Official Report 190KB pdf
Item 5 on the agenda is consideration of a paper on the rural housing inquiry, which we intend to launch in late November or early December. We have not set a specific time for it; we will do that some weeks down the line. A very good paper has been produced, which is intended to focus the committee on how we want to go about kicking off the inquiry.
I agree. We were both members of the Health Committee when its stakeholder event took place, and it was an excellent way for the committee to take forward views from right across the spectrum. People who we had not even thought of inviting came to the event and made pertinent points. There is a danger in us sitting here drawing up a list of who we should invite. We should throw it open to everybody, and find out from the people who come what the big issues are.
I agree. The only thing I would add is whether we should have one or two such events. Should we have one in the north? Are the problems in the south of Scotland different from those in the north of Scotland? Can we afford to have two events?
The resource issues, the cost issues and so on would prohibit our holding two such events. We would need to establish one, big, stakeholder event and consider some of the details of that. Does everybody agree that a stakeholder event is the best way forward?
We can now move on to some of the more specific issues. The key one is where the event should take place. I feel strongly that it should not be Edinburgh, but somewhere more central. It is a question of where we decide is a suitable venue. It needs to be somewhere that is relatively easy for most people from most of Scotland to get to. There is a detailed discussion going on between members. Do you have any ideas?
I suggest Aviemore or Pitlochry.
That is interesting. I was just about to suggest that it should be somewhere in the Cairngorms national park. I am not making a pitch for my bit of the park; I suggest somewhere on the other side—the Inverness-shire side— because there are particular issues in the Highlands and Islands, the Cairngorms, and the north of Scotland.
I know that they are both SNP seats but, realistically, if we are talking about accessibility, we are looking at Stirling or Perth. If we are going to get people from across the country, it has to be one of those places.
We do not have to make a decision about the location today; we just need a steer. There are access issues about places such as Aviemore and Pitlochry. It depends where people come from. If we want to focus on accessibility, Stirling and Perth are not the only options. Inverness is also an option because although it can be a long journey—for example for people coming from the south-west—it is a fairly straightforward journey.
It would be a very long journey from Galloway.
It would be six hours from where I live.
There are issues. I think that there is capacity for us to allow overnight stays for people.
I still think that it would be useful to have a connection with one of the two national parks. It could be Loch Lomond and the Trossachs national park, but my preference would be to have the event in the western side of the Cairngorms national park, simply because it is on a direct rail line and people can access it.
If people are coming from rural areas, many of them will probably travel by car. So whatever location we decide on, it should have good parking, unlike that flooding conference in Perth—it took me hours to get parked that day.
Many of the places that have been suggested could be covered when we go out to gather evidence.
We must focus on the single big stakeholder event. We will go out separately to other places and will take on board other issues, such as those in the national parks, at that point but, for the stakeholder event, we need to consider where we can get the maximum number of people.
I do not have a strong view on the matter. Aviemore and Pitlochry are conference centres and Stirling has good accommodation—I do not really mind.
My slight concern about Stirling is that it is in the central belt.
John Scott raises a valid point. For people in the Borders, going much further than Stirling would put the costs way out of our reach, because we will have to pay their travel and accommodation expenses—we would have to pay for people to stay overnight if we asked them to come up from the Borders.
People from the Borders are used to going to Stirling or Perth, but they will not go any further.
We have two feelings. One is that we should keep the event relatively central, although not in Edinburgh; the other is that we should go further out. The costs have to be agreed by the Conveners Group, but we can work up costings for the options and work out how much more the event would cost if we offered people extra travel expenses and perhaps overnighters. We will consider that and find out whether the expenses would make a significant difference, which may affect our decision.
That is a good idea, convener. I was absolutely with you when you said that we should go out of Edinburgh, but can we also consider whether using the Parliament building here in Edinburgh might increase the number of people at the event? I understand your point about going out of Edinburgh, but if we are only going to Stirling, what is the point?
I understand that point. That is what I was talking about when I said that Stirling is still in the central belt. I take on board your point that there may not be great value in going to Stirling rather than staying in Edinburgh. The real value would be to go beyond the central belt, but that carries with it access issues.
I know that time is short, but is it possible to contact some of the stakeholder groups that we will invite to the event to get a response on whether they are prepared to travel? Perhaps time is too short for that.
That would be too difficult a way to proceed.
We would not need to ask people exactly where they want to go, but how far they are prepared to travel.
People will either travel or they will not. If we ask them whether they are prepared to travel, they will all say yes, whether they are or are not—that is just a fact of human nature.
I am perfectly happy with Perth.
We will consider the costings and access issues. If members think of further issues, they should direct them straight to the clerks. However, the clerks now have a better idea of where we might go.
