 Rydw i'r next item of business, which is a debate on motion 13912, in the name of Gordon Lindhurst on bank closures impact on local businesses, consumers and the Scottish economy. I would encourage members who wish to speak in today's debate to press their request to speak buttons now. I call on Gordon Lindhurst to speak to remove the motion on behalf of the economy committee. Jesus cast the money changers out of the temple and from 1500, that is the year 1500 onwards in continental Europe, 5 per cent was generally considered to be the highest acceptable rate of interest. Everything above that was usury. At least that was until the lenders of Geneva threatened to leave along with their capital. When that happened, 6.6 per cent became permissible. Dante wrote the money lenders into his seventh circle of hell. You'd think by now that bankers might have reviewed their PR strategy. I'm afraid our inquiry found little to help to repair the reputation. The rate and scale of bank closures has impacted on people, businesses and economy. The number of banking premises in Scotland has fallen by a third since 2010. The big five between them have closed 479 branches, the Royal Bank of Scotland topping that table with 235 closures. UK figures show branches closing at a rate of 60 a month since 2015. Edinburgh is the worst-hit local authority area in the whole of the UK, having lost 50 branches. Mark Twain may or may not have said, a banker is a man who lends you an umbrella when the weather is fair and takes it away from you when it is raining. It seems that an awful lot of umbrellas are being taken away from us. Reuters analysis of official UK figures showed 90 per cent of the 600 closures in 2015-16, and I quote, where in areas where the median household income is below the British average of £27,600. In other words, predominantly in poorer areas. Scotland's townspartnership told the committee, and again I quote, whenever they decant, that quickly leaves a sense of decline and despair, a toxic legacy. You don't have to venture far to find an empty former bank building. Number 30 London Road, which is a three-minute walk from here, was a branch of Lloyd's TSB until 2011, since when its lane empty. Little more than a canvas for graffiti and stark visual reminder of a vanished bank. FSB Scotland told us that there are 258 more empty units now than two years ago, a blight on many of High Street. Our inquiry found no evidence of the banks proactively engaging with communities on what to do with those buildings. Could this be an opportunity to provide for local needs, to bring the generations together, to create co-working spaces, to cater for startups and social enterprises? We want the Scottish Government councils and the banks to work together to find solutions. However, it is not only bricks and mortar being abandoned, which estimated that there are 130 cash deserts in Scotland. Areas with no access to a bank or ATM for miles. There are communities feeling forgotten, left behind and written off. The Scottish Grocer's Federation criticised what it sees as London-centric decision making. Pete Kima said that I wonder sometimes whether the banks understand Scotland's landscape. Banks themselves told us that they do not co-ordinate their closures to ensure adequate provision in communities. Some of our witnesses promoted the idea of working together to provide a banking hub, others proposed alternative formats, more flexibility and diversification. A number of the banks seemed sympathetic to those suggestions. Currie Community Council encouraged the banks to show a bit of imagination and make branches more multipurpose. Creative solutions have occasionally been found elsewhere. Newcastle Building Society opened a branch in a library that we would otherwise have closed. Some witnesses argued that banks should be subsidised to keep unprofitable rural branches going. Another proposed the model of Germany's community banks, the Sparkasa as an option. There are many ideas, but the scale and speed of the closures demands emergencies. We therefore invite the Scottish Government to call a summit with the high street banks to consider all possible solutions, including shared banking hubs, and to report back to us with their outcomes. We accept that customer behaviour is changing. The committee recognises that. 71 per cent of the population now bank online. 22 million of us now use mobile banking apps. Seven out of 10 people see the bank as something to carry around in their pocket. According to UK Finance, debit card payments overtook cash for the first time in 2017. Is cash really still king? Compare London with rural Scotland—the difference is striking. In the former, that is London, cash makes up 55 per cent of retail sales. In the latter, that is rural Scotland, the figure edges 80 per cent. FSB Scotland contrasted claims of a soon-to-be cashless society with what their membership told them—namely, that cash was absolutely central to how they operate. Barry McCulloch said, and I quote, "...we honestly find it difficult to digest the bank's perspective." There are plenty of people in places still dependent on cash and do either can't or won't join the digital revolution. Citizens Advice Scotland estimated 20 per cent of consumers are not online. That is particularly the case in rural areas with poor broadband and mobile, and that is poor mobile coverage. Older customers, disabled people, the vulnerable and those living in our more deprived areas. A postmaster told us, waking up in the morning with a sense of purpose, something to do, a place to go, is really important for many elderly and lonely citizens. Age Scotland, Scottish rural action and Unite all made similar points. Disability equality Scotland were critical of mobile banking bands. In a survey of their members, 81 per cent felt that those banks on wheels were not a suitable alternative to the high street branch. It is crucial that those communities continue to have access to bank accounts and financial services, including cash. It was just on the issue of people being having access, when you mentioned post offices. Certainly in very many areas, the post offices are fortunate to become the local bank and socially vulnerable people. Will you include looking at post offices when you ask the Scottish Government to have an inquiry into that? It seems that the post offices, while they are providing the service, are not getting the same rumination as a bank would. Thank you for that intervention. The post offices and the issues that you raised were in fact looked at by the committee and covered in the inquiry report. That is an issue, and a live one, in terms of banking service provision once banks leave an area. Certainly that was covered. The committee believes that there must be universal banking provision where there is the need or desire. We recommend that the UK Government's newly established financial inclusion policy forum addresses those issues and that it considers how people can continue to access cash and other banking services in the wake of all the closures in Scotland. The impact of closures looks certain to be compounded by reduced access to free ATMs, somewhere between 300 and 700 could close in Scotland. FSB Scotland pointed us to research showing that a third of high street spend depends on the availability of an ATM. They are a lifeline to many communities. We recommend to the UK Government that ATM provision be given independent oversight. Adam Smith is meant to have said that all money is a matter of belief. The veracity of that quote is questionable unless you count a fridge magnet reliable. However, the banks have certainly tested our belief in how seriously they take customer views. They told us that it is our behaviour and demand driving branch closures. It is apparent, however, that the banks themselves are pushing the pace of change. We question how they can know what the customers want without consulting them. In our own survey, 90 per cent of business respondents said that closures have or will have an impact on productivity. Personal banking may be in decline, but the commercial side appears to be less so. The Scottish Grocers Federation said that banks have not done full analyses, which is where they have failed. The FSB Scotland reported low awareness and confidence in the access to banking standard. They called it a paper tiger. Citizens Advice Scotland said that it failed to find out about the effect on local people. Others called it a shamble, a charade and a tick box exercise. We found that the standard was failing to ensure the consideration of all relevant impacts on the local economy, that it reflected the interests of the banks, not customers and businesses. Banks should be required to consult with customers, businesses and the community before deciding to close a branch. The standard ought to be replaced by a statutory model, including a stipulation to consult. We invite the UK Government to consider those findings, bearing in mind that banking and financial services are reserved. Our inquiry took evidence from banks, businesses, community groups, equality bodies, unions, the post office, which and link. We organised focus groups with the good people of mint law, Dalmellington and Leven. We issued a call for views and a survey to which more than 700 individuals and businesses responded. We cannot claim to have formed a full picture of the overall impact of bank closures. A systematic study not only in Scotland but across the UK would be most timely. A response from the UK Treasury, along with letters from the Scottish Government, the banks and others arrived yesterday. The tone and tenor are not terribly surprising. There is a good deal of agreement with much of what we found but something of an absence to solid commitments. I leave my colleagues should they wish to pick up the details or other aspects of the report and the evidence that we considered as a committee. Bill Gates said, "...your most unhappy customers are your greatest source of learning." On that basis, Presiding Officer, the wisdom of the banks must be beyond doubt. I move the motion. I now call on Kate Forbes to open for the Government to be followed by Dean Lockhart. I thank Gordon Lindhurst for raising today's motion on behalf of the Economy, Jobs and Fair Work Committee. It is to the credit of the committee that this report can now be quoted alongside Mark Twain, Dante and Jesus. It has been an impressive piece of work to highlight the issue of bank branch closures and to provide a platform for consumers, businesses and communities to express their concerns and fears. The lengthy list of written evidence—those who gave written evidence and verbal evidence—demonstrates the strength, feeling and scale of feeling right across sectors in Scotland. Communities are now feeling the effects of the closures that were announced at the end of last year, leaving many areas with significantly reduced branch coverage. It provides another evidence base, along with reports done by Highlands and Islands Enterprise, to back up that anecdotal strength of feeling. The RBS closures that prompted the committee's interests were the latest in a series of closures. That is an issue that affects, of course, all banks. Therefore, as Gordon Lindhurst talked about, finding solutions to concrete, tangible actions to respond to that feeling must be the responsibility of all banks. It is not just about resolving the challenges that we currently face and that communities are facing across Scotland but, in light of additional announcements that have been made since December's announcement, albeit not in Scotland, it is likely that that continues to be a challenge that banks must resolve. The worst impact is, of course, felt by rural communities, small businesses and the most vulnerable in society. For many of whom, going into a branch remains the only feasible way to conduct their banking. The key message for me in all of this is that, while banking needs are changing and there are new ways to bank, customers still require choice. Those who do not want or cannot manage that digital options should not be left behind. Digital progress is a great opportunity to be more inclusive and yet, with some of those closures, digital progress has been seen as exclusive and that is not right. As the committee makes clear that the UK Government retains legislative and regulatory responsibility for banking, I have noted the calls by the committee to the UK Government to act and respond in different ways. The Scottish Government has said from the outset that it remains ready to work with UK ministers, banks and other stakeholders to support customers and communities in light of those closures. My predecessor, Paul Wheelhouse, raised the issue of closures with the economic secretary to the treasury within days of the announcement, pressing the case for access to essential banking services to meet maintained. We have publicly and clearly called on banks to consider the needs of Scotland's communities and especially the needs of the most vulnerable members of those communities, who still need choice. I appreciate that the banks must operate on a commercial basis and that they will take decisions on the provision of services to customers in that context. However, the banking system must meet the needs of all users. It cannot leave users behind. It has a duty of care to all users and while some will want and choose to use digital options, there are many who cannot and they cannot be left behind. The committee has asked the UK Government to consider whether an independent impact assessment, including the impact on local economies, should be carried out before a decision is made. That has often been an issue that has been raised with me, both as a constituency MSP and as a minister. Individuals who use banks do not feel like there was sufficient consultation or sufficient information or sufficient opportunity to shape the decisions that banks took. The committee has asked the UK Government to replace the access to banking standard with a statutory model. I and the Scottish Government agree with the committee's call for a review of the access to banking standard, because there needs to be a channel by which customers can shape and influence bank decisions on the local provision of services. John Mason I thank the minister very much for giving way. The banks have been arguing that they cannot do consultation before they close, which I struggled to understand. Before schools close or anything else, there is consultation. Is she convinced by the bank's argument that they could not do consultation? I think that there is definitely scope for banks to engage more in advance of a decision that is made rather than just informing those who use the bank after it has been made. The standard that has been referenced is incorrectly perceived by many to be a model of consultation with communities and bank branch closures, but it is just a set of guidelines at the moment on what information will be presented to customers in the event of a closure decision. There currently remains no channel by which customers can influence the bank's decisions. In my conversations with those who depend on face-to-face access, they are not demanding that there is no change or no progress. What they are saying is that their needs need to be recognised. I fundamentally believe that bank users' needs must be recognised. Those who want to use digital services are fine, but for the others, there needs to be a means by which they are not left behind. That has to happen before a decision is taken, not just being informed after a decision is taken. On the committee's point about a forum on banking, which is a very interesting suggestion, the committee asked the Scottish Government to call a summit. As I said at the beginning, because this is an issue that affects all banks, any solution must involve all banks, so they all need to be around the table. Earlier this year, the Scottish Government convened a round-table discussion between the main Scottish banks on the issue of branch closures and the provision of banking services. The commitment that I can make is to continue to engage with the banks on the issue and in a wider discussion on the role of banking and financial services in supporting Scotland's communities. There is a whole host of needs out there that need to be recognised. Moving on to rural communities, who are particularly affected by the recent closures, we have established a rural community liaison group made up of rural Parliament representatives, including Scottish rural action, SCVO, the consumer council, DTAS, HIE and rural academies. The group has discussed their shared concerns around banking services at a meeting in August, the month just passed and are considering solutions for rural communities. That brings me on to another point about community groups, who have an important role to play in identifying solutions and ensuring that the future provision of banking services meets the needs of consumers and businesses across Scotland. I will continue to engage with those groups to understand and address their concerns. In terms of town centres, branches often will know it ourselves from our own constituencies have a prominent place in high streets, and their presence is seen by many as a visible sign of the health of the local economy. We want our towns and town centres to be vibrant, creative, enterprising and accessible, so we need to promote and support the regeneration of Scotland's towns and town centres, including our small towns in rural areas. I want to specifically touch on digital before I close, because I am also the minister for the digital economy. Choice remains essential. I understand that customers choose to access banking services in different ways, but the problem here has been the speed of change and change that leaves people behind. There are exciting new ways to support businesses and retail customers with services. Just on Friday, I was talking to branch staff about ways that they can use to