Post Office
The next item of business is a statement by John Swinney on the future of the Post Office. The minister will take questions at the end of his statement, so there should be no interventions.
I would like to make a statement about the United Kingdom Government's announcement on the future of the post office network, following the Department of Trade and Industry's public consultation on the issue. The consultation drew a massive response from the public—more than 2,500 responses were received. The fact that 467 responses—nearly 20 per cent of the total—came from Scotland alone bears witness to the huge significance of the issue to communities the length and breadth of our country.
On 17 May Alistair Darling, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, announced that the UK Government's original proposals had survived more or less intact. The UK Government will support the closure of up to 2,500 post offices across the UK and Post Office Ltd will have to abide by certain access criteria when drawing up local plans for local networks.
We have seen the reaction to the announcement. The Scottish Government knows—and individual stories in the immediate press coverage tell us—that post offices play a vital part in the life of our communities. They can provide a social glue in rural areas and much-needed social support in deprived areas. They have a crucial role to play in supporting small businesses, which rely on the proximity of post offices to enable them to serve markets throughout the country and beyond. There is little point in having access to high-speed broadband and internet provision if orders that are placed online cannot be fulfilled quickly and efficiently.
However, the provision of postal services is a reserved issue that lies within the province of the UK Government, under the current terms of the devolution settlement. That means that, although we feel the impact of the announcement keenly and understand only too well the issues on the ground in Scotland, the Scottish Government has limited scope for independent action within the terms of the Scotland Act 1998. The Post Office issue is one further illustration of the weaknesses of the current settlement.
I want to tell Parliament what the Scottish Government will do in that context to address this important issue. The UK Government's proposals are designed to create a more sustainable postal network. I hope that that is the outcome of the DTI's strategy. We welcome the offer of financial help to sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses who find themselves unable to run viable businesses and want to retire from their positions with dignity and security. Those individuals must be given the opportunity to decide with some privacy what they want to do in the future. I pay tribute to the individuals who run sub-post offices for the public service that they give, day in and day out, to the community, especially to the old and the infirm—members of our society who have difficulty accessing services and cash without supportive human intervention. Those who run sub-post offices deserve our thanks and support.
Everyone will agree that the present situation, with losses of £4 million per week, is very serious. I have some sympathy with the secretary of state for the predicament in which he finds himself, struggling to repair the damage that has been inflicted by the policies of the very Government that he represents. I shall resist the temptation to undertake a detailed post mortem of how far the withdrawal of UK Government and BBC business has contributed to the decline of the post office network, but I hope that that experience will provide a salutary reminder of the need for Government to take a long-term, holistic view of its strategic approach to public service delivery.
We need a greater realisation across the board that unbridled competition in markets is not always the best way of securing the universal service provision on which our public services and utilities were historically founded. Looking back to the years of the Thatcherite privatisations and reflecting on the experience of competitive pressures in previously protected markets, we must all recognise that service delivery has improved when monopolies have been broken up. However, if we are to deny previous monopoly providers the opportunity to cross-subsidise service provision in our remote islands or deprived urban areas, we run the risk of undermining some fundamental building blocks in the infrastructure of our communities. That is what we must guard against in relation to the future of the post office network.
Before dealing more specifically with the future shape of the post office network in Scotland, I want to alert Parliament to the fact that the Postal Services Commission—the postal services regulator that was established by the UK Government—is presently considering changes of potentially far-reaching significance in the postal market that could have a significant impact on our remoter rural and island areas. Royal Mail has applied to Postcomm to introduce geographically varied prices for some of the company's bulk mail products. No decision has been made yet but, if allowed, zonal pricing would mean that businesses would pay a higher cost to send bulk mail to the Highlands and Islands. We all need to guard against sleepwalking into a position in which we bridge the so-called digital divide but leave isolated communities at a disadvantage when it comes to participating to the full in Scotland's economic and business life.
On the UK Government's proposals for the future post office network, the Post Office will now shape the network within defined access criteria. There will be between 50 and 60 area proposals for local public consultation in the UK and the best estimate is that between 12 and 15 of those will take place in Scotland. Those proposals will be developed in consultation with Postwatch, sub-postmasters and local authorities.
