Plenary, 21 Nov 2002

Meeting date: Thursday, November 21, 2002

Official Report 712KB pdf

---

Affordable Rural Housing

The final item of business is a members' business debate on motion S1M-3538, in the name of John Farquhar Munro, on affordable rural housing. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.

Motion debated,

That the Parliament notes the shortfall in affordable housing in rural areas for rent or for purchase particularly for young families; acknowledges that, in part, the cause of this can be traced to second home ownership; believes that in order to maintain a sustainable future for rural Scotland measures must be taken to encourage young people and families to remain in their communities, and considers that the Parliament should review the provision of socially rented housing as well as the extent of second home ownership throughout rural Scotland.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to air this important issue in the Parliament. More often than not, housing is discussed in the context of urban housing and homelessness. One reason why the rural housing problem is not often brought to the fore is that, like rural poverty, it is less visible and is spread over a wider area than comparable urban problems. However, that does not mean that the problems that affect our rural communities are less severe. We cannot abandon them because they are difficult to deal with.

In my constituency, the mismatch between the supply of and the demand for housing is at its highest-ever level. For example, in Skye and Lochalsh in 2000 and 2001, Highland Council had a waiting list of 500, but just 50 houses became available for relet. I will put that into perspective. A young family could be forced to wait up to 10 years for a home in the area in which they were born and work. I am sure that everybody agrees that that situation is unacceptable.

The problem is that water flows out of the bottom of the barrel three times faster than it flows in. Housing associations, which have replaced local councils as the main supplier of new social rented accommodation, can build only one house for every three that Highland Council sells. In the most heavily pressured areas, such as Badenoch and Strathspey, two thirds of council houses have been bought, and the private housing market is beyond the reach of most people with housing needs.

In my neck of the woods, a former council house in the village of Plockton was sold for £126,000 and is to be used as a holiday home. Any local family that wanted to buy that house would have needed an income of about £40,000 per annum to obtain a mortgage, never mind make the mortgage repayments. I remind members that the average income in the Highlands is between £10,000 and £15,000. The situation is unsustainable and is in danger of draining our rural communities of local people.

How is the situation to be addressed? The answer is simple: in a word—money. We need to invest more money in housing throughout rural Scotland. The Executive has not been inactive. The rural home ownership grant, which was set up to help people to buy and build a modest home, is a good scheme. However, in essence, the money is used to fill the gap between the approved building costs and the mortgage that the applicant can raise. In order to make a real change, Communities Scotland's budget needs to increase significantly.

In real terms, investment in rural housing has been static since the mid-1990s. I am afraid that the situation has not changed circumstantially since 1999. People, including those in our rural communities, expected devolution to change the way in which our country is governed. People expect the potential crisis in the provision of affordable housing in rural areas to be averted. It is imperative that each and every one of us does not let them down.

In England, where the housing situation is no worse than it is in Scotland, the budget for housing has been doubled. I would hate to see Scotland left behind. I accept the fact that a natural consequence of devolution is that different decisions are made in Scotland from those that are made in England. However, when such an obvious discrepancy exists, as is the case with rural housing, the Executive has a duty to investigate the matter. I am sure that it will find that the level of spending on housing in Scotland, particularly in rural areas, needs to be reviewed.

Many houses in rural Scotland are out of the reach of those who need them. One practical suggestion is for all plots or sites that have been built on with the aid of the rural home ownership grant to be subject to the right of pre-emption at market value. That form of protection for community rural housing could be enhanced by the creation of a bridging fund that is guaranteed by the Scottish Executive. Such a fund would ensure that sufficient resources could be accessed quickly so that pre-emption could be exercised. The money would be repaid into the bridging fund when the repurchased property is sold on. Such a system would stop resale for massive profit and would ensure that an affordable stock is kept for those who wish to make their home a permanent residence.

It is also important that the Executive encourages the establishment of rural housing trusts to buy and sell sites for the sole purpose of meeting the needs of individual communities for affordable housing. The local enterprise companies and local authorities must aid that process by ensuring that all grants that are given to landowners in heavily pressured areas are subject to those landowners releasing suitable land for housing. Such schemes exist.