intervene on fraud and on scams, but not all customers are able to take advantage of those services. There is no point in pretending that everybody is digital. They are not. There remain circumstances in which many customers need or prefer to access face-to-face services. Advances in digital technology are changing the way that we do so many different things, but people cannot be left behind and the pace of change needs to reflect customers' needs. I have seen many local examples of branch staff supporting customers and using new devices and apps to access services. There is a duty to educate customers to ensure that no one is left behind before branches are closed. That is the key message here. It is not about standing in the way of change. It is about taking people with you, ensuring that there is choice and not leaving the most vulnerable to just pick up the pieces and figure out how they should catch up with everybody else. There has been talk in the report about alternative providers and post offices. I welcome the work that the banks are already doing with the post office to expand the services available to their customers. Particularly in rural areas, it is an opportunity for post offices to work with banks and to ensure that the post office remains open. Again, there needs to be adaptations and to ensure that there is opportunity for private conversations and that they need to be accessible. Those discussions need to happen again before the branches are closed. In summary, I think that this is a good report. I think that it is a fair contribution to the debate. It demonstrates the need of some customers for face-to-face, and there is an obligation on the banks to ensure that those customers are not left behind. Thank you very much minister, and I call on Dean Lockhart to open for the Conservative Party to be followed by Jackie Baillie. Dean Lockhart Thank you, Presiding Officer. First of all, let me thank colleagues from the committee for bringing forward this report for debate. I thank the convener for his opening remarks, as well as his number of different quotes, which helped to set out the context for the debate this afternoon. I also join others in thanking the clerks to the committee and Spice for all their hard work in preparing the report. Today's debate is timely. This week marks the 10th anniversary of the financial crisis, and the committee heard evidence that the structure of the banking sector, the regulatory regime and the relationship between banks and their customers have changed fundamentally following the crisis. In my contribution, I want to cover two main areas, the impact of bank branch closures on individuals and businesses across Scotland, and the related issue of the declining coverage of ATM networks. With respect to bank branch closures, the committee heard evidence that technology and changing customer habits are having an impact on how banks and their customers interact. Martin Kearsley of the Post Office explained that banks are currently undergoing what he described as a once-in-a-generation change. That is reflected in the way in which we all consume banking services in a different fashion these days. The speed of change is reflected in the growth of online banking, cashless transactions and the on-going revolution in FinTech. Cashless transactions now account for less than 50 per cent of all transactions, with the level of cash transactions in Scotland declining 11 per cent in the past year alone. As we have heard from other members, those trends have resulted in banks cutting back their branch networks in unprecedented numbers. To illustrate the scale of the branch closures recently, the Federation of Small Business has estimated that, in 2013, there were more than 1,100 bank branches in Scotland, but that figure will drop to between 700 or 750 by the end of this year. It is important that we acknowledge the changing nature of banking and the pressures that banks face, with interest rates lower for longer, increasing regulatory compliance and increasing costs of doing business. However, cost reduction exercises that result in the closure of hundreds of bank branches across Scotland cannot and should not be the answer to those pressures. The reality is that we are not yet a cashless society, and the scale and the speed of recent branch closures has had a negative impact on those most reliant on cash. That is what the committee heard from a range of different stakeholders about the impact of branch closures. Concern was expressed by many that closures are having an adverse impact on vulnerable and deprived communities. Age Scotland expressed concern that poor mobility and the lack of public transport will make it difficult for older people to access branches that are more distant. For small retailers, the closure of a local bank branch can have a damaging impact on their business. Small retailers are primarily cash businesses. According to the Scottish Grocer's Federation, 76 per cent of its members' business are cash-based. As a result, many small retailers rely on their local bank for their business needs, and many face insurance requirements to deposit cash at the end of every day of their business. Without having a local bank, those retailers often have to travel two to three hours to get to their nearest branch, which has an impact on their business, on their productivity and how they manage their business. The committee also heard evidence that branch closures have a disproportionate impact in rural areas, with people living in rural areas having to travel around 40 minutes on average to their bank, often having to use public transport, which itself is experiencing cutbacks. I am sure that members across Parliament will have heard those concerns raised in their constituencies and regions. In my own region of Mid Scotland of Fife, I have heard concerns from communities across Barnwick Burn, Cymru, Dunblane, Leven, Anstrother and Alloa, areas that have all experienced recent bank branch closures. I thank Dean Lockhart for taking the intervention. I also say that, in relation to Dunblane and Alloa, which is my constituency, which has no Clydesdale and no RBS branches left at all, the only constituency in Scotland. Would he join me in saying that the remedy here lies with the regulating authority, the UK Government, which also happens to be the biggest sharehold on RBS, and would he condemn the complete failure of the two local Tory MPs to make any impact in reversing some of those decisions? I thank Keith Brown for that intervention. With regard to the UK Government and its shareholding in RBS, RBS, as you know, is an independent listed company, so it is legally not possible for the Government under London Stock Exchange Listing rules to interfere with the independent board of RBS. The other evidence that we heard at the committee, while the evidence was largely negative of the impact of bank branch closures, some evidence highlighted that it only has a limited effect. Professor Griggs told the committee that, in his words, there is no long-term empirical evidence to show that there is an adverse effect on bank branch closures, but that has to be said, that was in the minority of the evidence that we received. Taking into account all the evidence presented, the committee reached the following conclusions. First, many people have indeed experienced negative impact from bank closures. There is no doubt that the rate and the scale of bank closures have adversely affected people and businesses in a number of different ways. However, the committee felt that it was not in a position to build a comprehensive picture of the overall impact across Scotland. From the evidence that we heard, it is clear that there is an urgent need for a systematic study of the impact of bank closures on people and business in Scotland and, indeed, across the UK. Such a study would map out the current provision of banking services and, more important, what future provision would look like, so that there is a universal banking provision in all areas of Scotland. Those are issues that involve policy areas that are both reserved and devolved. That is an area in which we call on the Scottish Government to work together with the UK Government to ensure that we have a better understanding of the current and future banking needs in Scotland. Let me move on to the ATM coverage, because customers are also having to deal with the threat of a declining ATM network in Scotland. The importance of local ATMs has only increased following the closure of bank branches, as ATMs are now often the only means for people across Scotland to access cash and banking services. Given the importance of ATMs, there was real concern earlier this year when the UK's largest cash point network linked announced plans to change the fee structure under which ATM operators are paid. Given those concerns, I led a member's debate in this chamber in May, and the economy committee here in Hollywood, along with the Scottish Affairs Committee Westminster, have heard evidence of the impact that those changing fee structures would have on ATM provision. It was therefore a positive development to hear that, in July, Link announced that the planned third cut to the interchange fee to £21.25 in January 2020 has been cancelled and the fourth reduction, taking the fees down to £20, is now on hold pending a review. I think that a good example of how here and in other places we can influence decision making with the regulator. It is clear that any assessment that we have called for for banking services have to look at the availability of bank branch networks and ATMs in the round, the go hand in hand. Reflecting this, the committee's conclusion with respect to ATM provision in the future was clear. The committee recommended that the ATM network should have independent oversight and that the provision of ATMs should be included in any revised statutory arrangements put in place following revision of the access to banking standard. Let me conclude by emphasising that the committee will continue to monitor developments in this area. Gordon Gecko, not Gordon Lindhurst, said that money never sleeps, and this is an issue that the committee will remain wide awake on. We look forward to receiving a positive response from all key stakeholders involved and both the Scottish Government and the UK Government with respect to the recommendations set out in the report. Thank you very much. I now call on Jackie Baillie to open for the leader party to be followed by Mike Rumbles. Jackie Baillie Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Let me start by declaring an interest. I bank with the Royal Bank of Scotland. I have done so for the past 40 years, and whilst my comments relate to other banks, I am going to talk about my bank in particular because I am disappointed. I am disappointed that, despite the wave upon wave of branch closures, the withdrawal of support from many of our businesses, the real anger at creating cash deserts in many of our communities, the Royal Bank carry on regardless. The Mosserroll Bank of Scotland is not alone. The hollowness of their claims of being the last bank in town leaves a sour taste in the mouth. The scale of the closures has been breathtaking. No wonder RBS was reticent about sharing the numbers with the committee. They started with 334 branches. They now have 99, a staggering 70 per cent reduction, the highest of all the banks. TSP had the fewest closures, with a reduction of 18 per cent. RBS has gone from the bank with the most branches to third place. The reason why RBS and other banks are content to carry on and not adjust their behaviour in response to our concerns is because, let's face it, of the stickiness of their customers. We their customers, we don't like change. We tend not to leave the bank, yet it's fair to say that not very many of us are particularly happy. No, I wonder if we started switching banks as we are encouraged to do with other utilities, whether that would make them sit up and listen. I wonder if there is a comparison site that we can use for different banking products. During the committee's inquiry, we were constantly told that the customers are changing, their needs are changing. We live in a digital age, people want online banking, we want speed, we want convenience and, apparently, we don't want to visit branches anymore. The committee heard that this was not the case for the majority of older or vulnerable people. I clearly must be old, because I like visiting my bank branch. I'm not alone as the queues will testify, nor am I the youngest person there. There are people of all ages in my local branch, and I'm joined in those queues by local businesses. I keep asking myself, if bank branches are so unpopular and so undated, why are there always queues when I happen to visit? Chymru of the Scottish Grocer's Federation told the committee that the needs of commercial banking appear to have been completely ignored. Bank branches have closed due to an apparent decline in personal banking, but that's not the case with commercial banking where demand has not reduced at all. However, it seems that their real need for cash is a secondary consideration. That's what businesses told us. Firstly, although debit cards have, for the first time, overtaken cash, cash remains the second most frequent form of payment. My colleague here, Colin, was telling me how he was caught in an embarrassing situation. I know that he's going to hate the fact that I'm going to repeat it, where he was treating people for a cup of tea, but there was no machine for his car. He needed cash. He had a whip round to pay for that. He tells me that he's going to treat them all in future, and I'm sure that they will hold him to that. In the retail sector, 76 per cent of businesses use cash. FSB Scotland reports that cash remains the most popular payment method for their members. That means that businesses need a facility to deposit cash and to get change. The consequence of branches closing has meant that businesses need to travel further to bank. It takes more time, and some even pay as much as £8,000 a year for a pick-up, a collection service, and with less frequent deposits, more money is retained by the store, the risk increases and so do the insurance premiums. I watched an advert last night from RBS. The strap line was one of the many ways that you can bank with RBS. I commend it to the chamber because what you would see is a mobile van, a cash machine outside a chippy, honest angus with his sheep—I'm not sure what he was supposed to symbolise—and dodgy Davie with a face recognition mobile app. What you didn't see and I watched it twice just to make sure was a branch. Not anywhere, clearly so passé, they are now wiped out of adverts completely. We were told about alternatives when we considered this at the committee. Post offices were suggested, but don't forget that there's been a programme of post office closures. There is also an upper limit on the value of individual transactions, which is not helpful to commercial customers. Then the mobile branch is undoubtedly useful in very rural and remote areas. Some customers have raised concerns about disability access. For many of them, their main concern is frequency. Instead of a branch that they could call into anytime, they get a van that stops for an hour once a fortnight. In my area, it took 18 months after closing the Alexandria branch for RBS to decide to provide us with a mobile van, for which I'm grateful. What about ATMs? That same Alexandria branch that closed had an ATM. It has a history of breaking down and being out of action. We are told that the trend with branch closures will soon be the trend with ATMs as banks and other providers remove free ATMs from our communities. Link is reducing the ATM charge, which might lead to a loss of machines. Link told us that it is committed to maintaining free ATMs in rural and deprived areas. That is a good thing. It also told us that it will maintain a free ATM in every community that currently has one by protecting the interchange rate for all existing free ATMs within one kilometre of another. That is quite far away, particularly in a rural area. That might mean that some do not have ATMs at all. Having illustrated the impact on personal customers, on commercial businesses and on our high streets, what can we do? I agree with the call for independent oversight of ATMs. We need to stop the withdrawal of them now before it becomes a trend in the way that bank branch closures have become. Of course, encouraging the development of financial institutions such as credit unions, expanding common bond areas and ensuring that an increased range of financial services are important. The Scottish Government can help by providing the infrastructure and development support so that we can grow that network. The committee, as you have already heard, recommended that the Scottish Government should conven a summit to look at the options to protect customers and protect our high streets. I hope that the minister responds positively to that. Let me turn to the access to banking code. It is set up as a voluntary code by the UK Government and industry. There are at least two major flaws with it. The first is that it applies to consultation after the bank has decided to close the branch, not before but after. There is little chance of meaningful community input. It is simply an exercise in telling you what the alternatives are. I do not think that it has made a material difference to the outcome of any proposed branch closure. The second problem with it is that it is voluntary. There is no requirement to do this, and for some it appears to be a tick box exercise. People tell me that we cannot interfere in the decisions of banks because they are private companies. I did not see anyone saying that when we were bailing out the banks with billions of pounds of taxpayer's money. Indeed, the last time I looked, the taxpayer still owns the majority shareholding in the Royal Bank of Scotland. It is interesting that, although