Chamber and committees

I am proposing that the membership of a Scottish council include representation from the trade unions. It will take primary legislation to change SCOSS’s role to mandate that it have trade union membership so that it can consider workers’ lived experience of illness and injury at work. As the committee knows, SCOSS already has a lot of work on its plate, and I think it important that we create a new body that has not only the ability to look specifically at the very detailed nature of employment injury assistance, but a research function to look at illnesses and injuries that are emerging across the developed world and ensure that the Scottish system is fit for the 21st century, not the last one.

When I raised the issue in the chamber with the First Minister, I think that I received a sympathetic response. I also flagged up to the minister the consultation response and my intention to introduce legislation, but at that point he was only two or three days into the job, so the issue might not have been at the top of his list.

I really want to work with the minister on this. He has set out his concerns about policy and timetabling, but with my British Sign Language (Scotland) Bill, I have a track record of working with the Government to ensure that there are no concerns on either side. I would want to open a discussion with the minister and his officials and take a joint working approach to ensure that my proposal is right and that it works for the people of Scotland.

Thank you for inviting me to attend the committee to talk through the statement of reasons that accompanies my draft proposal.

The bill proposal was lodged in response to reports that thousands of people were suffering from long Covid that they had contracted at work—most likely, workers in health, social care, retail and public transport, whom we all depended on and applauded throughout the pandemic. In the absence of any action from the United Kingdom Industrial Injuries Advisory Council, a Scottish council could commission research and come up with recommendations on how to support people such as nurses, care workers and supermarket staff who caught Covid, now suffer with long Covid and are no longer fit for work.

When I looked further into the industrial injuries system, it became clear that it is completely out of date. It really only recognises injuries and illnesses of male workers in occupations that were common in the previous century, it does not recognise modern occupations and it completely fails female workers. Only 6.5 per cent of applications under the prescription route come from women.

The purpose of this evidence-taking session is for the committee to decide whether to accept the statement of reasons that I have provided on why I consider it unnecessary to carry out a further consultation, but I wanted to give a flavour of the motives behind the proposed bill.

I note that the committee has received a letter from the Scottish Government. I hope to work with the Minister for Social Security and Local Government to overcome any policy differences and timetable issues. However, as the committee knows, nothing in his letter is relevant to the statement of reasons.

It is less than a year since the draft proposal was lodged and consultation began. It is only six months since the consultation summary was lodged ahead of Parliament rising for the election recess. That consultation was undertaken with the non-Government bills unit’s support, my thanks for which I put on record.

The proposal is broadly similar to the one that I lodged last November

“to establish a Scottish Employment Injuries Advisory Council”.

However, I have improved the wording to sharpen up the proposal and to reflect more precisely the purpose and role of the proposed council that was consulted on and the outcome of that consultation. There is nothing new that was not previously consulted on or on which views were not sought.

The additional terms in the proposal confirm that the council would be a statutory body, as was explicit throughout the consultation document and at question 1 in the consultation questions, and that it would have the ability to commission its own research, as was also made clear in the aims of the proposed bill and specifically consulted on at question 2. They also confirm that the bill would define the council’s membership, which was the focus of question 5.

The consultation on my previous proposal ran for 12 weeks and received responses from a range of individuals and organisations from relevant sectors. I wrote to a number of academics, civil society and third sector organisations, professional associations and business organisations, as well as occupational safety campaigns and, of course, trade unions. There is a breadth of responses across those sectors, which provides new, positive engagement in the social security space.

The consultation was publicised in comment pieces and blogs, notably in The Herald, in the Daily Record and on Reform Scotland’s Melting Pot blog. Media coverage in which I highlighted the issue raised in the consultation document—that Covid-19 should be prescribed as an industrial disease—was raised with the First Minster in December 2020. Close the Gap blogged about the gaps in provision for women under the existing benefit and about women’s health and safety more widely, and it also covered the issue of Covid-19 in the workplace. Two events, which were conducted on Facebook and via Zoom, were hosted by the GMB’s health and safety group. Separate focus groups were arranged with women members, who shared their experiences of health and safety in the workplace.

The consultation closed in February this year, and I do not believe that respondents’ views will have changed since then, or that there have been any material changes to the case for an advisory council. The UK advisory council has since refused to prescribe Covid-19, which perhaps strengthens the case for evolution of the benefit here, and the Scottish Government has not yet made any legislative commitment to establish a new council.

For a process that has been carried out so recently, repeating the consultation would seem to me to be an unnecessary duplication of work and effort, including for those organisations and individuals who took the time to respond to the previous consultation.

I hope that members will agree that further consultation is not necessary. I am more than happy to expand on any of the points that I have made, and to take questions.

Previously, we have heard from Councillor Evison and COSLA about the principles that you think should shape the new fiscal framework. Are you now in a position to describe how that would work in practice?

According to the 2019 Scottish household survey, only 18 per cent of people feel that they can influence decisions affecting their local area, which seems to be a significant reduction since the passing of the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015. Why has that happened? What are the barriers to people influencing decisions, and how will the local governance review address them?

That certainty of funding is critical. The United Kingdom Government has recently published a multiyear spending review. I know that COSLA wants the Scottish Government to deliver that, too. Early as it might be, following on from the UK Government’s announcement, what discussions have you had with the Scottish Government on confirming whether local authorities will receive multiyear settlements to give them that certainty and ability to plan?

Okay.

Are you saying that the distinction is purely that councillors deal with planning issues so there needs to be that connection with where they live?

My question is about category 5, which covers houses, land and buildings, in section 4, which is called “Registration of Interests”. I have always been concerned that councillors seem to be held to a higher standard than MSPs and MPs, in that councillors need to register an interest in their family home, whether that is as owner, part-owner or tenant. Will you say why it was felt important to maintain that requirement?

There have been instances in which overzealous recording of a councillor’s property has meant that home addresses have been made available online, which has caused safeguarding issues. We have seen some high-profile safeguarding issues in the national press recently, and other instances of bullying, intimidation and aggression towards councillors. Was consideration given to putting councillors on a par with parliamentarians by taking out the need for them to register an interest in their home?

I have a broad question on net zero for the witnesses. What are their views on the adequacy of the Scottish Government’s plan to achieve the net zero carbon emissions target?

I also have a more specific question. As we are looking at targets to remove carbon emissions from heating systems by 2025, what certainty does the sector have? Some of the sites that have been identified for purchase and development as we edge into 2022 will need to have plans for zero-emission heating systems now.

I direct that question to Nicola Barclay first.