 The next item of business today is a member's business debate on motion number 14183, in the name of John Finnie, on the postcode penalty. This debate will be concluded without any questions being put, and I would invite those members who wish to speak in the debate to please press the request to speak buttons now or as soon as possible. I would further invite those members of the Parliament, who are leaving, to do so quickly and quietly, and also including that invitation to leave quickly and quietly members of the public. I now call on John Finnie, seven minutes please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I also, too, would like to thank the members who have signed this motion and to congratulate Citizens Advice Scotland on a very fine report, the postcode penalty, The Distance Travelled, and the authors David Moyes and Kate Morrison. This is the latest in our long-running campaign, starting in 2010, involving Sky and the House, Citizens Advice Bureau, as it was, with a further report in 2012 from Sarah Beattie-Smith, who many of us will know. High delivery surcharges for consumers in remote and rural areas, the problem of that has not gone away. Businesses have been affected too. 15,000 businesses in remote and rural areas are at a competitive disadvantage because of this, and that on top of the geography connectivity and fuel disadvantages that already exist. The report outlines that these problems continue to impact on the Scottish and Highlands and Islands, and that near-term Highlands and Islands, it seems, can be extended as far south as Stonehaven, Perth and Helensborough. Wonderful locations, though they are, they are not the Gaelthach nor the Northern Isles, and there's clearly a lack of geography and perhaps something to do with post codes there. There are aspects better than three years ago, but of course it's starting from a very poor threshold and, as the report says, it's a problem that is getting more pronounced. Almost 50% of retailers surcharging in 2012, that's now down to 44%. Islands, as ever, disproportionately impacted, 62% of retailers surcharging, now down to 53%. First, a percentage is down, customers are paying more and, despite average delivery charges remaining static and falling in real terms, and Highlands and Islands customers pay roughly four times as much for delivery. Overall, it's slightly better, but disappointing. The report states something that we'd all know, and that is that the UK online shopping market is one of the most developed in the world, and it's responsible for 15% of retail sales. Why is that important? It's important because it's a market that gives the same level of choice of goods as centres of population to people living in remote and rural areas, and often they're excluded from a range of delivery options and face higher delivery charges to such an extent that that can make online shopping un-economical. Now, there's many challenges faced by rural living, and research referred to in the report indicates that rural households need to be 10% to 40% higher in order to, budgets need to be higher in order to achieve acceptable living standard, and legislative compliance is important, more so against this punitive background, over a third of the sites, internet sites, stating that the customers had less than their statutory notice to return items, and some retailers failed to update terms and conditions to include the consumer contracts regulations, so we do require robust enforcement as well. Members will perhaps be aware of the statement of principles of parcel delivery. It's a grand title, and it should have had a positive effect. It came into place in 2014. However, only four, a shocking four of the 449 businesses surveyed new of it, and that's simply not good enough. The challenge isn't simply for domestic customers. We want to encourage everyone to use their local businesses, and they too face delivery problems, with additional charges passed on. Citizens of I Scotland not only highlight problems very helpfully. They suggest some solutions, and in the limited time I have, I'll focus on some of those that hopefully the Minister is able to respond to. Firstly, they recommend that the Scottish Government gives consideration to extending road-equivalent tariff fair structure to cover vehicles over six metres in length in order to help to reduce the cost of delivery of goods to islands. I appreciate the complexity around that, but, as we heard from the report, I'm as cheap to buy a ferry ticket and drive as RAT is cheaper than using a carrier, and that's from a Western Isles business owner. There are opportunities here, and the opportunities are focused around the issue of the final mile consolidation, as it's referred to there. I'm very grateful to John Finnie for taking intervention. His reference to road-equivalent tariff, it won't surprise him that those of us who represent islands that aren't benefiting from the road-equivalent tariff would certainly argue very strongly for that extension, so that, precisely the point that he's making, it would benefit the smaller businesses in Orkney and in Shetland. Would he agree? Well, absolutely. As a similar representing the Orkney islands, yes, that's why I said I appreciate the complexity, and the complexity invariably does relate to the