Rural Scotland (Employment Patterns)
The next item of business is a debate on motion S1M-1892, in the name of Alex Johnstone, on behalf of the Rural Development Committee, on that committee's "Report on the Impact of Changing Employment Patterns in Rural Scotland".
It is my pleasure to be able to present the report on behalf of the Rural Development Committee. The report has taken some considerable time in the committee's busy schedule but the subject is important.
The committee first met less than two years ago. Our priority at that first meeting was to identify issues to which the committee should devote its time over the ensuing four years. Obviously, there were priorities concerning farming, fishing, forestry and other traditionally rural matters that had been dealt with by committees at Westminster. However, it was obvious to the committee that the new rural affairs concept—which this Parliament sought to launch—was a priority that had to be addressed.
At this stage I must pay tribute to one or two people who were important to the report. I would like to single out two former members of the committee who were integral to pushing the rural affairs agenda and getting the inquiry up and running—Cathy Peattie and Irene McGugan. They pushed the priority of rural affairs at an early stage and made us realise that there was more to it than the farming and fishing priorities of the past.
I also take the opportunity to thank for their input many of the professionals and advisers on whom the committee relied for the success of the inquiry and subsequent report. From the Scottish Parliament information centre, I highlight the efforts of Simon Wakefield, who was particularly active in controlling the direction of the report. I also convey our thanks to Sue Sadler, who organised many of the public meetings. I particularly thank Professor Mark Shucksmith, who was the adviser to the research project. He helped to steer us through some of the more difficult areas and was integral to the drafting of the report.
I will go over what the committee did to consult the public of Scotland on how we should report on the subjects that we chose. After considerable discussion and consultation with our adviser—once he was in place—we decided to investigate the impact of changing employment patterns in rural Scotland. That crystallised and defined more clearly the views that were originally expressed on the first day on which the committee met.
To that end, the inquiry was launched on 30 March 2000. The overall aim of the inquiry was to undertake a wide-ranging investigation into the major changes taking place in rural Scotland, the impact of those changes on rural communities—particularly on poverty and housing—and the effectiveness of current policy responses. The inquiry also aimed to contribute to understanding how joined-up government can be made to work for Scotland's rural communities.
The objectives of the inquiry were to identify the key drivers of change in employment patterns, to identify who gains and who loses as a result of those changing employment patterns, to assess the impact of the changes and to review the current policy to support employment in rural Scotland. We also wished to identify best practice and areas for improvement in policy, as well as to report on the inquiry and make recommendations for action to address likely further changes.
The consultation process on which we embarked relied on a number of methods. A series of seven local consultation meetings was organised. Those meetings took place throughout Scotland to enable members of the committee to hear views from local people regarding their experiences of changing employment patterns, the impact of those changes and the policy actions that they felt would be effective. Five of the meetings were open to the public and two were by invitation only. The research team worked in partnership with local organisations to set up the public meetings, invite local people to participate and promote each meeting widely in the locality.
At this point, I should say that we subsequently received representations that the publicity was not as effective in some cases as it may have been. One of the lessons that we learned during the inquiry was that, just as we know what is going on, we believe that people on the ground ought to know what is going on. It is disappointing that many who felt that they had something to contribute were unable to do so simply because they were not aware that the meetings were taking place. I advise committees to examine more closely the publicity attached to public meetings that the Parliament or its committees hold in future.
The public meetings took place in Newtown St Boswells, Stornoway, Newton Stewart, Laurencekirk and Dingwall. There was also a meeting that was designed to cover Argyll and Bute, which was eventually carried out by means of a video link. That meeting afforded us the first opportunity to exploit that technology and we advise others to use it to contact other areas of Scotland.
Local authorities and local enterprise companies were involved in each public meeting. They were invited to make presentations to MSPs and members of the public. Those presentations covered the employment changes experienced in the area and set the scene for the discussion that followed.
Through the meetings, 246 people were able to make their views known to the researchers. At the same time, a consultation document was mailed to more than 400 individuals and organisations with an interest in rural Scotland. That document was also placed on the Scottish Parliament website and more than 350 accesses to it were made. Press releases were sent to national and local media to alert the general public to the consultation. Responses were invited, to be in by 18 May last year. That succeeded in eliciting 100 written responses from a wide range of organisations and individuals.
What information did we glean from the consultation process? The key findings of the report are that rural employment is in decline in most sectors and that transport—especially the cost of transport in rural Scotland—is by far the biggest concern of those who expressed opinions at the public meetings and through the consultation.
We also found that poverty in rural areas is distinct, in that it is highly dispersed and often disguised within a more wealthy community. It is also most common among older people. The key causes of poverty are lower wages, low uptake of benefits, the higher cost of child care and the lack of affordable housing.
Although rural Scotland's economy is different from that of urban Scotland, it is very diverse. Demand for the service sector is growing in rural Scotland as traditional manufacturing and agriculture decline. The Rural Development Committee is concerned that the combination of poverty and declining traditional industries is threatening the sustainability of rural life in certain areas.
I want to touch on the Executive's reaction to the report. There was some disappointment among members of the committee, who felt that the reaction was rather hostile. I want to take as constructive an attitude as possible. When it established the inquiry and subsequently drafted the report, the committee's aim was to benefit the future work of the committee and the Parliament, and, we hoped, stimulate reaction from the Executive—which we certainly did. If the report was interpreted as an attack on Executive policy, I can only offer my apologies to the minister, because that was never the intention. By making constructive progress and by addressing the issues that we have identified as priorities for the Parliament, the committee can proceed hand-in-hand with the Executive—whoever may form it in future—to work on longer-term policy, up to and beyond the horizon of the current political climate.
Ha!
That was not meant as a joke, David.
I hope that the committee and the Executive will have the opportunity to do a constructive job, working together in Parliament in the interests of rural Scotland.
I am delighted to move the motion in my name,
That the Parliament notes the 1st Report, 2001 of the Rural Development Committee, The Impact of Changing Employment Patterns in Rural Scotland (SP Paper 254); recognises the problems faced by Scotland's rural communities as highlighted by the research findings in the report; further recognises that work is already under way to address some of these concerns, and urges the Scottish Executive to continue to address the Committee's concerns.
The SNP welcomes the opportunity to debate the Rural Development Committee's report. We add our congratulations to everyone involved—my colleagues in the committee, the clerks, the adviser Mark Shucksmith, everyone at the Scottish Parliament information centre who helped, everyone who sent submissions to the committee and, especially, everyone who turned out at the seven public meetings that we held around the country. Those meetings were very successful.
A couple of factors stood out in our inquiry. One was the high turnout at the public meetings. People were extremely enthusiastic about coming along to speak to parliamentarians about the rural economy. That was invaluable. I attended successful and worthwhile meetings in Dingwall and Stornoway.
Another factor was the unanimity of the committee on many of the recommendations and findings. There was huge agreement on the report, which includes many unique recommendations. I hope that the minister will respond positively.
Against that positive backdrop, the SNP was absolutely astonished by the Government's 13-page response, which sought to parry the committee's recommendations by simply listing what the ministers think they have achieved. They seemed to be in a huff because we did not spend several pages of our report paying tribute to the wonderful work of the ministers to date. We wanted to engage in a constructive debate with the Executive. The committee's purpose was to go out, speak to people around the country and find out the real picture. We then came back and reported to Parliament and to ministers in the hope that the committee could influence the decision-making process in Scotland's new Government.
