Official Report 1177KB pdf
The final item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S6M-18364, in the name of Clare Haughey, on opposition to the proposed closure of Cambuslang jobcentre. The debate will be concluded without any question being put. I invite members who wish to participate in the debate to press their request-to-speak buttons.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament condemns the proposed closure of jobcentres across the UK, including Cambuslang Jobcentre in the Rutherglen constituency, by the UK Government.
17:36
In January 2017, I stood up in the chamber to speak in my colleague Bob Doris’s debate on proposed jobcentre closures in the Glasgow region, including Cambuslang jobcentre in my constituency. After a huge effort from the local community, local organisations, trade unions, activists and elected members, Cambuslang jobcentre was saved. Eight years later, communities in my constituency find themselves in exactly the same situation, albeit under a Labour Government rather than a Tory Government at Westminster.
The Department for Work and Pensions has announced that Cambuslang jobcentre is to close, with all services being relocated to Rutherglen. In 2017, my colleague Jamie Hepburn made the point that the decision to close particular jobcentres seemed to be driven by the fact that lease arrangements for buildings were coming to an end. Strangely enough, the DWP’s lease in Cambuslang is due to end in early 2026.
The DWP has claimed that the jobcentre’s proposed closure is part of its plans to leave “older, poorer-quality buildings”. That supposed justification would be risible if it was not so insulting. Cambuslang jobcentre is situated in a bright, accessible, modern building in a central location in the town. It is co-located with other vital services including the award-winning employment champion Routes to Work South, which has just celebrated its 20th year of operation. In fact, the jobcentre is in such a great location that the DWP invested more than £200,000 of public money in new doors and closed-circuit television just a couple of years ago. The DWP rationale simply does not wash with the residents of Cambuslang and it does not wash with me.
Hundreds of local residents have now signed my petition against the closure, and many of them have shared their stories with me. Those people would be seriously impacted by any closure, and I am thankful for their candidness. Time and again, I have heard fears around accessibility, travel time and the threat of punitive sanctions for being late or missing an appointment.
Cambuslang community council is a well-kent and well-respected organisation that is rooted in the communities that its members serve and it knows them inside out. It has been unequivocal in its opposition to any closure, citing the disproportionate impact that it would have on vulnerable people and those who live in areas of deprivation, and I agree with it entirely. The community council is fiercely protective of local services—it successfully launched a banking hub in the face of the withdrawal of high street banks, for example—and I commend its continued commitment to Cambuslang.
I also put on the record my thanks to the many local businesses and shops that have displayed the poster about my campaign and petition.
In 2017, the previous UK Government said that, if it would take 20 minutes for people to reach a named alternative by public transport, there should be a public consultation on any proposed jobcentre closure. My constituents in Halfway, Drumsagard or Lightburn would face around a 90-minute walk, or a journey of at least 30 minutes on public transport, to Rutherglen jobcentre. My constituents in Greenlees would face up to a 45-minute journey using public transport.
Frankly, it feels like the latest decision has been made by someone who could not point to Cambuslang on a map, let alone be bothered to look at the building on Google maps, download a bus timetable or google local representatives’ names. There has been absolutely no consultation whatsoever with local communities, service users, elected members, trade unions or Department for Work and Pensions employees.
At a meeting of South Lanarkshire Council on 1 October, the SNP group lodged a motion that called on the council to unite in condemning the proposed closure. I am delighted to say that the motion was passed unanimously, with councillors of all political parties and none coming together to stand up for the community.
In 2017, Labour members lined up to condemn the prospect of jobcentre closures, including in Cambuslang. Where are Anas Sarwar and Pauline McNeill today? Where are they when a jobcentre in their region is again under threat?
Back then, our Conservative colleague Annie Wells spoke very honestly about her concerns about the proposed consultation process, or lack thereof. I appreciate that that must have been a politically uncomfortable position for her to take, given that there was a Tory United Kingdom Government at the time. It is for that reason that I commend one local Labour councillor for speaking up for her constituents in the council chamber and for publicly stating:
“The evidence that the DWP has given for the relocation definitely does not stack up. There is nothing that stacks up that justifies closing the jobcentre.”
I am deeply concerned that not one of our Labour colleagues has signed my motion or stayed to listen to the debate. That speaks volumes to my constituents about how much their regional Labour representatives care. It is disgraceful that there has not been a cheep from the Labour MP on the matter, either.
It has been 11 weeks since I wrote to the UK Government to request an urgent meeting and to relate my constituents’ concerns. I have yet to receive a substantive reply, let alone a date for a meeting. I ask the minister to write to the DWP to chivvy it along and make it aware that my constituents are so concerned about the closure of Cambuslang jobcentre.
