Clydesdale Bank (Branch Closures)
The final item of business today is a members' business debate on motion S2M-2833, in the name of Paul Martin, on the closure of Clydesdale Bank branches. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament condemns the decision by National Australia Bank to close 60 Clydesdale Bank branches within Scotland over the next 18 months; notes that research has demonstrated that the closure of branches triggers an outflow of economic activity and threatens the long-term survival of communities, particularly when a bank is "the last bank in town"; believes that closures will have a devastating impact on local communities, particularly in poorer areas where alternative banking is not accessible, and will affect the most vulnerable and least able to travel, such as older people, the less able and parents with young children, and considers that the National Australia Bank should reconsider this massive programme, particularly where a closure will leave communities without any local bank.
I take the opportunity to thank the 47 members of the Parliament—cross-party—who have supported the motion in my name. The Clydesdale Bank—or the National Australia Bank—might want to consider that as there are 47 signatories to the motion and as it has received cross-party support, that shows the strength of feeling in the Parliament.
I recognise the Amicus trade union representatives who are with us this evening: Mary Alexander, Hugh Scullion, David Bell and Richard Meade, of the campaign for local banking facilities, who have made a robust case on behalf of their membership. I also welcome the interest that I have received from the media throughout the world. In fact, I had inquiries from The Australian Financial Review magazine, which showed an interest in the issue.
My motion sets out my concerns about the closure of 60 Clydesdale Bank branches throughout Scotland and the devastating effect that those closures will have on local communities and the staff, who have so loyally served those branches over the years.
I put on record my appreciation of the staff who have served in the two Clydesdale Bank branches in my constituency: Springburn and Duke Street, where closure is proposed. The staff have established an effective relationship with the community in the Duke Street area. I thank them for the dedication that they have shown.
From time to time in the chamber we hear about companies that face economic challenges and about the need for the Parliament to assist companies during that process. I have supported the Executive in the way in which it has engaged with such companies in considering their future and the difficulties that they face.
The proposed closure programme has not been a partnership process with the Parliament. I say that because there has been no consultation with elected members. I received no correspondence on the issue until after the announcement and I know that that was the experience of other members whose constituencies will be affected. The bank's approach demonstrates contempt not only for the Parliament but for local communities, which should be consulted. It also shows disloyalty to staff.
We face a challenge, because we must stand up to a culture of greed and to the bank's disloyalty to its staff and customers. On its website, the Clydesdale Bank proudly boasts:
"People are the very heart of our business."
However, people in the deprived area of Springburn and in other deprived areas, such as Alexandria, will not be the heart of the bank's business. The hard-working families who are returning to work with the help of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Scottish Executive expect more from banking institutions in Scotland.
I represent a constituency that fights the regeneration battle every day with the help of partnerships, the local authority and local economic development companies. The Executive can take credit for fighting that battle in my constituency: unemployment has been reduced by 50 per cent and by 75 per cent among young people. I am proud of those achievements, but regeneration will not be assisted if there are no good local banking facilities. We do not want people to have to have recourse to local loan sharks and we do not want furniture shops that charge an annual percentage rate of more than 38 per cent; we need good banking facilities. However, the proposed closures will not deliver such facilities to us.
I welcomed the opportunity to meet representatives from the bank last week. The bank has said much about alternatives whereby people can make deposits into and withdrawals from their accounts via the local post office. It will not have escaped members' notice that the Parliament has debated proposed post office closures. The bank has not been able to say what would happen if the post office also closed. Nor has it said whether the proposed arrangements with post offices would remain in place in perpetuity. If the bank cannot guarantee that the arrangements will continue, the Parliament should not accept the proposals. I mean no disrespect to the diversification of post office activity or to the dedication of post office staff when I say that a post office is not a substitute for a bank. Banks are financial institutions and have qualified staff who can provide effective on-site advice. We must accept that post offices cannot offer such services.
Richard Meade made a powerful point when he described the rejection of the campaign's proposals for banking facilities to be shared locally. The banks roundly rejected the proposals. A challenge faces anyone who suggests an alternative approach. Richard Meade works for Help the Aged and told us that elderly people, as well as local businesses, need local banking facilities.
