Historic Environment Policy
The next item of business is a debate on the new Scottish historic environment policy series.
I am delighted to have this opportunity to highlight the work being undertaken to set out our policies on the historic environment.
It is worth pausing to consider what we mean by the term "historic environment". The historic environment is all around us. Scotland's countryside looks the way it does because more than 300 generations have used and managed the land and the sea and built villages and towns. Most of all, though, the historic environment is about communities and the people who live in them; not just the people of Scotland today, but the people who lived in Scotland before us and those who will come after us.
The historic environment shapes our surroundings, creates a sense of place and gives Scotland an identity of which we can all be proud. We have been bequeathed a rich heritage, which is recognised throughout the world. Scotland's heritage represents 10,000 years of investment in our landscape and every generation has left its mark. We can see that depth of time in the pattern of streets established hundreds of years ago or in the pattern of fields and woods. That historic environment reminds us that others have lived here before us and, most important, reminds us that others will follow. We have a duty and a responsibility to live our lives and to manage our world so that we are proud to pass it on to our children.
Our historic environment is one of this nation's greatest assets, which continues to grow in value and which we can use to the benefit of our country. It is a unique resource for education. Historic Scotland, the National Trust for Scotland and many private owners are committed to providing first-class education programmes, but we can also learn from the historic buildings and sites that surround us in every part of Scotland. We get a great sense of place and belonging from the sites and buildings that are around us, and caring for them can be a good way of bringing communities together. Our historic sites and landscapes are critical to our tourism industry. They are our unique selling point, attracting 85 per cent of the visitors who come to Scotland. They are part of the Scottish brand. We should remind ourselves of the economic benefits. Almost half of the £6.5 billion turnover of the Scottish construction industry is spent on repair and maintenance rather than on new build. We are becoming more aware of the need to conserve energy, and our 47,000 listed buildings represent our most sustainable buildings, created as they are from natural and mostly local materials that last for decades or even centuries.
Most people assume that our rich heritage of sites, buildings, places and landscapes is cared for by charities and the Government. However, most of Scotland's historic environment is cared for by private individuals and small businesses. We all have a role to play in the protection of some part of our past. Even if we do not own or look after a historic building or site, we can make a difference by keeping an eye on what is happening to a familiar site or building as we pass it by.
However, national and local Government and other institutional stakeholders have a vital role to play in supporting individuals, businesses and charities in protecting our heritage. Over the past century, national and local Government have played a growing part in the care of our historic assets through legislation, through the town and country planning system and through partnership working with bodies such as the Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Scotland, Communities Scotland, the National Trust for Scotland and Scottish Natural Heritage.
Historic Scotland is the key central Government agency dealing with the historic environment, an integral part of the Scottish Executive and an important part of my portfolio. Three years ago, my predecessor commissioned a review of Historic Scotland. The key recommendations of that review were that the agency must be more transparent, more accountable to the people of Scotland, their Government and stakeholders and that it must be more flexible and more focused on the delivery of high-quality service to the new Scotland.
We have delivered on those recommendations. For example, three non-executive directors have been appointed to the board of Historic Scotland to provide the external challenge that the review identified as desirable and there is a real commitment to engaging with stakeholders. Further, the two inspectorates that were responsible for historic buildings and ancient monuments have been combined into a single unit to provide high-quality service to owners and occupiers, which will ensure consistency, flexibility, transparent decision making and accountability.
A particularly important recommendation in the review was that there should be a policy statement for the historic environment in Scotland, developed in consultation with stakeholders, building on the First Minister's St Andrew's day speech and the national cultural strategy and approved by the Executive. The response to that recommendation is the Scottish historic environment policy series—I will refer to the papers as SHEPs from now on. The launch of the series and of the current consultations marks a milestone in the process of change at Historic Scotland. For the first time, not only since devolution, but since the first legislation was passed in 1882, we are developing detailed policy statements on many aspects of the historic environment. It is important that we are doing so in an open way, through public and stakeholder consultation.
The current programme for the production of the SHEPs will see around a dozen either published or out for public consultation by March 2008. They will cover subjects such as the listing of historic buildings, the processes of listed building and scheduled monument consent, how we deal with battlefields and the protection of the marine historic environment.
SHEP 1 and the other papers in the series, when published in their final form, will sit alongside and complement the Scottish planning policy series and other similar documents.
Today, we have in front of us the first three papers in the series, two of which were issued for public consultation on 31 March. The third was published in its final form on the same day. Copies of all three are in the Parliament's library and are available on the websites of the Executive and Historic Scotland. I will deal first with the two that we are consulting on.
SHEP 1 sets the scene for the other papers. It is the policy statement that provides a framework for more detailed strategic and operational policies that inform the day-to-day work of a range of organisations that have a role and interest in the historic environment. Those include the Scottish Executive, local authorities and the range of bodies that are accountable to Scottish ministers.
Our aims are to realise the full potential of the historic environment as an economic, educational and cultural resource across every part of Scotland and for the widest possible range of people; to maximise the role of the historic environment in achieving the wider aims of social and economic regeneration; to identify what forms our historic environment takes and protect and manage it in a sustainable way; and to break down the intellectual and physical barriers to its wider accessibility.
By putting in place a strategic policy framework for the historic environment, investing in its delivery and working in partnership with others, we are determined to achieve three key outcomes for Scotland's historic environment: that the historic environment is cared for, protected and enhanced for the benefit of our own and future generations; that there is increased public appreciation and enjoyment of the historic environment among all the people of Scotland and visitors to the country; and that the historic environment's importance as a key asset in Scotland's economic, social and cultural success is recognised and skilfully harnessed. That bold vision is achievable. The historic environment can make a valuable contribution to our wider agenda to create an aspiring, confident country with sustainable economic growth, confident communities and a vibrant and dynamic cultural life, and one that offers unparalleled tourism opportunities.
SHEP 3, which is out to public consultation, deals with gardens and designed landscapes. Those places are important tourist attractions, rich wildlife havens and major parts of the Scottish scenery. They are also living examples of unique artistic talent and vision. They are widely enjoyed by people of all ages, backgrounds and cultures. For 20 years, Government has recognised the need to identify and protect the most important examples, such as Drummond Castle in Perthshire and Torosay Castle on the Isle of Mull. At the moment, 346 sites are included in the inventory. Inclusion means that a site receives recognition and a degree of protection through the planning system. The consultation process includes questions about whether those places need greater statutory protection and how sites might be selected. The document also seeks views on Historic Scotland's role in that.
The final SHEP on the table today, which is now published in its final form, deals with the protection of Scotland's nationally important ancient monuments and archaeological sites through the process of scheduling. That SHEP is the result of the most comprehensive review of the principles and processes of scheduling that has been undertaken, certainly since 1979 but, in some ways, since 1882. Scheduling imposes restrictions on what the owner of a nationally important site can do to it. It is, therefore, vital that scheduling is undertaken on the basis of sound principles and through processes that are both transparent and accountable. Those principles are set out in SHEP 2 along with guidance to Historic Scotland as to how I want them to be put into practice.
The review has produced a new strategic approach to scheduling, with greater local involvement and better targets to measure Historic Scotland's progress in identifying and protecting sites. SHEP 2 marks the formal launch of new, tighter and clearer criteria for deciding which sites should be scheduled. They are the first scheduling criteria ever to be drafted with public involvement, and it is important to record the fact that that involvement led to significant changes between the first draft and the version that we are able to read today. That process of consultation is fundamental to my vision for the policy framework. This week, Historic Scotland's scheduling team is in Dumfries and Galloway, working under the policies that are set out in SHEP 2.
The SHEP on scheduling takes us back to the review of Historic Scotland. Another key recommendation was that the agency should engage with stakeholders in a debate about its practices. The chief executive of Historic Scotland will oversee the preparation of a series of operational policy papers that will make explicit the way in which the agency will deliver the strategic aims that are set out in the SHEPs. The first operational policy, on volunteering, has been sent out to consultation and will be launched this summer. Others will follow.
SHEPs 1 and 3 are now open for public consultation; other SHEPs and Historic Scotland's operational policies will follow. The papers are only drafts. The people of Scotland and the other stakeholders in our historic environment now have a real opportunity to work with Scottish ministers to put in place a policy framework that is fit for the 21st century—a framework that will protect and manage Scotland's historic environment and set out bold aims and achievable results for the benefit of our own and future generations.
I am delighted that this debate has been able to get to first base. The last time the minister brought a debate on an aspect of our historic environment, it had to be cancelled. It was meant to be a debate about architecture, but the roof fell in on the chamber that day. However, Rob Gibson pointed out to me that the roof fell in during his water debate; I hope that there is no association with the persons who were present when that happened.
As a nation, we have a rich historic environment of which we can be proud. It ranges from specific monuments to everyday features that have developed through human history. It can include anything from architectural sites such as the Antonine wall to the ramparts of our great castles such as Edinburgh and Stirling. It could even include the beautiful terraced properties of Charlotte Square that are occupied by our very own First Minister, or the beauty of the truncated spurs, hanging valleys and corries of Glencoe.
Those many attributes have served to shape our nation and are often drawn upon in order to reflect Scotland at home and internationally. The engineering brilliance of the new Falkirk wheel—the unique rotating boat lift—the fantastic engineering of the Forth road bridge, the natural beauty of the shores of Morar that were made famous in the film "Local Hero", and the guardian of Glencoe, Buachaille Etive Mor, have all been used at different times as symbols of our nation and of what Scotland is about at home and abroad.
