Good morning, and welcome to the 13th meeting in 2014 of the Education and Culture Committee. I remind all those present that electronic devices should be switched off at all times because they interfere with the broadcasting system.
I do not know about shared understanding—to be honest, I think that that is very much a subjective consideration—but I certainly feel that we are moving in the right direction and that there is a collaborative spirit behind the bill, which is a big step forward.
Thank you. I ask Kate Mavor to respond next.
Thank you, convener. The problem with clarity is to do with conflicts of interest between different roles in the proposed new organisation. I think that we are all clear that we want to give more emphasis to the importance of the historic environment. As Harry McGuigan said, we want to collaborate as a sector and we therefore welcome the advent of the strategy. However, unresolved conflicts of interest will be inherent in the structure of the new organisation, and we have been quite open about the reasons why we are worried about them.
Members have questions about conflict of interest, so we will go into that in detail later.
Okay. You asked about clarity, and there is a bit of a muddied perception about how all the functions will come together.
There is a need for clarity, and BEFS highlighted the issue in its submission.
The HHA is reasonably happy about the purpose of the merged body. I very much back up what Kate Mavor said about how it will work in practice. That is all that I have to say on that.
In written submissions to the committee, the question has come up of what the term “lead body” will mean in practice. None of you mentioned that. What are the practical implications of historic environment Scotland being the lead body, in relation to the body’s operation on the ground? Do you have a clear view of what that means? Dr Gilmour talked about the role of local authorities, and in written evidence we heard about the proportion of properties and the environment that Historic Scotland controls. Is there a practical purpose of historic environment Scotland being the lead body?
BEFS accepts that there is a requirement for a champion or lead body that allows us all to come in and work through the strategy. A new organisation is being created to help to lead the strategy—and we need an organisation to take that forward. If we were not merging the Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Scotland and Historic Scotland, we would expect one of those bodies—if not both of them, jointly—to help to take the work forward. There is no doubt that other major organisations that are out there, such as the National Trust, would also have lead roles in certain areas—Kate Mavor can speak about the National Trust much better than I can.
It helps.
Leadership requires an understanding of those who you are leading. Therefore, it is important that we do not end up identifying a lead body that is authoritative and which directs and makes requirements of its followers or its members. We need to be careful about that because sometimes people interpret that leading role in almost a Stalinist way. That should not happen.
I would hope that Stalinism would not be part of the principles underlining the new body.
I was not directing that comment at you, convener.
I appreciate that clarification, Councillor McGuigan. [Laughter.]
An important role of a lead body would be to invest in the research that allows us to understand better the historic environment, and it must have the resources to do that. It would also need to keep, as RCAHMS does, a central archive of what matters to the Scottish historic environment and to promote that, so that people could go to the body for information to help them understand their environment.
Both Simon Gilmour and Kate Mavor have used the very important word “champion”, which is what we would want the new body to be. On the whole, we have found that Historic Scotland has been very supportive of the private sector, and we would very much like that support to continue under the new body.
We have had evidence from a wide range of stakeholders, including the Association of Local Government Archaeological Officers. It picked up the point about the clarity of the lead role, particularly with regard to the advisory capacity that Historic Scotland and RCAHMS have had to date, and the question whether there is a risk that, in referring to a lead body, the advisory nature of the relationship may be misunderstood and local authorities may find themselves under more pressure simply to take the advice as beyond question and as a priority as regards the scheme of things. Is that something that should be clarified in more detail in the bill, or is there a level of understanding about how the approach operates currently that would give confidence that it is not a concern that should trouble us unduly?
Local authorities are working very hard to ensure that we get a sensible understanding across the working arrangements from the viewpoint of not only local authorities and historic environment Scotland but the voluntary, third and private sectors and so on. We must make sure that a coherent approach is adopted by the individual agencies involved. We are anxious to see such co-production becoming a reality. It has sometimes not been the case in the past when we have found ourselves pulling in opposite directions, which is unhelpful and unlikely to secure the protection and promotion of the historic environment that we all want to see.
That answer is helpful. It probably illustrates the point that, when there is agreement about the approach that should be taken, the advisory role that the new body will play will simply reinforce that approach, which is extremely helpful. However, what will happen when the expertise of archaeological officers within a local authority is at variance with the advice from the new body? Is there a risk that, by setting up one body as the lead body under the legislation while giving local authorities lead authority in that area, we will have a conflict that will be more difficult to manage than it is at the moment?
