Chamber and committees

That is exactly what happened. The chairman—

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes.

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

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

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

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

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

I do.

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

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

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