Public Petitions Committee

Meeting date: Tuesday, February 17, 2015

Official Report 520KB pdf

---

Current Petition

---

Tinkers’ Heart of Argyll (PE1523)

Good morning and welcome to this meeting of the Public Petitions Committee. I ask everyone to switch off mobile phones and other electronic devices, as they interfere with the sound system. We have received apologies from David Torrance.

Agenda item 1 is an evidence-taking session with the Scottish Government and Historic Scotland as part of the committee’s consideration of current petition PE1523, by Jess Smith, on giving the Tinkers’ Heart of Argyll back to the Traveller people. Members have a note by the clerk and various submissions.

I welcome to the meeting Fiona Hyslop, who is the Cabinet Secretary for Culture, Europe and External Affairs; Noel Fojut, who is the head of historic environment legislation in the Scottish Government; and Barbara Cummins, who is the director of heritage management at Historic Scotland. I also welcome Mike Russell MSP, who has a constituency interest in the petition.

I invite the cabinet secretary and Ms Cummins to make brief opening statements, after which we will move to questions.

Good morning, convener. I want to say a few words to set the scene before I hand over to Historic Scotland to talk about the details of the case.

The Traveller community’s contribution to Scotland’s life and culture represents an important and often neglected strand in Scotland’s story and deserves to be valued and appreciated as a whole. The Travellers’ lifestyle is to move lightly through the land, leaving few physical traces, which is why I think we will all agree that the Tinkers’ Heart is so significant. It represents a rare tangible monument to the community’s presence in Scotland’s landscape.

As the petition itself asks ministers to direct

“Historic Scotland to investigate what action can be taken to ensure the restoration and preservation of the”

Tinkers’ Heart, I want to talk briefly about when ministers should and should not intervene. With the strong support of all parties, we have firmly established the principle that our national collections and other bodies that make curatorial decisions should make such decisions free from ministerial interference—in other words, free from ministerial direction. With the support and encouragement of MSPs of all parties, we applied the same principle to Creative Scotland and in the legislation that created the new body, Historic Environment Scotland, which Parliament passed on 4 November 2014. Neil Bibby MSP and Liz Smith MSP in particular were keen to test ministers’ powers of direction under that bill, and all members agreed that it is not the job of ministers to direct what should be scheduled, collected or grant aided. Those are matters for expert judgment against established operational criteria, which in this case are set out in the Scottish historic environment policy and have been developed through public consultation.

It has been suggested that the Tinkers’ Heart be scheduled. However, it is important to remember that scheduling is intended for a very specific purpose; it is a means of recognising nationally important sites with a view to protecting them against deliberate damage. In other words, it is an end in itself. It does not change ownership, bring added public rights of access or automatically result in the kind of restoration and preservation that are requested in the petition.

The petition seeks action: action to restore or preserve our heritage does not depend on scheduling. Public and charitable resources, including funds, are available to support communities that want to care for and provide access to important monuments. Those can be mobilised only with sites’ owners’ agreement. Historic Scotland can do much, but it cannot compel local co-operation.

With your permission, convener, I hand over to Barbara Cummins, who is the director of heritage management at Historic Scotland, to outline what has been done and what further action is in hand.

Thank you, cabinet secretary, and thank you, committee, for inviting me to attend today. I welcome the opportunity to explain our position.

Historic Scotland recognises that the Tinkers’ Heart is of significant cultural heritage interest. We have been positive and supportive since the case was brought to our attention in 2012. For example, we have ensured that the site is properly recorded, we have attended local meetings and we have involved Archaeology Scotland’s adopt-a-monument scheme, which we part fund.

The petition calls for the preservation and the restoration of the Heart, with the implication that it should be laid out in good order for visitors as a physical reminder of the important contribution of the Traveller community to Scotland’s history. We would be supportive of such an initiative. However, Historic Scotland can do little to change the situation. We have been called on to schedule the site, but that would not achieve the petition’s aims. Those can be achieved only by constructive dialogue and the co-operation of the site’s owner and the local community. The chair of the local group—Here We Are—says that the community is well aware that the Heart is a special site, but that it and the owner want it to be preserved as it is. The newly installed fence means that the Heart is protected from cattle damage, which was previously a concern. Historic Scotland can and does encourage co-operation, but as the cabinet secretary said, we cannot enforce it.

