Rural Post Offices
The final item of business is a members' business debate on motion S2M-4876, in the name of John Swinney, on a threat to the rural post office network in Scotland. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament notes the public concern over the future of the rural post office network in Perthshire, Angus and other parts of rural Scotland; notes that the UK Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) provides a subsidy to the rural post office network in Scotland that is scheduled to be removed in 18 months' time; notes that, while the DTI provides this subsidy, other UK government departments such as the Department for Work and Pensions, the Department for Transport and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport are taking decisions that reduce the volume and value of transactions that can be undertaken at post offices, thereby damaging the profitability of these post offices; recognises that if the rural post office network is not supported there will be severe economic loss and loss of amenity in countless communities in Perthshire, Angus and rural Scotland, and considers that the Scottish Executive should make representations to the UK Government to provide a stable level of support that guarantees the viability of the rural post office network.
I thank the many members who signed my motion and the Parliamentary Bureau for facilitating an important debate about the future of services in rural Scotland.
Rural post offices are a vital backbone of our local communities and they are the last shop that is open in many small villages throughout Scotland—that is certainly the case in my constituency. Those post offices provide a range of services that is far beyond what could reasonably be expected of small stores and contribute hugely to communities' economic and social health. Throughout my constituency, rural post offices play an important part in the community.
For example, the post office in Kinloch Rannoch operates from the premises of a local community enterprise that is owned and run by the community and which provides an extensive range of services such as the supply of fuel and cafe facilities. The post office provides a valuable and important source of income in a remote area. That venture is well supported by local people and visitors alike.
The post office at Kirkmichael in east Perthshire has been incorporated into a village store, which has led to the return of fuel services to that rural part of east Perthshire. In small Angus villages such as Glamis and Edzell, the post offices provide essential services. Those are just a few examples of the significant role of rural post offices and the focus that they provide for business activity in a locality.
My motion notes the public concern over the future of rural post offices, especially in the light of the proposed removal in 18 months' time of the rural subsidy that is paid to our post offices by the United Kingdom Department of Trade and Industry. That is one of the most significant issues that currently affects rural Scotland. Unless the matter is handled in an appropriate and acceptable way, there is a real danger of damage being done to the fabric of rural Scotland and the sustainability of many rural communities.
To inform the debate around the DTI's decision, Postwatch Scotland undertook some research into the significance of rural post offices. Its survey—which, unsurprisingly, received an enormous response—conveyed clearly the great value that members of the public attach to the work of rural post offices and the services that they provide. The survey found that, if a rural post office was to close, people would have to travel further for the service; there would be an inevitable increase in cost for the individuals who needed to use the service; and many of the individuals who are already surviving on low incomes in such situations would face increased costs.
Does the member agree that it is not only rural post offices that are at risk, but the whole network of post offices across the country, which is under intense pressure from the Government? Does he agree that we cannot afford to lose any post offices?
Mr Swinburne makes a fair point. I will say something about the business viability of post offices being jeopardised.
Due to the limitations of transport in rural Scotland, there would also be an inevitable increase in vehicle use and a negative impact on the environment. So, the argument for maintaining a strong network of rural post offices is that it is good for the environment and good for access to important public services.
Royal Mail has an obligation to ensure that, throughout the United Kingdom, no more than 5 per cent of users' premises are further than 5km away from an access point that is capable of receiving registered mail—normally defined as a post office. Royal Mail says that, across the UK, that figure is 0.3 per cent, but in Scotland it is already 19 per cent. If the post offices that are nearest to the people who completed the Postwatch questionnaire—which, admittedly, was targeted towards rural communities—closed, that figure would rise to 79 per cent.
There can be no statistical proof of my next point, but the Postwatch survey also identified that individuals would be likely to make decisions about where they lived on the basis of whether they were able to access important services such as those that we are discussing, and that they may choose to leave an area if the post office closed. That raises the possibility of a negative impact on population numbers in rural Scotland, which could have a consequent impact on the viability of rural communities.
When we look for a decision from the DTI, we are looking for an example of joined-up government. It is of great concern that, although the DTI provides that subsidy at present, other UK Government departments, such as the Department for Work and Pensions, the Department for Transport and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, are making decisions that reduce the volume and value of the transactions that can be undertaken at post offices, thereby damaging their profitability. I think that that is the point that Mr Swinburne was making in his intervention.
As an example of that, I cite the Post Office card account. The Department for Work and Pensions has announced that it will not renew its contract to fund the Post Office card account in 2010, despite encouraging people to take up the account as a means of continuing to receive income through post office facilities. The introduction of the card helped to reduce the impact on the post office network of the change to the direct payment of pensions and benefits. It is estimated that 3.4 million people throughout the UK use the cards, resulting in more than £400 million of revenue being retained within the post office network.