Local consultation will be absolutely critical. The Government will take the view that community planning partnerships have a pivotal role to play in shaping services in their areas. The design of the post office network in fragile areas seems to be a prime example of how community planning partnerships can play a part in building up the networking of services. I therefore urge all MSPs and local authorities to take an active part in helping to shape the network in their areas. It will be vital to move speedily, because UK ministers are allowing only six weeks for local consultation once individual area plans are published. I regret the fact that they were not prepared to take the sound advice that was offered to them from many quarters that real community participation demanded a doubling of that consultation period.
When members and their constituents see the local plan, it is essential that they scrutinise the application of the criteria. There is a framework of minimum criteria: nationally, 99 per cent of the UK population is to be within 3 miles of their nearest post office outlet and 90 per cent of the population is to be within 1 mile of their nearest post office outlet; 99 per cent of the total population in deprived urban areas across the UK is to be within 1 mile of their nearest post office outlet; 95 per cent of the total urban population across the UK is to be within 1 mile of their nearest post office outlet; and 95 per cent of the total rural population across the UK is to be within 3 miles of their nearest post office outlet. Further, in each postcode district, 95 per cent of the population is to be within 6 miles of their nearest post office outlet.
In applying the new criteria, the Post Office will have to apply common sense. Account has to be taken of geographical constraints such as rivers, mountains and valleys and of ferry crossings to and from islands. Most important, the Post Office will have to have regard to socioeconomic factors such as the availability of public transport, alternative access to key post office services, local demographics and the impact on local economies when drawing up area plans. It is essential that, at the local level, those criteria are applied with common sense and that, therefore, members of this Parliament, local communities and local authorities pay close attention to the issue. The Scottish Government will take a close interest in this appraisal.
The important issue, of course, is what impact applying those criteria will have in individual communities and for individual sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses. That position will become clear only over time. There are 1,651 post offices in Scotland, of which 1,093 are in rural areas and 558 are in urban areas; inevitably, a proportion of the closures will occur in those areas respectively. Closures at local level will be discussed through consultation on Post Office Ltd's plans. We must ensure locally that lessons have been learned from the urban reinvention programme, on which there was a lack of consultation. We must ensure that local consultation is meaningful.
The access criteria are being measured at a UK level. The Scottish Government believes that Scotland faces more closures than it would have done if the criteria had been measured at a Scottish level. I very much regret that the previous Administration's representations that the criteria be applied at a Scottish level rather than at a UK level were not taken on board by the UK Government. The point was that the criteria should be met for each of the four home nations to ensure equity of treatment. I repeat that MSPs and local authorities must play an active part in local consultation.
There is some good news in the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry's statement. The 37 Scottish postcode districts that were previously not protected by the new access criteria—out of 38 for the whole of the UK—have now been given that protection. Those areas are mainly in the Highlands; MSPs can find a map of the areas on the Executive's website, or my office will be happy to arrange for the list to be supplied. Inclusion in the restructuring provisions means that there will be a need for new postal outlets to be provided in those areas to meet the new access criteria.
I welcome the more beneficial access criteria for deprived and vulnerable communities, in which local post offices offer particular social benefits and often act as an anchor for other key businesses. On the face of it, the criteria kick in for the most deprived areas—the 15 per cent most deprived—and that is consistent with our existing approach to tackling deprivation in Scotland. However, the proposed 15 per cent coverage of deprived areas in Scotland appears to offer us less beneficial terms than some other parts of the UK: 30 per cent coverage is provided for Wales and Northern Ireland. I am keen to ensure equity of treatment and have asked my officials to analyse the basis of the DTI's announcement in that respect and to make appropriate representations. I accept that different geographies are used to measure relative deprivation across the four nations, but if that work identifies inequalities in the UK context we will raise those urgently with the DTI to ensure the best possible terms for Scotland.
For the Scottish Government's part, we will work hard to get the best deal that we can for Scotland. To that end, I shall want to ensure that we engage closely with Post Office management to have a clear understanding of the rules of engagement. I have already spoken with the Royal Mail Group to discuss its approach to those matters and I will meet its representatives soon. I look forward to the opportunity of that meeting to ensure that the public interest is borne fully in mind and that there is real local involvement in the process. I welcome the constructive role that Postwatch, the consumer representative body, can play in ensuring that the forthcoming local consultation process is genuine and productive. We all share a common interest in its success.
