National Trust for Scotland (Governance etc) Bill: Preliminary Stage
The next item of business is a debate on motion S4M-06243, in the name of Fiona McLeod, on behalf of the National Trust for Scotland (Governance etc) Bill Committee, on the preliminary stage of the National Trust for Scotland (Governance etc) Bill. I call Fiona McLeod to speak to and move the motion, with a very tight six minutes.
16:31
As convener of the National Trust for Scotland (Governance etc) Bill Committee, I thank, among others, my fellow committee members, those who took the time to give us evidence—both in writing and as witnesses—and, especially, the clerks and the Scottish Parliament information centre for all the support that they gave us.
I will use my tight six minutes to talk about the background to why this private bill is before the Parliament and about its broad principles. The other members of the committee will talk about specific aspects of the bill.
In its preliminary stage report, the committee clearly stated that it was satisfied that a private bill was necessary, as it must do under rules 9A.8.1 and 9A.8.3 of standing orders.
On why this private bill is before the Parliament, I am sure that many members remember the headlines back in 2008 when the National Trust for Scotland was at a crisis point and standing at a crossroads. We were looking at closures of some of our best-loved properties and even at sales of some of them. At the same time, the Office of the Scottish Charities Regulator criticised the governance of the National Trust for Scotland in “Who’s In Charge: Control and Independence in Scottish Charities”.
That all led to a major strategic review of the National Trust for Scotland in 2009 and 2010, led by our former Presiding Officer, Sir George Reid. In his report, entitled “Fit for Purpose: Report of the Strategic Review of the National Trust for Scotland”, Sir George pulled absolutely no punches about the state in which the National Trust for Scotland found itself. He talked about the “byzantine” governance structure: a structure that led to there being no strategic direction for the trust and, sometimes—even worse—an inability to tackle problems as they arose.
Sir George’s report, which covered a two-year period, followed, to use his words,
“a massive programme of engagement, participation and consultation”.—[Official Report, National Trust for Scotland (Governance etc) Bill Committee, 12 March 2013; c 15.]
I was impressed to see that, so well conducted and inclusive was that consultation that, at the National Trust for Scotland’s 2010 annual general meeting, the reforms proposed in the report were endorsed by a vote of 424 to two members of the trust. Therefore, when we began to consider the bill, we were reassured that it had the support of the people who really knew what it was about.
Since the 2010 AGM, many of the reforms have been implemented and there have been a good many benefits to the National Trust for Scotland. It now has a single governance structure with a board of trustees of 15 members. Previously, the two boards and two methods of governance had, I think, a total of 87 members. Members of the Parliament can understand why the trust was so unwieldy and unable to make strategic decisions.
The reforms that have been implemented since then have received OSCR’s approval. Perhaps most significantly for members of the public who, like me, are passionate supporters of the National Trust for Scotland, it now has reserves of £21 million. I therefore hope that we will not look again at the dreadful situation in 2008, when the question was whether we would have to sell things off to manage. At the preliminary stage, we heard in evidence from Sir George Reid that the bill is
“the final milestone in the process of reform and revitalisation of the National Trust for Scotland”.
The current chair of the board of trustees, Sir Kenneth Calman, talked about its being “vital” as
“the last part of the jigsaw”.—[Official Report, National Trust for Scotland (Governance etc) Bill Committee, 12 March 2013; c 14, 23.]
Before I finish, I have to mention the National Trust for Scotland Order 1935, which set up the National Trust for Scotland. The trust’s actual name in legislation is the “National Trust for Scotland for Places of Historic Interest or Natural Beauty”. I have talked about the National Trust for Scotland throughout and am sure that most of us who visit its properties call it exactly that. The bill ensures that the shortform that we all use will be legally watertight and we will not have to always talk about the great big long title in the 1935 order.
My committee and I are pleased to have played our small part for a much-valued national institution.
I move,
That the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the National Trust for Scotland (Governance etc.) Bill and agrees that it should proceed as a private bill.
16:36
I was keen to speak in the debate not only to support the bill but because I wished to emphasise the vital role that the National Trust for Scotland plays in our national life and to place on the record the regard and affection in which it is held by many of us.
