Official Report · Committee
link
We now move on to item 3, which is two petitions that have been referred to this committee by the Public Petitions Committee.Petition PE113 is about the reinstatement of the Borders railway. The lead committee on this is the Transport and the Environment Committee. It has sought the views of this committee.
As you might expect, I support this. I hope that the committee will support it.We discussed this petition at the Rural Affairs Committee yesterday. Two of the Borders MSPs, Christine Grahame and Euan Robson, were at the committee to support it. They explained the importance of reintroducing a railway network into the Borders, given that it is an area that has lost its rail infrastructure and is not especially well served by roads, and explained its importance for the economy of the region. The Rural Affairs Committee supported the petition fairly strongly; I hope that the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee will also lend its support.
link
Are there any contrary views?
Is this a decision in principle? Presumably resources would have to be allocated.
link
The furthest that we can go as a committee is to comment to the effect that we are supportive of the work being undertaken to re-establish rail links with the Borders and recognise the benefits that this would have to economic development and tourism in that part of Scotland.
I have one slight concern. I notice that a letter from the Campaign for Borders Rail, which specifically wants to secure the release of public finance to fund the scheme, is attached to the petition. I am very much in sympathy with the restoration of a railway in the Borders, but I have to observe caution in relation to the funding. I would not be prepared to accept that it should be done entirely out of public funds.
link
If members examine the petition, there is nothing in it about paying for the rail links. We either think that this is a good idea and that we should give it some support or not. All ideas must be assessed within the resource constraints of public finances, but I do not think that the aspirations set out in the petition are necessarily ones that give us any difficulties.
I think that those aspirations could be expressed for many parts of Scotland, in many areas that are currently arguing for better transport links. I have no problem in lending my support to that aspiration, but I think that we must come back to the letter that accompanies the petition. I support its calls to initiate a debate in Parliament and to examine the issues in the Social Inclusion, Housing and Voluntary Sector Committee and the Transport and the Environment Committee.However, I think that the release of public finance to fund the scheme may mean that other schemes, such as the road in the Highlands that Fergus Ewing is always on about, do not get it. There must be a balance here. We support activity on those issues, but not to the extent that money should be given to it as a priority above all else.
link
What I said to the committee, in trying to draw together the discussion, was that we could see benefits to the process of economic development and tourism arising from the establishment of the Borders railway.
Throughout Scotland or just in the Borders?
link
All we have in front of us is a Borders railway petition. With the greatest respect, we do not have one from any other part of Scotland. The petition about the Borders railway is what we are considering. We either give this petition some support or none. I will rule members out of order if they talk about matters that have nothing to do with the Borders railway petition. We can discuss this petition and give it either some degree of support and encouragement or none, but I am not going to enter into a debate about a multiplicity of other projects, worthy though they may be.
I apologise for being late. I was at the doctor's and had to wait.Forgive me for being so bold, but I think that my colleague Duncan McNeil was saying that, although this is a Borders petition for a Borders air link—Laughter.
Do they want one of them as well?
Do you mean a Borders-Ayr link?
I mean a Borders rail link. Duncan was saying that, although the railway would be in the Borders, it would benefit all of Scotland, which is true. Am I right in saying that, Duncan?
Yes.
Although I appreciate what Duncan said, I would state the case even more strongly. Unlike Annabel Goldie, I think that there is a case for prising open the public purse to start the process. I think that we should be even more committed to the proposal than we seem to be.
My only concern is to do with the letter that was presented with the petition. I do not know the status of the Campaign for Borders Rail, but the letter seems to read as one with the petition and asks for public money to fund the scheme, not to assist the scheme. I endorse the principle of the petition, but if that letter is to be read as part of the petition, I would have to express profound reservations.
link
With the exception of Margo, who is ultra-favourably disposed to the Borders railway—
Well, I am a fundamentalist.
link
Absolutely, and we support that aspect of your character and your aspirations.I suggest that we give our support to the petition for the advantages that would be brought to economic development and tourism in the Borders and to the rest of Scotland and leave it at that. Are we agreed?Members indicated agreement.
link
The next petition relates to rural post offices and was submitted to Parliament by the Dunlop and Lugton Community Council. Attached is a note from the clerk of the Public Petitions Committee that explains the parliamentary consideration that has been given to this subject.
We should support this. It is a fundamental issue in many rural areas. Are we passing it to the Rural Affairs Committee?
link
It has been sent to that committee as well. We are required to tell the Public Petitions Committee what further action we think is required.
We should recommend that there be a wider examination of the issue as it affects all of rural Scotland.
It might be useful if I said what happened at the Rural Affairs Committee yesterday. The committee noted that there were developments in the post office network, including the negotiation of a banking agreement that would allow community banking to be performed from post offices. It was noted that that might change the situation and might make the rural post office a stronger part of its environment. We also agreed that an investigation into the issue of rural post offices could be included in the on-going inquiry into patterns of rural employment.
