Sub-Post Offices
The final item of business is a members' business debate on motion S1M-2844, in the name of Robert Brown, on Scottish sub-post offices and "Your Guide".
Motion debated,
That the Parliament acknowledges the importance of the role that sub-post offices play in Scottish communities, particularly in rural areas and deprived urban areas; recognises the potential financial consequences for sub-post offices in Scotland of the UK-wide Automated Credit Transfer system for the payment of benefits; notes that "Your Guide" is a comprehensive information service currently being evaluated for sub-post offices in England and Wales; further notes that such a service includes Government General Practitioner and Internet Learning Access Point initiatives, both of which provide members of the public with the ability to interact with departments of Her Majesty's Government and gain government information in an accessible way; further recognises the potential benefits that such a service could provide in Scotland, in terms of improving openness and public participation with government, as well as potentially providing a timely boost to business levels for sub-post offices at a time when the network is having difficulty in sustaining such levels, and considers that the Scottish Executive should pilot such a scheme in Scotland, with a view to rolling out the service across the country as soon as possible.
Let me begin by welcoming to the public gallery members of the National Federation of SubPostmasters, which represents nearly all the sub-post offices in the country. Sub-post offices provide a key service, particularly in deprived urban and rural areas. There are 1,652 sub-post offices in Scotland, although that number seems to depend on what exactly is counted under the tally.
A year hence, at the present rate of closure of two a week, there will be only 1,550 sub-post offices left. Like pharmacies, small newsagents and other types of small shop, sub-post offices are under pressure as never before from supermarkets and hyperstores—the big boys of retail—and from changing community and social trends.
I come from a generation for whom the Post Office and the Royal Mail were an essential part of the fabric of community life. Some red pillar boxes—or, in more remote areas, the smaller oblong ones set in walls—have the crown, with "GVR" on them, and the occasional ones even have "VR" on them, which shows the continuity of the Post Office back to the middle of the century before last.
The Post Office meant the Post Office bank, national savings certificates and premium bonds, as well as the Royal Mail, and it was unimaginable that one day there would be an organisation called Consignia or that its existence in the form of Crown post offices and the associated network of sub-post offices should be in doubt.
I remind the chamber that sub-post offices are private businesses, run under contract with the Post Office, but using their own premises and staff. The sub-postmasters receive a fixed payment for providing the service, which is topped up by a variable payment based on the number of transactions carried out. They offer a range of 170 different postal, governmental and commercial services. Most of them also operate another business under the same roof. In urban areas, that might be a newsagent's or a stationery business; in rural areas, it might be a village shop or petrol station. Spar and the Post Office have recently agreed an arrangement for a common till for groceries and post office supplies in Kelvindale, in my regional constituency of Glasgow.
Sub-post offices in Scotland, and indeed throughout the United Kingdom, are seriously challenged by the Government moving benefit provision on to the automated credit transfer system, which involves the payment of benefits into bank accounts. In itself, that is generally a good thing and forms part of the Government's drive against poverty and social exclusion, but it has already led to the loss of about 400 transactions a week in a typical sub-post office, and it potentially threatens the third of sub-post offices' revenue that is accounted for by benefit payments over the counter. That is a bad thing and threatens the survival of many sub-post offices.
In many rural and deprived urban areas, the sub-post office is one of the few community facilities. Even in more affluent areas, it is often the older and poorer people who depend on the postal part of sub-post offices' services and on the associated village shop or newsagent's. In fairness to the Government, it is aware of the problem. In June 2000, the Government's performance and innovation unit published a report entitled "Counter Revolution: Modernising the Post Office Network". Among other things, that report proposed new roles for the Post Office. One of those was to provide universal banking services, as a post office-based solution to benefit and pension provision.
The other key aspect was the expansion of the role of post offices in providing information on Government services. That is the subject of the motion, and it is called "Your Guide". It was on display in the Parliament headquarters foyer last week, and has been trialled in the Leicestershire and Rutland sub-post office areas, with considerable success. My Liberal Democrat colleagues in Westminster, Archy Kirkwood and Michael Moore, have been pressing the Government to roll out that service across Scotland in early course.
The Scottish Parliament broadcasting office has produced an information video for the debate and is hosting an online forum at www.communitypeople.net/interactive, which will remain open for at least two weeks. I hasten to add that I am not terribly computer literate, as members have probably judged from the way in which I read that out. It includes an online film, which shows people what "Your Guide" is. That is much more effective than a verbal explanation.
Essentially, "Your Guide" uses a choice of the latest touch-screen technology, freephone helplines, leaflets and personal assistance to enable people to access a wide range of information and services. They can use it to find employment and to access training courses, grants, benefit advice and so on, free of charge. It will enable people to get through the maze of red tape that often frustrates the best intentions of Government policies.
It is often said that if someone is dependent on benefits, they need a Philadelphia lawyer to guide them through the maze. In a way, "Your Guide" is people's personal Philadelphia lawyer. It complements the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Bill, ensuring that the right information is available at the choice of the citizen to those who need it. It is a new one-stop service that builds on the historic role of the sub-post office as a vital hub of the local community.
This debate has three purposes. First, it seeks to draw attention to the potential of the new service. Secondly, it seeks to highlight the seriousness of the threat to sub-post offices. This is not just a rural problem; it also affects city communities. The lack of banks and post offices in places such as Maryhill Road in Glasgow can and does destroy local businesses. People go elsewhere to access their money and spend it elsewhere. Local retail businesses die. Thirdly, through this debate we seek the support of the Scottish Executive for sub-post offices and for "Your Guide". The spin-doctors may be put to good use in producing a slightly more exciting name for the service, but that is a different issue. I hope that the Scottish Executive will back the scheme, as far as is possible within its powers—for this is a substantially reserved matter—and will give support to the rolling out and piloting of the scheme in Scotland.
