Architecture

– in the Scottish Parliament at 2:24 pm on 1 June 2006.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Trish Godman Trish Godman Labour 2:24, 1 June 2006

The next item of business is a debate on motion S2M-4477, in the name of Patricia Ferguson, on architecture.

Photo of Patricia Ferguson Patricia Ferguson Labour 3:01, 1 June 2006

Today's debate on architecture, as I am sure everyone in the chamber knows, has been rescheduled from earlier this year. That is because, back in March, shortly before the debate was due to begin, we had what I will call a little local difficulty and it had to be postponed. I am in the chamber today to talk about the importance and wider benefits of architecture to Scotland, not to discuss one building—or, for that matter, one beam.

In 2001, Scotland became the first part of the United Kingdom to develop a formal policy on architecture; we should all be proud of that development. Our policy demonstrates that Scotland values its architecture and recognises it as a key element of its contemporary culture and cultural heritage. I therefore very much welcome the opportunity to open this debate and to talk about the ways in which, over the past five years, we have taken forward the many commitments that we made in our policy on architecture.

In the policy, we undertook periodically to review our priorities and assess the effectiveness of the actions that we have taken. Following on from that commitment, I launched a public consultation at the beginning of May. I am particularly pleased therefore to have the debate today and to hear the views of colleagues in the chamber on the future priorities for architecture policy.

A growing number of our European neighbours have also developed policies on architecture. Like us, they recognise that the quality of the built environment is vital to the social, economic and cultural life of a nation. A network for co-operation between the different member states of the European Union on questions of architecture has been in place for some time now. Last year, we hosted the forum meeting here in Scotland as part of the UK presidency of the EU. It was gratifying to see representatives of many other governments enthused and impressed by our approach to policy.

There are two main strands to our policy on architecture, the first of which has a strong aspirational and cultural component. It is essential that we have a robust vision for the kind of country that we want Scotland to be and that we are clear on the ways in which we wish to see it develop in the future. The built environment must be central to that vision. However, we are also concerned about the practical measures that will improve the quality of our physical environment. The second strand of policy therefore concerns initiatives to effect real change on the ground; change that will have a positive effect on our quality of life.

I believe that we have already made an impact in both these areas. I will say a few words on our cultural strand. When we began to develop policy, there was already evidence of an increasing interest in architecture in Scotland. Since devolution, we have seen a new wave of talent emerge as well as a significant number of new, high-quality buildings. By a pleasant coincidence, I had the great pleasure of being at this morning's opening of the Scottish Storytelling Centre on the High Street, just a little way away from the Parliament. It too is a wonderful and iconic building that also has a good and strong use.

We have built on the rising interest in architecture in Scotland and have developed a wide range of initiatives, underpinned by partnerships, to stimulate public interest and debate. Over the past five years, we have provided £1.5 million in funding for a national programme on architecture, which is delivered by the Lighthouse, Scotland's national centre for architecture. By means of touring exhibitions, seminars, education programmes, a national website and a biennial review, we have tried to ensure that our initiatives reach a wide public audience throughout Scotland.

The website ScottishArchitecture.com was launched in 2002. It has proven remarkably successful and is now the central on-line resource on architecture in Scotland. The Lighthouse has established itself as an important hub for the creative industries in Scotland since its opening in 1999 and has succeeded in raising the profile of Scottish architecture at home and overseas. It is a dynamic cultural centre; to date, it has attracted more than 2 million visitors, almost a third of whom were from abroad.

In the recent past, our best new architecture has been exhibited at a variety of high-profile events throughout Europe—Scottish architecture was represented separately at the Venice Biennale for the first time in 2004. The strength of Scotland's creative industries and the new focus on our cities and their connected regions provide us with new opportunities to promote and celebrate our design talent. Therefore, we have earmarked up to £3 million of funding for a six cities biennial festival of Scottish creative design that will take place in Scotland's six cities starting in 2007.

At a more fundamental level, we recognised that, for a change in our attitude to the built environment to be effective and long term, it must start with raising awareness of the built environment's importance among young people. That is essential if our children are to grow to care about and contribute to the shaping of the environments that they will inhabit.

The building connections initiative provides schools with extensive practical guidance on the use of the built environment as a context for learning. It is our intention to continue to support and develop that work and to build on similar initiatives by Historic Scotland and the Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Scotland.

We educate our children not only through learning and teaching, but through the environment that we provide for them. A wide range of guidance material for local authorities has been produced as part of the school estates strategy. Those publications cover a wide range of issues around the procurement of school buildings and specifically include guidance for local authorities on raising design standards.

The work on raising the quality of our new school buildings forms part of the second key strand of our policy, which is to seek to effect change on the ground. We have now placed design far higher up the development process agenda. As a first step, we reviewed the role of the Royal Fine Art Commission for Scotland and, following that review, established a replacement body—Architecture and Design Scotland—in 2005. That was a milestone in policy implementation, as Architecture and Design Scotland's increased funding enables it to have a much wider, more proactive role than the commission did in the promotion and advocacy of good design.

A key function of Architecture and Design Scotland is to engage with planning and procurement processes to demand excellence in development at all scales and in all parts of the country. Our architecture and planning policies are increasingly integrated or complementary in their aims. Through "Designing Places—A Policy Statement for Scotland", design is now enshrined as a material consideration in the planning process.

Photo of Christine Grahame Christine Grahame Scottish National Party

Does the minister share my concern that, all over Scotland, identical estates are being built with identical brickwork and that identical fences are being put up around them, thereby losing the individual qualities that villages and towns used to have? How does that fit in with better design and better architecture?

Photo of Patricia Ferguson Patricia Ferguson Labour

We have to recognise that there will be local choice in those matters. I appreciate the point that Ms Grahame is making. We have to encourage local authorities and others involved in the planning system to understand the importance of design and to raise it up the agenda. We should support them when they do that. That is not always an easy thing for authorities to do.

We have modernised the building standards system. In 2004, we established the Scottish Building Standards Agency. The new system provides a flexible approach to regulation, which takes Scottish building standards into the 21st century. The new system should allow more innovative approaches to building design. The Executive also recently launched its new "Construction Procurement Manual" for public sector clients, which emphasises that good design is not an alternative to value for money, but that it is integral to its achievement. How we address the question of sustainability in the built environment is a key policy challenge. The £1.2 million Sust initiative, which was developed by the Lighthouse, aims to help change attitudes to sustainable design and to help mainstream green thinking in the built environment.

As members might be aware, we plan to launch a new architecture policy statement in the next year. Today's debate and the public consultation that I mentioned earlier will inform that. It is my intention to integrate architecture policy further with other priorities for Government, such as those on sustainable development, health, housing and regeneration, where the built environment is fundamental to the success of initiatives.

The work of Historic Scotland and the Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Scotland is vital in developing our policy aims. We need to raise the awareness that our historical environment is one of our greatest assets. Through reinforcing local identity—I hope that I am making Ms Grahame's point—and a sense of neighbourhood pride, our historical built environment can often be the key to successful regeneration. Our regeneration policy, which we debated in the Parliament in March, makes it clear that investment in good design is an essential component of sustainable regeneration.

I will reiterate why we believe that it is so important that the momentum that has been generated through the policy on architecture is not lost and why we should continue to build on our achievements to date. The Executive's three key aims for development in Scotland until 2025 are increasing growth and competitiveness; promoting social and environmental justice; and promoting sustainable development while protecting and enhancing the quality of the natural and built environments.

The importance that we place on architecture is central to that. Although we have an increasingly vibrant architectural climate, we cannot be complacent. If Scotland is to be the country that we wish it to be in 20 years' time, we must look for more ways to encourage interest in raising our standards of design and building quality. Architecture and the places that it creates touch on almost every aspect of our lives. Our buildings tell the story of our past and witness our aspirations for the future. They have a key role to play in meeting our environmental objectives. Buildings are instrumental in realising a wide range of economic and social objectives. Architecture should, therefore, be a matter of fundamental concern to us all.

I move,

That the Parliament appreciates the importance of architecture to many aspects of life in Scotland; recognises that both our new and historic buildings have a critical role to play in sustainable regeneration and in delivering successful urban and rural places; acknowledges the wide range of progress that has been made through partnership in implementing the commitments of the Scottish Executive's policy on architecture, and supports the Executive's intention to publish a renewed policy statement.

Photo of Michael Matheson Michael Matheson Scottish National Party 3:13, 1 June 2006

As the Minister for Tourism, Culture and Sport said, the previous debate on this subject was unfortunately cancelled, due not to an architectural problem but to an engineering problem. I give the minister 10 out of 10 for persistence. We were long due a debate on this subject: it has been some five years since the last debate on architecture in the Parliament. If I recall correctly, that was a rather strange event: we were debating the Executive's policy on architecture before it had been published. We have made progress over the past five years, at least, in that we are now having a debate with a policy in place, and even a progress report on what has been achieved. The progress that the report indicates in a number of areas is to be welcomed.

As the minister said, we as a nation have a great architectural heritage—not only our buildings but our designers and architects. We have produced some world-class architects and designers over the years—Playfair, Craig, Thomson, Mackintosh and Adam to name but a few.

All of them have contributed to our nation's rich architectural heritage, which we have only to look around the city that we are in to see. Most of our towns and cities throughout the country have a building of significant architectural merit.

I am sure that the minister will acknowledge that debates on architecture do not tend to set the political heather on fire. People do not tend to have a view on architecture until they come across something that they do not like. That is a pity, because architecture has an important role to play socially, culturally, environmentally and economically. Its benefits can be derived by individuals, communities and the nation as a whole.

The general apathy towards architecture was reflected in the consultation that the Executive undertook when it began to draft its policy. Of the 400-odd people who attended the nine public meetings that were held, only 10 were punters; the rest were all professionals or people with a vested interest.

The old adage is that architecture is far too important to leave to the architects. It is important that we work to protect, preserve and promote our heritage for the present generation and future generations.

