 Good afternoon everyone, and the first item of business this afternoon is Scottish Corporate Body Questions. To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body how many incidents there have been in the Parliament complex since 2012 that have led to police action. There is a computerised call on the incident management system referred to as STORM, used by Police Scotland of which the handling of incidents is recorded. The Scottish Parliament Police Unit provides a police service for the Scottish Parliament campus, which includes the landscape areas and roads around the building. Police incidents requiring the police units involvement, which occur on the Scottish Parliament campus, are recorded on STORM. The following are examples of some of the types of incident, although it is of course not an exhaustive list. Protests and demonstrations, photo shoots and external events, high-profile VIP visits, concerns regarding members of the public, within or outside the building, crimes that have taken place, arrests or detentions of people on campus, road traffic matters and usual or offensive correspondence. Since 2012, there has been the following number of incidents recorded. 2012, 145, 2013, 180, 2014, 79, year to date. Mr Wilson, I thank the member for that response. Could the member outline in terms of the number of incidents that he has detailed since 2012 how many of them have led to court action, and in particular seek assurances in relation to the member security and the parliamentary security system, particularly in relation to the memo that was sent out by the chief executive on 11 June 2014, offering training and office security tips for members and staff, should we be concerned? I thank the member for his question. I know that it takes a great interest in these matters. Perhaps I can answer by a slightly wider issue that we have ensured that, where there is any instance of security, we ensure that the police and our security staff are well briefed about that. For example, as far as police presence in the MSP buildings, the member will know that we had some minor incidents in the MSP building and our head of security provided a brief for the corporate body. As a result of that briefing, the corporate body requested that the security office change the pattern of its night patrol regime with occasional assistance from the parliamentary police unit when resources are available. As far as the issues are to do with prosecution are concerned, clearly it is a matter to do with both the police and the fiscal service, but I am happy to give more detailed answers if the member cares to write to me about it. Question 2, Patrick Harvie. To ask the Scottish Parliament corporate body what prices it will set for the proposed pilot of commercial access to Parliament and whether those will be reduced for non-profit or charitable organisations. Linda Fabiani. During the pilot that the Scottish Parliament corporate body has agreed that commercial events will only take place in the member's room, and that will be on non-business days. To recover all the direct costs associated with those events, organisers will be charged a facility fee for the hire of the member's room, which will initially be set at £1,000 plus VAT. Non-profit or charitable organisations will have the same commercial rate supplied. Certainly, as can happen when they have other external venues, they can recover some of the costs by various means, for example selling tables for their events. In addition, we have agreed that at those commercial events charities will be able to fundraise. Thank you. It seems to me that the wide range of events that already take place with a member sponsoring them, where facilities that the space is provided without a charge, seems quite reasonable. That is a reasonable approach to ensuring that access to Parliament and the status that is attached to holding an event in Parliament is available on the basis of support from members for an organisation gaining that access and status, rather than simply having a checkbook. Can I urge the corporate body to reconsider the issues of principle involved in this pilot? Notwithstanding the individual organisations that may take it up, the impact on the perception of Parliament is simply being available for hire. There are a few points that I would like to use in response to that. First of all, I stress for everyone concerned that member-sponsored events are not affected by this at all. That is in addition. I also say that it is a six-month pilot that we are looking at very carefully and which will be monitored very carefully. The integrity of Parliament is uppermost in all our minds when we look at that. However, it is a fact that some organisations such as charities very much feel that sometimes they are limited in what they can present to their audiences by member-sponsored events during parliamentary time. For example, we would not allow fundraising. We decided that, if we are looking at the six-month pilot on a commercial basis, fundraising would be allowed for those charities and that that is something that we will monitor very carefully. I say that a very strict mechanism has been put in place to ensure that any risk to reputational damage is effectively managed during the six-month period. We will also monitor all organisations when they are booked and, although I cannot predict what individual circumstances will be, there will be appropriate clauses available in commercial event contracts that can be invoked that would allow us to cancel such events, if necessary. We are very conscious of potential concerns, but we are also very conscious of the demand that is there. That is why we have put a six-month carefully monitored pilot in place. Question 3, Annabelle Ewing. To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body what progress the Parliament is making in meeting its environmental targets. That is a very welcome question from Annabelle Ewing. In fact, the Parliament and the Corporate Body are making excellent progress. We are, in fact, quite proud of our achievements to date. We have reduced carbon emissions by 30 per cent and gas and electricity consumption is also down. That is representing a saving of over £200,000 on our utility bills each year. That, of course, achieving this year's target to reduce carbon emissions keeps us on course to achieve our longer-term target to reduce emissions by 42 per cent by 2020. However, targets to reduce landfill waste and water were not quite achieved in 2013-14, but sizeable reductions of nearly 70 per cent have been made in the amount of waste that is sent to landfill, recycling rates exceed 80 per cent and water usage is down by 9 per cent. I thank the member for that response. I am very pleased to hear of the significant progress that everyone here is making to meet the challenging carbon reduction targets. I would ask what the next steps are to make incremental progress. I would also take the liberty of asking, because my question is related to environmental targets in general, since we saw the fantastic spectacle yesterday of our bees coming, what role our bees may have in meeting our general environmental approach. Presiding Officer, I thought for one awful moment that she was going to ask me how many bees were in the high. I do not have that figure. Certainly, I will find out more about all the environmentally wonderful things that the bees will add to the environment of this Parliament. One of the very special things, of course, is that we are trying to help in the honey bee problem that is right across the country and trying to do our bit in ensuring that there is a good future for honey bees and all the benefits that they do bring in pollination, et cetera. I cannot remember what the rest of the question was. I think that it was about what we are going to do to help improve and reach our targets. There are various things that we are doing. Annabelle Ewing may have noticed that we have made changes in the canteen, for example, to make it much more obvious how people can help towards the Parliament's targets for recycling and try to make it easier for people to do that. One of the issues that we had, as I mentioned, was that we had not quite achieved the target on reduction of water. We have changed some equipment and procedures that are looking to improve and monitor water use in the area to get a reduction in consumption. We are confident that this year's targets will be achieved, but it is an on-going process and we should never rest on our laurels at all. Patrick Harvie's supplementary question. I congratulate the corporate body for the progress that has been achieved. Bees, of course, managed to achieve aviation quite sustainably. Unfortunately, the Parliament continues to use short-haul aviation within the UK, despite the presence of a very affordable rail service. Can I ask whether that particular issue is under review and whether the Parliament intends, as the London mayor has done, to rule out short-haul aviation? Linda Fabiani has a very tenuous link. You do not have to answer unless you particularly want to. No, that is fine. Can I say that those things are held under review by the corporate body all the time, though I did hear my colleague Liam McArthur saying that I would never get home, and then that lives in and represents Orkney? I can say that he is concerned. However, we monitor those things all the time through the chief executive's report. Many thanks. To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body what steps it has taken to ensure that it maximises the benefits of digital working. The corporate body is very aware of the benefits on offer. Our digital programme started in 2013, and we are already piloting more flexible ways to consume our products and services anytime, anywhere on mobile devices. For example, seven committees are now taking part in the committee PAC pilot, which makes committee papers easier to read, bootmark and annotate while it is mobile. We are using various social media techniques to enable the public to engage more easily with business. For example, 11 committees are active on Twitter. Thank you. I am pleased to hear that progress has been made, but can I ask what assessment has been made of the costs and for an outline of the timescales involved in rolling this out, and also for details of what specific measures are going to be taken to assist the more digitally challenged and adapting to these new ways of working? It was true. Thank you, Presiding Officer. The total budget for the programme covering this and the last financial year is £1.286 million, and the programme is expected to run to the end of the current session in 2016. By then, we will have made some significant improvements in digital working, which will form a good basis for other continuous improvements, most slightly as part of business as usual. While, of course, digital working and social media have matched offer by a way of a simpler, easier-to-use and quicker services, it will only ever be part of the way that we provide service to members who are engaged with the public. We will always offer suitable alternatives. Our aim is to be digital by choice, not digital by default. To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body what security support and advice is available to members. The security office is responsible for a first point of contact for members in relation to both physical and office security when members are either in the Parliament building or whenever formal parliamentary business is conducted. The security office also provides a first point of contact for general advice regarding personal safety, especially in local offices. More specific advice can be provided by local police offices. The physical security system covers the management of access and control of movements around the building. Office security advice can be tailored to individual members' needs, but it essentially covers advice about storing valuables away safely, working off stores, cabinets and pedestals when out of the office and introducing clear desk policies. The security office, in conjunction with the Parliament's police unit, recently ran a snippet session for member staff to raise awareness of office security measures. Unfortunately, there was no attendance from member staff at these sessions, but we run them again before the end of the year. We would appreciate member support and the council and staff to attend those sessions. Siobhan MacMillan, thank you for that detailed answer. It would be helpful if you could perhaps outline what security and personal safety advice is available for MSP staff-based and constituency offices, and particularly for vulnerable female members or staff who, in some cases, are working alone in local offices. I thank you, Presiding Officers. New members receive a booklet called MSP Security Guidance, advising them on matters relating to loan working for themselves and their staff, which includes—a quote from the document—lazing with local police crime prevention officers, first of security of homes and offices such as door buzzers and panic alarms. Obviously, it would be very vigilant of those around you. Always let someone know if you're working alone or where that is, and always let someone know your estimate time of arrival and event or schedule meeting when you've finished and you're turning home to the office or home. On a personal level, Presiding Officer, when I entered this Parliament, I did ask for advice from the crime prevention officer, which I find was first class, and I would certainly encourage members to access local crime prevention officers who are very experienced in this matter. That concludes questions to the corporate body. We'll now move on to the next item of business, which has stayed three proceedings on the building's recovery of expenses Scotland Bill. In dealing with the amendments, members should have the bill as amended at stage 2, the martial list and the groupings. The division bell will sound and proceedings will be suspended for five minutes for the first division of the afternoon. The period of voting for the first division will be 30 seconds, thereafter I will allow a voting period of one minute for the first division after a debate. Members who wish to speak in the debate on any groups of amendments should press the request-to-speak buttons now or as soon as possible after I call the group. We now move to that business, and I move to group 1, which again features Mr David Stewart, and Mr Stewart—no, I won't, thank you. I'll call amendment 1 in the name of the minister. We'll start with you, minister, and if you'd like to speak to amendment 1 and amendments 2, 3 and 5 as well, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Let me speak to amendments 1, 2, 3 and 5 and outline the rationale for them. The application of the bill was widened at stage 2 beyond defective and dangerous buildings. That allows a local authority to make a charging order in relation to the other enforcement powers in sections 25 to 27 of the building Scotland Act 2003. Those powers cover building regulation compliance notices section 25, continuing requirement enforcement notices section 26 and building warrant enforcement notices section 27. When a local authority takes enforcement action under sections 25 to 30, they can recover their reasonable expenses from the owner of the building. The exception to that is where they have served a building warrant enforcement notice under section 27. That would be when work was being done without a building warrant or was not been done in accordance with the technical aspects of building regulations. In this case, the local authority would serve a section 27 notice on the relevant person. That would usually be the owner of the building, but it might not always be the case. For example, the relevant person could be a tenant who is doing work themselves or employing a builder to carry out the works for them. Therefore, in a situation when the owner is not responsible for having the work carried out, it is unreasonable for any liability of the tenant to be attached to the title to the related building. Amendments 1 and 2 expand new section 46, B1, ZC, of the 2003 act. They clarify that the qualifying expenses recoverable by a local authority are only those expenses that relate to a building warrant enforcement notice that has been served on the owner of the building. The effect of that is that the local authority can only make a charging order under new section 46A where the person liable for their expenses for the enforcement under section 27 is the owner of the building. Amendments 3 and 5 are consequential and amendments 1 and 2 remove subsections 4 and 5 of new section 46C and subsections 5 and 6 of new section 46D. I hope that you get all that. Those subsections make provision for references to an owner that occur earlier in the sections to be read as references to a relevant person other than an owner. The four subsections are no longer required as expenses under section 277 are only qualifying expenses and hence recoverable under a charging order, where the original building warrant enforcement notice was served on the owner of the building. I move amendment 1. The focus of the bill has always been on owners of buildings. The package of amendments ensures that the local authority cannot make a charging order under new section 46A if the person liable for the expenses for enforcement under section 27 is not the building owner, for example a tenant. They also clarify that qualifying expenses for building warrant enforcement notices under section 27 are limited to when the local authority has served a notice on the owner of the building. Essentially, those amendments serve a tidying up nature, which follows the extension of the bill to section 27 of the 2003 act. I therefore support the refinement of the bill. The question is that amendment 1 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. Thank you. I call amendment 2 in the name of the minister who is already debated with amendment 1. The question is that amendment 2 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? I think we are. Thank you. I call amendment 3 in the name of the minister who is already debated with amendment 1. The question is that amendment 3 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. We now move to group 2. I call amendment 4 in the name of the minister who is grouped with amendments 9 and 10. The minister could move amendment 4 and speak to all other amendments in the group. The group of amendments 4, 9 and 10 can be considered to be minor technical or drafting amendments. The bill provides that, where a charging order has been registered, the local authority must register a discharge of an order as soon as reasonably practical after the charging order has been discharged. Amendment 10 is a clarifying amendment, which makes it clear that a discharge of a charging order must be registered by a local authority when either it has received the full repayment amount or it has received any agreed lower amount, which it redeems, the payable amount. Amendment 4 removes new section 46d3, which is no longer required as a consequence of amendment 10. Amendment 9 simply changes the term of the charging order to a charging order. In section 46e5, I move amendment 4. Those are minor and technical amendments that involve some repositioning provisions dealing with registering a charging order and a discharge. They seek to ensure further clarity and consistency in the application of the bill, and therefore I am content to support them. The question is that amendment 4 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. I now call amendment 5 in the name of the minister to move. The question is that amendment 5 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. Thank you very much. That takes us to group 3. I call amendment 6 in the name of the minister, group of amendments 11, 12 and 13. Minister, if you would like to move amendment 6 and speak to all other amendments in the group, please. At this group of amendments, concern the appeal and registration of a charging order. The bill adds charging orders to the list of matters that are appealable under section 47 of the 2003 act. When a local authority makes a charging order, the owner has 21 days to appeal by summary application to the sheriff. As a result of section 474, as amended by the bill, the charging order does not take full effect until either the 21-day period is passed without an appeal being made or where an appeal has been made, it has been determined or withdrawn. There have been concerns raised that an owner might use the appeal mechanism as the delaying tactic whilst they try to change the ownership of the building. It is therefore important that a charging order can