One way in which local authorities could generate much-needed housing revenue is to remove the 50 per cent council tax exemption on holiday homes and second homes. In Highland for example, more than 6,000 properties are eligible for that rebate at the moment. It is estimated that, were the rebate removed, it could generate well over £2 million for the council's needs. It is clear that, if such a decision were to be taken, there would be demands from other council departments for a slice of the cake. Should the rebate be removed, some of the additional money that would result should be ring fenced for strategic land banking and housing-related purposes.

Scotland's lack of affordable housing in rural areas now merits serious and urgent consideration by us all. We do not need more schemes that seem to originate in cloud-cuckoo-land or a suggestion that we can build proverbial castles in the air. Let us be realistic. We need bricks and mortar on the ground that our indigenous young people in rural Scotland can at last call home.

The debate is grossly oversubscribed. I have 15 members to fit into 31 minutes, which does not go. I have asked the minister for an extra 10 minutes, which enables me to take eight speeches of three minutes each. After that time, members should give headline bullet points only.

I congratulate my fellow Highlander on securing a debate on the important issue of rural housing. In his opening speech, John Farquhar Munro rightly said that people expected Scotland to be governed differently following devolution. Indeed, tonight's debate proves that Scotland is being governed differently: 18 members are present and a minister will respond to the debate. Indeed, I am sure that he will respond positively to all the suggestions that are put to him in the debate.

As far as the Western Isles are concerned, I can happily report that devolution is delivering in the important areas of education, health and transport—although, that said, I will be raising a transport issue in relation to Barra in the chamber next week.

We have witnessed some significant developments in housing. As the minister, John Farquhar Munro and other members who represent the crofting counties will appreciate, the crofting building grant and loan scheme has historically been great and continues to provide affordable housing for many people.

Will the member give way?

Usually I would give way, but I have only another minute and a half to go.

Since 1999, the Executive has rightly streamlined the scheme and allowed different people to access the grants and loans that are available. That is a welcome step. I also welcome the First Minister's pledge at the Highlands and Islands convention to examine further how the scheme can be improved to ensure that many others can gain access to it.

In my last few minutes, I want to concentrate on housing need in my constituency. Earlier in the year, I met the minister and his colleague Margaret Curran to discuss the 800-person waiting list on the island of Lewis. Lewis has a desperate need of affordable housing. The discussion was useful, and I would appreciate it if the minister and Margaret Curran would agree to meet me next week to allow me to flesh out the detail that I presented to them some months ago. At that meeting, I will bring him all the necessary data from George Lonie, the chair of housing at the Western Isles Council; Norman Macleod, his vice-chairman; and Angus Lamont, the director of the housing department. All of them, along with other partners, have focused on that need and I would appreciate a meeting with the minister at his earliest convenience.

I will be happy to update the minister and the Executive on the stock transfer process in the Western Isles, which is moving positively with excellent and first-class consultation. However, as John Farquhar Munro said, there is a need for homes. The need exists in his constituency, and I am sure that other members will raise similar issues.

There must be affordable housing for people who move into rural communities. Furthermore, we need a structure that allows people who leave our islands for universities and colleges to come back home when job opportunities become available.

I congratulate John Farquhar Munro on securing this important debate. The lack of rural housing is an issue for the whole of rural Scotland and is particularly important in Aberdeenshire and north-east Scotland. It is terrible that young people in Aberdeenshire, throughout the Highlands and Islands and elsewhere simply cannot afford to live and work in the areas where they were brought up. Such a situation is disgraceful in the 21st century. Now that we have the new Scottish Parliament and a Government in Scotland, we must stop protecting the landowners who hold so much power and have so much influence in this country, and we must introduce a radical agenda that will help our young people to have a future in their communities.

According to briefings that have been issued by Shelter and other organisations, a third of the houses in rural Scotland were built before 1919, compared with only 19 per cent of houses in urban Scotland. Four per cent of rural houses are below tolerable standard. Moreover, 5 per cent are tied houses, and landowners or others basically enslave their employees because they are in charge of their housing needs. That situation is outdated and ridiculous in a modern Scotland.