On scheduling, there are more than 300,000 recorded monuments in Scotland, of which only about 3 to 5 per cent are scheduled, depending on what part of Scotland you are in. We take seriously the strength of concern about our decision not to schedule the Heart, as well as this committee’s strong interest. We are very aware that the monument is associated with, and is especially important to, a marginalised and underrepresented group in Scottish society. Many monuments do not meet scheduling criteria. However, few—if any—have challenged us as this one has.

Just before Christmas, John Finnie MSP asked several questions in Parliament about equalities issues, and asked specifically about whether an equalities impact assessment should have been undertaken when assessing the Tinkers’ Heart for scheduling. In view of the exceptional circumstances that pertain in this case, we consider that an equalities impact assessment of the Tinkers’ Heart decision should have been undertaken. Such assessments should not be carried out retrospectively, so we have decided to set aside our earlier decision and to start again with a fresh team. I cannot prejudge the reassessment’s outcome, and it is important not to raise expectations, but that is the right way forward.

We will inform all those who have an interest in the site of our intention to revisit the case. I would be happy to report back to the committee on progress in that work. We expect the scheduling reassessment to take three to six months, so I will be in a position to provide a progress update in June 2015.

I hope that the committee will agree that that course of action responds to at least some of the public and this committee’s concerns. We remain ready to help in whatever way we can.

Thank you. We will move to questions.

Ms Cummins, in your introduction you said that Historic Scotland acknowledges that the Tinkers’ Heart is of cultural heritage significance but that it does not meet the criteria for a scheduled monument. What sites is the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979 designed to recognise and protect? What is the practical effect of scheduling a monument?

It is correct that, when we assessed it, we did not consider that the Tinkers’ Heart met the scheduling criteria, but we will look again at that. That may continue to be our conclusion, or we may come to a different conclusion. Generally the effect of scheduling and the act is simply to recognise monuments that are of national importance, but the legislation does not set out what that means: Scottish historic environment policy sets the criteria under which we assess whether to schedule.

Monuments can have associative characteristics, which is a very strong element in relation to the Tinkers’ Heart, so we will be looking closely at whether that element has been applied correctly. We will, in particular, take account of the equalities impact assessment that we will undertake in parallel, and consider whether we are in this instance adding sufficient weight to the associative characteristics.

The guidance, which seems to be rather complex, distinguishes between associative, contextual and intrinsic value. How do those concepts help us to identify and recognise sites of national importance and why does the guidance ascribe a higher value to intrinsic qualities than to other qualities?

I suppose that there has to be a physical thing or item to consider for it to be scheduled as a monument. The first thing to consider is whether we can identify a site or structure, or evidence of man’s intervention. That is why the intrinsic value is the primary concern. We will in this instance, given the interest that is being shown, revisit whether we are applying that too strongly to the detriment of the other characteristics. We need to consider whether we have ascribed too high a value to one characteristic in the scheduling criteria. I do not want to prejudge that now, but I am prepared to accept that it may have been the case in the past.

You are going to review that.

Yes—we will review that.

The cabinet secretary touched on the next issue that I want to ask about. I will give you the opportunity to expand on it. Do you have any plans to extend the types of sites that are eligible for listing under the guidance or, alternatively, to create a separate national policy on recognition, protection and promotion of sites that are of cultural importance but which do not meet the criteria to become listed monuments?

One thing to be aware of is that we are in a process of transition, with the merger of Historic Scotland and the Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Scotland. I talked about the Historic Environment Scotland Act 2014, which set out what ministers should or should not do through direction. The act also made changes to improve scheduling and listing procedures. That will require a new set of regulations to be laid, and a public consultation is under way—it was launched on 19 December and ends at the end of March. That is an opportunity to consider afresh the impacts of heritage management work on a range of interests, including in equalities, business and the environment. We want to ensure that Scotland’s heritage is managed in a way that meets the needs of the 21st century.