I hope that the minister shares my concern about the buildings at risk register for 2006, which the Scottish Civic Trust published recently. It indicates that 82 per cent of our listed buildings are classed as at risk; that 112 buildings of national and international importance are at risk; and that of the more than 1,000 buildings on the register, more than half are classed as at high risk of falling down, through disrepair.

If we are to build a good architectural policy for the future, we have to ensure that we preserve our architectural heritage. The national policy is much wider than being only about preserving what we have, but we have to acknowledge where we have come from by preserving significant buildings.

The social benefits of architecture are key. It is ironic that a country with such a rich architectural heritage, which has produced so many world-class designers and architects, has some blooming awful examples of bad architecture, most of which were built in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s. Basil Spence might have got it right with Coventry cathedral, but he got it wrong when he was designing the Gorbals; we are still addressing the legacy of that poor design. Costs and design were often higher priorities than was meeting social needs. Many communities experience the legacy of such designs.

It is important that we have a national policy on architecture, but we must ensure that the people who will be affected by architecture, directly or indirectly, play a central role in the architectural process. That is why I believe that community involvement in the design process is important. We must ensure that in modern architecture there is a greater focus on the needs of the people it serves.

It is important not only to have a national policy but to encourage local authorities to develop their own architecture policies, which reflect what is in the national policy, to ensure that they carry down to communities that same standard.

As the minister said in her response to Christine Grahame, if the aim is to drive up standards in architecture, particularly locally, it is important that local policies are in place.

Photo of Jamie Stone Jamie Stone Liberal Democrat

Although community councils in Scotland are already statutory consultees in planning matters, does the member think that they should play an increased role in planning?

Photo of Michael Matheson Michael Matheson Scottish National Party

It is important that community councils play an increased role.

I offer an example with which I have been involved: North Lanarkshire Council wants to build an ultra-new building right at the heart of Cumbernauld village, which is a conservation village. The proposal has drawn opposition from the community and from Historic Scotland, but the council intends to push ahead without recognising what the community feels or the heritage of the local area. That is why the Executive's architectural policy must be pushed down to the local level. If we can do that, we will be able to continue to build buildings for future generations.

I move amendment S2M-4477.2, to leave out from both to end and insert:

"our buildings have a critical role to play in maintaining and enhancing the quality of Scotland's urban and rural communities; notes the progress made to date on the Scottish Executive's policy on architecture; acknowledges the important role that local authorities have in promoting good architectural design, and believes that future national architectural policy should place greater emphasis on local authorities developing their own local architectural policy."

Photo of Jamie McGrigor Jamie McGrigor Conservative 3:21, 1 June 2006

A few months ago, one of the remaining high-rise blocks of flats in the Gorbals was blown up, laying to rest another part of the era of 1960s jerry-build. Some 123 flats became 125,000 tonnes of rubble in an instant to make way for 100 new flats to be built in the area. I hope that past experience will teach planners and architects to build homes that complement rather than experiment with people's lives, as the 1960s high-rise projects certainly did. I hope that no one will have to throw jeely pieces from 20-storey flats any more.

We can learn a lot from the past. Architecture should not just be governed by a policy of contemporary design for the future; it is also about making the most of fine existing buildings and remembering that today's architecture is tomorrow's building stock. It is disappointing to note that there seems to be very little in the Executive's document about existing housing stock or the importance of our architectural heritage; it is all about designs for the future. The centre of Edinburgh, for example, is a world heritage site of huge importance to the rest of the world, but there is little mention of the future guardianship of such a jewel. The document is very light on that.

The whole country is pretty famous for special buildings. There are architectural gems all over Glasgow, Dundee and Aberdeen, which all have fine examples of civic architecture. Many wonderful houses were destroyed after the '45 throughout the Highlands and Islands, but there are still many fascinating historic castles and houses that should be treated as cultural and tourism assets. It seems only right that, wherever possible, those buildings should be alive rather than dead, employed in an active role and allowed to earn their keep.

That is not happening in some keeps—in Castle Tioram in the Highlands or Rowallan Castle in the south of Scotland, for example. It appears that those two buildings, both of which should be salvaged and renovated, are being left to die because of Historic Scotland's refusal to grant scheduled monument consent or to relinquish guardianship.

Photo of Patricia Ferguson Patricia Ferguson Labour

I want to make a factual correction: Rowallan Castle is open to the public, as it should be.

Photo of Jamie McGrigor Jamie McGrigor Conservative

I am glad to hear that there has been some movement on that situation. I am, however, surprised to hear it because Historic Scotland normally gets things right.

Perhaps the Scottish Executive is in the driving seat. Nothing has happened at Castle Tioram whose owner would like to put his historic building to use for himself and the local community instead of leaving it to fall into further ruin. I recently visited Acharacle, where Castle Tioram is located, and found that the majority of the community around the castle are in favour of development. Why let that gem deteriorate any further when it could be salvaged and brought to life again? Is Historic Scotland bowing to Scottish Executive policy or is it, for some inexplicable reason, content to play legal games that cost both sides huge amounts of money while it continues to treat buildings as a philatelist might treat prize pieces of his personal stamp collection, hiding them away to gradually decay? I hope that Historic Scotland will change its policy, but there is little evidence that that will happen.

In the first century AD, the famous Roman architect and engineer Marcus Vitruvius, who is generally considered to be the father of architecture, described it as "commodity, firmness and delight". He meant that buildings should be functional; should be able to earn their keep; should be soundly and sustainably built; should please the eye; and should add beauty to the surroundings. In earlier centuries, the construction industry was much more environmentally sustainable. Not only were renewable materials such as wood and thatch used; stone and slate were quarried using human labour and materials were transported by horses. Such processes were environmentally benign.

However, the production of modern materials, particularly steel, is a pollutive process. Because using processed materials such as steel, cement, plastics and glass is not environmentally benign, architectural policies must pay more attention to the economy of non-renewable materials and the use of renewable materials to construct environmentally sustainable buildings. Surely that is our duty to future generations. It is extraordinary to think that we import steel from China—indeed, did we not import some granite from China for this very building?

Photo of Jamie McGrigor Jamie McGrigor Conservative

Okay, then—we did not.

On that point, I wish to congratulate the architects and builders of the National Assembly for Wales building for producing an honest building on time and the Welsh AMs for having the courage to stop the building of the Senedd and to renegotiate the contract. I have no wish to add to the criticism that has been heaped on our Parliament building. Indeed, who am I to talk when it has won the prestigious Stirling prize for architecture? However, some say that the concepts of buildability and discipline were not top of the list of criteria for those who conceived and built our Parliament. Indeed, some think that they were not on the list at all.

Last week, I attended a debate in our old chamber in the assembly building at the top of the Mound. I very much enjoyed the quality of the debate, although I must confess that I began to question why it was necessary to build a new Parliament when so many exceptional—and empty buildings—in Edinburgh could, with adaptation, have easily suited the purpose and followed the admirable Scottish tradition of prudence and common sense.

I move amendment S2M-4477.1, to leave out from "through partnership" to end and insert:

"in this area by independent and voluntary organisations including the Lighthouse and An Lanntair; notes the importance of the efficient use of existing building stock, and believes that a strong economy and a fair planning system are integral to a successful built environment."

Photo of Robin Harper Robin Harper Green 3:27, 1 June 2006

In response to Jamie McGrigor, I point out that the Scottish Parliament building cost less per square foot to build than the Welsh Assembly building—so he should tak tent.

I have a great deal of sympathy with the interesting points that Michael Matheson made, particularly in relation to communities; indeed, I believe that children should be involved in the design of schools. Of course, if Mr Matheson's proposal is to get anywhere, local authorities will need to employ more full-time architects to help communities in that respect.

I congratulate the Executive on the priority that it has given to architecture and design, particularly in Scottish planning policy 20, which sets out the role of Architecture and Design Scotland, and planning advice note 67. I like both documents very much. The crux of my amendment lies in my request that the Executive indicate neither soon nor in the fullness of time but in due course that it will

"move in a measured way from guidance" on building standards to legislation that is urgently required to raise building standards.

The housing and building industry contributes well over a third of all global warming gases. Huge energy inefficiencies are embedded not only in our existing housing stock but, quite unnecessarily, in thousands of new-build houses. Given the seriousness of the situation, it is not enough to claim that we have the highest insulation standards in the UK. After all, Scotland is a northern European country, but it has the lowest thermal insulation standards in northern Europe.

Indeed, it is not enough simply to add insulation to houses. We need higher standards of airtightness and controlled passive ventilation systems. Many quarters still believe that building to high standards of energy efficiency threatens the saleability of houses, and the philosophy of investing to save does not permeate either the buying or the selling market. However, by increasing the cost of a house by a mere 5 per cent, we can produce on-going savings of 50 per cent on heating bills, with the original investment very often being paid back in less than five years. Amory Lovins built a house in the Rocky mountains that, by using mainly solar gain, is capable of exporting energy, even in winter. Schools that are built on ecological insulation and ventilation principles and are properly managed produce academic results that are up to 10 per cent better than results from comparable but less well-built and managed schools.

In Scotland, the insulation programme that is funded by the Executive is reducing fuel poverty and producing significant social and health benefits, but our average national home energy rating of 5 is not high enough to produce significant CO2 savings.

Developers and the building industry need a clear message. Many developers already build to ecological principles and many more would like to do so. However, in a highly competitive market, they feel inhibited from adding to the soaring price of their houses, in spite of the fact that they know that the primary concern and bias in house buying is always location, location, location. Not a few developers have confided in me that all they need is a level playing field of regulation and they will be happy to build to the high standards of northern Europe.

I am not asking the Executive to bring in new regulations tomorrow. What I am suggesting is that the Executive should signal to the industry that it is consulting—I believe that it is—on what level of regulation is consistent with our Kyoto commitments and the health of the nation. The Executive should then say to the industry, "We will give you so many years to gear up and then we will consult you and introduce regulation." I have been careful not to suggest what that timescale should be. My amendment is carefully constructed so that the Executive can accept it on the basis that doing so simply indicates its agreement that that is indeed what should happen in the future.

