbestos are now suffering from mesothelioma but again entitled to no support. Footballers like Billy McNeill and Gordon McQueen were three times more likely than the rest of us to suffer from dementia but again entitled to no support for the illness that their job caused. I'm very grateful to my colleague Given Way and we've heard across this chamber throughout this session and indeed at last we recognise the importance of the lived experience of people to feed into the construction of legislation and isn't your proposal today the very visual effect of that, of lived experienced people being able to formulate so that going forward future people have a much better benefit than they've had? Mark Griffin. I absolutely thank Mark Griffin for that intervention. It seems strange that we have a current UK industrial injuries system, where we have a UK advisory council, with medical experts, with trade unionists, with people with lived experience sitting on that council advising government, with devolved the system and we cut out trade unionists, we cut out workers, we cut out people with lived experience and somehow pretend that this Parliament is a more progressive place than the big bad Westminster. It's clearly not, it's clearly failing workers, those with lived experience, those who absolutely deserve a seat at the table to make sure that this newly devolved benefit is absolutely fit for purpose. The only reason that I have heard from the Government to oppose this piece of legislation is that it's not the right time. I absolutely cannot accept or understand this argument at all. The Government must produce a business case in line with their agreement with the Department of Work and Pension. They must devise and publish a business case for the end of March 2025 on the devolution and the introduction of this new benefit. That's less than a year away. How can the Government expect to create that business case to devise a fairer system for those who become ill or injured at the work without the very people who have become injured and ill at the work? Rwynt o table, setting up that new benefit, setting out what the entitlement criteria should be, designing the system from day one. It's a huge, it's a huge emission. Sorry, Mr Mason, I think I'm in my last minute but I'd be happy to take another intervention in my closing speech. I think the time for action is now. This bill represents a crucial opportunity to deliver meaningful change and I would ask the Government in closing, if not now, then when. I want to begin by thanking Mark Griffin for his ongoing commitment to people who have experienced an industrial injury or occupational disease, evidenced by the introduction of this bill. Equally, I want to pay tribute to those who have worked with him in the development of this bill and have given evidence and taken part in that consultation process that he has driven. I also want to express my appreciation to the members of the Social Justice and Social Security Committee for their thorough consideration of the bill and a very comprehensive report. I do recognise that there is a degree of support for the concept of a Scottish advisory council. I am keenly aware of some of the issues that people have with the UK Government's industrial injuries scheme, many of which the member has referred to in his opening remarks. However, it is primarily related to the current scheme's age and the changes to the employment landscape in over 70 years since its introduction. That is evidenced by the underrepresentation of women, of young people and of ethnic minorities within the current scheme. Therefore, I very much appreciate the views of many people who would like changes to be made through employment injury assistance, our planned replacement for the UK scheme, and I share those ambitions. I want to work with stakeholders to modernise the scheme in a way that delivers for the people who receive assistance while, of course, delivering value for money. However, while the Government does not oppose the principle of a Scottish advisory council, Mr Griffin's bill would introduce such a body without employment injury assistance being in place. As the committee and many of the stakeholders who gave evidence on the bill recognised, consideration of whether and how a Scottish advisory council should be formed should be taken alongside the wider question of how we deliver employment injury assistance. It is essential that we do things in the most logical order, both in terms of quality development and in terms of the best use of resources and value for money. I am very grateful to the cabinet secretary for giving me. She has just said that the Government agrees with the principles that are circulated by Mark Griffin. Given that stage 1 is about the principles and general purposes of a bill, why is the Government not going to support it at a decision time? I agree with the principles on why Mark Griffin is bringing this forward. I say this with a genuine of greater respect to Mark Griffin, whom I have had a number of discussions with on this. The concerns that he raised in his opening remarks will not be addressed if the advisory council is in place. They do not help us to get any closer to helping the people that the member spoke about. That is exactly why. I will go on to explain some of the reasons why it does not help with that in due course. Until Social Security Scotland is delivering employment injury assistance, we would not be able to act on the recommendations made by the council. We would, in effect, have a council that we will take time to set up. The council would, in essence, not be able to have anyone to report to that would enact their recommendations. There is no possibility of renegotiating the agency agreement with the DWP, which are required to ensure the continuing payment of existing awards in Scotland. I say this with the greatest respect again. I mean this because I think that there is a genuine wish to see a better system here in Scotland. We need to ensure that we are developing the system as a whole, not setting up part of a system that cannot have its recommendations put into practice. It is therefore important to clarify that the bill does not make any changes to the criteria, nor does it mean that the conditions that are not currently covered, such as long Covid, would be considered as an industrial disease. Instead, the bill largely replicates the function of the UK Industrial Injuries Advisory Council, which the committee has heard extensive criticism of. It makes more sense to wait until we have a much better understanding of the level and form of advice and expertise and scrutiny required. I therefore welcome the conclusions of the social justice and social securities committee stage 1 report. That report questions whether the body suggested by the member will deliver on its objectives or its names. I am happy to give way to the member. Michael Marra, I thank the cabinet secretary for giving way. She says that it is more sensible to wait. Does she not realise that for many people, with life debilitating conditions, families suffering, waiting years and years longer is entirely intolerable? I do absolutely appreciate why there is frustration and there is impatience, but that is why I would wish to very shortly be able to introduce the consultation and move on with getting people round the table and working out what the new benefit would look like. I say that with the greatest respect. We do not need the bill or any other statutory footing to get people round the table to design a benefit. We have not needed that for any other benefit, which we have co-designed with people, and we do not need it for this one. Rather than the bill, if it became an act, therefore putting the Government into obligation to be setting up a council, we could actually be already getting those people round the table and having those types of discussion without the bill, and I am happy to confirm that we will be doing so. The committee has raised important questions around whether the model of a statutory advisory council that the bill proposes is the right option for employment injury assistance, because what the bill does is set up a council. It does not set up simply something that advises on the development of a benefit. The committee believes that the creation of an advisory council could add to what can already be a confusing landscape of advice and scrutiny across the UK. That is something that I want to take time to carefully consider, including whether and how a future advisory council might work with the Scottish Commission on Social Security. I ultimately agree with the committee's conclusions that the bill does not represent the most effective way of meeting the aspirations of the many people who do wish to see change in the new system. Replicating a fundamental aspect of the UK system, which has been so widely criticised itself in the absence of proper considerations of the wider purpose structure and administration of employment injury assistance, is not the right approach. By do, as I said, I appreciate that some people are keen to see changes made more quickly. I have made no secret of how complicated replacing the industrial injury scheme will be. Many of the changes that stakeholders want to see, including a greater emphasis on the prevention of workplace disease, are not possible with the powers that we currently have. The scheme as it stands was introduced in 1948 and has delivered almost entirely using a paper-based system. That contrasts with the digital systems that we have used for benefits that have been devolved to date. Developing a paper-based replacement will have costs attached and, if we include any digital actions of replacement, will also have costs attached. Additionally, up to 150,000 files relating to Scottish awards are held in bulky paper case files going back many years. We need to carefully consider how we can do case transfer with the age, condition and allocation of those files. That is important work that we will continue with the UK Government. We are considerably constrained on our ability to make changes in the short term, but I am committed to exploring how employment injury assistance can be reformed so that it meets the needs of the people who are protecting payments to current clients. To that end, we will launch a consultation on employment injury assistance in the coming weeks, specifically focused on the immediate next steps. That is an important first step in what will be a comprehensive process of engagement with stakeholders and crucially with people with lived experience of the current scheme. Following the launch, meetings with disabled people's organisations and trade unions will be set up, should they so wish to take part to discuss the range of challenges with replacing the scheme on our next steps and, of course, the opportunities that come with that, too. In line with our commitments and, depending on the outcome of that consultation, that will, of course, be followed by the establishment of an advisory group. So, again, I stress that we do not need this bill to have that type of group established. This group will consider the responses to the consultation along many of the issues that have been raised during the evidence sessions on this bill. Given the understandable interest generated by the member's bill, I do agree with the committee that it is important that the advisory group carefully consider these offers. If I have time, Presiding Officer. Very briefly, Miles Briggs. Can I just ask what will be the make-up of that advisory group? Cabinet Secretary, in it, I would be obliged if you could start winding up now. Certainly, Presiding Officer. I will say I'm happy to return to that in my closing remarks, but I think particularly people with lived experience, trade union representations and others who have shown an interest during this progress. There's a lot to learn from this bill's progress that we can take forward, but I wish, in closing, Presiding Officer, to reiterate my thanks to Mark Griffin for his work on this important matter. While the Government cannot support the bill, I do appreciate the work that he has done on this, and