I am not alone. Local Liberal Democrat and Labour councillors have shared that they have not received replies, either. Perhaps Andrew Western, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Department for Work and Pensions, who made the announcement in July, has had other important DWP-related matters on his mind. After all, on 15 September, he provided an MP with an answer as to on how many days the union flag had been flown over DWP buildings.
Altogether, the UK Government’s behaviour has been nothing short of disgraceful. It has provided a flimsy rationale that does not stand up to any sensible scrutiny. It has not even matched the previous Government’s extremely low threshold to trigger consultation. It has flat-out ignored elected members’ requests for meetings and further information. In the face of increasing pressure from all sides, it has repeated the same worn-out lines in the local and national press.
I was proud to stand up for Cambuslang jobcentre in 2017, and I am proud to do so today. I am proud of the resolve of the local residents, communities, activists and organisations in my constituency, which I stood alongside in 2017 and which I am standing alongside today.
The motion is about protecting local services and about dignity and respect in relation to how we treat vulnerable groups in our communities. It is about giving my Cambuslang constituents access to a vital service and helping them to access benefits, work and training opportunities. I will continue to campaign for the DWP and the UK Labour Government to lift the threat of closure of Cambuslang jobcentre and to secure its future.
17:44
I thank Clare Haughey for once again bringing this matter to the chamber. She should not have had to do so; it should have been dealt with back in 2017, as she said. I express my concern at the decision to close Cambuslang jobcentre in January 2026, which is a decision made by the DWP under the Labour Government at Westminster.
The closure is more than just an administrative change; it will have real consequences for people in Cambuslang—people who are trying to find work, support their families and rebuild their lives. For many in the community, the jobcentre is not simply a building; it is a vital point of access for advice, training, opportunities and human connection at what can often be one of the most difficult points in someone’s life.
By closing this jobcentre, we are asking vulnerable people—people with disabilities, mobility issues or limited means—to travel significantly further, often for more than an hour, as we have heard from Ms Haughey, to reach the next nearest centre in Rutherglen. That is not accessibility; it is exclusion.
As we have heard, the decision was taken without any meaningful consultation with local residents, councillors or community groups, and that lack of transparency is unacceptable. Local voices matter. The people of Cambuslang deserve better than to have decisions made about them, without them.
We have heard all too often that such closures are about efficiency, but there is nothing efficient about forcing people to spend more time and money to access basic support, particularly in the midst of a cost of living crisis. It is also deeply ironic that a Government that claims to promote fairness and opportunity is instead pulling up the ladder for those who need the help most.
Although I acknowledge the need for modernisation, digital tools and online services can never fully replace the face-to-face support that many people need and want. Not everyone has reliable internet access, and not everyone has the competence to navigate the system alone.
Cambuslang has already lost too many local services in recent years. We cannot continue to strip away the very foundations of community support, and then act surprised when people feel abandoned.
I would like to make clear that this is not about party politics. It is, as I said in the debate earlier today, about people. It is about ensuring that those looking for work are supported locally and are not left behind.
I also call on the UK Government to pause this closure, to properly consult local representatives, service users and employers and to commit to a full equality and accessibility impact assessment before any final decision is made.
Let us listen to the people of Cambuslang, and let us make decisions with communities, not for them. Government at every level should be about helping people move forward and not about putting more barriers in their way.
Once again, I thank my colleague Clare Haughey for bringing this debate to the chamber.
17:48
I thank my friend and colleague Clare Haughey for bringing this important debate to the chamber. It is good to see her standing up for her constituents.
The importance of the debate is clear. Cambuslang jobcentre is the first customer-facing jobcentre to face closure in Scotland. Sadly, if the closure goes ahead, I fear that it might not be the last.
Previously, the Tories threatened closure of several jobcentres in Glasgow. There was no surprise there, to be honest, but I congratulate Annie Wells on standing up against the tide. At that time, MSPs and MPs managed to overturn the decision in cognisance of how damaging it would be at every level. However, I have to admit that I am shocked that it is a Labour Government that proposes this closure. No Labour MSPs signed Clare Haughey’s motion, there have been no protests from their MP colleagues and there are no Labour MSPs in the chamber. As Clare Haughey said, that really says it all.
The jobcentres were saved at that time, yet here we are again, now with a Labour Government threatening the closure of a jobcentre. It beggars belief. Labour supported the campaign to save the jobcentres in 2017, but it has been silent now. The level of hypocrisy here is breathtaking.
Only two front-facing jobcentres are under threat of closure at the moment: those in Bristol and Cambuslang. Why is Cambuslang under threat? The DWP says that it is rationalising old estate, but that really does not wash. As we have heard Clare Haughey articulate, Cambuslang jobcentre is in a modern building and is co-located with a general practitioner surgery. It is also a stone’s throw from the local citizens advice bureau, and it has the award-winning Routes to Work South, a training provider with more than 20 years of operation under its belt, on its doorstep, so it could not be more ideally located or fit for purpose, which makes a nonsense of the reasons that have been given by the DWP for its closure.