I do not support the petition in the terms in which it talks. However, the suggested action, which is what we are here to consider, is a different matter. The suggested action is that we pass the petition to the Rural Affairs Committee. Is that right?
link
The petition has been referred to this committee as well as to the Rural Affairs Committee.
The Social Inclusion, Housing and Voluntary Sector Committee might also have a view on the matter. Post offices play an important role, although it may well be informal and ancillary, not only in rural areas but in large towns and cities. Getting out to a local centre—the post office—is part of the socialisation of many people who are reliant on benefits and so on. That might not be seen as an economic function, but it is certainly a social function.
link
The petition is about the situation regarding rural post offices.
I was just noting the fact that there is a wider issue.
The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to take whatever action it considers to be most appropriate to relay our concerns. We should discuss what action we could take, what is competent and how we can relay those concerns to Westminster. All members will be concerned about the problem. I carried out a survey of the 60 or so post offices in my constituency and received replies that indicated that their area of greatest concern was that the removal of some of their current income from dealing with benefits would render them non-viable. I hope that members will accept that that is a legitimate concern, although it is an area of controversy.It might be appropriate for us to recommend that the most relevant committee should carry out an investigation and ask for specific factual information from all the sub-post offices. Several members have carried out surveys like mine—I know that Mary Scanlon did a survey of post offices in the Highlands on behalf of the Conservative party. However, it would be better if the Rural Affairs Committee could carry out a super-survey of all sub-post offices and post offices. That would allow us to argue the case with greater force.
We must examine the matter from a different perspective. We are not the Social Inclusion, Housing and Voluntary Sector Committee or the Rural Affairs Committee. There are related issues that we may want to consider, such as employment and how we develop a new post office network that will take on new technology. To encourage people to block those new measures such as automated payment of benefits at a time when more and more people have bank accounts and so on is to encourage them to stand still. We would not encourage any other group or enterprise to stand still in a changing world. We may have issues to consider, but those would not relate specifically to sustaining rural communities or social inclusion.
Offering people the opportunity of having their benefit paid in cash at the post office or via their bank account is not the same as the petition's claim that an action of the Government is making post offices non-viable. However, I agree with Fergus Ewing that it would be proper for the Rural Affairs Committee to consider the implications of the policy and to make the appropriate representations. I am rather unclear what our specific role is in addition to that.
link
Let me try to draw this to a close because we have heard all the arguments. The petition was passed to us at the same time as it was sent to the Rural Affairs Committee. We must decide what action, if any, we should take. Fergus Ewing has proposed that we suggest to the Rural Affairs Committee that it consider the issues that have been raised by this petition as part of its continuing study on rural employment and business activity, for which there is commissioned parliamentary research, and that it gather evidence on that basis. Does anybody disagree with that?
The point was made in the debate that the Horizon project enables the delivery of a variety of other services through the Post Office, which is relevant to our committee.
How does that differ from what has already been decided, which is to pass a copy of the petition to the Rural Affairs Committee to include the closure of rural sub-post offices in its forthcoming inquiry into the impact of rural employment change on rural communities?
link
Our committee has taken the view that it has nothing to add to the recommendation of the Public Petitions Committee, which is that the petition should be passed to the Rural Affairs Committee as part of that committee's study into the impact of rural employment change. I am suggesting that we leave it at that.
I have an observation to make. In non-rural areas, there is deep concern about the continuation of post offices—
link
I am not going to entertain discussion on that. I have a petition in front of me on rural post offices; I do not have one on urban post offices.
In that case, I am content that the matter be referred to the Rural Affairs Committee. Our rural post offices are important and should be rescued.
link
I appreciate your point, but this petition is concerned only with rural post offices.
The petition is against the proposed closure of, and changes to, any sub-post offices.
link
I have made a proposal to the committee and asked whether anyone disagrees with that proposal.
I favour the proposal.
link
Okay. We will ask the Rural Affairs Committee to consider this petition in its inquiry when it gathers evidence. Are there any dissenting voices?
We should add the proviso that the Rural Affairs Committee should report back to us, as we have a continuing interest in the matter. The heading is "Petition against the proposed Closure and Changes to Sub Post Offices". Anecdotally, it says: "In rural communities the Post Office is an important public service."Nobody would disagree with that. However, the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee should have an interest in the provision of any local enterprise facility. Although I have no objection to passing this petition on to the Rural Affairs Committee, I do not want that to exclude this committee from reconsidering it subsequently.
link
Many issues will be raised by the study that is being undertaken by the Rural Affairs Committee into rural employment change, which will be of interest to this committee. Later in the parliamentary year, we may discuss that study with the Rural Affairs Committee, and this petition could form part of that discussion.Does the committee agree to support the recommendation of the Public Petitions Committee?Members indicated agreement.
link
Item 4 on the agenda will be taken in private session.
Meeting continued in private until 12:20.
The type of each item (debate, statement, questions, members’ business and so on) and the times shown are worked out by this site from headings, the chair’s opening words and the Official Report’s running timestamps. They are not the Parliament’s own classification. Text: the Scottish Parliament Official Report.