Plenary, 30 Oct 2003

Meeting date: Thursday, October 30, 2003

Official Report 707KB pdf

---

Integrated Rural Development

Good morning. The first item of business is a committee debate on motion S2M-477, in the name of Sarah Boyack, on the Rural Development Committee's report on integrated rural development.

I kick off by thanking the Rural Development Committee of the previous session and the clerks who worked on the report. I also want to thank all the people who gave evidence to the committee in its deliberations—that kind of consultation and involvement is vital to the success of our work. It is therefore appropriate that the present Environment and Rural Development Committee is able to have its first debate on the previous committee's report.

This debate is unusual. The report was completed by the previous committee before the election; we now have new committee members and, indeed, a new committee that combines environment and rural development work. However, members of the new Environment and Rural Development Committee considered that our predecessors' report should be presented formally to Parliament and ministers because that would enable the report's conclusions and recommendations to be aired and discussed. We also felt that presenting the report would enable members to reflect on the recommendations and to add new issues that have come to the fore since the report was completed.

I want to highlight some key areas of the report and then to outline some major challenges that the Environment and Rural Development Committee is working on. I fully expect colleagues in the chamber who were involved in drafting the report to discuss the issues that they regarded as being of the utmost importance. I am sure that my colleagues on the new committee will wish to share their thoughts, too. The debate is therefore unusual, but we felt that it is important to have cross-fertilisation of ideas.

In its inquiry, the Rural Development Committee was presented with a wide range of evidence. If members look through the report, they will see that the committee covered a large number of issues, including farming, forestry, the rural economy in the round, the need for affordable housing and rural transport, renewable energy and ways of improving the planning system. In general, the committee found a lack of effective integration between the policies of the statutory development agencies and it felt that there was a tendency for each organisation to pursue its own agenda. That has led to a piecemeal approach to rural development. I am sure that that theme will run through colleagues' comments on the different policy areas.

The committee identified pressing issues for rural Scotland. On farming, the committee believed that more small farmers and crofters should benefit from the rural stewardship scheme. The minister has already agreed to some developments on that issue; however, the effectiveness of the changes needs to be kept continually under review by Parliament and by our committee.

Personally, I want extension of agri-environment schemes, with more effective support for farmers and with financial payments that will enable more integrated local approaches. The Executive has already signalled to us the potential use of land management contracts. That could provide a new basis of support for farming in line with the wider public interest.

The committee recommended that the Scottish Executive implement a single marketing and labelling scheme for Scottish farm produce in order to promote greater traceability and consumer confidence in Scottish farm products. On labelling and consumer confidence, the committee considered that there needs to be more support for niche markets that are based on high quality and high environmental standards.

Since the committee's report was produced, we have had the Executive's "Organic Action Plan", which addresses issues such as marketing, quality of production and financial support. It also considers issues such as better distribution mechanisms—farmers' markets, for example—which would enable a more direct relationship between producers and consumers, with clearly labelled produce, high quality and high-value choices for consumers and opportunities for farmers. An expansion of organic or more environmentally responsible farming could also have spin-offs in other areas—for example, improved water quality and a reduction in costs for farmers. That point was made during the Environment and Rural Development Committee's visit to Perthshire this week.

The previous committee recommended that the Scottish Executive develop a comprehensive forestry policy. That committee identified some particular issues, including the need to develop existing and new markets, such as biomass energy and the use of wood in construction, and the need to develop a more sympathetic procurement policy so that the use of local products is encouraged. In addition, the committee had a strong sense that policies should work in an integrated way in order to gain the maximum value from the forestry industry.

A particular issue that the committee highlighted was the relationship between forestry and local transport infrastructure. I know that some members in the chamber are concerned about that. During our committee's visit this week, wider issues arose, such as wildlife management and access to tourism. Those issues have to be considered in the management and development of forestry.

Some of the most interesting recommendations in the previous committee's report were on the rural economy and rural housing. Those two issues are inextricably linked. The committee recommended that, in the short term, the Scottish Executive examine a rural rates-relief scheme for rural businesses. In the longer term, the committee wanted a review of the valuation system for assessing rural business premises. The committee acknowledged the difficulties faced by anyone wishing to create a new business in a rural area. However, it highlighted that unemployment was not the key issue. The key issue was getting suitable labour and finding accommodation to enable continuity of employment for people in rural industries. Those difficulties are increased by problems in obtaining land, connecting to services and obtaining financial support.

The previous committee saw evidence of the present barriers to integrated rural development and felt that such issues should be highlighted and tackled. In taking evidence on the Executive's budget this year, one of the issues that the present committee explored with the minister was the costs of connection to water and sewerage services. Some of the issues that the previous committee identified are now being picked up by the present committee in its scrutiny work.

A key issue that comes across loud and clear in the report is the lack of affordable rural housing. The committee said that that affects not only local populations but the ability of rural areas to attract more workers to provide labour for rural industries. The cost of housing in many rural areas creates difficulties for young people who are not able even to get on to the housing ladder. The committee believed that assistance should be targeted towards people with connections to areas, such as those who live and work or have family in the area. However, the committee acknowledged that that might be difficult to define in legislative terms. In relation to this issue, a lot of work has been done in planning. Parliament could usefully revisit some of the legislative and planning issues. The committee felt that in order to overcome the substantial gap in available and affordable rural housing, radical and ambitious policies were required.

The committee made a number of recommendations that Parliament should consider. More areas should be zoned as suitable for rural housing that is appropriate to the needs and characteristics of areas. That should come through in every local authority's development plans. The areas that are most urgently in need of social housing should be identified and the Executive and local authorities should look towards increasing housing grants in those areas.

The committee also suggested that the Scottish Executive explore the possibility of payments' being given to local trusts and housing associations to assist them in developing affordable rural housing for those who have a connection with the area. The Executive should also prioritise access to services for new developments in rural areas.

I will not be able to go into every recommendation of the previous committee in depth. However, there are perhaps three other issues in the report that should be on our agenda—rural transport, renewable energy and planning. On rural transport, the committee raised a number of particular concerns surrounding public transport in rural areas. The committee identified lack of transport as causing difficulties in accessing employment, education and health services. Concerns were expressed about the cost of fuel, the poor state of some roads and the need to develop a more integrated public transport service for rural Scotland. All those issues were seen by the committee as substantial barriers to population mobility and economic development in rural areas. After the past four years, those issues will not be new to anyone in the chamber. We have debated them extensively.

On renewable energy, the committee recommended that the Scottish Executive take urgent steps to implement a strategy on the location of renewable energy generation structures.

The committee considered that the Executive should consult on and prepare an energy strategy for Scotland in order to co-ordinate and drive forward action on demand reduction and energy efficiency, to maximise the opportunities for renewable energy and to prevent ad hoc development in areas that require protection. This is perhaps an opportunity for members to speak personally about their dependence on former polluting technologies such as coal, oil, gas and nuclear power, and about moving to a combination of energy efficiency with targets and reduced consumption with targets.

We can consider renewable energy from a wide range of sources and technologies. The cross-party renewable energy group is considering encouraging local energy generation and supply. A massive challenge for our Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning is to ensure that our huge offshore untapped potential can be unleashed and linked to manufacturing in Scotland—that is something that has begun to happen with wind energy.

The committee felt that the strategy should relate clearly to other government strategies, which should seek to reduce overall energy consumption, in particular in transport and waste. The Environment and Rural Development Committee has been taking evidence over the past couple of months on implementation of the national waste plan, and we have been giving particular consideration to the implications of the plan for rural areas and the challenges for waste management and reduction in such areas.

It is difficult to cover all the recommendations—there are about 33—but an important one is the committee's recommendation that the enterprise companies be directed to identify mechanisms through which core funding can be strategically directed to local community development companies. Those local development companies are the bedrock of community involvement in rural Scotland, but the Executive's response to that recommendation has been rather negative. Would the convener of the new committee recognise that and take it on?

As I made clear at the start, the Environment and Rural Development Committee has not been through all the recommendations. We wanted to ensure that the report was discussed in Parliament. I am interested to hear the views of all members on matters that they think the Environment and Rural Development Committee should consider further. I am sure that other committee members would be interested to hear those views.

Will the member take an intervention?

No, I would like to get on.

The Rural Development Committee covered planning. What comes through loud and clear in its report is the feeling that is widespread throughout rural Scotland that many planning procedures are too tightly controlled and inflexible. There are recommendations on planning that could usefully be considered in the light of the new planning bill that is being considered by the Executive. A particular issue that was highlighted by the committee was the regulations on the conversion to other uses of existing rural buildings. A number of recommendations related to planning for affordable housing.

There are a huge number of issues—Mike Rumbles raised one that I have not covered. There are many recommendations that I have been unable to mention, but I have tried to give members a sense of the wealth of key issues that were identified in the report.

There are new challenges. The Environment and Rural Development Committee is conscious that agendas are moving on. The committee is picking up new rural issues and, given its remit, considering them from the perspective of the environment. One of the key issues that has come to the fore since the committee concluded its report is the debate on the current problems of the fishing industry in relation to white fish. It is an issue that the new committee will consider over the coming months and I am sure that it is one that we will debate with the minister in relation to his negotiations on the common fisheries policy.

The other key challenge of which the new committee is very conscious and that it is trying to prepare for is the mid-term review of the common agricultural policy. The minister has published a document for consultation, which the committee will have to consider over the coming months. CAP reform is a big opportunity for the committee to be visionary—we must make the most out of what will be a difficult challenge for rural Scotland. The committee will have to work with our farming and rural communities to ensure that their views are properly plugged into the approach that we take in Scotland.

We must consider the opportunities in rural development that we could maximise. In the past, there have been opportunities for matched funding from the UK Treasury, which may mean more money for rural development. Rather than consider farming in isolation, we should consider its contribution to wider rural development and we should pick up on some of the integrated approaches that the previous committee raised in its report.

A big challenge for us all is to consider diversification in our rural communities and reflect on what flexibilities might be available to involve rural communities in a more integrated approach to countryside stewardship in the public interest. The Environment and Rural Development Committee will be returning to that issue, which is one in which the minister is currently engaged. The new committee, with new energy and the new job of considering environment and rural development, has been given the opportunity and the challenge to consider an integrated approach to rural development. We should engage in that.

I am clear from the work of the previous committee that it wanted to ensure that rural and remote communities have their distinct needs reflected across the range of Government policy and initiatives. That means practical support for innovation and enterprise in our rural communities and it means working with local authorities to protect and develop rural services. It is about maintaining strong, prosperous and growing communities in rural Scotland. That is a challenge not only for the Environment and Rural Development Committee but for all members. It should cut across the work of the Parliament and the Executive.

I would be particularly interested to know when the review of the rural development plan will be published. I know that its publication is close, but I wonder whether the minister will mention it this morning. There is a big issue about how we involve people in rural Scotland—the key stakeholders in the next rural development plan. There has been some criticism of the options that have been presented and it has been suggested that we need a wider and more visionary approach. There is a big challenge for us all in scrutinising the Executive and in considering how a more integrated approach to rural development can be taken throughout the Executive. It is fair to say that the Environment and Rural Development Committee is at the early stages of getting to grips with that; it is on our agenda for the coming session of Parliament.

As a committee convener, it is a bit unusual for me to be reflecting on the work of a previous committee, but there is much in the report that we should be debating in the chamber. I hope that I have added one or two thoughts about the direction that the Environment and Rural Development Committee will take in the future. Let us have a good debate this morning and let us thank the previous committee for its work. The new committee is keen that a bit of space should be created for members to have a debate, to develop the issue of integrated rural development and to allow members to put issues on the agenda not only of the Environment and Rural Development Committee, but of the Executive.

