Chamber and committees

I intend to make just a short speech this evening on a particular closure in my region. However, I begin by thanking Clare Haughey for lodging the motion and securing the debate. I also want to thank all colleagues who are taking part in the debate, and who have expressed many similar issues and themes about the dearth of face-to-face banking services in their communities.

Similar to what happened in the areas that Christine Grahame and Clare Haughey represent, Barrhead’s last remaining Bank of Scotland branch closed earlier last year. That had a significant impact, given that it was the last remaining bank in a town of that size. It also caused significant concern, particularly for older people in the community who required face-to-face banking.

What happened then was similar to what we have heard from other colleagues: a community campaign was mounted to try to make the Bank of Scotland and Lloyds Banking Group consider their position and think again. Five thousand people signed the petition, and numerous entreaties were made by me, my council colleagues, the local independent councillor Danny Devlin and our member of Parliament, Blair McDougall. However, all of that fell on deaf ears as far as Lloyds Banking Group was concerned.

That just speaks to the wider approach that Lloyds, and other banks, are taking in devaluing face-to-face services and not having them present in communities. Christine Grahame made an interesting point about mobile services; there also seems to be a shying away—or a moving away—from such services, which I know have been beneficial in other parts of my region.

Lloyds chose not to respond or meet us. Colleagues will not be surprised to hear that, when I took the 5,000-signature petition to the Mound, the man on the door took it and it just disappeared into the system. The community was then faced with a stark choice about what it did. LINK, as we have heard from other colleagues, refused to bring a banking hub to the town, because, according to its criteria, the town was adequately served in terms of access by the post office and cash machines.

The community campaigners, the council, the MP and I then came together to think of other ways of getting some level of service into the community, and the credit union movement was very much at the forefront of those considerations. Barrhead—and, indeed, East Renfrewshire more generally—had been without a credit union for a number of years, since Pioneer Credit Union left the town, and we were able, in partnership with Pollok Credit Union, to bring a credit union presence to the main street for the first time in several years.

Of course, what a credit union does is allow people in a community to save, and it then pools those savings to guarantee loans and investments for its members.

I would be more than happy, in my last act of service to Christine Grahame, to ensure that those details are passed across to her, because she is completely right. What can also happen through a credit union is that people’s benefits, including social security and pensions, can be paid to them, in cash, on the day that they come in. That vital service is now being offered to those who require it.

Of course, there is more to be done to get other services back on to the main street, but I am glad that, out of a negative experience, the credit union movement can play a very strong role in the community of Barrhead and, I am sure, elsewhere around the country. I would be keen to hear what the minister has to say about that and about support for the credit union movement.

Before he makes what will be his final speech in the chamber, I pay tribute to Richard Lochhead for all the work that he has done over my five years in Parliament to help to move these issues forward. I am very grateful.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I would appreciate your advice on how a member can correct the record when they have made an omission. My colleague Sarah Boyack, in her very fine final speech in this chamber, omitted to say that, as minister, she was also responsible for the introduction of free bus passes for the over 60s—a policy that was brought in by the Labour-Liberal Democrat Executive at the time. I would be very sad if that were not put on record in the Official Report for the benefit of all members. [Applause.]

I intend to make just a short speech this evening on a particular closure in my region. However, I begin by thanking Clare Haughey for lodging the motion and securing the debate. I also want to thank all colleagues who are taking part in the debate, and who have expressed many similar issues and themes about the dearth of face-to-face banking services in their communities.

Similar to what happened in the areas that Christine Grahame and Clare Haughey represent, Barrhead’s last remaining Bank of Scotland branch closed earlier last year. That had a significant impact, given that it was the last remaining bank in a town of that size. It also caused significant concern, particularly for older people in the community who required face-to-face banking.

What happened then was similar to what we have heard from other colleagues: a community campaign was mounted to try to make the Bank of Scotland and Lloyds Banking Group consider their position and think again. Five thousand people signed the petition, and numerous entreaties were made by me, my council colleagues, the local independent councillor Danny Devlin and our member of Parliament, Blair McDougall. However, all of that fell on deaf ears as far as Lloyds Banking Group was concerned.

That just speaks to the wider approach that Lloyds, and other banks, are taking in devaluing face-to-face services and not having them present in communities. Christine Grahame made an interesting point about mobile services; there also seems to be a shying away—or a moving away—from such services, which I know have been beneficial in other parts of my region.

Lloyds chose not to respond or meet us. Colleagues will not be surprised to hear that, when I took the 5,000-signature petition to the Mound, the man on the door took it and it just disappeared into the system. The community was then faced with a stark choice about what it did. Link, as we have heard from other colleagues, refused to bring a banking hub to the town, because, according to its criteria, the town was adequately served in terms of access by the post office and cash machines.

The community campaigners, the council, the MP and I then came together to think of other ways of getting some level of service into the community, and the credit union movement was very much at the forefront of those considerations. Barrhead—and, indeed, East Renfrewshire more generally—had been without a credit union for a number of years, since Pioneer Credit Union left the town, and we were able, in partnership with Pollok Credit Union, to bring a credit union presence to the main street for the first time in several years.

Of course, what a credit union does is allow people in a community to save, and it then pools those savings to guarantee loans and investments for its members.

For probably the final time in this parliamentary session, I declare an interest in that my husband is a children and families social work manager and a registered social worker.

As I sum up on behalf of Scottish Labour, I put on record my thanks to everyone who has been involved in the bill process—in particular, my colleague Martin Whitfield, who was involved in something of a marathon last night as he sat on our front bench and pursued amendments, as did colleagues across the chamber, including the minister, with the support of the relevant officials.

During the passage of this bill, I have said many times that it is an opportunity as well as, at points, a risk, and I think that we are all reflecting on that this evening. As we have heard, it was this Government that brought together the care review and made the Promise. The Parliament agreed with the Promise and, together, we hold it. However, we must reflect that it is the Government of the day that has the power to set the direction and drive the change, and that will be true whoever forms the next Scottish Government when it comes to the progress that we make. As we have heard from several members this evening, the bill does not deliver the Promise and we still have much to do.

I want to recognise, as others have, what the bill does. I acknowledge the progress that, by passing this legislation, we will make in many areas—particularly advocacy, the right to return to care, UNCRC issues and kinship care—and I note the contributions that have been made by many colleagues in that regard. However, we should reflect on the reservations that have been outlined by the social work profession, COSLA and the Law Society of Scotland, and the reservations that have been raised throughout the process by care-experienced people and many others about what more we have to do in order to move forward and keep the Promise.

I join colleagues tonight in paying a warm tribute to Natalie Don-Innes. She inherited the Promise and the bill process as a minister, and I very much believe her when she speaks about how much the bill means to her. I saw that through the interactions that we had on the cross-party group on care leavers, when she was absolutely willing to sit there, front up and answer questions from those young people. Despite a very busy ministerial diary, crucially, she spent time with me on many an evening in this Parliament, engaging with care-experienced people. That speaks to the effort that she has put in.

I have been going round the doors in Bridge of Weir and Houston to solicit votes, and many folk have spoken to me about the respect that they have for the minister and the work that she has done locally. I am grateful that she is not standing as a candidate against me in the election, and I wish her all the very best for the future.

In reflecting on the conclusion of this parliamentary session and on the session to come, it is incumbent on us all, whether we return here or not, to reflect that the biggest danger in relation to the whole bill process and more widely is that a care-experienced person might feel that the Promise was made and people did what they could but then they moved on and the Promise remained undelivered. For too many people—this was at the heart of the care review—that has been the pattern and the story of their experience, and it is what they are seeking to fundamentally change. That should weigh on us all, whether or not we return to the Parliament in the next session.

We have much more to do. We will need more legislation and we will need more energy and dedication, but, like others have done tonight, I recommit myself and my party to the Promise and to ensuring that we drive forward its delivery.

18:33

For probably the final time in this parliamentary session, I declare an interest in that my husband is a children and families social work manager and a registered social worker.

As I sum up on behalf of Scottish Labour, I put on record my thanks to everyone who has been involved in the bill process—in particular, my colleague Martin Whitfield, who was involved in something of a marathon last night as he sat on our front bench and pursued amendments, as did colleagues across the chamber, including the minister, with the support of the relevant officials.

During the passage of this bill, I have said many times that it is an opportunity as well as, at points, a risk, and I think that we are all reflecting on that this evening. As we have heard, it was this Government that brought together the care review and made the Promise. The Parliament agreed with the Promise and, together, we hold it. However, we must reflect that it is the Government of the day that has the power to set the direction and drive the change, and that will be true whoever forms the next Scottish Government when it comes to the progress that we make. As we have heard from several members this evening, the bill does not deliver the Promise and we still have much to do.

I want to recognise, as others have, what the bill does. I acknowledge the progress that, by passing this legislation, we will make in many areas—particularly advocacy, the right to return to care, UNCRC issues and kinship care—and I note the contributions that have been made by many colleagues in that regard. However, we should reflect on the reservations that have been outlined by the social work profession, COSLA and the Law Society of Scotland, and the reservations that have been raised throughout the process by care-experienced people and many others about what more we have to do in order to move forward and keep the Promise.

I join colleagues tonight in paying a warm tribute to Natalie Don-Innes. She inherited the Promise and the bill process as a minister, and I very much believe her when she speaks about how much the bill means to her. I saw that through the interactions that we had on the cross-party group on care leavers, when she was absolutely willing to sit there, front up and answer questions from those young people. Despite a very busy ministerial diary, crucially, she spent time with me on many an evening in this Parliament, engaging with care-experienced people. That speaks to the effort that she has put in.

I have been going round the doors in Bridge of Weir and Houston to solicit votes, and many folk have spoken to me about the respect that they have for the minister and the work that she has done locally. I am grateful that she is not standing as a candidate against me in the election, and I wish her all the very best for the future.

In reflecting on the conclusion of this parliamentary session and on the session to come, it is incumbent on us all, whether we return here or not, to reflect that the biggest danger in relation to the whole bill process and more widely is that a care-experienced person might feel that the Promise was made and people did what they could but then they moved on and the Promise remained undelivered. For too many people—this was at the heart of the care review—that has been the pattern and the story of their experience, and it is what they are seeking to fundamentally change. That should weigh on us all, whether or not we return to the Parliament in the next session.

We have much more to do. We will need more legislation and we will need more energy and dedication, but, like others have done tonight, I recommit myself and my party to the Promise and to ensuring that we drive forward its delivery.

18:33

For probably the final time in this parliamentary session, I declare an interest in that my husband is a children and families social work manager and a registered social worker.

As I sum up on behalf of Scottish Labour, I put on record my thanks to everyone who has been involved in the bill process—in particular, my colleague Martin Whitfield, who was involved in something of a marathon last night as he sat on our front bench and pursued amendments, as did colleagues across the chamber, including the minister, with the support of the relevant officials.

During the passage of this bill, I have said many times that it is an opportunity as well as, at points, a risk, and I think that we are all reflecting on that this evening. As we have heard, it was this Government that brought together the care review and made the Promise. The Parliament agreed with the Promise and, together, we hold it. However, we must reflect that it is the Government of the day that has the power to set the direction and drive the change, and that will be true whoever forms the next Scottish Government when it comes to the progress that we make. As we have heard from several members this evening, the bill does not deliver the Promise and we still have much to do.

I want to recognise, as others have, what the bill does. I acknowledge the progress that, by passing this legislation, we will make in many areas—particularly advocacy, the right to return to care, UNCRC issues and kinship care—and I note the contributions that have been made by many colleagues in that regard. However, we should reflect on the reservations that have been outlined by the social work profession, COSLA and the Law Society of Scotland, and the reservations that have been raised throughout the process by care-experienced people and many others about what more we have to do in order to move forward and keep the Promise.

I join colleagues tonight in paying a warm tribute to Natalie Don-Innes. She inherited the Promise and the bill process as a minister, and I very much believe her when she speaks about how much the bill means to her. I saw that through the interactions that we had on the cross-party group on care leavers, when she was absolutely willing to sit there, front up and answer questions from those young people. Despite a very busy ministerial diary, crucially, she spent time with me on many an evening in this Parliament, engaging with care-experienced people. That speaks to the effort that she has put in.

I have been going round the doors in Bridge of Weir and Houston to solicit votes, and many folk have spoken to me about the respect that they have for the minister and the work that she has done locally. I am grateful that she is not standing as a candidate against me in the election, and I wish her all the very best for the future.

In reflecting on the conclusion of this parliamentary session and on the session to come, it is incumbent on us all, whether we return here or not, to reflect that the biggest danger in relation to the whole bill process and more widely is that a care-experienced person might feel that the Promise was made and people did what they could but then they moved on and the Promise remained undelivered. For too many people—this was at the heart of the care review—that has been the pattern and the story of their experience, and it is what they are seeking to fundamentally change. That should weigh on us all, whether or not we return to the Parliament in the next session.

We have much more to do. We will need more legislation and we will need more energy and dedication, but, like others have done tonight, I recommit myself and my party to the Promise and to ensuring that we drive forward its delivery.

18:33

For probably the final time in this parliamentary session, I declare an interest in that my husband is a children and families social work manager and a registered social worker.

As I sum up on behalf of Scottish Labour, I put on record my thanks to everyone who has been involved in the bill process—in particular, my colleague Martin Whitfield, who was involved in something of a marathon last night as he sat on our front bench and pursued amendments, as did colleagues across the chamber, including the minister, with the support of the relevant officials.

During the passage of this bill, I have said many times that it is an opportunity as well as, at points, a risk, and I think that we are all reflecting on that this evening. As we have heard, it was this Government that brought together the care review and made the Promise. The Parliament agreed with the Promise and, together, we hold it. However, we must reflect that it is the Government of the day that has the power to set the direction and drive the change, and that will be true whoever forms the next Scottish Government when it comes to the progress that we make. As we have heard from several members this evening, the bill does not deliver the Promise and we still have much to do.