they are happy to accept our interference and help from the taxpayer, they do not want to offer us anything in exchange. The consultation should be up front before a decision is made, and that is exactly what Scottish Labour and the UK Labour Party believe that the access to banking code should do. It should be given statutory underpinning. There should be mandatory consultations on bank branch closures before decisions are made. It is disappointing that the people who cause the crisis are not the ones who will suffer the consequences. Instead, what we have is ordinary people suffering the loss of bank branches on their high streets. I hope that the Scottish Government and UK Government act in the interests of our communities. Like Jackie Baillie, I was a customer of RBS, but unlike Jackie Baillie, I am no longer one of their customers. Perhaps I will explain why I am my contribution. First, I thank the Economy and Jobs and Fair Work Committee for producing their report, which we are debating. It is worth looking at the remit again to examine the impact of bank branch closures in Scotland on local businesses, consumers and the Scottish economy, and to explore what steps can be taken to address any issues identified by the committee. That is an important remit. Over the past few years, as we have heard, our banks have steadily withdrawn their presence from particularly rural Scotland. That has to have had a major impact on the ability of our small businesses and individual customers to conduct their financial affairs. The impact came home to me as a resident of rural Aberdeenshire, and rather than using the anecdotal evidence of any of my constituents because I would not want to name them, I will use my own experience as an example. Travelling from my home in Kildrummy, some seven miles from Afford, my nearest village with a bank, I used at the time the branch of the Royal Bank of Scotland to pay in our business takings. In September 2015, they closed the branch and advised me that I could easily use either their bankery branch, some 26 miles away, or their west hill branch, some 27 miles away from my home. I declined to do this, but I do know many people who moved their accounts. Can you imagine how those customers, the ones that moved their accounts, felt, well, in September last year, RBS closed its bankery branch and quickly followed again the next month by closing its west hill branch. Never mind, the nearest RBS branch was in Huntley, just 21 miles north of Afford. So what did RBS do just eight months later? Yes, you have guessed it, Presiding Officer. They closed down their Huntley branch too, so those people who had moved from all those branches over those three years, when RBS closed all four down. If anybody wanted to do face-to-face banking, they had to visit their travelling bank, and we have just heard about those. In my case, they took the 66-mile round trip to Aberdeen. I have to ask whether it would have been more sensible to have closed all those branches down at the same time. I know that they would not have liked it, but would it not have been more and more sensible rather than mess all those people about jumping from branch to branch over those three years? So anecdotally, the difficulties faced by small businesses and individuals were obvious. What we needed was evidence-based and an evidence-based investigation into those difficulties, and that is why I am pleased to see that the committee has taken up the challenge. I welcome their conclusions. They state, one, that the most vulnerable in our communities are most affected, two, that there are indeed difficulties being experienced by community groups and charities in particular, church groups in particular, in accessing banking services with their collections in cash. That cash is still essential for some businesses and that those closures have impacted on productivity, which will impact on Scotland's economy as a whole. We all know that regulation of our banks is a reserved matter for the UK Government and the UK Parliament, of course. It did not surprise me to see that many recommendations were produced in the committee's report. It is the main recommendation to ask the UK Government to urgently carry out a study on the impact of bank closures across the UK. It is welcome, but it does indicate to me something of a lost opportunity. I was not privy to the discussions surrounding the decisions by the committee to proceed with the investigation that they have and the way that it has. Obviously, those discussions take place in private session. I hope that members of the committee, perhaps convener, will forgive me if you have already examined what I am about to say and decided that it was either too difficult or too impractical to proceed in this way. Considering that banking and financial services are a reserved matter, would that not have been an ideal opportunity for our two parliaments here at Holyrood and at Westminster to work together on an inquiry to produce a joint report? I would really like to know if the committee explored this opportunity. I am happy to listen in the further contribution or even to take an intervention. I am delighted, thank you. Gillian Martin I should remember that we are aware that the Scottish Affairs Committee actually did do its own inquiry. There were some of the issues that they discussed that they did not take forward, which was an opportunity for us to fill in the gaps that were, so I am not sure if you are aware of that having happened. Mike Rumbles I thank Gillian Martin for that intervention and I am indeed aware of that, but I actually think that it is important on an issue like this, which is a reserved matter for regulation and has such an impact on devolved matters that we could have been a little bit more, dare I say it, adventurous in working together. I do not know if that was examined by the committee and I would like to think that it would be, but surely it is a lesson perhaps when we look to the future to examine whether we could in fact work together in the two parliaments that represent the people of Scotland. I think that that would be ideal. I am looking for practical recommendations and I realise that I am running out of time, so basically, as I said, I do not want to be too harsh on the committee, not at all. I think that the committee has done a good report and I can see the convener smiling. I hope that I am not being standing too critical, but I do think that it was a missed opportunity to break new ground, and I think that we should be interested in breaking new ground. Let's be a little bit more adventurous because we could address the issues that the committee has identified in practical ways and do it together. Thank you very much. We now move to the open part of the debate and I call Keith Brown to be followed by Edward Mountain. I welcome the publication of the economy jobs and fair work committee's report into the closure programme, which I think correctly identifies the significant negative impact that this will have for communities such as those facing bank closures in my own constituency. Those closures will, as I have mentioned, make the clip-manusher and Dumblain constituency the only one, I believe, in Scotland without an RBS or a Claysdale branch, and many of my constituents will rightly ask why their Westminster parliamentary representatives failed to take any effective action to oppose those closures. Various explanations, as we have heard, have been offered by the banks to account for those closures. I am less concerned, as Dean Lockhart was, to recognise the pressures that the banks face, and I am much more inclined to think about the pressures that my constituents face. Since 2010, Claysdale Bank and RBS have closed 53 per cent and 70 per cent of their branches respectively, and it is fair to say that those closures have occurred without prior consultation with businesses or the communities that they were supposed to serve. On 1 December 2017, RBS announced its intention to close 62 branches across Scotland, leading to the loss of 158 jobs. Of course, the closures would result in the loss of the last branch in town for many communities, contrary to the commitment given by RBS in 2010. With the Tory UK Government taking no interest and no position on the closures, despite its majority ownership of RBS with taxpayers' money, in my constituency, three branches of RBS in Alloa, Bridges Valley and Dumblane were earmarked for closure. Instead of demanding action from the RBS owning Tory Government, the two Tory MPs currently representing those areas fell into line and backed the inaction and indifference of the UK Government, which is absolutely nothing to delay or halt those closures despite having a majority ownership of RBS. It is clear to me that little thought has been given to the impacts that those closures have upon communities, I will do. Dean Lockhart I just wanted to repeat the discussion that we had earlier about legally the UK Government not being able to interfere with the RBS independent board decisions. Is that something that Keith Brown acknowledges? Keith Brown I think that as Jackie Baillie mentioned earlier on, given the extent of powers held by the UK Government, zero powers held in terms of regulation and banking, and given the stakeholder, the taxpayer stakeholder and you have an RBS, there is plenty of scope for action for the UK Government to take. It is chosen to take no action at all. Otherwise, why would some of your colleagues have asked the UK Government to take action? I think that that proves that it is perfectly possible. It quite rightly notes the report that it is vulnerable in our communities who stand to be most affected by bank branch closures. At a time when benefit reforms being imposed by the Tory UK Government are causing such damage to so many vulnerable people in the constituencies that we represent and placing such emphasis on people's ability to manage their own finances effectively, if you think only of the universal credit changes. I recently held a summit where, again, the two Tory MPs refused to attend and the DWP did not even respond to the invitation to come along. The fact that people are being asked to take more responsibility for their money surely means that bank branches being closed is particularly perverse and unwelcome. The committee report notes that, with the changes in banking provision, it is vital that people continue to have access to financial services, financial support and to cash. It is those who have limited access to bank accounts—indeed, the unbanked, as they are called—and cars, who are at the most risk of being excluded. That is an important finding, a one that is a Parliament that we have to press the UK Government for action on. Following my own discussions with RBS about the impact of the closure programme in my constituency, I was assured that post offices offer many of the face-to-face services offered by banks and that communities facing bank closures would not see the loss of services to the extent that was feared. In Alloa, for example, which is the main town and club manager, a decision was taken to close a dedicated Crown Post Office, with reduced services moved to a few counters inside a local shop. That post office is extremely busy with long queues coming at peak times and the lack of privacy for people and businesses to discuss what, after all, should be private concerning their personal finance matters. As Jackie Baillie also mentioned, there is a £2,000 deposit limit for walk-in transactions. Businesses that want to make deposits greater than £2,000 have to range for cash to be deposited at a pre-arranged time. It is not exactly a flexible service that is accountable for the various needs of businesses. It is unfair to suggest that post offices offer a comparable alternative to a bank branch for either personal or business customers. Mike Rumble said that we should be more adventurous. I make a suggestion that might not be feasible, but why do the public authorities in Scotland, local councils and other public authorities, say that we think that it is quite important that we have a physical presence that provides banking services? We think that it is important that we provide financial education. We think that it is important that we do not have somebody on universal credit to get two buses from Allawa into Stirling so that they can pick up a universal credit payment. Because of that, we will set up our own bank. We will put our deposits and our monies into a community bank, which then can be available and can be accessed through different physical premises in the constituencies and in the areas around Scotland. It will allow people to have that level of control. If the banks want to create those deserts and they have created one in Clutmanushire and Dumblane, it is time for us to irrigate the system again, and why can't some public authorities look to that? I just mentioned it as a suggestion. Also in Dumblane, in my constituency, a community organisation approached the RBS with the hope of taking over the premises when it became vacant. They hoped to use the premises for a social enterprise that focused on employability skills and training, including financial training. However, disappointingly, the response from RBS was that the building would be put on the open market before considering the community's request. As has been the case across Scotland, the reaction in Clutmanushire and Dumblane has been overwhelmingly negative, and that includes among business owners who rely on the convenience of local banking services. In February, I received a response from the economic secretary to the Treasury, John Glenn, who stated that the UK Government does believe that banks should act in the best interests of their customers. However, it is clear from the evidence that this simply is not the case, and I fully endorse the calls of the committee that the UK Government must carry out a further study into the impact of bank closures with a view to identifying the statutory and regulatory changes required that will ensure that wider impacts are fully considered and in the best interests of customers and communities. I thank the Economy, Jobs and Fair Work Committee for their report on bank closures. I do not need to remind anyone that it was nearly a decade ago that retail banks committed themselves to restoring the consumer confidence that they had lost during the financial crash of 2009. Banks set out to rebuild that vital relationship with local communities and local businesses. The RBS, which I have to admit to my bank, even boasted in an advert that it was here for you wherever you may live. Back then, RBS had the most branches across Scotland and more than any other bank. How times have changed? Since 2010, RBS has closed 235 local branches at a 70 per cent reduction. That is the bank that promised that it would not shut the last branch in a town, and it is just doing that right now. To quote the committee, that was clearly a hollow promise. The Highlands and Islands region will be one of the hardest hit areas with about 52 bank closures in the region. Branches along with their ATMs have already been closed in Malig, Nairn, Avimawr, Granton on Spay, Inverness, Tain and Wick. Three branches in Buley, Kyle and Tung are still threatened with closure, but have a stay of execution pending an independent review by Johnston Carmichael. If the independent review advises those branches to remain open, we are told that the RBS will honour that recommendation. I would welcome that, but a consultation should have happened long before RBS made its initial decision to close the branches. Therefore, I welcome the committee's conclusion that access to banking standard is failing in its current form and recommends that it is replaced with a statutory model, which makes it a requirement for banks to consult before a decision is made to close a branch. Whilst it is true that many more people use digital banking these days, having a branch on your local high street is still important and more important than ever, especially in rural communities in the Highlands, which remain unconnected to superfast broadband. Let us not forget that the Highlands was meant to have superfast broadband by the end of this Parliament. Under this Government, Highlanders will have to wait until at least the end of 2021 for superfast broadband, a target that may slip further. For many, internet banking is still a dream. Homes and businesses left in the digital slow lane cannot access digital banking. When digital banking is not available, banks are keen to stress that mobile banking is the next best option. However, as this report highlights, many retail banks such as TSB and Santander do not have mobile vans. Those who do such as RBS are cutting the time that they spend at each location that they visit. Last May, stops in King UC were cut from 45 minutes to 20 minutes and from 30 minutes to 15 minutes in Boat of Garden. Even more concerning is the fact that some of the vans are not accessible to people with reduced mobility. I therefore welcome the committee's recommendation that RBS must review the disabled access to its vans as a matter of priority. I also share the committee's concerns regarding the post office's ability to fill the gap left by banks. There is great potential when it comes to providing basic retail banking service in post office, but that does not help business banking. Services such as check clearing are often processed more slowly and inter-account transfers and currency exchange are not always available. As the regional chair of the Federation of Small Businesses of the Highlands and Islands stated last year, business needs somewhere to bank cash, but neither the post office nor mobile vans are the latter only visiting once or twice a week would suffice. Business and customers need the reassurance of a local bank branch alongside a first-class digital service. There is no reason why they should not get the best of both worlds. Presiding Officer, I set the way that bank is