Hansard

I am a fan of Historic Scotland, although there are aspects of its operation with which I disagree, to which I will return. I continue to believe that the agency is underfunded, as it was by the previous Executive. However, it generally does a good job in preserving Scotland's unique historical environment. I welcome the £8 million in funding that the minister has announced today.

Of course, Historic Scotland is not perfect. Arguably, the adjective "historic" has become somewhat debased through its overuse by the First Minister—if I never again hear the phrase "historic concordat" it will be too soon. A review of Historic Scotland that the Executive carried out in 2004 concluded that there was a clear need for a culture change in the agency. Perhaps a name change would also help. I welcome the minister's assurances that a culture change is well under way. Nevertheless, given some of the on-going cases, to which I will refer later, I hae some doots.

Scots have never been more fascinated by the events that shaped the nation's history, both since the union of 1707 and going back to the time when the land of the Scots first emerged in the fallout between the feuding Picts, the Celts and Athelstane's west Saxons. Equally, television has never been more fascinated with Scottish history, and it is fitting that universities such as the University of Abertay Dundee are now world leaders in providing the computer graphics that help to bring history alive. The welcome TV coverage has helped to revitalise the tourism industry, as we have heard from Malcolm Chisholm, with historical buildings in particular attracting record numbers in the past year. Edinburgh and Stirling castles still lead the way. However, according to Historic Scotland, Corgarff castle in Aberdeenshire and Kisimul castle in Barra are among the 300 buildings in its care that have had huge increases in their visitor numbers over the past year, which is to be welcomed.

Although Historic Scotland and the National Trust for Scotland, which it often works in conjunction with, have saved many of our most venerable and vulnerable buildings and sites, there are buildings all over Scotland on the at-risk register—many of them listed—that are simply crumbling away. Largo house, an impressive Adam pile in my part of Fife, is one such building. The usual argument from Historic Scotland and the Scottish Civic Trust, which holds the at-risk register, is that there is a lack of funds, and there is justification for that claim. The agency's grant from the SNP has increased by some 8 per cent this year, but as far as I can judge it is due to dip again next year to below the level under the previous Executive in real terms.

Although we should praise aspects of Historic Scotland's role, we should also recognise the role of private landowners who have played a major part in preserving our cultural and historical heritage. In this connection, Historic Scotland must be sensible about working with proprietors to achieve agreement, particularly over contested sites or buildings, and where it has no realistic way of finding the necessary finance to achieve the degree of preservation that it often seeks to dictate.

In 2003, after a battle lasting nearly a decade, Alistair Dickson bulldozed Lanrick castle, a ruinous, B-listed Victorian edifice near Doune, which he owned. Historic Scotland and the Scottish Civic Trust were unable to contribute funds to the building's upkeep, but they insisted that the owner pay to prevent it from becoming a public danger. Mr Dickson was fined £1,000 for pulling it down. No one condones breaking the law, but it is hard not to disagree with the sheriff who criticised Stirling Council for being inept in ordering the owner to make the ruins safe while simultaneously informing him that he would need listed building consent, which might take months, before he could take the required action. Sheriff Wylie Robertson accurately described it as "bureaucratic nonsense".

A similar bureaucratic nonsense exists at Crawford priory near Cupar in Fife. Negotiations have been going on with Historic Scotland for nearly four decades. The priory is another ruinous, B-listed building that Historic Scotland will not allow the owner to pull down. Because of a lack of commitment to provide funding, the building has become a ruin and a public hazard.

I referred to yet another bureaucratic nonsense—the case of the second world war airfield, HMS Jackdaw, at Crail in Fife—in a question to the minister last week. Historic Scotland says that it is the best-preserved world war two airfield in Scotland, despite the fact that it played no role in world war two and it has been lying derelict for decades. The owner has, in effect, been prevented from farming or developing his own land since the listing was granted a decade ago. In the view of even the most conservation-minded, it must be tempting to say that Historic Scotland should put up or shut up.

At a time when we are told that Historic Scotland is undergoing a major culture change, it is depressing that the Kilrymont annexe to Madras college in St Andrews, which was built in 1967 along the dreary lines of similar Fife educational establishments, cannot be bulldozed to allow Madras college to move to a long-overdue single-site school without obtaining listed building consent, because Kilrymont's allegedly striking pagoda roof is B-listed.

In previous debates on this subject, I have referred to Castle Tioram on the Ardnamurchan peninsula—a listing absurdity that I will not reprise on this occasion. However, Historic Scotland has guardianship over several similar ruins that are kept as a result of what I can only describe as genteel necrophilia. They are lovingly sustained skeletons of structures that could be restored and made to earn their keep as living buildings again.

We welcome the minister's assurances about the streamlining of Historic Scotland. Let us hope that it will mean fewer grand strategies, less defending of the indefensible, and more genuine community, public and stakeholder involvement.

I move amendment S3M-1751.1, to insert at end:

"and seeks a more compatible approach in relation to resolving disputes with stakeholders, particularly where Historic Scotland has no realistic means of funding its desired preservation or conservation outcomes".