 Felly, mae'r next item of business today is a member's business debate on motion number 10936 in the name of Neil Findlay on RBS Takes Communities for Granted. Mr Findlay 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. Mr Findlay, if you are ready, seven minutes please. Thanks very much, Presiding Officer. The Royal Bank of Scotland is a bank that we, the taxpayer, own and control with a 81 per cent stake, a bank that we had to bail out to the tune of an eye-watering £37 billion. A bank, of course, where Sir Fred, or I don't think he's Sir Fred anymore, but Fred Goodwin and his band of merry men, and it was largely men, almost brought a once great institution to its knees through reckless mismanagement. They were playing fast and loose with customers' money and taking that bank, a bank that previously had a global reputation taking it to the brink, a bank that caused panic amongst its loyal customers who feared their money would no longer be there, a bank that almost failed. I would have thought that, Presiding Officer, the senior management of that bank would now be doing all it could to win back the faith of its customers, all it could to apologise to the people who have loyally banked with it and all it could to show humility for what it did. But apparently not. This year we saw the true extent of RBS's closure programme. It was laid bare when it was revealed that it had earmarked 154 branches for closure this year, roughly a whole 5 per cent of its network. As of today, more than 100 local branches have already been closed. What we have seen not just in my area but across Scotland is branch after branch after branch being pulled. In April, 44 branches were earmarked for closure from Castle Town in the north near Thurso to Berwickshire in the south and branches in England and Wales too. Off the 44 branches, 14 branches were the last banking town leaving local people and local businesses with no banking facilities. This is significant because in 2010 RBS in their glossy customer charter gave a series of long-term commitments. Long-term commitment 9 pledged to stay open for business if we are the last bank in town. It proudly stated that we have identified over 100 last bank in town locations where we will continue to provide local banking facilities. On to boast, we have continued to provide banking facilities in 146 locations where we are the last bank in town. However, this year that commitment was ripped up and put into Fred's famous shredder. What a way to treat loyal customers, many of them and their families, customers for generation, businesses who have used RBS for decades. The last bank in town is not worth the paper it is written on and neither is their customer service charter. In West Lothian we see Fault House and Armadale branches closing. Fault House branch locked its doors for the final time on Tuesday. It is the last branch in town. The community of 5,000 people no longer has a bank. Armadale, a growing community of 10,000 people with 2,000 new houses being built, a school, a nursery, a new railway station, jobs and retail facilities now has no bank in town for people to use. Just over the border in North Lanarkshire, the village of Harthill no longer has a bank either. So much for their commitment, so much for that promise to keep the last bank in town open. Of course they say that it is okay, we will replace that provision, you can go online, you can use digital banking. For many people in these communities that is not an option and certainly for many older people that is not an option either. In some of the communities they say that it is okay, we will have a replacement service, there will be something else. Some there is a post office provision but for others it is twice a week, half hour mobile service. We have a better service than that from the local ice cream van. Over the summer, I along with my UK parliamentary colleagues Graham Morris and Michael Connerty met with senior officials of RBS. We put forward the social and economic case for keeping these branches open. We pointed out the needs of the community of business deeds but all that we got was an attempt to hide behind statistics of falling customer visits. They conceded that the fall in customer numbers at these branches that they were closing was below the average fall elsewhere and yet some of the other branches were being kept open. They would not tell us what their strategy was, what their plan was to roll out the closures but they said they would be continuing with it. Also when I asked had they consulted customers would they come to a public meeting and speak to people, speak to the community, their answer was no. Instead all they did was send a letter out advising customers the bank would be closing in a few months time. No talking to people, no addressing local concerns, just a dear customer letter saying that it would close. I am afraid that we are now in a situation with RBS where it is Long Nidry no more, Cumnock no more, Lockwinnock no more, Hart Hill no more, Armadale no more, Falthouse no more and many other communities up and down the country no more. That is not the way that large companies who have received eye-watering levels of public money should be treating the people whose taxis bailed them out. RBS appears to have failed a single lesson from the banking crisis. John Mason, to be followed by Hugh Henry's speeches of four minutes or thereby please. Thank you to Neil Findlay for bringing this debate. I do realise that his motion primarily focuses on West Lothian and North Lanarkshire, but he has mentioned a wider spread as well. It is a very similar scenario to the one that we had in Shettleston in June 2013 and before that it was bridged and also in my constituency in March 2013. We are now in the position where, in my constituency, which is, I suppose, the same size as other peoples as far as people are concerned, we only have one Royal Bank branch for the whole constituency. The Shettleston branch was relatively small but it was a very busy branch. I used it on several occasions myself and almost invariably had to stand in a queue before being served. RBS argued, as Mr Findlay