I hope that the Deputy Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning is aware of how strongly communities and elected members feel about the matter. I ask the minister to answer two specific points and I hope that he does not go down the road that Nicol Stephen takes and indulge in the art of evasion. First, will the Executive name and shame the public limited companies that do not contribute to regeneration? The Executive cannot preach to local companies that they must play a part in regeneration and tackling social exclusion if it does not commend the organisations that play their part and expose the ones that do not do so. I ask the minister to consider having a naming and shaming programme.
Secondly, I ask the minister to consider requesting a meeting with the chief executive of the National Australia Bank, John Stewart—an Edinburgh man I understand, who will, no doubt, be paying a visit to Edinburgh at some point; I hope that it will be soon. I ask the minister to consider meeting him in Australia at his headquarters, expressing the Scottish Executive's commitment to the regeneration battle and the key role that local financial institutions such as the Clydesdale Bank play in it and requesting that the bank reconsider its position.
The Parliament has a key role to play in the regeneration of our communities. It is time that we stood up to the banks and advised them that they need to play their part—we need to preach the need for them to do so. If they do not want to play their part, we will take these issues to the people and ensure that we work in partnership in future.
I congratulate Paul Martin on securing the debate and bringing the economic debate in general into a more local and human focus. The motion takes issue exclusively with the Clydesdale Bank, which is an understandable but not totally reasonable stance to take. In preparing for the debate I spoke to Amicus, the Royal Mail, voluntary groups and the Clydesdale Bank and I believe that there is scope for addressing the issues and working together to secure a better future for the bank, its employees and the communities that they serve.
Make no mistake: I understand how Paul Martin and others feel; indeed I know many people who felt the same way until they found out that the result of the Clydesdale Bank not changing would be to put the whole bank and all its jobs at risk.
The motion should also take issue with the Government. Other countries can grow their populations, have higher earnings and balance their populations by means of appropriate economic, relocation and investment policies and thereby create the conditions for growth, not contraction.
Nevertheless, I agree that the Clydesdale Bank should have kept in touch more closely with its competitors, but it has not and now it is compelled to change for survival. It needs to do so with consideration for its employees and customers to the fore. The situation requires action and careful handling that go way beyond the tokenism of much of the corporate social responsibility that we see in Scotland.
Happily, I believe that the Clydesdale Bank, in conjunction with the Royal Mail at its post offices, is doing exactly that, especially in showing a willingness to go the extra mile with long-term customers by explaining the potential of post office, internet and telephone banking.
Will the member give way?
No. I want to develop the point.
We should consider the facts. Efficiency in the banking industry is measured by the cost-income ratio. That means that the banks and analysts that dictate their stock market rating and long-term credibility and viability pay close attention to how much a bank spends on its overheads for every pound of income. The industry average is about 45p to 50p in the pound. For the really efficient players, such as the Royal Bank of Scotland, it is 40p in the pound. In the case of the Clydesdale Bank, it is currently about 63p in the pound. The Clydesdale Bank is increasingly between a rock and a hard place. Unless it radically alters that ratio, its business, cost base and long-term future are in jeopardy. In addition, if there is low customer utilisation of branches and a low number of customers per branch, something needs to change.
Of course we join the calls for free access to automated teller machines, which the Clydesdale is answering. It is doing its utmost to maintain the existing ATMs. We in the Parliament should monitor and encourage even more co-operation to protect that existing inventory of ATMs. Equally, we should monitor and encourage maximum staff redeployment in the process and, we hope, a resurgence of the Clydesdale Bank and its prospects for employment.
We are dealing with a changing landscape in banking and financial services. In the past, people conducted virtually all their financial dealings with their local branch—current accounts, mortgages, personal loans and house insurance. Today they tend to go, for example, to Direct Line for their insurance and to smile for their credit card.