it will inevitably assist as we develop employment injury assistance in the future. Thank you, Cabinet Secretary. Before calling the next speaker, there have been a number of interventions already. Just a reminder that, as well as asking for an intervention in the normal way, we'd be grateful if members could also press the intervention buttons, which is helpful for those that are joining us online. I now call Collette Stevenson to speak on behalf of the Social Justice and Social Security Committee around seven minutes. Thank you, Presiding Officer. On behalf of the Social Justice and Social Security Committee, I am pleased to contribute to this debate. I'd like to thank all the respondents who sent admissions to the committee's call for views, as well as the organisations and individuals that attended committee meetings to provide evidence. I would also like to thank the clerks for all their assistance in providing an excellent report. In scrutinising the bill, the committee first heard from the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council and the Scottish Commission for Social Security. We then took evidence from witnesses representing trade unions, occupational health, academia and campaign groups. The bill proposes to create an independent Scotland's Employment Injuries Advisory Council, which would, among other functions, scrutinise regulations on employment injury assistance. The plans equivalent to the Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit. The current industrial injuries scheme and associated benefit has now been in place for more than three quarters of a century. The scheme was created for a world that is very different to the one that exists now, and Unite the Union in particular has described it as outdated and laborious. Other witnesses we spoke with were similarly critical of the system in place and highlighted its shortcomings. Witnesses cited and included the fact that it is slow to effect change, fails to deliver for women and ethnic minority workers, and does not take account of modern occupations and diseases. Scottish Trade Union Congress characterised the system as inherently unequal and inaccessible, with a hugely disproportionate impact on women. What came through clearly in evidence was that the system needs to change and there was considerable support for the bill among stakeholders. The Fire Brigade Union said in evidence that having the advisory council in place is essential to reform the benefit so that it is properly devolved and fit for purpose in the modern day. However, despite the strength of sentiment from witnesses, members of the committee felt uncertain that the bill could bring about the change in modernisation that stakeholders want. First, there was concern about whether the advisory council would be able to deliver on its aims and address gaps in data collection, given the limited research budget proposed as part of the bill. Members also questioned whether it would be possible to recruit the expertise needed for an advisory council, given that both the industrial injuries advisory council and the Scottish Commission on Social Security indicated that recruitment has been an issue and the advisory council would be seeking people with similar expertise. There is also the question of timing. The Scottish Government argues that to introduce the bill and the associated advisory council before employment injury assistance is in place, is impractical and financially inappropriate. That is because the Scottish Government's agency agreement with the DWP to deliver the benefit until the case transfer is complete means that it must abide by the DWP policy. Ministers would therefore be unable to act on any of the council's recommendations, even if the bill were to pass. The Scottish Government also said that once employment injury assistance is in place, it would still not make changes to it while some claimants' awards are being delivered by the DWP. That is because to do so would risk the creation of a two-tier system with some potentially better off than others. Another point of opposition is that the Scottish Government has said that it is committed to holding a public consultation on its approach to replacing the industrial injuries scheme in Scotland. It considers that this is a more appropriate way of considering whether to enact a new public body, because the question of whether to create this can be considered alongside other questions related to the new scheme. In its stage 1 report, the committee notes concern that the creation of an advisory council could add to an already cluttered policy landscape. Either way, the committee is very concerned that it is still not clear when consultation will begin and calls on the Scottish Government to urgently provide information on this. The committee notes that in the Cabinet Secretary's written response to the stage 1 report, she said that the Scottish Government intended to publish its consultation in early 2024. Given that it is now April, the committee urges the Scottish Government to provide updated timings. An associated issue that arose during the committee's scrutiny was the time required to complete case transfer of the benefit, as more than 100,000 paper files need to be converted to a digital format. While the Cabinet Secretary picked up on that point in her response to the committee's stage 1 report, we seek a further update on the progress of that, as well as the expected completion date. Returning to the merits of the bill, while the committee recognises the good intentions of the member in charge in bringing it forward, ultimately the majority of the committee could not support it. While we were all persuaded that major reform of industrial injuries benefits is indeed needed, most of the committee remain unconvinced that the bill can deliver the reform that is sought. We do not want its passage to falsely raise expectations. I also felt that the timing was not right. Given the expected Scottish Government consultation and the fact that ministers will remain constrained by the agency agreement with the DWP until case transfer is complete, recommendations made by the advisory council would therefore not be able to be acted upon. It is for those reasons that the committee recommends that the general principles of the bill are not agreed. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in Mr Maid. As a member of the Social Justice and Social Security Committee, I spent a great deal of time over the last number of months carefully considering the bill. I generally do want to commend Mark Griffin for the time and effort he has put in to this process. I know from personal experience that a member's bill requires no small level of effort and dedication to get to this point. I also want to make mention of his parliamentary staff who I know have done a lot of work to support the member to get to where we are today. I also thank the committee clerks for the work that they put in in helping us to produce this report this afternoon. Unfortunately, despite that, I will not be able to support the general principles of the bill as we see it today. While I agree with a number of the underlying assumptions of Mr Griffin, we on these benches do not believe the establishment of a Scottish Employment Advisory Council at this time is the best way forward. One of the most unfortunate aspects of the context surrounding this bill is that it has been brought forward at too early a stage. As clear from the title, the body of the bill seeks to establish is closely linked to the Employment Advisory Assistant benefit. Unfortunately, the Scottish Government is still waiting for EIA to be devolved eight years on from the passing of the Social Security Act of 2016. We are still nowhere near the Scottish Government taking over the administration of EIA and, as such, we are far from needing an advisory board to oversee it. Even if, for a moment, we accept the premise that such a board is strictly necessary for the implementation of its benefit, if we establish it now, it would be opposed for greeners knows how long before having any work to undertake. It would be neither financially nor practically sensible to do so. Mark Griffin. The point has been made on timing. We are at a stage 1 debate. We have still got stage 2, stage 3 royal assent and commencement. We are nowhere near a council being established overnight and there is only a year until the Government needs a business case. We are going to be fast running out of time to get a council in place. Never mind being too early. Jeremy Balfour. Again, I understand what the member is coming for, but I think that the point is that what we have done with every other benefit with cross-party support on this is that we have done a safe and secure transfer. That means that we have not looked at changing the rules and regulations of the benefit until everyone has his or her seat and has been administrated here from Scotland. Unless the cabinet secretary is going to correct me, my understanding is that that is what the Government wants to do here as well. It will be at least two to three years before we are in a place to be able to do that. But, as I said, even if the timing had been perfect, I am afraid that I am not convinced that such a committee is the best way forward. The devolution of social security was meant to be an opportunity for a radically different social security system that addressed the unique landscape in Scotland. We should have had an opportunity to create a system that has looked exactly as we wanted it to be. Instead, the Government took the view that we would follow carbon copy of the DWP in every other way except for the delivery that has been less than smooth. I warn it that the reality has been that there have been limits to the extent in which we could have deviated from the previous system. But it is clear that the Scottish Government has in no way tried to make any meaningful changes and is not going to bring meaningful changes in this Parliament. Hiding behind the far side of a safe and secure transition, we have advocated the responsibility that we sought so hard for. This could be an opportunity to make a difference. There could be other ways to support the Minister of EIA, other than a council that could represent better value for money, as well as a better fulfilment of the needs. There will be no surprise to the Chamber that we on these benches are generally sceptical of the creation of new levels of bureaucracy where there are other persistent possible solutions. I would like to see more innovation from the Government on this point and as such this adds to the case against the bill before us today. As a chamber we will be aware, we as a committee have called on the Government to publish a consultation on employment injuries. The work that Mr Griffin has done has shed light on the fact that we must make quicker progress on this issue. We are unable to get a straight answer to a timing of the Government's plans for a consultation and the Cabinet Secretary in her opening remarks said in a number of weeks. I wonder whether in her closing or even now? I'm happy to confirm that I did wish to wait to see what happened today because, quite frankly, there was no point in a consultation if Parliament had agreed to go forward with this bill and set up an advisory council. The consultation is ready and it will be very soon within the next few weeks. We'll be able to do that. Jeremy Balfour, I'd be obliged if you could start winding up, please. Absolutely, and I thank the Cabinet Secretary for that. As I said at the outset, Mr Griffin and his team have undertaken a lot of good work to get his bill to this point. He has shed light on the delays and the devolution of EIA and I hope focus for Government's eyes on this issue. However, unfortunately we will not be supporting the general principles at decision time tonight. I now call Paul O'Keane up to six minutes. Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. I'm pleased to open on behalf of Scottish Labour in this stage one debate. I am pleased to be supporting the general principles of my colleague Mark Griffin's bill. I want to begin by paying tribute to Mark Griffin, to his team past and present and to everyone who has assisted, not least those from the trade union movement and workers across Scotland in the preparation of this bill. Today, what Mark Griffin has outlined is in the best traditions of the Labour Party and the Labour movement, representing working people in Parliament and giving voice to their real concerns and driving forward the change that needs to be seen. That is where we have always been and it is where we remain today. I think that we have already started to hear many of the excuses that are being lined up by the Government and the Conservative benches about why they will not support Mark Griffin's bill. I think that that will be a real disappointment to those working people who are watching this debate today and who have been part of the process of consultation and development of this bill because I think that, as has been outlined, timing has been mentioned a lot already. The reality is that we have seen, I think, delay and confusion very often around what is happening in the development of employability assistance here in Scotland. I think that, as Mark Griffin outlined, if you could just give me one moment, I will come to the Cabinet Secretary. He made very clear, I think, in his intervention on Jeremy Balfour about the need for these things to be put in place because we are not a long way off still from any industrial injuries council being put in place, but I will give ways to the Cabinet Secretary. I am grateful to the member. Can I clarify any changes to the timetables on which we are looking to deliver employment injury assistance is based on two issues. One, Covid, when both the DWP and the Scottish Government had to reassess our work plans and also the delivery of the Scottish child payment, which I am sure the member will appreciate, was a very big undertaking but a very important one. I would remind the Cabinet Secretary that she came to the Social Justice and Social Security Committee and gave evidence. She spoke about consultation coming forward early in the new year and we spoke about the consultation. Now in April, I understand what she has said in the course of the debate today, but I think that the delay has really caused deep concern for people about the progress of this benefit and making sure that we get the right assistance for people who deserve it. I do think that that is why it is incumbent on Parliament to support this bill in order to make forward movement in this area. Of course, I recognise, as stakeholders, that the bill will not introduce the benefit and it does not outline what the benefit at this stage would look like, but it sets up the key component that will be needed when that benefit comes forward, because expert advice and workers' voices will be required to ensure that the right illnesses, injuries and disabilities are covered and we believe that an advisory council has proposed is the right vehicle for that. The proposals that are outlined by my colleague Mark Griffin make it independent from government, gender balanced with permanent representation from workers to carry out its own research, and critically, in my view, compared to the alternatives that could exist, puts the body on a statutory footing so that the Government cannot just disband it as it has done with other advisory groups such as DACBAG. I think that what was striking for me in all of the evidence, if you just allow me to finish this point, what was striking for me as a member of the committee in all of the evidence that we heard was the widespread support from stakeholders and the very little opposition to it. I'll give way to the cabinet secretary. I'm grateful again, Presiding Officer. Can the member tell me whether he agrees that we should continue with a medical definition of disability, as is in the current scheme, or does he think that we should change to a more social definition of disability? If he doesn't know the answer to that question, I think that that points to why we need to get the benefit of the whole, because depending on how the member wishes to define disability, depends on the type of support mechanisms and indeed whether an advisory council is needed, and what it looks like. I think that, as we've said throughout, we're interested in the lived experience element of this, and in people talking about their experience of disability, which would suggest that there is that model of people's experience in the social model. I don't understand why the cabinet secretary wouldn't support workers and people with that lived experience giving voice to that through the council in terms of what is being proposed today. I think that on the point that I was leading with in terms of the support for this bill, the trade union movement, as I have said, supported this bill, with Ross Foyer of the SDUC commenting just this week that, by rejecting Mark Griffin's bill, the Scottish Government would be sending out the message that workers injured at their work and now need assistance from the state can be disregarded or ignored. We know that it has the support of organisations who recognise that this is not the end of the road in terms of employment injuries, but it is a step in the direction to getting voices heard and those calls for assistance. Those are groups such as Action on Asbestos, Long Covid Scotland and the Injury Time campaign, led by my friend and colleague Michael Marra and supported by Legends of the Game in Scotland, as we have heard already. All those people speaking about the hazards that they experienced at work and the needs to be covered by employment injury assistance. That has to be an expert body looking at the evidence and making recommendations and they consistently told us that the advisory council was a step in the right direction towards that. Briefly, Michael Marra. I appreciate the member giving way, but he recognised that those many high profile former players in the Scottish football have backed our campaign, the injury time campaign, but many of them have no time to wait. They are in their injury time, they are living with families, they are putting huge pressure on their families to pay for their care. Now is not that it really is the time where they need action from this Government to actually act so they can get the support that they need. Paul O'Kane. I can really agree with the points made by Michael Marra and has been made by Mark Griffin as well, that people are running out of time to in order to have this justice sense of injustice in many ways fixed and sorted and have their voice crucially heard in that process as we develop this benefit. Presiding Officer, in drawing my remarks to a conclusion I think what is clear today that the SNP's failure to move forward at pace and purpose on these issues and their failure to support this bill is another failure to support workers and working people in this country. It would appear today that the Government want to give us warm words about their support of the general principles of the bill but not put that into action by backing the bill at decision time. It seems to me that they are only interested in paying lip service to Scotland's workers and trade union movement and never actually carrying forward the policies that are needed with any sense of urgency. The Scottish Labour will always be the party of working people in Scotland and that is why we are pleased to support the bill at stage 1. Mr O'Kane, as we move into the open debate just to remind of what time we had in hand, it has now been exhausted and members will now need to stick to their speaking time allocations including if they take interventions and with that I call John Mason to be followed by Ros McAll up to four minutes, please Mr Mason. Pardon, six minutes Mr Mason. Thank you for that reassurance. To start on a positive note I think both the committee as a whole and I myself personally are convinced that the present UK system for employment injuries and industrial injury disablement benefit are seriously out of date and not fit for purpose. The UK system was designed for a time of mining and heavy engineering with predominantly male workers but times have changed and there is a need to include a whole range of different employments as we have heard including teaching and football being just two examples. The system has not adapted to modern times where there is a much wider range of injuries and diseases recognised including stress and mental ill health along with relatively recent conditions like long Covid. We had helpful evidence in all of this from a range of witnesses including the Royal College of Nursing, who spoke about their members developing cancer and campaigners, as we have heard for footballers with head injuries and the NSWT made the point that only 13 per cent of new claims are made by women. I do not think that there is any dispute about the need for change. The question is how and when that change can and should come about. I am relatively recently on the Social Justice and Social Security Committee but it seems clear that transferring UK benefits from the DWP to Social Security Scotland is a major challenge in itself. The transfer process often takes longer than expected and in this case it seems that many files are still held entirely on paper whereas previous transfers have involved digital records. I am persuaded that the first step has to be that transfer and only then once we are in full control of all the case work can we really look at amending the UK system for employment injuries. I hope that we can work towards a more inclusive and caring approach but I think that we have to accept that all of this will take time. I do think that Mark Griffin makes a fair point that we need to have appropriate experts certainly including people with lived experience feeding into the design of a new Scottish system and apart from anything else the IIC cannot advise Scottish ministers so we will need to find a solution to that. Whether there should be a new advisory council or perhaps an existing body on extra responsibilities is a very pertinent question and will need to be answered. Personally I have reservations about setting up yet another public body in a relatively small country like Scotland so I have to say I am not convinced that setting up this proposed council at this time is really the appropriate next step. When it comes to finance and the financial memorandum we can argue whether specific items like the fairly modest research budget are really sufficient. We heard that at the UK level much of the research is carried out by IIC members in their own time but that does not strike me as a satisfactory model for us to follow. Perhaps more seriously we heard that the present UK system is very slow at acting on recommendations from the IIC for example with illnesses relating to Covid. We could set up our own advisory council immediately and then largely ignore its output as the UK seems to do. However that does not strike me as a tall satisfactory. I want to see a much improved system in Scotland which adapts quickly to new conditions like Covid and to increase understanding of conditions around mental health. Parliament knows that the Finance Committee has concerns about the number of framework bills and their FMs mainly brought forward by the Government which we are expected to examine. One of the key problems with such bills is that only the costs strictly pertaining to the actual bill are included in the financial memorandum. So even if it can be clearly seen that much larger costs are inevitably going to follow on these are not included and the national care service bill was an example of that. Now today's bill may not technically be a framework bill but a similar problem arises. If we set up an advisory council and it starts churning out recommendations as to which new groups of people should be receiving employment injury assistance then potentially the costs are going to rise and rise. Morally I do agree that many more people than at present should be considered for the new EIA and we should all be working to make that happen and I also accept that such a new system might well save money in the long run. However