Chamber and committees

Do you have concerns about those cuts, given the impact that they will have on your area of responsibility—islands, land reform, and the social and economic impact of fishing, farming and traditional industries? It all makes HIE less able to act and build upon those economic drivers.

Yes—that is something that has to be explored, because people need access to banking services, and they should not be left to flounder in the way that they currently are.

I know that the Financial Conduct Authority has been given greater powers to protect access to cash in the United Kingdom. I also understand that the Cabinet Secretary for Wellbeing Economy, Fair Work and Energy is to meet with the FCA to explore ways in which we could tackle the issue, and I hope that, in summing up, he will update us on what is possible in that regard.

I would also be interested if the minister, in summing up, would tell us what interaction he has had with the bank and whether it is looking to change its mind or have a change of heart on the issue, because it is so important. Withdrawal of the services is simply unacceptable. Rather than cutting them, the bank should be looking at ways of serving its customers better.

The Bank of Scotland plans to withdraw the mobile banks by May this year. I urge it and Lloyds Banking Group to think seriously about whether that is really the way to serve their customers. I urge them to cancel the closures and reinstate local banking in our communities.

The Bank of Scotland is ending mobile banking branches in 50 locations across Scotland, 13 of which are in the Highlands and Islands. Those mobile banks were a compromise when local branches were closed, and yet they, too, are closing.

In Caithness, there are only seven branches left of any bank at all. Since 2015, Caithness has seen a 72 per cent decline in branches. It is the same story elsewhere. In Moray, there has been a 66 per cent decline. In Ross, Skye and Lochaber, there has been a 65 per cent decline. In Inverness, Nairn and Badenoch and Strathspey, there has been a 50 per cent loss. Indeed, across the whole of Scotland, 60 per cent of branches have closed since 2015.

When branches were closing in rural areas, we warned that mobile banking vans were not an alternative, yet they were the compromise that was agreed at the time. Mobile banking branches are not great. They are in a village only for a short time, sometimes only for an hour at a time. That time is not always the right time for people who have to work, who have caring responsibilities or who are dependent on public transport. Who wants to queue for a mobile bank in the cold and wet, and in the winter? There is no disability access, and there is no privacy for anyone who is using those banks. It is no surprise, therefore, that they are used only by people who really cannot access banking facilities in any other way, and those people are now being abandoned by the banks.

Lairg is losing its Bank of Scotland mobile bank, and the nearest alternative branch is Golspie, which is 18 miles away—that is a 36-mile round trip. Lairg is often seen as a hub for the smaller communities surrounding it—places such as Kinlochbervie—and people from those communities will have even further to travel. In addition, if someone is trying to get to Golspie from Lairg by public transport, that is not easy; I believe that there are only three buses a day that run between the two places. That will be the case for many of the locations that are affected, and some will even have no public transport at all.

These are the banks that were bailed out during the banking crash by the people—the very people whom they are now abandoning—and yet they renege on their promises and pass the buck.

The banks say that there are alternatives. They suggest online banking, but in many remote and rural communities, there is no broadband, so people there cannot access online banking. Many people are uncomfortable with using online banking because they are not confident that the banks will deal with scams. Age UK estimates that 40 per cent of over-75s do not use the internet at all and so will not access internet banking. There are also people for whom doing things online is absolutely inaccessible. They include those who, for reasons to do with skills, disabilities and costs, cannot access online connectivity. The Digital Poverty Alliance, a group of charities that was formed to tackle digital exclusion, estimates that as many as 11 million people in the UK struggle with technology.

The banks also suggest using the post office, but access to the post office cannot be guaranteed. It is often very difficult to identify a business in a local community that will take on the post office role, and now, with the Horizon scandal, it will be even more difficult to identify people who would be willing to take on that role. It is poorly paid, and it is taken on only as a way of increasing footfall in an existing business.

The banks talk about LINK, PayPoint and cashback at local businesses. However, those very local businesses are dependent on the banks in order to have cash to be able to give cashback, and cash machines are even less likely to be available in those areas.

That has a huge impact on rural communities, and it makes doing business in rural areas more difficult. There is also a security risk—we hear that, as businesses become more cash based, they become a greater target for theft. There is anecdotal evidence that there are more break-ins in areas where banks have shut, as it means that people carry more cash because they cannot access money quickly.

We are all concerned about depopulation in rural areas. If these services are discontinued, it will make it harder to do business. That makes it harder for people to live in rural areas, which adds to depopulation.

Thank you, convener. I have a couple of quick finance-related questions. I will direct the first one to Paul Walton because he talked about funding for biodiversity and how it was often insufficient in the crofting and small farming areas, which could lead to abandonment.

