Historic Environment
The next item of business is a debate on motion S2M-1033, in the name of Frank McAveety, on the historic environment as a valuable resource for Scotland, and two amendments to the motion.
Scotland's heritage: what is it? It is the broad panoply of our inherited and contemporary culture, which the First Minister, in his St Andrew's day speech, described as Scotland's great gift to the world. Our historic environment—with its rich heritage of historic buildings, conservation areas, monuments, archaeology, gardens and landscapes—is a major part of our diverse cultural life at national and local level. In 1963, President John F Kennedy said:
"I look forward to an America which will not be afraid of grace and beauty, … which will preserve the great old American houses and squares and parks of our national past and which will build handsome and balanced cities for our future."
I share that aspiration for our country.
Our built environment and built heritage is a fantastic resource. It is our common inheritance and it should be our vision that it can and must be conserved for its own sake and for future generations. We are the custodians of what we have at present for those who should benefit from it in the future.
This is about quality of place, and the places where we grow up have an influence on our development. The built heritage shapes communities, giving people a sense of place and identity. It helps people to know who they are and where they have come from, and it is no exaggeration to say that the historic environment is crucial to the health of the nation.
Scotland is unique in having four world heritage sites that are recognised by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation as having universal cultural value to mankind. Today, we speak in the very heart of one. We have nearly 8,000 scheduled monuments, 46,000 listed buildings and 600 conservation areas. They range from historic burghs and town centres throughout the country to city centres in our large conurbations, and we have an archaeological resource that is second to none for its range and quality. For example, in Orkney, we have in the care of Scottish ministers the earliest visible stone-built houses in Europe, and our proposed nomination of the Antonine wall as a world heritage site reminds us of Scotland's links to the rest of the world.
I move on to cultural tourism. I note that there are occasional folk singers in the chamber this afternoon—as long as they do not burst into song, we should be fine. Our rich historic environment is the principal reason why people come to Scotland. People do not always come here for the weather; they come for the brochs and castles, the historic houses and burghs, the standing stones and the work of world-renowned architects such as Charles Rennie Mackintosh, Robert Adam and Alexander "Greek" Thomson. As I said earlier, 83 per cent of visitors from abroad visit a historic site during their stay in Scotland.
Some of those sites are critical. For example, Skara Brae and Edinburgh Castle are cared for by Historic Scotland on behalf of the Scottish ministers and the Scottish Executive. Others are in the care of the National Trust for Scotland or in the hands of local authorities, voluntary trusts or private individuals. We each have a responsibility to deal with those organisations or individuals.
Given what the minister has just said, has the Executive any proposals to conserve and preserve Castle Tioram in Moidart, which Graeme Munro described a couple of years ago as one of Scotland's truly iconic buildings?
We have already held discussions on that matter. Obviously, a number of planning issues relate to the site that the member has mentioned and some of the discussions with the individuals concerned and Historic Scotland are sensitive. As a result, I will refrain from saying anything specific on the matter, other than to point out that we seek a recognition that any developments respect the historic importance of buildings. In some cases, a balance must be struck between the building's present condition and its potential. Much of this debate centres on making difficult but important decisions about the buildings that we can improve, the investments that can be made and the buildings that might need to be preserved as they stand. Such debates are very sensitive, but I assure the chamber that a number of members have raised this specific matter with me. Indeed, I am due to meet several Highlands and Islands members to discuss it.
Heritage-led economic regeneration and development are important. For example, half of all the expenditure in the construction industry—£1.5 billion—is spent on the conservation, repair and maintenance of our historic buildings, monuments and townscapes. Since 1991, we have spent more than £100 million in Historic Scotland grants to support the regeneration of old buildings, giving them new life and purpose. That investment has levered in an additional £200 million to support professional and craft skills in the construction industry. The role of the heritage lottery fund has also been critical in that respect.
For this debate, I made a point of looking at the importance of the historic environment in my constituency. Very often, press coverage of the east end of Glasgow concentrates on negative aspects of the community's life and health. However, we have made a commitment to develop Parkhead Cross; that development will begin very soon and the heritage lottery fund will make a substantial contribution to that part of Glasgow for the first time ever.
I should also mention the development of Glasgow green and of the St Francis centre, which features the sensitive restoration of a very beautiful church by Page and Park Architects. A range of innovative ideas and developments are drawing money from Historic Scotland, the heritage lottery fund, local authorities and other sources to ensure that heritage plays a part in economic regeneration. Indeed, there are many other examples of such developments throughout Scotland.
We must also ensure that a sustainable development theme runs through everything we do with regard to our heritage. It is important that our investment is not wasted and we must acknowledge that such opportunities must be sustained for future generations. Although Historic Scotland's role in carrying out ministers' responsibilities will not always be popular, I should point out that sustainable development is one of our key themes.
Does the minister agree that one of the very important aspects of restoring historic buildings such as the Tolbooth in Stirling is not to forget the community that lives around them and to ensure that people are able to use them as much as possible? As he pointed out, it is important to consider economic aspects, social needs and the development of cultural, musical and other skills. Indeed, the minister himself tried out such skills at the Tolbooth.
And the CD will be available shortly.
I was about to talk about our role in developing opportunities to ensure that our heritage is available to as many people as possible. Indeed, the example that Dr Jackson mentioned provides a very good illustration of how young people's needs—in this case, in Stirling—are being addressed in a contemporary interpretation of a very traditional building that puts together the old and the new. The Tolbooth in Stirling provides a very powerful example of how great architecture and design can have a wider use in that area and in the rest of central Scotland.
I have only a few minutes left—if I am lucky—in which to make my concluding points. However, partnership is the next key issue and the role of local authorities is critical within that. A key theme for the Historic Environment Advisory Council for Scotland in considering the role of local authorities and Historic Scotland is to push forward good partnerships. I have discussed that with the council. Where good partnership has occurred, it has made a difference, so we must ensure that the partners get round the table.
Will the minister take an intervention?
I do not know whether I have time to do so.
The minister is in his final few minutes.
We recently published the review of Historic Scotland. I believe that that review, along with personnel changes in the near future, will drive forward a different way of Historic Scotland operating on our behalf. I am convinced that the skills and potential within that organisation and within other relevant agencies will sustain the historic environment in Scotland in the future. I hope that we can defend and maintain that environment.
The Executive is happy to accept Jamie McGrigor's amendment. Unfortunately, we reject Roseanna Cunningham's amendment.
I move,
That the Parliament recognises that Scotland's rich heritage of historic buildings, conservation areas, monuments, archaeology, gardens and landscapes makes an important contribution to the cultural, economic and social well-being of contemporary Scotland.
I was absolutely with the minister right up to his final phrase. I could not have agreed more with everything he said before that. However, my problem is that I do not know what he is trying to achieve by the debate. If he does not have something specific to say about the historic environment, why are we having the debate? The purpose of my amendment is to try to say something specific about the historic environment. I hoped to hear something meaty in the minister's speech, but we got only an expansion of a vague and anodyne motion. I will support that motion, but I believe that we should also be talking about the present and the future of our historic environment.