In its response to our report, the Government talks about the positive picture from rural Scotland. That was the first defensive remark. In recent weeks, discussions in Parliament have been dominated by the foot-and-mouth crisis, the fishing crisis, the decline in the textile industry and the tourism crisis.
I want to turn to the scores of written submissions that the committee received and to consider four or so of them that were at the top of the pile. The Rowett Research Institute said that because of the severe downturn in traditional agriculture, rural employment has moved from very low paid, but reasonably secure employment in agriculture, to a situation of wholesale redundancies and very short-term rural employment that is part-time, seasonal and poorly paid—for example, in tourism. It goes on to say that many rural residents have two or three part-time jobs just to maintain basic family budgets. The ministers talk about everything being rosy in rural Scotland because there are areas of low unemployment. I ask them to bear in mind the nature of the employment that there is.
Peebles Hotel Hydro told the committee that it was having to hire staff from overseas because of a feeling here that wages in the industry are poor and a difficulty to do with split shifts. It said that there was a lack of accommodation in villages around Scotland for incoming workers and a lack of skills among the work force in rural Scotland for certain positions—for chefs in particular.
The Scottish Wildlife Trust pointed out that it is extremely concerned about the current economic plight of our primary industries. Perth and Kinross Council, on the subject of social services, said that rural areas had fared worse than urban areas because of the difficulties in recruiting care workers in rural communities. Shelter Scotland spoke of the appalling housing problems in our rural communities. The picture is not as rosy as ministers would have us believe.
An extremely worrying remark by the Executive was that it was not surprising that
"Rural Scotland has not benefited from the key growth areas in the economy."
That somehow suggests that rural Scotland is not suitable for the key growth areas in the economy. Our report highlighted the fact that we must address that. We believe that rural Scotland could be appropriate for the growth economy. The minister is telling us that, although traditional industries are declining, the new industries belong to the urban communities. Where does that leave rural Scotland in the 21st century?
It is a pity that Wendy Alexander is not here. The minister who will respond to the debate has very few powers over many of the issues referred to in the report. It would have helped if ministers from across the Executive had come here today to speak about the report.
I hope that Richard Lochhead is not suggesting that, within an Executive, it is not possible to have ministers who can act in a cross-cutting way for the benefit of rural Scotland. Ministers in the Cabinet have a collective responsibility and are perfectly capable of articulating interests on all matters that affect rural Scotland.
The minister mentions cross-cutting. The cross-cutting Cabinet is very enigmatic. No one knows when it meets or what it does. In the chamber, we have never heard about how it is working to help rural Scotland.
In last week's debate on skills in Scotland, Wendy Alexander did not mention rural Scotland once in her opening speech. Back in February, we had a debate on "A Smart Successful Scotland". Again, the minister did not address any of the concerns of rural Scotland, as if it was not supposed to be part of smart, successful Scotland. We must start talking about information and communications technology inclusion, and not just social inclusion. We must ensure that rural Scotland benefits from new technologies and is as digitally switched on as urban Scotland. Broadband and telecommunications are two issues raised in the report that the Government must address in relation to rural Scotland. If it does not address those issues, our rural communities will be uncompetitive in the 21st century economy.
I will turn briefly to the soft measures promoted in the report. We must build up confidence in rural communities. It is not enough to supply premises and grants to help get companies off the ground—we must tackle social exclusion and build confidence.
I also want to raise the issue of the social remit for Scottish Enterprise, which was rejected by the Government. Why can the Executive not accept that recommendation? The report made it clear that Scottish Enterprise does not take on board rural concerns as much as Highlands and Islands Enterprise does.
The Executive must not alienate our rural communities. It has already alienated the fishing community. Only this week it has become clear that the Executive has refused to hold an independent inquiry into the salmon farming industry. I urge ministers to take a leaf out of the committee's book: hold public meetings around the country and speak directly to our communities. If ministers take that approach, they might be able to take off their rose-tinted glasses, see what is really happening in rural Scotland and do something about it.
As a member of the Rural Affairs Committee—as it was when we began the inquiry—I would like to join members in thanking everyone who helped us to draw up the report.
As everyone realises, since the report was published the situation in rural Scotland has changed beyond recognition, most dramatically in the south-west. On its publication, the report painted a fairly gloomy picture; that gloom has turned into an outright crisis from which it will take many years to recover.
The last eight or nine weeks have highlighted the precarious and interdependent nature of our rural communities. Let us make no mistake—many of those rural communities are under genuine threat. The report highlights the facts. Employment in many rural sectors is in decline. The traditional rural industries of farming, fishing and forestry face particular challenges. Transport costs are almost unbearable given the low-wage economy in rural Scotland and—most worrying of all—rural poverty is on the increase. For those reasons and many others, many of our communities are under threat. We must ask ourselves if and why that matters.
Those communities are as diverse as the countryside in which they exist. One of the things that struck me most about the two fact-finding visits that the committee undertook—one was to Newtown St Boswells and the other to Newton Stewart—was that one could not have come across a more stark example of differing social, physical and mental attitudes to what are, in essence, the same problems.
Those communities matter—not just because they look pretty and attract tourists, but because they are a vital part of Scotland's social make up. Such communities foster and preserve some of our most precious and, in some cases, almost forgotten traditions, such as language and the arts. If those communities are allowed to decline further, our country is in danger of losing something that cannot be replaced. That is why the Executive must work to help private and smaller projects, such as the Museum of Lead Mining at Wanlockhead, as well as the better-known and bigger national institutions. We owe it to the future to ensure that we preserve the past.
However, that approach must go hand in hand with modernising the rural economy. If not, the whole of rural Scotland will simply become one huge museum. We must determine the best way to revitalise the rural economy and create jobs. We will not do that by throwing more money at the problem through the enterprise network—I am sure that the minister will be pleased to hear me say that. We must reconsider the way in which the local enterprise companies and Scottish Enterprise operate to benefit rural Scotland. We must reconsider how the Scottish Tourist Board—or visitscotland or whatever it will be called next week—operates to benefit rural Scotland. Most important, we must take a long hard look at whether the current planning regulations best serve rural Scotland.
We must improve the road infrastructure. One of the most quoted phrases in the Parliament is that, in rural Scotland, the motor car is not a luxury, but a necessity. That is absolutely correct and must be recognised by the Executive with a genuine effort to examine and address the problem of fuel prices. That subject was hailed as the No 1 hurdle in the path to rural prosperity at every public meeting we held and by almost everyone who gave evidence.
We must improve access to information technology. I am sure that every member who represents a rural area will have tales to tell of businesses that have not become established because of the lack of access to up-to-date technology. I would be amazed if my colleague, David Mundell, did not address that point when he sums up the debate.
The Scottish Conservatives welcome the report as a genuine effort to establish a starting point from which to begin the regeneration of our rural economy—a phrase that has become all the more poignant in recent weeks. Sadly, it is typical of the Executive to see the report as negative and unhelpful. I would expect nothing less of an Executive that has fully lived up to the expectations of much of rural Scotland—it is an urban-based Administration with little understanding of how rural Scotland works. Perhaps if the Executive were to take the report more seriously, it might begin to correct that image.
The Scottish Conservatives support the motion.
