Hansard

I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak today on behalf of the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee in support of the general principles of the Historic Environment (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill.

Scotland has a long, proud and rich cultural history that plays a significant part in the story of the development of the modern world. The preservation of history, whether it is in the form of land, buildings or artefacts, is crucial to Scotland for many reasons. First, and most basic, is the intrinsic historical value of relics. Their existence allows us to enhance our understanding of history, who we are and where we came from. Secondly, many of the buildings and artefacts have great aesthetic value; they are beautiful and deserve to be protected. Thirdly, and not insignificantly, Scotland’s cultural heritage plays a vital part in our tourism industry, so it makes perfect sense for us to protect and invest in that heritage. It is for those reasons that the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee agrees with the Scottish Government that the bill is necessary.

As members will be aware, the bill is an amending bill that addresses issues that have been highlighted by local and central Government, and follows extensive consultation of Historic Scotland. The key aim of the bill is to harmonise the legislation that covers the environment, scheduled monuments, listed buildings and the marine environment. The bill will amend three existing acts: the Historic Buildings and Ancient Monuments Act 1953, to allow ministers to specify the amount of grant that can be recovered if conditions of grant are breached or a building is sold within 10 years; the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979, to amend certain provisions relating to scheduled monuments; and the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) (Scotland) Act 1997, to amend provisions on listed buildings.

In total, the committee received 21 submissions as well as two letters from the minister. As might have been expected, there was a clear split in the reaction to the bill between those who use the historic environment and those who primarily seek to conserve and protect it.

Those who use the historic environment were most concerned about amending provisions placing more restrictions and obligations on owners, while those who primarily seek to conserve and to protect were concerned that the bill had missed an opportunity to address broader matters. I will come to those details later. However, on the general point, it is fair to say that members of the committee recognised that, on occasion, there can be a conflict between the interests of those who own and run historic monuments and those who use them. It is also true to say that those interests are often in agreement rather than in conflict.

I come to the specific provisions of the bill. The bill seeks to revise the defence of ignorance for those who are found to have carried out unauthorised works on scheduled monuments. The clear view of the Scottish Government and Historic Scotland is that those who ought to know that a site is a scheduled monument should not be able to use ignorance as a defence. There was a feeling that that defence could be used as an excuse for unsuitable developments.

However, other organisations, such as the National Trust for Scotland and Heads of Planning Scotland, pointed out that there is often a real lack of up-to-date information about the location and status of scheduled monuments. The committee had some sympathy with that point and agreed that, if the provision is implemented, there is a need for improved information systems relating to scheduled monuments. That is why I welcome the minister’s point about information packs being provided to the committee in draft form in advance of stage 2. In response to those concerns, Historic Scotland has confirmed that it intends to list the information and make it more accessible. The organisation has undertaken to write to all owners to outline their responsibilities.

The bill will extend the provision of notices that can enforce action where unauthorised works have been carried out. That will strengthen the options that are available to Historic Scotland in such instances. Those provisions were generally supported, although the Law Society of Scotland raised some concerns about appeals and about the scope of the definition of works executed in, on or under a scheduled monument.

The bill will place the existing inventory of gardens and designed landscapes in legislation and create an inventory of battlefields. Owners and occupiers of those sites expressed concern that inclusion in an inventory would place obligations on land and restrict use. They were also worried that that part of the bill could oblige owners to maintain a site in a particular state. The Historic Houses Association Scotland put that concern rather nicely when it stated:

“We do not want to get to the stage that we have to apply to change the azalea bulbs.”—[Official Report, Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee, 15 September 2010; c 3827.]

I am sure that we would all agree with that. Perhaps it is a matter for an azalea and related species bill that the Government might consider in the future. However, the bill probably gets the balance right. I am pleased that the minister has provided assurances that those concerns were unfounded and that inclusion on the inventories would be relevant only if any planning applications relating to the site were submitted.

Also included in the bill are provisions to extend the definition of monument to include

“any site ... comprising any thing, or group of things, that evidences previous human activity”.

That would cover sites that do not include something that can be defined as a structure or work, such as artefact scatters or archaeological deposits. Some concerns were raised about the form of wording used and that the definition might include too many sites and infringe on existing land use. However, in a letter to the committee, the minister provided strong assurances that

“only sites which are of ‘national importance’ may be scheduled”.

Most people would welcome that confirmation.

The bill proposes a system of certificates to guarantee that a building will not be listed within the next five years—certificates of immunity to list. Those are designed to encourage building development by removing the possibility that the relevant building will be listed during the development process. That proposal attracted the most comment in evidence, especially the provision that anyone can apply for a certificate. Concerns were raised that the process would be used to delay a building development without the owner’s knowledge. The committee noted that it is already open to anyone to suggest that a building can be listed, which can have the same effect as delaying a building development. We therefore concluded that there are no grounds for that concern. We also took the view that some developers might not want to buy a building without such a certificate, and that limiting applications to owners might have the effect of discouraging some building developments.

Although the provisions are not exhaustive, the bill also contains provisions to make it easier for local authorities to recover expenditure on urgent works to listed buildings that are in private hands. That is a technical provision, which basically registers the debt to the property rather than to the owner. There have been instances of owners passing ownership through a series of companies to avoid being liable for such debt. Serious concerns were expressed in relation to the provision. In particular, concerns were raised about the implications of someone buying a property on which such works had previously been carried out, and then inheriting that debt. The Scottish Government made it clear that any debt of that nature would become clear during the normal conveyancing process and would be dealt with in the same way as any other expenses for repairs. That clarification was welcomed by the committee.

Before concluding, I want to thank everyone who gave evidence during stage 1. Their evidence has helped to tighten and focus what was already a fairly well-received bill. I am sure that that was a relief to the minister, who has not always had that kind of experience at the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee. There was consensus on the matter in the committee.

I would also like to thank the committee clerks for the hard work they have put into preparing the stage 1 report and organising our evidence-taking sessions.

I believe that the bill will significantly improve the protection and development of our cultural and historic environment. I am sure that, as was the case in committee, we can all agree today to support the general principles of the bill.

I look forward to the minister responding to some of the relatively minor concerns that were raised during stage 1.

15:17