Post Offices
The final item of business is a members' business debate on motion S3M-5443, in the name of Christine Grahame, on post office development and diversification. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament, recognising the key role of Scotland's post office network in both urban and rural communities such as the Scottish Borders, commends the Post Office Diversification Fund, which helps post offices improve and diversify during the recession and was introduced by the Welsh Assembly Government, and considers that similar support should be provided to the post office network in Scotland.
I thank the members who signed the motion and those who are taking part in the debate. I welcome members of the National Federation of SubPostmasters who are in the gallery. I welcome the sub-postmasters from Jedburgh, Selkirk, Milnathort and Auchterarder in particular, but also those whom I have yet to meet. Some weeks ago, along with the National Federation of SubPostmasters and colleagues, I hosted a presentation on "Six Steps to a Sustainable Post Office Network", which led to this debate.
Before addressing the specific matter of the diversification fund, by way of background I refer the chamber to my consultation on local post offices across the Scottish Borders, which was carried out at a time when the Department of Trade and Industry was consulting on post office reduction. In February 2007, 40,000 residents were consulted, with more than 13,000 responses. That is a 35 per cent response rate, which is somewhat higher than the turnout at some elections. Ninety-eight per cent of respondents considered the local post office to be an essential part of the community.
I list, in no particular order, the key functions that were identified. The first was social inclusion and convenience. Those who did not have bank accounts had only the post office as a source of cash, bill paying, benefits access and advice and so on. It was important to the local economy; many small businesses, especially in the days of internet business, transact through the local post office. It was important to community survival; the survival of many other local shops and businesses was dependent on local people carrying out transactions at the local post office and spending their money in the local shops nearby. It was important to individual wellbeing. Local post office staff often go beyond the job and help with form filling; they know their customers, for whom they may be the only contact that an individual makes during the day or, indeed, the week. As many of us will recognise, the local post office is also an important community information source—a sort of local Reuters, with both community and individual gossip, as well as an unofficial tourism, directions and information bureau.
I have taken the time to repeat the consultation's findings because they tie in directly with the proposals in the report to which I referred earlier, which covers not only UK responsibilities but the Scottish Parliament and local government. Most of the recommendations relate to the key, often unofficial functions to which I have referred, many of which are unpaid. I support discussions between the Scottish Government, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and agencies such as the Department for Work and Pensions, the credit unions and VisitScotland—the list is not exhaustive—with a view to producing a co-ordinated plan to support, develop and finance our sub-post office network to meet the demands that I have outlined.
With the demise and disgrace of the large banks, there is an opportunity to be grasped. As Consumer Focus Scotland states in its helpful briefing note:
"The Post office is a universal brand which consumers recognise, value and support".
We cannot say that about the banks and their billions bailout. In passing, I congratulate the Government on its small business rates relief scheme, which allows some businesses to save up to £3,100 a year. That is not to be sniffed at.
I commend the Welsh Assembly Government and its aptly though quite cumbersomely named post office diversification fund, which developed from the Welsh post office development fund. Between 2002 and 2004 the post office development fund gave capital grants totalling £4.1 million to 99 post offices in some of the most remote and deprived areas in Wales. The diversification fund opened in December 2008, with £1.5 million per year for three years in capital and revenue grants, and is open to post offices throughout Wales—coverage has been extended. The first round closed on 30 April 2009, with 120 applications for grants totalling just over £2 million. Sixty-three were successful, with a payout of just over £1 million. That enabled those small businesses at the hub of the community—whether rural, remote or urban—to improve facilities both economically and socially, to install computers and so on. I commend the Welsh Assembly Government for putting its money where its mouth is.
