Meeting of the Parliament

Meeting date: Tuesday, November 6, 2012

Official Report 692KB pdf

---

Topical Question Time

---

Freshlink Factory (Closure)

1. To ask the Scottish Government what support will be provided to staff at the Freshlink factory in Shettleston, who have been told that the factory is closing and moving its business to England. (S4T-00097)

The Scottish Government will do everything that it can through its partnership action for continuing employment—PACE—initiative to help those employees of Freshlink who are facing redundancy. Through providing a tailored package of skills development and employability support, PACE aims to minimise the time that people affected by redundancy are out of work. Delivery of PACE support is led by Skills Development Scotland, with partners that include the Department for Work and Pensions and Glasgow City Council.

I will visit the Freshlink factory on Friday with Councillor McAveety and PACE officials. We will meet employee representatives and the management of the company to discuss the tailored package of support for employees that our local Glasgow PACE team stands ready to deliver.

I thank the minister for his reply and for the fact that both the Government and Glasgow City Council are putting so much effort into helping the employees now that the decision has been made. Can the minister confirm that considerable assistance was offered to Freshlink by Glasgow City Council, the Scottish Government, Scottish Enterprise and Clyde Gateway among others, but that the company has shown little enthusiasm for finding a solution that would let it continue in Glasgow?

Yes, I can. John Mason is aware of that because he, Drew Smith, Margaret Curran, Councillor McAveety, Bailie Liz Cameron and I all worked on the stakeholder group that met on four separate occasions. The First Minister himself chaired the last stakeholder meeting.

I can advise members that the offer that was made to the company to retain its presence in Scotland was at the maximum allowable level for regional selective assistance. That was accepted by all stakeholders from different parties who worked together to try to persuade the company to stay in Glasgow. Unfortunately, those efforts were unsuccessful, but that was not because of the offer, which was at the absolute maximum.

To answer John Mason’s other question, we recognise that Clyde Gateway does excellent work, which will most certainly continue with our support.

I thank the minister for the reassurance, especially about his continuing support for Clyde Gateway, which has been one of the players. When the minister meets the management on Friday, will he discuss how the workforce will be dealt with over the coming weeks? One or two constituents who have come to me are very uncertain about when their end date will be and are therefore not able to apply for another job in case they would lose their redundancy payment. Can the minister reassure us that that will be on his agenda?

It certainly will. The plant is expected to close completely in early 2013. Both myself and Councillor Frank McAveety, with whom—as John Mason knows—I worked very closely in co-chairing the group, will be present. We will certainly have a dialogue with the management of the company to ensure that its full support is provided in respect of the PACE activities. That full support and attitude of full co-operation are extremely important in ensuring that the PACE activity is as efficacious as possible. That is one of several reasons why I will visit the factory and speak to the management on Friday.

I thank the minister for the engagement and discussions that he has had over many months with me and others on the projected closure of the Freshlink factory.

The minister will be aware that at a meeting that the First Minister attended, and which was held only a few days before the announcement, there was talk of a new option being on the table and, in particular, there was the prospect of a renewable energy project. Will the minister confirm when the Scottish Government was informed that the company had decided to close the factory and say whether he felt that ABP Food Group took seriously the offers that were being made to it?

Secondly, can he confirm whether any of the resource that was identified to support ABP to stay in Shettleston could now be used to support the workers in the community that ABP is leaving behind?

The company’s decision that it was not prepared to accept the package that had been offered was made in the course of last week. I would have to check precisely when, because I do not wish inadvertently to mislead Drew Smith. However, it is reasonable to say that the company was fully aware of all elements of the package, including the offer that would have involved a renewable energy scheme. I think that the company understood the nature of the offer and was interested in it but—as Drew Smith knows—its argument was that the perceived gap between the cost of remaining in Glasgow and providing new premises and the costs that it would incur by switching production to Yorkshire was too large. I think that everybody accepts that those were the reasons that the taskforce gave and that it continued to give.

To answer absolutely Drew Smith’s second question, I say that the company was fully aware of the nature of the offer—the offer that, of course, Glasgow City Council contributed to and worked extremely closely on. I record my thanks to every single member of the taskforce, including people from the city council, and the workforce representatives, many of whom will, sadly, lose their jobs.

Every offer and every effort will be pursued to ensure that those who are made redundant—the Glasgow workforce—find other jobs. I am comforted by the fact that of those who have received PACE support in the past, nearly three quarters have gone on to find alternative employment. That is a high figure. It is a good figure; it is acknowledgement of the quality of all the components of support that the PACE team provides. Its full contribution, with all the stakeholders that work with it, will be devoted to securing every effort to help those who are losing their jobs to find other jobs. We have some time in which to do that, so I assure Drew Smith and all other members that all urgency will be devoted to meeting that objective.

