Chamber and committees

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

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

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

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

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

Convener, if I may—

I am not even able to—

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

09:45

No, I am not.