I do not think that such a conflict should necessarily arise. Indeed, I would be very concerned if it did, because that is what we are trying to avoid.
I am not suggesting that there will be an adversarial approach, but I imagine that there will be areas where there are differences of opinion—perhaps on the means of achieving a shared objective.
I feel—I will alienate all my Historic Scotland friends now—that, right now, the situation is worse than the situation that we will have with the set-up of the new body.
That is interesting. We move to questions from Clare Adamson.
Thank you, convener.
That is a good observation. I share the concern about ensuring that we understand clearly what arm’s-length organisations are doing and ensuring that they dovetail with the local government position in relation to the new body. I am determined not to allow a situation to develop in which a negative effect comes about because organisations are at arm’s length. That does not worry me at the moment, but we must be alert to the possibility.
Various models for delivering expertise are out there already. Trusts are only one model; in some circumstances, commercial companies provide advice—particularly archaeological advice—to local authorities. However we describe the relationship between the new body and local authorities, we must find a wording that covers the way in which local authorities get advice. I know that that will be difficult, but I do not have to write the provisions, so that is fine.
Good morning. I will ask about lines of accountability for the strategy. When we took evidence from Historic Scotland and RCAHMS, there was a little confusion about who exactly will be accountable for the new body’s strategy. Will you comment on that?
I will throw in my tuppenceworth. The strategy is a co-production that was put together not just by the Government but by lots of organisations and individuals who collaborated to bring out the ideas. I do not know whether I see the ultimate responsibility in exactly the same way as everybody else does, but I think that we will have a three-tier system of governance that will bring everyone together to pull in the same direction. In doing so, each part of the governance board and the wider sector will, I hope, be trying desperately to deliver on the strategy. Each organisation will be responsible for its own part.
That is helpful information about the individual responsibilities, but I am driving at the overall responsibility for the strategy. As you say, the Government and the new body’s trustees will have a role to play. How will all that come together? If a problem with the strategy arose, how would that be worked through? Whose final responsibility would it be to decide on the overall strategy?
The governing board that will be pulled together, which the Cabinet Secretary for Culture and External Affairs will chair, will have ultimate responsibility. The board will incorporate other members of the sector and it will be given the task of ensuring that we deliver on the strategy.
Councillor McGuigan said that everybody is relatively comfortable and that a lot of things in the strategy look extremely good. In the past, when we have had to oversee the mergers of other bodies, the overall strategic direction has not been clear, which has caused difficulties. I would be more comforted if there was absolute clarity about who has the overall responsibility and decision-making power, particularly because the Government is involved on an arm’s-length basis. If that means that the Government sets the overall direction for culture policy, we need to be comfortable that the trustees and the groups that have been participating in putting the strategy together are singing from the same hymn sheet. Would you accept that?
Absolutely. For the first time in a long time, we are all singing from the same hymn sheet and pulling together.
That is correct when we are talking about the production of the strategy, in which a first-class job has been done by pulling the sets together. However, I am interested in the delivery of the strategy and how, if we encounter any difficulties, as we have when things have not worked out with other bodies, we will determine where the line of responsibility lies. That is a concern.
Single outcome agreements are an excellent example of how we ensure that a clearly understood agenda or strategy is being followed by the partners involved. That is the community planning partnership locally.
It is difficult to say at this point who will be accountable because we do not have any outcomes under the strategy. As Simon Gilmour said, it is all motherhood and apple pie just now because we are all proud of the strategy and it says good things, but who is going to be on the board that will oversee deliverables, outcomes and timescales? That is who will be accountable—the board, whose members are yet to be determined.
Mr Hay, do you think that the strategy gives sufficient cognisance to the role of the private sector, given the number of properties in Scotland that are owned privately?
Our concern with the original document was that not enough stress was laid on the importance of the private owner in the historic environment. The majority of houses are still in private hands, and I stress the contribution that they make to their local economies.
Are you hopeful that the situation might improve?
We accept that the situation is as it is, and I do not see that the bill will, in itself, make any difference to that. We feel that the way forward is for the houses to remain in private hands.
That is for another meeting, convener.
I would rather that we did not get into land reform in this committee.
The bill does not specifically mention private owners as much as we would like. As Simon Gilmour said, there is nothing in the document that we can object to—it says all the right things—but I wonder whether it can deliver in the face of conflicting political pressures.
