Chamber and committees

I have been listening to the responses, which make it clear that freshwater treatments have been beneficial, but I am picking up a wee bit of reluctance. I understand that fish handling is an issue, but I am hearing concern that possible future regulation might make that a requirement, rather than something to be done when the need arises.

I have a supplementary question to Ben Hadfield’s response. I understand that companies are investing in housing and infrastructure, which is welcome. My one concern is that, in the past, we have had issues with tied housing in rural areas. I would worry if our only solution to accommodation was tied housing, because, as David Brown said, we want to bring people into the community and we want them to live there. We want local people to be able to stay, but if the housing is tied to the job they cannot then move around as they would naturally within a community.

Thank you.

If the minimum of 10 per cent includes houses in urban areas, houses will be built in urban areas—of course—because it is cheaper.

In addition, planning legislation is designed for urban areas. It is almost impossible to build in rural areas, because pavements and other infrastructure must be built. That is simply not required in urban areas. Rural areas also face challenges with holiday homes and second homes, but the Government’s guarantee will ensure that houses are not built in rural areas.

The national housing crisis requires to be addressed, but the Scottish Government also needs to look at its policy framework. Its solution needs to be island proofed and must not disadvantage rural areas. The cost of building in rural areas is huge, so it is little wonder that the houses are being built in urban areas. There are no economies of scale in rural areas, because, in reality, a rural community will need only one or two homes in a village to meet local need. Highland Council estimates that the cost of building in rural areas is £400,000 per unit, but it can cost at least a quarter more just to ship the materials across to our islands on Government-owned ferries. Procurement regulations add to the cost, too.

Ironically, the Scottish Government’s rural and islands housing action plan includes a section called “Delivering the Right Homes in The Right Places”. The Government’s definition of rural does not align with that or, indeed, with any ordinary person’s definition of rural.

That is why the policy is working against rural areas and adding to depopulation. The Government needs to provide a degree of parity for rural areas and must reform its classification of rural housing. That will help to provide homes in rural areas.

I refer members to my entry in the register of members’ interests in relation to a small share that I have in a family home.

The whole of Scotland faces a housing crisis, but it can have a much wider impact on the community in rural areas, and not only on the people who are affected, because it leads to depopulation and communities disappearing. It also leads to economic decline. Employers are doing well and are crying out for staff, but young people have left those areas, so they no longer work in those businesses, and employers cannot import the labour that they need because of the lack of houses. We are going back to more tied houses, which is not good for any worker or community.

There is a lack of key workers in such areas. There is a lack of rural general practitioners. Hospitals are closing wards because of a lack of staff. We have seen that in Skye, which was in the headlines recently. I have been told by NHS Highland that it has no difficulty in recruiting people to Skye—who would not want to live there? However, none of the people it recruits can find a home there.

The Gaelic language is also being lost. Because people who speak Gaelic in their communities cannot find homes or jobs there and are forced out, the language is diluted.

In rural areas, waiting lists look smaller because the population is sparse and, therefore, numbers are smaller, but the situation is just as damaging. In Argyll and Bute, 3,290 people were on the housing waiting list as of November last year. There was a 28 per cent increase in homelessness, but the average house price in the area was seven times the average income. That is a common issue throughout the Highlands and Islands. The housing market is way beyond the means of the local population, and people are being forced out.

Highland Council requires 24,000 homes to be built in the next 10 years, because of the green freeport as well as the issues that I have outlined, but its historic debt means that 42 per cent of its revenue from council housing is just paying loan charges. That leaves little for keeping the housing stock in a fit state and far less for building the houses that we need.

The Scottish Government claims to have built more than 10,000 rural houses since 2016, but the response to a freedom of information request shows that it has delivered only 3,219 affordable rural homes in the Highlands and Islands region since 2017. The majority of those homes were built in the Highland Council area, including many homes within the city of Inverness, which is not rural. Argyll and Bute got 351 affordable rural homes, Orkney got 160 and Shetland got 147.

The Scottish Government’s definition of rural, for house building purposes, includes areas beside the Edinburgh and Aberdeen city bypasses and areas close to the centre of Inverness, as well as commuter towns just outside Edinburgh and Glasgow. For example, since 2017, 152 affordable so-called rural homes have been built in the city of Edinburgh, which is more than have been built in Shetland and is level pegging with Orkney. That is simply not right. There is, of course, a housing crisis in our cities, but rural areas cannot compete with the cost of building in cities, so already fewer rural homes are being built.

Of course—I am doing that with local authorities in my area. The point that I am making is that it is simply deceptive for the Government to include city areas in rural house building targets and then pat itself on the back for building so-called rural homes in cities. That is simply not right.

The Scottish Government has promised that 11,000 homes will be built in rural areas. That represents 10 per cent of its house building target, but 17 per cent of the population live in rural Scotland. Again, rural Scotland is losing out in relation not only to the targets but to the areas that are designated as rural.

Will the member take an intervention?

The real concern is about the timeframe. In the farming community, there are already concerns about the length of time that it is taking to produce the rural support plan and all the bits that are attached to it.

The timeframe in the regulations creates a fear that we could still be on 2018 funding for LFASS in 2030, because, if we pass this legislation, there is nothing that the committee or the Parliament can do to change it or to force the Government to change it. That funding rate could just go on, and that is not acceptable. That is what we are trying to say loud and clear. You can give us assurances, but you cannot set it in stone that that will not happen.

My concern in relation to an island impact assessment is that I believe that the regulations could have an impact.

The minister will be well aware that people have been talking for a long time about micro-abattoirs and the benefits—both animal welfare and economic—there would be if island communities, and smaller communities away from markets, were able to have abattoirs. They would be able to sell their own meat locally, the tourism industry would benefit, because there would be local produce available, and people could sell online. It would make for a huge economic boost.

Anything that adds to not only the cost but the bureaucracy of the process pushes all those things further and further away, and my concern is that the regulations might do that. They might just add another hurdle to get over. I am not suggesting for one moment that we are making great progress with having abattoirs—in fact, some that we have are already under threat—but the regulations could, first of all, dispense with those that are there and, secondly, stop us from getting others.