I will mention one other matter of concern—I have been speaking quickly so that I have time to fit it in. I mentioned it in a recent planning debate in committee room 2 and I want to repeat my concern today. There are hundreds of thousands of square feet of uninhabited, unused space in solid, older buildings in Glasgow and Edinburgh. Many of those buildings are partly used as shops and for storage but they are topped by acres of decaying, uninhabited space. The buildings are structurally sound and they have vast amounts of embodied energy within them. For the sake of keeping our city centres vibrant and alive, we should refurbish all those buildings and bring them back into use. I call on the Executive to work with the councils to remove the fiscal, financial and regulatory barriers that obstruct that process.

Photo of Jamie Stone Jamie Stone Liberal Democrat

Does Mr Harper agree that the empty space above shops in town centres, in particular, would make suitable accommodation for first-time occupiers and young couples? Their presence would add value because they could keep an eye on the street below. There are benefits to mixing the retail and residential sectors.

Photo of Robin Harper Robin Harper Green

I am glad that I accepted that intervention. What Jamie Stone suggests is not included in what I have written because I did not think that I had time to say it, but I am happy to agree with him. The idea would help to bring our city centres back to life but it also represents an efficient use of space. The young people would not have long journeys to work—

Photo of Linda Fabiani Linda Fabiani Scottish National Party

I point out that studies have shown over and over again that many people have no interest in living above shops. The proposal might also stymie development in town and city centres because there are restrictions on the types of businesses that can be located underneath residential properties. Perhaps we should be more imaginative about the use of empty spaces above commercial ventures.

Photo of Robin Harper Robin Harper Green

I take both members' points. A good mix in our city centres would be welcome.

I hope that the Executive will support my amendment. If it does not, that will send the wrong message to the building industry. The Executive will be saying, "It's all right. We're not going to make things in the least difficult for you. Just carry on." I ask members to support my amendment so that that does not happen.

I move amendment S2M-4477.3, to insert at end:

"; recognises the crucial role played by architectural policy in promoting environmental sustainability and social equality, and calls on the Executive to move in a measured way from guidance to regulation to provide a level playing field to encourage all constructors, developers and planning departments to work with architects to achieve the highest possible levels of sustainability, particularly in relation to procurement, refurbishment of existing buildings, energy efficiency, low-toxicity, recycling and re-use of materials and new build on a long-life, loose-fit basis."

Photo of Donald Gorrie Donald Gorrie Liberal Democrat 3:34, 1 June 2006

I congratulate the Minister for Tourism, Culture and Sport and the Executive on the progress that they have made on architecture, including the creation of the Lighthouse and Architecture and Design Scotland and the publication of the progress report on their policy. The report is a welcome contribution because, sometimes, policy documents appear and then disappear without anything much being done.

We must concentrate on the fact that architecture is for people. Architects tend to forget that; they forgot it in the past when they built high-rise flats and other buildings. Many places are architectural concepts rather than people-centred concepts.

Users must be consulted more. The designers of blocks of council flats, for example, should speak to the people who will move into them. That happens a bit now, but it never used to happen and it still does not as much as it should. We must think about people rather than trendy designs.

We must design not just single houses but communities. That involves a combination of planning and architecture. I understand that many continental countries have disciplines whereby university students learn a combination of planning and architecture that assists them to design communities better than we do. Related to that is the fact that we must train our planners to understand architecture more and that, as has been said, we must attract more architects to work for councils. Planning and architecture should be a double-headed thing.

Photo of John Home Robertson John Home Robertson Labour

The member blames much on architects and planners, but what about the role of developers, who are the clients? Does he share the concern that has been expressed about the Soviet approach to planning that many big developers take by constructing identical housing units in every community in the United Kingdom, which is rather depressing?

Photo of Donald Gorrie Donald Gorrie Liberal Democrat

I accept that developers may have a lot to account for. Planning should be a partnership between the developer, planning officials and the community, which can produce a better solution together. The whole world's ills do not arise purely from planners and architects, but the system does not encourage co-operation and people-centred work.

Education is important; members have mentioned it and it is in the relevant papers. We need to teach people about better design. Many such issues are matters of opinion. Many people think that the Parliament building is the greatest thing possible and a lot of other people think that it is terrible. We will never get those people to agree. However, we can discuss the concept of design not just of houses but of furniture, cutlery or anything else, because good design is important. We used to be good at design—that is one reason why we led in the industrial revolution—but we have rather lost sight of that. Teaching good design is important.

I was concerned to receive a wee piece of paper about a leak that alleges that the Westminster Government will

"allow some of the country's top listed buildings to be demolished to generate money for the Treasury".

I do not know whether that leak is true or false, but I hope that the minister will not go down that route. As other members have said, we must look after our listed buildings and our neglected city-centre buildings, whether they are above shops or anywhere else.

As other members have said, we must get councils to develop local styles of architecture, so that we do not just have a standard development by Barratt or whoever it is everywhere. East Lothian and Argyll have different types of houses and new developments should reflect that. We want to encourage councils to speak to community councils and to consult local people more on how they envisage their communities.

We talk about sustainability a lot, but the Parliament building, for example, has failed to use great opportunities for energy conservation or micro-renewables. Every now and then, examples appear in the press of local planning departments refusing people permission to install double glazing or a thing on a roof that would be seen only by a passing seagull because they say that it would spoil the view. We must take sustainability, energy conservation and micro-renewables seriously. That could fit in much better with design. At the moment, sustainability is not pursued.

In the past, people made a feature of chimneys because chimneys and fires were a big thing. Let us have rows and rows of wee windmills, which could become a positive feature rather than something that people are worried about.

There are many good things to work on. The Executive has made a good start, but we must all try to keep it up to the mark.

Photo of Marilyn Livingstone Marilyn Livingstone Labour 3:40, 1 June 2006

I am pleased to be able to speak in the debate. One thing that members can agree about is that architecture is important in ensuring that Scotland continues to be recognised as an exceptional place to live in, to work in and to visit. I welcome the Executive's intention to publish a renewed policy statement later this year following consultation and the establishment of Architecture and Design Scotland. It is crucial that Architecture and Design Scotland develop strong links with all its stakeholders.

I am particularly interested in the debate because of three roles that I have: first, I am convener of the Scottish Parliament cross-party group on construction; secondly, I am the Equal Opportunities Committee's disability reporter; and thirdly, I am a member of the Dysart regeneration forum, which considers the sustainable regeneration of Dysart in my constituency.

Architecture in towns and cities has and will continue to have a vital role in conserving our historic buildings as well as in the design of new buildings. Fife Historic Buildings Trust—of which my colleague Christine May is a trustee—has made a significant contribution to the built environment. A recent example of best practice can be seen in the historic Merchant's House, part of which was recently opened by the Minister for Tourism, Culture and Sport as a local tourist information centre. The building has major historical significance for Kirkcaldy, and its conservation is vital for current and future generations. There have been similar initiatives in the Wemyss villages and Burntisland.

In my constituency, there is much more concern about the community's old buildings and how they are conserved. On the down side, I point to the redevelopment and conservation of our townscapes. Kirkcaldy and Burntisland have introduced innovative plans for development and conservation of their high streets, but both projects face funding and bureaucratic barriers. Our townscapes are crucial if we want to turn our aspirations for our built environment into reality. I ask for the minister's help with, and support for, those projects.

The motion in the minister's name recognises architecture's vital role in many aspects of life in Scotland—it refers to sustainable regeneration in particular. Sustainable regeneration is particularly recognisable in my constituency. Dysart is a designated regeneration area. Part of that regeneration consists of the development of the built environment so that it exists anew. Dysart has many historic buildings, including St Serf's Tower, the Tolbooth, the Town House and the Harbourmaster's House. Discussions about proposals for those buildings have allowed us to consider their use, their benefits to the community and the sustainable regeneration of the town. We have seen the restoration of an A-frame winding-gear structure, which is the only structure of its kind in the country and is crucial to our mining heritage. After a long and sustained campaign, we managed to save it. The official opening of the Harbourmaster's House—which is a valuable and beautiful community asset—will take place later this year.

Consulting and involving the community has been vital. The projects that I have mentioned can be taken as exemplars of best practice. Through involving the community, sustainable results will be achieved that the community will accept. Policies are making, and will make, real change on the ground. Sustainable development must play a central role in any local or national policy.

As convener of the Scottish Parliament cross-party group on construction, I want to point out a concern that we have about skills shortages and the lack of training opportunities to acquire skills such as dry-stane dyking and stonemasonry. We are concerned that such skills are becoming things of the past. I point that out to the minister as something that must be taken on board.

On access, the Equal Opportunities Committee is coming to the end of its year-long disability inquiry. As part of the inquiry, the committee recently took evidence from the Scottish Building Standards Agency, the Royal Incorporation of Architects in Scotland and the Scottish Society of Directors of Planning. I will draw to the minister's attention concerns that disabled people have raised in evidence to the committee.

Adequate consultation early in the planning and development of new buildings and the redevelopment of existing buildings could help to eradicate many problems and barriers that disabled people face. There is a lack of understanding of the wide range of disabilities and, although it is accepted that not every need can be met, there is still much room for improvement. The minimum requirement standard of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 is causing major concern—the standard does not, for example, include provision for visually impaired people, so there is no requirement to provide aids such as contrasting colours on door handles, which would allow visually impaired people to recognise which room they are entering.

I am sure that the minister will agree that if we can get appropriate access that is fit for purpose for disabled people, access for everyone will improve. Grant Gordon from RIAS said in evidence:

"A plethora of information is available on design for disabled access. Although the regulations are extremely helpful, they cover only a small part of what is required to allow access for disabled people. The DDA focuses on what is reasonable, so a whole bin of information is available to designers on making both existing buildings and new buildings accessible. The challenge that we face lies in making the distinction between what is mandatory and what is reasonable."—[Official Report, Equal Opportunities Committee, 6 May 2006; c 1806.]

