Historic Environment (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3
The next item of business is a debate on motion S3M-7710, in the name of Fiona Hyslop, on the Historic Environment (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill.
14:56
Before I open the debate, I signify that there is Crown consent to the Historic Environment (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill. For the purposes of rule 9.11 of the standing orders, I advise members that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the bill, has consented to place her prerogative and interests, so far as they are affected by the bill, at the disposal of the Parliament for the purposes of the bill.
It gives me great pleasure to present my bill to members for stage 3 scrutiny, and I am very happy to propose that the Parliament should pass it. I thank members of the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee, the Finance Committee and the Subordinate Legislation Committee for their hard work and careful scrutiny of a very technical bill; MSPs for their comments on it during its passage through the Parliament; and the organisations and individuals who provided oral and written evidence to the committee and briefings for MSPs on the bill’s provisions. The bill deals with complicated technical issues, and I am sure that all members acknowledge the helpful comments and advice that were received from the organisations that contributed to the parliamentary process.
The bill addresses specific gaps and weaknesses in the current heritage legislation framework. Those gaps and weaknesses were identified during extensive discussions with stakeholders in 2007 and in 2009, when a draft bill was subject to a full public consultation. The bill will, for example, harmonise aspects of ancient monuments and listed buildings legislation and historic environment legislation with the planning regime. It will also improve the enforcement toolkit and the ability of regulatory authorities to work with developers.
The bill is the result of a genuine consensual approach to legislation. I take the opportunity to highlight the key role that stakeholders played in helping to shape the bill and refine its provisions as the process progressed through the pre-consultation, consultation and parliamentary phases, and thank the individuals and organisations that contributed to the various working groups and seminars that were set up by Historic Scotland. Those working groups and seminars helped to shape the bill that is before us today. The engagement process that has accompanied consideration of the bill, which the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities described as
“a model of stakeholder engagement”,
has contributed to the bill’s relatively smooth passage through the Parliament. That is reflected in the level of support and good will that the bill has attracted from all parties since it was introduced on 4 May 2010.
I want to touch on some ways in which the parliamentary process has helped further to refine and improve the bill and elucidate its policy context. When we debated the bill’s general principles at stage 1, I gave a commitment to write to the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee and MSP colleagues to provide them with further explanatory material about certain provisions in the bill. That was done, and I hope that the committee and MSP colleagues found the information helpful and informative. In my correspondence, I commented on the process associated with issuing retrospective scheduled monument consent; provided practical information on the types of monument that the bill is specifically designed to bring within designation; touched on the certificates of immunity process; and provided details about the operation of scheduled monument enforcement notices and stop notices. I can confirm that the material that I sent to the committee on those issues will inform a revision of the Scottish historic environment policy and Historic Scotland’s operational guidance.
The stage 1 report recommended that the Government should consider the issue, which some stakeholders raised, that expertise must be available to interpret information on the historic environment. I wrote to the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee on 7 December and noted its comments in relation to the modification of the defences in the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979 by section 3 of the bill. In my response, I confirmed that those provisions relate solely to scheduled monuments and invited the committee to note that Historic Scotland, acting on behalf of Scottish ministers, deals with all matters affecting scheduled monuments, including the designation and associated consents processes. I also confirmed that Historic Scotland is the main source of advice and expertise on those matters.
At stage 2, I lodged a number of minor technical amendments that clarified a few of the provisions, and I thank the committee for its support. I also thank the Subordinate Legislation Committee for its useful and careful scrutiny, which led me to consider some of the changes that were made. I think that I reflected at the time that it was important that we acknowledged the work of the Subordinate Legislation Committee, and, indeed, I moved amendments following its recommendations. The bill has clearly benefited from parliamentary scrutiny, so I thank those who contributed to the process.
In setting the policy framework for the bill, the Scottish Government directed that it should be drafted with the intention of avoiding placing significant new burdens or duties on private bodies or individuals, and that, in the current financial climate, the implementation costs should be kept low. I am happy to note that those overarching policy aims have been met.
Finally, although this is a very technical amending bill, I believe that it will enhance the ability of Scottish ministers and planning authorities to manage sustainably Scotland’s rich historic environment by providing authorities with a much-improved legislative toolkit to help protect and enhance our historic environment for the benefit of future generations.
As we reflected in the stage 1 debate, members have a great deal of passion for and interest in Scotland’s built heritage. I hope that that can be reflected in some members’ speeches, but it is important, in carrying out our legislative duties, to ensure that the enjoyment of our built heritage for years to come is supported by legislation that is fit for purpose and that we progress all our responsibilities effectively. I think that the bill will do that, so I commend it to Parliament.
I move,
That the Parliament agrees that the Historic Environment (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill be passed.
15:02
I lead for Labour in the debate as a substitute for my colleague Pauline McNeill, who unfortunately is ill and sends her apologies. I also apologise, because I cannot stay for the whole debate, as I previously arranged another engagement. I apologise to the Presiding Officer and to other members.
I am interested in the topic, as a former planning minister, former chair of the 1999 festival of architecture and design, and as the founder, I suppose, of the architecture and the built environment cross-party group in the Parliament. The bill addresses some issues that are familiar to me.
In the 1999 festival, we focused not only on modern architecture and design but on Glasgow’s unrivalled architectural history. It was described by John Betjeman as the outstanding mid-to-late-Victorian city, with huge diversity and richness of architectural heritage. Of course, during the period that the great buildings in Glasgow were built, we had a fantastic flourishing of architecture and design excellence, epitomised by the work of Alexander Thomson and Charles Rennie Mackintosh. When we look up in Glasgow, above the shopfronts, and see the fantastic range of design and the variety of invention, it takes the breath away at times. Probably the only city that compares with it—there is a close parallel with when it was built—is Chicago. There are interesting links between Glasgow architecture and Chicago architecture of the period roughly between 1870 and 1910.
One of the centrepieces of the year was the transformation of the derelict former Herald building in Mitchell Lane into an architecture and design centre for Glasgow—the Lighthouse. That is one of many Charles Rennie Mackintosh buildings that have been very well preserved in Glasgow through the activities of Glasgow City Council and the Charles Rennie Mackintosh Society. A considerable amount of work has also been done by Glasgow City Council and Historic Scotland to preserve other buildings in Glasgow, particularly the Egyptian halls by Alexander “Greek” Thomson, the church at Caledonian Road and some of the domestic buildings that Thomson and other architects created.
We were hindered in the process of protecting those buildings by certain circumstances, such as who owned the buildings and the insecurity of providing grants and ensuring that they were used for the correct purposes. One difference that the bill will make is that it will give much greater security to the Scottish Government and organisations such as Glasgow City Council in intervening, awarding grants and ensuring that the money is used appropriately, because it will be possible to charge owners if the money is misused.