changing, but as the report states, banks are also driving the pace of change. They do so, I believe, without comprehending the impact on their customers in the remote rural areas. In those areas, they need to take their foot off the accelerator. Digital banking, mobile banking and post office banking are not viable alternatives that work for all. There is still a need for bank branches on our local high street. To me, it is clear that this report states that not enough thought has been put into the decision to close branches. I call now on RBS to review how it serves rural communities across the Highlands and across Scotland, because what it is doing at the moment does not serve those communities that it is meant to. I can say that there is a little time in hand, so I can be a little elastic with the timings, not too elastic, but not so that it snaps. I call Gillian Martin to be followed by Stuart McMillan. I thank the Economy, Jobs and Fair Work Committee for bringing the debate on the report to the chamber. The inquiry was held when I was a member of that committee, membership that I enjoyed immensely for two years. Before I talk about the report into banking closures, if I can be indulged, Presiding Officer, I want to put on record my thanks to the convener Gordon Lindhurst, Deputy convener John Mason and all other committee members, and the hard-working team of committee clerks led by Allie Walker. During the inquiry into the closures of the last bank in town, I went with the committee clerk to Mintlaw, which saw its only bank closed in 2017. There, we met business owners and were able to get a feeling for the disadvantage that they felt. As the report heard time and time again in evidence, the banking of cash was a major issue, particularly around taking a long time out of the business day to bank cash in other towns—a time that they couldn't really spare. Post-office provision is still existent in Mintlaw, but many other business owners from across Scotland who gave evidence said that there were two major issues with that, one's lack of confidentiality and a feeling of lack of security, particularly when carrying large amounts of cash, and then, as has been mentioned, the fact that they were limited in the amount of cash that they could bank at any one time. In Mintlaw, it was only due to intervention from myself as the local MSP and my colleague Councillor Jim Ingramd that a cash machine was installed, or else Midlaw would have had absolutely no access to cash at all. At our outreach meeting, we heard from a farmer who also made a very good point about the continued use of checks at local marks. He said that he would get a check for selling his livestock and could be paying a check worth thousands of pounds in each time. I had similar conversations with the constituent Tadeff, constituents who have just lost their royal bank, constituents who ran charities and community groups who got the subscriptions or donations in cash and checks still and would struggle to get to a bank miles away from them. It should be remembered that a lot of those groups are staffed by volunteers who also work during the day, so not having a bank branch in their doorstep is really problematic. Other members, as I am sure, will mention the social inclusion aspect of bank branch closures on the elderly and those in low incomes in particular. You cannot internet bank if you do not own a computer, and many elderly and disabled people find accessing mobile vans difficult, as we have heard. Mintlaw was fortunate that the premises the Clydesdale bank vacated did not stay empty for long, but this seems to be a rather unusual situation. During evidence on the impact of empty bank buildings on the high street was one of the most compelling pieces of evidence, buildings could caught fall into disrepair, the removal of the bank would impact on the footfall of neighbouring shops, and little or no effort was made by the banks to offer their buildings to community groups or business startups if they had been standing empty with no real prospect for sale on the future. It was interesting to hear Keith Brown mention a particular incident of that. We were struck by the evidence that we heard on what consultation banks did or did not do with customers, and how they communicated subsequent closure decisions to customers. In particular, I was confused at the value of having an access to banking standard that did not, one, compel banks to consult with their customers ahead of making decisions on closures, and two, was supervised by the lending standards board, which is made up of the banks themselves, effectively self-pleasing, or, in most cases, not-pleasing at all. Although the standard asks banks to communicate on closures with customers, that often was not been followed, and mint-law customers complained that they get told about the closure of their bank at a very close to the closure date, on some cases they were not told at all. Certainly none of the customers that we spoke to in all the evidence gathering were consulted beforehand on what they used the bank for and what impact its closure might have on their business or their community. Many of our witnesses mentioned that, contrary to the standard, they were only made aware of alternative banking methods after a branch was closed, and that is simply unacceptable. The Federation of Small Businesses colourfully described the banking standard as a paper tiger. In the evidence that I heard, I have to agree with them. The committee was keen to go where the Scottish Affairs Committee in Westminster did not go when it put in the recommendation in the report that the access to banking standard has to be looked at again, with a clear view on becoming much more customer-focused. One of our key recommendations was to rewrite the standard to include consultation with all customers, businesses and the local community when assessing whether a branch should be closed. We also asked questions on how a bank's assessment on footfall was carried out. In counting footfall, some banks would only count transactions made by their own branch customers. I nip into Santander fairly regularly, but I cannot remember the last time that I visited my own branch, which is near my old work in George Street in Aberdeen. It is not exactly handy for me anymore, but I still go into a branch. By those rules, I would not be counted as using a branch. The committee also said that it might only look at regular use. Quite what the definition of regular is, depending on the bank's own thoughts, and I would suggest motivations. The economy's inquiry probably made very uncomfortable viewing for the banks. However, with bank closures continuing apace, particularly as we have mentioned so many times already today in rural communities, I believe that we made some very important recommendations and found some pretty compelling evidence that I hope gives them pause for thought, but most importantly gives rise to customers being at the centre of closure decisions. I welcome this debate and I want to offer my thanks to colleagues across the Parliament to help to produce this informative report. Committee reports and committee work sometimes do not always obtain the coverage that it deserves, but I think that this report has been well received. It is certainly something that I thought was something of a report that actually had a lot of information on it, but also something of use to that wider debate in terms of banking and the high streets today. Paragraph 53, page 8, sets out the changing nature of banking. It is fair to say that the traditional banking activities will not suit everyone. Online banking is increasing, and this will not decrease in the years ahead. I want to focus my comments now on my constituency, just like others who have spoken, and no doubt others after me. They will touch upon issues regarding their own constituency, and I will do the same. Greenock and Everglades has lost banks in Port Glasgow, Gwyrwch and also Greenock. In recent years, the Royal Bank of Scotland closed a branch in West Blackhall Street and moved the services to its Cathcart Street branch just at the other end of the town centre. I am an RBS customer, and I have been for many, many years. Although it is disappointing, it was not really campaigned against it because customers could actually see the logic. They were not losing a bank from the town centre, and the Cathcart Street branch was being there for many, many years. It was not a huge change or huge detriment to the town centre, so there was not a big campaign against it. It was certainly something that I did not receive anybody. Nobody contacted me to complain about that particular decision. This summer, I was informed that the RBS now want to close that Cathcart Street branch and move the facilities to the mortgage centre, which is less than one mile away. One mile in a town centre might not seem like a lot, but one mile in a rural area might be a bit different. Colleagues have touched upon having to go to a bank about 20 miles or so away, but I genuinely disagree with the decision that the RBS has put forward. I disagree with it for a variety of reasons. First of all, moving the bank out of the town centre, in between two stations, will take away people having the chance to go off a train and go down to the bank, which is literally 100 metres away. Secondly, although the distance is not really that far away, its location means that customers who go to it need to plan their visit in addition to doing any of their other activities. At the moment, with the Cathcart Street branch in the town centre, if people can actually go into the bank, they can also go and spend money in other parts of the town centre. There is a cafe just downstairs and there are other shops just downstairs. Taking out the town centre takes away that economic opportunity. Thirdly, I do not believe that consultation has been done. When I, in conjunction with the other politicians who are touched upon on the moment, contacted the RBS and asked them a number of questions and raised issues, one of the things that they said back to me was that they consulted. As a customer, I was not consulted, but their level of consultation was, apparently they had somebody in the Cathcart Street branch and my folk came in, they just asked them a couple of questions. I do not think that that is consultation, I do not think that that is good enough when it comes to removing that particular facility from the town centre. I mentioned a moment ago that a few words wrote, and a joint letter was sent by Mike Russell MSP, Brian Donahara MP, Ronnie Cowan MP and myself to the RBS expressing our concerns and also anger at the decision. Indeed, certainly my colleagues who represent Argyllin Bute raised their concerns because last December, when they were informed that the Rossie branch was going to close, their customers were told that they could go and use the Cathcart Street branch in Greenock town centre. That takes the branch further away from Rossie and its customers and also makes it more challenging for those customers who rely on public transport to get to Greenock. As I mentioned a moment ago, Greenock central station is just across the road from the Cathcart Street branch, whereas the mortgage centre is right in the middle between Greenock central station and the Cathcart Street station. I accept that the Cathcart Street branch is not perfect and the costs for the building may well actually be expensive in future years. Therefore, I genuinely would not criticise the RBS for attempting to future proof their business in terms of customer, certainly customer offer, but I believe that this is a step too far. Colleagues from across the chamber have highlighted the wide variety of issues today, including accessibility. The age of Scotland briefing highlights various points, including that 67 per cent of people over 75 are not using the internet. With a constituency with an ageing population and an over the course of the next five years, over 65 population will actually be increasing to 25 per cent. That clearly indicates that banks need to fully consider all their customers. Dean Lockhart spoke about the devolved and reserved matters earlier. I also suggested that the Scottish Government and UK Government should be working together. I agree with him on that point. I do not usually agree with Tories, but I agree with him on that point. The UK Government must also use its influence. 70 per cent of the stake in the RBS should be utilised to help the communities and our constituents. Paragraph 128, P26 of the report, asks the Scottish Government, local authorities and banks to work together. I agree, but I also agree with Mike Rumbles, who is unfortunately not here at the moment, and I certainly would not make a habit of agreeing with Mike Rumbles. Mike Rumbles made the point that possibly too many of the recommendations have let the UK Government off the hook. With that, I agree with him. I thank the Economy, Jobs and Fair Work Committee for their report. From post-office closures to bank branch closures, the demise of the town centre has greatly impacted everyone in the chamber. The Royal Bank of Scotland's latest round of closures was among the worst for my constituents. Towns and villages left without a bank. Where the bank did once proudly sit on the high street, there is now a vacant and slightly property left behind. However, I would like to say that Ettrick forest interiors have moved into the bank in Selkirk, which is a welcome addition to the high street. Perhaps there are some opportunities for other businesses to move in. I hope that the Royal Bank of Scotland will work with local businesses to make that happen. The decision to close branches was not founded on solid and robust evidence. Royal Bank of Scotland failed to carry out proper consultation before closing the branches. I think that this is an insult to customers, given that their best interests clearly were not taken into consideration from day one. Access to banking standard should require banks to consult directly with customers as part of their impact study. Loyal customers who have banked with RBS for generations were left in the lurch with no option to move bank or face the arduous journey to their nearest branch. In a digital area where we can do online banking with convenience, if we can and if we know how we can, the local branch might become redundant, but for many it remains an absolute necessity because of the lack of digital skills that some people have. There is an assumption made by RBS that the post office would automatically pick up the slack for its departure from the high street. It was expected that it would deliver the services that RBS once did. The fact remains that the post office is simply not an alternative for a bank branch. It offers a simple cash deposit and withdrawal service and has now become the place that local businesses on the high street are having to rely on. RBS failed to realise that the post office cannot provide the full range of services, as RBS did. What is most worrying— Can I finish this?—is worrying that the bank has taken a gamble in assuming that the post office will deal with the aftermath of the bank closures. I thank the member for giving way. I take the point that she makes that the post office cannot provide all the services. I do not know what her experience was, but when we went out to leave on, the people showed us a letter from the Royal Bank and it did not even mention that any services were available in the post office. Is her experience any different if the Royal Bank has encouraged people, as far as she knows, to use the post office? Rachael Hamilton I thank John Mason for that intervention. I had a similar experience within my constituency. There was no direct link between businesses being given that advice. They just presumed that that is what they would have to do. In some instances, there was uncertainty with regard to the sustainability of the post master in the town. Therefore, the Royal Bank of Scotland presuming that the post office was going to be the alternative service clearly was not the case, because it had not done its due diligence with the post master and the service that they were providing. In many rural and remote villages in my constituency, simply as I have just said, is not the luxury of the post office to fall back on for banking when the last bank leaves town? Simply put, it is unacceptable for RBS to assume that the post office will always be there in the case of a bank closure. More and more we learn that even plan B options of ATMs and mobile banking vans are not providing the reliable services that customers expect. There are parts of the area that I represent, such as Liddastale, for example, that are almost an hour round trip to the nearest branch of RBS as a direct result of the closures. I am glad that the committee report acknowledges that RBS promised that they would not shut the last bank branch in the town, but that was completely ignored. What RBS has failed to recognise is that many people who live in these remote and rural areas are older and more vulnerable, and they now face these long journeys to their nearest branch, which is just unacceptable. The committee found that 67 per cent of people over the age of 75 in Scotland do not use the internet. It is really disgraceful that elderly constituents, often without access to a car or a bus service, are just left with very little in the way of options other than the mobile banking vans. On that note, the mobile banking routes could help alleviate some of the issues. However, the services that they offer are often unreliable and irregular, and many constituents have complained again in places such as Hoik of standing in a queue waiting for the service. The tellers tell them that they have to move on quickly to the next stop, so that they do not have time to deal with the inquiry. It is not working as perfectly as RBS has expected. I also want to give an example of an iMouth. I met a gentleman who is a wheelchair user. He went to the mobile bank and he went to do just a simple transaction. The teller came out of the bank on to the street, which was on a pavement that was totally unsuitable. The weather was blowing agale, as it sometimes does on the coast in iMouth. It just really was not suitable either for hearing for that gentleman or possibly for the dignity and respectful transaction that should be going on inside and in comfort. After all my rant about the RBS, community bankers have been rather helpful and they are working with communities in libraries and leisure centres and carrying out home visits to help to grasp digital skills. I do not know how much time I have got. You did say that there was a bit more time, Presiding Officer. I have got a little few more points. Yes, and you also took an intervention. Okay. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I just want to touch on the ATMs that many people today have talked about. We are learning from new figures from LINC just last week that they are the largest cash machine network in the UK that 250 ATMs are vanishing each month. Age Scotland has noted that the loss of free-to-use ATMs will result in older people having to make withdrawals and being charged up to 30 per cent from fee-paying machines. I welcome the recommendation in the committee's report that calls for ATMs to have their provision independently overseen and that any revised statutory arrangements are put in place following the revision of the access to banking standard. To conclude, rural Scotland has really taken a massive blow with those closures. We have heard so many contributions today that echo what I am saying to. I am glad that the economy committee has concluded that in its report. It is right and proper that RBS is held to account and that more can be done in the future to avoid that happening. It causes significant stress and inconvenience to many of our constituents and loyal customers who have been disregarded, towns left without a bank and now ATMs are being removed. It is time that a proper study was carried out to highlight where RBS can help those communities and to mitigate further closures. I thank all members of the Economy, Energy and Fair Work Committee for producing such a comprehensive and timely report on the subject of great concern to my constituents across south of Scotland region. I particularly welcome the committee's call for RBS branch closures to be put on hold or cancelled so that a proper study can look at the impact and scale of closures across Scotland, although for many in my constituency it is too little and too late because the banks have already closed. Earlier this year RBS, a bank as others have said, owned 60 per cent by taxpayers announced plans to close 16 branches across south of Scotland. That came on top of extensive closures previously announced by RBS in the Bank of Scotland. Those are not just closures in villages, they lost their banks a good few years ago. Those are closures in large market towns serving large rural areas and supporting villages, hamlets and farms. The branch closures have been compounded, as others have said, the loss of ATMs on our high streets. Earlier, Jackie Baillie talked about our loyalty to banks. I, too, am an RBS customer and have been since I was a student, which was a long time ago. However, I have been struck by the complete contempt that RBS shows to its customers right across my constituency. I have to say to myself as well as an MSP. I, like many other members, contacted the chief executive of RBS, Ross McEwen, raising the concerns of my constituents and explaining the impact that the situation would have on many rural communities. My letter was responded to by corporate affairs at RBS, who offered an interview with someone much further down the chain of decision makers than Mr McEwen. Mr McEwen is clearly a very busy man, but I did get an email from Mr McEwen. Unfortunately, he completely ignored my letter on behalf of elderly and vulnerable constituents and small businesses and Langham Annan and Lockerbie. No, he completely ignored that. Instead, he was writing to me to tell me about RBS's profits for the first half of this year. Apparently, he did very well. He made £1.8 billion and he made that money despite a fine from the US Department of Justice. He told me of £1 billion. It seems that it is easier for the American Government to hold RBS to account than our own. Mr McEwen was also very keen to tell me that, as a result of these healthy profits, he made a very good start to the year and he was pleased to announce his intention to declare a dividend of £2 per share, which he said was another significant moment in RBS's turn around and the reflection of their progress. Not a single word in that email about the loyal customers who have been deserted by RBS and Mr McEwen. That, to me, is not progress. Communities that I raised with them, Langham, Lockerbie and Annan, are important centres of population and economic activity, which now do not have a RBS branch. Just to illustrate, the town of Langham, for example, is 30 miles from the nearest branch now, RBS in Dumfries. In March this year, I heard a day of action outside every branch that was threatened with closure and we collected hundreds of local signatures. Some people we spoke to had been loyal to the bank for more than 50 years and felt completely let down. Many were elderly. Some could not drive, they had no access to broadband, and although it is improving, that does not mean that everyone is going to take it up. Many older people do not have computers and they are not going to turn into silver surfers overnight. Why should they, Presiding Officer? Older people also expressed a preference for face-to-face branch banking because of problems with phone banking and a lack of trust in digital, which, as someone who is a victim of the latest BA hacking and had my bank card completely compromised, I have quite a lot of sympathy for. I also want to congratulate the committee on the scrutiny that they applied to the matter of consultation, which other members have raised, or perhaps lack of consultation is more appropriate, because that seems to be the case when a branch is targeted for closure. The report questions how the banks can know what customers want without consulting and speaking to branch staff and assessing transaction numbers. Does not tell the whole story. That mirrors my constituents' experience. For example, in Langham, RBS had insisted that only 20 customers are using a branch on a regular basis, but local people told me that that was not true and that there are always queues in the branch. At Age UK points out that a lot of the numbers that are used by banks are very unreasonable. For example, a regular customer is considered to be someone who makes 24 visits to a branch in 26 weeks, which is almost one visit a week. In that threshold, Age UK points out that it is unreasonably high. I am pleased that the committee concluded that the access to banking standard was failing to ensure that impact assessments properly reflect and take account of all relevant impacts on the local economy. I was pleased to see that the committee said that the standard reflected the interests of banks, not the interests of customers, and that banks should be required to consult customers, businesses and the local community in a meaningful way before deciding to close the branch. I know that the Scottish Government agrees with this particular finding of the committee. The access to banking standard is perceived and presented as a consultation when it is absolutely nothing of the kind. It is whatever the banks want it to be and that certainly reflects the contempt that I referred to earlier with which those banks and RBS in particular hold their customers. I thank the members of the Economy, Energy and Fair Work Committee for their report, which highlights a number of the negative impacts bank closures are having on each and every one of the communities that we represent. We have heard earlier from 2010 to 2017 that the number of bank branches in Scotland fell by a third, and that decline is continuing. There are 130 so-called cash deserts in Scotland, not just without a bank within a reasonable distance but without access to a cash machine. Jackie Baillie very kindly told the story of when I was struggling to pay in a cafe recently because it had no card payment machine, no ATM nearby and no bank branch, so I was bailed out by a colleague. I would like to tell a similar story about Jackie Baillie, but I cannot remember the last time she bought me a drink. On a serious note, the impact of bank and ATM closures is often felt most acutely in rural areas, such as the one that I found myself in recently, where alternatives are few and far between, as well as in some of our most deprived communities. A point that was highlighted to the committee well by Keith Driver of Citizen Advice Scotland when he said, the most vulnerable to change are the ones who will be affected, those who are more likely to have problems accessing digital services, those who have poor broadband speeds and those in rural Scotland. The cumulative effect of closure after closure is leaving more and more of our towns and villages without a single bank branch. Let me give members just one of several examples that I could choose in my own home region of Dumfries and Galloway. The town of Dolbite has a population of over 4,000 people. A decade ago, the town was served by three banks. The first to be ax was the Clydesdale bank in 2007. That was followed by the Royal Bank of Scotland in 2014, and last year the Bank of Scotland closed its doors for the last time in the town, leaving Dolbite with no bank. It is not alone from Whithorn in the west of the region to Loch Mabern in the east, the local bank branch has become a distant memory. We are told by banks that alternatives are in place such as Mobile Banking, but in the case of Dolbite, which I have highlighted, that consists of one bank a couple of hours per week. We are also told that the post office is an alternative, and certainly for simple bank transactions that can be true. For many towns and villages, that option no longer exists, with post office closures continuing in many communities. It also seems that the UK Government is doing their best to discourage the use of the post office, with the Department of Work and Pensions writing to those in receipt of a pension last month, telling them that they no longer wish to pay that pension into a post office card account. Although carrying out banking transactions can be labour intensive and time consuming for post offices, the amount paid for those transactions is often very poor. For example, bank charge business customers between £6 and £10 per £1,000 deposited, but only a tiny proportion of those charges filtered down to the post office owner, who has paid either £24p or 37p per 1,000 deposited. That can be less than a tenor to transact £40,000, harli and incentive for a post office to remain open to deliver services on behalf of banks. Online banking often can be the only alternative left for communities, and yes, that is the choice of more and more people. However, as Age Scotland highlights, 67 per cent of people over the age of 75 in Scotland do not use the internet. The Federation of Small Businesses stated in their evidence to the committee that many bank closures have been in areas with lower than average broadband speeds, and which noted that poor broadband is identified as a key reason for people's decision not to use online banking services, pointing out that online banking is particularly inaccessible to those who are most financially excluded. Presiding Officer, beyond the adverse impact on individual customers, the committee's report rightly highlights the problems that branch closures have posed for many charities and small businesses. The committee found that cash is essential for some businesses, and the report states that bank branch closures have impacted on productivity, which will impact on Scotland's economy. The risk posed to small businesses by those closures has been highlighted in the past by the Federation of Small Businesses, who research found that it often created additional costs to business owners and highlighted the importance of local branch branches in terms of cash flow and the value of face-to-face interactions. Research by the British Bankers Association also found that 68 per cent of business customers believed that access to a local branch is important. Beyond the direct impact on businesses, the closure of banks and the result in reduced footfall undermines our town centres. Already plagued by empty buildings, more and more retailers close their doors. The problems posed by those closures are undoubtedly heightened not just by poor digital connectivity but by inadequate physical connectivity. The committee's report notes research by the Citizens Advice Bureau, which found that people living in rural areas typically had to make a 40-minute round trip to their bank using buses if they are lucky to still have a bus service. That is before the most recent set of closures has come into force. Indeed, Keith Drivebra said to the committee that he expects travel time will increase significantly as branch closures continue. There is widespread agreement that the current decimation of local bank branches cannot be allowed to continue unchallenged, and that means that we need both the Scottish and UK Governments to intervene. I echo the committee's call for the Scottish Government to call a summit with high street banks in Scotland to discuss those issues and possible solutions, including shared banking hubs. I raised the possibility of banking hubs in a recent letter to the chief executive of the Royal Bank of Scotland, like Joe McAlpine. He did not get a reply from him, but one of his members of staff who dismissed it as not a sustainable solution. The truth is that it is not a case of not being able to do it. It is a case of our bank simply not wanting a more collaborative, community-focused approach to banking, and that is just not good enough. Where is the concern for community from our banks? Why have they learned nothing about social responsibility since their financial vandalism caused the economic tsunami a decade ago? In the absence of voluntary action from our banks, we need direct intervention. The committee rightly highlights the serious shortcomings of the access to banking standard, stating that it is failing to ensure that impact assessments properly reflect and take account of all relevant impacts on the local economy. That is why we need a mandatory consultation on bank branch closures before or after they close. If banks do that properly, we need legislation from the UK Government to ensure that they do, and that is what a future Labour Government will deliver. The Scottish Government can also do more, for example, redoubling efforts to grow credit unions in our communities to make them a viable alternative and delivering far more support for regenerating our increasingly neglected town centres to increase footfall. Unless action is taken, it is only a matter of time before local bank branches disappear for good outwith only our very largest towns and cities, and that cannot be allowed to happen. I thank the committee for bringing such a comprehensive and helpful report to Parliament and for facilitating this debate today. As members will be aware, the decline in the number of ATMs and the decline in the number of bank branches cannot easily be separated, so I would like to take the opportunity to speak about how both of those issues affect rural areas such as my own. As the committee report acknowledges, the decline in the number of ATMs has accelerated in recent years. To some extent, that can be attributed, as other members have noted, to the decline in the use of cash. Indeed, there are some countries such as Denmark and Norway that have already floated the idea of ceasing to circulate banknotes and coins altogether. However, as other members have noted, it is fair to suggest that Scotland is a long way from that situation. For as long as that is true, we will need ATMs. The committee evidently takes that view, too. Perhaps not for the first time, my constituency is able to provide an extreme example to illustrate a wider point. 