The next item of business is a debate on motion S4M-10371, in the name of Fiona Hyslop, on stage 1 of the Historic Environment Scotland Bill.
15:41
I welcome the Education and Culture Committee’s report, which has highlighted a number of areas in which it is important to clarify our intentions. I agree with the committee on the need for a clear and shared understanding. I will refer in my speech to the key topics that it considered, and I will write to the committee before recess to respond item by item to its thorough and encouraging report.
We last debated Scotland’s historic environment in September. That debate reminded us that heritage takes many forms, from our stunning castles, abbeys and prehistoric sites to the living heritage of song, poetry and traditions. I recently visited Urquhart castle on Loch Ness to see one of Scotland’s premier monuments. We have witnessed the response to the fire at Glasgow School of Art, admired the resilience of those who have been directly affected and been stunned by the flood of offers of help from around the world.
It strikes me that the historic environment is as much about people as about buildings. The historic environment is about what people want to pass on to their children and grandchildren, and where we come from, where we are today and where we are all going. Scotland’s historic environment is a vital resource in cultural, social and economic terms. It can and should deliver greater benefits for communities; I believe that we all agree on that. As the committee recognises in its report, the Historic Environment Scotland Bill is only one part of a wider strategy, which I will say more about in a few moments.
The bill’s central purpose is to create a single modern body with clearly defined functions. It is designed to sustain the strong base that we already possess and to prepare for the future. In that ambition, the bill is not revolutionary, although I was gratified to hear a delegate at a recent conference referring to it as
“a triumph and long overdue”.
It surprised me, when I took on my present portfolio, to learn that, although the Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Scotland has a royal warrant that sets out its terms of reference, an organisation as distinctive as Historic Scotland currently has no statutory existence. Although it performs statutory functions, it does so as an administrative aspect of ministers. We do not believe that that is right, and we intend to create a non-departmental public body with its own board to provide strong and transparent governance. We firmly believe that the role of ministers is to steer activities at a strategic level and not interfere in the details of particular cases, where professional expertise should be the guide.
The bill sets out explicit functions for the new body, and the committee has considered those functions carefully. Beyond that, the bill sets out how those functions will be carried out. It will require historic environment Scotland to offer leadership, support and partnership working so that knowledge, skills and resources are mobilised to best effect throughout the sector. HES will be expected to help things to happen just as much as it will be expected to do things at its own hand.
The bill aligns designation and consents for monuments, listed buildings and conservation areas more closely with modern planning practice. It repositions historic environment Scotland largely as a consultation body alongside Scottish Natural Heritage and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency to create a simpler system for all who are involved in the vital business of developing Scotland’s full potential.
These changes have been welcomed by local authorities, which are working with us on the details. To balance the greater freedom that the new body will have, the bill creates new rights of appeal.
The committee has commented on the arrangements in the bill for delegating the operation and management of the 345 properties in state care through ownership or guardianship agreements to HES. We share the committee’s assessment of just how significant those iconic properties are. That is why ministers have decided to retain the ultimate responsibility for their conservation and for public access.
The committee has commented on the possibility of HES seeking charitable status. As I have stated on more than one occasion, that is something that I wish the new board to decide for itself. However, I can say now that I will work very closely with the incoming chair to emphasise how vital it is for HES to support other bodies that are already working in the sector. That will apply whether or not HES seeks or achieves charitable status.
I am grateful to the cabinet secretary for her comments on an issue that was raised at the committee. She may have seen that the Law Society of Scotland has raised concerns about a charitable body carrying out statutory functions. Can she make any observations on that point?
I think that the member was a member of the committee when it considered the National Library of Scotland Bill. The NLS has charitable functions and the national collections are charities, but they are non-departmental public bodies. What he describes therefore occurs in a number of similar areas.
I expect the new body that will be created by the Historic Environment Scotland Bill to lead the sector in delivering shared goals but to do so in a supportive manner and in partnership. I also intend to start work on recruiting the board of HES as soon as Parliament agrees to the general principles of the bill.
The shared goals—what we expect from the new body, working with its different partners in the sector—will be founded on “Our Place In Time—The Historic Environment Strategy for Scotland”. The strategy sets out a clear vision for the historic environment to ensure that it is even better understood, protected and celebrated. I welcome the committee’s strong interest in the collective work undertaken by the sector to develop a strategic vision and framework for the sector. This is the starting point of a long-term process, which will be very much a partnership.
I have been heartened by the engagement of the wider sector in the creation of the strategy and very much look forward to chairing the first meeting of its overarching forum this Monday. I recently wrote to the convener of the committee setting out the membership of the forum.
The strategy will interact with many other initiatives, such as the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Bill, which was introduced into Parliament on 11 June.
The Government firmly believes in communities and in collaborative action. We will take on board the committee’s message that the local dimension will be key both to the operations of HES and to its ability to support local communities in making local decisions that contribute to national outcomes. We are asking the whole historic environment community to work together in this enterprise.
What is the Scottish Government contributing? One of the issues raised at the committee was funding. Despite the economic situation, we have been able to maintain Historic Scotland’s budget for the grants that it makes on ministers’ behalf to projects throughout Scotland that are related to historic buildings, conservation areas and archaeological investigations. We recognise that communities have vast enthusiasm and energy but that financial resources are harder to come by. That is why I have worked hard to protect Historic Scotland’s external grants programme for this year.
I can today confirm that I have asked Historic Scotland to maintain its annual grant budget at approximately £14.5 million into 2015-16. I will look to its successor to continue to support others through grants and in as many ways as possible.
I am also pleased to announce grants totalling almost £2 million, which include support for the ambitious plans of Glasgow’s Citizens Theatre, which the Heritage Lottery Fund is also backing. The grants will support restoration work at seven historic sites across Scotland and take the amount that Historic Scotland has awarded in building repair grants to almost £28 million over the past five years. That underlines our commitment to protecting and preserving Scotland’s built heritage for future generations and to ensuring that the historic environment continues to play an important role in supporting local communities and the Scottish economy.
I commend the skills and passion of the staff of Historic Scotland and the Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Scotland. I am unfailingly impressed by the professionalism that they bring to the unending task of caring for our heritage and by the variety of approaches that they bring to bear. This Government will support staff with their work as we go into the future, as they in turn work alongside our local authorities, conservation charities and many thousands of private owners, all of whom make invaluable contributions to the historic environment.
In conclusion, I reiterate why we believe that the bill deserves the support of Parliament. It brings together two successful bodies to create a single, modern body that is better equipped to meet future challenges. It sets out in one place, for the first time, the key historic environment functions that this Government believes should be supported. It sets out principles of partnership working and transparency within a broader strategic framework. It simplifies essential processes so that we can concentrate on getting the best for and from our historic environment. It reaffirms the Government’s commitment to a historic environment that is at the heart of a flourishing and sustainable Scotland. For those reasons, I ask for members’ support for the motion.