financial implications of it. However, I think that there's opportunities connected with the final mile consolidation, and we do know from the report and the research that islands are more willing to engage in delivery solutions, as we said. That could be collection from the local post office, and there's a potential knock-on effect for that about adding to sustainability and delivery to ferry the collection from the island ferry port services. Of course, we are in the unique position of having CalMac, and I hope that these are things that the minister can take on board. There are always going to be challenges, and the competitiveness of delivery costs and the speed of delivery will be part of that. The report also recommends that the Scottish Government considers how the public sector can work with industry to encourage final mile consolidation in order to reduce delivery costs for Scotland's rural communities. Again, it would be very helpful to hear some feedback on that. Logistical innovation is there, and there's an opportunity to benefit a range of people. In the short time that's left there, I'll comment on the Royal Mail and the universal service obligation and a suggestion there that there's options that could be used to enhance that, extending that and new products to be covered by universal service obligation. The quote again from the report that says, the growing importance of partial deliveries provides a reason to value and preserve the universal service, and that is because of the downtown, because of changes in the use of letters. There's a lot of good work being done by Citizens Advice Scotland, including UK-wide collaboration, and that's something that I would commend that the minister perhaps picks up. There are aspects here which are clearly reserved, but there's an opportunity for the minister to engage in that, and not least would be extending the definition to cover universal service obligation to cover more of the parcels market. I would very much appreciate if the minister could pick up the specific Scottish Government elements and confirm that he would be willing to work with the UK Government on the other matters. It's an excellent and it's a well-evidence report, and I think we all want to support the innovation that's outlined in it. There's an opportunity for retailers, there's an opportunity for customers, and if done right, there's an opportunity for the planet as well. Thank you very much. Tight for time today. I can find people to their four minutes, if I may. Please call on Mike Russell to be followed by Liam McArthur. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and I commend and congratulate John Finnie for achieving this debate. In 2015, when surcharges were applied, rural customers were paying roughly four times as much for delivery as their urban counterparts. Those surcharges have increased about 10 per cent in real terms since 2012, while at the same time, average delivery prices throughout the country have dropped by six per cent. Over 50 per cent of retailers surcharge island residents, 44 per cent surcharge island customers, 11 per cent of retailers refuse even to deliver to parts of Scottish islands. With online retail becoming increasingly ubiquitous and the decline in physical shopping, that's placing a huge burden on rural customers, a huge burden on my constituents in Argyll and Bute. The problems make living in Argyll and Bute more and more difficult. 96.5 per cent of the land in my constituency is remote rural, 17.5 per cent of people live on islands. The constituency is almost entirely affected by those unfair and high surcharges. Raw mail doesn't surcharge, and the universal service obligation is ever more vital. I remember when I lived in the western isles in the 1970s, the post still going the three and a half miles to Renegdale by foot twice a week. That history is an impressive one, and we need to carry that commitment forward and to carry the post forward in the way that helps people in rural areas. Surcharges are often based on erroneous information and subjective analysis. My constituent Christine Roth in Campbellton has told me that she suffers three times the standard delivery charges often because couriers say that she lives on an island. It's been a long time since Campbellton was on an island of its own, so we need to find ways to take this issue forward. The first is to revise and improve the universal service obligation to accommodate the increasing use of parcels. We need to increase the type of parcels covered and to broaden the scale of the raw mail commitment. I have to say that, Presiding Officer, with the current SNP presence in Westminster, those members will have a chance to deal with the reserved matter to favour the Highland constituents. The universal service obligation has been a key part of ensuring reasonable prices and delivery to the Highlands for generations. It now needs to be modernised to reflect the reality of life. The New Consumer Rights Act comes into force on 1 October. It is the perfect time to educate businesses and consumers and ensure compliance with the minimum standards for delivery services. Earlier in 2015, a quarter of businesses surveyed stated that they deduct delivery costs from returned items. That is not in compliance with the current consumer contract