We will continue to help sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses to improve their business awareness through the business gateway. Other work can be done locally. The DTI says that it wants to encourage community ownership. Post Office Ltd is to work with interested parties to encourage expansion. MSPs can help too, by raising awareness.
I will have discussions, along with local authorities and other public service providers, on the opportunities that exist to co-locate post offices with other public sector bodies. I think that there are opportunities to ensure that a comprehensive range of post offices can be established as part of an integrated and cohesive network of access points to public services throughout the country. This is a key opportunity for community planning partnerships to be fully engaged in the process of service design.
In my constituency, Tayside Police uses a post office in Birnam as a first point of contact in the local community. A number of similar co-locations in Fife have borne positive results. In other areas, I have seen excellent public service access points that involve a range of public service providers. I want to signal my encouragement today to local authorities and other providers to become involved in using that innovative approach to extend the range of post office coverage throughout Scotland.
We want early discussion with the Royal Mail Group to be sure that it understands Scotland's perspective before Post Office Ltd starts the exercise.
We recognise that people are living their lives in very different ways and that post offices, like all organisations that deliver public services, need to adapt to ensure that they continue to be relevant to the communities that they serve.
We already encourage all our public services to collaborate and co-locate to ensure efficiency and, as far as we can, protect local access. The Post Office service should do the same, and we are willing to explore ways in which our local agencies can work with it to retain the lifeline services for communities that the Post Office provides.
The Executive will do its best within its limited powers to secure a good outcome. We all want a sustainable postal network that meets Scottish needs and is fit to take us forward into the 21st century.
The minister will now take questions on issues raised in his statement. I intend to allow 30 minutes for those questions, after which we will move to the next business. I will probably not be able to call all members, although if members stick to questions, perhaps I will.
I start with Wendy Alexander, to be followed by Derek Brownlee. I can give you two minutes, Wendy.
I begin by sincerely welcoming John Swinney to his wide-ranging brief. Perhaps I should say simply that I sympathise.
I have three brief questions. In his statement, the minister urged MSPs to become actively involved in local consultation, but I am aware that the UK Government has already secured a commitment from the Post Office management that every member of Parliament should be given prior notification of any proposals affecting their constituencies. The minister's diary pressures notwithstanding, has he yet sought or secured a similar commitment from the Post Office management in Scotland that all MSPs should, as of right, be given notice of any proposals in their areas? If he has not had a chance to do so, will he?
Secondly, the First Minister, who has kindly stayed for this discussion, mentioned his determination that his Government should govern in the Scottish national interest. So it is perhaps mischievous for the minister to claim in his statement that
"the Scottish Government has limited scope for independent action within the terms of the Scotland Act 1998",
and that that is just
"one further illustration of the weaknesses of the current settlement."
Nowhere in his statement does the minister acknowledge the special exemption concerning postal services, provided in paragraph C11 in part II of schedule 5 to the act, authorising financial assistance by the Scottish Government to support the provision of other services within post offices. That power led the previous Government to provide more than £2 million from 2003 to 2005, dedicated to supporting post offices in deprived areas. Why does the minister's statement not even acknowledge the power in the Scotland Act 1998, far less commit his Government, as the coalition did, to using it in the Scottish national interest?
Let me come to my third and final question. The First Minister has already mentioned the need for a spirit of thoughtful reflection. Will the minister reflect on his own words, in a members' business debate, not the 22 years ago that we heard about from the member for Central Fife but less than six months ago? He urged the Government—which of course is now him—to link post offices to other public services. He now has the powers to do that, but in his first statement he has simply suggested that the blame goes up to Westminster or the responsibility down to community planning partnerships.
You should be finishing now, Ms Alexander.
What will he and his department do, other than simply urge others to act on his behalf, as he suggested six months ago?
It is always great to receive a warm welcome from Wendy Alexander, certainly to my first ministerial office. I reflect on the fact that, last week, the previous First Minister was complaining about the extent of my responsibilities, saying that not even Wendy Alexander had been asked to undertake them when he was First Minister. I see that he has now given her the same responsibilities, so nothing much has changed in his attitude.
