Official Report 739KB pdf
Our next item is to take evidence from Historic Environment Scotland. Before we begin, I give members a gentle reminder that the committee does not have a role in Historic Environment Scotland’s operational decisions.
We are joined from Historic Environment Scotland by Sir Mark Jones, chair, and Andrew Davis, board member. I give you both a warm welcome and I invite Sir Mark Jones to make a brief opening statement before we move to questions.
Thank you for inviting me to be here. As you know, I started about a month ago as chair of Historic Environment Scotland, which is a part-time appointment for one or two days a week and is a non-executive role. Government guidance emphasises that board members have no authority to instruct the chief executive or any member of staff on operational matters—I mention that by way of excusing myself if you find that I am not fully informed on every aspect of HES’s operations.
I am very pleased to have been given this responsibility, if at the same time rather daunted by it. We in Scotland are very fortunate to live in a country where many aspects of our past are made present to us by and in the historic buildings that we encounter every day and the great archaeological sites that speak to us of life thousands of years ago. Elsewhere in the world—for example, in China—we see the wholesale destruction of historic buildings and the consequent, and I think now regretted, loss of that link. In many European countries we see over-restoration, which turns what was authentic into something that now seems false. Historic Scotland did, and Historic Environment Scotland continues to do, a great job in protecting historic buildings from both such fates and in informing and educating people about them.
While archaeological sites are under threat in many parts of the world, here they are meticulously recorded, archived and, where necessary, protected by HES, which provides a lead to the whole archaeological community in Scotland. When it comes to tourism, Historic Environment Scotland is responsible not only for some of our most visited and genuinely iconic buildings and sites but for hundreds of lesser-known monuments and structures, often in less-visited parts of Scotland, which help to drive the tourism economy and so bring visitors and jobs.
I mention those aspects of HES’s work because I want to emphasise that, even during this troubled period, it should be remembered that HES has many dedicated and experienced staff, who are doing a great job. That is not to deny that we have problems; clearly, we do and they need to be tackled. I certainly do not yet and probably will never have all the answers, but my aim is to do my part in returning Historic Environment Scotland to a situation in which the board and the senior management are seen to be effective leaders of an organisation that is able to concentrate on doing a much-needed and widely appreciated job.
You mentioned the troubled period that you are in, which has been played out in the press and media. What do you see as the main challenges and how will you address them?
One of the main challenges is that we have a lack of leadership. One action that I have proposed that we take is to bring in an interim chief operating officer for a six-month period to help us with that problem. That process is getting under way now, and I hope that it will be complete in the next month or so. That is one step.
It is clear that other steps are needed. It is very important that a series of investigations into grievances of various kinds is under way. Those investigations need to be concluded and then the right action needs to follow from that. I am satisfied that that is happening, but it is not the work of an instant, because there are proper procedures to be gone through, which we must make sure are observed. I hope that most of that will be concluded in the next month or two.
I will ask about relationships in general with the staff. Within its organisations, the Scottish Government promotes the fair work agenda. The current situation will have had an impact on staff morale in general. How have staff been supported by the organisation since your appointment and what will the support be going forward?
I do not know that this is since my appointment particularly, but we have a good human resources department, which is doing a good job in difficult circumstances. It ensures that people who are going through disciplinary processes are properly supported.
Thank you. We will move to questions from members.
I have a couple of quick questions and I may come back on some specifics a bit later, if that is all right. I do not want to get too involved in individuals’ situations, but will you give us an update on the current chief executive’s situation and their future—or not—in the organisation?
I cannot really properly discuss individuals, but I suppose that I can say that it is my opinion that Historic Environment Scotland needs a fully engaged chief executive. It is certainly one of my priorities to ensure that the current situation is fully resolved so that we can say that the organisation has proper leadership again.
Without referring to any individuals, do you expect there to be changes and people leaving the organisation? Have you looked at whether, as people leave, there will be a requirement for redundancy payments or golden goodbyes? Have you set anything aside for that?
There are a number of processes under way; obviously, I do not want to prejudge any of them. It would surprise me if nobody left the organisation over the next few months. I am not involved in the executive side of HES’s work and I am afraid that I cannot give you any sensible answer on redundancy payments.
Convener, I may come back a bit later with more specific questions.
In relation to your role, Sir Mark, the cabinet secretary said that you will be focused on getting the organisation back on an even keel—those are my words, not his. Do you have timescales that you are working to? Has the Government set any targets for bringing stability back? Are there markers for when things are to improve by or be resolved by, to put it that way?