In Glasgow, one problem is that owners can take over historic buildings and fail to maintain them and then, when they reach the point of falling down, it all becomes inevitable. Earlier intervention and the use of grants will help the process. Had the bill been in force 10 or 15 years ago, it would have been easier to deal with a number of issues that arose in Glasgow—I am sure that similar issues have arisen elsewhere in Scotland—where, despite the best intentions of the official agencies, they were unable to act as effectively as they would have liked to protect buildings. It will be particularly helpful that when public money is handed over in the form of grants, it will be possible to reclaim it if it is not used correctly.
The bill will systematise the collection and maintenance of inventories and other information about designated landscapes and historic battlefields. In Scotland, we probably have more than our fair share of battlefields—perhaps that reflects our orientation as a people and the nature of our history. I think that everyone agrees that it is important that those landscapes and battlefields are properly identified and protected. We should learn from the excellent work that is done in the United States, where civil war battlefields are well protected as historic sites and information about what happened on them has led to the development of a flourishing tourism industry in areas where the civil war was fought. That has been good not only for the economy, but for people’s knowledge of their history.
Since the Planning etc (Scotland) Act 2006 was enacted, a process of making Scottish statutory instruments to give effect to various aspects of its framework has been followed. I suppose that the bill could be seen as part of the process of drawing out the implications of the 2006 act and applying them in a particular context—in this case, the historic environment.
I am pleased that the importance of the historic environment, as well as the significance of historic buildings, in Scotland has been acknowledged. I am keen on Scottish history and the maintenance of our historic environment, and often the best way to explain it to people is to allow them to see what is left of it for themselves. If we can protect our historic environment and explain it better to people who live here and come here, we will have done something worth while.
I commend the bill, which I believe has the consensual support of all members.
15:08
Members might recall that at stage 1 I described this as
“a much ado about nothing bill.”—[Official Report, 4 November 2010; c 30071.]
The fact that no amendments have been lodged indicates that my judgment might not have been far off. However, since it is the mark of any civilised society that it preserves and safeguards its historic heritage, we on this side of the chamber will today support the bill, despite its limited scope. That does not mean that we do not have reservations.
We should continue to be alert to the concerns expressed by the Law Society of Scotland about section 18, which allows “any person” to apply to Scottish ministers for a certificate of immunity that states that a building will not be listed for five years following the issue of the certificate. As the Law Society pointed out, section 18 could have unintended consequences, especially as the scope of those who may apply for a certificate of immunity is to be extended to “any person”. Members will know that the section was intended to assist property development, but as worded it could mean developments being frustrated by a hostile party applying for such a certificate.
I am aware of the Law Society’s interest. The same concerns were raised at stage 1 and considered by the committee, which took the view that there was no pressing need to address them. There always is a risk of somebody objecting to listing. A listing exemption could be granted. What kind of frustration would there be if the objector somehow had the listing granted? It would be counterproductive. I appreciate those concerns, but they have been fully exercised and debated in the committee.
I accept what the minister says, and I know that the committee looked carefully at section 18 and on balance accepted the current wording, but we shall have to see how it works in practice. If the Law Society’s fears are realised—as I suspect they will be—we should return to the provision at some future date when, I happen to believe, more substantive heritage legislation will be required.
The committee noted concerns in relation to other sections of the bill, some of which Liz Smith and I raised at stage 1. Those included the proposed inventories for gardens and designed landscapes—and battlefields, of course; the extension of the definition of a monument; and the liability of an owner of a listed building for expenses related to urgent work. I am grateful to Historic Scotland for getting back to me after stage 1 to flesh out its thinking on some of those issues.
As a result of that, and because I believe that a more comprehensive historic environment bill is now inevitable, we on the Conservative side of the chamber chose not to lodge amendments but to highlight heritage matters that we believe still need to be addressed.
I make no apology for returning yet again to three listing anomalies in my own region that the bill will do nothing to resolve and which I have raised directly with Historic Scotland. These problems are not unique to the area that I happen to represent.
The first concerns the plight of a farmer near Crail in Fife, whose plans to develop his own land have been stymied for more than a decade because a derelict world war two airfield covers a large part of it. The airfield, HMS Jackdaw, never saw a shot fired in anger—indeed, its last use was as a language school where potential British spies learned Russian during the cold war. In its wisdom, Historic Scotland slapped an A listing on the whole site, and the argument has rumbled on as to how much of his own land the farmer might be able to develop. The bill will do nothing to help to resolve that situation.
Secondly, there is the case of Crawford priory, which is situated in an overgrown wood near Cupar. This unremarkable Victorian pile carries a B listing and is currently in a ruinous state. Its owner feels that it is well past saving, and the building is currently a hazard to children and others who walk in the wood. Because of the listing, Historic Scotland says that the owner must keep the building safe, while not allowing him to demolish it. However, as Historic Scotland has no funds to make any financial contribution to keeping it safe, the bill will do nothing to help to resolve the owner’s plight.
Finally, Kilrymont Road school building in St Andrews, which is a dreary example of 1960s municipal architecture, is scheduled for demolition when the proposed single-site Madras college goes ahead. By some bizarre quirk of architectural judgment, a pagoda-like edifice that is stuck on the top of that concrete barracks has won B listing, and apparently cannot be torn down. The result is stalemate, and again the current bill will do nothing to help to resolve the situation.
The bill is officially described as a technical tidying-up exercise, and I agree. What is clearly long overdue is legislation that completely updates the planning and listing procedures in relation to our historic environment. To Fiona Hyslop, who has previously indicated that she does not see the need for such legislation, I offer a seasonal and friendly reminder of the bard’s predictive message: minister, it’s coming yet for a’ that.
15:14
I got so carried away listening to Ted Brocklebank that I did not realise that it was my turn next.
I thank all those who have been involved with the bill, particularly those who gave evidence to us and have continued to contact us about the bill to offer their opinions. The committee clerks deserve our thanks for their efforts in making the bill process run smoothly, and I thank the minister and her civil servants for their efforts and engagement with the committee.
At stage 1, the bill received broad support. At stage 2, only a few amendments were debated. I am pleased to put on record again our support for the bill and the principles that are behind it. Ted Brocklebank is right: it is a technical tidying-up bill. I am sure that each of us could come up with anomalies of the listing system in our constituencies that act against development and are against common sense. Local debate sometimes takes place about why some places have been listed, but that goes beyond what we are debating.
We welcome the bill’s aim to address gaps and weaknesses in current legislation, as highlighted in the Historic Environment Advisory Council for Scotland’s 2006 report, which said that heritage legislation needed to be reviewed. Provisions on the recovery of grants, the recovery of debts, urgent repairs, the modification of the defence of ignorance and the extension of notices are particularly notable and should be of value in helping to preserve the environment for future generations.