We should always have high ambitions, though, Mr Hay.
Yes.
I declare an interest as a member of both the National Trust for Scotland and Historic Scotland.
I hate definitions that run the risk of restricting rather than enhancing what we are able to do.
We said in our consultation response that there should be a definition of “historic environment” in the bill and that it should be the definition that is in the strategy, which states:
Scottish Natural Heritage also has a definition of the natural environment, which was produced when the body was set up. That situation is analogous to the current one in that, when a new body that was responsible for natural heritage was set up, the definition of natural heritage was written into the founding documents in the same way that we think, for clarity, it should be for HES.
I always think of Historic Scotland as being responsible more for the built environment, such as historic houses and so forth. I do not think about broadening its remit to cover more intangible culture. How can we draw a boundary around that? How can we provide a definition, whether in the bill or in the strategic document, that will ensure that there is no encroachment on other areas?
Historic Scotland already has inventories for battlefields, designed landscapes, historic gardens and so on, so there are already definitions and descriptions of things that are not buildings. In designed landscapes, for example, there is the physical evidence of the human hand. Battlefields are in some cases not really anything other than a field, but the stories around them and the significance for local people of knowing what happened there are enough to make a battlefield a historic environment with not a building to be seen.
Are there any negative implications of not having a definition in the bill but putting one in the strategy document instead?
I would argue that the definition should be in the bill as well as in the strategy document, for various reasons. One reason is simply to explain the name of the bill: it is the Historic Environment Scotland Bill, so what does “historic environment” actually mean? It would be useful to have the definition in the bill to explain that. It would also help us in our advocacy role if we could point to something that said what the historic environment is and that it is very important.
Do you think that there is the potential for confusion about who is responsible for what?
I think that there will be less confusion than there is currently about which of the two existing bodies is responsible for what. Going forward, how various organisations will be funded from the public purse to deal with certain areas and where the buck will stop will be defined by activity and collaboration, which is what we all want. We do not want all the different organisations to do different things in their own silos; we want them to collaborate much more and to move forward in that way. The emphasis on the physical evidence of human activity will help to pinpoint what the new organisation will try to do.
I am just trying to think of the logic here. You made the point that we live in a messy environment and that change is happening all the time. Would it be better if the definition of “historic environment” was in the strategy document, which can be updated and changed as time goes on, rather than embedded in the bill, which would mean that primary legislation would be required for every tweak and change?
If we attempt to define everything, that will get extremely messy and confusing. You refer to something that I discussed earlier with my colleagues here. We tend to think of the historic environment as buildings, but the historic environment is being managed sensibly by landowners and local authorities, which do a tremendous amount of work to maintain the scenic in our localities. For example, I went for a walk yesterday morning that I thoroughly enjoyed because I was looking at areas that I visited as a child, including a waterfall. Such scenic environments are very important for enriching our communities. As you said, attention needs to be paid in that regard, which is why we must be careful not to define the strategy too much. We could write chapter after chapter about what we expect the strategy to do, but it must be more broadly based than that. There must be co-production and collaborative working that is not too regimented in terms of the buildings aspect.
Strategic environmental planning systems are really important. There is no mention at the moment of how the historic environment strategy would mesh with the local planning and the strategic environmental planning. It would be helpful if, as part of the normal planning cycle, we had to take into account historic environmental features to give a more holistic view instead of looking through a narrow lens. We want to see joined-up planning in that respect rather than separate planning.
I realise that you are not lawyers—at least, I do not think that you are—but do you know whether there is any legal disadvantage in having the term “historic environment” defined in the strategy as opposed to its being in the bill?
You are quite right that I am not a lawyer, so knowing whether there would be a legal disadvantage in that regard is outwith my purview. However, we think that there would be an advantage to the definition’s being in the bill as opposed to its being only in the strategy. The current definition came about through many hours of blood, sweat and tears in a collaborative venture and is sufficiently broad to stand the test of time. I cannot think that it would not do that. In addition, having the term in the bill would make it, in a legal sense, a useful and powerful tool for ensuring the legitimacy of the historic environment in other discussions. In discussions about cross-cutting policy, the management of the natural environment, education, health and wellbeing, and so on, it would be a much more powerful tool if we could point to it in legal documents to show that the definition existed and that we needed to deal with it.