Unfortunately, as a nation we can sometimes take for granted our fantastic historic environment. It is important to recognise its value because it is an asset in its own right. In order to make the most of that asset, we must recognise the cultural, educational, economic and social benefits that can be derived from our historic environment. The documents published by Historic Scotland acknowledge the key components that are important if we want to actualise the potential of our historic environment, although to date they have been limited in their expression of how we should go about achieving that.
As a nation, we should be looking to make the most of our historic environment. We should aspire to become a country that is internationally recognised for good practice in conserving and making the best of our cultural heritage. If we are to achieve that international recognition, it is important that our historic environment policy does not sit in isolation from other policy areas. It must be fully integrated with our environmental, social and cultural policies in order to make the best of it. Although the consultation document acknowledges that, it is important that it is actualised into policy that can make a difference.
Another key to making the most of our historic environment is to ensure that agencies such as Historic Scotland work in partnership with the individuals and organisations that have a role to play. Historic Scotland has an important role to play in implementing the Executive's policies, but local authorities, the Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Scotland, the National Trust for Scotland, other voluntary organisations, and private individuals all have a role to play in the preservation and conservation of our historic environment. It is important that that preservation and conservation are about maximising access and benefit to the whole nation.
A couple of examples illustrate the need for partnership working and how different agencies have a role to play. During the recent Easter recess, I had the pleasure of visiting Abbotsford House just outside Galashiels, where my colleague Christine Grahame cut the ribbon to open the Nigel Tranter exhibition, which contains a display signed by Nigel Tranter and to which I donated my copy of one of his books. Abbotsford House is an important historic building as it was the home of Sir Walter Scott. Without saying too much about it—Christine Grahame will no doubt say more, as she was involved in the campaign to save the building—I believe that Abbotsford House is a good example of how private individuals, trustees and others need to work collectively to ensure that we properly benefit from the important historic buildings of our nation.
Another example is the Antonine wall, which, as the northernmost frontier of the great Roman empire, was built at a time when the Scots were not quite so hospitable to visitors. It is hoped that the wall will become a world heritage site in 2009. Given that it spans from West Dunbartonshire to Bo'ness, a wide range of local authorities and agencies will have a part to play in ensuring that world heritage status is successfully secured. Our historic environment policy must ensure that all the interested parties are brought together in collective working so that we get the best from such natural assets.
I want to make a couple of specific points about SHEP 1. I welcome the general thrust of the document, but it gives only limited information on exactly how the Executive intends to pursue some of the objectives. Section 6 of the document acknowledges the need for
"investment in the fabric and management of Scotland's historic environment".
It is absolutely crucial that we have a grants system that helps to support the maintenance and preservation of our historic environment while ensuring that buildings remain accessible. My concern with the grants that are currently available for the maintenance of such properties is that they result in people who want to gain admission being levied with a charge for the upkeep and maintenance of the building. The danger is that prohibitive costs will prevent people from accessing such buildings. We need a grants scheme that strikes the right balance between preserving the asset and maintaining and promoting public access to it so that both current and future generations benefit from it.
That leads me to the issue of accessibility and understanding, which is also dealt with in the document. To use the example that I mentioned earlier, we need to ensure that British Waterways works with those who are responsible for the Antonine wall so that visitors to the Falkirk wheel can also benefit from seeing what they can of the Antonine wall in the area. Although the different agencies involved in such matters will often say that they are working together, such collective working is not always demonstrated on the ground. We need to ensure that visitors to the sites get the best from them. As the policy moves forward after the consultation, I hope that clearer guidance will be issued on how such organisations must work more in partnership with one another.
I will draw my remarks to a close by suggesting that, if we get those issues right, the final key outcome that is outlined in part 8 of SHEP 1,
"Releasing the full economic potential"
of our historic environment, will be actualised at both local and national level. I look forward to the outcome of the consultation.
As we have heard, Scotland is indeed fortunate to have so many historic buildings, monuments, gardens and sites that attract visitors and tourists alike. Many of those buildings have been restored by sympathetic owners or by organisations such as the National Trust for Scotland. Just as I pay tribute to private citizens who have done so much to preserve our built and landscape heritage, I should also mention the sterling work that the National Trust has done over the years. Its small houses initiative in places such as Dunkeld, Culross and the east neuk of Fife has resulted in domestic houses being restored and then made available to the public either on a for sale or for lease basis. Those have acted as an inspiration to planners and the public alike.
However, many buildings are still at risk. Historic monuments are still crumbling, and some historic gardens and parklands are mouldering wildernesses, badly in need of preservation. For those reasons, I welcome the launch of the Executive's SHEPs, which set out ministers' strategic policies for the historic environment and the operational policies that Historic Scotland should follow in implementing them. There is merit in identifying historic gardens and designed landscapes, and perhaps in creating a statutory listed garden status, in the same way as we have listed buildings. Of course, a balance must be struck between such a statutory list and the rights of private landowners, who have played a major part in preserving our cultural heritage. It is not always essential for primary legislation to be in place for the historic environment to be preserved. Often a fairer, clearer planning system and a strong economy are what is required to motivate private landowners, developers and local authorities.
There are buildings all over Scotland on the at-risk register—many of them listed—that are simply crumbling away. Although most owners are to be congratulated on the sympathetic way in which they have gone about saving our built heritage, a small proportion have not risen to the challenge. Around a dozen buildings in north-east Fife are on the architectural at-risk list. One such is 1-3 High Street, Newburgh, within the designated Newburgh conservation area. In the buildings-at-risk register, the house is described as a three-storey townhouse with moulded windows and crow-stepped gables. It dates from the 18th century and is B listed. The house has stood vacant since the early 1990s.
On 30 December 2002, The Courier reported that compulsory purchase proceedings were to be initiated by the council. However, in June 2003 local planners reported that the building had been sold. Three years later, the house continues to crumble and is in a much worse state than it was more than a decade ago. Sadly, my information is that the co-owner of the property is a member of the Parliament. As a courtesy, I tried to contact him today, but since I failed to reach him, I will withhold his name at this stage. In any event, he has done nothing illegal. However, if a member of the Parliament shows so little awareness of the blight that he continues to allow by not developing a listed building in his ownership, what kind of example is that to set to others? The hard fact is that neither the local planning authorities nor, apparently, Historic Scotland have powers to force a recalcitrant owner to upgrade an important historic building.
However, while failing to save many of our at-risk buildings, Historic Scotland is simultaneously seen as the dead hand that prevents landowners from developing properties appropriately or from pulling them down if they are beyond salvation. Can it be right that, a decade after Lex Brown bought the ruined 13th century Tioram castle in Moidart and expressed himself willing to restore it at his own expense, Historic Scotland is still holding him to ransom over his development plans? The dispute boils down to whether Mr Brown restores the castle to his preferred date of 1715, when it was torched by Clanranald to stop it falling into Hanoverian hands, or whether it should be left as a spectacularly scenic ruin. Historic Scotland has adamantly defended the latter position, despite the fact that other scenic ruins, including Castle Stalker, Dunderave on Loch Fyne and Dairsie Castle, near where I live, have been developed, although all of them were immortalised as ruins by painters of the calibre of Turner, Varley and McCulloch. Perhaps the most scenically situated of all, Eilean Donan, was restored from a ruin. Castle Tioram has developed into a kind of virility test between Historic Scotland and a sympathetic developer. How long will the minister allow the farce to continue?
Equally, can it be right that 10 years since Historic Scotland scheduled the wartime training airfield of HMS Jackdaw near Crail in Fife as a national monument, that ramshackle collection of huts—which never saw a shot fired in anger—should still lie mouldering away? Despite the involvement of the local planning authorities, a specially commissioned consultants' report and the best efforts of the landowner to be allowed to develop even part of the site, agreement with the intransigent and apparently impoverished Historic Scotland seems no closer.
A review of the agency carried out in 2004 by the Executive concluded that there was a clear need for a culture change within Historic Scotland. I heard what the minister said in her opening remarks, but actions speak louder than words. The Cultural Commission recommended that there might be benefits in Historic Scotland consulting Architecture and Design Scotland on matters of consent and the listing process. Hear, hear to that, but when will it happen?
As an executive agency, Historic Scotland has guardianship of many buildings that are currently vacant and are being maintained in a necrophiliac way as ruins at public expense when they could be sympathetically restored and made to earn their keep as living buildings. Although the Conservatives applaud the intention to review existing policies for preserving our historic buildings, monuments and gardens, in our view the current policy documents do not really tackle the problem. There must be fewer grand strategies and more community and local involvement. Existing planning legislation needs to be tightened to address problems such as the listed Newburgh building to which I referred. Posturing Government agencies need to be brought to heel if we are to make real progress in safeguarding our historic environment.
I am not sure whether I need to declare an interest. I am a friend of Historic Scotland and a member of the National Trust for Scotland. I include in my curriculum vitae the fact that I enjoy visiting ruins—I used to get many jokes about Liberals and ruins, but fewer jokes are made about that now.
In less politically correct days, my first-ever election photo, in 1970, featured me, my wife, my two children and my dog at Blackness Castle. It was a very nice picture, but I did not win the election.
The subject of the debate is of great interest to me. The Executive documents are pretty, helpful and provide a good basis on which to go forward.