be registered than the appropriate land register as soon as possible. At stage 2, the bill was amended to introduce provisions for future owners to become severely liable with the former owner. Those are new sections 46f and 46g. Amendments 11 and 13 are technical amendments concerning subsection 3 and 4 of section 47 of the 2003 act. Amendment 11 amends subsection 3, the subsection that creates a right of appeal against the charging order and clarifies that any appeal must be made within 21 days of the date of the charging order. Amendment 13 clarifies that a charging order, as with the other appealable matters in the 2003 act, is of no effect until either the appeal period is passed without one being made or any appeal has been determined or withdrawn. Amendment 6 makes it clear that the local authority can register the charging order as soon as they have made it. The local authority does not have to wait until after the 21-day appeal period is passed or any appeal has been determined or withdrawn. New subsection 3a of section 47 of the 2003 act makes provision limiting the questions that may be raised in appeals in relation to charging orders. The effect of amendment 12 is that the correct subsection that creates the right of appeal is referred to a new subsection 3a. I move amendment 6. Thank you, Mr Stewart. Those amendments seek to further refine the appeal system to ensure that it could not be used to frustrate the intended operation of the bill and clarify that the local authorities do not need to wait until after the appeal period has elapsed to register a discharge. Those amendments are in line with my policy in appeals and, as such, I support them. The question is that amendment 6 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes, we are. That now takes us to group 4. I will call amendment 7 in the name of the minister group with amendment 8. Minister, if you would like to move amendment 7 and speak to both amendments in the group, please. Amendment 7 and 8 are the last group and result from an amendment to the bill at stage 2. New sections 46f and 46g were added at stage 2 to make the new owner and the former owner severally liable for the local authority expenses when the building changes ownership. The first section 46f provides for the liability of the new owner. The second section 46g provides for the continued liability of the former owner. Amendment 7 makes it clear that although a registered charging order is enforceable by the local authority against the existing owner of the charged building, that is subject to new section 46f, which was inserted at stage 2. The effect of new section 46f is that where a building changes hands in certain circumstances, a new owner is severally liable with any former owner of the building. That maintains safeguards for new owners who acquire right of a charged building within 14 days of a charging order having been registered. New section 46e 4 also makes provision of where in certain circumstances a charging order is not enforceable. That section is no longer required. Amendment 8 removes new section 46e 4, which is no longer required due to the insertion of new section 46f at stage 2. I move. Amendment 7. Thank you, Presiding Officer. As explained by the minister, the bill was amended at stage 2 to clarify liability and the sale or purchase of a property where a charging order has been registered. Those amendments ensure that there is an accurate linkage between inserted sections 46f and g and the pre-existing sections by adding a necessary cross-reference and removing an unnecessary provision. As consequential amendments, I am content to support them. Anything further to add? Nothing further? Thank you. The question is that amendment 7 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. Thank you. I now call amendments 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13, all in the name of the minister and all previously debated. I invite the minister to move amendments 8 to 13 on block, please. Does any member object to a single question being put on amendments 8 to 13? As no member does, the question is that amendments 8 to 13 are agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you very much. That ends consideration of amendments. We now move to the next item of business, which is a debate on motion number 10335, in the name of David Stewart, on the building's recovery and expenses Scotland bill. Before I invite David Stewart to open the debate, I call on the cabinet secretary to signify current consent to the bill. I call on Angela Constance to speak. For the purposes of rule 9.11 of the standing orders, I advise Parliament that Her Majesty having been informed of the purport of the building's recovery of expenses Scotland bill has consented to place her prerogative and interest so far as they are affected by the bill at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the bill. I invite members always to speak in the debate to, as usual, press their request to speak buttons. I now call on David Stewart to speak to and move the motion. Mr Stewart, you have 10 minutes or thereby please. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. It was a great pleasure that I opened today's debate. The bill was introduced on 30 October 2013 and concluded stage 1 with a parliamentary debate on 3 April 2014. The local government and regeneration committee considered the bill at stage 2 on 4 June and today Parliament debates whether to pass the bill. It is very much my hope that members will come together and welcome the legislation and support the bill unanimously at a certain time. When I stood in the chamber last to talk about my member's bill, it was known as the defective and dangerous building recovery of expenses Scotland bill. A lot has changed since stage 1, including the title of the bill, but I believe that change is good. My bill now delivers a more comprehensive approach to local authority debt recovery, encompassing not just local authorities work in relation to defective or dangerous buildings under part 4 of the building Scotland Act 2003, but also their work under part 3 in relation to compliance and enforcement. An estimated £4 million of debt has been accrued during the time charging orders have not been available to local authorities. As I explained in the stage 1 debate, prior to the 2003 act, local authorities relied on charging orders under the 1959 building Scotland act to tackle debt associated with dangerous buildings. However, when the act was repealed and replaced with the 2003 act, the charging order mechanism was not carried over. That has left local authorities with an increasing debt burden that needs to be addressed now. Local authority debt recovery can be problematic for a myriad of reasons. A couple of examples given in evidence to the Government and Regeneration Committee at stage 1 demonstrates the diverse circumstances that can be encountered. John Delamore from Midlothian Council talked about the deterioration of a chimney stack that was directly above a neighbouring single story property and above a public footpath beside a bus stop. Because of the danger involved, there was a requirement for local authority to fix the chimney by putting up scaffolding. In terms of payment, he explained, the owner on the first floor was happy to pay, whereas the person on the ground floor was not. Mr Delamore said to the committee and I quote, we are now in difficulties because the person on the ground floor who is a business and other property died unfortunately. Therefore, we can no longer pursue the costs involved and our civil debt recovery methods. While Gillian McCartney told us of example from her council area East Renfrewshire, she said and I quote again, we have a site with an absentee owner. I believe he lives in Antigua. The council has encouraged substantial costs in keeping the building safe. We understand that the owner is in discussions with several people to buy the site and we have to continually check to see whether it has been sold. Both council officers noted the advantages of charging orders in these situations as they would have helped them to recoup their expenses on the sale of the building. I have no doubt that most councils will be able to recount cases where charging orders would have made a difference. Before I move on to discuss the main changes to the bill at stage 2, I would like to put in record my thanks to those who have helped shape and developed the bill. In particular, I would like to thank the local government regeneration committee for its scrutiny of my policy, the delegate powers and law reform committee for its continued scrutiny of the subordinate legislation powers and, of course, to those who have worked diligently to support me and the bill prior to its introduction and through its parliamentary stages. I particularly like to thank Clare Minnie Smith from the non-government bills unit and Neil Ross from the legal team for all the help and advice. Last but certainly not least, I would like to express my gratitude for the assistance that I received from the minister for local government planning Derek Mackay and his officials. When I set out this journey, I very much doubted that I would see my members' bill pass stage 1, let alone allow myself to believe that one day it would be on the statute book. But I believe that because today politicians have decided to set aside their political differences to collectively address the problem of local authority debt recovery. I think that that is a congratulations not on me but to the Parliament as a whole. I would like to focus on the main changes arising from stage 2 consideration. There were three main areas of amendment. The extension of the bill to encompass local authorities actions under section 25, 26 and 27 of the 2003 act, the variation of the term of the charging order and the clarification of liability owners. At the start of the speech, I referred to the change in my bill's title, but the reason behind that actually represents one of the most significant changes to the bill. Local authorities have other enforcement powers under the building Scotland Act 2003 and in some instances I have had to undertake work for an owner who does not comply with the notices that are served on them under those powers. Those powers relate to building regulations, compliance notices under section 25 of the 2003 act, continuing requirement enforcement notices under section 26 and building warrant enforcement notices under section 27. The bill was extended to defyde local authorities with greater certainty of cost recovery when counting out their duties under sections of the 2003 act. Action under those sections may not be as common as local authority action in relation to dangerous buildings, but it is not less important that local authorities have access to appropriate cost recovery tools when they have to step in to undertake work whether for compliance, enforcement or safety purposes. The second area of change was in relation to the fixed 30-year repayment term. During the course of stage 1, it became apparent that a number of local authorities are concerns about the fixed 30-year repayment term, particularly for lower sums. I readily acknowledge those concerns and, as such, I brought forward a package of amendments to enable local authorities to determine the number of annual repayments an owner must pay. The bill now provides for local authorities to determine the number of annual repayments. The number of annual repayments must be no less than five and no more than 30. Not only does this change address the point in relation to the size of the debt, it allows local authorities to take into account the debtor's ability to pay. The third area, which I wish to touch on, is on the liability of owners. During stage 1, local authorities expressed concern that a property might be sold or transferred before a charging order could be registered and suggested that a notice of liability might help it in that respect. On further investigation, it became clear that the cracks of the problem were one of timing. It should be possible for local authority to register a charging order very soon after the work has been carried out. Local authorities should not see charging orders as a tool of the last resort, which perhaps they may have done under the 1959 act, but should be proactive in their use to secure the debt. In conjunction with the Scottish Government, I looked into the possibility of a registration of a notice of potential liability in advance of a charging order, but found that it was only served to create a layer of bureaucracy detracting from the simplicity of the bill and would have incurred additional costs to local authorities. I recognise that liability might become an issue over the longer term as the property changed hands, and that is why I have brought forward an amendment to clarify liability to ensure that those who seek to avoid their responsibilities cannot. It provides that the buyer for property where a charging order has been registered is to be severely liable with a seller for any unpaid amounts due by the seller under the charging order. I would also like to mention briefly the subordinate legislation powers. The Delegate Powers and Law Reform Committee suggested that my bill should be amended to allow Scottish ministers to directly amend schedule 5 to alter the form and content of a charging order, rather than there be a prospect that has been done by way of subordinate legislation. At stage 2, the Scottish Government decided to make use of the existing powers and the 2003 act to prescribe the form and the content of a charging order and the discharge. As such, my commitment to address this point has been somewhat overtaken and is now addressed now by other means. I will leave it to the Minister to explain the new subordinate legislation provision at section 1A that has been made. In conclusion, Presiding Officer, the stage 2 process in today's amending stage has been crucial to ensure that the bill delivers an effective and modernised charging order mechanism for local authorities to recover from owners Sam's Ode when they have stepped in to carry out work under parts 3 and 4 of the 2003 act. Looking to the future and the implementation of the bill, I understand that the Scottish Government will be producing guidance to underpin the operation of the bill and will also prescribe the standard form and content of a charging order and the discharge to ensure consistency of operation across local authorities. The bill will be effective six months after Royal Assent. In conclusion, Presiding Officer, I move the motion in my name that the Parliament agrees that the building Recovery of Expenses Scotland Bill be passed. Presiding Officer, it gives me great pleasure to contribute to the debate today on the building Recovery of Expenses Scotland Bill. I, too, would like to thank all the relevant committees for their hard work and careful scrutiny of the bill. I also would like to thank MSPs for their comments as the bill has passed through Parliament and to organisations that have provided oral and written evidence that have assisted us with our deliberations. Of course, I would like to acknowledge the significant amount of work that Mr Stewart has done over the past four years or so to get the bill to this stage. As Mr Stewart has already explained, his bill proposes considerable improvements to the existing enforcement powers for local authorities under the act. The bill will improve the recovery of the expenses incurred by local authorities under part 3 and 4 of the act by enabling a charge for the repayable amount to be registered against the title of the building concerned. The bill as introduced was targeted at dangerous and defective buildings, and I am extremely pleased that it now covers the other local authority enforcement powers under part 3 of the 2003 act, which is work resulting from statutory notices under sections 25, 26 and 27. Under the building Scotland act 2003, local authorities must take action on buildings that they consider to be dangerous. That might be by taking urgent action to secure the building and the surrounding area, or it could mean getting the building repaired. In extreme cases, a local authority may decide to demolish all or just part of the building. For a defective building, their powers are discretionary, as is the case for their enforcement powers. In all enforcement cases, when an owner has not carried out the work required by that relevant notice, a local authority can step in and undertake the work for themselves. Those enforcement powers allow local authorities to intervene, I hope that they will be more proactive and importantly deal with immediately dangerous situations, stop buildings, deteriorating and rectify building work that does not meet the building regulations. Normally, when a local authority becomes involved, a building owner will rectify any problems themselves, but that does not always happen, as we know. Will the local authority decide to step in and do the work in the default of the owner, they can recover their costs, but normal debt recovery methods have sometimes proven to be problematic. The lack of certainty of recovering their costs could influence whether a local authority decides to do the work in the first place or not. The Government has acknowledged that the existing powers needed strengthening and have listened carefully to the views of local authorities, and it is clear that any changes must include registration against the titles of buildings. That will alert future owners of any existing liabilities. Last year, the Government included proposals for improved powers in the community empowerment bill consultation, which took a slightly different approach to the bill that was introduced by Mr Stewart and covered all the enforcement powers. In January, the community empowerment bill consultation closed, and the local government and regeneration committee took oral and written evidence on Mr Stewart's bill. The Government also held a workshop with all local authorities to explore the sets of proposals. A common message was strong support for improvement, that repayment terms must be flexible and that all enforcement powers should be covered. In fact, COSLA went on to ask, because of timing and other factors, that we use Mr Stewart's bill and not the community empowerment bill, and being the reasonable man that I am, we opted for that course of action. As the First Minister said, the Government does not have a monopoly in wisdom, so I am delighted by the cross-party approach that we have taken. From the banging of the table, I think that we have even got the conservative support in this new consensus between a Labour and the SNP. Taking on board all of those comments and the necessary provisions were delighted to give the support to Mr Stewart's bill having been amended at stage 2. At stage 2, there were 20 amendments, four lodged by Mr Stewart and 24 by the Government. They covered the key aspects of the bill identified at stage 1, including flexibility, a number of annual payments, liability of new owners and the widening of the application of the bill to include local authority enforcement powers, as previously described, in addition to the technical amendments. At stage 3, the Government lodged 13 amendments today, intended to provide clarification and pick up some technical and minor changes following the stage 2 changes. Those amendments sought to make it clear that a charging order can only be made in respect of building warrant enforcement notice where the notice was served on the owner. A charging order can be registered as soon as it has been made without having to wait for any appeal to be made or determined. Use section 46f of the 2003 act introduced at stage 2 will operate as intended by removing inconsistent provision. That means that a new owner will not become liable if they acquire a right to the building within 14 days of the charging order being registered. Delighted that those have all been agreed this afternoon. I now like to explain some aspects of the bill. The owner of a building is responsible for making sure that their building is safe and in good repair. Local authority can step in and take emergency action on a dangerous building or carry out work when an owner is not complied with the statutory notice. The bill allows them to make a charging order to help them to recover their expenses from the owner. The order sets out the repayable amount, the appropriate number of annual installments between 5 and 30, and the date each year for payment. That allows local authority to consider the repayable amount and the owner's ability to pay when deciding on the number of installments. The repayable amount, due to the local authority, includes the