Chamber and committees

Will the member take an intervention?

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My vote does not seem to have registered. I would have voted no.

I congratulate Craig Hoy on securing this important debate on bank closures.

Banks are more than just buildings; they are the focal point of our communities. The bank is where local businesses deposit their takings, where elderly residents manage their finances in person and where people can ask for advice or seek reassurance without resorting to an app or waiting in a frustrating telephone queue. In my region of Central Scotland, Bank of Scotland has announced the closure of branches in Bellshill, Larkhall and Grangemouth. I must declare an interest at this point, as I am a Bank of Scotland account holder and a customer of the Bellshill branch.

It is the perception of local people that banks are deciding on their behalf how customers should bank, and that is simply not acceptable. There are petitions under way across the region in an attempt to save those banks from closure in January 2026, and I urge residents in affected areas to look at those petitions and make their voices heard by signing them and opposing those closures.

Last Monday, I joined Councillor Richard Nelson, who organised a public meeting in the Larkhall area, to talk about how the community can work together to stop the closure. Banking hubs were mentioned, but it will come as no surprise to members in the chamber that, again, a banking hub for Larkhall has been refused.

I felt that the public meeting was very productive, and I note that the petition started by Councillor Nelson has already attracted more than 500 signatures. If Davy Russell would be so kind as to sign that petition and share it, we can work cross-party to stop the closure of the Bank of Scotland branch in Larkhall. The petition shows the level of interest from local people in stopping the expansion of bank deserts across Lanarkshire and other areas.

One petitioner who signed the petition has commented publicly that,

“As a pensioner with a husband who has dementia it’s difficult enough to deal with daily life without having to travel further afield to use a bank or lift money. I live in Stonehouse and have to travel to Larkhall to use a bank and now you are going to close it, I and my husband have banked with you for over 65 years and I hope you will reconsider and keep this branch open or better still give us a banking hub in Stonehouse”.

That petitioner is absolutely bang on the money with the points that she has raised.

Another interesting point that was raised during the public meeting was the semi-rurality of the area when it comes to residents in Lanarkshire trying to use public transport to reach the next nearest town where a bank has not been earmarked for closure. Only 32 per cent of households in Ashgill and Netherburn, and 45 per cent in central Larkhall, are within a 10-minute walk of high-frequency public transport, so closing the Larkhall branch will increase travel barriers for people. In my view, few or no impact assessments have been carried out on deprivation, digital exclusion or proximity to the nearest local branch.

Councillor Nelson has since written to Lloyds Banking Group asking for the decision to be reviewed. I back his calls and will continue to work with him and the local community to overturn the decision.

Turning briefly to the bank closure in Bellshill, I note that Lanarkshire Law Estate Agents, a firm of estate agents and solicitors, has picked up the mantle and started a petition, which, again, has attracted well over 500 signatures. I put on the record my thanks to the firm for the work that it is doing on behalf of the Bellshill community.

I want to close on this point: banking groups will lose custom if they continue to close branches in areas, as people have had enough of being forced to go digital by going cashless. That is why I back the calls today from my colleague, Craig Hoy, in seeking to raise the issue of bank closures and the need to investigate solutions to ensure that Scotland does not become a banking desert.

Given that ministers approved an impact assessment that included only two accommodation providers operating below the VAT threshold and therefore failed to reflect the reality that is faced by small businesses, which make up the backbone of Scotland’s accommodation sector, does the Deputy First Minister at the very least accept that the current issues around introducing a flat-rate visitor levy could have been avoided if ministers had done their jobs properly and provided a robust, representative BRIA in the first place?

To ask the Scottish Government, regarding the potential impact on businesses and the economy, what steps it is taking to ensure that business and regulatory impact assessments properly reflect the real-world impact of new policies on small and medium-sized enterprises. (S6O-05059)

The cabinet secretary will be aware that I, alongside other colleagues in the Parliament, have campaigned to stop the downgrading of Wishaw general’s neonatal department. The Scottish Government might wish to use the term “centralisation”, but the removal of specialist services from a neonatal department is downgrading. That is not misinformation—it is a fact.

I have also campaigned to secure overnight accommodation for parents of babies in neonatal wards, as there are not enough beds at present. That is another area in which the Scottish Government has not acted quickly enough.

Will the cabinet secretary confirm that the new task force will—as Jackie Baillie called for it to do—undertake a review of the best start model, with a view to having five specialist neonatal units as opposed to three? Can he give an update on the number of beds that are available for parents who need to stay with their babies in neonatal departments across Scotland?

I hear the point that the cabinet secretary is making, but it is important to say that, if points of principle are not set out and the Government does not clearly set out its intentions—bearing in mind that it has taken nearly two decades for the Scottish Government to get to a point at which it is conducting another consultation on council tax—we could end up in a situation in which a consultation is had but members in the next session of Parliament do not agree and the conversation stops again. Does the cabinet secretary agree that there is a risk of that, given—

Thank you, convener, and good morning to our witnesses. I am very interested to hear the witnesses’ views on the ability of local authorities to increase council tax next year as they see fit. Certainly, in the 2025-26 budget for local government, we saw some stark increases; one example is Falkirk Council, which increased its council tax by 15.6 per cent. I am interested to hear views on council tax increases but also on the impact that such increases will have on hard-working taxpayers—both individuals and families. What could be the consequences of increasing council tax, and what impact could that have on individuals in the community?

I am sorry, but I had—

Finally, on statutory services, there is a growing concern that funding for areas that are not directly protected in one way or another will go back to statutory services in local authority areas. You have seen that. You have seen tensions between communities and local government councillors who are trying to balance the needs of their communities with the budgets that they have been given. You will of course be aware that roughly 80 to 85 per cent of funding is given to councils directly by the Scottish Government as opposed to being what they can generate from council tax increases. Are you concerned about that? Do you understand that it could generate an increase in complaints to councils in future years if local government is not given a fair funding settlement?