Supported Workplaces
The next item of business is a members' business debate on motion S3M-5547, in the name of Richard Baker, on supporting Scotland's supported workplaces. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament recognises the fundamental importance of supported employment of disabled people in Scotland; notes the challenges faced by supported businesses as they look to secure a long-term future; notes, in particular, efforts to establish a long-term, sustainable enterprise in Aberdeen to carry on the excellent reputation and achievements of the Glencraft factory, which sadly closed in November 2009 after over 150 years of operation, resulting in 52 workers losing their jobs before Christmas; pays tribute to the tenacity shown by the former workforce of Glencraft and Community Union, which have campaigned tirelessly, with the support of thousands of people locally, to see Glencraft re-open and restore sustainable employment for the workforce; congratulates local businesses for helping develop a sustainable enterprise in Aberdeen, while recognising the crucial role to be played by the Scottish Government, local authorities and appropriate agencies in ensuring that any supported business is sustainable, and would welcome greater awareness and use of Article 19 of the EU public procurement directive, which allows public sector contracts to be reserved for workplaces where more than 50% of the workforce is disabled, to ensure procurement through supported businesses wherever possible.
Scotland has a proud history of providing supported employment. Tonight's debate is about how we can ensure that supported employment has a bright future. If, in the 19th century, we could offer employment opportunities to the blind and disabled, we must continue to do so today, in 21st century Scotland.
I welcome to the Scottish Parliament workers from Blindcraft in Edinburgh, Dovetail Enterprises in Dundee, Royal Strathclyde Blindcraft Industries, and Glencraft in Aberdeen. I thank them for being here and I thank their trade union, Community, which has done so much on their behalf—Joe Mann, the deputy general secretary, is also here tonight. [Applause.]
Along with Lewis Macdonald and our local MPs Anne Begg and Frank Doran, I was with the workers at the Glencraft factory on 13 November when the doors were closed. It was a traumatic time after all the efforts that the workers had made to turn their business around and keep their jobs. There had been a workshop for the blind in Aberdeen since 1843, as a result of a bequest by two local women. The decision by the administration of Aberdeen City Council to withdraw funding and thereby to precipitate the factory's closure dismayed not just the workers but everyone in the city and the north-east. Families and businesses had supported Glencraft over the years by buying their beds and mattresses there, given its excellent reputation for workmanship. They have backed the Glencraft workers: thousands have signed the petition calling for the factory to be saved. What has been particularly inspiring to me is how the Glencraft workers have responded and fought for their factory. They have had an agonising Christmas not knowing what the future holds, but they have campaigned hard to save Glencraft by coming to Parliament in December to bring their petition to the party leaders and to the First Minister.
The issue has been politically contentious in Aberdeen, but I emphasise that members from across the political spectrum have supported the motion—for which I thank them—because we all want to move forward and to have sustainable supported workplaces. Despite the closure of Glencraft and the real challenges faced by Dovetail in Dundee and Blindcraft in Edinburgh, we must realise that there are great opportunities for supported workplaces. Local authorities in those areas must realise that, too. The intervention of the business community in Aberdeen in looking to create a new sustainable social enterprise from the old Glencraft justifies the confidence that there can be a successful future for such workplaces.
There is still much to be done in taking forward the planned successor to Glencraft. We await clarity on how the business model will work, how local and national Government will support it, and how many of the Glencraft workers will be employed. However, there is an important ray of hope.
I hope that the involvement of Bob Keiller and Duncan Skinner of Production Services Network will help make the venture a success, and that Aberdeen City Council backs their ambition by confirming a rent waiver for the new factory, as has been indicated.
However, we cannot always ask business to step in, and there needs to be leadership from the Scottish Government to support supported workplaces. Iain Gray has called for a Scottish Government champion for disabled workers; I hope that the Scottish Government gives that proposal serious consideration. Community has campaigned for such a champion to ensure that officials involved in public procurement apply article 19 of the European Union public services directive.
Richard Baker makes an important point about article 19 of the directive, which allows public sector contracts to be reserved for workforces where more than 50 per cent of the workers have a disability. Does he share my view that supported workforces such as that of Highland Blindcraft in Inverness are looking for a hand up rather than a handout and that, by using article 19, local authorities throughout Scotland can allow supported workplaces to trade out of their financial difficulties?
I agree. Article 19 states clearly:
"Member States may reserve the right to participate in public contract award procedures to sheltered workshops or provide for such contracts to be performed in the context of sheltered employment programmes where most of the employees concerned are"
disabled persons. As David Stewart says, there is massive potential for use of that directive, which was implemented in Scottish law in 2006. There is not enough awareness among local authorities of that.
When I wrote to Aberdeen City Council to ask whether it had ever made use of article 19 in procurement, it replied that it was not aware of the article having been used. It then stated that it had not been asked to use it. I am pretty sure that it has been asked to do that locally, but its reply shows the need for the Scottish Government to promote the use of article 19 by Scotland's public agencies and local authorities. That would not only help supported workplaces but be of great value to Remploy workplaces. My colleague Helen Eadie, in particular, has worked on Remploy issues.
As David Stewart says, the ambition at supported workplaces is not simply to continue on the basis of subsidy but to be able to win contracts for work. There is evidence of the success that can be achieved in Scotland at Royal Strathclyde Blindcraft, which has been greatly supported by local agencies and businesses, and of course by local councils. When Glasgow City Council formed City Building from its former building services department, a link was established with Royal Strathclyde Blindcraft that sees major contracts for work going to the organisation. That enables it to employ 250 employees, more than half of whom are disabled, and to offer a wide range of furniture products. City Building's website highlights its reserved contracts and the use of article 19.