I will concentrate on arousing interest in the whole issue. Many people enjoy visiting ancient buildings and so on, but many more people might enjoy doing so if they knew about the opportunities that exist. We must get Historic Scotland, the National Trust for Scotland, local councils, schools and tourist boards to co-operate better to promote the idea of having a good day out visiting gardens, castles, prehistoric remains or whatever. One way of encouraging the idea is to promote Scottish history books and history magazines better than we do now. They do not get much encouragement. We must get Scots more interested in our history and culture.
We should arouse local interest. Volunteers often help to keep a local landmark open and show people round, but that is based on local enthusiasm. We could better promote buildings that are relevant to famous Scots—perhaps especially people who have gone abroad and done good things in Europe, the colonies, America or the Commonwealth, as well as people who have achieved good things at home. People are interested in people, so it is helpful if buildings and communities are related to people with whom we can identify.
Local museums are important, but some are very good and others are very bad. Some councils do not adequately support their museums. Another problem is that often people do not know about good museums. Consider the example of Callendar park in Falkirk, which is a super place. It has a marvellous situation, contains a really good re-creation of old workshops, shops, houses and so on and has marvellous grounds. However, I suspect that perhaps 1 per cent of the population of Edinburgh has heard of it, although it could offer them a nice day out. It is a council property. The Bo'ness railway, which is run by a voluntary organisation, is also a really good experience. We must somehow publicise those places better than we do now.
Councils should improve the way in which they look after their archives. As I recently became involved with others on the issue, I am aware of the City of Edinburgh Council's disgraceful failure to look after its archives. The council has started to improve the position. Archives are an important part of the history of an area; they tie in with the buildings and so on.
Special funds should be set up to promote school visits to ancient monuments of all sorts. Again, those visits not only make a good day out for the kids but arouse a lot of interest in our heritage.
More exciting events could be mounted at our historic buildings. One of my many failures in life was in trying to get the City of Edinburgh Council and the Army to do a re-enactment of Thomas Randolph, Earl of Moray, and his guys climbing the castle walls to capture Edinburgh Castle at the time of Robert the Bruce. I think that people were worried about insurance or some such thing—anyway, the plans fell down.
No fun there.
I know.
I succeeded in getting the guidebook to Linlithgow Palace to mention that Binney and his people had cunningly captured it from the English. We should re-enact these things—not that we hate the English; we would simply be celebrating our independence.
Large chunks of Scottish history are neglected. I refer to our industrial heritage and entrepreneurship. Although we have a number of good industrial, farming and fishing museums, they are not as well known as they should be. We could do even more to celebrate the huge contribution that Scotland made to the industrial revolution and the enlightenment, although it is perhaps a bit harder to demonstrate the enlightenment. It does not help when artists produce the kind of awful statue that we have of David Hume. Nonetheless, the idea behind commissioning it is good.
I turn to trees and gardens. The policy series features gardens. At the moment, we are being lobbied by an excellent group of people who would like us to create a register of historical trees and establish an historic tree trail. We could really sell that as a day out for tourist and educational groups. People love gardens. In my 26 years as a councillor, I was always worried that a gardening candidate would stand against me. I knew that if that happened, they would sweep to victory. People think that gardening is far more important than politics or any rubbish of that sort.
Without getting too involved in Castle Tioram, I think that we should not be too precious about keeping buildings just as they were. Churches are an issue in that regard. Unfortunately, church congregations are dwindling. Despite that, churches can play an important part in the community. I have been told about quite a number of churches whose congregations wish to reconfigure the churches to make them more of a community asset and community centre. People have been told that they cannot do so because it would mean moving a pew or marginally altering a window. It is more important to have buildings that can be used; we should not be too precious about some piffling detail. The important issue of buildings at risk has been mentioned in the debate. We should look after such buildings and sort out a future for them.
People like trails—tourists or local people alike. A trail can be made to take in a series of lovely trees, gardens, Pictish brochs, engineering centres, fishing or farming landmarks—trails can take in all sorts of different things. We should publicise them. We could have a big advertisement that says, "This is the world's best collection of Pictish stones." Nobody other than Scotland has Pictish stones; we are bound to have the best ones. Why do we not promote them seriously?
There are many ways in which more excitement could be created. The documents are a good start. We must look after what we have and excite people about all of it. The more people know about their past, the more they will look forward to their future.
When Ted Brocklebank started talking about mouldering wildernesses, I wondered whether he had been peeking over the wall into my garden, but perhaps not.
Unlike my garden, the rest of my constituency is full of sites and buildings that track the development of Scottish culture and society. They run the gamut from pagan standing stones to Celtic crosses; from St John's kirk, where John Knox fuelled the fire of the reformation, to the ecumenical St Mary's monastery on Kinnoull hill, which probably has John Knox spinning in his grave; from Roman forts to General Wade's roads; from the bloody memories of Sheriffmuir to Innerpeffray, where the calm of the oldest library in the country exists; from the 10th century round tower of Abernethy—an early millennium project in the east of my constituency—to the remains of the Pictish fort of Dundurn at St Fillans in the west of my constituency.
Has she missed anything?
I do not think so, but no doubt my constituents will tell me if they feel that I have.
Scotland's history is painted in bold colours throughout my constituency. Perth is one of Scotland's ancient cities and Perthshire is arguably the place where our nation came into being. The historic environment plays a huge role in the economic life of the whole county and, as the minister acknowledged, of the whole of Scotland. It is important to Perthshire and to me that the Executive gets this policy right.
I will address some key issues on the general questions of the identification, designation, protection and management of the historic environment and then consider the specific issues that relate to two important sites in my constituency.
In section 3 of SHEP 1, the Scottish Executive lays out its "vision and policies" for the historic environment and stresses that Scottish ministers cannot undertake those on their own. It looks to Historic Scotland to work with a wide range of bodies and organisations to play
"a crucial role in conserving the fabric of the historic environment and allowing and promoting public access and enjoyment".
That is an essential point that must not be allowed to be just empty rhetoric. Much of Scotland's historic environment is in private hands, whether it belongs to individuals or institutions of one kind or another. Not only must there be close co-operation; there must be recognition that unless a private owner has an unlimited disposable income, it is likely that the building or monument will simply not be looked after properly. The saga of St Peter's seminary in Cardross springs to mind. If we decide that it is in the public interest for a part of our heritage to be preserved, then we have to accept that public money must play a role in its preservation.
By the same token, we must be far more realistic than the authorities seem to be at the moment in our approach to listing properties. The present system often means that the private owner of a listed property either is left spending vast amounts on its upkeep or, rather more likely, leaves it to rot and decay. We heard about one rather graphic example of that in Newburgh.
One site in my constituency that is in real danger of decay is the Roman fort at Gask, which is in the hands of an extremely rich landowner with whom I have had a run-in or two over the years over the management of his lands. Rabbits cause a serious threat to the Roman site, which is literally being undermined. It is an example of a site where there have been genuine difficulties in Historic Scotland
"working together to a common purpose with individuals and businesses."
I urge the minister to ensure that the Roman fort at Gask is preserved. In the by-going, I press once more the case for the Gask ridge to be included along with the Antonine wall, which my colleague Michael Matheson mentioned, as a world heritage site. 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 so is of true global significance.
In section 3.2 of SHEP 1, we see listed the criteria on which Scottish ministers intend to judge the importance of proposals to protect and manage the historic environment. I know of a project in my constituency that ticks each of the boxes but which is still struggling to secure the necessary funding to take forward an exciting development.
The plan is for the crypt at St Mary's monastery on Kinnoull hill, built in the 1860s by Perth's most famous architect, Andrew Heiton, to be redeveloped as a social and cultural facility and as a portal to Kinnoull hill, which is open to all the citizens of Perth and, indeed, the whole of Scotland. It would act as a gateway both to the network of paths that is being developed on Kinnoull hill and to the very tranquil gardens of St Mary's itself, where the intention is to provide routes that are suitable for disabled access. However, if funding is not forthcoming, there will be no alternative use for the crypt. Indeed, there will be no use at all for the crypt, which would be sad. On behalf of my constituents, I hope that the minister will do all that she can to help to bring the plans to fruition.
My two examples pose real challenges. In the first case, the owner could probably make the required investment, but will not do so; in the second, the owners of the site—a religious order—do not have the finances to spare on such a building. I imagine that the same challenges are replicated throughout Scotland. If they are not addressed, we will not make progress.
The debate will give considerable comfort to the many dedicated, committed and highly qualified individuals, groups and organisations that work to discover, preserve, enhance and promote Scotland's historic environment. The documents that we are discussing provide, for the first time, a structured approach to the issue. I realise that there are great constraints out there and, indeed, recognise many of the scenarios that Roseanna Cunningham has described, as I have come across them myself. I also acknowledge Ted Brocklebank's knowledge of Fife and perhaps sympathise with his comments. I, too, know of circumstances in which, for example, the money is simply not available or the landowner feels that the public sector contribution is too low to justify his or her investment.
At this point, I should declare an interest as a trustee of Fife Historic Buildings Trust, which deals mainly with relatively recent historic buildings. Such buildings are important; indeed, I could spend my six minutes talking about them. However, members will be pleased to learn that I do not intend to do so. Instead, I wish to concentrate on the deep seam of older riches, many of which other members have referred to, that abound in Scotland and that form a significant part of the country's historic environment. Such buildings, remnants of buildings, earthworks, burial sites and artefacts teach us how our land was used and how our communities have developed and changed over the centuries. As Donald Gorrie pointed out so eloquently, it is important for Scotland's population to get a sense of where they have come from and how they got to where they are.