Although I am conscious of the situation of people in remote areas and deprived urban areas, we have to make the most of the post office deal and see it as a major move forward. The key benefit is that we will be able to see things move forward. In the Highlands and similar areas, post offices are much more plentiful than banks and give many of my constituents access to proper mainstream banking for the first time. That is what they want.
We have to look at the issue in the round and concentrate on driving towards an economy that ensures that people have more secure jobs and banks have a more secure future.
I congratulate Paul Martin on securing the debate and on the way in which he spoke to the motion.
We are discussing the closure of up to 60 Clydesdale Bank branches across Scotland over the next 18 months. Members have already pointed out the potential impact of such a move as well as the possibility of there being wider economic consequences.
Ten years ago, the small town in which I live in rural Perthshire had three banks: a Clydesdale Bank; a Royal Bank; and a Bank of Scotland. First, the Clydesdale Bank closed, then the Bank of Scotland closed. The Royal Bank is the only bank that is left. I commend the Royal Bank for its policy of not closing down a branch that is the last branch in a particular community. Although I am not a customer of the Royal Bank, I think that that attitude is to be applauded.
The closure of branches, particularly when they are the only bank in a community, is to be regretted. As the motion acknowledges, it is a particular problem for older people, those who are less comfortable with new banking arrangements, those who are less mobile and those who are disadvantaged and cannot travel to other areas to access banks.
However, we have to recognise that society is changing and that banking is changing with it. That change has accelerated over the past few years and we must expect banks to change to accommodate the evolution of technology. We now have 24-hour telephone and online banking; we get mini-statements and cash at ATMs; we can use banking services in post offices and so on.
At the same time, bank branches have high maintenance costs as they are secure premises and are the face of globally competing banks. They also require highly trained staff. Further, because of the many different ways of banking, some of those branches have fewer than 100 transactions in a day. The argument is very much a case of use it or lose it.
Many people think of having a bank in their town as their right. However, we must remember that banks are not public institutions and must do what is best for them financially.
I have a great deal of sympathy with the last statement in Paul Martin's motion, which outlines the impact that a branch closure will have when it leaves a community without any local bank. Perhaps other banks have a policy that is similar to the Royal Bank's policy of not closing a branch if it is the last bank in the town, but it is my understanding that around a third of the Clydesdale Bank branch closures will be banks that are currently the last branch in a town.
We need to be clear about the fact that, in the end, it is not for Parliament or Government to dictate to private companies how to order their affairs. If the Clydesdale Bank is going down this road, it will lose out because its customers will go elsewhere. They will simply go to other banks that are offering a better service. The irony is that, in some communities, the post office has benefited from the closure of bank branches because it has picked up more banking business. We have often debated the importance of a post office network both in rural communities and in small urban communities.
I once heard the saying, "A good idea plus capable men cannot fail; it is better than money in the bank." I believe that the proposal of the Clydesdale Bank will turn out to be a bad idea and that its customers might turn away from it altogether. Nevertheless, the decision is commercial and the bank must face the consequences.
I thank Paul Martin for lodging the motion and the trade unions for the work that they have done on the campaign. Last year, the pre-tax profits of the Clydesdale Bank and the Yorkshire Bank were a mere £349 million—or a paltry £188 million after tax—from a total income of £1.2 billion. That might seem healthy enough to the customers who are the source of much of that money, but the parent company, the National Australia Bank, has a different perspective.
Even though the National Australia Bank has the greatest assets of any Australian bank and announced interim cash profits of £1.62 billion, it does not think that that is nearly enough. It wants bigger profit margins than those of its rivals, Westpac and the Commonwealth Bank of Australia. It is still recovering from a trading scandal; last year, it lost £98 million on currency deals. If it had got that right, perhaps we would not be facing the closures. We can argue about whose money it lost, but there is no doubt about how it aims to recoup the losses. It will save £117 million by axing 100 branches and up to 1,700 jobs in the United Kingdom. Woe betide any worker or community that stands between the bank and its precious profits. The Clydesdale Bank was founded in 1838 and it has been built on customer loyalty, business loyalty and the hard work of its employees. However, they are second-class stakeholders when it comes to the global market.