We have a chronic lack of social housing in Aberdeenshire. For example, 4,000 people are on the waiting lists, including 642 people in the Mar area alone. Indeed, Shelter's briefing on rural housing says:

"In 2000 Aberdeenshire Council estimated that around 65% of households in housing need were unable to afford even the cheapest owner-occupied or rented housing."

Part of the difficulty is that the oil industry is based in north-east Scotland. People who earn a packet in the city live out in the country, which means that local people simply cannot afford to compete. The last plot of land that sold in Aberdeenshire went for £200,000; it was small and described as not particularly good. How on earth can local people afford to bid for that?

A few weeks ago, I was speaking to a tenant farmer and his son. The son looked out the window and said, "I can't afford to buy a property in this area; I can't even afford to live near the farm." He pointed to an empty property owned by the estate on the grounds of the farm. He cannot afford to bid for it or live in his own community near his father, who is the farmer on the family farm. That is a disgraceful situation.

We need radical policies from the Parliament. I think that local councils should compulsorily purchase land. People, too, should have the power to purchase land compulsorily if they are local and have a local connection. They should just be able to get land off the local landowner, who should have no say in the situation. We have to zone land, so that local people can get it and people from outside cannot move in and outbid them. We have to come up with such radical solutions.

On all the north-east estates that are owned by greedy and selfish landowners, there are loads of empty houses, but local people cannot get their hands on them because the landowners do not want them to be occupied. They want to sell off new plots of land and build houses that go for £200,000 each, which only incomers can afford. Once again, local people are excluded from not only the land, but the existing empty houses on it.

I finish by telling John Farquhar Munro that he raised some excellent points, but cash is not the only issue. We need more money to help to build social housing and to help people to buy houses in their own localities, but we also need to change the law so that it is on the side of the local people, not the landowners.

I commend John Farquhar Munro for highlighting the lack of affordable rural housing and I endorse all that he said in his speech.

One of my first experiences as a councillor was a visit by the first chairman and chief executive of the then newly created Scottish Homes. When asked whether Scottish Homes could deliver small projects in our rural communities, the chairman was keen to assure us that he saw no problem in delivering small schemes, down to perhaps as few as 30 houses. We were talking about four or five houses in small rural settlements. Happily, that total ignorance of what rurality means is much rarer nowadays, but there is no harm in reminding people about the circumstances of rural settings, which heavily affect the provision of housing in small settlements or the countryside.

There are no economies of scale. Suppliers are in short supply, and building materials may have to be transported long distances in small quantities, which is expensive. Contractors can be similarly scarce on the ground, and finding one plumber, carpenter or electrician can be hard enough, never mind having enough of them to compete for business and drive down costs. Land can be in short supply, and housing associations have to compete against private developers and individuals for what is available.

As Richard Lochhead highlighted, the competition for first houses is the problem. Second homes are not a large problem, but there are a lot of tied houses. Once upon a day, the council had the capacity to offer council houses to retiring farm workers, but the right to buy wiped out rural council housing, and the scheme ensured the inability of councils to replace the housing stock. The policy might have been for the private rented sector to move to fill the gap, but manifestly that did not happen.

A lot of housing policy is based on identifying the pressure points. How does one identify a rural housing need when people do not stay to create or demonstrate a pressure point? They leave, and the resultant depopulation and changes in demography affect the area's economy, narrowing dramatically the potential for economic development. There is increasing recognition of the necessity to develop new models that accurately pick up and reflect rural needs. What must follow is a willingness to devote resources at a level that reflects the increased costs of delivery in a rural setting.

Recently, Hugh Allen, the secretary of Mallaig and North West Fishermen's Association, told me that a fish processing factory in Mallaig had closed down because it could not find enough housing for the factory's employees. That is a terrible situation, especially when the Scottish Executive says that it is committed to maintaining rural communities.

The Rural Development Committee, of which I am a member, has recently travelled to several areas of rural Scotland to take evidence for our inquiry into integrated rural development. It became obvious from that evidence that affordable housing was a key issue that must be addressed if we are to have thriving rural communities. Gone are the days when the communities would pull together physically to build a house of stone and thatch for someone who needed one. Housing associations should fulfil that need, but they face many difficulties.

