 The European arrest warrant has served us well, is a threat and does ensure that justice can be done wherever possible. Thank you, that ends topical questions. We now move to the next item of business, which is a steady proceeding on the Historic Environment Scotland Bill. In dealing with the amendments, members should have. The bill is amended at stage 2, that is SP Bill 47A. The marshaled list, that is SP Bill 47AML. The groupings, that is SP Bill 47AG. The division bill will sound and proceedings will be suspended for five minutes for the first division 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 group of amendments should press the request to speak buttons as soon as possible after I call the group. Members should now refer to the marshaled list of amendments. I now call group 1, Historic Environment Scotland Functions Promoting the Maintenance of the Historic Environment. I call amendment number 1, in the name of Liam McArthur and a group of its own, Liam McArthur to move and speak to amendment number 1. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Committee colleagues will recall that at stage 2 I lodged the move various amendments reflecting a range of concerns I had at that time. Many were born of the experience of constituents in my own Orkney constituency. Whether it was a desire to avoid Historic Environment Scotland taking an overly centralised approach, ensuring it respects and involves local expertise or working back the other way, a determination that local councils should be able to continue accessing advice and guidance from HES to help them fulfil their own statutory functions. In each instance I believe the undertakings, the insurances offered by the Cabinet Secretary were adequate and helpful. As for the risks associated with HES achieving charitable status and the potential for conflicts of interests or concerns that staff and resources may be focused away from current functions and towards revenue raising, only time will tell. I am not convinced, however, that amending the bill would achieve the desired aim. Those are certainly issues that the committee for the duration of this Parliament and, indeed, successor committees will wish to keep under review. When I do believe the bill would still benefit from change, however, in relation to the functions of HES, this was an issue raised initially by the Law Society to am grateful. Resiliently, friends of Seafield House in South Ayrshire have highlighted a specific example of why the issue needs to be revisited and hopefully addressed in the bill. I will indeed, yes. 2D and E, where it is protecting and managing the historic environment that is per line D and conserving and enhancing the historic environment. Can you tell me where your amendment actually adds to that? I think that Chick Brody, who I know has been in fairly regular contact with the Friends of Seafield House, will be aware of their specific concerns and that the way in which preserving concern do not reflect the adequate needs of that particular instance, where, as I understand it, the local health board has not been prepared to maintain the fabric of a building that the Friends of Seafield House are looking to take over in due course. It stays to my amendment sought to separate the conserve and enhance functions of HES, recognising that those could be incompatible in some circumstances. This time, I am looking in section 2 to add a requirement on HES to promote the maintenance of the historic environment. The law society supports this, so too, as Chick Brody will be aware. Does Rob Close, chair of the Friends of Seafield House, based on their experience trying to save a building owned, as I say, by the local health board? As Mr Close explains in his letter to me, one I think probably shared with Chick Brody, the word maintenance has a much more practical meaning. It is a word that talks directly to owners who are not minded to conserve or preserve. He goes on to quote from our place in time, the historic environment strategy, which refers repeatedly to the need to maintain or for maintenance, as well as the benefits of quote, a well-maintained environment. Mr Close argues that having the word maintaining, in addition to protecting and conserving, would cover situations where the public-private owner is not minded to protect or conserve, but to bring about the demise of a building for economic reasons. He adds that giving HES this function would allow the fabric of a building to be maintained while its fate is being decided, thereby helping those local communities, so I know the Cabinet Secretary, like me, is very keen to see becoming more directly and actively involved in the historic environment. Help them potentially to save a much valued building. Other colleagues like Chick Brody representing that part of the country will be more familiar with the details of the Seafield House campaign. I would not presume to judge the actions either the local health board or the council, I believe, have refused to serve a repair notice. Nevertheless, I do think that it offers a specific example of the sort of benefit my amendment could help deliver. I know that the Cabinet Secretary was skeptical at stage 2, but I hope that having had time to reflect further and consider this specific example, but there will be undoubtedly others in other parts of the country. I would encourage her to now support my amendment, which I am pleased to move. I think that Mr MacArthur makes a good point about an issue that has been consistently debating in this bill. That is the need to ensure that the principle of streamlining the care of our historic environment within a single body does not override the importance of local decision making and community responsibility and individual responsibility. They have an essential role to play in that care of the environment. That, in turn, has led to a very interesting semantic debate about the meaning of the words conserve, preserve and maintain. Perhaps that is on a very pedantic level at one aspect, but I think that it is hugely significant when it comes to the detail of this, so I will be supporting Mr MacArthur's amendment. I, too, rise to support Liam MacArthur's amendment, which I think is eminently sensible in the circumstances that we face. I am sure that we all know of historic and important buildings in our own areas that, for the lack of maintenance, have been impossible to conserve. I think that it is entirely sensible that we do look to make the definitions as clear as we possibly can and understand what it is that we are trying to do. However, I would just repeat, Deputy Presiding Officer, that if buildings of a historic or important nature are not maintained, then the opportunity to conserve them for the good of communities can well be lost. It is important that the word is there. Amendment 1 seeks to give Historic Environment Scotland a particular function of promoting the maintenance of the historic environment. I think that the emphasis on the word promoting, having heard the contributions from members, is not actually the delivery of the maintenance that is mentioned in the amendment. There has been detailed consultation and deliberation over the functions of his functions, and there is widespread agreement among stakeholders that the functions should be defined at a high level. There have been a great deal of deliberations that delivered the functions that you see before you in the bill as part of the consensus that was developed and developing the bill. Amendment 2 would undermine the consensus that was achieved in identifying what the functions should be of the new organisation. There is also agreement that has needs freedom within its operating agreement to decide how best to deliver and that there needs to be space for its approach to develop over time. I believe that those positions are correct. I do not wish to disrupt them. The bill should set out the overall task for has in broad terms not offer a detailed catalogue of the contents of the toolkit it will deploy. Promoting maintenance is already fully covered by his general function of investigating, caring for and promoting Scotland's historic environment and also its particular functions of managing and conserving the historic environment. Historic Scotland already does a broad range of work in this area. It is active in promoting maintenance, for