regulations or with the regulations that will come in on 1 October. Some small items carry a rural delivery surcharge of up to £50. If you add in a cost deduction for return, that means that some rural customers are stuck with items that are worth less than the carriage. Of course, we have to work with courier services and retailers to simplify delivery services. The last mile consolidation that John Finnie referred to is important. Courier services could drop small loads or packages at one place, and a single carrier finish the deliveries. Ferry delivery, co-ordinated, would be very positive. The minister has this week made a very useful and helpful intervention in supporting ferries more could be done to make sure that those ferries become an agent of delivery. More delivery to local shops and post offices by couriers. Yesterday, my office spoke with Chris Lam, the manager of the Jura community store. Bulk items and perishables are delivered not to Jura, but to a depo in Eila in order to pick those up. The community does so, and the community is helping itself. That could happen elsewhere. We must do our best to help our constituents. I have to go and help two of my young constituents who have just come to the Parliament, so I am unable to stay. I apologise to other members, but I am very grateful to John Finnie for getting this debate, and to the citizens advice bureau, for taking things forward. Thank you very much indeed, Deputy Presiding Officer. Can I start where Mike Russell finished and offer my own apologies to you and to the minister and all members for the fact that I will have to leave the debate before the end? I congratulate John Finnie on the motion and on securing the debate. I think that it allows us an opportunity to acknowledge the work done by CASS more generally, but bureaus across the country, I certainly know in my own Orkney constituency that the CAB is a vital local partner that helps me to serve my constituents better, and I would like to put that on record from the start. Also, I think that there is a wider campaigning role that CASS performs, and not least in this issue of unfair surcharges. I recall lodging a very similar motion to the one that John Finnie lodged to coincide with an earlier report on this issue. I think the information it provides is fascinating. It provides a detailed study based on widespread research. It paints a picture of the situation facing my constituents and those from across the Highlands and Islands about the impact on individuals, but also crucially on local businesses. I point to John Finnie. It made very well highlighting the surcharges and indeed those instances where people are failing to get their products at all. The reports also allow us, I think, to track the situation over time, and this latest report again makes for interesting reading. It would suggest that, since 2012, fewer online retailers surcharged, but those that do are actually charging more than they were three years ago. The hike in charge is around 16-17 per cent against a falling trend in the rest of the UK generally. There are fewer that are refusing to deliver at all, although that still does happen. That bears out my own experience. Very often, when approached by constituents, if you contact the companies, many are willing to look again at the practices, whether to reduce or remove the additional charges or, at the very least, offer clear advice to those who are purchasing online. However, as the Royal Mail confirmed in its briefing, parcels up to 30 kilograms are available through a universal service of first and second class posts to all our customers, no matter where they live. The option is there. It is not an option of which those online retailers who are surcharging are entirely ignorant. I was contacted recently by a constituent in Stronsie, unlike Campbelltown, an actual island. The constituent had ordered a product online. He was told there was a surcharge of £5.99 and an extra surcharge of £7.99 as he lived on an island. As he needed the parts desperately for his own work, he went ahead and ordered them. When they arrived, they arrived by Royal Mail in a posted paid envelope, making a mockery of the need for a surcharge at all. Deputy Presiding Officer, this demonstrates, I think, that more still needs to be done to address the postcode lottery. Despite the introduction of a code of practice by the previous coalition Government, and I think I note the concerns that John Finney raised in that regard, I'd certainly be interested to know whether the Minister feels there's more the Scottish Government can do in applying pressure itself. I thank Citizens Advice Scotland for their efforts in continuing to shine a light on those practices. I think that some of the progress that we've seen in this latest report can claim justifiably a fair degree of credit for it. I look forward to continuing to work with them and colleagues across this chamber to achieve further progress. I thank John Finney again on securing the debate, allowing the Parliament to lend its collective voice to calls for a fair deal for customers and businesses in Orkney and across the Highlands and Islands. Once again, I conclude by apologising for having to leave the debate early. Thank you. I now call on Dave Thompson to be followed by Lewis MacDonald up to four minutes, please. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I, too, would like to congratulate John Finney on securing this debate, a very important debate, especially in relation to my own constituency of Skylach Harbour in Badenoch. The motion that John Finney put down mentions trading standard services, and I spent most of my professional careers as a trading standards officer finishing with Highland Council a number of years ago as director of protective services. We looked at these issues quite a bit. One of the major problems, of course, was a lack of powers to actually do a lot about this. I would also, at this stage, declare an interest because I am still involved with the Charter Trading Standards Institute as a vice president of that institute in the UK. High surcharges are nothing new. The report clearly shows as well that it is not just high surcharges, of course, but it is late delivery or people being excluded altogether from supply of goods. This does not just apply, Presiding Officer, to consumers. It applies to businesses as well, and it can be particularly damaging for small businesses, both in relation to receiving goods that they need for their businesses, but also in getting their goods away out of the areas as well. Now, when I look back, I, too, as Mike Russell did, lived in the Western Isles. I lived there from 1973 to 1983, and there was not an awful lot of shopping choice in the Western Isles at that time, so the great lifesaver was the catalogue, and the company that seems to stick in my mind was JD Williams. It was a fantastic shopping experience. You did not get dragged round shops by your wife for hours on end and then back to the original one to buy an item. You just flicked through a catalogue. You did that in the comfort of your sitting room, and not only that, we didn't have much money in these days, and you could pay it up over 40 weeks or more. I remember at one point we needed a new bed. We bought our bed from the catalogue, and we paid it up. That bed was delivered to Storm away from somewhere down in England, the JD Williams main depot, free of charge. There was no additional cost. Anybody who ordered that bed anywhere in the UK got it delivered, so this thing appeared at our door just at the same cost. Yes, certainly. I like the sound of this JD Williams. Are they still trading? I thank the member for an intervention. I think that they were taken over a time ago, but the principles upon which they operated are principles that we should still be working on in terms of these companies, but unfortunately they aren't. If I could move on very quickly, Presiding Officer, the royal mail, I want to deal with that, but I want to touch on trading standards. There has been a real problem with trading standards departments in the recent years, insofar as their numbers have been decimated. There are a number of reports now from BIS that are reports being worked on by COSLA and the Scottish Government at this moment, and we need to strengthen the trading standards service if we are going to be able to tackle some of those issues. As far as the royal mail is concerned, and I will conclude on this point, Presiding Officer, we really need a public sector royal mail and we need to increase the maximum from 30 kilograms to 100 kilograms. That would deal at a stroke with delivery of goods right up to 100 kilograms, £220 to anywhere in the country. Any decent, sensible Government would do this. Unfortunately, our present UK Government is going in the opposite direction. Lewis MacDonald, to be followed by Christine Grahame. The postcode penalty, as he has said, affects people across the Highlands and Islands, but it also has impacts on consumers right across the north of Scotland. Indeed, the definitions of Highlands and Islands used by partial delivery companies not only include thousands of people who live and work in the rural and north-east people whom I represent, it also impacts on the Aberdeen travel-to-work area, so people who live in the north-east and who work and travel in and out of the city of Aberdeen every day can find themselves caught by those discriminatory charges. Aberdeen might have more direct connections by plane and train to London every day than many compatible cities and generate more GDP than any other city of its size any would in Britain, but to many of those companies it is clearly a far-flung outpost on the way to the Arctic Circle or perhaps just an opportunity to make more money from discriminatory charging. Indeed, their idea of delivery to Scotland's islands seems to come from watching too often the black and white version of Whiskie Galore and to be entirely uninformed by the existence of bridges or causeways or lifeline ferry services. The authors of this report call on the UK Government to use the new consumer rights act to educate business and customers about rights and obligation and to look at revising the universal service obligation. Those recommendations are welcome but they do not go far enough. We cannot rely on the present Conservative Government to be on the right side of this argument. Business Minister Nick Boles addressed the debate at Westminster the other day and rejected calls for legislation, offering instead a round-table event involving online retailers and