National Trust for Scotland (Governance etc) Bill: Final Stage
The next item of business is a debate on motion S4M-06524, in the name of Fiona McLeod, on the National Trust for Scotland (Governance etc) Bill. No amendments to the bill have been lodged so we move straight to the debate on the motion to pass the bill. I invite Fiona McLeod to speak to and move the motion on behalf of the National Trust for Scotland (Governance etc) Bill Committee.
16:26
It is only a short month since we debated the preliminary stage of the bill in Parliament. At that time, as committee convener, I thanked a number of groups and I reiterate my thanks at the final stage of the bill. I thank my fellow committee members and the witnesses who gave written and oral evidence. I especially thank the clerks and the Scottish Parliament information centre staff, who supported us throughout the short bill procedure.
At that preliminary stage debate on 23 April, I rehearsed the background to and the necessity for the bill. Members will recall that it was the 2008 financial crisis within the National Trust for Scotland that precipitated a lot of the problems that the bill seeks to solve. In that financial crisis, it was discovered that a lot of the problems were rooted in poor governance procedures within the National Trust. That led to the setting up of the Reid review under our former Presiding Officer, Sir George Reid. His report, which was entitled “Fit for Purpose”, was published in 2010.
In that review, Sir George was clear that there was a need to restructure and to refocus the trust’s governance procedures. Much of that has taken place in the three short years since the report was published but the bill completes legislatively the Reid report recommendations from 2010. It is important to add that there is still on-going work on restructuring and refocusing outwith the legislative process because the NTS has engaged in the review with a great deal of enthusiasm and commitment. It is still looking at an audit of all its assets. It seems strange that an organisation that owns or is the custodian of so much within Scotland still needs to know exactly what its assets are.
One important item that I look forward to seeing come to fruition is the introduction of local assemblies. That is important when we realise that the NTS is a membership organisation that has 310,000 members. To say that it can work with all those members at an annual meeting is perhaps a little far-fetched. The introduction of local assemblies will bring that membership much more into the whole structure and function of the National Trust for Scotland.
I will spend a little time talking about the consultation review process, because it is an exemplar. Sir George Reid held 32 presentations, and there were 140 meetings with small groups. There were 9,061 responses to the membership questionnaire, a website forum, emails and of course old-fashioned letters. It is testament to that consultation process that the bill has come to Parliament with no objections at any stage, and with no amendments introduced either at the consideration stage or at the final stage today. The same can be said of the National Trust for Scotland’s 2010 annual general meeting, when the membership voted 424 to 2 to accept the recommendations of Sir George Reid’s “Fit for Purpose” report.
I conclude this short debate by saying that the bill is small but perfect, as the process that it has been through has shown. In finishing, Presiding Officer—
There is no rush.
I move,
That the Parliament agrees that The National Trust for Scotland (Governance etc) Bill be passed.
Fiona Hyslop has a generous four minutes.
16:31
Thank you, Presiding Officer.
I am delighted to be here for the final stage of the bill. I begin by recognising the support that members of all parties have offered the National Trust for Scotland during its modernisation programme, specifically in respect of the bill. I know that that solidarity reflects the esteem and affection that are felt for the trust throughout the country. I put on record my thanks to the National Trust for Scotland (Governance etc) Bill Committee for its diligent work in taking on the responsibilities in relation to the bill.
I do not need to remind members of the vital role that the trust plays in our national life. No matter how familiar we are with the trust, it is easy to underestimate the sheer scale of its work. It is not just the physical scale, impressive as that is. What always impresses me is the human scale: the visitors in their millions; the 314,000 members—slightly more than the number that the committee convener mentioned, but perhaps that reflects the growth in membership while the bill has progressed through Parliament; the hundreds of volunteers; the 1,000 staff; and those who support the trust’s work through legacies or donations.