I beg the indulgence of both the committee convener and the Parliament, as I shall focus much of my speech on a specific constituency issue—the 161 jobs that have been lost in Campbeltown. Much of the content of the report is relevant to that situation and I hope that members will allow me to highlight the key issues faced by the people of Campbeltown.
Before the announcement about job losses was made, Campbeltown had an unemployment rate of 7.5 per cent—well above the average for the Highlands and Islands Enterprise area. The major employers—farming, fishing and forestry—are all under pressure. The Rural Development Committee report identified that as a key issue in rural areas and it is also a key issue in Campbeltown.
Last week's announcement of the closure of the Jaeger factory, which resulted in the loss of 161 jobs, was a body blow to an already depressed area. To give members an understanding of how great a blow it was, I will tell them that it means that nearly 7.5 per cent of Campbeltown's working population have lost their jobs in one fell swoop. It is a human tragedy. Not only are 161 people losing their jobs, but many of those jobs are held in families—the mother, father and some of the children might all be employed in the factory. It is not just the breadwinner's job that has been lost, but the whole family's income.
The factory provided jobs for young people, which are extremely difficult to find throughout the Highlands and Islands. One of the great problems that much of rural Scotland faces—it is not true only of the Highlands and Islands—is that young people leave and older people come back to retire. The great danger is that rural Scotland will end up with a gigantic retired community. That is a worry for many of us. The loss of the Jaeger jobs is a loss of opportunity for young people.
It is through no fault of the work force that it has been made redundant. The workers have done everything that management has asked of them: flexible working; retraining; team working; reduced managers and just-in-time responses to orders. The public agencies have played their part—£296,000 has been pumped in over the last few years to try to keep the factory going. More money was available—the total amount available to the company was £550,000—although it has not been drawn down. However, that was not enough and the matter has ended in tragedy. Why? Because in Morocco, which is where production has been shifted, wage costs are 25 per cent of those in Campbeltown.
I agree with what Mr Lyon has said about the closure of the Jaeger factory in Campbeltown. Would he agree that it is now all the more important to make progress on the possibility of establishing a wind turbine manufacturing plant in Machrihanish?
I am coming to that.
Will the member allow an intervention on the same point?
Very briefly, because I am about to address the issue.
I agree with what Mr Lyon has said about the body blow to our rural communities. It may not grab front-page headlines in our national press, but we are well aware of the realities. From what I heard this morning, I understand that a package is being worked out with Highlands and Islands Enterprise and that the minister with responsibility for the Highlands is in Campbeltown today. Does George Lyon have any information that he can share with us on that issue?
I will come to that.
I argue that the impact on Campbeltown is greater than that of the Motorola closure on Bathgate. Why? Because in Bathgate, with help from agencies with retraining and reskilling, there are prospects of alternative employment. In Campbeltown, retraining and reskilling will have a limited impact, because there are no other potential employers in the area. Indeed, the nearest big town where there may be jobs is 50 miles away. That is why the key to solving the problem and giving hope to the work force of Jaeger is to find another inward investor. Without new inward investment, the population will decline once again. Families will be forced to move away, there will be fewer children in schools, less money in the local economy and more shops will shut. There will be a downward spiral in an already depressed area.
A lot of work has been done. A new customer contact centre has been built at a cost of £1 million. There must be a redoubling of effort to find an operator. Money has been offered to Landcatch to develop 14 new jobs in the old shipyard, with a fish hatchery. As Margaret Ewing and Jamie McGrigor mentioned, there is the potential development of a wind farm construction plant at Machrihanish. That development was announced in the media today, which I regret, because the deal has not been concluded. The media should not raise people's expectations before contracts are signed. The contract is close to being signed, but further work must be done.
The people of Campbeltown are looking for the Scottish Executive to apply to the Jaeger closure the same priority and effort that is being applied to the closure of the Motorola factory in Bathgate. I ask the Executive to redouble its efforts to turn the promises of prospective jobs into reality, to give people hope.
We move to the open part of the debate.
As Alex Johnstone said, the inquiry was important and provided an opportunity to find out what is happening in rural areas. The process of the inquiry, as he outlined, was also important. It provided the opportunity to meet local people and hear what they had to say. As Richard Lochhead indicated, meetings were well attended. People from different airts and pairts and with different interests came along and were happy to tell us what they thought should happen. The use of video links was equally important. Many of the issues that are highlighted in the report came from the communities with which we had such links and from the papers and questionnaires that we gathered. The report did not result from the committee closing doors and deciding what it wanted to include in the report; it came from what local people felt was important.
I will address one particular area. Committee members will not be surprised to hear that it is bottom-up approaches and community development. We cannot seriously examine issues relating to poverty, unemployment and education in rural areas if we do not start by examining what there is on the ground. Top-down solutions do not work, nor do economic strategies that take little notice of what is happening on the ground.
It was clear in the areas that we visited and heard from that the most successful projects were those that involved partnerships among local people, local authorities and local enterprise companies, because they could identify what was needed in the areas in which they worked. It is vital that partnerships are real. There is much in the report about the value of local participation that works. Such participation should be developed. Communities should have an increased share of economic development budgets, which should be devoted to communities and people and take on board softer measures. Social capital is important. Social economic objectives have to be adhered to.
We heard from councils for voluntary service, which work in partnership with a host of organisations at local level to deliver in areas such as housing. We heard about the new deal and its flexibility in working with the voluntary sector, community development, economic development, care of the elderly, social care, community transport, education, training and much more. So much can be delivered by working in partnership if all partners are on board, for example the excellent service provided by post buses, which provide important links in communities.
It is clear from the evidence that we gathered that when a partnership approach is developed, it works. I agree that HIE played an important role in taking on board the social aspect, which is vital when addressing social care and community development, but HIE recognises that it cannot address such issues on its own; it can deliver only through working with local people, organisations, businesses and communities. HIE is involved not because it has a social ideal, but because it recognises the value and skills of local folk.
We need to get back to building on and supporting local communities, which are the real stakeholders in Scotland. If we want to change how things work, we must get away from top-down delivery and listen to local people. I would like the Minister for Environment and Rural Development to read the report, because there is a lot in it and it is a good starting point. It is important to listen to and value what local people have to say and to find ways in which they can participate in changing their communities.
I will address one or two issues, the first of which is transport and the cost of petrol. I do not want to give the usual, although totally justified, rant about petrol costs, but—as other members have alluded to—the one concern that audiences raised spontaneously at meetings we attended in various places was the price of petrol in their communities. It came as no surprise to members of the Rural Development Committee when, later in the year, the petrol protests got so much support from the general public.
My constituency of Galloway and Upper Nithsdale has one of the highest car-ownership levels in Scotland, yet one of the lowest per capita incomes. People are relatively worse off. Families have to have one or two cars to get to work, because family members must work, as wages are low and jobs are never at the same time or in the same place.
Often, bus services are inadequate. Recently, a factory closed in Dalbeattie. We had a public meeting and one young lad who had been laid off and was having difficulty getting work complained that although he had managed to get a job in Dumfries—the nearest town, which is 10 miles away—it started at half-past 7 in the morning and the first bus in the morning did not get him to Dumfries until 10 minutes to 8.