Significantly, the situation is not something that affects National Australia Bank alone—other banks face the same pressures. They realise the damage that was done to their reputations by the mass closures of the 1990s, and during the past five years there have been only isolated branch closures. Of course, such closures are still a major blow to local communities. Bo'ness has already lost its Clydesdale Bank branch even though many customers there were customers for a number of years. If the proposed closures go ahead, it is likely that other banks will decide to follow suit and the number of communities that face the loss of the last bank in their town will multiply rapidly.
The Scottish Parliament has no control over banks as the regulation of financial services is a reserved matter, but we have to deal with the impact of what happens in the sector. The current proposals have far-reaching implications not only for the communities that are directly affected but for the Scottish economy as a whole.
I urge customers of Clydesdale Bank and the Scottish Executive, working with the UK Government, to make it clear that the proposals are counterproductive and that they will severely damage the bank's reputation. Together, we must persuade National Australia Bank to rethink its ill-begotten strategy.
I, too, congratulate the member who secured the debate.
I have to say that Clydesdale Bank has always given me prior warning of branch closures in my constituency—I appreciate that. To date, the branches that have been closed have been part-time branches that were serviced from larger branches in nearby towns and were pretty moribund. In such cases, staff travelled to the branch, opened the doors, sat for the requisite number of hours, locked up and went away without having seen a customer. It is difficult to challenge the closure of a branch in those circumstances.
As Murdo Fraser said, the provision of electronic and telephone banking has changed the viability of branch networks. There is a real issue about e-exclusion. So much information is provided on the net—organisations say, "See our website"—that people who do not have access to the internet are increasingly excluded from services.
The main point that I want to make this evening is in praise of Clydesdale Bank, which is the only one of the main banks that has set up a relationship with the Post Office. That means that, where branches have closed, banking services are available through the post office. Given the fragile state of the post office network, anything that supports and sustains it is to be welcomed, so there is a silver lining to the cloud. Banking services are important, particularly for small businesses that need to deal in cash.
I remind Nora Radcliffe of a point that I made during my speech. It is important to recognise that there is no perpetuity attached to the proposal. Even if the Post Office were not going through a closure programme, the contract that is in place is not a programme in perpetuity. At some point in the future, the Post Office might decide that it does not want to handle deposits and withdrawals.
That is a fair point, but in the fast-moving world of business nowadays nothing is for ever. At least Clydesdale Bank has set up the relationship with the Post Office. Other banks have not been prepared to do that. That is to its credit and I would like to nurture and support that relationship. We can regret bank closures, but we must consider commercial reality and the impact of electronic banking on networks. If we cannot save the bank branch network, we should transfer that business to the post office network and save it. That is the route that we should follow.
The banking and financial services industry has come under greater parliamentary scrutiny, especially over the past three or four years. In particular, the Treasury Committee, which is led by my colleague John McFall, has produced a series of excellent reports highlighting issues such as consumer credit and ATM charges. As a result of recent boundary changes, I now share John with my colleague Jackie Baillie.
The present situation gives me a sense of déjà vu. Some 10 years ago, a number of the banks—Lloyds TSB, Barclays and others—went down the route of closing branches. When they reviewed that strategy, I wonder whether they felt that it had made sense financially. There is no doubt that they lost customers and did not benefit from a pure cost-cutting approach. I urge the Clydesdale Bank to consider whether a combination of better involvement with the communities that they serve at the moment and a properly business-focused strategy might not be a better approach than a lemming-like jump off the cliff, which is the option that the banks have tended to favour in the past.
There is an issue about customer service. Every bank and financial institution must look to its customers; if it alienates customers, it will lose them because people have alternatives. Branch closures can have a cathartic effect on customers—banks are likely to lose customers who feel that they are not getting a service. In the context of business planning, a strategy that simply goes down the route of closures can be wrong-headed.
I do not come to the debate as a member whose constituency stands to lose branches under the current proposals; I have an even more critical perspective because the information technology centre and the call centre that serve the Clydesdale Bank are in my constituency. I have a keen interest in ensuring that the bank adopts a strategy that will succeed in delivering sound business growth. In that sense, I echo what Jim Mather said. It is important not just for me and the people who work in my constituency but for the people of Scotland that the Clydesdale Bank and the other financial institutions in Scotland get their strategies right.