I recognise the realities of a budget in constrained financial circumstances that have been and will, in the coming week, continue to be well aired in the Parliament. However, we have the model of the town centre regeneration fund. That had substantial funding—£60 million—but it was seed-corn funding that, according to Government estimates, supported 640 jobs across Scotland. Grant applications were assessed, and the funding was allocated. The minister will be relieved to know that we are not asking for £60 million. However, on a population basis, with 3 million people in Wales and 5 million in Scotland, we could be talking single millions to provide capital and revenue grants. That might allow post offices to borrow money on top of that to develop their premises or buy information technology equipment, or to carry out a refurbishment. Essentially, and importantly, that would be done in tandem with providing funded additional local services, as I outlined earlier. This is a golden opportunity.
Unfortunately, I am not a minister—and probably never will be—and I have no formal part in the cross-party budget discussions and negotiations, but the Minister for Enterprise, Energy and Tourism can take this as my informal and very public bid from the back benches for the minister and the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth to examine the proposal in the context of the current debates, with whomsoever, on the budget. I consider this proposal to be very worth while and proportionate. It is a small investment that will be excellent for communities, for employment and for social wellbeing. As has been proved elsewhere, it is highly successful. It has been tested.
I look forward to hearing the minister's response. I hope that it is positive.
I support Christine Grahame in the work that she has been doing on post offices. She is absolutely right about the Welsh fund. There are opportunities to develop such a fund in Scotland.
Post offices and sub-post offices are crucial to our communities. They provide support in the form of benefits and pensions. In many communities, they provide support for small businesses. In communities that do not have banks, people have the opportunity to use the post office instead.
I have heard various stories from sub-postmasters and others, including older people, who have said, for instance, that the only person who noticed that they had not been out all week was the sub-postmaster. I heard that a sub-postmaster had actually turned up at Mrs Smith's house after a week, because she usually went into the post office every week. I do not know of any other service that does that, albeit that it can often be an informal service. The post office is an integral part of our communities, both urban and rural. We should consider how we can support our post offices in diversifying, and we should ensure that there is money for improving access to help people to use their post office.
The proposed post bank would provide another reason for folk to use their post office and would deal with the issue of communities not having access to a bank. It is all very well suggesting that people get benefits and so on through their bank, but if they do not have access to a bank—if there is no bank in their community, perhaps no bank for miles—the idea of a post bank could make some difference. That could support credit unions within the post office's radius, as credit unions also need access to banks.
I am pleased that the debate is taking place, and I hope that we can look forward to the possible development of a diversification fund similar to the one in Wales, which illustrates what we could do in Scotland. It does not involve a lot of money, but such a fund recognises the value of post offices in our communities and the importance of making them more sustainable. Post offices provide a service to the people we represent, and I am happy to support the motion.
I, too, begin by congratulating Christine Grahame on securing this important debate. I apologise to you, Presiding Officer, and to other members, as I need to leave for another engagement after making this speech.
The post office network has experienced significant change over recent years, and I am pleased that we now have the opportunity to examine proposals that could help us to create a more sustainable network. I will concentrate on the key role that the post office network plays in rural communities such as those in the Scottish Borders and on what we can do to maintain a sustainable network for future generations.
I am especially pleased that the motion recognises that post offices are of particular importance in rural areas such as mine in the Borders. Although the figures for the usage of branches in urban areas might be higher than those for rural communities, post office branches in rural towns and villages are often the hub of the local community. That became increasingly apparent during the consultation on the network change programme in 2008. I was contacted by thousands of constituents who were concerned about losing their post office branch. Hundreds of residents attended public meetings that were organised in the communities that were affected by the proposed closures. The representatives from the Post Office Ltd were left in no doubt as to the extent to which local residents value the service that they receive at their local post office branch.
Many people were frustrated that those closure proposals could have left them without local access to services such as benefits and pensions, road tax renewals and general postal services. However, there were also specific situations that were unique to individual communities that highlighted the value of having a local post office. For example, in one town, a large number of small businesses relied on a local and reliable postal service to send out mail orders to customers. In another village, it was clear that the proposals would lead not only to the closure of the post office but to the loss of the local shop, which had become the community hub such was the high regard in which the sub-postmistress was held. Across my constituency, there was a feeling that the proposed changes were another example of the decline in rural communities.