It is important that we recognise the work that is being done to ensure that our archaeological sites, historic buildings, gardens and monuments are protected, conserved and promoted as visitor attractions. Once visitors have been attracted, it is important to provide appropriate interpretations to enable them to maximise their experience. Many organisations are involved in that process, as are individuals, many of whom are volunteers. Those volunteers are the unsung heroes without whom much of our historic environment would not be what it is today and would not be getting presented to tourists from Scotland and elsewhere.
The volunteers cannot achieve miracles, so it would be wrong to pretend that huge improvements cannot be made and that there are no overgrown paths, missing signs or crumbling buildings. At present, 1,161 buildings are registered as being at risk. As far as we know, 208 historic buildings, which were mostly listed, have been demolished since 1990. Public funding of the Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Scotland has fallen in real terms by about 35 per cent since 1990. In addition, Historic Scotland's budget allocation for rescue archaeology has fallen by about 33 per cent since 1994. Currently, there is no national statutory designation mechanism for protecting and managing cultural landscapes, such as battlefields, and no effective protection for gardens and designed landscapes. Given Scotland's history, battlefields in particular are a substantial and significant part of the historic environment and are, indeed, what tourists are interested in. Therefore, there are big gaps and big problems.
There is a real concern that a chronic under-resourcing of historic environment interests at local government level leads to ill-informed development-control decisions and wastes opportunities for enhancing local community and tourist interest. If the minister contends that sufficient resources are available, he must explain why we are in our current situation.
The distribution of funding is also a matter of concern. I have a relevant example from my constituency. I was concerned to learn from the Perth and Kinross Heritage Trust that Aberdeen, Dundee, Inverness and Stirling are to share in an annual £1 million scheme to set up four city heritage trusts, although Perth and Kinross, which has some 3,450 listed buildings and 33 conservation areas, was awarded only £5,532 in historic building grants by Historic Scotland in 2002-03. Dundee, which has 1,000 listed buildings and 16 conservation areas, is in line to get a great windfall, while Perth and Kinross—which has three times the number of equivalent sites—will get a pittance.
I have no doubt that that situation is replicated throughout Scotland, but how can it be justified? Surely we are not saying that the historic environment is more important in one area than it is in another. The issue is not about saying that Aberdeen, Dundee, Inverness and Stirling deserve less—of course they do not—but there is a serious question about the Executive's commitment to the historic environment throughout Scotland; I presume that today's debate is about the whole of Scotland.
I was glad to hear the minister's comments on the Antonine wall, about which I have written to him recently but, in parts, its state of repair is extremely poor. That is the kind of issue that we should be addressing. Historic Scotland is putting together a case for the wall to be granted world heritage status and, given that it is a physical reminder of an extremely important period in Scottish, European and world history, that case will be strong. I make a plea for the inclusion in that proposal of the Gask ridge in my constituency. Although it is not part of the Antonine wall, it is the site of what was the oldest and northernmost linear defence system in the entire Roman empire and is therefore of real significance.
We need a review, not of Historic Scotland the organisation, but of Scotland's historic environment. We need processes that ensure that the information is updated regularly. Does the minister intend to implement the recommendations that were made in the relatively recent report "Review of the Structure and Functions of Historic Scotland", or will he lend his support to the joint initiative between Scottish Environment LINK and the Built Environment Forum Scotland that will report in May, about which he has said nothing?
If we want to send out a message to all those people who are involved in the historic environment in Scotland today that we recognise the difficulties that they face and want to assist them in their important work, we should agree to a motion that does more than state the obvious.
That is why I move amendment S2M-1033.2, to insert at end:
"; regrets that, notwithstanding the work done by individuals and organisations, there remain serious concerns about (a) a lack of both resources and information and (b) the failure to sufficiently protect, conserve, interpret and promote Scotland's historic environment and endorses the call for a review of the historic environment backed up by a regular audit to measure progress."
In this country, we have priceless historical assets and the rest of the world simply cannot understand why we do so little with them. There seems to be a mindset against advertising our historic and colourful past and a presumption in favour of getting away from an image of castles, tartan and thistles. I am certainly not against the modern image, even if it is depicted by Russian catwalk models; all that I am saying is that, in Scotland, we must make the most of both facets—the old and the new. Anyone in advertising would tell us that it is a mistake to try to change people's mindset; it is much cleverer to go with the flow and embellish it.
Many members of the Scottish diaspora come here to seek their roots. They love their tartans and they seek their history. Scotland is the capital and the Mecca of tartan, so it is surely time that we had a proper national register of tartans in Scotland. I ask the minister to think about that.
Young Scots should be taught about their history so that they can be proud of it. We have an extraordinary legacy of historic buildings and sites, which date back to pre-Neolithic times—5,000 years' worth of artefacts and sites, all of which can be explored. We must use our imagination to capitalise on that history, because there is a demand for it worldwide.
Some parts of the country, such as Orkney, already do that well, but I want to highlight the excellence of the historical museum at Kilmartin in Argyll, which has done so much to interpret the lives and times of the inhabitants of early Scotland around Dunadd and the Kilmartin valley, where the kings of Dalriada, the original Scots, were crowned. Unfortunately, that award-winning museum faces closure through lack of funding. That would be a disaster for the community and it should not be allowed to happen in a country in which our First Minister pledged to put culture at the heart of all that we do. It is unfortunate that the situation of Kilmartin museum is not an isolated example and I beseech the Executive to accept the importance of such rural museums for education, tourism and employment.
The RCAHMS, which has produced excellent volumes on the ancient history of sites, again appears to be underfunded.
Kilchurn castle at the head of Loch Awe, which features, in all its grandeur, on the VisitScotland website, is now very difficult to get to on foot, because Network Rail has locked the access gates. I hope that the minister is aware of that. I also hope that VisitScotland is aware of what has happened to its icon.
The review of Historic Scotland that Frank McAveety commissioned in 2003 concluded that there is little trust among applicants to Historic Scotland for consent on modernisation. It stated:
"There is a perception that Historic Scotland acts as judge and jury in its own court."
That is hardly surprising when one considers that only one out of 220 applications received scheduled monument consent and only one out of 2,600 applications received listed building or conservation area consent in 2003.
That brings me to the strange case of Mr Lex Brown and Castle Tioram. I am at a complete loss to understand Historic Scotland's thinking in the case of the rebuilding of Castle Tioram on the Moidart peninsula. Can the minister explain why it is wrong for an individual to spend £4.5 million of his own money on the restoration of a 13th century castle to its 1715 condition? Is it wrong that he should want to live there? Is it wrong that he should wish to create a museum for the public? Is it wrong that he should create spin-off benefits and employment for the local community and for local hotels and bed and breakfasts?
Historic Scotland seems to think that that is wrong, despite 70 per cent of the local population around Acharacle signing a petition in support of the renovation and Highland Council giving the go-ahead to the plan, which seems democratic enough to me. The renovator is not asking for money; he seeks permission to spend his own money on the restoration of a piece of Scotland's heritage that without renovation will crumble into the sea. Will the minister look at the case and at the prejudice that is blocking a good idea from becoming a reality for the people of Moidart?
Many Scottish castles were destroyed during the Jacobite rebellion. Does Historic Scotland want to leave Scotland with so many monuments to a period of great suffering? Surely it would rather see at least some of them refurbished to their original glorious state. Do we have to wallow in perpetual nostalgia and sadness on the other side of sorrow? I hope not. I hope that VisitScotland will link with Historic Scotland to produce a strategy that promotes historic tourism and uses our historic assets for the benefit of Scotland.