As a result, this debate is timely, not only because of the necessity of such a structured approach but because of the reform to the planning system that the Communities Committee is considering in the Planning etc (Scotland) Bill. We cannot talk about one issue without referring to the importance of the other. Indeed, only today, Fife Council has agreed its new 20-year structure plan, which will see a significant increase in the number of housing and other developments in Fife. As the historic kingdom's rich archaeological history and buildings must be protected from some of the depredations that can result from uncontrolled development, it is extremely important that the issue is considered alongside the introduction of any new planning regime.
I suggest to the minister and the chamber that, in comparison with, for example, Highland's 6 million acres of land, Fife's 32,000 acres contain, square foot for square foot, more historical artefacts. Because of its low-lying nature and east coast maritime location that—of course—places it close to the European mainland, Fife has been more densely populated from very early times. With its 10,000-year history of human occupation and significant archaeological and architectural record, I am sure that Fife will be a willing participant in the consultation.
I draw to the minister's attention the briefing that we received today from the Council for Scottish Archaeology. It has suggested three elements that ought to be adopted, the first being a statutory duty of care and the second being a statutory sites and monuments records service—something that I have raised before in a speech in this chamber. Such a records service might not be as onerous as one might have thought because, as far as I am aware, every local authority in Scotland, bar perhaps one, already has a voluntary register. The minister might care to consider that. Thirdly, the Council for Scottish Archaeology suggests the adoption of a target of having all significant archaeological sites in a stable or improving condition by 2010, although I think that that is unachievable and that the timescale is too short. Perhaps the minister will consider what sort of timescale would be reasonable.
I would like to touch for a moment on some of the on-going work in the kingdom with which I have been involved. In the Dysart regeneration project, in Marilyn Livingstone's constituency, work on the St Serf's tower is uncovering a deep historical record. The minister herself opened the new tourist information office in Kirkcaldy, in the ancient merchant's house, with its old wall paintings, which is an example of a building that is put to a good, practical use while still allowing its history to be appreciated. The Pictish carvings in the caves at East Wemyss are now, sadly, almost lost, and that may reflect a dispute a long time ago with the landowner—a dispute that, in today's climate, we might not have had. The standing stones in Balfarg, Glenrothes, form the centrepiece of a lovely housing development and can be enjoyed by all the children because they are part of the recreation area. The bronze-age burial cists at Sillerhole, near Durie in Leven, were the subject of a "Time Team" investigation, and the minister will recall that two full skeletons were found there, along with a number of extremely interesting artefacts.
When I printed off the material from Fife for today's debate, I was reminded that, when I was leader of Fife Council, we produced a guidance note on archaeology and how it would be treated, and the list of types of monuments—some of which I passed to Ted Brocklebank, who had only half of the North East Fife ones—covers prehistoric ritual and funerary items and domestic, defensive and industrial sites. I could read out the list, but I will not; there are pages of it.
I know that all members want to know more about our historic kingdom, but I will move away from Fife for a moment. In our work on the Waverley Railway (Scotland) Bill, we had considerable dealings with Historic Scotland about a wide range of buildings, monuments and landscape features, all of which were of significant architectural and historical interest. Historic Scotland is a powerful force for good. It has huge expertise and resources and I hope that the new structure and direction that the minister has outlined will make better use of those resources than has perhaps been the case heretofore. I invite the minister to visit the Lower Methil heritage centre, where she can see some of the work that has been happening in my constituency. I will certainly be looking at the responses to the consultation from my area, and I look forward to a further debate on the subject when those responses are in.
Mr Dave Petrie (Highlands and Islands) (Con):
It feels most appropriate that my maiden speech should be on the topic of historic environment policy, as I live in an ancient building just down the road from one of Scotland's treasured ancient monuments, McCaig's tower in Oban. As a former rural public service employee, I am acutely aware of the vital need to protect and regenerate our heritage, and I fully recognise the need to review the policies governing the preservation of such national treasures. Scotland has a wealth of historic architecture to be proud of, developed over generations, thanks to community and local authority support. However, there is also a darker side, of ancient buildings that have been allowed to disintegrate into disrepair.
The new series of Executive policies has the laudable aim of maximising the role of our historic environment in Scottish culture. Our ancient buildings are shining examples of our heritage, and I feel particularly encouraged by the stated aim of breaking down barriers to their accessibility.
Our historic buildings are famous around the world and are wonderful drivers of tourism. However, they should also be an inspirational, educational resource for our own people and should be used distinctively to meet our cities' and towns' needs in the 21st century. They should be preserved accordingly, but preservation does not and should not necessarily equate to increased legislation. The Scottish Executive's current policy proposals are too prescriptive and will inevitably lead to an expensive and bureaucratic quagmire. Such a situation would neither help to preserve our heritage nor identify and address current regeneration issues or levels of housing provision.
A strong economy is essential for retaining our conserved buildings and, if it is coupled with a willing and constructive partnership among politicians, landowners, developers and local authorities, there could be real security and prosperity for Scotland's historic environment. Giving a voice to landowners and commercial developers will make the strategy legitimate and fair. I support the Scottish Parliament's cross-party group on architecture, which found that renovating existing properties was a cost-effective means of creating new housing.
Having experienced my baptism of fire in the Communities Committee—
Oh!
I was not pointing at Christine Grahame.
My eyes have been well and truly opened to the complex vagaries of planning legislation. The Scottish Conservative party has long argued for a thorough reform of the planning system and welcomes the long-overdue Planning etc (Scotland) Bill's aim of simplifying and speeding up the planning process. I hope that the more streamlined policy will be implemented more effectively and will lead to some of the dilapidated ancient monuments in Scotland being restored and made fully accessible to all interested parties.
I said at the beginning of my speech that I live in an ancient building. I know from experience that my current 120-year-old residence is architecturally and structurally far superior to my former, modern timber-framed abode; that level of construction skill should not be left to disintegrate. At the risk of abusing an oxymoron, I make a plea for Historic Scotland to join the 21st century by taking responsibility for the swathes of our cultural heritage that have been allowed to degenerate into unsightly ruins.
As declared in the register of members' interests, I am a life member of the National Trust for Scotland.
I support the three outcomes that are stressed in SHEP 1. The care, protection and enhancement of the historic environment for today's generation and future generations is immensely important, as is increasing Scots' and visitors' appreciation and enjoyment of the historic environment. I am a firm believer in the idea that the more that people see and understand the historic environment—indeed, the broader environment—the more they will protect and treasure it.
It is obvious that the historic environment is a key asset in Scotland's economic, social and cultural success and that it will continue to be so for the foreseeable future. It is particularly important not only for internal tourists but for tourists from outside Scotland. The figures for tourism in the Scottish Borders are interesting: it generates £91 million per annum from 540,000 visitors who stay overnight, but day visitors are particularly important, and the historic environment has a big role to play in attracting them. There are 7 million visits to the area per annum, leading to expenditure of £108 million. Moreover, 3,500 people are employed in tourism and tourism-related activities. The historic environment massively underpins tourists' expenditure and investment in the Borders economy.
I appreciate and accept the importance of partnership working in shaping, protecting, conserving and developing the historic environment. That partnership can involve local authorities, voluntary organisations, statutory bodies, communities, owners and small businesses, as well as VisitScotland, which has a role in ensuring that the historic environment is maintained.
There are some remarkable sites and historic monuments in the Scottish Borders. I will mention four magnificent abbeys: Dryburgh abbey contains the burial places of Sir Walter Scott and Earl Haig; Jedburgh abbey was founded by King David in 1138; Kelso abbey is a magnificent ruin; and the heart of King Robert the Bruce lies interred in a casket at Melrose abbey. There are also the great houses of the Borders, including Mellerstain, Manderston, Floors Castle and Bowhill. Indeed, I must refer to Paxton House, as my constituent, Mr Home Robertson, is here. He played a large part in developing that important facility in the south-east corner of the Borders.
Although the museum service in the Borders is clearly successful, so much more could be done, particularly with the smaller private museums and public investment therein. For example, there is a small museum in Eyemouth that would add significantly to the visitor attractions in the area if it were enhanced in some way. However, VisitScotland is not prepared to pay a rental on the facilities that it uses within the museum. That shows a lack of joined-up thinking. VisitScotland's objectives would clearly be better met if that museum were allowed to develop. The Jim Clark Room in Duns is a magnificent example of a thematic museum, but we could do with developing the history of motor sport in Berwickshire. Initial attempts to do that were thwarted by a lack of funds.
Small museums can be immense success stories. Drumlanrig's Tower in Hawick now contains the Steve Hislop museum. He was the world motorcycle champion, but was tragically killed in a helicopter accident. Now, a lot of his trophies, bikes and equipment are displayed in Hawick, which has attracted thousands of visitors from overseas. That sort of development is extremely important.
There are occasions when the initial investment that is required to set up a facility that would enhance a local area is not achievable, either through traditional public means or through private investment. I suggest to the minister that a small museums fund be set up. Aside from some grant aid that could be given out, it might be possible to obtain loans against future visitor numbers. That would be a good way to enable small museums to establish themselves and grow and create major extra attractions for local areas.
There is an undeveloped area of particular importance: we need to ensure that works of art that are stuck in storerooms around Scotland are taken out and displayed as widely as possible. In the past, I have attempted to persuade the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body to display more works of art around the Parliament. There are some very good examples of outstations of the National Galleries of Scotland, such as Paxton House, displaying works of art. I have mentioned Paxton House twice now—I will do so a third time if John Home Robertson is lucky.