I move,
That the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Historic Environment Scotland Bill.
I call Stewart Maxwell to open on behalf of the Education and Culture Committee.
15:50
As the convener of the Education and Culture Committee, I begin by thanking everyone who provided the committee with written and oral evidence on the Historic Environment Scotland Bill. We appreciated the detailed submissions that we received. I also want to thank all those who took the time to come along to talk to us during our visit to Orkney. Finally, I thank my committee colleagues, the clerks and the Scottish Parliament information centre for all their hard work and support during the stage 1 process.
The Historic Environment Scotland Bill is one of those bills that appear to be relatively straightforward—the legislation will basically create a new body to continue the functions of its predecessors, Historic Scotland and the Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Scotland. However, of course, stage 1 scrutiny is never that simple, and we addressed in our report a number of questions or concerns that were raised in evidence. We also considered ways of improving the bill and the wider strategy that was referred to by the cabinet secretary.
I will address some of those points in a minute, but I highlight at the outset that we welcomed the intended benefits of the merger and unanimously endorsed the bill’s general principles.
I also highlight that our report laid down something of a challenge to the other members who would be taking part in this debate. That challenge stems from the frank but welcome admission that some parts of Scotland are punching below their weight in realising the full benefits of the historic environment. Other parts of the country are, of course, doing very well.
Given that comment, which we received while taking evidence, we want other MSPs to consider how they can best help to promote Scotland’s historic environment to make sure that its value is fully realised. If, as parliamentarians, we endorse a bill and a strategy that advocate improvement, partnership working and better leadership, it might strengthen our position if we demonstrate those qualities ourselves.
In considering the bill’s merits, the committee was fortunate enough to visit an area of the country that is crammed full of architectural and cultural treasures. A sun-filled day in Orkney in May—Liam McArthur assures me that it is always like that—is notable for many reasons, not least the beauty of a landscape that can leave a profound impression on anyone who visits.
It is such impressions that help to confirm the value of our heritage in the broadest sense, not just in terms of increasing commercial exploitation or tourism numbers, but in connecting us to our shared history, our landscape and our cultural heritage. It is a source of some pride that we could have visited virtually any other region of Scotland and been treated to a different but similar display of historic and cultural richness.
One of the findings that we took from Orkney, and one of the recurring themes of our report, is the need for better communication about some of the bill’s provisions. For example, there is some concern in the sector about the extent of the new body’s remit. Although historic environment Scotland is to
“investigate, care for and protect the historic environment”,
we questioned whether that meant all of the historic environment. For example, we noted that the vast majority of historic buildings are under private ownership and responsibility.
The cabinet secretary confirmed that the new organisation will be better placed to provide leadership and work collaboratively with the sector but that it will not have the direct responsibility for the historic environment that some stakeholders had thought that it would. To avoid any doubt about historic environment Scotland’s role, we have called on the Scottish Government to explain that as clearly as possible to all relevant bodies working in the sector.
We made a similar recommendation about the need to establish a shared understanding of what the term “historic environment” encompasses. One of our main discussions in taking evidence was whether the bill itself should define “historic environment”, while recognising that there is a full definition contained in the strategy. On balance, we were persuaded by the cabinet secretary’s arguments that the bill need not define the term. However, the crucial factor is that we must avoid any possible legal confusion about the division of responsibilities between historic environment Scotland and other relevant bodies. As there appears to be a general agreement that the definition in the strategy is sufficiently clear, we have called on the Government to ensure that all parties have a shared understanding of the definition when the bill and strategy are implemented.
I want to mention three further areas on which we have called on the Government to provide clarification to stakeholders to make sure that their concerns are addressed. First, we want the cabinet secretary to confirm who would be responsible for paying for the repair and maintenance bill for the “properties in care”—the 345 properties that are managed by ministers for the nation. There appears to be some uncertainty in some quarters on that point.
Secondly, some organisations expressed concern to us that the new body may be at risk of a conflict of interests. That concern was linked in part to the suggestion that historic environment Scotland could increasingly be focused on raising income and therefore less focused on undertaking its regulatory functions. Other committee members, I am sure, will mention those issues in their contributions. Although we were unconvinced about new conflicts of interest emerging, we recognised that organisations had some legitimate concerns. We have therefore called on the cabinet secretary to continue to speak to those groups that have made positive suggestions as to how their concerns could be addressed.
We noted in doing so that the successful implementation of the bill and the strategy will largely depend on effective partnership working and the goodwill of all parties involved. We called for further clarification from the Government on one other area. In essence, we want to be clear about the relationship between the board set up to drive the historic environment strategy and the separate historic environment Scotland board. Again, other members will no doubt discuss that issue, but we particularly want to understand how the two boards will work together should problems arise in implementing the strategy.
I wish to conclude by reiterating another theme from our report: ensuring that progress is made and that all parts of Scotland can punch above their weight. I began by suggesting that all members have a role to play in helping to promote our shared historic environment. We also have an interest in making sure that the anticipated benefits of the bill and strategy are actually delivered. The committee intends to play its part in that and we therefore intend to assess the progress made once the new organisation has been established and the strategy has been implemented. We make that recommendation at paragraph 19 of our report.
We have also made a related but more specific recommendation to the Government at paragraph 20. Historic environment Scotland is to regularly publish a corporate plan, setting out the outcomes to be delivered. We consider that the annual reports should not just be forward looking but should say which previous objectives have or have not been achieved. We consider that that will help to make such reports more balanced, and give a clearer picture of where success has or has not been delivered. I am sure that all members would find that useful.
In the time available I have not been able to mention or discuss in depth all the main points that are raised in our report. However, I know that other committee members will wish to raise issues such as how historic environment Scotland can exercise its functions in a way that takes due account of local issues and local decision making processes; the exact role historic environment Scotland will play in relation to the marine environment; and the possible impact of the new body being granted charitable status.
I once again thank all those who engaged with the committee during our stage 1 examination of the bill and say that, although there are details that require attention and discussion as we go forward with the bill, the committee unanimously backs the principles of the Historic Environment (Scotland) Bill.
15:58
I thank the Education and Culture Committee for its considered report, which raises a number of important issues that we do well to consider today. Like Stewart Maxwell, I may not be able to cover all the points I would wish to make in my opening speech, but as I have the opportunity to close, too, I certainly plan to return to them then.
I record my thanks to all the staff and the boards of Historic Scotland and the Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Scotland, who have worked hard, are working hard, and will continue to work hard to ensure that the transition from two organisations to one goes as smoothly as such mergers ever can. I have had the privilege of working closely with both organisations over the years and I have been impressed by their knowledge and expertise, as well as their commitment to our historic environment.