On your earlier question about the value of intrinsic and associative characteristics, each generation probably has different associations about what is nationally important than might have been the case in previous years. As Barbara Cummins has set out, the particular site that we are discussing has challenged us in ways that other monuments might not have done because of its characteristics. If the committee has a view about the issue, the consultation that is under way is an ideal opportunity for it to express its views.

Ms Cummins, how many existing listed monuments originate from minority cultures? The petition is about the recognition of a minority culture within the wider context of Scotland. Are there listed monuments whose origins can be traced to minority cultures?

That is not how we have recorded the monuments that we have scheduled or the buildings that we have listed. We would be able to identify listed buildings that are associated with minority cultures, but that is not how we have recorded things as they have evolved over time. We quite often do not know the origins of the creators of scheduled monuments; there is evidence of human activity, but we do not know who those humans were, so it is difficult to identify the creators. We will have, in the new organisation—Historic Environment Scotland—to consider how in the future we will capture information about groups that are represented in the historic environment.

09:45  

We have to remember that some monuments are thousands of years old. How do we know who was a minority at that time? That is quite a historical challenge, but it is a point that we can very much take into account in deciding how to move forward. In fact, that is why I have given my invitation to the committee; if the committee feels that the issue in the petition is important, that will provide a good basis for informing things. The fact is that we cannot unpick what happened thousands of years ago or reschedule, renominate or reclassify retrospectively, but we can try to deal with things going forward, and the petition provides us with an opportunity to do so.

I fully understand the point that some of Scotland’s standing stones predate the pyramids and that the question who originally built the sites is a matter of some dispute. I am well aware of the history of some sites; clearly, with modern listed monuments, we know who the architect was, who commissioned the work and what the original purpose of the building was. Does Historic Scotland, where it can, keep a record of the origins and purpose of listed ancient monuments? As I have said, there are many buildings in Scotland from the past 300, 400 or 500 years that we can trace back, and we also know who constructed the Antonine wall. Can we get to a situation where Historic Scotland can give us some idea, particularly in a modern context, of the significance of sites to minority cultures and where such listings have come from?

We certainly include that information in the data that we capture when a building is listed. When that happens, there is a list description that says where and what the property is. It gives its history, including who the architect was, who commissioned it and what it was used for. If a particular minority had commissioned the building or had a history of using it, that would be part of the history of that building.

However, the inclusion of full data in a listing proposal is a relatively recent phenomenon. With the advent of computer systems, it is possible to search records; in fact, we are constantly trying to upgrade the search facility for the listings search on our website to allow, for example, the use of keywords.

One of the nuances in all of this is how we define “minority community”; after all, certain communities might identify themselves as distinct entities, but we might not realise that they want to be identified in that way. With a well-known, well-documented and well-considered group such as the Traveller community, that sort of thing can be pulled out, but there might be groups that want to search for physical evidence of their background but we cannot easily provide them with that material. There are more than 47,000 listed buildings in Scotland, and it is very difficult to search through individual records to pull out such information. As I have said, we are constantly trying to update our data to make that sort of search a bit easier; however, we are doing that going forward, and there is a legacy of older decisions that were made by our predecessors for which the same approach is just not possible.

Does Historic Scotland actively seek out interested groups in relation to listed monuments? Of course, such an approach is easy with historic church buildings and the relatively modern church buildings that are listed, but with regard to other monuments, do you actively seek out minority groups or individuals who might have a particular interest in or association with the monument?

We have not done that, specifically. We tend to focus on themed areas. At the moment we are undertaking a review of courts and prisons. Part of that is because the public estate is considering its assets and disposing of some, so where we think there is an issue we address it.

Clearly there are communities that are poorly represented in terms of the historic environment and what is designated at national level, so we are giving active thought to that as a part of the thematic reviews.

Good morning, cabinet secretary. I am hoping that Barbara Cummins will answer this question. We have trusts up and down Scotland. What level of engagement have you had with them? Has your board had direct contact with some of the boards on how you would want to see this progress? Might you finish the whole process with some sort of national conference in which you could bring all the ideas together and then publish a meaningful report?