Glencraft's experience is evidence that this has been—and indeed still is—a difficult time for our supported workplaces, but with the right support and through the promotion and use of article 19, in which I believe the Scottish Government can play a leading role, more organisations can benefit from the high-quality products of the factories and their workers can be given the opportunity that they seek to work. Every day, the workers overcome obstacles in their lives to achieve that goal. They do not deserve to have further barriers put in their way. They richly deserve greater support from all of us. I look forward to hearing from the minister what the Scottish Government can do to help to ensure that supported workplaces in Scotland have not only a rich history but a confident future. [Applause.]
I point out that our procedures do not permit interventions from the gallery, which includes applause, I am afraid.
We move to the open debate. Members have an absolute limit of four minutes, given the number of people who wish to contribute.
I congratulate Richard Baker on securing this evening's debate and welcome the Glencraft workers to the public gallery.
The problems of Glencraft in Aberdeen are not new. Since 2000, various councils have been grappling with the problem of grants and subsidies to Glencraft. Because of the straitened times in which we live, and especially the straitened times in which Aberdeen City Council found itself in recent years, the massive subsidies to Glencraft became unsustainable. The annual subsidy of £470,000 from Aberdeen City Council was reduced to £300,000 in 2008-09 with the aim that it would subsequently end completely. The council did purchase and lease back Glencraft's factory in late 2008 at a cost of £1.7 million, but unfortunately Glencraft could not find a way in which to operate without subsidy, so the board decided to put the company into administration before Christmas, which was much regretted by everybody involved.
The company's debts were more than £3 million, which comprised a £2 million share of Aberdeen City Council's pension fund deficit, £400,000 in redundancy packages, £430,000 in Department for Work and Pensions grants that had to be repaid and £330,000 for creditors and suppliers. It was unusual for a local council to have such financial involvement in a business.
Labour is all over the place on the issue. Over the years, the United Kingdom Government has wanted to get rid of supported workplaces. Indeed, some years ago, we were all involved in trying to keep the Remploy factory in Aberdeen open, a campaign which, I have to say, was successful.
Does the member accept that the Remploy factory is open because of a decision by the Labour Government that was welcomed by all parties at the time?
As I said, we were successful in securing the future of the Remploy factory in Aberdeen, although the same cannot be said of Remploy factories in the rest of the UK, very many of which were closed. Aberdeen was saved—and rightly so—but the fact is that the UK Government's long-term aim is to reduce the number of supported workplaces.
The Parliament should pay tribute to the Scottish Government, the First Minister, Aberdeen City Council, business and the local community on progressing matters and allowing us to see a future for Glencraft. We should also pay tribute to the willingness of Bob Keiller and Duncan Skinner of PSN to get involved and help to provide a future for such an important supported workplace in Aberdeen.
Like Richard Baker, I hope that article 19 of the public sector procurement directive will be considered in more detail. However, we must also ensure that Aberdeen City Council and its council tax payers get best value. I am sure that PSN's expertise and assistance will be invaluable in helping Glencraft to become profitable and to secure its long-term future, and I hope that everyone in the chamber will congratulate Aberdeen City Council on agreeing this afternoon not to charge Glencraft rent this year at a cost of £225,000—
I am afraid that the member must conclude.
That will go a long way towards securing the company's future.
A number of years ago, when Labour was preparing for the 1997 election in the hope of forming the next Westminster Government, I had the good fortune to work with the then shadow disability minister Tom Clarke MP on our party's manifesto for disabled people and employment. At the time, some said that the Government had to choose between supporting sheltered employment and assisting access to mainstream jobs for disabled people. Tom Clarke rejected that view and concluded that, given the wide range and variety of disabilities that such workers had to face, we should support disabled workers in specialised workplaces and in the wider labour market. That approach remains the right one.
On 31 May 2007, in my first oral question to Jim Mather after he took ministerial office, I asked him to meet management and unions at Remploy to discuss what the Scottish Government could do to help the factories in Aberdeen and elsewhere to achieve a sustainable future as supported employment providers. I was delighted that the minister agreed not only to meet me but to involve management and unions in discussions on promoting the use of article 19 of the public sector procurement directive across Scotland. That approach was helpful; indeed, the commitments that John Swinney gave to Helen Eadie last year showed that the exercise was worth while, in particular the objective that
"every public body should aim to have at least one contract with a supported factory or business."—[Official Report, Written Answers, 24 April 2009; S3W-22484.]
However, we must go beyond setting aims and objectives to achieving that result.
That is where we need a Government champion for disabled workers, who would ensure that public bodies deliver on the objective that they have been set. I am delighted that the Scottish Parliament has been the first body in Scotland to place a contract under article 19, but it must not be the last. Agreeing that the use of article 19 is desirable is a vital first step, but it is the Government's job to ensure that it is delivered.
I am sure that Lewis Macdonald agrees that the Remploy workers in Wishaw have, like Remploy workers across the whole country, responded well to the difficult choices that the management has had to make in recent years and that they are still determined to make a success of the company and its production. Does he agree that one way in which action by public agencies in Scotland could be encouraged would be to name and shame the councils and other public bodies that are not using article 19? Perhaps the Scottish Government could take that suggestion on board.
It is a positive suggestion, and I hope that the minister will respond to it.
The minister has made the right noises about social enterprises, but sadly those noises have not always been matched by the right outcomes. The minister will recall the case of aye can in Aberdeen, in which he intervened at the point at which the council threatened it with closure and he looked to create a social enterprise to give that supported employment provider a future. Sadly that did not happen and, as we look at the case of Glencraft, it is important that we do not see the same disappointment of the hopes that have been raised by support from central and local government for the creation of a Glencraft 2. Ministers have encouraged the workforce so far, and they must stick with the project until it is up and running. If they do so, they can help to make a difference.