From a parliamentary point of view, we have an interest in supporting that process. We should not be uncritical of what the banks do. We must engage with their arguments and with their people, as the Amicus members who are involved are doing. I echo the points that Paul Martin made. We are talking not about a simple business decision but about a social decision, a financial inclusion decision and a decision about what kind of Scotland we want.
I am grateful that the minister who will respond to the debate is the minister who provided a framework through which rural post offices were able to survive. I hope that his decision, which lasts until 2008, will be renewed beyond that date. There is an onus on us as parliamentarians to work together to find out how the Clydesdale Bank, its employees and its business can benefit and improve. I am in favour of a consensus approach and I am sure that Paul Martin and his Amicus colleagues would be in favour of such an approach.
I thank Paul Martin for securing the debate and I apologise for the fact that I will have to leave before it ends. I welcome the chance to discuss the issue in the Parliament, because this is not the first wave of local bank closures. Bank closure has been a feature of Scottish life for several years now.
Murdo Fraser made a point about poor little rural branches that have only 100 transactions a day. My heart bleeds for them. The financial services sector in Scotland has changed dramatically in the past 10 to 15 years and that change has been for the worse for those who work in the sector. Deregulation, new technology and globalisation are the main features. We are discussing the proposal to close 60 branches of the Clydesdale Bank, but we need to consider the bigger picture. The international trend is for bank mergers—Abbey National, the Clydesdale Bank and the Yorkshire Bank have been taken over and Halifax and the Bank of Scotland have merged, as have the Royal Bank of Scotland and NatWest—and that will continue. Every time a merger takes place in the global markets, there is a huge wave of job losses and cuts in local branches.
We acknowledge the fact that a phone transaction costs a tenth of a transaction in a branch. Big business is motivated only by profit and the bottom line. Any arguments about corporate social responsibility will be accepted only if they do not affect profits and the bottom line. The Department of Trade and Industry's guidelines for companies' CSR statements say that a company is supposed to recognise that
"its activities have a wider impact on the society in which it operates".
None of the banks that have closed branches has adhered to that, because the production of such statements is voluntary.
I do not know how other members feel about their postbags, but mine is full of spin and public relations; the Royal Bank of Scotland, the Clydesdale Bank and many others have attempted to spin me on closures. If we are serious about stopping another wave of branch closures after another banking merger or takeover, we need to treat banking as a public service and regulate it. We need to ensure that if somebody wants to apply for a banking licence and provide banking services in Scotland, there is a regulatory framework that lays down a mandatory minimum standard of service that they must provide. That is the only way that we will be able to make an impact.
My last point concerns taking jobs abroad—so-called outsourcing. The Parliament does not have the powers to regulate that—they are reserved—but it could be a springboard to and a big voice in a debate on it in Britain. The banking unions are trying to deal with the matter. Before it merged with Amicus, UNIFI produced a global charter, which was recognised in HSBC, to ensure minimum labour standards in other countries. The Scottish Parliament could do itself a favour by using the international platform that it has to back and assist the trade unions in their international campaigns. That would begin to tackle the problem.
I congratulate Paul Martin on securing the debate and I associate myself entirely with his remarks and the sentiments that are expressed in the motion.
I am sure that members will forgive me for being parochial in my comments, as one of the Clydesdale branches that are due for closure is in Alexandria in my constituency. Members might ask themselves why it is closing. Is it because it is a quiet branch, as Nora Radcliffe suggested, and nobody ever goes in? Assumptions are made that that must be so—even Jim Mather assumed that—but members would be entirely wrong in thinking that, because it is a busy branch. Many people use the branch; the footfall—to use the jargon—is high. I know that because I have seen it and because Amicus representatives whom I met today confirmed it for me.