The respect that I have for both organisations has perhaps coloured my assessment of the proposal to merge them and I have had real concerns, as I have expressed before, about its effect. However, having had discussions with the management of both organisations, I am persuaded perhaps not so much that the merger is the right decision, but that the people who lead the two organisations will make it work, and I look forward to seeing their draft corporate plan when it is published. As the committee’s report makes clear, it is only at a later date that we will be able to judge whether the improvements that have been promised are realised.
I very much welcome the “Our Place in Time” strategy. I recognise that it is perhaps the first strategy of its kind in Scotland, but I would not want the chamber or, indeed, the general public to think that we have not had concern for our historic environment over the years. I draw attention to the great amount of hard work that Historic Scotland and RCAHMS put in to produce the Scottish historic environment policy—SHEP—series when Labour was in power, which was continued when the Scottish National Party took over. Those documents are very good, and they have certainly set the pace up until now.
I turn to the substance of the committee’s report. The committee noted that the bill’s accompanying documents do not specify the outcomes that the new body is to deliver, although a corporate plan will be published regularly by the new organisation. I agree with the committee that it is important that that document should identify the objectives that have been achieved, but it should also look at those that have not been achieved. I hope that measurement of the objectives in that way could influence subsequent plans.
In its evidence to the committee, Archaeology Scotland made an important point about the functions of the new body and suggested that the bill was unclear in that area. It rightly identified that, at present, more than 90 per cent of Scotland’s archaeological assets fall within the remit of planning authorities and that the bill did not make it clear whether that would change. The clarification that the cabinet secretary provided to the committee in that regard is welcome, but it will be important that all stakeholders share that understanding of what the role of the new body will be.
It would also be helpful if clarification could be provided concerning the respective responsibilities of historic environment Scotland and Marine Scotland. As historic environment Scotland will not be expected to undertake historic designations in marine protected areas, albeit that it will have the role of an expert adviser, there is concern in some quarters that that important subject area may fall between the two organisations. Some additional clarity on that might be helpful.
Another issue that seems to have taxed some of the people who gave evidence was the need to avoid centralisation of decision making. That is extremely important, and I know that the cabinet secretary indicated to the committee that she did not expect centralisation to be a consequence of the proposed change. Perhaps the minister could indicate in her closing speech how that will be guaranteed without a provision to that effect being included in the bill, as I would prefer.
As I have identified, the role of local authorities is particularly important when we consider our historic environment. They have a range of responsibilities, but one issue that they often identify is their difficulty in recruiting enough staff with a sufficient level of expertise to assist them in carrying out their duties. That connects to the issue of skills, which has been raised with members by the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland. It feels that the bill should make specific reference to the need to maintain and develop skills, which it argues is different from the need to educate others about the historic environment. Does the cabinet secretary feel that it might be helpful for the bill to include a reference to skills? I realise that ministers always seek flexibility with bills, and I understand perfectly why that might be the case on this occasion, but it might be helpful for the bill to include such a reference.
What the historic environment is has been the subject of some debate in the committee, and I see that the committee concluded that the most important point was that a definition was provided. In this case, that has been done in the strategy rather than the bill. Again, I imagine that the need for flexibility was key to that decision, but perhaps the definition could be reiterated in the corporate plan, to ensure that the relevant issues are robustly underpinned.
The issue of charitable status has also exercised people and affected the comments that they have made to the committee. Were charitable status to be obtained, that would make a considerable difference to the finances of historic environment Scotland. Will the cabinet secretary explain what benefits other than financial benefits might accrue from charitable status?
We know that some organisations are anxious that historic environment Scotland might seek funding from other sources. Indeed, it would, in a sense, be competing with organisations such as NTS in what is an already very crowded sector. We would want to avoid that.
Presiding Officer, I know that I must come to a close. I have so many other issues that I want to talk about, but I will do so later. Before I finish, though, it would be remiss not to comment on the fact that the bill sets out the functions of HES that must be underpinned by legislation—of course it does, as that is what the bill is about—which, of necessity, means that many of the functions referred to are those that are usually carried out by Historic Scotland; RCAHMS’s position perhaps gets much less focus in the bill, for what are, as I say, understandable reasons. Consequently, it would be worth while putting on record that the work that RCAHMS has done and the elements of that work that will carry forward are just as important.
16:06
I apologise to the cabinet secretary for missing the first minute of her speech.
The Scottish Tories warmly welcome the publication of the stage 1 report, largely because the logic behind the bill is fundamentally sound. By merging Historic Scotland with RCAHMS, there will be an agency that is better equipped to conserve Scotland’s historic environment at what is a particularly challenging time, as the cabinet secretary set out. That is not to say that either body has failed in its duties; far from it. There have been warm words about the staff in both organisations and we would echo those words. Indeed, Scotland can be extremely proud of its heritage and how it has been managed, but there is clearly a consensus that a more strategic approach would further strengthen our historic environment sector.
Presiding Officer, I know that time is extremely tight, so I hope that you will forgive me if, despite those very warm words, I concentrate my remarks on some issues on which we need clarification. I want that to be the emphasis of my speech.
The first is accountability for the strategic direction of the new body. As was borne out in the evidence, some witnesses also believe that there is a lack of clarity. When giving evidence to the Education and Culture Committee on 20 May, the cabinet secretary indicated that, were the board to have a difference of opinion with the Scottish Government about strategic direction—that is perhaps unlikely, but it could happen—then the latter would have the final say on what the direction should be.
I remain slightly concerned by the cabinet secretary’s response, in particular about the possible ramifications for applications for charitable status. I note the text of a subsequent letter to the committee convener from the cabinet secretary clarifying her remarks and indicating that she would not direct members of the new body’s board. I welcome that but, to be absolutely specific, paragraph 88 of the policy memorandum says that Scottish ministers will be able
“to give directions to Historic Environment Scotland”
about the exercise of its functions, but not
“on specific cases, objects or properties”
thereby
“ensuring operational independence.”
However, section 12(3) says that section 12(2)(a) does not apply where Scottish ministers have delegated functions in relation to properties in care. Furthermore, in oral evidence, Scottish Government officials confirmed that ministers intend to delegate the operation of all 345 properties in their care to historic environment Scotland. Those issues need a little bit of clarification. Perhaps they are semantic, but there is a quite clear recognition that, in some cases, HES will be working on behalf of Scottish ministers.
As the bill continues to progress, further clarity about the relationship between the operational board and the overarching historic environment board would also be welcome. As it stands, the consensual language of the historic environment strategy document, which envisages “joint working” and “a shared vision”, is absolutely correct and we like to hear that, but that does not sit that easily with section 2(8), which states that the new body
“must have regard to any relevant policy or strategy published by Scottish Ministers.”