I began by mentioning Aberdeen Remploy in my constituency. That factory is now leading the way in the Remploy brand in piloting a social enterprise model. It is doing so with the full support of United Kingdom ministers and in tandem with plans for a recruitment branch to get disabled people into mainstream employment. As Tom Clarke recognised, that twin-track approach is the right way forward. I hope that ministers will also give it their practical support in word and deed, so that places such as Glencraft and Remploy can continue to serve a useful function into the future.
I, too, congratulate Richard Baker on securing the debate. I warmly welcome the representatives from Scotland's supported workplaces who are in the gallery this evening.
The need to provide meaningful work and to integrate people who have disabilities, learning difficulties or mental health problems into society and the economy of Scotland has never been significantly debated. I believe that much more could be done to expand that area through the development of new ventures or the expansion of existing projects.
As the briefing from the Scottish social enterprise coalition shows, the issue of supported environments is complex. People who are disadvantaged, for example through disability, will find it very difficult to secure meaningful employment. Supported work environments such as Glencraft and Remploy offer jobs to people who would simply not get a job elsewhere. They also offer a much higher level of meaningful employment than is available to that group of people in the conventional jobs market. People in such work feel safe, benefit from peer-group association and receive on-going support—all critical factors in ensuring social inclusion.
The campaign to reopen Glencraft through a new venture, Glencraft (Social Enterprise) Ltd, which will provide sustainable employment for the workforce, has been supported by many people in north-east Scotland, and I am pleased that, through joint working, it has been possible to find a positive solution. Specifically, it is important to note the painstaking work that has been done by Aberdeen City Council, Scottish Enterprise and the Aberdeen-based energy firm PSN. I also congratulate the council on its offer to allow the new venture to operate rent free for its first year. I wish all who are involved well in taking Glencraft forward and developing a viable future to sustain employment for as many staff as possible.
The north-east has many great social enterprise success stories, including Wood Recyclability near Pitmedden, which provides meaningful employment in a workshop environment for 45 adults with learning difficulties and minor physical disabilities, and the Bread Maker in Aberdeen, which provides work and training for 27 adults with learning disabilities, supported by a staff of 13 people and a group of volunteers who give their time freely. I may say that the products of both enterprises give excellent value to their appreciative customers, as have the products made by Glencraft over many years.
The motion refers specifically to
"greater awareness and use of Article 19 of the EU public procurement directive, which allows public sector contracts to be reserved for workplaces where more than 50% of the workforce is disabled".
I believe that that can be used to help to develop additional opportunities, and I hope that all public sector organisations, including the national health service, the Scottish Prison Service, local authorities, police forces and the Parliament, will investigate the opportunity to actively support such contracts while satisfying the criteria for best value, which is, of course, vital.
The recession has shown how vulnerable many businesses are—especially those that have a charitable or social enterprise element. In the recession, many have experienced a decrease in or loss of funding. The coming financial period will be difficult for many businesses, voluntary organisations and social enterprises. I hope that a sustainable Glencraft venture can be developed to employ as many former employees as possible.
I congratulate all those who are involved throughout Scotland in supporting the work of supported workplaces. I hope that the minister will tell Parliament what steps the Scottish Government is taking to assist the development of new ventures or the expansion of existing projects.
I add my congratulations to Richard Baker. I also particularly congratulate the employees of sheltered workplaces and Community union representatives who are in the public gallery on forcing the issue on to the political agenda, confronting us as politicians and ensuring that action has been taken. They are to be commended for that tireless work, from which many people will benefit.
A danger is that such debates can sometimes be soft and involve kind words and expressions of concern—having heard Maureen Watt's speech, I exclude her from that. In fact, the debate is tough and we should be obliged to confront it, because it is about real people and real discrimination. Government at every level is obliged to find solutions to that.
Unemployment levels among people with disabilities are a scandal. We are talking not about doing people a favour but about meeting an obligation and entitling people to achieve their potential. We need to shift from simply expressing concern about the position in which people find themselves to finding ways of delivering. Maureen Watt gave us a load of explanations for why things could not be done. We should listen to people who have solutions, capacity and talents but who have been denied opportunities.
Sometimes, a false debate takes place about whether we are in favour of sheltered, supported workplaces or mainstreaming access to employment. Given the unemployment levels among people who are disabled, I understand why anxiety is felt about a shift to mainstreaming, because mainstream employers have fallen down on the matter, as has the public sector. The notion is also held that we can have only supported workplaces or mainstream employment, but it is possible to move from a supported workplace into a mainstream workplace—that is a huge opportunity for people.
I ask the Scottish Government to recognise in its mainstream thinking what it says about its obligation to people with disabilities. What does it say in its skills strategy? Such documents do not happen by accident. I am concerned that Scottish Enterprise as now recast has no responsibility for people and place. The consequence of that for disadvantaged groups and communities is evident, but that also applies to people with disabilities. Such strategies will not operate simply through the market; political will is required at every level.
The Government's priority is the economy. We must show where people's needs and entitlements are placed in the economic strategy. Equality must inform every Government priority. That is why I and others maintain the critical importance of having a champion for disabled workers at the table when an employment or economic strategy is discussed.
I congratulate Royal Strathclyde Blindcraft Industries in my city and City Building on embracing the notion of using the European legislation. RSBI has done critical groundbreaking work with young disabled people. It runs a yearly school vocational programme to provide more than 30 schoolchildren with special learning needs half a day's training per week as part of their curriculum. At the end of the year's training, they receive a Scottish vocational qualification. We cannot measure the confidence that that gives those young people and the opportunity for them to be role models for other people with disabilities in the issues that they face.