1,200 people live on the Isle of Barra. They have one bank, the Royal Bank of Scotland, with one ATM. There is, as things stand, no other way for customers to withdraw cash outside working hours. However, last December, RBS announced plans to close both the branch and its ATM, reassuring customers that there was another branch that could go to some 27 miles away in Loch Boyzdale. What they failed to mention was that Loch Boyzdale is on another island, south-east, and that, in any case, RBS are cutting the hours that the branch opens there, too. My constituents in Barra would face spending most of a day, if they picked the right day, by ferry and bus, just to get to the nearest bank or ATM and back. Although the picture has changed several times regarding the ATM, it now looks like Barra's ATM has been reprieved after much protest, but not so the bank branch itself. Already some 12,000 people, that is to say 10 times the population of Barra, have signed a petition demanding that RBS reverse the decision about branch closure, recognising that that is indeed perhaps the most extreme example of RBS's callousness towards its rural customers. The Barra branch was one of 10 proposed closures across Scotland that were eventually postponed until later this year, subject to a review by the firm Johnson Carmichael. However, all of that said, it cannot have escaped the notice of any community in Scotland facing such closures that the cost of the UK taxpayer of bailing out RBS was some £45.5 billion. Last week, RBS chairmen Sir Howard Davis admitted that it was unlikely that the UK Government would ever be able to recoup this money. It seems that, despite all that, RBS does not see themselves as having any responsibility to provide much of a service to those taxpayers. Conservative members may wish to use some of their famed influence with the UK Government to remind them that they own some 62 per cent of RBS shares. RBS is still effectively owned by the Conservative Government. It is difficult to square this situation with the reality. Outlined in the Federation of Small Businesses' written evidence to the committee, the RBS alone will, within the next few weeks, have closed some 70 per cent of its branches around Scotland since 2013. The Federation of Small Businesses rightly pointed to the impact that it will have on cash-dependent small businesses around the country. The FSP also gave evidence, indicating their fears that, if the link requires card providers to pay to cash machine operators' declines, there will be even greater pressure to withdraw further three ATMs in the future. I have already submitted a response to RBS's consultation on behalf of the constituents who have contacted me on the issue. Unsurprisingly, nobody has come to me making a case for the closure to go ahead, given the alternatives or rather the lack of them. Instead, I have heard consistently about how personal and business customers will be disadvantaged if they are left without any branch to go to at all. Many people have also mentioned the impact that a closure would have for the many tourists visiting the island, and I am sure that that is true for other parts of Scotland, too. The committee has provided a report that does not pull its punches on those questions, concluding that it is the most vulnerable people who will be affected most by those closures. The committee previously said that it would not shut the last branch in town. Clearly, that was a hollow promise. Nowhere was that promise more obviously hollow than in the Isle of Barra, so I call on the Royal Bank of Scotland to step in to save that branch and other branches elsewhere, which will be so much missed by the communities around them. I ask them to do so in their own interests to try to repair the confidence of the community in the banking service and in them. Thank you very much. I call Brian Whittle to be followed by Fulton MacGregor. Mr Whittle, please. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I welcome the opportunity to speak in today's debate and thank the Economy, Energy and Fair Work Committee for bringing it to the chamber. It is one that is being considered both here and in Westminster and affects so many of our constituencies, as we have heard so much of today. In the area in which I represent, we have had recent closures in Gvern, Cymnock and Moughlin. If you happen to be a resident of Gvern, that means that you have to have a round-trip either to Ayr or to Strunrar to do your banking, which is a significant journey if you have a car. However, if you have to use public transport, it becomes extremely problematic. I have to say that, much like Alistair Allan's experience in Barra, the ATM in Maybowl was under threatened and was threatened with closure, but we managed to get that decision in reverse, so it is possible to have small victories as we go forward. Death taxes and change. The three inevitabilities in life, interestingly enough, are all three things that we tend not to be too keen on. Change is something that we are nearly always wary of. However, with more things in life, the way that we do business continues to evolve. With banks, we know that there have been some 42 per cent decline in bank usage in Scotland since 2014. More and more customers are banking online via an app on their phones, negating the need for many over-the-counter services. If that backdrop changes inevitable, we expect our banks to be commercial, yet we also ask that they deliver a public service. I think that sometimes those two things get in the way of each other. As I said, I think that change is inevitable. However, have the bank got those changes right, obviously, from today's debate, and I would suggest that we have a lot of work to do to deliver that. In delivering change, it is important that we do not leave any section of our society behind. I think that this is where this debate has been focused. Some of the solutions are already out there. There has been mobile banking for some 70 years or more, so it is not a new concept. However, the issues that I have encountered with mobile banking in the rural areas that I represent have been around timings, routes and access. We can actually get those changes. I do not realise until recently that mobile banking can actually come to your home if needs be. How many of the customers actually know that, especially those with specific needs such as those who are frail and those with disabilities that make attending a normal bank or a mobile bank difficult? We as MSPs and MPs as well cannot help to get that message out there. There are tech experts out there, business growth, enablers, relationship managers and community bankers who, if asked, are perfectly prepared to deliver guidance on online banking. I have to say that I have a tech expert to deliver a session at age concern meeting in Governing. Does that solve everybody's issue? Of course it doesn't, but it goes in some way to help some. That is an area in which, while we are holding the banks to account, we as MSPs perhaps can do a little bit more. We are quite rightly arguing the case for constituents and opposing closures. We also have that responsibility to help to deliver solutions and ensure that those solutions reach those who need them. If we take the post office banking, for example, we know that the majority of personal transactions are cash transactions, which are suitable for the post office model, if the right training and delivery mechanism in services adhere to. Without doubt, there is a disparity in the delivery of that service, which again needs to be addressed. Where there is a definite need to push back is in the decline of ATMs. We need access to cash and there has been a worrying decline in the number of free cash machines available, and it has been mentioned already today. 1,300 in the UK in a year have been dropped. 76 of those were in supposed protected areas. That cannot be allowed to continue. Link committed to maintaining the geographical spread of ATMs so that rural communities did not lose access to the cash. As we have heard today, that is contrary to what is happening on the ground, and they need to be held to account on their commitment. It is clear that the future of banking is changing. The responsibility of both banks and Government's share is to ensure that change comes in a way and at a pace that leaves no one behind. As MSPs, we have an ability to impact that. As it stands, too many of the most vulnerable in society are falling through the cracks as banks rush to make closures and perhaps do not put as much time and money into supporting customers for whom a branch is not just a convenience, it is a necessity. In attending one of the committee's fact-finding meetings in Domellingham, which is one of the affected towns in the area that I represent, it is obvious that there is real concern that communities are being left behind and disadvantages in what, as we say, is a public service. Should we expect the banks to continue delivering the same service in the same way in perpetuity, especially in the face of the spirit of technological change, that would be ridiculous. However, have the banks delivered change without disadvantages in sections of our community? Again, today's debate has highlighted that they have fallen well short in that regard. Rather than continually just railing against banks at all these changes, it is important that we ensure that solutions are delivered to those who need them. There are closures that absolutely should be resisted. Where closures are reluctantly needed, we must ensure that no one is left behind. We need to hold the banks to account and ensure that they deliver real solutions and ensure that we help to disseminate that information so that no one is disadvantaged. Thank you very much. I call Fulton MacGregor, followed by Colin Beattie. Mr Beattie will last speak in the open debate, so you have your warning—not to you, Mr MacGregor, you are not warned. I call Mr MacGregor. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I am grateful for that. I am also grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate. As now a former member of the committee, I would like to thank the clerks and the members for all their work during my short time on this committee. The Royal Bank of Scotland branch and steps in my constituency was one of the 62 closed and very much fell within the last bank in townstays. However, it was also the last bank for neighbouring villages, the only bank available for a couple of miles for people living in Creson, Muirhead, Moody's Burn and Orkin Walk. I am pleased that there was no decision to close the Coatbridge branch, but my constituents in the northern corridor area of my constituency now face having to travel not only out of their own villages or out of the boundaries of the constituency they live in, but out with the local authority area in which they live. Kirkntillic is now the closest branch for most of the people living in the north part of my constituency, and thousands are affected. I am sorry to say, but it is just another example of the Tory Government attacking old industrial communities that perhaps made more relevant in the week in which we remember the 59th anniversary of the Orkingeek mining disaster in the aforementioned Moody's Burn. However, it is right that we focus on the real impact on real people. The closures of those banks have a massive impact on business, both high street and mobile. Self-employed business people who take in cash now have to travel even further to bank their takings. During the committee sessions, it was suggested that as much as 80 per cent of retail transactions are conducted with cash. What is the solution for those business owners? For personal bank users, many people of my generation will rarely set foot inside a branch, and that is the justification given by RBS when making those decisions. However, we should not be focusing on the people who do not use branches. Many older people still do most of their banking in a branch. What about the lady from Christon, who is a 100th birthday party that I attended the other day and many other elderly residents in this part of the country? Let us not forget that it is older, more vulnerable people that fraudsters routinely target. It was only in Saturday past there that Monkman's police issued a serious warning that fraudsters were contacting mainly elderly folk across the area trying to scam them. Removing the ability of someone to go into a branch and speak to someone at the counter may give opportunity for those people to succeed. As has been mentioned already by various speakers, the Royal Bank of Scotland is majority-owned by the state. It was taxpayers' money that billed it out the bank when it failed face collapse and now the state does nothing but stand by and watches the closed branches all over Scotland and the rest of the UK. Commitments were always given by RBS that it would never remove the last bank in town. Commitments that were completely disregarded as part of the latest round of closures and, of course, the cash machines that went with it, leaving only one cash machine in steps. I noticed the other day that it was out of order, so for a period of time no cash machine in that area either. However, a step that I welcome is that RBS put in place a community banker to help fill gaps and meet needs. I have to say that it has been very impressed with that service. The community banker for steps in surrounding areas, Lindsay Hagerty, has reached out to me and others and has been extremely flexible and responsive to suggestions and the needs of the community. For example, she has been open to having surgeries in areas where there is an unmet need, but I do feel that that had there been more full consultation or any consultation, as others have pointed out, this community banking service is something that could have been put to the communities at an earlier stage for scrutiny and consideration. Perhaps the banks would have found that, if people had a say in it, it is something that they could have perhaps worked with. In addition to that, I have had various discussions with both the RBS and the local community in steps about the impact of the closure. I was pleased in response to my query that the banks suggested that it would be open to gifting the new derelict building to the community for the good of the village, but again, as Keith Brown had mentioned earlier, only once other options had been exhausted. That is something that we talked about in the committee at great length and it certainly is a positive step if banks would do that. However, this is mainly a reserved matter. If the Tory Government will not do its duty and use its majority shareholding to order the reversal of those closures, the very least that can be done is to make the building available to communities. I say to the Tories in the chamber today, what are you doing for your communities? Time after time when the UK Government feels the act and the interests of the people of Scotland, the Tory MPs and MSPs from Scottish constituencies in regions fail to act, they fail to stand up for their constituents. Each passing day gives us a clearer picture. I thank Fulton MacGregor for taking an intervention. I am not sure whether Fulton MacGregor realised that, but in Ertrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire, I held a series of public meetings to engage with those people who were facing closure of their banks. I felt that, as a constituency MSP, I had very much reached out. I wondered if the member had done the same. Mr MacGregor. As I have already said, to the member, I have engaged with the community in steps about the closure of the bank. I am glad to hear that she has done likewise. I would be interested to see what sort of response she got from her party colleagues in London to that intervention. However, as I was saying, as each passing day gives us a clearer picture, and has always been the case, the people of Scotland simply do not matter to the Conservative party. The Tory Parliamentarians electing Scotland stand by and let their masters in London run roughshod over their towns and villages, despite what an individual MSP might do. Throughout the time since the announcement was first made about those closures, Scottish Government ministers have made it clear that they are willingness to work with the UK counterparts to do what is right. That has been continually ignored by the UK Government as tends to be the case these days in a number of issues. In finishing, I will make a final plea on behalf of my constituents, to the UK Government and to the party's representatives here today, act in act now, work with the Scottish Government to help the communities devastated by those closures and prevent any further. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Thank you, Ms McGregor. And I'll call Colin Beattie, then we'll move to closing speeches. Mr Beattie, please. Presiding Officer, as a member of the Economy, Energy and Fair Work Committee, I'm pleased to have the opportunity to speak in today's debate. Research by the Federation of Small Businesses shows that bank branches are closing at a faster rate in Scotland than in any other UK nation. As a result, no fewer than one in two businesses have experienced bank closures. Evidence taken by the committee suggests that there are indications to show that bank closures directly impact on the health of the local economy and on the establishment and growth of local businesses. Banks have not been particularly honest in their engagement on this subject. For example, RBS stated that they would never close the last bank in town, yet that's exactly what they've done. Figures quoted in 2016 suggests that this has happened 165 times in Scotland and the north of England. In communities such as Cymalcom, Gwric, Preston Pans and more locally Newton Grange and also in Pathhead in my constituency of Midlothian North and Musselborough. Earlier this year, RBS closed its branch in Bonnerig in my constituency. The inconvenience to local businesses and to personal customers, many of whom are vulnerable and elderly, was considerable. Bank closures continue the pernicious hollowing out of our communities as libraries and other local facilities that form the heart of those communities are either closed or run down. It's increasingly important to retain bank branches which are so important to the health and wealth of our local communities. It's not just inconvenience, it's an attack on the sustainability of our smaller towns and villages. When the RBS announcement was made, I met representatives from RBS to express my concern and disappointment that this decision to close the Bonnerig branch had been taken with so little real consultation. RBS took the view that more and more customers banking online and by phone, overall branch usage reduced by 44 per cent since 2012, and around 29 million log-ons every month to the mobile app was the justification for such a large branch network being hard to support. In the Bonnerig branch, transactions had dropped by 20 per cent since 2012, and 80 per cent of customers were using alternative access to banking. RBS assured me that vulnerable customers were being contacted to explain their options. A fine story was told of how RBS was providing experts to train people to use online or other digital means of accessing their accounts. Business clients were also contacted to explain the most appropriate ways for their business support to continue. By the time RBS had described to me the wonderful support and services that would be available to their customers after the branch closure, I wonder why any branches at all were kept open, so perfect were the arrangements being put in