 The next item of business is a debate on motion 3873, the name of Jamie Hepburn, on the future of Job Centre Plus Network in Scotland. I invite members who wish to speak in the debate to press the request to speak buttons now, and I call on Jamie Hepburn to speak and to move the motion. Minister, 13 minutes are there about, please. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. As invited to, I'll move the motion in my name at the outset, lest I forget later on. When we recently debated the UK Department for Work and Pensions proposals to close Job Centre Plus facilities in Glasgow, I predict we would not be long before we debated such matters again, and here we are, Presiding Officer. The now Scotland-wide plan closures are proposals that impact communities and people at the length and breadth of the country. They are disproportionate. In impact, they have been announced with little detail, with limited consultation, with even less engagement with those who rely on and those who work in Job Centre Plus services. Today, it allows the Parliament to send a loud and clear message about our concerns about the implications for those who rely on the service of their local job centre, the implications for DWP staff in the locations and offices that are targeted for closure and the far-reaching implications for those who rely on access to the local job centre, and particularly for vulnerable customers. On December 7, last year, the closure of half, 8 out of 16 job centres in Glasgow, was revealed. Closure of 50 per cent of job centres in Glasgow was revealed in the press, with no consultation or prior notice with the community affected or with the Scottish Government or the Scottish Parliament. As I alluded to at the outset, the Parliament had an opportunity to debate the closures in Glasgow on 18 January during a member's business debate that was brought forward by my friend Bob Doris. Voices across this chamber united with us outside this Parliament in concern about the impact on people who rely on Glasgow's job centre network. Voices united in condemnation that the proposals were not communicated to communities. Indeed, this is a UK Government who seems not even to know where Glasgow is. In the House of Commons, when I asked about the closures in Glasgow, Caroline Noakes MP, the Parliamentary Undersecretary of State for welfare delivery, said that the Minister for Employment, as the UK Minister for Employment, was in Musselborough just two weeks ago. That in itself is just one example of how far removed the UK Government is from local communities in Scotland. Those proposals were not bad enough on 26 January. Once again, with no consultation, the DWP announced a further raft of closures across the UK and across Scotland. That lack of forewarning came despite myself having raised directly the fear to have provided such previously with Glasgow when I met Damon Hines on 19 January. I wrote to him following that meeting and I have to say by some miraculous coincidence with this being the day of the debate. He has replied to that letter today. What stands out at first glance in that letter is that there is not particularly much additional information. There is no commitment to consulting on all of the closures, and particularly disappointing, Presiding Officer, is the failure by Mr Hines to commit to visit the communities and the people who will be impacted on the ground across the Scotland to truly understand their real concerns. I would continue to urge him to come and visit those communities. Those proposals, those further proposals that were revealed on 26 January, it was an awful impact on a further 16 sites and other parts of Scotland. Nine job centres, six back offices, and one centre for health and disability assessment. Let me be clear that it could mean the closure of a further six job centres, Broxburn, Edinburgh City, Inverness, Port Glasgow, Alexandria and Bimbacolab. We have also learned from the press that the Greensmith job centre, which is not even listed on the plans closure list, is planned to move to Falkirk. We continue to find out details to the media rather than directly from the UK Government. It is a continuing demonstration of the failure to properly communicate those decisions. We know that Greenock 28 staff and services will move from the current job centre across Greenock before March 2018. That is a move that involves a distance of 2.9 miles. Had that been judged to be 0.1 of a mile more, a consultation on closure would have been required. It is my view that any proposal for closure should be open to consultation. The UK Government cannot just make decisions based on lines or circles on a map, which seems very clear as far as how much of how the decisions about sites to be closed has been made. I want to highlight my concerns about those plans, concerns echoed by the First Minister in this chamber last week and concerns that I have heard directly from people who will be affected. The factor that seems to have driven those changes seems to be largely predicated on lease arrangements for buildings that job centres are located in coming to an end. That strikes me as an odd way to determine which communities should have the continued provision of job centre services. It also seems clear that having to travel further, as many job centre service users will have to do, will have the biggest impact on those who are vulnerable with health and mobility problems or those with caring commitments. Decisions based on lines drawn on maps do not reflect the reality that many people do not own or have access to occur. Decisions based on lines drawn on maps do not reflect the reality of how communities are connected with one another by public transport. Decisions based on lines drawn on maps do not reflect the reality that increased travel costs will be a strain for families already under financial pressure. In this chamber, all of us should make no mistake that those closures have left people worried at the invitation of Bob Doris and Patrick Grady MP. I visited Mary Hill for her halls earlier this week and I heard worries from some service users about the cost of travel, worries about hard choices between paying for travel or paying for food. The additional challenge of accessing more remote job centres at point of times will also seem inevitable to me increase the risk of being subject to benefits sanctions, which is particularly a concern that I heard in Mary Hill when I visited Parkhead housing association last week. Those changes also threaten important and established relationships with work coaches. I know firsthand how dedicated and hard-working many DWP staff are for all our concerns and criticisms of the framework at which they have to work. I know that DWP staff are committed to those whom they work with. I know that productive relationships with DWP work coaches are also really important to customers with complex or sensitive needs, who get to know and trust the work coach that they work with. When I met one parent's family in Scotland, alongside citizens advice bureau and home start in Mary Hill this week, they spoke eloquently of the dehumanising effect and claimants having often to share personal stories with strangers and over and over again. Those closures are also not rationalising the assumption that more people now access job centre plus services online, but a significant number of clients do not have the IT facilities that they need to access. In fact, they rely on their local job centres for the facilities to undertake computer search and apply for jobs online. In many cases, the closure of a local job centre will make accessing services online more difficult. The reality is that DWP plans mean not just the closure of job centres across Scotland but the closure of back-office facilities as well. The DWP also proposes closure of six administrative centres across Scotland. Those facilities are not simply faceless back-of-house administrative offices. Those facilities employ hard-working, dedicated and committed people who work to ensure front-line services can be effective. Those facilities provide significant numbers of jobs and make a vital contribution to local areas. DWP ministers have stated that staff impacted by those changes will have the option of moving elsewhere, but that may not be possible in every instance. For example, jobs in Sylvan House in Edinburgh could be moved or redeployed to Newcastle by March 2018. Staff in Cymnac will find it difficult to be able to readily travel to elsewhere to continue employment with DWP. I have met the public and commercial services union and shared their concerns about the negative impact that those closures will have on job centre staff as well as service users. I believe that, Presiding Officer, we should explore all the options to ensure that services are still there for those who need them. Joint working between the Scottish Government and the UK Government could better realise that. Our new devolved employment support services should trigger the opportunity to align existing employability support at the Scottish and UK level here in Scotland and to drive alignment and shared governance and accountability. Paragraph 58 of the Smith commission agreement said that the UK and Scottish Government will identify ways to further link services through methods such as co-location wherever possible and establish more formal mechanisms to govern the job centre plus network in Scotland. Of course, it will give way to Mr Tomkins, who will understand very well given that he was part of the commission. I am not solely responsible for having written every word of the Smith commission agreement, minister, but thank you for the compliment. There is very much in the minister's remarks that I agree with, but can I push him a little on whether he has made any particular suggestions, either through the joint ministerial working group on welfare or through any other mechanism of intergovernmental communication, about the location of any specific devolved service in any of the job centres or other DWP properties that are cited for closure? Let me be clear. I do not know that, except that the intervention was so much meant to be a compliment to Mr Tomkins. I am certainly aware that he did not write the entirety of the Smith commission process. I hope that that was not him trying to step back from a shared commitment to paragraph 58 of the Smith commission agreement. I hear him saying from a certain position, absolutely not. I very much welcome that. In terms of his point, and I recognise that that has been laid out in the terms of the amendment that Mr Tomkins has presented, much of which I could have accepted, but I think that he is unfortunate that he has altered or sought to alter the wording. That is why he will not be accepting his amendment. He sought to alter the wording that those changes will. I think that it is clear that the changes that are proposed by the DWP will have a negative impact on service users. He would rather say that they may have a negative impact on service users. Much of the rest of the tenor of his amendment, I agree with. For example, he referred to the need in his amendment to have the process of two-way dialogue. I absolutely accept the need for two-way dialogue. All I can say to this chamber is that, right now, it has rather been much, from my perspective, an effort at one-way dialogue from our side, and little by the way of any dialogue coming back. With respect to the specific point that Mr Tomkins has made, I have sought to explore the possibility of how we can undertake a programme of co-location with the UK Government. My officials have done so. Skills Development Scotland has met the DWP to try and see how we can undertake that at specific locations, but what I can say to this chamber—I would have thought that that would be a self-evident point—is rather difficult to come to any specific proposal about any specific location where a job centre might be closed when we do not find out about the specific centres that are going to be closed until a decision seems to have been taken. If we want to engage in meaningful dialogue around the terms of paragraph 58, I think that it would rather be better if the DWP engaged in the process of two-way dialogue that Mr Smith has urged, and I am sure that this entire Parliament would accept as necessary. We can see how we can co-locate services to ensure better services for people on the ground. Let me be very clear that the process so far around this closure agreement suggests further progress is needed to make the terms of paragraph 58 of the Smith commission agreement a reality. The rationale for the decisions that are taken by the UK Government needs to be better explained, examined and justified by the Scottish Government. I believe that this Parliament should be involved in planning and delivery of co-location or outreach services, which I just made very clearly to Mr Tomkins. More can and must be done to seek alternative accommodation or facilities in locations where job centres could be closed. Therefore, I urge the UK Government to share its plans to allow the Scottish Government to better engage and provide a platform for further discussion and paragraph 58 of the Smith commission. Until it does so, I believe that it is incumbent and I hope that this entire Parliament will unite this evening to send a very clear message to the UK Government until it engages in that process. It should halt its specific process of its closures to allow for us to collectively ensure continued support for our communities. I urge this Parliament to back that position. From the day that I discovered that the DWP had plans to close a number of job centres initially in Glasgow and then across Scotland more broadly, I articulated my concerns about the proposals. First to the Secretary of State, as the minister knows, and latterly in this Parliament and indeed in the press. From the beginning, our priority has been to seek to understand the proposals, not to condemn them, but neither to condone them. Our amendment to today's motion seeks to reflect that position. First, Presiding Officer, I think that it is important to understand the context in which this is happening. There are two elements to this. The first is that there is, in Westminster, all party agreement, including the Labour Party and the SNP, that the future of job centre plus needs to be different from its past. The nature of the employment market is changing, and the nature of the work that job centres perform is also changing. For example, it is increasingly important to the work of job centres for them to have the facility and the space to act as recruiting hubs for local employers so that employers can seek to hire employees at those job centres. It is much easier to do with a smaller number of larger job centres than it is with a larger number of smaller job centres. It is worth recalling that, in November, the all-party House of Commons Work and Pensions Committee unanimously said that the future of job centre plus is one of change. To make a success of its new expanded role, JCP job centre plus will have to ensure that it is open to working in ways that are increasingly flexible, adaptable and experimental. Pauline McNeill I thank the member for giving way, and you rightly talk about a UK perspective on job centre closures. Do you think that Glasgow, the city you represent, is ready for half of its centres to close, particularly given the level of digital exclusion that there is in Glasgow? I have said before that all eight of the Glasgow job centres that are cited for closure should be put to public consultation. I have made that point to the Secretary of State. I have made that point in this chamber before. Three of them have been put to public consultation, and my view is that all eight of them should have been. The second part of the context in which we have to understand this set of proposals is that the DWP's proposals are coming at a time when the jobs market in the UK, including here in Scotland, has changed very considerably. There are now more jobs in the British economy than ever before, with more than 2.7 million more jobs than there were when Labour was last in office in 2010. In Glasgow, when Pauline McNeill just asked me about Glasgow, in Glasgow the claimant count has fallen by 44 per cent since 2010. In this context, it is surely rational to keep under review the nature and scale of the job centre provision that we need. I am happy to give away again. Bob Doris I am sure that I have mentioned the statistics that Mr Tonksons uses in terms of the claimant count falling. Will you accept that those who remain unemployed in Glasgow will be some