It is always easier to support a valued service while it still exists than to reinvent the wheel. Sub-post offices are a key building block of many local communities. Their economic viability depends on the totality of revenue streams that are open to the sub-postmaster. Sub-postmasters make thousands of individual decisions about whether they can earn a satisfactory living from their businesses. They are not looking for subsidy; they want to have the opportunity to adapt to new services and to the modern age, and to continue in new ways to make the signal contribution that post offices have always made to local communities.
I think, and I urge members to think, that it is urgent that this new service—which is valuable both in itself and for the succour that it gives to post office businesses—should be tested and rolled out in deprived urban communities and rural communities and made available throughout Scotland as soon as possible.
A large number of members have indicated that they wish to take part in the debate, so I ask for speeches to be limited to three minutes. We will work out later whether a time extension is needed.
I welcome the fact that Robert Brown has initiated this debate and agree with many of the sentiments that he has expressed. We all agree on the pivotal role that is played by sub-post offices in rural Scotland, but I want to focus on taking the debate forward.
The impact of the transfer of benefits and pensions payments from sub-post offices will be disastrous. The figure of one third has been mentioned, but I know that some sub-post offices rely on that source for up to 40 per cent of their income. Their income is already minute. If benefits and pensions income is lost, very few of the sub-post offices that remain will be sustainable, and that will mean the loss of the focal point of many rural communities.
I am not talking about something that will happen in the dim and distant future, but about something that will happen in 2002 or within a very short time. I agree with the suggestion that "Your Guide" should already have been piloted in Scotland, but surely the motion's suggestion
"that the Scottish Executive should pilot such a scheme in Scotland"
comes a little bit late.
In question S1W-23640, I asked the Scottish Executive
"what progress has been made in the delivery of online public services".
From the answer to that question, it is clear that the Executive is not committed to introducing a pilot scheme in Scotland. Allan Wilson stated:
"the Scottish Executive is paying close attention to the development of the Your Guide pilot project in Post Offices in Leicestershire and Rutland. Arrangements have been made for ministers and officials from the Scottish Executive to see the project first hand. The pilot will of course have to be comprehensively evaluated to assess the case for national roll out."—[Official Report, Written Answers, 15 March 2002; p 149.]
How long will that comprehensive evaluation take? I do not know.
I invite the minister to say whether there is a fixed date by which the evaluation will be provided to Parliament. I suspect that there is not and that the evaluation will take a long time.
If there is to be a pilot scheme, it might come too late to tackle the immense problem of loss of income with which all sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses are inevitably faced. Although I support the sentiment behind a pilot scheme, we are essentially asking for something that would be too late.
The question is, what is the commitment of both parties of the Executive to having "Your Guide" used in sub-post offices? Many members, including Adam Ingram, have asked that over a long period. Wendy Alexander gave the first answer back on 16 January 2001, when I asked a supplementary question. The question is whether the Executive is committed to using sub-post offices as the delivery vehicle for "Your Guide".
In the answer to question S1W-23640, the Executive stated that it is committed to a "multi-channel approach". Perhaps that means that a television set is involved—I am not quite sure—but sub-post offices do not seem to be too much in the frame. There are references to other sources of delivery, but there is little cause for comfort in relation to sub-post offices.
I hope that the minister will be able to dispel the worries that I have described and to introduce certainty and commitment to the use of sub-post offices for the "Your Guide" technology very soon.
Over the past few weeks I have visited a number of small rural post offices and have heard the same story from sub-postmasters—they need support to continue to provide a service to their communities. I welcome the debate and hope that it will be the first step in providing that support. I commend Robert Brown for securing the debate.
An article in the Perthshire Advertiser last Friday appealed for a local person to come forward to provide a post office service for the community of Calvine near Pitlochry. In the article, the rural transfer adviser for the Post Office Ltd said:
"We have been advertising locally, but so far have been unable to find someone who is willing to take on this vital community service."
We hear that in communities throughout rural Scotland and it is a sad story indeed.
The postmasters whom I have met in rural areas act as advice centres and tourist officers and provide a service that goes much further than simply selling stamps and paying out pensions.
I give special mention to Ted Benfield, who runs the post office in Memus, from his pub in the village. He is a businessman who acknowledges the need to keep a local post office to service the Angus glens, following the closure of some of the local post offices. He is a hotel owner and opens a post office in his pub during the morning before the pub starts serving drinks. He hopes that his post office will become a focus for the local communities and enable them to survive for a bit longer.
Further down the road at Peel Farm in Lintrathen, there is a sub-post office in a coffee shop. The sub-postmaster told me when I visited her last week that she does little more than deal with a couple of pensions and half a dozen stamps a week, but she provides a vital service. I am sure that during the bleak winter months in particular she is a vital contact for the elderly people in the community.
The post office in Edzell is the hub of the community and serves a huge area, operating as an information centre for tourists and locals alike.
Perth and Kinross Council, which covers a huge rural area, last week agreed unanimously that the proposals to promote competitiveness in the postal service would have an adverse effect on the rural economy and put the universal service that is available at present at considerable risk. Councillors of all political persuasions were united in their appreciation for the level of service provided by the Post Office and expressed concerns about the impact of opening up the market. I sympathise with their view that that will lead to higher prices, fewer post offices and a possible end to the universal door-to-door delivery, which would not help our rural communities.
We need Consignia to ensure that the service that is provided through local post offices is expanded. "Your Guide" outlines new services that have been made available through a one-stop shop. I welcome that initiative, but we need to go further. If post offices are to offer increased services, such as information from Government departments, internet access and dedicated telephone lines to contact the Benefits Agency, it is vital that sub-postmasters are properly rewarded for providing them. Many who operate post offices in rural areas have to give up, because it costs them to operate the service.
The Parliament has to say that we give the 1,800 sub-post offices throughout Scotland our full support; that we support moves to ensure that local post offices are economically viable; and that measures will be put in place to encourage people who live in rural areas to set up local post offices to offer their communities this vital service.
I congratulate Robert Brown on securing the debate. I also congratulate him on the content of his motion and on his contribution to the debate.
There are occasions when members have difficulty over their approach to postal services. There are members who, on occasion, seek to turn the issue into a constitutional wrangle because they believe that the cure to all known ills is for more powers to reside in Scotland, but there are others in other parts of the chamber who are uncomfortable because the subject is reserved.