we also have to live in the short term with the financial constraints put upon us. There is just not the money there to increase payments substantially that are reserved and needed they may be. If we in Scotland are to be fairer than Westminster has been in paying people what they deserve and need I'm afraid that that money will not come from the DWP. Let's remember that in this year's budget we increased social security spending by some £1 billion. While most other budgets were being squeezed we cannot afford to keep on repeating such increases. Longer term I would hope that we could address this challenge given evidence to the committee and I would pay tribute to the STUC and their proposals as to how we should raise more tax in this country. Because like it or not when we consider policy and legislation in Parliament we need to take account of what the costs are likely to be both in the short term and in the longer term. Just this week representatives of the OECD have been in Edinburgh to carry out a review of the Scottish Fiscal Commission. They met with both the social justice committee and the finance committee and one of the points that came up was that all subject committees in the Parliament not just the finance committee need to consider the financial impact of any changes that we are looking to make. So for all these reasons I'm afraid that I cannot support this bill the overall aims and direction of travel I am fully on board with however I do not believe that creating an advisory council is the best place to start and I also would argue that we need to fully think through the inevitable costs that would follow on from such a bill as the costs that are narrowly defined within it. Thank you. Mr Mason, an apology again from attempting to slash your speaking time. I now call Ros McAll to be followed by Marie McNeill. Up to six minutes, Ms McAll. Thank you Deputy Presiding Officer. I would also like to begin my contribution this afternoon by congratulating Mark Griffin on getting his bill to stage one. I've met with Mr Griffin on this and I know how passionately he is on this topic and I think we could hear that, all hear that with his initial contribution. I understand that this process can be somewhat cumbersome and I appreciate the amount of work that is required to get to this stage so I do congratulate Mr Griffin and all involved on what he's managed to achieve so far. As a member of the social justice and social security committee which was tasked with scrutinising the proposal can I also place on record the clerks for their diligent work on drafting such a comprehensive report and to everyone that came to give evidence. As members will be aware the bill aims to create an independent Scottish employment injuries advisory council which would have three functions to scrutinise regulations on the employment injury assistance EIA report on any matters relevant to EIA to carry out, commission or support research into any matter relevant to EIA. The bill would also mandate the membership and the membership balance of the advisory council including the representation of workers on the council. So in examining the bill and working with it through its initial stages I think all members of the committee kept an open mind and they have based their conclusions on the findings. The committee heard evidence from trade unions and other stakeholders on the need for change for example evidence highlighted the current system's unequal treatment of particular groups with the STUC noting that the present system is inherently unequal and inaccessible and has a huge disproportionate impact on women when they stated that everything is gendered. From the lens that it is seen through the industrial injuries that it covers and the accessibility to women of its processes we need to think about how we can modernise and change that. The NASUWT also agreed that the current benefit is unequal discriminatory and I was shocked to hear that up to December 2019 only 13.5% of all new claims were made by women. There was also strong evidence for the need to reform and modernise the way in which the industrial injuries scheme operates in Scotland in particular who is eligible for our EIA. Unite for example emphasised the historical nature of the scheme and the need for a new system that's fit for a modern age workplace and emerging industries and they noted that the current system is outdated, laborious, it does not cover a myriad of new and existing diseases experienced by workers in the 21st century. In essence their argument and that of several other witnesses what the model of work has changed significantly over the last 50 years and that's a compelling one. We also heard how the current system is slow and ineffectual and that people are missing out on assistance which could positively impact the lives changes therefore needed and I agree with the conclusions of the committee report but the question is what is the right way to secure that change and I'm afraid I do not believe that this bill is the right way to do that. Firstly, as the Scottish Government is still to move forward with the transfer from the DWP who continue to administer industrial injuries benefit until at least March 2026 the advisory council would therefore duplicate the work of an existing UK body. We heard evidence from Professor McDonald that the advisory council were to examine the same issues as the UK body then there will be a duplication of research which is wasteful because the same diseases are occurring internationally why do we have to do everything ourselves. I agree wholeheartedly with this sentiment as the legislation would establish a body which would broadly mirror the existing UK body so then I find myself asking the question. If the UK body is not fit for purpose and slow to effect change then why would we want to duplicate those issues onto a new Scottish body to take an intervention? I recognise our points about international research but does she accept that there are particular challenges in Scotland given our industrial background and we know that our figures are higher than the rest of the UK when it comes to workplace fatalities in other areas. I think that there are particular challenges in Scotland and an advisory council could be helpful in addressing them. I also think that there are charities that can provide additional information and I'm still not sure that moving forward with this body is the right way to go. However my main concern centres on the fact that this bill wishes to deal with a benefit that doesn't exist yet which is the EIA. Instead we have a situation where the DWP will continue to deal with at least another two years and then the Scottish Government will be launching a lengthy consultation process which I hope will get additional information and indeed the committee noted during evidence that there is still not a definitive timescale on the completion of that consultation but I do note that the cabinet secretary has mentioned that not only in her opening comments but has also answered interventions on that and I am looking forward to that coming forward as a matter of urgency. So in conclusion I acknowledge the good intentions of the bill. I have noted some of the evidence about the deficiencies in the current system and I wholeheartedly accept the need for change. However unfortunately I think that due to the Scottish Government's action on coming forward with the proposal of how they intend to deal with EIA this legislation is putting the cart before the horse. That's not Mr Griffin's problem I accept that but it does make the bill unworkable in my view and it risks duplication of the existing work so on balance therefore I cannot agree to the principles of the bill at stage 1. Thank you. I now call Marie McNair to be followed by Richard Leonard up to 6 minutes. Thank you Presiding Officer. In the interest of time I don't plan to take any interventions I've got a lot to say. So I speak in this debate as a member of the social justice and social security committee in line with our report on this bill. I thank the committee clerks for their assistance with the production of our report. The committee received from many experts including trade unions was invaluable in getting an illustration of how the current scheme has excluded so many and ignored the experiences of being injured in the workplace especially women. Why this hasn't been allowed to go on for so long is astonishing and I thank Mark Griffin for introducing this bill and understanding his intentions are genuine and he's done a lot of work in this regard. I believe that the effort he's put into this matter and the evidence he gathered has shown a considerable light on the significant failings of the UK wide industrial injuries disabling scheme. It is a scheme that despite its antiquity has been left largely unreformed and been unresponsive in lacking in any acknowledgement of the realities and experience of the merging working environment over many years. We now know it's warehouses full of paper files and no way to run a modern social security system with dignity, fairness and justice at its heart. I'm therefore supportive of any change that takes us in the right path to justice for many who have been denied access to this support and that is how I approached our evidence sessions on the bill. As MSP, who covers the area of Clyde Bank a constituency plague by the tragic legacy of asbestos related health conditions and who has spent considerable time working with the Clyde Bank asbestos group, I have a particular interest in industrial injuries benefits and the need to ensure the new benefit meets the values of fairness, dignity and respect. Every worker deserves to return home from work free of harm or injury. Speaking from the Clyde Bank perspective, unfortunately this has not been the case for many due to the historical use of the asbestos in the ship building and the asbestos in the built environment leading to asbestos related health conditions, such as Misi Filioma. I look forward to the introduction of the Scottish Government's Replacement Benefit Employment Injury Assistance to be administered on by Scottish Social Security Scotland on our behalf. For the committee we kept an open mind about this bill and it was difficult weighing up all the arguments presented to us. One main concern about this bill is whether the timing is appropriate given the current approach taken by the Scottish Government to delivery of new benefits. Importantly the Scottish Government needs to ensure the safe and secure transfer of benefits and this involves the use of a Department of Work and Pensions Agency agreement which enables the DWP to continue to deliver the benefit in Scotland. As the Scottish Government pointed out even once it introduces a Scottish version of a benefit it does so with minimal change until the transfer of the case is complete because the Scottish Government would not want to introduce inequality to those transferred. Further there are concerns that given the limited research budget whether there is a significant expertise to actually sustain a statutory advisory council as we heard that recruitment was an issue with both the UK Industrial Injuries Advisory Council and the Scottish Commission on Social Security. When recommending whether to establish a new statutory body with all the costs discussed the committee has to be sure that the body can really meet its aims and it's clear to me and members of the committee that major reform of industrial injuries benefit is needed but we're not convinced that this bill would secure this as the scope to deliver the scale of the change required is years away. While the committee did fully consider the evidence and arguments for and against unfortunately the timing is a major concern and at this point the timing is wrong and so cannot support the bill as there's a doubt that it will achieve its aims particularly in times of fiscal constraint. The evidence does emphasise the need for expertise in guiding the way forward and I welcomed the commitment from the Cabinet Secretary that a stakeholder group will be set up and it's clear that the expertise has not been