It is a question of equality. If SNH has a definition of the natural environment and historic environment Scotland has no definition, there will be an unevenness in cross-cutting areas such as landscape policy. It is also a question of consistency. In drawing up landscape policy, you would want to look at the SNH definition and give equal weight to the two definitions, for clarity and demarcation.
I will press you a little on that important area. Dr Gilmour talked about how broad and all-encompassing the definition that is in the strategy document is and said that he hoped that we could avoid any future changes that might be necessary if there were a tighter definition, but is that not the fundamental difficulty? In effect, a broad definition loses any legal authority. The ability to be legally binding requires a tight definition, and the fact is that the strategy has a broad definition. The definition is wide and woolly, for good reason, but putting it into primary legislation would not work.
I have no legal expertise, so I cannot tell you whether the definition could legitimately be put into legalese. I wish that I could remember what the definition is in the SNH strategy document—Kate Mavor might know—because I am sure that it must also be broad and all-encompassing if it is to cover the entire natural environment of Scotland in legislation, so I see no particular difficulty with that.
I do not have a copy of that in front of me either, but we can look it up to see whether such a definition is in the Natural Heritage (Scotland) Act 1991 or in some other place.
The general functions that the organisation will undertake are comprehensively listed in the bill, but how the organisation interacts with other publicly funded bodies such as SNH is not in the bill, except in the general terms that refer to
We know where the definition is. It is in the strategy.
It is in the strategy, but it is not in the legal document that people would cite in any legal case. Those involved in a legal case would have to look at a strategy, which is not a legal document at all. As Liz Smith pointed out, there are potential difficulties with delivery and attribution of where the buck stops, but there are no such complications in the bill, which makes clear where the buck stops.
Any legally binding definition would have to be pretty tight, but what would happen if we changed our view of the historic environment? For example, our modern industrial heritage, such as mines, mills and factories, was not considered part of the historic environment—that used to be much more about landscapes, ancient monuments, castles, private houses and lots of other things—but we have since changed our view. If, instead of setting out a definition in the strategy and keeping the bill separate, we put a tight, legally binding definition in the bill, and if at some point down the line we changed our view of the historic environment, would we not—as Mr Beattie tried to suggest—have to come back and change the primary legislation to account for that?
The simple answer is yes—Parliament might have to come back and look at the primary legislation again in due course, but when would that have to happen? It might be 50 or 100 years hence, when it might be time to look again at the legislation in any case, as other aspects of it would certainly be out of date.
As I said at the beginning, we have to be careful with definitions. They can be very exact things—for example, everyone agrees with the definition of velocity or mass—but, once we move into the social or community domain, things are not as easy to define, and aspects can end up being excluded rather than included. I would therefore be guarded in how we approach such matters. I know that Clare Adamson knows about definitions, because I taught her about velocity and mass at school.
Councillor McGuigan, it is not essential to declare that you used to teach members of the committee. I am not sure that that is particularly relevant—or, indeed, helpful to some members. [Laughter.]
Noting that the terms “Stalinism” and “diktat” have been used this morning, I should say that my questions are about historic environment Scotland’s charitable status, its impact on other bodies and the hope that we are moving to a more democratic, fairer and more inclusive system.
I will let Kate Mavor respond first, because the NTS is more worried about the issue than we are.
All of us who work in the voluntary sector compete for funds; that is nothing new to us and we are comfortable with the concept. However, one striking point is that the cuts in Government funding to Historic Scotland and RCAHMS in the recent past amount to £15 million. We estimate that the overall pot for the charities working in the historic environment sector is about £26 million and, if another £15 million has to be found out of that for Historic Scotland and RCAHMS, that does not leave an awful lot for us. You will understand that those are back-of-an-envelope calculations, but the point is that there is a limited amount of money.
I support everything that Kate Mavor just said. Although the Westminster Government has done exactly the same with English Heritage, it has quantified the money for covering the backlog of repairs and has said that there will be no more money after that. The HHA in London does not believe that the sum is anywhere near enough to cover the backlog.
It is a considerable concern that, between the HHAS and the NTS, there is a £103 million backlog of urgent and other repairs. I say to Kate Mavor that her back-of-an-envelope calculations are the same as the figures that I have in front of me, which indicate that Government support for Historic Scotland in the past five years has gone down from £51.7 million to £37.8 million and for RCAHMS has gone down from £5.8 million in 2006-07 to £4.5 million. Support for both has reduced.
