Hansard

I am happy to support Iain Smith's amendment, with its emphasis on effective engagement with local communities in relation to listed buildings. More generally, we should emphasise the importance of engaging with local people on a range of issues to do with the historic environment. For example, Iain Smith talked about adapting buildings to new uses and functions. When we do that, and when we get involved in regeneration initiatives more generally, it is important that we involve local people.

Iain Smith also talked about the importance of buildings as a way of promoting the year of homecoming. The theme of tourism and its relation to the historic environment was also emphasised by other speakers. We all look forward to next year. Historic Scotland is working closely with the National Trust for Scotland on the year of homecoming, as I found at a recent meeting with the NTS.

I cannot give full support to Ted Brocklebank's amendment, so I think that we will abstain from the vote on it. It implies that Historic Scotland should be responsible for funding some, if not all, of the work on relevant buildings, which is a step too far. He spoke about several buildings and an airfield of which I have no knowledge, so I will pass over that.

I have, of course, acquainted myself with Castle Tioram, which was mentioned by John Farquhar Munro and Jamie McGrigor—and perhaps others whom I have forgotten. I do not want to get involved in the specifics of the issue, but I suppose that, as I have looked into it, I have become aware of how exceptional Castle Tioram is, in a way. The local public inquiry into Castle Tioram was the only such inquiry in Scotland that year. In the same year, Historic Scotland approved more than 200 applications for scheduled monument consent. When there are complaints about particular examples, it is important that we maintain that perspective.

John Farquhar Munro called for the abolition of Historic Scotland, which I am in total disagreement with. It is vitally important that we have a national body to oversee the historic environment. Indeed, I had that thought in mind when I included in my amendment the need to maintain

"strong safeguards … to protect heritage assets".

Whatever new powers may be given to local authorities, we certainly cannot do without Historic Scotland.

Christopher Harvie reminded us, with his typical and helpful historical survey, why we need a body such as Historic Scotland. In that regard, I certainly need look no further than Princes Street on the edge of my constituency and what was done there in the 1960s. I am sure that Historic Scotland would not allow anything similar to happen today.

Christopher Harvie also picked up the theme of public engagement with civic architecture, which is an important new dimension. The Edinburgh World Heritage Trust held a debate in Edinburgh last week during which there was some dispute between the newly appointed director, who said that the public should be involved, and some architects who thought that it should all be left to them. I am happy to side with the newly appointed director and Christopher Harvie on that issue.

James Kelly spoke eloquently of his constituency and the refurbishment of Rutherglen town hall in particular as a model of how to move forward. That was one of many examples given in the debate of Historic Scotland's positive contribution, working in partnership with local authorities and developers.

Helen Eadie emphasised the important theme of disability rights, which I only touched on in my opening speech. It was important that she highlighted that theme in more detail, pointing out the importance of having a guide on access to historic buildings. She also pointed out that Historic Scotland should be sensitive to meeting disability rights requirements when there are applications for changes to historic buildings.

Willie Coffey, too, was positive about Historic Scotland—unlike his colleague from Ayrshire, in a parliamentary question last week. Willie Coffey reminded us of examples of Historic Scotland's positive role in relation to a conservation area in Kilmarnock for which the council won a planning award, with Historic Scotland giving money to support the work. I may have picked him up wrongly, but he also referred to the historic environment audit as a new initiative. I say gently that sometimes the new Government has a slight tendency to speak of things as if they are new; in fact, that audit was initiated several years ago by, I believe, my colleague Patricia Ferguson, to whom I now come.

I paid tribute to Patricia Ferguson's work in my opening speech, and it was helpful that she spoke in the debate today. She emphasised the obvious importance of having checks and balances in relation to local and national work. She also asked questions about resources for local authorities for the pilots and about the monitoring of the pilots, which I hope the minister will answer in her closing speech.

Patricia Ferguson also emphasised another dimension to the green side of the debate, pointing out that reusing buildings is one of the greenest things that we can do. She picked up on Rob Gibson's excitement about the word "concordat"—perhaps that is another example of what I was talking about a moment ago, given that the new Government did not invent concordats. Indeed, I think that the review of Historic Scotland in 2004 talked about concordats and that Patricia Ferguson ensured that they began to happen.

Rob Gibson, like Patricia Ferguson, emphasised the importance of community planning, which is another dimension of the involvement of local people. In my opening speech, I referred to the HEACS report, which said that there is little recognition of the historic environment in community planning. I ask the minister for the second time to address the HEACS recommendation on developing a set of qualitative and quantitative indicators for including the historic environment in community planning.

It would be useful to know the minister's thinking on several other HEACS recommendations, although she will probably not have enough time to talk about them today. For example, HEACS recommended that local authorities and other public bodies and agencies should have a statutory duty of care for the historic environment. That seems a good suggestion to me.

HEACS also recommended the creation of a set of key performance indicators for local authorities for dealing with the historic environment, and it suggested exploring specific grant mechanisms to fund specialist posts in local authorities to support the development of a quality historic environment service. All those recommendations seem to be good, but the minister did not respond to them with absolute approval.

If she has enough time, it would be interesting to hear about the minister's thinking on the HEACS report on the need for legislation. Did she abolish HEACS because she did not like that report? Of course, HEACS supported something in the Scottish National Party's manifesto that has since been ditched.