Since the Government made that announcement about its lack of commitment to the Post Office card account beyond 2010, there have been signs of a dip in the revenue for post offices as a result. A further reduction of footfall into rural post offices will, without doubt, jeopardise the future of those ventures. That reduction would be directly due to a lack of joined-up thinking within the UK Government. Coupled with the long-standing impact of encouraging members of the public to have their benefits paid directly rather than access them over the counter at post offices, there is a real danger of a significant loss of business activity in rural post offices.
If our rural post office network is not supported, there will be severe economic loss and loss of amenity in countless communities in Perthshire, Angus and elsewhere in rural Scotland. I make the case for the Scottish Executive to make the strongest possible representations to the UK Government to provide a stable level of support that guarantees the viability of the rural post office network.
I hope that the Deputy Minister for Environment and Rural Development will agree today to make those representations to the Government. We cannot tolerate a situation in which the Government reduces its level of support and, as a consequence, access by members of the public to vital local services is reduced. This is an opportunity for us to have joined-up government with an effort across departments of the UK Government and Scottish Executive to protect rural services. I encourage members to put that point clearly to ministers in the debate.
Ministers will take decisions very shortly on the future of the subsidy to rural post offices; some say that announcements could be made as early as next week. I hope that, in the period that remains, there will be discussions and dialogue. There is an opportunity for the voice of the Parliament to be heard and for it to be expressed in a clear way, demanding that the Government provide a secure future for rural post offices. Unless we do that, and unless ministers at Westminster listen, the UK Government will, in my view, be responsible for delivering a body blow to economic and social activity in rural Scotland. We cannot allow that to happen, and I encourage Parliament to make that point clear to ministers today.
There is a very long list of members who wish to speak in the debate. I will discuss with the minister whether we might have a brief extension. However, there are constraints on my timetable this evening, too. In the interests of accommodating everybody, I would be grateful if members could speak for just three minutes each.
I congratulate John Swinney on instigating this timely debate. At a presentation on 30 November, Tom Begg, the chairman of Postwatch Scotland, said that rural post offices needed "long-term clarity" from the Government, together with "short-term certainty" and
"A change programme based on clear criteria of customers' needs".
He also said:
"Change should not be a top-down approach … Government's consultation should be based on evidence and recognition of customer needs."
He argued for
"Local consultation on individual changes"
because
"One size does not fit all … Local needs and capabilities differ".
My colleague at Westminster, Malcolm Bruce, together with nine Liberal Democrat colleagues from Scotland, had a meeting yesterday with Jim Fitzpatrick MP, at which the minister was pressed on a number of key points. When would the Government's statement be made? Would it be on 18 or 19 December, as suggested by Postwatch? Would the Government specify the predicted number of closures? Would it specify the general timing and phasing of any expected closures? What criteria would be used to assess closures? What provisions would be made to take into account the remoteness and social dependence of branches?
Did the minister have any information on the projected costs of the restructuring, and on who will pay for it? What of the future of the Post Office card account—would there be an alternative or successor to POCA if it were to be scrapped? What about access to banking services and automated teller machines through the post office network? What Government provisions would be in place to ensure adequate time and support for a consultation of the whole restructuring process?
I am afraid that, at the end of an hour-long meeting, Malcolm Bruce's comment was that
"it was clear that a war is still under way between the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI), the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) – which funds the Post Office Card Account (POCA) used to pay some benefits and pensions over the counter and due to be withdrawn in 2010 – and the Treasury over who is to pay to keep open uneconomic sub-post offices."
There is a lot of pressure at Westminster to get some sense into the debate. On the Post Office card account, the House of Commons Trade and Industry Committee pointed out that most people
"assumed that the contract would be renegotiated after 2010."
A lot of commercial decisions were made on that basis and there has been a real "sense of betrayal".
The select committee's report on the Royal Mail Group goes on to say that
"the reduction in income … from the termination of the POCA"
has real implications for the
"future of the Post Office network as it stands today."
The report says that we have had
"a comprehensive network of sub-Post Offices, often in very remote, rural locations, because of the wide range of services the Government chose to deliver through those Post Offices."
Will the member give way?
The member is almost at the end of her time.
The report continues:
"If the country wants a comprehensive network of Post Offices to continue, a more explicit funding mechanism must be put in place, together with product diversification and a replacement for the Post Office Card Account."
The take-up of the card account has been far greater than the Government expected. That reflects the difficulties that people face in opening basic bank accounts and the advantages that people see of using the post office.
Can you wind up please?
There are many things that could and should be done to maintain a unique network that is a valuable asset. If we do not use it, we will lose it and, if we lose it, that will be a tragedy.