I associate myself totally with Des McNulty’s points about Scotland’s battlefields. We welcome the inclusion of an inventory of battlefields in the bill. Those of us who have had the pleasure of seeing the facility at Culloden will have seen exactly what can be done in relation to a battlefield to tell Scotland’s story effectively and will know the value of that. A visitor centre of the complexity and scale of that at Culloden would not be justified for all Scotland’s battlefields, but a story of Scotland’s history can be told at the battlefield sites around the country. That is valuable.
The historic environment is all around us and contributes particularly to the character and value of all our landscapes. It gives us an important understanding of how our landscapes and seascapes have developed and a sense of how people used and travelled across our country.
In Scotland, our sense of history is particularly strong. The environment that is around us provides us with a locally distinctive character. It also provides a wide range of benefits—from the tangible effects of tourism to the less tangible boost that we get from having a sense of place and community. That is why I welcomed Karen Whitefield’s stage 2 amendment 14, which will give local authorities more power to encourage maintenance work to enhance monuments and buildings, even if they are not in danger. The swell of local popular feeling on the doocot in Karen Whitefield’s constituency highlighted well the importance of sites of interest to local people. It matters to people if a piece of local architecture or the built environment is in disrepair and is unloved and uncared for, because that says something about the heart of the community. Karen Whitefield’s amendment was welcome.
Our historic sites sit at the heart of our place making. They act as a catalyst for regeneration and provide an opportunity for people to get involved. I have commented on the role of volunteers. Research that was done in 2006 identified that more than 12,000 people throughout Scotland spend a total of 167,000 hours every year on helping with our historic environment through their enthusiasm and creativity. I have mentioned before Cramond Heritage Trust in my constituency, which involves a dedicated group of enthusiasts who have done fantastic work over the years on the Roman fort, the iron mills and so on at Cramond. We all have such groups in our constituencies, and we owe them a big vote of thanks.
Amendment 14, which was agreed to at stage 2, will not place financial burdens on local authorities and is welcome. It is also welcome that, despite her initial concerns, the minister has not lodged a stage 3 amendment to overturn the stage 2 position.
During stage 2, Ken Macintosh moved an amendment to place a duty on ministers to give relevant bodies guidance on how those bodies could contribute to preserving the historic environment. I welcome the minister’s comments today about information and guidance that will be given.
“Heritage Counts 2010”, which was published last October, focused on the economic benefits of the historic environment throughout the United Kingdom. Many of its case studies focused on English heritage sites, but some of the figures are interesting. A key finding was that £1 of investment in historic visitor attractions generates £1.60 of additional economic activity. Another finding was that investment in the historic environment attracts businesses: one in four agreed that the environment around them is an important factor in deciding to locate—the same proportion that found access roads important. We should never underestimate the fact that, for many businesses, the historic environment around them is fundamental to their business and to attracting people to the area.
Overall, the historic environment sector is estimated to contribute in excess of £2.3 billion to Scotland. What we are doing today will assist in ensuring that that continues into the future. At a time when we are feeling the pinch—that is certainly the case for many industries and job markets in Scotland—it is noticeable that the tourism industry is one sector that is holding its own. If ever we were to turn our back on the tourism industry, it would be a very bad move in economic terms, never mind anything else. The historic environment plays a crucial part in all of that.
There is no doubt that preserving, enhancing and promoting the historic environment brings tangible benefits and value. Far from the listing and planning system being a barrier to change—which is how we see it at times—if its value is recognised and used imaginatively, the historic environment can open up real opportunities for our communities.
The reforms in the bill will improve heritage protection and create a more efficient system; one that, I hope, will widen public involvement and improve economic opportunities.
15:21
Some members who are my age might remember the actor Moultrie Kelsall, the man who got all the gloomy Scots roles that did not go to John Laurie. He was also a pioneer foodie and no mean architectural critic. In the columns of The Scotsman he rounded frequently on those people who were out to look at the environment and say, “There’s an auld hoose. Ding it doon!” At the time, that was no idle threat. My friend Robin Cook, a man of waspish intellect, in referring to a planning convener in Glasgow in the late 1960s, said, “That man’s real ambition is to knock down every listed building in the place.”
John Hume—a name to conjure with in architectural circles—and I made a programme for transmission by the Open University on the industrial archaeology of Glasgow. It was the OU’s first programme in Scotland. Lo and behold, within two years of doing that, most of the industrial archaeology had disappeared.
Behind the technicalities of the bill that we say farewell to today is the issue that the problems that accelerating technical change and ecological demands are posing could all too easily prejudice the future of historical and attractive buildings, unless we can find a use for them and see that they are treated and handled in ways that will enliven the public life of the places in which they are situated.
For instance, in my constituency centre of Kirkcaldy we have the beautiful art nouveau Station hotel, which would make a marvellous Jack Vettriano art gallery. No artist has celebrated the transient lives of hotels more than Kirkcaldy’s best. The building is still shuttered, and perhaps awaits the inevitable visit of a vandal that leads to outright demolition. We also have in Kirkcaldy the merchant’s house, which was restored in 2004 to the tune of £6 million and has yet to receive a tenant. The issue is not only restoration but finding uses for such property.
I am slightly dubious about the logic of the Law Society of Scotland’s briefing on the bill stressing property development. In Edinburgh, we have suffered from quite a lot of property development. I gaze at the hideous shuttered frontage of new St Andrew’s house—if ever Thatcherism had a face in Scotland, by God, that building was it—or at the Appleton tower, which disfigures what remains of George Square. If the bill can help to prevent the building of what John Betjeman called “rent-collecting slabs”—think of the Caltongate proposals—it will have my heartfelt support.
I will make two further points. First, it is important to balance the conservation of the environment with conservation of the pockets of the people who must live in it. Often, cheap-jack modernisation methods can be applied to buildings: think of the horrible plastic astragals that are inserted into double glazing to try to make it look historical, which do not show up at all, as they do not have anything like the right proportions. Surely we can design a way out of those. On the other hand, a constituent of mine in Kirkcaldy who lives in an unlisted property near a B-listed building cannot get permission from the local council to install any sort of double glazing, even though the listed building does not have the original fittings on its windows. Inevitably, that type of bureaucracy is frustrating to authority and inhabitant alike.
Secondly, Scotland’s historic environment must be a living environment. Some landmarks are fragile—think of the appalling fate of Rosslyn chapel at the hands of Dan Brown—but our historic buildings and sites ought to be accessible to local communities and visitors alike, if their condition allows for it.
