St Andrews
The final item of business is a members' business debate on motion S2M-4344, in the name of Ted Brocklebank, on world heritage site status for St Andrews. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament supports a campaign to encourage the UK Government to obtain from UNESCO World Heritage Site status for St Andrews; recognises that St Andrews is the home of golf, the world's fastest-growing sport; further recognises that it is also the historic ecclesiastical capital of Scotland; believes that its cultural and educational contributions, in particular those of Scotland's oldest university, should be formally acknowledged; notes that St Andrews is regarded worldwide as unique, not only for its medieval town centre but also for its captivating and award-winning natural features; considers that the Scottish Executive should support St Andrews as an outstanding Scottish candidate for the UK Tentative List, and further notes that a consultation with every household in St Andrews showed 99% support for this move, as well as support from St Andrews Community Council, the University of St Andrews, the Royal and Ancient Golf Club of St Andrews, the St Andrews Links Trust, St Andrews Preservation Trust, Scottish Enterprise Fife, the St Andrews Green Belt Forum, Action of Churches Together in St Andrews and cross-party political support from distinguished St Andrews graduates, including Lord Alton, Lord Forsyth, Mark Lazarowicz MP, Alex Salmond MP and many others.
I welcome those visitors in the gallery who are from St Andrews and elsewhere in north-east Fife, who have travelled from those parts to attend the debate.
Members will know that I could bore for Scotland about St Andrews. Indeed, in the three years for which I have been in the Parliament, only Jamie Stone's shameless promotion of the cheese of Tain has provoked more groans from members than the praise that I have lavished on my native city. However, it is surely true that St Andrews is one of Scotland's places set apart. In 1975, the historian Ronald Cant, who was alarmed at overdevelopment, wrote:
"St Andrews has only one serious rival among the historic towns of Scotland, and that is Edinburgh."
He warned that
"It would be a tragedy if St Andrews loses the character that makes it unique among Scottish towns, and exceptional even in comparison with all the other historic cities of Europe."
In launching the campaign to secure world heritage site status for St Andrews, I have tried hard to be objective about the town. As some members will know, Scotland has only four world heritage sites: the old and new towns of Edinburgh, which were awarded that status in 1996 and about which Prince Charles talked yesterday; the archaeological heart of Orkney; St Kilda off the west coast of Scotland; and New Lanark, which commemorates Scotland's industrial past.
Can we really talk about St Andrews in the same breath as the Taj Mahal, the old city of Jerusalem or the great wall of China? Is it in the same class as places in the United Kingdom such as the Roman city of Bath or the famous botanic gardens at Kew? Those are all world heritage sites. The closest comparison with St Andrews might be Durham, the cathedral and castle of which were granted world heritage status in 1986. Like St Andrews, Durham is a beautiful and ancient university city, but I submit that St Andrews has even more to offer.
Historically, St Andrews was the cradle of the nation that is called Scotland; its ancient resonance with the patron saint Andrew provides its very name. When the present capital, Edinburgh, was still a rickle of mud huts around a swamp under an extinct volcano, St Andrews was already the ecclesiastical capital of Scotland. The city's castle and cathedral formed the backdrop to some of the bloodiest episodes of the reformation, and its university, which was founded in 1411, is the oldest in Scotland. If we add to that its mix of award-winning beaches, which fringe Scotland's best-preserved walled, medieval city, we find that St Andrews already appears to satisfy the extremely high criteria that must be met to obtain world heritage site status.
However, the international importance of St Andrews lies in its undisputed title as the world's home of golf. Golf is the world's fastest growing sport and a multimillion pound business. St Andrews is the home not only of the world's most famous golf course—the Old course—but of the body that regulates the sport in every corner of the globe, except the United States of America. I understand that UNESCO, the body that is responsible for awarding world heritage site status, places increasing importance on the role of sport in its candidate selection.
St Andrews is under massive development pressure. It is understandable that the town's attractions have led to many more people wanting to live, or to site developments, there. Only this week, proposals for the building of a further 850 houses have been outlined. That comes on top of many other schemes for houses, timeshares, hotels and country clubs. There is a very great danger that the qualities that set St Andrews apart could be destroyed by competing development pressures.