I congratulate my colleague John Swinney on securing tonight's debate. On 22 September in Birnam, he and I sat at a packed meeting with sub-postmasters from across Perthshire and further afield, at which a number of these issues were discussed. I apologise to him and to other members, because I will need to leave the chamber early, as I have two other diary engagements to attend tonight.
As those of us who represent parts of rural Scotland know, there are already huge pressures on rural Scotland, where the rural post office is often at the heart of the community. Rural post offices are an invaluable way of disseminating public information and all local news—some might say that they are the best way of catching up with the local gossip—and they enable Government services to be delivered locally. They do that the length and breadth of the country.
Rural post offices become involved in some weird and wonderful combinations in order to survive. Some of them double up as tourist information centres—I have one of those in my constituency—but they are more usually combined with a general store. The footfall that is created by the need to access the post office's services can generate that little bit of extra business that makes the shop viable. If folk no longer visit the post office or have no post office that they can visit, they are less likely to use the shop and the shop becomes one more amenity that the community loses. It is not as if rural Scotland is so well served by public transport options that getting to the next available shop and post office is easy. If the post office closes, the community's heartbeat stops.
The Government should do everything possible to ensure that rural post offices continue to thrive, but instead it seems to be doing all that it can to pull the rug out from under their feet. As John Swinney's motion makes clear, the withdrawal of the DTI's rural post office subsidy in a year and a half's time means that there is a real danger that up to 1,000 post offices could be lost to rural Scotland. That means that 1,000 communities across the country will have the heart ripped out of them. The hardest hit in those communities will be the most vulnerable and those who depend on their local post office the most—old folk, people on benefits and families on low incomes.
The people who run our rural post offices are utterly disillusioned and very angry, and rightly so. They feel that the Government does not want anything to do with post offices. Although the Government has said that it supports them, its actions have had precisely the opposite effect. Every change that has been introduced has made it harder for people to use their post office and made it more difficult for the post office to make money. That depressing downward spiral must be stopped.
I congratulate John Swinney on securing a debate on what is an important matter for the whole of rural Scotland.
I appreciate that support for sub-post offices is reserved to Westminster but, given its impact on the economy of rural Scotland, I believe that the Scottish Executive must take an interest in the issue. I raised the matter with the Deputy Minister for Communities at question time last week, and I am sure that it will be a live issue over the coming months.
Only yesterday, the DTI indicated that there will be a phased reduction of post offices, which means that hundreds of rural post offices in Scotland are likely to close. Recently, the chief executive of Royal Mail, Adam Crozier, stated that he can meet his legal obligations with a network of just 4,000 post offices in the UK. These are worrying times for sub-postmasters and those who depend on sub-post offices.
The DTI also announced yesterday that the consultation period will run until March, and any decisions will be taken after the Scottish Parliament elections in May. Even by the standards of this Labour Government, that appears to be a deeply cynical approach and an attempt to kick the issue into the long grass until after the election. The Government can be assured that it will not get away with trying to cover up the issue.
I will outline what is happening in some areas of my parliamentary region of Mid Scotland and Fife. In 1999, the parliamentary constituency of North Tayside had 50 post offices. Under the proposed plans, the number would be reduced to 27—a cut of almost half. In Perth constituency, the number would fall from 31 in 1999 to 20. In Stirling constituency, it would fall from 37 to 27. Those are depressing figures that do not give much hope to the post office network or the customers who use it.
My Conservative colleagues at Westminster have already pledged to rewrite sub-postmasters' contracts to allow them to provide a much greater range of products and services, including private mail services. They have also called on the Government to review its decision to abolish the Post Office card account, which is hugely important to people who do not have bank accounts. Around 1 million of our most vulnerable people cannot or do not have bank accounts. The Post Office card account is a vital source of revenue for post offices.
Part of the solution is to encourage new sources of income for post offices. We could encourage local councils to examine what services could be provided through the post office network. A council counter could be set up to offer advice on local services. The local post office could be used as a kind of Government general practitioner, with trained staff advising on a range of matters, including pension entitlements, benefits and how to apply for disabled parking badges. The problem is that those and other schemes that have been piloted, such as links between post offices and the police, will only ever be part of the solution; they will never replace in its entirety the existing post office support.
I echo the calls that others have made for the Executive to make serious representations to the DTI about the detrimental impact that closures would have on Scotland's rural economy.
I thank John Swinney for bringing this important debate to the Parliament this evening.
Post office closures have a significant knock-on impact on local communities, hitting firms, community groups and schools. That goes for all post offices. It is easy to see how important rural post offices are to local communities, but we have research that quantifies the importance of urban post offices, too. A study undertaken by the New Economics Foundation in Manchester found that a post office saved small business £275,000 a year, compared with the extra cost of visiting sites further away. For every £10 earned in income, post offices generated £16.20 for the local economy. Each one contributed around £310,000 to the local economy every year. The study also noted that many sub-postmasters in disadvantaged areas perform a social services role by keeping an eye on dozens of vulnerable customers. I know that sub-postmasters in Falkirk East perform that role. I have no doubt that the findings for urban and rural post offices in Scotland would be similar.