Wendy Alexander asked three questions. First, my understanding is that members of the Scottish Parliament are routinely consulted about post office closures. I have certainly been consulted about such closures in my constituency, and I will certainly ensure through my discussions with the Royal Mail that such consultation happens.
Secondly, of course we will use every power in the Scotland Act 1998 at our disposal, to the maximum of our abilities. Those powers will be very much in the forefront of our minds in our discussions with the Royal Mail and in our input into the process.
Finally, Wendy Alexander asked about a speech that I made a few months ago. I do not know where she was when I delivered the latter part of my statement, which was entirely about joining up public services to ensure that decisions that one arm of Government takes do not prejudice the actions of other arms of Government. As a Scottish Government minister, I now have the opportunity to start to join up services, which is why I said what I did in my statement. Perhaps if the United Kingdom Government had joined up its bit of government, we would not be in the mess that we are now in with post offices.
I, too, congratulate John Swinney on his appointment and thank him for giving prior notice of his statement.
He mentioned what the Executive would do in the current context, which did not sound like a great deal. In December, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry said that he wanted to consider what role the Scottish Executive might play in influencing how postal services will best be delivered in the future. John Swinney is now a member of the Scottish Executive—in fact, in the light of his list of responsibilities, he practically is the Scottish Executive. What will he now say to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry about what the Scottish Executive's role should be in relation to postal services? How many post offices in Scotland does he think can be saved?
Derek Brownlee's second question is difficult to answer. That is why I lay heavy emphasis on the need for all of us to be actively involved in the consultation process, in dialogue and in exerting pressure to ensure that we protect as many local post offices as we possibly can. The Scottish Executive will bring to the discussion the role that we can see in joining up the delivery of services and in trying to provide another way of ensuring that postal services can be provided in remote areas or areas of multiple deprivation. We can do various other things, which I listed in my statement—I refer to the business gateway, for example.
The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has raised the issue of the future involvement of the Scottish Government as one of the devolved Administrations in the design of the post office network. The discussion of that issue is welcome and is an indication of the acceptance—even in the strangest of places—that devolution remains a process and not an event. Obviously, we will engage constructively in discussions with the DTI, as Mr Brownlee and the Parliament would expect.
I thank the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth for his statement and in particular for his remarks about sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses throughout Scotland. The Liberal Democrats strongly agree with what he said; indeed, with one or two words deleted, his statement could have been made by practically any party in the chamber. As an islander, I also agree with what he said about zonal policy. We know all too well what zonal policy means in Parcel Force terms.
Does the cabinet secretary accept that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is proposing the closure of post offices throughout Scotland because of the UK Government's decision to remove services from our post office network? The closure of post offices is very much the making of the Labour Government.
Bryan and Ann Law run the post office on the island on which I live. Their shop is integral to their business. Does the cabinet secretary accept that they will lose all their business if the closures go ahead? That would be a loss not only to an island or a rural community, but to the fabric of society, which we want to enhance. Will he therefore look closely at whether Scottish Executive and local authority responsibilities and services can be brought closer together? Will he undertake to bring speedily to the Parliament an illustration of how such an initiative would work and how it would be progressed? Will he report to the Parliament on the matter? Will he say precisely how he will ensure that the fewest—if any—post offices will close?
I agree with Tavish Scott that the announcement made by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is a product of the lack of joined-up thinking in the United Kingdom Government. If the UK Government takes away vast elements of business from the post office network, it should be no great surprise that that network is more vulnerable. That is what we are dealing with now.
Tavish Scott's second question concerned how many post offices will be closed. We must ensure, by a process of dialogue and consultation, that we minimise that number. I give him the assurance that the Scottish Government will be fully involved in that process as far as possible.
I have placed on record a number of points emphasising the importance that I attach to joining up services at the local level. Members who have listened to my contributions on different subjects in the Parliament over the years will recognise the issue as one that I consider a significant priority. I will come back to Parliament on the subject. Indeed, Mr Scott may be fed up with my coming back to Parliament on the subject in the period ahead. Nonetheless, it is an issue that is dear to my heart, and I will bring further thoughts back to Parliament.