I hope that we can take those views on board in any new policy.

Richard Hartland, from the SSDP, in response to a question from Cathy Peattie on how clear the various laws, regulations and guidance on accessibility to the built environment are, said:

"There is not much point in our trying to answer the question without asking ourselves whether we understand the nature and problems of disability. That is a fundamental question, and there is work to be done on that as well."—[Official Report, Equal Opportunities Committee, 16 May 2006; c 1806.]

I ask the minister to ensure that the review of policy that will be announced later this year will take on board the issues that have been raised in the disability inquiry. I believe that through better design a well-built and accessible environment can be created that will benefit all in our communities.

Photo of Christine Grahame Christine Grahame Scottish National Party 3:47, 1 June 2006

As the minister said, we are not just talking about bricks and mortar in this debate because buildings and the built environment have overt and covert impacts on all our lives. There are buildings, spaces and places that uplift, that are friendly and that inspire, which are at the heart of local and national history, and which are cherished by communities. However, there are also buildings and spaces that depress our spirits, where our footfall becomes slower and wearier as we pass through them—as we hope we will.

There are grandiose buildings, such as the Museum of Scotland in Edinburgh; quirky and idiosyncratic buildings, such as Sir Walter Scott's Abbotsford; imposing and impressive designs, such as the new town in Edinburgh; and, in fairness to Glasgow, there are wonderful buildings that arose from Glasgow's commercial prosperity.

There are lovely places in Scotland. There are villages such as Earlston in the Borders, which has the 1700s feel and layout that many small Scottish towns have. There are places such as Penicuik, which was once industrial and which has its original square anchored to its town hall. I shall refer to both places later.

Someone once referred to a building as "a carbuncle"; we have, as I have alluded to, many such buildings in Scotland. There are wastelands of housing schemes, in which the design of the houses and the scheme was destined to fail the people who struggle to this day to make the best of their environment. In addition, bland and identikit private-housing estates that are in no way sensitive to local design and materials have been built throughout Scotland.

Buildings are living and breathing things. Penicuik once thrived because of mining and paper mills, but it is now fighting to retain its individuality by means of its local development trust. Its town centre, like many town centres, is under threat from a large supermarket development. Many buildings are closed, but there is still the town hall, which anchors the community. I will give members a little bit of the history of that building, because it is typical of many buildings in Scotland that are connected to beneficiaries.

Alexander Cowan, the paper maker, instructed his wife and family that on his death they should use what was left of his fortune for the benefit of the people of Penicuik. As a result, the town hall was built. Its features match many of those of Moray House—Moray House was once the Cowans' long-term residence—and the Canongate Tolbooth on the Royal Mile in Edinburgh. What was the town hall used for? It was used for the community. It was built using stone brought on carts from the Moat quarry and the foundation stone was laid in 1893. The building had—it still has—a large hall that can hold 600 people. It had a library—in those days people had no other way of educating themselves. It had reading rooms, a gymnasium and rooms for other recreational purposes.

In 1900, when many homes in Penicuik did not have their own baths, three baths were installed in the town hall. It is interesting to note that they were reserved for women on Mondays and Thursdays and for men on Tuesdays, Wednesdays, Fridays and Saturdays. One must presume that the men were working in the pits—if not, they were the pits. The cost was tuppence for those who brought their own towel, and thruppence for those who did not.

Over the years, the building has evolved; it has been a living building. It has been a venue for concerts, dances, flower shows and so on, and it has been the scene of meetings, romances, marriages and—no doubt—impending divorces. The building grew and is still growing. However, like many town halls, it is now under threat. It has passed from the people to the local authority, and the local authority says, "We're making cutbacks and we're going to close it." The people are fighting for their town hall, just as so many others are fighting for their town centres.

Across the constituency is another wee place: Earlston, which I have already mentioned. Earlston has a reading room—what a term from the past that is—which was built in the 1800s for obvious purposes. Members will not know—as somebody else once said,

"Not a lot of people know that"— that Earlston was the heart of gingham production in Scotland.

Photo of Christine Grahame Christine Grahame Scottish National Party

I knew that that would catch members' interest. There is no gingham production any more, but the point is that that building, too, is in disrepair. Again, the community is pulling together to try to do something about it. The people want to set up a museum containing local artefacts, including those relating to gingham production, in order to bring life and heart back to the town. The building would be the centre of a heritage trail.

I have given two examples. Members who are not in the chamber today—and are probably not even listening to the debate—could give examples from all over their constituencies. I come back to my point: grand buildings matter—I take Michael Matheson's point about the number of buildings that are under threat, which is a cause for great concern—but a lot of wee buildings are under threat too, as are a lot of village and town centres. Communities are fighting on their own—often not knowing what tools to use in the battle.

I fully support the amendment in my colleague Michael Matheson's name. We must get local authorities to develop architectural policies so that we do not have modern carbuncles. I have no doubt that I will now get bad letters from some builders, but some buildings are horrendous. At the same time as we are fighting off the bland buildings, we have to protect the interesting and quirky buildings—often given by benefactors—that people consider precious and want to keep. Local authorities have to do something about them.

Whoever becomes the minister for culture after the election next year—I turn to Michael Matheson—he alone will not be able to protect all the buildings that are under threat.

Photo of Alex Johnstone Alex Johnstone Conservative 3:53, 1 June 2006

It would be remiss of me, as a Conservative, not to take the opportunity to make a comment that Conservative spokesmen have made in the past on issues of culture and architecture: we must remember that some of the finest examples of architecture—as with some of the finest examples of other culture in Scotland—evolved in an unregulated creative atmosphere. For that reason, whatever policy we decide to apply to architecture, architecture must never be so strongly affected as to prevent creativity.

There are no better examples, I suppose, than places such as Arbroath Abbey—which I have mentioned in the chamber before and have mentioned directly to the minister. I mention it again now, and the campaign to achieve world heritage site status for it, so as to pre-empt my colleague Ted Brocklebank, who has a debate on his particular project later in the day.

When we talk about architecture, we must question whether it is still genuinely an art, or whether it is now engineering. If form and function are to be reflected in the buildings that will be constructed in Scotland in the years to come, art and engineering must both be considered. A number of members have mentioned energy efficiency and microgeneration, both of which will be key elements of new buildings in years to come. Architects face the great challenge of ensuring that those elements are properly incorporated in buildings without creating the negative views that some such proposals create.

Photo of Rob Gibson Rob Gibson Scottish National Party

Does the member agree that if we stick with a market approach, people will tend to buy cheaper houses rather than slightly more expensive ones that have the green credentials that the member wants? How will the free market solve the problem of allowing us to have greener houses?

Photo of Alex Johnstone Alex Johnstone Conservative

The member has pre-empted the remarks that I was about to make. I will proceed to them, in the hope that we can develop the debate.

Among the amendments is a particularly good amendment in the name of Robin Harper, but I will not support it at decision time. I will explain why. My concern is to ensure that energy efficiency and opportunities for microgeneration are incorporated in the buildings that we build in the future, but it would be remiss of all of us if we did not at the same time address the affordability of housing. There are too many areas in Scotland in which, if the full cost is passed on, even if it can be deferred over time, some people will be excluded from the opportunity to own or to rent a house simply because others will find the cost more affordable.

Photo of Alex Johnstone Alex Johnstone Conservative

Let me move on for a moment.

The main reason why I am concerned about Robin Harper's amendment is that it says all the right things, but then asks the minister to consider regulating to enforce developments of the nature that Robin Harper advocates. Ultimately, it may be necessary for the appropriate minister to take that route—I agree with Christine Grahame that that person will not be the present minister—but, at this stage, it is essential for the Government in Scotland to address affordability. Unless we develop ways of properly deferring cost and making it possible to incorporate in houses that are genuinely affordable innovative designs to deal with the opportunities that energy efficiency and microgeneration offer us, we cannot afford to go down the road that Robin Harper suggests.

I ask the Government in Scotland and whichever minister takes responsibility for the issue to consider carefully how that cost can be deferred and what grants might be made available in the future. Ultimately, we must ensure that by adding cost, regardless of how effective the measures that are incorporated as a result may be, we do not make housing exclusive.

Photo of Chris Ballance Chris Ballance Green

Does not Alex Johnstone member accept that the people about whom he is talking—those who are least able to afford housing—are even less able to afford the heating bills that are concomitant on badly insulated housing?

Photo of Alex Johnstone Alex Johnstone Conservative

Absolutely—but the people who are in the greatest fuel poverty in Scotland are those who cannot afford the measures that we are talking about. That is why I ask the appropriate minister to consider how the cost of those measures will be dealt with and what can be done to assist people in meeting them before any regulatory requirement to incorporate advanced designs is imposed. Those two approaches must proceed hand in hand. We cannot afford to put the cart before the horse; if we do, people in Scotland will not be able to afford housing at the bottom end of the market. Ultimately, that will disadvantage all of us.

Photo of Carolyn Leckie Carolyn Leckie SSP 3:59, 1 June 2006

I will begin by responding to Alex Johnstone. When he talked about a climate of unregulated creativity, he was talking about a climate in which the rich had the right to have grand buildings while the poor were guaranteed slums. As someone who grew up in the Gorbals and who saw the slums being demolished, I know that only too well. I lived in a flat that was built in a climate of regulated creativity by Glasgow City Council's predecessor. I have to say that, regardless of how uniform it was, a flat with a bathroom was much preferable to the overcrowding of some of the slums in the Gorbals. That said, a great deal of decent fabric that could have been refurbished was unnecessarily demolished.