I dare to say that there is a third way on this issue. I hope that Robert Brown will not be offended if I say that his motion is a very good illustration of what the third way is: that we can, and should, respect the powers of Westminster on areas that are reserved. There are good reasons for the Post Office being a reserved matter: there is a common framework across the United Kingdom. I hope that we will continue to have a universal service across the UK. However, it is also right and proper for the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Executive to take a direct interest in the development of postal services. Indeed, I would argue that we have an obligation to do just that.
It is important for the role of post offices across the country to be recognised, as they undertake a valuable public service in our communities. It is also entirely consistent with the policies, priorities and responsibilities of the Scottish Parliament and of the Scottish Executive that we examine the role that postal services play in ensuring the vibrancy and future sustainability of communities.
In the debate, there is a particular interest in rural Scotland, but we must also consider the role of postal services in urban communities. I am glad that Robert Brown stressed that point. We must not forget the vital role that sub-post offices play in urban areas such as Craigmillar and Newcraighall in my constituency. The communities and the sub-postmasters in those areas are greatly concerned.
The "Your Guide" initiative is a perfect example of a service being developed in a way that is consistent with the Executive's responsibilities and priorities. It is an excellent example of so-called citizen-focused public services. It is entirely consistent with the development of e-government and the Executive's desire to create a one-stop approach.
Someone once said famously of the post office that if it had not been invented someone would have had to invent it. The postal services network should be exploited and developed so that it can provide the services that are needed by communities. That would also create a secure and sustainable future for the Post Office.
It is right and proper for an evaluation of the pilot project to be undertaken. I disagree with Fergus Ewing that it is too late for us to debate that; now is the right time to discuss the matter. I hope that we will hear a firm commitment from the minister that he will make progress on the issue. I also hope that the minister will give us a commitment to continue to liaise with his UK counterparts, while respecting their responsibilities and recognising the real issues and concerns that are felt in Scotland. Those concerns are compounded by the recent Postcomm proposals. I ask the minister to ensure that his colleagues play a full part in securing the future of this vital public service.
On Monday of this week, I spoke to sub-postmasters and their clients in the small villages of the Forth valley—in Menstrie, Milnathort, Kinross and so on. On Tuesday, I spoke to officers of La Poste in the Pays de Gex, the little strip of France beyond Geneva where I lived for more than a decade. They are similar: one is formed by a string of villages under the Ochils, the other by a string of villages under the Jura. Both have a strong sense of community identity and village spirit.
In both areas, the post office is seen as the cornerstone of the community and as the friendly face of government, yet Consignia is widely distrusted as an organisation that has been pressured into putting profit before people and public services.
In this country, Consignia has hinted strongly that the cherry picking of its most profitable business will lead inevitably to the forced closure of more local offices, but a look at the other side of the Channel shows how the company is marketing itself there. In all its glossy literature to banks and so on, it says:
"Pourquoi choisir Consignia?"—
"Why choose Consignia?" Because, it continues, we offer "tailor-made solutions"—
"Des solutions sur mesure".
For whom does it offer such solutions? It offers them for:
"Le Business-to-Business".
In other words, although the company complains of the effects of cherry picking in this country, that is exactly what it is engaged in over there. In both countries, cutting away at core business through privatisation is bound to impact on a universal service at a common price.
What can be done? Of course, I support Rob Brown's call for the Executive to help roll out "Your Guide". The concept of a one-stop shop is attractive—but how are sub-postmasters to be trained to become Government general practitioners? When will they be trained? Will the financial incentive be enough?
The universal bank is attractive, but will it be in place by April 2003? If the real banks pull out of the villages, will the sub-post offices be left with all the unprofitable business and expensive customer service obligations? The Government obligation to keep local post offices looks fine on paper, but how much is it prepared to pay? The ultimate Postman Pat, Patricia Hewitt, mentions £400 million of savings. That is £400 million of business—of profit—to the local sub-postmasters. That is the problem with Mr Brown's motion. Although it is eminently sensible in a Liberal sort of way, it does not address the key issue.
The key issue is that if post offices cannot earn money, they will close; if they do not make a profit, they will close. In that case, all the vaunted options of drawing cash, universal banking and online services will count for nothing.
The situation is rather different in the Pays de Gex. According to the mayor of Choullex, the presence of La Poste is as vital to the village as the tabac, the boulangerie and the bistrot. Without it, the village would not be a village. Although the mayor is a right-winger, he proposes the continuation of state subsidy to enhance and sustain the quality of rural French life. Without that, France would not be France. Without rural post offices, rural Scotland will not be rural Scotland.
People must be put before profit. Before any changes occur, training must take place, the universal bank must be established and a clear financial package must be implemented. Unlike the villages of the Forth valley, the inhabitants of the Pays de Gex are sure that their post office will still be there in five years' time.
Peter Jamieson is a sub-postmaster in Sandness—a small community on the west side of Shetland. A long line of Jamiesons have run that sub-post office, which is in a very rural and isolated part of Scotland. The sub-post office is under threat and has been for some time because of the reasons that other members have enunciated. The financial pressure that that business is under is replicated in other parts of my constituency and in constituencies across the country.
The rolling out of measures that will tackle the difficult problems that those businesses face and that help their financial viability must take place with due speed and efficiency. It must be recognised that unless action is taken quickly, in places such as Sandness—where a sub-post office has existed for many generations—sub-post offices will simply not survive. I concur with other members in welcoming Robert Brown's motion. Colleagues must consider how the relevant measures should be implemented.
The seriousness of the threat to the viability of local sub-post offices, which Robert Brown highlighted, is one aspect of the issue. The other aspect is Postcomm's proposals for the deregulation of postal services throughout the United Kingdom. Three thousand people in my constituency, which is a large number in a small place such as Shetland, signed a petition that opposes deregulation. My colleague Alistair Carmichael and I handed the petition in at Whitehall on Monday. People who live in isolated rural and island areas know that deregulation would mean several things. It would mean the diminution of the service—the daily delivery would go. As the financial pressure escalated on the rump of the existing Post Office, the Government would have to concede the principle of universal charging.