For example, the issue of second homes poses a difficulty. No one can blame people for wanting to have a holiday home in a beautiful place, and some people let holidays homes as their business, which brings in useful income. However, it is extremely frustrating when houses are snapped up for that purpose while young people who want to live in the area cannot find a home. A recent survey in Mull, Iona and Ulva concluded that local people have high dependence on low and seasonable incomes, but that the housing market is distorted by significant immigration of people who want retirement and holiday homes.

The decision on charging council tax for second homes should be devolved to individual councils so that they can decide what is in the best interests of their own areas. A one-size-fits-all solution seems wrong. After all, there are different rates of council tax in different areas.

Skye and Lochalsh, Lochaber and the inner Moray firth are particularly affected by second home ownership, as are many areas in Argyll and Bute. The resale of former council homes also reduces the supply of affordable rented housing and the supply of further houses has dried up. Out of 140 homes in Plockton, the village that John Farquhar Munro mentioned, 51 are holiday homes and only 22 are council houses. In the Highlands in the past 10 years, council right-to-buy sales totalled 6,198. During the same period, 2,263 new houses were built by the council and by housing associations, leaving a shortfall of 4,000 houses. With so few houses available for rent, the sale of even a few creates a serious imbalance.

We require houses that can be erected quickly, using modern high technology, in areas where housing is most needed. They should be built with enough space to accommodate young families and should be highly energy efficient and built with modern materials. Above all, their appearance must fit in with the environment. If enough houses were fabricated, the costs would be low enough to make them affordable. Some building contractors are making inroads in that direction, which is very encouraging.

Alasdair Morrison mentioned the crofting building grants and loans scheme, which is a good way of producing new low-cost houses in crofting communities. However, that scheme has failed to keep pace with inflation and I ask the Executive to review and update it as soon as possible. Relaxing planning controls would guarantee a greater supply of affordable housing. That is one of the key steps that should be taken.

I congratulate John Farquhar Munro on securing a debate that is of huge importance to the people of the Highlands and Islands. I would like to put on record the fact that the Executive has listened to a lot of the concerns that have been raised in the past. During the passage of the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001, the Executive extended the date by which housing associations could register for charitable status, which exempted them from the right to buy. It also set up the rural partnership for change, which led to housing in pressured areas also being exempt. That is a good starting point, but we must bear in mind the fact that great issues remain to be addressed.

The motion mentions second-home ownership, and John Farquhar Munro also talked about council tax discounts. In answer to a question a couple of weeks ago, Margaret Curran told me that she was considering those discounts. I would be grateful if Hugh Henry would do what he can to ensure that that issue is addressed. I understand that the Westminster Parliament has considered giving powers to councils so that they could remove the exemption of second homes from council tax.

Areas such as Grantown-on-Spey have huge housing problems. That is one of the issues that members of the Rural Development Committee talked about when they discussed the draft designation order for the Cairngorm national park. There is a huge shortage of housing because of second homes and holiday homes. One of the problems that the committee considered was that, if the park were given full planning powers, there could be a drop in affordable and rented housing in the area, but it must be our priority to ensure that all areas have affordable housing to buy and to rent.

We must look at new ways of achieving that. Shelter Scotland had argued that an inquiry should be conducted into ways of ensuring that housing is retained for permanent use rather than for second-home use. It would be a good idea if we could consider the possibility of planning restrictions on new housing developments to ensure that they are excluded from the second home market. I would be grateful if the minister would consider that point.

It is often thought that homelessness does not affect the Highlands and Islands, but we have a huge homelessness problem in places such as Lochaber and Ross and Cromarty. It is hidden homelessness. People are living in overcrowded accommodation, sleeping on floors and sofas or living in caravans. Lack of housing has a huge effect on the local economy. Businesses have vacancies, but they are unable to recruit staff because the lack of housing means that they cannot get people to relocate to the area. To be honest, we are possibly victims of our own success. The Highlands economy is improving and its population is increasing. As a result, we need to address the housing shortage.

There are also problems with rural housing in the south-west of Scotland. The population in the south-west is declining but the number of elderly people is increasing, both in absolute and in relative terms. Such problems are common throughout Scotland, especially in rural areas. They have a knock-on effect on the whole economy, as they reduce the prospects for industrial and commercial development and put increased pressure on health and social services in which there is a diminishing resource base.

