Good morning, and I welcome everybody to the 14th meeting of the Education and Culture Committee in 2014. Can I remind all those present that electronic devices should be switched off because they interfere with the broadcasting system? Our first item today is to decide whether to take item 4 in private and to consider our work programme annual report and stage 1 report on the Historic Environment Scotland Bill in private to future meetings. Before I move on to item 2, I welcome Joan McAlpine's back with us here in the place of Colin Beattie, who is absent today, and Joan Substituting. I have also got Liz Smith, who is here as a member of the Parliament and interested in this particular bill. Welcome to you both. Our next item is to hold our final evidence session on the Historic Environment Scotland Bill. I welcome Fiona Hyslop, the Cabinet Secretary for Culture and External Affairs and her accompanying officials to welcome to all of you this morning. I invite the cabinet secretary to make some opening remarks. Thank you very much, convener. I know that the committee will have questions based on the written and oral evidence and also on their visit to Orkney. I understand that you are blessed with fair weather and a warm welcome, so I will make a short statement only. In creating the Historic Environment Strategy, our place in time, we worked with the sector at their request to agree a shared vision for Scotland's historic environment. It is based on three priorities, understanding what we have, caring for our shared heritage and valuing it for itself and the benefits that it can bring to Scotland. By working together across the many bodies in the sector, we can care better for our heritage and deliver so much more for Scotland, not just sustainable economic growth, but benefits, including skills, employment, education, enjoyment, sense of place and identity. We are charting new ground here. I am excited by that. To move forward, we will need to pull information and effort, and we will need to break away from the silo mentality for which the sector has been criticised in the past. I welcome the positive reception that the strategy has received in Scotland and beyond and which signals widespread recognition of the need for new ways of working. The relationship between the strategy, the bill, and the new body is important, and each complements each other. The sector asked for a strategic approach. We were delighted to lead the process of collaborative production. To co-ordinate the strategy going forward, I will have the help of a board invited from key stakeholders, including the chair of Historic Environment Scotland, once selected. I hope to announce the names of those who have agreed to assist me with the task very soon. The vision is shared, but participants remain responsible through their own lines of governance. Ministers and Historic Environment Scotland will do everything they can to support the strategy, but others have to step up to the mark, too. The bill, which you are now considering, will create Historic Environment Scotland, which is part of ministers' contribution to achieving the vision set out in the strategy. The bill sets out the functions against which Historic Environment Scotland will be expected to deliver and against which its success will be judged. Like all public bodies, Historic Environment Scotland will have its own appointed and regulated board responsible through ministers to Parliament. I will take forward the search for members as soon as parliamentary progress permits. In the bill, we have set out the functions of a body to operate within a strategic framework with simpler processes, with more transparency and with a more collaborative ethos. It will sustain the range of vital functions that Historic Scotland and the Royal Commission carry out, and I want to record my personal appreciation, convener, of the professionalism and enthusiasm of the staff of both bodies. I expect Historic Environment Scotland to offer leadership, and I am confident that it will earn that role based on the knowledge and commitment of the staff that it will inherit. I recognise a huge part played by many others, especially the many thousands of private owners of our heritage, but also our local authorities, as well as independent bodies such as the National Trust for Scotland. That is why our new model is centred around wide strategic partnerships with Historic Environment Scotland positioned as a lead partner. Our intention is to support collective action towards the shared vision that is set out in our place and time. I believe that the new body and the changes in the bill will make it easier for everyone concerned to play their full part in tackling the challenges that face Scotland's heritage. Those challenges will take time to tackle. Everyone recognises that understanding, protecting and valuing Scotland's Historic Environment is a long-term task. I believe that it is a job that can be done, but only if we pull together, and with that, convener, I would be happy to answer questions from the committee on the bill. Thank you very much, cabinet secretary. As you said, we have a number of questions across a number of areas. We want to cover this morning, but I am going to begin with Clare Adamson. Good morning, cabinet secretary. The policy memorandum and financial memorandum have set out various points, some of the expected benefits of the bill and some of those include opportunity for collaboration within the culture portfolio and influence in other areas of policy, including place-making regeneration, health and wellbeing and feeding into the curriculum for excellence. I wonder if you would be able to say a few words about those benefits and also to explain why a merger was chosen to achieve those benefits and whether other consideration was given. Why a merger is the best way forward? Very far back in terms of the period in 2011-12, we looked at all the different options. We had various options appraisal that led us to the decision that merger was the correct option. I will emphasise that one of the key aspects was to maintain and sustain the vital functions of both our camps and to start the Scotland, and that was something that we responded to. It has been quite clear for some time that this is not a new idea that you might bring those two bodies together, but it was certainly the appropriate time that we could take that forward. Indeed, you have now heard from both commissioners and also from Historic Scotland that there is now an agreement that this is an appropriate way to go forward. In terms of the practical benefits that you are referring to, on education, there is a huge amount of synergies between what our camps do and what Historic Scotland does. They both have exemplary education activity, but that can be better work together. In terms of a big agenda for Scotland and, I think, this Government and Parliament, it is place making. A lot of the issues around town centre regeneration, if you are looking at towns, many of them have historic buildings in them. The work that our camps do in terms of its records and surveying, plus the work that Historic Scotland does in relation to repair grants to town centre regeneration, and indeed some of the grant funding that has helped to co-ordinate also with other parts of Government, that is a clear agenda area that is important. In terms of the strategic decision making, Historic environment is not just something that we enjoy, but it is some kind of backdrop to our country. It is a lot of the passion, lifeblood that people feel very strongly about. In terms of our health and wellbeing, and in terms of some of the agenda that we have about getting people outside, about people feeling in control of their own places, which is a big agenda item. One of the things that we want to try and do is make sure that Historic environment can have influence across all the different areas, and rather it being a separate area that is just dealt with in terms of historic buildings in isolation, it allows influence. One of the things that we have done already is to move the strategic policy aspects of Historic Scotland to central Government as well as to the Scottish Government. We are already seeing good synergies and chances of influencing other Government agendas in a way that Historic Scotland did not have. That is part of the privilege of taking that forward. There are many practical things, but we have talented people and it is to give them extra platforms to work on and career opportunities for many of the talented individuals. The bill, as you scrutinise it, is very much about the functions of the new body. In my opening remarks, I tried to set the context. It is working in the wider strategy, and that means working with everybody else, and having that one-lead body will help us to do that. There is transparency, efficiencies and different things that we are taking the opportunity to make sure happen with the new body. We did some evidence last week, which is very informative. It included representation from COSLA about working with the local authorities. Do you think that the single body will improve working relationships in that partner relationship in Scotland? Yes, it will. How we have gone about both the strategy and the bill is already helping that relationship with local authorities. It has been in collaboration with some of the issues around transparency and planning. We have worked very hard. I have worked with councillor Hagan in particular, who has a keen interest and lead responsibility in this area. In terms of putting the bill together, we consulted with the chief planning officers in relation to some of the provisions. It is also about that sense of place. The idea is to make sure that we have both from the strategy and the new body is to make sure that we have a better opportunity for our historic environment. Of course, it is place-based. When people go to visit, whether it is Orkney, or whether it is West Lothian, they go to see what is in that area. Not all of it will be managed by Historic Scotland. Some of it will be from other partners. Clearly, local authorities have a key role in how they promote local promotion and what they do in a local area. It will help them. In relation to expertise and advice, that is something that I know local authorities are keen to make sure that they have access to. The bill makes it quite clear that we expect the HES to work with local authorities and continue to provide advice as they do. However, what we are seeing now is an opportunity to share talent and information and expertise. It is not an excuse for local authorities not to do things, but it does help to provide a canvas that we have never had before in this area. In my experience over this period, the historical environment has never really been a high on agenda from local authorities point of view. I am glad now that it is and we are doing that in a shared way. For example, when we were discussing some of the strategy, I shared platforms with Councillor Hegan specifically to share that. I know that it was a different council that came to speak to your committee, but that is my experience to date. I am following up on that point. In relation to the relationship with local authorities, obviously there is a raft of areas where local authorities would expect to continue to play the lead. In that collaboration, are you comfortable that the way in which the bill is set out makes clear the areas where HES, in a sense, would be taking the lead and the areas where local authorities would continue to take the lead? I am thinking particularly in relation to some of the issues that developers, for example, have. Their first point of contact would inevitably be the local authority rather than HES. You believe that the bill, as it is currently framed, makes clear that that relationship will not be an expectation for developers, for example, to go through HES on route to getting a decision from the council. There are different layers of that. In terms of responsibility by and large, everything in relation to the relationship will maintain because a lot of it will be underpinned by other pieces of legislation. That is something that has come through in some of your evidence about environmental assessments and so on. They exist in other parts of legislation. What we will need to do is replace the name of HES in some of those other pieces of legislation, secondary legislation. Again, it would come through secondary legislation so that historic environment Scotland appears where HES used to appear. The changes that will happen will be simply in relation to the streamlining of processes in relation to applications that come from developers to councils. They will still consult what will now be historic environment Scotland. That process will still be the same and the advice can still be provided. However, one of the things that we are doing is that we are streamlining the process in such a way that it affects the listed building that we will not necessarily have to have the 28 days where there is a delay, which is actually one of the concerns that everybody has that there is a delayed period. We are also, because it is going to be a new body once a decision is made—again, it is really important that people understand that decisions are made by local authorities. The new body provides advice to the local authority. If there is an opportunity for an appeal in relation to listed buildings, the only difference now is that there is an appeal mechanism and then there is an opportunity to come to ministers in that case. We are streamlining the position. It should provide a bit more clarity as to the current position. By and large, it is still the planning authorities that make that decision. Most of the changes that are in here are related to the management of the historic aspects of the listed building or scheduled monument consent. That is the bits that are related to the bill. In terms of whether we are making considerable changes to the relationship, we are not. If anything, we are making it simpler. That is what local authorities are very pleased about, because we are potentially removing a 28-day delay, as people might see it, in some of the processes. We are streamlining it, just as we are trying to do that with other aspects, with the planning legislation. However, the bill is quite limited in relation to that. That is helpful. It seems to be the case that, where there are concerns, there are more about perhaps in an effort to explain the benefits of the merger. There is perhaps a risk of that being interpreted by someone that has become a one-stop shop for developers, but that is quite explicitly not the case. No, it is not. That still stands. Planning legislation is dealt with separately. Obviously, there has been a big consultation in terms of taking that forward. Thank you very much for that, Liam. Liam has opened up the issue of the historic environment Scotland's role. We have certainly had a number of organisations and individuals who have contacted us seeking clarity on what their role will be. I am interested in exactly where the dividing line is. It is perhaps a difficult question to answer. My understanding is that the delegated properties in care, the 345 properties that will be delegated to Scotland, will have direct responsibility for those. What other areas or properties will it have direct responsibility for, or is it just the 345? It is important to reinforce the position that ministers will still be responsible and own the properties that they own. Ministers will still have the agreement where it is a guardianship. For example, the relationship will be directly between ministers and the individuals who put the properties into care. We will then delegate, and that is why, if you look at the functions, it is part 3 of the bill in part 1. Part 1, section 3, talks about delegations. We will delegate functions. In terms of properties and who looks after them well, in reality, it will be the same people in the same places as the excellent school. I am sure that you met some of the historic Scotland shares when you were in Orkney. However, we will have a relationship with the new body in terms of formally setting out how they will manage those properties for us. Is that what you are? No, I am just trying to be clear about the direct responsibility that the HES will have in terms of the historic environment. Effectively, it will be the 345. Yes, but beyond that? Well, again, it is setting out the opportunities to... Some of the evidence that we got was... We had this last week, and we heard it in some of the written evidence, the idea that, effectively, Historic Environment Scotland will be responsible for about 8 per cent. Another 92 per cent will be responsible for other bodies. I am just trying to clarify exactly what their role is, because they will be the lead body. You have made a lot of the fact that they have the lead role. The vast majority of historic buildings are not in public ownership responsibility. They are in private ownership and private responsibility. However, that does not mean that Environment Scotland does not work with them. For example, we are in a city where... Yesterday, I was at the apprenticeship week launch, a great exhibition that, if you can get up to Andrew's Square, where the apprentice is working with traditional skills, across Scotland, 20 per cent of our buildings are what we would call historic buildings, as in pre-1920. In terms of the make-up of buildings across Scotland in Edinburgh, that is far greater. In certain cities, that is far greater. Our responsibility in terms of government is for the 345 properties in care in different shapes of form. That is why historic houses that you have heard from and private individual owners of pre-1920 properties have a number of charities of which NTS is the biggest one. Why we need to work collaboratively is that we are working with a huge range of different people. In terms of lead, they still have a responsibility to drive forward a lot of the improvements that are taking place. Things that are important are improvements in conservation, tackling climate change, and a lot of the issues around energy loss are in old buildings. In terms of skills, I would expect them to drive forward a lot of the skills agenda. Yesterday, I saw the innovations in relation to SASH and case windows for ordinary houses. They have to take a lead in a whole range of different areas, but they will have to work with everybody else, which reads me to the relationship between the bill and the strategy. Take skills as an example. I want them to be a key driver. That is in terms of my letter of guidance to them, in terms of what I expect to see in their corporate plan. Skills and traditional skills to help to maintain and indeed cover some of the conservation backlog and all the rest of it. I would want them to take a lead in, but they will have to work with other people in the area. That is why I am very pleased that Ken Calmer and I have had a number of meetings about the overall strategy and how we can pool our knowledge and experience in this area, so that we can across Scotland tackle it. Some of it will be for big properties such as Edinburgh Castle, Stirling Castle or Collaine Castle from NTS. In terms of the historic environment, it also means helping Edinburgh World Heritage Trust and individual house owners in relation to how they maintain their historic buildings. The canvas that they work on is broad. Never mind the tourism aspects and we have instigated the tourism opportunities. It is strong just to think about the historic environment simply in terms of managing the properties and care, vital and important as it is. It is almost like how they help in terms of developments and policy areas such as the health check that we have on buildings that we launch with construction skills. There is a huge amount of partners. If I may explain it in this way, the committee deals with education. By and large, you have local authorities quite clear in the responsibility of statutory and government and its responsibilities. Working in the culture and heritage sector, in terms of the statutory locus, a lot of what is quite set out in managing the building, the processes, the planning etc. A lot of what happens is done by people working together without necessarily having a directive from central government. It is important to set out the lead responsibility that we are saying is not just about the management and buildings of what is in their care, but how they help the sector to deliver what the sector needs to deliver. That is the number of issues that I think I am trying to clarify. How far does Hesse's duty go in terms of its duty to offer and promote leadership? Extend beyond into non-public sector bodies. You said yourself that we heard from the private house owners. I think that there is a question there that people who want to be clarified, so they are sure about where the areas of responsibility lie. Clearly, as has been stated in the Government's documents, Historic Environment Scotland's role is to investigate, care for and protect the historic environment, but is it all of the historic environment? We were effectively—it is a very difficult thing to define, but I understand the difficulties here. However, there is clearly a slight concern or people seeking an understanding of exactly the role of Historic Environment Scotland and how it fits into the picture of private ownership, other bodies, charitable organisations, and if Hesse's role has an overarching role, how does that fit into how it operates? If we start with the strategy, I will appoint a strategic board that will bring together historic environment interests. I am not in a position to tell you exactly who will be on it, but it will be key players across all the sector, whether it is local government, independent charities, private interests, et cetera. The idea is that collectively we will agree common goals that we need to take forward to deliver the strategy, which has had a warm welcome in terms of activity. Some of the areas that are not unreasonable you would expect to cover would be areas like skills, for example. It would be energy conservation issues, the factors that affect all of us, whether we are government or local government or private householder or work wherever. That will happen at that level. In relation to the body itself, a lot of the things that it will do will be exactly the same as our camps in Historic Scotland have already been doing. One of the key things that it does is provide grants, for example, and it will continue to do that. One of the things that is quite clear in terms of what I have tried to do as Government Secretary is to, despite the reduction in my overall spending, I have maintained a level of grant. One of the issues is how it will continue to do that, so that it will continue to give grants two different areas. It might evolve over time, but, by and large, that will continue as it functions. In terms of its statutory responsibilities, it will maintain some of it that is covered in other pieces of legislation. For example, the committee in a previous life scrutinised the historic environment amendment legislation, the bill that I took through, which allowed different things that the NHS could do in relation to, for example, where we intervene with our buildings, which are particularly dangerous or other facilities, giving powers to local authorities to maintain. Those things will still happen, but what we are doing is providing a better platform in relation to one body. The functions are set out. Our camps have been very pleased that, for the first time, their functions—or the areas that have been responsible for—are now set out in the bill. If we try to reassure that the maintenance and relationship of the historic environment will continue, it will provide a better platform to help the collaboration with all the different partners. If people are expecting it, it will be a new body, and that is what I am saying. It is bringing together a new body. A lot of the functions will be the inherited functions that already exist, but I think that we will be in a better place to collaborate with all the other different areas. We have now got to do that in the context of the strategy, which is the first time that we have ever had that. Cabinet Secretary, can I clarify something? Paragraph 88 in the policy memorandum says that Scottish ministers will be able to give directions to historic environment Scotland about the exercise of functions, but not on specific cases, objects or properties, presumably to ensure operational independence. In section 12.3 of the bill, it says that that does not apply where Scottish ministers have the delegated functions in relation to the properties and care, i.e. the 345 properties that you mentioned earlier. In a letter to the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee, the Scottish Government has confirmed that, at subsection 3, it makes clear that ministers may, by contrast, give directions in relation to what would be considered curatorial matters in relation to those properties in care and collections. Can we be absolutely clear about the powers that the Scottish Government actually has in relation to directing EGS, just as the convener is asking? I have already referred to section 3 being the point about the delegation of functions, and that is for the management of functions. The committee had looked at the National Library of Scotland when we were looking to make sure that there is no curatorial interference with exhibitions or how they manage the state. However, we have to have a check and balance on that side with the point that we still own, on behalf of the people of Scotland, the properties. Now, on giving examples, something happened at Stirling Castle, for example, where we had concerns about how it was being maintained because, again, we are responsible for it. We will have to have some kind of power to have a relationship with them to say that we have concerns about how Stirling Castle has been maintained. Can you look into this? Most of that would be dealt with by the letter of guidance, the corporate plan, and plans that it will produce on a year-to-year basis. Again, it is the checks and balances. I do not think that people would accept the situation where everything was transferred to Historic Environment Scotland, and ministers abdicated the responsibility completely from making sure that, in terms of the key, most of them will be the main properties that are being looked after properly. On the point that the convener raised about the extent to where you make the dividing line, are you confident that that is absolutely clear about where Scottish ministers have responsibility? Yes. Apart from anything else, politically, the committee and the indeed others, in terms of our interference, if they thought that we were interfering overly, would certainly come down with a ton of breaks as would the sector itself. There has to be that balance between not abdicating complete responsibility, but again, this committee will want to hold a meter account for the ownership and responsibility of a particular key science. However, we also have to make sure that I do not interfere and say, like Stirling Castle, that you will hold an exhibition on X at the time that I want you to make it, because that could be open and people might interpret that as being open to political interference, et cetera. That is not acceptable. I know that it was not acceptable under the National Library's Bill, and neither is it acceptable here. However, there has to be that relationship between the two things in relation to the delegation of functions, but also in relation to acknowledging that there will be an issue in terms of exercise 12, part 12, which sets out directions and guidance. Direction must be given in writing. We must publish directions given our guidance, and we cannot do anything quietly about this. This is going to be quite open up front, and I think that that is also the transparency of the thing that this bill is bringing, which means that both historic environment Scotland's actions will be more transparent and, indeed, Scottish Government's actions will be more transparent. I wonder if you could clarify in terms of the Scottish ministers intended to delegate management of properties to HES and the powers that ministers will have. Are there any historic properties that HES will manage that they may not be subject to ministerial direction or curatorial matters? I think that it will be in relation to some of the properties and care that are not under the ownership of the Scottish Government. That would be the area. I think that for all the properties and care that have been delegated, then that power of direction as an ultimate resort, as the cabinet secretary has described it, if things are going wrong, would apply. It would apply to the whole family, whether they are not their own or whether they are not covered by guardianship agreement, because the ultimate responsibility for the whole set of properties is to rest with ministers, so that HES is back to the ministers, making sure that things are done properly in generic terms while not interfering in the day-to-day running decisions. It is very unlikely that we would say anything about an individual property. It would tend to be more in each year in letter guidance the issues to do with a general category. In your correspondence with the committee, you have said that you are going to lay an order under section 3, subsection 3, to add historic environment Scotland to the list of public bodies after stage 1. Why are you doing this after stage 1 and not after stage 3, when the Parliament has gone through the whole process? More so that we can move swiftly and efficiently. It is not too dissimilar to what we have done elsewhere. Obviously, the will of Parliament has to be respected. If it is stage 3, the Parliament said that we do not want this bill, we would have to stop on our tracks. However, having gone through a number of mergers over the six years of my responsibilities as a minister, one of the things that I have absolutely always made clear is to make sure that you get the pensions correct of staff, if you are changing bodies or some of the practicalities, particularly that affect staff. I am very keen that we can refer the references that were made to other pieces of legislation, because the historic environment Scotland, as a body, does not exist in reference to other parts of legislation. We need to move quite quickly to make sure that it can then be inserted into the relevant piece of legislation, whether it is for strategic environment, etc. However, on the pension side, I am very clean that we move forward. That is what section 3, in relation to the order, allows us to try to move to make sure that we have everything in all our ducks in a row ready for when the body takes power and responsibility formally, which we think will be around about October 2015. Good morning, cabinet secretary. There has been much talk during the evidence sessions on defining the historic environment. The actual definition is not on the bill, but it is part of the strategy. In your opinion, cabinet secretary, is the strategy robust enough for everyone to know exactly what we are talking about here? That is why the importance of the strategic document is the one that everybody has brought together in terms of what they are all signed up to and what they are all supporting. It has been quite a remarkable process in bringing everyone together in that collaboration. Indeed, it was a subject of quite a lot of debate for the preparation of this. Again, when we had the parliamentary debate in the chamber here, again, that was something that was raised as part of that debate. The key feedback was from the sectors. They wanted it in the strategy and they wanted it to be fairly straightforward and fairly simple, rather than complex. That was the feedback that we had, and that is what we responded to. I think that there are limitations if you put things in legislation. The historic environment is not just a bill for setting up the body. The actual wider sector comes back to the convener's point about the responsibility for being wider in terms of the wider historic environment. It is the wider sector that has agreed the strategy and the content and the definition that is in that. I think that there is a danger that things can change. I think that one of the big debates for having, again, Rob Gibson raised it during the parliamentary debate, was intangible culture. This is where it was, perhaps, apart from the rest of the UK. The Westminster Government is not wanting to sign up to UNESCO's statements on intangible heritage. I think that intangible heritage is a big part of our heritage. It is not just the physical places, it is the stories that go with that, it is the dance, it is the music, et cetera. I think that we will probably see these issues evolve over time. I think that the flexibility that we have in the strategy is where people expect to see it, and that is where it is. I was interested in looking at some of the evidence about what SNH has done, but I looked at what SNH has done. There does not set out the boundaries. All it does is say that it can include. It is one by inclusive, so you can load things in. It does not help the boundaries of where else you work. Again, I really want to reinforce that what this allows us to do with the bill, but most important with strategy, is working with local authorities, working with other bodies in the sector. That is where the boundaries come from. It is collaboration, because things are, public finances are pressed. There are big challenges, whether it is climate change or other things, and we cannot do this by one body alone. We are going to have to work collectively. I think that trying not to be too prescriptive about that in a bill would be helpful, because we would end up having to probably review that. I said that I am not convinced by having one that includes everything, but it does not exclude anything that is going to be helpful. I think that that was one of the things that came up on our trip to Orkney, which was the fact that all the groups working together, particularly because of the geography involved in Orkney, but it is something that we definitely need more groups in other areas of the country. More on the tangible side, if I have got this correct, then correct me from wrong, Cabinet Secretary. If we have not got the definition because it is fluid, it is constantly changing, a perfect example of it would be when I was a youngster, going on a run to larchs, I have dragged through Greenock and I would see hundreds of cranes, but then, the minute the yards were away, they were not part of the historic environment, but yet in Glasgow, we have still got a finisyn, we have got the crane at Finisyn, there is one crane left, it is part of the environment, the industrial heritage. That was not regarded as part of our historic environment possibly about 30 years ago, but now it is something that we are looking about, my own constituency, old mill buildings and things like that as well, parts of the industrial heritage that we have. Is that not just an example of why you do not have the definition because it is pretty fluid? Yes, the answer is yes. I have been very keen to support our industrial heritage, but of course a lot of the industrial heritage currently, and I think that it is a way forward, is managed by our museums. One of the things that I have done is bring together the industrial museums together. They have a federal model, I worked with Henry Clish on setting that up. They now get direct funding from the Scottish Government, which is why we have invested hugely in the National Wining Museum. For those of you who are in the Scottish Maritime Museum, the Scottish Maritime Museum now has a roof that is there on a… It does have a roof before, but it is letting water. Sam Gilbray said to me, he is the chair, he said that he never thought that he would see the repairs done during the Government in the time that we did it, and we did it. It is allowed to have a year-long exhibitions and events and different things. If we were then to start to include industrial heritage in this, the museums, understandably, would have concerns, and that is where the boundaries are. It is better that we work in co-operation. What is better in co-operation is saying, okay, let's look at Irvine or other areas, saying what is in that locality, work with North Ayrshire Council and look at all the different historic buildings that are there and collaborate in terms of promoting the tourism aspect. Within that area, you will probably find different either historic Scotland or national trust or others as well as industrial heritage, but I think that your point about the fluidity is well made. The important thing is that we just get on and do it, and that is what I am very enthused about. I did sales it in my opening remarks. I am excited about what we can do, and there is a real energy about the sector in taking this forward. Just following that up, in relation to the definition—I mean, it talks about Scotland's historic environment as the physical evidence for human activity that connects people with place, linked with the associations, we can see, feel and understand, which is fairly broad, would encompass what George Adam was talking about, would encompass the war-time history of my constituency, which is increasing in terms of relevance and importance. I think that the point that has been made to us by some of those who were giving evidence, and I think that there was a mixed picture in terms of the views, was that, whereas with the establishment of SNH, there was a definition of natural heritage. I mean, it was broad, it was inclusive, it did not necessarily exclude, but in a sense, it gave it a position that, if we were not to adopt a similar approach in terms of the historic environment, would create an imbalance between the standing of the two in legal terms. That was the point that was being made to us. I am struggling to see from the explanation you have given why adopting a similar approach to the one for SNH, you could not do the same in terms of the historic environment without running into any particular problems legally or whatever. I have always taken the view that, if you do not need to put something in legislation, you should not. You should not just do it as a window dressing from that perspective. Even if you look at your own written evidence and indeed what we have had from the stakeholders, there has not been any big demand of us as a Government that this should be in the bill, and we would have picked that up in the consultation for the bill on our discussions. It has not been a burning issue for people that this needs to be there. They are more interested in taking the strategy forward. Indeed, some of the evidence that I have read and the feedback that we have had is that it is better to have it in the strategy, because you can work with that. If it is in the bill and things change, you then start doing that, what will happen? If we were to put this in the bill at stage 2, you will have everything. Why is my not bit in it for stage 3? You will end up having a definition that will be broad and extensive, and you will end up alienating people who say that they will hang on my part of the definition that is not there. We have gone through that, because that is exactly what we did in developing the definition that we had, because we started with something that was broader and was more encompassing and more inclusive, a bit like SNH, and the feedback from the sectors knows that that is not what we want. In fairness, although it was not a view shared across those who gave us evidence, there were a number of witnesses who did feel quite strongly about it now. Whether or not you put it on the face of the bill, the primary legislation, and whether you find another mechanism for enshrining this in a similar way to the way in which natural environment was enshrined in the establishment of SNH, that would be, I think, an open question. The point, I think, was validly made that if you were to compare the position of natural environment as compared to historic environment, there does seem to be an imbalance in the way that they are treated under law. I do not think that it stops people doing their job, and I think that that is the most important thing that is getting on and doing the work. I do not think that it would add anything being in the bill. I am not sure what it would actually add being in the bill, and the bill is not actually about legislation for the wider historic environment. The bill is just about setting up a new body and just about setting up the historic environment in Scotland and bringing together the two organisations and setting out some, as it says on the long title of the bill, to make minor amendments to the law relating to the historic environment. This is not about defining the historic environment. Most of that is done, as I said, in terms of the activity by other pieces of legislation. This is actually about setting up an organisation, and I accept the views that were given to us during the strategy that they did not want it in the bill. If they wanted it in the bill, it would have been in the bill from the start, but that is why it is in the strategy. I will leave it there. There is a difference of opinion, and that was expressed to us in Orkney during our visit as well, so there is not a unanimity of view on that. The balance of it overlies on one side, but I agree with you that there are different ways in which you can approach this, and that is why we looked at what I said that you have done, but I do not think that it adds to the function of the organisation to which the bill refers to. Both the NTS and the Historic Houses Association Scotland have calculated that their combined repair backlog totals around £103 million. The NTS has expressed concern about the Scottish Government's intention to transfer management responsibility of the properties and care to HGS, saying that it is not clear who will be responsible for any associated repairs. I wonder if you would like to comment on that and tell us this morning who will be responsible for carrying out repairs to the properties and care when HGS assumes management responsibility for them. What is the estimated cost of the repair backlog? In terms of referring to previous answers, the Scottish ministers will be responsible for the properties, but we will delegate the functions to Scotland. As you realise, I will not personally be responsible for the repair maintenance of them all. However, in terms of the responsibility to make sure that we have adequate funds to do that, that would still remain with us, and we would then provide in our letter of grant what we provided to the bodies. You make a very good point about the importance of our heritage environment and the conservation that is required and the maintenance. It is a large amount, and we are in the process of putting that together. A lot of that depends on the baselines as to what you expect it to be, as to work out what has to be done. You can do things in either a very quick way, about quick maintenance, so you can make sure that you are really going into conservation that stands a longer period of time, so we are trying to work out the baselines. One of the areas that I am keen for is the strategic board that I am putting together that brings NTS and others to look at how we, as the whole sector, look at what is required. Some of the methodology that NTS has done in carrying out its audit is that we are looking at that to apply to HS. HS is looking at how we quantify that. It is a big task. I would hope that the committee would support me in any budget discussions going forward. If we want a strong tourism sector, we need to make sure that our properties are open and able to be visited, and that means that investment in the historic environment in terms of capital is really, really important. That is not just a one-spending review commitment, that is a long-term area. It is a big problem. I cannot give you a figure just now, and I think that it would be wrong for me to do so. It is a substantial amount, but I think that it would be wrong for me to give you a figure at this stage. It has never been done by the previous Labour, Liberal Democrat Administration, to look at the historic backlog of what was there. It has never been done before, so if you can give me some grace to put that together. We think that it is a big task, but we want to get it right. We want to then be able to, if you do not know what the issues are, how can you take that going forward. We know on a standing basis what is required in terms of repair and maintenance, but what we are talking about and what NTS is talking about is in terms of the long-term aspects that you have been up at Orkney. If I were to say, the seawall in terms of some of the properties up there, the expense of that is millions. I am sure that you have got the extent of that, and even if we did that, there is a real risk there. Some of those costs are not. You can do mitigation. I was at the Wien's Caves, for example, in Fife. You can do mitigation work if you wanted there, but we know from what is happening in terms of sea levels that it really is vulnerable, so trying to quantify what that means in terms of cash investment is a real challenge. It will be a significant amount of money. I am absolutely aware of that, but it is a task that has not been done up to date, but I have tasked them to do that. I think that it is a good collaborative model working with other organisations, and NTS has just done that recently. Is there a timescale for that work to be done? Is it a priority for the new organisation? How long will that take? It is a work in progress. I have already seen the early indications of the work that they have, but I would rather that they did it correctly, because all that would happen is that if we came up with a figure, we would have to come back and readjust it. It is significant, but we have to tackle it. Just because it is big and difficult does not mean that we do not start it, and that is why we are trying to make sure that we can understand and then we can then prioritise where that investment might go in the future. It is one of the things that we know that for the new body coming into being, they will need to know where they are going to be. It knows this in the cases that we are trying to aim for at April 2015, so that they know what they are coming into the new board and the new body, but we will update the committee as we go on, because it is clearly an area of interest. Can I just ask you about the steps that the Scottish Government has taken to ensure that the properties and care can legally be delegated to HES in the manner proposed? I know that it has been spoken about this morning, but could you just take us through the steps and whether you think that they are robust enough and that they will be able to withstand any challenge that might be brought forward? We have set out in primary legislation what the delegated functions will be. That is what is in the legislation here, but bearing in mind in terms of our responsibilities, remember that in terms of the relationship between ourselves and our guardians, that relationship will still stand up with the Scottish ministers. Obviously, the ownership of those that are within the Scottish ministers' responsibility will still maintain as being in the ownership of the Scottish ministers. I want to ask a very brief question that came up quite a lot in Orkney. The organisations that we met seem to have quite a concern that the bill will lead to more central control compared to the decision-making and the good relationships that they have with the council, etc. At the moment, can you understand that concern? Is it a real concern, or can you perhaps give some comfort to them that it should not be a concern? It certainly should not be a concern. It is not a function of this bill to do that. In fact, a lot of the operations of Historic Scotland, in particular, are very much decentralised. Also, in relation to the different regions that they have in terms of that, there is no reason why that should not continue. Indeed, in relation to the responsibilities in the bill that the bill talks about working in partnership, you can only do that if you do that on a locality basis. Again, referring to the question from Claire Addison about the relationship with local authorities, that is actually going to be strengthened by this, because if you are looking at a place—I have used this example before—Stirling is a very good example where you have the Welsh monument that is in the Stirling Council control, you have NTS with Bannockburner and you have the Scottish Government Historic Scotland with the Stirling Castle. The sensible thing in what is happening there is the collaboration to make sure that they promote the place, even though the responsibilities and the ownership are lying in different hands. Therefore, the place making agenda is very important to the Government, the town centre regeneration. You can only do that with local decision making about those different areas. With the strategy, moreover, that is probably going to take that further forward, but that is an internal management issue for Historic Scotland. I suggest that, when they have the corporate plan, it is something that I would like to see surfaced and quite evident in that to give the reassurance that you are looking for, Mary. I apologise for throwing that one in. I know that you want to move on to it, but I know that Liam was very interested in this particular area, so if you do not want to ask him to do a supplementary on it before I come back to you. Thank you, convener. I listened with interest to the response. Mary Scanlon is obviously right, it was a concern that came through very strongly in Orkney. I can understand why framing this in the bill may be difficult and the corporate plan may be a more appropriate place to look at this, but I think what was being suggested was that organisationally, in order to give effect to the collaborative approach and the importance of place and all the rest of it, there was a need for the new organisation, not simply to kind of retrench to Edinburgh, as it were, and that what you would get is a more regionalised model, if you like, within HES. There have been examples, I think, pointed to in other public bodies and NDPBs, but is that something where you think there may be a route through the bill at least to signal in terms of the corporate plan what might be expected? I am not sure if it is appropriate to be in the bill. I think that the internal management of Historic Scotland, whether the Historic Environment of Scotland does it, will not be any different. I do not see any major difference in how it would approach its business in relation to place. Remember that all those 345 properties are dispersed all over the country, so to do their business they have to physically be in the different places. In fact, a considerable number of them are in our Gailm Bute, for example, in terms of the proportion in relation to elsewhere in Scotland. There are central functions that are in for both ARCAMS and Historic Scotland that are here in Edinburgh. We would probably remain in Edinburgh, however, in terms of carrying out their functions and collaborations, we would expect that. Actually, in terms of even the people that are located in Edinburgh, a lot of them spend about a time not in Edinburgh because they are visiting the different places that they have to work with. I think that the corporate plan is the right place to do that. I think that my ministerial direction to them in terms of my ministerial letter of guidance, sorry, would be the right place to put that. However, I do not think that having a marriage body and a newly-lead body should affect that issue. Obviously, it is an organisation already, probably most of the many others. There is a face of the organisation in most parts of the country, and that was certainly reflected from the evidence that we heard in Orkney. I think that the fear is that in an organisation that will be under some budgetary pressure in pulling together the organisation, that there may be pressure to restrench positions more centrally. I think what people were looking for was a degree of comfort. It is not so much just that people are present in a location, but they have decision-making functions that they do not necessarily always have to be passing up the line decisions about what is done in a particular local area or particular region. Again, as I say, I appreciate that putting that on the face of the bill may be problematic, but I think through the course of this bill process, what they are looking for is a degree of reassurance that that will not happen and that through the letter of guidance and through the corporate plan, your expectation would be something very different. I very much appreciate the comments both from Reyes Gallan and Lee McCartney in this area. I am sure that that might be reflected in what you say as a committee, and certainly I hear what you are saying in response to that, so that is something that we can respond to. We do not think of the appropriate way to do that, but I am sure that it is an issue that we can perhaps also raise when we discuss your report in stage 1. You have read the evidence from Historic Houses Association and the National Trust. There was a real concern of the potential for tension with historic environment being an owner of significant heritage assets, a tourist operator and a regulator, and they are also responsible for awarding taxpayer-funded grants for the sector, and at the same time they are in competition with the sector. Do you understand the concerns of the National Trust and Historic Houses, and what can be done about that? Yes, I understand them. I think that they are genuine points of concern. In my several discussions with Sir Ken Kalman, the chair of NTS, I have discussed those points. That is why we have made clear in the policy memorandum the areas of transparency. There is quite a lot in this, convener. I will try to work my way through this important area. The schedule of monument consent in particular would be regulating as well as in their own position. The new body will not have crown immunity, so it will be subject to the same schedule of monument consent processes as elsewhere. What people probably are not aware of is that there already is within Historic Scotland a system of schedule of monument consent process. It is called schedule of monument clearance. There is a schedule of monument clearance process just now, even before the new body, whereas internally they are regulated in terms of what they have to do in relation to particular areas. Some very good examples. Recently, the Scottish National War Memorial in Edinburgh Castle, there was a request from the HHS conservation director to do new plans to put in a new reflection space. That was looked at internally by the regulatory arm and he said, no, that is not where we want you to put this, because we have concerns about it and it was relocated. Similarly with Sterling Castle in the visitor centre, the internal process picked up exactly the same as it would for anybody else in terms of the schedule of monument process. One of the things that we have done specifically to address concerns is that somehow they would not be treating themselves the same as everybody else. I say that they already are, even though they do not have to. There is a voluntary process, but in order to make sure that it is absolutely clear that the regulatory function Office Scotland will apply the same functions to those applications coming from another part of the body, as they are from MDE externally, we have made it quite clear that the decisions will, for the first time, be made public. There will be a transparency, so you can then see if there is a difference in terms of decision making. In terms of your other areas' grant making, it is an important area. Currently, we do not provide capital to HHS. It is only in relation to when the minister, for example, has 5 million to Bannockburn, to National Trust for Scotland, to Cambridge, to Historic Scotland. The funding that is provided is through revenue, and it is provided via what we provide currently to Historic Scotland. That will continue, but we have also made it quite clear in the policy memorandum that Historic Environment Scotland will not be able to provide grants to itself. The funding will come from the overall funding that we provide. The corporate plan will make it quite clear where the funding is going, and who it is going to. Should, at some point in the future, it decides to become a charity, the level of transparency then for spending will make its expenditure even more transparent. In terms of sustainability, despite the really difficult period that we have gone through, as you understand, from the Westminster block grant and the pressures on us, I have maintained the level of grant. I have said explicitly to Historic Scotland that the front level, the grants that go out, go to small businesses, do work in town centres, etc. To other bodies, that must be maintained. We have managed to maintain that level. I would be able to do that in terms of the new body of Historic Environment Scotland. I would be able to do that by my letter of guidance or again what I would expect from the corporate plan. I would make it quite explicit that I would expect you to. I cannot tell them which buildings, going back to the point about not being able to direct them to, you will spend X amount on Erkut Castle, etc. What I can say is that I would expect the level of grant to go out to other bodies to be maintained at the level of. I can do it in the generality. I think that I am almost more confused than I was at the start. We heard last week that Historic Scotland's budget has gone down from £51 million to £37 million. If I heard you correctly, you said that Historic Environment Scotland will not be responsible for allocating to what is within their own portfolio. I think that I am not the only one who is misunderstanding this. If Historic houses have got 103 million backlog, that is not even looking at the needs of the national trust and various others. I am sorry, I am just not quite understanding this. The budget has already fallen. Before you joined the committee, the committee has spent a lot of time looking at the budgets for Historic Scotland and others. The overall amount of money that Historic Scotland has been able to spend on itself has maintained over the period. However, the balance has shifted. As part of our reductions elsewhere, we have reduced the overall funding that went to Historic Scotland. They have managed to, through a whole variety of different programmes of efficiencies, without compulsory redundancies, reduce the expense that they have as an organisation. However, one of the things that I managed to do and asked them to do was to maintain the grants that went to other third parties. The third party investment went to MTS, for example. The MTS between Historic Scotland and other Government bodies received more than £1 million last year from the Scottish Government. However, what we have managed to do is to maintain the level of grants that were front facing that went to other organisations big and small. What they then have to do is, the new body will do exactly the same as the current body, and they will then manage their own estate by whatever is remaining in terms of the funding from central Government. However, they can supplement that with income that they generate from their visitor activities. For example, they have done extremely well and increased their funding from those sources by 40 per cent over the past period. It meant that, when I came to the committee to give evidence on the budget, although there was concern about the overall Government reduction to Historic Scotland, we knew that they could maintain their activity both internally for their own properties and in terms of what they give to other third parties because their overall income had been in a strong position over that period. In relation to Historic Scotland's overall income, that has now, in 2013-14, for example, its overall expenditure was actually higher than the 2009-10 period, despite the fact that the issue that the Government received had varied. In 2010, its grants to third parties, Historic Houses Association members or NTS or, indeed, some of their town centre regeneration cars funding, were, in 2009-10, their Historic Scotland expenditure and grants was £15.5 million in 2013-14. It was £15 million, so we have managed to maintain the level of funding for that. I am protecting the third party investment to Historic Houses and to NTS. I am doing that under the current arrangement. The way that I would do that under the new arrangement is that I would do that by my letter of guidance to them in relation to what I expect their overall grants to be spent on, and that is how it is about sustainability. Does it tackle the overall conservation investment that we have to have? I would have to have significant increases in my funding for my portfolio to do that, but I am sure that the support of the committee can make that case, because it is not just about buildings, it is about the places, it is about the tourism, it is about the economic sense and we cannot have that disrepair continuing, but it is a big challenge. It is not easy, and I am sure that when you went to Orden and you realised some of the challenges are sometimes insurmountable, but we need to do what we can. I am happy to take more, because I know that this is a big question. Given that we have talked about the previous budget reductions, it is likely that Historic Environment Scotland will seek funding from sources other than the Scottish Government. That has the potential to squeeze out other bodies. Is it also feasible that Historic Environment Scotland could be offered a donation that may have gone to another body? Would Historic Environment Scotland be expected to refuse a donation in the wider interests? Those are the potential conflicts that have been raised with us. Under the current arrangements, Historic Scotland received donations from members or from people who want to donate. Are they likely to encroach on territory that the National Trust, Historic Houses and others are getting money from? I have said over the period that the income level has maintained. We are seeing the budget reductions not in terms of their overall income levels. They have had a fantastic Easter, for example, which will help to boost resources. However, as part of our pursuit of this, we have to work within the envelope that we have. In terms of the income levels from Historic Scotland, they have managed for their overall expenditure to maintain their position. You are suggesting that, in the future, they would continue budget reductions. I am hopeful that the overall economic position would improve. I am hopeful that, in the next few years, the economic place Scotland for reductions will continue. You are assuming that that is going to continue now? No, I did not say that. Sorry, I thought that that was interesting. In terms of going forward, if we are trying to, as much as possible, maintain the status quo in terms of their overall facility to spend resources, I think that the number one question is whether they are going to be in competition and whether they are going to be in terms of the territory. They already are, to an extent, both for income and visitors. However, if we see that simply in terms of an internal competition for a limited resource, that is the wrong way to look at it. The whole point of the strategy is that we need to grow the sector as a whole in terms of tourism and income from different areas. Because Historic Scotland will be charged as a lead body, it should not be doing anything that would cause MDLs any difficulty, because then they would not be carrying out the functions of being a lead body working in collaboration. The already, for example, heritage lottery, Stirling Castle received a significant amount of funding through heritage lottery, is not a displacement, of course, because that should always be for additional resources and additional projects. In terms of where they go, they are doing very well on growing their income. I would like to see growth in the income coming to all properties in the historic environment from growth in visitors, growth in the economic tourism areas, and that is where the income will come from. In terms of trying to be predestry, I do not think that there is any expectation by my part or indeed by the new body that that is giving them new opportunities to try to displace funding. I think that the idea is to try and grow the funding rather than to displace it from any one particular source. I think that it is wrong. I think that that is quite interesting. I cannot remember if it is the historic houses themselves that said that that already exists in terms of getting donations from people or visitors. What we want is to have a healthy competitive situation that people can work in collaboration to say that if you are coming to Stirling, or you are coming to Orkney, go and see all the different cross-ticketing or cross-promotion, that is the big prize in growing the sector. However, I think that to say somehow that they would be trying to take other people's donations is the wrong way to look at it. It is certainly not my expectations and what I would expect. Indeed, my letter of guidance that I will set out for them is the importance of working together in collaboration with other people. Gordon MacDonald? Before I go on to my other questions, I have a bit of clarification. Can you confirm that over the past three years to March 2013 that cumulatively both Historic Scotland and Arkham have actually operated at a surplus? Your comments about the balance between more commercial revenue against Government funding would be correct that they have been able to maintain their activities? Yes, they have been able to maintain their activities from the resources that we have provided. I just want to put on record that they have actually generated a surplus over the three-year period. Regarding my own questions, we have talked, you have said about Mary Scanlon's questions, a concern about displaced funding if the new body was to get charitable status. Certainly, we have had a range of views about it. National Trust for Scotland was obviously concerned about charitable donations. However, the Association of Certified Fuelled Archaeologists said that the prospect of unpicking the charitable status that already applies to elements of the proposed organisation appears to be nonsensical, is their comment. I know that it is a decision for the new Historic Environment Scotland to decide whether it would apply for charitable status or not. However, do you see any financial benefits for any new organisation going down the charitable status route that would not have any impact on other bodies' income? The answer to the last point is yes. I think that that is probably where Mary Scanlon was getting at. I will try to cover that point as well as whether having a charitable status would have an impact, which is different from the establishment of the organisation itself. The bill is set in a way that, should the new body wish to apply for charitable status, I think that the evidence from—it was quite important—the body quoted archaeology in particular because, particularly in the Arkham size, that has been a big issue for them in being able to have opportunities to have charitable status. If you look at the financial memorandum, I was quite clear in terms of the ability of this new organisation to carry out its duties and functions. I will reiterate that the reason for doing this is so that it can sustain its functions going forward. Whether or not the new body either applied for or received charitable status, it could function with the resources that it has going forward. Obviously, anything in terms of a charitable income would be a bonus. Most of that would come from rates relief, for example. That is what the new body would be able to apply for in a way that they cannot. Currently, that has no implication for other organisations in that area. Most of the activity in terms of the area would be in relation to things that would not have an impact on other organisations in their operations. Again, that is set out in the financial memorandum. There is not in the financial memorandum a large section saying that we can only do that if we receive x-amount in terms of charitable donations. The current existence has charitable donations already. We have donations coming in in terms of being able to apply that in a charitable way, and that would be helpful. In terms of gifted donations, we have over 10 years—this is a 10-year period. If you look at the financial memorandum, it refers to £300,000, which over the period is £3 million. I hardly think that that is going to threaten NTS, because it has already received charitable donations in Scotland. That is what is budgeted in the financial memorandum. One of NTS's other concerns was about the number of staff that are involved in fundraising and commercial activities. If you were in a position to clarify what the proportion of staff would be that would be involved in commercial activities and tourism of the combined body, and in producing the outline business case, was there any suggestion that that number of staff would need to increase that proportion of staff that are working in commercial and tourism areas would need to be increased in the new body? I do not have the figures to hand as to how the current distribution of who is in what, unless somebody or my officials can find it for me in relation to how many are employed in the different areas, but I can certainly come back to the convener with that in writing. There was not anything that said going forward that in terms of the business plan going forward, in terms of operation, we are taking the current situation of Historic Scotland and rolling it forward. Bearing in mind my answer to how have the Historic Scotland in particular coped with some of the grant reductions from the Scottish Government, there has been a reduction in staff, but it is done not by compulsory redundancies, we have managed to maintain the public sector position of no compulsory redundancies, but most of the changes that have taken place have already taken place before we got to setting out in the bill. In terms of looking at the financial memorandum and going forward, it already incorporates what the changes that have happened to date. There is no modelling that says that in order to realise this financial stability security going forward, we will automatically have to increase our income from visitors and events by x per cent. That is not part of what is in the financial memorandum. If it was, it would be explicit. Thank you. Thank you. Liam McAffa. Following up on that point that Gordon MacDonald just raised, there has been a period of change within both organisations leading up to the merger. I suppose the concerns that were being raised with us was that that income generation is likely to be more of a priority even than it has been in the past, whether it is in terms of growing the cake overall through collaborative action or whether it is allowing HES to fund other aspects that today have been difficult to fund. Therefore, I suppose what those who have raised the concern have highlighted to us is what the implications of that are for the regulatory dimension of what HES will continue to be responsible for and whether it is likely to apply pressure to their ability to carry out those functions in an efficient way. I have already answered in relation to the schedule monument consent aspects that there already is a process clearance already, but it will become more explicit and transparent and decisions will be published, so that will again be more in terms of there will be no compromise in relation to that. In fact, if anything, it will be more open as to what those decisions are. There are certain assumptions in your first sentence when you said that there will be more of a priority for income generation for the new body. That is not a result of this bill. If there is more of a priority, it would be the same pressures that are on NTS and historic houses because we know that they will need to have constant investment in the sector. That is not a result of the bill. That is the real politic of what they have to deal with. Those bodies do not have a regulatory function at the same time. If the income generation aspect of what HES is involved in grows and requires additional staffing to help support that and promote it further, the proportion between those involved in that work and those involved in the regulatory functions may well change. The proportions will not necessarily tell you whether there is an adequate resource there to discharge the regulatory functions as we would expect. That comes back to the point about where is ministerial responsibility in Susie. That would be an area that I would take a very keen and active interest in. Again, that would be subject to looking at the corporate plan and looking at my letter of guidance, my relationship with them. I am accountable to you in relation to that. If there was any kind of movement that we were not satisfied in relation to regulation, absolutely we would, in terms of my ministerial responsibility, be very concerned about that. I do not anticipate that. The impetus for that does not come from this bill. That would still be the same pressures that would be on Historic Scotland now, if we did not have the bill. What you are asking would still be a pressure on Historic Scotland even if we did not go ahead with the bill. Although it is an important argument for the wider historic environment agenda, it is not affected by what is in this bill and those internal pressures between balancing regulation and other tourist attraction visitor. That tension would still exist even if we did not go ahead with that bill. With the bill, it would be more explicit in fact what the regulatory function is and the decision making etc. There would be more transparency than there currently is. The other area to look at is also in relation to designation and regulation, which we have not touched on. What it does is to make sure that, if anything happens in that area, not only will we be transparent about it, the appeal mechanism to ministers in relation to those areas will also provide an opportunity for us to be quite clear about what we expect. On the evidence session on 18 March, Diana Murray, in response to a question to Jane Baxter, who asked her about who was ultimately responsible and accountable for successful delivery of the strategy, said that it is difficult to see because we do not have the new body operating, but I imagine that the intention is that there will be a partnership between the new body that will deliver the strategy and enable the partnerships of all the people in the sector. There are many, and of course the Government will work in collaboration. On page 3031 of the strategy document, it says that there will be a three-tier delivery model to deliver the strategy. Could you tell us exactly where accountability lies in the strategy? In relation to—this committee session is about the bill, so it is obviously in context what is happening with the overall strategy. Your question is about the overall strategy. Ultimately, the Government will drive forward that strategy. We will establish—I have set out—a strategic board that will have not just obviously the chair of Historic Environment Scotland, which we are establishing in this bill and which we are scrutinising today. It will also include many key people from the independent sectors and charities, etc. The idea of the strategy is a collective one across the sector. The strategic board for the strategy will be all-encompassing. Within that, the members—for example, NTS and others—have their own internal governance arrangements, and they