Seòmar agus comataidhean

Yes; that is fine.

I will be very brief. The witnesses might not need to respond, but I want to put on record the fact that the site of the hugely serious fire at the former Promat factory in my constituency was one where there had been industrial and commercial illegal fly-tipping over a prolonged period of time. I cannot say too much more about that, but SEPA has made it clear that it needs to have additional enforcement powers. This is my first day on the committee, but that issue is one that I would like us to look at as the bill progresses. Given my constituency interest in the matter, I wanted to put that on the record.

That is all positive, and I get it and have sympathy for local authorities. They are on tight budgets, and they need to be practical and realistic about where enforcement will take place, but is there guidance to ensure that they do not focus only on areas where they can get the largest amount of income or have the biggest impact in enforcing breaches, rather than individual cases such as those that I highlighted, where enforcement might have a much bigger impact in changing the quality of a person’s life?

Dr Rushton, you said that you commissioned a review, which I think you said cost £50,000. Can you co-commission research and reviews? Mr Griffin is talking about setting up a new body for Scotland with a very modest research budget. There is also SCOSS, which, as we have heard, is not necessarily proactive in the area, because of its other commitments. Can IIAC co-commission research jointly, whether that be with SCOSS or another Scottish body, even though you are making recommendations not at the Scotland level but at the UK level?

That is very helpful.

We have focused on eligibility for industrial injuries disablement benefit. You may have said some of this other stuff already, but will you say a little more about the work of IIAC on wider issues around workplace health and safety that you are involved in, separately from making recommendations or presenting evidence to the UK Government about whether we should extend eligibility for industrial injuries disablement benefit?

Thank you. I think that you must have read the question paper, because you are pre-empting my questions superbly. That answer was extremely helpful, because I was going to ask you about any on-going work programmes with the Health and Safety Executive. That goes back to Mr Mason’s question about whether there is duplication or overlap in what you do, work that is complementary, or a combination of all three.

I am conscious of the fact that, earlier this year, the Health and Safety Executive produced some research on Covid, although not long Covid. It also looked at cancer in the construction industry, although not among firefighters—cancer among firefighters is very topical at the moment. The Health and Safety Executive is already doing a lot of work in the area, and you have helpfully put on record that you observe some of that and work in partnership with it, which is important, but do you want to say any more about your on-going work or partnership work?

I am particularly interested in long Covid, neurodegenerative disease in footballers and cancers in firefighters, but please do not restrict yourself to that list simply because I have asked about those issues. I am trying to understand the dynamic between what you research, what you commission, what the Health and Safety Executive does and how that all fits together.

That is really helpful. Thank you.

I am keen to say yes, but I know that time is probably against us, so we would really appreciate it if you could follow that up in writing. I say to any Fire Brigades Union colleagues who are watching that that is due to time constraints. We are keen to hear what Dr Rushton has to say about firefighters, but we would appreciate it if she could provide that in writing. I suspect that the convener will have my guts for garters if we do not move on.

Will we get a case study within the guidance? Guidance can be dry and dusty, so I think that social work professionals would like to see a case study of a situation such as the one that I outlined to you that shows them—perhaps more eloquently than I did—what they should be doing rather than what they perhaps are doing. When finances underpin what is done and there is a budgetary impact on a local authority, we have to ensure that there is best practice and not budgetary practice, if I can put it—delicately—like that.

I am sure that the Notre Dame Centre would love to see you if your busy diary ever permits you to go along, minister. I would love to take you to show you what excellent work it does.

I will move on to my substantive question, which was going to be about the progress that the collaborative has made in recent months. However, I have a specific question on the progress that still needs to be made.

I had written down that there is a guidance rewrite group and that a national kinship assessment framework is being developed to get national consistency. I do not have an active case at the moment, but over the years, one of the issues with consistency has related to kinship care and bereavement.

I explain that as what happens when there is a gran or an auntie at hospital when a loved one passes away and the kids are in very vulnerable circumstances. Often, gran steps in and says, “I’ll take those kids home.” If gran does not do that, social work services will say to gran, “Would you please look after these young people? They are very vulnerable.” The outcome is the same; it was always going to happen. However, one situation would be deemed to be an informal volunteer-led relationship between the children and the local authority, and the other would be the local authority placing the child with the kinship relative.

I understand that some local authorities show good flexibility in acknowledging that the formal placement would have happened anyway, but others do not. The approach is inconsistent. That matter has been raised with me over many years.

In relation to the work of the collaborative, the guidance rewrite group, the national kinship assessment framework and, indeed, access to the Scottish recommended allowance, can the minister give me an assurance that such situations are being taken into account and that guidance and best practice will be rolled out, putting the onus on local authorities to do the right thing by kinship carers in bereavement situations?