It is true that world heritage site status brings no statutory planning obligations, but it is also true that it would be absurd for planners in Orkney or the designated parts of Edinburgh to promote developments that would cause UNESCO to remove that status. The right to remove the much sought-after world heritage site status is the only regulatory power that UNESCO retains, and I think that that is what Prince Charles was warning Edinburgh about in the speech that he made yesterday.
We are definitely not talking about a St Andrews that would be preserved in aspic, as it were, or straitjacketed by heritage status. The town would, I hope, continue to grow organically and appropriately. Since the campaign is for St Andrews to be granted the status in its historic medieval setting, it is to be hoped that any unsightly or inappropriate development that might mar that setting would not receive planning approval from Fife Council. To that extent, as in Edinburgh, heritage status would be an important tool to assist in the town's conservation and preservation.
So, where do we go from here? First, we need to form a prospective St Andrews world heritage foundation. That should involve bodies such as the community council, the university, the St Andrews Links Trust and the St Andrews Preservation Trust. All those bodies have been consulted and it is hoped that they might be persuaded to work together, through a steering group, to agree basic principles of public access and preservation. A number of prominent St Andreans have already indicated that they would be happy to serve on such a steering committee.
Ultimately, the bid would have to be driven by Fife Council in conjunction with Historic Scotland, and a management plan would require to be drawn up to be presented to the Scottish Executive, which is responsible for putting forward Scottish sites for the United Kingdom tentative list. Due to an increasing number of applications for heritage status, signatory nations have been restricted to making one application a year. I understand that there are around 25 sites on the UK tentative list, so getting on to the list will be far from easy, even for an outstanding candidate such as St Andrews. Nevertheless, I believe that that is well worth working towards.
Once St Andrews is on the list, it could take as long as five to 10 years to achieve heritage status. However, with the support of all who are involved at local and national levels, and with the blessing and drive of Historic Scotland and Fife Council as well as, I hope, the support of the minister, who will respond to the debate, world heritage site status is not only desirable for St Andrews, but genuinely attainable. I have much pleasure in commending the motion in my name.
I thank Ted Brocklebank for lodging the motion that we are debating. I may have to leave a little early, for which I apologise.
St Andrews is a remarkable and unique town, being at once the historical and the contemporary home of golf as well as having an ancient seat of learning embedded into the very fabric of the town. It is also a former ecclesiastical capital. It is interesting to note that none of the designated UK heritage sites is a site of historical academic importance, such as Oxford, although we know that that city is currently investigating a bid. So, although it would be a welcome first for St Andrews to get the accolade, it is clear that the bid would have to be competitive and, in order to impress UNESCO, would need to stress the uniqueness of the town through its twin links to academia and golf.
Some serious pulling together of partners will be required to form a St Andrews world heritage foundation and to progress things, as Ted Brocklebank outlined, to the point at which a management plan can be submitted to UNESCO with widespread backing from the town. I congratulate Ted Brocklebank on his work to start the ball rolling, but it will take a sustained, long-term effort from the civic community, with cross-party political support, to make that happen.
I am sure that St Andrews and much of north-east Fife would benefit from the increased visitor numbers that would result from its world heritage site status. However, to make that growth sustainable, we need a vision for the area that is not based on east Fife turning into a big dormitory town with no services except for growing carbuncles such as the St Andrews Bay hotel. In other words, it has to be a vision that is not based on the Fife Council draft structure plan.
Critically, the issue of how people arrive at and depart from the town needs to be addressed. The sensitive reinstatement of the rail route needs to be progressed alongside, not instead of, the reinstatement of links to Leven. Serious consideration also needs to be given to the issue of traffic management, including the possible pedestrianisation of key town centre areas.
One of the outstanding features of many of the world heritage sites that I have visited is visitors' ability to step back and enjoy the experience in a traffic-calmed environment. The Hanseatic wharves of Bergen, for example, combine successfully a busy port thoroughfare with a magical walking experience, especially at night. St Andrews needs an environment that strikes that balance between a working town and an attractive heritage site that can be negotiated by large numbers of visitors on foot, with excellent interpretation and associated commercial opportunities.