Will the member take an intervention?
No, I am just about to close.
As meeting halls, community centres and museums, many historic buildings in Scotland can and do draw together communities and root them in their living environment and in history. Just think of what I hope will be 2011’s building of the year—that amazing classical building in the middle of Greenlaw, the town hall, which stands almost within the parish of Hume. In 2011, we will celebrate the tercentenary of sinful Davey. What a magnificent place the town hall would be in which to celebrate the imagination of Scottish architecture. It could act as a sort of temple of humanism, if I may attempt a ghastly pun, in this historic year and remind us of the environment that lies everywhere to our hand in Scotland—an environment that we must and can protect.
Although speeches should be limited to four minutes, I can give members an extra minute.
15:27
I welcome the passing of the Historic Environment (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill today. It may not be the most exciting bill to have come before Parliament, but it will have a positive and lasting effect on the built and natural environment.
I thank those who have participated in the legislative scrutiny of the bill, including members of and clerks to the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee, of which I am convener. I also thank the minister and her civil servants for their efforts in progressing the bill. Finally, I thank the organisations that helped both the Government and the committee to shape the bill, including the Built Environment Forum Scotland, Archaeology Scotland and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities.
As members are aware—and as other speakers have said—the bill is an amending bill that addresses issues that local and central Government have highlighted, and it follows extensive consultation by Historic Scotland. The bill harmonises the legislation that covers the environment, scheduled monuments and listed buildings. It does so by amending three existing acts: the Historic Buildings and Ancient Monuments Act 1953, to allow ministers to specify the amount of grant that can be recovered if conditions of grant are breached or a building is sold within 10 years; the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979, to amend certain provisions relating to scheduled monuments; and the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) (Scotland) Act 1997, to amend provisions on listed buildings.
Members will recall that at stage 1 few concerns were raised and that only a handful of amendments were lodged for stage 2. One of the amendments, which has already been spoken about by my colleague Margaret Smith, was lodged by me—rather unusually, for a convener. It related to a doocot, and the minister herself suggested that it will forever be known as the doocot amendment. The idea for it came from representations that I had received from a constituent, who had experienced some difficulty in his attempts to ensure that an historic doocot adjacent to his property was properly maintained by its owner. The local authority has attempted to reach an agreed solution with the property owner, but with no success. The council claims that current legislation does not enable it to undertake works and then re-charge the owner.
My amendment was an attempt to improve the situation—not to force owners of historic monuments or listed buildings to undertake unnecessary work, but to ensure that we step in at a much earlier stage sometimes, before a building falls into such a state of disrepair that it is dangerous. There was some confusion about interpretation of the legislation, and some local authorities felt that further clarity was necessary.
I thank members of the Built Environment Forum Scotland, who provided assistance with the drafting of my amendment, and I also thank Archaeology Scotland, which supported it. I was pleased that a majority of committee members agreed with the amendment. I am particularly pleased that the minister, despite her reservations about the amendment’s being unnecessary, has chosen not to attempt to overturn it at stage 3. My constituents in Cairnhill in Airdrie will be pleased and relieved, and they will be looking forward to having their concerns addressed when the bill becomes an act.
As I stated at stage 1, there are a number of reasons why it is important that we protect and conserve our natural and built environment. First, it is right that we preserve relics and monuments for the value that they provide in understanding our history and our cultural heritage. In addition, many buildings, monuments and other sites possess significant intrinsic beauty and aesthetic merit, and for that reason alone they deserve our protection.
Finally, and further to my previous two points, there is the benefit that our cultural heritage bestows upon the Scottish economy. An illustration of that is provided in the briefing paper from the Built Environment Forum Scotland for today’s debate, which points out that the historic environment sector is estimated to contribute in excess of £2.3 billion to Scotland’s gross value added, the bulk of it coming from tourism expenditure.
I welcome the passing of the bill, which deserves the Parliament’s full support.
15:33
A friend of mine with whom I had lunch today asked me what the Scottish Parliament was talking about this afternoon. I said, “We’re debating the Historic Environment (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill.” He said, “Nothing new there, then.”
As is demonstrated by the absence of amendments at stage 3, the bill has been developed by the Parliament in a consensual manner to address an issue that, although it is fairly technical, has a great impact on the communities that we serve.
The need for a significant refresh and consolidation of law in the area can be seen from the fact that the three principal acts that will be amended by the bill date from 1953, 1979 and 1997. Over the 60 years since the passage of the first of those acts, a great deal has changed in how we view our environment and the threats that face it, and in our approach to dealing with the landmarks that we have created over many centuries.
The consensus around the bill developed before it reached Parliament. It grew out of joint working involving both of the national agencies concerned—Historic Scotland and the Historic Environment Advisory Council for Scotland—as well as Scotland’s local authorities, which bear an increasing level of responsibility for managing all aspects of our environment, including the preservation of Scotland’s historic buildings and places. All those bodies are on the front line when the demands of today’s society and economy clash with the objective of protecting—and, wherever possible, providing access to—Scotland’s rich historic environment. As they discharge their responsibilities, it is right that they have a legislative framework that is clear in its objectives and that properly allocates both the responsibility and the powers that are needed to achieve those objectives.
I will give an example from my constituency of the challenges that those who are working to protect our historic environment face. The King’s theatre—or the ABC cinema, as it is probably known to most people locally—was built in the early part of the 20th century and could hold about 2,000 patrons for a single show. It hosted operas, variety shows and musical extravaganzas, and it invited minors—young people—to attend on Saturday mornings in advance of the showing of a movie. I admit to being one of the kids who turned up with a sword in advance of the “Ivanhoe” movie. The theatre showed some of the early moving pictures and, by 1937, had caught up with changing fashions and so became a cinema, and added a balcony.
Unfortunately, the interior of the building was devastated by fire in 1975, having been converted to a multiplex. It was eventually closed in 1999 and, sadly, remains out of use to this day. The building retains its fine Edwardian baroque frontage—I know because it faces my constituency office. However, despite being a grade B listed building, the old theatre is simply rotting away inside. A fine specimen of a tree now grows out of the frontage and is causing unknown damage. Despite the efforts of East Ayrshire Council, the owner has allowed the tree to continue growing. Therefore, I welcome the fact that part 3 of the bill will strengthen local authorities’ ability to deal with buildings that are simply being allowed to deteriorate, and to recover their expenses. I look forward to the act coming into effect, at which point I will press for the strongest possible action to arrest the decline of that fine old building.