example through the development of the traditional building skills strategy as well as the traditional building health check initiative. I launched the pilot for the health check scheme in Stirling two years ago. It aims to promote proactive building repair and maintenance, to stimulate demand for skilled tradespeople and is being led in collaboration with Stirling Council and with the construction industry training board. Hez will continue that work. For a moment, I do not dispute that maintenance is crucial, as Patricia Ferguson has said, as a means of ensuring the long-term preservation of our historic environment. The fact is not in doubt anywhere in the sector. However, I believe that the amendment could pose problems for Hez and more widely. Being so specific about promoting maintenance could unbalance Hez's functions that have been deliberated on and have achieved consensus. It might, for example, lead to the impression that promoting maintenance is more important than demonstrating maintenance on the properties that Hez will manage on the minister's behalf or supporting maintenance through its grants programmes. I would also note that local authorities already have strong powers to take action in respect of listed buildings that are being neglected by their owners, including repair notices, compulsory purchase and the power to make repairs to unoccupied buildings and recover costs. Given Hez's function of promoting maintenance, we are not strengthening those powers. Worse, it might create confusion by implying that Hez is in some way directly responsible for the maintenance of listed buildings in private ownership. In conclusion, I do not believe that inserting the particular function for historic environment Scotland to promote maintenance of the historic environment would improve the bill, and therefore, Presiding Officer, I do not support this amendment. I thank Liz Smith for her support at stage 2. She supported a similar amendment at that point. I also thank Patricia Ferguson for her comments. I think that she was right to point to the fact that this is an issue that will probably affect communities in instances across the country. Without maintenance, the option of preserving is rather difficult to achieve. The cabinet secretary talked about consultation deliberations. I do not doubt that for a second. She talks about the potential for creating confusion or undermining consensus. I have not been contacted by anybody who suggested to me that the amendment that I have lodged and am moving was at risk of unravelling a consensus. On the contrary, I have had the law society in touch with me to express their continued support for this amendment. In addition, friends of Seafield have provided a very helpful example of why the particular loophole in the functions of HES could be addressed at this stage. On the basis of what I have heard, on the representations that I have received, I am convinced that this amendment is necessary to the bill and therefore, we are pressing it. The question is that amendment 1 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. We are not. There will therefore be a division and this will be a five-minute division as it is the first division of the bill. Sorry. There will be a five-minute suspension until we vote. We will now proceed with the division on amendment 1. This is a 32nd division, so members should cast their votes now, please. The result of the vote on amendment 1 is, yes, 45, no, 62. There are no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I move to group 2, and I call amendment 2 in the name of Liz Smith, grouped with amendment 3. Liz Smith, to move amendment 2 and speak to both amendments in the group, please. The cabinet secretary said in her opening comments at both stages 1 and 2 that the Scottish Government's policy position from the start has been that the new body should be regulated and that it should be fully transparent and subject to the highest quality of external scrutiny. The cabinet secretary has been fully transparent in her approach and I think that we will commend her for that. I think that there are some remaining issues, most especially those that relate to accountability and the possible conflict of interest between HES's regulatory function and its ability to seek grants and to carry out some of the work related to them. The cabinet secretary will know that, between stages 2 and 3, the Law Society of Scotland has reiterated its concerns about the possible conflict of interest, specifically those conflicts that could arise if HES is awarding grants at the same time as seeking others in its role as a charity. It questions whether some aspects of that regulatory role can be sitting comfortably with charitable status. On stage 2, however, the cabinet secretary seemed to intimate that the bill will not actually create those tensions but I do believe that there remains a little bit of an issue here and it is one about the final accountability, which is the reason for amendments 2 and 3. They are specific to the concerns about the accountability in those situations, all would be very likely to be rare, where the board members of HES might express disquiet about some aspects of Scottish Government strategy on a general term. That issue, I do not think, has gone away. Indeed, I think that perhaps we could have a little bit more engagement by the Government to stakeholders on this issue. The cabinet secretary was very clear in the letter that she sent to the convener of the education committee on 28 May that if Scottish ministers did not think that HES was playing a sufficiently strong role in addressing matters of concern to the wider cultural sector as captured in that strategy, then they would direct the board. That confirms that there is ministerial direction. I think that that is quite separate, as the cabinet secretary has said many times herself, from operational independence of the body, but it does naturally draw into question what could happen and the cabinet secretary was clear that there might be situations where there could be a disagreement. I think, Deputy Presiding Officer, that there are still some issues about this and that we could do with some extra safeguards, so that is why I am moving amendment 2 in my name. Many thanks, cabinet secretary. As I confirmed at stage 2, the corporate plan is a vital document and Liz Smith is right to recognise its primacy. I share her sentiment that the corporate plan must have the highest status and must offer certainty for HES in planning its work, and that is precisely why we have provided explicitly in this bill for HES to create such a plan and for its approval by ministers. That explicit provision goes a step beyond the establishing legislation for analogous bodies such as the National Library of Scotland and Scottish National Heritage, where we have not actually done that. The corporate plan is the foundation of the corporate performance framework for HES. Ministers will approve it, which means that we will share ownership and accountability for its delivery with HES. The plan and any revisions will be public documents. The performance report for the organisation will be published at least annually, so any failure to deliver will be transparent as will the reasons given for failure. The ministerial power for direction is there for good reasons. It can be used in a positive way to support HES by, for example, clarifying procedural matters such as routine sponsorship arrangements and how they will work. Again, as I remarked during stage 2 at a similar amendment, there seems to be an assumption that ministers will be issuing directions to HES on a regular basis and to do things that HES feels are not wise. I repeat that ministers of this Government will not act in this way. In seven years as a minister, I cannot recall ever issuing a direction in opposition to the advice of a sponsored body, and such an action is rare across the whole of Government. A formal direction, especially one against the advice of a sponsored body, is the end of a long process of discussion, never the starting point. In any case, the chair and the board of an NDPB do not require a specific provision to raise a challenge to any proposals that would significantly compromise delivery of agreed outcomes, and indeed they could engage the Parliament and Committee and MSPs if such was