There are some semantic details that could perhaps be tightened up.
I very much appreciate the member’s points and will address them either in my summing-up speech or certainly in my response to the committee. Energy efficiency and climate change, for example, are an area of Government policy that we would expect all public bodies to support. We frequently get asked by MSPs whether we are delivering in that regard. That is an example of where we would want to ensure that regard was had to Government policy—it is a good example to use.
I will give you a few seconds of your time back, Ms Smith.
Thank you, Presiding Officer.
I take the cabinet secretary’s point, which is very helpful. I do not doubt that there will be wide agreement on the overall direction. However, to be a little bit pedantic, there are issues around what would happen in circumstances in which bodies took a slightly different view from that of Government policy and around who would have the ultimate responsibility and accountability for the strategy. That is the general point.
One of the huge successes of Historic Scotland has been its decentralised approach. It would be extremely unfortunate, to say the least, if the bill unpicked that. As it stands, not only are there individual agreements between Historic Scotland and certain councils, but there is also a joint working agreement, which ensures a degree of consistency in how the historic environment is managed. I echo the concerns of some colleagues about that.
There are some issues around funding that I think my colleague Mary Scanlon will deal with. In particular, issues were raised regarding the awarding of grants. If I remember correctly, the Law Society of Scotland raised those concerns.
Even if there are several significant areas of concern, we thoroughly support the intentions behind the bill. There is universal recognition that a much more strategic focus will safeguard the long-term future of Scotland’s historic environment. I am sure that, in the course of stage 2 and stage 3, we can address those concerns so that we have a better agency.
We now come to the open debate. We do not have a lot of time in hand, so I ask for speeches of four minutes.
16:11
It has been a pleasure to be part of the process in committee, with the bill reaching its stage 1 report. I echo the convener’s comments in thanking all those who have given evidence. I especially mention the warm welcome that the committee received on its visit to Orkney this year.
When speaking to stakeholders in Orkney, I was struck by how much co-operation and partnership working was evident and by how important that was when it came to the unique challenge of the islands, with their ancient historic landscape. There were also capacity issues and sometimes conflicting priorities regarding tourism and conservation.
The whole idea of partnership working and co-operation is key to the bill and to the strategy, no more so than on pages 10 and 11 of the strategy, which deal with the Government’s cross-cutting strategic priorities—its whole priorities for Scotland. The bill is central when it comes to the Scottish Government’s policy mainstreaming in this area.
I mention in particular the SNH rangers we met while we were in Orkney. Their praises were sung by everyone we met on the island, including those representing the RSPB, the local authority and Historic Scotland. The part-funding arrangement with SNH and Historic Scotland seems to work particularly well on the islands. I was especially interested in the tour that the rangers gave of the Ring of Brodgar; we also visited Skara Brae.
We have received many briefings for today’s debate, including from the Law Society of Scotland, the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland and the Built Environment Forum Scotland. We are thankful for those briefings, which have added to the whole debate and to the background to the committee’s stage 1 report.
I agree with the convener that although, on the face of it, it seems fairly straightforward to bring together the two organisations, the written and oral evidence that we received highlighted some concerns and some really important issues that we still need to discuss as the bill progresses.
I am confident that the bill can meet its objectives and general principles. Key to that is the collaboration at the centre of the bill, which is no more evident than in the historic environment strategy document, “Our Place in Time”. As the cabinet secretary said, it is the first strategy for the historic environment in Scotland. In the foreword, the cabinet secretary states:
“The Strategy has been developed collaboratively by a wide range of organisations and specialists in the historic environment sector and beyond and sets out a shared vision for our historic environment which is owned by the people of Scotland - and that is critical. The Strategy does not belong to government or any particular sector - it is for everyone and we can all play a part in helping to ensure it delivers positive outcomes for our historic environment.”
The strategy will be at the heart of what we do as we go forward. It is an extremely important document that sets the tone for the whole debate and how we will move forward with the bill, and the vision statement is particularly interesting. The aims that it sets out include
“Understanding ... investigating and recording our historic environment”,
“Protecting”
and
“caring for ... the historic environment”
and
“Valuing ... the richness and significance of our historic environment”.
The strategy is key to the way forward. I look forward to the bill’s continuing progress through the Parliament.
16:15
I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the stage 1 debate on the Historic Environment Scotland Bill. It has appeared to me for some time, during the evidence sessions of the Education and Culture Committee—and, indeed, this afternoon—that there is no groundswell of objection to the proposed merger of Historic Scotland and RCAHMS. Some people will be more enthusiastic than others, but I have no doubt that Parliament will support the principles of the bill at decision time today.
Moving forward, the critical issue will be how the cabinet secretary and the Scottish Government respond to the concerns and issues that have been raised. A number of reassurances, points of clarification and amendments will be required.
I echo members’ thanks to the committee clerks for their support and for arranging the opportunity to meet key stakeholders in Orkney. Orkney has a great many historical sites and experts, and our worthwhile and helpful visit raised a number of questions and issues. For example, we heard confusion from stakeholders about the exact division of responsibilities in the roles that historic environment Scotland, Marine Scotland and Scottish ministers will play in relation to the marine environment. As the committee report states, it appears that decision making on submerged archaeological sites sits with Marine Scotland rather than with historic environment Scotland, yet the historic environment strategy is to encompass sites under water. I am sure that we would all welcome clarity from the cabinet secretary on that.
During our Orkney visit, the issue of local decision making was also raised, as other members have said. Local groups highlighted the need to guard against centralised decision making on the historic environment. I acknowledge what the cabinet secretary has said about the importance of local partnerships, but as the bill progresses we need to consider how we can ensure that that is underpinned and guaranteed.
More generally, there has been considerable discussion among witnesses from across Scotland and the committee on funding—how charitable status could affect the new body and other funding implications. From a personal point of view, I have not seen enough evidence to conclude fully what the financial impact will be on the new body and other organisations. We need to avoid making grand assumptions about whether shortfalls will be created and whether they will be made up in this case, because we do not have the evidence at the moment. I note what the cabinet secretary said earlier about funding, but we need to look further at the financial implications.
In relation to the financial provisions for the bill, I reiterate that HES will not be reliant on charitable status. The assumptions that have been made have been very strict in terms of bias, but HES will not be reliant on additional charitable income.
I thank the cabinet secretary for that intervention. I am making the point that we need to look at the matter further, and to consider all the scenarios and possible implications.
I have another point to make on finance. The Scottish Government cannot currently give us an estimate for the repairs and maintenance that are needed for properties that are under its care. I believe that an urgent survey should be carried out to ascertain the backlog of repairs and liabilities for those properties. That should happen before the planned date of April 2015.