I wish the civic groups of St Andrews—representatives of many of which have come to Parliament tonight—well in forming partnerships to push along a bid, and I offer my support to that end. However, to deliver world heritage site status for St Andrews, we must resolve issues about the long-term sustainability of the town and work to enhance the features that make it a unique and vital part of the world's heritage.
I thank Ted Brocklebank for bringing the motion before Parliament, and I truly congratulate him on the motion and on the debate.
Where would one find a town with one of the oldest universities in Europe, a cradle of Christianity and of our own nation of Scotland, and the home of golf? If only one of those three elements were present, St Andrews would be a very special place indeed. The fact that all three elements are in place makes St Andrews unique. That is why I am happy to support the call to obtain UNESCO world heritage site status for St Andrews, or at least for part of it.
I agree that there are parts of St Andrews that should be preserved and protected, and they would have a better chance of being preserved and protected if UNESCO world heritage site status were to be granted. However, St Andrews is a living and working town too, and if we want our businesses, hotels and restaurants to be staffed, our golf courses to be manicured and the visitor services to be in place, we must ensure that there are places for people to live.
I do not think that there should be unfettered development, but nor do I believe that world heritage site status should be granted to St Andrews and all its environs to the exclusion of any other development, because that would be the death knell for St Andrews. If St Andrews has prospered over the years, it has prospered because of the people who inhabit the town. If one looks at the range of organisations that are committed to securing world heritage site status for St Andrews, one sees that they are made up of people who live in and contribute to the town, and we must ensure that the next generation has an opportunity to do the same for the town. Although I support the medieval part of St Andrews having world heritage site status, and although I also support the protection of the wonderful links, I do not believe that the whole of St Andrews and all its borders should be preserved in aspic. Ted Brocklebank said that, too.
I call on the Executive and on Fife Council to back the proposals, as outlined in Ted Brocklebank's speech, which I thought was extremely measured and which addressed some of the points that concern me. Attaining world heritage site status will not happen quickly, but while the application is being processed the infrastructure surrounding St Andrews must be put in place. I am thinking, in particular, of transport infrastructure. When the open golf championship is being held in St Andrews, it is almost impossible for people to find their way through the town. The only people who are lucky are the ones who can afford to bring their private planes into Leuchars. The Ministry of Defence is quite happy to take private business into Leuchars to ferry the elite into St Andrews itself, but the rest of us who are in cars, vans, lorries and buses find it extremely difficult to find our way along the roads. That is not to say that I do not support the reinstatement of the railway—I do—but we desperately need adequate road links to and from St Andrews. While the proposals for the world heritage site are being processed, the Scottish Executive and Fife Council will have the opportunity to consider what is needed in St Andrews to ensure that the volume of visitors to the town can be delivered there safely, have a wonderful time and leave again.
I congratulate Ted Brocklebank on securing the debate.
I welcome the opportunity to extol the virtues of my constituency for the second time this week in the Scottish Parliament.
There is no doubt that St Andrews boasts many unique attractions. As Ted Brocklebank pointed out, it was for centuries the ecclesiastical centre of Scotland. Ted also mentioned that it was at the centre of some of the bloodiest events of the reformation. Its cathedral, which is now sadly in ruins, was a magnificent architectural achievement of its time, although I sometimes wonder what the views of the planning committee of St Andrews community council or St Andrews Preservation Trust would have been had they been around when it was being built. However, in keeping with the canny nature of us Fifers, as well as our commendable record for recycling, much of that magnificent building now makes up the walls of the houses of North Street, South Street and Market Street.
St Andrews is, of course, the home of the oldest university in Scotland; the university is now nearly seven centuries old. St Andrews is internationally recognised as the home of golf. The Old course is one of the most famous sporting venues in the world and it is just one of the many golf courses on the links, which are protected by an act of Parliament as
"a place of public resort and recreation".
As St Andrews has not one but two blue flag beaches—including the magnificent west sands, which featured in the film "Chariots of Fire"—a medieval harbour and the nature reserve of the Eden estuary, there is no doubt that it can stake a realistic claim as a world-class destination.