I will conclude now. I do not know how many minutes I had, but perhaps we will get an extra speaker in if I stop now.

I move,

Inquiry into Integrated Rural Development (SP Paper 735).

I represent a constituency that has a considerable rural interest, but I am also a member of the successor committee to the Rural Development Committee, which carried out the inquiry in the previous session. I commend the members of that committee for carrying out a detailed and in-depth inquiry. It is fair to say that there is enough material in the report for at least half a dozen debates in the chamber; we may well have them over the next few months. I wish in particular to associate myself with Sarah Boyack's comments, especially regarding affordable housing, which is an issue that bedevils most parts of rural Scotland, including Perthshire. It is a huge problem, which needs to be addressed in the near future. What Sarah had to say about that was very important.

The subject matter of the report is very broad. I cannot hope in the course of this speech to cover all the committee's findings and the Executive's responses to them, so I will concentrate on three specific areas: alternative energy, transport and rural businesses. The recommendation with regard to fisheries would normally be dealt with by my colleague Richard Lochhead, who it was originally intended would be summing up for the Scottish National Party at the end of today's debate. However Richard has other—perhaps more immediately important—matters to deal with at present. I am sure that all members will join me in congratulating him and his wife and in welcoming the safe arrival of their baby boy. [Applause.] I think that he is taking only a week's paternity leave and will be back next week.

I have long been a supporter of renewable energy and believe that Scotland has the potential to become a world leader in renewables, as well as the potential—if we get it right—eventually to produce all of our energy needs from renewable sources, and quickly to meet and surpass any emission targets that might be set. Investment in alternative energy technologies can have a direct benefit for the rural and national economy of Scotland, as well as a direct benefit for the rural, national and global environment.

However, the appalling way in which the present development of wind farms is being handled represents a potential threat to the whole future of public confidence in the benefits of alternative energies. The committee makes three specific recommendations, all of which are reflected in motion S2M-487, which I have lodged with the chamber office. I have added some further recommendations and urge members to support the motion.

Onshore wind energy is in effect the only new renewable source that is currently commercially viable—wave and tidal energy are still approximately eight to 12 years away from viability, as I understand it. Meanwhile, the energy companies are required by the Government to reach renewable targets, and they fear financial sanctions if they fail.

That is the background to the huge number of wind farm applications that are being made the length and breadth of Scotland. Not all those applications will be successful. I am told that, at present, the success rate appears to be one in eight, although I am unable to verify that information, and other sources suggest that it could be lower. That is an issue that must be addressed. In truth, the developers themselves seem to be no more satisfied with the process than are local communities. Both sides want a clearer indication of designated areas where wind farms would be considered appropriate and a far more strategic approach to the whole business. More clarity is needed. To be frank, it is time for the Scottish Executive to heed the concerns that are being expressed, not just in the Rural Development Committee's report but across the board by developers and communities alike, and to provide a more transparent and flexible process than is available at present.

The committee recommended the implementation of

"a strategy on the location of renewable energy generation structures";

that the Executive and local authorities work together to identify specific

"potential development zones … in local structure and development plans",

and

"that local communities should have access to advice on proposed alternative energy developments independent of that of the proposal's developers. This should include the provision of advice on setting up of … community funds".

I support all those recommendations and would go further in recommending that the Executive actively promote and assist community-led renewable energy projects. That is what made wind power development in Denmark easier for communities to take on board and what made it the huge success that it is today.

Those recommendations were published in January 2003. Since then, our postbags have started to bulge with letters from constituents about wind farms. If the Executive had acted on the advice of the committee at the time, it would have gone a long way to addressing many of the concerns that exercise so many of my constituents and, no doubt, people the length and breadth of the country.

I would like to refer briefly to the Scottish Executive's response to the report. Its reaction was to say that

"the issue of such guidance would not be a productive step at this time."

I have to say that I cannot begin to imagine anything less productive than the situation that we have at present. The response continues:

"The Executive believes that there are dangers in such an approach; these include concentrating developments within particular areas".

Well, developments are being concentrated within particular areas under the present system, and the whole issue must be addressed if we are not entirely to lose public confidence and public support for renewable energy in the future.

I turn now to transport, which is another huge preoccupation of mine. I am not surprised that transport was found to be of great concern in every area that the committee visited. People in towns and cities may have complaints about the way in which public transport in their areas operates, but they pretty much take it for granted that it will be there. People in rural areas have no such security, and I cannot begin to describe the effect that that has.

Nor should it be assumed that everyone in rural areas has a car. In my constituency, there are some wards where more than 50 per cent of households are without a car, while in others the figure is less than 10 per cent. In Crieff, where I live and which is 20 miles west of Perth, there are two council wards—one where nearly one household in three has no car and another where the figure is almost one in four.

I do my best to travel around my constituency using public transport as much as possible, so I know how hard it is to do so. For people to try to commute daily by public transport must be almost impossible. We need a rural public transport system that meets the needs of people who have no access to a car and which also encourages those who are dependent on their cars to leave them at home. I am extremely supportive of campaigns by a number of communities in my constituency—mirrored, I suspect, in other constituencies—to open or re-open local train stations. That is something that the Executive really needs to get behind.

When it comes to rural businesses, improved transport links would be a huge boost to the rural economy: it needs a huge boost. Walking the main streets of towns and villages in Perthshire and elsewhere brings that home with a vengeance. I see businesses closing down, "To Let" and "For Sale" signs sprouting everywhere and empty shops in the high streets of villages and rural towns.

The committee recommended that the Executive

"examine a rural rates relief scheme for rural businesses",

as a short-term measure. In the longer term, it recommended

"a review of the valuation system for assessing rural business premises."

Rural businesses provide the jobs and services that keep rural communities alive. They must be supported and encouraged and the Executive must remember that the term "rural business" covers far more than simply a village shop, a petrol station or a hotel. Those forms of enterprise are extremely valuable, but the rural economy needs a much broader base than that, and it does not currently have such a base.

In its response to those and to many of the committee's other recommendations, the Executive tries to claim that it is, in some way, already doing what the committee is calling for. The members of the committee were not stupid; they were taking evidence from people who said, "These are the problems we are currently experiencing." Nor were the people stupid who gave the believable evidence that led to those recommendations' being made. In many instances, the committee did not believe that what was being done was happening well enough, fast enough or widely enough.

I am confident that the Parliament will indeed pass the motion noting the recommendations that are contained in the then Rural Development Committee's report. More to the point, I want to see the Executive actually taking the recommendations on board and making some of the changes that rural communities so badly need.

It is strange to find ourselves debating a report for which most of the work was done almost a year ago, but this is perhaps our first opportunity to consider a committee report after a little time lapse to see exactly how accurate some of what it said was. It is a tribute to the members of the Rural Development Committee that so much of what they put in their report has come to fruition.

The Parliament and the Executive took the whole area of integrated rural development to their hearts at an early stage. The establishment of a cross-cutting Cabinet committee is an example of how seriously the matter is taken. However, we have to be careful about exactly what we mean by integrated rural development and how we apply that to policy across the board.

We could take a general view and examine the problems associated with the underfunding of health services in some rural areas; I continually get my ear bent by Grampian NHS Board, for example. We could also look at the nature of funding for local government; Aberdeenshire Council regularly invites members of the Scottish Parliament from all parties to meetings at which it explains how extremely underfunded it is. I recognise that Aberdeenshire Council and other local authorities find themselves at a disadvantage in terms of funding. However, if a committee is to report on integrated rural development, it must be a little more specific and look at the important areas on which the Minister for Environment and Rural Development and other ministers with joint responsibility have a direct impact.

I have therefore picked out a cross-section of subjects, much as Roseanna Cunningham did. One subject that she mentioned, and which I would like to raise in the initial moments of my speech, is wind farms. Much has been said about what was in the report—in fact, I have the recommendations and the Executive response in front of me now. It is no surprise to discover that, all this time after the Government responded negatively to the committee's recommendations on the strategy for wind farms, both my colleague Murdo Fraser and Roseanna Cunningham have lodged motions that clearly reflect the committee's recommendation

"that the Scottish Executive take urgent steps to implement a strategy on the location of renewable energy generation structures in the landscape."

We are all disturbed about the number of letters that we receive on the issue. I have taken the opportunity to visit a number of sites and I can understand why people are concerned. Scotland's landscape is an important part of our attraction to many tourists. Given that tourism is an important resource in Scotland, we must consider the impact that wind farms may have on the attitudes of those who choose to visit rural Scotland. However, as the subject has already been covered, I offer Roseanna Cunningham my full backing. I shall sign her motion when I have the opportunity to do so later today.

Housing is extensively covered in the report and a number of recommendations are made. I will give my views on the recommendations because I believe that we must not make the mistake of not seeing all the possibilities that exist.

As Sarah Boyack said, on Tuesday the Environment and Rural Development Committee went to a number of Highland areas to carry out research on our stage 1 report for a forthcoming bill. The people whom we meet when we go on such visits never miss the opportunity to bend our ears on a whole list of subjects. When we visited Braemar, I was taken aside and told clearly about housing problems in the area, which relate to the great interest in tourism there. Many houses that come on to the market end up in the hands of people who want holiday homes.

We must address those issues carefully. In places such as Braemar, there is an opportunity for adequate support to be given to enable the private rented sector to deliver in a way that it cannot in other areas. Large estates in the Braemar area are particularly keen to ensure that there are opportunities for local people to find affordable accommodation. Perhaps that is the means by which development can best be focused.

Did the people who took the member aside say whether estate owners were prepared to release land so that affordable housing could be built?

I call Alex Fergusson. I am sorry—I meant Alex Johnstone.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. It is rare for the Presiding Officer to have to apologise to a member—usually, a member has to apologise to the Presiding Officer. I refer to my record as well as to that of other members.

It is important to realise that estate owners and landowners in areas such as Braemar make significant inputs. Rob Gibson is right to say that the need to release land is a key issue—indeed, that issue is highlighted in the report. There is an opportunity through providing limited support to the private rented sector to create housing for local people, which is the intention of many estates.

The people who took the member aside must have been extreme heavyweights. On affordable rural housing, what is the Conservative party's view about tied accommodation, which is a major issue in rural areas? Are the Conservatives for it or agin it?

I am not a party spokesman on that issue and consequently cannot speak for the party. However, I can give my own opinion. I believe that tied housing might be necessary in specific instances and that there will always be such instances. In general, however, tied housing is an anachronism from which we should look for ways to escape. I hope that the member will accept that that is my personal opinion, which I will put forward in policy discussions when opportunities arise.

Before I leave the subject of housing—and I had better leave the subject quickly—I will just say that we must recognise the importance of owner occupation, which is not easy to provide in areas such as Aberdeenshire, where I live. In Aberdeenshire, when houses are put up for sale, they tend to make huge amounts of money, which consequently excludes ordinary people from getting a first foot on the housing ladder. We must never forget that encouraging ownership of property among all young people is extremely important—young people should have the opportunity to get a first foot on the housing ladder. That cannot be achieved in many areas of Scotland, but we should ensure that people have opportunities to get on to the property ladder.

On general planning, I will highlight what the report said about changing the use of buildings, although not specifically for housing purposes. Unfortunately, proposals relating to the many opportunities that have arisen in rural Scotland for disused farm steadings to be used as industrial bases have not been approved by many local authorities. Many small farms are being amalgamated—we might regret that, but it is inevitable, given current trends in farming. We must ensure that buildings can be utilised. In many areas, there are opportunities for jobs to be created through industrial development as well as through conversion of buildings to houses.