construction-related expenses, any registration fees relating to the charging order, any administration expenses and interests at a reasonable rate. The local authority must register the charging order and the appropriate land register, which creates the charge on the affected property. The charging order provides that the repayable amount is to be paid and repaid in annual installments. However, an owner can still pay the debt in full at any time, or if the local authority agrees to redeem it by paying a lower settlement figure. That point, the local authority must register a discharge of the charging order as soon as it is practical in the appropriate land register. The owner can appeal a charging order within 21 days of it being made, so it will not come into effect immediately. However, the owner may try to change ownership of the building and use the appeal mechanism as a stalling tax, so I believe that we have addressed a number of those issues in the course of debate. As I said earlier, the Government fully acknowledges that the cost recovery aspects of part 3 and 4 of the building Scotland Act 2003 should be improved. Enforcement is an important part of local authority work and is at the core of ensuring the safety of people inside and outside buildings and protecting the built environment. Local authorities have to invest time and resources when owners do not fulfil their legal obligations, so it is important that they have the certainty that they will be able to recover their costs and their expenses. The Government will update to irrelevant guidance on the online building standards procedural handbook and will continue working with all local authorities so that they are fully aware of the new provisions. I can assure Parliament that those will all be in place in time for commencement of the new guidance, six months after Royal Assent, and I urge Parliament to agree to the building recovery of expenses Scotland Bill. I thank David Stewart, my Labour colleague, for choosing to champion the issue. As you have seen this afternoon for the minister in another party, to propose and have all his amendments both proposed and accepted by the mover of the bill is actually not a usual occurrence in this place. I congratulate David Stewart for his commitment to the issue and for his success in steering both his member's bill through the committee and past the minister and for enlisting us all in the process, because it is an important issue. The evidence sessions held by the committees were invaluable in teasing out the issues from a wide range of stakeholders, particularly local authorities, who clearly experienced a gap in their powers. In the current financial climate, it is really important that local authorities are not subsidising repairs to buildings that should properly be carried out by owners. I thank the committee for its work and all the evidence that was submitted by stakeholders for ensuring that, in the bill that we passed this afternoon, we will hopefully capture all the sensible contributions that were made in the Parliament. My party is keen to support the bill, and I am personally politically and personally keen to support it because of my knowledge of buildings in the city in Edinburgh and Lothians, but also because of the impact across the country. It is important for the character of our towns and cities. It is important for the quality of our built environment, and I think that we will all be aware of the negative message that decaying buildings and unlooked-after buildings send out in our local communities. It can have a social and an economic impact. Then there is the issue of safety that David Stewart mentioned. Buildings in this repair that are not properly looked after can also be exceedingly unsafe, both to users and to the public in general. Last night, I spoke to a member's debate on the Rana Plasad disaster, which gives you a tragic example of what happens when buildings are not looked after and they are not used for the right purpose. That is a very practical piece of legislation, and it is an important piece of legislation. In my region in the Lothians alone, 46 dangerous building notices were issued in 2011-12. That was just in one year. I very much welcome the practical provisions of the bill, which will enable local authorities to recoup their costs of addressing dangerous buildings. I particularly want to mention a couple of the details that the minister mentioned in his speech that have seen a change from the initial proposals to the final bill that we will be passing today. I particularly want to welcome the issue of the change on the 30-year payback issue that has been addressed in the final bill. There should be scope for the sensitivity of an owner's circumstances. That is something that the local authority should be able to address. It is a particular issue for those on low incomes, and I want to flag that issue up because it was addressed in the equality impact assessment that accompanies the bill. It is important, particularly for people on low incomes, who now have a different opportunity to pay back the bill because they will be able to pay it back on the sale of their property. The change to attach orders to the property rather than the person is important in that respect. It is also important in terms of the amendments that the minister has just successfully moved, particularly amendment 7, which will prevent owners from dodging their liability and from trying to ignore their responsibility for the building that they will have profited out of. I think that for that reason it is very good that we were able to amend David Stewart's bill this afternoon. There is currently something in the region of £3.9 million pounds of outstanding debts. Currently, only 50 per cent of local authority costs are recouped. That is something that we need to address. The bill will plug that gap, but it will address that problem, and it will ensure that local authorities who are currently cash-strapped will be able to recoup the costs from the owners who have benefited from owning their bill. I hope that we send out a clear message across the parties and the chamber as a whole this afternoon that we all believe that owners need to take proper responsibility for maintaining their property in good order. I reiterate David Stewart's view that the provisions in the bill should be a last resort, not a first resort. I say that with the knowledge of how the statutory repairs notice in Edinburgh has become for far too many owners a first resort rather than a last resort, with very negative consequences. Next week, we will be debating the housing bill. Again, we will be strengthening the scope for local authorities to step in where individual owners will not pay their share. I think that those two bills will represent important and beneficial changes in legislation that aim at well-maintained safe buildings. I look forward to David Stewart's bill being passed today. I look forward it to becoming law, and I look forward to local authorities across the country being able to use the provisions of the bill in practical ways to improve the quality and the safety of our built environment. I begin by offering the apologies of Cameron Buchanan, who has been involved in the process of the bill on committee. Sadly, Cameron has been called away on personal business today, and, as a result, he has asked me to step in at last minute. I was handed the papers and told that it was uncontroversial. That has happened before, and I have seen that as a challenge. However, on this occasion, let me assure David Stewart who's bill this is, that I will not be trying to stir up unnecessary controversy. In fact, I begin by paying tribute to David Stewart because the process of putting a member's bill through Parliament is a complex and difficult one, and it requires a great deal of effort on the part of the bill's sponsor. I think that we should, first of all, congratulate David Stewart for his achievement. It's something that I've never actually done myself, I've never taken one to completion. I do remember at one point bringing forward a proposal for a bill many years ago now that would have had the effect of requiring country of origin labelling for meat. I had several meetings on the subject and met with Jim Walker, the then president of the NFU in Scotland, who, at a quiet moment during the meeting, whispered to me, said that country of origin labelling would be a good idea, but, to be honest, species of origin labelling would be just as useful. A precursor, perhaps, is a story that hit the news some 10 years later and one that should encourage us to take a long-term view on a number of subjects. Yet, the nature of this legislation is something that we should be concerned about. It is one of those incontentious pieces of legislation ideally suited to a member's bill, and one that will, I believe, have a significant impact in many areas of Scotland. The quality of the built environment is something that we should always be concerned about, and, of course, safety is an issue when we have buildings and some of our town centres in an estate where bits can drop off and do damage to people as they pass on the street. We have already heard Sarah Boyack talk at some length about her experience in Edinburgh itself. What springs to mind for me is many of our county and market towns across Scotland, which were once prosperous but are now somewhat less so. As a consequence, buildings can quite often fall into disrepair. As a result of the difficulties of bringing owners together in order to achieve the objective of repair, it is important that local government has the powers of last resort in order to achieve what we want to achieve. The bill delivers the powers and it delivers the process. It delivers the opportunity for local government to ensure that those criteria are filled, and, as such, I think that it is a sound example of what this Parliament can achieve. Looking at the general issues surrounding the process that we have gone through, this has been uncontroversial. We have seen that nobody can test any of the amendments, and yet, at the same time, we have seen that the mover of a bill and the Government Minister in his department work together seamlessly in order to bring legislation to fruition in this Parliament for the benefit of all. I think that there are some days when this Parliament does not distinguish itself. There are other days when, in a very unspectacular way, it does. I think that this is one of them. We have now moved to the open debate. I call on Kevin Stewart to be followed by Alex Rowley. Four minutes are there by Mr Stewart. I, too, would like to start off by paying tribute to Mr Stewart and his four-year struggle to get this bill to where it is today. Others have already talked about the co-operation that there has been between Mr Stewart, the Government, committees and others. One of the reasons why this has been so successful is the fact that Mr Stewart entered this with a spirit of co-operation, a great degree of gumption and a hell of a lot of civility, it has to be said. I think that that is the way to push things forward. We have heard already today about the £4 million that is there by outstanding debt, but throughout the country there are buildings that are in a state of disrepair, which councils have to chase up owners on a regular basis and often fail to do so. It has been pointed out earlier on in the debate that owners may be anywhere in the world and very difficult to contact. Someone spoke about Antigua earlier. I had a case myself a number of years ago as a councillor where the owner was in Gibraltar, and it is almost impossible to get that person to co-operate with the council. We all know of blights in communities right across the country. I hope that the bill is allowing for the recovery of the costs for councils. We will also persuade those owners who allow their properties to become derelict and unsightly to get on with the job and fix them without councils having to step in to do so. I think that the bill is dealing with a difficulty that might actually be a prevention and will stop some of the unscrupulous property owners from allowing buildings to go to rack and ruin. Often, those buildings have major historical significance and are a part of our heritage and, unfortunately, they are left to rot. Probably the best example in my constituency at this moment in time is Brodford Works, where there is planning permission to do a number of things. However, what we have seen is time and time again acts of far-raising that has led to situations in which those buildings are becoming more and more dangerous, and, of course, steps have to be taken to deal with that. There is probably not one of us in this chamber that could not name buildings in their own patches, which are suffering similar fates. Although the bill is extremely worthy of recovery of costs, I hope that what we will also see is that prevention. We have had some very good information from those folks who have submitted evidence during the course of this. Mr Stewart, I know, has thought long and hard about what others have said and has amended accordingly and agreed to amendments. I would just like to finish off by reiterating that we can do things well, as Mr Johnson says, if we enter into things with that spirit of co-operation, that gumption and that civility. I would pay tribute to Mr Stewart for approaching the bill in that manner. Alex Rowley to be followed by Roderick Campbell. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I would also begin by congratulating David Stewart for bringing the bill through the different stages and getting it here today. I would also pay tribute to the minister, Derek Mackay, for his approach to the bill in the Scottish Government for taking it on board. I hope that it is a sign of the way that we can work together for the better interests of our communities and Scotland. I hope that once we get past this landmark date in September, regardless of the outcome, we can hopefully start to see parties across this chamber working much more closely together for communities and for Scotland. I also pay tribute to the chairman of the local government committee, Kevin Stewart, for the way that the local government committee has been able to engage with the minister and David Stewart on moving the bill forward. I always ask myself in those situations what does it mean for my constituents. As Kevin Stewart has said, we can all talk about buildings. I did when this bill first came to the local government committee. I talked about a building in Cowan Beath and the High Street in Cowan Beath, the former Crown Hotel that sits in a terrible state of dereliction. If we look at the paper that the member ran done by the Scottish Government to local government committee, the local government regeneration committee, when it talked about defective buildings, it is hoped that successful use of the new powers in the early years would give local authorities confidence to be more proactive in dealing with defective buildings in the longer term. That might take some time and we will need investment by local authorities from the start. The key point that I think is that, hopefully, it will mean that local authorities can be more proactive. In the case of the Crown Hotel, for example, in Cowan Beath High Street, Cowan Beath is the largest high street and shopping area in my constituency. The building sits and blights the High Street sitting on the end of it. Despite continued pressure from local councillors and others, the council seemed to think that they have been powerless to act. I met the council recently and asked them, as a result of this bill, how they felt they would be able to use the legislation to try and move things forward. I wrote to them again last week and they have said that they will continue to put pressure on, but I actually believe that this bill will help to put pressure on the council to put pressure on the owners of the building and crucially see that their election pulled down at a time when the economy is starting to move, at a time when local town centres are starting to see some improvement and at a time when local authorities are putting more resources in. It is important that we use the bill to be able to try and force owners to either take action or to fail to take action to take that action on their behalf and be able to address it. That is why I am pleased with the definition of a defective building, because I note here in a SPICE briefing that a defective building not as specifies particular defects in a building must be rectified to bring it up to a reasonable state of repair for its age, type and location. I would say that a building sitting on the edge of a major high street that has no roof on it that has bits set that it is caved in, even though it may not be a danger to the public. An obsolete building such as that is a blight on the community and something that needs to be tackled. I hope that the bill will help us in Calumbeath, but I also hope that it will help communities right across Scotland. Once again, congratulations to Mr Stewart for sticking in there and bringing it forward. I congratulate David Stewart on having brought the bill this far. I am not a member of the local Government Committee, but I have read David Stewart's bill with interest and I know he is a man of many talents as displayed earlier this afternoon and watched with interest last night as his convenership of the cross-party group on diabetes, a busy man. It is fair to say from the architectural point of view that Scotland has a lot of history. Edinburgh are capital is an architect stream with medieval buildings standing side by side of Victorian terraces. Mr Campbell would like to pull the microphone towards you a little, please, to allow us all to hear you. Thank you. With Victorian terraces, Georgian townhouses and modern homes, offices and retail outlets made from glass and steel, but buildings are made from perishable materials and they begin to crumble over time. As David Stewart's original consultation paper pointed out, we are sometimes reminded of that in the most tragic of circumstances. The case of the Australian student Christine Foster, who was working in Edinburgh's West End in the year 2000 when she was killed by falling masonry, is a sad reminder that buildings in a poor state of repair can be fatal. The fatal accident inquiry, which followed that incident, asked the City of Edinburgh Council to carry out an immediate audit of those buildings in the city that thought to constitute a risk to public safety. Next Saturday will be 14 years exactly since Christine Foster was killed. We owe it to the many that have been killed or suffered injury as a result of defective and dangerous buildings to ensure that our legislation designed to prevent these incidents is robust and effective. I hope that the bill will play a part in making legislation effective. The Building Scotland 2003 Act gave local authorities power to repair dangerous buildings under section 29 and 30 and effective buildings under section 28. As we know, for building that is considered dangerous to its occupants, a council must require the occupants to leave the building and can subsequently carry out any work that it deems necessary to make the building safe or alternatively serve a dangerous building notice on the owner if it does not intend to carry out the repairs itself. Likewise, a council can issue a defective building notice requiring the owner of a defective building, which is defined as a building which requires repair to prevent significant deterioration of its fabric to make repairs within a defined timescale. It is, of course, the case that we are currently living in an age of huge financial constraint or not austerity, and councils cannot possibly carry out a significant volume of building repairs without recouping the outlays that they incur in that process. David Stewart has rightly pointed out that the 2003 act in this regard has not been effective. Charging order provisions under the previous 1959 act were not carried forward, such that the enforcement regime did not work as well as it might have done, with councils facing significant monetary losses in unrecovered debts. I have just followed Alex Rowley. I note that five councils in their comments on the financial memorandum noted that there were problems with the lack of proactive action taken on defective buildings and a large repairs bill backclaw to contend with, so there are challenges nevertheless. It is true that perhaps the biggest barrier to councils exercising their powers to repair dangerous buildings are the legal difficulties that they face when it comes to recovering debts. I am pleased that the charging order provisions in section 1 will mark a significant improvement on the existing situation, and I doubt that they will give more flexibility to the council and to a building owner with the aim of ensuring that the debt is repaid. It is fair to point out that there was, of course, criticism of the initial 30-year repayment period and term of the charging order, and I am pleased that some flexibility was given to local authorities at stage 2, but it must be the case that a gradual recovery over several years is far better than no repayment at all. I am also pleased by the amendments at stage 2 and today at stage 3, the effect of which will be to encourage local authorities to register charges promptly. Of course, it must not be forgotten that arrangements can be made to allow charging orders to be discharged earlier. I am pleased to support this bill at stage 3 and welcome its progress into legislation. We now move to closing speeches, and I call on Alex Johnstone. Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. This has, of course, been a constructive debate, and it is a constructive debate about an important small piece of legislation. I think that one of the best speeches that we have heard in the debate was the one that we have just heard from Roderick Campbell. His expertise in legal circles was brought to bear, I think, in explaining exactly what the consequences of failing to deal with this problem might be. He, of course, reminded us that there are a number of examples, sadly, of people who have been killed or injured by falling masonry or roofing tiles. When that is possible in our streets, it is an example of something that we should be dealing with here. I would like to take the opportunity to pay tribute because I neglected to do so in my earlier speech to the local government and regeneration committee. I mentioned that it is an onerous task to take through a piece of member's legislation. It is, of course, the case for the committee that takes that responsibility. I am glad that the committee and its convener were able to deal with that in such an effective manner. It has been an interesting debate for me for one other reason. Perhaps I am getting the technicalities wrong here, but I would like to make my mark by noting that, in this debate, I believe that I heard Angela Constance speak on behalf of the Queen. With that said, I think that there is little more than I can say other to congratulate all those who have been involved in the bill and to say that, when the decision time comes tonight, that the Conservatives will confidently support the building's recovery of expenses Scotland bill, and I wish David Stewart good luck in achieving his objective. I am keen to contribute and close today's stage 3 debate for the Scottish Labour Party on the defective and dangerous building's recovery expenses Scotland bill. I thank David Stewart for all his hard work in bringing forward these important proposals to the Parliament. I also thank our convener and members of the local government and regeneration committee for which I am one. In response to the ministers, Derek Mackay, I am pleased to note that the Scottish Government continues to broadly support this bill and I welcome his amendments. I agree that the majority of those amendments are procedural and serve to strengthen our shared aims. Ultimately, the proposed bill provides the power for local authorities to carry out modifications on defective or dangerous buildings and pass that cost on to the owner of that building. In response, Sarah Boyack has rightly raised the concern that local authorities are paying for repairs to derelict properties in times of budget constraints, which is unfair and unsustainable. That piece of legislation will help to address the issue, and it is a common sense answer to the question to improve our town and city centres. I welcome the reintroduction of charging orders as a means of ensuring that the local authority is able to recover its expenses before the building changes ownership. To clarify, when owners fail to respond to the local authority's notice, some of which have been mentioned to be in Antigua—I think that was Sarah Boyack. My colleague Kevin Stewart mentioned one who was dealing with a case in which the owner was in Gibraltar. Their residence is unsafe and must be altered. The act will facilitate repayment for the authorities who undertake those modifications. David Stewart's member's bill amends the building act of 2003 in order to introduce a more efficient and flexible cost recovery process for local authorities. It grants local authorities the power to make charging orders that will attach to the properties in question and recover some of the outstanding debt when the property is eventually sold. It creates flexibility in allowing property owners to negotiate with the local authority and possibly pay a reduced amount, which improves debt recovery rates while also allowing for a settlement acceptable to both parties. I believe that the bill will significantly increase recovery rates of expenses from building owners, given that the current recovery rate is low at only 50 per cent. By expanding cost recovery mechanisms, the bill encourages local authorities to preventively fix the effect of buildings before the likely costs would increase. Currently, there is a large disparity in how local authorities are issuing notices and certain councils issue a high number of notices each year, while others issue very few or none. Additionally, notices are issued per owner, not per building, so the number of notices issued per year does not necessarily account for the true number of buildings failing under the bill's jurisdiction. The introduction of the bill will standardise the process. Finally, the bill creates a provision for individuals to make appeals against incorrect charging orders, thereby establishing a mechanism of accountability for local authorities carrying out those repairs. I am reassured to note that the right to appeal against a charging order has remained an important part of the bill, and I believe that its incorporation will serve to strengthen the process of recovering expenses from the building owners. I have considered the contribution of most of the members who spoke this afternoon, and I apologise for the ones that I have not. I thank you for sharing your fine examples of how the bill will ultimately benefit our communities. I am confident that there exists a broad level of consensus for the aims of the bill. I believe that local authorities will find a way to exercise those new powers in a manner that reflects local priorities and improves the safety and aesthetics of our communities. I look forward to voting in favour of the bill. I now call on Derek Mackay and six minutes earlier by minister, please. Thanks very much, Presiding Officer. I think that this has been a good debate in taking forward the bill to its satisfactory conclusion. I again commend Mr Stewart and Dave Stewart for taking forward the bill in the way that he has. I believe that his stock is now even higher in this Parliament across the chamber and has helped to make the connections to make it possible for the Government to support the bill in such a constructive way. However, if I can let some members into some of the background in how we reached this consensual position, although the bill is worthy and the contents within it are worthy and there is great support in consensus and the timing was better. The community empowerment bill is more comprehensive therefore will take a bit more time to go through Parliament and local authorities, like both sets of powers. One man's notices liability is another man's charging order, but we have gone with a charging order. Despite all that, the way that business has been conducted is what ensured that we could work on a cross-party basis. Of course, timing is everything in politics as well. Some members may not be aware that Mr Stewart approached me straight after the budget process this year, when the Labour Party and the SNP voted together with others for the satisfactory approval of this year's budget. That moment and spirit of cross-party consensus is the moment to ensure that his bill was supported by the Government. There is the inside track on the moment at which I surrendered and gave in to Mr Stewart. For all the very positive reasons that we have discussed, because for all this place and this Parliament can be tribal, there is absolutely a time to set aside our party political differences. It does not matter in whose name the bill is put, as long as the right bill is built and can deliver for the people of Scotland. I believe that that will. Alex Johnson gave very supportive comments in terms of the Conservatives and Kevin Stewart's absolutely right to touch on the power of prevention on this agenda, and I think that it will assist local authorities in that respect with their building control function. I think that another bridge-builder in this Parliament in terms of what we can do when we work together about being pragmatic and using the powers that we have is absolutely correct. There are existing powers that local authorities could use on defective and dangerous and neglected buildings as well, but that will give them the reassurance that they will be able to have recompense for taking the necessary action when it comes to dangerous and defective buildings. However, Alex Rowley poses an even more interesting point. Is this a sign of the future post referendum of the Labour Party and the SNP working together in a brave new world of Scottish politics? Who knows what sort of coalition might come in the future? Suddenly, the stock of some Labour members is not quite so high, I have to say, but the consensual approach is one that we would like to continue. Proactivity from the public sector, even with its private ownership, is very much required. I would also cite the community empowerment Scotland bill for being able to tackle neglected and abandoned land and buildings as well, because we propose quite radical legislation there, too, in terms of giving communities the right to take over land and properties that have been abandoned and neglected. Yes, and using compulsion, too, along the lines that Mr Rowley might support. I look forward to that legislation making its way through Parliament as well. Roderick Campbell is absolutely right in terms of costs to councils. They will be more proactive if they have that certainty. They will be able to have their costs recompensed, not just the costs of the work itself but the costs of administration and any necessary interest charges as well, so that the public sector takes action and the public sector is not just paying the price for private neglect. That is first and foremost about safety, public safety and individual safety. We believe that the powers in the bill with all the necessary amendments will help to deal with immediately dangerous situations and will allow the interventions that are required. We will indeed stop buildings deteriorating and rectify building work that does not meet building regulations all very necessary, which does ask the question why some of those powers were removed in 2003, something to which I have had no satisfactory explanation. That is not a partisan point, but it is something that we will remedy in a constructive way today, hopefully when the bill is passed. Given councils that mechanism to take right and correct and timely action with the confidence that they will be supported. I think that that can empower communities as well, raising that culture of expectation of public sector intervention when it is and where it is required, because we know that the current normal civil debt recovery methods were problematic and had to be improved in attaching that notice, that charging order to the titles is exactly the right thing to do, because we know that this will be both preventative and clear up through the nature of convincing the responsibility of owners not to have that liability hanging round their neck for any future owner, unless that happens to be by agreement. There is enough appeal mechanism, flexibility and financial mechanisms to ensure that the mechanisms are appropriate, proportionate and pragmatic, but it is absolutely the right thing to do to ensure that our local authorities and working in partnership with them are empowered to take the right interventions to keep the people of Scotland safe. I am happy once again to give the Government support to the dangerous and effective building Scotland bill. Finally, I call on David Stewart to wind up the debate, Mr Stewart. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. First, I thank each and every member that has spoken in this debate. It is probably the first time that I have ever said these words in Parliament over the past seven years, but I am very grateful for not just the personal support to be given to me, but the support that has been acknowledged for the Minister for Local Government Regeneration, Delegate Powers Committee and for every single member that has provided advice and support. Again, I would like to flag up the very helpful help that I have had from the non-government bill's unit and the legal team and everyone else without that support, and, like Westminster, it would be impossible, in my view, to achieve a successful member's bill. If we needed one reason for this bill today, we would only have to look back last week to Glasgow, where Masonry from a Samsung building collapsed into street to bring the bill that we are considering today into a sharp focus. One of the main drivers of the bill is to provide local authorities with greater assurances that they will recover their dangerous building costs. With that, I hope that councils will have more confidence to tackle what I would call high-level defective or borderline dangerous buildings at an earlier point, which, of course, will be less costly and will preserve the value and the structure of the property, rather than dealing with buildings in a more dangerous state in the longer term. I make no apologies for referring to the statistics again, which show that action without notice under section 29 of the 2003 act, the most urgent and emergent action, has more than doubled from 402 in 2010 and 11 to 992 in 2011 and 12. That clearly demonstrates the need for local authorities to have effective cost recovery tools at their disposal. It has not been all-together straightforward stealing the bill through Parliament. Ordinally, of course, financial issues would cause some concern for members' bills, but that is a bill that achieves a lot for very little. You could describe it as one that punches above its weight. On this occasion, it was more the technical vagaries that made the process more difficult. Although I had developed it based on existing relevant statutory frameworks, local authorities' approach to debt recovery can vary. However, as a result of the parliamentary process and with the support of the Scottish Government, the bill does more than just recreate what has gone before in the act in 1959. It creates a modern version of a charging order that can be used by local authorities in their building compliance, enforcement and public safety work under the 2003 act. Members made excellent contributions and informed knowledge about the bill. Derek Mackay, I really appreciate his positive comments, particularly with her background in planning and her particular knowledge of Edinburgh and Lothian, and her strong knowledge of the quality of the built environment and the practical provisions of the bill. I would particularly emphasise that it is not just about local authorities. Charging orders are a great benefit to low-income owners, perhaps those who are retired or are staying in larger houses when their family is left. That can be a very beneficial approach. Of course, we all know that the debt running around £4 million is a horrendous sum across Scotland. I was bemused by my colleague, Alex Johnstone, if he pays attention, and I was referred to the fact that Mr Johnstone was bemused by his description of being uncontroversal. I wondered if that was the same Alex Johnstone that he knew. Nevertheless, he did end with a very positive point about bringing Parliament together. I think that there is a wider philosophical point on which I would share his view. I think that Kevin Stewart also made a statement-like comment about that very same point as well, about the spirit of co-operation that we can do more together. Alex Riley has got great knowledge of the local government with his experience in Fife, and he has some really good examples in Fife. I praise the work that he has done, not just now, but in his role as a very prominent councillor for many years. Roderick Campbell is a very knowledgeable advocate, and I know that he has a tremendous understanding of the issue. He raised the very tragic case of Christine Foster, and I acknowledge the points that he made on that particular point. I would like to thank the comments that Amitagar made about trying to standardise across Scotland. It is very important that we do that in the longer term. Very briefly, Presiding Officer, I just finished by doing a quick run-through of what I see as the advantages of charging orders, which I think are crucially important. I see them as adding to local authority cost recovery toolkit to deal with large and small repayable amounts, securing the debt over the property that creates a priority for the debt, which would not allow us to have had this unordinary and secured debt, including provision for recovery of expenses that is incurred over and above the basic cost of undertaking the work, perhaps a point that has not been raised. For example, local authority administrative costs, registering and discharge fees and interest are all things that can be added to the charging order. As the order is against the property, it avoids the need to pursue an individual in the civil courts, which, as members will know, is not always successful and can be very expensive. That can be both time-consuming and costly, and depending on the sums involved, when their owner is traceable, may not be a viable option, whether in a teat or elsewhere. It also provides a good guarantee of the costs being recovered. It enables local authority to determine the number of annual installments that are taken to account to the boy's point of the ability of the person to pay. It will act as an incentive to make those liable pay, rather than incur the additional costs. Also, the normal requirement to clear the charging order prior to the sale or transfer of the property will give an incentive for property owners to make payment of the outstanding sums to facilitate a sale. The introduction of several liabilities means that an owner cannot avoid their responsibilities. I also believe that it is likely to be better to have had their payers carried out and a charging order placed then for the property to fall into further disrepair, which is not just a problem for the owner, but for the owners' neighbours and the value of property in that street. Charging orders have an advantage in that their assistance in some charge are easy to establish from the land register at point of sale. In conclusion, I would like to say that the bill is the first for this Parliament session, because I believe that it is the first Opposition member's bill to reach this stage in the parliamentary process. A fair-winded decision time will see this becoming a first for me as well, having attempted that on a few occasions, both as an MP and Westminster and MSP here to promote a member's bill. With great pleasure, I commend the building recovery of expensive Scotland Bill to Parliament. Well done. That concludes the debate on the building recovery of expensive Scotland Bill, and it is now time to move on to the next item of business, which is a debate on motion number 10371, in the name of Fiona Hyslop, on stage 1 of the Historic Environment Scotland Bill. I would invite members who wish to speak in the debate to press the request to speak buttons now. If you are ready, Cabinet Secretary, I would call on you, Cabinet Secretary of Fiona Hyslop, to speak to and move the motion please 10 minutes or thereby. Presiding Officer, I want to start by welcoming the committee's report, which raised a number of areas where clarification of our intentions is important. I agree with the committee on the need for clear and shared understanding and will refer this afternoon to the key topics that are considered by the committee, and I will write to the committee before recess to respond on an item by item basis to their thorough and encouraging report. We last debated Scotland's historic environment in September. That debate reminded us that heritage takes many forms from our stunning castles, abbeys and