I welcome what Susan Deacon said about universal charging and Postcomm's current regulatory proposals. As the Post Office trade unions have said—and as Consignia has confirmed—the price of a stamp would be bound to rise. The day when a stamp costs in the range of £2 to £4 would not be far away. The Treasury might provide an initial sop of money to subsidise those areas, but I am sure that the money would not last. There is significant pressure on that front.
Let me gently say to Murdo Fraser that, at Westminster, his party fully supports the proposals. I am intrigued to know what his stance is.
I hope that the Labour Government in London is aware of the seriousness of the issue. In my view, it is not good enough for the Government to create a regulator and then hide behind it. The proposals would have a fundamental effect on the delivery of postal services in rural, isolated and island Scotland as well across the breadth of mainland Scotland. I hope that the current consultation exercise will recognise, understand and take into account the points that have been made in every part of Scotland. The Scottish Executive must take the chance to make strenuous representations to London to ensure that the proposals do not mean the end of the universal service, which is strongly valued in the parts of Scotland that I represent.
I am pleased to support Robert Brown's motion and am delighted to have the opportunity to support the post office movement in Scotland. I am also pleased, if not absolutely amazed, to be able to agree with Susan Deacon—for the first time.
In June 2000, the Cabinet Office's performance and innovation unit published a report that contained 24 proposals for modernising the post office network. One of those proposals was:
"there is a need for rural post offices to modernise and for the services they provide to be broadened and improved. The Government should back this modernisation with financial support."
The concern that "Your Guide" may not be rolled out in Scotland is very pertinent to the Highlands and Islands, especially as one post office in the region closes every month. In the Highlands, not only post offices but many banks, local shops, tourist information centres and petrol stations have closed or are closing. On top of that, there are serious problems with recruiting and retaining general practitioners and dentists. Given the Executive's commitment to social inclusion, joined-up government and joined-up working, it has an opportunity to provide joined-up information in the local community by helping to retain our post office network. Using libraries or tourist information centres to provide information would not work, as libraries are too far away and many tourist information centres are open for only half the year.
The universal bank has been mentioned. I remind members that although it will be set up in 2003, it will not be completed until 2005. That could be too late for many post offices, given the fact that, as from 1 April 2003, all benefits payments and pensions must be paid into a bank account. It is no exaggeration to say that postmasters' income may be reduced by 30 to 40 per cent. Against that background, we do not have time for a further pilot scheme in Scotland.
I want to welcome to the public gallery Cathy Walker from Inverness, Lynn Kneller from Conon Bridge and Edith Beveridge from the Black Isle. They feel so strongly about the issue that they have come down from Inverness today to listen to the debate.
Rural post offices are not the only post offices under threat. In many towns and cities, the post office exists alongside a small group of shops that serve local communities. In Crown Street in Inverness, the Kingsmills post office sits alongside an optometrist, a hairdresser, a greengrocer, a baker, a newsagent, an off-licence and a chemist. Many post office customers spend their money locally. The loss of income to small groups of shops could be considerable.
"Your Guide" would increase access to information on health, police, benefits, tax, jobs and tourism. It would reduce travel costs and travel time, aid social inclusion and assist tourist information. I look forward to hearing the minister's commitment to "Your Guide" being rolled out in Scotland.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. May I move a motion to—
Let me handle this, Mr Neil.
Okay.
In the light of altered circumstances, we will change the advice that we gave previously.
I sent out more than 2,000 letters, I surveyed 6,000 individuals, I lodged a parliamentary motion, and I presented a petition with 14,000 signatures—all on the issue of saving our post offices. That is strange for somebody with my background. I own a business and, in my business, when things are tough, that is tough luck and I do not expect a shining knight to come to my rescue. I have to accept that people who owe me money might not pay me, and I have to accept all sorts of other things. I do not expect anybody—certainly nobody in here—to help me. However, I do not consider a post office to be just any old business. This is the stuff of communities. Post offices are the pillars that communities are founded on. They are building blocks, like the schools. Take one away and it is a short-cut to the loss of a community. Post offices are a social service.
Take the case of Mrs Smith—well, I will call her Mrs Smith—from Lanarkshire, who went to her local post office almost every week at the same time, to give the local post office what she called "a wee turn". She did not know that that "wee turn" would save her life. One day, Mrs Smith did not turn up to the post office. The postmaster noticed and was very worried, so he went and chapped her door. Mrs Smith was lying, seriously ill, on the floor; she had been there since early morning. I am sure that many MSPs have similar stories to tell.
I quote from one of the many letters that I have received from postmasters—I am sure that many others have received similar letters:
"Why did the Post Office stand idly by when the Government switched pensions and allowances to automated credit transfer? My office will lose approximately £400 monthly when this happens next year. Pathetic money making schemes are just that—PATHETIC (phone cards nobody wants etc)—and cannot replace my lost revenue.
The Government is on record as saying post offices will not close. RUBBISH! Offices will close because they will become economically unviable … I will lose £400 monthly as part of my PO salary but will also have much less footfall in my shop as people get their cash at banks".
Susan Deacon made the point that this is not just a rural question: it affects all the schemes in Scotland. In fact, it affects the whole of Scotland. We in this Parliament ignore the potential loss of our post office network at our peril. If the network goes, a lot more will go with it. Dare I say it? We need them a lot more than they need us.
At the second attempt, may I raise a point of order, Presiding Officer? May I move a motion to extend the debate, to allow everybody to speak on an important subject?
I am minded to agree.
Motion moved,
That, under Rule 8.14.3, the debate be extended to 6.15 pm.—[Alex Neil.]
Motion agreed to.
As everybody knows, sub-post offices are an essential institution for rural Scotland. As everybody agrees, they are the hub of any small community and a lifeline to many. The post office network is of huge importance to the efficiency of our economy. It used to have the unique characteristic of universal service provision, but it has been in decline for decades and at least 1 per cent of the network—200 sub-post offices—close each year.