Rural public transport has been mentioned many times and I agree with much of what has been said. However, I will talk briefly about the importance of road maintenance and the development of roads in rural areas. I am well aware of the experience of Angus Council, which has made an enormous commitment to the development of the A92 and the replacement of the Montrose bridge. That commitment has vastly depleted its roads budget. As a consequence, it is now in a position where deprivation is beginning to affect its roads.

And you are now in a position of summing up, I hope.

Indeed. I thank the Presiding Officer for her consideration. I commend the report to the Parliament.

I was not a member of the Rural Development Committee in the previous session, so I do not feel constrained in heaping praise on its modus operandi for gathering evidence for the report.

As the constituency MSP, I was involved in the committee's visit to Huntly, where it was clear that local people were delighted and well satisfied by the opportunities that were afforded to them to share their experience and knowledge with committee members. The reception that was held in the evening before the formal committee session was particularly useful in giving a great many more people access to committee members than could have been managed in the formal session. Furthermore, the feedback that I received from people who were involved in giving formal evidence was that they felt much more relaxed about giving evidence—they had already met the committee members and so nerves did not inhibit them in getting across the information that they had to offer.

The report is wide ranging and based on evidence from a' the airts and pairts of Scotland, but it is striking how the barriers to rural development that have emerged in each area are so similar. There are small-scale and expensive barriers. Distances, poor roads, high fuel costs and poor or no public transport make travel and communications difficult and therefore expensive. There are staff-recruitment limitations for incoming or developing businesses, which are partly or largely due to a lack of housing—never mind a lack of affordable housing—or to a lack of transport for potential staff to get to job opportunities.

Mitigation of the effects of such barriers requires two things—recognition that such barriers exist, with an acceptance that they should be compensated for, and willingness to compensate for them. Perhaps realistic quantification of the added costs of living in, operating in and delivering services to a scattered population is a third requirement. The report and the Executive's response to it demonstrate that things are beginning to move in the right direction, but there is still a long way to go.

I will briefly discuss a number of the committee's recommendations. I see where the committee is coming from in relation to an overall strategy for siting alternative energy developments and I have a deal of sympathy with that concept, but we must take care not to impinge on the planning responsibilities of democratically elected, locally accountable councils.

I heartily endorse the committee's recommendations on support for local communities that find themselves negotiating how they can benefit from developments that affect them without the resources or access to expertise that is available to developers. Recently, I was invited to a meeting in Keith by a group of people from the area around Drummuir. They have made extremely creditable progress in preparing for the possibility that they will have a community fund derived from a proposed wind farm development. However, they wanted to impress on their MP and MSP how difficult they had found the process, how much they had had to learn and how isolated and unsupported they had felt. They are now faced with the prospect of negotiating the level of contribution that the wind farm developer ought to make to the community and how that should be made. Why should people have to start from scratch every time?

Nora Radcliffe and I share an interest in what is happening at Drummuir. Does she agree that any community funding should not be a one-off payment but should be placed in a trust for future generations?

That is the solution that the people in the area have arrived at after starting from first principles and putting in an awful lot of work.

Information, advice, guidance and the resources to buy in the necessary expertise ought to be made available to communities in such situations. That could be done through community councils—I concur with the report that more responsibility could usefully be devolved to community councils. The funding could come either from the revenues that will accrue to local authorities from the developments or from central Government.

Communities should derive benefits from developments that will affect them. I liked the succinct comment of a councillor from the northern isles who did not think that Shetlanders would be prepared to accommodate wind farm developments on the basis of doing urban Britain a favour. He is quite right.

The committee made a recommendation on labelling for Scottish farm produce. In the Liberal Democrat manifesto, we advocated local accreditation schemes for locally produced food, to encourage greater links between producer and consumer, to cut food miles and to give people who want to buy local produce the reassurance that they are genuinely supporting local producers. We also said that agreement should be negotiated with supermarket chains and the farming industry on a code of practice for sourcing and labelling local food items alongside those produced by organic and sustainable methods—again, that would facilitate consumer choice.

I am glad that the member has raised that point, as I wanted to raise it with Sarah Boyack earlier. How does the member respond to the Executive's opinion that there is no support for the strategy that is recommended by the committee of labelling local farm produce?

The point that I am about to make will demonstrate why I think that it would be a good idea if we made progress in that area. Asda has identified a sales opportunity for local products that it values at £160 million. That would be a significant injection of cash into local economies.

Liberal Democrats agree with the committee that we should be exploring forestry potential, especially as Britain imports nearly 80 per cent of its wood and wood products at an annual cost of £6 billion. It would be extremely nice if even a fraction of that money could be spent closer to home.

I was a little disappointed that the report did not go further on e-connection and particularly access to broadband. That is, perhaps, an indication that the situation has moved on in the months since the report was prepared. It seems to me that leaving the provision of broadband to the market inevitably disadvantages those communities that need it most. Even where ADSL is available, it is not adequate for many businesses that require symmetrical access because they need both to send and to receive large files—it is no good to them if fast access is available in only one direction. There should be much greater public investment in that and a bit more imagination in relation to the solutions, as that would pay dividends.

The committee's report is useful and draws together a number of issues from some excellent consultation across Scotland. I think that it will help to advance the worthwhile cause of the economic well-being of rural Scotland.

I am grateful to the convener of the Environment and Rural Development Committee for taking us on a tour de force of the committee's report. Sarah Boyack has led an extended moment for reflection as opposed to a debate. Our discussion this morning has been less fraught than our usual discussions on the state of the integration of the rural economy.

I will reflect on some of the recommendations from a constituency perspective. As Sarah Boyack said, one of the issues that was found to be exercising many people in the areas that the Rural Development Committee visited and that was raised by those who submitted written and oral evidence to the committee was the lack of effective integration between the policies of the statutory development agencies. It was felt that there was, sadly, a tendency for each organisation to pursue its own agenda.

I could cite many examples of that, but I will spare the blushes of the bureaucrats involved and, instead, hold up the example of the "initiative at the edge" programme, or "iomairt aig an oir", as it is better known in my constituency. The initiative is an excellent example of the way in which to deal head on with those who are not for change.

There are four iomairt aig an oir areas in my constituency and eight in total in the Highlands and Islands. Prior to the launch of iomairt aig an oir, each area in my constituency faced different challenges. However, all four regions had one thing in common, which was that their demise was being presided over by a plethora of statutory bodies, each with its own set of priorities, which were not aligned with the needs of the community that the bodies were there to serve and that they thought that they were serving. Not only were the bodies out of sync with the community, but many of them worked in complete and absolute isolation. They never consulted one another and, despite the earnestness of their efforts, they usually had little impact locally.

The situation changed in 1998, when iomairt aig an oir was launched. One of the cornerstones of the iomairt was that public agencies should simply align their efforts in some of their more fragile communities. To their credit, many agencies responded positively but, sadly, others had to be dragged to the party. The bottom line is that the pilot has delivered in the designated areas. For example, in Uig and Bernera on Lewis, the extremely competent development officer, Sarah MacLean, can account for every penny of the money that the iomairt has helped to direct into positive action in the community. Not only has in excess of £1 million been spent in a co-ordinated manner but, through her efforts and the efforts of others, 14 jobs have been created or retained.

Change was achieved and continues to be achieved not by simply levering money into a community but by getting agencies to integrate their efforts. In the iomairt areas that I have mentioned, the job is by no means complete, but the method of doing business there can be and should be translated to other parts of rural Scotland. That will require attitudinal change; it will require funding partners sometimes to cede powers to local development groups that might be better placed to make decisions on behalf of the local community.

The committee makes recommendations in relation to giving farmers and crofters assistance with the marketing of their produce and to finding ways of ensuring that they are helped in pulling together and streamlining the management of quality assurance schemes for agricultural produce. I endorse the report's recommendation that we need to implement a simple labelling scheme for Scottish produce that will promote greater traceability and consumer confidence in our croft and farm produce. The "Orkney Gold" label is an excellent example of the sort of scheme that should be implemented; the scheme should be translated across Scotland, just as the working practices of iomairt aig an oir should be.

Everyone this morning has touched on housing. As Sarah Boyack rightly said, the issue affects not only the local population, but the ability of an area to stimulate the economy. The Western Isles are in the fortunate position of having witnessed an increase in house prices, although prices there are still low when compared to those in most parts of Scotland. That is one indicator that the economy is on the upturn. Of course, we must factor into any analysis of the housing market the great number of people who are now rightly making a lifestyle choice to move away from the packed conurbations and to cast their lot in with those of us who reside in the Scottish islands.

I have no hesitation in applauding Margaret Curran for the way in which she has tackled the lack of affordable housing in my constituency. Ten months ago, she visited the Western Isles and brought with her some £2 million cash that is being used to build homes—

Did she have it on her?

Yes, she brought it in her handbag.

The minister recently announced a further £10 million of funding. Sadly, although she made the announcement in Stornoway, the money will not be spent in the Western Isles, although it will be spent in other parts of Scotland.

Alex Johnstone and Roseanna Cunningham mentioned renewable energy and wind farm developments. It would not be appropriate for me to comment on the details of the issue that Roseanna Cunningham raised but, on the broad issue, I believe that it would be irresponsible for the Parliament to embrace the suggestion of, I think, Murdo Fraser and Christine Grahame of the SNP, who called for a moratorium on wind farm developments. That suggestion would create a moratorium on jobs and investment, for which many thousands of people in rural Scotland would not thank us and would never forgive us.

Integrated rural development is probably as unobtainable as the holy grail, although it is clearly a desirable objective. I suspect that achieving integrated urban development is just as impractical, although the problems might be rather easier to solve in the urban situation simply because of the shorter distances involved. However, the objective is worth aiming at, even if we do not achieve it.

As paragraph 12 of the Rural Development Committee's report points out, the problem is not helped by the plethora of organisations involved, which serves

"to obstruct, rather than assist, local decision-making."

I could not agree more with that. A further problem is that the number of bodies is increasing. The point is not party political, because I suspect that an Executive of any composition would be subject to the problem. Every Executive initiative, no matter how welcome, seems to spawn yet another body, which means that people must continually deal with new agencies and their local offices.

To make a parochial point, I emphasise that rural does not equate to the Highlands and Islands. The Rural Development Committee did not make that error in its inquiry, during which it visited places throughout Scotland, but the error is often made by others, particularly Government and its agencies, when they roll out initiatives. Paragraph 8 of the report mentions various pilot programmes, but apart from the LEADER programmes, which are Scotland-wide, the four examples that the committee found were in the Western Isles, Shetland, Argyll and Sutherland. No programmes from elsewhere in rural Scotland were mentioned. Although the highest degree of rurality and the problems caused by it exist in the Highlands and Islands, some areas in the south-west and the Borders are much more rural and remote than parts of the Highlands and Islands.

I will pick up on some of the issues raised in the report, but, in doing so, I suspect that I will be no more integrated than rural development is. The debate will probably involve some repetition and we might find out at the end of it that we all agree on what the problems are. I have always thought that e-commerce, e-learning, e-etc provide a great chance to remove the disadvantages—the problems of distance and remoteness—from which rural areas have suffered for a long time. However, as paragraph 42 of the report states:

"rural communities are most in need of communications technology, but receive it last."

In some ways, the arrival of broadband on the scene in Scotland and the United Kingdom is exacerbating the disadvantages of rural areas when compared to urban areas. I do not criticise BT, which is the main provider of broadband and which rightly operates on a commercial basis. However, I find it strange that, in Northern Ireland, there is a contract to upgrade all the exchanges to be suitable for broadband. I also find it strange that 5 per cent of the population of Finland, which is much more rural than Scotland, has access to a digital subscriber line, whereas in the UK only 3.9 per cent of the population has access to broadband. If Finland, with all its problems of vastness and remoteness, can achieve a higher figure than the UK, what is it doing right that we are getting wrong?