Several factors influence the situation, but the availability of housing is obviously a key factor. A large proportion of the letters in my mailbag is from people trying to get a house; often, several people write to me about the same council house.

I have dealt with poignant cases involving agricultural and estate workers who have spent all their lives living in a tied house and have had to leave it through retirement or sickness. In such cases, people find that no council house is available, although they have the consolation of an assurance from the council that something will be found for them if they are made homeless. That is no way to reward a life of work in the countryside.

How can we solve such problems? To an extent, the problem of demand can be addressed. I totally agree that the 50 per cent reduction in council tax for second homes should be scrapped. The logic behind that reduction was that people with second homes do not consume the same amount of council services, but the same applies to many people who pay the full rate. However, although that situation is no longer justifiable, scrapping the reduction will not change demand. People who can afford to buy second homes can afford to pay 100 per cent—or even 150 per cent—of a council tax charge.

We must address the supply side of the equation. I do not have much hope that the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill will address the supply side in the short term. The pre-emptive right to buy will also become available, but we all know that the amount of land that will change hands and allow a local community pre-emptively to buy land for housing will be only a small proportion of the total.

In my area, the availability of sewage works is a major constraint. People who are willing to build houses find that they cannot do so because Scottish Water has not provided the necessary infrastructure.

We need to consider relaxing our planning laws. We do not want to reach the stage that the south of Ireland has reached, where almost every field has a house on it, albeit that that is indicative of a vibrant society. However, there are many areas of Scotland—Galloway in particular—that are by no means full and that could certainly take a few more houses.

Shelter Scotland's briefing summed up the situation well. It pointed out that housing problems in urban Scotland were often problems of

"low demand and housing quality".

It is right to say that absolute shortage is the problem in rural Scotland.

John Farquhar Munro has raised an important issue. I am the chairman of the development committee of a housing association in a rural area and want to refer to the problem that Alasdair Morgan mentioned—the policies of the Scottish Environment Protection Agency and Scottish Water in respect of accepting sewage in small rural communities in which planning authorities expect housing to be connected to mains sewerage.

In most genuinely rural areas that are away from the big cities, housebuilding is driven by household formation—it is not driven by population growth on any significant scale or by migration. It is a simple fact that stable populations need more houses. For decades, average household sizes have been falling. People divorce, separate, live longer and are more independent. Our young people want to leave the parental home earlier. We need more houses simply to sustain static and stable populations.

However, Scottish Water is now talking about embargoes in large areas of rural Scotland, in areas in which SEPA advised it that the local sewerage infrastructure is either over or at the discharge consent levels that SEPA imposes. Unlike surface water, sewage is not produced by houses, but by people. I am concerned that the tight application of such restrictive policies by SEPA will, in effect, prevent housebuilding where it is needed to provide housing for people who are already in those communities. The long-term effect of such policies will be to prevent the construction of houses for locally generated demand. In some areas it will lead to an avoidable, unnecessary and socially destructive loss of population.

When new building is being promoted on the outskirts of Edinburgh, where there are large land releases, it is legitimate to expect that a lot of the added value of a strategic land release should be captured in planning gain and that the developer should be required to provide substantial new sewerage infrastructure. However, that seems to be a totally misguided policy for rural areas. I am talking about small towns and villages where houses are needed by people who already live and excrete locally. I do not see why we should prevent them from being housed by new building where it is not adding to the problem. There is surely scope for the Executive to commission some research, through its excellent central research unit, into this particular aspect of policy to see whether there is a requirement—if the Executive's broader social objectives are to be met—to treat affordable housing, built by registered social landlords, in a different and more enlightened way that will allow genuine needs to be met in localities throughout Scotland.

A final point is that 15 members are trying to speak in this tiny debate. Maybe the Executive should consider allocating some Executive time on the matter so that all the members who want to have their full say can comment.

In the meantime, I will do my best by taking a motion without notice to extend the debate until 6 pm.

Motion moved,

That, under Rule 8.14.3, the debate be extended until 6.00 pm.—[Mr Murray Tosh.]

