2Coordination and communication of announcements
Timing of announcements
3.We announced our inquiry into Jobcentre Plus closures in Scotland in January 2017. At that time we had planned the session in response to the proposed closure of eight of the 16 Jobcentres in Glasgow. However, before that session could take place the Government made a further announcement that covered all remaining proposed Jobcentre closures through the UK.4 That announcement included:
- merging 78 smaller Jobcentre Plus offices;
- co-locating around 50 Jobcentre Plus offices with local authorities or other community services;
- closing 27 back office buildings; and
- utilising six regional corporate hubs, including establishing a new office in central Manchester.5
These were in addition to the 36 proposed Jobcentre moves or closures announced before or with the Glasgow closures. Because some of the proposed closures were open for consultation, the Department for Work and Pensions did not confirm the precise number of Jobcentres that it would close, and has still not done so. Unions reported that it was likely to result in more than one in 10 locations in England, Wales and Scotland.6
4.That timing of announcements—with Glasgow closures announced in early December and being the first announcement covering a city after a series of smaller announcements—gave rise to reports of Glasgow having been singled out or even used as a pilot for this policy.7 The SNP Trade Unions spokesman Chris Stephens MP stated that “these plans make Glasgow the guinea pig”.8 However, the Minister of State for Employment, Damian Hinds MP, firmly denied that the city had been used as a pilot, telling us that “there was a series of announcements when it was possible to move forward in particular areas. It is not the case that there was one exercise for Glasgow and then another exercise for the rest of the UK”.9 Karen Gosden, People and Locations Programme at the DWP, confirmed that, while it had been the Department’s intention “to announce city by city so that we could give a full picture”, it was “just pure coincidence that Glasgow was the first city where all of those negotiations were complete”.10
5.The Minister explained that the overall policy was the result of the expiration of a Private Finance Initiative (PFI) contract which affected the whole DWP estate. This contract, known as the PRIME contract, is a PFI contract that covered “nearly all” of DWP buildings.11 The Minister told us that, because “it was public knowledge that this PFI [contract] was coming to an end”, there was “great interest” around the announcements about what would happen next. He therefore made the decision to announce the remaining closures “all on one day”.12 We discuss this contract in more detail later in this Report, it is the case, however, that the Department knew the date that this contract would expire nearly 20 years ago.
6.The timeline of announcements—with Glasgow Jobcentre closures announced in early December and changes to provision in other UK cities left until late January—was unfortunate and gave the impression that Glasgow may have been singled out or used as a pilot, even if that was not the case. The date of the expiry of the Private Finance Initiative contract known as PRIME (which was largely the catalyst for this policy) has been known since the contract was agreed twenty years ago. It is therefore unacceptable that the communication, announcements, and consultation about these closures appear to have been rushed and show a lack of planning on the part of the Department.
7.We recommend that the Government learns from the fact that it had to alter its communications strategy part way through this process, from a strategy of phased announcements to publishing the full list of closures only a few weeks after the Glasgow announcement. The Government should consider more carefully when a phased communication approach is or is not appropriate. As the Department learnt, there are considerable disadvantages to making incremental announcements about UK wide changes which stakeholders are already aware are coming.