As other members have said, concerns have been raised about the potential conflict of interests that the new body could have. Witnesses have been right to raise that issue. Whether or not it is a new issue, it has been of continuing concern to a number of witnesses and we should take it on board.
I am afraid that you need to close.
We need to consider that issue further as the bill progresses, and I hope that the Scottish Government will continue to respond to any such concerns from stakeholders.
As I said, I support the general principles of the bill and hope that the Scottish Government can now provide clear assurances and amendments to address the issues and concerns that have been raised by the stakeholders, experts and organisations who work hard to improve our historic environment.
I reiterate that there is no extra time available and that interventions must be accommodated within the member’s four minutes.
16:20
I am not a member of the Education and Culture Committee, but I am pleased to speak in the debate because I spent much of my previous career renovating, repairing and maintaining old buildings. I live in a 250-year-old listed building and have worked with lime putty mortar, horsehair plaster, stone and slate. I am pleased that, over 35 years or more, I have helped to build new life into old buildings. Even now, I cannot pass by a forsaken and neglected old building—there are still far too many of those throughout Scotland—without feeling the urge to gather up my tools, collect together some skilled craftsmen and talk some money lender into financing its renovation.
Much as I love and value older buildings, and much as the poor state of our historic environment saddens me, I still think—perhaps because of all that—that people are more important. It is people who inhabit our buildings and breathe life into them, and in our old buildings it is their stories—the lives and times of the people who used the buildings—that echo in the walls. As the cabinet secretary said, it is also people who care for our buildings. That is why I welcome the bill, the formation of historic environment Scotland and the first ever historic environment strategy. Some new thinking and a new approach and culture are required.
We can list a building—we can perhaps even double and treble list it—but we cannot prevent apathy. We cannot easily prevent neglect and eventual ruin, and we cannot easily legislate to provide value. We need only look at the Scottish Civic Trust’s buildings at risk register to find compelling evidence of that. It is a sad and lengthy catalogue of neglected listed buildings, most of which are quietly decaying. We can schedule a monument, but that will not prevent its neglect. If anybody seeks evidence of that, they should visit Keil chapel in Duror, the last resting place of James of the Glen, who was wrongly hung for the Appin murder, which was the inspiration for Robert Louis Stevenson’s international bestseller “Kidnapped”. Anyone who visits Keil chapel will see that scheduling monuments in itself offers no protection whatever.
We can, however, facilitate, educate and advise effectively, both to conserve and to enhance. Queensberry house offers a good example of a building that has been both conserved and enhanced. I beg to disagree with the Law Society of Scotland, and suggest that we can do both—they are not mutually incompatible.
I am glad that the Education and Culture Committee chose to visit Orkney in pursuing its scrutiny of the bill. Few places have more effectively added value to their built heritage by making it a driver of the local economy and creating a virtuous circle. I hope that historic environment Scotland understands that successful and thriving communities such as Orkney are required to nurture and care for our older buildings and heritage, and I hope that it is able to spread that knowledge and understanding successfully right across Scotland.
16:24
Yesterday, thanks to the Prince’s Trust, I had the opportunity to try my hand at stonemasonry, although I assure everyone in the historic environment community that I will not be taking my skills out in the field. I, too, thank my colleagues on the Education and Culture Committee, the committee’s clerks and the witnesses who gave evidence to the committee. I am particularly grateful to my constituents in Orkney for hosting an excellent visit last month, and I give a special mention to the county archaeologist, Dr Julie Gibson. As well as arranging fine weather that showed off the islands at their best—prompting one or two colleagues to consider applying for political asylum—our hosts managed in the space of a day to give a real flavour of how the historic environment can shape the identity of a community and deliver significant value through tourism, academic research and providing the quality of life that encourages people to want to live and work in such a special place.
As the convener said, the principles of the bill were unanimously supported, but a number of issues were raised with the committee at stage 1 that we wish to see reflected in the bill, or in undertakings from the minister at stage 2. I will touch briefly on some of them.
On the definition of “historic environment”, the committee came to the conclusion that, on balance, there were more downsides than upsides to including a definition in the bill, although I recognise that there is still strong support for inclusion. We need to ensure that there is legal certainty and that safeguarding and promoting the historic environment does not suffer in comparison with other Government priorities through a lack of specific reference in the bill that will establishes HES.
The Law Society of Scotland made useful comments on the functions of HES and drew attention to the fact that there is no function of promoting the maintenance of the historic environment. The society suggested that that function needs to be more explicitly stated in the bill. Greater clarity is also needed on HES’s involvement in submerged archaeology and work in the marine environment.
Will Liam McArthur give way on that point?
I am struggling for time. Perhaps the cabinet secretary could pick up the point in her concluding remarks.
The Law Society also raised the vexed issue of charitable status and pointed to potential conflicts of interest. Others bodies in the sector, notably the National Trust for Scotland, are anxious about possible diversion of charitable funding away from others in the sector. Although that will be a decision for the HES board, and the committee concluded that there are likely to be no new potential conflicts, I do not think that we are out of the woods on the issue yet, so it is likely to be the subject of amendments at stage 2.
A number of witnesses emphasised the need for good collaboration between all stakeholders, as we saw in Orkney. In particular, the critical relationship will be between HES and local authorities. Again, the bill might need to be strengthened in that respect at stage 2. A key message that came out of the visit to Orkney was on the division of responsibility between the local and the national. Rightly, my constituents were adamant that the merger to create HES should not and must not lead to a more centralised approach. Although national standards and consistent quality are vital, so too is the capacity for the organisation to respond to local circumstances and to take decisions that reflect them—as Patricia Ferguson, Liz Smith and others have said. Like Patricia Ferguson, I would prefer there to be safeguards on that in the bill, although I welcome the minister’s comments to the committee on the issue.
On resources and expertise, I fully appreciate that, across Scotland, we are yet to punch at our weight in relation to the historic environment. However, as colleagues witnessed at first hand, that charge cannot be laid against people in Orkney. In seeking to improve the situation in other parts of the country, I would not wish resources to be diverted away from meeting the needs of Orkney and providing opportunities there. That is, of course, important for my constituency, but it is also crucial for Scotland as a whole.
I record my gratitude to the staff in Historic Scotland and RCAHMS, notably the rangers, whom Clare Adamson mentioned. I am happy to confirm that we will support the general principles of the bill. I very much hope that it can achieve its objectives—not least that of ensuring that the value of our rich historic environment is properly recognised, enhanced and celebrated in the future.
16:28
“Our Place in Time—The Historic Environment Strategy for Scotland”, which was published in March, led on from the Scottish historic environment policy notes from over the years. The strategy is welcomed by everyone in the relevant sectors and by many people beyond, and we are now moving, through legislation, towards a new lead body—historic environment Scotland.