prehistoric sites to the living heritage of song, poetry and traditions. I recently visited Erkut Castle on Loch Ness to see one of Scotland's premier monuments. We have witnessed the response to the fire at Glasgow School of Art, admired the resilience of those directly affected and been stunned by the flood of offers of help from across the world. What strikes me is that although we talk about the historic environment, it is really as much about people as buildings. Historic environment is about what people want to pass on to their children and grandchildren. It is about where we come from, where we are today and where we are all going. Scotland's historic environment is a vital resource in cultural, social and economic terms. It can and should deliver greater benefits for communities. I believe that we all agree on that. As the committee recognised in its report, the Historic Environment Scotland Bill is only part of a wider strategy. I will say more about the strategy in a few moments. The bill's central purpose is to create a single modern body with clearly defined functions. It is designed to sustain the strong base that we already possess and to prepare for the future. In that ambition, the bill is not revolutionary, although I was gratified to hear it referred to by a recent conference as I quote, a triumph and long overdue. It surprised me when I took my present portfolio to learn that, while the Royal Commission has a royal warrant setting out its terms of reference, an organisation as distinctive as Historic Scotland currently has no statutory existence. Although it performs statutory functions, it does so as an administrative aspect of ministers. We do not believe that that is right and we intend to create an NDPB with its own board to provide strong and transparent governance. We firmly believe that the role of ministers is to steer activities at a strategic level and not interfere in the details of particular cases where professional expertise should be the guide. As I have said, the bill sets explicit functions for the new body and the committee has considered those functions carefully. Beyond that, the bill sets out how those functions will be carried out. It will require the Historic Environment Scotland to offer leadership and support partnership working so that knowledge, skills and resources are mobilised to best effect across the whole sector. HES will be expected to help things to happen just as much as it does things at its own hand. The bill aligns designation and consent for monuments, listed buildings and conservation areas more closely with modern planning practice. It repositions Historic Environment Scotland largely as a consultation body alongside SNH and CEPA to create a simpler system for all who are involved with the vital business of developing Scotland's full potential. Those changes have been welcomed by local authorities who are working with us on the details. To balance the greater freedom that the new body will have, the bill creates new rights of appeal. The committee has commented on the arrangements in the bill for delegating the operation and management of the 345 properties in state care through ownership or guardianship agreements to Historic Environment Scotland. We share the committee's assessment of just how significant those iconic properties are. That is why ministers have decided to retain the ultimate responsibility for the conservation and for public access. The committee has commented on the possibility of seeking charitable status. That will, as I have already stated on more than one occasion, be something that I wish the new board to decide for themselves. However, I can say now that I will work very closely with the incoming chair to emphasise how vital it is for Historic Environment Scotland to support other bodies already working in the sector. That will apply whether or not HES seeks or achieves charitable status. I am very grateful to the cabinet secretary for taking an intervention and for the comments that she has made in relation to an issue that was raised with the committee. She may have seen the law society have raised some concerns about a charitable body carrying out statutory functions and I wonder if there is any observation that she could offer at the chamber on that point. Cabinet secretary, I think that the member was a member of the committee when the national libraries of Scotland which has charitable functions have got the national collections, which are charities that are NDPB, so there is a number of similar areas that occur currently. I am expecting the new body created by the bill to lead the sector in delivering shared goals but to do so in a supportive manner and in partnership. I also intend to work on recruiting the board of HES as soon as Parliament agrees to the general principles of the bill. Those shared goals in terms of what we expect from the new body with its partners in the sector will be founded on the strategy at our place in time, which sets out a clear vision for the historic environment to ensure that it is even better understood, protected and celebrated. I welcome the committee's strong interests in the collective works undertaken by the sector to develop a strategic vision and framework for the sector. That is, of course, the starting point of a long-term process which will be very much a partnership. I have been heartened by the engagement of the wider sector in the creation of the strategy and I am very much looking forward to chairing the first meeting of its overarching forum this Monday. I recently wrote to the convener of the committee setting out membership of the forum. The strategy will interact with many other initiatives such as the community empowerment bill, which was introduced into Parliament on 11 June. The Government firmly believes in communities and in collaborative action and we will take on board the committee's message that the local dimension will be key both to the operations of HES and to its ability to support local communities in making decisions that contribute to national outcomes. We are asking the whole historic environment community to work together in this enterprise. What is it that the Scottish Government is contributing? One of the issues raised in the committee was funding. Despite the economic situation, we have been able to maintain HES's budget for the grants that it makes on ministers' behalf to projects throughout Scotland for historic buildings, conservation areas and archaeological investigations. We recognise that communities have vast enthusiasm and energy but that financial resources are harder to come by. That is why I have worked very hard to protect HES's external grants programme for this year. I can confirm that I have asked HES to maintain its annual grant budget at approximately £14.5 million into 2015-16. I will look to its successor to continue to support others through grants and in as many ways as possible. I am also pleased to announce that today's grants totaling almost £2 million, including support for Glasgow Citizens Theatre's ambitions plans, which the Heritage Lottery Fund is backing. That will support restoration work at seven historical sites across Scotland and takes the amount that it has awarded in building repair grants to an almost £28 million over the past five years. That underlines our commitment to protecting and preserving Scotland's built heritage for future generations and to ensuring that historic environment continues to play an important role in supporting local communities and the Scottish economy. I also want to take this opportunity to commend the skills and passion of the staff of Historic Scotland and the Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Scotland. I am unfailingly impressed by the professionalism that they bring to the unending task of caring for our heritage and by the variety of approaches that they bring to bear. The Government will support staff with their work as we go into the future and, in turn, work alongside our local authorities, conservation charities and many thousands of private owners, all of whom make invaluable contributions to the historic environment. In conclusion, I would like to reiterate why we believe that the bill deserves the support of Parliament. It brings together two successful bodies to create a single, modern body that is better equipped to meet future challenges. It sets out in one place for the very first time the key historic environment functions that the Government believes should be supported. It sets out principles of partnership working and transparency within a broader strategic framework. It simplifies essential processes so that we can concentrate on getting the best for and from our historic environment. It reaffirms this Government's commitment to a historic environment that is at the heart of a flourishing and sustainable Scotland. For those reasons, I ask for your support and move the motion that Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Historic Environment Scotland Bill. Stuart Maxwell, who is opening on behalf of the Education and Culture Committee, has seven minutes, please. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Presiding Officer, speaking today, as I am, as a committee convener, I would like to begin by thanking all those who provided the Education and Culture Committee with written and oral evidence on the Historic Environment Scotland Bill. We very much appreciated the detailed submissions that we received. I would also like to thank all those who took the time to come along to talk to us during our visit to Orkney. Finally, I would like to thank my committee colleagues and the committee clerks and Spice for all their hard work and support during the stage 1 process. The Historic Environment Scotland Bill is one of those bills that appears to be relatively straightforward. The legislation will, in effect, create a new body to continue the functions of its predecessors, namely Historic Scotland and Arkham. Of course, stage 1 scrutiny is never that simple, and we addressed in our report a number of questions or concerns that were raised in evidence. We also looked at ways of improving the bill and the wider strategy that was referred to by the cabinet secretary. I will address some of those points in a minute, but I wish to highlight at the outset that we welcome the intended benefits of the merger and unanimously endorse the bill's general principles. I also want to highlight that our report laid down something of a challenge to other members who would be taking part in this debate. The challenge stems from the very frank but welcoming mission that some parts of Scotland are punching below their weight in realising the full benefits of the historic environment. Other parts, of course, of the country are doing very well. Given that comment during evidence-taking, we want other MSPs to consider how they can best help to promote Scotland's historic environment, to make sure that its value is fully realised. If, as parliamentarians, we endorse a bill and a strategy that advocates improvement, partnership working and better leadership, it may strengthen our position if we demonstrate those qualities ourselves. In considering the bill's merits, the committee was fortunate enough to visit an area of the country that is crammed full of architectural and cultural treasures. A sun-filled day in Orkney in May, and Liam McArthur assures me that it's always like that, is notable for many reasons, but not least because of the beauty of the landscape that can indeed leave a profound impression on anyone who visits. It is such impressions that help to confirm the value of our heritage in the broadest sense, not just in terms of increasing commercial exploitation or tourism numbers, but in connecting us to our shared history, our landscape and our cultural heritage. It is a source of some pride that we could have visited virtually any other region of Scotland and been treated to a different but similar display of historical and cultural richness. One of the findings that we took from Orkney and one of the recurring themes of our report was the need for better communication about some of the bill's provisions. For example, there was some concern in the sector about the extent of the new body's remit. While Historic Environment Scotland is to investigate, care for and protect the historic environment, we questioned whether that meant all of the historic environment. We noted, for example, that the vast majority of historic buildings are indeed under private ownership and responsibility. The cabinet secretary confirmed that the new organisation will be better placed to provide leadership and work collaboratively with the sector, but it will not have direct responsibility for the historic environment that some stakeholders perhaps thought that it would have. To avoid any doubt about Historic Environment Scotland's role, we have called on the Scottish Government to explain this as clearly as possible to all of the relevant bodies working in the sector. We made a very similar recommendation about the need to establish a shared understanding of what the term historic environment encompasses. One of our main discussions in taking evidence was whether the bill itself should define historic environment, whilst recognising that there is a full definition contained in the strategy. On balance, we were persuaded by the cabinet secretary's arguments that the bill need not to define the term. However, the crucial factor here is that we must avoid any possible confusion about the division of responsibilities between Historic Environment Scotland and other relevant bodies. As there appears to be a general agreement that the definition in the strategy is sufficiently clear, we have called on the Scottish Government to ensure that all parties have a shared understanding of this definition as the bill and the strategy are implemented. I want to mention three further areas where we have called on the Scottish Government to provide clarification to stakeholders to make sure that their concerns are addressed. First, we want the cabinet secretary to confirm who would be responsible for paying for the repair and maintenance bill for the properties in care, the 345 properties managed by ministers for the nation. There appears to be some uncertainty in some quarters around this point. Second, some organisations expressed concern to us that the new body may be at risk of a conflict of interests. That concern was linked in part to the suggestion that Historic Environment Scotland could be increasingly focused on raising income and, therefore, less focused on undertaking its regulatory functions. Other committee members, I am sure, will no doubt mention those issues in their own contributions. However, I want to point out that, while we were unconvinced about new conflicts of interest emerging, we recognised that organisations had some legitimate concerns. We are therefore called on the cabinet secretary to continue speaking to those groups that have made positive suggestions as to how their concerns could be addressed. We noted in doing so that the successful implementation of the bill and the strategy will largely depend on effective partnership working and the goodwill of all parties involved. There is one other area where we call for further clarification from the Scottish Government. In essence, we want to be clear about the relationship between the board set up to drive the Historic Environment Strategy and the Separate Historic Environment Scotland board. Again, other members will no doubt discuss that issue, but we particularly want to understand how the two boards will work together should problems arise in implementing the strategy. I wish to conclude by reiterating another theme from our report. Namely, ensuring progress is actually made and that all parts of Scotland can punch above their weight. I began by suggesting that all members have a role to play in helping to promote our shared historic environment. We also have an interest in making sure that the anticipated benefits of the bill and strategy are actually delivered. The Education and Culture Committee intends to play its part in that. Therefore, it would be our intention at a future date to assess the progress made once the new organisation is established and the strategy has been implemented, and we make that recommendation at paragraph 19 of our report. We have also made a related but more specific recommendation to the Scottish Government at paragraph 20. Historic Environment Scotland is to regularly publish a corporate plan setting out the outcomes to be delivered. We consider those annual reports should not just be forward looking. They should also say which previous objectives have or have not been achieved. We consider that that will help to make such reports more balanced and give a clearer picture of where success has or has not been delivered. That is something that I am sure that all members would find extremely useful. In the time available, I have not been able to mention or discuss in depth all the main points raised in our report. However, I know that other committee members will wish to raise issues such as how Historic Environment Scotland can exercise its functions in a way that takes due account of local issues and local decision making processes. Also, the exact role Historic Environment Scotland will play in relation to the marine environment and, of course, the possible impact of the new body being granted charitable status. In closing, I once again thank all those who engaged with the committee during our stage 1 examination of the bill and say that, although there are details that require attention and discussion as we go forward with the bill, the committee is unanimous in backing the principles of the Historic Environment Scotland bill. Thank you very much. I now call on Patricia Ferguson up to seven minutes, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. First, I thank the Education and Culture Committee for their considered report, which raises a number of important issues that we do well to consider today. Like Mr Maxwell, I may not be able to cover all the points that I wish to make in my opening speech, but, as I have the opportunity to close too, I will certainly plan to return to them then. Secondly, I would like to put on record my thanks to all the staff and the boards of Historic Scotland and the Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Scotland, who have, are and will continue to work hard to ensure that the transition from two organisations to one goes as smoothly as such measures ever can. I have had the privilege to work closely with both organisations over the years and I have been very impressed by their knowledge and expertise as well as their commitment to our historic environment. The respect that I have for both organisations has perhaps coloured my assessment of the proposal to merge them. I have had real concerns, as I have expressed before, about its effect. However, having had discussions with the management of both organisations, I am persuaded perhaps not so much that the merger is the right decision, but that the people leading the two organisations will make it work. I look forward very much to seeing their draft corporate plan when it is published. However, as the committee report makes clear, we will only be able to judge at a later date whether the improvements that are promised are realised. I very much welcome the strategy in our place in time, and I recognise that it is perhaps the first strategy of its kind in Scotland, but I would not want the chamber or, indeed, the general public to think that we have not had concern about our historic environment over the years. I would draw attention to the great amount of hard work that is put in by both organisations. Two documents, for example, the series of sheps produced when Labour was in power, but also continued when the SNP took over. Documents that I think are very good and have certainly set the pace up until now. However, to turn now to the substance of the committee's report, the committee noted that the bill's accompanying documents do not specify the outcomes that new bodies need to deliver, but note that a corporate plan will be published regularly by the new organisation. I agree with the committee that it is important that the document should identify the objectives that it has achieved, but it should look at those that have not been reached. I hope that the measurement of the objectives in that way could then influence subsequent plans. In its evidence to the committee, Archaeology Scotland made an important point about the functions of the new body and suggested that the bill was perhaps unclear in that area. It rightly identified that over 90 per cent of Scotland's archaeological