Housing is a major problem; it is the single biggest issue in members' constituency mailbags. Aside from the occasional campaigns on fox hunting or wind farms, the most consistently raised issue is that of people's inability to get a house. The well-known scenario of decreasing public housing stock in an area and increasing demand from outside means that prices increase and the ability of locals—who are often on much lower wages than people who come from outside the area—to buy or rent housing decreases. That scenario has a negative effect on the working population. The matter touches on another issue that the committee referred to, which is the increasing skills shortage in certain parts of the rural economy. That problem is exacerbated if people who want to stay and who could have a useful and well-paid job cannot find somewhere to stay.

Housing is a clear example of an issue on which integration has not taken place. One problem is with the planning regulations, which seem to create a presumption against development, although the countryside is by no means full. Even when people receive planning permission, the chances of their being connected to Scottish Water's water or sewerage system is remote.

The environment and culture committee will launch a major inquiry into renewable energy at the beginning of January.

I take it that Alasdair Morgan is referring to the Enterprise and Culture Committee.

Sorry, that was a slip of the tongue. I meant the Enterprise and Culture Committee—it has so many things in its remit that it is no wonder that I sometimes get the title mixed up.

I suspect that the localisation of wind farm and hydroelectric developments is one way in which we can overcome objections, because it will mean that areas generate their own power. However, the problem is that, no matter how local the power source, people need a back-up, especially on cold days in the winter, for times when there is no wind. Some areas must host the power stations that will enable people to turn on the lights when it gets dark.

The report refers to the future of local learning. I confess that I was not clear for which local learning centres the Scottish Higher Education Funding Council is being invited to provide funding. I did not have the chance to read the evidence, but I know that the Crichton campus in Dumfries and Galloway and the UHI Millennium Institute—which are excellent examples of higher education being taken to rural areas, thereby enabling people to stay there—have problems with the funding mechanism. Under the funding mechanism for the University of Glasgow and the University of Paisley, which have outposts at the Crichton campus, the funding for posts at the campus is treated as part of the funding for the University of Glasgow or the University of Paisley as a whole. Therefore, the increased costs of setting up in an area such as Dumfries and Galloway and coping with the greater distances involved are not reflected in the funding. We must consider that issue.

Next week, we will debate the reform of the common agricultural policy. We should remember that the CAP market support budget is £340 million and that the rural development budget is £135 million—the biggest single element of that is for less favoured area support and most of the rest goes to agriculture. Those huge amounts are the biggest single input into the rural economy. Irrespective of whether members are sticking up for their constituents or for their party's policy, we must ask ourselves whether we are using that money in the best way. As the funding source declines as a percentage of the total, we must ask whether, during the years in which the CAP has existed, we have improved rural Scotland. I suspect that, if we are honest, we will say that the answer is no. We must examine how to use the money to the best advantage of all rural Scotland.

I was a member of the Rural Development Committee when it undertook its inquiry into integrated rural development. I enjoyed working on the inquiry and I am relieved that the Parliament is eventually debating this important report.

We Scottish Conservatives want to see a thriving countryside, because we know that a nation is secure only if the peripheral areas prosper and the rural barns are full. It is no good depending on the central belt to deliver prosperity that will somehow drip down to rural areas. We need sustainable jobs and good housing, health and education to encourage people to live in rural areas and to be proud of living there. Rural areas require continuity of families and family businesses, which means that they require confidence in the future.

That will not be achieved if rural communities feel deprived, forgotten and ignored, like the people whom we visited on the distant and beautiful island of Colonsay—a paradise indeed, but a paradise that is restricted by very limited ferry options, as are many of the islands in the inner and outer Hebrides as well as Orkney and Shetland. Fare structures, prices and routes on inter-island ferry services play a significant role for all island businesses, and unless there can be a fairer system, those businesses will always be fighting a chronic disadvantage.

Last Friday, I was privileged to attend the Scottish Thistle awards for tourism, where I was delighted by the number of winners from the Highlands and Islands. I was especially pleased by the Isle of Coll Hotel's win in the flavour of Scotland category. I have often eaten in that famous establishment, and its award is richly deserved. However, the owner of the hotel telephoned me yesterday to express his horror at next season's ferry timetable for the island of Coll. Last year, ferries left Oban at 8 or 9 o'clock in the morning, which allowed for day trips to the island with passengers returning on the vessel on its way back to Oban from Tiree. That ferry service encouraged day trips. Next year, passengers will have to leave Oban at 6 o'clock in the morning and will be able to return only two days a week. Already, people are cancelling reservations at the hotel.

If anything is a good example of a blow against integrated development, surely that is. I urge the Minister for Transport to ensure that islands such as Coll are not ignored when it comes to supplying ferry services and that cost reductions for businesses are instigated for all island transport services. The Scottish Executive must ensure that its subsidised ferry operators—such as Caledonian MacBrayne and NorthLink—provide a service that encourages entrepreneurs to succeed in the islands. If that can be done in Norway, it can surely be done in Scotland.

The report identified the importance of crofting and farming, and one of the committee's key recommendations was that farmers and crofters should benefit from the rural stewardship scheme. I am glad that access to that scheme has recently been improved, but the future for farming looks bleak if the clawback taxes of modulation and degression take away the income that agri-environmental schemes may bring. Perhaps the Minister for Environment and Rural Development will tell me why his UK counterpart, Margaret Beckett, is so determined to implement European-led taxes on farming that would disadvantage rural communities. The rest of Europe is turning its back on those measures which, if implemented, will mean that there will be virtually no help for UK farmers and crofters within 10 years. That policy goes directly against the recommendations in the committee's report.

What has the Executive done to introduce a single marketing and labelling scheme for Scottish farm produce? That is another recommendation. What is the Executive doing to resume normal exporting of our beef to Europe? Will it put a stop to the proposal for the double tagging of sheep? Those ideas, coupled with honesty in labelling and meaningful import controls, are straightforward ways in which the Scottish Executive could help to achieve integrated rural development by helping farmers and crofters. The Executive could also help by standing up for the interests of the Scottish fishermen and by improving conditions for the aquaculture industry so that it will thrive and not be disadvantaged by bureaucratic rules and red tape.

Good biodiversity is a key issue. That means making the most of the assets that exist in an area for the benefit of the population and not ruining those assets for future generations. There are thousands of acres of forestry, but the industry is not contributing enough in terms of income or jobs. New markets are needed, as is the development of a more sympathetic procurement policy to encourage the use of local products.

Rural areas need good roads and reasonable fuel costs, but we have high fuel costs and roads that are full of potholes. Those are further barriers to integrated rural development.

The Conservatives are committed to the rolling out of broadband technology to rural areas and small telephone exchanges to increase income potential for rural people.

On the issue of broadband, precisely how would the Conservatives achieve the roll-out to which Jamie McGrigor says that they are committed?

We would pay for it out of the Scottish Enterprise budget.

Fantastic.

Well, that is what we would do.

The committee identified rural housing as an area that requires improvement and recommended a rural rates relief scheme. However, we know that businesses in Scotland pay more in rates than businesses in the rest of the UK. That is another barrier. Conservative policy on rural housing would be to relax planning guidelines to allow the building of affordable homes for sale and rent in rural communities. Farmers would benefit from the capital injection and housing associations would be able to purchase land at reasonable prices, all of which would enhance the viability of rural communities.

The people who live at the edge have amassed much practical knowledge about what works in their environment and what does not. I therefore ask Scottish Natural Heritage to consult local people better in areas that it intends to designate as special areas of conservation. Often, it is the traditional livelihoods and pastimes of rural people that provide the protection for rare species of flora and fauna that still exist in those areas.

I declare an interest, as a member of the Birse Community Trust—membership of which applies to all residents of the parish of Birse.

I shall concentrate on just one of the committee's 33 recommendations:

"The Committee recommends that the Enterprise companies be directed to identify mechanisms through which core funding could be strategically directed to local community development companies."

That recommendation resulted from evidence sessions that we undertook throughout Scotland; however, the evidence that we took in Huntly, in the north-east, on 7 June last year, was particularly important. Peter Argyle, a representative of Mid Deeside Ltd, a community economic development company that was set up to serve the people of Aboyne and the surrounding area, gave a very effective presentation to the committee on exactly why such core funding is essential to effective and integrated rural development. He said that, although he was sure that the Executive was committed to the principle of community economic development organisations, he felt that there was a need for the Executive to ensure that at least a base of continuing core funding for those community organisations was made available. Mr Argyle went on to say:

"Mid Deeside Ltd forms part of a network that includes the rural development department, Scottish Enterprise, Scottish Enterprise Grampian, Aberdeenshire Council and the local enterprise trusts. All those bodies have a role to play in delivering the Executive's vision for community economic development and they are all essential. However, only the community economic development organisations do not receive core funding."—[Official Report, Rural Development Committee, 7 June 2002; c.3196.]

Core funding is a major issue for all community economic development organisations. As members will be aware, much time is spent—often by voluntary staff—in chasing revenue when it should be spent on developing new projects or building on what has been achieved. If we really believe in an integrated approach to rural development, I cannot understand why the Executive is so reluctant to put communities at the centre of the decision-making process. Community economic development is important and has a direct positive impact on our rural communities. That should be recognised at the highest level, and the necessary but modest funding must be put in place to enable that to happen. The solution is to direct the enterprise companies to be forthcoming with that modest level of support.

In response to the committee's recommendation, the Scottish Executive stated that it did not believe that a decision on core funding should be the automatic responsibility of any one agency. That point was raised earlier by Alasdair Morrison, who spoke about organisations doing their own thing separately, with everybody having their brief but nobody wanting to provide the money. The Executive went on to state that the enterprise network's role is to tailor its funding to the specific needs of individual communities. That sounds good, but it is not good enough.

Jennifer Craw of Scottish Enterprise Grampian confirmed in her evidence to the committee that the nub of the issue was the fact that, although the enterprise company could provide core funding—indeed, core funding is available to community economic development companies in their first three years of operation—other funding sources were available. She said:

"Scottish Enterprise Grampian is a key player in that discussion and we have an important role to play, but we do not have the only role."

That is the problem. I said at the time:

"The point of our inquiry is that we want people like Jennifer to come before the committee and say, "Yes. Okay, we can do it." We want to hear why you are not helping with core funding. It seems that you are saying that you would like to do so if you had the money, but other funding sources exist and so somebody else can do it. The end result is that nobody is doing it."—[Official Report, Rural Development Committee, 7 June 2002; c. 3221.]

However, I am pleased to say that time has moved on. Last week, Aberdeenshire Council and Scottish Enterprise Grampian announced that they would make available £125,000 for local economic development companies in Aberdeenshire over the next two years. That is excellent news, but the fact remains that that support is for a specified period only. The Rural Development Committee's recommendation was about ensuring that such funding should be in place for all community companies so that funding uncertainties could be removed.

I agree with the Scottish Executive's comment that the large number of community initiatives across the networks that have survived and prospered over the long term is indeed a testimony to

"the tenacity and commitment of the people within our communities."

However, I cannot agree with the Executive's other comment that that is somehow testimony to the successful application of the current ad hoc approach.

We need a consistent approach throughout the country that directs enterprise companies to support our local community development companies with modest levels of core funding. Our local community development companies would then be able to add value to their modest core funds by accessing other funds for specific projects. They would be able to do so for a very modest input, but Scotland's economy and people would gain a major return.

What is needed is vision. However, what we have from the Executive is an acceptance of the status quo. My view, and that of the committee, is that that is not an appropriate response. I ask the ministers to reconsider, even at this late stage, their response to the committee's specific recommendation on core funding.

The Green group of MSPs welcomes the report and acknowledges the Rural Development Committee's hard work.