Government ministers. It is hard to see how a cosy chat with ministers will make any difference to the world view of retailers or service providers who have not bothered to sort this problem out for themselves. What I think is required instead is to make the customer king. If retailers cannot be trusted to be honest and upfront about delivery costs or to explain clearly where surcharges apply, then give customers the right to know. A statutory right for customers ordering online to choose their delivery service provider would allow people in remote and rural areas to choose royal mail and therefore force royal mail's competitors to match their quality of service to customers rather than simply to undercut their costs to suppliers. Royal mail delivers parcels everywhere in the United Kingdom with no surcharge whatsoever. Despite the folly of privatisation, it continues to take pride in delivering its universal service obligation six days a week to every inhabited island and to every remote neighbourhood in the country. Other suppliers could be forced to do the same. That could mean either giving customers the right to choose or, alternatively, only permitting parcel delivery by providers who adopt the universal service obligation in full. If privatisation is bound to hit rural areas hardest, the prospect of the contracting out-of-life line ferry services to the Hebrides and Clyde islands will fill islanders with concern. Our view is that the Scottish Government should instead keep those services in public hands, not at the moment. I am sure that the minister will respond to that, but if it will not do that and the Tories will not intervene on parcel delivery surcharges, then the Scottish ministers should certainly use the powers that they have in the field. The road equivalent tariff, as John Finnie said, could be extended to cover larger vehicles, creating savings for retailers that could and should be passed to consumers and removing one poor excuse that the retailers have for their discriminatory behaviour. Warm words on this subject are not enough from anybody. The Government here and at Westminster needs to take this issue seriously and to accept that privatising efficient public services will never be in the public interest. Deputy Presiding Officer, I shall keep to the topic on debate. I commend John Finnie on securing the debate and recognise that the impact of delivery surcharges is undoubtedly greater in the highlands and islands, as we have seen by the representative speaking here. I also congratulate consumer Scotland, because it concerns advice Scotland, I beg your pardon, who now do consumer issues because there is substantial use, not just in general public, but to people and members like myself in this chamber. However, the issue of what is excessive delivery surcharges can also be a lie, believe it or not, in my border's constituency. I received an email from Valerie Bannerman, from Walkerburn, who placed an order with Abbey Couriers in England, and having been advised of the delivery surcharges at £65, was astonished to discover that she has been charged almost double that amount when the goods arrived. The price for England and Wales's standard rate is £80, for Scotland it is £150, and indeed it is even more if you are marked up to a remote area, all based on postcode. In fairness, the rates are on the website, but having been told the rates, she checked no further. That said, this means that if you are, say, one mile over the border in Berwick, it is £80, and the Berwick is one mile over the border, and half a mile over the border in Scotland on the A1, and there are cottages there, and it's a trunk road, the A1, it's £150, no ifs, no buts. In the email from the constituent, she was told that she'd been misinformed that £65 was the UK price. When she pointed out that Scotland is part of the UK, she was then told that £65 was for England and Wales only, this was she informed because crossing the border, mileage and fuel charges, and that she was fortunate that with 120 she was eventually charged with the trade price, and she should be paying the £150. There can be very much mileage in half a mile in very little fuel that does it that, so there are injustices way down on the border which you wouldn't expect. I took the matter up with the firm, they've not replied, I wrote to them in July so I'm going to name them in this chamber and I'm going to send them a copy of this report, maybe then they'll bother to reply and advice Scotland of this. Abbey couriers of Ledbury Hertfordshire, you're named and shamed because you've not taken the trouble over all those months to reply and to explain to me why, if you're only half a mile over the border, you're paying another £80. Notice they say in their website, we are big enough to provide a national service, and small enough to provide a personal caring service to every single customer, close quotes. Well, not if you're in Scotland when it's double the price. I will also touch on the Royal Mail. Privatised in 2013 sold off a bargain basement prices on the first day of trading in October 2013. The prices lept up by 38 per cent, rising to a peak of £615. Of course, many of the large investors immediately sold them off having made big bucks. £1 billion was lost to us, the original shareholders of the Royal