Chamber and committees

What if the sub-group was put in statute, though? I want to give the bill a good hearing, but I need to make sure that I look at all the potential options for the best way to do this, and the suggestion of a sub-group of SCOSS is one of them. If that sub-group was specified and entrenched in statute and could operate independently, that might not be your desired outcome, but would it still be progressive?

That is helpful. I am not sure about the issue; I am just trying to make sure that the committee looks at all the potential options. Clearly, the bill presents us with one specific option.

I appreciate the evidence that you have given this morning.

Good morning, cabinet secretary. I suspect that the regulations have been designed with a view to bringing about quality changes in practice that will make a difference to vulnerable individuals. What changes in practice do you envisage may come about? How will that be monitored?

That is really helpful. If I appeared distracted during your reply, that is because I wanted to check the name of a project. [Interruption.] That was not very professional. I will tell you why I was looking at my phone. Last week, I invited to Parliament members of a project called “Financially Included”, but its name had escaped me. It deals with economic abuse of women; it supports women to escape such abuse and put their finances back on track having suffered it.

I was very interested to hear what you said about that kind of abuse and exploitation. Can you say any more about how that could help women in particular? You could do that now, or perhaps you could contact the committee after the meeting. I am conscious that economic abuse is a key issue in the 16 days of activism against gender-based violence. If you want to address that now, it would be quite nice to get it on the record this morning. I apologise for that distraction, but I wanted to check that I had my details right about the question that I was about to ask.

There are two aspects. Whether there is any value in an advisory group advising Government ahead of a new benefit being finalised, launched and rolled out is a separate matter from an advisory group making expert recommendations to Government about who qualifies for any new benefit. I will therefore separate those for a wee second.

Given all the caveats that Mr Griffin has made about wanting reassurance about what any Government advisory group would look like, would he accept that it would be possible for the Scottish Government to draw on expertise from across the country and all the areas required to inform what any new employment injury assistance would look like? I know that his preference would be to set that up by statute, but that would not be required for that function to be fulfilled.

I have some technical questions, to complete our scrutiny.

It is proposed that SEIAC be established as a body corporate with a duty to audit its own accounts. I could not previously have told you this, but in researching for your bill, I found that that is unusual for advisory NDPBs. Other bodies do not do it that way, but SEIAC would. Why the difference?

Could it make recommendations, though?

That is helpful. The member has mentioned SCOSS a lot, and I understand why he would do that. SCOSS also considers itself to be fiercely independent of the Government.

In my earlier line of questioning, I tried to separate a non-statutory advisory group that would advise Government on what the new benefit should look like from a statutory body that would make recommendations to Government about which groups, individuals and conditions would qualify for the benefit. One suggestion that we heard was that, although SCOSS does not have the expertise to do that, a sub-group of SCOSS could have that expertise. That would have the advantage of not requiring that a new body be set up. That group would be statutory and independent, but it might be less costly. Did you consider that?

Mr Griffin, I know that there is frustration over the timing of when the Scottish Government will bring forward its detailed proposals. I understand and appreciate that. However, we need to get it right.

Last week, at committee, Dr Sally Witcher, the former head of the Scottish Commission on Social Security, said, in relation to going ahead now with proposals such as your own that

“we will not know what expertise we will need to scrutinise”

any new benefit that is put in place

“and ensure that it is designed and delivered as effectively as possible.”——[Official Report, Social Justice and Social Security Committee, 30 November 2023; c 32.]

I think that Dr Witcher was suggesting—I hope that I am not taking her comment out of context; I do not think that I am—that the timing was too early in relation to going now with such a proposal.

Secondly, I would like your reflections in order to help the committee’s deliberations in coming to its conclusions. The cabinet secretary indicated that there would be an advisory panel in place with experts on it to advise on what any new benefit entitlement would look like. As you will see, the committee is wrestling with whether or not that is needed at this time.

That was not the focus of my question. Other members will ask about whether we can address IIAC’s fundamental flaws without changing the eligibility criteria; that is for others to explore. I am interested in the preventative role. I am slightly conflicted, not in relation to the need for a preventative role, but about whether this is the right bill at the right time. However, the bill includes lots of really good things, which I do not think should be lost.

One issue that has come up is the gap that exists with regard to granular data at workplace level. I do not think that the work that the Health and Safety Executive does is sufficient in that regard. Reporting under the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 2013 is not the only way in which such data can be gathered. There is a gap there, and it is an area where devolved and reserved responsibilities overlap. Of course, trade unions are important, as are occupational health and others.

The committee will have to make recommendations. The essence of my point is that I do not want those recommendations to be bound by constitutional debates. If the evidence suggested that the preventative role should be exercised in relation to aspects of employment law or health and safety law, would any expert body feel empowered to make recommendations on reserved matters? I would like to know your views on that. For completeness, I would also like to know whether you think that the committee should recommend that employment law and health and safety law should simply be devolved to this Parliament, because that would mean that all those powers would sit in one place.