Education, Culture and Sport Committee, 06 Sep 2000

Meeting date: Wednesday, September 6, 2000

Official Report 245KB pdf

---

Roman Remains (Cramond)

Item six on the agenda brings us back to Brian Monteith's report on Cramond, which was our first report by an individual committee member. I welcome yet again to the committee Mr R H Guild, who was the initial petitioner.

We now have a response from City of Edinburgh Council, which is what we asked for. As the council is the main landholder in the area, it has an important part to play and it has made several recommendations about progressing the issue further. I ask Brian Monteith to comment and will then take any questions or comments from committee members.

Unfortunately, I was unable to attend the meeting at which you last discussed the Executive's response. I will comment on that before I say anything about the council's response.

The Executive's response struck me as having been written after reading only the report's recommendations, not its basis. It seemed odd that my report had already said much of what was contained in that response. For example, although the response says that it is quite clear that Historic Scotland is not a landowner, that point had already been made in the report. I could go on ad infinitum; however, I am aware of the time and will simply say that the response seemed rather odd.

That said, I am somewhat cheered up by City of Edinburgh Council's response. It seems to have taken on board not just the recommendations but much of the evidence that I laid before the committee. For example, the council now seems willing to do something about signage. More important, its second recommendation makes it clear that the council will be happy to take part in a meeting as described. I am pleased with that development, given that Historic Scotland does not feel able to act as a catalyst for bringing everyone together.

I should add that there was difficulty even in ascertaining who is within the scheduled monument area, because Historic Scotland is not legally entitled to have to tell us. That was why I suggested that Historic Scotland act as a catalyst for the meeting. The organisation had shown its willingness to help and my request seemed reasonable at the time. I am glad that City of Edinburgh Council has taken the initiative and hope and expect that Historic Scotland will give the council every help with the meeting.

I will not comment on all the council's recommendations, but I am pleased that it has left open the door to any possible transfer of land. I wanted to float the idea in the report simply because it struck me that were Historic Scotland to become even a small landowner through the transfer of land from the council, that might lead to greater involvement and more funding from the organisation. I am pleased that City of Edinburgh Council has not closed the door on it. One might have thought that pride could have got in the road.

I could go on at length about a number of points regarding planning and the amenities surrounding Cramond. People are aware of the response we have had from Ron Guild, who is with us today. His comments are a useful appendix to the City of Edinburgh Council report. Now that we have some movement and the initial management meeting is to take place, we should keep a watchful eye. When the meeting takes place, I would be happy to act as reporter and to attend on behalf of the committee and bring information back.

That is an offer I am sure we are all happy for you to follow up.

It would save Cathy Peattie doing it.

Yes.

That is a sensible suggestion. The Executive response is a dismal document. I can only assume that it has been written by a civil servant with no help from anybody with any nous about public relations and who did not have a positive attitude even before the petition came before this committee and others.

Essentially, the Executive's response says that, as far as it is concerned, anything can happen to what are probably the most valuable Roman remains in Scotland, because it is nothing to do with the Executive and it might have to adjudicate in any future appeal. That is irresponsible and stupid. The City of Edinburgh Council response is much more positive.

The one area where there is room for movement is, as Brian Monteith has indicated, the transfer of a small amount of land to Historic Scotland, thereby unlocking its involvement in a meaningful and legal way, rather than in the way that is beginning to be edged towards. I am glad that Historic Scotland will attend the meeting. It is inconceivable that we do not find a way to involve Historic Scotland in developing the preservation of this important site. Historic Scotland must be involved, but the policy from its political masters seems to be to stand aside while dangerous developments take place.

In that context, I feel I must say that Sarah Boyack's decision to allow four-by-four road usage of Dere Street is another example of how Roman remains appear not to be valued under the current policy, which is a very stupid policy to have. Roman remains are not rare in Scotland, but they are easy to destroy. It seems that at one important site we have Executive unwillingness to take action, while at another we have action that may positively damage Roman remains. I have had representations from the Antonine Guard, which is a group of people who dress up as Romans and go about trying to preserve things Roman. It is preparing itself for warfare. Given that the members have sharp swords, the Executive had better watch out and start to do some work.

I endorse Brian Monteith's suggestion. We should keep our eye on the matter.

Let us hope that the Antonine Guard does not make the usual mistake of mixing up the Executive with the rest of us.

It knows who is responsible.

I am sure Brian Monteith will take on board your point about trying to involve Historic Scotland. Brian will report back to us if there is anything else with which we can assist.

I thank all of those involved in this matter for getting us to this stage.