I am minded to think back to the summer of this year when the First Minister, in taking forward the Executive's land reform agenda, sought to extend the pre-emptive right to buy to more rural communities in Scotland. Central to integrated rural development is the issue of how rural communities use and control resources. There are many kinds of resources: buildings; housing; wind and wave resources that power renewable energy; forestry and farming land; inland waters; the coastal environment; and the services in our rural communities. The process of communities developing control of resources can, in turn, help to develop communities' social development. The process is one of people coming together to work together, which can build interdependence and mutuality within our rural communities.

The reality in much of rural Scotland is that the wealth that is created by local resources often leaves our rural communities as soon as it is created. Renewable energy is a case in point, because in many renewable energy schemes the vast bulk of the profits leaves the communities that hosted the schemes in the first place. We often see resources leaving directly without any sort of value adding or circulation within our local economies. For example, we have fantastic seafood and agricultural produce in Scotland, but the bulk of it is exported. Some areas of Scotland have great local produce, but it does not get into the local shops or public institutions. For example, such produce is not served up in school canteens.

We must move more towards community control in Scotland, whether that is achieved through communities' directly managing resources themselves or through co-operative ventures that involve private enterprises working together—for example, farm businesses. By fostering community control we can start to plug the holes in our leaky rural economies and create virtuous economic circles within our rural communities.

An example of a community trust that has been extremely successful is Strathfillan Community Development Trust. The trust started off by looking at how it could manage a small parcel of Forestry Commission Scotland land within its community. The trust wanted to manage the land for not only its conservation value, but its amenity value. It also wanted to encourage tourists to spend more time in the Strathfillan area before heading west or north in their travels. The project was successful and gave the trust the capacity to develop other projects—for example, a playpark scheme in the village, which was equally successful. The trust then looked at the difficult issue of social housing, which has been highlighted in the debate. It took control of some ex-railway cottages in the area, did them up and is now renting them out as a form of social housing that is controlled by the community.

It is vital that we develop the capacity of communities to take on more such projects. However, it is not easy for them to do so.

Does the member agree that forestry biomass should be used as a renewable energy source?

Absolutely. Companies such as Torren Energy Ltd have been at the forefront of much of that work in Scotland. I would also like more public institutions to use forestry biomass. Torren Energy has developed a biomass heating system for schools that is being used in one or two schools in the Highlands. We would like more such developments in Scotland.

It can be extremely difficult for communities to go down the route of community management. Last week I went to the village of Fintry in my region, where the community is trying to develop a form of community ownership of part of a local renewable energy wind farm scheme that is proposed by private developers. The community has had a constructive dialogue with the company involved, but it is finding it extremely difficult to access the right development support and advice to take the project forward. Nora Radcliffe referred to similar examples in Drummuir. Fintry is an example of a community that is taking responsibility and which is fully engaged with the often difficult issues of renewable energy, but which is finding it extremely difficult to progress that into a full form of community ownership and management.

What messages do we have for the Executive as a result of its strategy? First, there is a need for increased development support. The Executive is keen to develop communities' right to buy, especially of land and buildings. However, we must also develop our communities' capacity of knowing how to buy and manage—that is crucial. Secondly, we must ensure that the experiences of communities that have developed their own assets, such as Fintry and Drummuir, go into the front end of policy development in Scotland and that the Executive listens to the people's experience. Crucial to that is filling the gap that was left by the demise of the rural forum; it is important that we have a body in Scotland that can facilitate the involvement of rural community groups and bring to bear their experience. As a new MSP, I am very much aware that the people are the second chamber of the Parliament. It is important that we learn from them.

The third, and difficult, issue, which will be dealt with next week, is the CAP. Let us not forget that the amount of money that is spent on agricultural subsidy each year in Scotland is the equivalent of 1.5 Scottish Parliaments. We need to decouple subsidy from production and recouple it to social and environmental goals, including rural development.

I thank the members of the Rural Development Committee, who produced the report that we are discussing today, which highlights the distinct needs of rural areas. That committee went out the most to the corners of Scotland to take evidence and see what the situation was like on the ground. We have heard examples of that in the debate.

The report highlights the fact that rural development is not limited to agriculture and fisheries, although they are crucial and are the bedrock of the rural economy. Rural development also encompasses housing, transport and enterprise. I would go further and say that rural development encompasses health care and child care, and the delivery of services to and capacity building in rural areas, from the provision of Women's Aid refuges to access to drug treatment and testing orders. People in rural areas have many of the same needs as people in urban areas. The challenge is to deliver services and to support enterprise in a much more scattered community. We must consider more flexible ways of doing that. What works to deliver services in an urban area of Scotland does not work in a rural area.

Several issues are being debated today. Like other members, I will start by focusing on the lack of affordable housing in rural areas, which remains a key issue in many rural localities in my constituency of the Highlands and Islands. The Rural Development Committee's report highlights the link between rural housing and employment. Lack of housing creates difficulties for those who wish to work in a particular area but cannot afford to get on to the property ladder. It causes difficulties for both employers and employees and is constraining economic development in some parts of the Highlands. For example, a hotel in Ullapool cannot attract a chef because it cannot find accommodation for him and his family.

As the report indicates, the housing problem is aggravated by the fact that many rural houses are purchased as retirement or second homes. There is nothing wrong with that in itself, but it is a severe difficulty if it takes away housing that local people need. Local people or those on low incomes may not have access to the capital that those who purchase retirement or second homes have. That means that people are left on a waiting list, possibly living in caravans, while they look for their first house. Some members will be aware that recently in Plockton a three-bedroom former railwayman's house was sold for £300,000, which was absolutely outwith the pocket of local people.

I commend Maureen Macmillan for highlighting the problems that exist in the Highlands. Does she agree that there have been unprecedented levels of appreciation in house prices in Inverness, which last year went up by 25 per cent? In the city of Inverness, it is now impossible for young couples and young people on low incomes to buy their first home.

I appreciate what Mary Scanlon says. However, a report that I read a couple of days ago made the point that the price of starter flats in Inverness had not risen so much and that such flats were within the pocket of young couples setting out to buy their first home.

Since the committee's report was published, the picture for affordable rented housing in the Highlands has improved. Not long ago, Skye and Lochalsh, which includes Plockton, received money for housing. Alasdair Morrison pointed out that Margaret Curran announced an extra £10 million for housing, which will go not to the Western Isles, but to the Highland Council. That is a significant investment in the rural rented sector. In the summer, I visited the day centre for the homeless in Inverness with Mary Mulligan when she announced a significant tranche of money for tackling homelessness in the Highlands. Work is being done on that issue. The Executive and local authorities can work together to deliver affordable rented housing.

Many people in rural areas want a plot of land on which to build their house, often by their own hand. That is extremely difficult. I live in easter Ross, and at the moment plots of land in Dingwall go for up to £60,000. That situation is reflected throughout the Highlands. We need a foolproof system to supply individual building sites to local people at a reasonable price, on the basis that people cannot profiteer when they later come to sell.

There is a mechanism for doing that, which is available to the Justice Department. When the Title Conditions (Scotland) Bill was passed last year, an amendment that was made on behalf of the Highlands Small Communities Housing Trust created an exemption for social housing. Under the legislation, a title condition can be placed on a piece of land to ensure that it cannot be sold on at a profit. The house, which is often built with a rural grant, must stay within the community and profiteering cannot happen. The Highlands Small Communities Housing Trust knows about that power, but I do not know who else knows about it. This is an example of the fact that we do not know what is happening across departments. There are measures that could be applied more widely in a rural context, but people do not know about them. The power that I have described could be a tool to provide housing sites for local people where land is owned by local authorities or other bodies and where landowners can be persuaded to sell.

The difficulties in providing infrastructure for rural housing developments have been debated at length in the chamber and in the former Rural Development Committee. I note that deliberations with Scottish Water are under way to see what resources can be vired across from the budget for renewing infrastructure to projects for creating new infrastructure. I underline to the minister the seriousness of this problem and how it constrains development in housing.

Transport provision in the Highlands is improving steadily. An extra £70 million has been made available for rural roads. There are improved train services around Inverness and more flights to Inverness airport. There is a real possibility of creating an integrated Highlands and Islands air network. There are new ferries and many community transport schemes. We need to get more lorries off the road. There is good practice in Argyll, where timber is being shipped from Ardrishaig and Campbeltown rather than being hauled by road. Transport will always be a challenge in rural areas—a challenge that must be met if the aspirations of rural Scotland are to be realised. That applies both to youngsters who want an evening bus service to Inverness and to commuters to Fort William from the west who want to travel by train rather than by car. One issue close to my heart is the difficulty of getting toddlers to nursery school in remote rural areas, which is a significant problem in wester Ross.

Finally, I must mention aspirations. There must be an improvement in the delivery of justice in the Highlands. As a member of the Justice 2 Committee, I am very aware of justice matters in rural areas. We have the same problems of antisocial behaviour and alcohol and drug misuse that urban areas have. We need drug treatment and testing orders and rehabilitation facilities that remoter communities can access easily. We need a modern prison and modern courtrooms just as much as urban areas do. There is an awareness that did not exist four years ago of the justice needs of rural areas. I look forward to continuing improvement in facilities that will match the excellent work of Northern constabulary, the Procurator Fiscal Service, local authorities and voluntary organisations throughout rural communities.

I want to respond to one of the last points that Maureen Macmillan made. It would have been better for all of Scotland and, indeed, the whole United Kingdom if the decision to transfer postal deliveries from train to road had not been taken at national level. Maureen Macmillan is absolutely right when she says that we need to get more lorries off our roads, but such decisions put more lorries on to our roads and increase the decimation of freight transport not only in places such as Inverness and Stranraer but throughout rural Scotland.

It is important that the Rural Development Committee's report is discussed today. Its development took almost a year, during which evidence was taken from a wide range of organisations and individuals. It is not necessary constantly to reinvent the wheel, so I hope that the new Environment and Rural Development Committee, which assumes the responsibilities of the Rural Development Committee, will study seriously the 33 recommendations, some of which are absolutely vital for rural regeneration. I will concentrate on just two of them.

The first relates to housing, which a number of members have already discussed. I refer to the committee report, which stated:

"in order to overcome the substantial gap in available and affordable rural housing, radical and ambitious policies will be required."

The committee went on to list a few suggestions. Those included to

"ensure that more areas are zoned as being suitable for rural housing that is appropriate to the needs and characteristics of that area",

to

"identify the areas most urgently in need of social housing, and … strongly consider increasing housing grants in these areas",

to

"explore the possibility of payments being given to local trusts and housing associations to assist them in developing affordable rural housing"

and to

"prioritise access to services for new developments in rural areas."

I mention those specific points because I hope that the minister in his response to the debate will indicate how many of them have been taken on board. The conference of the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations a couple of weeks ago highlighted the fact that the problems in rural housing are becoming worse, not better.

We have a serious problem in relation to access to social housing in particular: people in rural areas feel that they are being neglected with regard to the replacement of houses that have been purchased. Houses that were built for society as a whole—social housing—but which have been sold off are not being replaced. I hope that today the minister will give us robust information that suggests that the "radical and ambitious policies" that the committee report seeks will be implemented.

The second issue to which I will refer relates to the point that I made to Nora Radcliffe during her speech. The committee recommended

"that the Scottish Executive implement a single marketing and labelling scheme for Scottish farm produce, to promote greater traceability and consumer confidence in Scottish farm products."

Given the major food crises that we have had over the past few years and the decimation of large parts of the food industry as a result of the loss of confidence in farm produce, such a scheme would be overwhelmingly positive and welcome in our rural areas. However, the Executive states that it believes that there is little enthusiasm from those involved, due to admin costs, and does not feel that it is necessary.