It is right that the Rural Development Committee should talk about the need for innovative solutions and about assisting public transport needs—Dumfries and Galloway Council already subsidises public transport substantially—due to the volumes and distances involved, but public transport will never be the answer in all cases. Therefore, we must address the relatively high cost of car ownership in our rural areas. If people cannot get to work, they have a choice: they can move. Increasingly, that is what is happening in rural areas. We have a declining younger population and an increasing elderly population, with many knock-on effects for social service expenditure and council revenues.
The second issue is telecommunications. We want new industries in our rural areas. We want e-industries. There are many people who would love to work in rural areas because of the high quality of life. With modern telecommunications, the playing field for remote areas and areas close to urban centres could be levelled, but that is not happening. If anything, the disparities are growing, because nearly all investment in broadband technology is in our central belt and the main population centres. Market forces are working against rural areas.
If the Government makes a commitment to broadband, it has two choices. First, as the Rural Development Committee suggests, it could place a public service obligation on telecoms companies to provide broadband services to rural areas. After all, the companies were prepared to shell out, perhaps ill-advisedly, huge sums of money on third-generation mobile phone licences, so perhaps they should, as a quid pro quo, put some money into broadband technology. The other option is to provide subsidies. If rural areas are not to fall behind, modern telecommunications technology—the 21st century equivalent of roads and railways, which we could do with too, by the way—must be put into our rural areas.
I have time left to touch only on the flow of funding into rural areas. In Dumfries and Galloway—I presume that the situation is the same in other areas—most funding comes from the common agricultural policy. That will be examined in the aftermath of foot-and-mouth, but there are big problems with renegotiating anything through the European Union. Farmers say that they are in a worse crisis now than they were 10 or 15 years ago, despite the vast amounts of agricultural subsidy that have been provided. Has any other policy put so much money into areas over such a long time and achieved so little? We must study the system and consider how we can use the money for rural areas more imaginatively, to allow everyone to benefit from it, including those who work in forms of agriculture that do not benefit from the CAP because of its curious structures.
I welcome the debate. The Rural Development Committee's report gave us valuable food for thought.
My first point arises from a communication I received from Midlothian Council. We must be careful when we speak of rural Scotland and our definition of rurality. Penicuik is in my constituency, and Midlothian Council told me—I think that it was in a communication about the Arbuthnott formula, but I am not sure—that it felt aggrieved when Midlothian was not included in the list of rural areas. Much farmland and many recreational areas and small communities are within Midlothian Council's boundary. Some people might quarrel with our broad definition of rural Scotland.
Everyone recognises the Borders as a rural area. It contains towns and settlements that were based on traditional industry, which put factories and mills at the heart of the community. The transitional nature of the economy of those areas and agriculture have allowed the Borders to access European funding.
However we define rurality, we must ensure that our understanding of its problems is based on better statistics and criteria and that funding formulae produce fair results for rural areas. It is no use basing a measure of prosperity on cars when even the least prosperous people need cars to access employment and facilities, as Alasdair Morgan said. As he also said, raw unemployment figures can disguise the fact that people leave an area because it has no jobs or only part-time and poorly paid jobs. We need better statistics and better interpretation of them.
I will give an example that shows why fair funding formulae are important. Last week, we debated education and training. I draw ministers' attention to the position of Borders College. Last week, it was announced that further education colleges are to receive average increases in funding of more than 12 per cent. Borders College is to receive 0.7 per cent. Even that figure is based on targets for growth that the college believes it can scarcely achieve with the limited pool of people in its area. I say to ministers that we cannot allow colleges in rural areas to lose out if we want to sustain the objectives of which we spoke last week and speak today.
The public sector is important to the rural economy. The biggest employers in rural Scotland are health, education and council services. The jobs are important not only for their volume but for the varying levels of skill and professionalism that they give employees opportunities to use. The jobs also provide an infrastructure for communities and help to keep communities viable. For those reasons, we must do everything possible to protect local hospitals, rural schools and rural post offices. They are important for communities, job opportunities and a sustainable future in rural Scotland. Cathy Peattie talked about the importance of the voluntary sector. It gets into all corners of rural Scotland, as well as urban areas, and we must help it.
As I am speaking about the importance of public sector jobs, I take the opportunity to renew a plea to the Executive to make progress with its promised dispersal of public service jobs. We face the restructuring of agriculture and textiles, the volatility of the electronics industry and problems in tourism—at least partly from the consequences of the foot-and-mouth outbreak—so it would be a wonderful boost to the economy of the Scottish Borders if Government jobs, in the shape of a public agency, were relocated in the central Borders. I ask the Deputy Minister for Environment and Rural Development to encourage her colleagues to give that urgent consideration.
It should not take a tragedy for us to take an issue seriously. It should not take an accident for us to realise that something is unsafe. The inquiry into rural communities was being conducted before the foot-and-mouth crisis began, but in the wake of that crisis, it seems much more important to address the issues that the committee's report highlights and to allow our rural communities to play a full part in Scotland's economic and social structures.
I represent the Highlands and Islands; I welcome the opportunity to participate in the debate because, contrary to the Executive's opinion, people in the Highlands and Islands are suffering greatly and were suffering before the foot-and-mouth crisis began. We all knew that, but now we have more evidence of it.
In recent weeks, the plight of people in rural communities has been highlighted repeatedly. We have all seen the news, heard from those who have been affected and read the papers. Members who represent rural constituencies have seen at first hand the devastation that the foot-and-mouth outbreak has caused throughout already precarious regions. Everyone's awareness of rural communities has been raised. We can just switch off the television, but rural communities must somehow pick up the pieces and keep going on increasingly lower incomes.
Now that the somewhat alarming reports are calming down a bit, it is easy to forget that people in rural areas are still suffering under the burdens that they had before—only now those burdens are much heavier. Mr Finnie's insinuation that the Rural Development Committee was overreacting was deeply patronising and betrayed his inability to grasp the situation in our rural areas. Some hope we have of improving the situation, when we have a Minister for Environment and Rural Development who dismisses fact and concern as conjecture and overreaction. It is interesting that the much heralded values of social justice and social inclusion are applied only to housing or drug abuse.
Perhaps we have missed the point. Perhaps the Executive has, secretly and without anyone realising, helped our rural communities to overcome their difficulties. It is not like the Executive to keep anything quiet, but perhaps we have overlooked the great work that it has done and we are being unfair. Nonetheless, farm incomes this year are at their lowest for 60 years. In the past three years, farm incomes have halved and halved again. After the present crisis, agricultural businesses may not survive. Employment in most rural sectors is in decline, as are agriculture, forestry and fishing. Manufacturing employment has also declined—the latest example is Jaeger's closure in Campbeltown, which George Lyon talked about. Instead of taking action to improve matters, the Executive has started consultation on a bill on land reform, which will solve none of the problems that rural areas face and will introduce new problems that will cause conflict and even more hardship.
Transport costs are not only the biggest barrier to economic prosperity, but the factor that rural people worry about most. Access to training and education involves difficulties. The range of employment opportunities is limited and there are mismatches between jobs and skills. A lack of affordable housing hinders labour mobility. Why trap single parents and families on low incomes in rural housing that is miles away from the centres where they might find jobs? The high cost of transport is making it increasingly difficult for those who live in rural communities to remain there and for those who want to visit to get there. Tourism is vital in such communities. If people cannot get there, they cannot spend money. If there is no economic base, the communities will collapse.
