Post Office Closures
The final item of business is a members' business debate on motion S3M-2753, in the name of Jim Hume, on post office closures. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament deplores the decision taken by Post Office Ltd to remain committed to its original post office branch closure programme across the South of Scotland despite the numerous strong objections made by individuals, businesses and community groups; further deplores the loss in particular of Greenlaw Post Office, which was shown to be a thriving and profitable business; notes with deep concern the detrimental impact that this loss of service provision in Greenlaw will have on the economy of the immediate local community and surrounding area, individuals and small to medium-sized businesses reliant upon a service that is very localised and customised to their specific needs and that provides face-to-face personal support and advice to elderly, disabled and vulnerable people, and considers that urgent action should be taken to retain effective and comprehensive postal services in Greenlaw and the rest of the South of Scotland.
It is obvious that everyone has been waiting for this debate all day.
The debate highlights the role within any community of our post office branches. Sadly, the network change programme remained relatively unaltered after consultation and many communities throughout the South of Scotland will find that they have reduced postal services in the future. It is disappointing that the Post Office Ltd has effectively ignored the unanimous voice and the movement against the closures.
In 2006, the Scottish Executive commissioned a report into the role that is played by post office branches. It examined why rural communities use their post offices in communities such as West Linton, Kirkconnel and Rogart. It concluded that the post office provided access to services for communities that are restricted from using other services because of their geographical location, regardless of people's income or physical wellbeing. That is a fact that I know well, as my grandmother ran the Stenton post office in East Lothian.
Hear, hear.
Hear, hear.
The report concluded that post offices provided financial inclusion by offering access to bank services, and that the more vulnerable members of a community appreciated having a local service within walking distance or a short bus ride away. Elderly and disabled people found the personal service from their post office branch to be a lifeline, especially where there was a poor bus service. The post office was cited as the hub of the community, providing a place to meet and an informal communication network—that is particularly true of rural and remote communities. The report showed that the postmaster and staff played an important part in the community. Participants in all three studies reported that the advice and support that those individuals provided went beyond counter duties to include wider community roles. They were figures of trust.
The report also showed that the post office branches complemented other businesses. People who use post office branches often stop at other shops along the high street. In addition, residents use post offices as local communication networks. Through notices, post offices often act as one-stop advice shops for visitors and tourists. Indeed, research that Postwatch commissioned at about the same time concluded that, whether the community was affluent or disadvantaged,
"the closure of the rural post office appeared to have had far-reaching effects upon both particular individuals and the community … It became apparent that the post office played an extremely important role in the rural community, a role that transcended the provision of post office services or even the goods sold at the store which was often attached."
Three years later, those two pieces of research can be translated on the ground, using evidence that was obtained from constituents, local organisations and community groups throughout the consultation period. I believe that the Post Office based its network change programme on clinical factors and in no way took into account the demographics of individual communities.
During the consultation period, there was a huge public outcry against the proposed closures, from not only individuals, but organisations and local authorities. Some of the Post Office's decisions are hard to swallow, including the closure of busy, well-used branches such as Greenlaw, Hutton and Morebattle post offices and the closure of Sheuchan Street post office in Stranraer, of which I am sure the Deputy Presiding Officer is well aware.
The closure of Greenlaw post office is particularly difficult to fathom. A significant number of small businesses in the town rely on the post office and its current opening hours to conduct their business. They need a next-day delivery service for orders that are received before specified times during the day. Transporting large numbers of parcels to the nearest alternative post office will not be practical because people will have to spend time away from their business and because it is difficult to park near the post office in Duns. Scottish Borders Council is seriously concerned about the adverse effects that the proposed closure will have on all businesses in Greenlaw and the job losses that will occur if it goes ahead. The fact that there is no Parcelforce facility in the area increases small businesses' reliance on the post office, and a reduction in access to post office services might affect both the number of businesses that locate in the area and their viability. Greenlaw post office is also used by tourists who base themselves at the local caravan park.
Elderly people who rely on carers to accompany them to the post office will be severely disadvantaged if the proposed new hours are not aligned with carers' visits. The bus service to the nearest alternative post office operates every two hours, and the journey to carry out a simple transaction will take a minimum of 2.5 hours using public transport. The proposed stopping area for the mobile van is problematic because it is used as a general car parking space and it might not always be available for the mobile service to use. It is also on a hill, which will present access difficulties for the elderly, the disabled and parents with prams and young kids.
