Hansard

Mr Swinburne makes a fair point. I will say something about the business viability of post offices being jeopardised.

Due to the limitations of transport in rural Scotland, there would also be an inevitable increase in vehicle use and a negative impact on the environment. So, the argument for maintaining a strong network of rural post offices is that it is good for the environment and good for access to important public services.

Royal Mail has an obligation to ensure that, throughout the United Kingdom, no more than 5 per cent of users' premises are further than 5km away from an access point that is capable of receiving registered mail—normally defined as a post office. Royal Mail says that, across the UK, that figure is 0.3 per cent, but in Scotland it is already 19 per cent. If the post offices that are nearest to the people who completed the Postwatch questionnaire—which, admittedly, was targeted towards rural communities—closed, that figure would rise to 79 per cent.

There can be no statistical proof of my next point, but the Postwatch survey also identified that individuals would be likely to make decisions about where they lived on the basis of whether they were able to access important services such as those that we are discussing, and that they may choose to leave an area if the post office closed. That raises the possibility of a negative impact on population numbers in rural Scotland, which could have a consequent impact on the viability of rural communities.

When we look for a decision from the DTI, we are looking for an example of joined-up government. It is of great concern that, although the DTI provides that subsidy at present, other UK Government departments, such as the Department for Work and Pensions, the Department for Transport and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, are making decisions that reduce the volume and value of the transactions that can be undertaken at post offices, thereby damaging their profitability. I think that that is the point that Mr Swinburne was making in his intervention.

As an example of that, I cite the Post Office card account. The Department for Work and Pensions has announced that it will not renew its contract to fund the Post Office card account in 2010, despite encouraging people to take up the account as a means of continuing to receive income through post office facilities. The introduction of the card helped to reduce the impact on the post office network of the change to the direct payment of pensions and benefits. It is estimated that 3.4 million people throughout the UK use the cards, resulting in more than £400 million of revenue being retained within the post office network.

Since the Government made that announcement about its lack of commitment to the Post Office card account beyond 2010, there have been signs of a dip in the revenue for post offices as a result. A further reduction of footfall into rural post offices will, without doubt, jeopardise the future of those ventures. That reduction would be directly due to a lack of joined-up thinking within the UK Government. Coupled with the long-standing impact of encouraging members of the public to have their benefits paid directly rather than access them over the counter at post offices, there is a real danger of a significant loss of business activity in rural post offices.

If our rural post office network is not supported, there will be severe economic loss and loss of amenity in countless communities in Perthshire, Angus and elsewhere in rural Scotland. I make the case for the Scottish Executive to make the strongest possible representations to the UK Government to provide a stable level of support that guarantees the viability of the rural post office network.

I hope that the Deputy Minister for Environment and Rural Development will agree today to make those representations to the Government. We cannot tolerate a situation in which the Government reduces its level of support and, as a consequence, access by members of the public to vital local services is reduced. This is an opportunity for us to have joined-up government with an effort across departments of the UK Government and Scottish Executive to protect rural services. I encourage members to put that point clearly to ministers in the debate.

Ministers will take decisions very shortly on the future of the subsidy to rural post offices; some say that announcements could be made as early as next week. I hope that, in the period that remains, there will be discussions and dialogue. There is an opportunity for the voice of the Parliament to be heard and for it to be expressed in a clear way, demanding that the Government provide a secure future for rural post offices. Unless we do that, and unless ministers at Westminster listen, the UK Government will, in my view, be responsible for delivering a body blow to economic and social activity in rural Scotland. We cannot allow that to happen, and I encourage Parliament to make that point clear to ministers today.