of the most marginalised, vulnerable and furthest away from the labour market that you will find anywhere in the UK, and it is those very individuals and families that need that service at the heart of their communities, not three and a half mile away? Adam Tomkins I accepted that point when we debated the issue on Mr Doris's motion on 19 January, and I accepted it again. The very next sentence of my remarks here says that all of that said, as I said in our earlier debate on this matter a few weeks ago, even if the nature of the demand is changing and even if the nature of the work that job centres perform is changing, it remains an important consideration that that demand is met locally where possible. We know that there are some of our fellow citizens who are a long way removed from the jobs market, and we know that it is already enough of a challenge to encourage such people to engage with their work coaches at their local job centres. To move job centres further away from where those people live may act as a further disincentive to engage, making those people even harder to reach. That cannot be in their interests and neither is it in the national interest, which is why I have called in the past for all eight of the Glasgow Job Center closure proposals to be put to public consultation so that we can better understand what is at stake. However, if that applies to Job Center Plus, surely it also applies to other public services. Since we last spoke about job centres in this Parliament in the debate that was brought forward by Mr Doris, I have received a notification that no fewer than four police stations across Glasgow are being reviewed as Police Scotland put it. That is what I have been told. Police Scotland is currently assessing its estate requirements. Again, a proposal that is driven by estate requirements, with many of its buildings no longer meeting current operational requirements. That means that we need to consider the viability and suitability of some of our—I have already given way twice—the viability and suitability of some of our properties. The point of order, Ms White. The debate is titled Job Center Closures. Can I ask you to know that talking about police stations is actually nothing whatsoever with job centres? Thank you, Ms White. I have already considered—it is not really a point of order, but I have already considered where it was far from the mark of the amendment. As it was going on to other closures as an example of centralising my understanding and then moving back to job centres, it was just within a whisker of being within your amendment. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Now, as I understand it within Glasgow, Pollock Shores police station may close, so might Saracen police station, which I think is in Bob Doris's constituency, so to Easterhouse, so to Castle Milk. So, where are the howls of anguish from the SNP's Glasgow MSPs when it comes to the proposed closure of police officers? Surely what goes for the DWP goes also for police officers? I have already given—Mr Mason, I am not going to give way to you on this occasion. No. It is important, I think, also presiding officer to understand what is not happening with regard to job centres. The DWP's proposals are about enhancing services, not cutting them. It is about improving claimant access to more employers. The proposals are for a reduction in floor space only. All staff and services will be relocated and no job losses are planned. Indeed, the number of work coaches in Scotland is going up. 122 work coaches were hired by the DWP in Scotland between April and September of last year, notwithstanding the fact that there are fewer claimants than there have at any point since the 1970s. Give way to the minister. I am just picking up on the point that there are no planned job losses, and I accept and readily concede that I am at an advantage, although I have not seen it that much before, Mr Tomkins. In the letter that I have received from Damian Hines today, it says very clearly, one of the few things that it is rather clear on at this stage, it is not possible to see how many potential redundancies it may be necessary. Mr Tomkins. The minister has been assiduous in sharing correspondence with Glasgow MSPs and with members of the Social Security Committee that he has received from UK Government ministers until today, but that letter was not shared with us before today. Last month, I visited Partick Job Centre, which is one of the larger job centres in Glasgow, and I asked staff and managers there about the DWP's plans. One of the things that is happening in that part of Glasgow is that Anisland Job Centre is to be closed with its work being rolled mainly into Partick, but partly also into Drumchappel. The staff and managers at Partick assured me that their job centre has ample capacity to absorb the additional work from Anisland. They also told me that Anisland is working at only one third capacity, and I asked how they knew that because I know that questions have been raised in the House of Commons about how job centre capacity is measured. They told me this. Anisland Job Centre is located in a three-storey building, and two storeys of it are closed. Only one third of the building that the taxpayer is renting is being used by the job centre. The other two thirds are being used by other Government departments. That illustrates the magnitude of what we are talking about. We are talking about redesigning job centres to be more effective rather than cutting services. If we held that in our minds, perhaps we would understand the proposals a bit more clearly. Finally, as regards co-location and linking devolved employability services and the like with Job Centre Plus, I am all in favour of this, as the Minister knows. Indeed, I wanted to be more joined up working between the UK Government and the Scottish Government, not less. I fully accept what he said about two-way streets in terms of communication and dialogue rather than monologue on this score. However, as our amendment makes clear, this is a two-way process, and the Minister for all his protestations to the contrary has been remarkably reticent, if I may say so, to come forward with concrete proposals as to how either Skills Development Scotland or the proposed new Scottish Social Security Agency could in practice co-locate or link with existing job centre provision. Rather than shouting from the rooftops, perhaps a little more maturity might have realised better results. I move the amendment in my name. Thank you, Mr Tomkins. The closure of 23 job centres, the DWP, as per soon, will affect the private communities right across Scotland, from Lanarkshire and Glasgow to the Western Isles and the Highlands. Labour benches will support the Government motion today because we agree that those closures must be halted and because both Governments must find a way forward. Since December, Glasgow Labour has worked hand in hand with its SNP counterparts to fight the proposals. There, eight job centres, half the number in this city, are up for closure. They have been working together for the sake of people who are desperately looking to exercise their right to work and need the support of their job centre to do that. Now that the same challenge extends across the country, I hope that something all parties and party leaders will join the call today for the DWP to halt those closures. Ruth Davidson must break her silence on the closure of the job centre in her own Edinburgh constituency. The massive impact job closures will have on the Glasgow region that she vacated and wider Scotland. At a time when the Tories are cutting social security and hitting low-pay workers with sanctions, when 139,000 people in Scotland are out of work, those proposals are reckless at best and at worst utterly perverse. It is completely counterproductive for the UK Government to close so many job centres. In the Tory spin used to justify the Glasgow cuts as shocking and massed the true harm that those closures will inflict on Scotland's communities. While the Tories point out, as they did last month and today, the claimant count in the city is down to 44 per cent, they choose to overlook that the count across Scotland remains 14 per cent higher than it was before the financial crash. In fact, the number of people economically inactive who would still like a job still stands at 190,000, five per cent higher than before the crash. However, the claimant count does not give the whole picture, of course, as PCS pointed out. The effect of welfare reform is that too many people are falling between the cracks. Digitalisation, sanctions and mandatory reconsideration means that fewer people are claiming entitlements they deserve. It is astonishing that £2 billion in social security payments go unclaimed in Scotland each year, with JSA and ESA making up almost £600 million. When you take into account the difficulty that people face in just trying to make a claim, unless those closures are halted, that number will just keep increasing. One Parent Families Scotland and Inclusion Scotland stressed the fears that lone parents and disabled people face due to those closures, increased travel times, which risk late and the threat of sanctions, unaffordable £4.50 bus tickets or taxis for longer journeys, childcare arrangements and all that added to the stress of meeting DWP demands to avoid sanctions. PCS highlighted the value of local labour market knowledge, set to be lost at the Easterhouse job centre. In an area so deprived, staff knowledge of local employers means that real employment support is provided, helping people to find local accessible work rather than several bus journeys away. Adam Topkin is grateful to the member for giving way. There are 713 job centres across Great Britain. Can I make sure that I have understood the Labour Party position to be that there are no circumstances at all in which any of those 713 job centres could ever be closed or merged? Mark Griffin? I think that if the Conservative Government were to invest in public services and get those people out of work and we had a zero unemployment rate, then there might be a case to close job centres. However, when the claimant count, when the unemployed rate is still higher now than it was before the crash, I do not think that there is a justification for making those closures. It is ironic that those closures will have a wider impact on their local communities and job markets. Those are anchor offices in communities. When they are pulled, so too is the passing trade, the service jobs, the service jobs that keep people fed at lunchtime, bus networks running and offices cleaned. Not just the people who rely on the support from those job centres, there will be wider job losses as well. At the same time, critical support networks from organisations such as CAB will be abandoned. The Tories have said that no jobs will be lost in Scotland. We have heard different news from the minister in response to a letter to the Scottish Government. However, I have already been contacted by constituents and non-mobile staff who have contacted me to say that they have had belated consultation and one-to-one interviews to discuss their position as a result of the proposals before April. I think that a shocking display of, honestly, Annie Wells is on record saying that she can either condemn or condone those closures. I think that that is a sentiment articulated again by Mr Tomkins again today. Ruth Davidson remains in hiding on this issue, even though it affects her own constituency. Given that communities across Scotland will be affected by those closures, that is simply not good enough. Ruth Davidson's Tories need to stop trying to rebuild the economy off the backs of the poor, the sick and disabled people in calling the DWP to halt those plans. The motion recalls the Smith commission agreement that more should be done to devolve formal governance over the network and to explore the options for co-location. The trigger of that dialogue should have happened well before the closure of the Glasgow offices were announced. The UK Government must halt those closure plans and work with the Scottish Government to deliver that. With new powers over employability coming to this Parliament, ministers must now explore those co-location opportunities. We, on those benches, expect to see services free of the punitive sanctions regimes and the misery that they create, but we also expect services that provide high-quality responsive local employment support to get people into work that they want, cutting through the worst effects of Tory austerity to help to tackle poverty here in Scotland. Delivering the dignity and respect in those schemes does not rely solely on those job centres, but finding ways to protect them to halt those closures would certainly help to contribute to that ambition. On Monday, I met the single parents who will be impacted by the job-center closure in Maryhill, along with Patrick Rady and Pee. I thank the minister, Jamie Hepburn MSP, for listening to his very real concerns on his visit to Maryhill borough hogs to find out their fears. The concerns were very real. Concerns such as how on earth do they get to Springburn, a four-bus round trip, and for some, potentially, a two and a half hour journey. That is with caring commitments as well. Concerns over the cost of public transport to get there are £4.50 a day ticket is a huge chunk out of a benefit of around £70 or so a week. Concerns over losing the relationship claimants have developed with their job-center plus job coach, which is not guaranteed under the proposed changes, no matter what job-center plus has told us. They have told us that staff have the option of transferring to a job-center closer to where they stay, if they wish so. They are just wrong on that front. Not just concerns but fears over the risk of sanctions should their family and their caring commitments be inconsistent with changed appointment times and longer journey times, and sleepless nights over the impact that that will have on their children, not on them but on their children and families. That is their primary concern. Despite all that, today, the Tories have unfortunately seek to water down the position of this Parliament in opposing such closures. The Tories cannot even bring themselves to talk about the impact that closure will have. That changes to may have in the motion. That, Presiding Officer, is a sad and pathetic lip service to those who will not be impacted. The worry caused by the proposed closures is already having a very real impact. I made the people on Monday that it is already impacting. I actually believe that the Tories wish to do more than just pay lip service. However, it is increasingly clear that the Tory line on job-center plus is not one developed in Scotland but rather by a UK Tory Government. To the Tories, it is time to stand up for your constituents, not the Conservatives. Can I say a little bit about equality impact assessments or rather the lack of them? You need some basic information before you can conduct an equality impact, such as maybe the catchment area that the job-center plus covers non-existent. Maybe you need to know the amount of claimants that use the job-center. They are a bit hazy about that as well. In fact, they are worse than hazy about that. I was told with Patrick Rady MP in a visit to Job-Center Plus in Maryhill that they do not collect that kind of information. That is right. They do not actually collect that kind of information. That is just ridiculous. If anyone wants to know why there should be an equality impact assessment, they can ask you to look at the Inclusion Scotland briefing that was prepared for today's debate and my member's debate the other week. I will not reiterate that here, but it is vital that no decision is made until a full, genuine equality impact assessment is conducted across all job-center plus sites. They can also pick out the Inclusion Scotland briefing for another reason. I wanted to give the case study that they gave, which I think is very pertinent to my local job-center. I am sure that many others that constituency MSPs have across this chamber. One client told JobCenter Plus that he did not have the money to get there for an appointment. They advised him to walk, but he explained that his poor health meant that he was unable to walk the long distance. He received a 13-week sanction for failing to attend. It is not my words but the words of someone who is living the life of a benefits claimant who has to survive. Think of the physical and mental health impact that many of the vulnerable claimants are facing right now. I want to try to be optimistic somewhere in this