Motion agreed to.

If members stick to speeches of two minutes—a lot can be said in two minutes—I will just about get in all the members who want to speak.

I have just cut my speech to one minute. I thank John Farquhar Munro for instigating this important debate. I agree with Murray Tosh that we should have a wider, longer debate on the matter.

As members know, the Stirling constituency includes a large rural area. Many of the problems have been identified already. They include house prices and Stirling is one of the most highly priced areas—I gather that the average house price in the area is currently £93,657. The right to buy has already reduced the stock. There is an increase in the population; Stirling is one of the fastest growing areas in Scotland and waiting lists are at an all-time high. The situation is becoming almost intolerable.

I will mention the challenges that are faced by the Rural Stirling Housing Association. It states that the shortage of good-quality, available sites is a major obstacle to the development of new schemes. The association is currently working with Stirling Council planners in respect of the recently published alteration to the plan, which includes very few new sites zoned for housing within the rural area. That is a big problem.

Planners have flagged up the inadequate water infrastructure, which other members have mentioned, in certain parts of the area. Clarification is being sought from Scottish Water on exact hot spots. I ask the minister where he thinks that the Water Industry (Scotland) Act 2002 and the Water Environment and Water Services (Scotland) Bill will help in that respect.

A particular threat is posed by the introduction of the right to buy for certain housing association tenants, including tenants of the Rural Stirling Housing Association. Current properties will be exempt for 10 years, but future schemes will be vulnerable, despite the reduced discount rates. That is a big issue, which we must examine. We must consider how pressured areas are designated.

I add, because St Ninian's Primary School asked me to, that I hope that we do not get shoogly answers from the minister.

I apologise to John Farquhar Munro for being unavoidably absent at the beginning of the debate. I look forward to reading his speech in the Official Report.

I will mention a point that has not yet been raised, which is that in many parts of rural Scotland the only places that can be developed are those that are off trunk roads, but it is extremely difficult to get permission to do anything off a trunk road, as the rules are too tight. I could mention individual cases. I hope that the minister will examine the matter very seriously.

We need to have more imaginative solutions. Farm steadings can be used to create more housing. We should promote timeshare developments, because they are occupied all year round. They do not lie empty as holiday homes do and they also contribute far more to the local economy. Zoning should be used more to allow land to be earmarked for young families with children and suitable housing to be developed for the people whom we want to attract back to rural Scotland.

The main point that I want to make in the short time available is about the council tax discount for second homes. During the 1999 election campaign and in the early days of the Parliament, I raised the issue repeatedly with the Executive and suggested that, as happens in Wales, local authorities should be afforded the discretion to remove the 50 per cent special discount that holiday home owners receive. I do not think that that discount is justified. The decision should be for local authorities but, sadly, the Executive ruled that out on several occasions in 1999.

It seems that there is now a rethink, although it is interesting that it came about only after John Prescott indicated that he intends to give local authorities in England the power to change the discount so that second home owners will have to pay up to 90 per cent of the council tax. That is better late than never. I hope that the minister will say precisely what the Executive's policy is on the matter.

The shortage of rural housing, which is a feature in my constituency, is linked to the recruitment of doctors, nurses and teachers. For example, the Gaelic teacher at Salen Primary School in Mull had to sleep on a friend's floor for six months after she was appointed to the post because no council housing or social rented housing was available. The shortage makes it difficult for local authorities and the health service to encourage people to relocate to the islands because, of course, housing is crucial for people. In my constituency, the shortage of housing is a barrier to the recruitment of public sector employees, especially in the key areas that I have mentioned.

Argyll and Bute is fortunate in that record investment has gone into building new homes. There has been a record spend profile. Although Fyne Homes has responded to the challenge admirably, the West Highland Housing Association has struggled to rise to the challenge. The spend is appreciated, but it has led to difficulties in acquiring land to build on for future programmes. I hope that, in the longer term, land reform will have an impact on land availability but, in the short term, it will not make a difference.