listened to for long for so long and are summing up while the Cabinet Secretary guaranteed that groups like Clibankasbestas group will be included in the stakeholder group the expertise and knowledge of these experienced has long been ignored and this I'm sure is part of the reason we're inheriting this unjust and neglectful policy from Westminster so on balance the committee is not able to support the general principles of this bill what the bill has helped fully exposed is a lack of interest that the Westminster Parliament has shown in this issue and the fact that this legislation has been in place since 1948 and has been mostly unreformed is a significant injustice they have been asleep at the wheel at best in a denier of support to many who at the end of the day were just doing their job and workers need a safer environment and compensation in support when needed and how can this issue been ignored for so long by Westminster Governments of all persuasion and it's such the committee recommends the Parliament that the general principles of the bill can't be agreed as it stands so thank you Thank you Ms McNeill I now call Richard Leonard to be followed by Maggie Chapman up to six minutes Mr Leonard Deputy Presiding Officer can I remind members that the legislation is recorded in my voluntary register of interest and let me begin with that because the Scottish trade union congress has been convening in Dundee just this week and as late as yesterday morning it reaffirmed its backing for this bill which this afternoon this Government is planning to oppose the PFA and the injury time campaign deeply troubled about neurodegenerative diseases among former professional footballers the FBU intensely alarmed about the carcinogenic exposure of firefighters union after union gravely concerned about long Covid and as a result an entire trade union movement in Scotland united in demanding urgent action from this Government to tackle the deep and blatant inequalities of this present system of industrial injuries disablement benefit and they all see this bill all of them as a decisive first step and they are not alone the Government's own disability and carers benefit expert advisory group established in 2017 to advise ministers on benefits including employment injury assistance also recommended that a Scottish employment injuries advisory council be set up but that recommendation has never been implemented and the Government has wound the expert advisory group up and then there is the evidence to this Parliament from experts, practitioners like Dr Mark Simpson interim co-chair of the Scottish Commission on Social Security who told us I quote these in social security and expertise in industrial injuries are two quite distinct things absolutely clear in his evidence that and I quote him if a body were to be set up on a statutory footing with a formal requirement for it to be consulted it would be harder for such expertise to be ignored and what is this Cabinet Secretary's response a mixture of improper appeals, false pretenses and moral evasions that the Government is intending on a more wide ranging public consultation of its own well where is it we've been promised a wide ranging public consultation on employment injury assistance every year for the last five years then we are told we don't need legislation to get things done when the whole point is being done we are then informed that there is now a plan to set up a stakeholder group but such a group if it ever sees the light of day will be non-statutory it could be ditched at any time just like the stakeholder group on disability and carers benefits was ditched and then best of all best of all we are expected to believe it's all too complicated because here is a benefit which is not digitised but run from a paper system stored in a number of warehouses this remember from a Government whose party's very founding purpose is to create and then run in a matter of weeks an entire separate Scotty state this must go down in the 90-year history of the SNP it will be an excuse for inaction ever and as for the safe and secure transition as a cause for further delay as Anna Richie Allen of close the gap who support this bill explained to Parliament a safe and secure transition is called for in her words business as usual replicating a system that disadvantages women and increases a safe phase questions have also been raised about the cost the cost to the state the cost to the Scottish Government of modernising the industrial injuries benefits system but what about the cost to the individual worker what about the cost to their families what about the cost to them and as for costs this simple advisory body which would be created with this bill will help prevent occupational injury and disease and so will help the NHS will help local government social services will help the welfare of these workers whose only aim is to be able to live a decent dignified life this bill rests literally on the principle that an injury to one is an injury to all which leads me to my final point anyone who looks at the incidence of ill health by occupation or of mortality by age must understand that we live in a class based society and so that what the Scottish Government is doing today is reinforcing all of those old inequalities is defending that old class system it is turning it back on all of those injured disabled working people in Scotland struggling in adversity those who are denied justice by the present system that is what they are doing and that is what all of those SNP and green MSPs will be doing tonight if they vote with the party whip and with the Tories to kill this bill at its very first stage they will be letting down they will be voting against they will be betraying an entire class and for that I am ashamed Thank you Mr Leonard I know called Maggie Chapman to be followed by Grimms Simpson up to six minutes Thank you Presiding Officer before I begin I remind colleagues of my trade union membership as recorded on my register of interests I'd like to begin by paying tribute to Mark Griffin for all the work he has put into his bill and the wider issues of support and compensation for people made unwell, injured or disabled at I'd also like to thank the social justice and social security committee for their detailed scrutiny of the bill's proposals and for their report published earlier this year I'm sorry not to be a member of that committee so not to have played a full part in that scrutiny but I did try to follow the evidence sessions as best I could I pay tribute too to the many trade unions, individuals and other organisations who contributed not only to the committee's scrutiny of this bill but also campaign for years to have the issues outlined by him earlier today properly recognised and addressed Scottish Greens believe that nobody should suffer as a consequence of what they do for work because of an injury, illness or disability that happens in or develops because of their workplace I think that this is something on which we can all agree in our view the extension of this belief is that people who do unfortunately suffer an industrial injury or develop an occupational disease should be appropriately supported and compensated I agree that we must reform and modernise the industrial benefits scheme we have had in place for over 70 years there are significant improvements we need to see some of which we've heard about this afternoon already and I want to highlight just a couple of these the chamber will be aware of the ongoing decon campaign by the fibre gaze union firefighting is now recognised by the world health organisation as a carcinogenic profession it is clear that we should recognise this and not only act to provide the best possible protections for firefighters as they do their important life saving jobs but also ensure that if they are diagnosed with diseases or a consequence of their work they are appropriately supported and compensated I ask the cabinet secretary to confirm in her closing statement a commitment to work with her colleagues in justice with the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service and the FBU to ensure the future employment injury assistance system is available to firefighters I would also ask the cabinet secretary to give an assurance to the chamber this afternoon in the work to be undertaken in the coming months the following issues are clearly addressed the committee heard that current approaches to workplace health and safety often ignore women's specific occupational illnesses and injuries the employment injuries assistance benefit must not be gender blind the STUC unclosed the gap have clearly highlighted the fact that women are vastly underrepresented within the current industrial injuries disability benefit system accounting for only 16% of those claiming IIDB occupational injuries and illnesses associated with women dominated work such as social care and retail are often ignored under diagnosed under researched under compensated Scotland's EIA must not replicate this inequality and injustice as others have said we want the system we designed for Scotland to be inclusive supportive and effective I do not envy those with a task of digitising all those paper records we've heard about but I wish them well I also hope that the conversations that need to happen to ensure the EIA system we develop is fit for purpose can start and continue apace so that we don't leave people waiting for the support they deserve any longer than absolutely necessary in closing I once again thank Mark Griffin for making us all much more aware of the weaknesses in the current system of the support for those with industrial injuries or occupational diseases I thank him for the conversations we've had about these issues over the last couple of years I think that he has ensured the system we do end up developing in Scotland will be better than it otherwise might have been and I thank him for that I look forward to working with him the Cabinet Secretary and others as work on this issue continues in the coming months Thank you, Ms Chapman I am Simpson to be followed by Bob Doris who will be the final speaker in the open debate Mr Simpson up to six minutes please Thank you very much and can I also start by congratulating Mark Griffin on getting his bill to this stage because getting a member's bill through the system is no easy matter it's time consuming and it can be frustrating so he's done really well he must have been full of hope at one point that his proposal might become law until he read the committee report now negative committee reports have not always been the death knell of members bills I've certainly seen a couple which have managed to get over that hurdle but it's an element of luck involved and there's certainly a lot of politics there's always the risk that other parties reject your proposal because you're not one of them but that shouldn't happen but it does happen listening to what's been said so far I think Mr Griffin is out of luck he probably knows that and that's a pity because this stage of proceedings is to decide whether we agree with the general principles of the bill which are that we should create a Scottish Employment Injuries Advisory Council to provide for its functions in relation to Employment Injury Assistance and for connected purposes now I'll be honest I didn't ask to speak in this debate I knew nothing about the bill until my name appeared on my party's whip but if they're going to get me to speak in a debate about something that has not troubled me previously then I thought I'm going to do Mr Griffin the courtesy of not falling back on the lazy way out of just asking what is our position so after reading the bill I turned to the committee report which was useful and it tells us that the bill would create an independent Scottish Employment Injuries Advisory Council with three functions they are to scrutinise regulations on Employment Injury Assistance that's EIA report on any matter relevant to EIA and carry out commission or support research into any matter relevant to EIA the bill also mandates the membership and membership balance of the advisory council including the representation