debate because, out of crisis, you can actually get opportunity. I did not realise that the relationship between the job coaches and the work coaches and many of the claimants is very positive. I have already said that that link is not guaranteed. I heard that those service users and those claimants sometimes have that good relationship. I also did one parent family Scotland, sitting by Scotland at home start, positive intermediaries in trying to support the vulnerable individual who should be at the heart of all that, but it was positive local relationships. Maryhill Jobcentre has clients dropping in, for example. Outside require times using its IT facilities for job searches and support provided. Those people will not go to Springburn. There are no other appropriate facilities with support in the local area and it is just not on. I want to say a little bit about co-location. Mr Tomkins tried to compare the co-location options of Jobcentre Plus and Scottish Public Agencies with police state rationalisation. I got the same ear as Mr Tomkins got from Commander Ross Allen at Maryhill police station. The work that he told me on the 24th of the 1st was efforts are under way to identify suitable front counter facilities in a shared facility in the local community to complement the other existing subdivision police officers at Maryhill and Bair Street. In other words, Police Scotland is doing in our communities, Mr Tomkins. If they are talking to the MSPs and they are saying that we are not leaving the communities, let's identify co-location options. What Jobcentre Plus is saying is that we are out of here. Good luck with your benefits claimants. It's very, very different and don't mislead this Parliament and what Police Scotland is doing is unbecoming of that MSP trying to defend vulnerable people in Glasgow. Let me talk about co-location a little bit more if I have time. No, you are not. You are in your last minute. Maryhill is a community that is ripe for co-location. I was listening through some of the organisations. It is by Scotland that I have a new park street, home start just down the road, one parent family in Scotland, jobs in business, Glasgow, Coupe housing, GHA, Maryhill housing, two nearby skills development Scotland shops. As Maryhill Jobcentre celebrates its 75th anniversary as well, we could do something really special in relation to co-location and meet the needs of these vulnerable constituents that I represent, the vulnerable constituents right across Scotland that we all represent, but not like this. Give those great ideas breathing space to develop and to exist. We have to halt all those closures and we have to think again. Thank you, Mr Doris. I call Annie Wells to call back to your hockey. Ms Wells, please. I understand the concerns that have been raised here today and at the members' debate on 19 January in which I spoke. During that debate, I was open about my concerns over how the proposals were communicated and the speed with which the consultation took place. I was open about the concern that I had for the consultation being restricted to just the three centres, as Adam Tomkins has said, Bridgeton, Maryhill and Castle Milk, as well as making clear that services need to be made accessible as possible for everyone. I reiterated those concerns in my response to the DWP's public consultation. Although I stated that it was right to review the future of job centres in light of the 20-year lease contract coming to an end next year and statistics revealing a 20 to 40 per cent under occupancy rate, I did not believe that it was right to steamroll ahead with blanket closures without fully considering the responses submitted. At the very least, in the event of any closures, I stated that we could not find ourselves in a situation where those with disabilities, long-term illnesses or severe lack of funds were found to be disadvantaged by increased journey times. If closures did take place, systematic provisions with a clearly defined system would need to be made and communicated in a way that was clear to all. That could be through a programme of tailored outreach. Home visits, online applications are for those who are not able to access applying by post. I echo the concerns of other members regarding the need for DWP to provide more detail on the issue, particularly now that consultation is closed. I am pleased to see that request has been retained in my colleagues' amendment. For me, communication is key and at the moment we are not having meaningful dialogue about alternatives that may need to be put in place. Not at the moment, I will just want to make some progress. Alternatives that could provide as good a service as we are seeing just now. There were ideas put forward within the consultation template itself, in fact. That could go a long way in solving this issue and reaching a compromise that disadvantages no one. An alternative service, for example, that saw members of job centre plus staff traveling to community venues to carry out their work. Why not consider that? I thank the member for taking intervention on that one point. When we were doing an investigation, we went to Musselborough and the job centre and they had outreach there. One of the issues that was raised was when someone turned up at the library there, which was outreach, they had a sick line and they thought that they could hand it to the person from the job centre plus. They were told no, they had to go to the job centre plus and hand it in there. How do we get over that? Surely that is something that is very, very wrong. That is what we need to have relative dialogue and it is a two-way process. We need to make sure that we are not looking at problems but that we are looking at solutions. That is what I am trying to put forward here. In its response to the consultation, Poverty Alliance even stated that, despite wishing for centres to remain open, that might be an alternative option. The obvious concerns were ensuring that service users had access to an environment in which they felt safe and that they could speak privately without their concerns being overheard. It also stated that one adviser alone would not be sufficient to make the needs of the community. However, there is no reason why those concerns could not be properly addressed in the provision of a full outreach service, protecting the most vulnerable and those with childcare responsibilities. Sorry, I just want to move on. Even now it already occurs that in some circumstances where people feel sufficiently vulnerable that members of the job centre plus network visit their homes and could we not expand on that also. In a debate on the 30th of January, Parliamentary Undersecretary for Welfare Delivery, Caroline Knox was open to suggestions of using satellite visits and commercial premises so that job organisations can run them and workplace coaches can coach a number of people together. If we are looking at making the services better, there are more creative ways of working. I point to substantial powers that the Scottish Government now has over employment services. I appreciate the input. Ms Wells makes a number of innovative and very sensible suggestions about how we could better provide job centre plus services in the community. She and Mr Tomkins have referred to the process of two-way dialogue. I know that Mr Tomkins was at pains to point out that he and Ms Wells have communicated their concerns to the UK Government. I am just wondering what response Ms Wells has had yet to her innovative suggestions from the UK Government. As I was saying, the Parliamentary Undersecretary said that they would be opened to these during a debate on the 30th of January. Purin? I do not have your discussion across the chamber if you do not mind. I appreciate the employability minister who has opened the floor for discussions between Skills Development Scotland and the DWP, but we also need more information on how that is going to work as well. However, today I would like to make a few final points by closing. There has been no mention of the DWP of it making cuts to investment. Again, as I said in my last speech, more than 122 additional work coaches were recruited to job centre plus services in Scotland last year to ease workload and provide a service-based modern report. I would also like to ask members to reflect on something that my colleague Adam Tomkins has already mentioned. I recognise that police officers and job centres are two very different services, but both are used by people who are vulnerable and no one can deny that. I recognise that the UK Government needs to provide more information on the timing and scope of those closures. I am pleased that we have retained this in our amendment, alongside the need for equality impact assessments. Some would call the closure of the job centre's decimation, but it is worse than that. Decimation means culling 1 in 10. In Glasgow, we will experience a cull of 1 in 2 job centres in the next year. The reduction in the number of job centres will mean that many people will, for a host of reasons, need to take transport to alternative centres. I want to quote a jobseeker's feedback to one parent family Scotland here. She said, the cost is going to be a big issue—£4.50 for an all-day ticket. From an income of £73.10 a week, it is a lot like losing shopping, food shopping for a day. I am sure that policy makers do not see the problem in needing to spend £4.50 on transport once a week, but for the people affected in some of the poorest parts of the UK, they will definitely suffer because of that. One in three children in Glasgow are living in poverty. Those are communities with real issues, where child poverty is high, and where £4.50 for an all-day bus ticket is just too much money to spend on transport rather than eating. Looking at an example in my constituency of Rutherglen in the area of Newton Farm, the current walk to Cambaslang Job Centre takes 37 minutes, and that is one way. As Cambaslang Job Centre is now due to close, the walk to the next job centre in Rutherglen is one hour and 19 minutes. This walk, assuming that you are fit and healthy, means that what was once an hour and a quarter round trip will now take two and a half hours. I have not tried this walk, Presiding Officer. I have just been using the Westminster Government's tool of choice Google Maps to check the result. It is strange, as this is the tool that they consulted to make sure that no trip to a job centre would take that long. Simply assuming that people can pay the bus or a taxi fare, or can just walk to the next job centre, shows how removed from reality the policy makers in Westminster are. The lack of consultation or impact assessment on many of those closures shows willful ignorance on just how those closures will impact on the lives of ordinary people. Those are policies that do not take into account people's responsibilities as caregivers, of their own ill health or of any individual circumstances whatsoever. They are focused on purely cutting numbers, cutting services and cutting investment in people, particularly in the people of Glasgow. I am grateful to the member for giving way. Could the member identify even a single service that is being cut in Glasgow? I understand that the premises are being closed, but could the member identify even a single job centre service that is being cut, because that is what she just said? Mr Tomkins, I believe that this is just the thin end of the wedge. We need a social security system that works for Scotland, not for the establishment at Westminster. We need to invest in people and treat them with dignity and understand that the overwhelming majority of people want to be working. That continual turning of the screw of sanctions of daily signing on and now the slashing of job centres is simply Westminster setting up more and more hoops for people to jump through. As was laid out in the Scottish Government's employability support consultation, Scotland needs a system that takes into account everyone's individual circumstances. Avoiding sanctions shouldn't be the biggest concern for a jobseeker. Neither should be the worries about how they will manage a two and a half hour round trip to sign on. Personal action plans should take into account consideration for their circumstances, whether they are a parent or a caregiver, whether they have physical or mental health issues, and the aim shouldn't merely be to get someone into a job, any job, just to get them off the books and keep the numbers down. Job centre provision should help people to build careers, to help them to get real jobs that will see real economic and personal development, not put them back on the zero hours merry-go-round that will see them back at the job centre and receiving treatment for stress. The DWP should be looking to support people to build sustainable careers and to build communities that don't have some of the highest child poverty rates in Scotland, thanks in part to the sanctions that are being made by mothers already on the bread line. Job centres are already down in Scotland from 117 in 2008 to 104 today, and now we are going to see a further cut of 23 sites. They are closing these centres without consultation and the community is affected. There has been no consultation over the closure of Canberaslang job centre, despite some areas that serves being a minimum of 80 minutes walk away from Rutherglen job centre. That runs counter to the DWP's own consultation criteria of being within reasonable travel distances. If they won't consult the community, they need to consult the Scottish Government on the best way to structure the job centre network in a way that supports the most vulnerable. I call on the UK Government at Westminster to halt those closures and to work with the Scottish Government. As was agreed in the Smith commission, the UK Government is supposed to be committed to working with the Scottish Government to create, and I quote, more formal mechanisms to govern the job centre plus sites in Scotland. Now is the time for Westminster to honour the Smith commission, as we desperately need to find a solution that suits the many unique conditions here in Scotland and especially in Glasgow. Thank you. I call Jackie Baillie to be followed by George Adam Miss Baillie, please. Presiding Officer, the latest wave of closures includes the Alexandria job centre in my constituency. I first heard about the proposal two weeks ago when I received an email at 1pm inviting me to meet Damien Hines, the Minister for Employment, at 4pm on the same day in London. Clearly, geography is not the minister's strong point, but he also said that staff and service users in Alexandria would be moved to the job centre in Dunbarc. Not to worry, I was told, because the two sites are just three miles apart, but I have checked the actual distance and it is two and a half miles apart. That is not nitpicking, it is important because the DWP has only agreed to launch full public consultation on job centre closures where the distance between the two sites is over three miles, so I want a consultation for the closure of Alexandria. Either the DWP has simply not bothered to work out how far they are forcing staff and claimants to travel, or they do know the actual distance but want to avoid proper scrutiny of their plans. Like the round of closures in Glasgow announced at the end of last year, the Department for Work and Pensions handling of the Alexandria closure has been wholly unsatisfactory. There was no consultation with job centre staff before the announcement. There was no information provided on the number of claimants affected by the closure. There was no equality impact assessment to examine the impact on some of the most marginalised groups in my constituency. Let's be honest about the reasons behind those closures. Decisions on which job centres to close and the timing of the announcements has been determined by the fact that the leases of the buildings are coming to an end. That is about properties and saving money. The last thing that it is about are the needs of job seekers and local communities. I would be interested to know whether their reluctance to engage properly with the people who will be affected by the closure is down to the fact that they are in a rush to hand in their notice to the landlords. The local PCS makes the point that at the time when the DWP is requiring benefits to engage more frequently in face-to-face interviews in job centres, it should be opening more, not closing the ones that we have. To close the Alexandria job centre would, without a doubt, make it even harder for people in the Vale of Leven to find work. It makes a complete mockery of Theresa May's pledge