I hope that the Environment and Rural Development Committee takes up that recommendation, because it is important that we start to identify and promote in all supermarkets throughout Scotland not just Scottish produce but produce from particular areas, whether Aberdeenshire or elsewhere. It is important that we try to promote a marketing strategy that encourages the citizens of Scotland to eat food whose source can be traced directly in order to satisfy the demand that food is healthy and to ensure that we can back that up. I hope that the minister will refer to that recommendation in his summing up and tell us that he will review the Executive's initial decision to rule it out.

I apologise to Sarah Boyack for missing the first few minutes of her speech; I was held up in the office, which I am sure that all members can appreciate.

Many issues have been touched on in the debate. One is rural housing, and I certainly agree that the Parliament must act on the committee's recommendation that rural housing be made affordable. As other members have said, affordable rural housing is essential if we are to retain young people in our rural communities the length and breadth of Scotland, not just in the Highlands and Islands. I urge that the Environment and Rural Development Committee consider the issue of tied housing within rural communities. Many people who live in tied houses would like to purchase them and remain in them but, because of current legislation, that is not possible in many cases. Many landlords consider cases carefully and are sympathetic, but I was brought up in a tied house and I know the difficulties that my parents faced in putting themselves on a council housing list when they wanted to retire. The issue should be reviewed.

We all want a much better transport system in rural communities. Buses are few and far between and the train service leaves a great deal to be desired. Those issues must be considered seriously. Sarah Boyack talked about the cost of fuel. It is perhaps up to the Executive to speak more firmly to the Chancellor of the Exchequer about the tax levies that he places on fuel in Scotland. I was at Rothes Primary School on Monday—one of the joys of being an MSP—where 25 youngsters had written their own election manifestos, with parties ranging from the eagle party to the blue party. The cost of fuel in rural areas featured in lots of the manifestos and the youngsters wanted to see a reduction in it. They were aged about 10 or 11, and it was wonderful that they were so involved in political matters and that they saw the cost of fuel as a major issue in their communities.

I turn to some of the other recommendations in the report, particularly on fisheries. I refer to what I think is page 6 of the Executive's response, although the pages are not numbered. I very much enjoyed being a member—briefly—of the Rural Development Committee in the previous session, and I also attended the committee regularly when it was debating fisheries. As Maureen Macmillan said, fisheries are a critical aspect of our rural communities.

It is worth saying how grateful we are to the people of the Western Isles who rescued the five crew men from the Fairway, which is registered in Stewart Stevenson's constituency and which sank last night off St Kilda. As always, we are grateful to the rescue services. We should remind ourselves of the dangers inherent in our fishing industry. Having read the Executive's response to what was said on page 29 of the report, I have to ask the fundamental questions who, what, why, where and when. [Interruption.] I am glad that someone has strayed into the press gallery—it is only Rab McNeil.

The Executive says that the fishing industry has to be taken seriously as a major policy issue. Who is going to be leading for the fisheries industry in the run-up to the December council, which many members will recall is always the most difficult fisheries council? Will it be the Minister for Environment and Rural Development or will he be playing second fiddle to Elliot Morley or whoever happens to be the Westminster minister of the moment? Elliot Morley has, quite rightly, had the chop. Why will a Scottish fisheries minister be present? Will he argue strongly for the recommendations that the Scottish Fishermen's Federation made earlier this week in response to the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea report, or will he just be there to keel over to the UK minister in the council? What will be the agenda for the Scottish fisheries minister? Will it be to pick up on the cod recovery plan, which the SFF has propounded so ably this week? Where will the discussions take place? Will they take place in the main room in Brussels or on the couch outside in the corridor? I hope for the minister's sake—if he is there—that it is not a casting couch.

We are to discuss the CAP next week in Executive time, but will it be possible to discuss, in Executive time, the common fisheries policy before critical decisions are made? I make no apology for arguing the case for the fishing industry. I would like to touch on many other aspects of rural life, but in the run-up to Christmas we are facing a major crisis in the fishing industry—it would help if the minister would pay attention to what I am saying. If we are facing the closure of the fishing industry in the North sea and the Irish sea, what are we going to do for the rural communities whose livelihoods depend on the industry?

I recommend that the committee consider coastal erosion, because that is a major issue for our coastal communities. Golf courses and houses are disappearing. As a Parliament, we have not given serious consideration to coastal erosion and it would be helpful if we were to do that.

I thank the first session's Rural Development Committee for its report and I look forward to hearing what the Executive has to say in response to the strong recommendations that have been made.

Although I was not a formal member of the Rural Development Committee, it often felt as if I was, particularly during the committee's consideration of the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Bill. I had the benefit of attending the committee's events in Dumfries and Galloway, including the public meeting in St John's Town of Dalry. I want to put on the public record an appreciation of the perseverance of the committee's convener at that time, my colleague Alex Fergusson, in ensuring that there was public involvement in those events. As members appreciate, standing orders and other parliamentary protocols do not always facilitate such things. Most members who have spoken have mentioned the fact that those events were extremely successful and well received.

I know that today's debate is not on energy, but I am sure that my colleagues John Home Robertson and Jamie Stone would not want me to let pass unremarked a couple of the comments that Sarah Boyack made in her opening speech. We must acknowledge on the record the enormous contribution that the nuclear industry has made to economic development in rural areas throughout Scotland, which, as we have debated many times in the Parliament, is to be compared with the contribution that is held out, but not proved, for renewable energy.

If I had had more time, I would have made the point that, as with all types of energy production, there are different issues to consider. I was making the point that, although nuclear power is clean in terms of CO2 emissions, there are long-term waste implications.

I welcome the setting up of the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management and the work that it will do. I am clear that the construction of a new nuclear power station on the licensed Chapelcross site is by far the most beneficial thing that we could do to encourage economic development in Dumfries and Galloway.

Does the member agree that, if the Romans had had nuclear power, we would still be looking after their waste?

I certainly do not agree with that—I would not agree with the Green perspective on nuclear power, which offers a way of guaranteeing electricity and power supplies in this country. Those of us who are in favour of it should be prepared to stand up and argue for it, rather than accept that there is some sort of consensus against it; there is no such consensus.

Is the member changing his position on state support for industries? Does he agree that the nuclear power industry is bankrupt and could not survive without state intervention?

As I said at the start of my speech, the debate is not about energy, even though there are significant financial issues in that area, particularly to do with the amount of support that is given to renewable energy as well.

I will move on to the main theme of the debate—the integration of rural development. Several members have talked about housing and Scottish Water. Langholm is a case that highlights the difficulties that are faced in the south of Scotland. I know that the minister is familiar with Langholm, because of all the issues that have arisen there. Some members like to denigrate our landowners, but an innovative proposal was made to provide land for development, which had the support of the Duke of Buccleuch. Scottish Water objected initially, but much work was done to bring the organisation on side so that that development could take place.

The development proposal is on the table and there is only one objector left—the roads department of the Scottish Executive. Even though the Executive promotes a holistic approach, its roads department has a roads-only approach. It wants to know only whether the access aspects of the development would meet its requirements; it is not concerned about the impact that the development would have on rural development and the availability of affordable housing. For the roads department, the issue is only about roads. Until we move away from that stovepipe thinking, we will not get anywhere. Ministers can trot out whatever they like but, if their colleagues object, the development will just not happen.

I think that the clock has stopped, Presiding Officer.

Yes, it has—it is not just that it seems as if you are going on for ever. You have just over a minute left.

I want to deal with broadband in my final minute. There is no reason why the Scottish Executive cannot follow the Northern Ireland model and invest in upgrading our most rural exchanges. There are no state-aid rules that would prevent it from doing so. Northern Ireland is a part of the United Kingdom, which is the European Union member state. If Northern Ireland can make such investment, Scotland can do it, too.

The cost of that investment would be relatively small. I went to an event that Scottish Enterprise Dumfries and Galloway used to promote broadband. It spent £400,000 on promoting broadband, but it would have been much better if that £400,000 had been spent on upgrading small exchanges. People in the south of Scotland and other rural areas know what the benefits of broadband are; the problem is that they cannot access it. Instead of having so much talk about broadband, let us have the cash to make it happen.

Finally, I would like to concur with what Alasdair Morgan said about the Crichton campus. An innovative development is under threat, because the rules for existing developments do not help innovation on that site.

I was deeply envious of the fact that the clock stopped two minutes and nine seconds into David Mundell's speech. If he tips me off about how that is done, there will be £5 waiting for him.

If anyone has that information, I would pay them £10 for giving it to me and keeping it from Mr Stevenson.

As usual, the Tories turn to the subjects of money and bribery.

It has been about a year since the Rural Development Committee did the bulk of its work for the report on integrated rural development. That brings to mind the old saying, "What a difference a day makes", which is of particular importance to the Tories today. Although an awful lot has changed in that time, my support for the report's recommendations has not changed. I congratulate the new Environment and Rural Development Committee on securing this debate on the report.

I want to challenge, firmly and substantially, a number of issues that relate to rurality and our countryside. Many members have referred to housing. Alex Johnstone's face lit up when he commended the move in the countryside away from tied housing towards ownership of housing. That is fair enough, but the trouble is that we now have a monoculture of owner-occupation, which is no more desirable in the countryside than was the monoculture of poorly managed council estates that used to exist in many Scottish cities.

Our economy is tied up in housing to an extent that inhibits our ability to invest in other activities, industries and enterprises. Developed countries throughout Europe do not have the same patterns of housing ownership. We must try to move towards greater diversity and greater availability in our housing patterns in towns and, especially, in the countryside. The fact that current patterns are a disincentive to the effective use of capital is not good for the countryside.

On education, one of the great difficulties with the increase in the number of young folks who are going on to take university and college degrees—more than 50 per cent of young people are now taking degrees, which is great—is that, to a large extent, people have to leave the countryside to do those courses. In due course, the university of the Highlands and Islands will make a contribution to offsetting that. However, that covers only one part of rural Scotland.

We have to find ways of ensuring that there are jobs in the countryside for those people, whom we train in urban settings and with urban skills, because few of them return to the countryside. There are people with get up and go in the countryside, but the problem is that they are getting up and going. However, people with get up and go are also coming into many parts of the countryside.

I live in the parish of Ord in Banffshire, which is part of the administrative area of Aberdeenshire. Approximately half the children in our local school come from outwith the area. They bring energy and new ideas, and a welcome commitment to the community. We have to try to replicate that throughout Scotland.

Let me say a little bit about CAP reform. It is a good thing. Farmers are going to be rewarded for stewardship of the countryside. We are moving away from unreasonable reliance on production in farming. However, we have not yet addressed the wider issues for businesses in the countryside. What are the agricultural engineers going to do if the farmers produce less? The farmers are okay, but agricultural engineers are not protected. Other industries and businesses in the countryside will be radically affected by CAP reform, but we have not yet debated that.

My colleague Margaret Ewing referred to fishing, and members have heard me talk about it on previous occasions. We have not taken full account of the effects of the decline in the fishing industry in rural areas. The economists call them third-level effects, but I refer to them as the two-butchers-in-Strichen problem. Strichen, a town of 1,000 people, is 10 miles from the sea and has two butchers. Rather unusually, those butchers supply the fishing trawlers. Decline in the fishing industry means decline in some of our rural communities. By the same token, changes in the CAP will have the same effect.

Tommy Sheridan referred to the need for the labelling of Scottish food. I support that but I would go much further. We have got to stop obeying the spirit of European regulations and start obeying the letter. That means that in public procurement, for example, we could say that crops have to be gathered no more than 48 hours prior to delivery to public services. That is a permitted way of ensuring that public services buy locally. We cannot say that we must buy Scottish produce, but we can work the system. Let us start to do that.