It is unfortunate that successive Governments have starved the network of investment. There has been talk of deregulation and privatisation and the recent loss of the monopoly on parcels has caused tremendous uncertainty. The removal of benefit payments from post offices—especially sub-post offices—could be a near death blow. Benefit payments were one of the main revenue streams and accounted for between 30 and 70 per cent of business at small, rural post offices.
It is unfortunate that many post offices in the Highlands are franchised or run by sub-postmasters. That means that they can be given up at short notice—only three months' notice is required. If such notice were given—it is starting to look even more likely—that would be a terrible blow to vulnerable communities. The rural network of post offices is a lifeline for the elderly, the infirm, the sick, and those who do not have a car, but have to cope with the ever-decreasing public transport system to get their benefits from post offices far from their homes and communities. The Scottish Executive must make representations to protect benefit provision, especially in the light of Europe's insisting on the break-up of the Post Office's universal service provision.
I am pleased to say that the Scottish Liberal Democrats and our federal party have campaigned strongly for the survival of sub-post offices, particularly in rural and deprived areas of Scotland. The "Your Guide" information system will enhance the post offices' role as information providers in local communities. The system has the potential to revive business that has fallen away with the roll-out of the automated credit transfer system for the payment of benefits. Everybody has a Switch card now and people do not need to go to post offices to collect their pensions and benefits.
We have heard that tourist information centres are willing to franchise some of their information distribution to rural post offices. Again, that would enhance throughput to post offices in rural communities.
In June 2000, the Government published an influential report, "Counter Revolution—Modernising the Post Office Network", which suggested that rural post offices should be subsidised. What has happened? Avoidable closures should be prevented. We should ask the Executive to revisit that report and implement some of its key suggestions at an early date.
I congratulate Robert Brown on securing the debate and agree with many points that he made. I will risk Susan Deacon's shouting at me for talking about a reserved issue in saying that I have real concerns about deregulation of the Post Office, which is a backward step. We should be rightly proud of Post Office workers throughout the country—those who drive post buses, the posties and the folks who work in urban and rural sub-post offices. We need to hold on to that network.
Not every home has access to a computer and not everyone in the community is happy to use a computer. It is not only Robert Brown who would claim to be not computer literate. In this age of junk mail and soaps on television, it is difficult to get information to people in the community. If information is power and access to information is difficult, how can we get power to people? We must find imaginative ways of getting information to people. "Your Guide" is a good example of community access—there is touch-screen, telephone and leaflet information. Where better to site a "Your Guide" facility than in a local sub-post office?
The "Your Guide" facility is excellent for urban communities such as the one that I represent. The sub-post offices in my constituency are always full—there are always great queues of folk in them who have time on their hands and are looking for information. Sub-post offices are the centre of communities and are therefore ideal bases for information, including back-up information and leaflets in the corner.
"Your Guide" is an imaginative way forward. We have heard a lot today about the information that the service could hold—about community services, employment, public services, voluntary sector services for the elderly and others, and benefits. That information should be backed up by leaflets.
The issue is about modernising the post office network and government. If we are serious about getting information out to people, we need to consider new ways of doing that. I ask the minister to indicate whether there are any plans to roll out the "Your Guide" service in Scotland.
A pilot scheme is a great idea, but the pilot schemes south of the border have given us enough information to show us that the service is a good way forward. It would be a real advantage for the people in my community and for the urban sub-post offices across Scotland.
I congratulate Robert Brown on securing the debate, which is on a fairly important matter. It has generated a great deal of interest and among the visitors in the gallery is Andy Watson from Craigie in Perth.
Recent years have not been easy for sub-postmasters. I have been increasingly perturbed—as I dare say other members have—at the number of letters that I receive from the Post Office telling me that a sub-post office in my constituency is closing because no one can be found to take over from the current sub-postmaster who is either retiring or getting out of the business altogether because it is not financially feasible to continue.
In rural communities, and indeed in many urban communities, including those in Perth, the post office is a vital part of life. People meet up and share their news. Old folk have a reason to get out of the house. If the post office goes, the heart often goes out of the community. Gil Paterson's anecdote shows how important they can be in a wider sense.
Westminster is playing fast and loose with the future of those institutions and our communities. If no living can be made out of running a sub-post office, it will close. There is no doubt about it. It is as simple as that.
With one recent decision, Westminster slashed a huge percentage off the income of the average sub-post office. The decision to pay benefits by bank transfer removed the major revenue stream for sub-post offices. The Government owes it to sub-postmasters and the communities that we represent to seek ways of replacing that lost income or many more sub-post offices will surely close. Not only was the cashing of benefits an important source of revenue, it also got people into the post office and encouraged the use of the other services that the post office provided.
An interesting development that promises to act as a draw is the "Your Guide" initiative, which has been piloted successfully. The National Federation of SubPostmasters is very enthusiastic.
The problem for our sub-postmasters has been caused at Westminster. However, there are things that the Scottish Executive can do to alleviate the situation for communities. Robert Brown's motion calls on the Executive to pilot a "Your Guide" scheme in Scotland with a view to rolling it out across the country. My concern is the same as that which has been expressed by others. We are running out of time to run more pilot schemes. The pilot has been successful. Our sub-postmasters need our help now, so please let us get on with it.
Some members who are present tonight will recall that some time ago I instigated a debate on the future of rural post offices. It was so long ago that John Home Robertson, who responded to the debate, was the Deputy Minister for Rural Affairs.
I agree with Susan Deacon that the debate must be broadened to discuss all post offices. In the debate, my concern is to hear what progress has been made since that previous debate, in which many points were made that have been made today—Fergus Ewing probably delivered exactly the same speech. However, since then, we have not seen any substantive action. In most cases, everything has got worse, but that is not because there has been no thinking about the future of the Post Office. There have been many inquiries—John Farquhar Munro mentioned the "Counter Revolution" document—and there have been discussions at European and Westminster level, so a lot of thinking has been going on, but it has not been followed up with substantive action.