the case. It is in the nature of the role and the normal sponsorship relationship between Government and NDPBs that such matters are explored and resolved long before any formal communication or direction takes place. For those reasons, I believe that the amendments that I put forward were simply to introduce unnecessary complications, provide legislative micromanagement into the clear and straightforward relationship centered on the corporate plan. I understand the sentiment that Liz Smith is coming with her amendments to Parliament with, but I do think that they are not necessary in relation to how good governance and good Government works. I think that the amendments are unnecessary and I continue to oppose them as I did at stage 2. Liz Smith, to wind up and press a withdrawal amendment, please. Thank you. I will press the amendment. Cabinet Secretary, I do hear what you say. I think that I began by complimenting you on your own transparency. I am very conscious of the fact that this kind of problem has not arisen. I refer you back to the transcript of stage 2 when you admitted that there could be a situation where there might be a disagreement. While I am well aware that there is public scrutiny of the corporate plan that the cabinet secretary could be brought before the committee, that scrutiny exists. I think that that comes after a problem has identified. What I am trying to drive at is to try to stop the problem happening in the first place. I just think that we need that extra dimension of scrutiny at that stage. Thank you very much. The question is that amendment 2 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. We are not. There will therefore be a division. This will be a one minute division. Please cast your votes now. Amendment 2 is yes, 44, no 65, there were no abstentions and the amendment is therefore not agreed. Amendment 3, in the name of Liz Smith, is already debated with amendment 2. Liz Smith, to move or not? Not moved. Thank you. We now move to group 3. Amendment 4, in the name of the cabinet secretary, is grouped with amendment 5. Cabinet secretary, to move amendment 4 and speak to both amendments in the group. Those technical amendments relate to the prescribing by order of persons who can manage properties in care or collections on behalf of ministers. The bill has introduced included powers to delegate the care and management of the properties in care and associated collections to Historic Environment Scotland and also to delegate those functions to other persons. This is to allow for future flexibility in arrangements to ensure the long-term preservation of the properties in care. In this stage 1 report, the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee recommended that where ministers were delegating their powers to persons other than his, this should be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. The job of looking after these properties for the nation is a very important one and I was happy to agree that any persons who would take this on should be subject to the appropriate scrutiny. At stage 2, I proposed amendments requiring that ministers prescribe by order any persons to whom functions could be delegated in line with the committee's recommendations. Those amendments are needed to complete that intention by ensuring that the affirmative procedure is required for such orders as the committee and I agreed it should be and I move amendments 4 and 5. The question is that amendment 4 be agreed to or we all agreed. We are. I now call amendment 5 in the name of the cabinet secretary. Already debated with amendment 4 cabinet secretary to move formally please. Funny move. Thank you. The question is that amendment 5 be agreed to or we all agreed. We are. Thank you very much. I now call amendment 6 in the name of the cabinet secretary. Group 4 grouped with amendments 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11. Cabinet secretary to move amendment 6 and speak to all amendments in the group please. This group of six amendments relates to the powers available to ministers to ensure that the outcome of a successful appeal is given effect to by his. The amendments relate to appeals under new section 1c of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act challenging a decision by his to include a monument on the schedule of ancient monuments. New section 5b of the planning, listed buildings and conservation areas, Scotland Act 1997 challenging a decision of his to include a building on the list of listed buildings and section 19 of the 1997 act challenging a decision of a planning authority to refuse consent. A ground of appeal may be that the building ought not to be included on the list. Those appeals will enable a challenge to be made against inclusion on the schedule or on the list. The provisions in the bill, as it stands, do not enable ministers to direct heads to remove a property from the schedule or list following a successful appeal. Those amendments ensure that this is the case and that the power available to ministers following the determination of appeals are consistent with the powers available in relation to other appeal procedures. It is of course important that ministers have full powers to ensure that effect is given to a successful appeal. I should say that the power of direction is a safeguard, since heads will naturally be expected to do whatever is required after an appeal without a direction for ministers. I therefore move amendment 6. The question is that amendment 6 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. Amendment 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11, all in the name of the cabinet secretary and all previously debated and invite the cabinet secretary to move amendment 7 to 11 on block. Does any member object to a single question being put on amendment 7 to 11? As it appears, no member does. As no member does, the question is that amendment 7 to 11 are agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. Thank you very much. That ends consideration of amendment 7. We now move to the next item of business, which is a debate on motion number 11378 in the name of Fiona Hyslop on the Historic Environment Scotland Bill. I would invite members who wish to speak in the debate to press the request-to-speak buttons now or as soon as possible. I would invite members who are leaving the chamber to do so quickly and quietly please, as I call on Fiona Hyslop to speak to and move the motion. For the purposes of rule 9.11 of the standing orders, I wish to advise the Parliament that Her Majesty, having been informed of the report of the Historic Environment Scotland Bill, has consented to place her prerogative and interests so far as they are affected by the bill at the disposal of the Parliament for the purposes of the bill. As we begin the last stage in Parliament's consideration of this bill to establish a new-lead body for the historic environment, I want to thank the many people who have contributed to a very positive process. We have seen constructive engagement from MSPs and from many stakeholders who have all recognised the importance and potential of Scotland's historic environment and they need to work together to protect it and to develop its potential. I particularly want to express my appreciation of the staff of Historic Scotland and Arkham for their patience and professionalism in dealing with the process of transition. I met with their joint senior management team earlier today and was impressed by the commitment and expertise that both bodies are bringing in the process of preparing for their rebirth as Historic Environment Scotland. There is a rewarding future ahead for all staff and I know that they are ready to get on with the job. I would also like to recognise the hard work of the officials of the Scottish Government who have been central to translating our ambitions into the bill that we are considering today and for their hard work and dedication and also for the committee of this Parliament for their scrutiny. The historic environment lies at the heart of our cultural identity. It plays a key role in defining who we are and our place in the world. It tells Scotland's story. It has intrinsic and instrumental value over and above any economic consideration. It merits our most careful stewardship for those reasons alone. The contribution of the heritage