mentioned, that more people are now banking online and fewer people are using the physical branches. I accept that that is a trend that is actually happening. However, most people still need an actual branch to go into from time to time. That is especially the case where folk are less comfortable using the internet, banking by phone and other methods. That in turn tends to be in the poorer areas. I have to say that I actually think that Neil Findlay's wording is somewhat generous to RBS when he says that he uses the phrase, apparent arbitrary nature of the closures. I do not actually think that they are arbitrary. I think that they are targeted to where the people have less money. It might be argued that RBS is a business and must follow the profit. However, I have a few problems with that. First of all, businesses are allowed to have a conscience. Corporate social responsibility is now seen as a very positive attribute for companies and it makes them more sustainable in the long term. Secondly, as again Mr Findlay has mentioned, Royal Bank is owned by the public and owes its very continued existence to the generosity of the public. Some of my poorer constituents, and I suspect that that is true for Mr Findlay's as well, have gone through considerably hard times in recent years because of the stupidity of decisions made by RBS and other banks. Thirdly, they have continued to pay excessively high salaries and bonuses, so they seem to be able to cut some costs and not cut others. Fourthly, again as the motion says, there has been no engagement or consultation with local communities and this was exactly our experience in Glasgow as well. The first public statement that we got was not that they were thinking about closing the branch but that they had already decided. They agreed to meet myself and other elected members not to discuss the options but only to explain what they were about to do. I have to say that I was so annoyed both by the decision itself and the way it was carried out that for once we set aside party differences in the east end of Glasgow and had a joint Labour and SNP campaign headed up by Sandy Hills Community Council. However, I am afraid that even then the bank did not listen. Speaking personally, I have fed up with some of the larger banks for a number of reasons and have switched my bank main account to one of the smaller banks, which should probably remain nameless but which has its only Glasgow branch in my constituency. I would urge other members to think about this too. I am not arguing today that RBS should not make itself profitable. A loss making bank is not much good to any of us but I am arguing that banks need to look at the bigger picture. They are to a large extent a public service, albeit generally privately owned. Serving the public must come into their thinking somewhere and that should surely mean a little more listening and a little more consideration for our poorer citizens and communities be they in West Lothian, Glasgow or wherever. Ross McEwen, the RBS chief executive, told us, We need to remember and then never forget that the customer is why we are in business. We will try to tell that to the customers in Laquinner in the east end of Glasgow and Armadale Fault House and all the other communities which are seeing the withdrawal of their last bank in town. Neil Findlay indicated that worthless pledge which RBS made. Where was that pledge when Ross McEwen was saying that we should never forget that the customer is why we are in business? Laquinner is a mixed community. People think that it is an affluent community and there are many people who live in Laquinner who are relatively affluent but it also has many people living there who are elderly and who are on lower incomes. They rely on access to a bank and figures have been quoted about reduced numbers of customers and I will come to that. We have been told that there are now alternatives in place that more people are using online banking except that in Laquinner there is very poor internet access so that cannot always be relied upon. We are also told that the post office can provide an alternative service except that the post office is now being relocated into a spars store and that the services that are on offer will be extremely limited. Then what about the access to the nearest alternative, either RBS or any other branch? The nearest settlement would be Johnston over seven miles away and Laquinner has an extremely poor bus service so for those without a car it is difficult to get to an alternative. For those without access to the internet it is difficult to access a service and even for those with access to the internet it is still difficult at times to access a service. I would suspect that many of our constituents across Scotland would probably accept that there has to be some cut back in service if everyone was in it equally together, if there was a real problem and everyone was sharing the pain and the grief. That is not the case because for the pennies that have been saved by the closures of their branches we are seeing at the same time that in the past four years RBS has paid out bonuses of £3.4 billion. A bank owned by us, the taxpayer, can afford to pay £3.4 billion in bonuses but not use some of that to keep branches open in communities like Laquinner. That same chief executive, Ross McEwen, is in line for a £1 million a year in share allowance that sidestep the EU bonus cap and effectively doubles his salary. He also received shares of almost £1.5 million as part of a £3 million signing on deal when he was first hired from the Commonwealth Bank of Australia. We are not all in it together and therefore I do not think that it is right that my constituents or others should be asked to bear the burden so that a handful of people can continue to exploit the generosity of not just the customers but the generosity of the British taxpayer. So what we are seeing here, I think, is just cynicism and a continuation of the greed which brought the British banking system to its knees. We are not seeing a level playing field of people sharing out problems and sharing out responsibilities. They have not consulted