The bedrock of rural communities is traditional rural industry—agriculture, fishing and forestry. Yet the Executive has failed to provide a level playing field on which those sectors can thrive. If we do nothing else, we must destroy the barriers that hinder rural prosperity. If EU directives are making matters worse, surely we have the right to expect our Government to stand up and say so.
The Executive may have listened to the concerns of our rural communities, but it has singularly failed to act on the advice that it has received. In every instance, it has resolutely refused to alter its own previously decided course of action. The report proves that there is much to be done and much that can be done to help rural communities. The key must be to help rural communities to help themselves. We must not put more hurdles in their path. The Scottish Executive believes that the way to get over those hurdles is by financial support. That is fine, but let us destroy the hurdles and let the rural communities thrive.
During the inquiry, the Rural Development Committee travelled to all areas of Scotland. Irene McGugan, Cathy Peattie and I held a meeting in my constituency at Laurencekirk in the Mearns. As Richard Lochhead pointed out, our meetings were extremely well attended and enabled us to listen to people's concerns. During our investigations, the committee also listened to expert opinion. We took the views of the ordinary people out there in rural Scotland and of the experts.
The purpose of the inquiry was to make a contribution to understanding how joined-up government can be made to work for Scotland's rural communities. I think that the report is good, although members may say that I am bound to say so, being a member of the Rural Development Committee. I also think that the ministers in the Scottish Executive rural affairs department are doing an excellent job for rural Scotland. However, I was extremely disappointed by the Executive's reaction to the committee's report, which seems to be based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of the report. Alex Johnstone, in his role as committee convener, apologised to ministers if it seemed that the committee's report was critical of the Executive's actions. That was not its purpose.
I am not happy with two issues that arise from the Executive's response to the constructive and positive suggestions that were made in the report—suggestions that were made unanimously by committee members. The first is the economic remit of Scottish Enterprise. If I were fortunate enough to live across the Cairngorms in Fergus Ewing's Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber constituency, I would be able to tap into Highlands and Islands Enterprise funding for community projects, which has a social remit. I cannot do so for my constituents who live on the other side of the Cairngorms. In evidence given to the committee by experts from Highlands and Islands Enterprise and Scottish Enterprise, it was made clear that the social remit should be expanded in rural Scotland. That was also clear from discussions with people in our constituencies.
I am astounded at the reaction of the Executive, which says in its response that
"the existing powers of SEn are sufficiently broad to address the challenges in rural areas".
I ask ministers to find the civil servant who wrote that for them, as that civil servant needs to be spoken to. I am also critical of the minister who signed off that particular statement. The ministers have rejected the suggested approach, but from all the evidence that was presented to the Rural Development Committee, their decision is wrong. I would have liked to see Wendy Alexander in the chamber today to address that issue.
The second issue is the need for assistance to encourage exit from and new entry to the farming industry. As part of the rural development plan, we need an innovative early retirement scheme for tenant farmers. For the Executive to say in its response that it has not ruled such a scheme out is hardly a ringing endorsement of the proposal. I hope that the minister will look at the decision again, particularly as we all know what a difficult time farmers, and especially tenant farmers, in rural Scotland are facing.
There are many other things that I would like to raise, but time is running out. Overall, I think that the ministers are doing an excellent job. I hope that my criticism of the two issues I have highlighted has a higher resonance because of that.
The point needs to be stressed that the committee's report was drawn up as an academic assessment of the needs of rural communities and of the barriers that they face. The report's aim was to provide information for decision makers at every level—the Executive, local councils, enterprise companies, businesses and the committee. At no point was the report meant to be seen as a criticism of the Executive's work, as the motion makes clear. The Executive's response shows that the issues that concern the Rural Development Committee also cause the Executive concern and the Executive is working to address them.
Creating employment in rural areas and thereby defeating poverty is difficult. There is no one solution; rural Scotland is diverse. An example of the difficulty can be found in my constituency. The community in the Kintyre peninsula, which George Lyon also spoke about, suffered an economic downturn when the Royal Air Force base was closed. The people also lost their links with Northern Ireland and now face the closure of the Jaeger factory. Some years ago, a working group was set up to address the downturn in the local economy. The Kintyre initiative working group brings together agencies involved in development as well as organisations from the voluntary sector. I and my colleague, Maureen Macmillan, have made it a priority to attend the working group's meetings.
The closure of the Jaeger factory will lead to huge job losses in an area where there are few alternatives. The working group has never given up. This morning, it met Alasdair Morrison to seek his assistance to find solutions. I am really pleased that Alasdair Morrison responded so quickly to the request that he meet the group, which came from me, Maureen Macmillan and Peter Peacock. I am glad that the meeting has now taken place.
We all know that there are options in the pipeline, which need to be progressed quickly. This morning, we heard on the news that a major investment is to go ahead. I understand that some fine details are to be tied up, but I hope that that can be done in the next few days and that 150 new jobs will be created in the area. A huge amount of work has gone into attracting such investment to the area, which underlines the fact that solutions are hard to find.
If anywhere should be a magnet for inward investment, Campbeltown should. Although its geographical location gives it the same disadvantage as the islands, its air and sea links are good. Its work force is stable and multiskilled. There is a strong sense of community and people work together for the greater good. Financial support from the Government is not an issue. The local enterprise company has said that its current projects have the support that they require and that it foresees no problem in obtaining more support, should suitable projects be identified.
We need to show companies the benefits of locating in rural areas. We also need diverse industries in rural areas so that a downturn in one industry does not affect large sections of the community. As Cathy Peattie said, the Rural Development Committee's report recognises the advantages of bottom-up initiatives, which allow communities to look for local solutions. That is what happens in Kintyre. We need to support such participation in rural areas and ensure that communities themselves can find solutions.
Many of the solutions that are proposed by the people and agencies in Kintyre are not small projects. They are not afraid to think big and to use the assets around them to provide jobs and investment in the area. We need to convince all rural communities to follow that example and to support them when they do.
Comments have been made about the Executive's response to the Rural Development Committee's report and recommendations. At Westminster—as members who have served there know well—Governments produce responses to select committee reports all the time. They agree with X and disagree with Y and no one is terribly surprised; such is the nature of the debate. Rather than pick up on the Executive's response, I will concentrate on what needs to be done for the future and which areas need to be challenged and taken forward—issues that many members brought out well.
The Rural Development Committee is to be congratulated on its findings, which, in many areas, challenge the Executive. One of the key recommendations concerns the production and collation of statistical information about poverty and deprivation levels across Scotland.
Ian Jenkins made a good point about how we define rural Scotland—it is too easy to say that such-and-such an area is in rural Scotland. There is a quantum leap between, for example, Alasdair Morgan's part of Scotland and my constituency of Shetland or the areas around Edinburgh that call themselves rural. It would be helpful at times to consider the different spheres that rural Scotland covers.
Richard Lochhead made a fair point about the fragility of the economies in many of our rural areas and the decline in traditional industries. An important point is that many of our traditional industries are hidebound by regulation. As a crofter put it to me at my surgery on Saturday, his croft is defined as an area of land surrounded by law. Many of us would agree that much could be done in both agriculture and fishing to reduce the regulatory burdens. That is why I welcome the red tape review that the rural affairs department has introduced. I hope that it will make significant changes, but more could be done, for example in the fishing industry.
Many members, including Alasdair Morgan, who made his point eloquently, were right about transport. I will not rehearse the arguments about petrol prices, but I hope that when the Executive considers the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee's recent report on rural petrol prices, it will produce a solid analysis of the recommendations and that we will have the opportunity to debate the matter in the chamber.