We are examining the challenge to us from the people in the gallery and in our communities about how we ensure not just value for money but value for people. I urge the minister to take that challenge in his response.
I, too, congratulate Richard Baker for securing tonight's debate on an important matter, and I pay tribute to the tenacity and resilience of the Glencraft workers. I am very pleased that the private sector has rallied round to help and that Aberdeen City Council will continue to lend support by offering a rent waiver for the next year.
Everyone has the right to work, and to do work that is meaningful and rewarding. It is therefore essential that meaningful training and work be provided for people who have disabilities or health conditions. Ideally, people should where possible be supported, through training and the gaining of practical work experience, to move into mainstream employment. That said, there will always be a role for supported workshops.
Alongside the more traditional large workshops, such as Remploy in Aberdeen and Dundee and Glencraft in my area, the north-east has a strong social enterprise sector. Many social enterprises provide meaningful work for people with disabilities. Off the top of my head, I can think of the following enterprises that are close to my constituency office: Benchmark in Ellon; Can-Do Community Recycling in Fraserburgh; Wood Recyclability in Pitmedden; Rosie's Cafe in Aberdeen; and—right next door to me in Inverurie—Fly Cup Catering, where I can pop in for a cuppa and a fine piece.
There are also many new and exciting initiatives such as the Bread Maker in Aberdeen, which Nanette Milne mentioned. The Bread Maker—this year's winner of the social enterprise Scotland award—is an artisan bakery and coffee house that provides meaningful work and training for adults with learning disabilities. It provides work for 27 apprentices who achieve shared goals in creating and selling a range of innovative top-quality hand-crafted bread, rolls and confectionery in a high-quality environment and providing them for sale in a warm and welcoming environment with the highest standards of customer service.
There are many more such examples in the north-east and across Scotland, all of which operate differently but all of which have the same aim: to provide a safe and supportive work environment for people who would otherwise struggle in the job market. That additional support is costly to provide for all those businesses, which makes them immediately less profitable. For some, the added difficulties of trading during a recession can be the last straw. We need to look at ways of supporting these valuable enterprises. I am absolutely certain that the support that they provide is invaluable to our society. During the current recession, when job opportunities are scarce, it is particularly important to protect and develop those work opportunities.
I add my voice to the calls on the public sector to make greater use of article 19. If even a tiny percentage of public sector contracts were to be earmarked in that way, the result would be such a boost to the sustainability of social enterprises. The public sector could make its money work twice as hard. Surely that is something that we all want to happen. Both Remploy and the British Association for Supported Employment believe that that would deliver a clear community benefit.
As Social Enterprise Scotland outlined in its briefing,
"just as consumers are increasingly aware that they can achieve more for their money by investing ethically or purchasing fair trade products, so public bodies must engage in strategic procurement to add value to the communities they serve."
As John Lamont said:
"By examining ‘value for people' rather than just value for money, they can achieve added value through purchasing decisions. By changing existing public spending practices and shifting the onus on to locally focussed businesses with wider social and environmental aims, longer term financial gains can be achieved."
John Swinney has stated that it is Scottish Government policy that
"every public body should aim to have at least one contract with a supported factory or business."
I am therefore disappointed that so little progress has been made. Only one contract has been let over the past two years under that provision. In his response to the debate, I ask the minister to say what he intends to do to ensure greater take-up of the article 19 provision. Will he advise how many local authority single outcome agreements mention such contracts and tell the chamber about any discussions that he has had with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities on the matter?
I would like to close with a few quotes—what better way in which to understand the value of supported work—
One quote will have to do.
Only one quote? I will close there, Presiding Officer.
I, too, welcome the debate and congratulate Richard Baker for achieving it. I also congratulate Richard Baker, Lewis Macdonald and others for the support that they have given to the campaign. I know of the support that they have given to the Community union and others in taking forward the campaign.
As other members have said, because of the work that Community has done on behalf of its members, we are in no doubt about the importance of these jobs and the visibility of the campaign. As we have heard, Joe Mann, its deputy general secretary, is in the public gallery. We are assured of Community's support for the campaign—support that comes from the top of the organisation. Its work is being taken forward at Scotland level by John Paul McHugh and regional director Heather Meldrum. They are in the Parliament regularly, reminding us of our obligations and duties as MSPs.
I note the wider work that is being taken forward by the likes of Unite and GMB; I know that John Moist and Lyn Turner from those unions are here this afternoon. Significant work has been done across sheltered workplaces under the union learning agenda, as part of union learning fund projects. Unions play a unique role in helping workers who have been detached from learning opportunities and, perhaps, from workplace development opportunities, to engage in a way that they could never before have dreamed of. In the Parliament, we do not always acknowledge much of the work that goes on behind the scenes; it is right that we do so in this evening's debate.
Much has been said about community benefit clauses, especially article 19. Jack McConnell suggested that we name and shame local authorities that have not looked at article 19 with any seriousness. I have done a bit of work on the issue and have written to all local authorities to ask them about their use of community benefit clauses. The response has been patchy, at best. I have received responses from about 24 local authorities, so there are eight that we could name and shame straight away. The response has been positive in some cases. In the interests of government efficiency, I am more than happy to provide the minister with the information at the end of today's debate.
When things work and are done well, we need to do more of them. In Scotland, we spend £8 billion or £9 billion every year on goods and services. In the current economic climate, people will be asked not just what those goods and services deliver but how far they reach into their communities and workplaces and how far they make a difference to people's lives. Article 19 is a classic example of what we can do.