Unfortunately, we have not learned from that and we still see situations in which cost is put before the need to preserve communities and individuality. That concerns me especially in relation to schools and the impact of private finance initiatives on schools. Kit schools are being built in preference to the refurbishing of landmark buildings in communities such as Strathaven. The communities would prefer refurbishment but, because of the restrictions of the PFI contract, it is cheaper for the consortia—and their profit margins are bigger—if they demolish the old landmark schools and put kit schools in their place.

Photo of Linda Fabiani Linda Fabiani Scottish National Party

Does Carolyn Leckie agree that it is not the construction of kit schools that is the problem, but the uniformity of the kits, which is dictated by the developer-led nature of the projects?

Photo of Carolyn Leckie Carolyn Leckie SSP

I do not disagree with that.

I cite the example of St Kevin's primary school in Bargeddie. The community there is attempting to get involved in the design of the new school, but it is being restricted and prevented from becoming involved because the consortium has already concluded the deal with the local authority and has dictated what the school will look like. That will have a direct impact on the children's education.

There is currently a big debate around the value of open-plan classrooms, but the nature of the PFI contract has dictated that there will be open-plan classrooms, and the community has had absolutely no say. The only reason why open-plan classrooms have been chosen is that walls are dearer than no walls. Absolutely no consideration has been given to the impact on the children's education.

I agree that we need less uniformity and more individuality and creativity in the design of housing and social housing. However, individuality, uniqueness and creativity should not be things that people can buy; they should be the right of every community. I am very concerned about the number of unique former public buildings that are being snapped up by big developers to be converted into housing that only people on high incomes can buy. I would like the Executive's policies to enable local authorities to snap up those public buildings and develop them for social housing and public spaces. What we are seeing is the privatisation of space, which I find entirely unacceptable. It would be a really radical policy if some of our old fire stations and churches were developed for social housing. I am not opposed to the odd church being turned into a pub, but I would like some to be used for the benefit of the people who do not enjoy a wee drink now and again.

People need genuine democratic control over their environment, but that is not happening. The needs of developers are being put ahead of the needs of communities. The planning legislation is directly relevant to architectural policy, and it should put the communities first, ahead of big developers and big Government. Certainly, double standards need to be obliterated. There is an example of double standards right outside this building, with big developers being granted permission to change completely the character of Edinburgh's old town while, for decades, people who live in the social housing in the Royal Mile—I have a friend who lives in one of the flats—have been prevented from installing double glazing because they live in listed buildings. It is unacceptable to have people freezing for decades because they live in a listed building but then, at the snapping of fingers, to allow developers to bulldoze their way through an historic old town. That is absolutely unacceptable.

Although I agree with much of what has been said—especially by Christine Grahame, Michael Matheson and Robin Harper—I disagree completely with the Tories, as usual. In particular, I disagree with Jamie McGrigor, who stuck up for the old castle owners. If castle owners are unable to maintain their properties, it is time for us to issue compulsory purchase orders and to turn them into social housing.

Photo of Frank McAveety Frank McAveety Labour 4:05, 1 June 2006

I am intrigued by Carolyn Leckie's metaphor about turning churches into places of entertainment. Given the recent events in the Scottish Socialist Party, I presume that the pub will be called "Hellfire and Damnation" and that the proprietor will be Carolyn herself. It will certainly not be called "Tommy's".

I welcome the debate on architecture in Scotland. Architecture will never be a dominant policy issue for the elector, but buildings play a critical part in people's lives and experiences, individually and as members of the communities in which they live, work or play. How we shape, design, consult on and create new buildings, and how we preserve, protect and cherish older buildings, is the nub of this afternoon's debate.

One of the most frustrating aspects of the discussion is that areas can often be caricatured and stereotyped. The constituency that I represent—Glasgow Shettleston—has the great misfortune to be divided by an important arterial part of the River Clyde, so the north and south of the area have different perspectives on how people live in and view the area. Coming from a family in which my father was from the south side of the river and my mother was from the north side, I can testify to the passionate divisions that those local identities can often create.

Even in Glasgow Shettleston, it is important to recognise how we are shaped and influenced by our past when we consider how we can create a modern and constructive future for the inhabitants of such neighbourhoods. In the east end and south side of Glasgow, much of the city's historic development has been related to its economy. Carolyn Leckie illustrated the economic power that those with major wealth and privilege would have. There is no doubt that the incredible buildings around the Glasgow Green area were developed through the prosperity of the tobacco lords, but they are now being reinvented as rented and owner-occupied accommodation because those old buildings were preserved and because there has been a strategy for renewal. In a sense, we can take what might have been economically negative and turn it into something positive for the current inhabitants.

The development of industrial working-class housing was a feature of what happened in the Gorbals and in other parts of the inner east end, and it has shaped the city dramatically. A number of members have mentioned the experience of the Gorbals; I want to touch on that later in my speech.

I have three major messages. One is that, where we have partnerships, we can make a real difference and we can try to meet the aspirations that everyone who has taken part in the debate so far has expressed. At Parkhead Cross, for example, the street-level vision was pretty negative, both for the residents and for any visitors to the neighbourhood, and the above-street-level vision and the quality of the buildings at Parkhead Cross—not just the bank buildings but some of the working-class housing—showed that investment had not been a priority for the neighbourhoods. The role that the local housing association has played in pulling together a Heritage Lottery Fund commitment has resulted not only in two or three important pieces of architecture being further developed, but in local church buildings that needed investment becoming part of that process.

The same is true of the success of St Andrews in the Square in the Saltmarket, the homes for the future and the inner-city regeneration that we want for the Calton area. However, the absence of a strategic local plan in that area is something that I am actively working to remedy with local elected members and the community. We have recently established a forum in the Calton area to develop such a plan.

I want to touch on something that many people have experienced in the Gorbals, which probably offers the best example of the history of architecture in the city of Glasgow. We have seen there the industrial working-class housing that had to be demolished in the 1960s, and the ambition and vision for what would replace it, irrespective of the consequences of the decisions that were taken. I understand the comments that have been made by local residents about Sir Basil Spence, but he had ambition for what he tried to create in the Gorbals. He tried to create a building that should have served as a repository for a workable ideal, but it did not work. That is the reality of architecture. Sometimes things might not work, but the real aspiration is in continuing to reinvent and reimagine, and in how we can make a difference in our cities.

The ambition to have a workable ideal strikes me as being an important metaphor for the Gorbals, and if anybody looks now at the rear of the Citizens Theatre in Gorbals Street they will see the incredible success of the Crown Street regeneration project, which has been a success for three or four reasons. First, a locally based housing association has driven forward much of the agenda. Secondly, when we have been able to involve the community, its involvement has been central in the early design stages and in the creation of the new housing. Thirdly, and most important, people do not know what is social rented housing, what is private rented housing or what is owner-occupied housing. People are hard pushed to identify which is which. That is one of the incredible achievements of Crown Street.

When a person goes from Crown Street through to the Citizens Theatre in the Gorbals they can look across the road to what someone once described to me—the Gorbals folk are quite poetic—as the "Corbusian austerity" of the flats at Laurieston. That comment was made to me in a local pub in the recent past. The flats are unpopular, unattractive and in desperate need of removal. It is interesting that between those two is what is known as Frank's bank. That is not my bank: Frank McElhone used to own the greengrocer there. It is the last remaining tenement of the industrial working-class type in the Gorbals. One of the challenges as we regenerate the Laurieston area—that regeneration will include demolition of the Laurieston flats—is how to reinvent the old buildings and create a new community. The development must be of high quality and we must ensure that the people who want to stay in the Gorbals can do so. That is the challenge that faces us all. The regeneration will be an important legacy.

I have a personal testimony to share. Eighty years ago my granddad John came off the boat from County Cavan and arrived to live in the Gorbals. Forty years ago my parents went to live there in the early years of their marriage. Our challenge is to leave a contemporary legacy that leaves a mark and allows us to hold on to what has been shaped by our antecedents, but which also draws on the modern and the universal.

A great German philosopher once said that when he looked at German buildings, he thought that

"we ought to thank God for being able to proclaim aloud ... This is German architecture ... our architecture."

I would not go that far, and when I hear a German say that, I worry occasionally. However, I would say that whatever the architecture is, however it manifests itself in the contemporary age and whatever the architecture says about Scotland as it is now, we must leave a legacy such that future generations who debate the issue in this Parliament 40 or 50 years from now can look back to the early part of the 21st century and say that we created landmark buildings, not only on landed estates but in ordinary communities where ordinary people resided, and that we made a difference to their lives. It is important that, as we have the development and design debate on architecture in Scotland over the next few years, we take into account people's experiences in the past so that we leave a legacy that is genuinely worth preserving in the future.

Photo of Rob Gibson Rob Gibson Scottish National Party 4:12, 1 June 2006

Architecture is a guide to the history of a country, to its confidence and to the influences upon it. I will take us through some of the historical influences that have created our buildings, to the kind of buildings that we are creating today, both in the cities and in the countryside.

Scotland is not an exception when we say that architecture is a guide to the history of a country.

We can see the influences in, for example, the Franco-Renaissance style of the 15th and 16th centuries or in the pan tiles from our relationship with the low countries. We also have the later examples of the fantastic architecture in booming Glasgow—the second city of the British empire—from architects such as Greek Thompson and Charles Rennie Mackintosh. With such examples that show that confidence was high and the country felt that it had to make statements through its buildings, we find a way in which each generation can mark the progress of our country. In far too many places—as other members have said—there are too many small and unremarkable boxes in which people now live. Those are often sited next to retail parks, which are joined up by roundabouts and open spaces that are no person's land. If that kind of town architecture—which is being fostered because the town centres have been destroyed and building has taken place on the outskirts—is to continue, a large part of the heritage that we pass on will not be as memorable as some of the examples that I have given from the past.

If the new architecture is going to be imaginative and forward thinking, it must also be affordable. If any heritage will be worth passing on, it is the affordable housing that we are designing now. The Homes for Scotland meeting that took place at lunch time today was about large developers who make the kind of boxes that I mentioned. Our building regulations and planning system may be the best in Britain, but they are not the best in northern Europe, as Robin Harper mentioned. Our regulations and standards need to be tightened up considerably. I disagree fundamentally with Alex Johnstone that we do not need regulations. We need them because they allow us to have the kind of architecture that will take us forward.