place. Unfortunately, the reality is that service and support would be significantly reduced, especially after the initial period after closure. Customers were directed to the local post office, where long-term arrangements had been made to accommodate both business and personal customers, but a post office simply does not have the capacity or the will to replace a bank. They are quite frankly different businesses. A post office can handle basic transactions if they are low volume and within very tight parameters. Bonnerig is one of the largest towns in my constituency, containing a large number of small businesses whose turnover is mostly in cash. They need to be able to bank those takings, but without a local bank or adequate arrangements through the post office, the business either needs to take time out of his day to travel to the nearest bank branch or pay for the money to be uplifted. I understand the pure logic of why, as a business, RBS decided to close this branch given reduced customer fruit before and the rise of electronic banking. However, I took the opportunity to point out that banks need to look at a much wider picture than short-term profit enhancement. They also have a social responsibility to the local community and to the development of the environment in which we live and work. Banks should be part of that, and if they fail to be so, then alternative structures will gradually come into being, which will result in their exclusion and isolation from the communities in which they previously played such an important role. That cannot be to the bank's long-term viability. Banks must be relevant or they will cease to be part of our communities and may well be overtaken and vanish. RBS made much of arrangements with local post office to allow personal customers to withdraw on deposit cash, deposit checks, and allow business customers to register to obtain coinage and to deposit cash. And yet earlier this month, only a few months after RBS closed its doors, it was announced that Bonyreg post office would be closing at the end of this month, and while the post office is actively looking for another location within the town, progress is slow. I think that perhaps RBS, who has supposedly been putting alternative banking arrangements in place, have faced a resonance with considerable inconvenience who will have to use branches located some distance away and for the elder layer disabled, this will prove difficult. While there has been scrutiny of the impact bank closures have on businesses in the wider community, the impact closures have on the ATM that, with that work, receives less attention. That is despite the fact that many ATMs in Scotland are located in or nearby bank branches and have been cited by banks as the replacement for lost branches. ATMs have the potential to offset some of the problems experienced by bank closures. Access to banking and financial inclusion are two basic requirements of any functioning economy and should be recognised by all who seek to sell products and services to small businesses. Typically, small business banking services involve managing cash flow, checking account balances, but they might also include more complicated issues, such as applying for a business loan. Without a local branch to visit to discuss options, businesses are left with very few options for guidance and advice. Finally, with services all across Scotland being cut and towns such as Bonyreg losing out in vital services such as banks and post offices, you have to ask yourself how people are supposed to go about their daily life without access to money. While I recognise people who have debit and credit cards or even access to contactless payments of its under £30, many vulnerable people do not feel safe using those methods and prefer to have access to money in their purse or wallet. Local businesses rely on the support from bank branches and, when a branch closes, the impact on those businesses could be vital to the future of the small businesses. Banks need to revisit their assumptions and engage with that bigger picture, while the Scottish Government must have a role in that engagement. Closing speeches. I can give all the closing speakers an extra minute. I know that you will have no difficulty fulfilling it, so I call Lewis MacDonald close for labour. Seven minutes please. Today's debate has reminded us once again of the gulf between what communities expect from their high street banks and what those banks think they are obliged to do. Banking has indeed, as has been said, a public service provided by private businesses, but of course that does not tell the whole story. Rarely has any sector of private business owed its very survival to such a large scale of public intervention. While closing local branches may represent a different scale of impact from the casino banking that brought the global economy so close to catastrophe a decade ago, the sweeping closures that we have seen in Scotland and across the UK in recent years suggest that bank executives still pay a scant regard to the communities that provide their profits and whose need for financial services they are supposed to meet. In my own region, we have seen round after round of closures, most recently but not exclusively, by the Royal Bank of Scotland. The list of RBS closures reads like a travel guide to the north-east. Banff, Tariff and Huntley, Ellen and Montrose this year, Westhill and Bankery and Stonehaven last year and, as Mike Rumbles reminded us, Afford and other local branches before that. In Aberdeen City, suburban communities such as Dice and Bridge of Dawn have also lost their local branch and, of course, many local jobs have gone as a result. I joined with members of the Bank Workers Union earlier this year in a protest at the Bridge of Dawn RBS against that closure and against the wider closure programme as a whole. Sadly, as we have heard today, the best efforts of staff, trade unions, customers and parliamentary committees have so far failed to halt the industry's drive to withdraw from most of Scotland's house streets. Of course, it is true, as the banking industry is keen to tell us, that not everyone values a local branch. Many customers do choose to do their financial transactions online or through a mobile phone, and those choices are certainly beneficial from the point of view of the bank's bottom line. However, the key word here is choices, and what branch closures do is to deny choice to those customers who prefer to bank in person in their local community. As we have heard this afternoon, the customers who are least interested in online or mobile banking and choose to use a local bank are often older people and more vulnerable people. Twenty per cent of people in Scotland today are not online at home, and it is those people who have the most to lose from the kind of closure programme that we have seen. As Age Scotland has pointed out, it is often the very same people who are socially isolated in other ways for whom doing business at their local bank or post office or shop is important not just in itself but as part of what keeps them in touch with their local community and gets them out of the house to have that social engagement, which is so vital for their health and wellbeing. We have also heard this afternoon a number of contributions about the importance of local bank facilities for local businesses. The ability to deposit takings and to access cash are vital to the day-to-day running of many small firms. Again, some small businesses are very comfortable and happy about doing much of their work online, but many do not. Many do not have that choice given the nature of their business. Again, what matters here is that businesses should have a choice about where to do their banking and be able to do what suits them best. Instead, we have a blanket approach by banks and we have seen evidence in the committee's report and we have heard again some references today. Banks who want to speed up the shift from face-to-face banking to online transactions, as if they want to make online transactions the standard way or indeed the only way of accessing cash and services rather than one of several options open to their customers. Too many rural areas particularly find themselves in the position where those choices have been taken away. This debate is about access for individual customers, especially older and more vulnerable people. It is also about access for businesses, in particular local small firms that rely on cash transactions with local customers. It is also about the health and wellbeing of local communities. There seems still to be little willingness on the part of the banking industry to accept a collective responsibility for ensuring continued access to face-to-face banking for those who choose that in local communities. That, I think, is what needs to change. Banks compete with each other, of course, as well as with alternative providers of financial services, so it might seem counter-intuitive for them to co-operate to provide all their customers with choice about how they access banking service. However, that is what needs to happen. Among several very good recommendations in this report, the one that I would highlight is the one that calls on the Scottish Government to call a summit to get banks to work together to provide access to shared services, for example, through a shared banking hub in a community. I hope that ministers will agree to do that. John Mason. I thank the member for giving way on his emphasis on the banks working together. Does he not think that the link system where the banks work together and you can basically get your cash out of almost any machine shows that they can work together if it suits them? Lewis MacDonald is absolutely right. The link system is a critical way in which banks combine to provide a service. Of course, there is a commercial aspect to that, and we have heard that there has been serious concern about that in the recent past, but the point about putting pressure on the link system in order to provide or maintain that access to cash machines is one that can certainly be replicated for banks and branches themselves. Why not have banks work together if a community, whether it is Castle Bay in Bara, whether it is Aford and Aberdeenshire or whatever it is, if a community can have access to the services of several different banks through a hub operated by one of them? That clearly is a better solution for everybody than to get a position where bank after bank after bank closes. As Colin Smith said in his example, you go in a very short time from having three bank branches in a village or town to having none at all. I think that that is an area where there is action that can be taken. We have heard also by strengthening the access standard that we support and about improving delivery of such banking services by post offices, credit unions and mobile banking vans, which would also be welcome in as far as that can be done. Ensuring that engaging banks in the delivery of shared services is something that the Scottish ministers can do without waiting for action elsewhere. I hope that that will now follow. Paul Wheelhouse reported to Parliament a year ago that there was a recognition among members of the Scottish Government's financial services advisory board that consideration of the impact of closure was now necessary. We now need to see banks act on that recognition. If they do not, the case for changing the law will only get stronger. If the only way to protect choice for customers is to put new legal obligations on banks in relation to public access in communities, we believe that that is what should happen. As my colleagues have already said, a good start would be to require banks to consult local communities and businesses before a decision to close is made, not after, and that is a change that will be required by law and will be built on that committee's report. I would like to join previous speakers in expressing my gratitude to my fellow members of the committee, as well as to the clerking team for all their support during the course of our inquiry. I would also like to thank the organisations that came to the Scottish Parliament to give evidence and those organisations and individuals that submitted written evidence to support the committee's work. Today's speeches have told us much about the local impact of national decisions on bank closures. Often, the communities most affected by local branch closures are those in remote and rural areas, of which, of course, there are many in my region, the Highlands and Islands. It was also significant that we have looked not just at the most recent round of bank closures but at the longer-term decline in branch numbers and other services as a backdrop for those changes. It was important, however, that this inquiry provided a Scotland-wide picture addressing how different communities interact with banking services. The social impact of closures, as well as the effects of financial exclusion among certain groups, was rightly a major consideration of the committee's work. While accessibility via online and telephone banking has, for some, made banking more accessible, it is equally true to say that the move away from face-to-face banking services has created barriers for others. We also explored the impact on business and the effect not only on the different sectors and businesses of different sizes but also on businesses located in different geographical areas. With connectivity still a challenge in many parts of my region, many of the most obvious electronic solutions are untenable. Our conclusion relating to the needs for Highlands and Islands Enterprise and Scottish Enterprise, as well as the banks themselves, to work with those businesses is significant and one that I would underline. Equally, we have heard evidence from community and voluntary groups such as the U3A Murray Coast in my region who spoke of the challenges for voluntary organisations of regularly changing signatures on accounts and other administrative tasks without easy access to a local branch. As the inquiry progressed, we also had the opportunity to hear from a number of banks about the work that they are undertaking to create modern banking services. Much of that is praiseworthy. From paying in checks electronically to cash uplift services, there clearly has been a considerable amount done in recent years to improve access. It is, however, worth noting that, despite those approaches, a range of concerns were heard by the committee and are recognised in our report. It is clear that there is a trade-off here with more accessible electronic banking, but that footfall in branches has clearly declined. There are a number of areas for development beyond this report. We were candid in the need for additional information to build a comprehensive picture of the impact of closures across Scotland and across the UK more widely. That should include what provision can be made for access and the role of Scotland's two Governments in supporting solutions to the problems that we have heard. Equally, our remit did not include the perhaps difficult task of exploring the future of banking in this country. There are clearly a number of concerns that technological progress has raised. We have yet to see serious discussion, for example, of the wider opportunities and problems that are created by an increasingly cashless society. There have been a number of positive and insightful contributions from around the chamber today. Our convener and my parliamentary colleague Gordon Lindhurst, speaking on behalf of the committee, summarised the findings of her inquiry well and set out a number of the recommendations that we have made as future steps forward. I would hope that those recommendations were welcomed by the minister and that there will be an opportunity to progress on them. Dean Lockhart discussed the related issue of ATMs. The committee recognised that those devices, particularly free-to-use ATMs, are an important means of accessing cash in many areas across Scotland and in many areas of my region of the Highlands and Islands. As a committee, we recognised the current controversy around charging by the linked network and heard some evidence of that area. Members will also be familiar that similar issues have been explored by the Scottish Affairs Select Committee at the UK Parliament through a dedicated ATM network inquiry earlier this year. We also considered the limitations of ATMs, which, as Link explained, were targeted at individuals rather than at businesses. Edward Mountain rightly talked about the impact on our region, the Highlands and Islands, and highlighted that banks should have been consulting before closure, as Stuart McMillan mentioned, and others. The issues with accessibility for some of our disabled constituents. Rachael Hamilton also spoke about the lack of consultation and, further on the issue of ATM closures, which again are particularly pertinent in places like the borders. She also spoke of access via mobile banking vans, which have become such a common feature of many rural communities and, of course, of their drawbacks. The post office's capacity to provide a full alternative for face-to-face banking services was also mentioned, which is something that the committee considered and heard a range of views on. Brian Whittle spoke about the need to help those most affected by bank closures to access the new services available, to which might help to mitigate some of the closures themselves. Looking at other contributions, the minister talked about the strength of feeling and the impact on rural communities. As a Highland MSP, she will know, as well as all of us who live in rural remote communities, how much that can affect. Jackie Baillie talked about her disappointment with her own bank. I am sure that she echoes the opinions of hundreds of thousands of people in many of us across Scotland who have been left with a bank further away than they started. We also learnt that Colin Smyth did not buy a round, and that was later