I would like to say some words about the Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Scotland, which will be merged with Historic Scotland to create the new body. The commission, which was established in 1908, has a proud history. Excellent work has been done over the years by the commissioners and, of course, all the staff who have worked with the commission.
I am glad that Mike MacKenzie mentioned Queensberry house. If it had not been for commissioner John Hume, from RCAHMS, Queensberry house would not look as it does, because John Hume was instrumental in advising on the history of the house and the building environment in Edinburgh at the time when it was built, to ensure that we brought the house back to its original form, as far as possible. That is one of many things that RCAHMS has done as well as surveying and recording buildings and developing excellent community outreach and education work. I hope that that legacy will be cherished and sustained, as the bill progresses.
I chair the cross-party group on architecture and the built environment, which had an excellent meeting on Scotland’s historic environment. That is why I am able to say with confidence that the relevant sectoral organisations and many professionals welcome the strategy and related bill.
However, this is only stage 1, so it is right that problems and potential issues be flagged up. I am grateful to the Royal Town Planning Institute Scotland and the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland, which raised very much the same points. RTPI Scotland recommended that the bill
“refer to the role of the body as part of the planning system in fulfilling its functions to protect, manage, conserve and enhance the historic environment”,
and called for
“greater clarity for planning authorities on the role of Historic Environment Scotland, and similar clarity for the new body on the roles and responsibilities of local planning authorities”.
That relates to community planning, too.
The Society of Antiquaries of Scotland said:
“There should be an explicit recognition of the advisory and supportive relationship between HES and Local Authorities”,
and recommended that the bill include provision to
“ensure that Local Authorities have access to, and take due regard of, appropriate information and professional advice”.
That point leads me on to the development of skills in relation to the historic environment, including the traditional skills and crafts that Mike MacKenzie mentioned. Historic Scotland has always been good at working with Skills Development Scotland and apprentices to ensure that traditional skills and crafts are maintained.
The priorities that underpin the strategy—and the bill—include “Informed decision making”, “Skills & capacity”, and “Ensuring capacity”. Knowledge and expertise in the right place are essential.
There is so much more that I could say about the bill, but I know that I have to be quiet. I can bring up issues as we go through the bill process. It is good to have the strategy, but what will really make the difference is not having it but implementing it. That must underpin everything that we do.
16:32
I am pleased to be a member of the committee that has been considering the bill, although I was unable to join members on their fact-finding visit to Orkney. I add my thanks to all the organisations and individuals who contributed to the committee’s evidence sessions and provided such thoughtful submissions. I hope that they feel that their input has been recognised in our report.
It is a testament to Scotland’s heritage that members are able to reflect on so many areas of historic and cultural importance in their constituencies and regions. I am privileged to represent Mid Scotland and Fife, so I am spoilt for choice, given the wealth of sites on which I could focus, from ancient buildings and monuments across the region to more recent examples, such as the category B-listed fire station in Dunfermline. The building is soon to be reborn as a community arts centre, which will operate as a social enterprise with support from the council and other funders.
In previous debates I have talked about the Isle of May, with its 8,000 years of human habitation, and the more recent history of Lochore village, where the local landscape has seen changes from agriculture to coal mining and burning bings and is now home to the peaceful, secret gem that is Lochore Meadows country park.
Members’ pride in their areas points to a key issue, which was raised in the committee report: the importance of continuing the regional approach that Historic Scotland is currently pursuing and supporting sites of interest in local communities. The cabinet secretary provided an assurance that the establishment of the new body will not mean a move to a more centralised approach to decision making. However, I particularly support the committee’s recommendation that the bill underpin the regional approach in some way. Perhaps the cabinet secretary will consider the matter as the bill progresses.
As the cabinet secretary and her colleagues will know from recent questions that I have asked, I have a strong interest in community planning. I believe that community participation and ownership are fundamental to successfully delivering outcomes at a local level and that that should cut across all areas of Government.
Local people care about their local heritage and local environment. The energy, expertise and commitment from local communities cannot be replicated by Governments or other agencies, and we sometimes do not adequately acknowledge or value it. We cannot put a price on civic pride. That local drive and energy is often the thing that can bring communities together, helping to bring in the funding and ensuring that the historic environment continues to be relevant now and in the future. The importance of community planning partnerships in that context has been highlighted by the Royal Town Planning Institute, and I look forward to seeing its recommendations as part of the historic environment group.
The presence of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities on the historic environment group demonstrates the recognition of the important role of local authorities in planning matters and the built environment. As the report highlights, evidence to the committee suggested that 92 per cent of archaeological assets fall within the remit of planning authorities as they are not explicitly labelled as scheduled monuments. The report highlights concerns about the remit of the new body in overseeing the historic environment, and I would welcome further clarification from the minister on that.
We know that it is not just sites of archaeological interest that are covered by the proposed legislation; it also includes properties in care and listed buildings, reflecting the diversity of the historic environment across the country.
In supporting the general principles of the bill—and although some aspects are particularly process driven given the nature of the legislation—we must remember the most important outcome, which is to successfully protect and manage our diverse historic environment for future generations.
16:36
I thank my colleagues and everyone who gave evidence to the committee, as well as the clerks for their work when we were going through stage 1.
It has been interesting and exciting. That might sound surprising because we are talking about how the Historic Environment Scotland Bill proposes the merger of Historic Scotland and the Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Scotland to create historic environment Scotland. I could just sit down at this stage, and I know that a lot people might think that that would be a good idea, but there is so much more to it.
At the same time as the bill was published, “Our Place in Time—The Historic Environment Strategy for Scotland”, Scotland’s first ever historic environment strategy, was launched. That is the important point; the strategy will show the way forward for us. As the cabinet secretary said in the foreword to the strategy document:
“Our heritage is hugely inspirational, helping to create a powerful sense of place and providing the backdrop to where we live, work and have fun. Our historic environment has a huge role to play in shaping a bright future for Scotland and it is up to us all to ensure that it is passed on with pride to benefit future generations.”
The strategy is the important part. Our convener has already said that some areas are punching well above their weight, and some of the evidence that the committee received shows that that is probably true, but the publication of the strategy gives us the opportunity to make sure that it works in all areas throughout Scotland.
I could see that the strategy is working well in Orkney, which has experience of the whole local authority and local groups working together to ensure that it does work well. Our day in Orkney was special because of the weather and because I saw a part of the country that I had never seen before. I even managed to photobomb an ancient monument when the convener Stewart Maxwell was taking a picture at the Ring of Brodgar; not many people can make that claim to fame.
While we were there, I was talking to Liam McArthur when we were walking down to Skara Brae. The centre shows the various time points as people walk towards the village, which was meant to have been started around 3100 BC. I was talking about how Paisley has an 850-year-old abbey but, when Liam McArthur showed me where 850 years ago is in the great scheme of things compared to Skara Brae, it did not look like a lot of time on the planet.