Those outstations are important developments, but we could do more if we encouraged local authorities and private collections to lend works to attractions in their areas and thus shared the cultural assets. The ownership would remain the same, but we could facilitate the sharing of the assets to broaden the possibilities for communities. Many of the smaller museums could have proper curatorial input, and sharing and borrowing could be enhanced by schemes run by Historic Scotland and museums services throughout the country. That would enhance the visitor experience in a number of places.
Major historical buildings throughout Scotland require assistance, some of which Ted Brocklebank mentioned. I will finish by referring to one fantastic building in my constituency—Greenlaw town hall. It is a magnificent structure, but it is falling rapidly into decay through lack of use. It might well feature—I hope that it does—in the BBC's "Restoration" programme. I invite the minister to come and see it. I shall be happy to show it to her. I am sure that she will be impressed by the magnificent facility. She might even offer a little grant aid to those who are trying to secure its future use.
I draw to members' attention my membership of Historic Scotland, the National Trust for Scotland and the Scottish Ecological Design Association, and mention en passant my convenership of the cross-party group on architecture and the built environment.
The debate has been interesting. I will focus on one or two remarks that others have made before I embark on a few points. First, Donald Gorrie was kind enough to draw to members' attention the exhibition on trees that I am hosting in the garden lobby. Many trees in Scotland are older than any building in the country. The Fortingall yew dates from the time of Christ, which means that it is nearly 2,000 years old, and scores of other trees are between 600 and 1,000 years old. I ask the Executive to consider carefully having a national register of historic trees and giving such trees as much protection as it can afford in the near future.
Ted Brocklebank raised a lot of issues. I have never agreed with Ted Brocklebank on fishing, and I rarely agree with him on anything else, but from beginning to end I agreed with almost every single word of his speech. There has to be room for a rational approach to restoring old buildings, not just to a visibly acceptable standard but to a state in which they can be used rationally and economically. That means that we need to consider some of the nit-picking regulations on how one can improve one's windows. In some parts of Edinburgh one is not allowed to put in double glazing, yet there is now double glazing for old sash windows that is indistinguishable from ordinary plate glass. Nit-picking, restrictive regulation in conservation areas is preventing people from exercising their right to stop wasting an awful lot of energy. That does not fit with modern thinking about conservation and the development of a proper policy of reducing the amount of energy that our houses use.
Dave Petrie referred to a meeting of the cross-party group on architecture and the built environment at which we learned about a situation that I did not realise was so bad. Members might have noticed properties in Princes Street where the upper floors are unused—only the lower floors are used, as street-level shops. The owners of those buildings, or the people who lease them, are deliberately not using the upper floors because it saves them tax. Particularly in Glasgow, there are tens of thousands of square feet of unused space in buildings that are listed or should be listed, because there is no encouragement to use it. If we had land value taxation—which I bring up occasionally—it would be used, because the full value of buildings would be taxed.
The Executive needs to pay attention to that gross underuse of buildings in our city centres. Because they are underused, they are likely to decay and become so decrepit that their owners will decide to knock them down and replace them with the sort of shoddy 25-year public-private partnership project that makes its owners a lot of money before being knocked down and replaced with another such project—and so on.
Roseanna Cunningham expressed concern about a Roman fort. I have been approached about that, and I assure the minister that the situation is extremely serious. I support everything that Roseanna Cunningham said about it. I agree with Michael Matheson's comments on Abbotsford House. It would be an awful shame if the building were not supported and put into the public domain as soon as possible. Abbotsford House should receive as much support as can be afforded to it.
Local authorities employ plenty of planners but few architects. How will we develop decent architectural planning and build the architectural heritage of the future if local authorities do not employ people who understand architecture?
Like Michael Matheson, I remember what happened when the Parliament planned to debate architectural policy, so when I heard that we were to debate the historic environment policy I was concerned about the historic environment of this building and the area around it.
I am not quite sure why Donald Gorrie thinks that being photographed with his dog is politically incorrect, but I wondered whether the dog was called Shep. Perhaps the previous environmental policy was called Old Shep—but I will move on.
I welcome the publication of the SHEP 1 report and consultation paper on the historic environment policy. Although the consultation paper does not ask specific questions, it invites suggestions about how key outcomes can be achieved. It is unlikely that anyone will disagree with the key outcomes, but the consultation process will give people an opportunity to feed in information about how we can achieve the results that we seek for the historic environment.
Like other members, I am pleased that SHEP 1 says:
"The protection of the historic environment is not about preventing change. The historic environment … is dynamic and its protection and conservation is about ensuring that change is managed intelligently".
That statement is important and welcome. In the past, the protection of the historic environment has sometimes appeared to prevent the possibility of adapting buildings to new use. Other members have referred to that approach, which can mean that historic buildings are condemned to lie empty and disused instead of being sympathetically adapted. I understand that the approach represented a reaction to activity in the 1960s. I was brought up in Edinburgh, where the desecration of buildings on Princes Street and elsewhere in the historic environment provoked a response that perhaps swung too far in the opposite direction. There has been too much resistance to the minor adaptation of historic buildings to enable them to be used and I welcome a change in that approach, if such a change is happening.
There is probably no place more appropriate for reflection on the reuse of historic buildings than the Scottish Parliament complex, where Queensberry House has found a new life as part of a contemporary building. There are many good examples of the successful merger of historic and modern buildings; the Lighthouse in Glasgow, for example, which is mentioned in SHEP 1, is an outstanding example of how contemporary and older styles of architecture can complement each other.
In my constituency, A-listed buildings on the Crichton campus have been sensitively adapted to provide accommodation for the university campus and business park. The Scottish Executive's national health service central register, which was relocated to Dumfries last year, is housed in one such building.
The most recent developments on the site involve the extension of Easterbrook Hall to provide enhanced conference facilities and the incorporation of a grade A-listed building, Johnston House, into a new hotel that will open this autumn. There was some resistance to the development from Historic Scotland, which was at first suspicious of some of the plans that involved the grade A-listed building. About a year ago, I arranged and attended a meeting with the chief executive of Historic Scotland and representatives from the Crichton Development Company, Dumfries and Galloway Council and Scottish Enterprise Dumfries and Galloway. We all went somewhat mob-handed to Longmore House, where we had a successful conversation with Historic Scotland, out of which came ways of addressing some of the concerns about the plans. Eventually, mutually acceptable plans were drawn up, which will allow the project to be completed. I am pleased that the new facilities will be opened this autumn, as they are important for the local economy and for the development of the Crichton site. I say to members of various parties that the site will make an excellent venue for party conferences, a point that I have been trying to drive home to my party.
In Annan in my constituency, Bridge House, which is an absolutely outstanding example of a Georgian town house and which was the home of Annan academy when Thomas Carlyle was a pupil, sadly lay vacant for many years, despite the best efforts of a trust to try to find funding and alternative uses for it. One benefit from the decommissioning of the Chapelcross power station is that a new use has at long last been found for Bridge House and that fine house will be back in use.
Like other members, I am concerned about the powers, or perhaps I should say the lack of powers, that local authorities have to deal with the owners of historic buildings, or of buildings in historic areas, who allow them to fall into disrepair. I will briefly give two examples. The house and gardens in the centre of Dumfries that inspired J M Barrie to write "Peter Pan" have lain vacant and untended for many years. The property is in ownership and, every so often, rumour goes round the town that it will be used. The most recent rumour that I heard was that it was to become a hotel with a theme park as a garden. However, nobody seems to be able to track down the owner. I have tried to find out who the owner is through the assessor's roll and the solicitors who act on their behalf, but I cannot. The council cannot do so either, so there seems to be no possibility of doing something with an historic building that is important to the town.
Does the member agree that, if we had land value taxation and a cadastral register of properties throughout Scotland, it would be fairly easy to trace the owner of the property?
I take the point on board, although that is not necessarily the only way of addressing the problem. However, methods of addressing the problem must be found.
A second brief example is the little street in which my constituency office is situated, which is called Friars Vennel. It is an ancient street that used to lead from the monastery up to the town, which is why it has its name, and which has associations with the Covenanters and other historic associations. At one time, it was a thriving business area, but it fell on hard times. Because of the development of the High Street and the Loreburn shopping centre, the shops and small businesses in Friars Vennel no longer had passing visitors on the main shopping trail. Despite that, local businesses and the council have made efforts to renovate the street and bring back its historic character. However, those efforts are being severely hampered by the owners of four derelict buildings. The buildings are not particularly important historically, but as they are not being looked after the historic environment is being brought down.
In that second case, we know who the owners are; they have simply failed to invest in the buildings over the years. During the recent heavy snowfall, one of the buildings collapsed and is now lying by the side of the street, looking rather sad. Despite all the efforts of everyone who wants to bring up the street to the appropriate standard, it is impossible for the council to do anything about the situation. I would like there to be increased powers—possibly through planning regulations—for councils to compulsorily purchase such buildings for the value of the property less the amount that they would have to spend to get them into a suitable condition to either use or resell.
I wonder whether the Executive has given any consideration to streamlining the compulsory purchase process to enable councils to take on board derelict properties and do something with them. Such buildings are an absolute blight, not just on Dumfries but on other places in my constituency and around Scotland. If we could do something about that, we would be doing something for our nation's historic environment.
I congratulate Dave Petrie on his maiden speech, particularly as he gave me a name check. I advise him that that was no baptism of fire—that awaits him—but me being nice.