Mail. There's a difficulty here because the guarantee of a universal service is only protected till 2021. If I'm around then God willing, let's just see if there's still a universal delivery service with the Royal Mail. All of that gives concern, not just because of my constituent Valerie Bannerman and others across the Scottish Borders, but again, as others have said, many people in rural areas rely on these deliveries to maintain their businesses and to send their products out, and they are being surcharged unfairly. I was listening to Dave Thompson and he actually sounded very posh when he talked about getting a catalogue. When I was growing up in Angus, it was known as the clubby book, and I think that that was possibly the word, but the catalogue certainly sounds amazing. I would also like to thank John Finnie for bringing this issue to the debating chamber. I would like to thank Citizens Advice Scotland for providing us with an update on the postcode penalty. As a former volunteer for Citizens Advice, I always highly value and respect the work that they do, not only on a wide range of issues, but on behalf of people all across Scotland. As John Finnie said, the UK online shopping market is one of the most developed in the whole world, with sales now contributing up to 15 per cent of total retail sales, and consumers benefiting by the same level of choice that is enjoyed closer to the population centres. I think that we should also look at some of the good news that is in the report. Of course, things could be better, but I think that this could be as a result of the on-going interest and awareness with Citizens Advice. Retailers now adding the surcharge compared to three years ago, the number has dropped. The proportion of retailers surcharging consumers to the islands, as John Finnie said, in the islands that have dropped by 11 per cent, in the islands 5 per cent. A step in the right direction is still more to do, and it is worth commending the Royal Mail. Here, I think that they deserve a mention, with parcels up to 30 kilograms delivered through the universal service of first and second class to all consumers, no matter where they live, and six days of the week. It is disappointing where the surcharge exists, but that has also risen. It is also good news that fewer retailers now refuse to deliver to remote areas compared to 2012, a fall of 7 per cent. However, there is no doubt, as others have said, of the additional costs not just to consumers but to doing business across Scotland. As John Finnie mentioned, the recommendations to the delivery operators were very constructive. I think that much more can be done by looking at a range of options including collection from the post office, local shop and other safe places. I hope that the ferry terminals could be used as a pickup point where appropriate, because that could potentially reduce the road miles and the cost significantly. I was concerned to read about how businesses cope with surcharges. 20 per cent of businesses state that they absorb remote delivery surcharges, and 3 per cent spread the surcharges across all customers. However, the worrying figure is that 24 per cent pass on the surcharge in full to customers, which is a massive increase in the cost of living and the cost of doing business in remote and rural areas. I thought that Mike Russell made a very good point. We are talking about delivery today, but it is not just the delivery. If you do not like what has been sent to you, the cost of returning it is absolutely prohibitive. I know that I have done it myself from Inverness, and the cost on the parcel from Amazon is £5, but that is the agreement with the post office. The cost for the consumer to send it back is about £40. That is worth illustrating. As Mike Russell said, people are often left with goods that they do not want. Finally, my recommendation is to name and shame those retailers with the highest surcharge. I am quite sure that the Stornoway Gazette, Shetland Times, Arcadian and Highland newspapers would not mind publishing the names of those with the highest surcharge and those who do not surcharge. I thank John Finnie once again. I would like to add my congratulations to John Finnie on securing this valuable debating time. The growing online market is of particular importance as we have heard to rural, remote rural and island communities. However, as we have also heard, rural and island consumers are often excluded from home delivery options or face high delivery surcharges that can make online shopping very expensive. It is not acceptable that many constituents are inhibited their online shopping options because they live in a particular area. In 2012, when the CES published a full report on the postcode penalty, it was found that 6,400 of my Cunningham North constituents were affected by discriminatory charging. Additional delivery charges are a major issue for 15,000 businesses in remote rural and island Scotland, and that obviously puts them at a competitive disadvantage. As we know, the additional delivery charges impact the highlands and islands, which include Arnan Cymru in my constituency more than other rural areas. When a surcharge is added, highland and island consumers pay approximately four times as much for delivery as mainland consumers. For example, one