I want to recognise, as others have, what the bill does. I acknowledge the progress that, by passing this legislation, we will make in many areas—particularly advocacy, the right to return to care, UNCRC issues and kinship care—and I note the contributions that have been made by many colleagues in that regard. However, we should reflect on the reservations that have been outlined by the social work profession, COSLA and the Law Society of Scotland, and the reservations that have been raised throughout the process by care-experienced people and many others about what more we have to do in order to move forward and keep the Promise.

I join colleagues tonight in paying a warm tribute to Natalie Don-Innes. She inherited the Promise and the bill process as a minister, and I very much believe her when she speaks about how much the bill means to her. I saw that through the interactions that we had on the cross-party group on care leavers, when she was absolutely willing to sit there, front up and answer questions from those young people. Despite a very busy ministerial diary, crucially, she spent time with me on many an evening in this Parliament, engaging with care-experienced people. That speaks to the effort that she has put in.

I have been going round the doors in Bridge of Weir and Houston to solicit votes, and many folk have spoken to me about the respect that they have for the minister and the work that she has done locally. I am grateful that she is not standing as a candidate against me in the election, and I wish her all the very best for the future.

In reflecting on the conclusion of this parliamentary session and on the session to come, it is incumbent on us all, whether we return here or not, to reflect that the biggest danger in relation to the whole bill process and more widely is that a care-experienced person might feel that the Promise was made and people did what they could but then they moved on and the Promise remained undelivered. For too many people—this was at the heart of the care review—that has been the pattern and the story of their experience, and it is what they are seeking to fundamentally change. That should weigh on us all, whether or not we return to the Parliament in the next session.

We have much more to do. We will need more legislation and we will need more energy and dedication, but, like others have done tonight, I recommit myself and my party to the Promise and to ensuring that we drive forward its delivery.

18:33

For probably the final time in this parliamentary session, I declare an interest in that my husband is a children and families social work manager and a registered social worker.

As I sum up on behalf of Scottish Labour, I put on record my thanks to everyone who has been involved in the bill process—in particular, my colleague Martin Whitfield, who was involved in something of a marathon last night as he sat on our front bench and pursued amendments, as did colleagues across the chamber, including the minister, with the support of the relevant officials.

During the passage of this bill, I have said many times that it is an opportunity as well as, at points, a risk, and I think that we are all reflecting on that this evening. As we have heard, it was this Government that brought together the care review and made the Promise. The Parliament agreed with the Promise and, together, we hold it. However, we must reflect that it is the Government of the day that has the power to set the direction and drive the change, and that will be true whoever forms the next Scottish Government when it comes to the progress that we make. As we have heard from several members this evening, the bill does not deliver the Promise and we still have much to do.

I want to recognise, as others have, what the bill does. I acknowledge the progress that, by passing this legislation, we will make in many areas—particularly advocacy, the right to return to care, UNCRC issues and kinship care—and I note the contributions that have been made by many colleagues in that regard. However, we should reflect on the reservations that have been outlined by the social work profession, COSLA and the Law Society of Scotland, and the reservations that have been raised throughout the process by care-experienced people and many others about what more we have to do in order to move forward and keep the Promise.

I join colleagues tonight in paying a warm tribute to Natalie Don-Innes. She inherited the Promise and the bill process as a minister, and I very much believe her when she speaks about how much the bill means to her. I saw that through the interactions that we had on the cross-party group on care leavers, when she was absolutely willing to sit there, front up and answer questions from those young people. Despite a very busy ministerial diary, crucially, she spent time with me on many an evening in this Parliament, engaging with care-experienced people. That speaks to the effort that she has put in.

I have been going round the doors in Bridge of Weir and Houston to solicit votes, and many folk have spoken to me about the respect that they have for the minister and the work that she has done locally. I am grateful that she is not standing as a candidate against me in the election, and I wish her all the very best for the future.

In reflecting on the conclusion of this parliamentary session and on the session to come, it is incumbent on us all, whether we return here or not, to reflect that the biggest danger in relation to the whole bill process and more widely is that a care-experienced person might feel that the Promise was made and people did what they could but then they moved on and the Promise remained undelivered. For too many people—this was at the heart of the care review—that has been the pattern and the story of their experience, and it is what they are seeking to fundamentally change. That should weigh on us all, whether or not we return to the Parliament in the next session.

We have much more to do. We will need more legislation and we will need more energy and dedication, but, like others have done tonight, I recommit myself and my party to the Promise and to ensuring that we drive forward its delivery.

18:33

To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to support high streets and town centres in the West Scotland region, in light of reported issues, including high vacancy rates. (S6O-05649)