The member referred to Bryan and Ann Law, who run his local post office. That comment illustrates the fact that the post offices are not just standalone post offices, but are part of wider businesses. I have the same sense in my constituency, and I fear that other business ventures may be made more vulnerable by the loss of footfall through the post offices. That important element must be borne in mind in this process.
There are a considerable number of back benchers whom I would like to call, so it would be helpful if questions and answers were to the point.
I take it that I am to set an example. I welcome the new cabinet secretary to his post and share the sentiments that Tavish Scott expressed about the vital service that is provided in sub-post offices throughout Scotland.
I refer the minister to my consultation of 14,000 borderers on the likely closure of sub-post offices across the Borders, 90 per cent of whom said that the post offices provided essential services. I want to pick up on the issue of other businesses. A Selkirk businessman responded:
"As a local small business owner, access to a local post office is vital."
A businessman in Heriot responded:
"Our business (turnover £1.4 million) would suffer without a post office locally."
Question please, Ms Grahame.
I ask the cabinet secretary, in his meetings with the Royal Mail Group, to push for formal consultation with either local chambers of commerce or local businesses that are ancillary and that would be affected by any closures that took place.
I thank Christine Grahame for her welcome. She makes an important point about the need for accessible post offices to ensure that other business organisations are able to access the mail network. I will raise that point with the Royal Mail Group when I meet it to reinforce the comments that I have already made to it by telephone.
I welcome John Swinney to his new portfolio and wish him well with it.
One of the things to which Alistair Darling has committed, among the various proposals that he has made, is the creation of 500 new outreach services in rural areas. Will the cabinet secretary join me in welcoming Alistair Darling's commitment to those 500 new outreach services? Does he agree that that holds the prospect of many new mobile services, such as the one that I visited recently in Caithness, which serves five distinct communities, or the prospect of new satellite services, such as the one that I visited in Muir of Ord, which serves Marybank and Auchterneed? Does he agree that, following the statement by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, there is considerable opportunity, through the outreach services, to restore services to communities in the Highlands and Islands that have lost them? Finally, will he agree to add to the funds that the secretary of state has made available for that purpose in order to expand those opportunities in Scotland?
I thank Peter Peacock for his kind remarks. I welcome any measures that will encourage greater access to the Post Office. As I said in my statement, we must accept that, as lives and patterns of living change, so some of the structures of public services change into the bargain. Mobile and satellite services have a significant role to play within that arrangement, so they are welcome. As I said in my statement, the change to the protection for certain postcode districts gives rise to an opportunity for the expansion of post offices, and that is particularly welcome.
I will reflect on the point about financial commitments when I am calculating the financial position of the Scottish Government, but Mr Peacock knows that I have a strong reputation for prudent financial management, and I will deploy that at all times in the Parliament.
I thank the cabinet secretary for some good comments, but overall I detected a lack of fight, and no fire in his belly to stand up for Scottish post offices. His statement could have come from Alistair Darling himself.
The Conservative party has put forward some strong proposals in its post office action plan. I do not know if Mr Swinney has seen it, but it involves allowing post offices—
Will the member please put forward a question rather than an action plan?
Yes, Presiding Officer. The plan will allow post offices to compete, allow local government to provide more services via council counters, and allow the Post Office to expand the Post Office card account and to fight in new areas. Will the cabinet secretary agree to look at our post office action plan and to fight a little bit harder for Scottish post offices?
I welcome Gavin Brown to the chamber and as a member of the Parliament.
In the spirit of consensus, and following the First Minister's earlier example of welcoming ideas from wherever they might come, I will look at the Conservatives' post office action plan. I assure the member that there is no lack of fight in me about the post office issue. I have made several constructive suggestions about how we can deploy Scotland's public services to maximum advantage to safeguard the post office network. That is what we can bring to the party to ensure that we have a viable and strong post office network that meets the needs of people in Scotland.
I welcome Mr Swinney to the front bench. I should also declare an interest, as my wife is employed in a Crown post office and my sister owns and runs a sub-post office in Fife.