I end by saying something fundamental that will show where I differ from many of those who are not in the chamber or are not members for rural areas and who might have a different attitude to some of us. Scotland's countryside, not Scotland's cities, is the future of Scotland. In Scotland's cities there are diseconomies of scale. Mass transportation is necessary to offset those diseconomies of scale—the time taken to travel to work causes loss of productivity. We have to subsidise our cities to make them work at all.

Our countryside is the lungs of Scotland, converting the carbon dioxide that is a result of human endeavour in our cities. It is also where people will look to discharge the stress of city living. If we do not support our rural areas, we will lose our cities as well.

There is time for the briefest contribution from Jamie Stone.

Thank you Presiding Officer.

Cheese.

I am not going to talk about cheese.

Last Friday, I visited the village of Kinlochbervie. Amidst the understandable clamour coming from the east coast of Scotland, the decline in fish landings in little villages such as Kinlochbervie and Lochinver is often forgotten.

I was encouraged by what is happening in Kinlochbervie, where a community group has formed a plan to develop a marina in the harbour. I am on my feet at the moment to tell the minister about that development. I know that the group has written to him to ask for funding support for three years so that the plan, which I believe is workable, can be put into practice. People who own boats have relatively high disposable incomes, and the proposal is a positive way forward. If Ross Finnie's officials combine with Frank McAveety's officials we could address such plans. I believe that the future lies in the countryside, as Stewart Stevenson said. I also believe that it lies with the Scottish coastline and using the pleasure-boat trade to build on the back of tourism.

I have made my speech in one minute and five seconds, Presiding Officer.

Thank you. I call Karen Gillon to wind up for the Labour party.

I welcome the opportunity to participate in a debate on integrated rural development. I agree with Alasdair Morgan that rural Scotland is not just the Highlands and Islands; that mistake is made too often.

I was born and brought up in Jedburgh and I now represent Clydesdale, which is a rural constituency to all intents and purposes. However, we often come up against many barriers to obtaining the support that the Highlands and Islands manage to get when they encounter similar problems.

Although I do not agree with everything in the report, I welcome it. It is a good starting point for debate in the Parliament. We have had a good debate today and there have been several common themes.

The first theme I want to pick up on is rural housing. Everyone who has contributed to today's debate has mentioned rural housing, and some interesting ideas and sensible suggestions have been presented. However, I have considerable reservations about how we are to increase the availability of rural housing if we simply plough money into the hands of landowners and, in turn, into the hands of those who will sell their houses for an increased profit. Those houses are effectively being lost to the community.

If we are to be serious about rural housing, we must talk about social housing. We should be increasing the availability of housing for young people who want to stay in rural communities but are not able to do so at the moment. There are innovative ways of doing that and I urge the Executive to continue to explore them.

Will the member take an intervention?

I will give way in a minute.

There are issues about how people get on to the property ladder and we should continue to examine them. It has been interesting to hear the Tories berate the market system this morning. If we live in a market economy, people who want to pay more will pay more. The people at the bottom are always the ones who suffer. That is the point that we have been trying to make for decades: if prices are forced up, the people at the bottom will not be able to pay.

People have bought houses in rural areas as holiday homes and as second homes. The Executive should seriously consider removing council tax relief for second homes. That is a definite factor: if people had to pay more, they would be less willing to buy second homes.

Does the member agree that there must be measures to prevent the sale of houses that were built for social housing? That is one of the key problems in those areas.

The right to buy came up during the passage of the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001, and Maureen Macmillan discussed solutions in her speech. If we are investing in social housing in rural areas where there are no alternatives, steps must be taken to ensure that that housing is not sold off.

Integrated rural transport is another issue that is key to integrated rural development. In my time as an MSP, I have consistently come up against the problem of not being able to get effective integrated rural transport, even in the area served by Strathclyde Passenger Transport, which is supposed to be one of the best examples of an integrated transport system. Buses come before the train arrives, or the train goes before the buses arrive. Nothing can wait for anything else. If a train arrives at Lanark station five minutes late, the bus to Biggar has gone. With luck, there will be another bus in an hour, but chances are there will be no more buses and the traveller will have to pay for a taxi. We have to get integrated transport working much better.

I know how difficult it is to get a rail link. When I became an MSP in 1999, the Larkhall to Milngavie line was almost there. If Sarah Boyack, who was then the minister responsible for transport, had not committed the money, that line would not be there now. We must consider how we make such rail links happen because the current system is not working effectively.

I make one criticism of the report, which relates to something that is missing. I did word searches in the report for the terms "poverty", "inequality" and "closing the opportunity gap", but none of them appears in the report. For me, integrated rural development is the key test of how we close the opportunity gap, raise expectations and take people in rural areas out of poverty. Poverty exists in rural areas. I experienced it—I was brought up in it. The report fails to recognise that issue. It fails to mention it and fails to say how the issues can be challenged effectively. The report may well be all about that issue, but the failure explicitly to say that or to mention poverty or inequality in a document of such length is a failure on the part of the committee.

I was the convener of the Rural Development Committee when it went about the inquiry. It has been slightly strange sitting here and hearing the report being debated quite a long time after we finally agreed it, but I am grateful to the current Environment and Rural Development Committee for agreeing to my request, in a letter to the successor convener, that it should seek chamber time to debate the report, because it is a substantive report that took a great deal of time and resource. For it not to have been debated in the chamber would have been a tragic waste.

If I may, I will take a brief moment to thank in particular the clerks and parliamentary staff who helped out in putting together the report. They put in an enormous amount of work, because the inquiry became wider than we intended it to be. Sarah Boyack rightly said in her opening remarks, and other members have mentioned, what a wide-ranging inquiry it was. The visits and public meetings that we had throughout Scotland took an enormous amount of time and resources. People worked tirelessly on them. As I said, I thank not just the clerks but other parliamentary staff as well. It would have been impossible without them.

I also thank the old Rural Development Committee for the way in which we went about the work and for the unanimity that we managed to reach at the end of the day. Unanimity often means compromise and it would be fair to say that some of the recommendations are not as robust as some members might have wanted them to be; nonetheless, there was a determination that the report should be unanimous, and it is all the better for being so.

If I may indulge myself for a moment, I will go back to the reason why I wanted to conduct the inquiry. It grew out of a desire to produce something proactive and constructive in the wake of the unseemly length of time that the committee had had to spend on the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Bill. I cast no aspersions on the rights or wrongs of that bill, but it dominated our thinking for a very long period of time. There was a determination on the part of the committee to produce some rather more constructive work. The inquiry grew from an original idea of Rhoda Grant—who is no longer with us—to investigate the barriers that exist to the effective delivery of an integrated rural development policy.

I remember the first public meeting outwith Edinburgh that I convened, which was not on integrated rural development; it was on the national parks legislation. In a hall near Drymen we had a huge turnout of people who were bursting at the seams to contribute to a committee of the Parliament—a Parliament, do not forget, one of the watchwords of which is accessibility. I was pretty horrified to discover that parliamentary procedures did not allow the public to contribute unless they were named on the agenda. The whole committee was united in its determination to ensure that during the inquiry we could hear from members of the public who were interested enough to turn up, and not just hear from the usual suspects, although one also wanted to hear from them.

One of the pleasures of being on the committee during that process was that one witnessed the genuine passion and views held by people about integrated rural development. As Nora Radcliffe rightly pointed out, it is a subject on which a lot of people have a lot to say. I am proud of the role that the Rural Development Committee played in finding a way through the rather staid parliamentary procedure that prevented people from contributing, thereby allowing people to have a say. The procedure that we used, which I called the soapbox session, provided the absolute highlight of my parliamentary career, when a gentleman at Lochgilphead—

You have one minute.

Really? I wish the clock would stand still for me, Presiding Officer.

A gentleman at Lochgilphead drew himself up to his full height and said, "Gentlemen, you will never do anything about tourism in the Highlands until you do something about the Highland midge." I felt that that was an effective contribution.

Members have mentioned the report's recommendations on small businesses, the lack of affordable housing and forestry, and they were right to do so. However, there is one thing that members have not mentioned. It is one of the biggest barriers to integrated rural development and was drawn to our attention at every single meeting we held around Scotland. That barrier is the increasing role of quangos—specifically the role of Scottish Natural Heritage, whose autocratic nature and imposition of often almost impossible restrictions create a very real barrier to an effective policy on integrated rural development. I draw the Parliament's attention to our recommendation following paragraph 89 in that respect.

In her opening remarks, Sarah Boyack spoke about a lack of joined-up thinking. I highlight the recommendation that follows paragraph 97, on the need for a rural forum of some sort—there used to be one, after all—to co-ordinate the network of voluntary organisations, public agencies and sectoral interest groups relevant to rural Scotland.

Sarah Boyack also said that agendas are moving on, and of course they are, because time does not stand still, other than for David Mundell. However, I put it to the chamber—and I hope that the minister will accept this—that much of the report remains highly relevant to achieving an improved rural economy and meaningful integrated rural development. The Executive's written response seems to be somewhat complacent. Rural Scotland does not deserve that. I hope that the minister's contribution will effectively put that to rest. Rural Scotland needs action, not complacency.

In closing for the SNP, I say that there are many issues in which we can share an interest with our colleagues on all sides of the chamber. We can start with the idea that there is a degree of connectivity between issues, which must become the hallmark of how this Parliament deals with rural affairs. Integrated rural development has to be thought out a good deal more clearly, because at present there are too many different funds and bodies. It is quite clear that there are no fewer of those bodies than there were when the report was produced, or even 10 years before then. Indeed, there are perhaps more.

I will apply the tests of social justice, sustainable economic development and subsidiarity to the way in which the proposals in the report have been progressed. Those tests have to be applied wherever we are on the Government's handling of the contents of the report.

My colleague Alasdair Morgan pointed out the large sums that are available each year through the CAP and rural development budgets. Those sums are considerable, but need in rural areas is disguised. We have not talked about the Scottish index of multiple deprivation, but it must be taken into account. It is one of the indices that allow particular forms of public spending to be allocated, but it is not disaggregated enough to be able to show actual need in rural areas. The Government must take on board the fact that many of the funding packages have taken into account neither the extra costs of living in the countryside nor the degree of rural deprivation, which is hidden in some of the figures that have been produced. The SNP wants to see a much more transparent approach being taken to the provision of figures on deprivation, to spend the correct amount of money in rural areas.

We need to have an explicit statement about the democratic deficit in decision making. Members, for example Nora Radcliffe, discussed communities struggling to work out how to organise a community fund based on a wind farm development. That is a little example of how, as the report suggests, people are being forced into positions without much technical support and have to cope with the process of creating a sustainable cash flow. A rural forum is all very well, but such a forum tends to represent the usual suspects—the large organisations that lobby.

We need to take a much more careful look at devolving power within the local government structure to community councils and the like, so that more decisions are taken at a local level. Those bodies should not just be consulted about planning applications; they must play a clear part in on-going discussion about how planning, zoning and other matters are handled.

I warmly support Rob Gibson's point about community councils. Will he go further and agree that although such a proposal would be laudable, it would require us to improve the democratic process for electing community councils?

I agree absolutely. I am glad that the community council with which I was recently associated has finally decided to hold a full postal ballot for its next election. I recommend using that system all over the place. People will value community councils more if they all have a chance to vote.

The Government must come clean on the production of food from our countryside and access for many people to that food. It must provide seed money to support a labelling system to make food available to the whole population of Scotland, not only the highest bidders.

The biggest subjects are the release of land for rural housing and the building of rural housing. Forestry products that can no longer be sold for other purposes could be used to make new high-insulation houses. The planning and zoning systems must be changed for that but, above all, land must be released for such housing. The Government has failed to take that on board and has ruled out the radical redistribution of assets and resources in the land market. Until those matters attract debate and are addressed by the Government, we will not have the land for affordable housing.