I move amendment S2M-1033.1, to insert at end:
"and believes that Historic Scotland, in its policies, must be mindful of the immense benefits to employment, income and culture brought by tourism and, in particular, art and archaeological tourism."
I declare an interest: I put into my curriculum vitae that one of my interests is visiting ruins. Nowadays, I should add "visiting the Falkirk wheel", as we take all our visitors there, too. The ruins excite us about the past and the Falkirk wheel excites us about the present and the future.
We must invest more in the things that we are discussing today. Like many other government activities in this country, they are under-resourced. Investment would pay off in terms of employment, the development of tourism and, above all, the development of education. I will focus on education.
The ignorance of many Scots about our past is appalling. We have to tackle that. If we improve on it, we will increase the feel-good factor that spins off into better behaviour, more vigorous work and so on. In a members' business debate next Wednesday, I will suggest that we could focus on St Andrew's day as a time in which we could develop an interest in things Scottish.
We are not good about knowing about our past. Let us take the example of the field of Bannockburn: I have a fair number of books that cover the battle, every one of which has the battle in a different place. That is not our fault, as people in the past were so disorganised that they could not even agree on the place where the battle took place.
We are beginning to deal with other aspects of our historic environment better. The visitors I take to New Lanark or Culross can get a real feeling for Scottish life in those places. We have to develop more places like that. We have to excite people, families and young people to imagine their ancestors' lives.
Some good things are being done by Historic Scotland such as the great hall at Stirling Castle, which was quite controversial. We should be more active in reconstructing the past in an intelligent way. We have to recreate the past. It can be done very simply. For example, baskets of replica medieval clothes are made available at Craigmillar Castle for kids to wear when a class goes there. The children enjoy dressing up in them. We could be much more active in developing that sort of work.
Other people do things better. The Americans have little history and therefore must make the most of what they have. Places such as Willamsburg are tremendous. There are genuinely old buildings, reconstructions of old buildings and people dressed up and making musical instruments as people did in 1800. We could do much more of that type of thing.
We could also rebuild old buildings. Some eastern European cities, such as Riga, have many splendid old buildings. Many of those buildings were destroyed in the war, but they have been rebuilt and they fit in well. We should be much more relaxed about rebuilding.
We should show people what their ancestors' working and domestic lives were like. Kitchens are among the most interesting things to most people when they visit stately homes because we can relate to kitchens and can see what people's lives were really like. There are also good examples that show people what life was like in locomotive factories, shipyards, mills, crofts and so on throughout the country. However, we need to have many more examples so that people can see how their ancestors lived and worked. We also need more support for interesting local developments, such as museums, and especially live museums such as the Bo'ness railway and the Wanlockhead museum of lead mining, in which people can experience life as it was.
We can develop computerisation of how things were in the past. In my innocent youth, I got much of my enthusiasm for drawings from Alan Sorrell's reconstructions of how things were. Nowadays, young people can get far more from computers, for example.
I want to make one or two specific points. We could make much more use of models, which have a definite appeal to people. Models can show, for example, how a city or a town grew—there can be models of Edinburgh or Aberdeen, for example, in 1300, 1500 and 1600. People respond to models and a lot of work is created for people who build them. Such things can provide employment and education.
There should be more re-enactments of events. For example, the capture of Edinburgh Castle by the Earl of Moray is unique in medieval warfare as an example of a major castle being captured by escalade. That should be re-enacted as part of the festival, the tattoo or the fireworks display, for example.
Finally, I have a moan. Historic Scotland has many cheap foreign-made souvenirs. Surely Historic Scotland, more than anyone else, should have good-quality, Scottish-made souvenirs.
First, I must declare an interest. I am a trustee of the Fife Historic Buildings Trust.
I invite members to imagine Scotland without castles, great gardens, fine streetscapes, historic burghs and the farms and fields that are the framework for the landscape. Imagine not commemorating our great battles where they happened or not caring about our ancient and more recent archaeology. Would people still come to Scotland in their tens of millions? Would businesses still relocate to Scotland because of the high quality of life here? Would local people still feel strong ties to their historic roots?
To a greater or lesser extent, all those aspects of the historic environment are under threat of change. Therefore, do we invest enough to care for that heritage in relation to the enormous amount that we get out of it in economic terms, from tourism and attracting jobs, in social terms, through its contribution to our quality of life, and—at a fundamental level—in respect of what it means to be Scottish?
Our varied history and scenery are one of the main reasons why tourists visit us—apart, of course, from those hundreds of beautiful people who are found in the summer basking on the white sand under the tropical sun. Tourists come because virtually every town has a castle or a church with a bit of history behind it. If it does not, there will be some other nugget of local history waiting to be discovered. For example, I draw to members' attention the bronze age burial site that was recently discovered in Leven and was the subject of a "Time Team" television programme. The time team will return in June and I invite the minister to visit then, if he has time in his schedule. I also draw attention to the Methil heritage centre, which is also in my constituency. It showcases not only the ancient environment, but the more recent industrial environment. It is successful and has won many awards.
Between 60 and 80 per cent of tourists visit heritage attractions during their stay, and 30 per cent cite heritage attractions as their sole reason for visiting. That generates a lot of money for Scotland's tourism industry and, indirectly, for many other areas of business.
There is also architecture which, particularly in this wonderful city of Edinburgh, appears to have something different about it virtually every time one passes it. If members do not believe me, I invite them to take a look as they pass New College this evening and tell me whether they can see the cat coming down the chimney on the row of houses.
I agree fully with what Christine May said about the wonderful historic buildings throughout Scotland, but does she agree that the recent decision to stop historic visitor attractions being able to claim back gift aid on admission income will have a significant and negative impact on many of the operators of those historic sites?
Any change like that is bound to cause difficulties, and if there is a case for reviewing the change, I would support it.
A number of things could be done to improve protection for the historic environment, many of which will require investment. However, Historic Scotland does a good job. It has been suggested that the officers of Historic Scotland who are currently based in Edinburgh and have specific responsibility for outlying areas such as Orkney and Shetland could move to those communities, which might lead to some of the buy-in that was referred to earlier.
Organisations such as Fife Historic Buildings Trust have been remarkably successful not only in developing partnerships to repair and restore historic buildings, but in bringing in quite a lot of money from the European regional development fund and other sources of funding. It recently completed a project in the riggs area of Kirkcaldy, in Marilyn Livingstone's constituency, to train roads operators in using lime mortar when they repair old walls. As many members will know, it is the use of cement mortar that causes a great deal of problems in old walls.
There is a big issue with sites and monuments records. Planning authorities need to have access to them. Will the minister assure us that he will consider placing a statutory duty on local authorities to keep such records, and will he fight for more money for the historic environment in the next spending round?
I am busily wondering how I can get lime mortar from B&Q—perhaps I will put it on my list. Moreover, following Donald Gorrie's request for re-enactments, I look forward to the minister leading the charge and scaling the rock of Edinburgh Castle. We will all be right behind him.
The topic of the debate is not urgent, but it is important, as can be judged by the number of submissions that members have received from interested bodies that wanted to brief us. Various members have mentioned the importance of the historic environment to tourism. The money that the minister announced in the statement immediately prior to this debate, which will be allocated to increase marketing for tourism, would be for naught if we did not have anything to market, and most of what we have to market is connected with our heritage.
In Edinburgh in particular, we see all year round, even at the most unlikely and least clement times of the year, people from many different countries, who are strangers to this place, coming to look at our heritage. Speaking of Edinburgh, I hope that, whatever else is said about the Holyrood project, the new building will be a significant addition to what future generations will see as this nation's and this capital city's heritage.
One of the submissions that we received was from the Scottish Civic Trust. Its at-risk register of 1,000-plus buildings includes 130 A-listed buildings and 59 B-listed buildings. Although the Historic Scotland report indicates that many hundreds of grants are given out, the at-risk figures give us all cause for significant worry. We have to ask whether sufficient commitment exists to deal with the problem, because, too often, we see stories about magnificent buildings that have been listed but that are gradually dropping into wrack and ruin because of an unwillingness or a lack of finance to fix the problem. Clearly, we do not want simply to give out blank cheques to the proprietors of such buildings, but there is a case for the issue to be addressed more specifically.
We should remember that the process of listing places constraints and potential costs on the owners of properties. There is an obligation on Government to go some way towards assisting with that. That already happens, but the list of derelict properties suggests that it does not happen to a sufficient extent. The now defunct Ancient Monuments Board for Scotland stated that
"the substantial increase in the number of scheduled monuments in Scotland … has continued to be accompanied by deterioration in the condition of"
those monuments. The board continued:
"This would suggest that insufficient resources have been made available for … conservation".
I agree with the board on that issue.
I am glad that landscape is included in our heritage. The minister used the word "conserve" in relation to landscape, but landscape is constantly changing. What we have in front of us today is vastly different from what was there 100 years ago. That is particularly true of farming landscape and landscape on which forestry is carried out. Certainly, the landscape is totally different from what it was 1,000 years ago. Conserving heritage does not mean changing nothing. The conservation of our landscape should not be used as an argument by the latest arrivals in some areas to object to all further change in that area, whether that is in the shape of wind farms, industrial developments or new housing.
One of the briefing documents indicates how many gallons of fuel could be obtained by converting a Victorian house into energy. I do not think that there is much chance of anyone trying to convert their house into petrol, because it would not give them very much.
Last month, I welcomed the Executive's decision to keep Historic Scotland as an agency of the Executive. However, it is essential that the minister, Mr McAveety, follows up on his commitment to review all the functions that Historic Scotland carries out. For example, we must examine the over-rigorous restrictions that Historic Scotland imposes on the practical use of historic buildings in the modern world. The organisation seems to prefer ruins to living, working buildings.
The first example that comes to mind is Castle Tioram, which we heard about earlier. The owner of the building, with the full backing of the local community and Highland Council, wants to restore the castle to its former glory and put it into practical working use. However, Historic Scotland continues to block that and prefers an unsafe, crumbling ruin that people can view only from the outside. Preserving our heritage does not mean putting a glass case around every historic building in its current state. Surely real preservation for the long term is about keeping buildings at the heart of their communities by restoring them to use. Restoration must be sensitive but, in the case of Castle Tioram, Historic Scotland has been found to be unaccountable and arbitrary.
If Historic Scotland had been around at the beginning of the last century, most scenic calendars of Scotland would have a blank month where the picture of Eilean Donan should be. No doubt modern restoration would have to be more authentic, but the castle shows the benefit of restoration. Hundreds of thousands of tourists call at Eilean Donan each year. It is one of the United Kingdom's biggest attractions and has a worldwide reputation.
Another historic structure that remains in daily productive use is the William Caulfield military road that goes through the Mam Ratagan from Glen Shiel to Glenelg and Arnisdale. Will the minister assure me that he will listen carefully to any calls for assistance from communities or local authorities for the preservation and maintenance of such old structures? By the way, that road has the tallest stone-arch bridge in Scotland.
Not every monument can be restored to modern use, of course. I do not propose that the Pictish brochs at Glenelg on the west coast should be converted into a timeshare, as that would be absurd. Fine examples of Scotland's particularly rich archaeology and heritage, such as the brochs, are to be found in the Highlands and Islands, where development and agriculture have not destroyed what is below the ground.
I welcome the reference in Jamie McGrigor's amendment to "archaeological tourism" and the employment potential of such activity. However, small communities do not have the physical or financial resources to promote and protect historic national assets that are slowly being lost to the ravages of wind and weather. I suggest that the Executive should encourage the responsible agencies to be much more proactive, so that our historic monuments and heritage can be preserved for future generations to enjoy.
In his opening remarks, the minister identified Scotland's combination of heritage and culture as an integral part of its unique selling point. We all agree with that.
I am obliged to Dr Carol Swanson's excellent pamphlet, prepared for Scottish Environment LINK, for the information that 69 per cent of those who come to this country visit castles, houses or gardens. Such visits are the principal reason why 30 per cent of visitors come to this country—the largest identifiable category. The minister's point is well made, therefore.
The power of our castles was made clear in the presentation given to us last week by VisitScotland, which has produced an excellent brochure, featuring heavily many of our coastal castles, particularly those along the west coast. During the minister's speech at that event last week, when my attention briefly wandered from his fine physiognomy, I noticed that one of the recurrent images on the screen behind him was of Eilean Donan, about which I will speak in a moment.
I applaud the work of Historic Scotland in conserving the heritage of the western Highlands, particularly Argyllshire, including the fine ancient castles. It is wonderful that money has been spent in recent years on the preservation of old Inverlochie Castle, for example. Places such as Castle Sween and the castles at Skipness, Dunstaffnage and Kilchurn are monuments to excellent conservation work.
Many excellent castles in the west Highlands have been preserved and restored not by the state but by private owners. John Farquhar Munro referred to Eilean Donan, which is a pastiche, in the pure terminology of the experts. It was restored from ruins in the last century, but it is probably not an entirely authentic restoration. It is one of a series of such buildings that are, essentially, reconstructions. Castle Duart on Mull is another such iconic building, although it might be much more authentic.
My opinion of Castle Tioram is rather different from that expressed by John Farquhar Munro and Jamie McGrigor. I accept that certain buildings are best preserved in their ruinous state. However, Castle Tioram is such an iconic building that I would prefer it to be preserved like Skipness Castle or Castle Sween.
Like many others, I am concerned about the situation. Roseanna Cunningham gave us a masterful summary of the briefings that we received this week from a range of environmental organisations. All the briefings referred to the erosion in real terms of the funding that is available for the restoration of buildings such as those that I have mentioned.
If the choice for Castle Tioram is between allowing it to be restored by its owner or allowing it to disintegrate and collapse so that it will not survive for another 100 years, I fully support the owner's proposed consolidation and restoration. I can scarcely think of an equivalent iconic building in Scotland that is on the brink of disintegration. If the state is genuine about the preservation of the building in its current condition, it must be willing to make funding available, to provide guardianship and to supply the resources to ensure that an almost unique building is not lost. If the alternative to such a loss is to allow restoration, we should allow restoration to proceed on the basis of the most authentic design and study that can be made. We should also ensure that all the archaeology is retrieved.