I am not quite sure that I understand. Is your question in relation to the Tinkers’ Heart itself?

It is in relation to what we are trying to achieve on identifying heritage sites and the upkeep of those sites. It is becoming more and more evident that we will need help from communities, businesses and others. What level of engagement have you had with trusts to achieve that goal?

I might be able to assist. It is fair to say that, to date, communities have self-identified and asked to be involved in processes, as in this case. There is an active community heritage community and archaeology network across Scotland. We have an annual conference every year; last year’s was held at Crieff. There are already ways in which communities can come together and have that discussion with the professionals, if you like.

That will develop. It is only one sector. There are other people who feel that community engagement should be different—that it should not all be focused on archaeology and doing projects but should be more about recognition of lifeways and so on. There are already forums in which that could take place. The first way would be to use the existing mechanisms by which community groups come together to speak to professional archaeologists and others who are interested in this whole area of work.

It is quite a complex area, but I draw to the member’s attention the fact that, for the first time ever, Scotland has a historic environment strategy. As part of that, I pulled together a historic environment forum, which for the first time brings together all the interests, including from community planning and other areas. There is a load of workstreams underneath that and different parts of the historic environment community are helping to lead on areas. The National Trust for Scotland is very much involved. It has great expertise in education and engagement, and one of the strands is about community engagement.

The strategy was launched last year and we are bringing everyone together. Some of the issues will be about what we do for the country as a whole and themes that we might want to take forward. The strategy provides an opportunity to get better engagement nationally so that voices are heard that might not otherwise have been heard within our historic environment.

We are looking at developing our first conference, following the historic environment strategy, but I cannot predict what subjects there will be. The idea is that we must separate the them-and-us perception between the owners of historic buildings—Historic Scotland, the National Trust or whoever—and the communities who live where the buildings are. One of the real drivers for change is the fact that local communities’ knowledge is often better than that of the professionals. We are asking how to engage with that better. That is very much at the heart of “Our Place in Time”, which is our historic environment strategy. That conference might be a vehicle to take forward what Hanzala Malik is suggesting regarding the opportunity to share that experience.

That is helpful, but I am talking about Historic Scotland leading, in a way. What engagement does it currently have with the various trusts in Scotland? At the end of the day, if we are going to get our pound of flesh, we need to ensure that we are engaging with everybody and that everybody has access to you and vice versa. I am trying to prise out the level of engagement that you have at the moment. Do you need more opportunities to develop that engagement?

The answer to both questions is yes. We currently engage with local trusts. As Mr Fojut said, that tends to be as a result of trusts self-selecting. An issue will come to our attention or we will be in an area, doing a piece of work, and we will engage with a trust over a particular site or piece of work that the trust is undertaking. The trust might come to us for grant funding for a project.

There are many means by which a trust will approach us for our support, and we always try to give that support. In some cases, it can simply be the act of verbal support and providing staff time for work. For example, one of my members of staff is working with the friends of Eyemouth fort, which had a parliamentary reception recently to celebrate its work. The trust is doing all the work and is driving the process, but with the support of Historic Scotland, local businesses and the local authority. Our role is often to bring people together. As I said, one of the key issues is to promote co-operation. However, we can only promote co-operation; we cannot compel it.

Would we like to do more? Absolutely. Through the historic environment strategy, historic environment Scotland will be considering how to do that, with the resources that we have.

That is exactly what I am driving at. I do not know whether we can support you in that engagement, but that is what interests me. I do not want trusts to feel that they have been paid lip service, which is why it is important that we recognise how deep the engagement must go. Lip service is not good enough for what we are trying to achieve, cabinet secretary.

The opportunity for partnership working is there.

I want to build on the questions from John Wilson and Hanzala Malik, which seem interlinked. First, are you satisfied that current heritage protections sufficiently promote and protect our diverse heritage, including the contribution of minority cultures? As a follow-on from that, what equalities safeguards exist in the current guidance, especially for those communities where written records and so on are not so easily available? Finally, as a consequence of public sector equality duty requirements, do you anticipate any changes? If so, will they have any effect on the Tinkers’ Heart?