My understanding is that the National Australia Bank is closing the Alexandria branch because its customers are not considered to be high-value customers—although I would be delighted if the bank wanted to contradict me at some point. Put simply, my constituents do not earn enough. The National Australia Bank wants to serve better-off customers, because higher-income earners with more money represent less risk. Loyalty does not matter in all of this. What is the arbitrary income level at which the bank will cut people off? I am told that it is £18,000. Perhaps I am wrong and it is higher than that—I would love to know. The scandal is that many of the bank's own staff at its branches do not earn that much.
It is not a question of the bank failing in its corporate social responsibility—which I believe it has. It is a much more fundamental matter. I think that the bank is in danger of failing its customers and forgetting about the people who have sustained it over the years, both as customers and as staff. No cognisance has been taken of the economic and social impact of the bank's decision. No acknowledgement has been made of the fact that it will probably have a disproportionate impact on vulnerable people and on older people in particular.
Paul Martin is right about this. I have not seen any consultation on the matter and I have not seen anybody talking to representatives of the local community in Alexandria. The unfortunate message that we must take from the Clydesdale Bank closures is that if someone does not earn £18,000 or more, the bank does not want their business. People are assured that they need not worry, however, because they can have ATMs, internet banking and call centres. Frankly, I think that those are not acceptable replacements, as they are not easily accessed by vulnerable people.
Des McNulty mentioned our good colleague John McFall MP. As chair of the Treasury Committee at Westminster, he has exposed the problems of ATMs that charge people for accessing their own money. The Which? report that was prepared as evidence to that committee stated:
"free ATMs in lower value areas are highly at risk of conversion to charging status".
That means a double penalty. Bank branches will be taken away from customers, because they do not earn enough for the bank's liking. Then, they get to use an ATM, but the bank charges them for the privilege of getting their own money. Although I welcome the intention of working with post offices, I point out, as did Paul Martin, that it has not been that long since we were debating their closure here in the chamber.
The four major Scottish clearing banks have a positive history of working with the Executive to implement its financial inclusion strategy, which includes developing basic bank accounts and making financial products accessible to all. That strategy is truly welcome. The Clydesdale Bank's decision flies in the face of that good work. What matters to the National Australia Bank and the Clydesdale Bank? Is it financial inclusion or is it the size of their profit margins? I hope that they will reflect on those questions and on the signal that they wish to send to communities and, in light of that, reassess their programme of closures.
I join other members in congratulating Paul Martin on securing the debate. It is important to debate access to financial services, particularly in the context of the speech that we have just heard. This evening, we have touched not just on the Clydesdale Bank closures, but on the wider issues of financial inclusion and rural development and on wider economic and social policy.
Our sympathy and concern go to all those employees whose jobs might be threatened by the proposals, as well as to the customers—business or personal—who are uncertain of their future. For those Clydesdale Bank employees who are or might be affected by job losses, existing public sector support mechanisms are available through local partnership action for continuing employment teams—PACE teams—to help them back into employment. We will use those support mechanisms, together with whatever the bank produces, to support the individuals concerned.
Like Cathy Peattie, I note and welcome the fact that the Clydesdale Bank has been an important part of Scotland's history since 1838—more than 160 years. It is the only bank to be headquartered in Glasgow, and it is very much part of the financial fabric of Scotland. Even after the changes that we are discussing, it will remain a significant Scottish employer. I am pleased to say that Clydesdale has assured the Executive that it remains committed to Scotland. I say that—to Frances Curran and others—as someone who is at the wrong end of a decision by the bank to close a branch in my constituency.
The Executive wants Clydesdale and other financial services firms to become as much a part of Scotland's future as they were of its past. As Murdo Fraser and others said, no Government can realistically stand in the way of private firms moving ahead with technology and occasionally taking difficult decisions. We have two jobs. First, we want to ensure that the correct business environment exists to attract, retain and grow businesses. Secondly, we want to ensure that those who are adversely affected by decisions such as Clydesdale's find the employment opportunities that the correct business environment creates. I argue that that is precisely what the Executive is doing.