We should not allow Castle Tioram to fall into the third category of Scottish castle—I refer to castles that have stood for 600, 700, 800 or 900 years but, according to the photographic records of the last century, are rapidly disintegrating. Hundreds of castles in that category now stand in fragmentary conditions. Who goes to Mull to see Aros Castle and who goes to see Duart Castle? Who goes to Wester Ross to look at some of the little heaps of stone that exist there and who goes to see Eilean Donan? I go to see the heaps of stone, too, but millions of people over the decades have gone to Eilean Donan. It is an iconic building and a draw for Scotland, as is Castle Tioram. I remember as a boy of 12 on holiday in the west of Scotland—on my introduction to condensation in caravans, midges and drizzling rain—being taken for a long walk one day along a track, which is now a metalled road, between Kinlochmoidart and the main road to Mallaig and coming round a corner and seeing Castle Tioram for the first time.
I do not know Lex Brown and sadly, even on the generous remuneration given to Deputy Presiding Officers, I do not have anything like his money. I could never hope to acquire and rebuild Castle Tioram, but I share his passion for it. For me it is the most devastating thought imaginable that the public sector, in which I have worked all my life and which the Parliament represents, should stand by and allow such a magnificent and iconic structure to crumble away into the sea so that my grandchildren and their grandchildren will have no opportunity to see it. Something must be done to save Castle Tioram as it is or to restore it to something like what it was. Presiding Officer, I thank you for your indulgence.
Well. How can I follow that? I congratulate Murray Tosh on an excellent speech.
The minister said in his introduction that our archaeological resource was second to none. Before I continue, I declare that I have been a member of Historic Scotland and the National Trust for Scotland for some considerable time. Will the minister commit to ensuring that archaeological help is available to the planning departments of all 32 councils in Scotland? Will he also commit to ensuring that archaeology is recognised sufficiently in the make-up of all committees that are concerned with our built environment, because I believe that there are still questions about that?
The minister made a welcome reference to developing skills, which is extremely important. Our UK Green Party manifesto states:
"Building systems should be investigated thoroughly to determine their true cost in comparison with traditional methods. Many of them are uneconomic on grounds not always immediately apparent, for instance, relying on imported components, high levels of maintenance, high running costs, etc. Their extensive use has also led to a lack of standardisation. Traditional building was, contrary to popular belief, highly standardised and dimensionally coordinated. A return to this quality of standardisation would cut down on much of the waste that is taken for granted in present building systems."
That might be something of an aside in the context of the debate, but it is an important one.
An Executive debate on the historic environment is a welcome development. Our historic environment, like the natural environment, has all too often been under-appreciated or taken for granted—many references to that have been made this afternoon. Dr Mary Baxter of Glasgow Caledonian University has commented:
"Heritage and the historic environment underpin tourism in Scotland but our research shows that it is not a priority for local authorities. It is always in the pictures of local authority plans but never in the text."
In a similar vein, the non-governmental sector historic environment review task force, of which the minister and everybody else here is well aware, commented:
"The impression that the historic environment is afforded insufficient priority within the Executive is evidenced by the fact that the sector as a whole is seriously under resourced; is managed within a box; and as a result, it is insufficiently protected, managed and maintained."
In the briefing material provided by the four organisations and umbrella organisations, the same messages have come through repeatedly. First, more information on the state of Scotland's historic environment is needed. Secondly, there is a need to address resourcing for the historic environment at all levels of government. Thirdly, community involvement, which Sylvia Jackson referred to, is an important issue in this context—community involvement with the historic environment is an under-acknowledged aspect of social inclusion.
Like the natural environment, the historic environment is all around us and its care does not fall easily within the gift of any one organisation. Many buildings, particularly those built of soft sandstone, are part of our contemporary residential and business infrastructure as well as of our historic heritage and are under threat from air pollution and vehicle emissions. To a great extent, Scotland's wild areas are cultural landscapes and, as such, represent an overlap between the historic environment and the natural environment. A characteristic that is shared by both environments is that they are all too frequently undervalued. The importance of those environments to tourism has, thankfully, been gaining increasing recognition. We need to know how the ministerial group on tourism will deliver on its stated aim to support the sector across all portfolios.
I declare an interest, as I am a member of the board of trustees of the Scottish Mining Museum and a member of the National Trust for Scotland and the Architectural Heritage Society of Scotland. My membership of Historic Scotland has lapsed, but I will rectify that shortly.
I am pleased that we are having this debate, especially as I am the chair of the cross-party group in the Scottish Parliament on architecture and the built environment. The historic environment is hugely important to Scotland for a range of reasons. Our historic environment gives us a sense of place and identity, telling us who we are as Scots, whether we are talking about Skara Brae, the cityscapes of Edinburgh, architectural gems such as Mavisbank House in my constituency or the internationally important industrial heritage site in Newtongrange.
As has been mentioned, our historic environment is also massively important in economic terms. Tourism is Scotland's biggest industry. It employs nearly 200,000 people and brings in £4.5 billion to Scotland. We have heard about the research that shows that 83 per cent of overseas visitors come to Scotland for its historic environment, museums, galleries and heritage centres. In 2001, VisitScotland said that more people visit historic buildings than attend all the sporting events in Scotland combined, including football matches.
The historic environment is important to people. The fact that hundreds of thousands of people are members of Historic Scotland, the National Trust for Scotland, the Architectural Heritage Society of Scotland, the Scottish Civic Trust and a plethora of local heritage societies and archaeological groups shows that people are interested in finding out about the past and what their communities used to be like. In that regard, I commend Highland Council for its recent work in developing Highland archaeology week and for its support for a plethora of local archaeology groups.
Several challenges face those of us who are passionate about the historic environment. First, there is a need to develop an understanding among our schoolchildren of the historic environment. The subject should feature in the school curriculum in primary and secondary school. Of course, it is much easier to incorporate it into the primary curriculum—there are still challenges in relation to how we can get it into the secondary curriculum. I ask the minister to consider the important role of school cultural co-ordinators in bringing together a programme of experiences and visits for schoolchildren. Children have a right to experience and access buildings that are important in relation to their local historic environment.
Secondly, although local authorities are getting better at procuring professional advice on the historic environment in relation to planning issues, many of them still fail to recognise the opportunities for community interest and tourism development. I welcome the recommendation that followed the review of Historic Scotland that that body should work with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and individual local authorities to prepare concordats or service charters setting out their respective roles and responsibilities.
The third challenge is to collect information in Scotland. I repeat the request for a review of the historic environment. We simply do not have enough facts.
There has been much debate on the historic environment and the structures and processes that are required to safeguard and promote it. I applaud the work of bodies such as Historic Scotland and I welcome the creation of the Historic Environment Advisory Council for Scotland. However, I make a plea to those people who are interested in the historic environment. Can we stop talking about structures and concentrate on delivery?
I urge members to support the motion, to reject the SNP amendment, which is characteristically negative and carping, and to support the Tory amendment. I look forward to the minister's future policy statement on the historic environment, which will build on the First Minister's St Andrew's day speech and on the national cultural strategy.
I am happy to speak in support of the SNP amendment—I am delighted by the fact that the substance of what Rhona Brankin said was so supportive of it. It would be disappointing if she and her colleagues could not accept our fairly constructive amendment rather than carping about it, especially as the debate is not particularly contentious.