That building also demonstrates the need for flexibility. What exactly would we be preserving? Much, if not all, of the original interior has already disappeared through fire, redevelopment and neglect. We need a system that is flexible enough to secure the retention of that which is worth retaining, even if that means a degree of modification in the nature of the building’s use or in the restoration techniques or materials that can be used. In recent years, local authorities have been encouraged and supported in taking greater responsibility for the historic environment. I encourage the continuation of that approach as the act is rolled out, in the hope that the old King’s theatre—or the ABC cinema—in Kilmarnock can find a new purpose befitting its historic importance to the town.
15:37
I welcome the opportunity to participate in the debate and I thank the committee for the work that it has done, especially because it worked so well in co-operation with the minister that there is no need for us to discuss amendments at stage 3.
All of us, wherever we represent, appreciate the importance of the historic built environment, whether it be the national icons such as the Borders abbeys, New Lanark and Edinburgh castle or the smaller, more local icons that communities cherish, which tell stories of local history that sometimes have national or even international significance. Historic buildings can provoke strong emotions, either in those who believe that they must be preserved at all costs, or in those who are keen to pull them down.
Having listened to Ted Brocklebank’s speech, I again lament his decision to stand down at the next election. Surely, a member’s bill on listing would have been worth coming back for. Maybe his successor will take on the task. All of us could provide similar examples from our constituencies of the listing system having detrimental effects on development or on communities, but perhaps that is for another day. Maybe nobody will want to take on that little gem.
As other members have done, I congratulate Karen Whitefield on the success of her doocot amendment—as it will now always be known. Many of us can think of examples of historic buildings in our constituencies that are not yet falling down about us or that have not yet reached such a state of wrack and ruin that local authorities are able to intervene, but about which there is real concern that, if steps are not taken, that will happen. Willie Coffey just gave us such an example from his constituency.
Carluke parish historical society, in my constituency, has been trying for many years to get action taken on High mill there, but that has not been an easy task, due to the mill’s having a hostile owner, if I may say that. That is why I welcome the provisions that have been introduced by Karen Whitefield’s amendment, and I hope that we will be able to make some progress as a result of the bill and the amendment.
Communities cherish those kinds of historic buildings, which tell the story of the community, of the people who lived there and made the community what it is, and of the industry that went on there. It is important that we are able to keep those buildings and that they are not only historic sites but are, as Willie Coffey said, capable of being developed and used as something else, so that they can be used by a new generation in appropriate ways.
I welcome the fact that the bill will standardise legislation. It is important that we get things standardised again in this area.
It is important that we have an opportunity to put on record again this Parliament’s support for the historic built environment and to say that it is not just bricks and mortar, but something that tells the story of who we are and where we have come from.
I am proud to represent New Lanark, which tells the story of Scotland’s social history and marks the fact that we no longer send children to work in mills, or anywhere else, at the age of eight. Our social history is part of our historic built environment—we cannot separate the two. If we forget the history of the buildings, we might forget the history of the people who worked and lived in those buildings.
I am thankful that we have taken forward this piece of legislation, because the buildings around us shape and frame the people we are and the country we live in.
I am happy to have been able to participate in the debate and will support the bill at 5 o’clock tonight.
15:42
I declare an interest, as I am the occupier and joint owner of a property that is listed as being worthy of statutory protection under the provisions of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) (Scotland) Act 1997.
When I spoke at the stage 1 debate last November, I took the opportunity to berate authorities, including the University of Edinburgh, for the architectural vandalism that has defaced our marvellous capital city in the past, and for some of the eyesores that had taken the place of Georgian or Victorian good taste. The subsequent reaction to that contribution was interesting, with some agreeing whole-heartedly while others, assuming that I was some sort of opponent of modern architecture, said that I wanted to preserve the past in aspic. Indeed, there was a long correspondence in the local newspaper on the subject.
Before going further, I will clarify and correct a misunderstanding that arose at that time. I want to make it clear that my criticism of the University of Edinburgh was of the university of 50 years ago, not the wise and enlightened authorities of today. I need to make that point before I go to the next graduate meeting.
Does the member sympathise with many of my constituents in Acharacle, who will be disappointed that the bill will do nothing to address the issue of Castle Tioram, whose owner has spent 14 years trying to restore a Scottish heirloom of great importance, which is falling into the sea?
I share the member’s concern about Castle Tioram and acknowledge that the bill does not address such matters. However, I support what is in the bill. The issue that Mr McGrigor raises could be the subject of the bill that Ted Brocklebank’s successor might bring to the next session of Parliament.
One of the most difficult tasks that we face in this field is to sort out the wheat from the chaff and decide which buildings can be preserved and which can make way for the architecture of today and tomorrow. In a way, the older a building is, the easier it is to do that, partly because a really old building, by its very survival over the ages, has proved a point and also because tastes have settled. However, it is much more difficult with relatively new buildings.
In the stage 1 debate, I mentioned with distaste what I consider to be the neo-brutalist monstrosity that is the New Club building in Princes Street, which replaced a splendid Victorian building, only to be contradicted by an architect who contends that it is a marvellous example of the genre. He might be right, so if I had any influence in the matter of preservation, I would give way on that point. However, even I cannot be convinced of the merits of slab buildings such as the soon-to-be-demolished New St Andrew’s house or the southern facade of Argyle house in Castle Terrace, which was erected in 1968 and which has been the home of various Government departments. However, others can be convinced and the debate goes on.
It is important that the bill harmonises existing legislation. That is in response not only to consultation, but to the Historic Environment Advisory Council for Scotland’s “Report and recommendations on whether there is a need to review heritage protection legislation in Scotland”. The bill works in harmony with non-legislative steps, such as the growth in partnership working between Historic Scotland and local authorities, and so gives our historic environment increased protection. Among other things, it will lower the bar from damage of scheduled monuments to disturbance of them; bring fines for damage to monuments into line with those for environmental crimes that are regulated by the Scottish Environment Protection Agency and Scottish Natural Heritage; and give ministers greater rights to require the reversal of unauthorised works.
Our historic environment is not just a pleasant facility for those of us who are lucky enough to live in Scotland; it is also one of the most potent attractions for visitors and has been estimated to contribute more than £2.3 billion annually to the national gross value added element of our gross domestic product. The Built Environment Forum Scotland estimates that in 2008, 12,449 volunteers carried out a total of 167,721 hours of work, as Margaret Smith mentioned. That illustrates the enthusiasm that people have for our historic environment. I support the bill and commend it to the Parliament.
15:47
The lack of stage 3 amendments to the bill is, I am sure, as much a tribute to its perfection as proposed legislation as it is to the unassailable nature of the arguments that were advanced in its favour at stage 1, which I will try not to repeat too tryingly today.
Maintaining historic buildings is not a simple matter and is certainly not the same as merely preserving historic ruins. The need for pragmatism and adaptation is clear, if our built heritage is to have a function in the future. Similarly, the relevant legislation needs to adapt and survive.