As is recognised in the recent report by the National Federation of SubPostmasters, the potential for diversification by using the post office network to deliver existing services—whether from the United Kingdom Government, the Scottish Government or local councils—is huge. Despite the recent closure of branches, the post office network's unrivalled reach over all parts of the country is a tremendous resource that should be used to its full potential. As the recession forces Governments and local authorities to reassess the way in which services are delivered, the post office network is in a prime position to help to deliver those services.
Like Christine Grahame, I want to highlight the experience in Wales, where for several years now a post office diversification fund has made available grants of up to £50,000 to branches in the most deprived or most isolated areas. Introducing a similar model in Scotland could encourage enterprise and help to create businesses that are more diverse and, therefore, more resilient to fluctuating trends in the economic cycle.
To conclude, I am pleased that we have had an opportunity to debate this important topic. I look forward to hearing the minister's response on how the network can be supported.
I congratulate Christine Grahame on securing tonight's debate.
As all other members do, I consider our post office network to be a national jewel. Post offices are of enormous importance in my large and scattered constituency: indeed, I use their services nearly all the time. Not a week goes by when I do not ring one of the sub-post offices in my constituency to find out some detail that I need to know about somebody or some issue. Our post offices have a wealth of local knowledge. I commend any visitor to my constituency to take a look at the small post offices at Kylesku and Altnaharra. They are two of the most remote and tiny post offices, yet the two ladies who run them are crucial to their communities.
Part of tonight's debate is about what more we could do with our post offices. Mention has been made of the banks, but it is still not possible to use post office automated teller machines to withdraw money from the Royal Bank of Scotland. Given how much public money the Royal Bank went off with, that is too bad. It should have been a condition of the bail-out that the Royal Bank was required to use the post office network. I hope that Governments—of whatever colour they might happen to be—will adopt that kind of thinking in the future.
If people buy their tax disc online, they will wait four or five days to receive it, whereas they will get it right away if they buy it through the post office. The post office offers a much better service, so we should encourage that sort of use. To draw a parallel with a previous Labour Party debate on local newspapers, if everything goes online, we will be at risk of losing many crucial proper face-to-face services. People's ability to pay for their television licences was taken away from the post office network. If that was given back to post offices, what would that not do to help?
The motion suggests that we should copy the Welsh experience by providing grants for either capital or revenue costs to improve post offices by investing in them. One argument that we used successfully to beat off the proposal to shut Pulteneytown post office in Wick was about that post office's potential as Wick harbour was developed with a marina and other facilities. Luckily, that argument prevailed because we said, "Look what we could do in the future if we invest in the post office now." Therefore, I support very strongly that suggestion in the motion.
It has already been pointed out that post offices support shops, which is true. However, inevitably and sadly, as little shops close—a trend that we seem to have the greatest difficulty in averting, especially in the most rural areas, such as my constituency—communities may often be left with only a post office. Just as primary schools are, post offices are often the hubs of their communities. Remove them and death will very quickly point its dark finger towards that community.
Given that we have an ageing population, as other members have said, the contribution that post offices make is crucial. Postmistresses have local knowledge; if the people who run the post office have not seen Mrs MacKenzie—who may live on a remote croft—for a week or two, they will ask whether she is all right and whether anyone has been to visit her. Members will remember that, some time ago, I talked about the gentleman in my constituency who lay dead for far too long before being discovered. That could have been picked up via the post office network.
The Scottish Government can help, although I grant that it is not easy, in these cash-strapped times, to find the amounts of money that we might be talking about. I acknowledge the minister's helpful attitude, which I experienced for myself when I asked a question of him some days ago. He gave me a positive answer and said that the Scottish Government would look at how it could boost the post office network for the future by directing services through it. At the end of that question time, he kindly gave me his mind map. Alas and alack, I do not have the same intellectual firepower and am not of the same intellectual calibre as our minister, so I did not understand it.
Frame it.
I will do.
I look forward to listening to the minister's response.
