Chamber and committees

We know that there are more and more empty buildings in our town centres, and it is fair to say that some local councils that have given us evidence do not think that they have enough powers to deal with that problem. You have referred to the review of compulsory purchase powers. Others have said that they have the powers but do not have the resources, whether that be staffing or the funding to carry out repairs to buildings when they would then have to chase the landlord to get the money back off them.

What is the Government’s take on that? Why are there so many derelict buildings in our town centres, and why is action not being taken to bring them back into use?

However, a lot of projects have benefited from the emphasis that South of Scotland Enterprise and HIE place on a place-based approach. Over and above central funding from the Government, those agencies provide support for projects in their areas. Such support is not provided by Scottish Enterprise in the areas that South of Scotland Enterprise and HIE do not cover.

It is necessary to work with the landlord to make that happen. There are good examples of that, even if there is probably not enough funding. However, what happens when the landlord does very little? The feedback that we have had is that councils can take action only when a vacant building is dangerous. Even if a building has no windows, there are trees growing through the front of it, it is in a dreadful state and no one will touch it, councils cannot do a lot about that at the moment. Surely we must consider giving councils the powers that would enable them to intervene straight away. The minister talked about market failure. In such circumstances, councils need to be able to intervene to get the landlord to bring a vacant building into a proper state.

The challenge that we have heard about is that that is quite a radical approach for a building that is simply in a poor state, and that what councils really need is the power to intervene and say to the landlord, “You bring that up to a usable standard,” instead of the taxpayer having to buy the whole building in a town centre where there has been market failure. Why would the council suddenly want a shop in the high street? The committee will cover that issue.

We took evidence from the enterprise networks on resources. South of Scotland Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise have a particular focus on a place-based approach. The funding to bring such buildings into proper use is coming from South of Scotland Enterprise—in Dumfries, for example—and HIE. However, an owner of a building in Ayr, for example, will not have access to the same support, because Scottish Enterprise has a different remit. Is that a fair reflection of the circumstances that we face?

What if they are not willing?

That might not go down too well in Stranraer, convener, where people are trying not to travel to Edinburgh. They are trying to get the service a bit closer, in Glasgow.

A very powerful case has been made on the need for a further bit of work to look at how we advocate—to be frank, we do not advocate—for healthcare in rural areas. It is not about individual cases, although looking at the issues collectively will probably reveal policy failures; it is about trying to assist. The commissioner model in Australia, for example, is about providing policy advice to Government on how to tackle some of the big rural challenges. It is important that we look at that model and at whether we need an advocacy service to support rural healthcare in Scotland. I hope that the committee will support that—it is certainly something that I very much support.

My interest is primarily in the petition from Dr Baird, who is a constituent of mine. However, his proposal is pertinent to all the petitions that we are discussing—the common theme being inadequate healthcare provision in rural areas. The fact is that no one appears to be advocating on behalf of such communities and they are not being listened to.

Emma Harper highlighted the example of cancer care in Dumfries and Galloway, where our constituents in Stranraer have to travel to Edinburgh for treatment when there is a hospital in Glasgow that could provide it. Neither the health board nor the Scottish Government is tackling that problem.

In our discussions, a number of ideas have been suggested for how we could do so—in particular, by Mr Ewing, who said that we should have on health boards people with rural interests. I would hope that people who are appointed to a health board in an area such as Dumfries and Galloway would already have knowledge of rural healthcare. To reinforce that point would not do any harm.

However, we are failing to recognise that we have a Scotland-wide problem in rural healthcare. There will be commonality between the challenges in Caithness and those in Dumfries and Galloway, so there should be Scotland-wide solutions. When it comes to finding such solutions the problem is often—but not exclusively—the health board.

It was also suggested that the proposed national centre for remote and rural health and social care could have an advocacy role. I understand that it will be primarily a delivery mechanism, although crucially it will be part of the NHS, so it will not be independent. It is interesting that, yesterday, the Scottish Government announced that it now supports the proposal for an independent food commission and has rejected the idea that Food Standards Scotland could take on that role—I presume that is because it is independent of the Government.

It is key to our discussion that no independent national authority is advocating on healthcare on behalf of rural communities. There is a model for that in Australia, where there is the Office of the National Rural Health Commissioner. We should consider that model here in Scotland. I see no harm in carrying out a piece of work on how we could strengthen advocacy for rural healthcare in this country, whether it be through a commissioner or another model. It is absolutely clear that the current set-up is simply not working.

I thank the witnesses for sharing their views. I will go back to Derek Shaw on the point about Scottish Enterprise’s role being different from that of his colleagues in Highlands and Islands Enterprise and South of Scotland Enterprise. Douglas Cowan said that Highlands and Islands Enterprise has always had a community remit. Bryan McGrath will know that I spent many years calling for a similar arrangement in the south of Scotland, because I was struck by the fact that a business in Inverness town centre could receive support but a similar business in Dumfries could not receive such support. Now it can, because we have South of Scotland Enterprise.

The challenge now is that a business in Ayr cannot get the same support as a business in Dumfries because of Scottish Enterprise’s remit. Does that put Scottish Enterprise at a disadvantage when it comes to providing support for town centre businesses?

We have heard about the town centre living fund before. It is a good idea and is of huge benefit.

Mr Lindsay, do your powers go far enough? Mr Rogers said that you can take action when a building is dangerous, but is it fair to say that not a great deal can be done in other cases, even when there are trees growing through the windows or the windows are not even there, unless it is a listed building. Should the powers be strengthened?

Are councils sometimes reluctant to use the powers because, once they start, to be frank, it will draw on their resources?