Seòmar agus comataidhean

Before the next witness comes in, I will check something. I do not have in-depth experience on the subject. Your response was quite process driven and was about mapping what should be in the plan. My question was about what is identifiable in the plan and what might be beneficial and achievable. I get that witnesses think that some things should be removed from the plan and others put in and that things need to be pulled together. I am talking in general terms when I ask the question. Is there anything identifiable in the plan that is of value and would be beneficial?

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.

It is good that you have agreed that it would be helpful for the bill if employment law were devolved to this Parliament. For completeness, can I check what your view is on the devolution of health and safety law?

I am a bit confused, Mr Griffin. I will ask my question one more time, after which I will not pursue the point. We are talking at cross-purposes, which was not my intention.

I want to capture something really good about the proposed legislation, irrespective of whether it is in your bill or in anything that the Scottish Government might introduce instead. If the Scottish Parliament, as a statutory body, identifies deficiencies in the workplace where we could do more to prevent ill health or disease, and if that overlaps with employment law and health and safety legislation, should the body be able to make recommendations on such legislation?

I will not ask again whether that should sit within the Parliament’s competence, because we were not getting anywhere on that point, but should the body be able to make recommendations in relation to those two matters?

I will not test the convener’s patience any further. Thank you.

Thank you for putting that on the record. If I ask you that question again, Mr Griffin, I will avoid the acronym and just say “non-departmental public bodies”. It is much easier to say than putting those letters together.

The bill includes minimum timescales for scrutiny and requirements to consult, regardless of whether regulations are substantial or minor and technical. Why do you think that that is proportionate? SCOSS does not have such requirements. The minimum timescale in the bill is four months—a one-month lead-in and three months after that. I am also conscious that we are not quite sure what the new benefit will look like, what the eligibility criteria will be or what types of regulations might be seen from time to time.

We are all a little bit in the dark. Why are those minimum timescales in the bill? Might they be burdensome when a new body has to be fleet of foot and move quickly? You mentioned that you tried to mirror SCOSS as much as possible, but SCOSS does things in a different way. Why is there a difference?

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.