---

Student Loan Applications

2. To ask the Scottish Government what steps it is taking to resolve any backlog in student loan applications. (S4T-00104)

The Student Awards Agency for Scotland has processed approximately 150,000 applications, including the 105,405 students who applied by the guarantee date, which is 99 per cent of applications received so far. Applications continue to arrive from students who are seeking support for year 2012-13. Indeed, the Student Awards Agency anticipates about a further 7,000 late applications between now and March 2013.

As of this morning, 1,272 late applications were waiting to be processed, with more applications arriving at the rate of around 50 a day. In order to clear outstanding applications, the Student Awards Agency is utilising overtime working, the contact centre opening hours have been extended and staff have been redeployed to help in the effort.

Will the cabinet secretary confirm that this is the last year of the current system for applying for student support and that any lessons from this year will be learned in time for the new system’s going live next year?

I did, indeed, announce a new and simplified student support system on 22 August, which will come into effect from next year. That will replace with just four levels of award the literally dozens of confusing combinations of bursaries and loans that are currently available. It will also, by providing non-income-assessed support, remove the need for approximately 20,000 students to provide evidence of their household income.

Meanwhile, David Wallace, who is the deputy chief executive of the Student Loans Company, will at the invitation of SAAS work with it to review the processes for dealing with late and incomplete applications, with a view to further improving those improvements.

The cabinet secretary has outlined some of the main issues that have contributed to the backlog. Does he agree that the key steps are to continue to encourage students to apply by the guarantee date in order to ensure that their applications are processed before their course begins?

That is absolutely crucial. Mr Adam is right to identify the guarantee date and late applications as key issues. The introduction of the guarantee date, which ensures that students’ applications are processed before their course begins, is a significant improvement. More than 100,000 students have taken advantage of that innovation—as I said earlier, that number is 105,405 students. However, it is also true that in September—a matter of weeks before courses start—new applications were still arriving at SAAS at the rate of 600 to 700 a day.

The guarantee date has operated for three years. We give it wide publicity on the SAAS website, in documentation and in the 300-plus visits that the Student Awards Agency undertakes to schools and other institutions. We will go on encouraging students to get their applications in in good time. I am always happy to look at what more we can do to ensure that that takes place.

The issue is not just late applications. The cabinet secretary has had correspondence from one of my constituents, Mr Nick Hortin, whose son has been threatened with a review of his place on a course at the University of Reading. Mr Hortin says that his son was not a late applicant. However, as of 1 November his problem had not been solved.

Difficulties sometimes arise that must be faced. Nicola Mable, from Jedburgh, was offered a place at Heriot-Watt University only on 5 September, but has because of delays had to give up her place. She is a single parent and could not afford the uncertainty. That is the human cost of problems that have been known about for months.

That was not a question, Presiding Officer, but let me deal with the facts that Mr Henry raised. First, every university and college has discretionary and emergency funds, which should be accessed by any student who makes a late application or who has difficulty. Secondly, when members write to me about individuals—I do not recall Mr Henry raising those cases with me—I ensure that immediate action is taken.

The issue is always that the application form is received in time and, if it comes late, that it is complete. In the case of complex applications, further information is sometimes required.

The two key points are these: first, that discretionary and emergency funds exist; and secondly, that when members raise issues with me—or indeed, when individuals raise issues with me, as happens more often as a result of the rise of social media—matters are attended to quickly. That will always be what I require of the Student Awards Agency for Scotland and it will always be what SAAS does.

This is not the first time we have had problems with SAAS at this time of year. Does the Government intend to ask whether, at this juncture, additional resources can be made available for the phone system, so that fewer problems arise in the first place?

That was a helpful question from Liz Smith. I am determined to ensure that SAAS has the maximum resource available to it, within the current restrictions that exist throughout the public sector. As I said to George Adam, we are utilising overtime working and the contact centre’s opening hours have been extended. In addition, the review that SAAS has requested from David Wallace of the Student Loans Company will consider issues such as Liz Smith raised.

It is important that we acknowledge that there have been difficulties in the past. I draw attention to the worst difficulty that arose in the matter of student loans, in October 1997, when there was a backlog of 40,000 applications. Then, of course, the education minister—one Brian Wilson—had to order a review.

Surely students should not have to contact the cabinet secretary to get their awards processed. Is his message that the blame for the debacle lies with students themselves?