Tonight, members from all parties in the chamber have highlighted the value of post offices and made suggestions on what could be done. I can add to Cathy Peattie's list of services that sub-post offices deliver. In our most rural communities in particular, sub-post offices are community resource centres and should be developed in that way. As members will know, I am a great fan of information technology, but we cannot pretend that many of our elderly citizens will ever feel that way. They need support and help to interpret the services that can be delivered to their communities. However, it is regrettable that the reality is that those services are not being delivered to their communities.
The Scottish Executive, the UK Government and local government all say good things about supporting sub-post offices and the services that they provide, but there is little evidence of joined-up thinking in that respect. As many members pointed out, the main element that has to be delivered is payment for the provision of services. We cannot ask sub-post masters to do the job out of the goodness of their hearts. Many such people, as Gil Paterson said, go above and beyond what is expected of a public servant, but we cannot ask people to provide those services without funding. Whatever the funding solution is—there have been many suggestions—we must tackle the issue of how we will continue to pay for the provision of essential services in our rural communities. I hope that the minister will address that in his summing up.
Many members have said how essential our sub-post offices are to our rural communities, so I will not press that point. The Post Office is a reserved matter, as Susan Deacon pointed out. Many of our MPs have been working hard to support sub-post offices in our constituencies. In my constituency of West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine, my colleague Sir Robert Smith MP—like Tavish Scott and Alistair Carmichael MP in Orkney and Shetland—has started a petition on the need to address deregulation issues and the retention of the universal postal service. I understand that my constituency has the rather dubious honour, if I can put it that way, of having the highest level of non-delivery of mail in Scotland. Although the motion has all-party support, I am a little disappointed that none of the regional members from the north-east is here to contribute to the debate, because several of them have raised those issues locally.
We can achieve something practical with "Your Guide" if we pressure the minister to do something practical. In his interesting speech, George Reid criticised Robert Brown's motion as a worthy motion from a Liberal Democrat. It is worthy, but it is also practical. I know that George Reid would like to go further, but at least the motion's measures could be implemented. Unlike Fergus Ewing and Roseanna Cunningham, I think that we could have a pilot scheme. I am not suggesting that we hold back and that we do not get into the issue as quickly as possible. I know that there are two pilot schemes in England; we could implement a pilot scheme and get the results quickly.
We are all working towards the same aim. On balance, does Mike Rumbles agree that the pilot schemes down south being regarded as successful negates the need for a further pilot scheme and that—as Roseanna Cunningham said—we should just get on with it?
That is a fair point, but all I am saying is that we should ensure that we analyse those pilot schemes carefully and not automatically implement their provisions. We should be a bit cautious, but I do not urge that we slow down; I urge that we do the opposite and get on with it.
If the Executive co-operated with the UK Government to use the results of the two pilot schemes, perhaps we could move quickly. My point is that practical measures are available. Robert Brown must be congratulated on lodging the motion. We must listen carefully to the minister, who—I hope—will say something practical.
Rural post offices are essential to sustaining small communities economically and socially and must not wither on a commercial vine. When I lived in a village in Galloway, I used to pile my two then small sons into a big pram, tie the Irish setter's lead to the handle and set off on a weekly pilgrimage to pick up the child benefit. At the post office, I would chat to friends with their small children and exchange village small talk with everyone in the queue. We were brought up to date on who had left whom for somebody else, who was and was not pregnant and who was on their last legs. I once fainted in the post office queue. By the time I reached home, everybody was telling me that I was pregnant again. I was not—ah, happy days!
There are 70 rural post offices in the Borders. I give a starring role to Eccles post office and its good postmistress Mrs Nora McDougall. She has been postmistress for 25 years to a village population of about 100 and to outlying farming areas. Eccles is 5 or 6 miles from Kelso and a similar distance from Coldstream. The post office is a hearty green shed in Mrs McDougall's garden and is the only shop in the village—I point out to George Reid that there is no café tabac or boulangerie there. The post office dispenses bits and bobs and most important—as well as post office services—the daily newspapers. It is open from 8 am to 5.30 pm most days, except Thursday and Saturday, when it has half days, and Sunday. The postmistress could not praise more highly the introduction of Horizon, which allows her customers to pay their bills on the spot, such as bills from Scottish Power, which introduced that facility in December 2000. At least 25 elderly residents use that and other facilities at the renowned green shed. If that facility was lost, it is clear that those people could not travel 5 or 6 miles to an alternative post office.
I would welcome the early introduction—without piloting—of "Your Guide", which would extend the electronic resources of rural post offices. I know that Mrs Nora McDougall would also welcome that. What could be better for the people of Eccles and other parts of the Borders than to walk into their local post offices and access the Christine Grahame website and send me an e-mail? Perhaps that is not the system's best selling point.
Christine Grahame's reference to sub-post offices in the rural Borders puts me in mind of the fact that the post offices where I live in the Borders, in Euan Robson's constituency, are administered from south of the border, which makes life even more complicated. However, we will not dwell on that.
I am grateful to Robert Brown for raising this important subject. All members share the concerns about the future of post offices in rural and urban areas. I remember replying to David Mundell's debate on rural sub-post offices when I was a junior minister, and I will return to that soon.
The service is important. I express my appreciation for the commitment, the enterprise and the public-service spirit of sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses all over Scotland, and I say that not only because some sub-postmasters from East Lothian are in the public gallery.
I understand the concerns about direct payments into bank accounts of pensions and benefits, but it is important to acknowledge the assurances that have been given that people who want to collect their benefits and pensions from post offices will be able to continue to do so. I would not go so far as to suggest that people should be required to queue to collect benefits and pensions from post offices if they choose not to.
The debate must be about developing opportunities. There is great potential in the Post Office Counters network. It is a United Kingdom-wide national retail service. The new Horizon computer system should have tremendous potential for developing new business and new ideas for the network. The "Your Guide" package is all about developing the range of business and services that are available. We should seek to help in doing that.