I hope that members have not been too busy to watch the BBC’s superb series on the wildlife of the Hebrides. Recently, we saw one of the iconic images of Scotland: St Kilda and its teeming bird cliffs. It is interesting to reflect that the trust has more than twice as many members as there are gannets on St Kilda—and we know that there are a lot of gannets on St Kilda.
Through its inspiration, dedication and sheer hard work, the trust is in it for the long term and for everyone who loves Scotland and its superb heritage and landscape. It rightly receives support from Government for many of its activities, which range from state-of-the-art visitor centres to traditional farming practices, but the resources that we provide are far outweighed by those that are brought by its members, volunteers and other supporters.
As members know—and as Fiona McLeod set out—the trust is completing a programme of reform. Operational and financial sustainability is central to that, and the bill will contribute significantly to enabling the trust to develop a modern and business-like approach across all its operations.
The trust is not alone in needing vision and a sustainable business model to deliver benefits to the nation, as that need applies across the whole heritage sector. That is why I have just launched a public consultation on proposals to establish a high-level strategy for Scotland’s historic environment and on provisions to create a new lead body to carry out the roles that are appropriate to national Government in that area.
The trust has already been involved in discussions on those matters. It was quick to welcome the public consultation and to affirm its willingness to continue to work as a partner in developing an inclusive strategy to get the best out of our diverse heritage landscape, and I welcome that positive approach.
The trust’s knowledge and experience complement that of Government and its agencies. Many bodies are working for the good of Scotland and, for them all, growing together must surely be a better strategy than working in isolation. We are committed to working with the trust to ensure the continuation of its distinctive role as a key player in sustaining our heritage. I am quite clear that the trust acknowledges its responsibility to the nation, which I think is an important part of the trust’s role and responsibility. Our aim is a collaborative sector in which healthy competition drives all players towards higher standards and to a greater realisation of the potential benefits that our heritage can deliver—in economic, educational, cultural and social terms.
The final stage consideration of the bill today offers Parliament a valuable opportunity to reaffirm the value of partnership working between Government and the third sector. The Government believes in developing and maintaining partnerships and in creating new synergies across Scotland. We need a strong and well managed National Trust for Scotland as a key player in delivering our vision for the conservation of Scotland’s rich cultural and natural heritage, environmental awareness and education. We need the trust to continue in its role as a significant contributor of economic benefit to the nation and to local communities, particularly in remote and rural areas.
I affirm my and the Government’s full support for the bill, and I ask members to join me in speeding its passage towards completion.
We move to the open debate, in which speeches may be of a generous four minutes.
16:36
It has been a great privilege to be a member of the National Trust for Scotland (Governance etc) Bill Committee and to have worked closely with my colleagues Fiona McLeod, Jayne Baxter and Jamie McGrigor, as well as the clerking team, which has been of great assistance to committee members. My one complaint is that we never took the opportunity to go on a couple of visits. I also compliment the witnesses and all those who took part in the Reid review that Fiona McLeod mentioned, which is indeed a great piece of work.
As I have said before, Scotland has some of the finest cultural and natural heritage to be found anywhere in the world, and protecting that 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. Because that work is so important, it is imperative that the trust has a governance structure that works. In my view, the bill will provide that.
It may surprise some to know that 43 per cent of the National Trust for Scotland’s work is undertaken in the west of Scotland. Recently, I met Robert Ferguson, who is the trust’s general manager for Glasgow and the west of Scotland, to discuss the trust generally and, more specifically, Holmwood house and Pollok house, which are the trust’s two properties in my Glasgow Cathcart constituency. Both those properties are real treasures. Holmwood house, which has been described as Alexander “Greek” Thomson’s finest domestic design, was built for James Couper in 1857 and is currently undergoing work to restore it to its former glory. However, today I want to concentrate on Pollok house.