In order to give a sense of that, it would be useful to consider some facts. The trust is the third-largest landowner in Scotland, with 76,000 hectares, and the owner of 270 listed buildings. It is responsible for 46 Munros, seven national nature reserves, 45 sites of special scientific interest and the United Kingdom’s only mixed world heritage site, at St Kilda.
Like its predecessors, the Government has worked closely with the trust in supporting, for example, the splendid Robert Burns birthplace museum and the exciting new visitor facilities that are currently under development at Bannockburn. However, we recognise that the main support for the trust in its work of caring for many of our national treasures comes from more than 300,000 devoted members, its many volunteers, its imaginative fundraising activities and the income from its trading activities.
When the trust encountered difficulties a few years ago, I sensed a collective intake of breath right across Scotland. If its future could be in jeopardy, what other treasured institutions might be at risk? The painstaking review of the trust’s activities, structures and governance that followed, which was undertaken by George Reid, charted a course to safety along which the trust has travelled. It has faced hard decisions along the way.
The Reid review identified the complexity of the trust’s governance arrangements as a serious obstacle to progress. The report stated that
“they prevent the Trust tackling issues and setting strategic direction.”
The review recommended a number of changes, almost all of which have been given effect by administrative action.
The trust’s five-year strategy was launched in September 2011 with the aim of guiding it away from this period of difficulty. Five strategic priorities were identified in it: the portfolio and its conservation; the promotion of Scotland’s heritage; financial sustainability; visitor enjoyment; and investment in our people. I am pleased to have seen the hard work that has been undertaken since the introduction of the strategy to deliver on those priorities and am thoroughly encouraged by the direction in which the trust is now moving.
The bill deals with the last few changes that were recommended by the Reid review. Legislative action is needed to complete the modernisation of the trust’s governance. As the convener of the committee has already mentioned, the changes are relatively minor, but they can be seen as another fundamental step on the continuing journey that the trust is on.
As members will be aware, the Government plans to consult shortly on proposals to establish and further develop a high-level strategy for Scotland’s historic environment and on provisions to create a single new lead body to carry out the roles that are appropriate to national Government in the area. In the preparatory work for that consultation, which was undertaken with a wide range of stakeholders, the National Trust for Scotland’s role as an independent partner in our diverse heritage landscape was widely recognised.
The trust provides an informed and inspiring voice on heritage issues. The range and depth of its experience offer strengths that complement and expand on what can be achieved by Government and its agencies. We detail in the proposals plans to bring together Historic Scotland and the Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Scotland into a single body, so we will take great care to ensure the continuation of the trust’s important and distinctive role as a key player in a team Scotland approach, an idea that the trust has been instrumental in developing.
In many respects, the bill offers us an opportunity to emphasise the value of partnership working between Government and the third sector, and between Parliament and the third sector. The trust is a conservation charity that defines its mission as being to work for the good of Scotland, and it is a significant partner in delivering a considerable number of Scottish Government policy objectives. A new emphasis has been placed on developing and maintaining partnerships and creating new synergies across Scotland, which can only be beneficial to all parties concerned. The trust will contribute significantly to the much anticipated year of homecoming in 2014 and, as I have said, it has been a central part of two of Scotland’s major cultural projects over recent years: the Robert Burns birthplace museum and the Bannockburn visitor centre.
A strong and well managed National Trust for Scotland is a key part of delivering the Scottish Government’s vision for the conservation of Scotland’s rich cultural and natural heritage, environmental awareness and education. The trust is also a significant contributor to economic benefit for the nation and local communities, particularly in remote and rural areas. I therefore stand before members this afternoon fully in support of the bill.
We now turn to the open debate. We are slightly oversubscribed for it, so speeches should be around three minutes.
16:41
Scotland has some of the finest cultural and natural heritage to be found anywhere in the world, and protecting it for future generations is something that we should all strive for. The work of the National Trust for Scotland is integral to achieving that aim.