The report is important and contains proposals that the Environment and Rural Development Committee can develop. The SNP sees many lines of argument that would allow us to progress a radical vision that would give people in rural Scotland the power that they deserve.

I welcome the opportunity to respond to the debate and the fact that the Environment and Rural Development Committee has obtained a debate on an important report that was produced in the previous session. I give credit to the former Rural Development Committee for undertaking what turned out to be, as that committee's convener said, a more ambitious inquiry than he expected.

I have no doubt that the preparation of the report has been helpful. I assure members that I am not complacent. I was touched by Alasdair Morgan's acceptance of the fact that integrating rural policy is a difficult job. I am bound to say that that was a grain of comfort, because there is no doubt that the task is difficult. The Executive has tried and continues to try to highlight the importance of the differences that must be tackled when we address problems, because we all have the same problems. The intention is not to create a divide between urban and rural areas, because that would be disastrous for Scotland's development.

Many issues in the report fit well with "Rural Scotland: A New Approach", which we published in May 2000. I do not say that with complacency; I merely make the point. That document deals with the importance of creating prosperous rural economies and providing all rural residents with the opportunity to fulfil their potential. I pick up Karen Gillon's point that people cannot fulfil their potential if they are in poverty, because there is no liberty in poverty. Therefore, we must consider the issue in the round and examine all aspects of service provision. The intention is not to pick off the primary sector or to examine specific issues; the aim is to consider overall delivery. The themes that members have raised today make that clear.

The Executive's aim is to fulfil the overarching commitment to ensure that rural and remote communities have their distinct needs reflected across Government policy and initiatives. I understand and share members' frustration, because difficulties are created for me if people cannot get out of silo thinking and do not understand that we must have a more integrated approach if we are to address problems more effectively. We continue to strive for that approach.

I stress the importance that I, as the minister who is responsible for rural development, place on continuing to work across portfolio boundaries and across the boundaries of many organisations. I try not to make only one or two individuals understand the need for that, but to embed that idea in an organisation's thinking about how to address the problems.

I make it clear that the Scottish national rural partnership's role has expanded greatly in the past two years. It plays a valuable role in how we deal with the issues.

We are not yet making enough use of the important measure of community planning, which the Executive introduced. That could be central to bringing together the work of a range of agencies to deal not only with the problems that can arise in an urban community, but with some of the problems that members have identified today. We have placed community planning on a statutory basis and have committed ourselves to ensuring that rural community planning partnerships work for and report to their local communities and work together to develop best practice.

Does the minister agree that the Scottish Executive Environment and Rural Affairs Department has a role in local community planning?

Yes. I make it clear that all that I am suggesting is that the community planning framework allows the local community from the bottom up to bring together many resources. However, that does not exclude my department or leave it sitting apart from, or hovering above, that. Our involvement is integral.

I will deal with the issues that have been raised in the debate. As Alasdair Morgan said, the parliamentary authorities have scheduled a debate on the common agricultural policy, so I will not dwell on that today. The Environment and Rural Development Committee's convener asked when the Scottish rural development plan review will be published. I advise her that the mid-term review of the plan will be published in December.

On the CAP and food generally, I make it clear that if people have interpreted the Executive's response as unenthusiastic, that is not the case. We spend considerable sums of money and considerable time on promoting the private bodies that interact with food producers to raise the standard of quality assurance and, in turn, to promote labelling. However, there is a slight dichotomy in promoting a Scottish label, which even Tommy Sheridan mentioned. Difficulties exist because, although people in the wider market understand such a label, a slight tension and conflict are created when that is broken down to more local labelling. The food sector has difficulty in grasping that nettle, although we have had successes such as the "Orkney Gold" label, which has been mentioned.

Several members, Margaret Ewing in particular, referred to fishing. I do not control these matters, but I will seek permission from the parliamentary authorities for a debate on the common fisheries policy before we go to the fisheries council meeting. I say to Margaret Ewing that we are engaged in a range of discussions. Yesterday, a discussion took place in Edinburgh with English ministers and other ministers about the current position, what the Scottish Fishermen's Federation and the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea have published and how to progress our agenda. We are mapping out preliminary meetings with the European Commission and the commissioner and with other member states whose assistance we might wish to obtain.

If the minister succeeds in acquiring such a debate, will it cover the report from the Prime Minister's office, which has taken evidence around Scotland for several months?

I cannot give an undertaking on that. Work on that report progresses, but—unsurprisingly—it has been found that reaching a long-term view on the fishing industry is more complex than was thought. It would not help us to have a half-baked interim document, particularly as we approach the negotiations. I cannot give the member such an undertaking, but I assure her that we are on top of pressing that forward.

One of the major issues that members raised is housing. There is no question but that Communities Scotland's grant system is flexible and capable of accommodating variations in land and construction costs. Development funding is directed mainly at dealing with those issues and we have added £5 million in each of the next two years for that. I stress that that will be reinforced by several changes to funding systems. Communities Scotland's development funding will be transferred to local authorities to help them to implement their local housing strategies. A prudential borrowing regime will be introduced for social housing and grant funding is now provided by the Executive.

We have addressed some of the planning issues that have been mentioned. There were tremendous questions about wind farms and I make it clear that we are not agnostic on that matter. We have said that development plans should define broad areas and, where appropriate, specific sites that are available and suitable for wind farms and other renewables developments and we have said that those sites should be covered by local plans. We have issued guidance and, although I am not saying that that is the perfect answer, it is wrong to say that we have not dealt with the matter. As for finance, we are wholly behind and promote the development of renewable energy in Scotland.

On transport, I hope that the creation of regional transport partnerships, which will cover nearly all Scotland's local authorities, will promote greater partnership to encourage strategic developments.

A large number of issues were raised in the debate and I am sorry that I have not been able to deal with them all. However, I assure members that the Executive is entirely committed to improving the integration of development in rural areas, that we take seriously all the recommendations that have been made by members and in the report and that we will continue our efforts to improve the quality of service delivery throughout rural Scotland.

In her introduction, Sarah Boyack said that it felt strange, as the convener of the current committee, to introduce the report, as she was not a member of the committee that produced it. It feels even stranger for me, because I was not even elected when the report was produced. However, I have read it and I very much admire the work that went into it. I am pleased to commend it to the Parliament.

I start by commending the way in which the committee went about producing the report and, in particular, its policy of going out and about to take evidence. That is one of the strengths of the Scottish Parliament and its committees. At the Rail Passengers Committee reception last night, I talked to some people who usually deal with Westminster. They told me how accessible they find the Scottish Parliament, including its parliamentarians and its committees. I am proud to be a part of that system.

The first way of solving a problem is to recognise that it exists and to talk about it. The report highlights issues about our rural areas, although I do not claim that it has all the answers. As many members have highlighted, rural development involves developing not just the things that have traditionally been done in rural areas and the traditional rural ways of making a living, but ways in which people can make a living in rural areas in the 21st century.

Many members made similar points and I will run through a few of the issues that have been raised. Services were mentioned both as part of rural development and as an essential factor underpinning rural development. I echo that from the Highland perspective. Uncertainty about whether there will be a general practitioner or a dentist in an area is a barrier that prevents people who have young children from moving there. That also applies to schools, and I commend the policy that Highland Council has had for several years of not closing rural schools except with the agreement of local people. If we are serious about repopulating rural areas, we must be sure that services are in place and must not cut them. Even if families can find a building plot for a house and find jobs, they will not stay if services are not in place.

Transport is a major issue that was mentioned in the debate. From a Green perspective, I would much rather see spending on the maintenance and upgrading of rural roads than on building urban motorways that no one wants. However, transport does not mean just road transport. We have talked about the transportation of timber by water and rail, and we need to give much more consideration to those means of transport.

I want to make a plea for my constituency in relation to integrated transport, which was the big issue to come out of the report. Perhaps that is not something that the Executive can control at present, but it would be nice if it could do something about getting private transport providers to integrate their services. My constituency support worker gets the bus from Ullapool that connects with the Stornoway ferry. Three separate bus companies operate on that route and, if the ferry is late, buses from all three companies sit and wait for it. One bus will not set off, even though the people waiting might need to get to Inverness in time to catch a train to Glasgow. That kind of flexibility is what I mean by integration, but it is difficult for private companies to achieve.

I think that every member who spoke mentioned housing and the need to free up land, but I want to mention the type of housing that is built. I was disappointed recently to hear about a case in wester Ross, where an application to build a new house was turned down due to an objection from an allegedly environmental body—I will not name it—because the house, which was designed to be environmentally friendly and ecologically sound in its construction and energy efficiency, would not have looked like the vernacular architecture. If we are serious about building energy-efficient houses, we must accept that they will not always look like traditional houses. There must be more flexibility about what is allowed. The site for that house was not in the middle of a village in a conservation area, so the building could have been allowed. We must consider creatively the sort of houses that are proposed.

We have heard the general view that the housing shortage must be addressed, one way or another. Land must be freed up for housing. Stewart Stevenson commented on the contribution that is made by incomers and their energy and drive. We all acknowledge that, and we must encourage people to come to live and work in rural areas, as well as encouraging local people to stay in those areas. We want to repopulate the glens.

Members talked extensively about renewables. Many speeches showed that good ideas can give rise to bad examples. There should be no slow-down in the move towards renewable energy, but there should be more rationalisation and stricter guidelines about what can be put in place and where. I think that that view is widely supported. It should be acknowledged that wind power is not the be-all and end-all of renewable energy. Members mentioned biomass energy, for example, although I do not have time to give examples of that from my constituency. Members also highlighted the need for local decision making.

The local production and marketing of food was mentioned. I do not intend to start a big discussion about agriculture, in part because I do not have time but also because we will have that debate next week. I was pleased that the minister said that he was not unenthusiastic about labelling Scottish produce, but I go further than that. There must be the infrastructure to produce value-added products in rural areas. Nobody ever got rich by selling raw materials; they have to produce something with them. We need to be able to process and market our products locally. Hotels are crying out to be able to say, "The lamb that we are serving at the table came from the hill outside—that is probably its mother that you see over there." Unfortunately, I do not have time to talk about the mid-term review.

Conservation was mentioned and we heard criticism—quite valid in many cases—of some of the conservation agencies. That problem will be addressed by the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Bill, which the Environment and Rural Development Committee is considering. SNH in particular, as a statutory body, came in for a bit of stick about its lack of consultation and it must take that criticism on board—I think that it is beginning to do so. I look forward to the day when we can all love SNH, but I think that it is still some way off.

I welcome the recommendations on forestry, which considered a range of potential uses and benefits. The days are gone when people thought first about tax incentives and secondly about wood pulp when they planted trees. We can do much more in relation to biomass, timber construction, tourism, wildlife and non-timber forest products. I would like to talk more about that, but unfortunately I do not have time.

Initiatives were mentioned, some of which have been quite successful—I am happy to praise those where praise is due. However, we cannot just go from initiative to initiative; worthwhile rural developments must be assured of long-term funding. A sort of projectitis seems to run through Government departments and funding agencies. That should be examined because people must know that the money will be available in the long term.

The report is about integrated rural development. We focus a lot on rural development, but the minister and other members mentioned the fact that "integrated" is an important word because there must be integration. The report cuts across many areas and I recognise that it is difficult to do that, as the minister said. I am sure that the successor committee to the Rural Development Committee, which published the report, will give the minister every support to help him to fulfil his difficult role.

The minister mentioned community planning—

You must close, please.

Sarah Boyack noted the challenge for all—

You must close because you are cutting into First Minister's question time.

I am sorry; I was looking at the wrong clock.