No—the Government has set us no time deadlines. It is in everyone’s interests that the current situation is dealt with as speedily as is practical. That is certainly my objective.
On a practical point, are you in regular contact with the Government? Does that happen directly with HES? How is that relationship working?
I am very glad to say that I and we have received exemplary support from the Government. It has been immensely helpful to me in beginning my role at HES.
I hope that you get the feeling that our committee—I do not think that I am speaking out of turn to say this—wishes you all the best in solving this issue. However, I do not think that we can overstate the seriousness of the situation at Historic Environment Scotland. The section 22 report that the Auditor General has said that he will issue is pretty much a mayday signal in respect of the current status of Historic Environment Scotland. That means that, in effect, the Auditor General is saying, “This public body is broken and Parliament and Government must now act.”
Sir Mark, how many days a week did you say you have?
Two days currently, but normally one.
One day a week.
At the moment, it is, I think, two days a week. In normal times it is one day a week.
That is given that you are a non-executive chairman. Would it not be more helpful if the cabinet secretary were to be more proactive in supporting you by sending in a truly independent person or a couple of people to conduct an inquiry into what has happened inside HES and what needs to be done to put right the organisation? Given that you have one or two days a week, surely too much is being expected of you as a non-executive chairman.
Absolutely, and I do not think that it is my role to conduct an investigation. However, I welcome the section 22 process. I think that the three areas of study that have been chosen by Audit Scotland are the right areas, and I am sure that we will go through a rigorous and effective process to make sure that we bottom out the problems in those three areas.
I would say that the inquiry is unimpeachably independent. It is very important that we concentrate on that. I am not sure whether, at a later stage, we will need a broader inquiry into the culture at HES and if so, how that culture can be changed. It is very possible that we will do, but at the moment, my focus is on the section 22 inquiry.
Is there an on-going independent inquiry?
No. I mean at the moment.
Do you mean that there is no current inquiry into the broader issues related to the section 22 report, but you are fully supportive of the areas that the Auditor General has highlighted?
Yes.
How will we proceed? How will this be tackled internally? Will there be someone from outside the organisation who comes in to do it?
Do you mean to work with Audit Scotland?
08:45
To address the very many issues highlighted in what will be the section 22 report.
No, I think that it is important that we first work with Audit Scotland to make sure that its study is as thorough and comprehensive as it can be and that it results in findings that we can then act on.
Given the fact that HES clearly is an organisation in deep trouble and having the equivalent of a nervous breakdown, there needs to be an external intervention. Would it not be better if an independent investigation were to be appointed?
The section 22 investigation is exactly that—an independent investigation—and it is looking at the right areas.
The papers that we were given in advance of this committee reveal some extraordinary things that were not previously in the public domain. For example, it is revealed that on 2 June 2025, a set of documentation entitled, in our papers, “HES Corruption”—numbered volume 1 and so forth—was circulated to ministers, the board and Audit Scotland. Another set of these “HES Corruption” volumes was circulated as recently as last month. In June, the Scottish Government asked the board to investigate the allegations. Did that investigation happen to your knowledge?
It is under way at the moment.
When did it start?
I do not know because I was not in post at the time. Andrew, do you know when it started?
Sir Mark, I appreciate that you are a month into your role and that answering these questions is quite difficult. Andrew Davis, you were a member of the board—you have been on the board of HES for a lot longer than the few weeks that Sir Mark Jones has been the chairman. What happened when the Scottish Government asked the board to conduct an investigation into these so-called “HES Corruption” volumes?
The board appointed one of the members of the audit, risk and assurance committee to lead an investigation into these allegations. Obviously, as each volume came in, it was added to the investigation, which is why the investigation is still on-going. I believe that it started in June, but I do not have the exact date—it may have been early July.
There was an immediate investigation launched. Who did you say was conducting the investigation?
One of the ARAC board members.
It was an internal investigation and it has not reached any conclusions yet?
It has not completed yet, no.
Are you aware of what is contained within these volumes?
I am aware of what is contained within them.
What was your part in initiating the inquiry? Did you have a role to play in any of this? Can you explain your role?
I was a member of the board.
Okay. Sir Mark Jones, how many of the current board and how many of the senior management—no names—are currently suspended?
Well, no member of the board is suspended. Of the senior management—it is difficult for me to give a figure; I might well be wrong—I think that the current figure is two.
So, no members of the board are currently suspended, but two senior managers are suspended.
Can I ask you about the four-month period—at least—in which Historic Environment Scotland has had no accountable officer? Just revisiting the topic of suspension, it has been widely reported that the chief executive is suspended. Can you say whether that correct?