The influence of the National Trust for Scotland is clear in constituencies across the country. I am delighted that in my constituency of Glasgow Cathcart, the National Trust for Scotland helps to oversee two buildings of historical importance. The first is Holmwood house, described as Alexander “Greek” Thomson’s finest domestic design; and the second is Pollok house in Pollok country park, just a stone’s throw away from the famous Burrell collection. Pollok house is regarded as one of Scotland’s grandest Edwardian country homes, but parts of it date back to the 13th century. Pollok house was the ancestral home of the Maxwell family. Indeed, Sir John Stirling Maxwell, the 10th Baronet of Pollok, was one of the founding members of the National Trust for Scotland. He served as one of the trust’s first vice-presidents and was the president of the trust from 1943 until his death in 1956. He believed strongly in the important role that green spaces play in a city and he was determined to protect the Pollok estate and ensure that the people of Glasgow had access to it. That ethos is maintained through the work of the National Trust for Scotland.
That is why it is vital that the National Trust for Scotland is governed appropriately and is sufficiently malleable to respond to the changing needs and demands placed on it, so that it can continue to protect our cultural and natural heritage in the 21st century. In that regard, I will therefore focus on the detail of one of the bill’s provisions that concerns the role of the president and vice-presidents of the trust.
The 1935 order, which my colleague Fiona Hyslop mentioned, put the trust on a statutory footing and stated that the board of trustees must include the president and any vice-presidents of the trust. Those postholders therefore have liability as charity trustees. The Reid review recommended that the president and any vice-presidents should have an impartial role and take no part in decisions of the board of trustees. Accordingly, since the review, the president has adopted an impartial, ambassadorial role and no longer attends board meetings. Similarly, vice-presidents have been elected in an honorary capacity only, which ensures that their role is distinct from that of day-to-day management and decision making by the board. Sir George Reid spoke of the need for a neutral and impartial
“guardian of the sacred flame”.
He also stressed that
“legislative change is needed to give effect to the proposals.”—[Official Report, National Trust for Scotland (Governance etc) Bill Committee, 12 March 2013; c 17-18.]
Sir Kenneth Calman commented on the fact that the bill will remove the responsibility of presidents and vice-presidents to attend board meetings, which would have the benefit of releasing postholders’ time and removing conflicts of interest. In its written evidence to the committee, OSCR welcomed the proposal and considered that it would clarify who has responsibility as charity trustees. We understand that, should the bill succeed, the role of honorary vice-president will cease to exist and vice-presidents will be nominated under the new arrangements, free of the requirement to be involved with the board and from any liability as a charity trustee. The current workaround satisfies the immediate concerns expressed in Sir George Reid’s review, but it is not a satisfactory footing for the future. We are therefore supportive of the bill’s provision in that regard, which will secure more appropriate modern arrangements for the future.
16:44
Those of us who value the National Trust for Scotland’s work were saddened by the events in 2008 that saw its finances dwindle and the organisation having to sell off some of its properties. In some ways, what was even more disturbing was how the organisation found itself in the media spotlight for all the wrong reasons.
Whether a battlefield, a castle or a camping pod at Brodick, we entrust Scotland’s heritage to the National Trust. The organisation makes an important contribution to the cultural and environmental life of the country—a job that it continued to do, despite the problems that it faced.
The contribution of the review undertaken by our friend and colleague, Sir George Reid, has been an important one. Although his recommendations could be largely implemented without legislation, it is right that an organisation of such significance as the National Trust is underpinned by legislation. Therefore, I applaud it for introducing the bill that is before us and the National Trust for Scotland (Governance etc) Bill Committee for its diligence in providing scrutiny of its provisions.
As we know, the trust governance structures have been described as “byzantine” and criticised for resulting in
“duplication, delay, uncertainty and friction.”—[Official Report, National Trust for Scotland (Governance etc) Bill Committee, 12 March 2013; c15.]
When one reflects on the fact that the organisation had a system of dual governance, with a combined total board membership of 87, it is perhaps surprising that the system has lasted as long as it has.
I fully support the bill’s provisions, which underpin the more streamlined structure that the committee is looking at. On some of the specific proposed changes, it is right that the role of representative members is abolished. The rationale for that system, which existed in the 1930s, no longer applies. When the organisation was founded, it would have wanted to harness the skills and expertise of other organisations to ensure that it could build its capacity. The Reid review’s findings that there are better ways of securing and co-ordinating that advice seem to be sound.
James Dornan eloquently outlined the new provisions that will apply to the roles of the president and vice-president, which will free them from their status as charity trustees, ensure proper scrutiny and, importantly, give them an ambassadorial role, which might be important when developing the new structure.