I have been lucky enough to visit RSBI and have seen first hand what can happen. This afternoon we had a debate on skills. Two big issues that were raised in that debate were vocational opportunities for 14, 15 and 16-year-olds trying to get into the workplace and how we can expand apprenticeship opportunities. RSBI is doing that for disabled workers. It is going into schools and working with young people to ensure that they get opportunities in the workplace, and that progression into the workplace is normal for them. It is working with young people to ensure that they have apprenticeship opportunities and gain skills that will stay with them throughout their lives. There is much that we can learn from RSBI and sheltered workplaces more widely. I hope that the union campaign has cross-party support, not just this afternoon but when we leave the chamber and move on.
Finally, much has been said about having a champion for disabled workers. We undoubtedly need one. Perhaps the minister will consider raising the issue in the Cabinet at the next available opportunity. It would be fantastic if we could agree on that today and get an appropriate response from the Scottish Government. It is about releasing our people's potential. If we do not do that, Scotland will not be the country that we all want to see.
I begin by declaring an interest. I am an unpaid member of the board of the Wise Group, an organisation that gets unemployed people into work. Like other members, I congratulate Richard Baker on securing the debate.
Understandably, in the context of what has happened to Glencraft, the debate has focused on the north-east, but it has a wider application throughout Scotland. Along with Trish Godman, I was a member of Strathclyde Regional Council, which in the 1990s had to face up to a similar situation affecting Blindcraft. The problem was the introduction of compulsory competitive tendering by the then Conservative Government, which took away the possibility that had existed in local government of giving disabled workshops a favoured status in the provision of bedding and other supplies, such as furniture, which Blindcraft provided. In Strathclyde, we managed to find a model that worked and continues to work. It was important that that model survived local government reorganisation because, having been sustained by Strathclyde, it had then to be sustained by other local authorities. I am proud of the process that has secured a long-term future for Blindcraft and other, similar organisations. Those organisations should not be treated simply as absorbers of grant funding. They can never compete on a fully commercial basis, but our obligation is to lift part of the playing field so that it is in effect made level for them—so that they can operate as commercial organisations in a financial context that acknowledges the reality of the people whom they are trying to support.
We are not trying to get organisations such as Blindcraft and Glencraft to give us the lowest deliverable commercial price for their products; it is a combination of a good commercial price and the social benefit, which provides a way, in all conscience, to support disabled people in society. Like Lewis Macdonald, I pay tribute to Tom Clarke, the disability minister in the incoming Government in 1997, who made progress on many issues in this area and did a terrific job on behalf of disabled people.
Not every disabled person requires supported work. Many disabled people require personal support to allow them to get into the mainstream workforce, which is a positive thing that we should be doing, but there are some people with disabilities for whom that is not an option. For them, the best option is a supported workforce in which they can feel secure and can make a productive contribution. I have inherited a Remploy factory in my constituency that does just that, and it functions very well. However, the factory is always under pressure and under threat. People are always asking the same questions, such as, "Could we not get this cheaper from somewhere else?" They probably could get what the factory produces more cheaply somewhere else, if they use a purely commercial basis. That is not the sort of playing field that we should be on, however. We need to level the playing field up, acknowledging that people in supported workshops deserve a fair crack of the whip. We should ensure that their organisations can operate in a commercial context, but on a fair basis.
At this point I am prepared to accept a motion without notice to extend business by up to half an hour in order to complete the debate.
Motion moved,
That, under Rule 8.14.3, the debate be extended by up to 30 minutes.—[Richard Baker.]
Motion agreed to.
I congratulate Richard Baker on securing a debate on a very important issue. I welcome our visitors in the public gallery. As a lifelong trade unionist, I welcome the involvement of the Community union.
My first experience of Remploy was when I did business with it. In my first career, in the detergents industry, I bought production and packaging services from the organisation. At that point, I formed a strong and positive impression of the business—albeit that that was somewhere south of here, as members will appreciate.
I agree with Johann Lamont that, across society, the level of employment of people who have disabilities is deplorable. We must acknowledge that. We can understand how we got here—I will come back to that—but it is not acceptable. As a society, and as leaders in society, we must do something about it.
We must also be clear that it is no good expecting private industry suddenly to come along and do all the right things, particularly in the present environment. That is unrealistic and will not happen. We need to look to other models. I am, therefore, delighted that there may be an opportunity for Glencraft with PSN in Aberdeen. I note this afternoon's decision of the finance and resources committee of Aberdeen City Council, which, as I understand it, is to do something about Glencraft's rent. That move goes very much in the right direction but, as the council has yet to set and complete its budget, we should perhaps hold our breaths.
I congratulate everybody who has got involved. The First Minister has been involved, and Aberdeen City Council has taken the issue very seriously, led by Sue Bruce.
I return briefly to the economic background. We must be careful not to point the finger in the wrong direction. As I understand it, Aberdeen City Council has been supporting this worthy and worthily supported organisation at a level of about £470,000 a year over many years—about £7 million over the past decade. We all know the difficulties that Aberdeen City Council is facing—I am not here to rehearse how we got here—but when there is pressure on the existing budget, never mind next year's, with no reserves worth speaking of, we have to take a long and hard look at what is being subsidised. It is no surprise that the council has had to change its position.
I have tried to seek consensus during the debate, but I think that Nigel Don should acknowledge, as Des McNulty did, that political will is needed if the important organisations that we are talking about are to be supported.
I thank the member for making that point.