Photo of Alex Johnstone Alex Johnstone Conservative

Will Rob Gibson accept that that is not what I said? Rather, I said that we need regulation, but cannot allow it to impose additional costs without first addressing how the costs will be met.

Photo of Rob Gibson Rob Gibson Scottish National Party

We need to ensure that we get into the position where people cannot build substandard buildings. The people who do so who should be penalised—not those who try to build high-standard buildings. Regulation can stop people from giving us such low standards.

Architects and builders have to work together. In saying that, I am, of course, referring to the planning context. A wider-ranging approach needs to be taken in planning; one that involves master planning and public participation. Those are the techniques that allow core values to be spread to and from the community councils and so on. There are many examples that we can take from other countries of how that should be done in Scotland.

We look to the Government to incorporate more of those values in the architectural briefs that it is drawing up, not only in terms of the Planning (Scotland) Bill, but elsewhere.

A building that I have mentioned previously in this context is the award-winning house that was built for the artist Lotte Glob on the side of Loch Eriboll. During the last RIAS competition, it won the public prize. The house, which is made of wood and other locally-sourced materials, cost £70,000 to build. It is not only much better insulated than the artist's previous house, but it is built on a sloping site. That is the kind of land that is not so useful for agriculture; it is the kind of land on which many rural buildings should be built. Lotte Glob's house is the kind of example that we want to encourage.

Frank McAveety talked about his grandparents coming to the Gorbals from County Cavan. During that part of the 19th century, when the famine had taken hold in Ireland and, indeed, when the clearances were taking place in Scotland, people began to build more dispersed settlements. However, in order to get affordable housing in the countryside, we know that we have to build houses in clusters. I am talking not about houses being built cheek by jowl in the "Brookside" fashion, but in communities. The kind of planning that allows for community development therefore needs to be built into the thoughts of architects and their way of working.

I turn to the point about the local authorities that we make in our amendment. Far too often, local authorities are involved in trying to perpetuate a view of the countryside as being a place where only small white-painted houses can be located; houses that look beautiful but which are totally out of place nowadays. The situation of architects having to design houses that look like the houses that were built in the 18th century but which have a 21st century interior is desperate. The Scottish National Party expects local authorities to be more imaginative on the issue.

I can think of far too many examples in which a proposal to build the kind of wooden house that I referred to earlier meets vast resistance at local government level. That is why I echo the argument that many more architects should be involved in planning departments and that such a development should be funded from the centre, which would ensure that progressive architectural values were taken on board.

The type of housing that we build is our legacy for the future. If Scotland is to be seen as a progressive country, our housing has to be seen to be the hallmark of the nation. If the people of Scotland live in houses that offer a message of hope to them, it would serve as a true benchmark that Scotland is moving forward into the future.

Photo of Murray Tosh Murray Tosh Conservative

We move to closing speeches.

Photo of Chris Ballance Chris Ballance Green 4:19, 1 June 2006

First, I will pick up on the closing remark that Rob Gibson made. The importance of having architects within planning departments cannot be overstated. The point is a particularly important one.

The debate has been interesting. For me, three strong strands have come out of it: the need to conserve our heritage, the need to mainstream green thinking and the need to build for the future.

Several members have expressed a certain amount of regret at the lack of mention of and emphasis on heritage in the Executive's motion. As Michael Matheson said, 82 per cent of our listed buildings are currently listed as being at risk. That is a frightening statistic and it must be addressed. Jamie McGrigor commented on the lack of mention of heritage, and Marilyn Livingstone focused on the importance of conserving local high streets.

Photo of Patricia Ferguson Patricia Ferguson Labour

I point out that, last month, we had a debate about the Scottish historic environment policy documents that Historic Scotland published then. The two debates are complementary, but the earlier one was the place to have a full discussion about our environmental and architectural heritage. I hope that Chris Ballance takes that information in the spirit in which I give it.

Photo of Chris Ballance Chris Ballance Green

That is a fair point, but there are two sides to architecture: conserving what we have and building for the future. Conserving what we have is particularly relevant at the moment, as communities are suffering architectural losses. In the Borders, communities have been fighting a strong battle for the past two years to retain the old textile college in Galashiels and prevent it from becoming a car park for Tesco, but current planning law has not been able to support that fight. On the other hand, we have communities—sometimes the same people—opposing the siting of new housing settlements in inappropriate lands, settlements that they feel will be, in the words of the song,

"Little boxes on the hillside ...

And they're all made out of ticky-tacky

And they all look just the same."

That is the sort of development that planning policies and architectural policies must try to prevent.

The minister made the point that we need to mainstream green thinking. Members would expect me to be thoroughly behind that. I am, and I welcome the fact that we have an architectural policy, but it must be backed up by planning policies and, to be frank, SPP 3 marginalises green thinking. It specifically says:

"Proposals for sustainable residential development using innovative, energy-efficient technologies with particularly low impacts on the environment may be acceptable at locations where more conventional buildings would not."

That is the mention of low-impact housing. People who are trying to build low-impact housing settlements, which are sometimes called eco-villages, are struggling to get such developments through the planning system because it is simply not geared up for them. I have been working with a group—the Tweed Valley eco-village group—that has been working for eight or nine years to try to establish such a settlement in the Borders, but the planning system simply does not enable it.

The third strand is the need to build for the future. On that, too, community involvement—housing for people—is the important point. We have heard from Donald Gorrie, Frank McAveety, Christine Grahame and Carolyn Leckie of the need to place the community's needs over developers' needs. To be frank, as I go round the South of Scotland region, I find that people do not believe that the planning system works for people rather than for large developers.

We also need to build to conserve for the future. I find Alex Johnstone's call for short-term short cuts and cost cutting to avoid conserving for the future simply extraordinary. We need to build buildings that last and are geared for the future. That means employing innovations such as high insulation standards. I draw members' attention to the bill that my colleague Shiona Baird will introduce in two or three weeks' time—the home energy efficiency targets bill—which is intended to improve domestic energy efficiency. I hope that it will get members' support, because it is crucial. In a world where oil prices are starting to hit the ceiling and are about to go through the roof, it is important that we insulate that roof and that we protect people for the future, using the riches that we have at the moment to conserve for the future. I find it extraordinary that the Conservative party does not accept that argument.

Robin Harper's amendment is very measured. It asks not for immediate regulation or instant legislation, but for consultations, possibilities to be explored, aims to be moved towards and improvements to be made in a slow, measured way. Indeed, it uses the word "measured". It calls for slow, thoughtful improvements. I hope that the Parliament will be able to support that.

Photo of Jamie Stone Jamie Stone Liberal Democrat 4:25, 1 June 2006

As I suspect my colleague and friend, Linda Fabiani, will agree, what a great pleasure it is to take part in this debate in this building, which won the Stirling prize, and which has now received its rightful acclaim the length and breadth of this land and internationally.

Reference has been made to how architecture in our communities gives us signposts to the past. Thinking of my own home town—and this is not a press release, I can assure members—

Members:

Ah!

Photo of Jamie Stone Jamie Stone Liberal Democrat

No, it is not. I would be very surprised if this gets into the Ross-shire Journal . The tollbooth in my home town of Tain was designed by Alexander Stronach and completed in 1733. People might not know much about the history of the building, but they love it. It is close to people's hearts. Christine Grahame expressed that sentiment eloquently. The minister said that the built environment is of great importance to the lives of people. Although I did but one year of history of art at university, one thing that my lecturers taught me that I came to see as being absolutely true was that buildings really do govern the way in which people move and work.

I will tell a short story about the time I went to Rome to meet my intended, now my wife, who was coming back from far away in the east. I had arranged to meet her anywhere in Europe. I got a telegram.

Photo of Jamie Stone Jamie Stone Liberal Democrat

It was romantic. I waited on the steps of St Peter's, with a box of chocolates and a bottle of Asti Spumante—because I was a student. The lady, who I subsequently married, was five days late, and I waited for those five days. I ate the chocolates. Better than Frank McAveety, I am a black protestant. Anyway, I waited on the steps of the holy see, and I saw how the architecture and Michelangelo's great crescent-shaped colonnades focused the way in which people moved. We could see that with our own eyes. I had not believed my tutor at St Andrews, but what he said was absolutely correct. Surely this building is a living example of a good environment and of how architecture really affects people's lives.

Michael Matheson correctly referred to the register of buildings at risk and other members also made points about that. We need to keep our eyes on that. Jamie McGrigor is not with us now, but I think that he made similar remarks, although I got slightly lost in his hyperbole. Robin Harper—on a subject close to my heart—referred to the unused space in our town centres. I accept that there is a debate to be had on access and the sorts of shops above which people live, and why, but I believe that the mixture of residential and commercial retail can be beneficial for town centres. I suspect that the minister will respond on that. The day when living and working people flee our community and town centres will be a sad one indeed.

Donald Gorrie rightly referred to the importance not just of architecture but of the whole of the community around that architecture, and to the unwisdom of pickling in aspic—if I correctly caught what he said—one particular style of architecture. We should remember that. We might talk about little white boxes or white crofts or whatever, but we cannot freeze-frame architecture. That is what Rob Gibson was suggesting. We must move with the times.

Rob Gibson was especially right to refer to the lack of affordable housing in some rural areas. In our constituency, work is being carried out by the forestry authorities, which are building wooden houses at Bettyhill. That is sustainable, and it could very much be something for the future.

I was slightly unsure about the connection that Alex Johnstone made between what I interpret as laissez-faire economics and good architecture, but I am prepared to be persuaded of that.

Christine Grahame was right to refer to the almost magnetic polarisation effect that a supermarket development on the outskirts of a community can have. We must consider carefully—perhaps in the context of the Planning etc (Scotland) Bill—how such developments affect communities.