I turn to one issue that would make a huge difference. I know that the structure plan and the local plans in Argyll and Bute—and, I imagine, in the rest of the country—are being reviewed. I understand that Argyll and Bute Council intends to consider making more agricultural land available for building. That is key to unlocking demand constraints and making more land available for plots for housing associations and individuals who want to live in my area.

I congratulate John Farquhar Munro, who is a good old Ross-shire gadgie—that is my word for today—on securing a debate on an issue that is of significant concern to many people in the Highlands and Islands. As John said, the lack of housing stifles economic development in remoter communities and causes young people to drift to the towns. The issue has a human face. Lack of housing means that a disabled woman in Dingwall is waiting indefinitely to move to a house that is more convenient for her and it means that the women in the new refuge in Dingwall cannot move to the next stage of housing, which results in the refuge being full.

Members have pointed out that the situation in the north is different from that in the rest of Scotland. I have two points. Murray Tosh mentioned sewerage and water infrastructure. During the stage 1 debate on the Water Environment and Water Services (Scotland) Bill, I raised with Ross Finnie the implications of the bill for new house building in remote areas. It is worth raising those concerns again so that we can achieve joined-up government on the matter. From discussions with rural Highlands and Islands housing associations such as Orkney Housing Association and with communities such as those in Morvern and Ardnamurchan, I am concerned about who will fund the water and sewerage infrastructure. A site for a house is useless without water and sewerage or consent from SEPA, which is apparently becoming increasingly more difficult to get. SEPA must be more mindful of its social responsibilities.

Where there is a declining population, housing development is needed if those communities are to survive. Currently, in areas where such infrastructure is inadequate or absent, the responsibility of providing both capital and maintenance costs lies with Scottish Water, provided that the costs are reasonable. However, the definition of reasonable is somewhat unclear. We must know what is to happen once the Water Environment and Water Services (Scotland) Bill is passed.

The Title Conditions Bill is also currently before Parliament.

It is quite an important point that the Small Communities Housing Trust is very anxious about how it will be able to stop people who have had rural housing ownership grant assistance from selling their houses.

We have been beaten by the clock. Kenneth Gibson will make the final speech.

I will motor, but first I congratulate John Farquhar Munro on securing this debate. Affordable housing is now perhaps the biggest social issue in rural Scotland. Access to permanent accommodation is influenced by a wide range of complex factors: availability, cost, proximity to services and employment, household income, level of competition and productivity within the housing allocation processes.

Some rural areas, often those that are most isolated, have houses lying empty as a result of factors such as population drain and lack of local employment opportunities. However, in other areas, the opposite is the case. The rural partnership for change found that the right to buy has reduced opportunities for those who are reliant on the socially rented sector. People moving into rural areas often revitalise communities, but a side effect has been increased housing pressure. That is especially the case in areas that are within commuting distance of urban settlements and areas that are popular as holiday or retirement destinations. Housing pressure can have a detrimental effect on local communities, especially on people who are disadvantaged because of low income or other personal circumstances.

The quality of housing in rural Scotland is a concern among older people who own their homes but cannot afford to carry out repairs. The rural partnership for change has indicated that the physical quality of houses is a major worry.

Lack of flexibility in addressing homelessness is a problem. I hope that the Homelessness etc (Scotland) Bill will sort that out. A significant proportion of homelessness applicants may spend time in temporary accommodation, either while they are being assessed or following assessment, while the local authority seeks appropriate permanent accommodation for them. Priority households in rural areas are more likely than their urban counterparts to be placed in, and spend longer periods of time in, temporary accommodation and bed-and-breakfast accommodation.

The supply of affordable housing is vital. Concerns have been raised in the Social Justice Committee that, to implement the Homelessness etc (Scotland) Bill, only enough moneys have been provided for eight additional houses in the Highland region, although 285 may be required. Homeless people are often placed in accommodation that is located in isolated areas, where they have limited access to services and support networks. That can make it costly and difficult to access services and employment.

Given the fact that household incomes in many rural areas are below the Scottish average, with incomes in some areas having shown a relative decrease over the past decade, the fact that house prices in rural Scotland have risen higher than those in urban areas is a worrying trend. The issue of affordable housing must therefore be addressed.

For the record, Jamie Stone, Robin Harper and Margo MacDonald sat through the debate but were not called. I call the minister to wind up; he has until 18:00.