as Neil Findlay has said. They have ignored their customers despite the promises and the commitments that Ross McEwen made. So what we are seeing here is a taxpayer's owned bank cynically treating its customers badly, carrying not one jot about the consequences. I would hope even at this later, our Presiding Officer, that RBS will think again. But if they choose not to do so, then the very least they can do to these communities is to look at what they are doing with the assets and see how some good can be put back in to those communities which they are damaging. Thank you. It's fair to say that any branch closure is a matter of regret, no matter where that is located in Scotland. There is an impact on customers, there is an impact on staff, and there is an impact in the community more widely. The smaller the community, the deeper that impact is likely to be. Any institution, whether it is a bank or any other organisation, has to think carefully about the consequences of any closure. If they decide to close an office, how can they ameliorate or reduce those consequences as much as possible? It should be an absolute last resort for a bank or other institution to close, particularly in a smaller community where indeed they may well be one of the last remaining institutions within that town or village. Some of the sentiment that has been expressed today, I can agree with, but other parts of it have been unfair towards a bank and other parts of it have also ignored the realities of what happens out there on the ground. John Mason, in his statement, said that he accepts that times are changing, technology is changing, but he wants branches to be kept open so that people have a place to go to. I wrote that down from time to time. It's not possible, I don't think, for institutions to keep every branch or office open so that people have a place to go to from time to time. While I don't want to see any closures in my own region or in any other region to be candid, we also have to listen to what is happening out there on the ground. There has been substantial change with how banks and indeed other businesses interact with their customers. I don't think that it's right to say that these organisations ignore their customers. They have to follow the trends of what their customers are doing. The statistics that I've been given, and they're from the bank, obviously I can't verify them myself. In one second, Mr Henry, I can't verify them myself, but if what the bank is saying is correct, they're saying that branch transactions since 2011 are down by 30 per cent and online transactions are up by 232 per cent. If those statistics are correct, then any business and institution surely has to then invest more of their resources into what the 232 per cent are doing and they're inevitably going to invest less in branches if the footfall is dramatically reduced. I said it, I'd give way to Mr Henry. Would Gavin Brown not agree that a very small part of those massive bonuses to which I referred would be enough to keep open the branches that are threatened with closure and would not be justified and would it not then enable to RBS keep their pledge to keep open the last branch in town? Presiding Officer, I haven't seen the inside of the bank's books. I don't know how much is saved from every individual closure. I don't know the internal workings of the bank. I suspect that Hugh Henry doesn't really do either, so I think that it's very difficult for an MSP to suggest that they know better than an organisation how to run that organisation. I think that I only have a minute left. If you want, it's up to you. As long as I'm given some additional time, I'd be happy to give way to Mr Finlay. Mr Brown was speaking about customers. This is a quote directly from the progress report on the customer charter. It said, Dear customer, last June we made a public commitment to becoming Britain's most helpful bank. As part of this, we launched a customer charter, a set of 14 promises based on what you, our customers, told us was important from that bank. To show we are taking this seriously, we promise to be transparent and share progress along the way. Here we are, our first official report. Then they go on to list all the successes in implementing the charter, big ticks against the last bank in town. What does Mr Brown say to that in relation to the way that they say they're listening to customers, then completely ignore everything that they've just said? Mr Brown, I do take extra time. Mr Finlay is perfectly entitled to express the view that they completely ignore customers, but I don't think that any organisation that wants to succeed can ignore customers. I don't accept that the bank entirely does ignore customers, and he's perfectly entitled to his view on that, but I just simply disagree with him on it. Let me, in my final minute, take issue with particularly the heading of the motion, where I think that Mr Finlay has just used a lazy soundbite to be candid, and I was aghast that John Mason described it as generous to say that RBS takes communities for granted. I don't think that's correct, certainly not from my own experience of speaking with the bank's employees and looking at the work that they do in communities. One of the largest employers in the country. On a personal level, seeing the work that they've done with the Princess Trust and with E-Spark, observing a money-sense tutorial going on in secondary schools where bank staff take time out to go and try to help pupils all across the country, the staff that make donations through their payroll and give up time to volunteer, and indeed the recent STV appeal. Anybody who had seen what was going on on the ground across Scotland, to say that they take communities for granted, I think would be unfair, and that's where I disagree with some parts of the motion. John Finland, after which will we have the closing speech from the minister? I speak in support of Neil Finlay's motion and having also tabled a motion regarding an RBS blank closure in my constituency. I will address the local circumstances but many of my concerns apply to the closures that we are seeing across Scotland. The