consumer purchased an item that cost £1.15. The total charge came to £51.14, meaning a delivery charge of £49.99 was imposed, an absurd amount to pay for an item worth 2.3% of the delivery charge. Surchargers for highland consumers have risen by a whopping 17.6% and 15.8% for island consumers since 2012. I know that the low profile of the statement of principles on parcel deliveries will come as a disappointment to the minister, who has already worked very hard in this area, as indeed has his colleague Fergus Ewing. There is a clear issue of communication here to redeem businesses and the Scottish Government, and although it is frustrating that the Scottish Parliament does not have more powers over mail delivery, as Dave Thompson has pointed out, more has to be done to raise awareness about the statement of principles on parcel deliveries. Delivery charges can be a major challenge, not just for consumers in rural and island areas, but for small businesses as well. John Finnie and Mike Russell have suggested a number of potential solutions, such as mail collections at ferry terminals, where online retailers can consider changes that would benefit their consumers. Businesses in rural areas have less choice when it comes to choosing a delivery operator and are more likely to rely on royal mail. Colleagues have been almost unanimous in talking about how royal mail does not surcharge the highlands and islands of Scotland as the only provider of the universal service obligation in the UK, with parcels up to 30 kilograms available through the obligation of first and second-class posts to all customers, no matter where they live, six days a week. It is unfortunate that more online retailers do not use royal mail. Moreover, for online shopping to be an enjoyable experience for the consumer, an intricate set of business relationships and economic structures must be maintained by the retailer, the delivery operator and often a separate supplier of goods. Some of the problems can develop in the ordering process. For example, when one orders online, the design of the retailer's website can be crucial for the customer's experience of home delivery. For example, some websites fail to mention early on in the process that delivery costs or promotions do not apply to them because of their postcode, meaning that consumers waste time and the retailer loses out on business. City's Advice Scotland recommends that the Scottish Government considers how the wider public sector can work with the industry to encourage final mail consolidation in order to reduce delivery costs for Scottish, rural and island consumers. To conclude, I thank again John Finnie for bringing this debate to the chamber and trust that the Scottish Government will continue to engage with the Westminster counterparts to ensure that improvements are made to assist the postal services in rural and island Scotland. I thank the minister, Derek Mackay, for the debate on behalf of the Government. I thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I congratulate also John Finnie on securing this debate. My colleague Fergus Ewing, Minister for Business, Energy and Tourism, has taken a close interest in this issue for many years. He is disappointed that he cannot be here. He, of course, would take the lead in this issue, but I have a clear interest as island minister on the transport issues. Indeed, over the summer, I visited a number of islands and heard a number of the challenges that they face for island living. That is one that our Scottish Government can take and actions that the UK Government can also take. I agree with quite a lot of what Lewis MacDonald said, but not everything, your unnecessary, ill-informed scaremongering around the ferry contract was most unhelpful and inaccurate. You reap as you sow, and I should not take an intervention, but I have such a kind character. Of course, I will take an intervention for Mr MacDonald. I am glad to have allowed the minister to rediscover his generous side, and I appreciate very much that he has taken my intervention. Will he recognise whatever his view of the process that he is about to undertake in relation to CalMac, that the point that I made is that people in the islands are very anxious about the prospect of a private company taking over a successful public service? That is an absolutely real point. It is not something that I have made up, it is something that people in the islands will have told them if he was listening. I have been listening very closely to what islanders have been saying around ferry services. Frankly, a lot of the anxiety is caused by the Labour Party perpetrating untruths about the current process. You also said that we should just simply keep it within the current framework. You know to do that would be in breach of European regulations. We would put the ferry services into some doubt as we would be in conflict of regulations on all sorts of challenges. We will comply with the law and get the best possible deal. I will now do the reassurance, but for all islanders that is that the Scottish Government, whatever the outcome of the procurement exercise for the CHIS contract, the timetables will be set by government, the vessels will continue to be owned by the public sector, and the fares will be set by the Scottish Government through the