However, post offices are under attack. Their economic viability is being undermined by the transfer of services to other organisations. Post buses—the only public transport for many rural communities—are threatened. I have heard of cases of post bus services being stopped without notice to or consultation with the local community, which is not good enough. The loss of television licence revenue has had a major impact. Now the Post Office card account is threatened. The success of the card has shown that there is a high demand for the post office network to provide an alternative to local banks. There is no local bank in many of the communities that I represent and in other communities. The Post Office card account is currently used by 3.5 million people. We should allow the Post Office to be the sole supplier of a replacement for the account with far greater accessibility for all, which would increase access to banking services.
The post office network should be supported as an important business, as an institution that is important to other businesses and as a means of tackling social exclusion. Post offices and sub-post offices are vital and are at the heart of many communities. This is an important debate. I echo calls for the Scottish ministers to lobby Westminster ministers on behalf of sub-post offices and post offices throughout the network.
I thank John Swinney for securing this debate. It is significant that a large number of MSPs from across the political divide are attending and want to speak. In recognition of that, I will keep my comments to a minimum.
At the weekend, I spoke to Lewis Simpson, who runs the post office in Scone in Perthshire. He told me that, in retail terms, the post office network throughout the United Kingdom carries out more business than the much-vaunted supermarket Tesco.
John Swinney rightly pointed out the present UK Government's lack of commitment to the post office network and highlighted the need for continued financial support and, more important, indirect support through the provision of Government work. As Murdo Fraser said, local authorities could do more to work with post office services in their areas. Some councils channel more of their work into the network than others. That is one area in which more co-operation could bring greater security to services in rural parts of the country.
Postwatch's research has already been mentioned. It found that the closure of a rural post office affects the less able or mobile in our country areas, which is a major worry, and showed that a third of all the people who use their local post office do so to make a cash transaction. Given that the major banks are closing many of their branches in rural areas, it is easy to appreciate how crucial it is for a financial facility to continue to be based in rural towns. Unfortunately, a few of the major banks that operate in Scotland do not believe in linking up with the post office network to help customers.
I support both the motion and my local post office.
I thank John Swinney for securing the debate.
It is clear to me that we need to have joined-up thinking in our own back yard before we make a case for it to London. The issues that come to mind are to do with equal opportunities, which the Parliament and the Government claim to support. I am talking about equal opportunities for older people and those who live in remoter communities. It is not simply a question of the town-country divide.
Post offices are about social inclusion. Communities that are deprived of the services that post offices provide will not get their fair share. Post offices are also about future community confidence. We hope that more people will live in remoter areas. We do not want there to be managed decline of the areas that I am talking about; we want the population to increase.
If we want to stop the people of Durness having to drive 14 miles to the nearest post office and 35 miles to the nearest bank—which is what they would have to do if their post office closed down—and to cut the use of fuel, we must ensure that post offices in such areas, where fuel is extremely expensive, remain open. People in Durness are forced to have a car because public transport is so poor. The threat to the rural post office network opens up the debate about the need for our Government to have a rural multiple deprivation index that we can use to demonstrate which services in rural areas we should provide with public support.
The worst areas for the provision of services are those that are identified as rural service priority areas, which include Sanday, North Ronaldsay and Stronsay in Orkney, Tongue and Farr, Brora, Uig, Harris West, Harris East, Eriskay, Barra, Vatersay, Skye West, Islay North, Jura, Colonsay and East Lochfyne, all of which are in the Highlands and Islands region that I represent. Such communities already have the fewest services and are given special funding to back up those that they have. As rural post offices close, access to post office services and retail shops will become more difficult.
People can be innovative, but they need the backing of a Government that has a joined-up approach. Obviously, I would like a Scottish Government to be able to adopt such an approach. At present, we have to ask the minister to go to London to ask about the means by which we can support such communities. If we want to get joined-up thinking, we must tell the ministers in London that the communities that we represent have a future, but that they are threatening it because of their attitude to the post office network.
I thank John Swinney—the man who has had more members' business debates than the entire Scottish Green Party in the second session of the Parliament—for securing yet another timely debate on an important topic.
If Westminster dictates that we should not prevent avoidable closures of post offices, we could be on the brink of a disaster in rural Scotland. It is very important that we stop potential degeneration, rather than regeneration, of our rural communities. It was clear from Postwatch Scotland's survey that the situation in Scotland is different from that in England. More people in our rural communities in Scotland are reliant on a local post office. If those post offices close, we will see the most disadvantaged in our society suffering: the elderly, people on low incomes, people with disabilities and people who do not own a car. We can add to that list home workers and people with small businesses in rural communities. Many respondents to the Postwatch Scotland survey who own and run small businesses said that they would be unable to do so if they were living in communities without a post office service.