assets are within the remit of planning authorities at present and that the bill was not quite clear as to whether or not that would change. The clarification that the cabinet secretary provided to the committee in that regard is welcome, but it will be important that all stakeholders share that understanding of what the role will be. It would also be helpful if clarification could be provided concerning the respective responsibilities of Historic Environment Scotland and Marine Scotland. With Historic Environment Scotland not being expected to undertake historic designations regarding marine protected areas, although being an expert advisor in that role, there is some concern in some areas that this important subject area may fall between the two organisations. Again, some additional clarity there might be helpful. Another issue that seems to have been one that taxed some of those giving evidence was the need to avoid centralising decision making—something that I think is very important in that regard. I know that the minister has indicated to the committee that she does not expect that centralisation would be a consequence of the change. However, I wonder if the minister, perhaps in her closing speech, could indicate how that will be guaranteed if not, as I would perhaps prefer, it would be stated on the face of the bill. As I have already identified, the role of local authorities is particularly important when we consider our historic environment, and they have a range of responsibilities. However, one issue that is often identified by local authorities is the difficulty that they have in gaining or recruiting enough staff of sufficient level of expertise to be able to assist them in their duties. I think that that very much connects to the issue of skills, which is one that was raised with members, or has been raised rather with members by the Society of Antiquaries, who feel that there should be a specific reference to the need to maintain and develop skills. They argue that that is different from the need to learn about and educate others about the historic environment and that it is a much more specific specification, I suppose, would be the word that they would want us to use. I wonder, too, if the cabinet secretary feels that perhaps a reference to skills within the bill might be helpful. I realise that flexibility in the bill is something that ministers always seek and I understand perfectly why that would be, but it might just be helpful if there was a reference to that. Again, with regard to the bill itself, definition has clearly been the subject of some debate within the committee, and I see that the committee has concluded that the most important point was that there is a definition, in this case, in the strategy and not in the bill, and once again I would imagine that flexibility is key. However, I wonder whether that might be something that could also be reiterated in the corporate plan, just to make sure that there is robust underpinning of what those issues are meant to be. The issue of charitable status is, again, one that has exercised comments that have come to the committee. I think that charitable status, if it were to be obtained, would be an area where considerable difference could be made to the finances of Historic Scotland, but I wonder whether the cabinet secretary, rather, might like to explain later on today some of the other benefits that might accrue from charitable status other than the financial ones, if Historic Scotland were to seek that. However, we know that some other organisations are anxious that Historic Environment Scotland might seek funding from other sources and would, in a sense, be competing with organisations such as NTS in what is already a very crowded sector, and I think that that is something that we would want to avoid. I know that I really need to come to a close. I have so many other things that I would like to talk about or do that later, but I just want to say that, before I finish, it has been a miss-not, too. Much of the function of the bill talks about things that have to be underpinned by legislation—of course, that is what the bill is about—but, of necessity, that means that much of those functions are functions normally carried out by Historic Scotland. The position of ARCAMs perhaps gets much less focus in the bill, as I say, for understandable reasons. It would just be worthwhile putting on record that the work that ARCAMs have done and the elements of the work that they will carry forward are just as important. I apologise to the cabinet secretary for missing the first minute of her speech. The Scottish Tories warmly welcomed the publication of this stage 1 report, and I think that that is largely because the logic behind the bill is fundamentally sound. By merging Historic Scotland with ARCAMs, there will be an agency that is better equipped to conserving Scotland's historic environment, which is a particularly challenging time, as set out by the cabinet secretary. It is not to say that either body has, in any way, failed in its current duties far from it. I think that there have been warm words about the staff in both, and we would echo that. Indeed, Scotland can be extremely proud of its heritage and how it has been managed, but clearly there is a consensus that more of a strategic approach would further strengthen our historic environment sector. I know time is extremely tight. I hope that you will forgive me if I concentrate my remarks, despite the warm words that I want to be the emphasis of my speech, on some issues where I think that we need some clarification. The first is about the accountability for the strategic direction of the new body, and I think that that is borne out in the evidence with some of the witnesses who also believe that there is a lack of clarity. When giving evidence to the Education and Cultural Committee on 20 May, the cabinet secretary indicated that if the board were to have a difference of opinion with the Scottish Government about strategic direction, perhaps unlikely, but it could happen, then the latter would have the final say on what that direction should be. I remain slightly concerned by the response, in particular, about the possible ramifications that it could have for the applications for charitable status. I note the text of a subsequent letter to the committee convener from the cabinet secretary clarifying her remarks and indicating that she would not direct members of the new body's board. I welcome that. Just to be absolutely specific, paragraph 88 of the policy memorandum says that Scottish ministers will be able to give directions to historic environment Scotland about the exercise of its functions, but not on specific cases, objects or properties, so as to ensure operational independence. However, paragraph 12.3 of the bill says that section 12.2a does not apply where Scottish ministers have delegated functions in relation to properties and care and, in oral evidence, Scottish Government officials rather confirm that ministers intend to delegate the operation of all 345 properties in their care to historic environment Scotland. I think that there are some issues there, cabinet secretary, that need a little bit of clarification. Perhaps they are semantic, but it is quite clear at the moment that there is a recognition that, in some cases, HES will be working on behalf of Scottish ministers. As the bill continues its progression, further clarity regarding the relationship between the operational board and the overarching historic environment board would also be welcome, as it stands the consensual language of historic environment strategy document, which envisages joint working and a shared vision, is absolutely correct. I think that we like to hear that, but it does not actually sit terribly easily with some of the clauses within the bill that state that the new body must have regard to any relevant policy or strategy published by Scottish ministers. Again, I think that there are some semantic details there that perhaps could be tightened up. A second issue, as it has been mentioned, I think— Yes, of course. Cabinet secretary. I very much appreciate the member's points and neither am I summing up, but certainly my response committee will address those. Let us take, for example, the issue of energy efficiency and climate change, which is a Government policy. We would expect all public bodies to be helping to support that. We frequently get asked by MSPs, are we delivering on that? That may be an example of where you would want to make sure that there was a regard to a Government policy. That might be a good example to use. I will give you a few seconds back. I take that point, cabinet secretary. I think that that is very helpful. I do not doubt that there is going to be large agreement between the overall direction. However, if we are to be a little bit pedantic about it, there are issues about what would happen in circumstances where perhaps they took a slightly different view from Government policy and who would have the ultimate responsibility and accountability for the strategy. I think that that is the general point. I think that one of the huge successes of Historic Scotland has been its decentralised approach. It would be extremely unfortunate to say the least of the bill unpicked that. As it stands, not only are there individual agreements between Historic Scotland and certain councils, but there is also a joint working agreement that ensures a degree of consistency regarding how the historic environment is managed. I echo some colleagues' concerns about that. There are issues that my colleague Mary Scanlon will deal with when it comes to funding. There are issues that were raised, particularly when it came to the awarding of grants. If I remember correctly, that was the law society that raised those concerns. Even if there are several significant areas of concern, we thoroughly support the intentions behind the bill. There is universal recognition that a much more strategic focus will safeguard the long-term future of Scotland's historic environment. I am sure that, within the process of stage 2 and stage 3, we can address those concerns so that we have a better agency. Many thanks. We now turn to the open debate. We do not have a lot of time in hand, so speeches of four minutes please. Claire Adamson to be followed by Neil Bibby. Thank you, Presiding Officer. It has been a pleasure to be part of the process and committee as this bill has reached its stage 1 report. I would also like to echo the convener's comments in thanking those who have given evidence, and I particularly especially mention the warm welcome that the committee received on its visit to Orkney this year. In Orkney, I was struck in speaking to the stakeholders about how much co-operation cross-party partnership working was evident, and how important that was to a very unique challenge of the islands, which had an ancient historic landscape, and capacity issues that were sometimes conflicting in terms of the priorities for the island, tourism and conservation. The whole idea of the partnership working and co-operation is absolutely key to the bill and is key in the strategy. None more so when, in page 10 and 11 of the strategy, it looks at the cross-cutting strategic priorities of the Government in terms of its whole priorities for Scotland, and places the bill very central to that in the policy mainstreaming of the Scottish Government in relation to the bill. I would also like to pay particular mention to the SNH rangers that we met while we were in Orkney. The appraises were sung by everyone that we met on the island from the ISPB to the local authority to Historic Scotland. I know that it is a part funding arrangement with SNH and Historic Scotland, and it seems to work particularly well on the island. I was particularly interested in the tour of the Ring of Brodgar and when we visited Scarabry on our visit. We have received many briefings for this debate today, including from the Lost Society of Scotland, the Scottish Society of Antiquaries and the built environment form Scotland. We are thankful for those briefings, too, which add to the whole debate and the background for this stage 1 report. I agree with the convener that, while on the face of it, it would seem fairly straightforward to bring together those two organisations. However, the evidence that we received and the sessions have highlighted that there are some concerns and some really important issues that we still need to discuss as that progresses. However, I am confident that that is a bill that can meet the objectives and the general principles of the bill. The key to that is the collaboration that is at the centre of it, and that is no more evident than, in our place, our time historic environment of Scotland strategy document. As the cabinet secretary has said, that is the first ever strategy for the historic environment in Scotland. In the opening of that, the cabinet secretary states, The strategy has been developed collaboratively by a wide range of organisations and specialists in the historic environment sector and beyond, and it sets out a shared vision for our historic environment, which is owned by the people of Scotland, and that is critical. The strategy does not belong to the Government or any particular sector. It is for everyone, and we can play a part in helping to ensure that it delivers positive outcomes for our historic environment, and I think that that will be key to being at the heart of what we do as we go forward. This is an extremely important document, and it sets out the tone of the whole debate and how we move forward in this bill. The vision statement in it is particularly interesting, where the aims are set out as understanding and investigating and recording our historic environment, the protecting and caring of the historic environment, and the valuing and the riches and the significance of our historic environment. It is key to the whole way forward, and I look forward to moving through the bill as it progresses through Parliament. Many thanks. I call Neil Bibby to be followed by Mike Mackenzie. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the stage one debate of the Historic Environment Scotland Bill. It has appeared to me for some time during the evidence sessions of the Education and Culture Committee, and indeed this afternoon there is no groundswell of objection to the proposed merger of Historic Scotland and Arkham's. Obviously, some will be more enthusiastic than others, but I have no doubt that Parliament will support the principles of the bill at the decision time today. I think that the critical issue will be moving forward as how the Cabinet Secretary and the Scottish Government respond to the concerns issues that have been raised. There will be a need for a number of reassurances and points of clarification and amendments that are required as we go forward. I echo thanks to the clerks of the committee for their support of the bill and for a raging opportunity to meet key stakeholders in Orkney regarding the bill. Orkney is an area that has many great historical sites and experts. That was very worthwhile and helped raise the number of questions and issues. For example, we heard confusion from stakeholders about the exact division of responsibilities in terms of the roles Historic Environment Scotland, Marine Scotland and Scottish ministers will play in relation to the marine environment. As the committee reports states, it appears that the decision-making on submerged archaeological sites sit with Marine Scotland rather than Historic Environment Scotland, yet the Historic Environment Strategy is to encompass under water. I am sure that we would all welcome some clarity from the cabinet secretary on that issue. During our Orkney visit, the issue of local decision-making was also raised, and I know that other members have already mentioned that. Local groups highlighted the need to guard against centralised decision-making on the historic environment. I acknowledge what the cabinet secretary has said about the importance of local partnerships, but I think that we need to consider, as the bill progresses, how we ensure that that is underpinned and guaranteed. More generally, there has been considerable discussion from witnesses across Scotland and by the committee on the issue of funding, how charitable status could affect the new body and other funding implementations. From my personal point of view, I have not seen enough evidence to conclude fully what the impact financially will be on the new body and other organisations. I think that we need to avoid making grand assumptions about whether or not shopfalls will be created, and if they will or will not be made up in this case, as we do not have the evidence at the moment. I know what the cabinet secretary said about funding earlier on, but I think that we need to look at that further in terms of financial implications. If I could reiterate, in relation to the financial provisions for the bill, it is not reliant on charitable status, and the assumptions that have been made have been very strict in terms of its bias, but it is not reliant on any additional income for Charles Lincoln. I have made the point that we need to look at that further in terms of all the possible scenarios and implications that that could have. I know that the Scottish Government cannot currently give us an estimate of the repairs and maintenance that is needed for properties under its care. I believe that an urgent survey should be carried out to ascertain the backlog of repairs and liabilities for the existing properties that it has responsibility for, and that should happen before the planned date of April 2015. There has also been concerns raised, as other members have said, about the potential conflict of interest that the new body could have. Witnesses have been right to raise those issues, and whether or not this is a new issue still has been of ongoing concern to a number of witnesses, and one that we should take on board. I think that we need to further consider this issue, as well as the bill progresses, and I hope that the Scottish Government will continue to respond to any such concerns going forward with the relevant stakeholders. As I said earlier, I support the general principles of the bill. I hope that the Scottish Government can now provide the clarity assurances and amendments to address the issues and concerns raised by stakeholders, experts and organisations to what will have to improve our historic environment. I am afraid that I have to reiterate that there is no time available, and interventions must be within the members' phone minutes. Mike McKenzie, to be followed by Liam McArthur. I am not a member of the Education and Culture Committee, but I am pleased to speak in this debate because I spent much of my previous career renovating, repairing and maintaining old buildings. Indeed, I live in a 250-year-old listed building, and I have worked with lime putty mortar, horsehair plaster, stone and slate. I am pleased that I was able over 35 years and more to help to build some new life into some old buildings. Even now, I cannot pass by a forsaken and neglected old building. There are still far too many of those across Scotland without feeling the urge to gather up my tools and gather together some skilled craftsmen and talk some moneylender into helping finance its renovation. However, much as I love these older buildings, much as the poor state of our historic environment saddens me, much as I value them, despite—perhaps because of all this—I still think that people are more important. It is people that inhabit our buildings. It is people that breathe life into them. In our old buildings, it is their stories, the life and times of the people who use those buildings that echo in their walls. It is people too, as the cabinet secretary has touched on, that care for our buildings. That is why I welcomed the bill in the formation of the new body Historic Environment Scotland and the first-ever historic environment strategy, because some new thinking and a new approach and culture are required. You can list a building, you could perhaps even double and treble-list it, but you cannot prevent apathy, you cannot easily prevent neglect and eventual ruin, and you cannot easily legislate to provide value. You only have to look at the civic trusts buildings at risk register to find compelling evidence of this, for it is a sad and lengthy catalogue of neglected, listed buildings. Most of them quietly decaying, and you can schedule a monument, and that will not prevent its neglect. If anybody seeks evidence of this, visit Keelchappel and Durer, the last resting place of James of the Glen, wrongly hung for the up and murder, inspiration for Robert Louis Stevenson's international