It is clear that there are strongly held views, some of which I share, that actions such as those that Clydesdale Bank proposes run counter to wider economic and social policy, particularly in relation to financial inclusion and regeneration strategies. Consequently, I listened with interest to the arguments about the last bank in town. In the interest of a balanced debate, I say that I understand that all four towns that were highlighted have post offices. As Des McNulty was correct to say, in a different context, I supported and argued for accessible banking facilities at post offices. Each of the towns also has an alternative bank branch within 5 miles.
Does the minister agree that, in its search for additional profit—that might be called basic greed—Clydesdale Bank has not invested in marketing the bank properly? It has saved money on that and now we face further closures. Twenty years ago it started to get rid of bank managers and now it is getting rid of branches to try to augment its profits. That is pathetic.
It is not my job to defend Clydesdale Bank in that context. However, it obviously operates in a competitive environment. The business decisions that it takes in that competitive marketplace will affect its trading position. I tend to the view, which others have expressed, that the bank may have difficulty in sustaining its trading position in localities that will be affected by decisions that it has taken, but that is a commercial matter for the bank.
Des McNulty and Jackie Baillie made an important point about the Westminster Treasury Committee's work. As ever, I argue for an evidence base for the debate. Much of the research that I have seen on the economic impact of bank branch closures was based on experiences of the 1980s and 1990s. As Nora Radcliffe and others said, those closures happened before advances in technology made internet and telephone banking as possible or—dare I say it—as popular as they are today.
One reason for closures seems to be that people already use those alternatives more and their local branches less. Given my experience of rural policy in my former post, I do not accept that rural towns and villages face the devastating impact that the motion suggests. Many initiatives and policies are in place to ameliorate the situation. However, I agree fully that we can and must ensure that businesses, communities and individuals who are in rural or urban areas and who are rich or poor—Jackie Baillie mentioned that important issue—have access to the financial services that they need.
I do not want the minister to perform the same evasion as Nicol Stephen did. Will the minister confirm that he will process the request that was made about a meeting with John Stewart, who is the National Australia Bank Group's chief executive?
I am not being evasive and I will address that question at the conclusion of my speech.
Scotland's financial services community must be strong and sustainable but, as part of the wider private sector, it must also make an equitable contribution to the regeneration of communities that are worst affected by the process of deindustrialisation. Those objectives are not mutually exclusive but mutually reinforcing. A sustainable financial services industry can indeed be formidable if it is built upon a strong domestic market; in turn, the domestic market can be strengthened by ensuring that it encompasses all parts of the community.
Financial exclusion can, in human terms, be a barrier to starting work or to setting up home and a cause of stress that can lead to poor health and relationship breakdown. We would, however, like banks and insurance firms to recognise the market opportunity that financial exclusion represents. Not all those who are financially excluded will always be poor or out of work. Those who are in that situation just now might be in a different position in one or two years' time. Such people represent a chance for Scotland's financial services firms to grow by entering new markets and providing new products. I believe that the financial institutions that recognise that fact will be those that will be ultimately successful.
We should not forget that Scotland has a strong financial services industry, which generates nearly 6 per cent of Scottish gross domestic product—some £5 billion. It also directly accounts for 108,000 jobs and remains one of the fastest-growing sectors of the Scottish economy. However, as the Scottish economy enters its 24th month of successive growth—I point that out to Jim Mather—I believe that, with that leading position, there comes a need for corporate social responsibility. I understand that the Clydesdale Bank operates in a very competitive environment and I would not take sides in that marketplace, but the sector as a whole should be expected to embrace the concept of social responsibility.
I acknowledge the worries of Clydesdale Bank's staff and business and personal customers and those of the communities that may be affected. I am conscious that we should do all that we can to assist those individuals and communities on which the bank's proposals have an adverse impact. In response to Paul Martin, I can confirm that I am willing to write to the bank as he suggested to ask that, subject to the bank's agreement, a meeting be convened at an early opportunity with John Stewart or the appropriate official at the bank's headquarters in Glasgow so that we can state directly the concerns that have been expressed by members from all sides of the chamber and discuss with the bank some of those concerns.
Meeting closed at 18:53.