I notice that the Secretary of State for Scotland is pushing for an increase in direct flights to Europe from Scotland. That is a laudable aim, but I hope that politicians in the Scotland Office will also concentrate on the need for internal flights, for example between Inverness and Heathrow, and on the cost of flights in Scotland. As I—or rather taxpayers—well know, the cost of flying members from Inverness or Shetland to Edinburgh is extremely high. Members of the Rural Development Committee who have been to outlying areas such as Stornoway know that too. I hope that the Executive works hard on those issues with the carriers concerned.
Many members made the point well about telecommunications. The recommendations of the report are helpful in emphasising that issue. A similar argument to the one about the electronics industry that we have witnessed in the past few weeks applies to call centres. It is said by many in the call centre industry that, as telecommunications move forward and different forms of technology—web-enabled activities—develop, the call centre as we understand it will have to evolve or it will not continue. Those who see call centres as having a great future must consider how that activity can develop, given the way in which the world is changing—it is certainly not standing still.
Many correct points were made on the importance of skills and the skills shortage, not only in urban but in rural and remote Scotland. Ian Jenkins made a good point about further education colleges and the limited number of people who are available to fulfil their needs.
I conclude with a point about joined-up government. I was asked in a former life to consider joined-up government between enterprise and rural development. It would not be offensive in any way for the Executive seriously to consider that. We need joined-up government between Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise for the simple reason that the social agenda that many members, and the committee report, have highlighted is important. Joined-up government can deliver that agenda.
Many issues have been raised this morning—I intend to consider only a few of them.
I start by saying that the tone of the Executive's response was unhelpful. The Rural Development Committee's inquiry and its report are important and a good starting point.
As Richard Lochhead, Mike Rumbles and Tavish Scott have mentioned, there is considerable confusion about the roles of the Minister for Environment and Rural Development. The position has been renamed, but we have never understood the meaning of that renaming. It is difficult for members to know on a practical basis what is happening.
There is a similar problem with the enterprise and lifelong learning department. I asked a question last week about funding. I expected Wendy Alexander, the Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning, to answer and up bobbed Mr Finnie. He responded admirably to the question, but I am not clear about what is now happening in the south-west of Scotland and in the Borders to help those areas recover from the foot-and-mouth outbreak. I want to know who is running the show and where individual responsibilities begin and end. Yesterday, South of Scotland members had a helpful meeting with the Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning, but the conclusion of that meeting was that she would have to speak to Mr Finnie. We hope to have a meeting with Mr Finnie this afternoon, and I hope that the response to that meeting will not be that he will have to speak to Ms Alexander.
We must have greater clarity about rural development, because many of the issues are cross-cutting issues. I am hopeful that the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee's work on a significant report on the new economy will have a fundamental impact on rural development. As Tavish Scott said, there is a need to bring a joined-up approach to the rural economy. I certainly feel strongly that, when it comes to telecommunications developments and the changes that need to take place to enable our rural areas to benefit from information technology, we need clear leadership to drive those changes through. We therefore need to identify who will do that.
IT offers many opportunities in our rural areas. Many are often talked about, but few have been realised. I was struck by evidence given to the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee about people's ability to work from rural locations. For example, we got no satisfactory answer as to why the Bank of Scotland is not drawing on the pool of skills that exist in places such as Stranraer, Duns and Lerwick to work for head office operations here in Edinburgh, while at the same time it is recruiting part-time and agency staff. We have not fundamentally addressed why that great opportunity to use the skills of our people around rural Scotland has not been seized. The other thing that we do not do effectively is measure the social impact of information technology on our rural communities.
As many members have said, there is a need to retain a balanced and vibrant society in rural areas. I very much welcome retired people who come to rural Scotland from elsewhere or who move into rural Scotland, but we must have a balance of people. It is worrying that the South of Scotland has the lowest proportion of people aged between 15 and 24 of any part of the UK. That is a worrying prospect for the future and for the vibrancy of rural Scotland. We must continue to make rural Scotland not only diverse but vibrant. To do that, we need clear leadership from the Executive and a clear identification of where it is going.
It was at its second meeting, on 29 June 1999, with 38 possible topics identified, that the Rural Affairs Committee agreed that the first priority for investigation was employment, housing and poverty. In the face of the undoubted crises facing every sector of the traditional industries of farming, fishing and forestry, that was a significant and imaginative decision. It was also an acknowledgement that a strategic, cross-cutting and forward-looking approach was needed to address the changes impacting on rural Scotland.
The main conclusion of this detailed and well-researched piece of work is that the combination of poverty and the decline of the traditional industries is threatening the sustainability of rural life. Let us not underestimate the gravity of that statement. The 21 recommendations for action are aimed at eliminating poverty and encouraging regeneration in all Scotland's communities. I am therefore disappointed that the Executive has displayed little enthusiasm for some of the recommendations, and I commend them again to the Executive for urgent consideration and implementation. The report is an accurate reflection of the situation as we found it in rural Scotland.
The intention was not to pass comment on the Executive's performance, good, bad or indifferent. Our remit included consideration of
"the effectiveness of current policy responses."
I accept that the findings might be uncomfortable for ministers. The fact is that transport was the single issue about which concern was most frequently expressed; it was the only common factor at every consultation meeting. Members have heard many examples of its impact.
A straw poll was taken at the Dingwall meeting, which established that every person who attended the meeting had come by car, because there was no suitable public transport. Despite the measures that the Executive has taken to address the issue—I accept that it has taken some—and despite the many times that fuel prices and the high cost and general lack of public transport have been raised in the chamber, ministers have still not properly and adequately taken on board the impact of those matters on the lives of rural residents.
Rural poverty is widespread in Scotland, for reasons that have been highlighted in the debate. It is still the case—I have been saying this since the establishment of the Parliament—that we urgently need to develop systems for the identification and measurement of rural deprivation. That would be vital information for ensuring fair and equitable allocations of funding and effective targeting of scarce resources. The Executive gave a commitment to a much-needed index of rural deprivation following the publication of "Rural Scotland: A New Approach", but that was a year ago, in May 2000, and we have heard nothing on it from the rural poverty and inclusion working group.
Rural areas are under-represented in all the key growth areas in the economy. Even the performance of the sectors mentioned positively by the Executive, such as the food sector and tourism, has been disappointing. Since 1991, food processing employment has fallen by 9 per cent in rural Scotland. Employment in hotels and restaurants has fallen by 10 per cent, yet tourism was reported as one of Scotland's growth industries by the Scottish Tourist Board, as it was then, in evidence to the committee.
It is a welcome and long-overdue development that local enterprise companies have now made a commitment to rural employment. It is important that that new commitment by Scottish Enterprise is supported by a strong team at its headquarters, because the committee noted that Scottish Enterprise chose to send no one from its HQ to give evidence to the committee, in contrast to Highlands and Islands Enterprise. Neither was it able to supply data for the rural areas that are within its remit.
The focus of the report and the debate is on rural Scotland's economic future, but I am pleased about and very supportive of the recommendation on an increased focus on soft economic measures, which was outlined by Cathy Peattie. Social accounting is important. Such initiatives foster a sense of community and ownership of enterprises and developments and will ultimately contribute to the sustainability of rural life.
Those findings and the report form a vital baseline for the committee's future work. We hope that they will have a wider benefit in taking forward, at the highest level, the crucial debate on rural Scotland's economic future.
I am grateful that we have this opportunity to discuss the committee's "Report on the Impact of Changing Employment Patterns in Rural Scotland".
I was interested to hear about the consultation meeting that the committee held in Dingwall. Had it taken place a few years ago, I might have participated in it, as I lived in the Dingwall area for several years.
The Executive is dedicated to supporting and enhancing rural life, rural communities and the rural economy. The subject of the report is therefore especially relevant to the work that is being done to deliver that commitment. While I welcome the report, we had some initial concerns about its focus and coverage. As has been mentioned, we were disappointed by the lack of recognition given to the work that the Executive and others are taking forward. I accept Alex Johnstone's statement that that was not the intention. I am pleased, however, that today's debate has been used to discuss several difficult issues that we face.
I will mention at the outset what has been happening in Campbeltown. The debate is timely, because of the announcement from Jaeger about the loss of jobs there. We recognise that the number of jobs being lost will have a huge impact on such a small community. As we have heard, Alasdair Morrison met the Kintyre initiative working group to discuss the impact of the Jaeger closure and how the Executive could help with the broader issues facing the Kintyre economy. Our top priority is to create new employment opportunities, and the Executive and Argyll and the Islands Enterprise are already in discussion with a number of companies about various promising possibilities. The Kintyre peninsula is eligible for investment support at the maximum permitted rate and we will continue to promote the area vigorously as an attractive location for new investment.
We must be very cautious about the possibility of an inward investment project by Vestas Wind Systems, which has been reported in the press. Matters still have to be resolved. If the investment happens, it will be excellent news for the Kintyre economy and rural Scotland, particularly at a time when the local economy is being very hard hit. It should also prove excellent news for the Scottish renewables sector, as it will bring a major manufacturer to the country, and indeed endorses the Executive's policy to promote renewable energy. However, I must urge caution at this stage, because no final decisions have been taken.
I emphatically deny the suggestion that the Executive's response paints a totally rosy picture of rural Scotland. Actually, the media coverage at the time of the report's publication at the end of January and, in some cases, the report itself paint an unnecessarily bleak picture of our rural areas. Given what is happening in Dumfriesshire, the Borders and Argyll and the impact of foot-and-mouth on the whole of Scotland, I would certainly be the last to say that we do not face major challenges. However, we cannot afford to talk down the expectations and aspirations of rural communities. Jamie McGrigor was particularly guilty of doing so.
Will the minister give way?
I will give way to the member later; I want to get into my speech.
As the Executive response stressed, even against that background, rural Scotland is a dynamic area; it is not a single entity and there is considerable variation within the area. In the past, it has consistently enjoyed unemployment rates below the Scottish average, population growth, and underlying employment strength. Although that does not apply to all parts of rural Scotland, it applies to some, and we must be careful about generalising.
Although foot-and-mouth has presented real difficulties, I am confident in the ability of rural businesses and communities to respond, and the Executive is absolutely committed to supporting the recovery process.
Although I accept what the minister says about talking the situation up or down, does she accept that—as Irene McGugan pointed out—the report's truth lies in its reflection of the situation that we found on the ground and at the public meetings we attended?
I accept that the committee conducted a detailed consultation to produce its report. However, I re-emphasise that it is very difficult to make generalisations based on a number of meetings.
Will the minister give way?
No—I want to finish my point. We must recognise that there is considerable variation throughout rural Scotland.
I must carry on now; I am aware that I have been asked to finish as quickly as possible.
I take this opportunity today to highlight three broad areas where the Executive is undertaking important work that will play—and indeed is already playing—a vital role in supporting employment and the financial and social economies of rural Scotland: first, the enhancement of our statistical information base; secondly, the development and implementation of a series of initiatives and frameworks through which to tackle rural issues; and thirdly, the devotion and targeting of new resources to key areas. Those are not new priorities and reflect the commitment accorded by the Executive to rural areas since its creation.
I am pleased to say that the Executive response was able to report some common ground between the Executive and the committee. For example, we have been seeking to address the issue of data availability for some time. As "Rural Scotland: A New Approach" stressed, once we have acknowledged rural problems, we need to understand their nature before we can tackle them. Statistical information plays a vital role in the development of rural initiatives. In particular, the Executive has recognised the need for local data. I am sure that the committee will welcome the fact that we have work in hand to produce the data in the form required to allow us to monitor progress in rural performance. We have already announced funding of £7 million over the next three financial years to support the needed development of local data. That work is being carried out with the community and the voluntary sector, and I look forward to seeing the results.
Will the minister give way?
Yes.
I am stunned, as the minister does not usually give way to me. I thank her for doing so. She says that no local data are available. How, then, did the Executive reach its decision that the rural picture is fairly positive overall? Exactly what criteria is she using to reach that conclusion? When she talks about low rates of unemployment, is not she, rather than the committee, guilty of generalising, given the fact that what employment there is in those areas is low-paid, seasonal and part-time work?
Let me correct Mr Lochhead. I did not say that the overall picture is rosy. What I said is that there are considerable variations and that we must be cautious about making generalisations.
The Executive response uses the word "overall".
No; I am sorry. I have to carry on.
We must be careful not to make generalisations, and we must ensure that there is better data collection to inform the decisions that we make and to enable us to monitor the progress that we are making. The committee will welcome that step, as it identified data collection as one of the key areas for action.
Our new approach has also been highlighted by last December's "Services in Rural Scotland" report. We commissioned the Scottish national rural partnership to produce that report to investigate innovative approaches to service delivery in rural areas and determine how those might be replicated in other areas. Additionally, the Executive is carrying out work on specific issues in a rural context. I expect the report of the rural poverty and inclusion working group to provide some useful recommendations on the way in which we might better address the needs of those who suffer poverty and social exclusion in our rural communities.
We do not understand why the Executive is not willing to extend a social remit to Scottish Enterprise, such as Highlands and Islands Enterprise has, so that it can address issues of social exclusion.
This is the policy. I shall deal with that specific issue later.
Irene McGugan criticised the Executive for not releasing the report from the rural poverty and inclusion working group. She will understand that, recently, we have had to deal with some very difficult situations. The rural poverty and inclusion working group itself recommended that its work be suspended because of the work that was going on—in which departmental officials were involved—to deal with the foot-and-mouth disease outbreak.
The Executive has signalled that it is committed to ensuring that those who live in rural Scotland enjoy a high quality of life. We are already beginning to deliver on that commitment, as can be seen from the significant new resources that are being made available for rural schools, the health service in rural areas, rural transport and rural housing. Through the new deal for schools, we are supporting the provision of new and refurbished schools, and through the excellence fund, we are providing help for specialist schools. Further, our proposals for investment in broadband connections for schools will give rural and remote areas access to the best educational resources and support.
We are investing substantial resources in improving health services in rural Scotland. For the first time, the formula through which the NHS in Scotland is funded fully reflects the excess costs of delivering services in the less populated parts of the country. We are also providing support for a variety of new initiatives. For example, we have made £8 million available to establish a remote and rural areas resource initiative, to develop innovative ways of providing rural services. We are investing heavily in primary care services, and we recently announced that £18.5 million would be provided over three years, to allow trusts to employ GPs directly, thereby helping to ensure that a GP is present wherever one is needed. We have also provided capital totalling more than £12 million to build a new hospital for the Uists and Barra and to upgrade the existing general hospital in Orkney.