The only reason that I can think of for reducing services at the likes of Greenlaw post office and Sheuchan Street post office in Stranraer is to justify mobile and hosted services, but they might be unsustainable. Post offices throughout the South of Scotland are now playing the waiting game and many of them are in the dark about when they will close. I make a plea to the Post Office to ensure that the closure of vital community services is not a starter for 10, that replacement mobile and hosted services are kept under constant review, and that provision is increased where necessary.
I make a plea to the Minister for Enterprise, Energy and Tourism to do everything in his power to help to reinstate essential post offices such as those at Greenlaw and Sheuchan Street—it is hoped that the latter will be made into a Co-operative. My fear remains that, where replacement services are drastically reduced, customers will find it impossible to fit into the restricted service and the Post Office will use further reductions in customer use as a reason to get rid of mobile and hosted services. That is ever more a possibility with the part-privatisation of the Post Office.
I congratulate Jim Hume on securing the debate.
In 2007, I held a consultation across the Borders in which some 40,000 residents were contacted. More than 13,000 responses were received—the 35 per cent response rate is much higher than many people would expect. Some 98 per cent of respondents said that the post office was essential to their community and 84 per cent said that there would be difficulties in accessing post office facilities if the local post office closed, particularly for the elderly, the disabled and families with push-chairs. Jim Hume referred to that. Across the Borders, there is never a guarantee that low-floor buses will be available either to or from destinations.
The loss of sub-post offices will remove social inclusion. Many Borders businesses are growing through their internet business, and they require to be able to send and receive parcels at times that suit them.
The survival of communities is an issue. If the last shop in the village has an attached post office and that goes, the community will suffer.
Individual wellbeing is also an issue. Post offices are great places to meet. Jim Hume referred to communication networks. Post offices are a great source of gossip about who is or is not well, who is divorcing, who is remarrying and who is pregnant, and even invented stories. They are a great well of information.
To be more serious, the loss of a post office will contribute to global warming. People will have to get in their cars to travel to the nearest post office. The alternatives are mobile post offices, do-it-yourself or hosted post offices, or none at all.
In Clovenfords, for instance, people cannot always be there to meet the post office van. The allocated hours may not suit local businesses. The interchange of local information and casual checks to see whether people have been out and about are lost, as nobody will hang about in the wind and the rain. The time allocated for the mobile post office's arrival at Clovenfords is fixed. It is supposed that it will take the same time in the winter and the summer for the van to get from one community to another. Anyone who knows about the weather in the Borders will know that there is absolutely no prospect of that happening. People will stand in the snow, sleet, wind and rain waiting for a van that may or may not turn up.
The loss of the Crown post office in Galashiels compounds the loss of the post office in Clovenfords. The Crown post office was consigned, as many have been, to the back of WH Smith. People have had the privilege of negotiating all the cramped sales aisles to stand in a long and slow-moving queue, and they have been lucky if there have been two counter clerks.
What has happened was predictable following the deregulation of postal services in January 2006. That allowed a number of private companies to provide postal services throughout the United Kingdom. One cannot disentangle the demise of the Post Office from the demise of the Royal Mail, which are both—for the time being—fully owned subsidiaries of Royal Mail Group Ltd.
Under section 4 of the Postal Services Act 2000, the Royal Mail is required to provide a universal postal service. TNT Post and UK Mail do not have that requirement and do not provide a universal service. They have substantial lucrative contracts with the likes of the Department for Work and Pensions that they offload to the Royal Mail, which performs the loss-making final door-to-door delivery. There is no level playing field. The solution that has been promoted by—members will not be happy about this—the unelected and discredited Lord Mandelson is to privatise that part of the business. Undertakings that no more than 33 per cent will go into private hands—probably to the likes of the Dutch firm TNT—compound Labour's mismanagement of the post offices and Crown post offices. It is to the shame of the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats that they support that part privatisation in principle. Such a move would destroy the Royal Mail rather than save it as a publicly owned organisation. We all know—because we have been told—that the closures and reductions in the Borders and elsewhere are not over; undoubtedly, more lie ahead.
If the Westminster Government thinks that passing part ownership to Dutch competitors is the way forward, I, too, am a Dutchman. Why can it find £600 million and rising to bail out commercial companies such as banks and underwrite loans authorised by them, but baulk at a few hundred million pounds to help post offices survive and provide the means for them to thrive? I request answers on a postcard, which will probably be delivered by Royal Mail with the UK Mail logo on it.
I did not sign Jim Hume's motion because I have not been involved in the campaign to retain Greenlaw post office, which is not in my constituency. However, many similar issues arise in my constituency.
I want to talk about my experiences of responding to Post Office proposals for changing postal services in my constituency and, in particular, about use of the word "consultation", which ought not to be used when there is no intention to change proposals after taking into account responses from members of the public.
