Dwi'n ddiddinsinion iaith cyfan o bobl dros cyflawn i 2971 i bobl bob Doris o'r closiwr o'rだum ysgolion dechrau a'r cyflawn i bod yn gweld i gyrfa'r hyn, ddim gweld i ddiddinsinion iaith i bobl bob Doris o'r cyflawn i bobl bob Doris o'r cyflawn i bobl bob Doris. Twyrwyr mor geniwyr dargarwydd, sy'n gweithio i gilyddol ar gaur gyfer swyddiadau i gwrs cynghorwch bwysig, yr aregwmiedig yng Nghymru yn golygu yn gyfrifydd, sy'n gweithio i gwybod iddyn nhw i dweud i gwith о'r cyfrifydd a rhywfawr i'w ceisio i amgylcheddol i'r gnutai. Mae frieddu i dda wedi gweld FNP yn yng Nghymru byddai o bobl yn gwyllog o bobl oherwydd I want to focus today on the impact on those who use Mary Hills Job Centre. Along with Patrick Grady MP, I met with a group of single parents who would be seriously impacted by the closure of Mary Hill Job Centre. I would like to thank One Parent Family Scotland for arranging that meeting and for the openness and frankness and honesty of those who spoke to us. Those single parents were required to make a trip to Springburn Job Centre instead, and I know that the local MP Anne McLaughlin shares my concerns over the knock-on consequences for Springburn Job Centre also. Here's what One Parent Families and Mary Hill had to say about travelling to Springburn. If your child's unwell, how do you get up there? I don't want to take them on the bus. Just now I can ask a neighbour to look after them for a short while, but not for over two hours. Where I suffer from chronic pain, the thought of sitting on buses for almost an hour each way scares me. It's really worrying and it's scary to lots of people. On the expense of it all, if you used that to get to Springburn, you'd be taking it out of your child's mouth. I suffer from depression and anxiety and they'll not be able to travel to Springburn. I also don't have the money to live on. I couldn't afford the extra expense. What about appointments at Springburn? If the appointment's at 2pm, how would you sign on and pick up your wane? It's the same in the morning as well. 10am means you'd not be able to drop off your kid in time. They, the Job Centre, don't offer area later. There's not usually anything else available. Presiding Officer, concerns over closures goes far beyond the practicalities of getting to Springburn. For many, it's all about the hard-won relationship and trust that's actually been developed with a benefits adviser over time, crucial in terms of supporting vulnerable groups back into employment. They're unlikely to retain the same work coach. The relationship is likely to be dismantled and much of that trust will be shattered. Job Centre staff and the PCSU can share those concerns. We all know Job Centre Plus is a toxic brand and there is huge controversy over the UK Government's welfare reforms and its sanction regimes. Despite that, many Job Centre Plus staff know very well the key to getting a vulnerable person with barriers to employment and ready for work is about nurturing those relationships sometimes in very difficult circumstances. Here's what one parent family said about the prospect of losing their work coach. I've got one in there and they're absolutely brilliant. She knows I've got the wanes and tries to help. I've built a relationship with mine, with others the trust falls down. I'll said, you don't want to keep retelling your story. It's often very personal and your existing job coach knows you. Along with MP colleagues, I met senior managers at Job Centre Plus. I requested how many claimants use Maryhill Job Centre and they were unable to tell us. I asked for a map of the area covered by Maryhill Job Centre and they were unable to provide it. We requested an equality impact assessment to see how groups such as single parents, carers or even those with disabilities might be impacted by closure. Job Centre Plus said that they would only do one after a decision had been taken. We asked how Job Centre Plus had interrogated the travel implications for service users. Google Maps appeared to be the only travel expertise applied. If the council consulted on closing a school in such a manner, the Scottish Government would have the power to call in and to block that decision that it has done in the past. That is precisely what the UK Government must now do—to intervene in a flawed process and to save Maryhill Job Centre as well as others that are threatened right across the city. Annas Sarwar. I congratulate him on bringing forward this important debate. On that point, every single Glasgow MSP and MP is united in their condemnation of the decision to close these Job Centres. Is not it time that the UK Government listened to the elected members of the city? Bob Doris. Absolutely. I hope that the UK Government will listen carefully to this debate and use it to inform the decision to halt every single closure right across the city. Annas Sarwar. I need to make a little bit of progress just now, Mr Tomkins. The Smith commission agreement referred to Job Centres. It called for the UK and Scottish Government to identify ways to further link services through methods such as co-location wherever possible and to establish more formal mechanisms to govern the Job Centre Plus network in Scotland. Yet the Department of Work and Pensions does not appear to have informed in advance the Scottish Government about the proposals that are now before, as we will hear more about that later from the minister. I want to say a little bit more about the Job Centre in Maryhill. It sits directly opposite another office block that is largely unoccupied. The rent on that property would be in all likelihood cheap as chips. The DWP could also cast an eye around the corner just over the canal towards Ruck Hill, where there is a former social work building at the quadrangle sitting mostly empty, along with other properties at low-market rent. The Citizens Advice Bureau is based just down the road at Avon Eupark Street. Skills Development Scotland has skills shops at Barriers Road and at Sarrison Street in Pawsall Park. Yet there have been no discussions with anyone, with any partner, around any form of partnership working or co-location. The DWP could recognise the current Maryhill Job Centre location as a stone's throw away from a new £12 million health and social care centre at Gerbryd Ave in Maryhill and directly opposite the Maryhill borough halls. The area is a growing community hub and I would urge Job Centre Plus not to turn its back on Maryhill and on those I represent who have multiple barriers to employment if I have some time added on. I am happy to take the intervention. Adam Tomkins I go to the member to give away, I know time is tight, I appreciate it. I wonder if the member would reflect on the fact that the All Party House of Commons Work and Pensions Committee in November of this year reported on the future of job centres. The All Party Committee unanimously said that the future of Job Centre Plus is one of change and that the Job Centre Plus must be open to working in ways that are increasingly flexible, adaptable and experimental. As I said, that is a unanimous report signed up by every member of the committee, including the SNP's own Mary Black. What is the evidence that supports the view that, just because Glasgow has 16 job centres now, it must always have 16 job centres, even though the nature of job centres and the nature of the employment market is changing? Bob Doris Mr Tomkins, I am deeply worried about that contribution, that intervention. I thought that it would cross-party solidarity in relation to this. Maybe it is 20 job centres we need. As I go on and look at this, the UK Government was talking about a 20 per cent reduction in job centres. Why has Glasgow been targeted for a 50 per cent call of our job centres? Why, Mr Tomkins, I have absolutely no idea? I would like to say that the minister, who is now Jamie Hepburn, as well as Damian Hines MP and the Minister of State for the Department of Work and Pensions, should come along to Maryhill together, jointly, to partnership working and meet with those directly impacted by the job centre closure should it go ahead. Mr Hines would see the area for himself, meet with local partners and better understand the opportunity that exists locally for co-location and for partnership working. Let us improve the support that we provide vulnerable groups, not diminish it. To realise that opportunity, the DWP must first ditch plans to axe Maryhill job centre. I hope that Mr Tomkins and his Conservative colleagues will support that call here today in their contributions, not just Maryhill job centre but right across the city. Glasgow's elective representatives across all parties can see the clear deficiencies and a rushed and threadbare consultation. The risk of sanctions, the risk of additional expense, the impact on families, the loss of valued work coaches at a local level are all worrying my constituents. Together with cross-party unity, we can halt those closures. I hope that, this afternoon, we can hold that solidarity and meet the needs of those vulnerable people that we are all supposed to represent in this chamber. We now move to open speeches. Speeches of around four minutes, please. Annie Wells, to be followed by James Dornan. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak today on an issue that has grown media attention and to thank Bob Doris for bringing this matter to the chamber. I will not condone the DWP proposals, but neither will I condemn them. Glasgow has some of the worst employment rates in the whole of Scotland, and the claimant count in the city is 3.1 per cent, compared with 2.2 per cent for Scotland and 1.8 per cent for the UK. Of course, it is important that we support those people into work the best way possible. I share the concerns of members here today. I, too, as my colleagues are, am concerned about the communication around the proposed closures. Change whether permissible or not should not be sprung upon people out of the blue. Consultation and change should not come across as a lip service exercise, and I was disappointed to see the length of time in which it was open. As new arguments for and against come to light, people should be given the opportunity to digest the information available and make informed responses. I, too, with the further roll-out of universal credit in Scotland, am concerned about the increased need to make job centres as accessible as they can. Bob Dorris. I am worried about Ms Wells that people have to make informed opinions about this, but, given the fact that MSPs in this chamber and MPs no-one else knows how many people use Maryhill job centre or even the area that it serves, is that not a fundamentally flawed consultation? Will you agree to the irrespective of your final views on job centres that every single job centre proposal in Glasgow should be scrapped right now and the DWP should start again? Annie Wells. I agree that we need to monitor the use of job centres, but we also know that the claimant count in Glasgow has dropped by 44 per cent since 2010, going from 24,200 down to around 13,500. We do need to monitor it more closely with the usage. I am, too, concerned about the consultation's restriction to just the three job centres, Maryhill, Bridgeton and Casamilch. It is a difficult situation, however. The 20-year lease contract is coming to an end next year, and it is only logical that we have the discussion now, and we need to at least be open to that. I will make a few points for the members to reflect on today. Between 20 to 40 per cent of the floor space in the buildings are currently under-occupied. Is it right for the Government to sit on empty floor space and go rolling into a new contract without at least asking the question as to whether that is a good use of resource? Is it right to send a message that a three-mile journey is plain wrong no matter the circumstances when many of the jobs advertised at the centre will require just that and more? For those with long-term health conditions or disabilities, extra efforts should be made to ensure that services are not adversely affected. I shall make this point well known when I submit my entry to the public consultation. That is what it should be about compromise, not black and white decision making, but making the most sensible decision while making the necessary provisions for the most vulnerable. In none of the 260 staff relocated as part of this change are expected to lose their jobs, and there has been no mention of the DWP of making cuts to investment. In fact, more than 122 additional work coaches were recruited to job centre plusses in Scotland last year to ease workload and ensure a service-based on-report. I did not omit the signing of Stuart McDonald's letter because I do not share the same concerns. I did not sign it because the finality of its tone suggests that the decision has already been made. The language users suggested that every person currently visiting job centres will be stricken down by such a change, and I do not think that that is a reasonable assertation to make. Particularly, as I have said, if emphasis is put on looking after the most vulnerable with regard to increased journey times. That is why I encourage all members of the public who feel strongly on this issue to submit their opinions to the DWP through the consultation now, details of which I have posted on my website, and I, as much as anyone in the chamber here today, hope that the best outcome is reached on this issue. James Dornan, to be followed by Johann Lamont. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Before I start, I apologise to Bob Doris and myself for having to leave after my speech because I have an event to host. I will come back to the comments that Annie Wells just made, but I would like to say welcome and thanks for coming to the MPs in the audience, Chris, Margaret, Patrick and Anne. Of course, my own MP Stuart MacDonald, who has been pushing this very hard in my constituency, when I was first informed that not one but two job centres would be closing my constituency, obviously my first reaction was one of concern. I represent a diverse community and many of my constituents currently face extreme social economic hardship. Job centres are part of a lifeline to many of them. The name job centre would indicate that this is a place to find work, but as every member of this chamber knows, these centres are so much more. They are a place to find employment, yes, but also a place to discuss adult learning, skills acquisition, disability issues and, of course, benefits and social securities. Damian Greene, the MP, might think that those closures are necessary as the Westminster Government continues to harm the most vulnerable members of Scottish society with a rasterity agenda. However, my job is to remind the Tories, both at Westminster and indeed the ones here, of the devastating effects that those closures will have in communities throughout Glasgow. It has been well documented in the media that cruel benefit sanctions are hitting especially hard the desperately ill and those with a disability who are often unable to reach an appointment due to distance and ill health. Imagine how difficult these appointments will now be for vulnerable people to reach. Let me highlight one of the closures in my constituency will mean for some of the most disadvantaged local residents. Despite what Annie Wells just said there about she does not want to see people being stricken down by these changes, the distance between Casimalt job centre and Newlands job centre, which will remain open, is according to Google maps 15 minutes by car. Many of the users of the Casimalt job centres do not have a car, so let us look at that map again. A walk takes 58 minutes for an able-bodied person. Imagine that you are a mother with a couple of young kids having to make your way there for fairly regular meetings and if you do not make those meetings, the sanctions kick in very quickly. Imagine that you have a mobility issue and you have to make those meetings, because if you do not make those meetings, the sanctions kick on in very quickly. That is the thoughtlessness that has gone into this whole consultation process, this whole pretend that you care process, because this is about blanket Glasgow, never going to win that place, who cares, it's poll tax number two, it's just completely unacceptable. I met with a constituent last year who had to flee her home because of domestic violence. She's young children, she's living in a bread line, she attends Casimalt job centre and when I was talking to her she showed me her shoes and she's got holes in her shoes and now what you're asking her to do, your government's asking her to do, is walk an extra four miles in those shoes we're holding them to get to that job centre before she gets sanctioned and life becomes even more difficult for herself. So let's not pretend that you're trying to make life easier for those on the bread line, you're trying to make life easier for people to get back into work, because this measure is quite shameless and the fact that it's taken nobody into account except for the bank balance, except for the bottom line. There's meant to be a consultation here that takes into account people's needs, there's been none of that, this is not a real consultation, we know fine well that at the end of this consultation there will be no changes of any substance within Glasgow, we will be fighting hard for this and I know, I was really disappointed but not surprised that both Adam Tomkins and Annie Wells never signed that and I know that they would have been happy to sign it but I'm not surprised that their party told them under no circumstances can you sign that. Yes, tell me that you don't, yes I'm more than happy to give way. Adam Tomkins Absolutely not the case that my party told me to sign or not to sign that letter. I read the letter, I considered every word of that letter, I wanted to be able to sign it but I advised the author of the letter that as presently drafted I was unable to sign it for the reasons that Annie Wells has already given. So if the member would retract that baseless allegation, I'd be grateful. James Dornan The track to allegation that I thought that you wanted to keep the job centres open and wanted to sign a letter, my apologies. I just thought that I knew you a bit better than that. You must come close Mr Dornan. I will do just now to sign off on my apologies. It's very important that despite the concerns that you have for whatever reason, that this is a cross-party thing. We've got cross-party support from all round the chamber except for this side here. Let's make sure, despite what your concerns are, that we get to a position where you can go back to your masters, we can all push the Westminster Government to make sure that those job centres stay open. If not, you're penalising people who are already suffering and do not deserve to be penalised any more. I take this opportunity to remind members that they should always speak through the chair. I call Johann Lamont to be followed by Sandra White. Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer, and I shall certainly do my best. Can I congratulate Bob Doris in securing this debate today and recognising the importance of the subject matter? I can't be the only person who was shocked when there was an announcement. I think that it was actually leaked ahead of the announcement being made. The sense of rush round as question was very little regard to the impact on local communities. In fact, it has created significant campaigning activity across the city, and I want particularly to talk about the south side. I commend the evening times and its support for the campaign to address the grave concerns about the implications of those closures. We've heard from Bob Doris about the work that he and his colleagues have done, but I also want to highlight the work of one party, local Labour councillors, Councillor Archie Graham, Malcolm Cunning and Emma Gillan, and Labour activists like Stephen Livingstone, who have with others recognised the importance of the issue. I have been highlighting their concerns, their desire to ensure that it is stopped and recognising and talking to the public about the importance of building public support to encourage the Government to think again and to take on the DWP in this regard. I am particularly concerned about what is happening in Castamilch and in Langside, but I also recognise the implications right across the city. In fact, this morning, my Labour colleagues have been out campaigning on this very question, and they have been struck by the degree of response that they have had across the communities. It wouldn't be right simply to say what our individual parties have done or recognise the importance that people beyond party have very strong views on the matter, and campaign groups have highlighted that. However, the campaign has been marked by an important effort to build cross-party consensus at a local level. I commend those who have done this, whether it is the MP or, indeed, Frank McAfee, the leader of the council. We have all recognised the importance of drawing together on this question. I commend the type of working, not just in this particular issue, but regardless of who is making that decision, whether it is the UK Government, whether it is the Scottish Government or at local government level. There needs to be a freedom for politicians to have the confidence to come together when these matters are of such significance within our communities. I think that we should be urging David Mundell to listen to those concerns. Adam Tomkins talked about the question of evidence and the importance of it. The fact is that this was done without evidence. It is not an evidence-based decision, and James Dornan has highlighted that already. I am concerned that this decision has not been done with any equality impact assessment, because if there had been, you would not target your cuts disproportionately on a city that relies on those services. There is no understanding of the transport challenges. It is all right to look at Google Maps, but try to travel in the bus routes or the walking routes to access those services. If you were living in the real world and, indeed, this morning, the Petitions Committee was looking at the failures of the bus system and the idea that you would be relying on a bus to travel even further to get access to support without anybody doing the basic work of working out where those transport links are, is a nonsense. The reality is that it has been a paper exercise. It has not looked at whether there is an impact disproportionately on vulnerable groups, on women, on lone parents, on disabled people who may want to be accessing services. This has not been an exercise driven by a rational assessment of need and purpose. It has started at the end of the process and worked its way back. Surely the rational minds that there are on the Conservatives must accept that that is not acceptable. I also recognise that this becomes even more challenging an issue because of the highly contentious debate around the key elements of the welfare system and the approach of a Tory Government that, in George Osborne's unforgivable terms, sought to divide between the workers and the shirkers. If we believe that the argument is that we need, in the current welfare system, to support people into work, why make it so difficult to access that support? If that is the purpose and that that is their job, why make it more difficult for those who need that support to get it disproportionately in a city—like Glasgow has said—that it needs it? But even if you do believe in conditionality and the benefits of a sanction system—and I don't—why make it more likely to increase the level of sanctions? Why make it more difficult for people to comply? Why make it an issue where you make a decision that is not connected to experience the ordinary, Mr Tomkins? The reality is that this decision was made on paper to meet a budget requirement. We need to start with people in our communities and then make the decisions that follow that. I urge all of Cross's chamber to make their voices heard because implications for families in my city are immensely serious. Before I call Ms White, due to the number of speakers who remain and due to the overrunning of every speech so far, I am mindy to accept a motion under rule 8143 to extend the debate by up to 30 minutes. Can I invite Bob Doris, please, to move such a motion? So the question is, are members agreed that we extend the debate? Thank you very much, that's agreed. That doesn't mean that you should fill all of that time. Sandra White, to be followed by Patrick Harvie. That actually did give me some more time, but I'll stick to the timeline, as she said. Can I commend Bob Doris for securing this debate? I also thank many MPs, some of whom are in the gallery today, who raised this very issue at Westminster to debates that I believe were held at Westminster and Glasgow Evening Times for running an excellent campaign against these job centre closures. As convener resource security committee, we held an evidence session on 15 December, taking evidence from Neil Cwling and Denise Horsfall. During this session, the job centre closures, which had just been announced, came up. I would like to read some extracts from that meeting, and I think that it will give us a flavour into, as Johann Lamont has said. This is nothing absolutely to do with people, it is a budgetary exercise to save money. We visited the job centre in Musselberg previous to this meeting, and I raised this as a convener in the first question. I mentioned the fact that, even though we visited the job centre two weeks ago, we were not aware of any job centre closures. They could not have just been decided a couple of weeks ago or last week. It had to be on the agenda for a number of months. I said that we were given no indication whatsoever of the closures when we visited the job centre closures. I specifically asked about Glasgow, and Denise Horsfall came back in falling on from the fact that I pointed out that an awful lot of work must have been on in the background previously to come to this decision and why we were not made aware of it as a committee who is looking at the social services and the new bill coming forward. Denise Horsfall said that I will happily come in about Glasgow specifically to answer the convener. I will say yes. We did not talk about the closures when we met. I referred to the fact that we were looking at the estate, but I certainly was not specific. It was not in my gift, Denise Horsfall said. It was not in my gift to be specific at that stage. I had no authority to talk to you about it. My authority came on the day of release. When I mentioned the fact that we weren't told about when it was going to happen, Denise Horsfall said in an official report that she also went on to say that she had looked at various issues such as Google maps and travelling. That is in commas, which is by her own admission. Denise Horsfall also said by her own admission that I get that, it is not the same as getting on or off a bus. It is certainly true of people who aren't getting on or off a bus. I then mentioned the fact that when did this happen, why we weren't told about that. Denise Horsfall replied and said, without a doubt, convener, you are absolutely right, convener, that she did not just drop out of fresh air. There was a discussion about what seemed to be acceptable and available for the city of Glasgow, what the best use of the estate was and how we were going to deliver the services. Those proposals then went to consultation periods with the landlords, not with the people, not with the Parliament, not with elected members, but most importantly of all, not with the people that are going to be using the services with the landlords. You have only one decision to make after that. It is that this is nothing at all to do with the people, getting people into work, helping people. How can you say that people who are disabled, folk who are on the very bread line, might need to take two or three buses, might need to walk, as has already been mentioned. They did bother about them. All they were caring about was how much it was going to cost the estate. I know that Adam Tompkins did raise this matter in the committee. I do not know if Mr Tompkins is going to speak or not. He may elaborate on that fact, but I know that it was raised in the committee about could not a deal have been done. Castle milk job centre, for instance, the landlord there said that he would drop his rates, but they did not bother saying anything about that. That was raised at the committee. From the evidence that we were given at the committee, you can only come to one conclusion. The people were not considered at all. They did not matter. People, as has been mentioned before, vulnerable, disabled, single families, young kids, did not matter about them. All that matters is money, and we must ensure that those job centres are safe. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I very sincerely thank Bob Doris for bringing this important debate to the chamber for discussion today and pay tribute to the broad support for this concern. It is refreshing and significant that this is an issue that brings together the Scottish Government's supporters and its critics. It is not an issue that divides down constitutional lines. This is something that has united political activists from a number of parties, politicians from local, national and UK level, as well as a wide range of organisations and other services that are working in people's communities. I think that people are responding with astonishment and anger to this proposal. I am very pleased as well as Sandra White said that the evening times have been drawing public attention to this issue through their work as well. The starting point for me on an issue like this is a desire for a fundamentally different kind of welfare system, a different kind of social security system. For decades now, not just recent years with the Tory Government, but I believe for decades, the social security system has turned into one from one that is supposed to be about providing security for people into one that is designed to bully people into low-paid work. The kind of social security system that I would want to see yes, would make some services available online or over the phone, that is obvious that it has benefits, but the most important thing that it has to do is have people working with people to support them to overcome the very serious barriers that they have to re-enter work or to find appropriate work or to make that work work for them and for their own life circumstances. That means services in local communities, people working with people, people who know the local community, its transport links, the kind of work that is available and the kind of issues that people face in that community. It is absolutely vital to have those local services protected, even if the level of demand reduces. We should want it to reduce the local nature of those services. It is absolutely critical to ensuring that the service is effective. The letter that we have all seen from Damian Hines setting out the closures that were proposed ends with the phrase, three of the proposed site closures may lead to longer journey times for some claimants. It is absolutely inevitable that it will lead to unacceptable journey times and costs. Even for those who qualify for a job centre travel discount card and who manage to get access to that, the reduced rate of a single trip across city zones, which many of the people impacted by those cuts will be crossing the first bus zones in Glasgow, is even the reduced rate is £2 for a single journey. A great many of those people will still find themselves having to buy an all-day ticket, which is £4.50. It is not good enough to say, as Annie Wells did, that people can get a job that might involve just as much travel. People should be willing to travel for job centre. A job pays a wage. Going to the job centre does not. It is absolutely outrageous to imagine that people can bear those costs. Like others, I happily, as members know, want to encourage people to walk and cycle around our city as well. Even I would think twice at the hill up to Castle Milk on my bike. James Dornan, walking, would be an option. He talked about that. Some of my Green Party colleagues and activists and candidates organised a walk from the Bridgeton job centre to Shettleston. That walk took nearly an hour. That does not even consider the barriers that people with reduced mobility, disability or other commitments for their time in terms of family care. People would not be able to make that commitment. Two things are inevitable consequences of those changes. More people will miss appointments. More people will be sanctioned as a result and not get the support and services that they need. Secondly, more people will be forced deeper into poverty by having to bear the additional travel cost burden. I think that the Scottish Conservatives are due some credit for turning up today. I pay tribute to them for that, but they should come here with an opinion. They have an absolutely privileged position in this debate, because if they add their support to the existing cross-party support for concern on this issue, I think that we have the ability to tell the UK Government to change its position. They are the ones who need to add their support to have complete cross-party consensus on the issue, and I urge them to do so as soon as possible. I congratulate Mr Doris on securing this important debate today. The proposed closure of the job centres in Glasgow, although in itself a reserved matter, is one that this place should be debating. I am glad that we have the opportunity to debate what is an important issue for his constituents today. My position mirrors that of my colleague Annie Wells. Given the nuances, I will not condemn the proposals, but neither will I condone them, and the process is currently followed. Across the United Kingdom, the Department for Work and Pensions has committed to reducing the size of its estate by 20 per cent, a decision taken due to changing circumstances and facts as they are on the ground today. That comes as we near the end of a costly 20-year PFI contract signed by the Labour Government for the upkeep of many DWP offices. Recent figures show that across the UK the reduction in numbers of claimants and the system changes have resulted in the DWP using only 25 per cent of the space that they pay for under the PFI contract. We must also note that the claimant count across the UK has dropped from £1.5 million in 2010 to around £800,000 today. In Glasgow itself, in that same time frame, the claimant count has almost halved. In Glasgow East it has dropped by 47 per cent in less than seven years, but that still means that over 13,000 people are needing the vital services that job centres provide. The concern demonstrated across this whole chamber about what the proposed closures could mean for those people and the process that has been gone through is one that must be recognised by the DWP as they continue their consultation. A review is being undertaken. The proposals seek to bring smaller, less busy job centres together into larger existing sites, thereby reducing the DWP's rents and freeing up services with a view to delivering a higher quality of service for benefit claimants. The UK has made this pledge and it is one that I wholeheartedly endorse that no DWP staff will be made redundant because of these changes. If anything, the DWP workforce looks set to grow in Scotland with 122 new work coaches recruited just last year. As Annie Wells has said and will make clear in her submission to the DWP through the consultation, however, for those with long-term health conditions or disabilities, much more effort is needed to ensure that service users are not adversely affected by any of the proposed changes. We must not lose sight of the uncertainty and trauma caused by being made unemployed. I do not doubt the worry for people when they read that their local job centre is to be closed. It is down to us, their elected representatives, to assure them that they are not being abandoned, to make sure that the changes, if they happen, are acceptable and result in better service delivery for those who need them. I urge all here today and all those watching at home who have concerns over the proposals to submit them to the consultation. It is only by working together, cross-party, in the interests of constituents, that we will find a solution that works for everyone and that we can truly create a job centre service fit for the 21st century, one that will deliver real results for the people of Scotland. Pauline McNeill, to be followed by Clare Haughey. I would like to begin by thanking Bob Doris for having this important debate and for Stuart MacDonald to co-ordinate the letters so far of MSPs across the parties that would seem except for the Tory party representing Glasgow. I would be interested to know in what terms you would have signed a letter of solidarity with the rest of the MSPs representing the city. I am also pleased that The Evening Times is back in a campaign. For me, from what I have read so far, the complete lack of analysis on the requirements for Glasgow is an attack on the city of Glasgow. An attack on the city of Glasgow, as far as I am concerned, should have all of Glasgow's representatives fighting its corner. One in 10 adults in Glasgow has never had a job. In the area of Parkhead and Dominic, six out of 10 families are lone parent families. Glasgow is home to some of the most deprived communities. We face seven closures, 50 per cent of Glasgow's job centres across the city. It appears that Glasgow has been singled out for unfair treatment. One in four people still have no access to the internet. If this is part of a wider plan because the DWP, as we know, is already moving to universal credit, a system that has vastly become discredited as far as I have been hearing this morning, the city is certainly not ready to make that transition. Unemployment is still 7.7 per cent.  