As Jayne Baxter mentioned, we all have historic things in our areas, and this is where it comes down to a definition of the historic environment. How do we define it? In my opinion, it is pretty fluid. What is part of the historic environment now might not have been 20 or 30 years ago.
In my town, there are former mill buildings that were just industrial buildings in their time but are now regarded as buildings of great beauty and architectural prowess. Such buildings have to be retained and used, because they are an integral part of who we are, what the town is and what makes us Paisley buddies. It is the same in every single community throughout Scotland.
That is the exciting part of the idea of the historic environment. Let us not contain it and box it in. Let us not just say, “That’s what it is and it doesn’t move from there.” The exciting part of the bill is that we can continue to move the historic environment on and find a way to ensure that we can save it for everyone in the future.
This bill is a good start for us all to work together. It is not just about merging two bodies; it is an exciting part of our future.
16:40
As my colleague Liz Smith stated earlier, we all support the rationale behind the bill. “Our Place in Time”, the new historic environment strategy, has been warmly received by the sector, at least in theory, and stakeholders have signalled that they are broadly content with the proposed merged body.
However, Linda Fabiani made a very good point when she emphasised that it was about the implementation of the strategy, rather than simply the words that it contains. As Councillor Harry McGuigan of COSLA told the committee,
“the devil is ... in the detail.”—[Official Report, Education and Culture Committee, 6 May 2014; c 4110.]
There are various issues that still require to be addressed, many of which have been raised today. Perhaps the most significant of those issues revolves around how we ensure that local decision making is preserved—a point raised by Liam McArthur and one that was put to us firmly by people across Orkney. Although there are good reasons for designating historic environment Scotland as the sector’s lead body, we must ensure that that new entity advises in a manner that preserves and, we hope, strengthens local decision making. That point, which relates to local government, was made very clear to us on our visit to Orkney.
Any shift towards greater centralisation would be to the detriment of the historic environment. Although I note the assurances that the cabinet secretary has given in this area, it would seem to be sensible to make those intentions more explicit, perhaps in accompanying guidance.
Then there is the relationship with the private sector. It is fair to say that, on the whole, Historic Scotland has enjoyed a very good working relationship with the private heritage sector, which we hope will continue. We should recognise that private owners have a huge stake in Scotland’s historic environment, especially as they meet restoration costs from their own pockets.
On the broader point about ministerial direction, although all non-departmental public bodies must have a working relationship with central Government, section 12 of the bill reads rather broadly. Particular concerns have been raised about curatorial independence. Liz Smith raised exactly that issue earlier and I associate myself with her remarks. Put simply, it would not be acceptable for the Scottish Government to exert a higher degree of control over historic environment Scotland, so further assurances about how any difference of opinion would be resolved would be very helpful as we take the bill forward.
Another area of contention relates to funding. I noted with interest the figures that the National Trust for Scotland and the Historic Houses Association for Scotland supplied to the committee about their property maintenance backlogs, which, when added together, amounted to more than £100 million. Unfortunately, comparable figures for historic environment Scotland will not be available until next April.
As Stewart Maxwell, the convener of the committee, said in his opening remarks, it is important that the Scottish Government confirms who will ultimately be responsible for meeting the property maintenance for the significant 345 properties in care. Whoever that may be and whatever the final total, it seems that the new body will have to raise significant levels of additional finance. There is some concern that that could clash with the broader regulatory role that historic environment Scotland must have at its core.
My final point relates to accountability. Although “Our Place in Time” commands the wide support of the sector, as things stand we have no indication of who will be tasked with ensuring that outcomes are met. I whole-heartedly agree that emphasis should be placed on collaboration—I think that we all do—but if those outcomes are to be realised, we need direct lines of accountability.
All those points can be resolved as the bill continues its progression, of course. Fundamentally, the rationale for the merger is sound, and the strategy is an important document that should go a long way to strengthening the sector.
For those reasons, we welcome the stage 1 report.
16:45
The debate has been very interesting, if short. It has been particularly interesting to hear the comments of colleagues who are on the committee, as they have obviously had the work of taking the bill forward and the interesting task of listening to the witnesses who have come forward and the evidence that has been submitted. I am particularly jealous that they were able to visit Orkney and have the experience that they had. Orkney is something to be seen. If any member has not been there, they should go very soon. I am sure that Mr McArthur would be happy to make the arrangements.
Mr Maxwell did well to challenge members to champion our local historic environment, because it is about our sense of place and the kind of communities that we represent. We have had contrasting experiences in my area. Maryhill burgh halls are a good example of a very successful regeneration of a historic building, which is now put to very good community use. On the other hand, Springburn public halls, which was a similar building that had lain derelict, as Maryhill burgh halls had, for a number of years, was suddenly demolished over the Christmas period a year and a half ago because it was in such a bad way.
Preserving and maintaining buildings of historic value can be a very difficult challenge, but we have to give more consideration to ways in which we can intervene at an earlier stage. I hope that the new body will be able to do that and to give good and strategic guidance to local authorities to help them to assist the owners of such properties.
Linda Fabiani was absolutely correct to reference the history of Queensberry house and particularly the involvement of John Hume in that project, as in many other projects of that kind across Scotland. His dedication to the issue is probably second to none. I very much remember having very long discussions and debates in the corporate body in the early days of the Parliament about whether we should have slate on the roof of Queensberry house and whether it should be painted or limewashed. I definitely think that the limewash was the right idea, but I really do not have a clue about whether the slates were. However, the building is wonderful and an asset to the Parliament.
We have heard a little about ministerial direction, which is an interesting area. To be slightly flippant for a moment, I think that ministerial direction is one of those things that are opposed in opposition but adopted in government. I speak from some experience in that area. To be serious, however, the point is to get the balance right.
I was very interested in the point that the cabinet secretary made in response to a point that Liz Smith made about the Scottish Government’s environmental priorities and how they would perhaps have a bearing on the historic environment. That is a case in point. Adaptations to buildings that make them more environmentally friendly might conflict with or even compromise their heritage status. Those kinds of issues go to the heart of how ministerial direction could be used. Frankly, one would need the wisdom of Solomon in such cases, but I hope that, with the right advice and briefings from the experts, the right decision would be reached.
It has been said, of course, that the continued use of our historic buildings is in itself an environmentally friendly act and perhaps even one of the best forms of recycling that we have. I agree with that very much.
As the committee suggested, it is important that the bill’s implications for the body’s curatorial independence are explained in more detail. Perhaps those elements can be teased out.