I accept that there is sometimes a need for change, and that in a significant number of small post offices the transactions are so few that the operation of the service has become extremely uneconomical—for example, Westerkirk post office in my constituency averaged only two transactions per week. It is reasonable to suggest that alternative ways of offering the service ought to be introduced.
Does the member accept that the viability of many post offices has been threatened by the Labour Government policy of withdrawing many services? Peter Mandelson has supported the post office account, which at least goes some way to help with the situation.
I will not take lectures from the Tories on privatisation. If Mrs Mitchell wished to speak, she should have pressed her request-to-speak button, rather than use my speech to make that intervention.
In some circumstances, the overwhelming objections of local people to the closure of a popular and viable post office have been ignored totally, despite the use of the word "consultation" to describe the process. Almost exactly three years ago, on 11 January 2006, I led a members' business debate on the closure of Dumfries's Crown post office, which happened despite thousands of local objections. Lincluden post office in north-west Dumfries and the Sheuchan Street post office in Stranraer, which Jim Hume mentioned, will also close soon—again, against the will of the local communities and despite representations from local elected representatives.
I want to highlight how the village of Ecclefechan has been treated. At the last census, the village had a population of 750, but it has since expanded and, with its situation by the side of the M74 and easy links to cities—particularly Carlisle, but also Glasgow and, to a lesser extent, Edinburgh—Ecclefechan has the potential to expand further. The village has a popular sub-post office and a sub-postmaster, Bryan Currie, who was appointed by Royal Mail at the end of 2007. Members will therefore imagine how disappointed he and his wife Donna were to discover only a few months later that the Post Office intended to close the branch and replace it with an outreach service at the local Costcutter store. Despite overwhelming objections and alternative suggestions from my colleague Councillor Archie Dryburgh and I, that the sub-post office should remain and operate the outreach service for other villages, the proposals remained unchanged.
The only consolation for villagers, of which the Post Office made much play, was that the hours of operation would increase to 46 hours a week over six days. Members will imagine the fury of local people when, last week, the Post Office revealed that it had changed its mind and that Ecclefechan will now be offered an outreach service for a mere 12 hours a week over four days. A letter that I received yesterday advised me that
"having taken the responses to the local public consultation and all relevant factors into account Post Office Ltd has decided to carry out a further local public consultation".
It is as if that was somehow a favour in response to what we have all been saying.
In the next paragraph, I was advised that
"the proposal to close this branch is not being re-consulted on as that decision has now been made by Post Office Ltd."
I accept that there must be changes and that many ways in which we buy things have changed, which has implications for post offices. Nevertheless, that is no way to treat a small community or to consult local people.
I, too, congratulate Jim Hume on securing this important debate. Although I support the general thrust of the motion, the issue in my constituency and throughout the Scottish Borders and the south of Scotland is about more than just the post office in Greenlaw, which is mentioned in the motion. Greenlaw is one example, but the motion could have mentioned Morebattle, Bonchester Bridge, Clovenfords or Hutton, which are all communities that have been adversely affected by decisions to close their local post office.
During the consultation process, I hosted several public meetings throughout my constituency so that people could voice their concerns about the proposals. The meetings at Greenlaw and Morebattle were particularly well attended, with more than 150 residents attending each meeting. For the benefit of members who were not present at those meetings, I say that it was clear to me that the overwhelming majority of residents did not want the proposed changes. Despite that, the Post Office announced in the autumn its decision to go ahead with the closure of the Greenlaw post office and several other post offices in the Borders, despite our local campaign against the closure plans. It appears to me that the consultation process was a complete sham, in which no weight whatever was given to the views of local people.
From the hundreds of people who signed the petition, wrote in individually or came to the public meeting, it was clear that the local post office branches were enormously valued and that people did not want the proposed new outreach services. However, all that weight of opinion was set aside in the name of achieving the Labour Government's targets for closures. During the process, local people and their representatives treated the Post Office and its consultation process with respect. Unforgivably, however, the Post Office has treated them with contempt. I feel particularly sorry for the staff who are so well regarded in their communities. It is a great injustice that the post offices have been taken away from them.
The Westminster and Scottish Governments need to do more. In particular, more must be done to allow the post office network to provide additional services, such as road tax and currency, in order to allow the Post Office to compete with other providers. Rather than simply close post offices, the Labour Government needs to expand the services that they can offer. Postmasters need to be free to compete in the marketplace, rather than have more and more services withdrawn from them.