best seller, Gidnat. Visit Keelchappel to see that scheduling monuments in itself offers no protection whatsoever, but you can however facilitate, you can educate and you can advise and you can do so effectively both conserving and enhancing. Queensbury House, I think, offers a very good example of a building both conserved and enhanced, and I have to beg to disagree with the law society here, you can do both, they're not mutually incompatible. In finishing, Presiding Officer, I'm glad that the Education and Culture Committee chose to visit Orkney and pursue the scrutiny of this bill. Few places have more effectively added value to their bill heritage, making it a driver of the local economy and creating what I think is a very virtuous circle. I hope that Historic Environment Scotland understands that it's successful thriving communities like Orkney that are required to nurture and care for our older buildings and our heritage, and I hope that they're able to successfully spread this knowledge and understanding right across Scotland. Yesterday, thanks to the Prince's Trust, I had the opportunity to try my hand at Stone Masonry, but to all in the Historic Environment, I can assure you that I will not be taking those skills out into the field. I add my thanks to colleagues, to the clerks and to the witnesses who gave evidence to the committee. I pay particular gratitude to my constituents in Orkney for hosting an excellent visit last month, and special mention to the county archaeologist Dr Julie Gibson, as well as arranging fine weather that showed off the islands at their best, prompting one or two colleagues to consider putting in for political asylum. Our hosts managed in the space of a day to give a real flavour of how the Historic Environment can shape the identity of a community and deliver significant value in terms of tourism, academic research and even the sort of quality of life that encourages people to want to live and work in such a special place. As the convener indicated, the principles of the bill were unanimously supported, but there were a number of issues raised with us at stage 1, and we wish to reflect those in the bill or in the undertakings from the minister during stage 2. Let me briefly touch on some of those. In terms of the definition of Historic Environment, the committee, I think, came to the conclusion that on balance there were more downsides than upsides in including that in the bill, but I recognise that there is still strong support for inclusion. We need to ensure that there is legal certainty and that safeguarding and promoting the historic environment does not suffer in comparison to other Government priorities through a lack of specific reference in the bill establishing HES. The Law Society makes some useful comments with regard to the functions of HES, drawing attention to the fact that there is no function that promotes the maintenance of the historic environment and suggesting that that needs to be more explicitly stated in the bill. I would add that greater clarity is also needed around HES' involvement in relation to submerged archaeology in the work in the marine environment. The Law Society also raised the next issue of charitable status in the briefing pointing to potential conflicts of interest. Others in the sector, notably the National Trust, were very anxious about a diversion of charitable funding away from others in the sector. While that will be a decision for the HES Board and the committee came to the conclusion that there will likely be no new potential conflicts, I do not think that we are out of the woods here yet on the issue that is likely to be the basis of amendments at stage 2. A number of witnesses have also emphasised the need for good collaboration between all stakeholders, something that we saw in Orkney, but in particular the critical relationship between HES and local authorities. Again, that may be something that needs to be strengthened through stage 2. That local national division of responsibility was a key message to come out of the visit to Orkney. Quite rightly, my constituents were adamant that merger to create HES should not, must not lead to a more centralised approach, while national standards and consistent quality are vital. As Patricia Ferguson, Liz Smith and others have said, so too is the capacity for the organisation to respond to local circumstances and to take decisions that reflect that. Like Patricia Ferguson, I would prefer to see those safeguards in the bill, but I welcome the minister's comments at the committee on the issue. Finally, on resources and expertise, I fully appreciate that across Scotland we are yet to punch our weight in relation to the historic environment. However, as colleagues witnessed first hand, this is not a charge that can be laid against those in Orkney. In seeking to improve the situation in other parts of the country, I would not, however, wish to see resources diverted away from meeting the needs and opportunities of somewhere like Orkney. This is important, of course, for my constituency, but I believe that it is also crucial for Scotland as a whole. I put on record my gratitude to staff working in Historic Scotland in our camps, notably the Rangers, as Clare Adamson mentioned. I am happy to confirm that we will be supporting the principles of the bill. I very much hope that it can achieve its objectives, not least in ensuring that the value of a rich historic environment is properly recognised, enhanced and celebrated in the future. Thank you. I now call Linda Fabiani to be followed by Jane Baxter. Of course, our place in time, the historic environment strategy, was published in March and did lead on from the Scottish historic environment policy notes from over the years. It was welcomed by all, is welcomed by all in the relevant sectors and many, many beyond. Now, of course, we are moving towards a new lead body through legislation, the historic environment Scotland. I would like to note here some words about the Royal Commission of Ancient and Historic Monuments, which is going to be merged with Historic Scotland to create this new body. They have a proud history, established in 1908, and there has been excellent work by the commissioners over the years and, of course, all the staff that have worked to them. I am glad that Mike Mackenzie mentioned Queen'sbury House, because the reality is, if it had not been for the commissioner John Hume from our camps, Queen'sbury House would not look as it does at the moment, because he was instrumental in the history of the house and the building environment in Edinburgh at that time to make sure that we brought Queen'sbury House back to its original form as far as possible. Among many other credits that was done, surveying and recording and excellent community outreach work and education work. I hope that, as we move ahead through this, that legacy will be cherished and sustained. As chair of the cross-party group on architecture and the built environment, we did have an excellent session on the subject of Scotland's historic environment. That is why I am able to say with confidence that the relevant sectoral organisations and many professionals welcome the strategy and the related proposed legislation. However, it is only stage 1 and it is only right that issues or potential issues get flagged up at this point. I am grateful to the work of the Royal Town Planning Institute of Scotland and the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland, who very much have raised the same points. First of all, looking at the role of the body as part of the planning system in fulfilling its functions and protecting, managing, conserving and enhancing the historic environment. Greater clarity for planning authorities on the role of the new body and, indeed, clarity for the new body and the roles and responsibilities of the local planning authorities. That leads into community planning as well. The Society of Antiquaries has suggested that there should be an explicit recognition of the advisory and supportive relationship that I have mentioned there, ensuring that local authorities have access and take due regard of appropriate information and professional advice. That leads on to the maintaining and developing of the historic environment skills, including the traditional skills and crafts that Mike McKenzie mentioned. Of course, Historic Scotland has always been very good at the work that it has done with SDS and apprentices to make sure that historic skills, buildings and traditional skills and crafts are maintained. It is the case in fact that the stated priorities underpinning the legislation and strategy are informed decision making skills and capacity and ensuring capacity. Knowledge and expertise appropriately placed are absolutely essential. I have so much more to say about this, but I know that I have to be quiet. I can bring this up as we go through this whole process, but I think that what must underpin everything is that having the strategy is good, but it is not having it, it is implementing it that will really make the difference. I was pleased to be part of the committee that considered this bill, although I was unable to join fellow members on their fact-finding visit to Orkney. I would like to add my thanks to all those organisations and individuals who contributed to the committee's evidence sessions and made such thoughtful submissions, which I hope they feel have been recognised in the report. It is a testament to Scotland's heritage that members today are able to reflect on so many areas of historic and cultural importance within their own constituencies and regions. Being privileged to represent the region in Mid Scotland on Fife, I am certainly spoiled with the wealth of sites that I could focus on, from ancient buildings and monuments across the region, to more recent examples such as the Category B listed fire station in Dunferman. Soon to be reborn as a community-based arts centre, operated as a social enterprise with support from the council and other funders. In previous debates, I have been able to highlight the Isle of May with its 8,000 years of human habitation through to the more recent history of Lochor village, which has seen the local landscape change from agriculture to coal mines and burning bings and nowadays is home to the peaceful secret gem, which is Lochor meadows country park. The pride of members in the local area points to a key issue that was raised in the committee report about the importance of continuing a regional approach as currently pursued by Historic Scotland to supporting the sites of interest in local communities. The cabinet secretary provided assurance that the new body would not mean a move to a more centralized approach to decision making, but I would particularly support the report's recommendations that the legislation before us underpins us in some way. Perhaps this is something the cabinet secretary could consider as the bill progresses. As the cabinet secretary and her colleagues will know from recent questions that I have asked on the issue, I have a strong interest in community planning and I believe that community participation and ownership is fundamental to successfully delivering outcomes at a local level and that this should cut across all areas of government. Local people care about their local heritage and local environment. The energy, expertise and commitment from local communities is something that cannot be replicated by Governments or other agencies and which we sometimes do not adequately acknowledge or value. Civic pride is something that you cannot put a price on, but that local drive and energy is often a thing that can bring communities together, helps to bring in the funding and ensures that the historic environment continues to be relevant now and in the future. The importance of community planning partnerships in this context has been highlighted by the Royal Town Planning Institute and I look forward to seeing their recommendations as part of the historic environment group on this issue. The presence of COSLA on the historic environment group demonstrates the recognition of the important role of local authorities in planning matters and the built environment. As the report highlights, some evidence to the committee has suggested that 92% of archaeological assets fall within the remit of planning authorities, as they are not explicitly labelled as scheduled monuments. The report highlights concerns over the remit of the new body in overseeing all of the historic environment, and that is therefore something on which I would welcome further clarification from the minister. I know that it is not just sites of archaeological interest that are covered by the new legislation. It also includes properties and care and listed buildings, reflecting the diversity of the historic environment across the country. In supporting the general principles of the bill, while some aspects are particularly process-driven, given the nature of the legislation, it is vital that we remember the most important outcome—successfully protecting and managing our diverse historic environment for future generations. I now turn to George Adam, after which we will turn to closing speeches. I would also like to thank my colleagues and everyone who gave evidence, as well as the clerks, when we are going through stage 1. It has been interesting and exciting. It might sound surprising to say something like that when you are talking about the Historic Environment Scotland Bill. It proposes a merger of Historic Scotland and the Royal Commission on Ancient and Historic Monuments of Scotland, and it creates Scotland's historic environment. That is where I could just sit down at this stage. I know that a lot of people might think that that is a good idea, but there is so much more to it, because at the same time as the bill was published, our place in time, Scotland's first-ever historic environment strategy, was launched as well. The important part of all that is the fact that the strategy will show the way forward for how we deal with it. As the cabinet secretary rightly says in the forward, our heritage is hugely inspirational, helping to create a powerful sense of place, providing the backdrop to where we live, where we work and have fun. Her historic environment was a huge role to play in shaping a bright future in Scotland, and it is up to us to ensure that it is passed down with pride to benefit future generations. I think that that sums up the whole debate that we are having here today, because I think that that is the important part of the strategy. Our convener has already said at some points that some areas are punching well above their weight. With some of the evidence that we received, that is probably true, but I think that the strategy gives us the opportunity to make sure that we have the strategy working in all the areas throughout Scotland. I could see Orkney quite clearly that it was working well, and you could see the experience that it has with all the local authority and all the groups, all working together to ensure that they do that. Our day in Orkney was special, both with the weather and seeing part of the country that I have never seen before. I even had a situation where the Ring of Broadgar managed to photobomb an ancient monument that Stuart Maxwell, our convener, was taking a picture. Not many people can make that claim to fame, but, at the same time when we were there with Scarabray, I was talking to Liam MacArthur when we were walking down at Scarabray and they showed you the various time points within from the centre as you get to the village itself, which is some 3100 BC around that time when it was meant to have actually started now. I was saying to how in Paisley we have this 850-year-old Abbey. When Liam showed me where that is in the great scheme of things, my 850-year-olds ate a lot of time in this planet compared to everything else. However, it was interesting to see that we all have, as has already been mentioned, things in our area. That is where it comes down to the debate of how the historic environment is a definition. How can you define the historic environment? In my opinion, it is pretty fluid what part of that historic environment is now. It would not have been maybe 20 or 30 years ago. In my own town, we have former mill buildings that were older buildings that were industrial buildings at their time, but now they are buildings of great beauty and architecture prowess. Those things have to be retained and used because they are an integral part of who they are, who the town is and what makes us Paisley Buddies. That is the same in every single community throughout Scotland. That is the exciting part of the idea of the historic environment. The fact that you can actually, let us not contain it, let us not box it in to a situation where we just say that that is what it is and it does not move from there, I think that that is part of the exciting part of this bill, is that we can actually continue to move it on and find a way to ensure that we can save this for everyone in the future. In closing, I think that this is a good start for us all to work together for this bill and it is not just about merging two bodies, it is an exciting part of our future. Many thanks. We now turn to closing speeches and a call on Mary Scanlon. Four minutes, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. As my colleague Liz Smith stated earlier, we all support the rationale behind this bill. Our place in time, the new historic environment strategy, has been warmly received by the sector, at least in theory, and stakeholders have signalled their broad content with the proposed merch body, but I did think that Linda Fabiani made a very good point when she emphasised that it was about what happened in implementation rather than simply the words contained. However, as Councillor Harry McGuigan, of course, told us on the committee, and I quote, the devil is in the detail, and there are various issues that still require to be addressed, many of which have been raised today. Perhaps the most significant revolves around how we ensure how local decision making is preserved, a point raised by Liam McArthur and very, very firmly put to us by people across Orkney. While there are good reasons for designating historic environment Scotland as the sector's lead body, we must ensure that this new entity advises in a manner that preserves and hopefully strengthens local decision making. Again, that relates to local government, which, I have to say again, was made very clear on our visit to Orkney. Any shift towards greater centralisation would be to the detriment of the historic environment, and while I note the assurances by the cabinet secretary, the assurances that she has given in this area, it would seem to be sensible to make those intentions more explicit, perhaps, in accompanying guidance. Then there is the relationship with the private sector, and I think it is fair to say that on the whole, Historic Scotland has enjoyed a very good working relationship with the private heritage sector, and this is something that we hope will continue. Private owners have a huge stake in Scotland's historic environment, and we should recognise that as such, especially as they meet restoration costs from their own pockets. On the broader point of ministerial direction, while all non-departmental public bodies must have a working relationship with central government, section 12 of the bill does read rather broadly. In particular, concerns have been raised about curatorial independence, and earlier Liz Smith raised exactly this point, and I associate myself with her remarks. I put simply that it would not be acceptable for the Scottish Government to exert a higher degree of control over historic environment Scotland, so further assurances about how any difference of opinion would be resolved would be very helpful as we take this bill forward. Another area of contention relates to funding. I noted with interest the figures National Trust for Scotland and the Historic Housing Association supplied to the committee about their property maintenance backlogs, which, when added together, amounted to over 100 million. Unfortunately, comparable figures for historic environment Scotland will not be available until next April. As Stuart Maxwell said in his opening remarks as convener of the committee, it is important that the Scottish Government confirms who will ultimately be responsible for meeting the maintenance property for the significant 345 properties in care. Whoever that may be in whatever the final total, it seems that the new body will have to raise significant levels of additional finance, and there is some concern that this could clash with the broader regulatory role that historic environment Scotland must have