No, that is not correct. The chief executive and accountable officer is, in fact, currently working on the conclusion of the accounts for this year and will in due course be signing those off so that they can be submitted to Parliament.
So did Katerina Brown recently return to work?
She is at work now, yes.
Are you saying that there is no suggestion that Katerina Brown has been suspended at any time from her duties as CEO?
I really cannot comment on individuals in this way, but I can say that Katerina Brown is not suspended.
All right. So, has there not been such a period?
I am sorry, it is a difficult line for me to keep to. I am not really able to answer questions about individual members of staff.
My concern—
Stephen Kerr, I will just stop you. It would not be appropriate for the committee to become involved in individual staffing issues today.
Well, it is very relevant because the chief executive officer is the accountable officer. It is a requirement of the Scottish public finance manual that there has to be an accountable officer in the organisation.
You have been assured that that person is in post and is working.
That is why I am asking.
I think that we need to leave it there.
That is why I am asking. The question is highly relevant in respect of an organisation that is in receipt of over £70 million of public money. Is there an accountable officer? I am trying to ascertain whether there was indeed an accountable officer in HES during the period when the chief executive officer, I think it is recognised—without going into personal details—was not present at work. Andrew Davis, was there an accountable officer in HES during that time?
I believe that the accountable officer is an appointee of the Scottish Government and, therefore, I am not sure that as board members we should necessarily be speaking to what is a Scottish Government appointment.
All right. Is it the responsibility of the cabinet secretary to see that there is an accountable officer in HES?
It is not the board’s responsibility.
It is not the board’s responsibility. All right.
Freedom of information requests have shown that the HES human resources department removed an independent investigator’s recommendation that an urgent review of the organisation’s culture be carried out after staff reported a “culture of fear” and “fear of retribution”. The Auditor General has now flagged culture as a material concern, alongside the so-called “HES Corruption” volumes.
I will put these questions to Andrew Davis, who has been a director at HES for some time, because I acknowledge that it is not fair to ask Sir Mark Jones to address them. Why was the recommendation that a culture review be carried out deleted from the investigator’s report? I am quoting FOI information.
I do not know the answer.
Can I attempt to answer that?
Yes, of course.
It has not been deleted in the sense in which I think that you are suggesting. A process is under way. That recommendation did not belong in the document that was germane to that process, but there will be a proper investigation into the matters that we are talking about. That process has already begun.
Therefore, it is entirely misleading to suggest that the HR department was in some way covering up a recommendation. It is simply pursuing the recommendations in a rational order, and that particular recommendation has to come at the end of the process, not at the beginning.
But a recommendation was made on the urgent need for a review of culture as part of the independent investigator’s recommendations.
We have to deal with the individual processes first, before going on to a wider review. That is the reason why that recommendation was not in the document.
These issues have been hanging over Historic Environment Scotland for a very long time, and there does not seem to have been any action to address the concerns. There is a catalogue of concerns. While some of those concerns are in the public domain, some of them are not, but some members of the committee have become privy to them through whistleblowers.
I am deeply concerned about the lack of an urgent approach to tackling the culture issues inside HES. I am not sure that it is fair to expect Audit Scotland to be the independent investigator on those matters, although you rightly highlight that that is one of the points that are mentioned in the section 22 report remit. I put it to you, Sir Mark, as the new broom, that something more fundamental needs to be done.
Yes, and I agree with you.
Someone needs to come in to deal with these issues who is not currently part of the organisation and who has no particular dog in the fight, because there has been a lot of dog fighting in HES over the period of probably more than a year.
I agree with you; I am not disagreeing. I think that you are right. I simply think that it is sensible to try to do this in order. We have a limited resource, and we have to devote that resource fully to the section 22 investigation. I think that we will then almost certainly need to move on to another stage, which also needs to be independent, which I expect will look at ways in which HES can make a fresh start, in terms of both the way that it is structured and the behaviours that it exhibits. I think that that wider bit of work will need to follow on from the conclusion of the section 22 study.
Earlier, in answer to Jamie Halcro Johnston’s question, you said that it is almost certain that some people will have to leave HES in order for that to happen.
I wonder whether I can tempt you to answer this very simple question. Would it be helpful from a resource point of view—you specifically mentioned resource, and we have not yet talked about the current finances of HES—to you as the new chair of HES if the cabinet secretary were to resource an independent investigation? By “independent”, I mean independent of the Scottish Government and independent of HES. Would it be useful to you in your work, in relation to the charge that Angus Robertson has given you as the new chairman of HES, if Angus Robertson were to initiate that form of independent inquiry, which would deal primarily with the whole culture of the organisation?