In addition to what I said about the economic background, I point out that Aberdeen City Council has been subsidising—from the Scottish budget—an organisation whose work reduces the DWP benefits that are paid out by Westminster. This is not an argument about independence; it is simply a recognition that, given that the council is saving Westminster money that would otherwise be paid in benefits, we might ask whether Westminster should provide—throughout the country—the subsidies that are required. I do not want to get lost in the numbers, but the sums involved turn out to be roughly the same. We should consider who benefits from Aberdeen City Council subsidising supported employment, and we should be prepared to return to the issue.
On article 19, experience has taught us that the issue is difficult. I read the report of a Westminster hall debate a couple of years ago, in which it was clear that the UK Government had thought that Remploy could be restructured and could take on article 19 work. However, that has not materialised. We must acknowledge that it will be difficult to make that happen.
I convey to Richard Baker members' appreciation for his securing the debate.
I declare an interest. Blindcraft has often had depots in north-east Glasgow, and when I was a young scavenger for various items for go-karts and bonfire night, staff were always helpful and ready to provide offcuts and fabric remnants. Members might remember the great story by Bill Naughton, "Spit Nolan", about a boy and his fantastic go-kart. The Blindcraft staff were so helpful to us in the early 1970s that I think that we almost matched Spit Nolan's achievements.
In the late 1990s, I was rewarded for my endeavours as a youngster. Along with Des McNulty and other members, I was involved with the reorganisation of local government and the new Glasgow City Council, and as leader of the council I was delighted to support a commitment to regenerate the process for supported workshops and to try to ensure that there was a partnership approach with the structure that predated City Building. Although the relationship was sometimes turbulent behind the scenes, it was worth while and the partnership has gone from strength to strength.
I mention that because the nub of the debate is how we engage political will and find practical solutions that use whatever legislation or framework exists. On the proposal to use article 19, I do not think that any member would demur. However, the issue is the reality of using article 19 when big budget decisions must be made, particularly in the current budgetary climate, in which local government's experience is similar to our experience in the reorganisation period.
It is important that organisations that run supported workshops are flexible—I think that they are. They also need to diversify, but they need help to do that. We must try to support them in that regard.
I hope that the minister will discuss with Cabinet colleagues the wonderful opportunity that the Commonwealth games present for the east end of Glasgow. A substantial amount of public money will be spent, alongside the injection of funds from the private sector. The aim is to build 1,500 new homes and a 120-bed care unit for the elderly. There will be other support facilities in the vicinity. With a bit of will, it strikes me that the minister could convene an action group of interested parties to explore options around supported working, as part of the discussions about the games legacy. The reality is that 2014 is only four years away. We need to do that work now if we are to maximise the benefits from the games. A targeted approach to training and development would also bring benefits. I am involved in that issue with local councillors in the context of the legacy document that Glasgow City Council and the Scottish Government have jointly supported.
If we want the games to have a successful legacy, as well as to be a successful showpiece event, we must ensure that young people have an opportunity to contribute through supported workplaces. Perhaps the jewel in the crown should be a commitment on that. If we are really serious about it, why should we not aim for the gold medal standard that 2014 can give us? Perhaps, if we have a champion now, we can be champions in 2014.
I congratulate Richard Baker on securing the debate and thank the people who are in the public gallery for their hard work and involvement, particularly Community, the union that has supported the Glencraft workers through some difficult times.
I will raise a couple of questions about areas that do not have the kind of sheltered employment and supported workshops that have been successful elsewhere. I was interested to read through the list of the different locations where such facilities operate. I already knew that there were none in my constituency, but I had thought that there might be some in the wider area of the south-west. I say that so that the debate is not entirely focused on the north-east. The matter needs to be addressed strategically throughout Scotland. If there are approaches that work well, why not replicate them?
Let us examine the realities for people in situations and areas where such opportunities do not currently exist. My constituency office is based in Cumnock community college, where there is a project that is the legacy of something that the local authority started some time ago with the intention of providing employment opportunities for people with learning disabilities. That project has now become the college's responsibility. The difficulty is that, because of its funding mechanisms, the college must show progression, but some of the people who are attending courses through the project have already been through the courses, and may go through them yet again, without the opportunity to move on to fulfilling, proper employment. I do not blame the college or the local authority for that, but the danger is that those people have been forgotten in the process. If that is happening in my constituency, I suspect that other people throughout Scotland are in exactly the same position. With the right support, they could take up employment opportunities and not be confined to repeating the same process over and over.
I have seen the benefits of a number of social enterprises throughout my constituency, including operations run by organisations such as May-Tag in South Ayrshire, which found it extremely difficult to secure on-going funding, Momentum Scotland and Rehab Scotland. Most recently, East Ayrshire Carers Centre opened Dalmellington house, a hotel that not only provides an opportunity for carers to get respite but is run as a social enterprise that provides good-quality training for young people in the hotel management and hospitality industry. We ought to support such innovative ideas.
I have a question for the minister, which other members have raised, on article 19. Jack McConnell has suggested naming and shaming the authorities that are not using article 19, and others have suggested at least identifying them. The issue with identifying them is that we have to monitor them and know which they are. What work is the minister doing on that? To follow up on Alison McInnes's point, what can the minister do to encourage not only local authorities but other public sector bodies to use article 19 and show that they have done it?
I, too, add my congratulations to Richard Baker, Lewis Macdonald and John-Paul McHugh, the Community union and the members of Glencraft who are in the gallery. I also congratulate my colleague John Moist—I was a union official in the GMB for a number of years and have worked with him for many years—and Lyn Turner from Unite, who is also in the gallery.