As Christine Grahame pointed out, the impact of the closures will be far-reaching. We should not underestimate the social impact of the changes. Post offices in rural communities are often the community's focal point, where people meet and talk. That is particularly the case for post offices that are connected to the local shop. I hope that the Scottish Government will actively work to preserve post offices in the future, so that communities in my constituency and across Scotland do not face further closures.
I congratulate Jim Hume on securing this debate. All members here have concerns about the closure programme. We are all concerned that there are to be about 2,000 post office closures across the United Kingdom and we are especially concerned that it seems that a disproportionate number will be closed in Scotland. Ultimately, we are concerned not only about the effects of closures but about the process that leads to them. I will turn to that a bit later.
Obviously, I am not a member for the South of Scotland. I do not have any particular links to Greenlaw, but my wife's family are from Kelso in the Borders. I understand—at least, I think I do—some of the problems that are caused in distinctively rural settings by post office closures. I can also well understand the problems that are caused by massive round trips to buy a stamp or post a letter because of the closure of a local post office. That situation is not, of course, peculiar to the South of Scotland or to rural Scotland, but I can understand such areas' distinctive problems.
When a post office closes in Greenlaw or in other communities across Scotland, each community is affected in its own peculiar way. I was involved in a campaign to save five local post offices in my area. I found that, although there were differences between the post offices, a common theme was the real fear that removal of the post office would rip the heart out of the community.
My experience in Central Scotland was that the consultation left a lot to be desired. From what other members have said, the experience in the South of Scotland was similar. I found the process to be hugely flawed. John Lamont fairly described it as a sham. I found that it was invariably a pre-destined matter in that when a post office was proposed for closure there was no real consideration of local concerns—the vast majority of proposed closures went ahead anyway. I found the consultation to be a con in that when one branch was saved, another would close elsewhere. That might not have been a literal equation, but it was invariably the case that when one branch was saved, another would close.
I was concerned that no consideration was given to the environmental impact of the closures. A Post Office official confirmed that position to me during my campaign, when she said that the Labour Government in London had not requested that the Post Office undertake any environmental impact assessments. When post offices close, increased use will be made of the car and bus, especially by elderly and vulnerable people, to reach the nearest alternative post office and that will have an environmental impact. It is a shame that Royal Mail did not consider that during its closure process.
Of course, the real blame lies not with Post Office but with the UK Government. When Labour came to power, the Post Office was profitable. The Government now claims that there is a £100 million shortfall each year and that the Post Office is losing profits, which shows that the UK Government views it as a business rather than as a public service. However, I believe that one can no more say that the Post Office is losing profits than one can say that our schools or our hospitals are.
I would like to be able to talk about some of the services that are being stripped away, but I do not have the time. I conclude simply by saying that I look forward to hearing what the Minister for Enterprise, Energy and Tourism has to say.
I welcome the debate and thank Jim Hume for focusing our attention on the impact of post office closures on communities in the South of Scotland. The story of Greenlaw post office is common to the whole of Scotland and it is clear that, like me, other members have received many letters and e-mails on the issue.
We are in danger of creating rural ghost towns and villages. The bank goes; the general store goes; the bus service goes; and then the post office closes. Post offices provide a vital public service that benefits local communities socially and economically. They help to keep our local communities sustainable by enabling people and local businesses to access a range of important products and services in the one place within an accessible and often short distance from their home or local shop. As we know, in many rural communities, the local post office is also the local shop, providing essential groceries. I realise that I am reinforcing points that have already been made, but I feel that it is important to do so.
Given all that, it is clear that the issue of post office closures goes far beyond the services provided by post offices themselves. They are embedded in the lives of rural and urban communities and are essential for local businesses. According to reports by organisations such as the New Economics Foundation, urban post offices save small businesses substantial amounts of money each year, and a large number of local businesses have reported that the closure of an urban or rural post office has had significant negative impacts on their business, their clients or their area.
This erosion of our local services, shops and businesses comes precisely at a time when we need to rebuild the sustainability of our communities and local economies. The argument that our online and technological changes have made post office branches no longer necessary is far too simplistic. Local communities are not desperately trying to save their post offices because of nostalgia for a supposedly less efficient age; instead, their actions are based on sound economics and important community-based arguments.
If we are to build a sustainable Scotland, we need sustainable communities that incorporate sustainable local economies. Unless we and local communities support rural and urban post offices, that simply will not happen. That is where I am dismayed by the SNP Government's failure to act. Although members on all sides of the chamber have complained about local post office closures, not one member from another party signed my motion calling on the Scottish Government to take immediate action by writing to Westminster with an offer to fund the financial shortfall in Scotland in exchange for a commitment that no further Scottish post offices would be closed. In the great scheme of things, the sum of money required would have been relatively minor. That inaction has been regrettable, given that we all agree that post offices offer a vital public service and that countless MSPs, including those present in the chamber, have condemned the post office closure programme. I look forward to the minister's response.