As I have said, the cabinet secretary has been extremely supportive to me personally and to HES as an organisation. It is too early for me to say what form the wider study needs to take. I agree that there needs to be such a thing, but I think that, when we come to that point, the question of how we resource it will certainly arise. I am hoping that the Government will support us at that stage, but I am not saying that we have any specific request at the moment.
I have two last questions for Andrew Davis before I give way, the first of which is about how many times in the past four and a half years the HES board has met the Cabinet Secretary for Constitution, External Affairs and Culture. In that period, how many times has the board had a meeting with the cabinet secretary?
I am not aware of any such meetings.
You have had no such meetings at all—there have been no meetings between Angus Robertson and the board.
Not that I am aware of.
Okay. That is quite an interesting and revealing statement, in and of itself.
With regard to the organisation’s current finances, it has been publicly discussed that there is currently a shortfall of between £4.5 million and £5 million in this year’s budget. Can you bring us up to speed on where HES’s finances are?
Yes. The half-year finances are in balance. Overall commercial income is up 9 per cent year on year—it is part of the new business model to try to drive up commercial income. The plan is slightly behind where we would like it to be. Expenditure is up 7 per cent. Therefore, we are broadly in balance with where we would expect to be. We are running a significant surplus, but that is expected at this time of year, because we are at the peak of the income streams from the summer season. The expectation is that we will be in balance at the end of the year.
09:00Next week, a paper will come to my finance committee that will look at the forecast for the rest of the year. When I look at the balance of risks and opportunities for the rest of the year, I think that there are slightly more in the way of opportunities than there are in the way of risks, so I am very comfortable with the position of the finances as they stand and with the projection for the full year.
Is it correct to say that the new business model predates Katerina Brown’s appointment?
It straddles it, I think. A lot of the work was done under Alex Paterson, but the final agreements were made under Katerina Brown.
Thank you.
Before we move on to the next member, I would like to ask a question. The Scottish Government sponsorship team has been attending board meetings since May. Could you give us a bit of information about what its role is? Is the sponsorship team’s role purely observational or has it been able to offer any support and advice to the board at this time? That question is probably not for Sir Mark Jones, given the timescale for which he has been in post.
The SG has been able to offer advice, guidance and a perspective in board meetings.
Thank you very much.
Good morning, Sir Mark. While the activity that you have just described is under way, the HES has other, important work. In your opening statement you alluded to the importance of your organisation’s work to communities up and down the country. While that change of culture is taking place, I am interested to know what is being done to build community confidence in the work that you do. I should say that you have made some progress on this, but I am thinking specifically about the 5 per cent of sites that are still closed, with only partial access to many others. How is the organisation balancing the period of reflection that you have described with the work of reopening sites?
As you say, many of our properties were closed as a result of issues to do with high-level masonry posing a risk to visitors. As you also say, 95 per cent are now open—not all of them are fully open, but 95 per cent are open. Clearly, our hope and intention is to continue that process because it is very important that as near to all our sites as possible should be fully open. That is part of the contribution that we make to the preservation of these sites and to the tourism economy throughout Scotland.
The media storm about Historic Environment Scotland is undoubtedly disturbing to everyone who works there. Nevertheless, I think that most people are continuing to work very much at full stretch and that we are continuing to make progress on the issues that you mentioned.
Is there a plan now in place? I appreciate that you cannot have every site open all the time for reasons of conservation work and all sorts of things, but is there a plan now in place that you have confidence will be enacted to ensure that something closer to 100 per cent of sites are open?
Yes. That is very much something that is in process. I am confident that we are making good progress on that.
Clearly, many aspects of the range of issues have been reported in the press, including different dimensions of the situation at HES, all of which will have compounded the damage done to the public’s trust in the organisation and its reputation. I want to move on to the allegations of racism.
You will be aware, I am sure, that we are in a very dangerous time at the moment as a society, with overt racism as well as other forms of prejudice—anti-immigrant prejudice, homophobia, transphobia, antisemitism and Islamophobia—being normalised at a very high level. It is hugely important that a public organisation—particularly one that has a role in telling Scotland’s story of itself to us and to the world—takes these issues very seriously.
I will obviously not press you to get involved inappropriately in individual staff management issues. However, my first question is whether you have rejected the accuracy of any of the media reports that have been published about the allegations of racism and, in particular, about the damage that those allegations have done to your relationship with the University of Glasgow, which, it is reported, has suspended a joint project that you were working on with it in relation to slavery and empire. Are those media reports accurate, or have you challenged their accuracy?