However, I have some concerns about Ted Brocklebank's motion. I do not doubt Ted's commitment to achieving world heritage status for St Andrews, but I question whether now is the time for this debate and I fear that the wording of the motion severely overstates the current level of support in the town for the proposal. For example, the chairman of St Andrews community council has made it clear that, although the community council has agreed to participate in the steering group, it understands that the purpose of the group is to study the proposal and its viability further. The chairman stated:
"I understand that the steering group has not yet met. While the conclusion of the steering committee and of the community council may well be fully supportive, I think it sends the wrong message to assume this prematurely."
It is important to bear it in mind that many groups are participating in the steering group to test the viability of the proposal, rather than because they are committed to giving it their full support.
I am afraid that I also have to question the validity of Mr Brocklebank's survey of households, which is mentioned in the motion. By overstating the level of support for the proposal at this stage, he may be in danger of alienating some of the very people in St Andrews whose support is essential if a bid is to be successful.
As Iain Smith knows, members' business debates are meant to be consensual. I will not respond individually to the various charges that he makes, but I assure him that the survey that we sent out to every household in St Andrews produced the percentage response that I have indicated. I take some exception to his doubting that fact.
I continue to have that doubt. Constituents who have contacted me have expressed doubt about the survey and whether it reached people. The volume of the response is the issue rather than the percentage of those who supported the proposal.
It is important that, as the local member, I state my concerns about the proposal. If the bid goes ahead, it must be done in the right way. That is what I am trying to ensure in my speech today.
My view, which I think is shared by others such as the community council, is that the debate is premature. It would have been better to have allowed the steering group to have met first and conducted its preliminary investigations before the matter was brought to the chamber for a debate.
It is not simple and straightforward to obtain world heritage status. Before a decision is taken to prepare a bid, the residents of St Andrews need to be clear about the advantages and disadvantages of the town becoming a world heritage site, so that they can make an informed decision on whether to support a bid.
We must be realistic about the chances of success. There are four world heritage sites in Scotland and a further three are on the UK tentative list. Before it can be nominated for world heritage site status, St Andrews would have to be added to the UK tentative list. At present, 18 sites are on the UK tentative list and only one site can be nominated each year to the world heritage committee. The committee has made it clear that priority will be given to nominations from states that currently have no properties on the list, then from unrepresented or underrepresented categories. I add that 1,325 sites are on the worldwide tentative list and that last year only 25 of those were granted world heritage status. Even if a bid is submitted, it may be many years—perhaps decades—before St Andrews is nominated for and granted world heritage status. That indicates the problems that may arise.
I appreciate that not everyone may be completely behind the proposal at the moment, but the idea is a good one. The proposal has great merit and it needs to be driven forward. Surely Iain Smith is not suggesting that, because there are 18 sites on the UK tentative list or 1,325 throughout the world, we should sit back and wait until all those sites are dealt with before we go forward with St Andrews.
I am not suggesting that; I am merely trying to introduce a tone of realism into the debate. Irrespective of the support that the Parliament may or may not give to the proposal, the process will be lengthy. If it takes many years, even decades, before St Andrews is granted world heritage status, there is the issue of what happens to the intended site—for example, to the medieval town centre or the links—in the intervening years.
The UK Minister for Culture, David Lammy, has indicated that he is currently consulting the devolved Administrations on the drawing up of the criteria for assessing the potential future sites that would form the UK's revised tentative list. It would be helpful if, in her winding-up speech, the minister could provide information on the likely timescale for that review.
There are other more pressing priorities for St Andrews at present such as the need for a new school at Madras college and a new hospital. However, I wish the St Andrews world heritage site steering group well in its investigations. I assure the group that I stand ready to provide whatever assistance I can when the time is right.
I congratulate Ted Brocklebank on securing the debate this evening. I also congratulate members on their contributions.
Today has been a very interesting day for me, with some wonderful coincidences occurring. This morning, I had the pleasure of taking part in the opening of the new Scottish Storytelling Centre on the High Street, which is a wonderful example of innovative, modern architectural design that complements the older buildings in its setting. This afternoon, I took part in the debate on architecture and I am now taking part in a debate on the possibility of St Andrews being inscribed as a world heritage site. This evening, I will address the delegates to a conference of world heritage site leaders at Edinburgh Castle. Today is a rather strange but wonderful day for me.
