Hansard

I thank Jackie Dunbar for bringing the debate to the chamber, and I acknowledge the contributions of Danestone church, in particular, and Age Scotland, which have sent in contributions to assist us.

Across Scotland, thousands of volunteers raise money for their communities to support older people, maintain local facilities, organise community events and step in where statutory services cannot always reach. They give their time freely, and they accept responsibility for managing funds carefully and transparently. In turn, the public gives generously, trusting that what is donated will be used directly for the community benefit. Every pound is raised with intent, and every pound is to serve a purpose.

Most of those groups operate on a modest turnover and thus have very straightforward banking needs. They are not complex commercial bodies; they are local lunch clubs, art clubs and exercise classes. They are organisations that plan carefully, and they often raise income locally through raffles, subscriptions and small grants. Expenditure is allocated with precision.

However, Jackie Dunbar’s motion highlights the ever-increasing instances in which a portion of that money goes not to where it was intended to go but, instead, to the banks that hold it. An increasing number of banks have introduced charges on accounts that are held by charities, community councils and other non-profit organisations. Those include monthly account charges, transaction fees, costs for depositing cash and additional charges for writing cheques. For some groups, as Jackie Dunbar mentioned, those charges might amount to more than £50 a year. For others, in particular those handling regular cash donations or cheque payments, annual costs can approach £300.

Those charges have to be taken from hall hires, subsidised transport for the elderly and the cost of essential supplies, thereby steadily eroding the funds that are available for front-line activity. That places such groups in an invidious position. Do they reduce services, increase fundraising simply to cover those administrative overheads, ask volunteers to shoulder additional pressure, or all of the above? None of that enhances community resilience. Across the thousands of voluntary organisations that operate in Scotland, we are talking about millions of pounds potentially flowing from community hands into bank profits.

Let us not forget, too, that the issue is compounded, as Jackie Dunbar reminded us, by structural changes in banking provision. More than one in five people over the age of 60 in Scotland are not digitally connected, and the proportion is higher among disabled older people.

Many community groups rely on cash donations, as that remains the most accessible way for members to contribute, and digital banking is not necessarily appropriate for volunteer treasurers, who might lack confidence in online banking services.

We have debated recently in the chamber how bank closures severely restrict practical access to in-person banking. At a time when demand for community services grows ever larger, the charges, coupled with bank closures, are truly devastating.

We cannot be blind to the second part of Jackie Dunbar’s motion. We all remember the financial crisis and how the banks received billions of pounds in public support. The public that funded that rescue is the same public that is now volunteering at food banks and organising care for elderly neighbours, and being charged for the privilege. The public bailed out the banks, but the banks are now billing the public’s charities and voluntary work. That cannot be right.