at Tory conference to lead a Government that cares about ordinary working people. That closure will hit very briefly. Can I just say that someone who has had to sign on at Alexandria job centre from years gone by that Germany-Dumbarton would not be practical but unrealistic and it would be devastating to do regeneration attempts in Alexandria town centre? I couldn't agree more because the closure will hit some of the poorest families in the Vale of Leven with extra travel costs and fewer opportunities to find a job. Across the country we are facing a jobless crisis. There are 139,000 Scots out of work. Numbers of people who are economically inactive have risen, many of whom want to find work. However, if you look at the caseload statistics produced by the DWP for May 2016, you will see that the communities served by this job centre, Alexandria, Renton and Tuller Cewan have populations with approximately 60 per cent more people than the Scottish average in receipt of the five key benefits. That is clearly an area with high levels of service demand. It makes no sense to close this job centre. Scotland's economy is lagging behind the rest of the United Kingdom. There is less employment and there is more unemployment. So whether you consider my local argument or indeed a national one, shutting down Alexandria and vast swathes of the job centre network is completely wrong-headed. So where is the condemnation from Ruth Davidson? I think that I can safely say that she is not shy by nature. I do not know whether she is actually representing the Tory party at Westminster or the people in Scotland, because those closures will affect her constituents too. She owes it to them, at least to demand a halt. Tory ministers used to tell unemployed people to get on their bike to find a job. In Alexandria, they might not have a choice because the public transport links to Dumbarton are so unreliable. The transport minister will be aware of frequent station skipping on ScotRail services in my area. The buses are not much better either, with services often cancelled without notice. Once the DWP has finally worked out the actual distance between Dumbarton and Alexandria, I would urge them to actually try making the journey themselves. I invite the minister to come up and do so, because it is one thing, looking at Google Maps and another to stand waiting for a bus or train that never turns up. That will have very real consequences for unemployed and disabled people in Alexandria who miss appointments or arrive late through no fault of their own. Sanctions will increase and local families will suffer. And what about the cost of travel? If you are on a fixed low income, you may sometimes not have the funds to pay for travel. The DWP will apparently pay for travel, but only for attendance above the fortnightly signing appointment. A train ticket for a return journey from Alexandria to Dumbarton is £3.60. On a low income, that is a lot of money. Finally, the DWP talked about co-location with council services. In Alexandria, there is an effective partnership between the councils working for you service and the job centre. They were not consulted in advance of the announcement. What we will miss is the opportunity for joined-up employability services, a gateway to learning and money advice and getting people into jobs. The closure of the job centre will undermine all of that. Alexandria is simply not an add-on to Dumbarton but a community in its own right. There is a clear need for the job centre. I ask the UK Government to think again. I am glad to take part in this debate, because for me it is very personal. I feel that my town, my place of birth, is under attack from an uncaring right-wing Tory Government. The UK Government of Westminster believes that Paisley does not need the 300 jobs that come with the loan-end DWP office. There is no thinking about the economic future of our town when this heartless Westminster Government decides that it is time to get rid of this valuable facility. 300 jobs at a DWP office is part of the back-of-house support mechanism for many of our citizens at a time when they really need that support. There are a number of parts of the decision that does not make sense. One of the first is the secretive way that the closure was announced. On the morning of the announcement, staff at the loan-end office received an email telling them that they were doing a fantastic job. Everyone was managing them, they were happy, and a couple of hours later they were then told that there would be a meeting in the early afternoon. Staff, of course, turned up at this meeting with concerns, because they were only too aware of the sweeping cuts that the DWP was making. At that meeting, once again, they were told what a wonderful job they were doing, and that the office was closing. They were told how well they were doing in one minute, and the next minute they were told that the office was closing. However, they were not aware that I have yet to receive any official correspondence from the UK Government on that. Paisley's MSP has not been told of a major closure of a Government facility within his constituency. We often hear from opposition benches that there should be respect between the UK and the Scottish Government. However, at times like this, it seldom appears to be the case. Last week, during the Social Security Committee, Jamie Hepburn, Minister for Employability and Training, explained to us that he first heard of it through the pages of the daily record. It is bad enough that a Tory Government has no respect for local parliamentarians, by them for them to ignore. A minister of the Scottish Government is shocking and shows the contempt that it treats the institution with. One of the other issues that I have is that, due to this ill-thought-out closure scheme, is the fact that it is taking away a support mechanism for our communities. The universal credit experiment appears to have been an unmitigated disaster for the UK Government. As a member of the Social Security Committee, I visited people in Musselburgh to see how the Tory experiment has gone. The quickest time for a claimant to receive any form of payments is eight weeks, and that is if they are lucky. By the time that they have accrued rent arrears, and some have chosen to pay their broadband service over food and heat. That is the only way that they can communicate with the DWP. They can go to their local job centre to try and progress their claim, but staff have not received the necessary training and help to have been told to point people towards a computer in the job centre. So not only are people suffering from this Tory ideal, there is also the fact that they are now taking away any form of human contact in the process. No job centre, no telephone centre to get any form of advice. We have all seen the financial devastation that the Tory sanction scheme has brought to our communities. I have had conversations with constituents who have been sanctioned for being minutes late. Imagine what it would be like when there is no local job centre to attend. We need to ask ourselves how that would affect members of our community who live with disabilities. We are already aware that this Tory Government is already attacking those with disability in Scotland, but now we find that those with a disability will have another barrier. Mark Griffin has already mentioned that. If you are a disabled person who has to attend a job centre, how are you going to get there? You may have already lost your DLA pip, or at least the mobility component of that, so you will need to get a bus. Bearing in mind that journey could be anywhere between three and six miles, that may prove challenging. As Inclusion Scotland states in their very interesting brief for this debate, not all of disabled people affected will be able to travel by public transport. Some wheelchair users may not be able to find an accessible bus on which to make the journey. Even where buses are accessible, two wheelchair users could not travel on the same route at the same time and occurrences which would become more likely when the services are concentrated in fewer locations. Once again, there has been no thought given to those with a disability, but should we not just expect that, Presiding Officer, from this lot in Westminster? I would like to return to the debate. I think that I have already said that I do not like the word this lot, so I will keep to what I have said to other people. I get very passionate about this, Presiding Officer, when people are being attacked by this Government. Mr Adam, you can be passionate and polite. I would like to return to the DWP office in Paisley, the loss of 300 jobs to our town. How can this Tory Government justify this closure when the staff were told how good the job they were doing, and the call centre was promised that they would receive the calls for the universal credit roll-out? From my interaction with the people in Musselburgh, this is exactly the type of facility that is needed. The UK Government claims that people use different channels of digital communication. One gentleman I met in Musselburgh did that. His form of digital communication was a large mobile telephone, not the best way to complete a complex forum. This whole process is a sham and should be thought through again. Presiding Officer, it is time for the shambles to be addressed by the UK Government. They cannot withdraw this valuable support to the people within our community. I joined the SNP in 1987 to protect my community from an uncaring right-wing Tory Government. The world has changed, Presiding Officer, but unfortunately the Tories have not. They are happily to sacrifice the people of my community for their ideals, but one thing they will not stop is my love for my town and the people that I represent. As long as I have a breath in my body, I will continue to fight to protect my community from the on-going heartless attacks from this Tory Government. The strength of feeling associated with this debate, which we have just heard from our colleague George Adam, exemplifies the work that job centres do in communities. They assist people in need of help. It is crucially important in all of this to recognise the good efforts of hard-working staff up and down the country, and that should not be lost in the rhetoric that often surrounds debates in this chamber. Secondly, it is also important to remember the context out of which consideration of job centre closures have arisen. That context is the natural end of contracts in place with the DWP for many of its offices. That provides an opportunity to reassess the whole provision of services, not at this stage. That provides an opportunity to reassess the whole provision of services and where and how they are best delivered in the modern internet world of the 21st century. That reassessment, of course, merits the most careful scrutiny. As a member of the Social Security Committee, along with other members of that committee, I have had the opportunity to raise issues with representatives from the DWP. It is encouraging that, following our committee meeting on 15 December last year, the department responded to concerns expressed by myself and others on that committee, and they did so by lengthening the existing consultation period in relation to job centre closures in Glasgow. Today's Government motion comes in a very different time and context to that in which many of the offices under discussion originally opened in 1998. We are now firmly entrenched in a digital age. I will take an intervention on this occasion. I thank the member for giving way in this instance. The member may be aware that I wrote to Ruth Davidson on this issue and asked her to stand up for her constituents over a job centre closure in Edinburgh. She did write back to me, but I have to say that I was not overly comforted by the contents of the letter. Surely now is the time for Conservative members to stop just accepting plans that look really good from an office in Whitehall and, instead, stand up for their constituents' reality on the ground and join with us and oppose those closures. The Conservatives will indeed stand up for their constituents, and that is not by simply carrying on regardless of the realities of the situation. I returned to what I was saying to explain my position on this by saying that we are not in 1998 now. We are now firmly entrenched in a digital age that follows a complete revolution driven by the internet. We cannot ignore computer literacy not at this stage. We cannot ignore computer literacy as an essential tool for Scotland's workforce. That applies equally to services that the DWP provide. 80 per cent of claims for job seekers allowance—no, 99.6 per cent of applications for universal credit—are made online. Moving services online can help to provide a more efficient service and it can also provide claimants with an opportunity to interact using skills and practices needed to survive in the modern workforce. Provided? No. Provided, of course, that these are backed up by sufficient support. However, a direct consequence is the under-utilisation of face-to-face services that require physical office space. No. With over 3 million square feet of space going unused in current offices, a review of the DWP estate is an absolute necessity. Co-location, and I am pleased to hear that the minister is interested in this, may be an option here with a chance for additional services to be provided within the same building, such as health and other public services, as reflected in the Scottish Conservative amendment, which I support. The Scottish Government should consider how skills development Scotland, or indeed the Scottish Social Security Agency, could link up services. No, not at this stage. However, as my colleague Adam Tomkins has pointed out, we need specific proposals, and the minister was unable to name any, which are put to the UK Government to actually develop co-location. I will allow an intervention from the minister. Jamie Hepburn That is remarkably generous of you. Surely you would concede, Mr Lentus, to what it is rather difficult to come up with specific propositions for specific areas when the UK Government does not let us know what areas it is considering closing a job centre in. Gordon Lenturst I have not seen the terms of the letter from which a partial quotation was given earlier on, so I cannot comment on what the stage of discussions are between the minister and the UK Government. A few matters that, of course, need to be borne in mind are flexibility, the use of work coaches—I am running out of time here due to the number of interventions, taken and not taken—and I hope that the Scottish Government will work constructively with the DWP in trying to make that a reality. There are many things to be welcomed from the UK Government, the 2,500 new work coaches, because it is people that matter not so much to the buildings. People are not made for buildings, but buildings for people. I have quite a finish, Mr Lentus. I call on Ross Beattie before the ballots call, Hamilton. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Before I start, I have to say that every Conservatives speech so far in this debate has been an absolute disgrace. They have hidden behind smoking mirrors, technical language, they have talked the debate out, not one of them has been willing to say that, if Annie Wells's grand aspirations for DWP extra provisions are not met, they will stand with us and oppose the job centre cuts. It is cowardly behaviour. What the Tories have done to job seekers and others who rely on social security in this country is nothing short of despicable. Job centres are meant to be institutions to help people, to help them into work, to access training. If Mr Tomkins wants to say something, he should stand up and I will reject him like every Conservative speaker has rejected me so far. They are supposed to help people to start their own business, to claim the benefits that they are entitled to. The Conservatives at Westminster, and I have to say, aided by the Liberal Democrats from 2010-15, have bastardised this concept. They have turned an institution designed to help people into an environment of hostility, mistrust and threats. The sanctions handed out to people looking for work are a stain on the reputation of the UK. They are devastating for the individuals and the families that have been victims of them. The reasons behind those sanctions are often completely ridiculous. A man sanctioned because he missed an appointment because he was taking his wife to the hospital because she had gone into labour prematurely. Someone unable to attend their work fair placement because the transport is too expensive and, of course, you are not paid for the work fair programme, despite them having offered to work at a branch closer to them. A mother of two sanctioned for a month because she was five minutes late to an appointment at the job centre. Many more examples have appeared across newspapers, in broadcast media, in our inboxes and at our surgeries over recent months and years. What the Tories have created is a system designed to block access to the support that people are entitled to and to make their lives harder when they are most in need of that support. There is even evidence to suggest that job centres were directed to intentionally increase the number of sanctions. You do not need to watch Ken Loach's new film, I Daniel Blake, to know that, although I would suggest that every member in this Parliament, especially our Conservative colleagues, watch what is a devastatingly realistic story of life inside the UK welfare system. Sanctions have a real human impact. The number of people dying prematurely who have been sanctioned, including suicides, is far too high. Although numbers are hard to come by from what we could find, 90 people a month were dying from 2012 to 2014 after having been found fit to work. The number was far higher when you took into account those added to work-related activities. According to the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, the sanctioning regime has constituted a systematic violation of human rights. It is the Conservatives who are responsible for this and Conservative members in this Parliament who have been unable or unwilling to defend or condemn it. Thankfully, we will no longer be completely powerless to act in this Parliament. As new social security powers are devolved, we are able to restrict the number of sanctions being issued in Scotland. Work by my colleague Alison Johnstone in the Greens found that we can use those powers over the work programme to simply prevent information being passed on that would lead to sanctions. That will save thousands of people in Scotland from that suffering. Yet, for the Tories, the chaos of their welfare policy is apparently not enough. Now they want to make people's lives even harder. Now they want to close down job centres, making access to them even more difficult. Recall some of the examples of sanctions that I have already provided. Sanctions because someone was late because they couldn't afford the travel costs. As job centres are closed across Scotland, it will be more difficult for claimants to get their appointments on time and more difficult to carry the cost of transport. People who are already struggling to get by will find it even harder. Some of the proposed closures in Scotland are truly shocking. The implications have either not been considered or they have been, and the Government knows exactly what the consequences will be and is deciding to proceed anyway. The closure of the Alexandria jobs—yes? Clare Adamson, I thank the member for taking my intervention. There has been a lot of talk about co-location this afternoon, but does he share my concern that the idea that someone would go to one desk in a building to be sanctioned, only to be passed to the next steps to access the Scottish welfare fund, would be absolutely perverse and let the reader bob up off the hook on the issue of sanctions? Ross Greer. Absolutely, Clare Adamson makes a very important point in this debate. The closure of the Alexandria jobs centre in my region will mean that the most direct route to the nearest job centre in Dumbarton, as Jackie Baillie has already mentioned, is an hour's walk away. For service users in areas at Haldane, it is even further. It is a scenic walk, mind you, given that it involves travelling through a field. I invited the UK Cabinet Minister, Damian Hines, to join me on this walk. Jackie Baillie has already suggested that. I have already sent him the invitation. I await his reply. I am sure that Jackie Baillie would be happy to join me, but I have a feeling that it might just be the two of us. Last month, the Scottish Greens organised a walk from Bridgeton to Shettleston job centres in Glasgow. Again, it is a walk of about an hour or two buses if you are able to afford the public transport. On that walk, Green activists spoke to a number of constituents, all of whom were shocked to hear that the job centres were closing. They had no idea. That walk was possible for fit and healthy Green activists and councillors. It is not possible for many of the people who have to use the services of a job centre, those with young children, those with disabilities, those with health conditions. The examples that we have already given compare nothing to what the people on Bimbacola will have to face. Those proposals are plainly ridiculous. They will only cause further pain. They are not being consulted on and they must be opposed, including by Conservative members of Parliament. Alex Cole-Hamilton, who is followed by Sandra White. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I commend the Government for this excellent motion and indeed Labour's amendment. We will be supporting both this evening. The job centre plus network has been and remains an essential physical edifice for social security and employability in our society. It has connected untold millions with work and career opportunities in the first 20 seconds, not quite. I will make some progress, I will take you later, Mr Tomkins. It has connected untold millions with work and career opportunities whilst bringing help and access to those who rely on financial assistance of the state in times of economic inactivity. We can trace the job centre back to the Labour Exchange Act of 1909. It was a liberal construct under the Government of Asquith, the first effort by a national administration to seek to connect the labour market with opportunities for work and foster that most liberal of principles social mobility. I will take Professor Tomkins. I just wanted to make sure that the member was in the right debate because there is no Labour amendment for him to support this evening. I take that on the chin. I will take you back to 1909. In the second reading of that bill, Lord Diel, a Liberal Peers, said of the creation of the Labour Exchange, I do not think that it is necessary for me to elaborate in any way the great distress and misery which arise from lack of work. He went on, relief works cannot seriously be regarded as a cure for unemployment at best. They are only palliative. What is wanted is not a drug to instill the pain of disease but a cure that will reach deep into the roots. That in that sentence was the creation of the Labour Exchange movement. At every stage in the 11 decades that have followed over the course of two world wars, eight recessions, the ebb and flow of industrialisation, urbanisation and automation, the labour exchange and subsequently the job centre network has been a load stone in our nation's efforts to bring work and not rather than charity and by extension hope to the masses. I am not denying in any way that over the course of its history, circumstances have not shifted and the inexorable shift to a war's online service provision in some cases has reduced footfall and thereby in some cases the business case for some of that sector. However, news from the DWP that, as part of the 2015 spending review, it would renegotiate all job centre plus tendencies has come as a hammer blow of concern to those communities that stand in the backwash and churn between hard times and prosperity. Yes, the DWP are right to point out to the fact that eight out of 10 GSA acclimates, almost all universal credit applications are made online, but by dint of the strictures, so whilst this is maybe closing a gateway to social security, the role it can still serve in terms of that vital role of connecting people to work and skills development, that vital face-to-face connection is as important as it ever was. I termed my argument at this point back to the words of Lord Diel in 1909, when he said that, to define the work of the exchange, its object is the same of that of any other exchange, to bring buyer and seller together. And I think that if it did nothing more, then it would amply justify its existence. Those words ring as true, I will on this point. Ross Greer. I thank Mr Cole-Hamilton for taking the intervention. I mean, enjoying his reaching back into history, but looking to a more recent era of history, is he proud of his party's record in government with the Conservatives, expanding a sanctions regime through the job centres? Alex Cole-Hamilton. I always welcome Ross Greer's intervention, but I think that that's a bit of a cheap shock considering we were the tempering influence on what this government is now doing on an unbridled basis. Thank you for shattering the consensus of this debate, Mr Greer. The fact is that it is the very hardest to reach who will be worse affected as we have heard and we have consensus on that by this retrograde step. We will be ripping the very ladders of social mobility out of some of the most deprived communities in our society and at a time when we could be on the verge of needing them like never before. What baffles me is that this Tory Government, so fond of the adage that lets men the roof while the sun shines, looks to strip the timbers of this canopy on the basis of some short-term and transit employment figures. All this, when we stand on the precipice of uncertain economic uncertainty that Brexit represents, the prudence of the Conservative Party does not, it seems, extend to the needs adrift of the labour market. I see no evidence of a plan to scale up support should that event happen in the event of economic calamity. We all remember the famous words of Norman Tebbitt. I grew up in the 1930s, he said, with an unemployed father. We didn't write, we got on his bike and he looked for work. In that couplet we see the metal of Tory ideology in this regard. But presiding opposite of it, it is much harder to get on your bike and look for work if you are in a wheelchair or if you, as you have heard this afternoon, are more than two bus rides away from the nearest job centre. That is why the equality's impact that assessment, rightly proposed by the Government, is so essential in any service redesign, but it is not to justify just the physical proximity of the job centres of those fathers for the labour market that matters, it is the local knowledge, personal one-to-one advice, internet access and wraparound services that makes this support so effective. At a time when economic inactivity impacts on those who are impeded by a range of social barriers, we must not blindly remove local access to the exchange of labour, and by so doing erect still further barriers to employment and social mobility. Sandra White, we followed by Bill Bowman. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I was slightly confused by Mr Cole-Hamilton's contribution. I did try and intervene. I'm not sure now is he definitely supporting the Conservatives amendment or not. I'm sure he's not supporting the year, although he did say it first. I just wanted to clarify myself on that particular point. Presiding Officer, I can add Mr Cole-Hamilton to my thanks to all the colleagues, apart from the Tories, who have given a contribution tonight. I thought that they were all excellent contributions and very thoughtful contributions also. We have also had contributions from various organisations and centres to look at, and obviously individuals also, but I do have a special thanks for the evening times in Glasgow, who have been running with this constantly, great coverage and much welcome support against the actual closures and the proposals for the closures. It will have a devastating effect on people throughout Scotland. In my own area, I do not have job centre closures, but I do have back offices closures. One of them is Port Cullis House and Cadogan House, and one is very, very serious. Cadogan House is where people go for medical assessments. I wonder what will happen then. If it closes down and we have job centres closing down also, where will those people be going for medical assessments? That's a real worry in that respect. It will hit the most vulnerable people in society and in most cases, in many cases, in all cases, it will have the opposite effect of helping people back into work. I echo what others have said tonight from Labour and other benches as well. That is not really about helping people back into work. It is about saving money, and it shows the Tories for what they actually are. Basically, they have no thought for the people in Glasgow or in Scotland that only thought is to save money. Basically, from what I can see, whatever Westminster says, they do. If I could just turn to the amendment—well, we talk about amendments—when you actually look at the amendment, I call it a feeble amendment. It certainly is a feeble amendment, a change of two words. I wonder how long it took Mr Tomkins to do that. It has been said already that a change from will have to may have. That's a lot of thinking for somebody who has been academic to do that. In the next very last line, we and the Government's motion call on the DWP to halt the closures to allow the Scottish Government to bring forward substantial co-location proposals to save those job centres. I think that that's pretty eminent sensible to put that in. I don't see anything wrong at all with that, but, of course, they've got to take that out. They replace it with calls in the Scottish Government to make plain as proposals as to how skills develop in Scotland. I won't go on about the rest, proposed social security agencies, etc. There's an awful lot of thought went into that, hasn't it? Absolutely none at all. For the evidence that Mr Tomkins knows this, being on the committee, for the evidence that we have got, the DWP, Damian Green and the rest of them, they don't care what happens in Scotland and to the poor folk that are in Glasgow in Scotland because they don't even reply to your letters. We write to them saying that we asked you about something and they don't reply. Then, all of a sudden, you read it in the newspapers that job centres are closing. That's how they treat us here. I think it's about time that the Tories realised that. Mr Tomkins is very fond of talking about the House of Commons work and pensions committee and how good it is and how it was all party, etc. Indeed, I mean that it mentioned in that response that it's open to working in ways that are increasingly flexible and adaptable. That sounds quite good. I don't think anyone would say we had any qualms about that, but adaptable and flexible doesn't mean shutting 50 per cent of the job centres in Glasgow down. That's not flexible. That's not adaptable with nothing in its place. You can quote what you like, Mr Tomkins, but the very facts of the matter are that they didn't really care about the people in Glasgow or in Scotland. It also mentioned the fact that the DWP was wanting to save money and that it wanted to close job centres, but it called for 20 per cent across the UK. It didn't say to close 50 per cent in Glasgow. That is detrimental to Glasgow and the rest of Scotland. It's about time that the Tories actually stood up and told people the truth. You can pick out what you like, but that's the actual truth. 50 per cent of the job centre closures are going to be in Glasgow. I'll give John Mason. Would the member accept that 75 per cent in the east end and three closing out of four? I do accept that. I do accept that. John Mason is absolutely right, and others have mentioned before about the 450 all-day bus fare. I'm very fortunate with my Kelvin constituency. I have the job centre in Patec, which isn't closing, but I have the two city centre ones that do medical assessments. In cases such as with John Mason's and other areas such as Castlewalk and Bob Doris' areas, bus service and train service aren't all that great, and people don't have the money to travel back and forth. That's what they should be told. None of the false tears and false weeping from the Tories is the opposite. They know exactly what's going on. It's just a pity that they, when they're supposedly writing to the Westminster Government and we get replies, we don't get the replies. It's a pity that we don't work in collocation with the job centres and where they're going to be put, because we'd like to know as much as anybody else. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I call Bill Bowman to be followed by Fulton MacGregor. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Just in case any of you can't stay for the whole speech and on the rost grear scale, I think that I will probably be a disgrace and despicable by the end. I shall apply Linter's law of only taking interruptions when I'm drinking water, and my glass seems to be pretty empty anyway. However, I do still welcome the opportunity to speak in today's debate on the future of the Jobcentre Plus network here in Scotland, one that follows on from the earlier debate that we had about the Glasgow job centres. As we know, the House of Commons Work and Pensions Committee produced a report on that subject. On page 3, the report summary makes it explicitly clear that the future of Jobcentre Plus is one of change. We may not all agree on what change looks like, but it is vital that the public services adapt to reflect the changing needs of the people that they serve. I can't go back to 1909 in a quote, but I can go back half a century to President Kennedy, who spoke in 1963 in Frankfurt. I think that some of this up quite well. Change is the law of life, and those who look only to the past or present are certain to miss the future. That is exactly what these changes are about, creating a fit for purpose network of job centres that are better able to meet the needs of those who require them most. I'm sure that everyone in this chamber—let me make a little bit more progress. That is exactly what these changes are about, creating a fit for purpose network that is able to meet the needs of those who require them most. We welcome the fact that the number of people needing to use a job centre has fallen. The number of people now in work across the UK is 31.8 million, which is more than—let me please just make a little bit more progress—that's a maybe later. As I was saying, the number of people now in work across the UK is now 31.8 million, which is more than just a statistic. It is 32 million people going home with a pay packet in their pocket able to provide for themselves and their families or dependents as they have. I mentioned this when I made my maiden speech that there is no better feeling or sense of satisfaction than being able to look after your family. Jamie Hepburn or Alex Cole-Hamilton? No, I'm your preference over Mr Cole-Hamilton. That's very instructive. Mr Bowman seems to be, incidentally, he refers to those who are in employment. Of course, this debate is about those who are in unemployment and how we can better support them to get into employment. He suggests that those proposals are about making the job centre plus network better purposed for the future. I wonder if he could tell us if that's informed by any discussion or dialogue whatsoever with service users that the proposed job centres are going to close. I was going on to say that, however, there are too many people out of work who do need and require the facilities and services offered by the job centre plus network. Here in Scotland, according to the latest O&S labour market briefing, the picture is a bit bleaker. There is an unemployment rate of 5.1 per cent, below that of Northern Ireland's 5.6, certainly, but above England and Wales. I know that it is the case in this chamber that some members occasionally like to blame Westminster for what happens here, but the reality is a little different, as I made clear last week when the SNP's budget was given the last minute kiss of life by the Greens. Instead of growing our economy and putting more people back to work, the SNP and the Greens opted for a budget that will slash local services and make this country the highest tax part of the UK. A regressive move that will do anything but encourage businesses to set up and expand here. Alex Cole-Hamilton I am very grateful to the member for giving way. Does he accept that the impact of Brexit and the resultant slide of our economy may well prevent many businesses from setting up in this country, and that is entirely the result of his Government? Bill Bowman No. I have a background in business and commerce, and in public services, as in business, it is important to look at how things can be done better. Without repeating what has been said in the debate a few weeks ago, like my colleagues Adam Tomkins and Annie Wells, I neither condone or condemn the DWP's proposals in Glasgow. Annie Wells and Adam Tomkins have raised concerns in the consultation and with the relevant ministers, but we need to understand that labour market is changing and we all want the jobcentre plus network that provides a more tailored support where possible. That has been brought out in earlier speeches. There is a key point in the Commons Committee report, which was accepted by the members of that committee, including Mary Black, and name you will recognise. It reflects the changing nature of the world that we live in. Eight out of ten claims for jobseekers allowance and, as previously mentioned, 99.6 per cent of applicants for universal credit submit their claims online. I am not suggesting that it means that jobcentres are no longer needed, and I fully accept that not everyone has easy access to a computer or the internet, but it does mean that the number of people who needed to visit the jobcentre is less than it was. A lot has been said about the DWP's proposals and their aim to deal with the significant amount of underused space that the state has. However, the other aim is to give people the chance to visit a single building that offers a number of government services—a social hub, if you like. I want to conclude by thanking those who work in that— I think that you should, Mr Pullman. Up and down the country, they do a fantastic job in equipping people with the advice that they need to go back to work, and I believe that it is right that the Parliament acknowledges that. Thank you for the time to say that. I call Fulton MacGregor to be followed by Pauline McNeill. Like many others who have already spoken, I was shocked and disappointed by the decision that I announced a week or so ago about the further jobcentre closures in Glasgow and throughout Scotland. That is just another long line of decisions taken by the distant and remote Tory party in London, with no regard for the real people, the surrounding businesses and the local communities that are involved and affected. Those proposed closures are sure to have a devastating effect on the most disadvantaged and vulnerable members of our society, as many speakers have already said, and many of those who are already living in poverty as austerity kicks in. For many vulnerable individuals, the processes of sanctions and difficulty maintaining appointments due to health worries and disability are already a challenge enough without those further barriers. It is very clear that those changes that are implemented by Westminster are not made with the people in mind, and it is also clear that this UK Government has absolutely no ambition for lifting those most in need out of poverty and into work. Yet this decision to close jobcentres is, for my constituency, something that has already happened. Before my time as an MSP, I met at January 2006, in fact. The jobcentre in Coatbridge, one of the most impoverished areas in our country, was closed down by a UK Government then, under a Labour guys, ignorant to the changing needs of its old industrial heartlands. Service users, in my constituency, are now redirected to jobcentres in Airdrie, Bellshill and, for some, Cumbernold, with no additional contribution to travel costs being made. For some users, that is a bus trip that they would never have had to previously make, and when money is tight, as so often the case when seeking employment, those additional expenses can become problematic. It is in those sorts of decisions that can impact in many other areas of people's lives, including, for example, mental health. I will take that opportunity briefly to highlight later today that I am hosting a reception for Sam H in the Garden Lobby, an organisation that does fantastic work throughout Scotland, including my constituency, and I hope that members across the chamber are able to come along. As I said, many of my constituents who are jobseekers are now redirected elsewhere, and I took the opportunity to visit Airdrie jobcentre last week. I was meant to go with colleague Alex Neil, MSP, however, as the chamber will mow his off on well at the moment, and so I will take that opportunity to wish him a speedy recovery. While I was there, I met with district manager Eta Wright and a group of the job coaches. The visit was very encouraging and it was clear to see what an excellent and dynamic service the enthusiastic staff offer at the centre. I am glad that others, including Bob Doris, have mentioned that. They spoke of how dedicated the team were to ensuring that service delivery remains and continues to be customer focus, something that I think the jobcentre can be very proud of. The work ethic of the job coaches was something that really struck me and it was obvious to see that the employees there really care about the people that come through the doors. It is just a real pity that people need to travel sometimes from the back of Coatbridge over five miles away to get there. Unfortunately, the closures of the jobcentre is not where the story for Coatbridge ends. What thatcher started in the 1980s, when she savaged the old industries like closing the steelworks at the Calder of Magrandad work, what blares Labour continued by hitting us while we were down with closure to the jobcentre as mentioned, this new crop of Tory London-based MPs are taking it even further again. The UK Government has now gone and announced the closure of the DWP processing unit at South Circular Road in Coatbridge. It is no wonder that people in my constituency wanted self-determination in 2014 by voting yes after years of a UK Government slow out of touch with our needs and continuing to heap misery on our area. Worse, it is a way that, as others have said, this whole situation has been handled. Just under two weeks ago, I received a worried message from one of my constituents who is employed at the centre and has worked there for years. She told me that she had just been told that the unit would be closed, closing next year of the latest, and she would be moved to Motherwell or Glasgow. No prior consultation at all. I had received no notification of this from the DWP, only later getting the tokenistic letter from Damien Hines MP confirming by what that stage I already knew. Both the MP in the area, Phil Boswell, and I have now had conversations with the union reps and I have set up a meeting with the manager, Alan Bowman, for 6 March to ensure that staff are fully supported. I have also written to the Secretary of State of Work and Pensions to urge him to halt the summer closures of the services throughout Scotland. Approximately 234 staff will be affected in Coatbridge with the vast majority from the town itself. Coatbridge Main Street has been struggling under North Lancer Council rates for years, and with the closure of the DWP processing centre coupled with the recently announced closure of the recovery savings bank at the fountain, the remaining local businesses of the Main Street will feel the pressure more than ever. The situation is getting beyond a joke, as highlighted by a recent article in the Erdring Coatbridge advertiser, and I have now taken steps to set up a public meeting to involve local traders and other partners to find a way to stem this tide. Last week, there was a heritage debate in this chamber, and it was good to hear the history of my town being praised by other MSPs across the various parties, but there is a more fundamental story here. Tory Governments have ripped the heart out of these communities and slowly but surely the SNP and this Government, and I do not mind saying that, are trying to help to get them back together. My constituency wants full control and self-determination and make no mistake about it. The attacks from this UK Government on the areas that had the biggest yes votes are no coincidence. That may well be a real-life example of the empire strikes back. That is why I commend the motion put forward by the minister and ask for a reversal of those decisions. The case for job centre closures has not been made. A child can see that it is the least arrangements of the DWP coming to an end that are driving the consultation and they are working backwards to justify it. None of the rationale that I have heard so far in any way meets the test of the needs of the people who rely on job centres. It is an attack on the job list. That is what it feels like to me, and it feels like an attack on a city like Glasgow. The Tories say that the best route out of poverty is to get a job, and I agree with that. But people need their job centres to help them to get that route to a job. So, if the aspiration of the DWP is to create a new system, it is a fair argument, but can the Tories not see that it is out of step with the needs of Glaswegians, certainly and from other poorer cities? The closures that we have heard will compound poverty, it compounds hardship, it will add costs to almost every single person affected by it. The transport difficulties that we have heard are not imagined, they will be real, and I believe that they will cause ill health to many people who are going to worry about how they get their extra bus, how they travel much further if their job centres were to close. As we have heard, nationally there is a 20 per cent cut in job centres, but when it comes to Glasgow, we are going to be losing half if the consultation does not conclude in a different way. In places such as Bridgeton, Parkhead and Easterhouse, they are in the top 5 to 10 per cent of the most deprived areas in the country, and they are served by three job centres that face closure. The rationale that we have heard is that there is a move to online. As I have said, the 20-year lease arrangements have come to an end, and apparently the claimant figures are dropping, and I want to address that point later. Bill Bowman, who quotes John F. Kennedy in a rather out-of-step quote from the actual debate, asked him in all seriousness to listen to what—well, I can only speak for Glasgow, that's the city, I know. Maybe you're not familiar with this, but online digital access for glass regions is the lowest uptake anywhere in the country. Half of glass regions have no computer at home at all, so how is the DWP's aspirations ever going to be met right now, and seven out of ten actually need support in services that have been done to help them online? Glasgow is not ready for this change. It is completely out of step. It's not an anti-DWP argument. It's just plain to see, and I'll take an intervention from the minister. Jamie Hepburn very much can cover the point that she has made about the problems people in Glasgow. Indeed, the other areas have access to IT facilities. What I heard very clearly was in Mary Hill, and it will be the same in other areas, is that people actually rely on their local job centre to access IT facilities, so I wonder if she would agree with me that this is a counterproductive move in this regard. Pauline McNeill That is exactly the point I'm making. Perhaps, way in the future, I don't disagree that there might be a beneficial aspiration to go online, but it is out of step with people's experiences on the ground, and the DWP must take account of that in the consultation. Other members have talked about, well, there are solutions, and I want to address Annie Wells' points. Maybe there are solutions, but the Tories can't just hide behind the fig leaf of the process. That's all that we've heard, and that's what the amendment addresses. Annie Wells makes some very good points. Is there any serious prospect that the DWP will seriously look at that? That would bear this in mind, that clements will still require to sign on every two weeks, so satellites are not going to be an answer for that. Perhaps, you'd like to address that point. I'd like to move on to the spin that the Tories have had in the previous debate about this figure of 44 per cent. I begin by accepting that it is a true figure, but you must consider that the figures that will be used by the Tories in this debate are the figures from 2010 until 2016. Most people accept that the post-financial crash figures show a blip in unemployment figures. If you look at the figures for 2016, they are pretty much settled now to the figures that they were before the crash. I would ask the Tories to take that into consideration. The claimant count is accounted for in that way, and it is unfair to use that as one of their justifications for closing Glasgow's job centres. It cannot just be about the process. We've heard many others talk about visits that they've made to job centres. In my