I clarify that those are the NTS’s figures. They do not come from anywhere else; they are reproduced from the NTS.
So we are all looking at the same back-of-an-envelope figures.
The figures for the reductions in funds are ours, but we got them from public records, so they are not made up. The £26 million pot is more of a back-of-an-envelope calculation, but the other two figures are firm.
So the reduction from £51 million to £37 million is an accurate figure.
I believe so.
The backlog for the NTS is £46 million, while it is £57 million and growing for the HHAS, which is a total of £103 million.
We are looking for an explicit commitment in the bill to working collaboratively. One organisation could go hell for leather to soak up all the visitor attraction money that is available, or everybody could be committed to working collaboratively so that anything that is obviously predatory is not permitted under the legislation. Protections could be built into the legislation to ensure that there is a level playing field and that any tax advantages, for example, that might come from formerly being a Government body were taken away so that everyone competed on an even keel.
We will come to that.
I have described things that we think can be written into the bill to protect against predatory behaviour by an organisation that—let us face it—will be strapped for cash, as all of us are. It will have a lot of liabilities, and it will have its own separate board, which will pressure the management to look after things and to raise money—to up the organisation’s income. Its management will be under a lot of pressure, and it will be difficult for the organisation not to want to compete. We are all fighting over a small pot.
I would be surprised if a commitment to work collaboratively was written into a bill. In my view, that is more of an assumption. I would also be surprised if a commitment to a level playing field was written into a bill. However, I hope that that, too, would be an assumption.
One of the things that people must have if they are to appeal against a decision is data. As I said earlier, it is difficult to proceed without understanding how historic environment Scotland will account for its repair and maintenance bill, what it will prioritise and how it will go about its business. We ask for transparency in all the organisation’s dealings, so that we can compare like with like.
Section 8 covers corporate planning, which is how the organisation lays out how it will achieve its goals and aims. That is overseen by the Scottish ministers and, if Kate Mavor had an issue, she could say to her elected representatives in Parliament, “The corporate plan needs to include X, Y or Z.” That is a potential mechanism. I have written down next to section 8, “How do Scottish ministers deal with a rogue HES?” Exactly that sort of issue could be laid out more transparently and clearly in the corporate planning section of the bill.
For the record, I declare that I am a member of the National Trust for Scotland.
Kate Mavor might want to answer that question.
Everyone is looking around for a buck to pass.
I am trying to think whether anecdotal evidence from some of the big building projects counts, but it probably does not.
Mr Hay, in your opening remarks you said that Historic Scotland is very supportive of the private sector—I hope that I have not taken your comment out of context. Does that not suggest that there has not been any conflict in the handing out of grants?
No one has told me that they have had problems with Historic Scotland. When I have meetings with Historic Scotland, it is very keen to incorporate the private sector’s views. However, I am reliant on individual members to tell me of their experiences.
It has been suggested that there has been £15 million-worth of cuts in the sector across RCAHMS and Historic Scotland. Is it not the case that both RCAHMS and Historic Scotland generated a surplus in two of the three years up to March 2015? In the year to March 2013, when they had a deficit, it was a deficit of only £225,000. If RCAHMS and Historic Scotland are working within the financial envelope that they have to work in, why would they need to claw back £15 million?
As I said before, accounts work differently in the public sector. When I have a surplus, it is because I have covered all my repairs and maintenance and all the on-going stuff before I even start talking about what is left over. I do not know whether RCAHMS and Historic Scotland are accounting for that in the same way.
I understand that it would be up to historic environment Scotland to decide whether or not to apply for charitable status, but are there financial benefits for an organisation in going down the charitable status route that would not impact on other bodies’ income?
There would be some. It would have more favourable business rates, which would not affect the rest of us, and it would be able to do certain things.
The financial memorandum suggests that between the gift aid scheme and charitable rates relief, over a period there could be a £20 million benefit to historic environment Scotland, which would not impact on any other organisation.
Are you saying that if RCAHMS were not a charity anymore, things that were given to it—
It would not be able to get income generated from charitable activities, would it?
No, it would not.
In effect, that would represent a substantial loss to the sector. I understand that RCAHMS currently gets in the region of £5 million a year from charitable activities. If it did not have charitable status, it would lose £5 million, which would probably need to be made up from the public purse, which would mean that there would be less money for other organisations.
Possibly. That sounds feasible.