sector to economic life is certainly important but, for me, is a secondary benefit. Heritage already makes a major contribution. A cautious estimate has suggested that Scotland's historic environment contributes well over £2 billion annually to our economy and supports over 40,000 jobs in the tourism and building sectors. There is no reason why it cannot offer much more in terms of its social value as well as in monetary terms. To deliver that potential requires all partners to work together in a collaborative way and within a strategic framework. I have spoken before about Scotland's first-ever historic environment strategy, which has been published as the document Our Place in Time. Our Place in Time provides a shared vision and a strategic framework for all parts of the historic environment sector to work collaboratively to achieve its full potential. Collaboration is not new to the sector, but what is new is an explicit and widely shared framework for the long term. This new way of working will drive more effective partnership working, delivering real and increasing benefits to the people of Scotland. I can report that the strategy is moving forward well. The initial working groups have been established and confirmed their events, and several have already met. I can also report that all but one of the groups are led by senior stakeholders from beyond Historic Scotland in our camps. That is, I think, a genuine shared endeavour being demonstrated. The Scottish Government's contribution to this shared enterprise will be taken forward by Historic Environment Scotland, the body that this bill will establish. We are bringing resources, skills and experience together into one newly-bodied body. They are simplifying the processes by which our most important historic environment assets are protected and managed. We are providing more transparency to legislation, which can seem complex and confusing. Both Historic Scotland and Arkham have been with us for many years and have driven and worked forward many fantastic projects. If anyone doubts, look at Arkham's archives at some of the before and after photographs of the Great Hall of Stirling Castle and see how much has been done there by Historic Scotland. Arkham's has made the images accessible online far more than they can imagine anywhere accessible in the world. I particularly like the fact that, as they protect and record the past, the bodies are pioneering innovative uses for new technology in their everyday works. They do that in headline projects such as the Scottish 10, which continues to receive plaudits from around the world for its innovative approach. The Nagasaki giant cantilever crane will be the last of 10 iconic landmarks to be digitally scanned by the Scottish 10 team. When designed and built in Scotland, the crane is a major landmark in Nagasaki harbour and is still in use. The first pictures went online yesterday, if you want to have a look at them. New technology is also central to the work that is on-going to address energy efficiency in traditional buildings, which is vital to ensuring that our historic environment contributes to our ambitious climate change commitments. That is exactly the kind of approach that we need to realise at the determination that our historic environment must become part of the solution and not part of the problem across the widest possible range of policy areas. The complementary nature of the two bodies has long been recognised. They both work well and they often work well together. I believe that formally bringing them together is the logical step and I am delighted that members have agreed with me on that issue. The Government's vision is not just about merging staff and functions, it is far more than that. That is part of a fundamental transformation across the whole sector. The new approach requires a single lead body, which will work collaboratively with other bodies in the sector, to ensure that the historic environment contributes more effectively to a range of other policy areas, including placemaking, tourism and regeneration, which all contribute to our wellbeing for our nation and our people. Hez will lead our efforts to achieve a step change in recognition for her historic environment and its potential. At the same time, I am very clear that the bill is to create a lead body, not a command body. There are areas where it is right that a national body has lead responsibility, for example in protecting our most important sites and buildings by statutory designation. Even there, Hez will continue to work with local authorities to ensure that changes are managed appropriately and sensitively. Likewise, it is right that Hez will act as a consultation authority in planning an environmental regulation to ensure that our historic environment is not needlessly damaged by the pursuit of other objectives. Scottish Government has already made real progress in mainstreaming the historic environment into wider policy development at a national level. Hez has a larger task of taking the case for mainstreaming out into society. It will need to persuade and educate, perhaps even cajole or contest. However, the mission of its staff will be to convince everyone that the historic environment matters and deserves respect and attention. That mission, of course, is underpinned by wider principles set out in international charters and conventions and Scotland's historic environment policy. Hez will proceed on the basis of agreed principles such as the value of maintenance and the desirability of sustainable reuse of historic buildings where appropriate, such as seeking to understand the full cultural significance of heritage assets before we decide on our future care and use and principles such as sharing knowledge. The bill sets out Hez's functions in broad terms. We have chosen not to offer detailed catalogue of the methods that Hez will bring to bear, not least because new methods are constantly emerging. I will expect Hez itself to play a role in developing new approaches, as the start of Scotland's arcams have done so successfully to date. The bill places crystal clear responsibilities on Hez to exercise all its functions and to deploy all its resources to one end, to support our historic environment and to work with everyone who wants to contribute to that task. I believe that Historic Environment Scotland can and will be a body that can lead and contribute in full measure to our national strategic vision. I believe that the bill puts in place appropriate functions and powers for Hez, which will allow the new body to flourish but retain proper oversight by ministers and Parliament. I know that the staff who will go forward to form Hez are ready and eager for the challenge and that the sector as a whole welcomes those changes. It is with confidence therefore, Presiding Officer, that I move to Parliament to approve the Historic Environment Scotland bill. I now call on Patricia Ferguson, six minutes or thereby please. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and can I begin by thanking the Education and Culture Committee for their work on this bill soon to be an act of Parliament and for their very thorough scrutiny of it? I am obviously not a member of that committee, but I have watched their deliberations with great interest and I would also extend my thanks to the committee clerks who I know have been professional in their support of the committee going forward. The cabinet secretary said, and she was correct to do so, that our historic environment tells Scotland's story, but it also tells the story of every community in every part of Scotland and is valuable to us for that and for the sense of place it gives to us. It is also valuable in the sense that it is perhaps our most green resource in the way that it can be recycled over time, changing function or retaining a function over many decades or perhaps even over many centuries. It is important to us to not be overestimated in my view. I know that the cabinet secretary has responded very constructively to many of the committee's concerns about this particular piece of legislation and that is, of course, very welcome indeed. I think that when we talk about local interest we have to remember that our local authorities have a very important role to play here and I hope that the new body will help to support those local authorities. It seems