Historical Places and Artefacts

Part of the debate – in the Scottish Parliament at 5:40 pm on 9 November 2006.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Patricia Ferguson Patricia Ferguson Labour 5:40, 9 November 2006

I join colleagues in thanking Christine May for bringing the motion before Parliament. I also thank members for what has been, as Jamie Stone rightly said, an interesting and informative debate. I cannot help but agree with a lot of what has been said and a lot of what is in Christine's motion.

I am pleased that we have had the opportunity to debate the historical environment again in Parliament this year and that the Parliament recognises the support given to the historical environment by the Scottish Executive. Overall, ministers will provide, through Historic Scotland, about £13 million of funding in the current year to the historical environment, including grants to owners of buildings and monuments and to the voluntary sector.

Support can be given in many ways and the sustainable management of the historical environment can be guaranteed only if the Executive works in partnership with many others. I join Christine May in thanking the myriad other organisations that contribute experience, energy, funding and enthusiasm, in particular those who, as Christine May and Stewart Maxwell rightly pointed out, do so on a voluntary basis.

We all work hard together on the historical environment, because we recognise that it adds greatly to our quality of life in so many ways. Jamie Stone was right to pick up the fact that those who wish to visit our country do so at least partly because of the diversity of what we have to offer. I may have said in the chamber once before—or perhaps even more often than that—that one of the ways in which VisitScotland markets our country is as a national dish with regional flavours. The whole area of heritage works well in that regard.

I will respond to a number of points that members have made before I go on to the substance of my speech.

Stewart Maxwell, and perhaps some other members, mentioned battlefields. It is important to remember that in Scotland, battles tended to take place over a wide area, involving skirmishes and guerrilla-type warfare, so there is a lot of dispute about the location of battlefields, particularly as often no visible evidence of them is left today. However, Historic Scotland, having produced a gazetteer of important sites in Scotland, is now working on a policy for their protection, which will in due course be issued for public consultation.

Stewart Maxwell mentioned the Antonine wall. Personally, I think that no parliamentary debate on the historical environment would be complete without mention of it, not least because it runs through my constituency. It is important to mention it for several reasons. It is very visible, and we have a responsibility to protect it.

The fact that the Antonine wall is part of a larger area nominated for world heritage site status is interesting. The wall crosses many areas within Scotland and the bid crosses many current national boundaries, which reflects the Roman world as it was then and the boundaries that existed to protect those within it. The bid also gives us an opportunity to work with colleagues in other countries on our shared history. From that point of view, the way in which the matter is being taken forward is extremely interesting.

Ted Brocklebank mentioned what I think he referred to as Bothwell's bones. He described them as an artefact, so it would be remiss of me if I did not say that in fact they are not an artefact—they have a different legal status. They are remains and, unfortunately, in law there is no ownership of human remains. Although the idea of repatriating those remains is interesting, and perhaps even attractive, it is a matter for Bothwell's ancestors and the Danish authorities.

Christine May mentioned gardens, and I will talk about our proposals a little bit later.

I was interested in what Tricia Marwick said about the Wemyss caves, not least because Christine May has spoken to me about them on a number of occasions. The cost of preserving the caves from the encroaching sea would be colossal. The task would also be extremely technically challenging, and the effect of the work would probably be to direct the force of the sea towards other parts of the coast and into other caves. Moreover, the caves are geologically unstable.

When prioritising our work on the historical environment, we have to consider where funding can do the most good. In the longer term, the continuous struggle with the sea at Wemyss would eventually be lost, as would the money that had been spent. However, I understand that a great deal of work has been done by a local society that takes an interest, and that all the carvings and paintings have been extensively recorded. A good job is being done in publicising the existence of the Pictish drawings in that part of Fife and in teaching people about them.

Scotland has effective legislation and systems to identify and protect important monuments and buildings, which is to be welcomed, but it is vital to acknowledge that alterations to the historical environment to suit society's changing needs are inevitable. I stress again that the purpose of legislation in this area is not to halt development but to manage change in an intelligent, responsible and sympathetic way. Statistics for scheduled monument consent and for listed building consent show that Historic Scotland and local authorities do just that.

I noted with interest Christine May's comments on the opportunities to improve the protection of our historical environment through legislative measures. Members are aware that the Historic Environment Advisory Council for Scotland—which, for ease, I will refer to as HEACS—has recently submitted a number of reports to me. Two of them are particularly relevant to this evening's debate. The first is on whether there is a need to review heritage protection legislation in Scotland, and the second is on the role of local authorities in the conservation of the historical environment.

The reports make recommendations on issues such as a duty of care for the historical environment and minimum standards for local authority historical environment services. I know that such matters are of considerable interest to Christine May, Stewart Maxwell and everyone who has taken part in this debate. Both reports contain detailed and interesting recommendations, some of which raise complex issues. I have advised HEACS that I will give a preliminary response to the reports this year, and that work to consider the recommendations in more depth will continue at least through the first half of 2007. I am sure that members will understand that it would be inappropriate for me to pre-empt my response to the reports today.

The final part of the motion asks that

"all MSPs and ministers should consider what further support can be given to protect Scotland's historical places and artefacts."

Ministers are setting out a vision and strategic policies for the historical environment through an important series of documents called the Scottish historic environment policies—which, again for ease, I will refer to as SHEPs. The policies were the subject of a stimulating debate here in April. Following public consultation, SHEP 1, which sets out the overall framework for the historical environment in Scotland, is being finalised as we speak. It is planned to issue SHEP 1 in its final form and to release four further SHEPs for consultation—on subjects such as the listing of buildings and access to properties in the care of the Scottish ministers—before the end of March next year.

Gardens and the designed landscape have been the subject of consultation as part of the same series. That consultation ended in June, and the policy implications are still being considered.