Mr Swinney mentioned sub-post offices but did not mention what is happening to the Crown offices. In Kirkintilloch in my constituency, the office is being closed and the work transferred to WH Smith. The 12 people who work in that office have more than 100 years of service between them. They have been offered a transfer elsewhere or voluntary redundancy. The package encourages them to waive their employment rights under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations. WH Smith has issued a leaflet saying that the shops will have highly trained staff. Where will it get them? Will the minister consider that?
When Mr Swinney discusses the issue with the Royal Mail Group—if he is going to discuss it—will he ask why it is not transferring staff to WH Smith under the TUPE regulations? Will he ask WH Smith why it is not asking for the staff to be transferred under TUPE regulations? He will probably find that the answer is that it does not want to pay the same level of hard-won pay and give the staff the rights that they have been given in the past.
I thank David Whitton for his remarks. I am acutely aware of the Crown post office issue. I am concerned about it, have already raised it with the Royal Mail Group, and will raise it again during discussions. I also note that there are at least two motions in the Business Bulletin—from Iain Smith and Christine Grahame—on Crown post offices. The issues Mr Whitton raises about the employment position are particularly serious. I will raise them with the Royal Mail Group and reply to him accordingly.
Hugh O'Donnell (Central Scotland) (LD):
I thank the minister for bringing the issue to the chamber. It is obviously important but, as he said at the outset, it is primarily a battle that should take place at Westminster. I have two questions. First, has the minister spoken to Alistair Darling about the proposals? Secondly, does he believe that the absence of the MP for Banff and Buchan from five Westminster debates on post offices in the past four years is conducive to supporting our post offices?
I have spoken to Jim Fitzpatrick, who is the minister responsible for this policy area. I spoke to him last week on issues connected with the announcement and, obviously, I expect that there will be further dialogue with officials and perhaps ministers in the DTI on some of the points that arise from today's exchange in Parliament and from any further statements.
On the work of my colleague who is now our First Minister, I think the fact that the member for Banff and Buchan at Westminster is now the member for Gordon in the Scottish Parliament speaks volumes for his ability to speak up for the people he represents.
In the context of the draft European strategy on postal services, which values the economic, cultural and social development needs of remote areas, does the minister agree that benchmarking our postal services against those that are available in other countries would be a help to the debate about what we can try to save?
Can the minister find ways in which to increase the business in sub-post offices in remote and rural areas, perhaps by increasing the amount of work from the Scottish Executive and its agencies?
When we are considering the future role of post offices, it is important that we try to take into account experience from elsewhere—which already informs some of my thinking about the integration of local public services and about the level of business that can be conducted.
I will certainly encourage, as far as is possible, the use of post offices as parts of integrated service provider organisations at local level. That will be the focus of discussions that I will take forward as a result of today's statement.
I congratulate Mr Swinney on his ministerial appointment. Does he agree that 800 post offices across the UK having an average of only 16 customers a week is unsustainable? At a cost to the taxpayer of £17 a transaction, that is rather an expensive stamp. Instead of yielding to the temptation to use the issue to pick a fight with Westminster, will the new Executive support the UK Government's proposals to deliver postal services in rural areas in more flexible ways, such as the outreach and community postal services that Peter Peacock mentioned? In Clarencefield in my constituency, the post office is in the pub.
As the minister's reply to Peter Peacock's question about financing was rather elliptical, I will ask the question again. Is the Executive prepared to offer financial support for such developments?
I thank Elaine Murray for her comments. I will miss not sitting on the same side of the table as her at meetings of the Finance Committee. I have no idea whether she is to do further penance on the Finance Committee, but I dare say that I will appear in front of it in due course.
One problem with the volume of business that takes place in post offices is that so much business has been taken away from them. Actions have had consequences: if we take important work away from post offices, it is inevitable that the level of activity and footfall will fall. We are dealing with the consequences of other decisions taken by the UK Government.
I have absolutely no desire to pick a fight with anyone about anything, but I think that it is important that the Parliament reflects the concerns and attitudes of our constituents. Many people are concerned about the issue. In members' business debates on the issue, there has been a broad cross-section of concern within the Parliament about the loss of local post office services.
My answer to Peter Peacock's question on finance was that when particular proposals appear on how public services might be realigned so that post offices are used as local access points, we will look carefully at whether any financial support can be given. We must look at that carefully to guarantee that public money is spent to a particular purpose in the development of public services.