As ever, Mr Findlay misrepresents what has been said. I do not know whether he does not hear it clearly or simply wants to misrepresent it.

The message is that timely application is most important, that the guarantee date helps students and that this year the Student Awards Agency for Scotland has dealt with a record number of applications in record time. Where there are difficulties, I insist that they are dealt with. Where systems can be improved, they should be improved. That is the message. I hope that it was heard clearly and that Mr Findlay will repeat it to his constituents.

I acknowledge the steps that SAAS has taken recently to deal with the backlog. However, the letter from the cabinet secretary to the convener of the Education and Culture Committee appeared to lay at the door of students the blame for late, incomplete and ineligible applications.

The cabinet secretary talked about access to discretionary and emergency funds. The National Union of Students Scotland has made the point that the problems with SAAS are such that students have been unable to access such funds. The cases that Hugh Henry mentioned appear to underscore NUS Scotland’s call for an inquiry into the issue. Can the cabinet secretary confirm that he is happy to implement an inquiry? Does the support of David Wallace constitute an inquiry?

The support of David Wallace constitutes a review, so that we can get the system working better. That is what we need to do. I am pleased that Robin Parker of NUS Scotland said that the steps that are being taken are good steps. They are good steps.

I am not blaming anyone; I am trying to ensure that the system works as well as it can do. I am trying to show the flexibility of this Government when matters are drawn to its attention, in that when people need help, they get help from this Government. I would have thought that that is something that the whole of Scotland would welcome; that is, the whole of Scotland except—as usual—members on the Labour seats.

---

Flu Vaccinations

3. To ask the Scottish Government whether the uptake for flu vaccinations in 2012 is on target. (S4T-00109)

The Scottish Government has set a target of 75 per cent for the final uptake rate for over-65s and under-65s at risk for influenza vaccination. We do not set interim targets for uptake. As in previous years, the Scottish Government is running an extensive public information campaign throughout the flu season. The rates of uptake are closely monitored by Health Protection Scotland.

I thank the minister for his reply. This year, the annual flu campaign was launched at Jags for jags at Partick Thistle by the health secretary one day earlier than last year’s campaign launch, yet the vaccine uptake to week 43 is currently 8 per cent lower for over-65s and 5 per cent lower for under-65s and at-risk groups. However, what I find even more concerning is that the national health service staff uptake rate was 30 per cent last year. I appreciate that the target is 50 per cent for this year. What is being done to encourage more NHS staff to take the vaccine and what work is being done to more fully understand why we have such a low uptake generally?

I thank Mary Scanlon for her question. I recall the launch of the campaign at Firhill. As a Partick Thistle fan, I was jealous that the cabinet secretary got the opportunity to launch that campaign there with some of the players.

Over the past three years, uptake of the influenza vaccination in Scotland has been increasing; last year, it was over the 75 per cent level for those aged over 65. We have been making good progress in increasing the number of people who are making use of the vaccination programme.

Mary Scanlon made a specific point about uptake among NHS staff. I agree that there is a need to make sure that more of our health service workers who work with patients access the vaccination programme. We have asked all our NHS boards to ensure that they have a member of nursing staff within each hospital who will be responsible, as a champion, for encouraging colleagues to make use of the vaccination programme. We have also hosted a couple of events for those local champions to assist them in the work in their areas. We will review that in March to see what has worked and what more we can do in the coming year to increase the number of healthcare workers who make use of the vaccination programme.

I appreciate the emphasis on NHS staff, particularly given that they work with vulnerable patients. However, I was surprised that there did not seem to be any information for care home staff. I feel that the population of care homes could be at risk if staff do not get the vaccination. Is anything being done in that regard?

It is important to recognise that at board level, we now have our local immunisation co-ordinators. Their role is to examine uptake in their board area among segment groups—whether they are carers or people who work within the care sector—and to encourage them to make use of the immunisation programme. The co-ordinators are considering what they can provide at the local level to increase uptake of the vaccination among the various groups so that we can continue to increase the overall rate of uptake for those who are eligible for the vaccination programme.

This is when the tone of the debate probably gets lower. Is the minister aware of the chat in any surgery that he cares to go into, where people will be saying to each other, “Are you in for your jag?” “No—I got the flu because I got the jag.” There is a commonly held belief that people have to endure a bout of flu if they get the jag.

I am conscious that sometimes such rumours develop. I am informed that the vaccine is not a live vaccine and should therefore not result in a person’s developing the flu. If I can use myself as a human guinea pig, I say that I had the flu vaccine last week and do not have the flu this week.

You look well.

You’re no a guinea pig.

I am saying nothing, minister.