As John Swinney said, closure of the post offices would create unsustainable communities. They would be environmentally unsustainable because people would have to travel huge distances to access post office services. They would be socially unsustainable because closures would impact most on disadvantaged groups. They would be economically unsustainable because they would lose local businesses that create wealth and enable wealth to circulate within our local communities.
A couple of things must come out of the debate. First, the clear message to the minister is that she must lobby Westminster to ensure that a funding formula that does not penalise rural Scotland is adopted to support rural local post offices. The formula must recognise the social value that post offices deliver. Government departments must continue to allow their services to be delivered through our rural post office network.
Secondly, we must act within the powers that we have. I remain concerned that city regions will peripheralise our rural hinterland and that many settlements will turn into faceless dormitory towns, rather than vibrant communities, without services. The Executive must take a lead and ensure that there is dialogue with local authorities, Scottish Enterprise and community councils to examine how we support and develop action plans for rural services.
Of course, our rural post offices do not only deliver a public service—they also deliver private services. An excellent example of that is in Blackford in my region. The importance of the post office in Blackford is that it also keeps the local shop running. I will finish with some quotations from people in Blackford that reflect the importance of the post office. One person stated that it is
"A hub for the village. A place for taking names for OAP meals and competitions etc. Medical prescriptions can be collected."
Another said:
"My bank is 18 miles away. I do all my banking locally."
People in rural areas need the post office network. We must see action to regenerate our rural communities, not degenerate them.
My last members' business debate earlier in the year was on the subject of the future of Post Office card accounts and the future of our post office network, so I welcome the debate secured by John Swinney, which keeps the subject firmly on the Scottish Parliament's agenda.
The minister's response at the end of the debate will be an indication of the current coalition Government's commitment to rural Scotland. I hope that she has many positive things to say, because since the Parliament was established we have seen throughout rural Scotland the closure of bank branches, shops, petrol stations and, in some cases, rural post offices. We must stem that trend and ensure that, as Mark Ruskell said, we start to regenerate our rural communities by ensuring that no more viable rural post offices in our rural communities close.
Recently, when I could not get to sleep one evening, I read the Scottish Executive Environment and Rural Affairs Department's business plan. We must remember that the post office network is a reserved issue, and tucked away in the business plan was a commitment to have input into UK Government policy on the future of our rural post office network. When the minister sums up at the end of the debate, I would like her to explain to the Parliament exactly what the department's input—not just lobbying but input, as laid out in the business plan—has been into UK Government policy on our rural post office network. Of course, in the business plan the minister also recognises the importance of the network.
John Swinney's motion recognises the strength of public concern throughout Scotland over the future of our rural post offices. There are 32 sub-post offices in the rural communities in my constituency of Moray. I know from my rural surgeries over the past couple of months the extent of the concern expressed by people who have come to see me to discuss the future of their local sub-post office.
Many members have mentioned the Postwatch Scotland survey, but I point out—no one else has done so yet—that a few months ago the Scottish Executive commissioned its own research into the value attached by our local communities to the rural post office network. The report came to several extremely positive conclusions about the value of rural post offices, covering the role of our rural post offices in protecting the community, providing jobs for people, promoting financial inclusion and helping vulnerable groups such as the disabled and the elderly to access post office services. Those findings are from the research of the Government in Scotland—they are not from another organisation's research. The people of Scotland expect our ministers to stand up for the rural post office network in the face of the onslaught from the UK Government in London and ensure that we protect that valuable service.
I recently got a letter from a 15-year-old pupil at Lossiemouth high school, who lives in the village of Duffus, which is not far from Elgin. He explained the importance of the post office to the community:
"Without Duffus Post Office & Shop, our village would not be a community. Just a block of houses on a map".
That is how important the issue is. I hope that at the end of the debate the minister will detail exactly what she is doing to stand up for the rural post office network.
I offer John Swinney my warmest congratulations on securing the debate. I am sure that it will worry him that I agree with every word he said.
If we were to conduct a survey of the most and least popular professions, we would probably find that sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses were at the opposite end of the spectrum from tax inspectors and, dare I say it, politicians.
I draw members' attention to the most remote parts of the British mainland, which are in my constituency. Early yesterday morning I had occasion to visit Lairg post office and sorting office. As members of all parties have said, the local knowledge in such post offices in remote and sparsely populated areas is crucial. Sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses in such areas know that Mr and Mrs Mackay have not been in for their pension, and the people who deliver the letters know when something is wrong. They act as an early-warning radar and are part of our social structure and fabric. Sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses are loved and respected in the Highlands, as I am sure they are in other parts of Scotland.