As other members have done, I congratulate Christine Grahame on securing an important debate. It is important to reflect on the fact that it does not take place in a vacuum. We have had other debates about the future of Royal Mail and the Post Office. I secured a members' business debate on the UK Government's plans to part-privatise the Post Office, which was held on 7 May last year. About a year ago, on 9 January, we had a debate on the UK Government's rationalisation programme for the Post Office and, in particular, how it affected the south of Scotland. That forms part of the context for this evening's debate.
That context is about a sustained assault on the Post Office and Royal Mail. Over the past few years, Her Majesty's Government in London has dithered over awarding the contract to sustain the Post Office card account to the Post Office. The ability of post offices to make benefits payments has been removed and, as Jamie Stone said, people can no longer pay for their television licences at the post office. There has been a stripping away of services, which has undermined local post offices.
In addition, we have had the UK Government's unnecessary part-privatisation proposals for the Royal Mail, which have thankfully been delayed. They should be shelved permanently. I hope that they will be, whatever the political hue of the Westminster Government. Christine Grahame and John Lamont mentioned the rationalisation programme that saw the closure of 2,000 post office branches across the UK, which had a disproportionate effect on Scotland.
I want to take the local angle. Like Christine Grahame, I consulted local people about some proposed closures in the area that I represent. The proposals related to the post offices in Kildrum, Banton, Queenzieburn and Plains, and to the Grangepans post office in Bo'ness. The response that I received to those consultations was overwhelming. In each case, at least 99 per cent of the people who responded said that they wanted their post office to remain open. That is understandable because, as Jamie Stone rightly said, the post office is often the hub of the community that it serves.
I wanted to go back to the people whom I had consulted to find out how their communities had been affected by what happened, so in October last year I wrote to all the people who responded to my original consultation. Of those who replied, 95.6 per cent thought that the closure of their local post office branch had had a negative impact on the community and 82.4 per cent believed that the quality of postal service that they received had worsened in the past year.
Tonight's debate is highly relevant. We need to consider a diversification fund such as Christine Grahame spoke of, but although I welcome her suggestion and support it in principle, I am somewhat reluctant to throw it back at the Scottish Government, given that such matters are still the responsibility of the Westminster Government. As a Scottish National Party member, I believe that our Government should have the relevant responsibility, but given that the Welsh Assembly Government has introduced such a fund, there is merit in at least considering the proposal.
Consumer Focus Scotland supports the idea. It recognises that the public sector faces significant pressures because of the economic downturn and suggests that consideration of the proposal should take place in that context. That is a reasonable approach, and it is one that I urge the minister to take. We want the post office network in Scotland to have a bright future, and a diversification fund such as the one that exists in Wales may have a role to play in that. I very much look forward to hearing what the minister has to say in that regard.
I, too, congratulate Christine Grahame on securing this debate. In particular, I pay tribute to her for focusing on issues that are the Scottish Parliament's responsibility and for making constructive suggestions to the minister rather than trying to use the issue as a political football. I do not intend to go down that road, either.
I want to talk about issues that relate to my constituency. I cannot speak about the Borders, which Christine Grahame and other members know far better than I do. I represent a constituency that includes urban areas and rural communities. There are, in those urban areas, particularly disadvantaged communities that rely on the types of service that post offices can provide. In my local area, I worked with my Westminster colleagues to campaign on issues when the post office closure programme and changes were put in place, and we managed to get a different approach in some, although not all, instances.
Communities have expressed concerns that, although post offices were closed in some areas and their services were moved into local shops where it was believed that doing so would be viable, we are increasingly seeing sub-post offices that do not appear to be viable on their own and are looking for opportunities in other local retail establishments. Only this week, I heard about that happening in the Netherthird area of Cumnock. The sub-post office there was not sustainable and an interim arrangement was put in place. A local shopkeeper will now step in, and a new scheme will operate.