As the committee's report highlighted, transport is one of the key issues in rural Scotland. The early creation of the rural transport fund has brought new investment of over £14 million. Furthermore, the spending review for 2000 allocated an extra £60 million to enhance transport in the Highlands and Islands.
Rural housing will benefit from extra investment by Scottish Homes in rural areas. It is anticipated that that will result in the construction of about 1,650 new and improved homes for families in rural areas, mostly for social rent. In addition, £4 million will be devoted to rural local authorities through the rough sleepers initiative.
Will the minister give way?
I am on my last minute.
We also share the committee's wish that those least able to participate in rural life be given the necessary help, and that investment include support for individuals and communities.
The benefits of the approaches to rural issues that I have outlined are now clear from the way in which we have reacted to the foot-and-mouth disease crisis, particularly our recognition that this is not solely a problem for the agriculture sector, but a problem for other people in rural areas and for sectors that rely on agriculture.
The architecture that we have put in place since devolution to address rural issues is currently facing the heat of battle. The ministerial committee for rural development has created a sub-group to draw together the Executive's response to foot-and-mouth disease and to put in place measures to help alleviate the worst effects of foot-and-mouth disease on individuals and businesses. Those measures fall within the remit of departments across the Executive and are the result of in-depth liaison and discussion with the UK Government and the private sector.
That approach is working well and builds upon our experience of treating rural development in a joined-up way. We are working closely with the enterprise networks—among others—in identifying imaginative and effective ways of providing short-term relief and long-term recovery. That builds on the way in which we have worked with Scottish Enterprise to make it aware of rural needs and priorities.
I do not want to sound blasé as this is not an easy time. However, our reaction to the current crisis for rural areas is built upon the work that we have been doing over the past two years and on the lessons that we have learnt over that period about the needs and aspirations of rural society and rural businesses.
I am pleased that we have had this opportunity to discuss the enhancement of rural life, rural communities and the rural economy and the work that the Executive and others are doing to promote rural economic development. The Executive is dedicated to helping the rural economy face the current challenges and maximise its potential. That will benefit not only rural areas but the rest of Scotland.
I am conscious that I am closing the debate as the deputy convener of the Rural Development Committee and that I joined the committee on 23 November 2000, when the vast majority of the work had already been completed. I am aware that I did not participate in all the meetings that were held around the country. With those caveats, I believe that the conclusions of the report merit serious consideration. Today's debate has contained a number of useful speeches, through which has run the common theme that the Executive must give more serious consideration than it has done so far to the serious body of work that has been produced on the subject.
Tavish Scott mentioned the need for the internal flight from London Heathrow to Inverness to be the subject of a public service obligation. That is a cause in which I am very interested. However, I do not know what the Executive's response to that suggestion might be. I wish that we could find that out.
The need for a social remit for the Scottish Enterprise network is demonstrable. The arguments against it in the Scottish Executive response that we have read do not stand up to examination. I hope that the issue will be revisited, as members of many parties have indicated that it should be.
The threats to the sustainability of rural life have been referred to by many members, including Irene McGugan, Alex Fergusson and Alex Johnstone, the convener of the Rural Development Committee. I agree with the vast majority of what has been said in that regard. I am not suggesting that the minister and the deputy minister have no regard for that matter—of course they do—but I am not persuaded that the report has been taken seriously enough.
I would not go as far as Mike Rumbles, who generally goes pretty far—
Not far enough.
I was not speaking in terms of spatial distance.
Today, we heard from Mike Rumbles that he was astounded. I have heard Mike say that he is appalled, and that he is astonished—today he was astounded. I am looking forward to the day when he is merely mildly surprised. Although I agree with the spirit, if not the wording, of his expression of astonishment that the response to the committee report was less than positive, I found his adroit but swiftly executed U-turn, which showed him to have a tighter turning circle than a Hackney cab, less than impressive, and I say that from the point of view of criticising his contribution in a rational way. David Mundell's comment, that the tone of the response was unhelpful, was nearer the mark.
I will make two points of my own, which arise, I stress, from the committee's work. The starting point is that the Executive's response has misrepresented the fundamental conclusion that the committee reached. The committee did not conclude, as the Executive response purports it to do, that
"most rural employment is in decline".
The conclusion of the committee's work was:
"Employment in most rural sectors is in decline".
If the minister and deputy minister look at key finding 1 under the summary of key findings, they will see that it states that there have been some areas, such as the service sector, in which there has been growth, not a decline. However, the report goes on to spell out in great detail, in paragraphs 17, 19 and 20, that there has been a
"decline in employment in agriculture."
That was before the dreadful foot-and-mouth outbreak, which has obviously made the situation much worse. Employment in forestry has declined by 40 per cent, to 7,000, and, over the past 30 years, employment in agriculture has declined from around 68,000 or 70,000 to 32,000. I hope that no one is denying that the traditional sectors are in decline. What is unhelpful about the Executive's response is that it highlights the committee's having stated that all or
"most rural employment is in decline".
In fact, we did not say that. I do not think it helpful in a serious debate such as this if such a blatantly false representation is made in response to one of the longest, most serious reports that we have considered so far in the Parliament.
An even more serious matter, which relates to an issue highlighted by Alasdair Morgan and Tavish Scott, is the price of fuel. As members will know, that is a topic in which I take an occasional interest. I notice that the word fuel—perhaps because it contains four letters—is not one that the deputy minister chose to mention in her closing speech, but the committee did make recommendations on the matter. They were made by the committee on a collegiate basis, and therefore merit serious consideration. Recommendation R16 states
"that mechanisms be investigated for bulk-buying petrol in rural areas and passing on the discounts to petrol retailers and to customers".
What was the Executive response to that proposal?
"It has been suggested that the proposed Highlands and Islands Integrated Transport Authority might operate a bulk-purchasing scheme. The recently published report by Deloitte and Touche on their study into the setting up of a HIITA found little support for this."
I say to the minister that the reason why the HIITA
"found little support for this"
was that it was not asked to consider it. The remit of the HIITA is to
"Encourage the establishment of regional transport partnerships".
If members read further in Deloitte & Touche's report, for which, incidentally, it was paid more than £100,000—which, if I may use the John Farquhar Munro device of offering a personal view when speaking on behalf of the committee, is money down the drain—they will find that the specific aims of the study, although no doubt worthy, did not include anything to do with considering the bulk purchase of fuel.
Why, then, when a suggestion was made on a cross-party basis by the committee, that the matter should be investigated, did the Executive respond in what I can only describe as a disingenuous way? There is a word that one hears from time to time, called spin. That is slightly misleading. There is an old-fashioned word that is more accurate: obfuscation. That is what we have seen in the Executive's response.
As I approach the conclusion of the speech that I am making on behalf of the committee, I hope that I speak genuinely on behalf of the majority of the committee in urging the Executive to revisit its response to the 21 recommendations. There is an appetite for more work on many of the recommendations. I believe that that is the mood of Parliament and that it has not been met with the response that we would expect from the Executive when a committee produces a serious and worthy report—I see the Liberals almost imperceptibly nodding as I close. I hope that on this occasion the Executive will agree with me and accept the invitation to look again very seriously at those matters.