Chamber and committees

It is reality.

We are talking about people living in the coldest communities in Scotland. Maybe there could have been more flexibility to take that into account now rather than in future years. The Scottish Government told SCOSS that it might take a few weeks in February to process the payments. Will the eligible recipients receive their payments before the end of February? Is that now guaranteed?

Just before I hand back to you, convener, I suggest that it might be important for the minister, once he leaves this meeting, to write to the communities, specifically with that information. People might not be aware of what is going on, so it would be useful, especially in the four postcode areas that we are talking about, to make sure that households are aware.

I will pick up on the point that James Dornan has just made. The Government said that there would not be losers, but there clearly will be. As has been reflected in our discussions on the issue, I am concerned that the new scheme will leave behind many parts of rural Scotland that benefit from the current system because of the extra cold weather that they experience, and it will make them financially worse off. That is not a system that should have been developed, and it could have been corrected before now. I am concerned about what that means for some low-income families living in communities such as Braemar, Aviemore and across rural Scotland, especially given the recent weather. That is a problem that should have been fixed.

Minister, I think that the committee has expressed frustration today that we are putting in place a system that moves us towards a universal payment system for people—I accept that—but that does not take into account the previous targeted support that was based on the coldest weather that communities across Scotland often experience. That is not acceptable. I hope that the minister takes on board the debate that we have had this morning on the changes, so that support will be provided and people will be made aware of the additional support—many will not know where and how to apply for it. I hope that the Government commits to coming back as soon as possible to try to fix it and put in place a better system, because all of us on the committee hoped for and wanted a better system to be put in place, and it does not feel as though this has lived up to that expectation. Like Jeremy Balfour, I will not vote against the regulations, but I will abstain, because I do not think that we should approve the system as it stands.

The member represents a very rural part of Scotland. Payments have not necessarily been triggered there to the same extent as they have in communities in the north. Does he want his communities to lose out, in a way? We have no Aberdeenshire members, for example, on the committee. We were led to believe that no one would lose out, but this will result in communities losing out. Why has the Government not taken that on board?

There are growing concerns about the financial resilience of hospices across Scotland. The sector faces significant pressures with regard to staffing and energy costs. I met hospice staff in my region who report that they are already supporting the delivery of core services from their reserves. One of the impacts of the pandemic is that more people need to move to palliative care. Will the First Minister agree to convene urgent talks with the sector and undertake a review of matched funding for the hospice care sector, which has now fallen to one of the lowest levels that we have ever seen?

The Deputy First Minister mentioned the Bute house agreement, which states that the SNP-Green Government will deliver 110,000 affordable homes. Today’s budget cuts the housing budget by £215 million in real terms, which comes on the back of last year’s cut to the housing budget. That decision will undermine jobs in the construction sector. The SNP Government is now driving a housing crisis in Scotland. Why has the Government today ripped up its housing policies, and what is it going to do to make sure that affordable homes are actually delivered?

I agree, but I also think that councils’ budgets do not allow them to do much else apart from look towards the health and safety concerns that affect such buildings, which is their duty at the end of the day.

The debate has given us an opportunity to celebrate the asset transfers in all our communities. Fulton MacGregor perhaps wins the award for the most thank yous delivered during a speech, although Jenni Minto gave him a run for his money on that. I am not going to be outdone, however, because I want to highlight some of the great projects here in my region.

In 2016, I was pleased to support the Bellfield project in Portobello, which was the first community right-to-buy asset transfer in Scotland. Bellfield is a community centre located in what was previously Portobello old parish church, which is a Georgian church of classical design on Bellfield Street in Portobello. The church was subject to a successful community buyout in 2017. It then reopened, following vital investment that was needed, in June 2018, and it has gone from strength to strength.

There seems to be something in the water in Portobello, because quite a lot of community buyouts have taken place since then. That includes the community buyout of Portobello town hall, which I know that locals were really determined not to see lost. That just shows that, when communities really use the legislation, it can deliver results. I think that we all want to see that, and to encourage it in future.

Paul Sweeney made important points in relation to distressed community assets, which is an important issue. Assets are becoming more and more difficult to take forward, so we need to consider additional support around that. Although Willie Coffey has not spoken in the debate, in the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee, he often raises and highlights issues around individual buildings and ownership, and the lack of capacity that councils have to address issues with empty and condemned buildings. We need more work on that, as it can often become incredibly difficult to unpick and get to the heart of the ownership of a building.

I agree with Stephanie Callaghan’s point. My colleague Alexander Stewart highlighted that the process around community asset transfers can often be complicated, and we need councils to be able to assist communities. In future we need more focus on the teams who will deliver that. We know that planning departments are having staffing problems anyway, but often people in councils are not being directly allocated to supporting such work. We need that situation to be improved.

Ariane Burgess made important points on making new and innovative uses of buildings on our high streets. I for one want many high streets to have opportunities to bring diverse former shops into housing use, which we need to look at. I do not think that we necessarily captured that in the national planning framework that the Government introduced.

The Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee recently undertook an inquiry on allotments. We cannot honestly say that we have given community empowerment to people who want to see more green space and more growing opportunities—that was certainly the conclusion that the committee drew. There is a specific issue about how land that is in public sector ownership and which could potentially be used for community growing is not being released. We need to examine that because, especially following the pandemic, there is an appetite for such projects to be pursued. I hope that we can see those being progressed. That is certainly what the committee tried to do.

Members from across the chamber have looked towards the future sustainability of projects. I am concerned that, for some time, some organisations that I work with are facing construction inflation, and I am also concerned about their ability to finance future projects. We are constantly returning to the Scottish Government and local government to ask for support. Planning departments and the organisations that often provide grants for such projects are becoming more and more difficult to access, so we need to consider how such support could be delivered in future.

Finally, I want to touch on a point that was put to me by representatives of one project about how we can ensure that, in the next five years, we will deliver projects that are harder to achieve. I put it to the minister that some schemes have involved the low-hanging fruit that such buildings can become, so that they are easily transferred. As Paul Sweeney outlined, there are more difficult cases, which is where the legislation will really be tested. Although we have had a welcome and positive debate, I hope that the Government will not rest on its laurels. There will be potential community assets that we all want to be saved and utilised but that will be the hard cases. Ministers should ensure that they are ready to run those hard miles, too.