Susan Deacon referred to the fact that the Post Office is a reserved responsibility. That is rightly the case, in my opinion. However, there are things that the Scottish Executive can do to help and we should look for opportunities to do so. I will go back to my brief experience as a junior minister in Ross Finnie's department—when I replied to David Mundell's debate on rural sub-post offices—during which I experienced one such opportunity being frustrated.
In 2000, £3.5 million of consequential funding came to the Scottish Executive for development of the Government general practitioners service and the internet and learning access point service for post offices in England and Wales. With other ministers, I did my level best to ensure that that cash would be used to help to develop post office services in rural and deprived urban areas of Scotland. I cannot go into detail; all I can say is that that Executive was frustrated. I got some satisfaction from being able to expose what had happened by lodging a parliamentary question to my successor, shortly after I was sacked from that department. That is one example of how things can go wrong because of institutional problems in the Scottish Executive's administration. Opportunities exist for the Executive to help and we must learn from that experience.
The Scottish Executive can do some things to help to develop and promote opportunities in the Post Office Counters network throughout Scotland. I am confident that Ross Finnie and his colleagues will be able to do that and I look forward to hearing what he has to say.
A couple of points that have not been raised need to be made about "Your Guide". The first of those concerns the proximity of post offices to the Scottish population. I do not think that any other organisation has an office as close to every individual, wherever they live in the country. We must ensure that that declining asset does not decline any further. We can build "Your Guide" into a system that is as proximate to people as anything could ever be.
The second point about "Your Guide" concerns the interaction that can exist between the sub-postmaster and the person who is using the services. Not only is there touch-screen technology and information accessed by the Horizon system, but there is the personal relationship that builds up over many years between the sub-postmaster and everybody who comes through the door. That relationship can develop into help with the "Your Guide" system, as was the experience in Rutland.
Three important points need to be made about preserving the post office network. First, "Your Guide" could increase footfall into the sub-post office, which could add income for the sub-postmaster. In addition, as I think was the case in Rutland, there can be a payment for the very fact that the facility is there, which is helpful. Perhaps the biggest revenue potential of all for the sub-postmaster is from the payment by transaction, so that when someone uses the system the organisation that they are questioning or obtaining information from makes a payment directly to the sub-postmaster. Significant revenue could be generated to replace the reduction that will inevitably occur when benefits are paid directly to bank accounts.
"Your Guide" is of major benefit to consumers, constituents and the general population—particularly people who live in rural communities and on the edges of urban conurbations. As was found in the pilot in Rutland, it is especially helpful where transport links are expensive, poor or non-existent. Journeys that might have been made to the local town to obtain information do not need to be made as information can be gathered locally and transactions can take place within the post office.
I will conclude by congratulating Mervyn Jones, who is a sub-postmaster at Sandbed in Hawick—many members will know Mervyn—on his determination in pursuing "Your Guide" for many weeks and months. Also, I was interested to hear about Eccles post office. Although that facility is a small shed at the side of Mrs McDougall's house, "Your Guide" could be adapted to it. Access to a Christine Grahame website might be good for Mrs McDougall—when I spoke to her this afternoon she told me that she had never heard of Christine Grahame.
I congratulate Robert Brown on securing the debate on Scottish sub-post offices but, like my colleague Fergus Ewing and others, I take issue with the terms of the motion. I want to re-emphasise the predicament that proprietors of sub-post offices face. Next year, with the advent of the automated credit transfer system, across-the-counter benefit transactions, which are the mainstay of sub-post offices' income, will be phased out. At a stroke, an average of 40 per cent of the revenue of such businesses will be lost—in many cases, the figure will be much higher. In some sub-post offices in south Ayrshire, 70 per cent of income is derived from benefit transactions.
For any business, a loss of income on that scale would be a massive financial black hole and would threaten its survival. That gap must be filled or hundreds of sub-post offices will go bust, which will leave communities bereft of services that contribute to the social fabric, about which a number of members have spoken. Given that the UK Government decided to introduce ACT, it has a major responsibility to bridge the gap.
In agreeing to act on the proposals that the Cabinet Office performance and innovation unit made in June 2000, the UK Government appears to be meeting that responsibility. However, almost two years after the proposals, post offices still do not know whether developments such as "Your Guide" will be introduced, let alone provide the new income streams that are required to fill the gap. Nor do sub-post offices know what transaction payment they will receive for operating the proposed universal bank. How can people plan their business for the future on that basis? Given the current state of uncertainty, it is unsurprising that the market value of post office businesses has plummeted. It would take a great leap of faith to buy or invest in a sub-post office at this time.
In Scotland, that uncertainty has been compounded by the equivocation of the Scottish Executive, which is demonstrated every time the Executive is asked to give a commitment to the post office network. The concerns deepened with the Executive's admission that the funding consequential that is received from HM Treasury for the development of "Your Guide" was not used for that purpose and that other options to deliver online public services were investigated. The minister would relieve some uncertainty if he gave a commitment to support the roll-out of "Your Guide" in Scotland, if the outcome of the English pilot is a decision to roll out the system in England and Wales.
Given the time that it takes to run an evaluative pilot scheme, we do not have the time to carry out our own one. Such a pilot could and should have been run at the same time as the pilots in Leicestershire and Rutland. However, a new pilot in Scotland would only prolong the agony that sub-postmasters face.
Finally, will the minister confirm that a funding consequential has been received to support the post office network in deprived urban areas and, if so, will he tell us how the money will be used?
Finally, I call Margaret Smith. I ask you to be brief, as you did not register on the screen until after we had extended the debate.
I was not intending to speak until you extended the debate. I want to reiterate some of the points that were made by other members and to bring some personal knowledge of post offices to the debate. I was partly brought up in a post office, as my mother was a sub-postmistress. I therefore feel that I have something to offer to the debate.
I want to pick up on the points that were made by Roseanna Cunningham and Christine Grahame. A post office offers a community service and is the focal point in many communities where people pick up the news. It is the place where older people, especially, are seen in the community and talked to. People keep an eye on them and make sure that they are okay.