The previous schemes tended to reward farms and the like that had the greatest number of features or habitats that could be restored or protected. That meant that smallholdings were left out. What can we do with the new scheme to ensure that that does not happen and that places that have the best practices are rewarded and encouraged to keep their features?

I will direct my second question, which is about private finance and investment, to Ailsa Raeburn, although I know that several people on the panel had something to say about that. What does private finance have to gain by investment in natural capital? The fear is, as was stated before, that it will cause greenwashing and inflation in land prices. Therefore, it looks as though land is being sold on to make profits for private financiers, for example. The other concern is that selling things on could tie the hands of land managers. We all know that things change very quickly and when we see different actions taking place, that could have a negative impact.

Where are the benefits for biodiversity and for the private financiers? What is there that will mean that they get involved in this kind of finance?

We have heard differing evidence from stakeholders about whether the code of practice and the definition of sustainable and regenerative agriculture should be written into the bill or should be guidance. If people are content for it to be guidance, is section 7 of the bill all right, or should it be tightened up to provide more scrutiny?

With regard to how the code of practice is devised, should the regulations be on the face of the bill or is the bill okay as it stands at the moment, with the regulations being brought to the Parliament by subordinate legislation? Should the regulations and the code of practice come in front of the Parliament?

I am sorry—I am not putting this very clearly. Should the mechanism for drawing up the code of practice be included in the bill, or is it okay to do that by regulation? Should the code of practice that is subsequently produced be subject to greater scrutiny by the Parliament? We do not yet know that, given that the regulations have yet to be devised.

I thank the committee clerks and all those who have been involved in the bill. This is a technical bill, but it will have real impacts on people’s lives. I hope that it will prevent situations such as what happened at McClure Solicitors. McClure went into administration two years ago, and the victims of McClure Solicitors action group held a meeting in the Parliament to raise awareness among MSPs of the serious issues that McClure clients face. Many of them have family protection trusts, wills, lasting powers of attorney and the like. An estimated 100,000 clients were affected, and the vast majority of those people are totally unaware of the issues that stem from McClure going into administration.

Clients who have trusts with McClure Solicitors as trustees often cannot sell assets because the solicitors are still on land registry records. That will result in some properties standing empty for two to five years, which will force families to maintain properties without being able to take action such as selling or renting them. Campaigners for the victims action group highlighted issues with accessing and understanding documents. Many of the clients are elderly, and often their children or close family are left trying to make sense of everything while they have responsibility for looking after elderly parents or—worse—while they are going through a period of grief.

Campaigners spoke of having to pay £750 in administration fees to get McClure’s trustees to sign off trusts at the same time as they received letters from solicitors trying to indemnify McClure and its associates from any future legal action. The campaigners’ experience highlights the human impact of what happens when trusts are not appropriately administered or managed.

Lessons must be learned and processes must be put in place to ensure that that does not happen again. I hope that the bill will do that, but those who have been impacted by McClure need help now. I ask the Scottish Government to look at the issue, because Police Scotland and the Law Society of Scotland will not get involved, and the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission will not get involved. Someone needs to set up an investigation to ensure that those who are affected are assisted properly and get the appropriate settlement to their concerns.

I absolutely agree with Bob Doris and I pay tribute to him for giving voice to the victims of McClure’s and inviting them to Parliament to speak to MSPs. I absolutely agree with his comment and I urge the Scottish Government to act to support those people.

The minister said that the bill will make things better for spouses and civil partners of those who die without a will. It was highlighted that work needed to be carried out on ensuring better protection for cohabitees—people who have not formalised their relationships. With societal changes, that is becoming more and more common. There are people who have been together for a long period, raised families and had grandchildren together but who do not have a will and are not protected in any way.

In that vein, I encourage the Government to ensure that people are aware that they should have wills and a power of attorney. Families need to know what to expect, and they need to be protected when somebody dies. That is not for someone at the end of life—the moment that someone has dependants or is in a relationship with someone who they wish to protect, they need to set those things in order so that their loved ones can better represent their wishes, should the worst happen.

I finish by paying tribute to the Scottish Law Commission. It does a power of valuable work in looking at the law and looking to update it. Much of its work goes unnoticed, and often it does not come before Parliament when it should. It is timely that the bill has come before us, but more of the SLC’s work needs to be looked at. As a Parliament, we need to look at how we deal with the SLC’s work to ensure that it gets the attention that it deserves and that our law remains up to date.

The announcement that one section will be dualled in the next four years is not going to pacify my constituents’ anger about the lack of progress. The Government knew that it was not going to meet its 2025 promise, yet it tried to hide that.

Will the cabinet secretary give details of the key differences between the design and build model and the mutual investment model and say where the risk for each lies? Given the Government’s deception in the past, will she tell my constituents how they can realistically gauge progress towards completion for themselves?