Carolyn Leckie made an interesting contribution, to which I listened with great interest. I do not wish to make any jokes about churches and pubs, but she is correct that some parts of our heritage can be used for the future.

Frank McAveety talked about the interesting concept—a new one to me—of blurring what is private and what is public. His point was thoughtful and we would do well to reflect on it, as it related to our getting away from ghettoisation and the wretched structure of society that can be so damnable.

I will finish with an argument that is hard to develop in the 40 seconds that I have left. Some buildings are beautiful in their own right, by virtue of their proportion—this building is a good example. I wish that John Swinney were with us, because in his constituency—this will mean something to those of us who travel the A9—just by Blair Atholl, near a quarry, there is a late 18th or early 19th century farmhouse that is missing its gable. However, the front elevation of the farmhouse is absolutely perfect, given when it was designed, which shows that there is an intrinsic beauty in perfect dimensions. Enric Miralles got that absolutely right with this building. We must always use it as the measure against which to hold up buildings from the past and buildings of the future.

Fantastic work can be done in the future, but the aesthetic benefits must always be considered. Let us not have buildings that we put up only to tear down again. I think that Mr McGrigor hinted at that point.

I hope that members could make sense of my speech. I support the motion in the name of the minister.

Photo of Ted Brocklebank Ted Brocklebank Conservative 4:32, 1 June 2006

I declare an interest as a life member of the St Andrews Preservation Trust and member of the local green belt forum.

When I stroll around the back streets of the old and new towns of Edinburgh—or indeed the streets of many of Scotland's historical market towns—I never fail to be impressed by the sheer quality of the architecture. I think that Carolyn Leckie has left the chamber—[Interruption.] Sorry, she is still here—I am getting old and did not see her. Despite what she said, there is excellently designed tenement property in Glasgow, Edinburgh and elsewhere.

I happen to believe that the high-water mark of Scottish architecture was probably reached towards the end of the 17th century, with another surge towards the end of the 18th century. The new town of Edinburgh is a Georgian gem, thanks in major part to the genius of the Adam brothers from Fife. As Christine Grahame, Rob Gibson and others reminded us, Glasgow is, architecturally, the finest Victorian city left in Britain. I would say that that is thanks largely to the far-sighted and public-spirited merchants of the time.

There is no rule that dictates that for good architecture to thrive, a Government policy must be in place. What is required is a strong economy, a confident society and a fair planning system. It is worth noting that Scotland has usually produced its best architecture when the country is at its most confident.

I have no doubt that the Executive's architecture policy is well intentioned, but most of us can tell a good building from a bad one. That is as true for a council housing scheme as it is for a new Parliament building.

Much of the architecture that was inflicted on us in the 1950s and 1960s, which is now, thankfully, being torn down, was the legacy of the Town and Country Planning Act 1947. The people needed houses after the war, but did they need the mind-numbing conformity and low building standards that were imposed on them by the centralisation of a major national building industry? I do not exempt the private housing sector from responsibility. The emergence of a cosy club of big housebuilders did absolutely nothing to drive up the quality of housing in the 1950s and 1960s. Donald Gorrie was right that architecture is for people, but that does not mean that it cannot also be well designed.

In many European countries with a similar density per square mile, such as Germany and Switzerland, spacious homes in green, well-landscaped areas are the affordable norm. Despite what Patricia Ferguson said, sadly that is still not the case here in Scotland. Many of the problems originate in the planning system. Planning is controlled much more locally in many other European countries where communities have clear incentives to develop organically or at a rate with which they are comfortable. All too often, that is not the case here.

Against the wishes of local community councils, Fife Council is currently driving a housing policy for the kingdom that aims to increase the population by 5 per cent. The council claims that it intends 60 per cent of the new housing to be in central Fife. Nonetheless, there are plans to build nearly 7,000 new houses in the north-east part of the county. That is not organic growth—it does not spring from local needs; that housing is being imposed on that part of the county arbitrarily. Instead of being driven by jobs, which would be the right way round, the demand appears to be developer led. That is where the involvement of planners at local and national levels is essential.

Of course we have responsibilities to local young people to ensure that they are housed and to ensure that our communities remain vibrant, but it is not nimbyism for local communities to try to protect for future generations the qualities of environment, lifestyle and housing density that they have fought so hard to maintain.

Photo of Jamie Stone Jamie Stone Liberal Democrat

With reference to a debate some months ago, does Mr Brocklebank think that young people on low incomes from St Andrews should be housed there, or should they be forced to move to some other part of Fife?

Photo of Ted Brocklebank Ted Brocklebank Conservative

Mr Stone has posed that question many times in the chamber. The hard fact is that although I am a local of St Andrews, I was forced to leave the town as a youngster because housing density simply could not accommodate all local young people. That was sad, but if Mr Stone suggests that we should destroy towns such as St Andrews by imposing on them blanket, uniform, badly designed housing schemes, my answer is that I would rather wait longer for people to come back.

Photo of Ted Brocklebank Ted Brocklebank Conservative

No, I have already given way and I have more to get through.

Although the Government has a role in promoting good architecture and design, it also has a role in encouraging greater community involvement to protect the existing built heritage and to ensure that new buildings of any sort are well designed, carefully planned and built of quality materials.

I look forward to the six cities initiative and the biennial celebration of good architecture in those cities that Patricia Ferguson announced today, but could that initiative also be about condemning bad architecture? For example, can we accept that it was an appalling mistake to site St Nicholas House next to Marischal College in Aberdeen? Can we accept that county towns such as Perth, Inverness and Ayr have all had their centres desecrated by unsightly shopping malls? When buildings such as St Nicholas House are pulled down, does the minister believe that architects might be confident enough to build something rather better in their wake?

I hope that in 20 years the Scotland for which we all strive will experience a new enlightenment in which some of the finest buildings by architects such as the Adam brothers, Playfair and the rest are still standing. I am not looking for pastiche; I do not suggest that modern Scottish architecture should be turreted or baronial. Although Charles Rennie Macintosh's Hill House in Helensburgh, built in 1907, was unashamedly influenced by Scottish architecture, it was gloriously modern and confident in design. Why cannot we do that kind of building today? I believe that we can; we just need to find the confidence again.

That brings us back to the Parliament and the Executive and how they will achieve that new architectural enlightenment for Scotland.

Photo of Linda Fabiani Linda Fabiani Scottish National Party 4:39, 1 June 2006

I find it difficult to know where to start my speech because there is so much that I would like to say. First of all, I inform the chamber that I do not seek local press releases because I would like to talk about the Executive's architecture and design policy.

The debate is about so much more than houses and boxes; it is about architecture and design. I believe that Jamie Stone has been the only person to mention the beauty of our surroundings. There is absolutely nothing wrong with creating something beautiful. We Scots with our Calvinist streak sometimes think that everything must be functional and must have a reason to exist. No—sometimes it is nice to be surrounded by and to appreciate beautiful things. As far as architecture and design are concerned, beauty should come towards the top of our list of criteria, while acknowledging that certain elements must be functional. We can then use that approach to focus on aspects such as architecture for communities and housing.

Public art also comes into this matter. In that respect, Carolyn Leckie and Frank McAveety mentioned the Gorbals. As an aside, I agree that what has happened with architecture in that part of Glasgow has been disastrous, but the problem stems as much from the social conditions that were imposed at the time as from the design of homes. After all, high rises work in many places, especially for people with lots of money, because they can be beautiful and functional and can provide all the necessary facilities. They do not work when people are forced into them by social conditions. Similarly, garden cities and new towns are wonderful concepts, but other problems can make such places not quite as lovely as the architects and designers first imagined.

Returning to public art in the Gorbals, I cannot remember what the piece is called—I am sure that Carolyn Leckie or Frank McAveety will tell me later—but I think that the angels on the buildings in Crown Gardens are absolutely fantastic. When the proposal was first reported in the newspapers, people laughed at it. Now the piece has been accepted as part of the surroundings. When everyone takes good design and architecture for granted—and, indeed, expects them as their due—we will be able to move on.

Photo of Linda Fabiani Linda Fabiani Scottish National Party

Of course. I see that the member has moved from the Conservative benches.

Photo of Tricia Marwick Tricia Marwick Scottish National Party

Indeed—I have moved back to the right side of the chamber.

Does the member agree that one of the successes of new towns was the introduction of town art? For example, Glenrothes had a town artist who made public sculptures of hippopotamuses and an old couple on a bench. Does she think that other towns should acquire such artists in order to beautify them?

Photo of Linda Fabiani Linda Fabiani Scottish National Party

We are getting well carried away now. We will have not only architects working wonders in every local authority but artists beautifying towns. Perhaps we should also have musicians and street performers. Indeed, why should we not aspire to such things?

Architecture in Scotland is not just a matter of the past. Just now, some fabulous Scottish architects, designers and engineers are creating wonderful designs. However, as members have pointed out, not all the design work that is being carried out is wonderful. Carolyn Leckie mentioned the schools project as an example of that. I know that members have previously discussed ecoschools. If we gave design its proper place, instead of having standard-construction PPP buildings we could have wonderful schools that are conducive to learning and hospitals that are conducive to healing.

We should not just look backwards. Jamie McGrigor and Alex Johnstone talked about the Scottish vernacular style. In Argyll, which Mr McGrigor represents, I have seen some wonderful new examples of that style—as well as some bad examples of the little boxes that Rob Gibson mentioned.

We do not have to go back to centuries-old design to make things of beauty. Rob Gibson referred to the award-winning house on Loch Eriboll, which shows that it is possible for new and innovative design to fit in with the surroundings. No one has mentioned Architecture and Design Scotland's travelling exhibition on rural housing, which I found fascinating. At this point, I must congratulate the minister on establishing Architecture and Design Scotland. Although the agency has not really entered the psyche of people in Scotland, I believe that it represents a way forward.