We need to speak to Scottish Water and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency because the development constraints related to them are huge. It would also be useful to have some input from some of the voluntary sector organisations that support people into housing. They will be aware of where the gaps are in affordable and rented accommodation.
We take it as read that we will invite the Scottish estates business group, the Scottish Rural Property and Business Association—the Scottish Landowners Federation, as I still think of it—and Homes for Scotland. We could ask NFU Scotland. I also wonder whether we should ask for representatives of some big employers to talk to us about their difficulties getting staff because of housing problems. I do not know how we would best get that perspective, but it would be useful. Perhaps we could get input from some local chambers of commerce.
Even the Forestry Commission.
Local authorities and health boards are big employers, and they have difficulties.
I am looking for some way to represent the views of those at the sharp end—people who are trying to get affordable housing, whether in the social rented sector or owner-occupied accommodation. The difficulty is that those people tend not to organise into groups, although members may be able to think of how to overcome that problem. They are a group that we would want to be represented at the stakeholder event; I am just not clear how to do it.
In the first session, the Rural Development Committee went to somewhere in Argyll—off the top of my head I cannot remember exactly where we were—and started an investigation into a similar topic. It was not focused on rural housing, but individuals without a house turned up and gave evidence to the committee. We could have a look back at the Official Report, because committee members were quite taken by individuals who lived in the local area coming forward.
We need to identify ways of encouraging some of that.
Some tenants and residents groups may know of parents whose families are stuck with them because they cannot get into the housing market through rented accommodation or buying.
So we could write to some groups to ask them about that?
Yes. Mike Rumbles makes a good point, but perhaps we need to differentiate between the stakeholder event—the big starter—and the work that we will do after it. It is important that we follow the stakeholder event with a series of events in different localities where people can come in off the street to speak to us.
We will do that. We have already taken a decision in principle that we will go out into rural areas as part of this inquiry. We will do the same with our work on flooding, too, so we will spend a lot of time out and about.
I have no idea whether this is possible, but could the conference use a videolink? If it was possible to do that with some councils, local people in rural areas could go to their council to present evidence over a videolink. I have no idea whether that is remotely practical.
Not for the stakeholder event—I need us to focus on that.
But you were looking for ways to get people who are directly affected by the problem to contribute.
I know. When you experience a stakeholder event, you will see how difficult it would be to fit in a videoconference session.
Fair enough—I will accept that as I have obviously not experienced such events before.
It is a good idea to write to residents and tenants groups. Perhaps we could also write to a selection of rural housing associations to ask whether someone on their waiting lists might want to come along.
Let us be honest: we could write to 129 MSPs and be deluged with names. I could give you dozens from my patch and I am sure that we are all in the same position. Perhaps we can short-circuit the problem by asking MSPs to put forward names of individuals who might be prepared to talk to us at a stakeholder event.
When we know where we are going, we can speak to the local MSPs, because people might not want to travel for such an event.
Yes. We all have a massive pool of information on people who are struggling because they have been on the waiting list for years.
The Scottish agricultural colleges might have a handle on housing for farm workers and the viability of farms.
I presume that we will also invite academics who work on rural housing. We can invite a wide range of people, so we will need to think about how we structure the day.
To allow for travel.
Yes. The event will not take place on a Wednesday, when committees meet; it will take place on a Monday or a Friday—I would prefer a Monday. Committee members must be given as much advance notice as possible. We will hold the event in a week when there is no meeting of this committee, perhaps instead of a meeting. We will not run a full-scale event and then force everyone back to the Parliament for a Wednesday morning meeting.
In our briefing paper we are asked to consider whether we want to appoint an adviser, and, if we do, whether to do that sooner or later. Peter Peacock is mouthing "later", but I would have thought that we want to make that decision sooner. However, I will go with the flow.
May I explain? After the stakeholder event, which will be attended by a huge number of invitees, we will draw up a more focused remit for our inquiry. We will then put out a 12-week call for evidence. That would be the best stage at which to consider appointing an adviser. The stakeholder event will not replace the call for evidence, but it will help us to focus our call for evidence. I suggest that we defer the decision on whether to appoint an adviser.
We should start thinking about appointing an adviser. A month or so here or there is probably not important, but we should start the process now.
I agree with the convener. We all think that we know what the problem is and what the answer is. The seven members who are at this meeting probably hold different views. Sometimes the appropriate direction to take in an inquiry becomes clear only after a stakeholder event. We should consider appointing an adviser after the stakeholder event, which will provide the details that we need.
The only advantage of appointing an adviser before the event would be that the person would be able to help us finalise the remit of the inquiry.
We should make the decision later, for the simple reason that we might change the specification for the adviser after the inquiry's remit has been informed by the stakeholder event.
The consensus seems to be that we should leave it until we have the input from the stakeholder event.