The crucial question in Christine Grahame's speech was to ask what the Scottish Government can do through a fund such as the post office diversification fund to ensure that the wider business around post offices will be sustainable, and to create new business opportunities. I am interested in what the minister will say about that. How might small local businesses or people who would be prepared to take on a sub-post office be supported in setting up an extended business or supporting existing businesses?
Like my colleague Cathy Peattie and many others—the Communication Workers Union, for example—I support the post bank initiative. From the consumer perspective, when people go into their post office, they want a one-stop-shop approach. If they need to withdraw money from an account, pay bills or pay money into their credit union savings, they ought to be able to do so in a one-stop shop.
As many people have said, the crucial point about post offices is that there is face-to-face contact in them. The contact in them is not impersonal, as it is on the internet or with call centres. That is important for many people. It is important not just for those who need daily contact so that someone will ensure that they are still well and out and about, but for people who can be bemused by instructions such as "Press button 1 if you want to do that" or do not have access to the internet and need assistance. Such things are important.
I welcome the debate and look forward to hearing a positive response from the minister. I am sure that we will.
Cathy Jamieson was right to say that the debate is about devolved matters. In that regard, I thank Christine Grahame for lodging the motion. The issue of non-postal services' support for the post office network is absolutely within the remit of the Scottish Parliament and that of the Scottish Government's budget.
Members across the chamber have stressed the importance of the post office network in local communities, and I will say nothing that will detract from that. As a local MSP, I am acutely aware of the need for a vital and sustainable post office network. The sustainability argument is critical to this debate.
Parliament's job is not just to analyse the problem, but to address it through seeking Government action. We know how important post office services are from taking part in the debate that Christine Grahame hosted with the National Federation of SubPostmasters. Margaret Curran also took part in that debate and made an excellent contribution to our considerations. Furthermore, the priorities that members from rural constituencies have outlined, such as the remoteness of services and their relevance to older and vulnerable people, are also priorities in our deprived urban areas. That was recognised by the previous Government in 2003 to 2005, through its fund for the development of post offices in deprived areas. That fund of more than £1.8 million was invested in 48 post offices, with grants of up to £50,000. Indeed, a fund considered by the previous Welsh Assembly Government has been continued by the current Welsh Assembly Administration—the post office diversification fund. By learning from best practice under a previous Government and looking to what the Welsh Assembly Government has done, we ask the Scottish Government to focus its attention on the support that it can provide.
The Liberal Democrats wrote to John Swinney, the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth, on 24 November, at the start of the budget discussions, asking the Scottish Government to amend its plans and include a post office diversification scheme in its budget. Discussions on that are on-going. Indeed, 10 days ago, when I met John Swinney again, that was the topic of conversation, and on Tuesday morning the Liberal Democrats reiterated our request that the post office diversification scheme be considered as part of the budget. I do not expect the Minister for Enterprise, Energy and Tourism to give assurances today, but I hope that he will make encouraging remarks to the effect that the Liberal Democrat proposals will be not only looked on favourably, but adopted.
Our proposal—to reduce the pay bill for those in the public sector in Scotland who receive the highest wages in order to support real action on the ground to keep post offices open in our rural and deprived urban areas—is very much focused on the principle of asking those with the broadest shoulders to contribute in a fixed budget. That would free up resource to ensure that the elderly and the other key users of the post office network in Scotland, of whom members have already spoken, can continue to have a sustainable network. I am sure that, if the Scottish Government responds favourably to our calls, we will have the opportunity that existed under the previous Administration and which exists under the current Welsh Assembly Administration to support the sustainability of our post office network, which we all hold in high regard.
I join other members in congratulating Christine Grahame on securing the debate on a topic that is of increasing importance to people throughout the country, but particularly, as the motion states, those in the Scottish Borders and the wider South of Scotland region that I represent.
There are 1,464 post offices in towns and villages throughout Scotland, including our branch in the Holyrood village, which does a sterling job not just for MSPs, but for all users of the Parliament building. The network offers an unrivalled geographical reach across the country that still exists despite post offices being hit by the network change programme—or, as it is known to many of our constituents, the closure programme.