I, too, congratulate Jim Hume on securing this members' business debate, which has again demonstrated the value of such debates in highlighting issues of national importance. Although the subject merits more than a seven-minute winding-up speech, I will attempt in that time to capture the range of issues that have been covered; reinforce the Scottish Government's position that sustainable post office services are crucial to Scotland's economic and social wellbeing; highlight our activity to date; and make it clear that we must encourage Post Office Ltd to place its customers' needs and expectations at the heart of its purpose and to engage effectively on that basis.
As every member has eloquently pointed out, the issue is important because post offices lie at the heart of our communities. Responsibility for them, however, lies with Westminster—the comments made by John Lamont and Robin Harper need to be coloured by that fact. I will establish that this Government has remained actively engaged throughout the development and implementation of the network change programme and we insist that, as long as it is responsible, Westminster must place the needs and interests of the people of Scotland at the heart of everything that it does in relation to our post offices.
We recognise that the post office sector is changing: the number of customers is falling; our habits are changing and will continue to do so; and many products that were traditionally associated with the post office are available through other retail outlets. We recognise that together those factors have resulted in escalating financial pressure. However, Elaine Murray made a telling point about the public consultation—there must be a better way, because the reductions are dramatic and are hitting us hard.
We have been active on the issue. Our aim has been to look for ways in which the Scottish Government can make a constructive contribution to the restructuring exercise. That is evident from the statement that the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth made in the Parliament when the UK programme was announced. He has encouraged MSPs, local authorities and community planning partnerships to examine the proposals carefully and has met the Royal Mail Group, the postal regulator—the Postal Services Commission—and the National Federation of SubPostmasters in order to improve the transparency and fairness of the process. He has also written to the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform to draw attention to the concerns that have been voiced here today. I have met the general secretary of the National Federation of SubPostmasters and have written to Pat McFadden. I firmly believe that post offices can and do play a key role, irrespective of where the powers lie.
The closure programme is unfolding at the moment, but we recognise that it is crucial for local people to have continuity in the provision of public services. I wonder whether we could not have had a more creative outcome that placed users at the heart of the decision-making process, instead of making consultation just an add-on. The Post Office should consider what customers want from post offices: affordable and timely delivery of letters and packages; local access to advice, guidance, key services and licences; local access to basic banking services; provision of a centre to support local commerce and a community hub that helps to justify the presence of other businesses; and continuous evolution and development of services to boost amenity and the wellbeing of the community. Jim Hume spoke about a totality that transcends the sum of the services that are provided and energises the community.
The best commercial decisions are made in partnership with customers. Services that are built around customer need become indispensable to customers—that is what enables businesses to endure and grow. I am sceptical about whether a standardised approach to restructuring, replicated across the country, will help post offices to evolve and grow as major businesses.
In essence, we want to facilitate events that allow current and potential post office customers and others who might use the service to sit down around the table and evolve alternative business models. We have proposed that approach for some time, but it was pushed into the long grass while we waited for the Hooper review to come to fruition. We know that there is a good deal of good will in other entities—Government, voluntary agencies and the public sector. We want to create a climate, as we have in other sectors, in which a better way forward can be developed. It is clear that the post office network has a key economic and social role to play in helping us to create a more successful country and that it already makes a critical contribution to achieving sustainable economic growth. I am encouraging our public service providers and other potential allies to collaborate to ensure that we get not only efficiency but a basis for protecting and growing public services.
I am committed to doing everything that I can to ensure that the post office services that are available to customers across Scotland endure and grow. That is the key message that has come from colleagues tonight. The point that Jim Hume made about the impact on people of staff providing support that transcends post office services is absolutely right.
Analysis shows that the post office serves the local population, the business community, potential inward investors, visitors and export customers from the area. Post offices have a crucial role to play, and we are determined to make the time and effort to tie the issues together and to identify potential other players. For instance, is there something that companies such as eBay and Amazon could do to facilitate things? Could we do more with general practitioners, the police service and the voluntary sector, for instance? Can we achieve more activity through co-operatives and social enterprises around the hubs that are post offices?
Once we unleash the imagination, ingenuity and good will of well-motivated people—which, coming from a rural constituency, I know exists in every area of Scotland—we can move things forward, and I will make every effort to ensure that that happens.
Meeting closed at 17:36.