Consultation with the Scottish Government
8.Although provision of Jobcentres remains reserved to the UK Government, the Scotland Act 2016 devolved new powers to the Scottish Parliament, including many in the area of social security. We took evidence separately on the transfer of these powers alongside the Scottish Parliament’s Social Security Committee. In our joint meetings we heard from officials of both Governments that there was a good working relationship between civil servants. Peter Searle, DWP, told us that:
We know what our Governments want to achieve and we are asked at official level to work out the different ways of achieving that through changes in either UK or Scottish Government legislation or approach. We then take options and recommended—and, ideally, agreed—solutions to the ministers, and it is ultimately for them to decide.13
He concluded that it was likely that at times political issues would occur for which there would be “no perfect way through” but stated that “we will keep talking to each other to find a way”.14
9.We were therefore disappointed that the Scottish Government had not been consulted at all before the decision regarding Jobcentre Closures in Glasgow was made. The Minister for Employability and Training, Jamie Hepburn MSP, confirmed that he had found out about the closures “through the newspapers”.15 He went on explain that this had lead him to question how meaningful communication between the Governments had been:
Interaction is welcome, but it must be meaningful. Words are easy, and when I meet UK Government ministers face to face, I want us to have meaningful interaction. Hitherto, on certain aspects of the process, it is questionable how meaningful that interaction has been, and I am sure that the committee might want to reflect on how meaningful its interaction with the UK Government has been.16
10.As well as criticism from the Scottish Government, there has also been criticism from the Scottish Parliament. On 8 February 2017, MSPs voted by 91 to 30 to voice “concern” about the impact of the closure of Jobcentre Plus sites across the country. The motion called on the DWP to “halt the closures to allow the Scottish Government to bring forward substantive co-location proposals to save these jobcentres”.17 That motion was opposed by 30 members of the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party.18 However they proposed an amendment which agreed that there should have been more “meaningful dialogue between the DWP and the Scottish Government”.19
11.When we questioned the UK Minister about why the UK Government had not consulted with or informed the Scottish Government about the announcement, he told the Committee that he “spoke with Scottish Government counterparts immediately before the announcement” on the “recent rounds” of Jobcentre closures.20 When we asked the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions whether he saw this as a failure in coordination, he told us that a “UK-wide programme that has gone on, with very satisfactory communications”.21 The Scottish Government Cabinet Secretary disagreed, she told us that the UK Government decision to close Jobcentres in Scotland without consulting the Scottish Government was “not in the spirit of the Smith Commission”. She explained that:
At the last meeting of the joint ministerial working group we agreed to bring forward, explore and discuss a joint operational working framework. That is good and positive, but it is after the horse has bolted, after significant announcements have been made about potential closures.22
12.The Scotland Act 2016 transferred a range of welfare and social security powers to Scotland. We were pleased to hear that the UK and Scottish governments are working closely together to coordinate that devolution of powers. However, we are disappointed that, when making a decision on a closely related policy—the future of Jobcentres in Scotland—the UK Government did not seek or appear to take into account the wishes of the Scottish Government. Given that a large proportion of welfare policy was devolved in the Scotland Act 2016, we recommend that any future policy decisions which may have an impact on the way that social security is administered in Scotland must be taken in consultation with the Scottish Government.
4 Department for Work and Pensions, ‘New streamlined Jobcentre Plus network with more support for jobseekers’ [accessed 2 February 2017]
5 Department for Work and Pensions, ‘New streamlined Jobcentre Plus network with more support for jobseekers’ [accessed 2 February 2017]
6 The Guardian, ‘Jobcentre staff at risk amid plans to close one in 10 offices’, [accessed 6 April 2017]
7 The Daily Record, ‘Eight job centres to shut in Glasgow as Tories use Scotland as ‘guinea pig’ for callous cuts’, [accessed 6 April 2017]
8 BBC News, ‘Half Glasgow’s Jobcentre Plus services to close under DWP plans’, [accessed 6 April 2017]
9 Q115
10 Q120
11 Q141
12 Q119
13 The Scottish Parliament, ‘Official Report, Social Security Committee 13 March 2017’ [accessed 14 March 2017]
14 The Scottish Parliament, ‘Official Report, Social Security Committee 13 March 2017’ [accessed 14 March 2017]
15 The Scottish Parliament, ‘Official Report: Social Security Committee 02 February 2017’ accessed [14 March 2017]
16 Scottish Parliament, ‘Official Report: Social Security Committee 02 February 2017’ accessed [14 March 2017]
17 Scottish Parliament, ‘Motion S5M-03873’, [accessed 6 April 2017]
18 Scottish Parliament, ‘Official Report: Meeting of the Parliament 08 February 2017 (Decision time)’ [accessed 6 April 2017]
19 Scottish Parliament, ‘Motion S5M-03873.1’, [accessed 6 April 2017]
20 Q158
21 Oral Evidence taken on 20 March 2017, HC 1095, Q25
22 Oral Evidence taken on 20 March 2017, HC 1095, Q28
20 April 2017