As the motion states, the debate is not just about the economic well-being of the country; it is about how our actions on the historic built environment can make a significant contribution to the general social well-being of Scots and Scotland. Other members have concentrated on individual buildings. We heard an interesting and long speech from Murray Tosh.
I would not like to be accused of concentrating on a single building; I was being mindful of the time. An equally respectable case could be made for conserving Mingary Castle in Ardnamurchan. There are also good cases for preserving old Castle Lachlan, Dunollie Castle and Innis Chonnel Castle further down in Argyllshire.
I note the member's significant contribution and hope that he will pay attention when he accuses me of misusing interventions in future.
I would like to take the debate into a different area. As is well known, I am interested in genealogy and family history and in the contribution that that can make to Scotland's social well-being. Our graveyards contain significant carved stones, which make an important contribution to our historic environment, too. In some of our cities, walks around the graveyards are being developed to encourage people to take an interest in their local and family history. Some of those graveyards are well laid out and directions are given for the walks.
However, the people and professionals who have an interest in carved stones are concerned about what is happening in some of our older graveyards. Some councils have knocked over gravestones without taking appropriate and due care. That is being done in the name of health and safety, but it could lead to significant loss for professional genealogists and, more important, for people who have a personal interest in their family history.
In the process of preservation, the removal of mosses and lichens from gravestones has to be done carefully so that the stones are not damaged. There are policies on practices such as putting down stone chips on the graves to save on maintenance, because such practices can lead to significant damage to the stones. We should take a lead from those folk south of the border who have been developing policies in that area and delivering on them for some time, as Rhona Brankin said.
I commend the City of Edinburgh Council and Dundee City Council for the work that they are doing in their graveyards. I also commend the changes that have recently taken place in Aberdeen's kirk of St Nicholas, which is the town's mither kirk.
I urge the minister to take account of our graveyards. The historic environment is not just about grand castles and battle sites; it is about all the places in Scotland where we all as Scots have an interest in our past and in our future.
I echo many of Roseanna Cunningham's comments on the motion. It strikes me as quite extraordinary that members of the Labour and Liberal parties feel that this debate, which says very little about Scotland's past, with magnificent style, is more important than the debate on genetically modified maize, which we in the Green party suggest is a far more urgent issue for Scotland's present and its future. It is very sad that this debate has taken precedence over our proposed debate.
A more strategic point is that, in the five years of its existence, the Parliament has had several debates on GM crops and has been promised more. I think that we have had no other debate on our historic environment in the past five years, so today's debate is well overdue. Personally, I would have been very sorry indeed if we had sacrificed today's opportunity to discuss these issues.
I do not propose to go down that road further than the comments that I have made. However, I point out that Conservative members voted for the Green party amendment yesterday.
It is vital that we conserve the heritage of Scotland's buildings and landscape, which—as I hope the Executive is aware—face many threats. In East Lothian's current structure plan, there is the threat of 5,000 proposed new homes, which would destroy the cultural identity of the small villages around the East Lothian coast that are precisely what tourists go to see. In the Borders, 2,000 new homes are proposed in the Eildon corridor, which is the heart of Sir Walter Scott countryside. A large campaign has been organised against that development by, among others, Dame Jean Maxwell-Scott, who is Sir Walter Scott's great-great-granddaughter. It is vital that the planning authorities take on board the importance of maintaining those beautiful green spaces when they plan for the future.
Green tourism is crucial to Scotland's economy and is at the heart of a large percentage of our £4.5 billion tourism market. Our top paying attractions include Logan botanical gardens, which is a beautiful set of gardens that is one of the most popular visitor sites in the south-west of Scotland; people visit it for its beauty and for its contribution to the environment. Various Forestry Commission mountain-biking developments are also popular, such as the 7stanes mountain-biking trek, which crosses the south of Scotland. That development has made an enormous contribution to the economy of Peebles, which has also benefited from the osprey watching development. The national parks also have an enormous contribution to make, which is why there is a campaign for a national park in Galloway.
Green tourists are high-income earners and tend to be high spenders. They are people who look for quality. Although it is sometimes pandered to, the image of the green tourist as a rather impoverished student who is looking for a green tourist trek is out of date. Today's green tourist is an older, higher-spending person who is looking for high quality in the attractions and the environment that they visit. Many German tourist coaches and organisations deal, I am told, only with organisations that are accredited under the green tourism business scheme.
Tourism needs green politics, it needs conservation, it needs the small businesses that run the vast majority of the tourist infrastructure and it needs local ownership of those small businesses. Tourism also needs biodiversity, which is, first and foremost, what attracts people to Scotland, and it needs the Scottish culture. Our tourism industry depends on Scotland's environment, Scotland's culture and Scotland's heritage. Those are the things that we have to offer and those are the things that must be at the heart of any tourism strategy and which such a strategy must protect.
I declare an interest; I actually live in an historic house. It is a B-listed building and a great delight to me. It is one of the lovely Georgian manses that were built all over Scotland about 200 years ago. I am not allowed to change the windows and I cannot add on a conservatory. If the minister is thinking of giving any money to Historic Scotland, I would accept a blank cheque any day, and I would not mind a hand with the garden too.
I want to talk a wee bit about domestic architecture in Scotland and about our Georgian heritage. It is not just in Edinburgh that we have our Georgian heritage; we have it all over the country in rural areas, especially with buildings such as manses and old farm steadings, which must be preserved. People must be encouraged and helped to look after those buildings.
We have towns that are conservation areas. In Cromarty, for example, the very fact that the town is a conservation area has meant that investment was put into its magnificent buildings before they crumbled away. We have beautiful gems of villages in Islay. I ask the minister to take a trip to Tiree, if he can, to look at the vernacular architecture there. One of the big projects that is going on in the Highlands just now with regard to Georgian architecture is the restoration of Pultneytown in Wick, which was built by Thomas Telford. Pultneytown contains artisans' houses and workshops and is a beautiful example of the architecture of the period, but it has been sadly neglected for a long time.
How do places get prioritised? Caithness is a good example of a county that has a tremendous architectural heritage, including the prehistoric Camster Cairns, but the tourists just rush past them on their way to Skara Brae because Historic Scotland has prioritised sites and decided which ones will have an interpretive centre and which will not. I wonder how that priority is arrived at.
Many members have mentioned the castles in the west that have been restored, and I could add Stalker Castle to the list that has been given. The debate has been partly about Castle Tioram, and members have raised the issue that has angered and dismayed the community of Moidart—the refusal of Historic Scotland to countenance the restoration of the castle. If other castles have been restored, why not Tioram? It has been used by its community more than other castles that have been mentioned, the community felt ownership of it and Lex Brown bought it and offered to restore it and provide safe access. I am glad of the minister's remarks in reply to Murray Tosh's intervention, because they give me hope that all is not lost.
John Farquhar Munro and Jamie McGrigor mentioned the review of Historic Scotland, which asks ministers to deliver cultural change, to improve Historic Scotland's communication and to deliver transparency and openness, which are sorely needed. The review notes that our historic environment should play a role in social and economic policies. The restoration of Castle Tioram would have provided high-quality jobs and apprenticeships in an economically fragile area. The review states that, in planning matters,
"there is a perception that Historic Scotland acts as judge and jury in its own court."