I will start on that and then ask Barbara Cummins to answer the final point. We are actively in consultation, which is about asking what will be important in scheduling and listing, how we can improve the procedures around that and whether we need to ensure that equalities issues are more at the forefront than they might have been in, for example, 1979, when some of the legislation that we are referring to was first established.

SHEP—the Scottish historic environment policy—was initiated in the early 2000s and refreshed in 2011. Lessons can be learned from the petition that can be fed into that. We can certainly do that, but it might be helpful if the Public Petitions Committee decided to do so, too.

I ask Barbara Cummins to deal with the point on the equalities duty.

We will be instigating new processes and procedures to set up the new organisation, historic environment Scotland, so we will be revisiting the services that we deliver and the processes that we undertake to deliver those services. As part of that, we will have to undertake an equalities impact assessment of those processes to ensure that they are robust and that we are not undervaluing particular areas or disenfranchising particular groups or parts of our community. That is our intention. Clearly, this case accelerates that in relation to the scheduling process. I am sure that we will learn a lot from that.

10:00  

I have a question on the issues that are raised in relation to the Tinkers’ Heart. I was interested in the comment that the cabinet secretary made in her opening remarks that scheduling would go ahead only if there was agreement with the owner of the site. That is an important point for many communities that are trying to achieve their ambition to have a historic monument recognised and to preserve it for the future. If there is no agreement with the site owner, what can Historic Scotland do to ensure their co-operation so that the monument is recognised and preserved?

In the past, things have happened to the site that is referred to in the petition. For example, cattle have gained access to the site and damaged it. Although the current owners have done some work, the difficulty for the petitioner is that there is still much to be done to preserve the site and recognise it as a historic monument for the Traveller community in Scotland.

That is the nub of the issue. As I said, we can reconsider the scheduling—that will be done using the criteria that Barbara Cummins set out—but on restoring and preserving the site, which is what the petition requests, we must consider what restoration and preservation would mean. What would it look like for all the communities involved, including the Traveller community and the local community? The co-operation of the owner is needed to make improvements or even maintain what is there.

The vast majority of monuments—we have about 300,000—are in some form of private ownership. People do not hear about the very good co-operation with owners and the role that they play in looking after monuments. Hanzala Malik made a point about local trusts and communities. The adopt-a-monument scheme, which is funded by Historic Scotland but run by Archaeology Scotland, is aimed at getting better community involvement. The point is not so much who owns a monument but who cares for it. We want monuments to be cared for, and that is what happens in the vast majority of cases.

If there is no co-operation from the owner—that is highly unusual, because the majority of owners are involved day in, day out—it can be difficult. Historic Scotland can facilitate conversations, which Barbara Cummins can perhaps say more about. The process that Historic Scotland is now embarking on in relation to the Tinkers’ Heart may help in facilitating conversations so that there is a common understanding. However, to make progress, we need co-operation and a new arena or space for the local community, the landowner and the Traveller community to come to an agreement about what is needed. That is the way forward in dealing with the issues that are raised in the petition.

As cabinet secretary, I would not direct Historic Scotland on a particular site that it currently looks after, and I cannot direct Historic Scotland in relation to a site that it does not look after. I can provide advice, based on my experience of being cabinet secretary for a number of years. Much of it is about good communication and good relationships. Perhaps the process of looking at the scheduling in a new light, bearing in mind the equalities duties that Barbara Cummins referred to, will be an opportunity for people to have those discussions anew.

I welcome the decision to review the scheduling, which is helpful.

I have the advantage of having been at the site—I drove past it this morning and visited it last Monday—and I have some photographs that I would be happy to provide to the committee. The reality of the site is rather different from what we have heard.

The landowner, Kate How, wrote to the committee on 14 December 2014 and said two things that members might want to consider. First, she said:

“As you are aware neither the Scottish Parliament nor Argyll and Bute Council feel that the site is of sufficient historical interest to merit a listing.”

That is her understanding of the listing process, which is that the site is not important enough to be listed. That says something significant. She goes on to say:

“I can assure you that the site is well looked after and protected against cattle.”

She continues:

“I consider that enough has been done to ensure that everyone wishing to visit the Tinkers’ Heart can do so.”

The pictures that I have show a rather different story, however. There is an agricultural trailer parked virtually next to the heart. There is a sign on the gate but with no apostrophe in “Tinkers’ Heart”, although we shall let that pass. The sign says:

“Tinkers and other local people used to be married at this spot, as it was a central meeting point.”

That is not true. That is not the reason; it was because the site was sacred to the Travelling people and others. The sign continues:

“For example Isabella Brodie, Laglingarton, and John Luke, Cuil Cottage, were married here in 1872.”

That rather cleverly chooses two people who were not Travellers to advertise the site.

The sign continues:

“The heart has recently been refurbished and protected thanks to: Ardno Estate and Here We Are.”

To refurbish a site of this importance would presumably require some professional assistance. Was any sought from Historic Scotland?

Not that I am aware of, no.

So a site of this importance has been interfered with by a landowner, who now thinks that it is sufficient unto the day, essentially.

I wonder whether Barbara Cummins would address a further point. I was very surprised by her remark that Historic Scotland is powerless, although I appreciate that it is a difficult issue. When people interfere with scheduled monuments and historic buildings, the law can be used. I suppose that one could call in evidence the endless case of Castle Tioram or the case of Rowallan Castle. There would be the possibility of preventing further damage to the site and helping the landowner to have better access. At present, it does not matter what the Travelling community thinks; the landowner has said what she thinks and she thinks that the case is over and done with. Am I right about the protection of sites?

Yes and no. If a site is scheduled, it is protected from deliberate damage. If it is not scheduled, it is not and there is no obligation there. There is protection under the planning system from change through the planning process. Change has to be taken account of as part of that decision making. Consent is not required to carry out works to a monument if it is not scheduled. If it is scheduled, scheduled monument consent is needed before any intervention is made to restore or excavate, for example. At the moment, works could be carried out to the monument without consent. Going ahead without involving Historic Scotland in the work that has been undertaken so far has not breached the law.

You would not regard it as good practice for any scheduled monument to build a metal case around it, park an agricultural trailer next to it and have an inaccurate sign on the gate that does not tell the truth about it. That would not be the standard that Historic Scotland would aspire to. It would not want to see our monuments being treated in that way.

There would be little that we could do if the activities did not intervene within the scheduled area. Activities are undertaken on agricultural land around monuments all the time. They could impact on someone’s enjoyment or appreciation of the monument, but we cannot intervene.

With respect, what I actually asked you was: if an agricultural trailer was parked next to such a site, or an extremely ugly metal container was put around it, and if there was a notice on it that did not tell the truth about it, that would not be good practice, would it?

That would not be what we would want to see at our own sites.

Thank you.

I was certainly pleased to hear the cabinet secretary acknowledge the importance of the Tinkers’ Heart, and it is clear from her comments that the scheduling of the monument rests fully with Historic Scotland. However, I also noted Barbara Cummins’s comment that scheduling would not achieve the aims of the petition, although I was pleased to hear that there are exceptional circumstances in this case, and it was heartening to hear that the case will be revisited.

There seems to be a degree of intransigence on the part of the landowner, as Mike Russell said. It is unfortunate, to say the least, that she has not been more accommodating. I was struck by Mike Russell’s comments in The National newspaper a few days ago. Mr Russell is here, but I will quote a paragraph from the piece.

I am always delighted to be quoted.

He said:

“The Heart needs the creation of proper access (which would be easy as there is a disused road right next to it which could be made into a small parking area), the installation of sympathetic information boards, upgraded surroundings and proper care.”

The salient point in the paragraph is:

“A progressive landlord would give the small area involved to a trust made up of Travellers and local people and that solution needs to be taken forward.”

If the landowner were to gift or lease the site to allow access for the Travellers and their trust, I believe that that would go a long way to resolving the issue on the ground.

Historic Scotland states in its letter to the committee that financial assistance is available to the owner of the site of the Tinkers’ Heart to care for the site. I presume that that would apply to any trust that was allowed to take over the site. What is the process for applying for those funds, and what sum can be applied for, should the landowner or a trust wish to apply?

How long is a piece of string? It very much depends on the project that comes forward—what it is for, what support it has and what it is trying to achieve. We have funded all sorts of projects by local community bodies for the betterment of monuments, whether that involves improving a monument or its interpretation, or putting in place protective measures around it. We have funded all sorts of things like that and, generally, it does not involve large sums of money to achieve those things.

Let us say that funding was applied for for the formation of a parking area on the disused section of the old road, for example.

I do not know whether we would fund the creation of a car park. Such developments are generally seen as new works that are not necessarily associated with the monument itself. If funds are required to achieve an overall project that includes a car park, it could be part of that wider package.

We have not seen anything come forward for us to respond to. We have various grant funding programmes that can be applied to, but the co-operation of all parties is required. A private landowner must give their permission in order for a grant funding proposal to be successful.

As the cabinet secretary said, perhaps the conversations that will start as a result of our revisiting the case will create a different environment in which different conversations can be had and more co-operation can be fostered.

That would certainly help to move things forward.

Is the cabinet secretary satisfied that sufficient funding is available under the current heritage protections to maintain the listed monuments?

As you all know, we are in challenging financial circumstances. Any support from the petition to increase my budget would be greatly appreciated, but the reality is that we have to manage within the constraints that exist.

One thing that I have been absolutely clear about is that, despite a significant reduction in my budget in recent years—and, as I have one of the smallest budgets, reductions can have an even bigger impact—I have managed to maintain Historic Scotland’s grant spend. That was a very important part of what I wanted to do, because grant spend is spent in local communities. It usually involves local contractors, such as building merchants and others in local areas, and it helps to ensure that skills and training can be maintained in a difficult environment. Within challenging budgets, I have managed to maintain the grant spend that goes to outside organisations, whether through large organisations such as the National Trust or small organisations such as the trusts that Hanzala Malik referred to.

As I said in my opening statement, I would not micromanage when it comes to the awarding of grants. I cannot and should not tell Historic Scotland which projects or trusts to fund, but I can provide the overall pot to allow it to fund particular projects. That has been extremely challenging.

In addition, there are challenges ahead as regards our estates, both those that are cared for by Historic Scotland and those that are not but which need funding and preservation. Our built heritage is at the heart of our tourism industry—people come to Scotland to see what we have. It is very important that we protect that. Any support that I can get for the built environment, either through the petition or from members generally, would be greatly appreciated.

With regard to the overall pot that is provided by the Scottish Government, has any assessment been made of what funds will be needed now and in the future to protect Scotland’s listed monuments?

Gosh—that is the million dollar question. We are assessing what is required across the country. That will be a large amount, because we cannot have health and safety issues. If there are concerns about our properties in that regard, they may need to close, so constant investment is required.

We are also co-operating with others. I mentioned the historic environment forum. In addition, the National Trust has undertaken a review of its properties. The methodology that it used and the lessons that it learned are being shared with Historic Scotland. The work is being done. In addition, I have engaged with the relevant parliamentary committee, the Education and Culture Committee, on the issue.

10:15  

Thank you very much.

I have a salient point to put on record. It is noted in some of the submissions that we received that the Tinkers’ Heart and the old road that was stopped up would have been provided to the current landowner free of charge.

Sorry?

When the old road was stopped up, it was owned by Argyll and Bute Council. It was transferred at that point, free of charge, to the current landowner.

Ah, right.

We would need to double-check this, but it is quite common for the land underneath public roads to remain in the landowner’s ownership. The council uses the land for as long as it is needed and then returns it to the landowner. Therefore, I think that it is true that the road surface and the work that was done to the Tinkers’ Heart were done by the council, but the landowner probably retained ownership of the solum—I think that that is the correct legal term—throughout the period, from beginning to end.

I am sorry to come in again, but there is an issue that I want to get on the record while Ms Cummins and the cabinet secretary are here. In response to an earlier question, Ms Cummins said that she would expect the co-operation of all parties in progressing the matter. The cabinet secretary referred to the need for agreement with the site’s owner.

