Hansard

I am pleased to speak in today’s debate on Scotland’s historic environment. I will spend some time highlighting Fife’s assets as an illustration of Scotland’s historic environment and the challenges that we face in ensuring a legacy for future generations.

First, however, I will make some comments about the historic environment strategy. Last week, the legislative programme brought forward the proposed merger of RCAHMS and Historic Scotland. There will need to be robust scrutiny of the merger. National Museums Scotland has raised some concerns about the collections, and there are questions to be answered on preserving expertise and on funding.

As my colleague, Patricia Ferguson, said, charitable status could lead to competition for limited funds. Charities such as Archaeology Scotland already do a great deal of work on community engagement through schemes such as the highly successful adopt a monument programme. September is Scottish archaeology month, with events across Scotland being staged by volunteers and professionals to showcase local action and knowledge. It would be a concern if the proposed merger threatened the viability of some smaller organisations.

The consultation on the strategy is vital. As we have seen with other examples, such as the recent biodiversity strategy, consultation provides the opportunity for debate and improvement. However, the current draft strategy seems to suffer from issues that are similar to those about which concerns were expressed at the start of the biodiversity strategy process. The concerns are that the draft strategy is too ambiguous and vague and that there is a need for greater direction, clearer priorities and better focus—for a detailed action plan rather than a commitment.

As the consultation document recognises, the care and promotion of Scotland’s historic environment are broad responsibilities, and the need for a clear strategy that sets the future path is important. The strategy can send a clear signal of the value and the importance that we all place on this resource, but it also needs to be supported, in our policy making as well as financially.

Care of the historic environment is often underresourced and, in the current financial climate, is vulnerable. I welcome the document’s recognition of that, but we are still a bit short on answers. We also have to be realistic about some of the challenges. The natural environment is not static and, in addition, we have the challenges that are presented by climate change, which the document recognises.

When Parliament passed the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009, it recognised the threat of future coastal erosion. Climate adaptation measures are essential to the maintenance of our historic environment. It is important that any strategy that highlights our environment, whether historic or otherwise, plays its part in achieving our climate change targets.

That illustrates how important it is that the Scottish Government ensures that tackling climate change is a priority of all Cabinet members. The recently finalised report on proposals and policies 2 was met with a degree of disappointment and a lack of confidence. However, although the Scottish Government’s draft strategy highlights the threat of climate change to our historic landscapes, particularly in our coastal regions, it does not fully recognise that Scotland has failed to meet its first two annual targets on emissions, nor does it offer a strategy for how we can contribute towards reversing that trend. If we continue along that path and fail to achieve the step change that is needed, the strategy will struggle to succeed.

Scotland’s historic environment has the potential to contribute more to Scotland’s economy and communities. In many cases, visitor numbers have increased, and tourism plays a significant role in our economy. Last week, I was at a Scottish Council for Development and Industry event that emphasised the importance of natural Scotland to our economy, in terms of not just visitor numbers but our environmental wellbeing, and the increasing attraction of our natural environment as a sympathetic business location. When we look at future economic drivers and areas where we can envision growth, we can see that there is often a clear advantage in having a clean, diverse and attractive environment, and our historical environment has a role to play in that regard.

We are talking about a partnership of the public, private and voluntary sectors as well as private owners, a fact that is recognised by the document and which presents some challenges. The Wemyss caves in Fife are an example of the type of challenge that we are facing. The caves should be recognised as being of national importance. They are designated as a single scheduled monument, but they illustrate the complex ownership and responsibility issues that are often faced. They are located on the Wemyss estate, so they are in private ownership. Fife Council has been the lead financing body over recent years, but that has had its challenges. The caves have been vulnerable to vandalism, neglect and coastal erosion, which have compromised the quality of the caves and the drawings.

That part of Fife’s coast is experiencing considerable coastal erosion. We have lost 30m of the coastline since 1974. As the cabinet secretary recognised in her response to a parliamentary question, the protection and management of coastal areas is Fife Council’s responsibility. However, coastal erosion is a difficult and complex issue, and no practical and cost-effective solution has been found to date. Although there has been engagement with Historic Scotland over the years, responsibility has largely rested with Fife Council, and we need to recognise the financial limitations for local authorities in carrying the full responsibility for some of these sites.