operator. However, there is one challenge for all potential operators in this. That is how they can look at the needs of island communities and consider how they would commit to some of the suggestions that have been made in this chamber this afternoon around how they could further use the infrastructure, the hubs, the transport connections to further support on the transport side. There is an opportunity here, but there is no risk to services as suggested by Lewis MacDonald. I was particularly interested in the legislative aspect of being able to choose the provider, i.e. royal mail. I think that that is a very helpful suggestion. No matter what we can do as a Scottish Government, I think no matter how much we do in terms of ferries or routes or timetables or hubs or anything else, if it was dealt with through legislation to ensure people's rights, I think that that would address a number of the other issues that would be somewhat more difficult to address through perceptions or other interventions. I commend Citizens Advice Scotland for drawing her attention to the issue for their work, their case studies and the evidence that they have produced. I can assure all members that that will inform a forward transport policy and island policy as well as the business agenda as well. On that theme, Fergus Ewing chaired the parcel delivery summits in 2012 and 2013, which led to the statement of principles, which I fully understand have not been totally adopted by many as we would like them to be again if that was placed on a statutory footing. It could only be done in Westminster, not here, but we would absolutely welcome progress on that. I saw the comment from Minister Nick Boles that he does not want to go to primary legislation or necessarily regulation, but that might be the best place to go. I also understand that he visited Collins City in his summer holidays as well. I was also in Collins City, not at the same time, but I know that he has heard from islanders on their specific needs. I raise that as an example, because one of the interventions that I have been able to make as transport minister is to now consult on improved timetables. Why does that help? Because it might allow a better turnaround for deliveries to and from the islands, making it easier for couriers and others to be able to get the products on and off the island, or the vehicles as well, because sometimes it is the vehicles being stuck on the island that is part of the issue. Everyone is aware of the—of course— I am grateful for the minister accepting an intervention. Of course, there are mechanisms short of putting more vehicles on the islands that might be more beneficial. When you have the competitive market, that might be challenging. The challenge from me to you is to do a facilitating role to look at all those options, please. Yes, I am happy to get Transport Scotland to look at the suggestions around transport hubs, collection hubs and all those points. That is a helpful suggestion. I will commit to my officials undertaking that work in partnership with other stakeholders and through community planning as well, focusing on a sense of place and what more transport can do to help with every aspect of island living as a point well made. I will commit to that and also to listening to the comments of the rural Parliament and the rural network as well, recognising, as other members have said, that it is not just an island issue but an island issue as well. There will also be further work. Yes, all mainland issues—Christine, including the borders—will work with Citizens Advice Scotland and Highlands and Islands Enterprise to look at a range of models that may be deployed and then replicated across the country. Specifically, on ferry services, there is a record amount of funding in ferry services, lifeline ferry services. In this financial year, over £145 million is committed to support those lifeline services. We have expanded road equivalent tariff. The completion for the Clyde and Hebrides network will be next month. In terms specifically around RET, there was evidence at the time when commercial benefits or commercial eligibility were there that that reduction was not passed on to the customer. That has to be assured before you could even consider going there. What we were able to do in 2012 was to allow commercial vehicles under six metres in length to qualify for RET. That means that the post vans or smaller courier vehicles get the RET discount, which is cheaper than the outstanding commercial fares. However, it is about affordability, ensuring that those intended to benefit actually benefit. That is why I am also looking at the current freight policy as well, which I will report on later this year. However, that is what the Scottish Government is doing. There is a range of transport actions. I would call again, as others have done, on UK Government to take action from the, as Lewis MacDonald called it, cosy chat with minister, but who knows maybe it will lead to further regulation and legislation, but the principle should apply so that we can have better universality of charges, not to discriminate against areas of preferality, rurality or island living. I call again on UK Government to act in that spirit. Many thanks. Many thanks to you all for taking part in this important debate.