I welcome my very good friend and colleague to his new role in the Parliament.
In view of the adverse impact on social inclusion that is likely to be occasioned by any widespread closure of post offices, will the minister join me in condemning the politically motivated delay in the announcement by the secretary of state, which ensured that it was made after 3 May? I wonder why that was.
The minister has talked about the development of co-location, on which there has been much discussion this afternoon. Has he given, or will he give, active consideration to the Scottish Government services, as well as local government services, that could be delivered through the post office network?
I thank Roseanna Cunningham for her remarks. I am quite sure that there was a connection between the delay in the announcement and the timing of the election. We can all draw conclusions from that.
Co-location is fundamental to some of the ideas that I want to introduce to how we deliver and deploy public services locally, and I will consider the matter carefully in the period ahead.
I welcome John Swinney to his new portfolio.
I welcome the minister's comments about post offices sharing council facilities. I hope that West Lothian Council will consider that for Linlithgow. In some places in my constituency, such as Philpstoun, post offices have closed due to the retirement of post office staff and there being no one to take over. The minister mentioned that in his statement. Can he expand on what measures he would put in place to encourage people to take up that career option, to fill the vacancies and ensure that post offices are retained?
I thank Mary Mulligan for her remarks.
One of the key points is to ensure that there is a vibrant business community in town and village centres—the First Minister referred to that in some of his answers following his statement. We might all drive through our local town or village centres and see too many empty premises. If we are able to create a more buoyant business culture—which we will work hard to do—I hope that the formation of businesses will be a more realistic prospect for individuals. I return to the response that I gave to Mr Tavish Scott earlier. In my experience, post offices that form part of a wider business, perhaps one that has a community purpose, are very viable, and we should encourage, welcome and support them.
I thank the minister for recognising the enormous social and economic importance of post offices, especially in rural areas, where many small businesses rely on them. I totally support the minister's idea for pushing co-location and other innovative ways of increasing the level of business in post offices so that they can survive. I ask the minister to regard with a certain suspicion the idea of meeting access criteria by using mobile post offices, which, in my experience, small communities regard with a great deal of suspicion rather than as a solution that will help meet the other goals towards which we are all striving.
We must consider innovative solutions to particular problems, and solutions must command public confidence. It is important to ensure that different concepts and different ways of working are properly tested and evaluated to guarantee that they command public confidence. That is an essential part of the redesign of any service, and that includes the Post Office.
I join others in welcoming Mr Swinney to his new role. I look forward to working with him in the months ahead.
My first point concerns flexible opening hours. One of the key issues that many of us face is the inability to access services after 5 o'clock. Perhaps the minister can, in his discussions with the Post Office, consider how that can be addressed. There is a very good example in my constituency of that being done.
In relation to co-location, will the minister consider what financial support can be offered to community facilities by way of start-up grants to help meet the cost of a safe, for example, which I know has been prohibitive in some instances?
In the spirit of consensus that has broken out across the Parliament in this new session, may I be the first to ask the cabinet secretary to visit my constituency to see two very good examples of flexible opening and community use of postal services, in Coalburn and Carstairs Junction?
Although I came to Parliament today full of expectations, I did not have such high expectation of receiving such an offer. I thank Karen Gillon very kindly for her invitation. I believe that the form is to say that I will try to arrange a visit as soon as possible. As for the spirit of consensus that she mentioned, I am beginning to hear that our colleagues on her side of the chamber will give us some support on bridge tolls. I am encouraged to hear about the possibility of an outbreak of consensus, and hope that that is what happens.
I acknowledge that the flexibility of opening hours is a significant issue. In my statement, I said that it is important to ensure that services keep up with the changing patterns of people's lives. That applies across the board. I hope that such points will be reflected in any decision and I will address the issue in my discussions with the Royal Mail Group.
I have already responded to questions about financial support from Elaine Murray and Peter Peacock. I realise that, in transforming themselves to address some of these issues, businesses will face financial costs. We will consider whether assistance can be offered, but I should stress that a number of different vehicles and projects such as business gateway offer practical support.
That brings us to the end of questions on the future of the Post Office. I apologise to members whom we did not have time to call.