What makes me angry is the fact that this issue has been going on for a long time. We had a debate in the Parliament in my name in 2007, just before the change in Government, when Allan Wilson was Deputy Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning. We also had petition PE1036, in the name of John Moist, which called on the Parliament
"to urge the Scottish Executive, in partnership with Remploy and other sheltered workshop employers, to promote employment opportunities for disabled people by reserving local authority and/or government contracts to supported businesses, as permitted by EU Article 19 on Public Procurement."
The question is what the Government has done to address the issue. We must bear in mind the mammoth purchasing power that exists in the NHS and in many Government departments. It strikes me that, as has been said before, there is a need for nurses' uniforms, prison officers' uniforms, police uniforms and fire service uniforms. Why are some of those contracts not reserved? When the Government has money to spend, our political will must be directed towards ensuring that some of the contracts go to sheltered workshops. That is the nub of the argument.
People who are disabled are not asking for handouts or grants; they are asking for the dignity of taking home a wage packet at the end of the week. That is what they want above all and that is what they should be able to get. That is also why I have given a commitment, over the past 10 years, to work with John Moist and Lyn Turner of Unite and the Community official John Steele, who has just retired.
By not getting our act together, we have done a disservice to everyone who works in sheltered workshops across Scotland. It is no longer any good for the minister to say, "We have only just taken over." The SNP has been in government for three years. I have raised questions with the minister, he has had meetings with my colleagues John Moist and Lyn Turner and he has answered parliamentary questions. We want to know what the minister will do. Has he called a summit of public sector procurement management? Has he called a summit of his own officials, given them a clear and direct line and told them what he wants done? That is the job of a Government minister.
I was gobsmacked and angry—almost as angry as I was when I heard what Maureen Watt said—when I learned today that a civil servant had said in their response to a letter, "Well, is it really appropriate in these straitened times to be reserving contracts specially for disabled people?" This is all about attitude, education and training. The minister must ensure that his officials truly understand what article 19 of the European Union public procurement directive means. It does not wash with me that we have to keep coming back to the issue.
We are always keen to read about the discussions between COSLA and the Scottish Government. COSLA and the Scottish Government produced a useful joint briefing on supported employment. Way back in 2007, they called for a strategy and a national framework, and asked for a working group to be developed and established by 2008
"with the aim of reporting by 2009/10".
None of that has been done. The minister has to get a grip of the situation and he has to help disabled people throughout Scotland, not by giving them handouts but by giving them employment opportunities.
Some excellent speeches have been made. I congratulate Richard Baker on securing the debate. The fact that so many of us have stayed to listen and speak shows the interest that there is in this issue in the Parliament. The sentiment with which Helen Eadie finished is the one that we need to capture: it is about action.
I agree with Lewis Macdonald that people with disabilities need a range of employment choices. They also need a range of training opportunities, so that those employment choices can be a reality. Over the years, supported employment has been vital in giving people who have talent and skills a crack at getting a job when traditional industry would not have looked at them.
I can look around my constituency and see a host of social enterprises that are an important part of our economy and which provide a variety of opportunities for people. The Cyrenians organics recycling enterprise ticks every box in this Parliament: it provides work-based training for vulnerable people, who start off a long way away from the labour market and end up being capable of employment and getting decent jobs. Such an approach is more expensive. The enterprise takes on 50 trainees a year, but although it pulls in charitable money, there is a need for public sector cash to help. Other social enterprises in my constituency include the Engine Shed, the Garvald bakery and the Soap Company Ltd, whose shop is on the Royal Mile just up from the Parliament. They all provide high-quality goods and services and high-quality training and learning experiences for people, who can then move on.
Only this week, I heard of another fantastic social enterprise in my constituency that has been given a lifeline of an extra month. On 23 December, the staff were told that the place would shut the next day, but we have managed to get a stay of execution for a month. The social enterprise in question is a community cafe that trains up people with disabilities and gives them experience of cooking and serving. That experience must be kept, so I hope that we are able to use that month's stay of execution.
There are pressures on budgets, but there is also a cost in getting rid of such supported employment and training opportunities. The cost is that the people involved will not get the chance to be economically active and to support their families. They will not get the chance of dignity. To pick up Nigel Don's point, the opportunity that we gain from keeping people in employment is that fewer people will need to take up benefit so more of that UK money will come through the Scottish Parliament. There is a win-win if we can just construct things correctly.
In Edinburgh, there are real concerns about Blindcraft, which was set up in 1763. There have been many economic crises since 1763, so surely we cannot let the current recession sound the death knell for that organisation. I understand that 63 per cent of those who work for Blindcraft are blind, registered blind or disabled. They do a proper job. They create products that people want to buy, such as beds and mattresses. We must be able to use article 19 of the EU public procurement directive to allow public sector procurement—in addition to private sector procurement—to give such companies the chance to compete and to market themselves. Ministers must have a role in that regard. Surely universities, prisons and other bodies issue public sector contracts for items such as beds and mattresses.
Like other colleagues who have asked specific questions, I am keen to hear from the minister what the Scottish Government is doing through its procurement policies. There is clearly a role for monitoring and supporting social enterprises by sending out a leadership message to local authorities. Ministers need to ensure that local authorities do everything that they can to make the money work by considering public benefit opportunities when they enter into best-value contracts. Ministers have a leadership role not only in the £33 billion to £36 billion that they spend in the taxpayer's name, but in the wider public procurement policy.
I hope that the interest in tonight's debate will send a clear, cross-party message that we would like to see action. Perhaps if we can have another debate in a few months, we will be able to hear that some positive action has been taken.