of workers on the council so so far so good but skip to the end of the report and we find the committee full of praise for Mr Griffin and his good intentions saying it's not able to support the general principles Paul O'Cain is not here at the moment dissented from that though his Labour colleague on the committee Katie Clark appears not to have done so I don't know why that was the case but the question is with the honourable exception of Mr O'Cain how the committee arrived at such a conclusion and do I agree with them my starting point is that benefit that Mr Griffin wishes his bill to deal with EIA it currently doesn't exist because although the Scottish Government could set it up it hasn't preferring instead to have their good friends in the DWP to continue to administer industrial injuries benefits under an agreement which runs at least until the end of March 2026 it's good to see Mr O'Cain back someone can tell him how I was praising him earlier the UK Government has its own advisers yes I'll certainly take an intervention but welcome an intervention I'm always very grateful to hear that I'm being praised when I'm momentarily absent from the chamber however I understand that he referred to my colleague Katie Clark who actually I believe was absent the day we voted on the committee report from committee so just for the clarity Grim Simpson that's a useful explanation and it's a shame she's also absent today unless she's online it would have been good to hear what she thinks now Mr Griffin is suggesting that the Scottish Government has some of its own advisers if and when they get round to setting up their own benefit in this area or indeed in advance of this in order to advise on how the benefit should operate here the difficulty with all this is that the Scottish Government is showing no urgency in wanting to do this it seems content for the DWP I see another intervention I'm afraid Mr Griffin I'm not getting any extra time if the Presiding Officer is generous I'll be happy to take she's shaking her head I'm really sorry Mr Griffin so the reality is if this was easy the Scottish Government would have done it already they would be shouting from the rooftops about its latest game changer benefit and I think this is where the problem lies my issue is not with Mr Griffin or his bill it's just the reality of the situation is that we could create a body with nothing to do perish the thought my guess is that the Cabinet has set off Katie Clark so we have to tell Katie Clark if she's listening that I cannot take her in I have no time my guess is that the Cabinet Secretary has no intention whatsoever whatsoever of creating a new benefit anytime soon she will ask the DWP to carry on beyond March 2026 she will continue to promise to consult on how advice could be provided on industrial injuries and it won't lead anywhere we're a little over two years away from the next Scottish Parliament elections Mr Griffin must know that nothing is going to happen between now and then after that who knows perhaps he'll be in a position to change things sadly for me his well-meaning proposal falls because it relies on a Scottish Government that is dysfunctional and dithery you must conclude Bob Dorris, the final speaker in the open debate as deputy convener of our Parliament's social justice committee I had direct involvement in the scrutiny of the legislation we've been asked to consider at stage one this afternoon in the first instance I want to thank the member in charge of the bill and the team of dedicated people who will know that I've supported Mr Griffin in the bill's development as well as all those who gave evidence to the committee in both the written and oral forum the Scottish Government must draw on the learning that we got during that evidence and from Mr Griffin and they must use it when they bring forward their own legislation there was much agreement in the committee that there's a real opportunity to reform and modernise the system of industrial benefits here in Scotland not least of all we heard powerful evidence that the current pan UK system is widely considered to be highly genderised there was clear agreement of the need to collect better quality data at a more granular workplace level for that to be far greater role for workers and their representatives indeed I was the committee could have looked in greater detail at how current structures operate I'd like to explore the role of the health and safety executive within existing structures I was therefore deeply disappointed that they refused to give oral evidence to our committee although they did eventually eventually provide some written evidence while it's not entirely ideal that they did so I do have a look forward to this Parliament having the power to compel organisations to attend in the future also what the health and safety executive has a seat on the UK advisory council I understand why I would want them to appear at a Scottish Parliament committee not acceptable one ambition in the employment injured advisory council which should be considered by the Scottish Government that Mr Griffin was seeking to establish as the proactive and preventive agenda mainly through research in Mr Griffin's bill but more generally there's a wider need for that I think there's more that can be done in that area we would all much rather like to prevent injury than someone needing to claim employment injuries assistance in the first place any new system of data collection on workplace injuries and analysis and exploration of trends recommendations that may emerge from that to address workplace safety and worker safety must ensure key partnership between employers and trade unions occupational health I think I've got a key role to play as well as do the health and safety executive despite my comments and many others I do note that decision time today I will not vote the way the STUC would like me to vote and I acknowledge that the STUC would like to see the devolution of health and safety to this Parliament and just recently of employment law as well and I think that that would really give us all the tools that we need in this Parliament to deliver for workers in Scotland can I say that much of the evidence the committee heard revolved around how any Scottish system could evaluate and add a range of existing or new conditions for industrial injury for long Covid to dementia and football from Scotland's care health and care sector to our fire service that Maggie Chapman very eloquently spoke about we need to be clear however that Mark Griffin's bill will not change who qualifies for any new employment injury assistance indeed clearly, self-evidently the benefit doesn't exist yet I don't think that was always clear when evidence was being heard at committee we also need to be clear that even if the bill did seek to widen criteria to qualify for employment injury assistance that would not be possible until after we've had the full and safe transfer up to 150,000 paper files the DWP digitised and over to Social Security to Scotland much has been made of timing of the introduction of a new Scottish benefit of the new Scottish benefit on that front I do in part actually agree Mark Griffin, we need certainty over case transfers we need certainty over whom we will have a full standalone Scottish benefit and where it will be operational and what that looks like which is why I was pleased to hear that the consultation on that is imminent and I think the cabinet secretary would say more but didn't want to disrespect the process contained within this bill here this afternoon but there also appears to have been a chicken and egg quandary conversation this afternoon do we set up a new employment injury assistance and then decide upon the nature of any advisory council do we set up an advisory council and introduce a new benefit Yes, of course Mark Griffin A number of speakers have opposed the introduction of this bill on the basis that comes before the introduction of the benefit I wonder if Mr Doris would reflect on the fact that we were both in the Social Security Committee in the last session which introduced the Scottish Commission on Social Security to do this exact job even though no benefits had been introduced by the Scottish Government at this point so there is no chicken and egg situation here there is a precedent that everyone in the last session of Parliament supported Bob Doris I thank the member in charge for that intervention I think it's a bit different because Scotland now exists and we'll just have to disagree on that one but I get the point that Mr Griffin is actually trying to make so the Scottish Government doesn't say it's a chicken and egg scenario they want to deliver both in tandem and I agree I'm pleased the consultation, as I've said, will commence shortly and in doing so, can I ask the cabinet secretary if the Scottish Government should clearly liest very closely with Mr Griffin although he may be disappointed in relation to that afternoon they should also give consideration of the membership for the statutory advisory council that Mr Griffin is seeking to set up to inform the advisory group that is going to advise on the formation of a new benefit but I'm also very clear that a statutory advisory council when there is a new benefit means a different skills mix for an advisory group to actually set up the benefit in the first place in concluding say that whilst I will not be supporting the general principles today legislation will be coming forward very shortly I hope from the Scottish Government and that process will actually be much much stronger because of the excellent efforts of Mr Griffin and his colleagues to bring to this point this afternoon Thank you, we move to winding up speeches and I call on Claire Baker up to six minutes please Thank you I declare an interest as a member of Unite the Union I am pleased to close this debate on behalf of Scottish Labour and to recognise the work of my colleague Mark Griffin in progressing this bill to this stage I recognise the coalition of trade unions who are supporting the bill as well as organisations such as Best of Action Scottish Hazards and the Fair Work Convention The Labour Party has a long and proud history of fighting to improve the rights of workers and this bill is part of our on-going work to make Scotland and the UK a better and safer place to work The proposed role for trade unions in the advisory council would be to make sure that the voices of workers are at the core of a fairer social security system and I am urging members to support this today The current scheme of industrial injuries disabling benefits is outdated in the types of employment it covers It is rooted in the male dominated heavy industries of the 1960s and 1970s and is not reflective of modern workplaces It fails to serve a raft of workers and the related risks of their employment including shift workers, care workers and firefighters There is a clear gender dimension to the proposals which I welcome This has also been raised by Richard Leonard and Maggie Chapman when they talked about the evidence given by closed the gap to the committee Women's health and safety at work has been ignored for too long Just 7% of claims for industrial injuries benefits are made to women It was designed for male dominated workplaces and it systematically ignores and listens to women's injuries and made ill at work We also have the proposal from Mark Griffin for the advisory council to be gender balanced and I welcome that While the Scottish Government will introduce employment injury assistance it will not be able to seek advice from the UK industry advisory council The gap left here provides an opportunity to instead of replicating an outdated and failing system to set up a council that will help design and deliver the new employment industry benefit It would advise the Scottish Government on the occupations and conditions it should cover and ensure that the voice of workers are at its core The council should not be part of a jigsaw but core to advising the Government on designing and putting together the new benefit It would draw on those with lived experience of employment injuries and illnesses