Much has been said about the services provided by post offices. I will try Mr Swinney's patience by straying into the Royal Mail aspect of the debate. The delivery service for the whole of north-west Sutherland, from Tongue right round the corner past Cape Wrath and down to Lochinver, is provided by six people: Julian Martin, Stewart Rushworth, Malcolm Ross, Walter McKenzie, Susan Wood and Patrick Grey. The service that they deliver is vital; it is about delivering not just letters and parcels but newspapers, and it allows people to get to the shops. Walter McKenzie even delivers flowers to a flower shop in the north. It is all about the timing and meeting the trains.
We have a superb service, which was founded in the 19th century and is part of the weave of the fabric of our society in the Highlands.
In winter, Rob Gibson and I have to drive through the most filthy weather in the north-west, from Altnaharra to Tongue, but we always see the red vans and post buses driving along. There is a lady living in Laide called Joyce Morrison—Rob Gibson will know her—who depends on that service to get to the dentist and doctor. We cannot say that anything is more valuable than that.
Some things are beyond price. Our forefathers in the 19th century put together something that is very special about this country. We were streets ahead of the rest of the world and we have been copied the world over. The test for us and the rest of the UK is how we protect our vital service. What John Swinney said was right. We wish the minister the very best in her endeavours with London. I see the matter from a unionist perspective, as opposed to how Rob Gibson sees it, but I agree that it is a test for us.
I congratulate John Swinney on securing the debate and, like Jamie Stone, agree with every word that he said.
As another MSP for the Highlands and Islands, I am aware of the importance of rural post offices—from Southend in Argyll to Unst in Shetland, and especially in the remoter areas of Caithness, Sutherland and on the north-west coast of Ross-shire. The more rural the area, the more important the post office is as a focal point. The post office in Dalmally in Argyll, which is near where I live, has joined the new pharmacy in a new building, which has brought enormous benefit to the community. I ask the minister to consider that model, because it is good. It is, in fact, the only pharmacy for 70 miles in one direction and its linkage with the post office has been a great success. Moreover, it has also forged links with a major bank to provide the only cash machine in what is a huge area.
However, only last week, the postmistress told me that her clients are not being advised that they can still pay for many services at the post office. That is death by a thousand cuts to rural post offices. Frankly, it is dishonest, cynical and wholly incorrect of any Government not to let people know that they can still use the post office to pay for those services. It is trying to save money at the expense of people who live in remote and rural areas.
The attitude at the centre of Government is incorrect—although it knows the cost of everything, it does not seem to know the value of keeping rural post offices in place. They are crucial to the well-being of so many people, particularly the elderly. I absolutely agree with Murdo Fraser's assessment of the situation and with Roseanna Cunningham's comment that the heart will be ripped out of a thousand communities. It is simply shameful. The Government must think again and, in order to regenerate rural communities, encourage more business opportunities and partnerships in rural post offices.
Before I call the next speaker, I am minded to accept a motion without notice to extend the debate by 10 minutes.
Motion moved,
That, under Rule 8.14.3, the debate be extended until 6.04 pm.—[Mr John Swinney.]
Motion agreed to.
I congratulate John Swinney on securing this debate, but the problem with debates on post offices is that we have to revisit the issue so often. If, as Jamie Stone said, the post office is an early-warning system, the Government appears to slip missiles underneath it every few years.
Back in 1999, when the Government launched a white paper on the matter, Stephen Byers said that the Government was committed to supporting post offices that were of "special value" to the community. I asked him at the time to define the term "special value" but, of course, answer came there none. However, he said that the Government would put in place
"a mechanism that will allow local people and local communities to express their view on the value of the post office in their own area."—[Official Report, House of Commons, 15 July 1999; Vol 335, c 642.]
Although people have expressed very successfully their views over the years since then, they seem to have made no difference at all to Government policy.
Through e-commerce, small businesses that set up in rural areas can compete on a level playing field with businesses in urban areas. Many of those businesses produce goods that are ordered on the internet and are then sent out to their customers—by post, 90 per cent of the time. That playing field is no longer level if the small businesses in rural areas have no access to a post office or if the post office is many miles away. It beats me how we can encourage that kind of e-commerce if we do not give people the facilities to carry on their business.
Government support has been removed in many areas. For example, as far as TV licences are concerned, a totally unnecessary switch has been made by a Government department that does not seem to know what another department is doing. Moreover, the Government is now talking about taking away the Post Office card account, which was only dragged out of it kicking and screaming in the midst of much clamour to keep post offices alive.