visits to both partic and casual job centres, it's quite clear when some of the poorest people live in castle milk that they will have to take three buses in order to attend Newlands job centre, which is the nearest one to them. If there is any real consensus among the parties here to fight those job centre closures, and I think that there is an imperative here to win, then there must be some meeting of the way between the Tories' MSPs representing Glasgow. Unless the Tories prepare to condemn some of those closures, I don't really see how the DWP will simply listen to the rest of us. I think that there needs to be some recognition in this consultation that already there has been a breach of the DWP's own rules if you look at the travel arrangements. There must be a single message from this Parliament that this level of job closures is out of steps with the needs of the people of Scotland. If the UK Government and the DWP seriously believe that work is the best route out of poverty, it must be made as easy as possible for people to enter the workplace, not more difficult. It's also important to think about the impact that closing job centres will have on surrounding services. Job centre staff are already facing increased pressure with the roll-out of universal credit, increased conditionality for lone parents and people in work, and the increasing digitalisation of social security. My constituency of Gwyrwyr Clyde has long-term high levels of deprivation, and closing the job centre in Port Glasgow will not improve the situation. MSPs from across the chamber have explained the process so far, so I will not go over that ground again. I will focus my attention on my constituency. First of all, I welcome the announcement that the 28 staff at the Port Glasgow job centre will not be losing their jobs. They are to be redeployed to the green job centre. Secondly, I welcome the announcement that those claiming GISA and the equivalent universal credit at the Port Glasgow job centre will get their travelling expenses paid for additional meetings above their fortnightly scheduled meetings. However, the obvious question on that point is for how long will that take place? Also, if the target is to save £180 million, how does paying for travel expenses help to save that money? We know that the UK National Audit Office indicated that the cost of administering the sanctioning system is £285 million per annum whilst the UK Government expects it to save £132 million from sanctioning GISA and ESA claimants. We also have to wonder why the UK debt mountain is at £1.8 trillion and a deficit is £68.2 billion with policies that are introduced by the Tory Government. The Tory Government claims in its fewer offices to cover the UK because people tend to submit their claims for benefits online. Gordon Lindhurst failed to accept the point that many people do not have the access to technology, whereas Bill Bowman had the grace to appreciate that point. However, not everyone is that way inclined, and if someone who is older has a visual impairment and is not tech savvy, then the so-called old-fashioned way is absolutely vital. That is a point that was raised last year to Jeane Freeman MSP, the Scottish Government's social security minister, when she was speaking at the SNP conference at the RNIB Scotland fringe of it. However, as we know, unemployment claimants are still required to attend job centres at least every two weeks, with the UK Government having trialled weekly sign-ons and even more intensive daily sign-ons. The fact that the DWP Work Services director for Scotland, Denise Horsall, admitted that no one has tested the distance and time claimants will need to travel when job centres close, and said that what was done using Google Maps is quite, frankly, shameful and an insult to everyone who is going to be adversely affected. It takes absolutely no consideration of the particular circumstances of each community. It takes no consideration of the topography, the geography, the demographics and the long-term nature of unemployment in our communities. Three miles on May, it may be a walkable distance in good weather or for those who are fit and healthy, but for others this is going to be another significant barrier. Putting additional barriers in the way to getting into employment is a ridiculous position to be in, and the Tories in this chamber and particularly those who represent the west of Scotland, and there's a couple in this chamber today, they should be ashamed of their party down in London introducing this particular policy and ask them to stand up for their constituents, make sure that this doesn't happen. Presiding Officer, yesterday the common word used by the Tories in the article 50 debate was grievance. Now, I do have a grievance. I confess I've got a grievance against Westminster. I've got a grievance against Westminster policies that are punitive. I've got a grievance against a political elite who give little consideration to those people who need their assistance. I do have a grievance against Westminster that has led to long-term unemployment in constituencies like mine. The eradication of the manufacturing base in Inverclyde in the 70s and 80s has led to my community struggling but now beginning to move forward. However, Inverclyde currently has 41 data zones in the 15 per cent most deprived in Scotland. That equates to 36 per cent of Inverclyde's data zones, featuring in the 15 per cent most deprived in the country. That's not a record Westminster should be proud of. Despite the tens of millions of pounds plowed into Inverclyde via the creation of the urban regeneration company, Riverside Inverclyde, there are hundreds of new homes built by the housing associations, the new schools when built via local authority and the Scottish Government and the investment by businesses determined to make a success in Inverclyde, things are still tough. It just goes to show how bad Westminster was to my constituency and the catch-up job this Parliament and the Government has got it in its hands trying to move all of Inverclyde forward. Both income and employment deprivation continue to be higher in Inverclyde than Scotland as a whole. Inverclyde also has a higher proportion of people who are economically inactive due to a long-term health condition or disability than most other local authorities in Scotland. That means that there will also be a higher proportion of GISA and ESA inverclyde, with a limiting disability that is required to attend job-seeker interviews. For as long as the sanctions regime continues to punish people for even slight lateness, then the closure of job centres may ultimately lead to more people being unduly penalised. I also have agreements against that. The fact is that the closures of job centres around the country have more to do with a Tory agenda to penalise the most disadvantaged communities than it is to do with requirement. Asterity is not inevitable or even advisable as IMF and OECD and others will tell you. The closure of job centres in disadvantaged communities is now the next victim of the draconian austerity agenda by this Tory Government. Something even Margaret Thatcher did not fully manage to do. Thank you very much. I think that we have had a very good debate today—a very difficult issue of course, which I hope will bring as much cross-party consensus as we can in this chamber. There have also been some surreal moments in the chamber this afternoon. Alec Cole-Hamilton and his keenness to support a LibLab coalition to support the Labour amendment that does not exist. If only Alec, there was more of you and more of us, that perhaps could be a reality. We learnt from Gordon Lindhurst that he is indeed Mr Noe. We also heard from Ross Greer, who seemed to give an inter-invitation of sorts to Jackie Bailey, who made me think of the song just the two of us. I was particularly delighted to hear the implication that the brains of the front bench of the Conservative Party were intellectually challenged by Sandra White, so that was a pleasure. We also heard from Bill Bowman that I have heard of people having been a glass half empty type of person or a glass half full type of person. I think that we know that Bill Bowman is just a glass empty type of person. We are moving on to the seriousness of the debate today, Deputy Presiding Officer. I want to first of all put on record, like the minister has done before me, our thanks to all our DWP staff and all our job centre staff, many of them who have a thankless task in really challenging circumstances, and I know that other people in our public services do get the recognition, for example, in our NHS, and I think that it's important that we say thanks to all our DWP and job centre staff too, who are obviously anxious at this time as well. I'm delighted to say that I stand shoulder to shoulder with Jamie Hepburn and the SNP Government on this issue of job centres. I think that the motion in the name of the minister is very balanced and very fair. It makes a plea for a dialogue with the UK Government, it makes a plea for consideration around co-location, and it makes a plea to give more time to halt the disclosure and give more time for the Scottish Government to see what it can do to support local people and local job centres. I hope that that's an invitation that the UK Government takes very, very seriously and consider. I also want to repeat what Sandra White said thanks to the evening times in Glasgow who have run a phenomenal campaign on this job centre, who have seeked to bring all parties together and all elected representatives from all political parties in Glasgow in support of our communities. In that spirit of cross-party work, I also want to put on record my thanks to Bob Doris, who led a member's debate on the issue a couple of weeks ago, which I was pleased to support. I also want to put on record my thanks to Stuart MacDonald MP, who took the initiative and brought MPs, MSPs and indeed council group leaders together to put a letter to the UK Government to think again on those proposals and to give a direct invitation to the secretary of state. I must say that, Deputy Presiding Officer, while I welcome the cross-party support on this job centre issue, I think that we can get more cross-party support more often on issues of importance to the city of Glasgow, whether it be on police closures that we have heard before, whether it be on hospital closures, for example the Lightburn hospital, or indeed the fact that Glasgow's budget has been cut by £377 million since 2007. I hope that we can find cross-party consensus to not only pick flaws and talk injustice done by that place, but also to expose injustice done by this place to the people of Glasgow and, indeed, to other difficult communities. That is why I welcome George Adam's comment that he will work till his last dying breath to fight those closures. I hope that he will work till his last dying breath on the REH paediatric closure proposals. I hope that Stuart McMillian will fight till his last dying breath for the saviour of the maternity unit at the Inverclyde Royal hospital, because I think that it is important that all elected members, wherever the bad decision is coming, whether that be from a UK Government, whether that be from a Scottish Government, I would hope that local elected members could work together to defend the communities that they represent. Let's be clear about those job-centre proposals. There has been no engagement. It is simply unacceptable for people to read about those things in the newspaper and there to be little or no consultation. I do not think as acceptable as Mark Griffin has said that Ruth Davidson can hide behind other people in this debate. She should speak out about the closure that is happening in her constituency but also call out the failures of the UK Government in this regard. I also do not think as Pauline McNeill has said that the case has actually been made for those closures. I do not think that it has been considered about the impact that it has on communities from another uncaring decision, from an uncaring Government, because we know from history that unemployment is a price worth paying for the Conservative Party and I do not think that that is acceptable. Ross Greer was right to mention sanctions. This is a Government that will sanction people for not turning up for their fortnightly visit. If you make it harder for people to visit, you make it more likely to sanction and that cannot be acceptable. That is why I hope that we can find some cross-party support on that, too. I realise that I am in my last few seconds, Deputy Presiding Officer. All I want to say in closing is that this is a decision that has not been thought through, it is done without any consultation, it is not respected in this Parliament, it is not respected in local communities and I would expect better from the UK Government. I hope that David Mundell and I hope that Minister Hines will take up the invitation to come directly to those communities, meet local communities and hear for himself why those decisions are wrong and why they should be standing up and defending the most vulnerable people in our communities. I call indeed Lockhart. Seven minutes, please, Mr Lockhart. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. We have had a lively debate today and a number of robust contributions across the chamber. There has been also some consensus over the concerns relating to the proposed closures of job centre plus sites across Scotland. There is also clear recognition, and I would like to repeat what a number of members have said, to thank the invaluable work undertaken by DWP staff across Scotland. At the same time, this debate has taken place. A hearing of the Scottish Affairs Committee at Westminster has also been hearing evidence on this very same topic, and I will briefly mention later on some of the issues coming out of that hearing. Let me first turn to the Scottish Government's motion today. It calls on the DWP to provide more detail on the timing, the scope and the rationale for the proposed closures. This has been reflected in a number of contributions from members across the chamber. We have heard from Bob Doris, Jackie Baillie and Annie Wells, among others, about the feedback that they have received from their constituents, concerns expressed by constituents about the closure of their local job centre. We have heard concerns about the insufficient timing and the scope of the public consultation process and concerns that the internal and the public announcements of the proposals should have been handled better. We agree with many of those concerns, including extending the consultation process to all eight Glasgow centres. We also agree that it is important to balance any proposed changes with continuing to make sure that vulnerable local residents who need additional assistance get that assistance, whether it is because of disability, long-term health conditions or other reasons. Annie Wells, I thought, set out a number of very good practical ideas on how that might be taken forward. We hope that the current consultation process, as well as the debates in the chamber and in the House of Commons, will provide the DWP with a full and better understanding. I will, in a second, provide the DWP with a full and better understanding of those concerns. Although we agree that more details are required on the timing and scope of the reorganisation, we think that the rationale behind the reorganisation has been made clear by the DWP. Before I go on to set out the rationale, I will take the member's intervention. Pauline McNeill, I am generally interested in the proposals that Annie Wells put forward. It is not something that I would reject outright, but I wonder if you would acknowledge that some of the difficulties that members have talked about getting to a job centre if you close all of those job centres. They still have to sign on every two weeks, so a satellite arrangement is not really going to help that? Dean Lockhart, I think that goes to the point about the two-way dialogue and the consultation process, and, hopefully, as a result of the consultation process, we will see some consensus around some of those practical issues. Let me turn now to the rationale behind the reorganisation, because, as the All Party House of Commons Work and Pensions Committee has said, the future of job centre plus is one of change, a statement approved by Mary Black, MP among others. We agree with that, and indeed many of the drivers for this change are actually positive. Across Scotland, the claimant count has declined from £135,000 six years ago to £81,000 last month. As Adam Tomkins mentioned, the claimant