However, as others have said, I would have some respect for the consultation, I suppose, if there was some analysis. However, what we have heard is complete contradictions from the ministerial letter that I will get to and no real analysis about how people will get to the new arrangements. They do not even know the numbers of people using the job centres, so how the consultation was even allowed out the door, I do not know. The one thing that I would say, where there has been some element of solidarity, is that the claimant count in Glasgow has fallen by 44 per cent in the last seven years, from down to 13,500. That is still too high, but it is a significant reduction. Is it not rational, given a 44 per cent decline in the claimant count, to think about the number of job centres that a city such as Glasgow continues to need? If that is the Tory position argument in this debate, you do not understand the city of Glasgow and you are not taking into account any of the characteristics of the city in which I am describing. The Tory position, as I have heard in previous debates, about getting people back to work, job centres are a lifeline for people. It is a very poor strategy, at worst, if it is based on that. We are not even clear as to why it is part of a bigger plan. The committee, as you know, Adam Tomkins, has learned that it seems to be part of a wider review on the estates. I want to get to the minister's letter, because I think that it is worth reading it out. The point that I was about to make was that at least there is one area of solidarity that the Social Security Committee worked together to call on the DWP to extend the consultation to 31 January, which previously would have closed a week after Christmas. We have some time. I would also like to use my contribution to encourage people to respond to the consultation by writing to Eta Wright at the Lawson Job Centre in Glasgow. I think that it is really important, and I actually believe that it is possible to save some of those job centres. Again, that is why I look to the benches opposite. If you really want to save some of those job centres from closure, you really need to work more closely with the other parties on that. The justification that we have been given by the minister is that it will provide an estate that is right for the city. There is nothing about that that is right for the city. The letter talks about, I would like to reassure you that the reduction in size in Glasgow is in line with an overall plan to reduce the total amount of space that we occupy. The number of job centres marked for closure reflects the importance of smaller job centres in Glasgow. I am sorry, but it is not a floor space issue. It is about the needs and the requirements of unemployed. As many others have talked about the practicalities, we have heard many times the very spurious reasons that sanctions are applied. One of the reasons that sanctions can be applied to individual claimants is if they are late for their appointment. There is much more likelihood of people being late for their appointment under those proposals. By the DWP's own admission, when they did look at estimated walking times between job centres, in the case of Bridgend to Shetleston, it is 30 minutes. In the case of Castle Milk to New Orleans, it is 45 minutes. By their own admission, those walking times exceed the agreement that they had in 2011 that it would be a maximum of 20 minutes. During the party's opposite here, let's fight together and at least say some of Glasgow's job centres for the city of Glasgow. I call Claire Hawke to be followed by Adam Tomkins. I would also like to thank Bob Doris for bringing this debate and the members who have signed the motion for affording us the opportunity to debate this issue today. Job centres play an important role in supporting those seeking work. There is also an important point of contact for local businesses, looking to recruit and for local and national initiatives that seek to support people into work, as well as encouraging growth and opportunity for all. It is widely accepted that having meaningful employment in a fair work environment, paying a living wage, has a positive impact on health and wellbeing. Yesterday in the chamber, we debated a conservative motion on health inequalities and nothing could demonstrate the glaring divergence between the Tory sham concern about health inequality than the UK Government's actions in the area of welfare and benefits. The outrageous decision to close half the job centres in Glasgow region, including the campus land job centre in my constituency, is just another example of the disregard that is shown by the Tories to the vulnerable in our society. As we have heard, the announcement was made without prior consultation. No consultation with elected members or local communities, service users or DWP unions or employees. Indeed, following answers in the House of Commons to questions from Margaret Ferrier MP and Angus Robertson MP, it became clear that the Tory Secretary of State for Scotland was also kept in the dark on what the DWP was up to. I grew up in my constituency in Rutherglen and have been fortunate enough to work in my constituency also. I have seen Rutherglen and Glasgow suffer from heavy joblessness as traditional industry collapsed in Scotland in the 1980s. The transition from that industrial past has been tough on constituencies like mine. Manufacturing jobs, which used to number in thousands, only a few decades ago guaranteeing jobs for people in Rutherglen and Canbus Lang and Blantyre, now number in the hundreds. This story is familiar to many communities across Scotland, but it is especially relevant in Glasgow where joblessness and lower incomes and historic under-investment in public services have come together to contribute to high unemployment and high underemployment. To cut 20 per cent of job centres in Scotland in the current climate with the plumeting pound, uncertainties around access to markets and potential tariffs on Scottish goods would be bad enough. However, to close half the job centres in Glasgow region smacks of an overreach reminiscent of Margaret Thatcher's poll tax, which has already been referenced in the debate. That is just another example of the Westminster Tory's disregard for Scotland, especially for the unemployed and underemployed in our communities. If Glasgow's jobless can be hammered with nearly 70,000 people affected with no resistance, then the Conservative Government would be emboldened to roll out further essential cuts to services. That is at the heart of it. It is not just about job centres, it is about a sustained campaign of defunding all public services and transferring provision where profitable to the private sector. That is happening while Glasgow has a 7.7 per cent rate of unemployment, 2.3 higher than the UK average. Those are not job centres around the corner from each other, but services located in distinct local communities that have very specific catchment areas. For example, in the area of halfway in Cambuslang, the walk to the neediest job centre will increase from 30 minutes to over an hour. That is what the job centre closure is completely disregard—the local impact in communities and the real people caught up in that. We are in a situation where DWP staff are being advised to not process appeals and sanctions are a real and present threat to ordinary people. That hour-long walk from halfway suddenly seems more stressful when being five minutes late could have a devastating impact on the benefits that they receive. Decreasing access at best will result in more stress for people in a vulnerable position, but it will worst result in hunger and homelessness. In fact, with those planned closures, the DWP should be listening to the sanctions regime in order to ensure that people moving to a different job centre are not punished for having difficulty in getting to their appointments in time. In conclusion, we should be maintaining the services that we already have, and in areas of higher need, we should in fact be looking at how to develop those services, not cut them back. As my colleague Bob Doris highlights in his motion, we need a social security system with dignity and respect at its heart, not one that imposes those closures on the most vulnerable in our society. The last of the open speakers is Adam Tomkins. Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. I would like very warmly and genuinely to thank Bob Doris for bringing this important debate to the chamber this afternoon, and, indeed, I think that it is perfectly appropriate that we have spent or will have spent a full hour discussing it. I would also like to thank, if I may, the Minister, Jamie Hepburn, for the open and transparent way in which he has commendably kept Glasgow representatives from across the political spectrum informed of his communications with the DWP. In the contrast, I am afraid to say, between the openness of the Scottish Government and the lack of transparency on the DWP's part is quite marked in this instance. On the day that Annie Wells and I discovered that those proposals were on the table, we wrote to the Secretary of State and we received a response the following day on 8 December. That correspondence is in the public domain because it has been released under FOI. We expressed a number of concerns, some of which I still have, some of which have not been resolved about the process and about the substance of this consultation. It is important to understand the context in which that is happening. There are two elements to this. The first is that there is, at Westminster, an all-party agreement, including the SNP, that the future of Jobcentre Plus needs to be different from the past of Jobcentre Plus. The nature of the employment market is changing. The nature of the work that is undertaken by Jobcentres is changing. For example, it is increasingly important in the work of Jobcentres that Jobcentres have the facility, have the space to act as hubs for local employers so that employers can seek to hire employees at those Jobcentres. That is easier to do with a smaller number of larger Jobcentres than it is with a larger number of smaller Jobcentres. It is worth recalling what the all-party House of Commons Work and Pensions Committee had to say about this in November. The future of Jobcentre Plus is one of change. To make a success of its new expanded role, Jobcentre Plus will have to ensure that it is open to working in ways that are increasingly flexible, adaptable and experimental. I have to say that I was very taken. I do not always agree with Patrick Harvie, but I was very taken with the way in which Patrick Harvie expressed the important point that, even if the nature of the demand is changing, it remains important, it remains an important consideration that that demand is delivered locally. I am very taken with that point and I will certainly relay that back to the Secretary of State. Bob Doris. I thank Mr Tomkins for giving way. You referred Mr Tomkins to the idea of the provision for those seeking employment changing that need for reform. I am just wondering what the suggestion that was made in the Smith commission is the idea of Jobcentres co-locating for a tailored service, along with maybe Skills Development Scotland, Skills Shops and Citizens Advice. Maryhill would be a prime location for such a co-located service. Would you agree with me that Jobcentre Plus and DWP should decide that they should halt the closure of the Maryhill centre and that they should explore that dynamically with all partners? Adam Tomkins. If we are exploring options with regard to co-location, that is indeed one of the issues that the minister has written to the Secretary of State about. I think that that is incredibly important. I want to see more joined working, more joined up government between the UK Government and the Scottish Government about the delivery of employability services and about the delivery of our social security system. I think that that is one of the directions in which the Smith commission moved and I was very pleased to see that. It is also important, Deputy Presiding Officer, to understand what is not happening here. Specifically what is not happening here is a number of things that Clare Hockey just accused wrongly of happening. This is about trying to enhance services, not cut them. It is about trying to improve claimant access to more employers. These are proposals for a reduction in floor space only. That is not to diminish their importance, it is just to try to understand exactly what is and is not happening here. All staff and services will be relocated. There are no planned job losses. Indeed, as Liam Kerr said in his remarks, the number of work coaches in Scotland is going up. 122 work coaches were hired by DWP in Scotland between April and September last year, notwithstanding the fact that there are fewer claimants than there have been since the 1970s. On-going concerns that I have, Deputy Presiding Officer, I am concerned that the consultation that we have for Bridgeton, Castle Milk and Mary Hill is not also being extended to the other five job centres. I am concerned about that. I have raised that concern with the Secretary of State, and I will happily do so—well, not exactly happily, but I will certainly do so again. I was very concerned, as were Pauline McNeill and Sandra White, who are other members of—or Sandra White, of course, is the convener of—the Social Security Committee at the very truncated timescale for the consultation for Bridgeton, Castle Milk and Mary Hill. I was very pleased that the Social Security Committee was able, through its cross-party pressure on officials, to have that period of consultation extended. My final point is this. I visited the Partick Job Centre on Monday, and the Partick Job Centre is one of the larger job centres in Glasgow, and it is in Sandra White's constituency. I asked staff and managers at Partick about the DWP's plans. One of the things that is happening in that part of Glasgow is that Anisland Job Centre is to close, and the work of Anisland Job Centre is to be rolled into the work of Partick. Both front-line staff and managers at Partick assured me that there was ample capacity in Partick to absorb the additional work from Anisland. They also told me that Anisland Job Centre is working at only one-third capacity, and I asked them how they knew this, because I knew that the issue of how we measure job centre capacity has been challenged in the House of Commons. I said, well, it is a three-story building, and two stories have closed. Only one-third of the building that the taxpayer is renting is being used. In fact, the other two-thirds of it are being leased out to other government departments. That indicates the magnitude of what we are talking about. We are talking about redesigning more effective job centres for a city such as Glasgow, rather than cutting services. If we held that in our minds, perhaps we would understand the proposals a little bit more clearly. I thank Bob Doris for bringing this debate to the chamber this afternoon. I thank those members who have contributed to the debate as well, and those who have stayed behind to watch the debate. In particular, I thank the Conservative members who have stayed behind. I could not help but notice that they were out in force today. I counted over 20 Conservative representatives at the start. I know that there are rather fewer now, if some of them have sloped off, but there are over 20 Conservative MSPs at the beginning of today's debate. It is rather unusual that it has to be said for a member's business debate. I cannot think why they stayed in such numbers. I would very much concur with the point that Patrick Harvey made that it would be good to have heard rather more opinion coming from, although we heard a bit more from Mr Tomkins to be fair, rather more opinion coming from those inventions. However, in the absence of such, it is at least incumbent on the mass ranks of Conservatives who stayed here today to have at least brought their ears with them, if not an opinion, to have listened to what was said and to take back a very clear message to those representatives of their party and government at Westminster and to express the opinions that they have heard here in this Scottish Parliament. I also welcome those Glasgow MPs who have come to the gallery today. I know that they have been undertaken a range of activity in Westminster to bring the issue to the fore and, as have most of those representatives of the city of Glasgow elected to this place, we have heard very much concern expressed over the course of this debate about the impact on communities and the impact on the individual. Quite often, in parliamentary discourse, we use the term individual, Presiding Officer, but, of course, what we actually mean by an individual is a person. We are talking about people. We are talking about our neighbours, our friends, our family, those who live and work around us, all of us, any of us, any one of us may need support from the social security system from time to time. I very much share the concerns that these particular closures will make access and support much harder in the city of Glasgow City. I was very proud to have been born and raised in, of course. Pauline McNeill. Excuse me, Ms McNeill, could you check your card, your mic is not on? That would help. Given the last point that Mr Tom has made about the estate and the example of Annesland where there is the real confine only one block, if that is an issue, is the Scottish Government in the position to talk to the DWP about perhaps any other buildings that could be used? Jamie Hepburn. I am planning to come to that a little later, but let me come to that very issue right now, because what we seem to clearly see behind this particular decision to close the particular job centres in Glasgow seems to be driven by the fact that contracts or lease arrangements for particular buildings are coming to an end. I should observe in the first instance that that is a peculiar way in which to determine where a particular job centre might be located. I think that it would be rather better to see what community need is required. Secondly, I think that the