One of the biggest single factors in the closure of post offices is the lack of sub-postmasters who want to run these businesses. However, would anyone want to run a new business if they had no certainty about their career prospects; if they did not know whether the Government was committed to their network; or if the Government would not confirm whether it was threatening to take away the welcome subsidies that have been put into the network over the past few years? It is no wonder that sub-postmasters are not coming forward.
Even the regulator, the Postal Services Commission, which has only an advisory role with respect to Post Office Counters, said in its last report that the Government had to get a move on and make a decision about the network's future. That decision must be made, but when the Government makes it, it must also set out how its decision will help to sustain rural communities instead of being—as such decisions so often have been—another nail in their coffin.
I, too, congratulate John Swinney on securing this debate.
The pre-1997 UK Government had the unhappy record of overseeing the closure of 3,500 local post offices. The fact that the present UK Government has now matched that feat is nothing to be particularly proud of.
Two essential points must be made about the local post office network. Of course, local post offices deliver many services, which cannot be replaced if there is no post office. If we are to keep post offices open it is essential that sub-postmasters have income. Income sustains local post offices and no one will invest in a sub-post office if there is no reasonable prospect of income, as Alasdair Morgan eloquently said. If Post Office card accounts are taken away, as well as TV licensing, who will step forward?
In recent months many sub-post offices in my constituency have closed, such as the sub-post offices at Swinton, in Berwickshire, and Longformacus, to name just a couple. My Liberal Democrat colleagues Michael Moore MP and Jeremy Purvis MSP and I collected figures on the Post Office card account and found that 3,500 people in the Scottish Borders collect pensions and 3,500 collect benefits via the account. If that business is taken away from the local post office network, not only services but income will be threatened. The south of Scotland branch of the National Federation of SubPostmasters believes that the closure of the card account in 2010 would have a huge impact on the viability of many rural post offices in the Borders.
The Post Office could help by reducing bureaucracy. Before the sub-post office in Longformacus closed, I vividly recall the postmaster showing me a bundle of 100 leaflets that he had been asked to display, which equated to slightly more than one per person in the community. There is no doubt that efficiency savings could assist.
There is no doubt that the Royal Mail's delivery systems are important throughout the rural part of Scotland that I represent, as well as in other areas, as other members have said. However, I fear that enforced competition and the loss of the monopoly in certain areas will lead in due course not just to the closure of sub-post offices but to letterboxes at road ends. Thus, in a few years' time we will have a much worse service than we enjoyed in the past.
Rural communities are at the heart of the debate. I have the privilege of representing one of the three parliamentary constituencies in Aberdeenshire, where some 57 per cent of people live in a rural setting, which is the highest rate of any mainland council area in Scotland. My constituency is not as remote as Jamie Stone's, but it is more rural than the Highland Council area, by 2 per cent. The debate therefore reflects absolutely the concerns of my constituents.
We have vibrant local communities. There are 32 community council areas in my constituency and communities in my constituency have won the Calor Scottish community of the year award twice in the past five years. There is a huge sense of community in the area. The first place to win the award was Whitehills. During my annual summer tour, I dropped in on the local post office at Whitehills to talk to Annette Addison, who is the postmistress there—I am sure that members know her well. In a community of 1,000, she gathered 900 signatures in an attempt to save the Post Office card account, which graphically indicates the value that the community of Whitehills places on the post office and the services that it delivers.
That happened when post offices had just lost the business of TV Licensing. It is worth putting that in context: in my constituency there are 42 local post offices, but Paypoint plc has only 28 terminals—a significant numerical difference. The situation is worse than members might think: only 10 of the Paypoint terminals are located outside towns that have a population of more than 10,000. The loss of TV Licensing has led to a dramatic drop in the service that is provided to our communities.
In New Deer—a community of just 500 people, which won the Calor Scottish community of the year award this year—an energetic local businessman, Mark Kindness, employs 60 people in a bakery. He has bought and invested in the post office in the adjacent village of Maud. He has done that because he thinks he can just about break even and because he sees the value of community, which is vital throughout Scotland. My constituency is a net contributor to the economy and the post offices are part of the infrastructure that makes our economy and sense of community work. To deprive communities of their post offices is like shutting down the railways in London, which are supported by the public purse as part of community infrastructure—a role which our equally vital post offices also have.
I, too, am pleased that John Swinney has given us the opportunity to discuss further the important subject of rural postal services. I have rural postal services in my constituency and I relied on rural post offices for many years when I lived in the Highlands.
We all await with great interest the outcome of the UK Government's deliberations and the DTI's proposals on the future of the network. I am clear that we all want the same thing—good postal and other services that are accessible by all. We want a sustainable network of rural post offices that contributes to the economic and social framework of rural communities in Scotland.
However, achieving that is not straightforward and Whitehall colleagues have faced difficult issues. Despite the social network payment of £150 million per annum through the DTI, the post office network throughout the UK lost £2 million every week in 2005-06. This year, the loss is expected to rise to about £200 million, which is about £4 million every week. The losses are increasing.