I love gardens—large, small or old. I particularly love the gardens at Benmore on the Dunoon peninsula; for information, I advise Robin Harper and Donald Gorrie that there are many spectacular trees there.
The fine art degree that I acquired in the past has given me a love of ancient buildings. I very much subscribe to the statement in paragraph 3.1 of SHEP 1:
"People want to see the historic environment protected, cared for and used sustainably".
I am interested in the phrase "used sustainably". Against the backcloth of the Planning etc (Scotland) Bill that is before Parliament, I shall give three examples in which sustainable use could be, but is not, being implemented.
In the Borders, there is the old government building in Galashiels. It is not the most spectacularly bonnie of buildings, but it has a history. It is under threat of demolition for the expansion of Tesco—I will not begin Tesco-beating in the chamber. The building is on the site of an old mill and the first Scottish College of Textiles was situated there. There is potential for the building to be adapted into a tourist information centre. It is close to the Galashiels bus station and it will hopefully be close to a stop for the railway line. There is room for compromise with Tesco on that site—I believe that the council is endeavouring to come to such a compromise.
That is an example of what Elaine Murray referred to as sympathetic adaptation, for which some buildings are suitable and some are not. It has happened in other parts of the Borders. Along the River Tweed, what once were mills are now occupied enterprise areas. I hope that the minister will consider those aspects.
I understand that the issue is a legal one. At one time, that building could have been listed, although whether it would have been listed is another matter. That opportunity was missed and now, as the subject of a live planning application, the building can no longer be listed. It is my understanding that in England an application can be made for listing, irrespective of whether there is a live planning application. Will the minister consider that? I would not call it a lacuna in the law, but there is a discrepancy and England is ahead of us in that regard. That is an issue to be taken up.
Secondly, my colleague Michael Matheson referred to Abbotsford House, although it was not him who said that the situation with that building is "critical". That word was used by the current administrator, Jacquie Wright—I believe that she is seconded from the National Trust for Scotland—who said:
"If we don't find a partner and the money, I am afraid that the money will gradually run out. It is critical."
What we do not want to see happening to Abbotsford House is what happened to Burns cottage in Alloway, which I visited many years ago. It was pouring with rain and I saw historic manuscripts by Robert Burns that were exposed to damp conditions.
Alarm bells went off and that situation has been dealt with; however, I do not want to see that happening to Abbotsford House, which is quirky, eclectic and personal, and therefore very moving. It belonged to a man who, I am delighted to say, loved clutter as much as I do, although his clutter—from the library that the Faculty of Advocates has resting there to all those armoury artefacts—is much more valuable. In the quasi-medieval hall, I was delighted to see the Grahame coat of arms—spelled properly with an "e" at the end—right next to the Scott coat of arms. Perhaps that was portentous: a unionist and a nationalist who recognise a common cause.
I do not wish to make light of Abbotsford, because it is an example of a building that is not just of Borders importance or Scottish importance but of international importance, as was Burns cottage. We have been very casual about the history of our buildings, our writers and our dramatists because we have so many of them. Were we American, no doubt our approach would be different.
Finally, I want to mention the racecourse at Musselburgh, which, as the minister is aware, is wrapped around one of our earliest golf courses. Given my history with regard to sport, I am not sure that I should be talking about golf in the chamber, but I can point out that there was a links in that place in 1672. Indeed, it is alleged that Mary Queen of Scots played golf there. There is an old pub on the site—I think that it is called Mrs Foreman's inn—that used to pass drinks to golfers out of its side window. However, this strange little place that has evolved over time—along with the wildlife lagoon right next to it—is now to have floodlights and a multipurpose sports stadium. Good grief—the heart sinks at the proposal.
A community campaign has been launched to prevent the development and a petition was presented to the Scottish Parliament. As usual, the petition wended its way to a committee of the Parliament—in this case, the Communities Committee—and was parked. I believe that the application might have been called in by the minister, but the point is that too many such things are going on in Scotland. Communities are forming groups all over the place to wage little fights to protect historical sites and buildings that are self-evidently worth while.
We must start to be tougher in our support for those sites and buildings. I take on board the point that Ted Brocklebank and Roseanna Cunningham made about the fact that, often, the buildings that we are concerned about are in the hands of private families who will not do anything or cannot afford to do anything. Of course, the Burns cottage and Abbotsford are in the hands of trusts. I do not want to criticise those trusts or those owners, but time is of the essence in those situations and urgent action is needed before we reach the point at which we are merely making buildings wind and watertight. Abbotsford has not yet reached that stage—some money has been secured to deal with immediate issues—but it is time for a greater sense of urgency.
The minister has lots of places to go to, so I will not invite her to make any further visits. If she would just name one or two places that she intends to visit, I would be grateful.
I apologise for not being present at the start of the debate. I was speaking to a school party from St Columba's high school, which is in my constituency.
I draw members' attention to my entry in the register of members' interests, which states that I am a member of the cross-party group on architecture and the built environment. I was its first convener and have been ably succeeded by Robin Harper. Further, in 1999, I headed up the year of architecture and design in Glasgow. One of the glories of that year was the creation of the Lighthouse, the Charles Rennie Mackintosh-designed building that was once home to the Glasgow Herald and which has been transformed into Scotland's architecture centre. That has been a tremendous international success and has been looked at by people from across the world. Last week, I was there to speak to people from Bradford who had come up to Glasgow to see how it is possible to emphasise the benefits of a city's urban history and architecture as a source of regeneration.
I want to talk about how we can look at what has been left to us from the past, not only as historical artefacts but as things that can provide an extremely valuable anchor for the future and represent marks of continuity between the past and the future. We have to pay particular attention to that. Scotland has a rich history but we want to have a rich future as well. One of the most valuable things that we can do is to bring together past architecture and artefacts in a way that enables us to make them part of the way in which we design things for the future.
Scotland has two great advantages in its historic environment. The first, which has been talked about most by members, is Scotland's fantastic landscape and the way in which buildings fit into it, whether they are castles or other historic buildings of one kind or another. The second, to which we should pay equal attention, is the legacy of urban and industrial history, which is probably most marked in Glasgow and Edinburgh. John Betjeman said that Glasgow was the finest Victorian city in the world. The shape of the buildings above the shop fronts displays fantastic richness and architectural quality, which is one of the many reasons why people come to Glasgow. Edinburgh, too, has its own great architectural heritage.
We need to look beyond our great cities, however. I will focus on my constituency. In the past, 20 or 30 years ago, our industrial and urban history was all too often swept away in the process of renewal. That happened in Glasgow, where buildings were torn down that should not have been torn down. There are also buildings in Glasgow even now that are relatively neglected, such as the Greek Thomson churches, especially the one in Caledonia Road, which I believe is a unique example of a high-quality building to which we should pay particular attention.
In Clydebank, we had the largest factory in Europe, which had its own monument in the Singer clock. That was simply torn down and taken away. I am determined that the other class A-listed monument in Clydebank, the Titan crane, should be preserved and protected in the context of a major renewal and renovation of Clydebank. Clydebank is where the Queen Mary and the Queen Elizabeth were built, along with a huge number of other great ships, and the area has a strong historical tradition of shipbuilding. All that we have left on the site of John Brown's is the Titan crane. It is vital for Clydebank's and Scotland's industrial history that that monument is maintained and made accessible.
Unless the people of Clydebank worked in the shipyard, they had no access to the waterfront, as the shipyard presented a barrier between the people and the river. Now that the shipyard is gone, I want people to be able to walk down to the waterfront and take the lift up the Titan crane; I want the crane to be lit up, so that the first thing that people who come into Scotland via Glasgow airport will see is the Titan crane, the great marker of the shipbuilding heritage in Clydebank and the west of Scotland. There are fantastic plans to do that and the work is under way. I hope that the minister will be part of its launch. That is another invitation to the minister, but one that I hope she will be especially pleased to take up.
Another thing that is unique about my constituency is the fact that it is the transition point between Loch Katrine and Glasgow for the world's first and most significant process of delivering public water and improving health. Milngavie reservoir is not only a beautiful place that attracts a huge number of visitors, which is one reason why it should be preserved; it is also one of Scotland's most important industrial sites. It is certainly one of our most historic and significant industrial sites, and it is in a good state of preservation. I want to ensure that, when Scottish Water finishes building its new water treatment plant—which will be a bit unsightly, although it is hoped that it can be covered up in various ways—the bits of architecture that are left are blended into the landscape of Milngavie. The reservoir is one of the most visited green spaces in the west of Scotland, and I want it to be maintained, protected and preserved not just for the people of Milngavie, but for the people of the west of Scotland who visit it. I hope that I can encourage the minister to work with me alongside Scottish Water, the council and the individual constituents who are trying to set up a trust to protect the reservoir.
The minister has done the right thing with her culture brief by saying that we have to identify what is best and important, and to focus attention and, to some extent, resources on that. Hard decisions have had to be made and the minister and the Scottish Arts Council have generally made the right ones. I suspect that the same thing will have to happen with historical architecture and I hope that we can focus on what is important and what most needs to be protected.
We are now very tight for time so I will have to enforce the advised time limits.
The debate has been fascinating and very enjoyable.
Euan Robson and I have the great pleasure of living in the Borders, an area that is rich in history, natural beauty and a real sense of community. The communities themselves will celebrate all their history during the common ridings season, in which we will also be proud participants and which other members, including the former minister Frank McAveety, have attended on their holidays.