From the information that we have been provided with, there seems to be some intransigence on the part of the owner to accommodate what the petition is looking for. I know that all the issues that are raised in the petition might not be able to be accommodated because of the damage to the site, but what will happen in the event that the site’s owner is not prepared to co-operate or to work in partnership with the petitioners and the community that they represent? Other than just leaving it to the owner to decide what happens to the site, does Historic Scotland or the Scottish Government have any powers to ensure that it is preserved in the way that the petitioner is looking for? Mike Russell alluded to the site not being presented at its best, so what hope do we have that the site will be preserved in a way that is appropriate for and meets the needs of the Travelling community?

Quite clearly, that would need the co-operation of the landowner. I suggest that the local community and the Travelling community would also need to be involved. That tripartite approach is the way forward.

On what can be done, ultimately, the site could be taken into compulsory ownership. Such an approach would be highly unusual. I asked officials to identify whether that has ever been done by a local authority or by Government and we can identify no precedent for that. That would be a last resort; it has not happened in any other cases. However, as Angus MacDonald indicated, other options are available, such as a trust arrangement or guardianship.

As far as situations involving unco-operative landowners are concerned, there is the proposed land reform bill and the community empowerment legislation. The petition relates to a specific case, which is unique for many reasons and must be treated as such—that is why I welcome Historic Scotland’s decision to revisit it—but there are bigger issues at stake to do with landowners and their relationships with local communities. Those issues will not be resolved by Historic Scotland in a single case, and they will not necessarily be resolved by the petition; they beg bigger questions.

My job is to manage the whole of the historic environment and to work alongside all the good practice on the part of all the landowners. I would not want to compromise my relationship with them by doing something in one case that might jeopardise that fruitful and productive relationship that we are building with the wider sector.

I want to point out to the committee that a trust has been established by the Travellers in Scotland, who have shown great willingness to work with the Here We Are team, which has a great association with Mrs Howe and her family and is keen to work with the community. There is a vehicle that is available to undertake this task. If the committee encouraged that, it would be playing a helpful role. Similarly, if Historic Scotland encouraged the landowner to be more co-operative, that would be helpful, too. I know that RCAHMS met the landowner, but I do not think that Historic Scotland has done so yet. It would be useful if it did so and tried its charms on them.

As there are no further questions, I ask the committee to decide what action it wishes to take on the petition. Members have a note from the clerk that sets out a possible course of action. Do colleagues have any views?

It would be good if we could get a paper from the clerks that covered everything that has been discussed today.

I would be keen to keep the petition open until the issue has been revisited by Historic Scotland and we find out what the outcome of that is. I believe that Barbara Cummins mentioned that that would happen in three to six months’ time. I pick up on the cabinet secretary’s suggestion that the committee should feed into the consultation. Perhaps we should also write to the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee to highlight the issue in advance of the land reform bill going through the parliamentary process.

Would the committee be prepared to write to the landowner to encourage co-operation? I think that a little bit of gentle persuasion, along with a copy of the cabinet secretary’s evidence, might help the landowner to understand that it is highly unusual for a landowner to say that they considered that enough had been done to ensure that everyone who wanted to visit a site could do so and to understand the difficulties around that. If Historic Scotland were also to do that, that would be a two-pronged attack.

I am interested in Historic Scotland’s comments about legal recourse to protect sites in Scotland. We want to ensure that, if all other efforts fail, there is some sort of legal recourse for the protection of sites. Some recommendations in that area would be helpful. People can sometimes damage sites without realising. We have to give people an opportunity to redress that.

I would be surprised if owners of heritage sites did not want to maintain them, because the sites are probably just as important to them as they are to anyone else. We need to work hand in glove with people but, if all other reasonable efforts fail, there might be a need for legal recourse to protect Scottish heritage.

Do members agree with the proposal that has been put forward? Do we agree that we want to write to the owner?

Members indicated agreement.

I thank the cabinet secretary and Barbara Cummins for attending.

I suspend the meeting for a couple of minutes.

10:24 Meeting suspended.  

10:25 On resuming—