The situation is influenced by a number of factors. People now have greater choice in how they access services and in how they conduct their business, with options such as direct debit and online and telephone banking. Our success in extending broadband services throughout the country has opened up such possibilities for businesses and people in Scotland; for example, well over 3 million people in the UK have chosen to renew their car tax disc online this year, compared with 860,000 in 2005.
None of us objects to people taking advantage of new technology, but does the minister accept that the Government has often made it difficult for people who want to use post offices to do so?
The key point is that people who want to continue using post offices should have that choice. Many members have referred to the Post Office card account. We have consistently made clear our view on the need to continue to provide good, accessible services including access to cash under future arrangements. The UK Government is considering that issue and we await the detailed proposals, but I understand that the full range of accounts that will be available beyond 2010 is not yet settled and that discussions between the UK Government and Post Office Ltd are continuing.
The bottom line is that service delivery and the post office network need to evolve to meet changing business and customer demands and to be more sustainable. The problem of sustainability of the current network is acknowledged, including by the National Federation of SubPostmasters. The status quo is not a realistic option and we must think about long-term sustainability. However, the issue is not simply about economics. As every member has said, post offices, particularly in remote rural areas and in disadvantaged areas generally, comprise a key part of the community infrastructure. I agree absolutely with that. Post offices provide social benefits as well as direct and indirect economic benefits, so it is essential that we get the balance right between ensuring value for taxpayers' money and the important issue of achieving a stable footing for the post office network and the benefits that it provides.
Within our devolved responsibilities, we are taking action to improve the viability of the retail side of the business. Working with Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise, we have allocated £250,000 to support specialist business improvement training for sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses in deprived urban and rural areas. More general advice and support is also available to private post office businesses, as for other small businesses, through the business gateway. Through recent training seminars that were funded by the Scottish Executive, we have helped to build specialist knowledge of the post office sector among Scottish Enterprise business advisers.
This summer I visited Uig, where I saw for myself the beginnings of the revitalisation of the local post office shop, assisted by Executive support. That is an exciting community project. A recent pilot initiative in Fife provides, from rural sub-post offices, certain services that are normally associated with the front desks of police stations, such as lost property. Evaluation shows that that initiative appears to have been well received, so it is being considered by other constabularies. Although they are not necessarily suitable or doable in every case, we should consider such initiatives imaginatively—they can be useful in some instances.
We accept the need for changes in the network and service delivery arrangements, but we have made absolutely clear to United Kingdom Government colleagues the need for future arrangements for post offices to acknowledge the wider economic and social dimension to the post office network. We have engaged regularly with the Whitehall departments to stress the importance to Scotland of the network and the decisions to be taken, under the reserved powers, on future funding and other arrangements. We have worked to ensure that there is good evidence and understanding of the wider role and impacts of post offices including, in particular, in remote rural areas of Scotland, to inform discussion and decisions by the UK Government.
We have built on previous work and analysis to ensure that the range of benefits the network provides are recognised. We commissioned a study to find out what aspects of their local post offices people value most. The study considered rural post offices in West Linton in the Borders, Kirkconnel in Dumfries and Galloway, and Rogart in Highland. The report is available on the Executive's website. I am delighted that Richard Lochhead has taken the time to read it.
In the Scottish Executive's discussions with the UK Government, has it expressed its frustration with the fact that UK Government departments do not appear to be working in unison to support the rural post office network, and that in fact some offices are removing services while the DTI is trying to support them?
We accept that Scotland needs to operate in a joined-up way, especially in rural areas, and we have expressed that opinion to the UK Government. We have been working with the Post Office, Highlands and Islands Enterprise, Scottish Enterprise, the police and local government.
On being able to specify Scottish needs, we co-sponsored research that was commissioned by Postwatch Scotland to assess the economic and social importance of five very remote post offices, including three on islands. That has developed evidence on the particular role of post offices in the most remote communities, bringing out considerations that are not necessarily mirrored in other parts of the UK. That evidence and more has been used in discussions with the Whitehall departments to reinforce the wider role and benefits of post offices and our view on the need to find appropriate and acceptable solutions for the future of the network. We understand the commercial and funding pressures, but wider considerations have to bear on decisions about the future of the post office network including, as members have pointed out, the well-being of people and communities in rural Scotland.
I am pleased that UK Government colleagues have acknowledged the force of those arguments and have accepted that there is a continuing need for a post office network and for continued public subsidy. Like everyone here, I look forward to seeing their detailed proposals. We will also be pressing to ensure that any changes are carefully managed and take account of local views and circumstances. There will be consultation on the DTI's proposals. We all want a sustainable post office network for Scotland for the future.
Meeting closed at 18:04.