I, too, congratulate Mr Petrie on his maiden speech. In my maiden speech, I said that I was proud to be a standard bearer in Parliament for my constituency. During the braw lads gathering, the local standard bearers and cornets will lead rideouts over the flats and hills of the Borders. They will also ride to historic landmarks of the built environment, including, of course, the former home of Walter Scott, Abbotsford. Sites across the Borders that locals and tourists enjoy and admire are places where close contact can be made with history. By visiting them, people can feel that they are in touch with the past, from distant prehistory to events and people within living memory. Euan Robson gave the examples of Steve Hislop, Jim Clark—a great favourite of my dad's—and Jimmy Guthrie.
Each building is a still frame of our past. It captures with it the cultural significance of previous communities. The breadth of history in my constituency is truly exciting, from the grave in Milton Bridge that was raided by Burke and Hare, to Robert the Bruce's heart, which was buried at Melrose abbey, making a strange bedfellow for the bagpiping pig—I recommend Melrose abbey to members who have not seen it.
Any policy that encompasses the breadth of the built environment in Scotland has to be flexible. The principles of transparency and accountability that the minister said run through the SHEPs are very welcome indeed. However, I am afraid that, in my constituency in recent years, the operation of listings and other activities of Historic Scotland have not been consistent with those principles. The Edwardian building that housed the Scottish College of Textiles in Galashiels and which became government buildings is to be bulldozed for an enlarged Tesco car park. An attempt to list it was made only after intervention by the minister's predecessor, following a planning application. The legal judgment was that listing could not be sustained and had to be withdrawn.
Other major developments in Galashiels will change the town considerably. Although economic growth is vital for the area, we must not lose the very essence of the special towns and communities that make the Borders what it is. If that means giving greater consideration to our small towns and market towns in the context of proper investment, to ensure that they are cherished, it will be important to co-ordinate with the Development Department.
I was particularly disappointed that the listings for Galashiels were not revised and completed before the controversy over the government buildings. Without up-to-date and proactive listings procedures, I fear that such a situation might well happen again and that other buildings could fall through the net.
When I attended the funeral of Dame Jean Maxwell-Scott, the final direct descendant of Sir Walter, there was concern about the future of Abbotsford. However, I was not entirely sure what Mr Matheson was referring to when he mentioned the campaign to save it. I am delighted that he and Ms Grahame are adding to the number of day visitors to the Borders, to which Euan Robson referred in his speech.
When Sir Walter Scott purchased a farmhouse on the banks of the Tweed, it had the
"unharmonious designation of Clarty Hole".
Abbotsford was the Borders' single biggest tourist attraction and it can be again. After discussions involving local groups and enthusiasts, the national galleries and others, there is real potential for a very exciting future for this great resource. I will continue to work constructively with those potential partners, because the prize is very great.
I am proud to have other prizes in my constituency. Those range from the kirk of the forest, usually identified as Selkirk parish church, where Wallace was proclaimed guardian of the realm—in the name of the French noble John de Ballieul, interestingly—to the ancient forts, battlefields and settlements of the Eildons. We also have Lauder's unique burgess acres, which are a remarkable survival of the pre-enclosure open-field system and are in operation to this day. My constituency is also peppered with peel towers, such as the stunning Neidpath Castle, which protects Peebles at Neidpath gorge. However, seeking to protect our historic environment is obviously not a new thing, given that—Robin Harper might appreciate this—William Wordsworth decried the felling of trees at Neidpath at the beginning of the 19th century.
As the burgess acres in Lauder and the common ridings demonstrate, in the Borders we live our history. I was born at the mouth of the River Tweed and I now represent the people who live at its source. To follow the route of that magical and mighty river and pay recognition to its proud tributaries is to discover not only the region's history—which in many cases traces the country's violent past—but our economic heritage, especially in textiles. I live in a quarter of a former mill owner's house and, like others who live in older buildings, delight in its history. If visitors stop at all the schools on the way, they will see kids preparing to take part in this year's common ridings and festivals, which range from the salmon queen in Berwick to the Beltane queen in Peebles.
I will finish on that point. Ultimately, our buildings, monuments and historic houses must be visited but our cultural history must be lived.
Any interests that I have in ancient buildings are declared in the register of members' interests. I am a trustee of the Lennoxlove Trust and the Lennoxlove Maintenance Fund Settlement Trust. I am also a director of Lennoxlove House Limited, but I undertake all those interests in a voluntary, unpaid capacity.
In this broad-ranging debate, a theme that has been adopted by many members is that the minister should look sympathetically at the case for Abbotsford House, especially if a viable solution is put forward. No one suggests that a solution will be easy, but the house is obviously extremely important for Scotland's heritage, not just because Sir Walter wrote a great many books that are renowned throughout the world, but because he rediscovered Scotland's Crown jewels.
I want to thank Historic Scotland's chief executive for his letter to me following the debate on the role that volunteers from Linlithgow primary school have played at Linlithgow Palace. He was anxious to confirm that hundreds of thousands of pounds—more than £300,000—has been spent on the palace. My only request to the minister is to consider whether the palace's great hall might be reroofed after proper consultation with local interests, including the community councils, to see whether that would be in the best interests of Linlithgow. Although such a proposition may be for the long term, I believe that it is worthy of consideration.
Historic buildings make a fundamental contribution to the historic appeal of our nation. One such building, which happens not to come under Historic Scotland's jurisdiction, is Queensberry House. Before long, this building in which we work will become one of the wonders of Scotland, as it has attracted approaching 1 million visitors and secured eight architectural awards, two of which are of great international significance.
There are three key reasons why our historic buildings, parklands and gardens should be preserved. First, they make an enormous difference to tourism in Scotland, which is an important and lucrative industry. Historic Scotland's work maximises the opportunities to promote Scotland as a tourist destination. Secondly, conserved historic buildings—in my view, Donald Gorrie was absolutely right to recommend grants to churches—can provide an important focus for wider regeneration schemes. In five of Scotland's cities, city heritage trusts contribute to that process. Thirdly, the care and maintenance of our historic environment is a major factor in providing jobs in our construction industry. In that context, the inventory of gardens and designed landscapes, which Historic Scotland has played a large part in establishing, is welcome.
Perhaps the most important aspect of our living history is its value in inspiring and educating young people. Historic Scotland helps to welcome some 650,000 schoolchildren each year who take part in free educational visits to promote the historic environment.
I hope that I may be allowed to recount my most embarrassing episode as a member of the Scottish Parliament, which involved Historic Scotland. The late Donald Dewar invited me to welcome a delegation from the Nepalese Parliament to Edinburgh Castle for lunch. When I arrived half an hour early, to my dismay the caterers had not turned up. When the bus arrived with the parliamentary delegation, I mentioned to its members that their visit would be incomplete without seeing the Crown jewels of Scotland, which Sir Walter Scott had rediscovered. Historic Scotland had laid on a completely new presentation that was so fascinating that it was a considerable time before we re-emerged into the sunlight. By that time, to my intense relief, the caterers had arrived.
It is appropriate for me to wish the Nepalese Parliament well with its restoration and every success in the future. In the same way, I wish the minister well with restoration and conservation of buildings. My friend Ted Brocklebank mentioned that restoration is as important as conservation. I will give an example that is either in the minister's constituency or next door to it. I refer to Spiers wharf, which consisted of deserted warehouse buildings that were completely empty and which were renewed by Historic Scotland, or its predecessor body, and various other agencies. I believe that that work has made a great contribution to Glasgow. Des McNulty was absolutely right to argue that Historic Scotland can be an anchor for the nation and that our industrial heritage should be noticed and properly conserved. The City Chambers in Glasgow is one of the finest buildings to be found anywhere in the world.
This has been an extremely successful debate. I wish the minister success—I am sure that it will come her way.
In this most interesting debate about the roots of our national and historic environment, we have concentrated a great deal on buildings, although not entirely to the detriment of rural areas and the countryside. If I may sum up the debate simply, many members have expressed the concern that Historic Scotland has a massive task and that there does not seem to be enough money for it to do it. If we want to renovate buildings, we must decide what priority that should have in Government funding. Obviously, we have to take from one thing to give to another—it is not an easy equation. This afternoon, no one is saying that there is an easy way of solving the problem. However, far too many members mentioned the fact that we find ourselves with a listing process that is inconsistent. It was interesting that Christine Grahame referred to the government buildings in Gala and their previous use. She also made the case for Abbotsford, which was enhanced to some extent by Jeremy Purvis. That set of listings was problematic. It seems that again and again we lose buildings because the process is not streamlined.
As a practising historian, I have been concerned for many years about the way in which our historic environment is interpreted. It is easy for me to explain my concerns with reference to a place that has not been mentioned so far. There is a Scottish Natural Heritage reserve at Loch Kinord in Deeside. It has an excellent display, explanation board and car park at the Burn o' Vat. At that very place, there was a major battle in Scottish history—the battle of Culblean on St Andrew's day in 1335—but the SNH material says nothing about that human activity. Some 50 years ago, a plaque was erected on a huge granite boulder about half a mile along the road, but the two things are not married. As the minister said, we must get some of our unique resources working together. She also mentioned the need for regional and national Government to work together on such matters.
