Hansard

I declare an interest as a member of Historic Scotland.

As others have said, our distinctive environment has been formed by centuries of activity by nature and by man. It has helped to make Scotland the nation it is. Whether we live in cities, towns or the countryside, the history of our nation is all around us. It is not just in our castles and great buildings; it is in the townscapes, the parks and even beneath the sea; it is in the field systems, the roads, the buildings we live in, the places where we worship and the everyday landmarks we pass by.

Our historic environment shapes who we are and contributes to our sense of place. It is also a major driver of our economy, with some 83 per cent of visitors to our country visiting at least one historic site while they are here and with many citing our history as a reason for their visit. And of course, it is an educational tool that has helped to inspire our literature and art for centuries. Our built heritage is therefore important on a whole range of fronts. If it is lost or damaged, it cannot be replaced.

As far back as 1882, it was recognised that to safeguard our built heritage it was necessary to legislate. Over the years, legislation has changed to fit the times, and rightly so. However, care has always been taken to ensure that, as with the planning system more generally, appropriate checks and balances are in place. The minister is quite right to want to see the correct balance between Historic Scotland and local government.

Malcolm Chisholm mentioned the minister's response to suggestions in the HEACS report, and I want to mention one other suggestion. HEACS suggested that the Government should commission an independent survey of local authorities—a survey of their policies, staffing and resource levels for the care of the historic environment. That work is under way. Would it not therefore have been better to await the completion of that work—which I understand is due this year, although I am not aware whether it has yet been made public—before making the kind of suggestions indicated today? I would be grateful if the minister could give us some clarity on the resources to be allocated for that purpose within local authorities—or, indeed, to local authorities. Perhaps the minister could expand on how she thinks the effectiveness of the pilots will be monitored. Are the single outcome agreements the right place for that? Personally, I do not think so, but the minister might have thought of an alternative.

Rob Gibson laboured to find a way of working in the words "concordat" and "historical", so as not to offend Ted Brocklebank. However, I hope that I can go one better. I seem to remember launching a Scottish historic environment policy not all that long ago—well, it was a wee while ago now—that talked about concordats with Historic Scotland, Scottish Natural Heritage, the National Trust for Scotland and others. The use of the word "concordat" is perhaps even more historical than has been recognised.

Two big issues face Historic Scotland. The first is the challenge of ensuring that, wherever possible, buildings are accessible to all who would like to visit them. Helen Eadie went into issue in some detail, covering all the points thoroughly. The second is to respond to the increasing demand from home owners for green energy through the use of solar panels, wind turbines and the like. Historic Scotland will have to turn its attention to that issue even more seriously in the coming days.

I believe strongly that the reuse of buildings is one of the greenest things that we can do. I am always delighted when buildings, such as Maryhill burgh halls in my constituency, slowly begin to emerge from a moribund state to become a valuable resource within a community. Another example is the award-winning St Georges in the Field church, which now provides homes for some 16 families in my constituency. I used to live in it too—although I am not sure whether that is an interest that I have to declare.

Chris Harvie has left the chamber, but he mentioned the devastation that took place in Glasgow. My constituency suffered, as did many others. However, being able to retain the two buildings that I mentioned, along with two Rennie Mackintosh buildings, has certainly given my constituency of Maryhill a sense of place and its people a sense of belonging.

Historic Scotland needs to work with its partners to ensure that the skills needed for the preservation of historic buildings are maintained. I know that good work has been going on with the Scottish Lime Centre Trust and the National Stone Centre. Those efforts are quite ironic, considering the actions of the Government in relation to modern apprenticeships.

Iain Smith's amendment rightly mentions the involvement of local communities, which Willie Coffey also mentioned. I firmly believe that community planning has a strong role to play in that regard. I would like additional work to be done in that area, but it is important that any such involvement must be informed. I see Historic Scotland in the role of an educator, in terms of interpreting the premises that we have, as Chris Harvie and Rob Gibson mentioned, and in the role of a body that can discuss historic buildings and our environment with the relevant communities.

I pay tribute to Historic Scotland and its staff for the changes that have been made in recent years. I also pay tribute to the work of HEACS and other partners who have worked with Historic Scotland.

We all take this issue seriously and it is of great interest to me to be able to be part of this debate.