When the UK Government is looking to move more people off disability benefits into employment, and at a time of record-high unemployment, withdrawing the local support services that could help people into work is ludicrous. Where is the sense in that? However, numerous non-public-facing DWP offices across the UK have closed, which could be the start of a callous cost-cutting measure that will affect people seeking help with accessing benefits, training and, ultimately, employment. When banks are closing on our high streets and post offices are closing, this move seems incredibly callous. I know that it would be a huge blow if the jobcentre in Kirkintilloch in my constituency were to close but, frankly, I now can take nothing for granted.
The UK Government must stop penalising the disadvantaged—people who need support to live a dignified life. It must stop taking services away from them and making their lives even harder.
17:51
I thank Clare Haughey for bringing forward this debate on what is clearly a very important issue, as has been expressed by those members who stayed behind to take part in it.
Many of our ministers in the Scottish Government, including me, share the concerns that Clare Haughey and other members have expressed about the closure of Cambuslang jobcentre, particularly given the lack of consultation with those impacted that has been reported, not least the people who currently access support through the jobcentre.
As members have already said, this is not the first time that the Cambuslang jobcentre has been earmarked for closure, and community campaigns have previously been successful in ensuring that it remains open. I note Clare Haughey’s comments about the cross-party support locally in her constituency for retaining the jobcentre, albeit that the Labour Party has not turned up or participated in the debate, which is unfortunate. I suspect that, as others have said, had it been a different Government that was closing the jobcentre, Labour members would have been queueing up to protest and speak in the debate.
The decision certainly risks making it more difficult for people to access the support that the DWP provides and could increase the instances of sanctions as a result of additional travel time to attend jobcentre appointments. That in turn is likely to cause a disproportionate impact on people who already experience structural barriers to entering and sustaining employment. Travelling further and longer will undoubtedly present more of a challenge to some population groups, not least parents and disabled people. As Annie Wells, Clare Haughey and others have said, the face-to-face contact that some people require more than others is very important and has to be taken into account.
Due to the nature of the devolution settlement, the delivery of employability and social security support straddles both the Scottish and UK Governments. The closure may have an indirect impact on people’s access to devolved employability services in South Lanarkshire, and we are therefore disappointed that we were not consulted on the decision. In contrast to the closure, the Scottish Government’s approach to devolved employability services recognises the importance of place-based delivery. Through our no one left behind approach, which is delivered in partnership with local government, partners at a local level have flexibility to tailor provision to the needs of service users and local labour markets.
Building meaningful relationships between key workers and people accessing support is seen by the Government as a critical aspect of service delivery. Our approach ensures that in-person provision can be effectively targeted by local partners to areas of need, utilising a range of expertise across the public, third and private sectors.
The Scottish Government has deliberately taken a different approach to devolved services with our policies built around the values of dignity, respect, fairness, equality and continuous improvement. We want those services to be seen as an opportunity, which is why participation remains voluntary.
We have invested £90 million in devolved employability services in 2025-26. The funding ensures that every local authority area in Scotland has an all-age employability offer in place. Our employability investment seeks to balance local flexibility with the assurance that services support the delivery of the Government’s missions to support the economy and eradicate child poverty. That is why our budget continues to include specific funding to support parents, for instance, to enter employment and increase their earnings. From 2025-26, there will be specific funding to ensure that every area has an offer of specialist employability support for disabled people.
The commitment to implement specialist employability support is a good example of the Scottish Government working closely with local government to target our activity for significant labour market challenges. Delivery of the specialist employability support has been live in all local authority areas since 1 July this year. Ministers have seen first hand how Scottish Government funding is being used by the local employability partnership in South Lanarkshire to support the people of Cambuslang into work. My predecessor launched the employability strategic plan in September 2024 and visited the Routes to Work South project, which has supported people into employment in a local cafe. That is one example of the good work that is happening locally. The project also considered how its role in the local community could be leveraged to support those who are furthest from employment and encourages people to engage with the service through a community pantry.
I thank colleagues for bringing the issue to the attention of the Government and highlighting many of the concerns that are being expressed locally. I will take up Clare Haughey’s offer to write to UK ministers to indicate the strength of feeling among some parties in the chamber and will note her particular interest in the matter as a local MSP. We will seek a response to her and others’ concerns and will probe for more information about the UK Government’s intended timescales. We will also ask why there was no consultation, among other issues.
I congratulate Clare Haughey on securing the motion for debate in the chamber and I commend her on her local campaign and support of the local community.
Meeting closed at 17:57.Previous
Decision Time