I hope that the bill will considerably improve the protection that is given to our built environment in a way that does not place unreasonable burdens on private stakeholders. However, the bill has at its core the concept of public benefit. For instance, it will explicitly enable the Scottish ministers to recover grants in the event that specific preconditions of those grants are violated. That is one of the many examples of how the bill takes a responsible stance on public expenditure.
One innovative aspect of the bill on which I would like to dwell briefly, as other members have done, is the inventory of important Scottish battlefields. There was discussion in the committee and elsewhere about vexed questions of definition and disputed locations of battlefields. I can think of one such dispute in my constituency that led ultimately to the comment by one person whom I know that, if the battle had taken place on the site that was suggested, any graves would long since have fallen victim to generations of peat cutting.
Those occasional difficulties of definition aside, however, it must ultimately be a positive step to recognise formally the existence of battle sites that are of national importance. The inventory of battlefields will give formal recognition for the first time to those sites, many of which are central to Scottish history and, in some cases, to our existence as a nation.
We are fortunate that some battlefields, such as the scene of King Robert the Bruce’s victory at Bannockburn during the wars of independence, have a memorial and a visitor centre and are well known to the public. Incidentally, and unsurprisingly, I do not share the well-publicised horror that some members have expressed that schools run school trips to see Bannockburn and are encouraged to do so by the Scottish Government.
However, many battlefields are less well known and have been subject to various changes in land use and to uncontrolled metal detecting, which can raise archaeological as well as ethical questions. An inventory of battlefields will start to address those issues, but in a pragmatic way. If a battlefield has been ploughed or grazed since the day after the battle took place, which most of the ones in Scotland probably have been, there is no suggestion that the bill seeks to get in the way of agricultural activity continuing.
It is clear that there is wide support for the bill. The Built Environment Forum Scotland, for one, has strongly endorsed it, saying that it will go “a significant way” to ensuring consistency between elements of the historic environment legislation and the planning regime, as others have pointed out. The organisation points out that even if Scotland’s built environment did not have an incalculable cultural value, it makes an enormous contribution to our country’s economy.
The bill is a reasonable and sensible means of updating and clarifying in law the protection that, as a country, we rightly extend to our built heritage. In that spirit, I commend it to the chamber.
15:51
I am pleased to wind up on behalf of the Liberal Democrats. It is slightly concerning that when I started my research for my speech, one of the first things that happened was that a note from the official reporters during the stage 1 debate fell out of one of my documents. That gives an indication of how often I have looked at them since then.
Nevertheless, it is an important bill, which the policy memorandum describes as
“an amending piece of legislation which consists of a series of provisions identified by central and local government, and during the course of discussion with other stakeholders during 2007, which followed the publication of a report by the Historic Environment Advisory Council for Scotland on the need for a review of heritage legislation in Scotland.”
That report was produced in 2006.
The policy memorandum goes on to say:
“The Bill is designed as a tightly focused technical amending Bill to improve the management and protection of Scotland’s historic environment. It has been drafted with the intention of avoiding placing significant new burdens or duties on public or private bodies or individuals and implementation costs are expected to be minimal.”
In that context, it is understandable why so few amendments were needed at stage 2 and why none was needed at stage 3. The bill has been in gestation for a considerable length of time and will provide very little in the way of additional burdens. I welcome the work that Government ministers and the committee have done to ensure that the bill has got to this stage without the need for significant amendment.
Many things can be said in today’s stage 3 debate that were probably said in the stage 1 debate. I begin by referring to some of the points that my colleague—I say “colleague” in the sense that the region that he represents includes my constituency—
What about the coalition?
We are not in coalition up here, Ted.
The situations at Crail airfield, Crawford priory and the Kilrymont Road school building—which particularly irks me—that he referred to are all ones that I could equally well refer to.
Another example that I will mention is the Scottish Fisheries Museum, which hoped to put on the side of its building a wheelhouse that would have overlooked the sea and allowed people to play with some of the navigation equipment and see what was in the Firth of Forth. It was not allowed to do so because the museum is a listed building in a conservation area. That was a piece of nonsense, because it would have been an excellent new facility that would have enhanced the area, but Historic Scotland got in the way.
I well recollect from my previous life as a councillor that when Falkland High Street was due to be repaved, the council was keen to put in some nice granite setts but was told by Historic Scotland that it had to keep the existing rather nasty concrete pavement, which had probably been put there in the 1960s, because it was a conservation area. I wondered whether it also had to keep the potholes and the other things that it was trying to get rid of. That sort of nonsense gives Historic Scotland a bad name. I hope that the minister and others are working to deal with that.
We need to consider issues that were mentioned during the stage 1 debate, such as how we can put double glazing and improved environmental measures into historic buildings to bring them up to modern standards while preserving their basic characteristics. One of the reasons for listing is that people do not want building redevelopments that are sometimes described as vandalism, but sometimes listing can amount to vandalism in that it can prevent sensitive redevelopment of buildings. Buildings are living creatures that need to be adapted and changed to meet modern needs and uses. On Leith waterfront, buildings that used to be warehouses and bonded stores have been converted into flats, shops and restaurants, thereby breathing new life into that community. Had they been left as historic but empty warehouses, that community would have been dead. Who would want to go to see Leith waterfront if it was a bunch of derelict warehouses? Castle Tioram is another example of where we might need to be a bit more imaginative.
I conclude by mentioning the wider review of environment legislation that will be needed, perhaps during the next parliamentary session. The minister might not be too keen on that, but it was one of the things that was referred to by George Reid in his report for the National Trust for Scotland, “Fit for Purpose” when he said that there was no
“immediate need for new NTS legislation”
but that
“In several years’ time, however, a new Act of the Scottish Parliament will be necessary to codify the reform process and to address any other issues which NTS then feels appropriate.”
In that, George Reid was referring to some of the wider issues that his report referred to about the need for environmental bodies, such as Historic Scotland, the National Trust for Scotland and the Historic Houses Association for Scotland to work together to help to protect our historic environment. That wider review is necessary and the next Parliament will have to come back to it.
15:55
This has been a largely consensual debate on many fronts, which is perhaps not surprising because it would be very hard to argue against the main principles of the bill. It has also been a very interesting debate and, as Ted Brocklebank said, it must continue. The fact that there have been so few amendments is becoming a major debating point, but it does not suggest that parliamentary scrutiny has been any less rigorous. It has been more rigorous, and we should bear that in mind.
The bill was set out as a technical amending bill rather than one of substantial import and substance, but it has encompassed some extremely important points of detail and it has raised important issues about legal interpretation. I will come back to that later.