Some of that comes through the Scran Trust, but it is a key issue with regard to whether the organisation becomes a charity and carries out its own charitable activities. The Scran Trust has its own board of trustees and it could choose to host ventures elsewhere, so I do not think that the sector would lose the money. The trust could go and work with the National Library of Scotland, for example. Therefore, the sector would retain the income that comes in through that charitable organisation; it just would not come through HES.
Liam McArthur, do you have a brief supplementary?
Kate Mavor talked about the way in which decisions are made about funding in one area as opposed to another. Concerns have been raised about the likely implications for staffing with the creation of the new organisation, and a possible loss of expertise. A comparison was made with what has happened south of the border. I am not sure that there is anything we can do about that in the bill, but do you recognise that concern? What might be the implications of that?
My understanding is that, south of the border, that was recognised as being an unintended consequence, but the situation has been mitigated, so people will not have to worry about it. What the commission does and its valuable role have been written into the new organisation, so they will not be lost, and we are very pleased about that.
I have a small question to ask Kate Mavor before we move on to the final section. You mentioned concern about the possible conflicts of interest if an organisation receives money as well as giving grants and being involved in regulation and so on. What is your specific concern? Historic Scotland pretty much does those things already, so what will the difference be?
The main difference will be the pressure that the organisation is under to raise its own funds and make its own money. That skews things differently. If we consider the staffing of the new body and how many staff will be involved in managing tourism outlets and heritage tourism properties, we can see a disproportionate emphasis on that part of the business. That leaves only a small number to cover the regulatory function, even though, as I said at the beginning, the regulatory function is really the unique and most important thing that the body does, because no one else does it. So many people will be tied up in running the estate as a leading tourism operation—as the draft documentation for the bill originally described it—and there will be pressure to find the money to pay for staffing and for all the other things for which money was previously just given. That will be the big difference from the current situation.
That is quite a serious allegation to say that the body would in effect be tempted—I will not put it any stronger than that—to bend regulation, or break the law.
I would not describe it as an allegation. If you think it through, you see that the organisation will be under a lot of pressure. Therefore, it is important, in establishing it, to have a commitment to transparency to avoid that happening. There is no allegation intended. I am just trying to anticipate how difficult it will be to put time and effort into regulation when the organisation is under pressure to fix the roof, open the doors and cover health and safety and all the other compliance requirements that are necessary in opening to the public. There is a lot of pressure in that, and that is why transparency must be safeguarded.
I do not think that anyone would have a different opinion on the need to ensure that everything is open and transparent and to safeguard everything that is legal and proper in the process. I am just slightly concerned that there is an over-emphasis on an imagined difference between what the bodies currently do and what they will do under the new set-up. Clearly, the Government has published policy aims. For example, on regulation, the policy memorandum says:
I would just point out that England and Wales, which faced similar choices, both decided not to put the regulatory role in with the management of the properties. The reasons that were given for that concerned potential conflict down the line.
Is your concern not that the new body would play fast and loose with the rules, but that it could?
Absolutely. Of course it would not do so. I do not know anyone who would think to do that deliberately. I am just saying that it could do that and that, therefore, some protection against that has to be included. Who knows what people will do when they are under pressure? Who knows who will be the chairman of its board, and who will be on the board, and what emphasis the board will put on what elements? An element of public protection needs to be written into the legislation.
I would like you to clarify what you said in your written submission about the issue of liability. As we know, the bill will transfer responsibility for 344 historic properties. In your submission, you say that
Our understanding is that the liability remains with the ministers. We have verified that with the policy unit. Our point is that the various owners who have given their properties into the guardianship of the Scottish ministers have, in so doing, entered into some kind of contractual arrangement with the Scottish ministers. Our contention is that if the Scottish ministers then outsource the management of those properties to someone else—the new body—the owners should be consulted, at the very least.
Will the liability for maintenance of the properties remain with ministers?
As I understand it, yes, because the ownership is not transferring.
Is the Scottish Government aware of your concerns about the maintenance backlog? Have you contacted it about that and has it given any commitments on it or are there any plans to undertake audits to ascertain the backlog of repairs?
Yes, the Government is aware. We have had good, open and regular conversations about the bill and we are grateful for that consultation. As I understand it, Historic Scotland has an exercise under way to quantify what the cost will be.
I thank all the witnesses for coming along. It was an interesting evidence-taking session and helpful for our stage 1 deliberations on the bill.
Previous
AttendanceNext
Public Petitions