to me that heritage and the historic environment are rarely at the top of their agenda, perhaps understandably in this time of shrinking budgets, but I do think that they need to be encouraged and supported in taking forward their vital part of this particular and very important jigsaw. I do think that the bill itself would have benefited from Liam McArthur's amendment because I think that we often rush to conserve those buildings that are already so neglected but are so important to us that we mustn't allow them to disappear, that we forget that there have been perhaps five, ten, perhaps decades when those buildings have been allowed to drop out of a maintenance cycle and have suffered as a consequence. Our actions at the last minute, if they are successful, are often costly and, of course, there are occasions when a building might just be too far gone for it to be able to be saved. Although, fortunately, with the kind of technology that we have nowadays, with the resurgence and the kind of traditional skills that are needed for those buildings, perhaps that will less be the case in the future. Regarding ministerial direction, I am very pleased that ministers have not taken the power of direction to mean that they can give direction regarding any particular historic property, collection or object for that matter, other than for properties and care, of course. I am very pleased about that, as I say, because I think that to have done so would actually have been to take a step too far. If there is one problem that I still have with the bill, it is about the future of the Historic Scotland Foundation and about the Scrant Trust. I am not clear how they are expected to operate beyond the point of merger. It seems to me that those two organisations might be left in limbo, as I could find no specific reference as to the future that the Scottish Government envisaged for them. It would be helpful just to have a little bit of information about that. Perhaps not the most pressing matter in connection with this bill, but one that perhaps just needs to be tidied up, I suppose. I am pleased talking of tidying up, that the Scottish Government has taken the opportunity to tidied up some of the existing legislation already in place through the good offices of this bill. I would mention specifically the provision that allows there to be an exclusion to the listing of a building. That will, I think, help to focus what it is that is important about a building. It helps us to consider what elements of a structure are valuable to us and which are perhaps, for example, later additions that perhaps do not need to be considered in quite the same way or with quite the same level of protection. I think that it will also help those tasks with managing those buildings to ensure that their efforts are directed where they are most needed and not perhaps dissipated over too many issues. Of course, that provision will only apply to listings in the future as I understand it and not to those buildings previously listed, but I think that there are understandable reasons for that. I mentioned that our historic environment gives us a sense of place and it does more than that because, for many people, our historic environment may include their home, their place of worship or a community facility that is of great importance to them. I very much hope and I sense that this particular bill will help us to make sure that those structures are maintained and enhanced and conserved as we go forward. In closing, Presiding Officer, as I must only too quickly do, I would want to pay particular tribute to Diana Murray of Arkham's and Ian Walford of Historic Scotland. Mergers such as this are never easy, but they have gone about their task with real professionalism and in a way that I think has been successful in retaining the confidence of their staff and their boards through what could have been a very difficult process. Speaking of their boards, I would want to particularly mention Professor John Hume, not just because of his professional reputation prior to joining Arkham's in his particular role, but also because he has literally gone out and photographed and recorded places of interest himself. He has done that over a long period of time and has contributed hugely to the work of the organisation. Of course, the staff of the two organisations are also congratulated. I wish the new organisation and all its stakeholders the very best for their future. Thank you. I will now call on Liz Smith. Four minutes please. Presiding Officer, I add my thanks to the committee and to the committee clerks and reiterate the comments from Patricia Ferguson about the staff, particularly the senior staff of the two organisations. The Scottish Conservatives very warmly welcome this bill, largely because the logic behind it is fundamentally sound by emerging historic Scotland and Arkham's. There will be an agency that is better equipped, I think, to conserve and preserve and hopefully maintain even if that is not formally in the act and enhance Scotland's historic environment, particularly at what is a very challenging time. It is not just from a financial perspective, but that is a curatorial one, too. It is not to say that either of the separate bodies has failed in its current duties far from it. The cabinet secretary spoke eloquently about the job that they have done, and that has been remarkable. Indeed, I think that Scotland can be extremely proud of its heritage and how it is managed, but there is clearly a consensus that a more strategic and streamlined approach will further strengthen our historic environment sector. Of all years, perhaps it has exposed the extraordinary interest in Scotland's rich cultural heritage, something that perhaps we all take a bit too much for granted at times. Although it is a difficult economic time, it is hugely rewarding for the new cultural initiatives that the cabinet secretary spoke about. It is not to say that there have been some issues along the way, particularly those of accountability and strategic direction, exactly what it means. I think that Patricia Ferguson raised an interesting point about how that direction relates to some of the other bodies. In particular, when it comes to a national and local body interface, each of those have raised a little in the way of lack of clarity perhaps at times, and I think that it has been helpful to go through a process. Particularly when there is the important issue of charitable status, hopefully, to be considered in the future. There obviously were questions about those who were ultimately responsible for the direction of the corporate plan, and I totally accept what the cabinet secretary is saying in terms of the way that that has been delivered and debated so far. I will not rehearse the arguments about amendments 2 and 3 that we have just had, but I think that there remains a bit of an issue about that, and I hope that the cabinet secretary will use her good offices to ensure that we do not enter any other difficulties from that. As we know, there have been several stakeholders who have raised issues about the charitable status and its application and how any future award of that charitable status will exist at the same time as the regulatory role of HES and its need to raise funds. Obviously, that is happening at a time when, for other reasons, people are questioning whether the strict charity test is applied in all different areas, and that is something that was agreed very firmly by MSPs in 2005, but there are obviously question marks about that. No doubt funding issues will remain, even if that is not the primary function of this act. During the committee hearings, we heard a lot about finance, both in terms of raising the sufficient funds, but also in terms of the need for a coherent financial structure, which would not disadvantage any one particular body. The national trust for Scotland continues to raise the point that in future they will be competing for funds with an organisation that they believe will obviously enjoy close working relationships with the Scottish Government. It is obviously inevitable, given the maintenance backlog and the further pressures that are associated with the historic environment in Scotland, that the new strategic direction will be able to provide a greater coherency to that decision making when it comes to essential