I congratulate John Farquhar Munro, not just on securing the debate, but on stimulating a debate that has real resonance among members and which reflects huge concern throughout Scotland. It is telling that all the members who spoke were well informed and often spoke from personal experience or the experience of their constituents. That brought a richness to the debate that is sometimes lacking in parliamentary debates. John Farquhar Munro has done us all a great service this evening.

Far too many detailed, specific points were raised for me to reply to them all in the extremely short time that I have. I note the point that Murray Tosh made. Even in an Executive debate, we would have been struggling to include all the members who wanted to speak. I will reflect on some of the direct suggestions that have been made.

Has there ever been any discussion in the Labour party about the contribution that moving to a system of land value taxation could make to the problems of our rural areas?

I will give the same answer to that question as I did to Sylvia Jackson's question about the Water Environment and Water Services (Scotland) Bill—I have absolutely no time to deal with such issues in the short time that I have available. However, we will try to reflect on as many of the practical suggestions as we can; some of them are perhaps more practical than others.

It is evident that rural Scotland faces particular problems. Yes, far more people require good-quality public sector housing in urban areas, but the density of the problem in rural areas compared with the rest of the population is obviously significant.

I appreciate the minister giving way when time is short.

Rather than saying that there is a greater problem in rural Scotland, will the minister accept that there is the same growing problem in Edinburgh as there is in the south-east of England, because we can no longer provide housing for people with socially responsible jobs in the community?

I acknowledge Edinburgh's problem, which, as Margo MacDonald said, is similar to that of the south-east of England. John Farquhar Munro commented on the amount of investment in England, but some of that investment reflects the fact that the south-east of England has a particular problem. However, since 1999, we have spent more as a percentage of our housing expenditure specifically on rural Scotland than was previously the case. That is a reflection of the Executive's willingness to listen and of members' good arguments in the chamber over the period.

John Farquhar Munro is right that money is needed, but I argue that our decision on the prudential housing regime will release more money for investment for councils with low debts. For those councils with high debts, the stock transfer would be able to release significant investment. Therefore, money should be available either way in the future to back up what we have already planned to spend. In the past four or five years, we have built over 6,000 new public sector houses in rural Scotland, with more to come in the future.

Alasdair Morrison asked me a specific question about the Western Isles because he, like others, has a problem with the issue of waiting lists. Margaret Curran and I are more than happy to discuss with Alasdair Morrison over the next week some of his specific points.

The main issue, which came up time and again during the debate, was council tax. The Executive will soon consult on whether the suggestions that were made during the debate should be progressed. My colleague Andy Kerr will do that in the near future.

Several members mentioned the right to buy. Jamie McGrigor intrigued me, because I was not sure whether he was condemning or promoting the right to buy. However, he certainly advanced many compelling arguments against the right to buy, on which I will dwell. We have already reduced the discount in the right-to-buy scheme. In addition, we will consider carefully whether the right to buy should be suspended in areas that councils believe are pressured. Councils in rural Scotland have the opportunity to come back to us with their proposals, should they decide to do so.

My colleagues in the environment department are aware of the problems with sewerage and water infrastructure, which also exist in urban areas. I acknowledge that there is a bigger problem in some of our rural communities because of their remoteness and we will certainly reflect on that.

George Lyon mentioned the release of agricultural land. I will go back and check the documents that we issued, but I remember signing off a document not long ago that contained an agreement to consider releasing agricultural land for development where appropriate, because of the changing nature of our agricultural needs and the demands in local communities. I am sure that that document has seen the light of day, but I will double check.

I have run out of time and cannot therefore take this debate much further. The debate has been constructive, however. The Executive has shown commitment in its attempts to shift a greater percentage of its money towards housing in rural Scotland. We have demonstrated our faith with some of the schemes that we have introduced, but there is much more to do. The quality and diversity of communities across rural Scotland are part of what makes the fabric of this country rich. We must recognise the fact that rural Scotland is not a playground for the rich, but should provide living communities for everyone.

That concludes the debate. I am sorry that many members and, indeed, the minister were squeezed.

Meeting closed at 18:01.