Chamber and committees

Good morning, cabinet secretary and officials. Over the previous five weeks of evidence sessions, we have heard how confusing it is for people to access social security, and it has been suggested that the same deadline for requesting a redetermination could apply across all benefits. What is your view on that, cabinet secretary?

Moving on to my final question, it has been suggested that the current legislation is too inflexible, because it requires appeals to be made on a specific form. That point was raised by Rights Advice Scotland, I think. What are your views on that?

I think, however, that in the evidence session the other week Rights Advice Scotland told us that Social Security Scotland is not accepting the forms that advisers are putting in—it has to be a specific form. It would be great if you could take that issue back, so that we could get some resolution.

Cheers.

It has been suggested to the committee that, instead of a process of redetermination then appeal, it would be simpler just to go straight to appeal. Any unnecessary appeals could be avoided by lapsing them where necessary. What are your views on that?

I have been made aware that funding provisions for some out-of-school care groups in my constituency have not been replicated this year. We know how important parental employment is in tackling child poverty, but lack of childcare can be a barrier to full employment. Will the minister advise what funding options may be available to out-of-school care groups to allow them to continue offering those services to support parents staying within the workplace?

To ask the Scottish Government what it is doing to support childcare groups that provide after-school care and care outwith school term times. (S6O-03318)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I could not connect, but I would have voted no.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Just before I spoke in the debate, I failed to mention that I am a member of the trade union Unison. I would be grateful if the Official Report could be amended to reflect that.

In the interests of time, I do not plan to take any interventions. I have a lot to say.

I speak as a member of the Social Justice and Social Security Committee, in line with our report on the bill. I thank the committee clerks for their assistance with the production of our report. The evidence that we 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 people who have been injured in the workplace, especially women. It is astonishing that that has been allowed to go on for so long.

I thank Mark Griffin for introducing the bill. I understand that his intentions are genuine and that he has done a lot of work on the bill. The effort that he has put in and the evidence that he has gathered have shone a considerable light on the significant failings of the UK-wide industrial injuries disablement scheme. It is a scheme that, despite its antiquity, has been left largely unreformed. It has been unresponsive and lacking in acknowledgement of the realities and experience of the emerging working environment over many years.

We now know that the scheme’s warehouse is full of paper files. That is no way to run a modern social security system that has dignity, fairness and justice at its heart. I am therefore supportive of any change that takes us on the right path to justice for the many who have been denied access to support. That is how I approached our evidence sessions on the bill.

As the MSP whose constituency covers Clydebank, an area plagued by the tragic legacy of asbestos-related health conditions, and as someone who has spent considerable time working with the Clydebank Asbestos Group, I have a particular interest in industrial injuries benefits and the need to ensure that 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 Clydebank perspective, I can say that that has unfortunately not been the case for many, as the historical use of asbestos in shipbuilding and in the built environment has led to asbestos-related health conditions, such as mesothelioma. I look forward to the introduction of the Scottish Government’s replacement benefit, employment injury assistance, to be administered by Social Security Scotland on our behalf.

The committee kept an open mind about the bill. It was difficult to weigh all the arguments that were presented to us. One main concern about the bill is whether the timing is appropriate, given the approach that the Scottish Government is currently taking to the delivery of new benefits.

Importantly, the Scottish Government needs to ensure the safe and secure transfer of benefits. That involves the use of a DWP agency agreement, which enables the DWP to continue to deliver the benefit in Scotland. As the Scottish Government pointed out, even once it introduces the Scottish version of a benefit, it does so with minimal change until the transfer of a case is complete, because the Scottish Government does not want to introduce inequality to the people who are transferred.

There are concerns, given the limited research budget, about whether there is sufficient expertise to sustain a statutory advisory council, because we heard that recruitment is an issue for 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 that have been discussed, the committee has to be sure that the body can meet its aims. It is clear to me and members of the committee that major reform of the industrial injuries benefit is needed, but we are not convinced that the bill would secure that, because the scope to deliver the scale of the change that is required is years away. Although the committee fully considered the evidence and arguments for and against, the timing is, unfortunately, a major concern. At this point, the timing is wrong, so I cannot support the bill, because there is doubt that it will achieve its aims, particularly in times of fiscal constraint.

The evidence emphasises the need for expertise in guiding the way forward, and I welcome the commitment from the cabinet secretary that a stakeholder group will be set up. It is clear that expertise has not been listened to for so long. In summing up, will the cabinet secretary guarantee that groups such as Clydebank Asbestos Group will be included in the stakeholder group? The expertise and knowledge of such experienced people has long been ignored, and I am sure that that is part of the reason why we are inheriting this unjust and neglectful policy from Westminster.

On balance, the committee is not able to support the general principles of the bill. However, I note that the bill has helped to fully expose the lack of interest that the Westminster Parliament has shown in the issue. The fact that the legislation has been in place since 1948 yet remains mostly unreformed is a significant injustice. The UK Parliament has been asleep at the wheel, at best, and a denier of support to many people who, at the end of the day, were just doing their job. Workers need a safer environment and compensation and support when needed. How can the issue have been ignored for so long by Westminster Governments of all persuasions? However, the committee recommends to the Parliament that the general principles of the bill cannot be agreed to as it stands.