Chamber and committees

Convener, will we come back to rural payments later?

I have a question about the strategy’s laudable aims. The strategy picks up on aims that all Scotland should pull together to try to deliver, such as transitioning to net zero, creating resilient communities and building a wellbeing economy.

I put it to Alex Paterson that, although you would expect one of HES’s most obvious aims to be the preservation of historic buildings, that is not one of its aims. He said that that is in Historic Environment Scotland’s DNA, which makes sense. Do you sense any legitimate tension in that Historic Environment Scotland trying to meet those aims might have an impact, even financially, on its ability to expand its portfolio? For example, if Historic Environment Scotland had to use its resources to, rightly, reduce emissions and make current properties more energy efficient, that would inevitably absorb income. Rather than spreading itself too thinly, Historic Environment Scotland could invest more in its current portfolio. Is that right, or is it flawed?

You have one of the best jobs in the Government, because you are able to visit those incredible assets.

My other question to Alex Paterson was about expanding the portfolio. I asked that first question to try to understand whether there is a trade-off. Obviously, there are a lot of old buildings in Scotland and it is not feasible for Historic Environment Scotland to own and run them all. Alex talked about the process of determining that. However, in recent years, the approach has been to not add anything to the portfolio and he also said that he would quite like to change that approach. How do you feel about that? Would you like to see more ancient historic buildings coming into Historic Environment Scotland’s portfolio, or do you think that there are other owners that can run them well?

Thanks very much. I have just one more small question. I could not agree more with you on the suggestion that often visitors know more about our heritage than local communities know. Even from a Highlands perspective, whenever tourists come, we always recommend that they go to certain areas or properties, but when you ask locals, they say that are not going to those places. How can we change that?

That is wonderful. Thank you.

We have spent quite a lot of time on one of the objectives—regenerative agriculture—and have strayed into some of the others. I have a series of questions, which I will keep quite short because I might not get back in.

In today’s evidence, and in the evidence that many of you provided in advance, there is a temptation—I have heard it already—to try to get into the bill more objectives than we can count. All those things are laudable and important, but that attempt defeats the whole point of a targeted bill. Four objectives are in front of us. Is four the right number, or would you be happy with 10, 15 or 20? My question is about numbers, not additional objectives.

Secondly, what does the fourth objective, which is on

“enabling rural communities to thrive”,

and which reflects the title of the bill, look like to you? Is it sufficiently prescriptive? Is it in tension with any of the other objectives?

Having just said not to put in too many objectives, I have asked too many questions.

Can I push you on that? You said that you do not see a tension there. From a crofting perspective, is there not concern that there might be a tension between a rural crofting community thriving and what the other objectives might require? You said that you do not see such a tension. I just want to ensure that that is really what you meant.

My last question is about your portfolio. You have touched on that aspect already with regard to the tools that you use for what you can do, and the many things that you cannot do. What expectation do you have that the HES portfolio, for want of a better phrase, will expand at all in the coming years? There is no shortage of historic buildings that are in need of a good owner.

Good morning. Alex Paterson, you mentioned that the strategy was not HES’s strategy, but you had led on it. There are three priorities in the strategy for delivery over the next five years—net zero, communities, and the wellbeing economy—but there is no objective for preserving old buildings, which struck me as the most obvious one. Is that because that is implicit in everything that you do, so it is not an issue, or is it for another reason?