The South of Scotland region, which I both represent and live in, experienced some of the cuts. They were devastating blows to the communities that the post offices served. Many people relied on their nearest post office to get their pensions or child benefits, and many small businesses relied on them, too. In addition, people valued their post office as a venue in which to meet friends and neighbours for a blether. It was no surprise that, when I conducted a survey among constituents who had been affected by the closure of post office branches in Lesmahagow, Lanark, New Lanark, Larkhall, Irvine, Stevenston and Kilwinning, an average of more than 98 per cent of respondents said that they disagreed with the proposals.
The post office is important because it has a social value that many groups, businesses and organisations can only dream of. It is a widely recognised brand that, in today's credit crunch times, is trusted and respected, as members have said. It is also a place where customers are served by someone face to face. I agree with Cathy Jamieson that the post office is as far removed as possible from the emotionlessness of direct debits, distant call centres and annoying automated responses that tell people, "Press 1 for advice or 2 for assistance."
To tell the truth, the only really annoying thing about post offices is their extra-long queues, but not everything is perfect and the fact that the services are in such high demand suggests, in itself, that post offices are doing something right.
Of course, there is a serious and commercial side to the post office. According to the National Federation of SubPostmasters, for every £1 transacted in the UK, 14p is handled through the post office network. The Federation of Small Businesses said that small businesses are heavily reliant on post offices, with nearly nine in 10 small businesspeople visiting a post office to buy stamps and send mail and 25 per cent depositing cash, collecting change and using the banking service at the post office.
The importance of the post office network cannot be overstated, which is why we need to think imaginatively about its future. My South of Scotland colleague, Christine Grahame, recently hosted an event in Parliament on behalf of the National Federation of SubPostmasters, which outlined its six steps to a sustainable post office network proposals. Those proposals highlight the actions that all levels of government can take to increase the viability of the network, including making better use of post offices and considering ways of creating a post bank. Those are exactly the kind of initiatives that a post office diversification fund could help to support. Indeed, the FSB's report highlights the impact that the diversification fund in Wales has had since its implementation. Although we all recognise the severe pressures on the budgets of the Scottish Government and local authorities, I hope that some consideration can be given to ways of supporting the sustainability and diversification of our post offices.
Of particular interest to me was the idea of encouraging the sharing of post office facilities with tourist information services or with facilities by which people could access the services of local authorities and organisations such as credit unions. Given that the post office network has an unrivalled geographical spread and that not every part of Scotland has tourist information centres or access to credit unions, those combinations could be marriages made in heaven. Support to develop such important services could help to provide a boost to local economies during this time of recession. If there are ways of providing tourism spin-offs and giving people access to banking facilities that they can trust while retaining important and much-loved post offices across Scotland, it seems sensible for all levels of government to consider those possibilities.
I congratulate Christine Grahame on securing the debate and acknowledge her consistent record on the matter. Her work to help build a dialogue between the National Federation of SubPostmasters and me led to a well-attended stakeholder consultation event last June, at which we were able to place in clearer focus many of the issues that have been raised today.
Obviously, the Scottish Government acknowledges the valuable social role of post offices, particularly in deprived and remote areas, but we also have to acknowledge that post offices and postal services are a matter that is wholly reserved to the UK Government. Irrespective of that fact, we are committed to supporting post offices, and we continue to urge the UK Government and the Post Office to ensure that sustainable post office networks can continue to serve Scottish communities.
Like members who have spoken tonight, we are adamant that our post offices are needed to deliver vital services and be the crucial glue that binds communities and enables them to function in social and economic terms. That is why we ran that consultation last June. It confirmed that many options are available for the co-location of services, with community planning partnerships being well placed to take decisions at the local level and help to make that happen. Indeed, there is a bit of scope for running a similar event with local authorities, to ensure that we are making the connections at a local level through the CPPs. I am more than happy to help that process.