I have an interest to declare. I was particularly sad when the Craigleith Hill post office, which my mother used to own, was closed. Despite the fact that we attempted to save it and looked into the possibility of opening a mobile post office in an urban area in my constituency, we were unable to secure that. There is a real role for post offices, which are struggling throughout the country. The sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses to whom I spoke when I went out with Consignia at Christmas time, in the Gyle, East Craigs, Corstorphine and St John's Road, were all very concerned about some of the issues that members have raised.
It is essential that we extend "Your Guide" throughout the country. I hope that the minister can say something positive about that tonight. The postal service has a great proximity to the public. We have only to compare it to that of our European counterparts to see that. Anyone who has wandered around the streets of Greece or parts of Spain looking for a post office will know that we have something to cherish. It is essential that our universal postal service continues in Scotland.
On behalf of my mother, if nobody else, I make the plea to the minister that the community service that a local post office provides should be cherished and should be supported by the Parliament.
I call the minister to reply to the debate. The only thing that mattered was getting you on your feet before 6.15, minister, to take the time allocation to which you were entitled.
I am grateful to you, Presiding Officer. What happened to the debate on land reform? I am intrigued that Alex Neil, the member who graciously moved the motion to extend this debate, left the chamber with such alacrity. I am genuinely delighted to be here. However, as I have been in this seat since 2.35 pm, members will understand that I did not entirely share the enthusiasm that Alex Neil exhibited before he departed.
I am grateful to Robert Brown for raising what is an important issue. The postal service is a reserved matter. Therefore, although I understand the importance of the points that members have raised about the proposed deregulation, that is not a matter on which I wish to comment. However, the Executive has a real locus in the question of service provision in rural areas even if it is not directly responsible for the running and administration of the post offices. Although my portfolio covers rural areas, I recognise the concerns that have been raised by members about service provision in peripheral and other urban areas, where the loss of that service would be just as detrimental.
The threat to the Post Office has been well articulated, the principal issue being the move to ACT. However, the Executive's concerns are not just about the threat to the Post Office. Euan Robson made the point that, if the footfall of people into post offices is reduced, not only the Post Office but other service providers in remote or urban areas may be threatened.
The matter that has been of most concern to me, as a minister, is the threat to service provision in general. The evidence shows that it is not just post offices, but other vital services that have been in decline in rural areas. That was why the Executive commissioned a report on the provision of services in rural areas. The report raised interesting facts and showed the need for a more diverse range of ideas about how to provide services in different parts of rural Scotland.
Under the current Government, there have been several developments concerning Post Office services. First, there was the Post Office's decision to proceed with the development of the Horizon technology and to roll out that technology to all post offices. There was also the question of developing the one-stop-shop approach, which I examined in detail when I visited Canada last year. However, those developments would mean that post offices and other services could not be retained as we know them. Service provision would have to be reconfigured to be made viable. The Executive has taken that point on board. Our modernising government unit has closely monitored the roll-out of "Your Guide".
The pilot scheme in Leicestershire and Rutland has been mentioned. I share members' views that there should a limit to the number of pilot schemes. It would be better to assess the results of a pilot such as the one in Leicestershire and Rutland. Given the position of services in the round, it will come as no surprise to the sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses in the gallery that evidence from the pilot shows that, although the public consider it a bit of a strain to go to a Government office, they trust a post office. I do not know whether they would do so if they were confronted by Christine Grahame. However, they were not asked that question.
The key factor is that people trust post offices, so one could reconfigure them to provide a comprehensive service. Every member who participated in the debate listed a range of services that one could get access to or information on in a post office. Those services could be supplied by the United Kingdom Government, the Scottish Government, local authorities, enterprise companies, tourist authorities, the utilities, leisure providers or financial services.
We await further results from the Leicestershire and Rutland study but, so far, it has not been made clear whether there is a genuine willingness among people to make a transaction payment. That issue is important for the decision on the viability of moving in the one-stop-shop direction.
Is this not a wonderful opportunity for us to lead by example? We should put Government and publicly funded services through the "Your Guide" network when it is rolled out. That would be practical and sensible and it would put money into the Post Office network in a businesslike way, not through subsidies.
That is a valid point, but we must consider the fact that 85 per cent of the Executive's budget is delivered through the health service and local authorities. People would have to access those services. We would have to think about who pays whom. However, I do not dismiss Nora Radcliffe's idea, which has much to commend it.
There is a further problem concerning technology. The Post Office rolled out Horizon technology, but we will not necessarily find that Government bodies are using compatible technology. That is a matter for deep regret, but it is a fact. We might have to look at that issue in some cases.
Interesting ways of overcoming that problem seem to have been developed in Rutland. Training for people who would deliver the service has been mentioned. It is also a fact that two Scottish local authorities are trying to provide, irrespective of the Post Office drive, one-stop-shop provision on a different basis and using different technology. Problems can be overcome.
Can the minister confirm whether the Horizon system, which exists in all post offices, will be used, at least in the early days, to print out forms that people need for obtaining benefits and information?
I am sure that that system could be so used. However, I am considering whether post offices should commit themselves to doing that and what must be done to provide a permanent and sustainable service that will be of huge benefit to people in rural Scotland. The Executive's thinking is clear on the principle of a one-stop shop, with universal provision by a service provider that is trusted. However, if we were to consider going down that route, we would have to be clear about the extent to which our services could be provided and the extent to which we could liaise with the pilot project and use the information that comes out of it in order to take its work forward.
We have been presented with an opportunity. The modernising government unit has been in close contact with the pilot, from which we have received early results. We can learn much from those results, which were exhibited to members this week. The concept behind the pilot represents a way forward that, I hope, will facilitate service provision in rural areas and peripheral areas of urban Scotland. It has much to commend it. However, I will not today give a clear commitment to going down that route. In response to the point that Susan Deacon made, I can say that we will work with the United Kingdom Government and the Post Office to see whether the concept can be developed. If it can be, that would have to be done through a partnership approach.
Meeting closed at 18:21.