| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Port Glasgow): A number of clauses concern buildings that have suffered severe deterioration. For example, the Gourock ropeworks in Port Glasgow is in the most appalling condition. What powers does the Minister have under clause 47 to acquire that building, or to allow the local authority to acquire it, so that it can be demolished? I am the last person to argue for a listed building to be demolished, particularly one with such a noted industrial and architectural heritage, but the Minister knows how long I have pursued this case.
If the Minister cannot answer now, I hope that he will deal with the matter under this group of clauses. For the people of Port Glasgow, that appalling situation has festered for far too long. I believe that these clauses allow the Minister to act decisively, along with Historic Scotland, to bring an end to the matter by allowing the local authority to demolish the building.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. George Kynoch):
The hon. Gentleman has raised the issue of the Gourock ropeworks on numerous occasions in the past. I am sure that he is aware that this is purely a consolidation measure: the Bill does not change any legislation; it consolidates it. I take his point on board, and I shall write to him with the updated position on that building, which I know is of great concern to him.
Question put and agreed to.
Clauses 42 to 53 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 54 to 82 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 58A (Consolidation Bills), That the Bill be not committed.--[Mr. Peter Ainsworth.]
Question agreed to.
Bill read the Third time, and passed, without amendment.
Read a Second time.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 58A (Consolidation Bills), That the Bill be not committed.--[Mr. Peter Ainsworth.]
Question agreed to.
Bill read the Third time, and passed, without amendment.
Ms Roseanna Cunningham (Perth and Kinross):
I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 10,, after 'aesthetic', insert 'anthropological, sociological,'.
Clause 1 extends the list of bodies eligible to receive lottery funds. My amendment would include in that list things with a sociological or anthropological interest, thus enabling communities to be included. The Bill will allow the trustees to provide financial assistance to projects which would, among other things, secure
Clause 1(3) provides that financial assistance may be given to various projects, including projects to
The amendment arose from a discussion that I had in January with Ms Anthea Case, director of the national heritage memorial fund, as a result of the rejection of the bid submitted by the Isle of Eigg trust to buy the Isle of Eigg. The meeting was an attempt to clarify the reasons for that rejection. The decision was complex, but it was clear from the meeting with Ms Case that the board considered that, in the terms of the legislation, heritage did not include people or communities. She also said that, although the definition in the Bill was much wider, it still would not have included the interests of the community or objectives such as relieving poverty.
In the case of the Isle of Eigg trust, there was a perceived potential for a conflict between the interests of the community and the interests of heritage as defined by the legislation. That was also described as a conflict between the private interests of the community and the public interests of the nation. In the trust's constitution, community representatives had a greater interest than the so-called national heritage interest, as represented by the Scottish Wildlife Trust.
Mrs. Helen Liddell (Monklands, East):
I am well aware of the issue that the hon. Lady is raising. It has caused concern to me as well--and to my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson), who has raised it with the national heritage memorial fund. My only anxiety is that this may be a rather complicated way of trying to resolve a problem which could be resolved more simply. I say that in as helpful a way as possible. Perhaps it is due to a natural reticence about seeing the concerns of people defined as sociological and anthropological, rather than being defined more precisely in terms of the community aspect of the heritage lottery fund.
Ms Cunningham:
We felt that the issue needed to be resolved, and we had a clear opportunity to do that--
The opportunity that the Bill presented to widen the definition to include community interests gave rise to the amendment, but if there are better ways of doing it I should be interested to hear about them. We want the change to be made so that bids such as that of the Isle of Eigg trust can be made and have a chance of succeeding without being ruled out on the basis of technicalities. I would argue--as would many other hon. Members--that the preservation of a community is not the same as the private interests of the individual, but the issue appeared to be being presented in those terms. A sustainable and healthy community is a prerequisite for a sustainable environment.
Eigg is a very beautiful island, which ought to be preserved; but it is also an island of great need, where people live without mains electricity, gas, a public water supply or refuse disposal arrangements. All those are practical difficulties which must be dealt with.
Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Port Glasgow):
Surely there is little or no difference between the acquisition of an island and the acquisition of an estate. There is no difference between an attempt by people living on an island to buy that island, and a similar attempt by people living on an estate.
Ms Cunningham:
The hon. Gentleman may be making an analogy with the Assynt crofters. There has been one other occasion in Scotland on which this kind of community interest has been paramount and has, in a sense, taken precedence over individual private interests. As Scottish Members will know, ownership of Eigg has received extensive publicity over many years, and we all know of the difficulties to which private absentee ownership has led for the community there. That is why there is so much anxiety about the decision in this instance.
I have outlined some of the practical difficulties that the community has to bear and which are a result of the negligence of successive absentee landlords. The island and the estate had been allowed to deteriorate and the people faced a very insecure future.
Dr. Godman:
Many of us would much prefer the island to be owned by a trust rather than by such eccentric characters as Mr. Schellenberg.
Ms Cunningham:
The hon. Gentleman is right. The recent history of the Isle of Eigg has caused grave concern, and community ownership would seem a far more secure arrangement for the future than the current ownership by Mr. Marumma--which is in itself problematic--and the previous ownership by Mr. Schellenberg, which lasted for many years and during which very little was done for the community.
The bid for the community was a partnership between Highland council and the Scottish Wildlife Trust, and won the support of many hon. Members on both sides of the
House. It was made in the recognition that securing a sustainable future for the community and securing the same for the island were inextricably linked. The same circumstances can be seen in other parts of Scotland, but they may also be in evidence in other parts of the United Kingdom.
It is a peculiar and restrictive definition of "heritage" that excludes the survival of communities, as the Bill at present appears to do. In Scotland, certainly, heritage is about much more than the Churchill papers, the opera house or, indeed, the national museums. As the director of the Scottish Wildlife Trust said at the time of the rejection of the bid:
Amendment made: No. 1, in clause 83, page 49, line 24, leave out subsection (4).--[Mr. Peter Ainsworth.]
Clause 83, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedules 1 to 3 agreed to.
Bill, as amended, reported; read the Third time, and passed, with an amendment.
Read a Second time.
"the preservation or enhancement of such things"
and would encourage
"the maintenance and development of the skills required for their preservation or enhancement".
It would make sense to include in both those provisions the preservation of a community for a community.
"acquire property of any kind (including land)".
That aspect is of interest to me in my capacity as my party's spokesperson on both environment and land.
"To buy back a Scottish island . . . from its absentee . . . owner and regenerate and protect it for future generations to come would seem to me to be a perfect heritage project."
That was how it was seen on both sides of the political divide in Scotland.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |