Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee [Draft]

Meeting date: Thursday, January 29, 2026

Official Report 564KB pdf

---

Historic Environment Scotland

08:30

The next item is to take evidence on Historic Environment Scotland. We are joined in the room by Angus Robertson, Cabinet Secretary for Constitution, External Affairs and Culture, and Kenneth Hogg, director for culture and external affairs at the Scottish Government. We will go straight to questions.

Cabinet secretary, I thank you for your letter, which laid out the timeline for HES. Last week, the Auditor General gave evidence to us about what he called

“the complexity of the situation.”

He said:

“I believe that the Scottish Government should have appointed a substitute accountable officer to provide the continued necessary leadership and accountability during that period.”—[Official Report, Constitution, External Affairs and Culture Committee, 22 January; c 36.]

How would you respond to those points?

I agree with the Auditor General about the complexity and sensitivity of the situation.

We are dealing, on the one hand, with an organisation that was created in statute by Parliament. I was reminded that a number of committee members, including you, convener, and Neil Bibby, were on the committee that considered the bill that created Historic Environment Scotland. George Adam was, too—my apologies, Mr Adam. Therefore, there will be good institutional memory in this committee about the fact that Historic Environment Scotland was created as a body independent of operational control from the Government.

That arrangement is fine if serious problems do not emerge in the arm’s-length body. We are dealing with this matter here not just because of the Auditor General’s report, but because there has been significant whistleblowing and media coverage of a whole range of issues within Historic Environment Scotland that have led to a particularly complex situation.

That has led to me making decisions where I have a direct locus in relation to leadership. There is now a new chairman of the board, a new chief operating officer and new board members, and an investigation carried out through an external investigator, David Martin, has begun.

On the point about an accountable officer, it is important to be aware that, at the heart of the timeline, the chief executive officer—who is the accountable officer—of Historic Environment Scotland was prevented from returning to work by the HES board. That is important in terms of the hierarchy of priorities for understanding what happened during this particularly vexed period.

The legal position in all of this is also very important to bear in mind—quite apart from the ability to have a 360° view or 10/10 vision in hindsight—when it comes to whether people are off work, how long they are off work for, whether they are suspended and how long all of that takes.

Understanding the legal underpinning of the accountable officer role is also very important. The legislation requires that the accountable officer be a member of HES staff. That is point 1. Therefore, the first option in dealing with this issue of an accountable officer who is not in the office is to try and enable them to return to work when they are ready to do so. Between June and September last year, the chief executive officer and accountable officer made clear to the Scottish Government and to the board that she wished to return to work but she and the board informed the Scottish Government that the board was preventing her from returning to post and that that was the situation for the majority of the five and a half months of her absence.

From June onwards, the board’s position was that if the chief executive officer and AO did not accept an extended period of leave, it would suspend her. That suspension finally happened on Friday 5 September. If people have looked closely at the timeline, they will have noticed that that is the last day in office of the former chairman of the board.

Given the impact of losing the services of the chief executive officer and AO, Scottish Government officials repeatedly asked for clarification from the HES board about the legal basis and reasons underpinning its decision that she should not return to work.

Members of this committee will be aware that the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service, the United Kingdom’s independent public body providing authoritative guidance on fair workplace practice, makes clear that suspension should be used only as a last resort.

When it became clear in June of 2025 that, because of the board’s continued stance and despite the chief executive officer’s wish to return to work, a period of extended absence was possible, the Scottish Government considered other options. I am happy to go into that, because the Scottish Government did pursue options for a replacement of the accountable officer.

Thank you, cabinet secretary. You mentioned the fact that HES is a relatively new organisation, dating from two parliamentary sessions ago. Has there been a problem at HES since the merger that created it? When do you think that the problems arose with the board and the board chair of HES?

I was not in office throughout that period, so I am not in a position to have enough information to hand about that. I am conscious of there being a number of issues being reported back to me—in particular, throughout last year. Some of the issues were reported through the Scottish Government sponsorship team or shared by whistleblowers and so on, and they often related to issues that go back to before last year. When all of this started is, no doubt, an issue that David Martin will be looking at as part of his review.

Audit Scotland told us last week that the leadership instability that you are describing dates back to 2023. Did you know about it in 2023, or not?

The Scottish Government’s sponsorship team will have been aware of issues that would have been flagged. I cannot recall exactly when the first whistleblowing messages were sent out, but I know that they were shared with committee members, so I am assuming that Mr Kerr will have seen them. I think that it would be fair to say that there was a crescendo of information.

When did you first understand that there was leadership instability? Was it in 2023 or not?

Well, what does one understand to be leadership instability? That things were serious enough in Historic Environment Scotland that the Scottish Government and I, as cabinet secretary, should be thinking about issues such as the leadership of the board is a matter that was under consideration last year.

What about the culture within the organisation? Were you aware of the culture and the toxicity, as it has been described by Audit Scotland?

Not only were all those matters shared with us by whistleblowers; they were things that were, and have been, increasingly covered in the media, especially in the past year. I do not recall those issues being flagged publicly much before then.

I am not talking about what was flagged publicly. I am asking about what you knew, really.

Indeed. I understand Mr Kerr’s question. I will revert to Kenneth Hogg, who is sitting next to me, to tell you what might have crossed the desk of the sponsorship team, but I am just explaining from my point of view when the things that reached me were at a serious enough level that one had to consider options.

In the appendix to the section 22 report, Audit Scotland helpfully lays out a number of the leadership changes that took place.

Yes.

I think that the Auditor General’s comments were specifically about that, including the fact that the current chief executive—

No, no—I know all this. As you have said, that is in the appendix to the report. I want to know when the cabinet secretary knew, because he is directly responsible for this. What is the answer to that question? When did he know? When did you tell him that there was a problem with the leadership in HES? I presume that it was before it was in the press.

I am sorry, but speaking for myself, given that that was the question, I recall that, when the process around a new chief executive officer was under discussion, part of the conversation was that it would be a good thing for there to be a new chief executive officer who would be able to deal with reform questions in Historic Environment Scotland and that there was a requirement for reform. That, as a matter of record, was part of the consideration, when the process with regard to the chief executive was under way.

Can I just confirm that that was when the chief executive officer was off on leave?

No, that was beforehand, convener—

It was prior to September 2024.

In answer to Mr Kerr’s question, I am trying to go back and share with the committee when things were first flagged to me—

Yes. When was that?

I am explaining that, as part of the process of appointing a new chief executive officer, it was explained to me that it would be good to have a chief executive officer who would be able to deal with—

Who explained that to you?

Shona Riach would have been my senior official at that stage.

Right.

So that process was under way, but—

And a change of CEO was a good thing, because of the leadership instability at HES, and because of the toxicity that employees were experiencing in the workplace.

It was felt that it would be a good thing to have a chief executive officer who could come in with a new perspective and would be able to look at this and a number of issues in relation to the leadership of Historic Environment Scotland.

Yes—

If I can finish my answer, Mr Kerr. After she had taken up office, it then became increasingly clear—and it was reported back to me—that issues of concern within Historic Environment Scotland were beginning to be reflected in a disconnect between the board and the incoming chief executive.

I made a judgment in all of this, notwithstanding the fact that there might have been one or more strains of challenge—in other words, generic challenges. After all, as we know, all organisations have human resources issues.

But in terms of this accelerating into such a serious problem that the Scottish Government sponsorship team and I as the cabinet secretary became aware of it—bearing in mind the point I made previously that the organisation is operationally independent—it was the deterioration of the relationship between the board and the chief executive after she had taken up office and the beginnings of grievance procedures that meant that the issue became something of an altogether different order.

08:45

The summary of what I am hearing is that you were aware that there were problems at HES from early in 2024, at least. You have a direct responsibility for this non-departmental public body. In fact, I just want to review this, because people who are watching or listening might be interested in how it all works. You are responsible for appointing the chair and board members of HES. Is that correct?

That is correct.

To whom do the chair and the board account?

These are organisationally independent bodies.

Yes, yes.

Ultimately they report to me. As an example of what my locus might be, if problems in an organisation were not being managed appropriately and if I was not confident that the leadership of the organisation—the chairman of the board—was dealing with those serious problems, one of the options that I have at my disposal is to decide whether that person should have an extended period in office.

It is simple enough. If an organisation —

May I finish my answer to Mr Kerr, please?

Yes, but I do want to get to the point.

You will get a chance to come in, Mr Kerr. Let the cabinet secretary finish, please.

Mr Kerr asked me very politely what powers are at my disposal in terms of the answerability of the leadership of a non-departmental public body—

No, I did not ask that.

A particular power that is at my disposal relates to the extension of periods of office for the likes of the chairman of a board. It is a matter of public record that I did not extend—

I know that.

I did act and I decided that the chairman of the board of Historic Environment Scotland should not remain in office.

The question that I asked was not the question that you think I asked. It was: to whom do the chair and the board account? The answer to that question is you.

In light of the information that was coming to you about instability and other issues, would it not have been simple logic to have called them in and said, “We need to speak. There are problems and we need to talk about these problems. I need to hear from you. You are accountable to me. I represent the Scottish Government and the people who pay for all this. I want to know what is going on”? Why did you not ever meet the chair and the board of HES? It sounds extraordinary, does it not?

The timeline is important, and I am sure that Mr Kerr will want to reflect on that. When the issue became as serious as it did and it was no longer the kind of human resources issue that might be common in organisations, but a profound breakdown, with grievances having been submitted in different directions of the organisation, it would have been totally improper for me to meet—

No, it would not.

It would have been totally improper for me to have met senior representatives of the board, including the chairman of the board, who was subject to a grievance procedure.

Hang on—that is not what the timeline says.

I, as the cabinet secretary, had ultimate responsibility for, among other things, whether the chairman of the board should continue in office. Because those processes were under way, the understanding within Government was that it would be inappropriate for me to meet directly with, especially, the chairman of the board in those circumstances.

I am satisfied that that would have been the correct response from me at the time. Now that we have moved beyond that chairman of the board being in office, we have moved rapidly to ensure that there is new leadership and that the issues that have caused concern to Mr Kerr and to me are not only being managed, going forward, to ensure that they are dealt with, but also being investigated by somebody of unimpeachable authority who has begun the investigation into the matter.

All those concerns about what is happening in Historic Environment Scotland in relation to the workplace culture, leadership stability and so on long predate any issues relating to grievances. We will come on to the grievances if time permits. I hope that it does, because the public should get a full version of what is happening here.

The reality is that, from the moment the new chief executive took post, there were problems, as you have highlighted. Five times in a matter of weeks, the chairman of HES sought to brief the sponsorship team about issues relating to the CEO’s performance. That is true, is it not? The chairman proactively informed you and your team that there were issues with the CEO, but even then, when the chairman reached out and asked for support and help, you personally refused to meet him and the board.

That is, no doubt, the view of the former chairman of the board—

No—that is what the record shows. It is what the document shows.

It is, no doubt, the view of the former chairman of the board, but it would also be fair to point out—and this goes to the heart of the difficulty that the HES leadership had got itself into—

But without you meeting them. That is my point.

Convener, if I may—

Well, you are being cross-examined, cabinet secretary.

I am not even able to—

You—

Do you need an answer to the question?

Mr Kerr—

The cabinet secretary gets lots of time to answer the questions. I would like him to answer the questions that I ask, not the ones that he would like to answer.

Mr Kerr, I stated before the meeting, in private, that we are really tight for time, so it would be good if we could get—

Yes, and that is why I do not want him to give extended answers.

We could do without the interruptions.

So, he is allowed to take as much time as he likes. Is that how this works?

The cabinet secretary is providing answers.

And he can take as long as he likes, can he?

Mr Brown, I do not need a commentary on this. I have made my view very clear. Mr Kerr, let the cabinet secretary speak and I will come back to you.

I note that it is important, when understanding the views of one side of the internal disputes in Historic Environment Scotland, to also understand that other things were happening at the same time. That goes to the heart of the complexity and the challenge of how I, as cabinet secretary, could use my powers in relation to an operationally independent public body, to try to help it to get itself out of the circumstances that it had found itself in.

The point that I am trying to make in relation to Mr Kerr’s view, which reflects that of the former chairman of the board, is that, at the same time, there was a grievance against him. Where we had those countervailing grievances, it was not the place of the cabinet secretary to put himself—for me to put myself—in the middle of such a dispute. That is not the role of the cabinet secretary in the Scottish Government. The position is to try to make sure that one breaks the Gordian knot of where Historic Environment Scotland has found itself. That is why my responsibility—convener, I am happy to return at some point to the question that I think this session is about, in relation to the accountable officer and the Auditor General’s report—was to make a serious intervention in the leadership of Historic Environment Scotland at the earliest opportunity when I could do that, and that is exactly what I did. I did not allow the chairman of the board to extend his period in office, and I moved as quickly as I could to ensure that there was a new senior leadership, so that the board could get itself out of the difficulties in which it found itself.

The issue of the accountable officer is really important. What I have not seen in much of the commentary—and there has been a lot of commentary out there—is that the accountable officer was not allowed to return to office to discharge her responsibility for most of the time of her absence. That is a material question that I think was reflected in the evidence to the committee on illness and absence from work. Although that is part of the equation, more significant, to my mind, is the fact that the board did not wish to permit the return of the chief executive officer and accountable officer.

I would like to add one other piece of context. You asked what we were aware of at the time. I came into my current role at the end of May last year, so the issue predates me, but I have checked the records. It is important that the committee knows that, before the chief executive and accountable officer’s period of absence began, she was digging into some of the very issues that Audit Scotland has called out in the section 22 report. For example, she was investigating the extensive use of purchasing cards—the number of those cards and the controls around them. She was investigating unnecessary travel costs and failures in data protection procedures. She was querying the appropriateness of the organisation paying the bill for alcohol at an event. Some of the issues that she was investigating before things came to a head and her absence began have, rightly, ended up in the section 22 report.

Mr Hogg, just for the record, what was the date on which the sponsorship team started attending the board?

The cabinet secretary required that from May onwards, I think. Our team will have attended 11 meetings over the period, including a meeting later today. I think that it is May, but I will double check and get back to you if that is not correct.

Which May?

May 2025.

To be absolutely clear, the cabinet secretary is trying to shade my questions on the basis of it being one person’s account versus another person’s account. I am trying to get to the facts and hold up to examination his performance as cabinet secretary. I have the HES model framework document—or executive NDPB document, or whatever it is called—here. It says:

“The Chair and Board Members are accountable to the Scottish Ministers”.

It goes on to say that the CEO

“is employed and appointed by the Board with the approval of the Scottish Ministers and is the principal adviser to the Board on the discharge of its functions and is accountable to the Board.”

What I cannot get my head around, having done some executive work in my career, is how you, cabinet secretary, as the person to whom these people account, did not once challenge them in person, did not meet them and did not say, “Right. We’re going to have a meeting. We’ve got to discuss this face to face.” Your predecessors did, but you did not. You have not fulfilled your responsibilities as the cabinet secretary with a direct responsibility for what is happening in Historic Environment Scotland. People inside that organisation—many of whom have contacted me and, I am sure, other members of the committee—are making it clear that, regardless of the rights and wrongs of all the various leadership configurations in HES before and since 2023, you have not fulfilled your duty.

09:00

The timeline that you have given us begins on 23 April 2025, so there is no reference in there to the difficulties that the chair and the board were reporting to your team about the performance of the new chief executive officer. Whether or not that is because they were discomfited, as Kenneth Hogg says, by her inquiries, that was a point at which you could have said, “Right. What are the issues? Let’s talk about it.” What it does not include, as you have now highlighted, is the fact that the new CEO brought a grievance against the then chair. By the way, I understand that he learned about that a month after it was made and did not receive any of the details of what he was being accused of until July, which seems a very wrong state of affairs. Regardless of who is right or wrong, that does not seem to be appropriate at all.

One of the communications from your office to the chair, which we are all now privy to, shows that it was not standard practice for you to meet the people whom you appointed—that is, the chair and the board of these non-departmental public bodies. That is not right, is it, Kenneth?

The usual arrangement is that the cabinet secretary would meet the chief executive on an approximately quarterly basis.

But the chief executive is not accountable to the cabinet secretary. I am reading from the model framework. They are accountable to the chair and the board.

That is quite—

Who is accountable to the cabinet secretary? It is the chair and the board.

That is quite correct. The chief executive is held to account by the board and is appointed by the board.

With the approval of ministers.

The cabinet secretary met the chair on appointment and regularly met the chief executive on a quarterly basis thereafter.

But not the chair—why? Fiona Hyslop did.

Mr Kerr, are you going to keep interrupting the witnesses? Mr Hogg has clearly said that the cabinet secretary did meet the chair, if I understand his answer correctly.

No, he did not. He never met the chair.

The cabinet secretary met the chair on appointment, on 2 March 2022, at half past 1 in the afternoon.

In 2022.

To come back to your question, convener, I have checked my notes, and the first meeting that my sponsor team attended was on 22 May. That was the first board meeting that you asked me about.

Yes, in 2025.

And they have attended every board meeting since then, of which there have been 11.

I am conscious of the time, Mr Kerr. Do you have a final question? Please get to the question as quickly as you can.

Okay. I have loads of questions that I will write to the committee and to the cabinet secretary with, because they are important questions that we were never going have time to go through, given the way that we go on in this committee.

I will ask specifically about the evidence that was given to the committee by Audit Scotland last week. The Auditor General was dissatisfied—it would be more than fair to say—with the current arrangements in respect of the accountable officer. I could give you the extended quote if you want, but I am not sure that it would be helpful. It is in column 40 of the Official Report of the committee’s meeting last week. He said that the idea that you can separate out the accountable officer’s responsibilities so that the person who is supposed to be the accountable officer does some of them and other people do the rest of them is just not right, not acceptable and not sustainable. Last Thursday, he questioned why nothing had happened on the part of the Scottish Government since 17 December, when the section 22 report was published.

I wish that we had time, because I would have liked to go through the extensive evidence that we received from the board of HES at a previous meeting of the committee, when it said that it has nothing to do with who the accountable officer is and that that is a Scottish Government issue. Bottom line: why have you done nothing since 17 December to appoint an accountable officer?

I would like to address that point. I listened to the Auditor General’s evidence and I am aware of the issue that he discussed, which you are raising. It is not the case that the accountable officer has returned to only some of her accountable officer duties. That is not possible. She is the accountable officer for HES. The accountable officer role brings with it responsibilities for ensuring the regularity of public expenditure, propriety and value for money—the full gamut of responsibilities—and she bears all those responsibilities.

The Auditor General used the word “hybrid” in describing the current arrangement. That refers to the fact that, because of on-going internal processes, such as investigations, the accountable officer is discharging or executing her responsibilities through the chief operating officer in many respects, for a temporary period. Because of some of the restrictions that she is operating within, pending the conclusion of those processes, rather than having some direct conversations, she is having them through the chief operating officer, and he is the person who is then following up. It is not the case, however—I would be very concerned if it were—that she is carrying only some of her full range of accountable officer responsibilities.

But it is the judgment of the Auditor General, based on his findings, that she is doing only part of the job of the accountable officer. You are saying that you do not agree with that, but that is what he has said. Are you not bound to observe the Auditor General’s authority in respect of his findings, to some degree?

I have read what the Auditor General said at committee, and I think I agree with him. He used the word “hybrid”, and there is a hybrid arrangement in place in respect of how the responsibilities are being discharged. However, it is not the case that the AO is carrying out only some of those responsibilities. It is true that, when she first returned to work, her first priority was—rightly—instructed to be the finalisation and signing of the annual accounts. It is also the case that she was subsequently asked to prioritise responding to the section 22 report findings. That is quite correct. However, that was within the context of the full range of accountable officer responsibilities.

But the Auditor General does not believe that you are fully compliant with the Scottish public finance manual. That is what he said.

Noting all the boundaries and the dissemination and delegation of powers and so on, there is still an outstanding grievance from all seven directors at HES, as submitted by Prospect, their union, against the CEO. That cannot help the working environment at HES.

I am not sure that it is all seven of them any more. I return to the key point, which the Auditor General discussed last week: the appointment of somebody as an accountable officer cannot be delegated; it is an appointment that is personal to the individual.

Yes, by you—by the Government.

By the Scottish Government—not by the cabinet secretary, but by the permanent secretary appointing the individual. The accountability is to this Parliament, not to the Scottish Government. It is a personal accountability to Parliament that cannot be delegated, and it has not been delegated. It rests with Katerina Brown, who is the accountable officer for Historic Environment Scotland, and how she is executing that accountability in the current but hopefully short remaining period is constrained by some of the arrangements that have been put in place.

Because of the grievance.

Pending resolution of a number of on-going complaints and grievances—yes, that is quite correct.

That grievance has been on-going since May last year.

In respect of the time, I will desist from my questions now, but I will commit them to a letter.

Thank you, Mr Kerr.

Good morning. I will try to focus on some specifics. In the period in which the chief executive officer was requesting to return to work, the board’s view was that the chief executive officer should either take extended leave or otherwise be suspended. Does the decision about which of those three outcomes should happen rest entirely with the board, or does the Scottish Government have any ability to instruct or direct the board in that respect?

That is a decision for the board, as the employer of the chief executive. The framework agreement requires that the chief executive be appointed as the accountable officer. However, first and foremost, that decision was for the board and we respected that. Although we asked for the rationale behind the stance that it was taking and the lawful basis for the action that it proposed to take, we respected the fact that it was for the board to decide whether to suspend the chief executive—as it ultimately did.

You asked the board for its rationale. At any point, did the Scottish Government, either in the person of the cabinet secretary or through officials, express a view about which of those three outcomes—return to work, extended leave or suspension—should happen?

We were careful to observe the situation that the cabinet secretary set out at the start, that Historic Environment Scotland is a non-departmental public body, the operations of which we and the cabinet secretary cannot directly manage.

After a decision was taken to suspend, there was a meeting between the board members and Scottish Government officials, including me. At that meeting, we Scottish Government officials expressed the view that we were surprised at the decision to suspend, but that is as far as we went. We did not attempt to overrule it. That was a judgment to be made by the board, not least because it was in full possession of all the relevant information and we were not.

That meeting was on 10 September.

Yes.

The cabinet secretary wants to come in.

This may be helpful to Mr Harvie, because he is trying to understand where things were at that point and what that led to in terms of how we should act in such circumstances. Bearing in mind that the accountable officer has to be an employee of Historic Environment Scotland, after our first priority, which was the return to work of the chief executive officer after periods of illness, the second option was to consider whether any other senior staff member of HES—an employee of HES, because that was a requirement for being an accountable officer—could have been the acting accountable officer with those responsibilities. If a permanent finance director had been in post, or if a chief operating officer role had existed at the time, the Scottish Government could have considered that person as an acting accountable officer. However, that was not the case so it was not possible. That is a very important fact.

Neither were other senior staff members of Historic Environment Scotland available to be appointed as accountable officer, because of their own involvement in on-going internal processes. Ultimately, therefore, no suitable internal candidates were identified by either the HES board or the Scottish Government. That route, therefore, would not satisfy the wish of the Scottish Government, as identified by the Auditor General in his report. Efforts were undertaken to consider external candidates, and interviews also took place for a fourth external candidate, who was recommended by the HES board as an acting accountable officer.

My point in sharing this information is that there has been a suggestion or implication that efforts were not undertaken to find an accountable officer, given the then suspension of the chief executive; however, I assure Mr Harvie and the committee that the Scottish Government made such efforts.

I ask you to hold that thought, because I am coming to it in a moment. First, I want to tie off the earlier point. Mr Hogg, in response to my first question about the meeting on 10 September, told us that the Scottish Government expressed surprise at the decision to suspend. I just want to be absolutely clear. Prior to that, was there at any point a moment when the Scottish Government expressed a view in advance about which decision—return to work, extended leave or suspension—was correct?

No, we did not express a view, because it was fundamentally a decision for the board to take as the employer of the chief executive. Any decision that it took could have significant consequences, including legal consequences for itself.

09:15

Thank you for being clear about that. It is noted in the timeline that, before that point, the chief executive wrote to the Scottish Government at least a couple of times to notify it of her wish to return to work. Other than the pieces of correspondence that are noted in the timeline, was there any other contact about any of those matters between the chief executive officer and the Scottish Government?

Yes, there was. I met the chief executive once in person and we had one phone call. The meeting was in June, and the phone call was in July. Both times, she reiterated to me her desire to return to work.

Just to recap, her first day of absence was 2 May. For the duration of May and June, the absence was at her volition—it was at her request. When she met me on, I think, 20 June, she said that she wished to return to work as she was available and fit to do so. The first date that it was possible for her to return was 3 July. That was one option. She also noted that she had a period of pre-booked annual leave for later in July, so the second option was, rather than coming back for only a week and then going off, to have the leave and then come back on 28 July. She subsequently wrote to the permanent secretary on 1 July to reiterate all that and say that she intended to return to work on 28 July.

The cabinet secretary commented earlier that the board prevented her from returning for the majority of the five and a half months of her absence. The reason for three and a half months of absence was that the board required it. The reason for only two of the months was a decision taken by the chief executive herself not to be at work.

That is helpful context. I am just looking to pin down the facts on the amount of contact. Other than the correspondence mentioned in the timeline and the communication that you have just referred to, was there no other contact or dialogue between the Government and the chief executive?

The sponsorship team might have also spoken with the chief executive in that period if she had contacted them, but I do not have details about that to hand.

Okay. If there is further detail on that, perhaps it can be provided later.

The cabinet secretary came on to the separate issue about the appointment of an interim accountable officer being a Government decision and the appointment of the chief executive being a board decision, and the usual practice being that those positions are held by the same person. That seems to be where an already messy situation has been compounded. Those decisions—not only who to appoint but whether to appoint an interim for those two separate posts—are completely separate. Am I correct to say that those two decisions are entirely separate and that one sits with the board and the other with the Government?

Indeed.

Is that adequate, or do the rules need to change for such situations? Historic Environment Scotland is not a private company that happens to carry out a contract for the Government to deliver services; it is a public body. We accept that, when it comes to interfering in day-to-day operations, a line in the sand needs to be drawn on independence, but surely on a matter such as this—it is about the fundamental viability of the organisation—this experience must make you reflect on whether the rules are correct for public bodies in such situations, and whether the Scottish Government ought to be able to decide, not necessarily to appoint the CEO or interim CEO or whether someone returns to work in that role, but to instruct a public body’s board.

My first reflection is that I am unaware of a similarly complex situation that has thrown up significant issues in relation to HR and potential legal challenge. How does one help an operationally independent organisation to find its way through such difficulties? That will no doubt be a doctoral thesis at some time by someone, but, in the meantime, it is good that we have somebody of the experience of David Martin looking at it right now.

Regardless of the exact circumstances of what happened, beginning with the chief executive’s absence and then the new phase with the board not allowing her to return to work, it caused the Scottish Government and the board of Historic Environment Scotland to act. It is very important for there to be an understanding that efforts were made to identify somebody who might be able to fulfil the responsibilities of chief executive officer and accountable officer.

Yes, but, ultimately, the board was still free to say, “We’re not going to bother.”

That is exactly what happened. The chairman—

I do not think that we should be trying to turn the situation into a political football or to score points about it. Our priority should be to ensure that, if, in future, any public body should encounter anything that is comparable with this situation, it is resolved more quickly and effectively. Should the rules change as a result of what has been learned through this unhappy experience to ensure that the gap between the appointment of a CEO and the appointment of an accountable officer is closed?

I will let Mr Hogg in in a second. If you are asking me whether the cabinet secretary with responsibility for this area—me—ultimately has powers to try to turn things around when things become as problematic and entrenched as they became, I note that that was the first thing that I reflected on, and I think that the answer is yes. We have new leadership and board members in place and investigations are under way—that has happened as quickly as possible.

However, if I reflect more broadly—this goes to the heart of Mr Kerr’s question—at what point should the Government intervene on an organisation that is operationally independent and that was created by a statute that was supported by every single political party in the Parliament and, indeed, this committee? It was created to be so. Should there ever be a case like this again, are changes required in the legislation on non-departmental public bodies? I am definitely reflecting on that.

I then pose a question to myself and to those who are considering the situation, the committee included. At what point could or should one have intervened with the powers currently at our disposal, and what new powers might be required to do so in the future? I am reflecting on the fact that we—I—have intervened and that things are, I believe, turning around in Historic Environment Scotland.

It is not obvious to me—perhaps the committee’s findings and conclusion can help with this—whether there was a particular stage for intervening, given that there were very serious HR processes under way in Historic Environment Scotland. Is it for a Government minister to intervene materially while such processes are under way and nobody has yet been found to be in breach of anything? The balancing act is a difficult one, but I am unaware of any situation that comes remotely close to the leadership challenges that there have been in Historic Environment Scotland.

I accept—

I am sorry—I indicated that Mr Hogg perhaps had something to add.

Very briefly, I accept that you are saying that you are unaware of any such situation, but the point that I am making is that none of us wants to become aware of another one in the future. I worry that the rules that you and HES have worked under have allowed a bad situation to get worse.

Very briefly, I genuinely think that this is an exceptional case. In 35 years of working in Government, I have never seen a case in which so many things have come together at the same time. It is not simply a case of a long-term sickness absence that was compounded by the board issues. It was also the lack of availability of any other internal candidate for numerous reasons. Even though external candidates were approved, they were not subsequently appointed. It was all those things coming together.

Finally, I am struck by the Auditor General’s comment about the importance of culture. That is currently being reviewed by David Martin. Underlying all of this are cultural issues within the organisation, which HES recognised in its annual report and wants to address as a major risk. This issue has been on my mind every day since I took up the job on 22 May and, practically, I do not think that there were any other options. We explored every possible practical option to find a resolution for the situation, and those were exhausted.

I will end that line of questioning there, but it seems as though the provision of some kind of special measures protocol—to be used in extremis and, I would hope, very rarely—is something that the Government ought to reflect on.

I endorse what Mr Harvie is saying. He is not without experience in this area. It may well be an exceptional case, but the Government should have in place provisions that allow it to deal with exceptional cases. I urge the Government to look at this very seriously. It may be more for Mr Hogg, given that it would be a cross-Government issue to be brought to ministers, but I would like to hear back from the Government on whether it intends to put in place any provisions that would allow it to take action, given the constraints that the cabinet secretary has rightly pointed out.

The detriment to the service and the public image of the organisation has been very costly. We have had a number of sessions on this matter. We had evidence from the Auditor General at the most recent session, and we have gone quite exhaustively over the things that have gone wrong.

I have only one question, so I will not take the half hour that Mr Kerr did because, if we all did that, we would be here for three and a half hours just for this panel. My concern is that, as well as the things that went wrong, there were underlying concerns beforehand. One of those concerns was a point that I have made a number of times. For a number of years, there was no sign of any kind of entrepreneurial initiative or spark to do things differently, for example, to maximise the monetisation of the assets that HES has. I am very comfortable with HES monetising its assets, and it should do much more of that. I am looking for an assurance that that push is not going to be lost in all of this. HES might have been good at using credit cards, having booze at all sorts of events or getting all those tickets for whatever reason, but was it good at looking at new opportunities to bring in more money? Given the budget, which we will discuss shortly, I know that bringing in more money is a fundamental aim for HES, but what assurances can the Government give us that the importance of monetisation will not be lost in all that is going on?

I think that Mr Brown is correct, and that is why the Scottish Government has changed the constraints under which Historic Environment Scotland previously operated, thereby freeing it up to find new income streams, because the estate—and everything that it is responsible for—is very popular and has the potential to be even more popular. No doubt all of us who visit sites that are run by Historic Environment Scotland recognise that there is more potential that can be reached. The first thing is that the Government has already made that change.

09:30

In many respects, it is groundbreaking for Historic Environment Scotland, and other organisations have been knocking on my door asking for similar freedom to make income in more ways and have an entrepreneurial approach to their operations.

I reflect that we now have a chairman of the board and a chief executive officer who have come with such a background from the National Trust for Scotland. The freedom that they, together with new board members, have been granted by the Scottish Government is very much the direction in which the leadership of Historic Environment Scotland wants to go.

Keith Brown mentioned the detriment to an organisation because of what has been going on in the leadership. That has taken up a significant amount of my time as well as that of civil service colleagues. We should never lose sight of the fact that Historic Environment Scotland, and the many people who work for it throughout Scotland, do a tremendous job. As an organisation per se, it has, in many ways, been an early adopter of change in this space and others. I will be delighted when it emerges with an understanding of the difficulties in which it found itself, the lessons that have to be learned and any changes that the Government may need to make to ensure that such things cannot happen again in the future.

Cabinet secretary, as we have heard—it is in the budget—you have taken action to lift the restrictions and to give a signal that HSE should do that. However, it is one thing to open the door and another to see others going through it. I will cite a couple of examples. This is the last point that I will make.

Back when I worked in the council, we took the Wallace sword across to New York. It had huge TV coverage and queues around the block. Because of the surrounding publicity, it substantially paid for the refurbishment of the Wallace monument centre.

There was a fantastic BBC Four programme about John Logie Baird. We have completely failed to exploit the fact that he was born in Scotland. The house where Alexander Graham Bell was born has never been used. There are two visitor centres in Canada and one in the States for him, but we have done nothing in this country.

I am currently trying to get the oldest football in the world taken to the world cup, to show that football was born in Scotland. I do not see, and have not seen for a long time, any such initiative from Historic Environment Scotland.

I do not doubt what you say, cabinet secretary. Very good people are working there. However, they, too, have to be imbued with that spirit of knowing that that can happen, to come up with ideas and to start monetising what is probably the biggest set of assets of the country. I want the assurance that, despite all that we—rightly—have to deal with, that fundamental point is not lost.

We have moved away slightly from today’s topic. Cabinet secretary, I ask you to be brief in your answer.

To go back to the topic, a chief executive officer—an accountable officer—would, no doubt, be keen to be able to consider expansively the opportunities to do new things and do things differently.

I also reflect on other things that Historic Environment Scotland has to deal with at the present time and the potential solutions that would never have been considered. I imagine that you may have brought up to Historic Environment Scotland—as other individual MSPs regularly have—issues of high-level masonry and the challenge of how older buildings, castles and other facilities can be protected. Because of climate change, that is becoming even more of a problem. Until now, the only solution has been to cap certain buildings—buildings without roofs. However, there may be potential in some of our national sites to think about much more than just protection from further decline. There may be ways in which we can think of some of our amazing historic sites, which are, in effect, ruins, and find new income streams to restore, protect and—who knows?—reroof them.

Those are all things that an organisation needs to think about, which it has immediate and direct responsibility for, but Mr Brown has articulated a challenge to it and to the rest of us to ask ourselves how we can work in partnership to make the most of Scotland’s heritage. I agree with him, and I want the chairman of the board, the chief executive and the leadership team of Historic Environment Scotland to know that they have the support of the Government and other public bodies in ensuring that we are making the most of all those things.

I will just add, convener, that it relates to this inquiry because there is every reason to suspect that HES might take a risk-averse approach when it gets through this and, if that is the case, it will be a continuing failure.

I appreciate that, Mr Brown.

I will briefly set out the context to the question that I am going to ask.

When you appeared before the committee on Thursday 6 November, cabinet secretary, you made it very clear in response to Mr Kerr’s questions that you had not attended a board meeting. You stated:

“I have not been invited to attend a board meeting.”

I asked you the same question later on, and you said:

“Not only was I not invited … more importantly, I ensured that the appropriate officials did attend the board meetings.”

You then said:

“I will answer it again. I have not been invited to a board meeting, but the board meetings have been attended by the appropriate officials”.—[Official Report, Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee, 6 November 2025; c 3, 15.]

Two days later, on 8 November, The Herald covered the story of an invite, which it had received leaked emails about, in which you had been invited to a board meeting. In your letter to us on 26 November, you said that there had been requests from Dr Hall. Those requests were made to officials during a meeting on 24 July and then subsequently by email on 12 and 29 August.

On 11 November, in Parliament, there was an urgent question from Stephen Kerr, in response to which you clarified the situation. Eventually, on 26 November, you wrote to the committee outlining the reasons for your responses, as I just highlighted. When were you first made aware that there had been invitations to attend board meetings?

Mr Hogg will be able to confirm that, because it was he who confirmed it to me.

It was the Monday after the press articles that you are referring to, which appeared at the weekend. I can find the date for you in a moment.

So it was on that Monday that the cabinet secretary was made aware of it. How was he made aware of it, Mr Hogg?

He was made aware of it by me. It is quite correct that I had not previously told the cabinet secretary about the requests made by Dr Hall, both at a meeting with my predecessor on 24 July, where Dr Hall asked for a meeting with the cabinet secretary personally, which I knew about, and in his emails to me on 12 and 29 August. I did not tell the cabinet secretary because, in my judgment, there was no possibility of it being a meeting that any cabinet secretary could accept, given the on-going investigation into the conduct of Dr Hall.

Other board members were involved in overseeing various other complaints at the time. It was not just a question of Dr Hall’s position; it was a question of the whole board’s position. That is why I did not tell the cabinet secretary. With hindsight, I should have told him.

I appreciate your candour on that. I was going to ask why it took the cabinet secretary so long to make clear that there was this issue but, if I could just go back to it, can I confirm that you were aware at that meeting on 6 November that there had been invitations?

That is correct. I was aware of what Dr Hall had said to me.

Yet, in response to Keith Brown, you said:

“I am not aware of any board member requesting a meeting with the cabinet secretary.”—[Official Report, Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee, 6 November 2025; c 23.]

When Mr Brown asked the question, I interpreted it as meaning board members as distinct from the chair. That is why I answered it with reference to the meeting that took place with board members on 10 September. If I misunderstood that question, I apologise for that. My understanding at the time was that the question was about any requests from board members, as opposed to the previous questioning from Mr Kerr about requests from the chair himself.

With hindsight, given that that response essentially led to the cabinet secretary—inadvertently and without that knowledge—misleading the committee, would you have answered more fully and advised of those meeting requests?

On 6 November, the questions that the cabinet secretary was being asked were about what he knew and his understanding of the situation, and his answers to those questions were correct. I was not asked a question about what I knew, but, with hindsight, I can say yes, I would have done so, if I had known that that was the underlying intent of the questions. I regret now not having butted in to that committee conversation and volunteered that additional information. There was nothing confidential about the fact that Dr Hall had asked for the meetings. The issue simply was that no cabinet secretary could have accepted the meeting, because of the on-going investigations and the risk of compromising them.

The questions that were asked throughout that process had been about requests to meet the board. Whether or not you felt that the question that Mr Brown asked was directly related to that, I would have thought that that would have been your opportunity.

My understanding is that contact with a ministerial office is essentially contact with the minister. Is that not the case?

These were not requests put to the cabinet secretary’s office. Normally, if that were to happen with a public body board, the board chair would write a letter to the cabinet secretary saying, “Please will you come to the board to discuss X issue?” That did not happen—

Can I just clarify something? Who were Dr Hall’s emails of 12 and 29 August sent to?

They were sent to me.

They were sent to you?

Yes. They were not sent to the cabinet secretary’s private office or to the cabinet secretary himself. They were sent to me.

So, an invitation that was sent to you—sorry, I want to get this right—as director for culture and external affairs at the Scottish Government, inviting the cabinet secretary to attend a board meeting with an organisation that he has responsibility for, is not a formal invitation, as far as the Government sees it, to the cabinet secretary to attend?

First, it was certainly a formal request, but, to answer your question, it was not put directly to the cabinet secretary’s office—it was put to me. Secondly, I did not act on it by telling the cabinet secretary because of the on-going investigations.

I should say that the 29 August email was the email that Dr Hall sent notifying us of his intention to resign early from his post. It said that, rather than waiting until January, which would have been the end of his full term, he wanted to step down one week later, on Friday 5 September. That was an additional reason why it was not a good time for the cabinet secretary to be meeting the board.

You informed the cabinet secretary on the following Monday—after, I imagine, you had seen the press reports. Did you not think to inform him after the meeting, when there had been that concern? You were aware that there were invitations. The cabinet secretary said that there were not invitations. Would it not have been sensible to advise the cabinet secretary as soon as possible that there had been those invitations?

Everything that the cabinet secretary said, to my knowledge, on 6 November was correct. I was not asked the question directly, to be fair. Questions were not asked about what requests officials had received. I told the cabinet secretary on the Monday afternoon, and he gave a statement to Parliament on the Tuesday, explaining just what I have set out now.

Cabinet secretary, if you had been made aware of those invitations, would you have accepted them?

No, I would not have, for the reasons that Kenneth Hogg has explained. Because of the serious nature of the investigations that were on-going and the people whom I would have been meeting—at which time, no doubt, those types of issues would have been brought up—it would have been deeply compromising for me as cabinet secretary. So, no, it would not have been appropriate.

Do you feel that Kenneth Hogg and other officials were right not to pass those invitations on to you?

Those are two different things, and I have said to Mr Hogg and to colleagues that I would wish to have been told and I wish to be told about these sorts of issues in future. It was a judgment call. I agree with Mr Hogg that, in the context, it would have been deeply compromising for me to attend a board meeting given the serious nature of the investigations that were under way, and I agreed with Mr Hogg and colleagues on what would have been the correct course of action.

It would have been better for me to have been aware. Before the committee, I would have been perfectly content to share that with the committee—absolutely. It is just how the issues developed.

09:45

So you would have wanted officials to provide that information?

Yes.

Are you concerned that there are other pieces of information that you have not been informed about, or are you aware of other pieces of information that you have been made aware of since then?

No, I am not.

Do you have full confidence that you are now fully briefed and that you will continue to be fully briefed on the situation?

I have asked for it to be so, and I have no reason to doubt that it will be the case.

Are you moving on to a different issue?

Yes.

I will bring in Mr Adam for a supplementary question and then we will move on.

My question is for Mr Hogg and it is a follow-up to the question that Mr Halcro Johnston has been asking. I have some experience of being a Government minister and I find it bizarre that you did not at least send a note to the cabinet secretary say that he had been asked to go the meeting—it happens to officials all the time—and that, in your opinion as an official, he would be unable to attend, but he could make that decision. I cannot get my head around the fact that you did not do that, because that would be the norm.

For context, officials, myself included, were keeping the cabinet secretary appraised of the on-going situation and the complaints that had been made about the conduct of the chair. That was being handled carefully within the Scottish Government. That was very much on my mind and I knew the cabinet secretary’s mind. To explain my judgment about that decision, it seemed obvious to me that there was little point in discussing a meeting that could not possibly have taken place.

I get how delicate and difficult it is. The situation went from a leadership transition to a crisis in 2025. I understand all that, but surely it would have been for the cabinet secretary to make that decision, or to be given the option to make that decision.

The cabinet secretary has since asked me to make sure that he is fully informed of such requests. I accept full responsibility for the judgment that I made and for what I said to the committee on 6 November. To come back to Mr Halcro Johnston, if I misunderstood the questions on that day, I apologise for that. That is on me, not the cabinet secretary.

That makes it a bit difficult when we have heard this information now, Mr Hogg, and your answer to the question on that day also seems quite convenient. My main point is that the cabinet secretary was put in a position where he answered what he believed to be the situation, but it was not. I would have been disappointed and upset if I had been put in that position. It is very unusual for a Government minister to end up in such a position.

Mr Adam, I do not think that there was a question in that.

I think that there was.

I think that your point has been made. We will go back to Mr Halcro Johnston.

That intervention from George Adam was very helpful. I would perhaps be less charitable to the cabinet secretary, because he should have been asking for and having a meeting anyway. I recognise his points, but I might come back to the idea that an organisation in crisis needs to be met and have those issues raised.

On that point—

I will let you come back in shortly, Mr Robertson.

First, I ask Mr Hogg—further to the question that I asked the cabinet secretary about whether he is now confident that he is being kept fully informed—whether you are confident that the cabinet secretary is now fully informed of the situation at HES? Is there any other information that has not been passed on?

I am confident that the cabinet secretary is informed about all the most significant issues.

I have a sponsorship team that literally has daily contact with Historic Environment Scotland. By definition, there will be conversations the totality of which are not reported fully to me or to the cabinet secretary. I cannot sit here today and say that every single conversation between the Scottish Government civil servants and Historic Environment Scotland has been reported to the cabinet secretary.

However, it is my job to make sure that the important stuff is passed on. To the very best of my knowledge, the cabinet secretary is fully aware of the key issues around what has been going on in Historic Environment Scotland over the past several months.

I appreciate that. I would just make the point that, if the issue is determined by what is significant or important, your definition of what was significant was not that the cabinet secretary had been invited to meet the board on three previous occasions.

The then chair asked for a meeting with the board that, by definition, could not take place. I do not believe that any Government minister would have agreed to take on that meeting. My judgment was that, out of all the things that were happening on that day, that was not the most important issue.

Did you want to come back in, cabinet secretary?

The record will show that Mr Halcro Johnston said that I “should” have been having a meeting with the board. I totally disagree—we can have a difference of view on that.

I have been forthcoming in explaining the serious nature of the investigations that were under way at that stage, involving the chairman of the board and other board members. Unequivocally, it would have been totally inappropriate for me to have met the board in that context. Had I been aware of invitations for me to attend a board meeting in that context, I would have declined, for those reasons.

I do not think that any minister, from any political party, in the situation that I found myself in, and find myself in now, would have acceded to that request. It would have been totally inappropriate.

On a general point, is it therefore your understanding—either you, cabinet secretary, or Mr Hogg—that when an organisation is in crisis and facing huge challenges, the Government’s position is that the people with oversight, scrutiny and responsibility do not meet the people involved in the organisation who are at the heart of that crisis?

It would be unfair to suggest that the Scottish Government was not involved—officials attended board meetings, among other things. That is a matter of record, and there is a full list. Again, I am happy to share that with the committee, so that it is aware that there was contact with officials.

Given the responsibilities that I had and have as cabinet secretary, it would be inappropriate for me to have attended a board meeting. Mr Halcro Johnston may wish to extrapolate from that that it would have been inappropriate for officials not to be engaged basis with HES. As Mr Hogg has pointed out, they were involved on a daily, if not almost daily, basis. That is the appropriate way in which the Scottish Government has been interacting.

On my role and responsibilities, and how I have acted since, I am not saying that this is uncomplicated or tremendously easy. It is a very difficult judgment call at all stages. With the benefit of hindsight, are there things that could or should have been done differently? All I know is that, as Mr Hogg has said, we literally exhausted our options in relation to a number of interventions, particularly in relation to the accountable officer. We fulfilled our responsibility to try to ensure that an accountable officer was in place, and we can be pleased that the accountable officer is at her post and doing her job.

Are there things that we will learn about when we reflect on the committee’s findings and the external investigation that is under way with Historic Environment Scotland?

Yes. Maybe some people, when they are able to read about the nature of the investigations that have been taking place, will have greater sympathy for and understanding of the ethical issues and the issues of probity. In relation to whether a cabinet secretary should attend the likes of a board meeting with such investigations being under way, they may have a much clearer vision of why my decision was undisputedly the right one to take.

Okay. This will be my last question, because I am conscious of time.

I recognise that it is a complex situation and I note your suggestion that there are some restrictions. Given what you have said, do you believe that you, your department and your officials have done all that you can? If the public were to ask that question, do you think that you could justify that you have done a good job, given the difficult situation?

We have acted appropriately throughout this challenging situation. Are there any additional powers, as Mr Harvie suggested, that should be part of the armoury for managing such circumstances? I am open to considering that, and if Mr Halcro Johnston has any suggestions about what they might be, I will listen to them.

Today, we have shared a timeline that explains at what stage I sought to intervene in a number of ways. The Government has acted in good faith to try to help an arm’s-length organisation that was created under statute to find its way back to a leadership, a culture and a way of operating that we would all wish it to have.

The concern that many people will have is that you are suggesting that your hands were tied. Others might suggest that you have been sitting on your hands and that that is why this has been allowed to escalate—

I am sorry, but I totally refute that, because it chooses to ignore the fact that we are operating in relation to an organisation that was created by statute. There are legal restrictions on what we can do.

The record will show that, at the earliest opportunity at which I was empowered to make decisions, I made decisions in relation to the leadership of Historic Environment Scotland. We can already see that those changes are having a significant impact on where HES is today compared with where it was last year.

I am conscious that Mr Bibby has been waiting for some time to come in.

Good morning. This is obviously a total mess and I do not think that anyone comes out of it well. The fact that we have had 171 days without an accountable officer in the organisation is astonishing.

Cabinet secretary, you stated earlier and you note in the timeline that the board suspended the chief executive officer on 5 September. On 2 October, the CEO emailed the Scottish Government and HES requesting a return to work. Thirteen days later, on 15 October, the chair and board approved the request for the CEO to return to HES. That seems quite a short turnaround. For clarity, what procedures were followed to lift that suspension? Had an internal investigation been concluded in that time?

The obvious difference in these circumstances is that there was a new chair of Historic Environment Scotland. No doubt, when he gives evidence to the committee, as he will, he will be able to answer that question.

The new leadership in HES is absolutely key. I agree with Mr Bibby. The fact that a new chair was able to do what was not possible under the old leadership speaks for itself, but it is not for me to speak for Sir Mark Jones.

You said that there was a new chair, but otherwise it was the same board that made a different decision in a short period of time.

Indeed. Leadership is key—I agree, Mr Bibby.

The chair changed, but the other board members remained the same, and there was a very quick turnaround in the decision made by the board.

Indeed, which is one of the reasons why I have a very, very high degree of trust in and respect for Sir Mark Jones.

You have high trust in and respect for Mark Jones as the chair of the board.

I do.

Do you have confidence in the rest of the board?

10:00

I am pleased that progress is being made in turning the situation around in Historic Environment Scotland. Under new leadership, the board is playing its part in doing that. There are also new members of the board, and there is a new chief operating officer.

Under its new leadership and following the reporting of internal investigations, I am confident that Historic Environment Scotland will be in a profoundly different place from where it was before. However, I will not generalise about the entire board, the entire senior leadership team or the chief executive.

You will not generalise about whether you have confidence in the board of Historic Environment Scotland.

I have confidence that the board is heading in the right direction under the chairmanship of Sir Mark Jones.

You are not saying you have confidence in the board, or that you have always had confidence in the board—is that correct?

I have chosen my words carefully. I have confidence in the leadership of Historic Environment Scotland under the chairmanship of Sir Mark Jones. I have already taken the earliest opportunities to strengthen the board by making sure that it has board members who have experience that the previous board members did not.

It is in the nature of these things that all such organisations have a rotation of board members and senior leadership teams. I imagine that everybody wants to make sure that Historic Environment Scotland, under new leadership, has the appropriate people in place. I will be advised by Sir Mark Jones on that point. I have not been presented with any suggestions about the board that he leads. I will leave it for Sir Mark Jones to speak for himself and for how the board is now operating.

