 Rydw i rydw i'r wych sy'n cymryd yw'r 20 yw ystod fydd yn Cymru yn 2014. Rydw i'n gwybod nhw, yn y teimlo'r vYYs, yn mynd i ddwyledaeth y nifer o'i ddod, mae'n ddod yn enw'n cymryd dros eu connectiol. Rydw i'n ddod y cymryd dryliannol. Rydw i'n ddod y cymryd ar gyfer y dyfodol dwyledeu'r anhyg armsidd ac yn gweithgareddau i'r anhyg pan i'r anhygaf. Should I? Well, our first item today is to decide whether to take item 5 in private, which is to consider our approach to curriculum for excellence. Do members agree? Agreed. Item 2 on next item is to take evidence on the public appointments and public bodies etc. Scotland Act 2003, treatment of historic environment Scotland as specified authority order 2014. I welcome Fiona Hyslop, the Cabinet Secretary for Culture and External Affairs and her sporting officials from the Scottish government to commit this morning We will debate the motion in the name of the cabinet secretary at item 3, and the extra officials on that instance are not permitted to contribute to that formal debate. Can I invite them to make any opening remarks? Thank you, convener. This order has been prepared to ensure that the appointments to Historic Environment Scotland will be regulated by the commissioner for ethical standards and public life in Scotland. The instrument provides that Historic Environment Scotland is, for oes gyntaf o bwysigetheu i'w ddweud o'r bodi chewaeth, i ddweud oedd cyd-bodaeth cyd-bodaeth a'i bwysigetheu i gael bydd pwysigau Public Appointments i Gwyrdd Cymru, etc. Rwy'n cael ei wneud wrthhowff yn wneud, mae'r gwahogol iawn i ddigonol o'r bodi newid yn gryff yng ngyrsgol. Mae gwybod i gwaith yn y ddrifennol gyfar itaeth y cyfrifysgol honn chi'n dechrau'r cyfrifysgol yn gynnwys i gael bydd y newid yn 15 apr. yn ddegwp mewn cyfweld Cymru i 12 oes i ddreunio'r brifyddiant, ac nid oedd amddangosu i perthynol i hefyd ar ôl y timu a chyrsgatesgau unig o ddreunio'r brifyddiant ond y cyflogion a gynhyrchu cyflogion ar y cyflogion, ac wedi hyfrydd i ar gynnwys o bobl awyddion nhw y cyfrifeau yn y cyflogion y byd yn argynno dechrau. Felly, mae'n ffordd i'r bwysiad a'r bwysig i ddegwp mewn cyfriftyd time to recruit the chief executive before the organisation takes up its full powers in October 2015. I believe that it is important that the appointment process for the first board, which will become our new lead body for the historic environment, is fully transparent and subject to the high quality of external scrutiny that the commissioner can provide. A addition of Historic Environment Scotland to the schedule of the 2003 act, which the order does, follows recent precedent when setting up new public bodies. The commissioner cannot formally regulate the appointments until the new body is added to the list of regulated bodies under the public appointments and public bodies act 2003, which is what I'm proposing to do through this order for which I invite the committee's support. Thank you very much, cabinet secretary. I invite members to indicate if there are any questions that we can ask Mary Scanlon. Yes, thank you for that. It was very clear. I was just looking at the policy note paragraph six and it was just to ask if you're on course to have the leadership of this new body in place by the 1st of October six months prior to April of this year. That's the intention and that's why we want to move forward as swiftly as possible, but we've obviously got to recognise and we should recognise the role of Parliament, so obviously we're waiting to stage one and indeed there are a number of amendments here relating to the board that we're about to go into, so we've actually waited and we're waiting until we get through this process before we're ready to move and ready to advertise, but obviously the appointments are subject to the bill being passed finally at stage three. None of the appointments will be confirmed until after Parliament's completed stage three? If you look at what was happening with other bodies, they're subject to, they're always subject to, so you can go through the process, but obviously if at the end of the day, and I'm sure the committee won't or the Parliament won't, but if at the end of the day something happened at the final stage, and obviously the board commitments can't take place. Any other members wish to make a comment or a question at this time? No, okay. As indicated, we now move to the formal debate on the instrument, which is item three. Can I invite the cabinet secretary to speak to and move the motion? I move the motion. Thank you very much. Contributions from members? Do you wish to make any contribution at this stage? Okay. I don't suppose that you wish to respond to that, cabinet secretary. Thank you. Can I put the agreed question that the motion S4M10644 be agreed to? Are we all agreed? We are agreed. Thank you very much. I think that most of you will be staying for the stage two, which is the next item on our agenda. Our next item is to consider the Historic Environment Scotland Bill at stage two. Can I remind officials that they are not permitted to participate, obviously, in this part of the proceedings? Can I also remind everybody that they should have, with them, a copy of the bill that is introduced, the marshaled list of amendments and the groupings of amendments. The groupings set out the amendments in the order in which they will be debated. The marshaled list sets out the amendments in the order in which they will be disposed of. I will quickly remind all those present to some of the main points of the procedure, so we are clear. There will be a debate on each group of amendments, and I will call members to speak in turn. Members who have not lodged amendments in a group but who wish to speak should indicate that by catching either my eye or the clerk's attention. Following the debate on each group, I will check whether the member who moved the first amendment in the group wishes to press or withdraw it. If they wish to press ahead, I will put that question on that amendment. If a member wishes to withdraw that amendment after it has been moved, they must seek approval to do so. If any member who is present here objects, the committee will immediately move to a vote on the amendment. If any member does not want to move the amendment when called, they should say not moved. However, any other member may move such an amendment. If no one moves the amendment, I will immediately call the next amendment on the marshaled list. Voting in any division is by a show of hands, only committee members are allowed to vote. The committee is required to indicate formally that it is considered and agreed each section of the bill, and so I will put a question on each section at the appropriate point. I will now move on to section 2 of the bill itself. The question is that section 1 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Can I call amendment 6, in the name of Liam McArthur, in a group on its own, Liam McArthur to move and speak to amendment 6? Thank you very much, convener. I start by re-emphasising my support for the general principles of the bill. I also acknowledge the willingness of the cabinet secretary to engage constructively on the provisions in the bill. I can also thank colleagues on the committee for including in our evidence-gathering sessions a visit to Orkney, because I think that there are probably a few other parts of the country that can lay as much of a claim to being directly impacted by the implications of the bill, as the constituency I represent. While we have heard no real opposition to the principles of the merger, what we have heard, I think that it is fair to say, is a consistent anxiety about the need to ensure that this new body is equipped and tasked with dealing with a wide range of needs of stakeholders across the country. Invariably, if not inevitably, merging organisations can lead to a more centralised approach. One that looks good on paper has the benefit of simplicity, but which, in practice, fails to represent the interests of all those is to set up to serve and or struggles to reflect the complexity of issues and tasks for which it is responsible. A number of my amendments being considered this morning are borne out of a desire to ensure that Historic Environment Scotland does not fall into this category. Again, to be fair to the cabinet secretary, I think that she recognises and accepts some of those risks and will come on shortly to some of those amendments in due course. In terms of amendment 6, however, when we have already discussed the mechanics for putting in place the new board, the concern here is to ensure that HES embodies the geographic diversity for which it is responsible. I accept that appointing a board that it has the necessary mix of skills, balances appropriate male and female representation and any other factors that might be relevant is not at all straightforward. Nevertheless, I think that the integrity and legitimacy of HES could only be enhanced where it is to be seen to be drawn from the talents of individuals from across the country rather than simply those who are already within easy striking distance of Edinburgh, however well qualified they may be. I do not, as I say, underestimate the challenges that amendment 6 might present, particularly if the numbers on any future board are to be kept manageable. However, I do think that some of the concerns felt particularly by people living outside the central belt about the consequences of merger could be allayed by a move along those lines. I look forward to hearing what Fiona Hyslop has to say, but for now I move amendment 6, in my name. I wish to contribute to the debate. I reiterate the comments about the support for the bill and the beautiful, sunny trip to Orkney that we had. I absolutely appreciate the complexity of the situation in Orkney. However, I feel that, in its very nature, getting the right candidate will be people who understand the complex nature of Scotland's historic environment. I think that to include this, I limit the choices and put an emphasis on the selection of candidates that would not end up with the best possible people in place. Thank you very much. I make a small contribution myself. I think that the principle is absolutely laudable. I think that we all would certainly want to make sure that there was geographical diversity as well as other diversity on any board that is being appointed in the name of the public. However, I think that my concern would be that to put such an amendment into the bill, into legislation, would create unnecessary difficulties. I think that this is something perhaps that should be a name and perhaps something that should be discussed in terms of possible guidance, but I am unsure that it would be something that you would want to see on the face of the bill. I call the cabinet secretary. Thank you very much. Clearly, Liam McArthur has proposed that the geographical diversity should be a factor of which a special account is taken when selecting board members for historical environment Scotland. I agree that an understanding of the circumstances and issues in all areas of Scotland will be important, but I am not convinced that it should be the overriding consideration in appointing the board, and that is what you would do by putting that in specifically. Our intention is to ensure a diverse mix of background skills and experience that will best serve historical environment Scotland, the wider historical environment in Scotland, and we will not get that by restricting which candidates we can choose. Historic environment Scotland has a broad range of responsibilities within the general function of investigating, caring for and promoting Scotland's historic environment. Despite representations from some stakeholders, we chose not to specify particular fields of expertise, for example archaeology, and I think that the same argument applies for geographical or indeed other factors. We need to get the widest possible field to get the best possible board. That would not necessarily happen if potential candidates perceived that they are less likely to be chosen if they live in say Glasgow as opposed to Orkney. Equally, if a specific number of board members must come from or have significant interests within certain geographical locations, we could end up in a position that we are unable to appoint the candidates that best meet the other assessment criteria simply because they are based in the wrong part of Scotland. The committee has just considered the order which allows HES to be regulated by the commissioner for ethical standards and public life. Criteria has been developed by the appointment panel, which includes the commissioner's independent assessor. I think that that best meets the needs of the body. We need the right criteria. We want good candidates to put themselves forward from every part of Scotland and beyond. I would emphasise that those selected will receive support with travelling and other expenses so that they can play a full part in the board. Indeed, MSPs themselves have a role in encouraging applications from all parts of Scotland, including islands and other areas that we want to make sure that we have good representation from. From the reasons that I have set out, I firmly believe that we should trust the commissioner and the selection panel in helping to identify the best possible board. I am very conscious in all board appointments of making sure that we have a representation across Scotland and of the skills that are identified by the selection panel. Taking all those relevant factors into account, I urge the committee to oppose the amendment. I call Liam McArthur to wind up and to indicate whether he wishes to press or withdraw the amendment. I fully accept some of the reservations that have been expressed in relation to the potential straightjacket that it creates in establishing the board. Those who are responsible for that process will have heard what has been said. In terms of the organisation itself, it is inconceivable that you would not have expertise in the area of archaeology. In terms of the board make-up as well, it would only enhance and strengthen the board, where it is seen to be drawing from a wider representation of the expertise that is right across Scotland. I am reassured by some of the provisions that are there to ensure that those who are perhaps coming from furthest away are not disadvantaged as a result. However, I think that for the time being we will come on to some other amendments that may be more appropriate for the context of the bill, but for the moment I will not move amendment 6. No, I am sorry. I have already moved it, so I will withdraw it. You seek to withdraw it. The member has asked to withdraw the amendment. Are the committee, does he have any objection to that? No objections. I call amendment 7 in the name of Liam McArthur, a group with amendment 8. Liam McArthur to move amendment 7 and speak to both amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. The two amendments in this grouping touched on an issue that did arise during the committee's visit to Aesunkist Orkney all those weeks ago, albeit that it was perhaps less of a concern than some others have come on to. In a sense, the purpose of amendment 7 and 8 is to maintain standards of accountability and quality when work is delegated or contracted out, for example, to local authorities. That would be achieved through the bill, placing a general duty upon HES. Colleagues on the trip to Orkney may recall that one of the potential risks highlighted by representatives of Orkney Islands Council was that technical processes undertaken objectively by HES could become susceptible to politicking within a local authority environment. I suspect that the cabinet secretary may well feel that the assurances being sought here are already covered in the context of the general operation and accountability of public bodies. However, I think that it would be useful to hear how that might be expected to work in practice. Likewise, I note that there are specific safeguards being proposed in a later grouping of amendments where a change to the system of delegation of properties and care would see bodies other than HES being required to be on a list of approved organisation. That, I understand, would allow for vetting, for quality, accountability, etc. to take place before anybody is permitted to take on responsibility for properties and care. The system seems to be sensible and may have mileage for application in other situations, but for now I move amendment 7. I look forward to what the cabinet secretary and others have to say. Any other members wish to contribute to this group? I was not quite sure where the amendments were coming from and it is helpful to hear Liam McArthur explain what he is trying to achieve. My view is that the amendment comes in a way that goes directly contrary to how we intend historic environment Scotland to operate, particularly in its duty of accountability, which I think is what Liam McArthur was trying to identify. This part of schedule 1 deals specifically with the way in which historic environment Scotland will discharge its own functions as given to it by the bill. It is dealing with a matter quite different from sections 3 and 7, which deal with delegation of ministerial functions to HES, and that is a separate matter. The central purpose of HES is to be the expert lead body to carry out the functions that are currently carried out by Historic Scotland on behalf of ministers and by RCAMs and which the bill will transfer to Historic Environment Scotland. We do not believe that it is desirable that HES should be able to delegate the functions as given to it by the bill to other persons. To do so would involve an unacceptable loss of ministerial and parliamentary oversight and the risk of obscuring lines of responsibility for delivering, reporting and accountability. For that reason, paragraph 12 of schedule 1 to the bill sets out the general powers of HES, including a wide variety of ways in which it can set about delivering its functions and does not allow formal delegation of its functions to others. There is a significant difference between working in partnership or entering into formal contracts, for example, and the formal delegation of functions into the control and responsibility of another person. In order that this committee and indeed I can have oversight of Historic Environment Scotland and to guarantee that they are carrying out their functions, we think that it is very important that the functions can be delegated only to Historic Environment Scotland and they should not have power to delegate those functions as given in this bill to anyone other than a HES board member or indeed a HES employee. In short, the functions given to Historic Environment Scotland should remain with Historic Environment Scotland, though, as we might go on later, we want them to exercise that collaboratively and actually do any in terms of working with any other bodies in contracts. That sets out what required in contract and what we have set out, I think, is far simpler. It is quite clear that the accountability rests entirely with me as minister in oversight but also that they have quite clear responsibility for the functions that are given to them and I would not want them to be able to be able to delegate the functions from the bill to any other body. Thank you very much, cabinet secretary. I call on Liam McArthur to wind up and to indicate whether he wishes to press or withdraw his amendment. Thank you, convener. I think that, in light of what the cabinet secretary has said and particularly the importance of that line of accountability, both to ministers but also to Parliament, I think that there are points very well made and I am happy to withdraw the amendments on that basis. The member indicated that he wishes to withdraw amendment 7. Does anybody object? There is no objection. Can I call amendment 8 in the name of Liam McArthur, already debated with amendment 7? Liam McArthur, to move or not move? Do not move. It is not moved. Can I call amendment 60 in the name of Liz Smith on its own? Liz Smith, to move and speak to amendment 60. Thank you, convener. Can I move amendment 60 in my name? When we took evidence at the earlier stages of the bill, the Law Society of Scotland particularly expressed its concerns about the possible conflict of interest between HES's regulatory functions, which would at times influence the giving of grants and its ability to seek grants from other sources. It is cited, for example, that the fact that a building may be of significance in respect of the availability of grants and other financial resources and issues could arise about the role of Historic Environment Scotland in securing funding, if, at the same time, it is also making grants. There are potential issues about conflict in respect of HES. Hopefully, in the future, we will be awarded charitable status, and that is clearly something that might exercise Oscar. Amendment 60 is designed to ensure that there are enhanced reporting requirements on HES to ensure that its functions are kept separate and not influenced and duly by any person or interest. Thank you very much, Liz. Any other member who wishes to? Briefly, I think that Liz Smith quite rightly identifies one of the key issues that was raised with us at stage 1 about the potential conflict. Now, whether or not amendment 60 addresses this or whether some revision of it is required, I do think that, as things stand, the bill is in need of tightening up and clarifying in relation to this point. Amendment 60 imposes duties on Historic Environment Scotland in regard to reporting on the exercise of regulatory functions. I am very aware of the importance of the regulatory functions that HES will carry out and the need for them to continue to be undertaken in the professional and appropriate manner that they are presently. However, this is equally true of all the functions of Historic Environment Scotland, not just the regulatory functions. As such, the bill currently requires HES to report annually on the exercise of all its functions. That would include all the heritage management functions, such as designation regulation, which has been put forward in amendment 60. I am conscious of the concerns that were expressed during the evidence sessions of stage 1 that HES might be under pressure to, for example, grow the commercial income at the expense of the regulatory functions. The bill does not create such a risk. HES has a duty to undertake and report on all its functions, including designation and regulation, and is required to do so to a high standard. At stage 1, I address concerns that HES might treat internal scheduled monument consent applications differently from external ones. I think that that is the point that this myth is making. Historic Scotland already has in place, as I set out at stage 1, evidence a voluntary process that works well. Our commitment to fairness and transparency is demonstrated by the fact that the bill actually strengthens the existing protections, as HES will not enjoy crown immunity and will have to apply for scheduled monuments consent in the same way as anyone else. In addition, I intend to set out regulations in due course requirements for all scheduled monument consent decisions, including those for HES on its own properties to be published. That reflects the transparency that the committee has asked for in a number of areas. The transparency of the regulatory functions will be obvious. On the point about grants, I also made it quite clear in my response to the committee's report that Historic Environment Scotland will not be able to give itself grants. That is another part of the transparency of the process, that compromise that the myth is identifying would not be available. I will make it quite clear in terms of the Government's letter of guidance to the body, the amount of money that I would publicly want to be available for bodies other than Historic Environment Scotland. That compromise that she is talking about should not exist in that regard. Finally, as a public body, HES is subject to the normal expectations of high standards and delivery and accountability. A formal complaints procedure will be applied if there are concerns raised. Those can be raised with Historic Environment Scotland, with ministers, with the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman or ultimately with the courts. Of course, at any time, this committee has oversight in terms of scrutiny from Parliament. I therefore believe that through the combination of the reporting requirements that are already in the bill, which are for all the functions, including the regulatory functions and the normal expectations and statutory obligations of HES as a public body, there are sufficient safeguards to ensure that HES picks up where Historic Scotland leaves off, carrying out its regulatory functions in an appropriate manner into high standards. As I said, in terms of the requirements that are set out in regulations, we will also have to publish requirements for all scheduled monument consents to be published. That would allow the scrutiny that I think people are looking and seeking from this amendment. In that regard, I suggest that the committee oppose the amendment. I am having this into the argument. Thank you very much, cabinet secretary. I call Liz Smith to wind up this debate and indicate whether she wishes to press or withdraw amendment 60. I do, cabinet secretary, think that there are some issues about the potential conflict of interest that remain. I hear what you say in terms of other aspects of the bill that you believe will clarify some of that. When you talk about some of the Government regulations, I think that it would be helpful ahead of stage 3 just to ensure that these are extremely clear. If I get that guaranteed, then I am prepared not to withdraw the amendment. However, I think that there are some concerns about exactly what it would mean in some of the context that, as you rightly pointed out, there could be a commercial interest that could, as I say, have some potential conflict of interest in the future. I think that the regulations would be extremely important in clarifying exactly what the controls would be. Are you moving or withdrawing? I seek to withdraw. Thank you. The member is seeking to withdraw amendment 60. Does anybody object? There is no objection. The question is that schedule 1 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Can I call amendment 1, in the name of Liam McArthur, in a group on its own? Liam McArthur, to move and speak to amendment 1. Thank you, convener. Colleagues will recall that we deliberated over the case for and against the inclusion of a definition of a historic environment within the bill. We reached the conclusion that such a case was not compellingly made, although that decision was met with some disappointment in some quarters, not least by the Law Society of Scotland. More persuasive, however, is the Law Society's argument that conserving and enhancing asset out in section 2, subparagraph 2E of the bill, or at least potentially could be mutually exclusive, to address this and draw a distinction between what could be incompatible functions, rather than simply replace and with or. It might be helpful and need clear to separate out the two functions of HES into stand-alone provisions. I hope that the cabinet secretary can agree to that, relatively minor, but I think that none the less important clarification and move amendment 1, in my name. No other members indicated the wish to contribute to that, so I call the cabinet secretary. Thank you. Liam McArthur points out that it is the Scottish Law Society in discussion with others, including officials that pointed out in their evidence stage 1 that conservation and enhancement are not at all the same or even necessarily complementary. Now, I agree, but, like the many stakeholders that were involved, you recall that a lot of the debate is about how we can deliver the strategy that was produced, and a lot of consideration and thought was given to what would be the vision and indeed the aims of the historic environment strategy for Scotland. They accepted that conservation enhancements are not an interchangeable term, but we must conserve before we seek to enhance and we can only enhance when we do not undermine basic conservation. That was brought home to me just only yesterday when I was visiting hospital house in Arbroath, where they want to be able to enhance what they have, but they are also very conscious that they have got to conserve what they have as well. The debate that took place in relation to the strategy, which I am not sure the Scottish Law Society was as involved in as the many other thousands of people that did take part, was that that tension is really important, that we put that together, because you have to be able to be conscious of both to be able to deliver both. Importantly, the strategy in which there has been a great deal of discussion has, as one of its aims, and I will quote page 7 of the strategy under the section protecting, and I directly quote, by caring for and protecting the historic environment, ensuring that we can both enjoy and benefit from it and conserve and enhance it for the enjoyment and benefit for future generations. Although people might think that this is maybe pedantic in terms of the terminology, there is a genuine debate here about whether I think we both want to try and do the same thing. The issue is if you list them separately, does that mean one will get more attention than the other one? Actually, by having them deliberately together, it makes sure that they are considered together. In the strategy and also in the bill, conservation and enhancement are placed together precisely because we all recognise that inherent tension and that they can be difficult choices to be made. The pairing of the two together serves as a reminder that, when we think about enhancement, we should always think about conservation and vice versa. Having the two terms each in their own line of the bill would not change the functions in any way, they would just reorder them, but by separating them, I feel, would be missing the opportunity to send a real signal to Historic Environment Scotland to keep this important point always in mind that they should be seen in relation to each other. For those reasons, I prefer to remain with the wording in the bill, which is consistent with the wording in the strategy. Although it might seem pedantic, I prefer if the committee opposes the bill in this instance. Thank you very much, cabinet secretary. I call Liam McArthur to wind up and to indicate whether he wishes to press or withdraw his amendment. Stage 2 is made for pedantry, in many respects. I hear what the cabinet secretary says and I can understand it at one level, although I am not sure, necessarily, that I accept that by having conserve and enhance in separate lines in the sense that you create a hierarchy between the two. I think also that there is a risk that, in certain circumstances, while conserving priority enhancing is inevitable, there may be instances where you can only conserve a portion in order to enhance the overall building of whatever it is that you are looking to preserve. While all the other amendments have withdrawn with no view of bringing them back at stage 3, I think that I would like to reflect on what the cabinet secretary has said. Maybe we have discussions with her and our officials between now and stage 3 and see if there is something here that could be salvaged and then enhanced. For now, I withdraw the amendment number 1. The member has requested to withdraw the amendment. Does the member object? There is no objection. Therefore, I call amendment 9 in the name of the cabinet secretary, grouped with amendment 10. Cabinet secretary, to move amendment 9 and speak to both amendments in the group. I have made clear my intention that Historic Environment Scotland will continue the existing functions of Historic Scotland and the Royal Commission, and those functions are set out in the bill at section 2. In the many changes, the bill makes to the main enactments relating to ancient monuments and listed buildings. I have also made it clear that Hes will operate in even more collaborative mode, in short, that it will be moved to being more of a leader, partner and facilitator within and beyond the sector, and in doing so that Hes will respect the hugely valuable roles played by others, be that the many private owners of Scotland's heritage, local authorities or voluntary groups. At stage 1, and subsequently in the committee, deliberated on this area in particular, several suggestions were made for improving how this ambition for collaborative working is expressed in the bill. The amendments that we have lodged from the Government here are based on suggestions from built environment for Scotland and the National Trust for Scotland. Hes will work with all parties in a very wide range of relationships. Some will be formal, but many informal. We feel that it is right for the word partnership, therefore, to remain on the face of the bill, as this will certainly be an important mode of operation for Hes. We are happy to add the word collaboration, as Bethes and the NTS have also suggested, to emphasise the wide variety of formal and informal arrangements covered by section 25. This will also align with the agreed approach of the historic environment strategy at place and time. The amended wording for this subsection would now read, quote, working in collaboration with other persons in brackets, whether in partnership or in other ways, closed brackets. Therefore, I move amendment 9. Mr Cabinet Secretary, can I call Liam McArthur? Briefly, I very much welcome these amendments. I think what struck all of us in terms of what we witnessed in Orkney was the collaborative approach that was taken there across a range of partners. I think the fact that we are able to underscore that more explicitly in the bill is very much to be welcomed. I think that it sits quite nicely with some of the amendments that we are coming on to in the next group, so I welcome that. Cabinet Secretary, to wind up? Yes. I just want to thank the committee that I think that it is also an example of where stage 1 consideration has enhanced the bill, and that is why we have brought forward this amendment. The question is that amendment 9 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. Can I call amendment 2 in the name of Liam McArthur, grouped with amendments 11 and 3? Liam McArthur to move amendment 2 and speak to other amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. I think that if there was a defining message from those we met during our visit to Orkney earlier this year, it showed that it was the need to ensure that the newly merged body takes proper account of the needs, aspirations and indeed the expertise of those on the ground in places like Orkney. A centralised body with a Hesnows best attitude would be the worst of all worlds. I have used share pretty much across the board. I am pleased to say that what is being sought is a regionalised structure for the operation of Hesnows so that even where members of staff are not physically located in the areas for which they have responsibility, there is an accessibility, an accountability and a responsiveness built into the new organisation from the outset. Capturing that in the bill is not straightforward and almost certainly would be insufficient. That will need to be fully reflected in the overarching strategy for the historic environment as well as in the corporate plan and budgeting of the newly formed Hesnows, but amendments 2 and 3 are an attempt to ensure that, as far as the bill is concerned, this expectation is met during the establishment of Hesnows. It would require Hesnows to have regard to local issues and local decision-making processes and ensure the involvement of local communities. I welcome the fact that the cabinet secretary has attempted to do something similar in her amendment 11, and we will listen carefully to what she has to say in that regard. I appreciate it as I say that capturing that sort of thing in legal language is not at all easy, that it reflects a philosophy almost as much as a structure in any organisation. However, we are being seen first hand the level of expertise, collaboration and appetite to protect, enhance and make accessible Orkney's truly world-class archaeology and built heritage. I am sure colleagues would agree that this is something that we should be looking to support through the bill as much as we possibly can. I move amendment 2 in my name. Thank you very much. I call the cabinet secretary to speak to amendment 11 and other amendments in the group. Those amendments all arise out of the concerns that are expressed during stage 1, and in the committee's stage 1 report that the bill may not sufficiently recognise the local dimension. In that regard, what Liam McArthur is trying to do is similar to what the Government is trying to do. I think that the committee is just going to need to assess what might be the best way forward in delivering that. The concerns include the importance of communities and the need to take account of local issues and decision making by local authorities. As committee will be aware, those are also matters at the heart of the historic environment strategies work. I undertook to look at those matters again before stage 2. Amendment 11 is my proposal to address them at this point in the bill. I should emphasise that there will always be a requirement on Historic Environment Scotland, as in all public bodies, to take into account all relevant factors in undertaking its functions. All relevant factors include local issues. However, to signal how seriously we take that matter, the amendment that I have proposed places the interests of local communities alongside national policies and strategies, and so amendment 11 would change section 28 to read in exercising its functions. Historic Environment Scotland must have regard to any relevant policy or strategy published by the Scottish ministers and as may be appropriate in the circumstances to the interests of local communities. At the same time, HES will be a body with a national remit. Local concerns cannot and should not always be the overriding consideration. Therefore, I have proposed an amendment that will require HES to consider the circumstances of each situation. In conclusion, in terms of reference to amendment 11, I think that amendment 11 provides a legal mechanism to deliver that local dimension. I do not believe that amendment 2 works because the bill at this point is referring to HES working with persons. That is natural legal persons such as local authorities, community trusts or similar. Local communities can be hard to define. It might be the occupiers of a small group of houses beside a monument, for example, the inhabitants of an island or even people who do not live locally but feel a special bond to a particular case. Legal definition of local communities is very difficult. HES, like any other public body, will be expected to take account of all relevant factors in reaching its decisions, and that is how public bodies are required to work as a matter of first principle. Local decision-making process is already covered in different areas such as planning, environmental impact assessment and listed building legislation. The bill clearly defines the way in which HES is required to interact with local authorities in areas in which they play formal roles in decision-making. However, we also need to make sure that HES is a national body, and although local dimension is hugely important, we would not signal that it was always preeminent, although often it will be. We have tried to make some attention to how we can make sure the principles that Liam McArthur is trying to identify are part of the bill. Mr McArthur and I are close accord in terms of the principles that the local dimension matters. I suppose that the issue is how we put it into the bill in a way that has a legal content and bearing that allows us to be meaningful in it. I have responded to the request by the committee at stage 1. I promised to come back at stage 2, and amendment 11 is an attempt to do that. I once again agree with Liam McArthur in previous coming from in presenting these amendments. I indicate to him that I want to speak because I did have a query about what was meant by local communities, but I think that the cabinet secretary has explained the complexities in actually defining that. I have listened very carefully to what she said, so I think that, on that basis, I would be tending to support her amendments rather than this particular one. Any other member who would like to contribute? I want to make a small contribution, which is really around the point at which there did not seem to be any difference between Liam McArthur and the cabinet secretary on this point. It is the place at which amendment 2 is intending to be inserted, which, as the cabinet secretary explained, gave me some concern. I think that we are well used to the fact that a person can be legally defined and is legally defined often in bills, but putting local communities in that same part of the bill may be a bit of a problem, so I agree with Claire Adamson. I think that it is certainly safer as I think that it is more accurate to put it. In line 22, I think that it is in section 2, page 2, at amendment 11, proposed by the cabinet secretary. I call Liam McArthur to wind up and indicate whether he wishes to press or withdraw his amendment. Thank you, convener, and to those who have contributed to the debate on this amendment. I do not think that there is any disagreement at all. I use the example of Orkney to illustrate where the need and desire arose from, but I suspect that it is pretty much uniform in communities across the country. Amendments 2 and 3 were my stab at trying to reflect that, but it was a little like nailing jelly to the wall in terms of coming up with a language that would suit the context of a bill. I think that amendment 11 does it more than adequately for my purposes, so I am happy to withdraw amendment 2 and support amendment 11. Thank you very much. The member has asked to withdraw his amendment at his envy object. There is no objection before I call amendment 10, in the name of the cabinet secretary, already debated with amendment 9, cabinet secretary, to move formally. The question is that amendment 10 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? I call amendment 61, in the name of Liz Smith, in a group on its own. Liz Smith to move and speak to amendment 61. Thank you, convener. Cabinet secretary, when the national trust for Scotland and the historic houses Scotland supplied their evidence to the education committee, they reported the extent of their property maintenance backlogs, which was very significant in terms of money. That is a time when the whole historic environment budget is under huge pressure. Cabinet secretary has very correctly said that the whole of the historic environment matters and that ownership, whether that is public or private, is not really the main concern. Amendment 61 is probing to make it explicit that HES's powers are not limited when it comes to the objects in private ownership. I will be very grateful for the cabinet secretary's response. As a bit of a latecomer to this bill, I would also like to seek some clarity here. There does seem to be real concerns, for example, from the national trust and, indeed, the private historic owners, who, as Liz Smith said, the backlog national trust was given at 46 million, historic houses maintenance backlog 57 and growing. I think that I would add to that the properties in care of 345 properties, 76, are privately owned. Given the funding priorities in the bill, it is really just seeking clarity as to whether those houses in care that are privately owned be treated on the basis of the priority for the historic environment. Will the national trust and historic houses, those that are privately owned, be treated equally? If I can just convener finish on the point that was raised in the historic houses association evidence, which said that a historic environment will be an owner of significant heritage assets, a tourist operator and a regulator, and will also be responsible for awarding taxpayer-funded grants for the sector and, at the same time, be in competition with the sector. Those are points that were raised and I am seeking clarity today that everyone will be treated fairly. I am sorry, I did say that it was my last point, convener, but in the policy memorandum, if the cabinet secretary could confirm this point, paragraph 134, it does say that it is expected that details of ministerial authorisations and of grant decisions will be published. Given that this is an expectation in the policy memorandum, perhaps the cabinet secretary could tell us if that will happen and that grant decisions and ministerial authorisations will be published, hopefully, on an annual basis. I appreciate the points that were raised by Liz Smith and Mary Scanlon. I said in answer to an earlier amendment that one of the things in terms of funding is that we would publish the direction from the letter of guidance from the Government in relation to funding and what was available for non-HES properties, and that would be public and could be scrutinised by this committee and indeed others. She is correct in identifying that that indication is set out in the policy memorandum and the mechanism that I would do that would be through that letter of guidance. There are no funding priorities in the bill, and it is important to put on record that Historic Environment Scotland will not own properties in care, but it will do that on behalf of the owners. The role of private owners in protecting and managing our heritage and in making it accessible for others to enjoy is vital, and it is right to identify that. It is undoubtedly the case that private owners look after the large majority of our heritage. Certainly far more than all our public and charitable national bodies are added together, so that does not just mean that HES should support them, it means that HES must support and work with them or that it simply cannot deliver its strategic functions. That is why we have given HES the power to support and assist any other person, and we have reflected on what that legal definition might be, which includes all private property owners as well as national bodies, existing charities and local authorities. I do not think that any other person needs to be expanded, it is already all inclusive. There is a danger that this amendment might limit rather than promote HES's role in supporting private owners. Section 26 of the bill is already a comprehensive duty, enabling HES to give support and advice in respect of any function, which is of a similar nature to its own functions. Does it matter? I think it might do. The list offered with the amendment focuses just on protection and management. It would not cover, for example, HES assisting private owners to market their historic properties as visitor attractions as part of Scotland's overall heritage offer. Probably inadvertently, the amendment is quite narrow in just identifying protection and management. The collaboration that we have just referred to in other amendments were historic Scotland and the National Trust for Scotland working alongside historic houses association, for example, can come together to add value to what everyone does. That brings in visitors whose contributions swell the resource that is available to private owners, as well as helping to maintain their parts of the shared heritage. If we are making sure that we are being public about what investment is going into the non-HES grants, that makes that opaque and makes it more transparent. In terms of setting out that we actually expect HES in this bill to support all the functions, not just the protection and management of the private sector, I hope that that will make it clear that our commitment is there and that the responsibilities of HES will be to those areas. I do not want us to accidentally restrict how HES is able to work with private owners in the future. I think that this amendment might do that. The bill already gives HES the power that it needs to work collaboratively and to support and assist any other person in doing that. That is where private owners would be part of that, any other person that is defined there. I think that it is fairly comprehensive as it exists, but I think that putting down this amendment helps to make sure that, as a Government, we can clarify those points. I think that they are well made, but I hope that I have responded in such a way to give you an understanding that, yes, we are very conscious of one of the importance of the private ownership that HES must support and work with them as set-out in the bill and that we prefer not to restrict that just to protection and management as set-out in the amendment. I thank the cabinet secretary for the question. I call Smith to wind up and to indicate whether she wishes to press or withdraw her amendment. Thank you, cabinet secretary. It was very helpful in terms of outlining some of the clarity that is required and which is already in the bill on that basis. I am not moving 61, because I did not move it at the start. You should have. I think that it is taken that you have moved it since that is the only amendment in this group that you spoke to. I think that you had to seek to withdraw. Is there any member object to the withdrawal of that amendment? No member objects. Therefore, I call amendment 11 in the name of the cabinet secretary. I have already debated with amendment 2. I will move formally. The question is that amendment 11 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. I call amendment 3 in the name of Liam McArthur. I have already debated with amendment 2 to move or not move. No moved. The question is that section 2 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? I call amendment 12 in the name of Liam McArthur, group with amendments 13 to 16, 19 to 23 and 59. Liam McArthur has moved amendment 12 and speak to other amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. I covered general concerns of moving amendments earlier this morning about the delegation of functions of the need to maintain quality and accountability. My amendments in this group returned to the same principle that I am very conscious of the comments that the cabinet secretary made in relation to those earlier amendments. I understand from speaking to local authorities that there are examples for ministers who may deem it sensible or desirable to delegate, particularly in relation to properties in care or listing. While I would certainly agree that that is a sensible approach, and the public would expect that that is only to be done for the necessary level of knowledge, skills and expertise that exists. I note from the amendments that the cabinet secretary has laid in this grouping that there seems to be a principle that she concurs with. I am certainly happy to support her amendments in this grouping, but I would be interested to hear her observations in relation to amendment 12, which I have the pleasure of moving and the others in this grouping. I would like to set out the rationale for the Government amendments in this grouping, which all relate to the properties in care and associated collection in which ministers hold on behalf of the people of Scotland. I believe that the amendment 12, 14, 19 and 21 will not be necessary if the Government amendments proposed 13, 15, 16, 20, 22, 23 and 59 are agreed, and we will have to navigate our way through all those amendments in the same area. With the bill, we will ensure that the properties are preserved and made accessible now and in the future through ensuring that the properties are managed by the people with the best skills and expertise. We need to be able to respond to changing circumstances and to provide what is best for a property, for the estate and for the people of Scotland. We are committed to openness and transparency in how the properties are managed. That is why I am proposing amendments that ensure that there is appropriate scrutiny and transparency around the delegation of functions in relation to properties in care. I am delighted and grateful to the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee for their recommendations in their stage 1 report, which I have informed the thinking behind those amendments. I indicated at stage 1 that I would respond directly to the request by the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee on this area in particular. Amendments 13, 16 and 59 mean that where ministers wish to delegate functions to persons other than Historic Environment Scotland, those persons should be prescribed by order. That would be subject to the affirmative procedure. Amendments 20 and 23 have the equivalent effect for the Scottish ministers' collections. That would allow parliamentary scrutiny of the suitability of any proposed candidate for delegation other than HES. That would be an opportunity to question HES about the experience or capability of that body. It really is transparent, I think, as this Parliament would require and is a response to the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee. Amendments 15 and 22 place ministers under duty to publish any such delegations. As I confirmed when I wrote to the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee, it was always my intention that such delegations would be published. Amending the bill to include those provisions underlines my commitment to transparency. Those amendments balance the need for future flexibility with the need for scrutiny and transparency. I believe they effectively address the issue of clarity, which was raised by the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee in their stage 1 report. I believe that the amendments that are not required are 12, 14, 19 and 21, as I think that their effect is achieved by the Government amendments in this grouping. I recommend that you approve the remainder of those amendments, rather than the ones that are set out in Liam McArthur's name at this time. Thank you very much, cabinet secretary. I call Liam McArthur to wind up and to indicate whether he wishes to press up with all his amendments. As you said, there is an agreed principle here. Some of the detail will come forward through secondary legislation, but that is probably appropriate for the purposes of this. I do think that the cabinet secretary's amendments go some way to addressing the concerns that I was trying to get at. I will reflect further ahead of stage 3, but, certainly for now, I am happy to withdraw those amendments. Liam McArthur has indicated that he wishes to withdraw amendment 12. Is the ending object? There is no objection, so I call amendment 13 the name of the cabinet secretary. I call amendment 14, in the name of Liam McArthur, and threads next here. I do not engage in amendment 16, in the name of the cabinet secretary, already debated with amendment 12, cabinet secretary to move formally? Formally moved. The question is that amendment 16 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Agreed. Can I call amendment 17, in the name of the cabinet secretary, grouped with amendments 18 and 26? Cabinet secretary to move amendment 17 and speak to all amendments in the group. Amendment 17, 18 and 26 on 17. One of the questions raised by the Delegated Power and Law Reform Committee was about the clarity of exactly which properties could and which properties could not be delegated under this bill. The committee's recommendations was that there should be a clearer definition of properties and care in the bill. Studying the recommendation and how it might be brought into effect, it became clear that refining the definition or specifying exclusions would in itself pose challenges. Our particular concern was that it might accidentally limit the type of properties that ministers might take into care. We have to bear in mind the fact that the bill and the provisions in it need to be sufficiently flexible to take account of future priorities, much of what we regard as heritage today. It was not regarded as heritage a generation ago, and industrial archaeology, for example, is a good example of that. We have already found that it is stage one that definitions can be challenging and we look to find an alternative approach that would meet the Delegated Power and Law Reform Committee's requirements. We believe that we have come up with a simpler solution, which has the advantage of absolute clarity. Our proposal is simply to publish a list of exactly which properties held by ministers are to be treated as properties in care and are capable of delegation under this bill. That is what amendment 18 does while amendments 17 and 26 adjust the bill wording to cross-refer to it. We will publish the list, and that is the simplest and most transparent way that we can address that challenge. I move amendment 17. No other member has indicated the wish to contribute to the cabinet secretary's event to add at this stage. I know. The question is that amendment 17 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. The question is that section 3 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are. Amendment 18, in the name of the cabinet secretary, is already debated with amendment 17. Cabinet secretary, move formally. The question is that amendment 18 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. The question is that sections 4 to 6 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. That is agreed. Amendment 19, in the name of Liam McArthur, is already debated with amendment 12. Is Liam McArthur to move or not to move? No. That is not moved. Amendment 20, in the name of the cabinet secretary, is already debated with amendment 12. Cabinet secretary, to move formally. Formally moved. The question is that amendment 20 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. Amendment 21, in the name of Liam McArthur, is already debated with amendment 12. Is Liam McArthur to move or not to move? No. That is not moved. Amendment 22, in the name of the cabinet secretary, is already debated with amendment 12. Cabinet secretary, to move formally. Formally moved. The question is that amendment 22 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. Amendment 23, in the name of the cabinet secretary, is already debated with amendment 12. Cabinet secretary, to move formally. Move. Clwenall Gadebon 19 Clwenall Gadebon 22 Clwenall Gadebon 28 Clwenall Gadebon 24 Ysbryddon y Prif Weinidog has enliadol hwn o dda chi, erbyn canido Onden Ysbryddon yn amlwg ar hyd amlaen ond a dyn nhw. A chynnydda'n ei gael bod aethau a chyf newlyddau fel pledgau yw eu cynhyrchu dros y cwestiynau. Rydym yn sefydlu eu cyfrifio oedd bryddoedd ynddo yn ei ffiannau amddangos i'r cyfrifio wentlyniad ym mlynedog gan gweinol amdano o unrhyw gan omlwysig ysbryddon. Ym ysbryddon ym Mwysig i allu llwyddoeddau a'r cyfrifio I know that there is a desire to see the informal advice and guidance provided to councils by Historic Scotland. At present, it continues a core function of the new body going forward. Ahead of the stage 1 debate of this bill, colleagues may recall that the forum highlighted threats to the front line role that planning authority officers play in safeguarding the historic environment. In particular, BFs identified big reductions over recent years in conservation services across Scottish local authorities. They even suggested that the trend is continuing in that there are three councils providing planning services with no specialist local conservation advice. All the more important therefore that planning authorities have access to appropriate external expertise so that decision makers have the information and advice they need to determine statutory consent applications relating to the historic environment. I understand that the Government may be concerned that with HES, under the bill to provide advice to Scottish ministers to introduce a further obligation for HES to advise local authorities might lead to awkward situations where local authorities are in dispute with the Scottish Government. However, while I see those as potentially valid, I cannot imagine that the situations arise anything other than very infrequently, and in which case, presumably, an exception or exemption clause could be inserted to provide the assurances that ministers require. As for the argument that such a requirement in the bill might lead to job losses in local authorities across Scotland, it does seem to be the case from BFs' evidence that the horse is already bolted in that regard. As one council official working in this area put it to me recently, the fundamental point is that local authority staff need the support and advice that HES provides, and this is a structural necessity of the overall heritage management system in Scotland. He went on to argue that this must be reflected in the bill and guarantees that the current provision of advice will be maintained are essential. I agree. I hope that the cabinet secretary will, too, and I move amendment 24 in my name. Thank you very much. No members have indicated their wish to contribute. Therefore, can I call the cabinet secretary? I agree that this is an important area to discuss and explore, but I do have concerns. We have already discussed the local dimension when considering amendments 2, 3 and 11, and the committee gave much thought to the area at stage 1. I believe that the major concern in relation to amendments 24 and 25 is that local authorities currently receive support from Historic Scotland in which they value and respect, and that there is a real desire that this level of support should be maintained when HES comes into operation. I think that that is the point that Liam McArthur has already made in his contribution. I have already confirmed that this support will continue. There is no need for the amendment to make it happen. Some forms of historic environment knowledge and expertise are scarce. Historic Scotland and RCAMs are sometimes the only sources, and in future this is likely to be the case with HES. Local authorities regularly consult the national experts and wish to be reassured that HES will similarly assist them as required. I am happy to give that assurance. HES will indeed continue to offer a national resource for local authorities and others, and the bill already provides for this. Working with local and national bodies is important, including the input of the RCAMs on sharing and using historic environment records. Again, that will continue and depend on strengthening the requirement for collaboration that we have already debated in the bill and by a very active working group within the historic environment strategy. Amendment 24 seeks to place a strict duty on HES. Its effect would be to require HES to be constantly providing advice to local authorities all the time without any thought of the need to deliver its functions more widely. To provide such a service, either resources would need to be diverted from other functions given to HES or else HES would need to, for example, be able to charge local authorities for this. One of the assurances that I have given local authorities is that we would not add any extra financial burdens onto them as a result of this bill. I do not think that either of those things are desirable. I do not think that it is also what Liam McArthur intends in his amendment, but I think that the bill is drafted and enables HES to give advice and support, and that is correct. The change in these amendments would also put local authorities on the same footing as ministers and place HES in a subordinate position to them. That simply will not work. There are various duties on local authorities to consult HES or to notify HES of things. As a statutory consultee, HES has to be able to stand apart from an authority and act independently of it. Finally, there is a real danger for local authorities and local communities in these amendments. Most local authorities follow the recommendations of national planning policy and the Scottish historic environment policy and maintain access to local expertise and information, which allows them to deal with historic environment issues. However, there are a few of them for their own reasons who do not. It is always open to this committee to scrutinise and discuss those issues with local authorities on those skills, and they can do that independently. If Historic Environment Scotland is required to act as an on-demand supplier as those amendments set out, that might tempt more local authorities to take the decision to reduce or abandon their own historic environment capacity, and only any of us want that to happen. That would work directly counter to the intention that we understand lies behind the amendments, which, as Liam McArthur said, is to retain and strengthen capacity at local level. However, we do not want to provide some kind of get-out that would allow local authorities to reduce their own expertise, because they can always call on HES in that regard. The end result could be counterproductive. It could end up with a more centralised, less locally aware historic environment service, and I do not think that anybody would want to see that. As to amendment 25, I do not think that it is simply unnecessary, as local authorities are already covered by that term by any other person used at this point in the bill. For those reasons, I do not believe that the amendments add value to the bill, and I believe that amendment 24 poses real risks for HES and local authorities. Therefore, I oppose those two amendments. Thank you very much, cabinet secretary. I call Liam McArthur to wind up and to indicate whether there are issues to press or withdraw his amendment. I start by saying that I am very encouraged by what the cabinet secretary had to say about the importance of this relationship and ensuring that accessibility, the expertise that is within our camp and the historic Scotland moment, remains the case going forward. I do not necessarily accept that local authorities are likely to be constantly in touch with HES, but I do acknowledge the concerns about the relative relationship between the new body and local authorities. That might be something that we need to return to. If there is any diminution in terms of the access that local authorities have to that expertise, we will be into the territory that I was referring to earlier about a merged organisation that is seen to have retrenched to the centre rather than respecting the role that it has in providing service and responding to the needs of all parts of the country. However, for the time being, in light of what the cabinet secretary has to say, I am happy to withdraw amendment 24 and 25. Thank you. The member has indicated that he wishes to withdraw amendment 24. Does anybody object? No objections? Can I call amendment 25 in the name of Liam McArthur? The question is that section 11 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? I call amendment 4 in the name of Liz Smith, grouped with amendment 5. Liz Smith to move amendment 4 and speak to both amendments in the group. Throughout various stages in this bill, I think that there have been issues about where accountability lies for strategic decision making. That was borne out by comments from some of the witnesses who believed when it came to this issue that there was a slight lack of clarity. When giving evidence to the committee on May 20, the cabinet secretary indicated that the board of the new body were to have a different opinion with the Scottish Government about strategic direction, then it would be the minister who would have the final say in what that direction should be. That is something that you reaffirmed in your comments earlier this morning. You added in a letter to the convener 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 that is captured in the strategy, then they would direct the board of HES to work in partnership more effectively. To be 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 objects or properties as referenced in section 12.2 of the bill. That is to ensure operational independence. Section 12.2 of the bill says that section 12.2A does not apply when Scottish ministers have delegated functions in relation to properties and care. Cabinet Secretary, you have affirmed that in oral evidence. In the response that the Scottish Government made to the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee, the comment was made that the exclusion at subsection 12.3 makes it clear that ministers may, by contrast, give directions in relation to what would be regarded as curatorial matters to those properties and care and collections, the functions in respect of which have been delegated by ministers to HES. It is clear that there are some questions that remain around who will be ultimately responsible for overseeing the delivery of the strategy and how the corporate plan of the Historic Environment Scotland will align with the already published place in time. As it stands, I think that the consensual language of the Historic Environment Strategy document, which clearly envisages joint working and shared vision, does not entirely sit easily with the clauses in the bill that state that the new body must have regard to any relevant policy or strategy published by Scottish ministers. Amendments 4 and 5 are designed to address the issue, both in terms of clarifying the exact relationship between ministers and the board of HES and limiting scope for ministerial power. It is not to undermine the compatibility of the bill with other legislation similar to that that governs SNH, Creative Scotland and National Library for Scotland. It is important not to remove section 12 altogether, which would have been one option. However, there is a case to be made for ensuring that HES does not need to implement the directions under 12.1 if the effect of that implementation would not be in line with HES's corporate plan. The minister will have been part of the body that agrees with that corporate plan. However, if any move was made by ministers to move away from that agreement, I think that that is where there would be questions about accountability. I move amendment 4. Thank you very much. No other member has indicated the wish to contribute to the stage. Can I call the cabinet secretary? Elizabeth is quite right to recognise the importance of the corporate plan and I completely share that assessment. It is why we have provided in the bill for HES to create a plan for its approval by ministers. The corporate plan is the linchpin of the corporate performance framework for HES because it will be approved by ministers. We also share ownership and accountability. The plan is a public document and the performance report for the organisation will be published at least annually. Failure to deliver will be transparent, as will the board's explanations for failure, including the unbalancing direction that Liz Smith appears to have in mind. Indeed, the committee can scrutinise the plan in session, as it has done with corporate plans of other bodies. Indeed, it will call me to account, as minister, if I should do something that you think, as a committee, is not consistent with the corporate plan itself. Ministerial direction, of course, is not unusual for public bodies. Therefore, the provision is there. The power of direction is there for good reason. It can, in fact, be used to support historic environment in Scotland. For example, by clarifying procedural matters such as how routine sponsorship arrangements will work. Those amendments seem to assume that I will regularly be issuing directions to HES to do something that HES thinks is a bad idea. I can say here and now that I will not. In fact, in seven years as a minister, I cannot recall ever issuing a formal direction in opposition to the advice of a sponsored body. That is quite a serious thing if you are doing that. If any minister is doing that, in my experience, I have not done that in seven years. It does not necessarily mean that it will not happen, but it will be quite obvious when it happens as to the seriousness of such a situation. The chair and board of an NDPB do not require specific provision to raise or challenge any proposals that would significantly compromise delivery of agreed outcomes such as in the corporate plan. It is the nature of the sponsorship relationship between Government and NDPBs that such matters are explored and usually resolved long before any formal communication or direction would take place. A formal direction, especially a formal direction against the advice of a body, is the end of a long process of discussion, not the starting point. For those reasons, I believe that the amendment would only serve to introduce unnecessary complications into what is a clear and straightforward relationship based on the corporate plan. Since the corporate plan is a public document, it can be scrutinised at any level. I can obviously be held to account for whether I go counter towards that corporate plan and give a minister direction. That is exactly the circumstances that I would expect the committee to call a minister to ask what the rationale was and why. I think that those mechanisms already exist. To be consistent with other public bodies, yes, it is important to have the corporate plan, but I think that it would be wrong to think about ministerial direction as something that would happen often and frequently. It would be quite significant if it did. There are plenty of mechanisms for accountability, both of me, but also of the body in question. Between ourselves, the minister responsible for the body, but also this Parliament and this committee. I call Liz Smith to wind up and to indicate whether she wishes to press her with Pro-Herman. I hear what you say, cabinet secretary, and I do not doubt in any way that the vast majority of situations would be the collaboration that you talked about earlier. It would be very difficult to be in a situation in which I am not in any way casting aspersions on the cabinet secretary's own role in this. However, as you rightly pointed out yourself, there is potential. It could happen whereby there was a disagreement. I think that there is still a lack of clarity about that kind of situation in which it could result. On that basis, I would move amendment 4. Is that amendment 4 be agreed to? Are we all agreed? We are not all agreed. There will be a division. Those members who wish to support amendment 4, please show. Those against? Abstentions. The result of the division on amendment 4, there were four votes in favour, five against and no abstention. The amendment is therefore not agreed to. Amendment 5, in the name of Liz Smith, is already debated with amendment 4. Liz Smith to move or not move? Not moved. It is not moved. The question is that section 12 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? That is agreed. Amendment 26, in the name of the cabinet secretary, is already debated with amendment 17. Cabinet secretary, to move formally. Question is that amendment 26 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Agreed. The question is that section 13 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. Can I call amendment 27, in the name of the cabinet secretary, in a group on its own? Cabinet secretary, to move and speak to amendment 27. Convener, this is an amendment to tidy up the drafting at this point in the bill, which is presently drafted. It allows two slightly different readings. It adjusts the wording of the bill and the changes the bill makes to the 1979 act to ensure that ministers can set out in regulations timescales for Historic Environment Scotland to notify all those who need to be told that a monument has been added to or removed from the schedule or when an entry relating to a monument has been amended. I move amendment 27. The member has indicated that he wishes to contribute. Cabinet secretary, I do not suppose that you need to wind up. The question is that amendment 27 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? That is agreed. Can I call amendment 28, in the name of the cabinet secretary, in a group with amendments 29 to 31 and 35 to 41? Cabinet secretary, to move amendment 28 and to speak to other amendments in the group. The call-in power in the bill for scheduled monument consent is a new power. It results from the creation of Historic Environment Scotland as a body with a separate legal entity to Scottish ministers. The amendments in the group and two of the subsequent groups will all stem from the fact that Historic Environment Scotland will not be acting as ministers, unlike the current situation in which Historic Environment Scotland, for example, can act as ministers. The committee at stage 1 asks for clarity in roles generally. That is what the set of amendments and, indeed, the later ones and later groups seek to do. Existing ministerial powers would have allowed us to administer call-in, but we took the view that it would provide greater clarity to set this out on the face of the bill. Those amendments set out the processes around call-in of scheduled monument consent. They provide for ministers to determine a case where it has been called in under the power in the bill. Call-in is used when a case raises matters of sufficient importance for ministers to take the decision out of the hands of the usual authority—in this case, Historic Environment Scotland—and the powers intended to be used very sparingly. Those changes align with those that already exist for listed building consent and are part of our approach to simplifying the role of the Historic Environment in the planning system. I would like to explain a little more the detail of the specific provisions in those amendments and the requirement from them. Those amendments make clear how ministers are informed that there is a case that might merit call-in and ensure that HES does not reach a decision while such a case is being considered for call-in. They make clear how ministers go about reaching a decision on a call-in case and communicating that decision. Finally, they set out the consequences that fall from ministers rather than HES having made a decision. Amendment 37 inserts new paragraph 2C into schedule 1 to the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979 to ensure that HES is required to notify Scottish ministers of certain specified applications for scheduled monument consent. The specific criteria will be subsequently set out in regulations or directions. That is in effect the trigger. Amendment 37 allows ministers to ensure that we do not see every case that HES deals with, as relatively few are likely to raise issues that might make call-in worth considering. Amendment 37 also provides the timeframe for notification by HES and response from ministers. In essence, we have 28 days to call a case in, to decide that we are not going to call it in or seek more time to think about it. The remaining amendments make technical adjustments to the bill to allow ministers to determine applications that have been called in and to take all the necessary actions for call-in cases that HES would have taken had a case that had not been called in. Although that is a large package of amendments, I believe that they are necessary to ensure that the call-in perforate consent that HES has already provided for in the bill works effectively and that everyone involved understands exactly who is responsible for which actions, at which stage of the process. I move amendment 28. The question is that amendment 28 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Amendment 29 to 31, all the name of the cabinet secretary and all previously debated, and can I invite the cabinet secretary to move amendments 29 to 31 on block? Thank you. Does any member object to a single question being put on amendments 29 to 31? There is no objection, so the question is that amendments 29 to 31 are agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. Can I call amendment 32 in the name of the cabinet secretary, grouped with amendments 33 and 34, cabinet secretary, to move amendment 32 and speak to other amendments in the group? Those amendments are linked to those that we have just considered. I believe that they are relatively simply explained. As we have discussed and agreed, when ministers choose to call in a case for determination, they should take responsibility for the immediate consequences. It would not be fair or equitable to leave historical environment Scotland with the responsibility for those when they have not taken the decision. It can arise, though very rarely, that the applicant may have a right to compensation as a result of being refused consent. I should say that the situations in which this can occur are very limited and we can find no record of anyone ever successfully seeking compensation. However, if there was an unusual situation that it did arise after ministers had determined a case on call-in, it would only be equitable that any compensation liability would be for ministers to deal with rather than HES. Those amendments changed the provisions in the bill that adjusted the 1979 act, so that HES is indeed not left with a liability to pay compensation in respect to a decision that it had not itself made. Again, no other members indicated that they wish to contribute at this stage, cabinet secretary. The question is that amendment 32 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. Can I call amendments 33 to 41, all the name of the cabinet secretary and all previously debated? Can I invite the cabinet secretary to move amendments 33 to 41 on block? Can I ask whether any member objects to a single question being put on amendments 33 to 41? There being no objection, the question is therefore that amendments 33 to 41 are agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. Can I call amendment 42 in the name of the cabinet secretary, group with amendments 45, 46, 47 and 48? Cabinet secretary, to move amendment 42 and speak to all amendments in the group. Coveneira, I'll speak to amendments 42 with 45 to 48. The need for this group of amendments flows again from the provision in the bill for Historic Environment Scotland to issue scheduled monument enforcement notices in future rather than ministers, as is currently the case. I should explain that scheduled monument enforcement notices are very rare. Indeed, they can be issued to someone who already has a scheduled monument consent but appears not to be complying with its terms or when someone has carried out works without consent. Notices are normally only issued after all other forms of resolution have been exhausted. One immediate consequence of the change in the bill to HES issuing these notices is an opportunity to align processes. Until now, scheduled monument enforcement notices have been issued by Historic Scotland acting for ministers, so appeal has been to sheriffs to ensure that there is a clear separation of decision making and appeal functions. Now that HES will have an independent existence, our intention is that the appeal should be to ministers, as is already the case for appeals against similar notices in respect of listed buildings. Those amendments support the simplification agenda, as laid out in the policy memorandum for the bill, by helping to harmonise different types of heritage management regulation and to align more closely with the planning system. That in turn helps to ensure that clarity and separation of roles exist between HES local authorities and ministers while retaining appropriate ministerial oversight. Those amendments are, in my view, very necessary and beneficial in clarifying roles, which I know the committee is keen on doing, and also in aligning processes. Accordingly, I move amendment 42. The cabinet secretary and other members indicated that they wish to contribute. Therefore, the question is that amendment 42 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Can I call amendment 43 in the name of the cabinet secretary? Group with amendments 44, 49, 50 and 51. Cabinet secretary, to move amendment 43 and speak to other amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. A few minutes ago, we looked at the arrangements for ministers to call in scheduled monument consent cases for determination, and we have just considered some of the arrangements around scheduled monument enforcement notices. The five amendments that I wish the committee to consider now bring these two matters together. If the recipient of a scheduled monument consent is failing to adhere to the conditions of that consent or is undertaking works without consent, it is only right that the responsibility for any enforcement action should fall to ministers where ministers made that decision and to HES where HES made that decision. Those amendments changed the provisions in the bill, which addressed the SIT 1979 act, so that this would be the case, so that HES is not burdened with the responsibility of issuing enforcement notices in respect to a decision that was taken by ministers on calling, so I move amendment 43. Thank you very much, cabinet secretary. No other member has indicated that they wish to contribute. Therefore, the question is that amendment 43 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. I call amendment 44 to 51. All the name of the cabinet secretary and all previously debated can invite the cabinet secretary to move amendments 44 to 51 on block. Can I ask whether any member objects to a single question being put on amendments 44 to 51? There being no objections, the question is that amendments 44 to 51 are agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The question is that schedule 2 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? That is agreed. The question is that section 15 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. I call amendment 52 in the name of the cabinet secretary. Group with amendments 53, 54, 55, 56 and 57. Cabinet secretary, to move amendment 52 and speak to other amendments in the group. Amendments 52 to 56 are necessary to support our policy intention to include a mechanism that enables Scottish ministers to set out which classes of listed building are conservation area application planning authorities need to consult historic environment Scotland on before they grant or refuse consent. The need for these amendments became clear as we engaged with stakeholders around the design of the new system in secondary legislation. Stakeholder engagement to date suggests strong support for our filtering mechanism at consultation stage in the process to enable local level decisions to be taken locally with the national body being consulted only on those classes of application where a national perspective adds value. The application of such a filter is wholly consistent with the principles of planning reform as it will help streamline the system, aid transparency and ensure an appropriate balance of local and national government. Again, an issue that has come up in the committee a number of times. Applying the filter at consultation stage rather than waiting until applications are notified to Scottish ministers also ensures that the expertise that resides within historic environment Scotland is utilised to best effect. Amendment 57 will align the handling of cases where a minister of call and is contemplated for listed building and conservation area consents so that it operates in the same way as for the planning system, offering consistency across the wider sector. Our intention, as always, is to call in cases only whether there is no other way of resolving issues of national significance. At present, if an application involves an extensive package of works to listed building, all of which are good conservation practice except for one important item, which is not, the only option that ministers have is to call in the application for determination or let it proceed unchallenged. With this amendment it will become possible for ministers to indicate to the planning authority that, if the one unacceptable aspect is addressed in conditions, then the case will not be called in. This measure will serve to reduce the number of listed building and conservation area consent cases that need to be called in. It will also offer absolute clarity for all parties about exactly what issues or which issues are giving rise to concern and how they can be resolved. Accordingly, I move amendment 52. No other member has indicated the wish to contribute. Therefore, I will go to the question. The question is that amendment 52 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. Can I call amendments 53 to 56, all in the name of the cabinet secretary, and all previously debated? Can I invite the cabinet secretary to move amendments 53 to 56 on block? Thank you, cabinet secretary. Can I ask whether any member objects to a single question being put on amendments 53 to 56? There are no objections, therefore the question is that amendments 53 to 56 are agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The question is that schedule 3 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The question is that section 16 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The question is that schedule 4 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The question is that sections 17 and 18 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Arlu iawn i'n ddwgol yng Nghymru, rydyn ni'n ddweud y fawr cwestiwn i'n ddweud y fawr. Arlu iawn y cyfaluio, rydyn ni'n ddweud? Arlu iawn. Am amendment 57, yn teimlo i'r gyquiadwyr, oeddaeth i dweud y fawr agenda 52 a'r cyfaluio i'r mwyf yn gwyfodol â'i dyfodol. Arlu iawn. Rydyn ni'n ddweud y fawr agenda 57, rydyn ni'n ddweud? Arlu iawn. Arlu iawn. Arlu iawn. Can I call amendment 58, in the name of the cabinet secretary, in a group on its own, cabinet secretary, to move and speak to amendment 58? Y convener, I'll speak to amendment 58, and this amendment is required to enable a local authority to determine applications for consent made by themselves for the demolition of a building within a conservation area rather than ministers as it's currently provided for in the listed buildings and conservation areas act of 1997. It is our intention to change the regulations so that local authorities can determine their own listed building consent applications and this amendment will bring the process for demolition in conservation areas into line with what is envisaged for the listed building consent process and thus with the wider planning system. As I've just mentioned, the process of local authorities determining their own applications, that is applications where they are the developer or owner, is already established practice in the wider planning system. Checks and balances are in place to ensure that the process works smoothly and we're replicating those checks and balances here. Local authorities will be required to consult heads before making a decision and to notify ministers in certain circumstances which will be set out in regulations so that a case can be called in for ministerial determination. I'm satisfied that these measures will provide adequate scrutiny of the system while allowing for an increase in responsible local decision making. I accordingly move amendment 58. Thank you very much, cabinet secretary. Norther member has indicated that they wish to contribute. The question is that amendment 58 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. Can I call amendment 62 in the name of Neil Bibby in a group on its own? Neil Bibby to move and speak to amendment 62. Thanks, convener. I move amendment 62. The objective of amendment 62 is to ensure that local authorities are able to handle the management of the historic environment with their in-house or through shared services. The Scottish planning policy and the Scottish historic environment policy says that local authorities can or should have access to relevant expertise and information, but reports have shown that capacities are increasingly stretched and there is widespread concern in the sector that front-line conservation and archaeology services are increasingly vulnerable. One such report from December 2013 stated that Scottish conservation services are contracting with 15 per cent reductions estimated over two years. As we have already discussed this morning, expert knowledge on the historic environment is important if authorities are to deliver on national policy commitments, which is what my amendment seeks to do. The amendment would allow flexibility for expertise to be located in house or through shared or contracted services. I appreciate that those amendments are similar in ethos to what Liam McArthur was proposing in amendment 24 and 25, and I know what the cabinet secretary has said in relation to those early amendments. I therefore welcome the cabinet secretary's comments on amendment 62 and any reassurances that the cabinet secretary can offer to allay any concerns that there are in this area. Thank you very much. No other member has indicated the wish to contribute at this stage, so can I call the cabinet secretary? Yes, convener. I remind the committee that the purpose of the bill is to establish historic environment Scotland and what it does as an organisation. I think that we have to be very careful as to what duties and responsibilities we use the bill for to load local authorities with other duties and responsibilities, and that is what the core of the amendment does. We have just discussed the question of historic environment Scotland's advice and support to local authorities in a previous amendment. The amendment looks at the same matter, but it does so from the local authorities perspective. Local authorities already play a very role in protecting, managing and promoting enjoyment of our historic environment. As Councillor Hagan of COSLA said at the launch of the historic environment strategy, local government has a crucial role in managing and promoting the historic environment as a positive element for individuals and their local communities alike. There is already clear guidance in the Scottish planning policy, which states, planning authorities should have access to a sites and monuments record and or a historic environment record that contains information about known historic environment features and finds in their area. In the Scottish historic environment policy, the guidance is even clearer. We should also ensure that they have access to sufficient information and suitably qualified and experienced staff to meet their needs. We have commissioned the Institute of Historic Building Conservation to undertake research into the capacity and operations across Scotland's local authority conservation services. Scotland's conservation services continue to cope, despite on-going financial pressures, thanks not least to the dedication of skilled conservation staff. It is my view that the existing guidance sets out very clearly what responsible local authorities should do. I do not believe that we should make this into a statutory duty. It is quite a serious point about what we as a government and what we as a parliament do in providing statutory duties to local authorities in a bill that is ostensibly about what a historic environment in Scotland's responsibilities should be. I think that it is far better to work together in partnership with local authorities through our shared strategy. It is a core part of the forum that I have established to take forward the strategy and the supporting working groups to look at and resolve any issues here. A good example of what we can achieve in this way is already visible, the Scottish Historic Environment data strategy was launched on 9 April 2013. It is a collaboration between national and local government experts to ensure that historic environment knowledge and skills are pulled to best effect. It has been widely welcomed in Scotland and beyond, and it is exactly the sort of innovative joint working that we need if we are to deliver upon that collective ambition for the historic environment, which has been a thread right through the strategy and the establishment of the bill. If there are local authorities who are not following guidance for whatever reasons, I believe that we should help them by working with them through shared projects such as shed rather than necessarily a statutory duty imposed upon them from this committee or this Parliament. We are not complacent on the issue and the role of maintaining advice, expertise and skills across the historic environment are key issues for the strategy to address. Several groups established as part of the strategy are looking at this, including the local and national government joint group on the historic environment. I believe that working together, collaboratively, with our local authority partners is the best way of addressing issues such as these, but it is a theme that I know that we have kept coming back to. It was raised, I think, in terms of Liam McArthur's amendments as well, but the issue is that does this bill respect the rights of local authorities to determine their own resourcing? Are you going to use this bill in a way that it was not its intention originally, because the intention of the bill is about establishing the historic environment of Scotland to add a burden that local authorities themselves have not asked for as part of the process of the bill? My view is that we should oppose this amendment. I call Neil Llywyd to wind up and to indicate whether there are issues to press or withdraw his amendment. I thank the cabinet secretary for her comments. I will reflect on the discussion and I will seek to withdraw the amendment. The member has indicated that he wishes to withdraw the amendment. Does any member object? There is no objection. The question is that section 23 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. Can I call amendment 59 in the name of the cabinet secretary? Already debated with amendment 12. Cabinet secretary, to move formally. The question is that amendment 59 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The question is that section 24 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The question is that section 25 and 26 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The question is that section 6 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The question is that section 27 to 30 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The question is that the long title be agreed to. Are we all agreed? That ends stage 2 consideration of the bill. Can I thank the cabinet secretary and her officials for attending as our next item is in private? I now close the meeting to the public.