alongside medical expertise workers, employees and representatives It would give workers a voice and that is what is forward thinking inclusive and in line with fair work principles As members will be aware workers' memorial day will take place at the end of April It is always an important reminder to us of the need to do more to protect workers and to ensure that the families of those who have lost loved ones at work are able to secure justice It does also recognise the impact of life limiting industrial diseases In the year to March 2023 26 people who went to their place of work and never came home again each one of them leaving behind a family in distress In the last parliamentary session members may know that I sought support for a bill to change the law around workplace deaths by introducing accountability for companies responsible That bill was debated at stage 1 in January but fell at that hurdle In the three years since that debate life continued to be lost in workplace accidents I could not convince the Parliament of the competence of my bill I do believe that we should be doing more to understand the causes of fatalities and injuries at work This is where Mark Griffin's bill does have relevance We know from HSE statistics that the rate of fatal injuries in Scotland are consistently higher than those for Great Britain One possible explanation is that a greater proportion of workers in Scotland are employed in higher risk industry sectors or higher risk occupations The figures are adjusted to take account for this rate for Scotland It remains significantly higher An advisory council on social security support could provide valuable information on workplace risk and safety and help us to understand why we have a poor record in these areas I appreciate that HSE operates under governance of the UK Government and has responsibility for workplace safety but that does not prohibit the Scottish Government from working with risk sectors or from responding to the assurance of bereaved families or families who are living with long-term health conditions The inability to progress my culpable homicide bill was a disappointment but the absence of any progress in addressing the issues at its core which are shared with this bill we are discussing today are a far greater frustration The Scottish Government's response to Mark Griffin's bill is similarly frustrating not just with its failure to support a bill that seeks to support key workers in the industry benefit system but also in its failure to progress in the alternative route in a timely manner The Scottish Government has had the power to deliver this employment industry legislation since 2016 but we have made little progress It is saying it is opposing this bill that it intends to take a wider range in consultation replacing the UK wide scheme but only after that will it decide what a Scottish body would look like yet despite three years of promises the consultation is yet to materialise The Scottish Government has said that it is imminent but we have waited a while and we need to see faster progress Part of the question put today is an advisory council the right approach I think that there are particular challenges in Scotland and while the bill introduces a council which would be similar to the UK one the bill does set out crucial differences that would modernise and reform the benefit Is the debate today support this really a question about processing and timing and while the planned establishment of a stakeholder advisory group may be a step in the right direction and the cabinet secretary might be able to say more of that in closing without it being set up in statute it wouldn't be independent and it could easily be disbanded before any recommendations were advanced The government does have to provide direction on how the new benefit in Scotland will be shaped and while the cabinet secretary is clear that the Government is not supporting this advisory council or the bill today how will her proposals address the real issues of the inequality and the outdated nature of the benefits so that it is able to meet the needs of women and respond to the impacts of the modern workplace on workers health including the cases of firefighters teachers and footballers that we've heard about today Thank you I now call on Miles Briggs up to six minutes please Thank you very much I now start by paying tribute to Mark Griffin and his office for the power of work that he's put into this bill and thank those who have also inputted to the deliberations and work of the social justice and social security committee on his proposal and I think there is consensus and we've heard that today over the urgent need for progress to be made on what this benefit will look like in Scotland and the advice which will be developed around that I have and continue to have a lot of sympathy for his proposal in the last session of Parliament I worked with Government on Frank's Law to extend free personal care for people under 65 there was a lot of cross-party working Parliament to reform our welfare system to remove time limits for example for payments for terminal illness and just recently I've also launched a consultation on delivering a right to pallative care so across this Parliament I hope we can make progress on many of these issues and it's important that the debate we've had today and the work of Mark Griffin has helped to achieve pressure on the Scottish Government that we will now finally have a consultation and that a version of what he is proposing seems to be what the Scottish Government will bring forward to help shape an employment injury assisted benefit in Scotland and we know that these will be some of the most complex cases not only in terms of case transfer around the numbers but also how this will be embedded in social security Scotland and I think that's something we need to very much focus on as well we also though cannot ignore the committee's report and in reading the committee's report conclusions from their examination cross-party of the proposed bill it's clear the committee continue to have significant concerns which have not been resolved during the time they've been able to look at the bill the committee noted that before it could recommend establishing a new statutory body the committee would need to be certain that this would be able to deliver on its aims and the fact that we do not actually have a benefit in place now clearly does as others have said put the cart before the horse in being able to deliver a benefit and actually deliver the advice because I think it's really important and many members have touched upon this in terms of what is an older industrial aged injury benefit but what will be a complex future especially post Covid at looking at those who will be eligible for example complex cases of around work related acquired long Covid for NHS professionals, care home professionals and our teaching professionals that is something which work is just currently starting on and whether or not this will be accepted and people will be able to access this benefit in the future is something all of us will have to make sure is properly scrutinised and I hope the work of what the Government is now suggesting will take place as the rural college of nursing Scotland stayed in their helpful briefing with less than two years until the agency agreement with the department for work and pensions is due to end Scottish Government need to publish its consultation setting out its proposals for the new EIA and we have heard that today but I hope the cabinet secretary will understand cross party there's a lot of interest in this and we need to see progress made urgently to include plans of what expert advisory group will support the establishment of the new Scottish benefit and what health groups will be involved as well when I had my intervention earlier I was wondering what medical groups will be included on that as well so I hope as soon as Government can provide that they will and that those of us who are interested and want to make sure we can also input into this will be included and it's also important we look towards the organisations who are calling for this and calling for action. I've met with the organisations which many have highlighted from injury time to action on spestosis, a range of organisations who have highlighted cancer related higher rates of cancer in many workforces including our firefighters and Scotland's industrial communities as well so it is important that they are also at the table on this and I completely accept the work which Mark Griffin has done with unions to make sure that their voices are heard on this I think that's incredibly important as well. As many members have said across the chamber it does feel like this has come too early but it has also made the Government act and that is something I think Mark Griffin should be pleased with that he has actually made sure that the Government has listened to conclude it's clear from this debate that we need to see urgent action I hope the Cabinet Secretary will look to update Parliament at the earliest opportunity. Given the deliberations of the committee Scottish Conservatives will not be supporting this at stage 1 but we certainly want to see the principles of delivering what Scotland needs to see around the advice to establish its benefit, move forward at an urgent pace and certainly will work across Parliament to achieve that. Thank you. I call on the Cabinet Secretary up to seven minutes please. Thank you very much and I thank all the members who have contributed to the debate and once again start by thanking Mark Griffin for introducing this bill. We don't agree on the specifics but it has undoubtedly shone a light on the issues that are inherent to the UK Government's industrial injury scheme and it has also helped to strengthen the voices of the stakeholders and those with experience of the current scheme. That is why the Government undertakes the work on the employment injury assistance and I look forward to my continued work with the stakeholders and the member. In saying all that, this bill has passed would tie our hands at an early stage of policy development by wedding us to replicating a fundamental part of the UK scheme. The committee has heard extensive criticisms of the UK council and how it operates including its lack of research capacity and length of time it took for recommendations to be implemented. Replicating that system in Scotland with the same criteria within the same framework of benefit would not improve the outcomes for the people who rely on the scheme or for those who are currently excluded. It will not change eligibility it will not bring anyone who currently isn't eligible any closer to receiving a payment. The point that Collette Stevenson made earlier is very important that this bill does falsely raise expectations. I have been clear that I don't oppose what is behind the idea of a Scottish advisory council. However, defining its membership and functions in primary legislation before we've decided how to proceed with employment injury assistance does not make sense. We can't decide the kind of scrutiny, advice and oversight of a benefit that sits in an early stage of development. This bill is about developing an advisory council for a benefit that does not exist yet. It can be used for developing the design of a benefit but, as I've said earlier on, we don't need that to be done in statutory footing. We can do that and have done that in the past for all other benefits without such a requirement. However, I am looking forward to launching our consultation outlining our immediate intentions for the delivery of employment injury assistance in the coming weeks. I did choose to wait until this debate because, if Parliament had chosen to move forward with this bill to stages 2 and 3, that would have had a material impact on what is in the consultation. If Parliament decides to vote against the general principles of the bill today, then the consultation will arrive in short order. Many members have asked about the new advisory group that I have already mentioned. Can I be clear on what we are intending to do on that? There will be invitations for a range of people with lived experience, but particularly including trade union representatives to ensure that the voice of workers is very much at the core of the design. Also, disabled people's organisations, welfare advisory groups and experts in occupational health. Members have also suggested including Miles Briggs some other avenues that we may wish to explore around membership. I am more than happy in correspondence or through meeting members to discuss people's thoughts on who would be on that group. That group can be undertaken in short order once we have the consultation underway and then completed. I reassure members that the Clydebank Asbestos Group will, I hope, be part of that. I would certainly be my intention to extend an invitation to them to join that and to Maggie Chapman and indeed others who mentioned firefighters. I would absolutely commit to encouraging the voice of firefighters to be heard through the consultation and indeed the next steps. That is such an important part of the work that we do need to move on. The aspects around what will be included in the benefit are something that we will return to. It is important to clarify that, even if the advisory council was set up, it would not help to prevent workplace disease because employment law and health and safety executives are reserved to the UK Government. Many people are wishing the bill to achieve things that, quite frankly, they may wish to happen but will not cannot happen within the current set-up and the powers that we have. We are continuing, of course, to work on our consultation and, again, I give my reassurance that we will do so in short order. Each of us in this chamber shares the ambition of improving the lives of disabled people in Scotland and that, of course, does include the people currently in receipt of industrial injuries scheme benefits and, of course, those who will hopefully be able to apply for its replacement. I thank the member for the work on this bill. We do not agree with the general principles of it but I would reiterate my offer to work with him in the coming months as we work to deliver a better system for the people of Scotland. I call on Mark Griffin to wind up if he could take us to 5 o'clock. Mr Griffin. I would like to take this opportunity to thank members from across the chamber for their contributions to the debate this afternoon. I began my opening remarks by asking members not to turn their backs on the nurses, social care workers, teachers, shop workers, footballers and firefighters who are ill simply because of the job they do. Members should know that our time is limited here. We have less than a year to get this right and ask again if not now then when. I would like to address some of the issues that colleagues have raised in particular. I would like to thank colleagues on the social justice and social security committee for their consideration of the bill. They are extensive evidence-gathering and those who responded to the calls for views. I welcome its acknowledgement that the current system fails to deliver for women and ethnic and minority workers the account of modern occupations and diseases. On the one hand, the committee concludes that the case has been made for giving effective voice to workers, trade unions, employers and lived experience including the lived experience of disabled people in the design and delivery of this new benefit although the final conclusion of the committee's report seems to be at odds with that. We have heard a range of objections as to why Members cannot support the bill as it stands. The primary one seems to be around timing. The argument that we cannot somehow introduce an advisory council in advance of a benefit being introduced but for members who are here in this last Parliament, we will know that through the course of the Social Security Scotland Act we introduced the Scottish Commission on Social Security to do that very job to advise, to scrutinise regulations to make recommendations to Government and Parliament on the new benefits that the Government were introducing. Parliament had no problem with setting up that commission in advance of any benefits being introduced and we have heard specifically from the interim chair of the Scottish Commission on Social Security that they do not have the expertise in workplace illness and injury to do that job for the new benefit that will be introduced. There is a gaping hole here in the legislative landscape in the scrutiny landscape and advice landscape that the council would fill. It is not putting the cart before the horse. It is putting people with lived experience workers and their representatives who know best about the illnesses and injuries that are happening right now in modern workplaces on a statutory footing not one that can be dismissed easily by Government to make recommendations on what the new benefit should look like. That is not something that is out of place in this Parliament like I said. It is something that we explicitly committed to unanimously in the last session of Parliament when we debated and passed the Scottish Social Security Act. On the consultation I am glad to hear that the Government is now providing a more definitive timetable for that consultation. I look forward to seeing it. The cabinet secretary has said that the reason that has not happened so far was because of Scottish child payment and Covid. I have a timeline here of the amount of times that we have been promised a consultation. We were promised a consultation in June 2019. That was after the Scottish child payment was first proposed in March 2018. There was an announcement to accelerate Scottish child payment timetable in September 2019, but then in April 2020 the Government still committed to a full consultation on EIA seemingly with no issue with the impact of the work programme for Scottish child payment. Again, for the last two years we have repeated promises of a consultation on what full package of proposals for what employment and injuries assistance system would look like. I am glad that we are finally getting to that point that it has taken a member's bill to get to that point. The Government has promised this almost every year for the past five years. Similarly on the announcement of an advisory group I welcome that. It is a tiny step in the right direction but my Labour colleagues have pointed out Paul O'Kane, Richard Leonard and Claire Baker have pointed out that advisory groups have come and gone. It is absolutely ironic that disability and carers benefit advisory group were set up by Government. They actually recommended that an employment injuries advisory council was set up but they were disbanded before that recommendation ever saw the light of day so I am not filled with hope that an advisory group that can be disbanded at the ones of Government if it doesn't like its recommendations is going to fulfil the role of our statutory advisory council and I will. Cabinet Secretary I appreciate where Mark Griffin is coming from but I will push back on this aspect because that is a serious accusation to say that we disbanded DACPEB because we didn't agree with its recommendations and we fulfilled its purpose in that it advised on disability and carers benefits it did so and therefore its work was concluded and it moved on and we thanked it very much for it. I think that that assertion is very damaging and it quite frankly an insult to everyone that was on DACPEAG for all those years. Mark Griffin I think if the Cabinet Secretary reflects and looks back at the record that that particular advisory group was disbanded because the Government didn't agree with its recommendations I simply made the point that advisory groups can be disbanded if Government don't agree with their recommendations and I make the point again that that advisory group did recommend that an advisory council was created and were disbanded before that recommendation was made good that is a statement of fact not my opinion, not an assertion on the work of that group they clearly agreed with me so I think that the record will reflect that. The Scottish Government's agency agreement with the Department of Work and Pensions I said this in my opening remarks state that we must have a business case in place for how it will deliver the new benefit by March March 2025 less than a year away so we must have a small business case on how it will deliver employment injuries assistance that seems to me clear that this is the right time to we talk about the introduction of an advisory council to support the work of Government that it clearly needs since it's taken five years even to get to the point of introducing a consultation on employment injuries assistance and it would make sense but, Presiding Officer let me outline why I thought that this bill was important in the first place since I do have until five o'clock I started thinking about this when we were right back in the grips of a pandemic and I was thinking about key workers key workers who caught Covid through that pandemic key workers who had to go to work while we had the safety of staying safe at home we caught Covid through the course of their employment who developed long Covid and are still off their work some are still off work some have been dismissed some people still can't go back to the job that they love we were on the doorsteps buying pots and pans applauding those workers but now we can't give them a place at the table advising on the benefits system that would give them the recognition that they are still suffering because they bravely went out to work while we stayed safe at home but the more I looked at the shortcomings of the current employment injury benefits system it became much more apparent that it went beyond just recognition of those with long Covid you're more than ten times more likely to be able to claim this benefit the existing benefit if you're a man despite women being far more likely to be found in care given roles that can lead to musco skeletal injuries it's an entitlement that absolutely fails half of the population and the only way that I can see to make it fairer is to have a modern representative advisory council gender balanced that will take account of the workplace as it is right now rather than it was in the last century I have a real fear that we are devolving an industrial injuries employment benefits system that reflects the workplaces of the last century male dominated workplaces of the last century and that those workers and those representatives who fought hard for recognition of the illnesses and injuries that affected them as those predominantly men sadly die as we go forward that entitlement to this benefit if unreformed will die with it that will see this entitlement removed from the social security landscape unless we update the entitlement and eligibility criteria right now and that goes to the heart of why I laid this bill because to do that we must have we must have the voices of lived experience of workers, of their representatives round the table designing the system making recommendations to government on eligibility on prescription and a whole range of other issues this is the opportunity of voices of lived experience of workers at the centre of design and delivery of the benefit they should be entitled to it and I won't give up until those voices are heard and acted on I call Marie McNeill for a point of order Thank you I failed to admit that I mentioned that I am a member of the trade union unison just before I spoke earlier on the debate and I'd be grateful if the official record could be amended to reflect that Thank you Your comments have been recorded That concludes the debate on Scottish Employment Injuries Advisory Council Bill at stage 1 and it's time to move on to the next item of business and there's one question to be put as a result of today's business and that question is that motion 12882 in the name of Mark Griffin on Scottish Employment Injuries Advisory Council Bill at stage 1 be agreed Are we all agreed? Yes The Parliament is not agreed therefore we'll move to vote and there'll be a short suspension until I allow members to access the digital voting system