Mr Bibby has identified how changed the circumstances were after the shortest possible period of time under the new leadership of a new chairman of the board. I credit that change to Sir Mark, and it is the reason why I have such a high degree of confidence in him.

Perhaps the reason why the cabinet secretary chose his words carefully about having confidence in the board is that it is difficult for a cabinet secretary or anyone to say that they have confidence in people if they have not actually met them. Of course, you have not—

No, it is about a more profoundly important point, which is that investigations are under way. The committee knows that. I will not prejudge any investigation or any conclusions that it may reach.

My words have been chosen very carefully. I await the report from David Martin, as I am sure do Mr Bibby and the committee. That will help me to reflect on the question that Mr Bibby has asked more generally about where Historic Environment Scotland and its leadership are today compared with where they were last year.

I say again that I will not generalise about every board member, every member of the senior leadership team or the chief executive. Given that we are dealing with an independent organisation that operates under statute at arm’s length from the Scottish Government, it is important that the organisation should be able to get on with what it is supposed to be getting on with and that any lessons that emerge from the investigations should be acted on.

You said earlier that it would have been inappropriate for you to meet with board members while the previous chair was in post. Is it not inappropriate for you to meet the board now?

It is not inappropriate for me to meet the chairman of the board, who I have met twice; nor is it inappropriate for me to meet the chief executive, who I met in one social setting but not in a formal context. I will be advised by Sir Mark on that point. I have said to him that, if he wishes for me to meet the board and feels that that would be appropriate, I will consider doing so.

So it would not be inappropriate for you to meet the board.

I have said to Sir Mark that, if and when he wishes me to meet the board and judges it appropriate that I do so—given all the riders that I have just explained which I would have thought were obvious—I would be happy to do so.

At the last committee meeting on 6 November, I asked you to what extent you were reassured by Historic Environment Scotland on its financial planning. You replied

“No specific issues with financial management have been raised with me.” —[Official Report, Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee, 6 November 2025; c 23.]

Since then, the Audit Scotland section 22 report has found

“weaknesses in financial management arrangements for electronic purchasing cards, expenses and hospitality.”

Do you stand by what you said on 6 November?

Nothing has been raised with me that I should specifically act on beyond ensuring that the Scottish Government’s sponsorship team is in contact with Historic Environment Scotland. Mr Hogg has a range of examples in which the team has intervened.

Given the nature of the investigations and complaints at a senior level in Historic Environment Scotland, my locus for intervention has been to ensure that I have acted to deal with questions that have been raised about the leadership. Mr Hogg may want to share with the committee a number of ways in which the Scottish Government has shown an interest in and concern about financial management issues at Historic Environment Scotland.

Briefly, the issues highlighted in the section 22 report are about financial governance, which the committee has already taken evidence on. The Scottish Government’s sponsorship team has been engaging with the organisation about some of those very issues over the months. They include the rigour with which Historic Environment Scotland has been pursuing procurement process breaches; asking for fuller and faster information on ticketing for major public events; requesting the halting of an unnecessary rebranding exercise; and taking action on and asking for more information about board members signing up on the Scottish Government’s register for mandatory training and undertaking that training, and board evaluations.

We have been taking action over a number of months about a number of concerns, all of which would come under the heading of financial governance. Some of those issues are reflected in Audit Scotland’s section 22 report.

When were you first made aware of concerns about procurement issues in Historic Environment in Scotland?

Mr Hogg is looking for a note. I do not have a date to hand or in my mind, Mr Bibby; I would have to look back. You cannot see him doing it as you are joining the meeting remotely, so I will describe it for your benefit: Mr Hogg is looking at some email traffic to get some insight into that.

In June 2025, the Scottish Government’s sponsorship team were aware of interim findings of an internal process that had been carried out within Historic Environment Scotland into the alleged breaches of procurement practice, specifically in respect of single source procurement. A review was done of the inappropriate use of sourcing services from a single supplier without competitive tendering.

I imagine that the process had been on-going in previous months but, certainly, by June last year, we were aware of it and were corresponding with the organisation about its handling of it.

I understand that the Scottish Government was informed that a senior member of staff—the director of marketing—was to be suspended on 30 September after earlier having being exonerated. The suspension did not come into effect until around two weeks later but, in the intervening period, the individual was advised by the director of HR to take sick leave. Did Mr Hogg or the cabinet secretary know about the suspension and were they aware of the delay?

We were not aware of the specifics of that. That is an internal matter for Historic Environment Scotland. I have been told by Sir Mark Jones that several of the directors are currently absent from the organisation, but those are internal HR matters for Historic Environment Scotland—and they are an example of the operational issues that we do not get involved with directly.

I would caution everyone that those are on-going issues, as has been said. They are the subject of live proceedings, and I do not want the committee to prejudice those in any way. I would caution you on that, Mr Bibby.

Absolutely. I would not wish to do that, either. I totally understand that there will be HR issues in the organisation. However, some of those relate to governance issues—to how the organisation is being governed. I put that point to Mr Robertson and Mr Hogg.

That is an entirely fair point, and it could and should be raised with Sir Mark directly. He would have an insight and responsibility for that; it is in the operational ambit of the leadership of Historic Environment Scotland, which is independent of the Scottish Government.

Just for clarity, were you aware of that situation, cabinet secretary?

No.

Thank you.

You talked earlier about your confidence in Sir Mark Jones and about taking up the issues with Sir Mark. Last time he came before the committee, he was saying that he was working the equivalent of one day a week. Is that still sufficient?

He has two days a week, I believe.

Is that sufficient?

That has to be seen in the context of ensuring that there are new board members with specific skill sets who can work with and help him—in particular, that there is a new chief operating officer, who is able to pick things up.

I have said to Sir Mark in the conversations that I have had with him that, if he has any requirement—personally or more generally—for any strengthening of the change that he is currently having to make at Historic Environment Scotland, he will be supported by the Scottish Government.

I thank the cabinet secretary for that answer.

My last question relates to the culture of the organisation. There have been reports of a culture of fear among staff when it comes to coming forward and raising concerns. That point has been raised previously. You have talked about the independent review of culture that is to be carried out by David Martin. I am aware of a number of David Martins. I will be corrected if I am wrong, but you have not informed the committee of which David Martin it is. I will be corrected if I am wrong on this, too, but we have not been furnished with the terms of reference for the review either. If you could clarify which David Martin it is, I would welcome that.

I will hand over to Mr Hogg in a moment but, first, I am able to confirm to Mr Bibby that it is not the David Martin he and I would know—

I know many David Martins.

It is not the former Labour MEP for the Lothians, Vice-President of the European Parliament and one of Mr Bibby’s Scottish Labour Party colleagues. We are talking about the former local authority chief executive. His review began on 19 January.

He was formerly CEO of Dundee City Council and of Renfrewshire Council. He is a former non-executive director of the Scottish Government and, I believe, also of a UK Government department—HM Revenue and Customs, I think.

The review is being undertaken at the request of the new chair of the organisation, and it covers organisational culture, organisational governance and organisational structure. Mr Martin began his work a week ago on Monday, and my understanding is that it is due to conclude in the late spring—around May.

I do not think that I have seen a copy of the terms of reference, but I would imagine that Sir Mark Jones and the board would be happy to share that with the committee.

Thank you.

That concludes this evidence session. I am very conscious of the time, so I ask for a quick, five-minute turnaround for the change in panels. Thank you, cabinet secretary, and thank you, Mr Hogg.

10:14

Meeting suspended.

10:19

On resuming—