confirmed by him. Well, you can fight it out between yourselves. Mike Rumbles also talked about his own experiences. Colin Smyth highlighted the issues of both digital and physical connectivity and how important they are. Alasdair Allan talked about issues about accessing banking and the difficulties in the islands and the islands community. That is something that I am very aware of, and it is extremely important. Overall, it has been a very constructive debate, and it highlights a number of the issues that the committee raised. In closing, I would like to thank my fellow committee members—those who are still on the committee and have moved on to other responsibilities—and the clerking team for their excellent work that they have done over the period of the inquiry. I hope that the positives that have come up in the committee can be taken forward and acted on. I again start by commending the committee's work to raise the issue of bank branch closures supported by many in the chamber here today. I welcome the constructive nature of the report, which looked at both the problem and suggested solutions to it. It is critically important that we continue to speak up for our constituents and communities who feel powerless in the wake of bank closures. Although banking remains reserved, the Scottish Government has a responsibility to ensure that the voices of customers, small businesses and communities are heard at the highest level. That is a responsibility that we have taken seriously over the past few months, particularly in the wake of the particularly damaging branch closures or RBS branch closures. I want to pick up on a few themes that we have heard here today. The first point to pick up on is the vulnerable people who are hit hardest by those branch closures. Gillian Martin talked about the human cost and the importance of social inclusion when it comes to looking at branch closures. Jackie Baillie highlighted the loyalty of customers, customers who are taken for granted by banks because we are less likely to switch banks. It is older and more vulnerable people in particular who are hit by those branch closures but not only them. It hits the retail sector in particular who are still highly dependent on cash and it hits ordinary people who suffer the loss and feel that banks are not accountable for the actions that they take. Rachel Hamilton talked about the importance of ensuring that there are alternatives before closing a branch and spoke about taking a gamble on the post office. She also highlighted the powerful story of a gentleman in iMouth who was caught out waiting for a mobile branch in particularly awful weather. The question is about the dignity of customers who are dependent on branches and face-to-face contact. Fulton MacGregor also talked about the lady from Christon who celebrated 100 years and I saw the picture on Twitter. Again, those people feel like they are being left behind. It is important that we not only talk about profits when it comes to those branch closures but also talk about the social needs of customers who feel abandoned. The second theme was about rural areas. I can certainly empathise because, as a Highland MSP, I have seen branch closures in my constituency in Malig, Buley, Keil and Avymor. In some cases, particularly the one in Buley, it was the last bank in town. That is one of the 10 branches that have potentially been reprieved, but it awaits to be seen with the outcome of the independent review. When it comes to rurality, there are significant distances to travel. There was mention of the average of 40 minutes of travel in rural areas, but that is an average. For some, it can be in the region of ours. As Alasdair Allan said, for others, it can be an entire day depending on ferries there and ferries back to get to South East. If you are taking most of a day to get to your nearest branch, that has obvious implications on work, on business and on other opportunities, whether that is education or training. The third theme was about cash, which is still essential in so many sectors and in so many parts of the country. Dean Lockhart emphasised the importance of the network of ATMs and the importance of cash in our society. The access to cash and the ability to deposit cash were identified by the committee as a key issue, particularly for small businesses. It is clear that there will be a continuing long-term need for access to cash banking services in Scotland. The Scottish Government has raised issues on ATM coverage with LINC and the payment system regulator and will continue to do so. As LINC changes to the network take effect, the impact on the network will become apparent. The PSR has announced that it will take regulatory action, requiring LINC to set out explicitly how it will maintain the broad geographic spread of free-to-use ATMs across the UK. That is vitally important. Keith Brown mentioned the promise that was made about not leaving if RBS were the last bank in town. As I have already highlighted from my constituency example, that has not happened. There are cash deserts, as Colin Smyth has highlighted, where people have no access to cash, and they are caught out. Although it was an amusing story in terms of being caught out with only a card, it can be far more serious when it is more than just a coffee that you are trying to pay for or when banks or businesses find themselves without cash and in need of cash. As the FSB highlighted, that is particularly difficult in areas that have lower than average broadband services. If it is a choice of paying somebody over broadband that you do not have access to or cash, you end up with a higher number of people and businesses who become financially excluded. Collaboration is key, particularly in the discussion between Lewis MacDonald and John Mason. There are other examples where banks work together. There is no reason, albeit with the commercial sensitivities, that they cannot work together better on other initiatives, whether that is hubs, whether that is open banking or whether that is ensuring that customers ultimately have access. Brian Whittle Mike Rumbles Can you tell me a genuine question? We have heard from some of the banks that they cannot do the hub idea because of regulatory restrictions that we know are reserved for the UK Government. Is it the case that that is true, or could they, on a voluntary nature, engage in hubs and communities? I would like genuinely to know the answer to that. I will answer in the spirit that the question was asked. I think that to make any of those initiatives work when it comes to collaboration, regulators have to be involved. It needs to be a conversation not just between the banks and not just between Government and banks, but to get the regulator involved as well. Regulation needs to be updated as well to recognise the changing needs of customers. There are models that work, such as the link system, such as talking about open banking. When it comes to the hub system, there will need to be considerations when it comes to the regulator for what works and what does not work. However, I do not think that that means that we throw out the whole concept of banks' sharing in an effort to meet the customer needs. It is not just rural communities, either. For example, as Colin Beattie mentioned, it is not just rural areas where people need to travel further. I find that a big disadvantage, particularly when they are dependent on public transport. The last point before I close is on consultation. There has been a lot of comment about what real consultation looks like. Stuart McMillan asked that question. Joan McAlpine talked about the fact that it is too little, too late to have discussions once communities have already taken the brunt of the closure. That communication needs to be effective with communities and also with representatives who often have to answer constituents at surgeries who are deeply concerned about the future of banking provision. There is a sense across the chamber of unanimity, of consensus, that the need for physical face-to-face banking services and access to cash remains there. There is a need there. Customers deserve choice, and there needs to be solutions for all customers. Thank you very much. I now ask John Mason to wind up on behalf of the committee. On behalf of the Economy, Energy and Fair Work Committee, I congratulate Colin Smith and Brian Whittle, who both got the title right. I think that other people were perhaps confused by the fact that the report says that the Economy, Jobs and Fair Work Committee now has a new name. Many thanks to everyone who has contributed to the debate today, the 19 speeches from the 18 speakers. I find it encouraging that the Parliament is as interested as they are in our looking at the subject of bank closures. First of all, I touch on some key issues as I see them, and I hope that the committee has seen them. If I have time, I will go on to some of the individual contributions that we have had. As others have said, online and phone banking are all very well, but cash is still needed, and that is stressed in paragraph 19 of our recommendations. Banks are there to serve the public, not just to drive change. Banks are not just an optional extra, like a sweetie shop or the bookies. They are a public service, and a number of members have mentioned that public service, such as Brian Whittle and others. There is attention because they are private businesses, but, as others have said, they are private businesses that would not exist if the public sector had not bailed them out. A real theme has been the lack of consultation with customers. Kate Forbes mentioned that. Edward Mountain, Gillian Martin, Stuart McMillan and others did as well, and I stopped writing down the notes. I remain unconvinced that that could not happen. I think that that is true of the committee as well. It happens in other sectors that there is consultation before a final decision is made, and I believe that it could happen in this, which is a public service even run by the private sector. When we come to the post office as an alternative, I personally am very positive, and paragraphs 23 to 26 look at this. I think that this is one of the best options going forward, given that we cannot recreate the bank network that we had in the past. I was interested in the post office response, which accepts that there is a lack of awareness and that only 40 per cent of the public realised that they could use the post office for banking services. I think that that was true for the committee that we had not realised how much could be done at post office. I think that there definitely needs to be an increase in that awareness, and I welcome the fact that the post office is committing to doing an awareness raising campaign starting, I believe, on 1 October. I was in one of the groups that went out to visit Leven, along with Colin Beattie, and that was where we were shown a letter from, I believe that it was the Royal Bank of Scotland who were closing their branch in that town, and they only suggested other Royal Banks and other members have suggested how far away those might be. They did not mention the post office at all in the letter, as far as I could see. There is clearly something very far wrong if we are hoping that the post office is the way forward, and the banks will not even tell their own customers that that is an option. I expect them to go 20 miles an hour or whatever it is to get to another branch of that bank. I am encouraged by parts of the response that we had from the post office, and especially on awareness raising. However, I was less happy with what they said about security in their letter. I am not sure if all members have seen that letter. It was addressed to the convener of the committee. I, for one, have to say that I feel less comfortable going into a totally open plan supermarket or whatever where the post office is at one of the tills, and we are expected to carry out normal banking services. There are still some post offices. I was at one in Portsmouth in the summer, where there is a separate place that you go to and do your post office or banking transactions, and I think that a lot of people would be comfortable with that. However, the post office even criticised the committee for raising this issue. It suggests that we are making this claim publicly as an open invitation to the criminal world and threatens the safety of our staff and customers. How ridiculous is that to get this kind of response from what is meant to be a national organisation, the post office? There is a real concern. Many people are really concerned. I have also heard from local post office owners in my constituency about the tensions that they have with the post office as a whole. It was Lewis MacDonald who mentioned the different rates that are paid to the post office as a whole, but how little of that works its way through to the post master or mistress, if that is the correct term. Rachel Hamilton and Colin Smyth both spent quite a lot of time talking about the post offices, and I think that that way is a bit of an interchange around that. The only bank that contacted me over the summer after the report was published was Lloyds Bank of Scotland, and I agreed to meet them. They were stressing the option of people having their money collected businesses by the bank's collection service. I think that that is an option. I think that it is something that maybe we did not look at a lot in the report, but clearly some businesses do not really feel that that is an option. The Treasury response was also a bit of a mixture of positive and negative. Positively, the payment system regulator and the impact on link, and others have mentioned that some of the reductions in charges will not be happening. That is positive and shows that the UK Government can have an impact on the banking sector in that regard. More negatively, in relation to the access to banking standard, they say that they think that it is working effectively at present. I think that the committee was pretty well unanimous in saying that that is not the case, that it is not working effectively and that it needs to be on a statutory basis. Others have mentioned link and the ATMs, and we are also concerned about losing some of those. More positively, as I was intervened on Lewis MacDonald, it is an example of banks working together and seems to me to show that it could be done and that community hubs or joint branches are a possibility. The fact that we can almost all get money out of any machine is very positive. Just if I can mention my own constituency in passing, we had an RBS in Shettleston and it was very busy. I used it often myself. As Jackie Baillie said, there was often a queue there, and yet they announced that it was going to be closed. I was so incensed at that time that I did something that I do not think I have ever done before, which was to work with the local Labour Party, and specifically with Margaret Curran and Frank Macavite. We did a joint campaign led by a community council, although we did not have a lot of success. Just to go on to one or two of the comments that were made, I am not going to have time for everybody. Obviously, the convener, Gordon Lindhurst, made a lot of good points. He made a biblical reference, and I was just wondering how I could respond to that. There is, of course, the example in the Bible of Jesus turning over the tables of the money changers, so I thought that perhaps he and I could go on a way of tour of Edinburgh tomorrow and turn over a few tables. Kate Forbes made the interesting point that digital progress should mean that things are more inclusive and others made the point that there should be more choice rather than less choice, which I would totally agree with. One thing that I definitely wanted to touch on was Mike Rumble's suggestion that a Scottish Parliament committee should do a joint inquiry with the Westminster committee. I am not sure whether that has happened. I am certainly open to the idea of it, although I think that there are some practical problems and challenges with that. I think that there is also the problem that we have to get the Westminster folk not to look down on us and treat us as equals. Having been there, I think that MPs have a lot more time in their hands than MSPs have. In conclusion, I am delighted that our inquiry has generated this level of interest. Many thanks to the witnesses, the speakers and everyone who has taken part. I think that I can say that, on behalf of the committee, we will not be forgetting about this topic. We will be keeping an eye on how things develop and we may well be back to challenge the different players in due course, thank you very much. That concludes our debate on bank closures on behalf of the Economy, Energy and Fair Work Committee. The next item of business is consideration of business motion 13984, in the name of Graeme Dey. On behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, setting out a revised business programme for Thursday, and could I ask any member if they wish to speak against this motion to press their request to speak button now? Could I call on Graeme Dey to move the motion? Thank you very much. No one seems to object. Therefore, the question is that motion 13984 be agreed. Are we agreed? We are. The next item of business is consideration of Parliamentary Bureau motion 13973, on approval of an SSI. I can ask Graeme Dey again on behalf of the Bureau to move the motion. We turn now to decision time. The first question is that motion 13912, in the name of Gordon Lindhurst, on bank closures, impact on local businesses, consumers and the Scottish economy, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The final question is that motion 13973, in the name of Graeme Dey, on approval of an SSI be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. That concludes decision time. We will move now to members' business in the name of Bill Kid on UN International Day of Peace 2018, but we will just take a few moments for members and ministers to change seats.