As many members have said this afternoon, Scotland’s historic environment is the very precious fabric of this country. It is one of the most defining aspects of Scotland and it can bring enormous social and economic benefit, most especially in the form of visitor income. The bill matters even if it will not necessarily hit the headlines in the same way as many other items of parliamentary legislation would.
Of course, the minimal cost involved was also in the bill’s favour. That was a pleasant change as far as the Government was concerned. Perhaps that is one reason why the bill has progressed a little more smoothly than most.
When it comes to the front line in the protection of our historic environment, there are many legal issues. At stage 1, many people made a powerful case for the general principles of the bill and its prime objective, which is to preserve and enhance Scotland's historic environment for future generations. They made some points of legal detail. The comments were informed, and I pay tribute to the many people who gave us evidence and played a supporting role. Their deliberations were balanced and informative, and the briefings that we have received since have also been helpful.
I note the comments, made by various members, about there being a need for clarification in several areas and perhaps a little need for the streamlining of the administration of our historical environment. That point was picked up by several speakers during today’s debate and by several key stakeholders throughout the earlier stages. There can be no objection about the need for greater clarity, especially when it comes to the interpretation of existing legislation, notwithstanding the current need to make the legislation compatible with the Valletta convention.
For example, at stage 2 there was an interesting debate surrounding amendment 14—the doocot amendment—and what circumstances have to pertain before a local council can or, perhaps more important, should use its powers of intervention. The committee convener raised the issue following a constituency issue that had questioned what constituted a state of danger. The minister was very clear in her evidence on 15 December 2010 that powers exist to do something about that, but committee members needed to make up their minds about whether they were being used appropriately. That is quite an important issue as we bring the bill to its conclusion. There seemed to be some doubt in the minds of various councils, so there was ambiguity on that point. We should bear that in mind for the future.
Secondly, there was much debate about the defence of ignorance in section 3, particularly the possibility of all but removing the defence. There are genuine situations in which human error can occur. We had to be conscious that the problem could be compounded if a lack of clarity about what constitutes an historic monument continues.
Thirdly, there was the issue of the production of certain inventories. Like any taxonomy, they are open to interpretation—a point made by others in their stage 1 contributions. Although I would argue that difficulty should never be a reason for not doing something that is worth while, we urged caution when it came to section 11, where the bill attempts to deal with responsibilities.
Ted Brocklebank made the point that the jury is still out, not least because of some of the divisions of opinion that exist between the committee and stakeholder groups. Notwithstanding that, we give our full support to the bill.
16:00
I shall start by making the point that all my Labour colleagues and, I think, every other speaker has made—we welcome the bill. It is a technical, amending measure that is tightly drawn and, in the Government’s own words, tightly focused, but it will help to harmonise existing legislation, close the odd gap or loophole in the law and clarify the grant recovery process. Perhaps the most significant and welcome addition is the new statutory duty to compile and maintain inventories of battlefields, historic gardens and designed landscapes.
Like others, I thank all those who gave evidence on the bill, our clerks and drafting team, and the minister and her team. Like Karen Whitefield, I give a special mention to the Built Environment Forum Scotland, which gave a lot of its time at stage 2.
I have made it clear from the outset that we welcome and support the bill because I want to use my remarks in closing the debate for Labour to highlight the worries that remain, despite the consensus on the bill. Even after we pass the bill this afternoon, I am not convinced that we will have sent out a strong or clear enough message about the importance of the historic environment or that we will have done enough to challenge the negative attitudes and prejudices that exist.
The bill makes a number of welcome reforms, but it is another Government proposal that comes without a financial resolution. That is a crucial point, because one of the key drivers behind the bill was the desire to ensure that no additional costs are placed on local authorities. This is an incredibly difficult time for all those in charge of public services and budgets. No one here disagrees with the policy intention, but the desire to ensure that the bill came with no added costs established the limits of the bill’s ambition from the outset.
The bill was never going to be anything other than an attempt to tidy up legislation, and to my mind it shies away from tackling any underlying concerns about our historic environment and the protection it should enjoy. Ted Brocklebank outlined the fact that a number of issues are still to be tackled, as did Iain Smith in his closing remarks by quoting George Reid’s comment that we will have to return to the issue. Even Ian McKee, in reply to Jamie McGrigor’s intervention, accepted that the bill does not address some of the problems that face us today. I believe that the bill is worth while and non-contentious but ultimately unambitious, and I argue that we should be doing more to protect and enhance our historic environment.
We are lucky to live in an incredibly accessible historic environment. As many members have emphasised today, our heritage is important to us and, if I may say so, impressive. We have an unrivalled written, visual and archaeological record of our past going back centuries—not in the shape of museum pieces but surrounding us in our everyday lives. In his opening remarks, Des McNulty talked about the diversity and rich architectural heritage of Glasgow, but when I was walking down the Royal Mile this morning to Parliament, with the new town to the north and the closes of the medieval city of Edinburgh running off either side of the street and with Holyrood palace and the remains of Holyrood abbey right beside this iconic building, I found it difficult not to be impressed by that history in the context of a modern, dynamic and purposeful city.
This is a history and environment that draws people to Scotland and is undoubtedly a mainstay of our tourism industry. That point was made by both Karen Whitefield and Ian McKee, who talked about the £2.3 billion that it may contribute to our economy. However, it is also a heritage that matters to those of us who live, work and wish to raise our families here—to know who we are. Karen Gillon put the point nicely when she said that our historic environment helps to shape and frame the country and people we are.
Having said how impressive I believe our historic environment is, I must admit that, in looking at and taking evidence on the bill, I could not help but be struck once more by the fact that as humans we are simply scratching the surface of the land that we inhabit and inherit. There are ancient structures to see, including medieval castles such as Dirleton castle just down the road and the burial chambers in Orkney, but much more of our past, however majestic in its own day, has already crumbled into decay.
The monuments and historical artefacts of our predecessors that do exist, when uncovered, often call to mind the hollow words of Shelley’s Ozymandias:
“Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair!”
We need to consciously choose and act to protect that from the past which we deem important, not for the ego of those who built it, but for our own sake and for future generations.
There are plenty of philistines. We have only to look at our high streets to see that, whatever our intention as expressed in the Parliament, it is not universally shared. I was struck by the number of speakers this afternoon who were able to list the failings and difficulties in our planning system. Ted Brocklebank did that in his opening speech, but so did Professor Harvie, Willie Coffey, Karen Gillon and Jamie McGrigor. They all highlighted the fact that there are difficulties with the listing and planning system as it operates at present. Main streets in Scotland have become bland and homogeneous. They are often indistinguishable from each other. There are examples of that even here, in historic Edinburgh. George Square was alluded to by Dr McKee, but Princes Street is hardly testimony to a commitment to our historic environment.