Royal Bank of Scotland has earmarked over 5 per cent of its branch network, 154 branches for closure this year, while customers have been told that branches will close. There has been no formal announcement of the programme. Those closures include branches where the RBS is renegan on its promise to keep the last branch in town open. Will this be the last closure? Who knows? There has been no commitment made to the remaining 2,000 branches. With the recent announcement of a third success of quarter of profit, with a pre-tax profit of 4.2 billion forecasts for the year December 2014, understandably customers and staff are angered and incensed by closures and job losses against a backdrop of rising profits and share prices. The Royal Bank of Scotland is a 81 per cent public that owned and is not unreasonable to expect it to be controlled and operated in the public interest. But like others I am finding it extremely difficult to see how this is the case. When it is the public and the staff, not the other 19 per cent of investors who are disadvantaged by these closures. I know that the bank has a responsibility to be prudent with its finances after the Freddie Shed reign, but surely this needs to be tempered by corporate and social responsibility taken into account public and staff interests. The bottom line should not be solely about profit and share price and we would not expect that as ethical from any other company, much less should it be excusable when the company is public property having been rescued at public expense. I am sure that there are circumstances in which we will be prepared to wait a little longer to recover that public investment for the sake of other priorities such as financial inclusion. Now in my constituency the impending closure of the Clareland RBS branch means that constituents will have to travel further afield for banking provision and as alternatives in the area do not offer the same range of services closure will significantly add to costs and inconvenience to local people and businesses. I have been in touch with RBS and initially they gave a picture of a bank that had little custom. It then transpired that this was somewhat busier than was first painted. I have called for an extensive consultation and questioned the rationale and adequacy of the alternative facilities that will be available to the people of Clareland. RBS have now said that they will provide a once a week mobile banking service. That is a poor substitute and I believe that it also underlines the determination to press ahead with the closure. In these circumstances I have also sought to engage with them to look at what can be salvaged from the closure. I have asked about the bill being made available for community use perhaps hosting a credit union or another voluntary organisation. RBS have been willing to explore responsibility but insist that part of that discussion is to talk about their responsibility to the shareholders. The bank needs to understand and accept that the public are the majority shareholders and that they should get the priority and that, at the very least, the bank should help to rescue something for my constituents, constituents who, through their Government, rescued the Royal Bank. I thank Neil Findlay for raising the motion. It is an issue that we have debated on several occasions before. John Mason reminded us that he raised this matter with regard to the closure of branch in his constituency. He also alluded to the fact that he did so on a cross-party basis. I think that this debate this evening has seen across the benches of the parties that have been represented here in the debate making a number of very valid and salient points indeed. I think that I start off by confirming that the Scottish Government does share and understand the concerns that have been expressed today about branch closures in our local communities. That branches have and have always played a huge part in our communities throughout Scotland and we do rely on our banks to conduct our daily lives and our business and pay our bills. We are absolutely clear that customers must be at the heart of what banks do. The decision to close the branches will affect everybody in the local community as Mr Findlay outlined and as other members outlined in relation to closures in their areas. Mr Henry, Mr Pentland and Mr Mason gave specific examples and there are many others that I know exist because there are many closures of branches around the whole country. Of course, I want to say a bit about the staff. The staff employed at the branches are the branch of many people and certainly when I ran my business, the Victoria Road branch of Bank of Scotland were excellent. I can still remember Dorothy was one of the friendliest people that I ever encountered and cheered me up on many a day from the trevise of running a small business in Scotland. The staff have played an integral part and I want to pay tribute to them. I understand from the RBS that the redundancies resulting from this programme of closures have been on a voluntary basis and we recognise that. Obviously, the bigger picture is that the bank is one of the major businesses in Scotland employing 11,500 people, supporting 122,800 businesses with nearly 2 million personal customers. As a matter of balance, I think that it is reasonable to say that there are some positives that the bank contributes to, to the E-Spark programme for example, the micro finance fund, financial education in schools which they play a part, grants to charities, 47 charities and their staff donating nearly £1 million through payroll donations and raising a lot of money for the STV appeal which helped children. I think that we would all recognise that there are positive points but the focus of this debate is on branch closures and I wanted to make a few remarks on that particular topic. I think that if I can just make some progress because I'm just coming to really the meat of the topics but I thought it only fair to set the matter in context and I have done so. The decisions that have been taken, the RBS say, are not taken lightly or arbitrarily and where a decision is made to close a branch there is a three month period between announcing a closure and the closure itself. I was keen to understand whether this decision was of the nature of a consultation or engagement and my understanding that the decision is taken and the three month period is not really to decide whether or not that decision is overturned but rather to assist customers. I want to deal with the consequences of closure to allow an opportunity for customers of the bank to make other arrangements and to assist them there and then. I want in particular to state and I think that Mr Henry alluded to this, I think that it was Mr Henry in his speech about the period of consultation. I think that it's absolutely essential that every customer of the Royal Bank of Scotland and any other bank that indulges in it takes decisions to close branches and of course others do as well. The RBS are not alone. That is, as Mr Finlay rightly said, that the customers' interests must be placed at the heart of this and there is a time period that is required. I want to know from the Royal Bank of Scotland whether they are sure that all of their customers can make those arrangements within three months. I also would like to know and Mr Henry raised this as a suggestion and I'm going to pursue this with the Royal Bank as a result of his suggestion that in particular opportunities are given to explore the possibility of local credit unions being used as an alternative. I chair a credit union working group and I think that credit unions need more help from the British Bank Association and the Government in order to be able to continue to expand their operations throughout the country. We are doing so already. Not all do so but many are effectively operating as banks but they can't get access to a sort code so they can't offer proper banking facilities. That's a hidden and detailed point which I think is one that is important and is directly relevant to this debate because if the customers wish to make alternative arrangements then it should not just be with the Royal Bank but with others. I will most certainly pursue that with the Royal Bank. Most of the members recognise that action needs to be taken in order to deal with the financial damage that the banks sustained as a result of some monumental failures of decisions in relation to investments about which we all know and about which none of us can do anything whatsoever. They have to deal with the consequences with that and I think that all members have recognised that that does mean that difficult decisions have to be taken but I think that it is also correct to point out and Mr Finlay did say that of course it is the customers' interests that are paramount that increasingly customers are using other facilities, mobile apps. The Royal Bank have informed me that more than 2.1 million customers use the RBS mobile app per week with more than 50 per cent of customers actively using mobile phone and online banking but this is interesting that they expect that 4 million customers will be using that by the end of 2014. In other words this is a rapidly changing scenario. The uptake of online mobile facilities is massively increasing and at the same time the use of traditional bank branches is massively reducing. This is the reality and I think that most if not all members recognise that this means that as customer practice changes so inevitably difficult decisions will have to be made. With regard to the three particular branches I understand that the decline in transactions since 2011 have been 16, 22 and 25 per cent respectively at Armadale, Fault House and Hart Hill. One point was made that I'm going to pursue with the Royal Bank of Scotland. I think it was Mr Finlay that raised it suggesting that the percentage reduction in footfall was somewhat less than in other branches which hadn't suffered closure. I will specifically write to the Royal Bank after this debate to get an answer to Mr Finlay on that point. I think that points made by members in this chamber of that nature deserve to be answered by the Royal Bank. I'm not here as a critic or defender of the Royal Bank but I am here to answer questions and to ensure that this Parliament and elected representatives get responses. I'm happy to give way to Mr Pentland if I have him. Thank you minister. Would the minister agree with me and Mr Henry that if the asset is being considered for the community that he would insist the Royal Bank takes on board the public priority as opposed to that of the private priority? I am strongly of the view that the Royal Bank must consider the interests of its customers, the community and its staff in all of those matters. We take that very seriously. I think that the point is well made. I would also like to say and not shirk this point with regard to bankers' bonuses that I think in Scotland and the UK this is one of the topics which most irks the public. It's existed for several years now and I do not think the public feel there has been a satisfactory response. Quite what that response is of course is a legitimate matter of debate but my personal view is that as long as it remains apparently unresolved then the rehabilitation of the reputation of banks will be a difficult task. In conclusion, the Scottish Government engaged with the Royal Bank of Scotland. We have met Mr Swinney, the Deputy First Minister and other colleagues, obviously engaged in all sorts of matters with the Royal Bank. We have raised the issue of branch closures with them at these meetings over the piece. We welcome the alternative investment in mobile fan branches. We welcome some of the alternatives that the Royal Bank is coming up with. We welcome the increased use of post offices as an alternative location. We are pleased that the bank is engaging in consultation. I will raise points as I have undertaken to members following this debate on specific matters as to how those are raised. Presiding Officer, I am determined to continue to engage closely with all the main banks in Scotland as they seek to implement fundamental change to seek to restore customer trust and confidence. Many thanks. I now suspend this meeting of Parliament until 2.30.