That the work of the trust should be aligned to a five-year plan seems to me to be a good, if fairly obvious idea, as does an audit of assets. It also seems sensible to call the trust in law what it is called in life and in its every day working, which is dealt with in section 4. I was struck by a point made by one of the committee witnesses that the confusion over the name can sometimes results in bequests from individuals who have passed away going to the wrong organisation. That is not something that any of us want to see.
The fact that the Reid review was welcomed overwhelmingly by the members of the National Trust should give us great faith in the bill’s provisions. Scottish Labour supports the bill, looks forward to further discussion in Parliament and wishes the National Trust for Scotland and its staff all the very best as they progress the bill.
I call Alex Fergusson. He has a slightly generous three minutes.
16:48
Does that mean that I can go back to four minutes, Presiding Officer? The Presiding Officer is shaking her head, so it does not.
I am pleased to take part in this short debate, even if it is just as an inadequate deputy for my colleague, Jamie McGrigor, who is unavoidably committed elsewhere this afternoon.
The National Trust showed great sense in asking our former Presiding Officer to carry out the review that is behind the legislation that is in front of us. As the convener of the National Trust for Scotland (Governance etc) Bill Committee said, Sir George, in typical style, pulled no punches in undertaking the review. What is emerging as a result is a National Trust that is surely far more fit for purpose and ready to meet the challenges that it will face in the coming years.
Given the time constraints, I will focus on one aspect of the bill, which is the provision that addresses co-opted membership of the board of trustees. The 1935 order that established the trust on a statutory footing provides for the board of trustees to co-opt additional members for up to one year at a time in order to gain extra expertise. The Reid review endorsed those arrangements, which it felt were important in continuing
“to ensure an appropriate range of experience and skills among trustees.”
That must surely be especially true in light of the drastic reduction in the number of trustees that has quite rightly taken place.
The bill aims to add to the arrangement by introducing a longer period of co-option to the board of trustees, of up to four years, rather than just one year, as is currently the situation. The trust thinks that the measure will increase the likelihood of securing suitable candidates. I find it hard to disagree with that. The committee was surprised to learn during evidence that the chairman himself, Sir Kenneth Calman, is a co-opted member of the board of trustees. He described the need for co-opted members of the board as a means of ensuring that
“we have people who fit the bits that are missing from the board.”—[Official Report, National Trust for Scotland (Governance etc) Bill Committee, 12 March 2013; c 27.]
He argued that when he steps down it will be easier to find a replacement chairman if there is greater certainty about the length of the appointment. Again, it is hard to disagree.
I understand that nothing currently prevents co-opted members from having their roles renewed each year. However, they can be appointed for only one year at a time. Sir George quite rightly asked why someone with significant skills, experience and reputation would take on a job for only one year. We did not often argue with him when he was our Presiding Officer and it would be unwise to do so now. Sir Kenneth Calman added that due to the size, complexity and geographical extent of the organisation, people need a year just to get up to speed with the board’s work. It is important to note that OSCR welcomed the provision.
I understand that the committee is persuaded by the argument that there should be a mechanism that allows co-opted members of the board of trustees to be appointed for a term of up to four years. I note that the board will be able to continue to co-opt members for fewer than four years if it considers that to be appropriate.
All that seems eminently sensible. We support not just the provisions in that regard but the bill itself.
16:51
The Scottish Government fully supports the proposals and looks forward to continuing its excellent relationship with the National Trust as we move towards an exciting time. The trust’s work links with a considerable cross-section of the Government’s work, from culture to rural affairs to education, and many opportunities will present themselves in the coming years. We recognise that the trust will be a key partner in enabling Scotland to take full advantage of opportunities.
Discussion about the bill has served to highlight the National Trust’s importance to Scotland—to its culture and heritage, its environment, its local communities and its economy. We have been given an opportunity to appreciate the problems that the trust faced in recent years and the positive way in which it responded. The trust’s actions have been efficient and effective and should be welcomed by all members.
Challenges there were and challenges remain. The needs of our heritage are many, and resources will always be scarcer than we would wish them to be. Scotland needs a National Trust that is vibrant, efficient and effective. It needs the trust to be independent while being a key player in team Scotland, working as a partner of Government and communities at national and local level, to help to conserve Scotland’s incomparable historic and natural heritage and to unlock the social and economic benefits that can and should be derived from that heritage.
The changes that the bill will implement are necessary in enabling that ambition to be achieved. George Reid appreciated that in his review, and trust members appreciated that by overwhelmingly approving the measures. Perhaps most relevant today, the Cabinet sub-committee on legislation appreciated that, too.
The bill committee’s meticulous report, for which it deserves our whole-hearted thanks, confirms that it is appropriate that our Parliament takes forward the legislative means to complete the reforms that the Reid review recommended. In doing so, we will enable the trust to continue on its course as a leading conservation charity, with a modern governance structure that is fit for the challenges of the 21st century.
I agree, and the Government agrees, that the bill should proceed. The trust deserves nothing less than our full support in its most valuable work for Scotland and for the peoples of Scotland.
16:54
I thank my fellow committee members and the clerks. This was my first experience of being a deputy convener—of anything—and of a private bill, so I had a lot to learn. I certainly learned a lot and I very much enjoyed the experience. It was a pleasure to work with everyone, and I thank them for being so kind and supportive to me. I also thank all those who gave oral and written evidence: Sir George Reid, Professor Sir Kenneth Calman, the trade union Prospect and OSCR. We were pleased to receive it.
As the committee convener Fiona McLeod has pointed out, the National Trust for Scotland was at crisis point and subject to criticism from OSCR. Sir George Reid was asked to conduct a review; he did so with a full programme of engagement, participation and consultation; and the reforms were overwhelmingly endorsed in 2010.
The cabinet secretary Fiona Hyslop has pointed out the number of assets that the trust has, which include buildings, land and landscapes. It gets involved in projects, supports volunteers, raises funds and relies very heavily on its membership to direct its work. Those assets are very important to Scotland, and it has been a pleasure to be part of the legislative action needed to complete the trust’s journey.
The trust provides a voice for heritage issues in a team Scotland approach. The cabinet secretary used that last phrase, and I like it very much. [Interruption.]
I am sorry—I must stop you for a moment, Ms Baxter. I ask for order in the chamber and courtesy to the member.
A theme that emerged from the committee’s work was the importance of the trust’s developing and maintaining partnerships and, indeed, increasingly relying on such an approach instead of having a structure dictated by representation and position. Importantly, it has agreed to engage with and get the best out of people and to exploit the educational and economic benefits that can come from working in such ways.
James Dornan demonstrated his knowledge of the history of the trust in his constituency and then talked about its relevance today. Patricia Ferguson said that the trust was entrusted with Scotland’s heritage and made it clear that it was a significant national organisation that merits the approach that is being taken. I was also pleased to hear Alex Fergusson’s view that the organisation was now fit for purpose to face future challenges.
When I was first encouraged to take part in the committee, I realised my complete ignorance of the National Trust for Scotland. I thought that I had not been to any trust properties or premises but when I looked online I discovered to my shame that I had actually been to quite a few. I was simply not aware that places I had enjoyed visiting were connected with the National Trust for Scotland; indeed, if anyone had asked me, I would have said that I did not know anything about it. Not only have I discovered that I have a lot to learn, but the trust itself could learn something from that about how it promotes and markets its identity as the custodian of these buildings and assets. My personal note to self is that this summer I will get round more of the trust’s premises, some of which are in Fife. I will make a point of visiting them and increasing my knowledge of the trust’s wonderful work in that part of the country and the rest of Scotland.
I realise that it is not quite 16:59, Presiding Officer, but I would like to conclude there.
That indeed concludes the debate on motion S4M-06243 in the name of Fiona McLeod, on behalf of the National Trust for Scotland (Governance etc) Bill Committee, on the preliminary stage of the National Trust for Scotland (Governance etc) Bill.
Before we move on to the next item of business, I note that members in the welfare reform debate had slipped back into certain bad habits. I therefore remind members that they should not call each other by first names or nicknames; should not speak directly to one another across the chamber, particularly those on the front benches; and should not conduct conversations with their backs to the Presiding Officer. Members have previously been reminded of such things and I would be extremely grateful if they could take them on board with regard to their conduct in the chamber.