Hansard

I welcome the announcement of the £8 million to continue the work of the conservation area regeneration scheme, and the key performance targets for planning consultation, which came up during the course of the Planning etc (Scotland) Bill. I also welcome what the minister described as the new joint working agreement, although I think that it has been on-going for some time. Indeed, it was one of the recommendations of the review of Historic Scotland in 2004, which I will talk about in a moment.

The minister pointed out that those and other initiatives were responses to the Historic Environment Advisory Council for Scotland's report. I regret the council's prospective demise, because it is important that ministers receive independent advice on historic environment matters.

Setting that aside, I read the minister's response to the report, and I was slightly puzzled when I heard that this debate was to be about new powers for local authorities, because recommendation 3 of the report referred to reassessing the balance of work between Historic Scotland and local authorities. In her response to the report, the minister noted recommendation 3 and stated:

"We believe the balance is about right".

It is clear that the minister has moved on in one regard and is now talking about delegated powers to deal with listed building casework. I hope that she can say a bit more about that in her winding-up speech, because local authorities already have considerable powers and responsibilities with reference to listed buildings.

We are still slightly unsure, therefore, about the detail of what is proposed. If it is within the kind of framework that the HEACS report proposed, I am happy to go along with the thrust of the motion. However, it is important to add my amendment, the first part of which is crucial, because all of what is proposed must take place within a framework of continuing, strong safeguards to protect heritage assets.

It is clear that Historic Scotland is central to that protection, and I pay tribute to it for all its work. In 1997, I had, among many other ministerial responsibilities, responsibility for it, but I recognise that there has been significant culture change since then. In that context, we should pay tribute to the work of Patricia Ferguson, who I hope will speak later about that and many other matters.

Historic Scotland's structure and function was reviewed in 2004. One recommendation was that there should be concordats with local authorities, work on which, I understand, has been on-going since. Increased flexibility was recommended to ensure that the organisation is responsive to change, which is relevant to what my amendment says about disability rights and climate change, which I will cover in a moment. The review also led to a change in Historic Scotland's organisational structure, including the establishment of regional inspectorate teams that put the closer relationship with local authorities on a more systematic base.

"Scottish Historic Environment Policy 1: Scotland's Historic Environment", which is the first in a series of important policy statements that the previous Administration initiated, also emphasises the importance of Historic Scotland working in partnership with local authorities. As well as setting out key outcomes, it reminds us of an important message for the debate:

"The protection of the historic environment is not about preventing change",

but about managing change

"intelligently and with understanding".

The best approach involves Historic Scotland working alongside local authorities and developers in order to manage change in that way.

There are many outstanding examples of such an approach being taken. Colleagues in the City of Edinburgh Council to whom I spoke talked about how the council has worked constructively with Historic Scotland over the past few years to ensure that change is managed in a way that is sensitive to the historic environment. Some time ago, Elaine Murray spoke in the Parliament about how Historic Scotland worked on the Crichton campus in partnership with the developer and local authorities. That also happened with Taymouth castle. John Swinney raised issues relating to that castle with me when I was minister with responsibility for planning; Historic Scotland then engaged with the developer. I have been reliably informed that there has been an outstanding conclusion to that work. Such work goes on all the time, and it is far more typical of what happens than the one or two examples of Historic Scotland rejecting proposed changes that we may hear about in the debate.

Moreover, people are often on the side of Historic Scotland rather than that of the local authority when there is a disagreement. Somebody recently talked to me about the site of the battle of Bothwell bridge, which the local authority wanted to develop. Historic Scotland, supported by local people, took a different view.

Communities that are questioned about the importance of the historic environment give it a high wellbeing rating. As the HEACS report reminded us, there is little recognition of the historic environment in community plans. The report stated that it would be a good idea to work up qualitative and quantitative indicators for including the historic environment in community planning. In her response to the report, the minister said that she would explore the matter after the Planning etc (Scotland) Act 2006 was fully implemented. I am not clear why there should be a delay.

It is important that in the debate we raise concerns that have been expressed about the national outcome indicators for local authorities. I am sure that concerns will have been expressed to other members about those indicators. It seems that not all local authorities will have historic environment measures in their single outcome agreements. It would be helpful if the minister commented on that.

I referred to the 2004 review's message of flexibility in response to change, which is relevant to two issues that my amendment highlights. I refer to constituency examples that I have been given. In taking advice from Historic Scotland, the local authority objected to a lift being installed in a mental health crisis centre, because the building was listed. Disability campaigners and local people in general objected to that, as I did. It is important that Historic Scotland responds to the new legislation and the new emphasis on disability rights.

Climate change is clearly in the same category. There are probably more listed buildings in my constituency than there are in any other constituency in Scotland, not least because it contains the new town. A solar panel on a house in a conservation area on the edge of the new town was recently rejected. Again, it is important that Historic Scotland takes on board the green revolution. We also hope that the SNP takes that on board, as we seem to have had a green counter-revolution this week in Lewis; however, that is slightly off the point of the debate.

My amendment highlights the fact that we should continue to ensure that the skills that are required to maintain our historic buildings, such as stonemasonry, are available in Scotland. To achieve that, it is important that we support as many projects as we can that ensure the survival of those skills and promote training.

The HEACS report's recommendation on the need for historic environment legislation is also relevant. In its manifesto, the SNP was committed to such legislation, but it seems to have changed its mind. Perhaps the minister can tell us why, and why she has changed her mind about merging the Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Scotland with Historic Scotland. In addition, the minister talked about statutory protection for battlefield sites, which was in the SNP's manifesto. Is that still on the agenda?

In closing, I congratulate Historic Scotland on its record-breaking attendance figures at its buildings in the past year. I believe that the total number of visitors passed the 3 million mark for the first time last year, and the figure has now reached 3,239,000. We should also remember the National Trust for Scotland, representatives of which I met recently, and the Historic Houses Association, representatives of which I will meet next week. Both those organisations work together with Historic Scotland in the historic properties group. Their role in both conserving Scotland's heritage and presenting it for education and enjoyment cannot be overstated. I am sure that we all pay tribute to that work.

I move amendment S3M-1751.2, to insert at end:

"always ensuring that strong safeguards are maintained to protect heritage assets, that the skills required to maintain historic buildings are available and that, in protecting the historic environment, proper account is taken of disability rights and climate change objectives".