count in Glasgow has declined by 40 per cent. This fall in claimant count across the UK and across Scotland has resulted in under-utilisation in the job centre network by as much as 40 per cent in places like Glasgow. One observation coming out of the Scottish Affairs Committee this afternoon was that Glasgow will have more job centres per 1,000 people than Birmingham or Sheffield, even if the proposed closures go ahead. I recommend to members that they look at the hearing at the Scottish Affairs Committee. I am not saying that that is a justification for the proposals, but it is an interesting observation. I would like to make a bit of progress. There are other reasons for driving the change to the network. The increasing digitalisation of services has resulted in a more accessible welfare system. More than 80 per cent of claims for GSA are made online, and over 99 per cent of applications for universal credit are submitted online. In addition, the introduction of a more simplified welfare system such as universal credit has helped to streamline the system. All those changes to the welfare system now mean that the DWP needs less than 80 per cent of the office space that is currently occupied. The point that I raised in my contribution earlier regarding people who are either blind or visually impaired is crucial in terms of allowing and helping and assisting those people to get back into the workplace if those job centres are not there. How is that going to happen? I agree that additional support has to be continued to be made available to those individuals. I absolutely agree with that. A number of members have said that the reorganisation is about reducing floor space. I do not agree. There are two much more important elements to that. First, it is about how the DWP can best use its budget to concentrate on helping people who need it most. That plan will save £180 million a year over 10 years. That is up to £2 billion. Rather than spending £2 billion on empty space, the DWP aims to recruit 2,500 additional work coaches in the next period, including 122 new work coaches last year in Scotland and more going forward. I am sure that others will agree that this is a much better use of money than spending it on empty space. Secondly, the reorganisation is about reflecting the changing demands that are placed on the job centre plus service, as others have indicated. It recognises that job centres these days are not just about finding jobs. It is about that there are places to discuss adult learning issues, skills acquisition, mental health issues, disability issues as well as benefits, and I am about to wrap up as well as social security. To meet those changing demands, the DWP is not cutting back services, it is expanding the level of services across a different network. The Scottish Government's motion today suggests that it may have co-location proposals that would address some of the issues mentioned above. If that is the case, we would very much welcome those proposals and look forward to hearing the specific details. It has been over two months since those changes were first announced. Let me conclude. We look forward to hearing the outcome of the consultation exercise. We will remain fully engaged with it and we look forward to an outcome that balances the need for change with the needs of vulnerable people in our local communities. We also look forward to hearing about the co-location proposals coming from the Scottish Government and to seeing a more joined-up working arrangement between the UK Government and the Scottish Government. As our amendment makes clear, this is a two-way process and we look forward to a closer working relationship. I support the amendment in Adam Tomkins' name. I call Jamie Hepburn to close the debate. I thank those who have taken part in today's debate. It has certainly been an opportunity for most of us to be able to lay out our concerns about the broad thrust of all the closures, but certainly for individual members where there are specific closing areas to raise the very real concerns that they have. I thought that it would be a useful place to start at the outset of my closing contribution. To start at the logical place and start at the beginning, let us look at the process that has led us to where we are today. Adam Tomkins in his opening remarks said that it was sensible to review the state for DWP to review their job centre plus estate. I do not disagree with that per se. I am not convinced that anyone has said anything that would disagree with that perspective. He gave the example that Annie's land office is one-third empty. There are two floors unused. Many of the Conservative members spoke of the fact that the lease arrangements are coming to an end. Let me be clear, though. I accept that that all might be the case. It is certainly the case in relation to the leases coming to an end, but that is not an argument for leaving Annie's land. It is not an argument for leaving any of the communities that are served. I agree that Jackie Baillie and Paul McNeill made that point. I think that it is a peculiar way forward to predicate your decision about what communities should be supported by the mere fact that lease arrangements for particular offices are coming to an end. I agree. Ross Greer, I thank the minister for giving way. I thought that he might benefit from hearing given that Dean Lockhart has brought up the House of Commons, the Scottish Affairs Committee, having the debate at the same time as ourselves, that a Conservative member of the committee has just said that the evidence that they have heard is compelling against the proposals in the DWP and that they should start again with this process. Jamie Hepburn? I can only hope that that is a salient message that Conservative members will hear one of their colleagues raising south of the border. Let me say that I can only hope that UK Government ministers have been as a sidiously watching the progress of this debate here in the Scottish Parliament, as Mr Lockhart was watching the progress of that evidence session at the UK Parliament Select Committee. I was going to make the point that I agree with Gordon Lindhurst. I did not agree with much of what he had to say, but I do agree that people matter not buildings. It is not the specific buildings, the specific bricks and mortar that concern us in this instance. It is the specific proposals to withdraw from communities. Mr Tomkins and Mr Bowman made much about the unanimous view of the select committee on working pensions that Job Center Plus has to reform. Again, I do not think that anyone would dispute that any public institution should be subject to reform and revision and change, but what we are debating here is not the process of reform. What we are debating here are a specific set of specific closures proposals, which, as we have just heard very clearly, at least one Conservative member of the Scottish Affairs Select Committee concedes is without any evidence-based. Tory members here neither condone nor condemn those proposals. Willa Tories are clearly looking to cull and close those specific Job Centers. Aaron Tomkins urged me to demonstrate more maturity in my approach to the matter. I think that that was, if he does not mind me saying, uncharacteristically chirlish of him. I think that my intervention on him must have irked him and upset him a little, but he knows, because I have made every effort to let him know, along with other members who represent the city of Glasgow. I have sought to engage with the DWP minister to seek ways in which we can pursue alternatives to those closures, and we will continue to pursue such. Officials from Skills Development Scotland and Department of Work and Pensions met in 30 January 2017 at Skills Development Scotland and responded to the DWP consultation. They have set out very specific proposals about how they might be able to allow for a continued service from their premises at specific locations in the city of Glasgow and, undoubtedly, will be happy to continue to engage in that dialogue in other parts of the country. I will be very happy to consider how we can see other ways in which we can work with others. I know that the leader of Glasgow City Council, the leader of the Opposition on Glasgow City Council, has set out their concern about the closures in Glasgow. Local authorities can have a role to play here. Bob Doris made very clearly the point that there are community organisations in Mary Hill, where he represents third sector organisations that could be part of the equation in supporting the continued provision of service. Ms Wells made a number of innovative suggestions about ways in which we could approach outreach services, and I will happily pursue each and every suggestion that she has earnestly made. However, I did think that it was rather telling when I asked her what response that she and Mr Tomkins have had from the Department of Work and Pensions to their specific proposition. She could not confirm that she has even received a response, so it seems that the problems that we have in achieving two-way dialogue are not restricted just between the two administrations, but it actually even happens within the Conservative Party itself. Mr Tomkins and other Conservative members have urged me to provide real proposals about co-location. I will readily commit to doing that. We are already starting, as I have set out, to work towards that. I will readily hear, as I have just committed to, to hearing any suggestions from any member about how services can be better aligned. I will readily take actual real proposals to the United Kingdom Government, and I will readily make our proposals publicly available for members of this Parliament and the public to know that I will readily commit to the proposition set out in the Conservative amendment to make our proposals plain. However, let me make it very clear. I think that it is a little rich to hear. Excuse me, minister. Could members come into the chamber, please do so quietly and refrain from private conversations. All I can say is that they were not putting me off to continue with the point that I was making. I think that it is a little rich to hear Tory criticism of our inability thus far to provide real proposals when we have had no consultation from the DWP, no prior notification from the DWP about their specific closures. It is rather difficult to provide specific proposals for specific locations when we find out about them when they are publicly announced. There is a clear example of the poor process of consultation and communication when my friend George Adam, who is, as we all know, the assidious and ardent representative of his hometown of Paisley, where he was able to let us know that, as that town's representative, he has had no communication from the UK Government about the closure that will take place in his town. That is completely unacceptable and I can assure Mr Adam that I will raise that very matter with Damien Hines and Damien Greene. Perhaps Tory members want to reflect on the process that has been engaged in by their party in Government south of the border. It is a real telling example that we have some way to go to make paragraph 58 of the Smith commission agreement real and meaningful. The arguments that I deploy around making that meaningful are not some obscure constitutional argument just for its own sake unless anyone makes that suggestion. I think that the process that we have seen here would set out why, if it was in place, it would be a very practical way how we could explore how better to support people into employment. Many members spoke of their own local issues, including Bob Doris. Of course, I had his member's debate in Mary Hill, where Claire Hawke spoke about her own constituency. Jackie Baillie and Ross Greer spoke of the circumstances at Alexandria like Mr Doris. It is an area that I know very well. My father's family were from that part of the world. I understand the difficulties in travel that will be reflected in other areas, but I very much understand the difficulties in travel between Alexandria, Dumbarton and, in the opposite direction, as well. Jackie Baillie set out that the UK Government—I think that I have heard her correct them, she will correct me if I am wrong—suggested that the UK Government had invited her to discuss the situation in Alexandria in London. I have to say that the UK Government would do rather better to listen to the invites that Ms Baillie and Mr Greer have given to them to visit the site in Alexandria and to see what the reality is on the ground. Given their confusion between Musselburgh and Glasgow, I suggest that they will probably need to look for Alexandria on a map first of all. I will readily commit to visiting any community-affected meeting with any local organisation and service users who are affected by those changes, if any member wants to invite me to. I might even walk through the fields with Mr Greer and Ms Baillie if they invite me to do so. Gordon Lindhurst talked about the increased utilisation of online services. That is all well and good, but, in May 2016, he was talking about what was in place in 1998, but let me talk about what happened in May 2016. The citizens advice bureau Scotland undertook research that shows that one in five clients of the jobset plus cannot use a computer, 21 per cent never use the internet, 59 per cent can't claim benefits online without helping, 54 per cent can't apply for a job online without help. It is rather rich to say that, because of the chained nature of the world, we can just move towards online applications. That does not reflect the reality on the ground. I have not even talked about the likely reality that that will increase sanctions, but let me conclude by saying that I do hope that the UK Government has been listening today. I am not particularly interested in getting the Tories here to condemn or condone those closures. What I am interested in is getting this Parliament's voice heard by the UK Government. I want all parties here to be part of that process. The Tories in recent weeks have said often that members should stand up and be accounted for for their constituents, while Annie Wells and Adam Tomkins have raised their concerns about the process in Glasgow. Ruth Davidson, the leader of the Conservatives in this place, has a potential job centre closure in her constituency, so let them and their colleagues stand up for their constituents this evening. Let's back the motion, let's get the UK Government to halt this process and let's ensure continued service for people who need it to get into employment. The next item of business is consideration of business motion 3901, in the name of Jofice Patrick, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, setting out a business programme. I would ask any member who wishes to speak against the motion to press their request-to-speak button now. I call on Jofice Patrick to move motion 3901. No one has asked to speak against the motion. I put the question to the chamber. The question is that we agree motion 3901, in the name of Jofice Patrick. Are we all agreed? The next item of business is consideration of four Parliamentary Bureau motions. I would ask Jofice Patrick to move on block motion 3902, in approval of an SSI, motion 3904, on suspension and variation of standing orders, and motions 3903 and 3906 on designation of committees. There are three questions that we put today. The first is that amendment 3873.1, in the name of Adam Tomkins, which seeks to amend motion 3873, in the name of Jamie Hepburn, on the future of Job Center Plus Network in Scotland, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We're not agreed. We'll move to a vote, and members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 3873.1, in the name of Adam Tomkins, is yes, 30, no, 91. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. The next question is that motion 3873, in the name of Jamie Hepburn, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We're not agreed. The Parliament will move to a vote, and we'll cast the votes now. The result of the vote on motion 3873, in the name of Jamie Hepburn, is yes, 91, no, 30. There were no abstentions. The motion is therefore agreed. I propose to ask a single question on parliamentary bureau motions 3902, 3904, 3903 and 3906. If any member objects, please say so now. No member is objected. Therefore, the question is that we agreed above mentioned four motions in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick. Are we all agreed? We are all agreed. That concludes decision time. We'll now move to members' business, in the name of Bill Kidd. I will just take a few moments to change seats.