It is especially worrying that the expertise that is needed to make judgments about what is worth keeping and what is not is in danger of being lost. I will refer to a couple of surveys. The first was done by the Institute of Historic Building Conservation, which is the professional body for conservationists. Its director, Séan O’Reilly, said:
“The current investigation reveals conservation services that are teetering on the edge. The cutbacks that we all see coming, if not carefully directed, will disenfranchise from the democratic planning processes many of the local communities that value and help care for their historic places.”
We have heard concerns even more directly from a Government agency. The research by the Historic Environment Advisory Council for Scotland is a couple of years old, but having surveyed local authorities, the council stated:
“the survey and case study interviews showed that the workload focus was on meeting statutory requirements and even this was not at desirable levels, for example: record keeping and monitoring were not as good as they should have been; availability of expert advice was restricted; enforcement activity was very low ... In relation to more proactive activities, the ability of many authorities to work up new projects, seek support funding and intervene to save/improve buildings was limited.”
It is a rather worrying time and these are difficult decisions. We get attached to buildings, and judgment is required to make decisions about them, but when public and local authorities are faced with cuts and savings to be made, does anyone think that the archaeology services will be kept or given the same recognition as education or care for the elderly?
On top of the need to make informed choices as to the significance of certain buildings, we were reminded in evidence that the vast majority of our historic environment is not listed, recorded or scheduled. In some cases it has to be unearthed and identified. We seem to be reliant on television shows and bidding wars against other parts of the country to protect even the most high-profile buildings and structures.
To conclude, there are a number of issues that will continue to need our attention, but the bill marks a step forward and it is to be welcomed by everyone in the Parliament.
16:08
I thank members for a lively, informed and interesting debate. Although we send Pauline McNeill our best wishes, I think we benefited from Des McNulty’s experience and his recollections of the experience of Glasgow. He made the point, as did Ted Brocklebank, that whatever criticisms there might be of the scope of the bill, it contains practical measures. Indeed, he reflected that, had those measures been in place 10 or 15 years ago, some of the practical issues that he mentioned would have been addressed.
The debate has been constructive and the discussion has clearly demonstrated the extent to which we all care about the appropriate protection and management of Scotland’s historic environment. I have been struck, as I was at stage 1, by members’ affection, passion and loyalty to their sense of place in their communities, and by how, as MSPs, they seek to promote their areas. That is important. I am happy to note that there is broad support for the bill throughout the chamber and I have enjoyed listening to the comments that colleagues have made.
I want to comment on the information that will be provided about the bill. I reaffirm that the legislation will be accompanied by an awareness-raising and education programme, which will be taken forward by Historic Scotland. The process has begun. Members might be interested to know that, as part of the programme, the Scottish Government has produced an information booklet in liaison with key stakeholders called “Managing and Protecting our Historic Environment: What is Changing? The Historic Environment (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill Explained.” The booklet provides readers with an overview of the existing historic environment protection regime and sets out the changes that will be introduced by the bill. It can be found on the Historic Scotland website.
We will also target owners and occupiers of scheduled monuments to raise awareness of the bill’s modifications to defences with regard to unauthorised works affecting those monuments, and my officials will consult stakeholders on the most effective and efficient methods for taking all that forward.
However, in closing, I want to address some of the points that have been raised in the debate. Karen Gillon, Margaret Smith and others touched on the central philosopical issue of telling the story of Scotland and the relation between people and a sense of place. Buildings reflect the story of the people in a place and we must ensure that we bring those forms of identity closer together. Indeed, that is one of the reasons why I promoted and chaired a Historic Scotland seminar called “My Home - My Place - My Scotland” that brought together the different people who can tell the story of Scotland through the built environment. If we can mobilise everyone in an area to do that, we can make a big difference.
As far as philosophy is concerned, does the minister agree with my view that one of the problems with Historic Scotland, particularly in recent years, is that it appears to have been more interested in preserving sculpted ruins than in developing organically some of the buildings that are important in our past? Should that not be looked at more carefully?
As part of my leadership in this area I have insisted that Historic Scotland looks at how it behaves and what it is doing. I want to reassure the member about its evident approach to some of the areas of interest that members have highlighted. The organisation’s officials are more than happy to meet members of this chamber and local authorities and, indeed, have recently done so in relation to Crail and the St Andrews case. I also reassure Jamie McGrigor that although the case for Castle Tioram has been rejected in the past and although I cannot prejudge the result of any discussions, Historic Scotland has made a fresh approach on the issue and is actively engaging with the owner on a number of solutions. It is important to put that on the record.
As for the need for legislation, I think Iain Smith might be in danger of misinterpreting George Reid’s comments, which were specifically about the governance of the National Trust for Scotland.
The subject of battlefields is very interesting, because the issue there is not just the structures themselves but the fact that they are catalysts for tourism. Indeed, the references to the US civil war and Alasdair Allan’s point about the Western Isles demonstrate what could be delivered in that respect.
I am sure that Karen Gillon is aware of this, but the factors to be taken into account in listing and scheduling decisions are set out in the Scottish historic environment policy document. However, there must be more openness, transparency and understanding in that respect and, indeed, the ability to challenge decisions must exist. It is not that we simply seek to stop things happening, but that we have a better understanding of what is going on.
People feel frustrated partly because they do not know what goes on. I realise that a whole process has to be gone through but people are still finding out after the fact or are not finding out in time that a building has been listed. That is leading to frustration. I simply believe that there is more to be done in that process.
I take the point, which is why, with regard to scheduled monuments, the bill contains a provision to proactively ensure that people who are known are contacted. I believe that that represents a sea change.
I thank the Parliament and my colleagues on the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee for their invaluable support during the bill’s passage. Moreover, I extend thanks to all the organisations that have made constructive contributions and look forward to including them in continued dialogue to revise SHEP, and to working with them as partners in the bill education programme. We will also consult on the suite of regulations that will be introduced to accompany this bill once enacted.
I want in particular to thank my bill team in Historic Scotland for their hard work throughout the legislative process. The committee has acknowledged their responsiveness to certain issues that were raised during stages 1 and 2.
As I noted in my opening speech, the bill addresses the specific gaps and weaknesses in the current heritage legislation framework that were identified during extensive discussions. It will make a good system better and improve the regulatory authorities’ ability to work with partners to manage Scotland’s unique historic legacy.
In voting for the bill, we reaffirm our commitment to the appropriate care, protection and management of our rich historic environment for this and future generations. However, we cannot and must not be complacent; we must ensure that we channel our passion for our built environment constructively and always look at how we might improve provision. After all, we are stewards of that process and must take that responsibility seriously.
I ask that members support the motion and approve the Historic Environment (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill.