Rural Development Committee, 08 Jan 2002

Meeting date: Tuesday, January 8, 2002

Official Report 272KB pdf

---

Integrated Rural Development

Before the recess, we agreed that any members who wished to do so could propose places that the committee might visit with a view to its stated aim of trying to determine what is blocking integrated rural development. Four specific bids have been made.

I notice that nobody has made a bid for an island. I wish to make a bid for Colonsay, which is an initiative-at-the-edge area with specific problems. I think that it would be useful to go there. I am not sure whether transport will be possible, but it would be well worth considering.

I do not think that the transport available would allow us to get to Colonsay and back.

That is the issue—what bigger barrier is there to rural development? We could consider hiring a boat from somebody; I do not think that it is that expensive. I think that people have gone across there for one-day visits in that way. It might be difficult for the clerks to arrange, but boat hire is quite common, and someone local would be able to help out.

I have just asked the clerk about the availability of his own sailing boat, but he assures me that it is not big enough.

And I will not fly us there either.

Nonetheless, Rhoda Grant's suggestion is noted at this point and we will return to it.

Do you wish to comment, Richard? I thought that I saw you trying to catch my eye.

No, convener—although I would like to suggest putting Deeside on our list as a matter of course, rather than always waiting for Mike Rumbles to suggest it, as it is his constituency.

I take exception to that. I will explain why Mid Deeside Ltd figures among the suggestions. Obviously, it is located in my constituency, and I know from personal experience what problems affect it. Rhoda Grant is right: we need to consider the real issues, rather than just thinking of where we would like to go. I am perfectly happy to go to any other area in which a real issue is involved. That is why I suggested Mid Deeside Ltd, whose chairman had a fruitless meeting with the Minister for Environment and Rural Development.

Mid Deeside Ltd is a tremendously successful community partnership company and, unlike in other areas of Scotland, such companies in its area are not part of the local government set-up but are run entirely by members of the local community. They have had great success in accessing project funding.

A typical problem throughout Scotland is that such good local initiatives will stumble because they cannot access core funding. That is a major issue for the committee; that is why I suggested Mid Deeside Ltd and for no other reason.

It is important that we go to an island, whether it be Colonsay or another island, as well as other locations that have been mentioned.

First, I endorse what Rhoda Grant said. I, too, think that it is important to visit an island, but it is hard to decide which particular one of the 60 to visit. Secondly, I suggest a visit to Kintyre and the Kintyre initiative working group. From Campbeltown up, the whole Kintyre peninsula has been in a low state for some time. There is an issue about its ferry. The area recently got new employment through the wind-farm manufacturing plant, but the whole area needs rejuvenation. It would be a good place to go to.

I am not against your suggestion, but we must bear in mind that we are specifically trying to identify barriers to integrated rural development. It does not really matter what those barriers are. I am not speaking against your suggestion, but we must remember to focus on those barriers in our discussion, to help the Executive—if I can put it that way.

Mike Rumbles gave a passionate defence of his suggestion. Perhaps Fergus Ewing can do the same for his suggestion.

Yes. We are planning visits to find out what is preventing success and what the barriers are to rural development. Therefore, I can understand Mike Rumbles's approach of identifying particular companies and issues.

I focused, however, on the general problems that exist in Lochaber. I have mentioned only some of those problems, such as the public and private transportation difficulties, the problems of housing shortages and the high costs of housing, particularly in the west Lochaber area.

In parts of west Lochaber, such as Lochaline—which is dependent on fish farming—Strontian, Acharacle and Lochailort, the problems might not be dissimilar from those that are encountered on islands. The difficulties of getting to remote parts of Ardnamurchan, for example, are probably on a par with the difficulties of getting to some of the islands, but perhaps not as difficult as getting to Colonsay.

Lochaber has suffered particularly because of tourism problems. Because the national park is being created in Cairngorm, other areas in the Highlands that will not be within the golden boundaries of the national park may be beginning to feel that they will be left behind. If that is the case, perhaps we should find out about it sooner rather than later.

Specific difficulties face most of the major industries in Lochaber, but perhaps some of the major employers have opportunities as well. I do not want to pre-judge the evidence, but I think that there is a strong case for visiting Lochaber. As far as I know, that is not something that the committee has done so far. Members might be aware, however, that Lochaber falls within my constituency, so I cannot say that I do not have a personal interest in the matter.