point that Pauline McNeill correctly makes about under occupancy of particular buildings is also a secondary consideration in terms of where a particular job centre is closed. I think that the point that we are making here—again, I hope that that is heard very clearly—is not about the particular buildings that a particular job centre might be located in but about the particular communities that they are located in. A number of members have made the very sensible point, the very opposite point, that there is great benefits by which we could seek to see co-location of services. We have a range of offices through Skills Development Scotland. I know that Glasgow City Council has a range of offices through social work, for example, where there could be co-location. In summary, in terms of responding to the point that Pauline McNeill makes, yes, this Government will always be pleased or maybe not pleased in this instance, given the subject matter, but it is very willing to engage in dialogue with the UK Government, with the Department for Work and Pensions, about such matters. Indeed, I had a meeting with Damian Hines, the Minister for Employment, earlier today. It is a fairly constructive meeting, although words are always easy. I am very clear that we need to continue dialogue in that regard. I am also very clear that we need to continue dialogue around the clear commitment that was made in the Smith commission process about a greater role for the Scottish Government in management of the job centre, plus set out, as Mr Tomkins will know, because he was on the Smith commission paragraph 58, with a greater emphasis and responsibility for the Scottish Government jointly with the UK Government for the job centre. I make that point not just to make a constitutional flag-in-the-sand argument, but to make it for a very practical reason. If we had such a process in place, presumably, it would not have meant that the Scottish Government, in common with everyone else, found out about those closures through the pages of the daily record. We might have had some prior warning during which we could have raised our concerns. We could have made the offer to co-locate, and we could have perhaps influenced a change in mindsets. We could have also raised the very real concerns that I have about the potential negative impact on the coming devolution of the employment programme, where we are going to rely heavily on the job centre, plus to be a conduit for reference or referrals into that programme. Again, we could see a negative impact in that regard. However, today we debate the significant negative impact on people on the ground. We have heard very clearly that those individuals, those people, I should say, going back to the terminology that I think more correctly used earlier, will be faced with increased travel costs and increased travelling time to engage with what might be their newly designated job centre, which, in the case of Mary Hill, an area of Glasgow that Mr Dorris knows that I know very well and his constituency will be almost four miles away. Springburn, in that particular case, is quite correct to raise the concerns of the increased pressure on Springburn's job centre. We already know that Springburn has the highest volume of customers claiming GSA and universal credit in the city, so there is going to be a clear negative impact. The Government is also very concerned—we have clearly expressed over a long period of time, Presiding Officer—about the policy of the UK Government's particular form of conditionality and its sanctions regime. I am very concerned that those changes will lead to an increased number of sanctions in the city of Glasgow. I wrote to Damien Greene, the Secretary of State, for Work and Pensions on that particular matter. He wrote back to me saying that there will be no change in policy for those individuals who are affected, but that fundamentally misses the point. It is not about the change in policy for those individuals, it is about the change in circumstances. Just by its very nature for people having to travel much further to access services, there is, of course, going to be a delay in them arriving. There is, of course, going to be people arriving late for appointments and missed appointments, and we know that, in many cases, that can lead to them being sanctioned. There is much more I could say about this, but let me be very clear if it is not clear already. The Scottish Government's clear preference would be for us to have been rather better engaged in this process. We could have raised our concerns. We are also concerned that that is only the first raft of closures for Scotland. We are not clear where others might be, we are not clear when they might be around, so it is very likely that we will be coming back to debate this subject matter again. I would like to reassure all members. Not only am I asking Conservative members to take the message back to the United Kingdom Government, next month the Cabinet Secretary for Communities, Social Security and Equality, the Minister for Social Security and myself will meet Damien Greene next month, joint ministerial working group on welfare. I can assure members that that will be a matter that we discuss. The meeting is suspended until 2.30pm.


Thanks very much, Adrian. And thanks to Christine and the European Central Bank for inviting us all here today. And congratulations. I think it's been an amazing conference. As Adrian said, I was in Singapore yesterday, but I did watch the power panel from there. And how amazing was that? And I think it shows how far we've come in terms of communication at central banks that you could have a panel like that. So hats off to Christine and to the ECB on pulling that off. Look a bit under the gun on time, so I'm going to fly through this. And Christine in her excellent presentation covered a lot of ground. This slide was just to say, you know, the IMF takes communication seriously, obviously at the highest levels, even with our board weighing in every couple of years looking at our strategy. And this is what they said recently. These are basically the guiding principles that we adhere to. But I want to really get to the story of the IMF journey on communications. If you had Googled the IMF even 10 years ago, the most common descriptor was secretive. Secretive institution. So that was kind of the first phase of the journey. The fund then moved to what I'd call the transparency phase, where we had a website, imf.org. We began to publish all our article fours, essentially the annual health checks of countries, and began outreach, but mostly to the media. It was kind of a focused outreach. And then the third phase, which is ongoing today, is the recognition of communications as a policy tool, including our board recognizing that fact, and outreach to broader audiences and using the full panoply of communication tools. So what's been the context for this journey? In my view, the overarching context for the funds communications efforts today is really the aftermath of the global financial crisis. That has led to the slow recovery that we've been seeing up until quite recently, what Christine Lagarde called the new mediocre, with sustained levels of low growth, increasing inequality. And this, in turn, has contributed to what we all know, the rise of populism, the backlash, at least in some advanced economies, against globalization, and the pushback against elites and institutions, and even the discarding of experts and facts. Christine talked about what I'm calling here the trust deficit. We've all seen this Edelman barometer before. The striking thing for me, actually, is that the media and government are less trusted than civil society and business. And of course, we're also all very familiar with this, the communications revolution, which is ongoing, the speed factor, the 24-7 news cycle. Again, for me, the more important thing is the massive shift in how people receive their news and information. It's this customization of news by their own particular favorite social media website, leading to the echo chamber effect. And some might say the birth of the post-facts or the post-truth world. So what does it all mean for IMF communication? Several things. One, we need to broaden out our audiences. So on the far left there is the traditional IMF audience. So that includes central banks, finance ministers, as it says, their governments, market watchers. So that was the traditional IMF audience in that first phase of the journey. The new audience that we moved into in the transparency phase was reaching out a bit more to think tanks, academics, civil society, and the other groups listed there. Today, I think what we're looking at is what I call the new, new audience. And by that, I mean the non-experts, influencers who may or may not be economists or certainly not technocrats, but they are professionals. They're entrepreneurs. They're business people. They're women's groups. They're youth groups. They're influencers. They've got large social media followings. And they influence those other two groups very strongly. So we need to broaden out our audience. We need to make our messages more accessible to reach this broader audience. So that means shorter videos. It means really working on that executive summary to our usually very dense documents so that the summary is understandable to non-economists. And press releases now, we don't do