I agree with many of the statements that have been made in the debate about the historic and cultural importance of St Andrews and about its attractiveness as a city. It could be argued that St Andrews is the most important of the smaller historic burghs, having been the centre of the pre-reformation church in Scotland and, as a consequence, the setting of our first university. The town is said to be the resting place of some relics of St Andrew, which caused it to become a centre of pilgrimage and led to the adoption of St Andrew as Scotland's patron saint.
As members said, St Andrews is universally known as the home of golf. It also enjoys an enviable landscape and coastal setting that, notwithstanding significant expansion in the 19th century and, in particular, the 20th century, remains an identifiably medieval university town in scale. The combination of those factors together with the survival of the medieval town plan and the significant intact and ruinous remains contributes to the town's national and international importance. The remains of the cathedral and associated Augustinian priory together with a substantial part of the wider precinct and a number of outlying buildings are in the care of Historic Scotland on behalf of Scottish ministers, as is St Andrews Castle. St Andrews would seem to have a good case for world heritage status.
However, a number of other sites across Scotland are considering whether world heritage listing is possible and a few of those are working actively towards nomination for inclusion on the UK tentative list. Although I have no problem in giving support in principle to the idea that the community in St Andrews should work towards consideration of such a status, it would be unfair to the other sites if the Executive were actively to support one site over any other at this point.
It is also important for us to consider the implications of world heritage status inscription. The granting of world heritage site means that a site is recognised as being of universal significance and international value. It is a great honour, which brings many benefits but also great responsibility. Because world heritage status recognises the highest importance of sites at an international level, the criteria that any site has to demonstrate are stringent. In addition, comparisons have to be made internationally with other similar sites across the world. The tests are not easy to meet.
Those tough requirements mean that a great deal of preparation needs to be done before a site can be considered for inclusion on the UK tentative list, never mind put forward to the world heritage committee for consideration for inscription. The work to secure the support of all stakeholders and to prepare the required nomination documents and management plan is not inconsiderable—I understand that Ted Brocklebank understands that.
Should a nomination be successful, the accolade brings many obligations to protect and manage the site to ensure the long-term future of the important qualities that have been recognised. It is important that that is considered as we move forward. Those who are involved in the site's management and those who own it have a responsibility to protect and enhance it so that it can continue to be appreciated by all, as befits a site that, in effect, belongs to the international community. That is not always easy, and world heritage cities throughout the UK and in other countries are constantly challenged by development proposals that may not sit comfortably with world heritage listing.
Although the care of Scotland's historic environment is a devolved issue, the nomination of bodies for inscription to the world heritage committee is reserved to the Department of Culture, Media and Sport as state party for the whole of the United Kingdom. However, as members know, the Scottish ministers, advised by Historic Scotland, propose Scottish sites for inclusion on the tentative list. As Iain Smith identified, there is a commitment to review that list over the next few years. We, along with the other devolved Administrations, will be part of the review and will be able to influence it. The terms of the review have not yet been agreed, and it would be wrong for me to comment on the relative merits of possible sites before all interested parties have had a chance to make their case as part of the review process.
It should be remembered that, even if a site is included on the tentative list, world heritage status is by no means guaranteed. Only one site from the UK is considered per year and the final decision is made by the world heritage committee, which is keen to ensure that the nominated sites are from underrepresented areas and types. Iain Smith was also right to make that point.
I am very proud of our four world heritage sites—I am sure that we all are—and hopeful that, in due course, further ones will be added to the list. I welcome the support that the Parliament has shown for the recognition and continued protection of the historic environment in Scotland. I do not want to put too much of a damper on proceedings, but it is only fair to point out the many hurdles and pitfalls that there may be along the way. I acknowledge the work that has been done so far and look forward to further discussions in the years ahead—to be frank, I think that it will be years—with Ted Brocklebank and others who have an interest in the project. I wish them well with the work that they are undertaking.
Meeting closed at 17:38.