Hansard

The most sensible thing that I have heard Malcolm Chisholm say today is that I will not have enough time. He is right: in the eight minutes that are available to me, I will not have enough time to respond to everything that has been said.

It is clear from the debate how much our historic environment and our heritage mean to everyone. Examples have been given across the chamber. There is competition. Liam McArthur spoke about the beauty of Orkney, and Malcolm Chisholm spoke about his constituency having the most listed buildings. Rutherglen town hall, Mackintosh buildings in the west of Scotland, the urban and the rural have been mentioned. Christopher Harvie gave a history lesson on the importance of preservation and how we previously nearly lost so much. He talked about the world heritage site at New Lanark, which is a fine example of the fact that our heritage is about more than buildings—it is about our identity, culture and sense of community, which New Lanark has had and continues to have.

Many members mentioned particular Historic Scotland cases. I would like to put things in context. Between 2005 and 2008, Historic Scotland received 798 applications for scheduled monument consent, of which 797 were approved; only one was refused. In the same period, 7,094 applications for listed building consent were made, of which 99.84 per cent were approved; only 11 cases were called in. There will always be a few cases that concern people, and some of those cases were mentioned in the debate.

I do not have enough time to respond to all the concerns that were expressed, but I would like to say where matters lie with Castle Tioram. Ministers refused an application relating to Castle Tioram following a public inquiry. Since then, the owner has stated his intention to submit a fresh proposal. No new proposal has been lodged yet, although I understand that Historic Scotland would be happy to consider one. If members want further information on other cases, I am happy to provide that.

Malcolm Chisholm commented that I previously said in response to the HEACS report that the balance between local authorities and Historic Scotland was about right. It is indeed about right in respect of basic legal duties, but our joint working agreement is about day-to-day administrative working. No extra work is involved in the new arrangement. Historic Scotland is happy to provide support throughout the country to assist authorities, but the aim is to prevent duplication.

Willie Coffey mentioned the audit of local authority resources. I did not see the point in holding up work on moving forward to clear duplication. I am conducting the audit as a pilot rather than undertaking it in all local authorities, as John Farquhar Munro said, because I believe that it is worth seeing how it works initially without going into it wholesale. The idea has been welcomed by local authorities generally and in particular by the three local authorities in which we are piloting it. The work that will be subject to delegation is already being done, so it will have a limited impact on resources. It could even have a positive impact. I am pleased to confirm that, of course, an effective monitoring regime will be an important part of that work.

It is important that I address Helen Eadie's point that there is a feeling that Historic Scotland is not taking disability issues seriously. I assure her that it is. Historic Scotland has been working hard to make its properties as accessible as possible to the widest range of people. Nevertheless, as she recognised, many of the monuments are difficult to access even for the fittest of us, so there is a fine balance to be struck. Historic Scotland has conducted audits of access to its sites and has a programme of work to deliver better access. She will be pleased to hear that Historic Scotland is drafting its equality policy, which builds on the Scottish Government's policy and will cover disability issues. As is required by law, that work will involve stakeholders.

Malcolm Chisholm asked about battlefields. A SHEP on historic battlefields is due to be issued for public consultation on 30 April. We look forward to receiving contributions on that.

Skills training is hugely important. Christopher Harvie talked about the necessity of training up people with specialist skills to ensure that we preserve our built heritage properly. Recently, I was happy to launch the national progression award scheme, which includes Scottish vocational qualifications in building craft skills. Stonemasons are hugely important in the work that needs to be done to preserve our built heritage, and Historic Scotland will have apprentices on the first scheme, which starts on 28 April.

Another issue that was raised concerns the Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Scotland. I assure members that I am considering carefully the future of the RCAHMS. However, I feel strongly that the issue requires more time, as it is absolutely critical that we get it right.

Members will know—some have mentioned this—that, as part of a concordat that is doing the rounds, we are discussing the new single outcome agreements with local authorities. Our discussions with individual councils are at a relatively early stage, so it would not be appropriate for me to say any more about the matter right now. Nevertheless, I welcome the positive way in which local government has engaged with the whole process to date, recognising the opportunity that it offers to reshape completely relations between central Government and local government. Historic Scotland, as a Government agency, is part of that process, and I am pleased to say that officials from Historic Scotland are working closely with their colleagues across the Scottish Government in that regard.

A big concern that is addressed by Iain Smith's amendment, which I have said that I am happy to accept, boils down to a communication issue—how well Historic Scotland communicates with its partners and the wider public. I am happy to schedule a meeting with Historic Scotland on that point and to take input from parliamentary colleagues on how I should move the discussion forward. That is vital because our heritage affects every one of us, and every one of us has the right to contribute to anything that is going on around our place.