Jamie McGrigor mentioned that, too. I believe that that reputation is well deserved.
I welcome the Executive's commitment to separate the advisory role in relation to whether a planning case should be called in from the advisory role in relation to the ministerial decision after the reporter's verdict. I understand that that advice will now be given by the planning division.
I have spoken to the Minister for Transport on numerous occasions about the impact of Historic Scotland's work on desirable projects in the Highlands, and not only with regard to medieval castles. He knows my views.
I hope that the review of Historic Scotland marks a cultural change. I urge the minister to re-examine past decisions, such as the Castle Tioram decision, which he seems to have indicated that he is prepared to do. The minister must be aware of community feeling in Moidart. The people there believe that they have been ridden roughshod over by Historic Scotland. I hope that there will be a reversal of the decision, which the community sees as the death knell of their hopes for the future of the castle as an integral part of the regeneration of the community, given the jobs that would come from restoring it and considering the number of tourists who would be drawn to accessing it, in one of the most fragile parts of Scotland.
I, too, wish to declare an interest—in the area where I was born and grew up, a part of which I now represent. The Borders has had a turbulent history. The towers, ruined abbeys and other sites owe their existence to war. Our common ridings are the modern manifestations of ancient struggles across and along the border in the counties of Roxburgh, Selkirk, Peebles and Berwick. The fortified walled border town of Berwick, where I was born, and the other major fortifications in those four counties, as well as the peel towers that protected Borders families and their livestock, are constant reminders of the Borders' violent history.
There is the beautiful viewpoint from the 1814 Wallace monument at Scott's view, overlooking the Eildon hills and Melrose Abbey, which today protects the heart of Robert Bruce. Any cursory look at the Roman civilisation section of the Museum of Scotland will see the collections that were found at Trimontium, or Newstead, as it is now called. Only a few miles away from there was the home of Sir Walter Scott. Painted on the canvas of the stunning, but sometimes foreboding, scenery, it is a picture that has resonated throughout the centuries. It is right that we acknowledge the contribution that the historic built environment makes to contemporary Scotland.
It is fitting that this debate comes after a statement on the tourism review, which gives us the opportunity of capitalising on the huge potential tourism market. The way forward as outlined today will allow the Borders, as a gateway to Scotland for that market, to benefit.
The debate has been genuinely interesting. Roseanna Cunningham challenged the Executive on what it is doing for the future. Only one aspect of our debate is addressed by the review of Historic Scotland, but the review is important. We need to look at the fundamentals. Does Historic Scotland have a proper database of local historic buildings of note? I ask that question as I have recently questioned Historic Scotland's knowledge of some of the heritage in my constituency. Key to a full understanding is a strong, close relationship with local architectural and historical societies and with communities. Equally important is Historic Scotland's relationship with the Parliament.
Jamie McGrigor said that marketing will not change people's perceptions and that our history is not as attractive as catwalk models. As I represent Scotland's largest manufacturer of tartan, Lochcarron of Scotland, which is located in Galashiels and represents Scotland superbly in expanding markets abroad, I would say that Scotland's history, through Borders tartan apparel, is seen on the world's catwalks. As Donald Gorrie said, the debate is about making our history exciting. It is about benefiting economically from our past, as the minister said. I was especially pleased that the Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning, Jim Wallace, visited Lochcarron's show at the Japanese department store, Isetan, last year.
I conclude my remarks in this important and consensual debate with a simple plea: if we are to benefit more from our past in the future, we need our agencies to database the past that we have. That is a message for Historic Scotland, other agencies and Government. We have much potential, and we must ensure that we, as well as visitors to our land, enjoy it in the future.
I, too, have a declaration of interest, as the producer of the latest television documentary series on the National Trust for Scotland, "A Matter of Trust". Members will be pleased to note that videos of the series are available at most National Trust outlets.
Scotland's architecture and scenic heritage are vital aspects of the tourism industry, and I agree with everything that the minister and other members, such as Christine May, said about their importance. However, I also agree with Brian Adam and Maureen Macmillan; it is not only great castles that we should be talking about, but places such as the Gorbals tenements and cottages at Glamis.
The role of the National Trust for Scotland and its relationship with Historic Scotland are not always fully appreciated or integrated into the tourism product. I welcome the increase in the marketing budgets of VisitScotland and related agencies that was announced by the minister today, but many people are concerned about the apparent lack of joined-up thinking in the provision of funding to conserve the built environment and natural heritage and the recognition of their importance to the economy. Jamie McGrigor talked about the likely closure of Kilmartin House, but other museums are also in danger. The National Trust for Scotland has come to the aid of struggling museums such as the David Livingstone Centre in Blantyre, which it now manages, but there is a limit to what it can do. I wonder how many of the 129 members of the Parliament are members of the National Trust for Scotland. Membership costs only £34 per year, which must be one of the great bargains in Scottish tourism.
I wish that I could be as complimentary about the role of Historic Scotland. We have heard about the ludicrous situation in relation to Castle Tioram, but there are other examples in which Historic Scotland appears to be a law unto itself. It is not only ancient buildings that Historic Scotland schedules for posterity. The former HMS Jackdaw is a ramshackle collection of huts and broken-down runways, situated on farmland not far from Crail in Fife. Seven years ago, Historic Scotland scheduled it as an ancient monument. The Swordfish that were stationed at HMS Jackdaw never saw a shot fired in anger, yet Historic Scotland has deemed that the 200 acres of farmland that incorporate the airfield are untouchable. The farmer cannot dig a hole on 90 per cent of his ground without the agency's permission. The site is already zoned in the local plan for development, and independent consultants are soon to begin an investigation, but no matter what the consultants report, Historic Scotland can overrule their findings.
Although the Conservatives welcome a number of the recommendations in the "Review of the Structure and Functions of Historic Scotland", we, unlike John Farquhar Munro, question whether Historic Scotland should remain an executive agency. The review states:
"there is a perception that Historic Scotland acts as judge and jury in its own court."
I note Roseanna Cunningham's point about the under-resourcing of the agency. If the Executive believes that buildings need to be preserved in the national interest, surely it should be able to fund their conservation in the way that Alasdair Morgan and others pointed out, and should not allow our built heritage to crumble into oblivion. The Conservatives firmly believe that Historic Scotland should not only highlight the historic value of a site, but should work in partnership with landowners and the local council to try to secure a sustainable future for the site. Like Murray Tosh, I have visited Castle Tioram and, sadly, I have also visited HMS Jackdaw. The contrast could not be more acute.
This debate is of historic importance, because it is a first in terms of this huge area of national heritage. Therefore, it is with some sadness that we see that the Government has not taken on board the argument that is made in the SNP's amendment. Our argument would help to fund and give new impetus to Historic Scotland; it is not a criticism of the Executive or the partnership. This is the first debate that has been held on this subject area, which requires a lot of investment. That is made obvious by the fact that there are some 46,000 listed buildings of special architectural interest in Scotland; 3,000 of those buildings are in the Highlands, which I represent. Historic Scotland controls and opens to the public only about 300 buildings, yet it controls the listing of many sites that are of major importance.