I congratulate Richard Baker on his balanced and comprehensive motion and for the speech with which he opened tonight's debate. I welcome the people from Glencraft, Blindcraft and other organisations who are in the public gallery. I also welcome the first-class speeches that we have heard tonight. To respond to them all in seven minutes will be challenging—we could spend several hours on the issue, as there is a lot to go into.
The fundamental point for us is that our whole-hearted support for the third sector is absolutely central. We have given unprecedented support to the third sector, which has risen to the challenge by bringing much new thinking into the Scottish economy. That thinking has been translated into action in social enterprises in every town and village in Scotland. We are all aware of the excellent products from supported businesses such as Blindcraft, Remploy and Glencraft; many of us sleep in comfortable mattresses that are supplied by such firms. In the north-east in particular, many thousands of heads are laid on Glencraft products. Those products compete with the best of the market and are bought because of their quality.
This is the world of social enterprises: real businesses that do not distribute profit to shareholders but invest in social outcomes that include creating new life chances for people. Such businesses recognise that people with disabilities want to do real jobs as full members of the community.
I will pause there to respond to some of the excellent speeches that members have made. Perhaps the key points in Richard Baker's speech were about article 19 of the EU directive and the experience of Glasgow works, which we know is willing to help Glencraft. Richard Baker pointed out that article 19 is being used to win contracts, which is excellent. As members will know, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the Scottish Government are working specifically on article 19 and we are more generally working on public sector procurement reform. The public sector procurement advisory group is very much focused on that issue.
Jack McConnell made the point, in the lee of Lewis Macdonald's excellent recap of Tom Clarke's dual strategy—which I utterly endorse and think that it is a strategy that should instinctively be adopted in Scotland—that we could name and shame public bodies that do not use article 19. In the medium term, I am more inclined to prefer broadcasting what works, although I intend to follow up on John Park's kind offer of data that will enable us to move forward.
I was also taken by Johann Lamont's comment on the need for an evidence-led approach that involves looking at the data and putting a tangible case. I also completely buy Des McNulty's comment about a level playing field and the need to build a blend of commercial and social values.
Will the minister commit to the use of article 19 by, for example, saying that he will guarantee that in the Southern general hospital development, a number of the contracts will be reserved?
We will look at every option. That is the message that I took from Frank McAveety, who made a point about the legacy from 2014. I am genuine when I say that we will look at every option. The debate has struck a chord.
A thought that Alison McInnes triggered in my mind is that, at this moment in time, we have a key opportunity, given the additional money that exists in the third sector and the fact that the social enterprise model is coming through. We can blend the existing strengths of supported businesses and article 19 more effectively with what we do through community planning partnerships, the single outcome agreements and the private sector investment that is being provided in the case that we are discussing.
Supported workshops have been through substantial change over the past few decades and there are many examples of supported businesses that have survived by modernising their business practices and tuning their products and services to meet the evolving needs of customers and the market. The full story of Glencraft has still to be written, but it looks as if its original structure, as an educational trust rather than a business, is no longer right for modern times. That is no one's fault: there was no failure or error other than an inability to see the future as clearly and as early as some other supported workshops have managed to do. However, according to RSM Tenon, the liquidators, Glencraft left £3 million of debt. More poignantly, as the motion states, its closure resulted in 52 people losing their jobs in the week before Christmas, in an extremely difficult financial climate.
What is happening? A lot of effort has gone into helping Glencraft make the vital transition from an educational trust that was not much different from the one that was set up in 1843 to a modern social enterprise. For the past two years, officials of the Scottish Government, key figures in Aberdeen City Council and some of the best people in Aberdeen's social enterprise world have been working on a package that would ensure transition to a new social enterprise model.
By mid-2008, all parties were agreed on the need for a fresh start for Glencraft that was built around the new social enterprise model. Funds would be needed, but Glencraft sat on a site of considerable value. New products would be needed, but there were several strong social enterprise partners who wanted to work on that. However, despite those factors, the changes did not happen. The old Glencraft ceased to trade in November last year.
Now, after the evident distress, which we all regret, there is the prospect of a new beginning. Bob Keillor and Duncan Skinner of PSN have come forward with a plan. The proposed business plan sets out how a new venture, Glencraft (Social Enterprise) Ltd, could be set up to build on the work of the previous company. It would retain charitable status and employ as many former staff as possible. PSN would continue to be involved to ensure that the new social enterprise would benefit from the continuing involvement of a highly successful private sector company. The First Minister has given his full support to the efforts that all those partners are making to advance the potential new business venture.
However, there are still many hurdles to overcome. The motion refers to article 19 of the EU public procurement directive. To my mind, that is not a hurdle, but has the makings of a real asset for businesses such as Glencraft. However, addressing funding, dealing with controls on state aid, getting the right people on the board and finding the right management are all still at the hurdle stage. The partners who pulled together the transition package 18 months ago are working closely together and we fully expect an outcome of which we can be proud.
At this stage, it is right to let PSN and its partners get on with the project. In so doing, we must recognise that they are not alone. I put on record our admiration for the effort that the Aberdeen community has put into the initiative, which is not surprising, given that for 150 years, Glencraft was run using the talents and support of local people. Today, it is local people who are building the new venture. The council—in particular, its new chief executive, Sue Bruce—has been very much to the fore, and local social enterprises have offered substantial help and are expecting a new member in their stable in the shape of the new Glencraft.
However, the workforce deserves most praise. They have shown fortitude, resilience and a willingness to be part of the new beginning. The First Minster has recently met the staff on several occasions, and he immediately picked up on the fact that they have commitment and skills and are waiting to contribute to a community that wants to help them. They will continue to receive our support, and all the messages that I have been given today in this fulsome debate will be fully considered when I write things up.
Meeting closed at 18:10.