finance. In summary, even if there were very significant areas of concerns, the intentions of the bill have always been sound, and on that basis we are very happy to support it. We now move to open debate. I call on Clare Adamson to be followed by Liam McArthur up to four minutes, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. It's 10,000 years since Scotland's first encampment and cramond when the House at Barn's Nest became our first built environment in the 8,000 BC, so I'll endeavour to cover those 10,000 years in four minutes, Presiding Officer. I think it might be a difficult task today. As a member of the Education and Culture Committee, it's been absolute pleasure to be involved and participate in this bill process. It's given me an opportunity to engage with some of the most knowledgeable, enthusiastic and passionate people and organisations who work in this fascinating sector. I pay tribute again to the Stakesholders at Historic Scotland and the RCAMs who showed us their works and their hopes for HES. I pay tribute to our clerks, to the Government officials, to our convener and to the other members of the committee in their deliberations over the bill. I have to also highlight again the very informative committee visit to Orkney, where participants from Historic Scotland, Scottish Natural Heritage, the local authority archaeologists, came together to help the committee with their deliberations and help us to understand their working practices. It was an excellent visit and provided a great example of partnership and collaboration that the cabinet secretary has mentioned is the ambition for moving forward for HES. Our environment is precious, our historic environment and building is so important to who we are as a nation and to our journey to this point. We'd appointed a very sad example of how precarious that heritage can be and how devastating it can be when we lose it because, of course, the fire at the Glasgow School of Art happened while we were deliberating over the bill and we all mourned the loss of the Macintosh library. I believe that this bill and the supporting strategy is the way forward for us to protect and preserve as best we can for future generations. Scotland's historic environment is a vital resource both cultural, social but also in economic terms. Historic Environment Bill proposes the merger of Historic Scotland and Arkham's, bringing together the two organisations so that Scotland's historic environment can continue to be a vital resource in forming our culture, our social and our economic terms and that it should deliver great benefits for our communities. There was very strong consensus during the committee process among our members and I was glad to see that that continued, albeit with some amendments today that were not passed, but I believe that the consensus that has been shown across the chamber is a very good tribute to the deliberations of the committee. The creation of a new national body for the historic environment will ensure the long-term effectiveness in the face of current and future challenges. It will sustain the functions of both Historic Scotland and Arkham's, ensuring that both organisations can deliver maximum public benefits and be resilient for the future. It will provide clarity of governance, striking the right balance, I believe, between professional, operational, independent and public accountability. It will improve and simplify the delivery of public services and capitalising the strength of both organisations and the synergies between them. Very little time, Presiding Officer, but I just highlight how glad I was to hear the cabinet secretary talk about the skills required in maintaining the future of our historic environment and I trust that HES will go on to continue to have a modern apprenticeship programme and the skills required for stone masonry and joinery in these very, very specialist areas. Starting with I am at Scotland will act as a key partner in the delivery of the new strategy or place in time. I would love to be able to talk about the key points of that. I have run out of time, Presiding Officer, but thank you very much for the opportunity this afternoon and I look forward to voting for this very important bill later this evening. Thank you very much. I now call on Liam McArthur after which we will move to the closing speeches. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Can I, like others, pay tribute to my committee colleagues, to the witnesses that gave their evidence to the committee, to the cabinet secretary and her officials, but also to the staff of HES, to Historic Scotland and ARCAMS. I am particularly grateful to my constituents in Orkney for hosting an excellent committee visit in May. One that I think demonstrated how the historic environment can shape the identity of a community, enrich the quality of life while also delivering real economic value, as the cabinet secretary suggested. And how a collaborative approach is the best possibly the only effective way to maintain, enhance and promote that historic environment. It illustrates also why we must guard against centralisation, why this merging must not result in the entrenching of functions, people and communities in the centre. People in communities across Scotland, whether in a professional or voluntary capacity, are doing great things day and daily to protect, enhance and make accessible the historic environment in their area, and they need to be supported to continue doing so in ways that are inclusive and not seen as top down. By the same token, HES will be home to experts in highly technical and specialised subject areas. Access to this expertise is also vitally important, particularly at the local councils, who are already under tremendous budgetary pressure and can't replicate this in-house, and it's a point that I think BFS make in their briefing. Again, on that point, while it's not for this bill, Parliament and ministers will need to guard against any moves to shift resources within HES, away from core functions to ones aimed more at, for example, revenue raising. Important though this is, it cannot come at the expense of some of the more technical and inevitably costly historic Scotland and our camps currently have responsibility. Similarly, while I'm supportive of efforts to ensure all parts of the country begin to value the historic environment, I would caution against any move by HES to retreat from areas such as Orkney, where excellent work already takes place, but where many other opportunities go unexplored due to limited resources, Scotland will not, to coin the cabinet secretary's expression, punch its weight in terms of the historic environment by hobbling into the country that are currently already doing so. It was regrettable that my amendment was rejected earlier on, so HES does not have a function to promote the maintenance of the historic environment. It's a regret, I think, that may be shared by individuals and groups involved in campaigns as Patricia Ferguson says across the country. Nevertheless, this has been a consensual process, as Clare Adamson suggested. Witnesses also raised with us concerns about the potential impact HES should achieve charitable status as well as possible conflicts of interest. Some notably the National Trust fear that charitable funding may be diverted away from others in the sector. Again, this is something that Parliament and indeed the Minister will need to keep a close eye on in the years ahead. For now, however, I conclude again by thanking those who helped the committee in our scrutinising role to the staff of both Historic Scotland and Arkham for the work they do. I pay tribute to what they and others involved in this field achieve collectively in conserving, enhancing and promoting our wonderful historic environment that delivers so much for communities across Scotland and to our countries as a whole. I look forward to voting on this bill later on this afternoon and wish all those involved in the new body well in their endeavours in the future. Thank you. We now move to closing speeches and I call on Liz Smith who I can give quite a generous four minutes if you so wish. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. The cabinet secretary quite rightly spoke about the fact that our cultural heritage tells Scotland's story. Claire Adamson said in her contribution just how much that means in an educational frame. I think that those of us who were able to take part in some of the visits organised by Historic Scotland and Arkham were extremely impressed not just by the work that they were doing but their outreach to other educational activities. In fact, I think that one of the things that struck me most on some of those visits was just how much was happening with younger people. Cabinet Secretary, you said some very wise words about the fact that there is a need to encourage that responsibility about the future to be able to understand what responsibility we all have whether we are young or a little older in some cases about preserving and enhancing what that cultural heritage actually means to all of us. I think that Liam McArthur has just made a very good point about the identity of the different cultural aspects that can really define a whole community. I was very sorry that at the time where the Orkney visit took place it was at the time where Mary Scanlon myself changed over, so Mary had the great benefit of visiting Orkney but Orkney is somewhere where I've been twice before now. I really pay tribute to all that they can do and Liam McArthur is absolutely right to say that it's happening day in, day out on so many different sites all around Scotland and I think it's absolutely essential that we remember that and that when it comes to the overall strategic vision which I think we all hope is better than what has happened before remembers that because I think it's a very good point to make. Just to take up the point that Patricia Ferguson made in her contribution, there is a need to ensure that the new body is able to deliberate with all the other aspects of cultural interest and I think perhaps Patricia Ferguson is a good point where she said that they need a little bit of clarity and I know that's not something you have to put in legislation but it will be required in guidance cabinet secretary and I think that's something that perhaps you might like to refer to in your closing remarks yourself. I think the national strategic vision that we have you spoke about the fact that it was a comprehensive vision and it's why it's not new that that collaboration has brought together a much more perspective of how that will all come together. I think that's hugely important and I just come back to the point about the direction of that I think it's absolutely crucial that all stakeholders within that vision really do buy into the overall direction and I think it's inevitable that there will be some constraint many of them will be financial when these bodies have to decide to deliver what they're being asked to do and that's where I think the issue of ministerial oversight is going to be critical and that transparency I heard absolutely what you said about the safeguards in place they are in place but I think it would be helpful if we didn't actually get to that stage in the first place we don't want these problems to arise and that's where I think it's going to be really clear. I think also we cannot underestimate the very specialist skills that are going to be involved in the cultural heritage in the future some of the technology that was on display in some of the visits that we went was just phenomenal and I think we have to accept it that these are skills that will require very specialist training and I think when it comes to all the arts and crafts that go with that cultural environment it is absolutely essential that we are training the right individuals with these appropriate skills which I'm not sure that generations before have actually had or perhaps in some cases he's known anything about so that's a big challenge to the new body but overall this bill is good it's sound and so we will be very happy to support it at decision time Excellent and I now call on Jane Baxter a generous five minutes or thereby please Thank you Deputy Presiding Officer I think I should be careful how I frame this point but I'd like to begin by saying that I'm very pleased at the short nature of this debate today I'll balance that by saying I believe that it goes some way to demonstrate the careful consideration which has been given by the committee and the cabinet secretary of the points raised earlier stages of the bill process The committee receives some very detailed and thoughtful submissions in response to its call for evidence and I have my thanks to those individuals and organisations who have taken the time to engage so positively with the bill as it's made its way through the Parliament I'd also like to echo the tributes which have been made across the chamber during this and other debates to the expertise and professionalism of the staff of both Historic Scotland and the Royal Commission on Ancient and Historical Monuments of Scotland I believe that the cabinet secretary referred to this at stage one and Claire Adamson repeated this today and said that it is to be hoped that neither the skill nor the passion will be lost by those working under the banner of the new organisation which will be created When we last gathered in the chamber to consider the bill at stage one the cabinet secretary indicated that she would be responding in detail to the committee's stage one report and I felt that many of her responses were extremely helpful in clarifying the Scottish Government's position on the previous comments regarding the role of communities in caring for their historic environment I was, of course, delighted to see that the Scottish Government accepts in principle this responsibility and to consider how Historic Environment Scotland can engage in community planning partnerships Skills and passions for Scotland's history landscape and its buildings run deep among professionals and amateur enthusiasts alike and it's vital that we're able to capture that enthusiasm and make good use of it for community planning because it's absolutely vital that the rich cultural, industrial and environmental heritage which is preserved through our historic monuments and places remain open to everyone no matter where they come from Deputy Presiding Officer, I grew up in the city and Royal Borough of Donferman that means the fort by the crooked rivulet and I still live there and people who know me often refer to what they call my tour guide mode which kicks in whenever someone who does not know the town is unlucky enough to get a lift in my car they then get the whole potted history coal mining, St Margaret Robert the Bruce, Andrew Carnegie but like many towns the history of Donferman is not just in its famous people its public buildings or its historic monuments I will remember when I studied history at Queen Anne High School that the history teacher whose name I don't remember would take us out to discover the history of the town and through its infrastructure whether that was buildings, watercourses or street names, names like monastery street, foundry street east port and coal road I think that this really helped to give us a sense of where we lived and how it came to be like that and even all these years later many of those buildings and features are still in evidence what were formally found Dresdenland and Mills are now being developed for housing The old fire station dating from 1936 is to be a community arts centre The town is evolving and with careful management by the council and the Carnegie Trust and a host of local organisations it is still possible to recognise echoes of the traditions on which it was built whilst catering for the social leisure and business needs of visitors and residents alike We must also preserve our historic environment for future generations and it is important that the new body is fit for purpose and to meet the challenges of now and in the future and on that point about challenges there do remain some concerns out in the sector about proposals before us and I note that the built environment for Scotland briefing highlighted a particular concern about the budget challenges being faced by local authorities and what impact that will have on those services tasked with managing the historic environment The cabinet secretary was clear at stage 1 that the new body will be empowered to support local authorities more effectively in their role as guardians of our historic environment so that that is the case and I would welcome some assurances from