Based in the centre of Pollok park and just a stone’s throw away from the famous Burrell collection, Pollok house is regarded as one of Scotland’s grandest Edwardian country homes, although the building dates back to the 13th century. Pollok house is also significant for the National Trust for Scotland due to its long-standing connection to founding member and owner of Pollok house Sir John Stirling Maxwell, who served as the trust’s first vice-president and was later president from 1943 until his death in 1956.
Pollok house also played an important role in the creation of the trust, the idea for which, I am informed, started there with Sir John Stirling Maxwell. He was a man who recognised very early the importance of green spaces within the city and, as early as 1911, took steps to protect Pollok estate and allow wider public access to it. Scotland’s first conservation agreement originated in Pollok house in 1939, when Sir John led by example in creating the first conservation agreement for Pollok park. It is no accident that the estate is surrounded by sports clubs, which have proliferated around its boundaries.
Pollok house is now owned by Glasgow City Council as part of the estate that was gifted to the city by the daughter of Sir John Stirling Maxwell on his death. Since 1993, the house has been leased and managed by the National Trust for Scotland and is one of a number of properties across Scotland to follow that model of management. The house is now open 12 months of the year and receives more than 80,000 visitors annually.
The trust has worked in partnership with others to make Pollok house more of a country house. To exploit the recent popularity of “Downton Abbey”, the trust has looked to create more of an “Upstairs, Downstairs” representation in the house—I know which part I would probably have lived in.
Such innovative thinking is particularly important for buildings, such as Pollok house and Holmwood house, that are relatively off the beaten track for tourists. It is no coincidence that a large proportion of visitors to Pollok house come from the local area. Perhaps I might suggest, therefore, that to help Pollok house—and Holmwood house for that matter—to get some publicity and to attract more tourists, the cabinet secretary might come and visit it some time soon to see all the good work that is going on there.
The change in governance structure will not only positively affect the properties that the National Trust for Scotland manages, but could act as an example of good practice for other stakeholders across the country to secure the future of places such as Pollok house, Holmwood house and many other culturally significant sites and properties across Scotland.
As members are aware, I am extremely proud to represent my home constituency, which in many ways is the centre of Scotland’s political and cultural universe, as is seen in the fact that it hosts Hampden, the home of Scottish football, and was home to John Maclean, socialist and supporter of home rule for Scotland, and of course to Madame Ecosse, our very own Winnie Ewing—and her illustrious offspring, I hastily add. I am delighted to say that, thanks to my being a member of the committee, I am now aware of the importance of Pollok house and its history and, therefore, willing to add confidently one more item to that venerable list in respect of Glasgow Cathcart: original home of the National Trust.
16:40
As we discussed in our debate in March, the case for reform of the NTS is overwhelming. That fact was underlined by the “Fit for Purpose” report, which was published by the review team that was led by Sir George Reid. It is a comprehensive report that is full of interesting and important facts and figures, all of which helped the review team to make the case for reform of the NTS governance structures.
For me, one of the most telling sections of the report is headed “What You Said”. In that section, comments by staff, council members and funders were gathered together, which helped to illuminate the depth and scale of the problem and gave a hint as to what the future might be for the NTS if it did not reform. I will share just three of those comments with members, because they are worthy of repeating. A council member said:
“The governance is dysfunctional. There is a pervasive mindset among staff and those on the Board and Council that personal and sectional interests are more important than the interests of NTS as a whole.”
A member of staff suggested:
“Too much of our time goes on serving governance structures and not enough on doing our job.”
Equally worryingly, a major funder said:
“Why should I put money into NTS if they are all chasing each others’ tails? I want to, but I can’t until they are clear where they are going, and why.”
The review by Sir George and his team was thorough and, as the committee convener said, it reached out to the membership, with more than 9,000 members responding to a questionnaire and another 2,000 attending 32 meetings throughout the country. In light of the evidence that was received, the review team concluded that the trust was not sustainable in its present form and that it was in poor shape financially, with legacies being used as ready income to be spent, projects delayed until money was found and, sadly, assets sold to balance the books. Perhaps the most damning indictment of the structure was that there was no single database or inventory of its assets.
It is clear that what worked 80 years ago needs to be updated if the NTS is to thrive and meet its core task, as specified in the National Trust for Scotland Order Confirmation Act 1935, which was to promote
“the permanent preservation for the benefit of the nation of lands and buildings in Scotland of historic or national interest or natural beauty”.
The National Trust preserves the past for the future. Let us hope that the problems that were identified are now in the past. The NTS has begun to move on and has embarked on a programme of work to prepare for the provisions of the bill and rearrange its governance procedures. The local assemblies to which the committee convener referred will give strength to the new governance and provide a real role for the membership at large.
Sir George and his team have been widely praised for their work and the report that they have delivered. They did a comprehensive job and they deserve our thanks for helping to preserve the national treasure that is the National Trust.
I was struck by James Dornan’s comments for two reasons. First, I was sorry to hear that the committee did not go on one or two visits to better understand the day-to-day work of the NTS. I recommend that he visit St Kilda, to which the cabinet secretary referred, if ever he gets the opportunity. That is not just because it is in the most remote part of Scotland—I hope that Mr Dornan does not take that the wrong way—but because it is a genuinely amazing place with the most wonderful scenery and an atmosphere that I have never experienced anywhere else. I am grateful to the National Trust for facilitating my visit there a number of years ago.
As someone who has regularly visited Pollok house and its environs over many years, I say to Mr Dornan that he is absolutely right to sing its praises. I am sure that the minister would very much enjoy a visit to Pollok house and would find it the most interesting of places. Its setting, among other things, helps make it a particularly special part of Glasgow’s heritage and what Glasgow has to offer the tourist and the home visitor.
Scottish Labour very much supports the bill. I congratulate the members of the committee, the clerks and SPICe for the work that they have done in scrutinising the bill and I offer my good wishes to the staff and members of the NTS as they look forward to the new era that the bill heralds.
Many thanks. I now call Mr McGrigor, after which we will move to the closing speeches. Mr McGrigor, you have a generous four minutes—but no more than five.
16:45
Like others, I begin by thanking the clerking team, ably led by Joanna Hardy, and my colleagues on the committee, who were well served under the convenership of Fiona McLeod. I also extend my thanks to the witnesses who appeared before us and whose wise counsel guided our thinking. Lastly, I wish to thank my friend Alex Fergusson MSP for speaking on my behalf at stage 1.
The bill can perhaps be described as a technical piece of legislation whose aim is to tidy up existing and somewhat archaic governance in the National Trust for Scotland, and it should be uncontentious in its nature. However, that does not detract from the very serious necessity of bringing it forward, following adverse publicity and the resignation of the chairman three years ago—a time when the trust was engulfed in financial crisis, with 65 redundancies and the closure of several of its loss-making properties.
I therefore pay great tribute to Sir George Reid for his intensive and far-reaching inquiry, which resulted in the “Fit for Purpose” report. Sir George’s two-year examination of how the trust was run rightly highlighted what he described in his inimitable way as its “byzantine” governance and pointed to a lack of strategic direction and an inability to deal with problems. He also told the committee that he was enthused by the positive attitude to change in response to his findings.
Reform was inevitable, which was reflected in the views of the trust’s members, who voted overwhelmingly in favour of change at their annual general meeting in 2010, which saw the trust streamlined, replacing two boards with one.
The trust has been able to implement the Reid recommendations within the National Trust for Scotland Order 1935, which avoided the necessity of primary legislation. It is no surprise that the management of the trust was so chaotic, when one considers that the number of trustees was nearly 90. Thankfully, the number has now been reduced to 15.
The Blakenham review of the National Trust in England, Wales and Northern Ireland in 2003 concluded that the decision-making framework was overly complex and led to a lack of clarity and to duplication of staff effort. I am sure that the Reid review group must have studied that review closely in coming up with its own recommendations.