Does Richard Lochhead want to flesh out his general suggestion?

Yes. Huntly is a town in Gordon that is experiencing difficulties in terms of the number of empty shops in the high street; that situation has arisen in just the past year or two. Huntly has the second-largest rate of unemployment in the whole of Aberdeenshire.

Buckie is a coastal town that in recent years has experienced difficulties because of the decline of fishing in the town. Buckie is on the list as a suggestion of a coastal community to visit. I think that we should visit a coastal community, but it might require a bit more research to find out which one would be the best to visit.

Richard Lochhead and I discussed Huntly and Buckie as potential candidates before he submitted the suggestion. The advantage of our visiting either of those towns is that they have a reasonable hinterland that could draw people from a variety of rural communities into a participative event, were we to hold one. My constituency is not alone in being an awkward intermediate area, in the sense that it is rural and shares many of the problems of the traditionally underprivileged rural areas but is also relatively wealthy. We require the opportunities that are now being denied us because of things such as our not being able to compete on business rates, our not being in any grant-aided areas, our finding it difficult to come to terms with the changing world and our having a wide diversity—within a reasonable hinterland of either Huntly or Buckie—of different rural problems in different communities, which could all be brought together. To meet the requirement to find somewhere to visit that is coastal, we might focus on Buckie.

As the only person here who lives in the south of Scotland—there has been a change in balance in the committee in that regard—I suggest that we visit Forrest Estate at Dalry, near Castle Douglas. It is a large estate whose business is based on forestry and is in the process of trying to become a centre of excellence for renewable energy. The estate has recently built a fascinating office, which was opened by Ross Finnie. The running costs of that office, which are based on green policies, are 30 per cent lower than those of a normal office of that type. The office is almost in the middle of nowhere and has brought 15 high-quality jobs to the area, with a view to increasing that number. If the whole development takes place, 50 high-quality jobs will be created in an area where such jobs are hard to come by.

The estate has had to overcome a series of hurdles to get to that position, not least of which was the need to provide an IT infrastructure into which it could feed. Added to that, there has been a problem with finding housing—particularly low-cost housing—in the area; that problem will increase if further jobs are created. There is also a proposal to close a large number of primary schools in that part of the stewartry and that has become an obstacle to integrated rural development. People will not be keen to move to villages where there are no primary schools, although there is at least a secondary school in the local village of Dalry.

The Forrest Estate would be a suitable place for us to visit, given the fact that, when we discussed the proposal initially, the reporters were keen that we should meet and discuss matters with what they termed "real people" rather than the agencies that we tend to meet on such visits. I am not saying that those agencies should be excluded, but there was a feeling among the reporters that we need to make genuine contact with people on the ground.

An alternative venue would be Buccleuch Estates, which wrote to us and offered to host a day visit. Buccleuch Estates has already held a day seminar on rural development that was attended by 43 members of the Executive's staff. I dare say that we could find out the details of that seminar if members wished to do so.

Those are my proposals. I think that those would be suitable places to visit to find innovative rural development that has succeeded in overcoming some of the hurdles that it has met.

We have to make a bid for funding for our visits by a week on Friday. I suggest that we think about what we have heard today. We may have to limit ourselves to four or five visits, although we have about six suggestions. Members should think about it over the coming week and we will decide which visits we want to undertake at the end of next week's meeting, to allow a funding bid to be made to the conveners liaison group on Friday. Do members agree with that?

If we are talking about dropping only one of the proposed visits, might the clerks undertake some preliminary investigation into the logistical practicalities that might cause one of them to drop off the list anyway?

Yes. Perhaps the clerks could produce a short paper for us on the proposals and what the difficulties might be.

One of the reasons for the problems in such areas is that they face logistical difficulties. Perhaps we should experience those difficulties.

The example that Rhoda Grant cited is a classic in that respect. If such problems are a real obstacle to rural development, perhaps we should experience them. We might be late in getting back for the business of Parliament, but so be it—what a shame that would be. If members are content with the suggestion, the clerks will produce a paper for next week's meeting and we will make our final choice next week. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

I thank all members for their participation in a very useful meeting this afternoon.

Meeting closed at 16:50.