will continue because they are independent organisations, as are Historic Houses Association, etc. For the purposes of the bill and the organisation, the bill should go forward. We will then establish a board for Historic Environment Scotland that will have a chair. The Government ministers will appoint the chair and the board, and they will drive forward Historic Environment Scotland. The bill sets out its role and functions, and the role and functions of the new body of Historic Environment Scotland is set out in the bill itself, all of which will contribute to the wider Scotland-wide, if you want to call it, first-ever historic environment strategy. Can I just ask on that point in respect of the functions within the bill? If the new body, the board, had a difference of opinion about the overall direction of the strategy, given the directions that are set out in the bill, who has the ultimate say in what that strategy will be? If there was a difference of opinion, I am sure that we would have robust discussion with the All Scotland strategy board. What we have managed to achieve is the consensus of the way forward, the priorities that we have to take forward, and that is what gives us the blueprint for going forward. If there were differences of opinion, I would have those discussions with the chair and the board of Historic Environment Scotland, but I would expect, in their corporate plan, that they would be supportive—I would expect them to be supportive of the strategy. If there was a difference of opinion, as there are with other sectors, whether it is the natural environment or the Scottish Enterprise or whatever, the normal relationships between an NDPB and a Government would pertain in terms of how you resolve what they are. If there are genuine concerns that have a big bearing on the strategy, then we would try to influence other members who might want to change the strategy. On the basis that we have delivered it and we have got consensus over it, I expect for the foreseeable future that the board of Historic Environment Scotland will be delivering the strategy as set out. I am sure that, in the vast majority of cases, there probably would be agreement, but in a circumstance where there was some difference of opinion about the overall direction, is it the Scottish Government that has the final say on what that direction should be? Yes, it would be. Are you comfortable that the charitable status of any of the bodies that were represented on the board would be absolutely clear in that circumstance? That is where it comes back to what we need to do in relation to the charitable status and ministerial powers of direction, because it is the overall strategy. It is not about specifics. Clearly, ministerial directions are about specifics, whether it is to do with collections, whether it is to do with the management of their activities, what we cannot have in terms of charitable status. The disapplication of the charity's investment legislation will take place should the new body wishes to apply for charitable status. I do not know whether the board will be up for them to decide, but the process of doing it would be in a similar situation as the other bodies that the disapplication has applied in the charity's legislation. We have had discussions with Oscar. He cannot make a judgment until such an application takes place, but we are very conscious of the points that he is making to make sure that what we do in the bill would not compromise the new body should it apply for as well as we can when we cannot prejudge what Oscar will say or do, but we can have discussions with him and make sure that they are cited in what we are doing, and that is exactly what we have done. We have drafted the legislation in such a way that it should not be compromised by any decision that Oscar could take in the future, but it is a very good point that he raised. Just one final point of clarification. Kate Maver of the National Trust said, if we are to set objectives and outcomes as in relation to the governing board and expect people to be accountable for them, we need to make sure that the funds are available to enable the delivery of those outcomes. It is not yet clear where that money will come from or how it will be distributed. Could you comment on that? In terms of the grant giving, we would expect that to continue rolling forward. I have mentioned that NTS has been a recipient of a significant amount of grants over recent years. In relation to the big picture of, say, for example, skills, we are already investing a lot—again, I will do my pitch for, please go to Andrew Square and see the young apprentices up there doing their work. We have already tried to marshal resources into skills with the apprentices through Historic Scotland and the wider Scottish Government in this area. We are already investing in the engine shed in Stirling in terms of looking at the conservation skills there, rather than just being something that Historic Scotland has done. We would like to work with other bodies such as NTS and say, how do we do that for the whole sector? Is it clear where the resources will come from? A lot of it will have to come from what we are doing already, but if we set out what we need to do to deliver the strategy in terms of what does that mean for skills, what does that mean for different areas? It allows us to quantify what it is that needs to do and then obviously bid for resources to make that happen. Some of it will come from the increased tourist activity that we are seeing across the piece, but some of it will have to come from a nation that is absolutely understanding that, if it wants to have a built heritage going forward that is accessible that people can visit and is there for future generations, there will need to be investment in that sector going forward. I am sure that that is an issue that we will come back to from the area. NTS is quite right to say that there are big challenges here and I absolutely agree with them. Rather than people trying to tackle that in isolation, what we are trying to do with the strategy is to bring everyone together because there are strengths across the sector and we can take responsibility from it. Everybody has to work on that, but we have managed to provide a good stewardship over the recent period with the limited resources that we have, but I think that we need to look at the big picture going forward and I want to share that leadership with other bodies and that is why I think that NTS has a key role in that as well. To continue the discussion about governance, there was concern raised by the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland regarding the current members of Historic Scotland. They suggested that members have previously had the opportunity to contribute to the governance planning and decision making within Historic Scotland and to the scrutiny of those matters. Is there a role for the 131,000 members of Historic Scotland within the governance structure? I think that we have just been discussing the National Trust for Scotland. One of the issues that the George Reeds report looked at was the relationship between hundreds of thousands of members and their governance structure. They made considerable changes to make sure that they could run their new body in a way that is more fit for purpose in a contemporary fashion. It is more a question for Historic Scotland how they relate to their members. They take very serious regard to the feedback that they get on a regular basis about what they are interested in. They have a very active and interested membership. I am sure that you will receive the regular magazine and the regular content. However, this is a public body. It will be an NDPB. It will have to be run in a way that we expect others to be run. In terms of the experience, we will be setting up the new board. I would also like to put on record my thanks to both the commissioners and the existing board of Historic Scotland for their work in taking us to where we are. We also have a transitions board that is particularly looking after the interests of staff and other areas going forward. However, it is very important that we set up the new body with the new board with experience. I am not sure that that is where the evidence, when I was reading the evidence from the Society of Antiquaries, came from. Obviously, we do not want to designate that there will be somebody responsible for archaeology or somebody responsible for antiquaries. The board will have to be drawn from people of experience but also of interest across the piece. We do not want to make sure that the board is balanced and has different perspectives, but we will not designate reserved places for different people. I am not quite sure whether that is what the evidence that was presented to you was addressing. However, the valued members of Historic Scotland of which I am one—I think that I was the first cultured secretary who was already a member of Historic Scotland before I took on the post. However, the very valued organisation and membership gives it a lifeblood in terms of activity, visitors and numbers. It is interesting that, although we have had a bit of challenges in the sector, if you look at the membership increases of both NTS and Historic Scotland in recent times, they have been really healthy. That is a good signal for the future. People value their heritage and they want to visit it and contribute to it. That is a good question to ask the body going forward. As part of the corporate plan, it will set out how the relationship will be with its membership. Historic Scotland has already done that, but that will be of interest in how that continues. Cabinet Secretary, there are a number of areas that we will not be able to cover in this morning's evidence. If you do not mind, we will follow up in writing on a number of points. I am sure that there are a lot of questions from the discussion this morning, but also from some of the questions that have been raised in written evidence. Too many to deal with in an oral session, but we will write to you and your officials to try to follow those up. I thank you, but I ask you and your officials to just sit in your places. For one moment, we will deal with the next item, just so that we can deal with it. Our next item today is to consider three negative instruments. The additional support for learning sources of information Scotland amendment order 2014. The Children's Hearings Scotland act 2011 modification of subordinate legislation order 2014. The Adoption and Children's Scotland act 2007 compulsory supervision order report and applications for permanent orders regulations 2014. Do members have any comments to make on any of these instruments? No, you do not? Okay. Therefore, does the committee agree to make no recommendation to the Parliament on the instruments? That concludes the public part of the meeting and we now move into private session.