The Society of Antiquaries of Scotland made an interesting point about the delegated powers. I am interested in the cabinet secretary’s views on the society’s concern that those powers might lead to ministers delegating more profitable aspects of HES’s work to other bodies. I do not imagine that the cabinet secretary means to do that but, if those with an interest have that concern, it would be useful to clarify the position.
The strategy “Our Place in Time” sets out the governance structure for implementing the strategy, which is welcome, and the document does that pretty well. However, historic environment Scotland—I am sorry; I find the new name quite difficult to get used to. I wonder whether we could call the body something more catchy, but perhaps that debate is gone. The strategy does not talk about how historic environment Scotland’s governance structure fits into the overarching strategy; in fact, the document makes scant mention of HES. Perhaps that could be clarified.
I very much look forward to the discussions that we will no doubt have on the bill. I am sure that there will be interesting debates about amendments at stages 2 and 3. For the moment, I simply welcome the work done by the Education and Culture Committee, which has taken the bill as seriously as it deserves to be taken. Scottish Labour will support the bill’s general principles this evening.
16:51
I welcome the debate’s positive tone. I will explore all the constructive suggestions that have been made this afternoon for improving the proposals and the recommendations from the lead committee and the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee. I plan to write to the Education and Culture Committee before the recess and, in my letter, I will include responses to the additional ideas that have been discussed this afternoon. However, I can say now that I expect to respond positively to the principles behind all the committee’s recommendations. I believe that the bill and the accompanying dialogue with stakeholders will be stronger as a result.
In my opening speech, I touched on the key themes of the committee’s report. The committee has accurately mapped the themes that matter, which include the relationship between the bill, the new body that it creates and the sector-wide strategy; the benefits that the bill will bring and how they will be monitored; the need for transparency; the importance of communities; and the role of ministers.
The strategy is collectively owned by all the participating independent bodies. As chair of the overarching strategic forum—I say for clarity that it is a forum rather than a board—my task will be to promote consensus. For it to work, the strategy will require voluntary agreement.
If we come to insuperable problems, we will need to work round them or approach them from a new angle. To state the obvious, consensus works only if it remains consensual.
Historic environment Scotland will be a public body and will be required to play a key role in delivering the Government’s contribution to the shared priorities that are agreed through the strategy. I can and will hold HES to account through its chair for how it delivers; that is how all non-departmental public bodies work and that is why we chose that model.
I will address the point that Liz Smith raised and which Patricia Ferguson reflected on in her closing speech about the balance in ministerial direction. As a minister, I cannot direct the strategic forum, but I can direct HES on strategic matters. I can direct HES on properties in care, as they are ministers’ responsibility, but I cannot direct it on grant decisions, on listing and scheduling decisions or—this is important to a point that Patricia Ferguson made—on collecting decisions and curatorial matters.
Liam McArthur talked about functions and raised the Law Society’s point that the bill does not use the word “maintaining”. However, we talk about protecting, managing, conserving, enhancing and preserving the historic environment. The words “conserving” and “preserving” have a specific meaning in relation to heritage, so we are well covered.
The Government has a duty to involve and support local communities and communities of interest in defining priorities and taking action. That applies to the historic environment as it does more widely. That is why the bill requires our new lead body to work in partnership. However, I accept the committee’s view, which has been reinforced in members’ speeches today, that the bill does not give sufficient prominence to the role of local communities, and we will address that issue as we move forward.
Neil Bibby mentioned the marine environment, and I refer him to schedule 4. HES will act as an adviser to the Government and will continue its recording activities, and the Government, through Marine Scotland, will undertake designation and consent. That arrangement will maintain the unified marine regulation system that was recently introduced by the Marine (Scotland) Act 2010.
Patricia Ferguson touched on the very important role of local authorities, which play a fundamental part in looking after the historic environment in the form of designated and undesignated heritage. The bill does not change that fundamental role, but it will enable HES to support local authorities more effectively.
Liam McArthur raised the issue of charitable status. The committee received written evidence from the Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator, which confirmed that a charity with regulatory functions would be “unusual ... but not unique.” Other such bodies include the General Teaching Council for Scotland and the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.
I have spoken about the support that is required on certain aspects such as grants advice, training and skills, and HES will continue to carry out that function. I will consider further Patricia Ferguson’s point about including a reference to skills in the bill.
There will be situations in which a strong lead is needed, whether that is in research or in project management. I particularly welcome the strong working relationship that exists with the National Trust for Scotland, which demonstrates the type of collaboration that we can achieve. For an example of that we need look no further than the new Bannockburn centre, which was delivered on time and within budget in co-operation with the NTS.
Shared projects that make the best use of talents regardless of how they are badged will be the best way forward in many regards. One important shared project has existed for a century, and will be redefined in the bill. Historic Scotland cares for and presents to the public the many properties in state care. In future, ownership and guardianship will remain with ministers but management and operation will be delegated to HES. We have chosen that arrangement not because of a lack of trust in the staff who already care for those properties so well. Rather, we recognise the direct commitment that our predecessors gave to those who passed the properties into state care. That special relationship will be reflected in the careful design of the scheme of delegation, which will be published before it comes into effect. Performance against that scheme will be monitored, and the results will be published. Of course, conservation is a never-ending task.
We have also provided in the bill for ministers to be able to delegate the management of historic properties to bodies other than HES. Although we have no immediate plans to do so, we believe that there may be situations in the future in which that might be appropriate.
With regard to the point that the Society of Antiquaries raised, we are happy to accept the DPLR committee’s recommendation for close scrutiny of any proposal that a body would require to take, and we plan to lodge an amendment at stage 2 that will require that any such body will be specified by order with affirmative parliamentary procedure so that the Parliament has an opportunity to respond.
I will respond to the Education and Culture Committee on the points that have been raised in the debate and in its report. We will have a better body to lead us into the future with regard to the management of the historic environment and leadership in this area.
I will close with a few points. Mike MacKenzie and George Adam gave passionate and well-informed contributions, and Stewart Maxwell rightly gave us all the challenge of asking ourselves how we, as MSPs, should help to lead the historic environment. I commend in particular Graeme Dey, who has personally taken responsibility for trying to galvanise the heritage and local community in Arbroath around the abbey there.
Finally, I agree with the Labour Party, which we do not always do. Patricia Ferguson, who has made two fine and informed speeches this afternoon, instructed members that we should travel to Orkney as soon as possible. I am delighted to report to her that I will be on a flight to Orkney tomorrow morning to attend the St Magnus festival.
I follow in the footsteps of the Education and Culture committee members, who had such a wonderful visit to Orkney, where we can celebrate our heritage and see where partnership with the local community really works. Orkney demonstrates our wonderful heritage, not only the built environment but the intangible heritage that is expressed in the performances that I have seen there. I know that Patricia Ferguson would want to know if we have an extra seat so she can go with me, and I will see what I can do.