Another important site is the land where the Falkirk tryst, the great cattle sales in Falkirk, took place. Thankfully, some of the grounds still exist because they are on a golf course, but the fact that there is not a built environment on the land makes it more difficult to interpret. Part of that land, on which major events took place for more than a century, has been sold for housing. However, I am glad to say that Falkirk Council, which Michael Matheson knows well, has refused to consider housing proposals for sites that are on the golf course, despite the golf club being interested in trying to capitalise on the land. The council has recognised the recreational and historic value of the site. That is an example of local government applying itself to maintain a site that is part of our folklore.
Several members, including Donald Gorrie and Robin Harper, have mentioned historic trees. A register of trees in the Planning etc (Scotland) Bill would be very useful. One such tree, which is illustrated elsewhere in the Parliament building, is an ancient, gnarled Spanish chestnut on Inchmahome, on the Lake of Menteith. That is the very place where Robert Cunninghame Graham and his wife are buried. Robert Cunninghame Graham wrote about the Falkirk tryst. He was also one of the founders of the Scottish Labour Party and the Scottish National Party. The tree on that island is one of the most beautiful spots in central Scotland. Some people visit it, but not enough people realise that in its natural setting such a fabulous ancient tree matters more than just the people. It would be helpful if something were done to recognise ancient trees.
A lot of the historic landscape is also a working landscape, such as the crofting landscape of my own part of the world. It has been said that the stone walls in the north-east of Scotland are a testament to near slavery, but they are part of a landscape that has been created by working people, and the land is still worked to this day. We must find ways to encourage the redevelopment of such places of interest through the rural development plan, which we discussed this morning, and through Historic Scotland taking an interest in many of the basic buildings that are used by ordinary people.
There is a massive emphasis on public buildings, the large houses of the gentry and so on. Those buildings are all unique, but the minister was correct to recognise that, as Des McNulty pointed out, excellence is an important element when we consider what should be allocated priority and money. It concerns me that we continually spend money on properties that, although unique, are not of particular historic value beyond the fact that a dusty history book mentions that some laird or whatever stayed in them at some point. We must make choices.
Elaine Murray mentioned the desperate need to establish who owns derelict properties in our towns and in the countryside. I share Robin Harper's view that we ought to use fiscal means, such as a land value tax, to get derelict buildings used or into the hands of people who will use them.
There is far too much to cover in the short time that I have, but I wanted to mention some of those examples, because they add to the colourful picture that we can build on in Scotland. Historic Scotland has been given a new plan, but I hope that the minister can assure us that more resources will be made available and that its activities will be prioritised to ensure that many more people in the country can enjoy the historic environment. Many members have given good examples of that environment from their constituencies.
The debate has been stimulating. Members have spoken passionately about situations, buildings and landscapes in their constituencies. That shows the swathe of heritage that exists across our nation. I suspect that I will not have enough time to mention all the issues that members have raised, but if I miss out any that members particularly want to raise with me, they can do so either this afternoon or in writing at a later date.
I will begin at the beginning by addressing Michael Matheson's speech, in which he made some interesting points. I reassure him that Historic Scotland works very much in partnership with other organisations that have an interest in the field and with those that may not be so obviously connected. Policy integration is at the heart of what the Executive is trying to do. I refer the member to Malcolm Chisholm's recent statement on regeneration, in which he talked about culture and the importance of the kind of debate that we have had this afternoon.
Michael Matheson was right to highlight the Antonine wall, which is an example of international partnership. Historic Scotland has joined up with other similar organisations—literally around the world—to make an application for world heritage site status. The application that is going ahead is not only for the frontier that happens to be in our country but for the frontiers of the Roman world. That sort of initiative gives enormous hope for what we are trying to do; it is also a wonderful tool for educating our young people.
Will the minister give way?
I have a lot to get through, but I will try to come to some of the points that the member made.
Although there is at least one element of Mr Brocklebank's speech on which I will not comment, I will address the point he made that Historic Scotland cannot force owners to repair listed buildings, which was a matter that other members also mentioned. At the moment, local authorities have fairly extensive powers to require owners to repair listed buildings. However, we have tasked the Historic Environment Advisory Council for Scotland to review the current legislation. I look forward to receiving its report later this year, which will help to guide our future work. Historic Scotland fully funds, and has always funded, the buildings at risk register. It tries to bring together owners and sustainable solutions. Again, many of the solutions are developed through the historic grants system.
Mr Brocklebank also mentioned Castle Tioram. I have taken a great deal of interest in the issue during the time that I have been in this post. I say to him that it is not all doom and gloom. After discussions with the owner, and with his agreement, Historic Scotland has recently commissioned a study of the architectural history of the site. Historic Scotland is pleased to have established a constructive dialogue with the owner and his agents through that study. I understand that a site meeting is taking place today, with all parties in attendance. Hopefully, we will see some progress.
Donald Gorrie rightly said that we need to raise the profile of our historic environment, particularly in terms of its importance. I hope that today's debate has done that. I want to reassure him on the issue of ecclesiastical buildings. As someone who lived for many years in part of a grade A church, I feel quite passionately on the subject. Appropriate other uses can be found for such buildings, but it needs to be done in a sympathetic way. That work often needs the partnership-type working that all of us want to see. Historic Scotland is taking part in a conference in Govan tomorrow on that very issue. I am sure that Donald Gorrie will watch that with great interest.
Roseanna Cunningham raised a number of issues and did so graphically. She also mentioned a number of very interesting places in her constituency. Indeed, she made the good point that money is not always the issue. I point out to her that grant-in-aid from Historic Scotland in 2005-06 came to more than £13 million, compared with about £11.5 million in 2004-05. In talking about the grant-in-aid that Historic Scotland gives out, the important thing to say is that the money is often used in partnership with money that other organisations contribute. Historic Scotland is therefore able to lever in a great deal of additional money.
As other members have done, I congratulate David Petrie on his maiden speech. It is always good to hear a maiden speech on a subject about which the member cares deeply. In his speech this afternoon, Mr Petrie showed that he cares deeply about this issue. I have to say to him that I do not agree with all the points that he made. For his sake, I fervently hope that my colleague Karen Whitefield was not listening to the comment that he made about his baptism of fire.
In my remarks to Mr Brocklebank, I mentioned the report that is coming to us from HEACS. As I said, the council is examining for us any legislative changes that may be necessary for our historic environment. Our intention is not to complicate matters; in fact, we want to streamline the system and reduce the possibility of complication. I entirely take the point that Mr Petrie made on the subject.
Euan Robson raised several local issues about which he was concerned. Although museums are not really part of today's debate, I have an interest in them and I suggest to him that he might wish to speak to the Scottish Museums Council about what funding might be available. Later this year, the museums recognition scheme will come into play and that might be of assistance to him.
As regards the paintings in our national and other collections that are sometimes in storage, last year there was the welcome move to Kirkcudbright of some works from the impressionists collection that is held by Glasgow. That was an extremely successful venture that will be replicated to some extent by some of the partnership working that is developing for next year's year of highland culture.
Christine Grahame mentioned a particular issue in her constituency. Although it would be inappropriate for me to comment on it or on any other individual case, I point out that she might refer to the SHEP document on listing in order to advance her case and I encourage all members to participate in that way.
I have taken a keen interest in Abbotsford and we appreciate the importance of the house to the nation's heritage. Historic Scotland will continue to work with organisations such as Scottish Borders Council, Scottish Enterprise and VisitScotland to ensure that its potential is recognised and developed. Historic Scotland is currently grant aiding further repairs to the house with the National Trust for Scotland supporting its running until a long-term management plan is established. Although the long-term future of the estate rests largely in the hands of the executors, if other relevant agencies work well together, Abbotsford's future can be secured. I am happy to consider views if, for example, the National Trust for Scotland thinks that more needs to be done.
Earlier this afternoon, I described the historic environment as an asset, particularly for tourism and education. Last week, Historic Scotland announced that its free weekend over 1 and 2 April, when everyone can access its 74 properties for which there is normally a charge, attracted 103,000 people. That is more than double the number in 2005. Historic Scotland also welcomed around 3,500 new adult and child members to its membership scheme. That shows that many in our country share our aspirations.
I stressed today that we have inherited the investment of many past generations. That is a legacy that we are determined to pass on, fit for use, to the future. Caring for that legacy is the most sustainable thing that we can do—it does not get greener than reusing old buildings. Let us look at some hard examples. There are well over 2.5 million dwellings in Scotland, some of which are of great historical interest and many others of which are of value as part of interesting and characterful townscapes. Many provide comfortable homes with spacious and flexible accommodation.
Think about the energy and resources invested in those thousands of homes: the labour of men and women; natural resources extracted from the earth; and private and public money spent. Think how irresponsible it would be to throw away that investment: the work; the resources; the money; the energy; and the character. Think how irresponsible it would be to cause the waste and pollution inherent in demolition, if we do not have to do it. Think how irresponsible it would be to put the demolished material in landfill, if we do not have to do it. Think how irresponsible it would be to quarry and transport new materials, if we do not have to do it. We cannot and should not always protect or conserve every part of our historic environment, but our decisions must be responsible and well informed and take the long-term view.
The historic environment reflects the inclusivity of Scotland and the rich variation between the regions. From prehistory onwards, the styles of stone circles, houses, castles and farms reflect the different ways that people did things and how they thought about the world. That should make us think about our varied origins as a people. We are and always have been a mixed lot.
Those and other issues are what our new Scottish historic environment policy series is all about. It sets a framework for us all to manage our rich historic environment. Our historic environment is a wonderful asset, not just for us but for our shared future.
That concludes the debate and brings us to 5 o'clock, when we would normally have decision time. However, I have to tell members that there are no decisions to be made.