One of the key comments made by Sir Kenneth Calman was that the bill will remove the responsibility of the honorary president and honorary vice-presidents to attend board meetings, thus ending potential conflicts of interest—a move commended by the Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator, for seeking to create greater clarity. The possibility of having up to four co-opted members was kept, which is sensible in order to provide specialised expertise. The trust would like to keep those co-opted members for more than a year if necessary.
The 1935 order at present provides for the governing council to include various representatives of public or scientific bodies. Recommendation 3 of the Reid review was that there be no representative members of the council. The rationale for that recommendation was that there are now more appropriate mechanisms for ensuring co-ordination, expert advice and policy development at a national level. That was endorsed by OSCR, which referred to and welcomed the recommendations at page 19 of its guidance.
The other most striking, if not obvious, recommendation that is contained in the bill relates to the establishment by the trust of a five-year plan, which is eminently sensible, as is the suggestion—to which Patricia Ferguson referred—that an audit of assets should take place.
I was also interested in the organisation adopting a rather snappier title than the somewhat cumbersome “National Trust for Scotland for Places of Historic Interest or Natural Beauty”, which, after all, was a throwback to the 1930s.
I said at the outset that this private bill is technical in its nature but necessary in its content, and I have no hesitation in commending it to the chamber.
I end by agreeing with Patricia Ferguson that everyone should visit St Kilda. I have done so twice, and it is one of the great wonders of the world; so is the inn there, which is known as the Puff inn.
16:50
I thank members for their involvement in the debate and their comments.
Although I said that the bill committee was diligent in its actions, it was perhaps not as diligent as it might have been—just because we have reached the closing stages of the bill’s consideration, that does not mean that committee members should not ensure that they visit National Trust for Scotland properties on a regular basis. I certainly welcome the invitation to visit Pollok house.
James Dornan’s speech served as a highly effective reminder that people feel passionately about the places that surround them. Their stories are about people—perhaps people who worked the land or who served in the houses—and about wealth creation in Scotland and understanding how our nation has developed.
I put on record the Scottish Government’s full support for the proposals. We look forward to continuing our excellent working relationship with the trust as we move forward at this exciting time. We have heard a great deal about the role that Sir George Reid’s review played in getting us to where we are now, but I would also like to put on record our thanks to Sir Kenneth Calman and Kate Mavor—who, respectively, are the trust’s chair and chief executive—for their current leadership and their work in driving forward the change agenda.
The work of the trust links with a remarkable cross-section of the Government’s work: it is important to the culture and heritage agenda, to the natural environment agenda, to local communities and to the economy. In addition, the trust’s positive, collaborative and forward-looking approach is an example to many other charities that are involved in the field. It encourages them to work in partnership with not just the Government but one another and other organisations. When it comes to heritage, that is more important than ever.
The debate has provided us with an opportunity to appreciate the challenges that the trust has faced in recent years. With the quotes that she used, Patricia Ferguson set out clearly how challenging the position that the trust was in was for staff, trustees and others. We should recognise how positively the trust has responded. Its modernisation and refocusing have been determined, efficient and effective, and I know that its return to good health has been welcomed by everyone in the chamber. I can think of no better way to mark that than by approving the bill’s passage to the statute book, which will help to secure a sustainable future for a body that, as we have heard, is part of our national heritage in its own right.
The needs of our heritage are many. Resources will be scarcer than we would wish. Even in these challenging economic times, we must renew our drive to ensure that all organisations in this area benefit from collaboration and co-operation. As I said, the Government is consulting on a strategy to ensure that we work with our partners on the highest priorities. We are committed to ensuring that that process allows the trust’s work in the historic environment sphere to be situated in the firmest possible policy context, while guaranteeing the organisation’s independence as a vital partner and a critical friend.
All the many bodies and individuals who care so much about our incomparable heritage will have to work hard together to sustain our heritage in the future. The coming years will be a period when many opportunities will present themselves. We recognise that the trust will be a key partner and a key leader in enabling Scotland to take full advantage of those opportunities.
We need a National Trust that is vibrant, efficient and effective; that is independent in governance and spirit, yet which contributes as a key player and works as a partner of government and communities at a national and a local level; and that helps to conserve and to unlock social, cultural and economic benefits to the benefit of all.
By passing the bill, we will help to ensure that the trust can continue on its course as a leading conservation charity that has a modern governance structure, is sustainably managed, and is fit to serve the people of Scotland and respond to the challenges and opportunities of the 21st century.
Presiding Officer, as somebody who is originally from Ayrshire, I am sure that you would join me in recognising Culzean castle in particular as an excellent example of the NTS’s work on the natural environment and the built environment. It is another shining example of the fantastic work that the National Trust contributes to Scotland.
I indeed share your enthusiasm for Culzean castle.
16:55
I am very pleased to sum up on behalf of the committee in this final stage debate on the National Trust for Scotland (Governance etc) Bill.
As members will recall, we explored the bill’s background during the preliminary stage. At that time—and again in today’s debate—we heard about the history that led to the bill and the committee’s consideration of the broad principles behind it. During the bill’s progress, what has been clear from everyone’s contributions is the esteem and regard in which the National Trust for Scotland is held and its distinctive role in preserving Scotland’s heritage.
Perhaps rightly for an organisation that is so integral to preserving the historic and natural beauty of many of Scotland’s most prominent and recognisable landmarks and places, the trust is similarly embedded in the structures of Scottish public life. However, as with our historic houses and scenic places, the world has moved on, and the trust now inhabits a place that is quite different from the one that it inhabited when it was established in the 1930s.
Previous contributions to the debate have highlighted the cumbersome and cluttered governance arrangements that dominated the organisation until the Reid review. We have heard about the outcomes of the Reid review and OSCR’s views on best practice for the board of trustees. We know that the 1935 order that established the trust provided for certain public or scientific bodies to nominate representatives on the trust’s board of trustees. Such members are known as representative members. Back in the 1930s, when the trust was newly constituted and was building its capacity across Scotland, there was certainly a case for drawing from a broad base of experience. However, although that representative body aspect of the board members has changed, in taking evidence the committee was keen to establish that the trust will continue to draw on the expertise that exists in other specialist organisations.
It is not just specialist input that the committee was keen to retain for the trust; it was keen to retain its relevance to communities right across Scotland. In his evidence, Sir George Reid described the structure of regional fora and local assemblies that were established in response to recommendations in the Reid review and which are open to external bodies. He also pointed to the range of pan-Scotland bodies that exist to bring representatives of different bodies together to work on specific issues. He went on to outline the role that new media have to play in sharing ideas and expertise, and alongside all that, he asserted that “the trust listens”. I know that the trust will have listened to members’ contributions during the passage of the bill.
The committee also heard from Sir Kenneth Calman, who made an important distinction when he explained that the changes to the board were
“not about abolishing external specialist expertise, but about abolishing the role of that expertise in the governance structure.”—[Official Report, National Trust for Scotland (Governance etc) Bill Committee, 12 March 2013; c 29.]
Sir Kenneth described for the committee the partnership events that allow the sharing of information and experience, and described a couple of specific examples, which included the trust’s work with the National Library of Scotland to record various collections that are held in libraries within the trust’s portfolio. Similarly, we heard of the task-based focus group that had been established to look at problems with the harling on the Hill house in Helensburgh.
We understand that representative members have already been removed from the board of trustees following the Reid review, as the trust has the ability to alter the 1935 order to allow that. However, we were persuaded that codifying the abolition of representative members through the provision in the bill will safeguard those new arrangements. Although that provision will have no practical effect on the current membership of the board of trustees, it will ensure that the new, streamlined arrangements persist and cannot be unpicked. That is to be welcomed, and I ask members to support the motion at decision time.