the cabinet secretary on that point So in closing I would be keen to see very close monitoring of the new body in its early years and to listen to stakeholders and those bodies that it works in partnership with to make sure that it is fit for purpose and I hope that we can have a debate at some time in the future not on the challenges facing historic environment Scotland but on its successes and achievements as well Cabinet secretary to wind up the debate in half of the Government Cabinet secretary of seven minutes all thereby Thank you very much Jane Baxter referred to how short stage 3 was I think that was a reflection of the very thorough process that has taken place at all stages of this bill and the investment up front in thinking through the logic and the issues and indeed the role in identifying them and addressing them We all recognise the importance of Scotland's rich historic environment the need to protect it and to develop its potential We are simply sure in the story that is Scotland and so many of the stories are about different parts whether we're hearing from 8000 BC or indeed for industrial heritage it's all part and parcel of that story of Scotland and it's clear that we've all taken to the heart the message of the strategy our place in time making the most of what we have inherited must be a collective effort There is huge ambition and enthusiasm across Scotland I've heard it in debates in this chamber whether it's about Orkney from Liam MacArthur or indeed the places across Scotland and I expect historic environment Scotland working with the strategy framework to play a major role in unlocking that potential and continuing to promote that potential in all parts of Scotland That's just as Ferguson's point about the Historic Scotland Foundation I am confident that it will be able to can and will work alongside Historic Environment Scotland on Scran Scran is committed to work with Historic Environment Scotland while it developed its new relationship with the body and we expect Scran to be part of his but of course for both it's ultimately for the trustees of those charities to decide the way forward but we developed the bill specifically of those two organisations and I'm confident that the future will be certain and strong in working alongside and continuing the great work that they do Liz Smith talked about the importance of evidence of people working together I was very struck by the first meeting of the Historic Environment forum where it rained together all the different sectors that people were pleasantly surprised at the refreshing approach that did allow everybody around the table to have that focus She also spoke about the importance of learning and skills I specifically talked about the continual professional development of the staff with the joint management team this morning and indeed, Jane Baxter will please know that I also spoke to them about community engagement because it's a key focus going forward In terms of what we can all consider I was struck by Stuart Maxwell's challenge at stage 1 that all members should consider what they can do to champion the Historic Environment in their own constituencies and I'm increasingly seeing that happening from different members championing the opportunities and bringing themselves, working as facilitators bringing together different agencies in their own area It is our individual links which matter to the ordinary heritage as to the outstanding heritage It's the local however that I'm sure everybody loves and they're very proud about and we have many iconic monuments but there are many thousands of historic buildings and communities throughout the land that want to see them cared for and sustainably used Heritage derives life and value from the way we use it and wishes to pass it on to succeeding generations and in doing so we enrich our own lives Communities and individuals are ready and willing to play their part We've seen projects led by Arkham such as Scotland's rule passed tap into the rich resource of knowledge and commitment and I'm delighted to see that approach reborn in the form of Scotland's urban past with the support of heritage lottery funding which Heds will take forward As several members have emphasised during the progress of the bill it is vital that local as well as national expertise is developed and maintained this cannot be an either or choice so both national and local schools are needed and they must be deployed in harmony and not in opposition and that is why I'm very pleased to hear that recognition of the vital work carried out by our local authorities in protecting and valuing our historic environment and that's a key relationship going forward and working will be critical in taking forward the town centre first principle in which Derek Mackay will be leading a debate in this chamber later this afternoon joint working in the context of the historic environment is the focus of the strategy's working groups this bill makes some key improvements and more will be possible but I want us to be agreed about what will work best before considering more radical changes I'm very grateful to the cabinet secretary for taking the intervention that we had at stage 2 about the issue of councils gaining access to the expertise within the new body at that stage I think for understandable reasons she was reluctant to accept an amendment that would press that duty on HES but what reassurances can she give councils that accept in those exceptional circumstances that access to guidance expertise etc will be maintained going forward I will give that reassurance I have worked very well with Councillor Hagan in particular who has the responsibility within COSLA and we are in a far better footing now in our relationship with COSLA about how we can share that but obviously individual relationships in individual council areas will continue and I expect that to carry on in terms of the bill we are also proposing strategy changes in the bill to simplify protection and management much of which is handled by our local authorities and that is an example of the work that will continue our aim must be to use the limited resources that we have of time, money and expertise to best effect I want less time spent on bureaucracy by all parties, more co-operation whether it is through owners of listed buildings or monuments for applications or consents or local authority conservation or indeed in other areas likewise HES will work with major and minor charities throughout Scotland I have had a very positive relationship with the National Trust for Scotland mentioned a number of times during the debate about the way forward but that work will also take place with the smallest local charities as well it's important that rather than competing it is about collaboration and winning additional resources rather than just competing for existing ones and I have reassured the committee on a number of occasions that the grant making that will be given to Historic Scotland I will be specific about what they will have and they will not be able to grant themselves funding that will be a separate matter so that separates out the concerns about the grant elements I would emphasise that despite reductions in overall funding we have managed to maintain grants the debate that we had about maintenance couldn't happen if we didn't maintain the grant elements and that's been a major achievement in this area and I also want to recognise the role that others have HLF funding for example, community led projects we must all work together I said at the start of this bill that it was about making sure that we delivered a strategic and new body we are on a journey in which we will recognise the full value of our potential of our historic environment and I believe that that journey will move from what will government do for our heritage to what do we want to do for our heritage and how can government help us and that is a journey that is part of this Government's wider vision for communities and individuals heritage is very much part of all our lives place one of the key foundations along with the wider strategy for a future in which our historic environment will flourish and as we heard from a number of members it will also realise the potential and release the potential for Scotland to flourish as well so I thank you all in supporting this bill thank you