Of course, we are well aware of the post office diversification fund in Wales and are keeping an eye on its uptake and results. The initiative is interesting, but we need to consider its costs and benefits before considering the merits of having an equivalent initiative in Scotland. That is work in progress—as we heard tonight, the Liberal Democrats are tabling that as part of their budget negotiations. Based on the reiterated support that has come from all parts of the chamber this evening, I am sure that that argument will now have extra weight behind it.
We must ensure that the postal service learns not only from Wales, but from other areas too. We should also take advantage of other initiatives, such as the small business bonus scheme. That scheme should not be forgotten, as any post office that has a rateable value of less than £15,000 will benefit from it. The main issue is that there is categorical recognition of the Welsh proposal and that it is taken account of by the Government and the Parliament as a function of the debate.
I welcome Christine Grahame's acknowledgement that the Government faces a difficult set of decisions at this time. The issue is being debated among the parties, and we will drive it forward.
The key element that has arisen from today's debate is the need for realignment. The figures for consultation responses that I have heard today—98 per cent, 95.6 per cent and 99 per cent—are higher than any referendum figures that I have heard before. That establishes that our post offices are aligned with their customers and their communities, and have a solid reputation. They have customers who are not only loyal and dependent, but who are advocates of the postal service and continue to use it in all the ways that have been described today. We have heard that the post office can be a local Reuters and a source of advice, and even that it can act as an adjunct to social care provision in Scotland. Post offices provide assistance on the day and in times of need; staff are aware of the need for assistance and act on it.
We have heard some valid thoughts on diversification, with regard to credit unions and banking. The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills is actively considering that idea. I share the Communication Workers Union's opinion that the concept of a one-stop shop is important. The consultation on that deserves to hear many voices.
John Lamont must consider the fact that any proposition needs to be balanced. There is a need for a rural focus, but not all urban post offices are in prosperous city-centre locations, so we must ensure that we balance those needs.
I empathise with Christine Grahame, Jamie Stone and Cathy Jamieson, as I see a similar situation in my constituency. We need to consult not only with the stakeholders that we got into the room the first time around, but with a wider group. Jamie Stone mentioned the banks; other banks could certainly come forward. The gradual stripping away and narrowing of the revenue streams for post offices is not the way to go. We need to reverse that trend and widen the revenue streams to give post offices the chance of viability, so more revenues from various sources are flowing into their coffers.
I have keenly taken on board all the messages that I have heard tonight, particularly Aileen Campbell's helpful comment about post-event trauma. When a post-event audit is carried out, it is evident that the effects of the decision have been keenly felt, that real pain has been caused and that there is a chain reaction of negative effects.
We need, between the parties, carefully to evaluate the benefits. We should consider not only the short-term benefits, but the issue of long-term viability and how we can assist that.
We must balance post offices with the other businesses that are in the competitive mix. However, the basic point is that a vibrant postal service is recognised on all sides of the Parliament and by the Government as fundamental to the wellbeing of Scotland in social and economic terms. Other businesses are additional stakeholders, and we need to get them into the room to work with us to identify yet more things that the post offices could do for them, and to bring in ideas for further diversification.
I understand that the minister cannot make any financial commitments today, but will he consider convening—as he may already have done—the other stakeholders that members on all sides of the chamber have mentioned in tonight's debate to co-ordinate the work on the issue? Not every solution will suit every area, but it seems that the lack of will and the lack of co-ordination of services are causing a logjam, when we could be resolving which services different sub-post offices provide.
We will press those who attended the first meeting in June to tell us where progress is being made. The more we carry out this type of work at local authority and community planning partnership level, the more chance there is that we will throw up ideas. There might be ideas in the Borders that I can take to Argyll and Bute, or ideas from Argyll and Bute that might work in Ayrshire. It is a question of learning from what has been happening in other areas. Community planning partnerships in Kilmarnock and West Lothian have successfully pulled together lots of other threads and streams of services and managed to make efficiencies out of that. The more we start the evolutionary process of dialogue with colleagues and other stakeholders, the better the result we will get.
Meeting closed at 17:45.