at its core. A final point relates to accountability, while our place in time commands the wide support of the sector as it stands, we have no indication of who will be tasked with ensuring that outcomes are met. Although I wholeheartedly agree with the emphasis that is placed on collaboration, I think that we all do, if those outcomes are to be realised, we do need direct lines of accountability. Of course, all of these points can be resolved as the bill continues its progression. Fundamentally, the rationale for the merger is sound. The strategy is an important document that should go a long way to strengthening the sector, and it is for those reasons that we welcome stage 1 of this report. It has been particularly interesting to hear the comments of colleagues on the committee, as they have had the work of taking that forward. The interesting task of listening to the witnesses who have come forward, the evidence that has been submitted, and I have to say that I am particularly jealous that they were able to visit Orkney and have the experience that they have had. It is something to be seen, and if anyone in the chamber has not been, they should go very quickly. I am sure that Mr MacArthur would be happy to make those arrangements. Mr Maxwell does well to challenge us as members to champion our local historic environment, because it is about our sense of place, and it is about the kind of communities that we represent. In my own area, we have had some contrasting experiences, I have to say, with Mary Hill Borough Hall being a very successful regeneration of a historic building, and one that is now put to very good community use. On the other hand, Springburn Public Hall, a similar building, but one that also had Lane Deryl, which has had Mary Hill for a number of years, was suddenly demolished over Christmas a year and a half ago because it was in such a bad way. It can be a very difficult challenge to preserve and maintain buildings of historic value, but we have to give more consideration to ways in which we can intervene at an earlier stage. Hopefully, the new body will be able to do that, and we will be able to give good guidance and very strategic guidance to local authorities to help them to assist the owners of such properties. Linda Fabiani was absolutely correct to reference the history of Queen'sbury House and particularly the involvement of John Hume in that, as in so many other projects of that kind across Scotland during his involvement. His dedication to that issue is probably second to none. I very much remember the early days of this Parliament on the corporate body having very long discussions and debates about whether or not we should have slate on the roof of Queen'sbury House and whether it should be painted or line washed. I definitely think that line wash was the right idea and I really haven't a clue as to whether or not the slates were, but the building is wonderful and an asset to this building. We've heard a little bit about ministerial direction this afternoon, and that is one of those interesting areas. If I can be slightly flippant for a moment, I think that ministerial direction is one of those things that is opposed in opposition but adopted in government. I speak from some experience in this area, but seriously, I think that the point is to get the balance right. I was very interested in the point that the cabinet secretary made in response to a point that was made by Liz Smith about the Scottish Government's environmental priorities and how those would perhaps have a bearing on the historic environment. That is a case in point, because adaptations to buildings that might make it more environmentally friendly might also conflict or even compromise its heritage status. Those kinds of issues go to the heart of how ministerial direction could be used. Frankly, in a case like that, one would need to have the wisdom of Solomon, but, hopefully, with the right advice and the right briefing from the experts, the right decision would become to. Of course, it has been said, and I would agree with it very much, that the continued use of our historic buildings is in itself an environmentally friendly act, and perhaps even one of the best forms of recycling that we have. I think, too, that it is important, as the committee suggested, that we explain in more detail the bill's implications for the curatorial independence of the body. Perhaps, as we go forward, those are elements that can be teased out. I think, too, that the Society of Antiquities had a very interesting point to make about those delegated powers. They have a concern, and I would be interested in the cabinet secretary's views on this, that those powers might lead to ministers delegating some of the more profitable aspects of the body's work to other bodies. Now, I cannot imagine that that is what the cabinet secretary means, but if it is a concern of those with specific interests in the area, I think that it would be very useful to have that kind of clarification. The strategy, or place and time, sets out the governance structure for the implementation of the strategy, and it is very welcome, and I think that it does that pretty well. However, the historic environment Scotland—sorry, I am finding it quite difficult to get used to the new name, and I wonder whether there is something more catchy we could call it, but perhaps that debate is gone. However, the strategy itself does not really talk about how the governance structure of the historic environment Scotland fits into the overarching strategy. In fact, there is scant mention of HES in that particular document, and I think that that is something that perhaps could be clarified as we go forward. I very much look forward to the future discussions that we will, no doubt, have on this bill, and I am sure that there will be very interesting debates over amendments at later stages. I think that I would simply want to say that I very much welcome the work done by the committee. They have obviously taken this issue as seriously as it deserves to be, and Scottish Labour will, of course, support the general principles of the bill when we come to that point this evening. Many thanks. I now call Fiona Hyslips to wind up the debate, cabinet secretary. I welcome the positive tone of the debate. I will explore all the constructive suggestions made this afternoon for improvement of the proposals, as well as the recommendations by the lead committee and by the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee. I plan to write to the committee before recess and will include in that letter responses on the additional ideas that are discussed here this afternoon. However, I can say here and now that I expect to be able to respond positively to the principles behind all of the committee's recommendations, and that I believe that the bill and the accompanying dialogue with stakeholders will be that much stronger as a result. In my opening comments, I touched upon what seemed to me the key themes of the report, the committee's report. I believe that the committee has accurately mapped the themes that matter. Those themes include the relationship between the bill and the new body that it creates and the sector-wide strategy, the benefits that we believe that the bill will bring about and how it will be monitored, the need for transparency, and the importance of communities and the role of ministers. The strategy is, of course, collectively owned by all the independent bodies who participate. My task as chair of the strategy's overarching forum—I am calling that a forum, rather than a board for clarity—will be to promote consensus for it to work. It requires voluntary agreement. If we come to insuperable problems, we will need to work around them or approach them from a new angle. To state the obvious, consensus only works if it remains consensual. Historic environment Scotland, on the other hand, will be a public body. It will be required to play a key role in delivering this Government's contribution to the shared priorities that agreed through the strategy. I can, and I will hold his to account through its chair for how it delivers. That is how all NDPBs work, and that is why we have chosen this model. However, I want to address the point about balance of ministerial direction, raised by Liz Smith and reflected on by Patricia Ferguson in her closing remarks. As minister, I cannot direct the strategy forum, but I can direct his on strategic matters. I can direct his on properties and care as they are ministers' responsibility, but I cannot direct them on grant decisions, on listing and scheduling decisions, and, importantly, on Patricia Ferguson's point, on her collecting decisions and on the curatorial matters that she referred to. Liam McArthur referred to the point about functions. The Law Society is saying that there is no reference to the word maintaining. However, we talk about protecting, managing, conserving, enhancing and preserving. Conserving and preserving have specific meaning in heritage, and I think that we are well covered in that regard. I do believe that the Government has a duty to involve and support communities, both local communities and communities of interest, in defining priorities and taking action. That applies to the historic environment, as it does more widely. That is why we have a requirement in the bill for our new-lead body to work in partnership. However, I have heard the contributions around the chamber, and I accept the committee's view, reinforced in the debate, that the bill does not give sufficient prominence to the role of local communities. We will address that as we move forward. Neil Bibby referred to the marine environment. I would refer him to schedule 4 of the bill. Hez will act as an expert adviser to the Scottish Government and will continue to its recording activities, but the Scottish Government through Marine Scotland will undertake designation and consent. That will maintain the unified marine regulation system just recently introduced by the Marine Scotland Act. In terms of local authorities, Patricia Ferguson touched on the very important role of local authorities. They will play and still play a fundamental role in looking after the historic environment, both designated and undesignated heritage. The bill itself does not change that fundamental role of local authorities, and Hez will be able to, however, support them more effectively. In terms of the charitable status issues, I think that it was Liam MacArthur who raised the issue about charitable status. Written evidence was received by the committee from Oscar, who confirmed that a charity with regulatory functions was unusual but not unique. Others include the General Teaching Council, for example, Scotland and, indeed, the SSPCA. I have also talked about the support that is required and will continue grants, advice, training and skills. I think that, in terms of the body, it will still carry out that function. I think that Patricia Ferguson's point about reference on skills is one that I would want to consider further. There will be situations where a strong lead is needed, whether in research or project management, and I particularly welcome the strong working relationships that exist with the National Trust for Scotland, for example, which demonstrates the collaboration that we can achieve. For example, we need to look no further than the new Bannockburn centre, delivered on time and within budget in co-operation with the National Trust for Scotland. Share projects that make the best use of talents, regardless of how they are badged, will simply be the best way forward in many regards as we move into the future. One very important shared project has been in existence for a century but has been redefined by the bill, has started Scotland Cares for and represents to the public the many properties in state care. In future, ownership and guardianship will remain with ministers, but management and operation will be delegated to HES. We have chosen that not because of a lack of trust in the staff who already care for these properties so well, but because we recognise the direct commitment to our predecessors that have been given to those who have passed those properties into state care. That special relationship will be reflected in a careful design for the scheme of delegation, which will be published before it comes into effect. Performance against that scheme will be monitored and results published. Of course, conservation is a never-ending task. Although we have no immediate plan to do so, we also provide in the bill for ministers to be able to delegate the management of historic properties to bodies other than HES. We believe that there may be situations in the future that that might be appropriate. In the reference to the point about the Society of Antiquaries, we are happy to accept the Delegated Powers Committee recommendation of close scrutiny of any proposal that a body would require to take. We plan to bring forward an amendment at stage 2 requiring that any such body will be specified by order with affirmative parliamentary procedure so that this Parliament would have a response to that. I will respond to the committee on the particular points that have been raised in this debate and in the report. We will have a better body going forward to leaders in the future in regard to management of the historic environment and leadership. I want to close by making two points. I thought that Mike Mackenzie and George Adam gave very passionate and well-informed contributions. I also think that Stuart Maxwell, in his remarks, gave us all a challenge. How do we, as MSPs, help to lead the historic environment? I would like to commend, in particular, Graham Day, who has personally taken responsibility to try and galvanise the community, heritage and local community in our growth, centred around our growth abbey. Stuart Maxwell's challenge to us all is well made. Finally, I agree with the Labour Party—we do not always agree with the Labour Party—but Patricia Ferguson, who has made very fine and informed contributions this afternoon, instructed the chamber that we should travel to Orkney as soon as possible. I am delighted to report to Patricia Ferguson that I will be on a flight to Orkney tomorrow morning, as I attend the St Magnus festival. I follow in the footsteps of the committee, who obviously had such a wonderful visit to Orkney, where we can celebrate our heritage and see where partnership with the local community really works, and I think that it demonstrates the wonderful heritage that we have, both in the built environment but also, I think, in the intangible in terms of the performances that I see there. I know that Patricia Ferguson would want to know if there is an extra sleet to go with me, and I will see what I can do for Patricia Ferguson. As a member who treats his role as a member of the Public Audit and Committee extremely seriously, I am asking you for guidance on the comments made at FMQs today by the leader of the Opposition, Johann Lamont, where she appeared to malign the integrity and impartiality of the Auditor General and the Accounts Commissioner of Scotland and the members of the advisory board. I would be amazed if anyone else considered people such as Jackie Brock from Children in Scotland, Phil Jackson from EIS, Eileen Pryor, Scottish Parent Teaching Council and the representatives of three Labour-run authorities, Sarah Ellison, Gordon Wardrock for Fife Council, Moira Niven from West Lodian Council and Maureen McKenna of Glasgow City Council as being part of some conspiracy to make the Scottish Government look good. I have never had the pleasure to meet a number of those mentioned, but I know Maureen McKenna. Maureen and I have had a number of differences of opinion over the years— Yes, but can we just get to the point, Mr Donner? Three minutes. Get to the point, Mr Donner. I am getting to the point, Presiding Officer. Maureen and I have had a number of differences of opinion over the years. Yes, but I am still waiting for you to get to your point. I am sorry, Presiding Officer. Do I not have three minutes? It is the same as everybody else's. Mr Donner, sit down. Please come to your point as quickly as possible. Yes, Presiding Officer. Not once in all my dealings with Maureen McKenna did I think she was anything but honest and trustworthy, and that takes me on to the auditor general. We in the Public Audit Committee rely on— Mr Donner, could you just sit down? We can have a try. Sit down. This is not a speech. It is a point of order. Can you tell me what your point of order is and what you wish me to do? Presiding Officer, I am looking for advice, and that is the point that I am coming to. In the Public Audit Committee, we rely on and believe in the veracity and impartiality of the auditor general and the reports that she puts in front of us. We may sometimes disagree slightly with the emphasis on outcomes, but to my knowledge we have always believed that these reports were written without fear or favoured by the auditor general. Ms Lamont's comments today suggest that we were wrong to do so, and that the auditor general is capable of being manipulated by politicians. Presiding Officer, it is my contention that those comments were unworthy as Parliament and the office that Ms Lamont holds. I would hope that she would reconsider those comments and apologise to the auditor general, Maureen MacKenna and all the others that she has so unfairly introduced. However, Presiding Officer, that is a matter for her. The guidance that I asked from you is what protection is for individuals or organisations from potentially reputationally damaging statements from MSPs in this Parliament. Thank you, Mr Donner. I am sure that members will be well aware, because I said repeatedly in this chamber that it is not for the Presiding Officers to respond on a ruling on the veracity of members' contributions in the chamber. That is a matter for them. If you are concerned about the exchange today at FMQs, and in particular you are concerned about the Public Audit Committee, can I suggest that you write to the Public Audit Committee and ask them to look at the matter? Mr Rennie. At question time today, the First Minister was asked about the daily telegraph news story, which said that he had been presented with a report by civil servants on the cost to set up an independent country. I asked the First Minister to confirm if there was nothing in the daily telegraph report that is true. He told me that the report has one snippet of truth. It says that officials met Professor Patrick Dunleavy. Yes, they did. They were there with me when I met him. However, after question time, the First Minister's press team held a briefing meeting where they revealed that a second element of the story was true, that the First Minister had received a report from civil servants on the set up costs. There will be two issues that will be of concern to you, Presiding Officer. I will be brief. The first is that we have the First Minister saying one thing in this chamber and his official spokesman saying something completely different that is contradicting the First Minister. We have only got 12 days left sitting in this Parliament. Time is running out for the answers that we want. Has the Presiding Officer received any indication from the First Minister that he wishes to make a statement to correct what he said today? No, Mr Rennie. I have had no such indication. I say to Mr Rennie, as I have just said to Mr Dornan, as I have said on innumerable times in this chamber, that what a member says in this chamber is not a matter for me and the Presiding Officer do not rule on veracity. I am also not responsible for what the First Minister or anybody else's press officers say outwith this chamber. We now move to decision time. The next item of business is consideration of motion number 9869 in the name of John Swinney on the financial resolution of the Historic Environment Scotland Bill. I call on Fiona Hyslop to move the motion. I formally move the question. This motion will put decision time. The next question is at motion number 10371 in the name of Fiona Hyslop on the Historic Environment Scotland Bill. Beat agreed to. Are we all agreed? The motion is therefore agreed to. The next question is at motion number 9869 in the name of John Swinney on the financial resolution for the Historic Environment Scotland Bill. Beat agreed to. Are we all agreed? The motion is therefore agreed to. The final question is at motion number 10335 in the name of David Stewart on the building's recovery of expensive Scotland Bill. Beat agreed to. Are we all agreed? The motion is therefore agreed to. The building's recovery of expensive Scotland Bill is passed. Congratulations, Mr Stewart. That concludes decision time and I now close this meeting.