I declare an interest; as a member of the Andrew de Moray project, I submitted a petition during the first session of Parliament on this very subject. In presenting that petition to the Public Petitions Committee, I said that Historic Scotland needs
"to give greater publicity, interpretation and investment to sites and buildings of national importance".—[Official Report, Public Petitions Committee, 23 January 2001; c 878.]
The petition was related to the wars of independence.
The nub of the debate is that we all have our pet projects that require investment. That has been clear in the speeches of members from all parties, which suggests that it would be a good idea for the minister to rethink his attitude to what the SNP is saying and to look for ways to have the audit of our historic environment backed up by a regular review of the issue. In that way, we could have a debate on the subject in Parliament at each stage of its development.
Frank McAveety encouraged us by saying that economic development was taking place and that there was a lot of work for the construction industry. We welcome that. Just think how much more work there could be if Historic Scotland had a bigger budget. Much more work could be created from rebuilding our historic heritage. In that respect, it is interesting—no one has mentioned this point, although it may have been mentioned in questions in the past—that some of the skewing of Historic Scotland's budget has meant that, for example, £4 million has been spent on a new visitor centre at Urquhart Castle that is basically a viewing platform for the Loch Ness monster. What has that got to do with history? Has anyone established whether Urquhart Castle is an important part of our heritage, or whether some of that money ought to have been put into interpretation, signage, car parking and access for the many sites that are far more important to the national story?
Wide questions are raised by this debate. The question of restoring ruins, which Murray Tosh posed eloquently, is very much part of the debate that goes on in local authorities. As John Duncan, who is the planning conservationist for Highland Council, has suggested, our responsibility towards our built heritage goes beyond the simple prevention of its destruction. Above all, it means ensuring that the built heritage remains in active use as an integral part of the community. That sums up many of the arguments about historic buildings that have been treated badly in the past, such as Castle Tioram and others, which require urgent attention and investment. The SNP amendment addresses that issue directly.
Roseanna Cunningham mentioned the uneven funding—underfunding, in some cases—of projects. I have mentioned some examples of that. That underpins many of the problems that have been raised in the debate, and I hope that the minister will respond to the points that have been made. Our historic environment and cultural landscape ought to excite Scots families as it did 40 or 50 years ago, when people took their children to castles and explained something about them to them. If people are to do that now, Historic Scotland, when it produces material about individual castles—for example the booklet that I am holding, which is about Bothwell Castle—must relate the story to other buildings that are part of the same story, and not just to the neighbouring properties.
The SNP asks the minister to address the point about investment; to support our amendment, as he still has the chance to do; and to recognise that we need an audit with Historic Scotland at the helm.
Many members have identified ways in which the historic environment and the landscape of Scotland are important to our tourism potential and our sense of identity as a nation, and a considerable number of points have been made. I give a guarantee that, if I do not address all those points, I shall read the Official Report of the debate and respond to the specific issues that members have raised.
I say to Roseanna Cunningham that, as part of the consultation programme, we will consider including Gask ridge within the Antonine wall development to ensure that its importance is recognised. I give that categorical assurance. Perth and Kinross Council was recently awarded £278,000 from the Historic Scotland budget for 2003-04, as concern was expressed about resources being made available.
The issue that was raised about Kilchurn Castle is a public safety issue. It is important to stress that access to the castle is available only across the railway line or by boat from Loch Awe-side.
Much of the debate has centred on the role that people and organisations play and, as a result, Historic Scotland has featured in many speeches. However, as I said in my opening speech, although Historic Scotland is important in setting guidelines, establishing the framework for development and making available grants, support and expertise, local authorities and other agencies also have a role to play. We need to find more effective ways of addressing the issue and the review of Historic Scotland recommended that we consider how we can work with different partners. In fact, one of the Historic Environment Advisory Council for Scotland's key objectives is to examine ways in which local authorities can play a much more central role in developments across Scotland.
We have already increased Historic Scotland's budget from £59.7 million to £65 million in 2005-06 and, over the past 10 years, the organisation has substantially increased the income that it has been able to generate from £6 million to £19 million.
As far as buildings at risk are concerned, I have asked HEACS to consider a review of existing protection systems and I hope to receive its recommendations and views in the very near future. We have supported the development of the at-risk register, which is now online and will ensure that much more information is available to identify buildings that are at risk. Moreover, I have asked HEACS to review the decision on whether there should be an audit on this matter. Again, I await the council's views and hope to address the issue at some point.
On the planning issues that members raised, I will meet the minister with responsibility for planning, Margaret Curran, to find out how we can tackle such matters. However, I guarantee that, on Historic Scotland's review of Castle Tioram, which members throughout the chamber have mentioned, and the public local inquiry that took place in 2001—[Interruption.]
Order. I am sorry, minister. There is too much of a buzz in the chamber and backs are being turned to the minister again. I ask members to show some respect.
Thank you for that protection, Presiding Officer.
We do not want Castle Tioram to disintegrate; indeed, we want to work towards consolidation and 24/7 public access to the building. However, as I need to discuss the matter with other members who have raised the issue with me, I would prefer to wait until I have had those discussions than to address the matter directly this afternoon.
In light of the review, we have considered separating Historic Scotland's roles to remove the perception that the organisation is the judge and jury of planning applications. The review advised that PLI reporters' recommendations should be made to the planning division of the Scottish Executive Development Department. As a result, Historic Scotland would no longer have the direct role that members have claimed it has.
Historic Scotland has received a total of 65 green tourism awards, including 16 gold awards. We certainly want to encourage such developments.
As far as gravestones are concerned, we have set out best practice guidance that highlights ways in which those with responsibility for graveyards can address the problem. Moreover, Historic Scotland staff are available for consultation. If members are really seeking excitement, a conference is being held this weekend on the very matter. I recommend that Brian Adam attend that conference.
With regard to the broader issue of local authorities, we have established city heritage trusts which I hope will develop much more partnership working. We want to acknowledge the role that island, rural and urban councils across Scotland can play, therefore HEACS has been asked to examine ways of working in partnership with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities on the matter. We want to establish good practice to ensure that people can take on board experience elsewhere in Scotland.
Some members raised the key point of direct grant consent. I clarify for the benefit of members that Historic Scotland does not grant consent; instead, it consider proposals to grant consent by planning authorities. Each year, it handles more than 2,500 applications and deals with 97% of them within 28 days. Furthermore, fewer than 10 of those applications are called in each year for determination by Scottish ministers. In the past five years, Historic Scotland has received 1,000 formal applications for scheduled monument consent, only five of which have been rejected. Obviously, those applications attract public attention. They are certainly contentious, but perhaps that is why they were called in.
I will conclude with two important points. Historic Scotland is committed to working with local produce to ensure that the kind of product that Donald Gorrie mentioned is an exemplary, quality product. We have product brands such as "Made in Orkney", "Made in Tayside" and "Made in Iona and Mull" and we are developing a "Made in the Borders" brand. We are developing all those brands across our historical sites.
We recognise that the debate on the historical environment is important. Unlike one or two members who were curmudgeonly about the nature of the debate, I am delighted that we have had the chance to discuss the issues. I believe that a number of important issues have been identified. I assure members that if I have not responded to points that they raised during the debate, I will respond to them later.