I will quote something that John Richards wrote in 1994. I had huge respect for him at the time when I worked in housing associations and I think that he is absolutely right. He wrote:

"There are many examples of new buildings which interact successfully with their older neighbours without attempting to copy past styles. Even within a group, design unity does not require uniformity. New houses should not normally be expected to look as like old houses as possible, but care should be taken in their design that they do not spoil, but enhance, the public's enjoyment of neighbouring buildings."

That is extremely important as a way to move forward.

Members talked about community involvement in design. I saw the importance of that during my years of working in housing associations, when I also worked with some fantastic architects. I have concerns about the time when design and build came in and schemes started to become developer led. That led to some uniformity, because capital costs rather than innovation and design were all-important. However, I believe that we are starting to break away from that.

An interesting example of progress is the building in Rothesay that won lots of awards. When I worked in Rothesay, I was involved in the feasibility study for the Foley House site. At that time, the feasibility study had to be about refurbishing the old building on the site and trying to cram as many box-like new houses as possible onto it. That approach was required due to the restrictions and the financial constraints under regulation from the party that does not believe in regulation. It was impossible to achieve because the unit costs were too high. The building that is on the site now is much better. It is a fantastic, new, beautifully designed building that is gaining plaudits from all over the world and it is making local people very happy.

I am rabbiting on because I have so much to say. Have I got a wee bit longer?

Photo of Linda Fabiani Linda Fabiani Scottish National Party

I refer to the summary version of the "Survey of the Building Design Professions' Attitudes to the Policy on Architecture", which was published by the Scottish Executive in July 2005. It contains some interesting things, although there is a long way to go with the architecture and design policy. The document states:

"there is also reluctance among other professionals for the public to be involved in the design process without first educating and raising the levels of public understanding."

That is not about elitism or snobbery, of which building design professionals are often accused. People have been faced with some horrendous housing and public buildings in Scotland, particularly in the past century. If they do not know what to aspire to or what is possible, it is difficult for them to know what they can have. The document also states that most building design professionals

"would like the Executive to work more closely with schools to make young people more aware of their environment and encourage more interest and community involvement in matters affecting the built environment."

So there are two strands to the issue, and it is a long-term issue. We are not going to change things overnight, but people have to know what is possible and what can be achieved. We should all work together to help to achieve that.

Photo of Patricia Ferguson Patricia Ferguson Labour 4:48, 1 June 2006

Today has provided me with my first opportunity to enter into a full debate on architecture and to discuss the challenges for our policy. As we have heard today, the quality of our architecture affects a wide range of interests. It impacts on issues of sustainability, heritage, culture, education, health, procurement and local government, and that is far from being an exhaustive list. The built environment affects almost every aspect of our existence and architecture has a great power to improve our experience of both work and leisure.

It is the responsibility of Government to strive to ensure that the benefits of a well-designed and pleasing built environment are shared throughout society. Buildings and the places that they create are instrumental in realising the Government's social objective of a fair, democratic and inclusive society. As we have discussed, a concern for the design of individual buildings is not enough. It is vital to support the creation and regeneration of neighbourhoods and communities.

In the time that I have, I am not sure that I will be able to respond to all the points that have been made, but I will try. I begin with Michael Matheson, whom I thank for his speech. I share his concern that the public are perhaps not as inspired by architecture and design issues as they should be. Linda Fabiani also made that point. I point them to the work of the Lighthouse on our behalf to address that issue, particularly with schoolchildren.

If it does anything, good architecture raises the bar and encourages debate. We may not all agree about the status, beauty or aesthetics of a building, but we can have the debate and use the lessons that result from it. If we cannot raise the debate and speak about architecture, how can we expect others to do so? This afternoon's debate has been encouraging.

I share Michael Matheson's interest in our heritage and our built environment. That is why I was so keen to have the debate on the Scottish historic environment policy documents last month—speaking of which, I wondered whether Jamie McGrigor was responding to that debate today. I lived for many of my—shall we say—more youthful years on the 21st floor of multistorey flats and I say to him that the joy of throwing pieces—jeelie or any other kind—from any window is somewhat overrated.

To be serious, I point out to Jamie McGrigor that an interesting fact about the Gorbals project is that it was an award-winning architectural project. Frank McAveety's explanation of what happened in the Gorbals was correct. What is wonderful is that the Gorbals has now regenerated itself. From what I have seen of it, I think that it will be a place in which people will want to live and will enjoy living.

I was interested in Robin Harper's amendment and speech, and I have much sympathy with many of the points that he made. I hope that he accepts that I am committed—as is the Executive—to sustainability and to considering how we green our policies. I point out that we regulate not through our architectural policy but through the Scottish Building Standards Agency, which is responsible for setting standards. A key priority of the agency's three-year corporate plan is to fulfil our partnership agreement commitment to

"strengthen building standards to ensure that energy conservation levels improve to high and effective levels and consult on ways to ensure that new homes and public buildings increasingly incorporate solar power or other renewable energy sources."

As I am sure Robin Harper is aware, the agency's consultation on energy has just closed. The resulting document, which will be published next May, will give Scotland standards and requirements that are far more onerous than those anywhere else in the UK. I hope that he realises that that is how we will progress the agenda.

Photo of Patricia Ferguson Patricia Ferguson Labour

I have quite a lot to go through. I will respond to Chris Ballance's speech, too.

Donald Gorrie is right about community involvement. I hope that he acknowledges that the Planning etc (Scotland) Bill recognises the need for community involvement. Initial work is under way on a planning advice note on how best to develop community engagement.

Marilyn Livingstone made several interesting points. She and Christine Grahame shared the idea that not only houses but factories and other industrial buildings matter. I was taken by Marilyn Livingstone's point about the failure to encourage older trades to be practised, which means that we might be losing skill bases. However, Historic Scotland is doing much work on that. It has worked with the Scottish Lime Centre Trust to ensure that many such skills are retained.

We believe that accessibility is an important aspect of good architecture. Through good design and sensitive approaches that subtly integrate the provision of assistance, accessibility issues can be managed in ways that do not isolate people who may require more help. Good architectural design can of itself promote inclusiveness.

I agree with what Christine Grahame said about the need to conserve our old buildings as well as to build good new buildings. However, much of Scotland's best new architecture can be seen in reused and regenerated buildings. I will give only two examples: the wonderful example of Dance Base in Edinburgh and, of course, the Lighthouse in Glasgow.

Carolyn Leckie spoke about PFI and PPP initiatives and how schools are built under PFI and PPP contracts. I point out to her that many PFI schemes have involved old schools being refurbished. I point to East Dunbartonshire as an example of where there have been such schemes and where extensive consultation has helped to inform the debate. We have been keen to get the message across that a PPP or PFI process should not be a bar to good design or consultation.

On Chris Ballance's comments, among the proposed changes to the energy section of the building regulations is an expansion of the guidance on heating systems to cover a broader range of systems, including certain low and zero-carbon energy-generating technologies. We are working hard to take forward that agenda.

Frank McAveety spoke about what was important in the Gorbals. The point that I took from what he said—which applies throughout the country—is that partnership, genuine consultation and inclusion matter. It is more than likely that the views and ideas of communities will have been taken into account where buildings and places are successful.

Linda Fabiani said that she had been encouraged by the provision of "The Gatekeeper" of the Gorbals. However, what has happened there is not confined to that arts project—in fact, the entire Gorbals redevelopment has required developers to devote 1 per cent of their building costs to art. There are several new arts projects in the Gorbals. I agree with Linda Fabiani that they very much enhance the place and community that new Gorbals now is.

It is important for us to address the issue of public art, which I look forward to doing in the next phase of developing our policy. We have considered and discussed public art and will progress the matter. It is also important to remember that architecture is a key cross-cutting issue and that our policy must influence the quality not only of houses but of schools, hospitals and other public buildings. I welcome Linda Fabiani's support for Architecture and Design Scotland, which can make a significant contribution to the debate in Scotland and to the practical realities of policies on the ground. I think that it has begun to make such a contribution.

People require places that bring an improved quality of life and provide a stimulating and healthy environment. They require places that encourage and foster social interaction, that are sustainable, that are easily maintained and that can adapt over time. One of the greatest challenges for Government in providing such environments lies in getting many of our policies—such as our architecture, planning, regeneration, procurement, sustainability and historic environment policies—to interact with and complement one another.

Good design in architecture is not simply a matter of good looks—it also makes buildings and places function well. Good architecture is an essential part of creating a sustainable future. We must continue to consider both the promotional and practical aspects in developing policy and we must continue to advocate the benefits of well-designed buildings, encourage debate and seek greater community participation in development matters.

Not long ago, there was little awareness abroad of what was happening in Scottish architecture. The quality of what is happening here is now very well known and there is widely evident interest in and enthusiasm for Scotland's new architecture. We are now perceived as a dynamic place with a concern for our environment and an emerging architecture that commands respect. Let us not lose that respect, and let us live up to the image. Let us ensure that we cherish the qualities for which we are valued abroad.

The First Minister said in his St Andrew's day speech:

"For years, our culture, along with some of our most talented people, has been Scotland's great gift to the world. It is important that today, the world continues to see how successful a contemporary country and culture we are."

In our policy, we refer to Scotland as a

"place of imagination, creativity and innovation".

Historically, that is undeniable, but if it is to continue to be the case, we must value and nurture our immense resource in creative skills and we must foster a climate in which our children learn to care about our built environment from the earliest age.

The quality of our built environment is important not only to our own quality of life but to the perception of our country abroad as an outstanding place to live, work and visit. It is important that we maintain our momentum and that we build upon the many achievements of the first years of our policy. The creation of our new policy on architecture statement will be the next step forward.

As Michael Matheson rightly said, it has often been remarked that good architecture is too important to trust to architects alone. I agree. If we truly wish to improve the quality of Scotland's built environment and we truly wish to add to the richness of our cultural lives, Government must continue to support and show its commitment to architecture.