paper press releases. It's all digital and looking increasingly at storytelling. I don't know if you saw or heard Christine Lagarde's speech at our recent annual meeting, but she was talking about the global upswing and what the policy recommendations are for that global upswing. And she couched it all in the story of fixing the roof while the sun shines. And she used that metaphor to tell the story of how the global upswing can be used to implement the policies that we know are required. She also, if you haven't seen it, gave an excellent storytelling speech at the Bank of England about a month ago. Andy was there on the topic of fintech. And again, she told that very much in storytelling mode. So of course, we engage on our traditional macroeconomic issues with our traditional documents, but we are also now communicating on what we call other macroecritical issues, some of them there, inclusive growth. I mentioned fintech. You see some of the others there. So these are issues that are germane to the IMF's work to our mandate. They are macroecritical, but they're also issues that people see as relevant to their lives and actually interesting. And so they're issues that people are sometimes surprised to see the IMF tackle. And they look at the IMF, I think, in a little bit of a different way. So we use traditional communication tools. Those are some of them. But we also use the new tools for this TLDR world. We all know what that is, right? It's too long, didn't read, which is the world we are in. So again, it's using some of these new tools to cut through. We're continuing with our existing conversations with the groups that I mentioned. But we're also engaging in new conversations via directly on Facebook, on Twitter, on LinkedIn, all the tools that you're very familiar with, the digital platforms. And we have a new guiding principle in a way for communications, and that is it's digital first and it's mobile first. So over the annual meetings that I just mentioned, we had 1 million visitors to our website over the course of three or four days, which for us is really quite a large number. It's the largest number that we've had. So coming to the end, to Adrian's relief, so what difference does it make? Does it make any difference? How do we know? So we measure the traction of our communication because it's all about the traction of our policy advice. That's what the communication is for. And so we look at the numbers, we look at the surveys. As I mentioned, we look at who's coming to the website, all of that. But even more importantly, we look at the demand for IMF services, which is increasing. Capacity development, for example, which is one of our main lines of work along with lending and surveillance. We reckon that the excess demand is somewhere around 40 to 50% right now for IMF services. And our membership support is increasing. We have 189 countries. We recently were just supported via a quota increase for our doubling of our resources, very important vote of confidence from the membership. And what I'd say is I think we've come a long way from the secrecy that I mentioned, but we have a long way to go. What have we learned, finally? It's about being strategic. What does he mean by that? You know, it's about avoiding what I would call the quantity volume trap. It's not just about counting numbers and hits on websites. In a way, the old communication rules that we all learned a long time ago still apply. By that, I mean it's about knowing your message, knowing your audience, knowing your platform and customizing them that way. That has not changed. It's about connecting. You know, they used to say about the IMF that it stood for, it's mostly fiscal. I think by dealing with these new macro critical issues that I mentioned, we are connecting to people's lives in a different way. It's not abstract. It's real to them. It's about a two-way street. It's real engagement. We talk about listening, but it's real engagement and that means consultation on the big issues. So consulting with civil society, for example, on social protection or on governance is really where the rubber hits the road. And finally for us, it's about being global. I think that distinguishes us a bit from, you know, the ECB and others. As I said, we have 189 countries. So we have to speak to the issues in a country-specific way. We have to be even-handed. Countries big and small, rich and poor. And, you know, we have to speak in multiple languages. We've got seven on our website, but we also have 80 resident representatives in different countries. They've all got websites and they're all speaking in the local language. So that's the journey. This is Rachel. She was the avatar who spoke at our annual meetings recently in our youth dialogue at the IMF. And one of the things she said was, yes, you've made progress in communication, Jerry, but a bit of humility. And I want to end on the note of humility because we have made progress, but there is a long way to go in this fast-changing world of communication. And there's no finish line. It's all about learning. And that brings me back to why it's so important what Christine and the ECB have done and so important to have you in the room today. Thanks very much.


Comedy awards like the open mic offer new comedians much more than prize money. They bring publicity, introductions and that all-important 15 minutes of fame. But the prize every comedian would give their best line for is this one. The Perrier Award. The oldest award in comedy still gets plenty of attention, but even the comedians believe it's lost its sparkle. It doesn't create a particularly nice atmosphere.  You know, people say, oh, are you going to win the Perrier? It's not like the 400 meters. You can't train for it. You can't go, right, but I've been training really hard and my time's got my times down. You don't know, do you? But it still has its supporters. This BBC talent scout says comedians treat the festival as a trade fair and the Perrier is harmless fun. It isn't the only way to develop your career and everyone appreciates that. So I think the acts who are up for it are up for the awards and those who aren't will find their own way. You know, people do break through in comedy without necessarily winning an award. Critics say the judges don't spread their net wide enough and that the Perrier panel is an incestuous mix of comics and critics. The whole thing on the face of it seems incredibly not corrupt, and certainly no money changing has, but just as if there's so many people with fingers in different pies, that how could it possibly work? But in a way, that's exactly where it does work, because everybody's pulling in different directions that at the end of the day you can influence it beyond your, you know, one man, one vote, or one woman, one vote. Others say awards simply commercialise comedy, but that doesn't stop comedians queuing up for the sweet taste of success. Let's have a weather forecast now from Helen Bullitts. Thank you, Philip.


Hello, it's Sandy and I don't have any art for you today, but I do have some art being packed up yesterday, I put together some packages for Robin and Elizabeth who both purchased some paintings. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for investing in my work. I love sending my paintings out to somebody else knowing that they're gonna be displayed and loved or given as a gift. And it just warms my heart. It just makes me so happy. So thank you.   Knowing that other people are going through their own crises reminds me of the day that my father passed away a couple decades ago. I remember going to the grocery store. I have no idea why I went to the grocery store that day, but I did. And it wasn't balling or anything, so no one would have had any idea what was going on. But I remember the checkout clerk was just stupidly happy. I just remember wanting to grab her by the collar and saying, don't you know the world just ended? She had no idea, of course, what I was going through. But it reminded me that every day we probably come into contact with somebody whose world ended. Somebody who just got bad news, got a diagnosis, heard about family with a diagnosis, lost a job, their house burned down.  And it just makes me more sensitive at moments like those to remember, you know, being in a rush behind somebody who's driving slow, maybe they've got something really major going on. Worried about that mom who can't keep her kids from screaming. Who knows what's going on in the family? And it just makes me more compassionate for others. I, in addition to having my other things going on that I talked about previously, got some rather difficult family news yesterday as well. So when it rains, it pours, huh? It's things that happen to all of us. And remembering that we have community out there. We have people around us to support us means the world. So make sure that those who you love know that you love them. Make sure they remember it. Make sure that, uh, that they know how you feel about them. Write it in a card. Don't just stamp a sentiment. Write them a note and tell them in your own handwriting what they mean to you. And that's a message for today. I'll see you guys Thursday and Friday. Little treat, a couple of card videos. I'm in a few hops. So I'll see you then. Take care. And go create something because right now I'm not really feeling like it. I'd like to know somebody else's. All right. Bye.