I cannot honestly speak to the entire range of media reports, but I think that, broadly, they are accurate, yes. I am aware, I think, of two allegations of racism, one that occurred a year and a bit ago, and one that was a bit more recent. We have taken both of those very seriously. In one case, the situation was dealt with. In the other case, there is a live investigation that has not yet concluded.
I am sorry, but could you speak up a little?
Sorry. There is a live investigation that has not yet concluded.
Okay. There are two aspects to what I want to ask you about. One is about accuracy and, in particular, the accuracy of the suggestion that the allegation has damaged or ended a relationship that you had with the University of Glasgow on a project around slavery and empire. Do you know whether that suggestion is accurate and whether there is the potential to repair the damage to the organisation’s reputation so that such work can recommence?
I am afraid that I do not know.
I wonder whether it would be possible for you to follow up in writing and let us know the status of that work. It is an issue that the committee has been interested in previously.
Yes, we can do that.
Secondly, I would like to ask how you can reassure us, and by doing so reassure the public, that, as an organisation, you will have a zero-tolerance attitude to racism and other forms of prejudice, bearing in mind not only the special responsibility that all public bodies have but the particular role of your organisation in expressing something of Scotland’s essential identity, character and story? How can you reassure us of that?
All that I can say is that it is very clear that the board and the organisation as a whole are committed to zero tolerance of any of the forms of prejudice or discrimination that you referred to.
Zero tolerance to me would mean that those who have been found to have expressed racist views or attitudes would no longer have a role in the organisation. Is that your understanding of what the phrase “zero tolerance” means?
No. That is not my understanding. My understanding is that it means that wherever it is encountered it will be dealt with appropriately.
Okay. Thank you.
Good morning, Sir Mark and Mr Davis. First, I reiterate other members’ acknowledgement of the fact that you are new to your role, Sir Mark. I, too, wish you well with resolving the very many issues that there are in the organisation. However, I also make clear that I think that we need to see decisive action being taken quickly to resolve those issues.
I will follow on from Mr Harvie’s point about responding to media reports. Our Scottish Parliament information centre briefing today helpfully points out that:
“There have been a range of media reports that have highlighted concerns over governance issues and the internal culture at HES. At the time of writing, HES has not published a formal response or statement on any of these issues on the News section of its website.”
Given everything that has been in the public domain and all the issues and allegations, why is that the case? Why has an organisation that is facing so many allegations, concerns and issues not published on its website a response to the very many issues that have been raised? Is that a deliberate strategy? What does it say about the culture of HES that no response to any of the allegations has been put on the website?
I am not clear that there has been no response. I know that we have been in touch with the different media organisations and that we have certainly tried to correct stories where they are incorrect.
But there is nothing on the website.
Right. Well, I do not think that I really have a good answer for you, except that I will take that away with me and I will try to get back to you on it.
Thank you.
One of the issues that I will come back to in a minute is the need for openness and transparency, and the need to address the very many issues that there are. As has been said, we have seen allegations of racism and other impropriety, concerns about financial mismanagement, and concerns about a culture of fear, a culture of spin and a culture of secrecy. We have used the word “culture” a lot, and it is clear to me that we need a review of the culture in HES, which, as Mr Kerr said, should be an independent review.
You mentioned earlier that a culture review would not take place until the individual processes were resolved. When do you expect those processes to be resolved?
Over the next couple of months.
The next couple of months—okay.
Now that there is an intervention from Audit Scotland, which is doing its section 22 report, and Parliament is asking questions, do you not think that HES should be ordering its own independent culture review?
I do, but I think that we should do that after we have concluded our work with Audit Scotland on the section 22 inquiry.
Do you not think that, if Audit Scotland is looking at the culture of the organisation, it may assist that inquiry if HES showed that it was turning a corner or trying to address the issues itself and ordering its own independent culture review?
I take your point. I am non-executive, but, nevertheless, I cannot help but notice that we have a very small number of staff who are trying to deal with a large number of issues. I think that launching an inquiry that runs in parallel with the section 22 inquiry simply would not be practical in terms of the amount of resource that it would take. It is not just a question of bringing in more resource from outside; we need the people who are actually in the organisation and familiar with the way it works to be able to participate fully. My opinion, as someone who has some experience of organisations of this kind, is that we need to take things in order, because we can only resource it properly if we do that.
When you are trying to find a solution to any problem, you need to understand that problem first. I think that having that culture review and addressing the issues needs to happen as soon as possible.
I want to go back to the issue of transparency. This very much relates to the Parliament and scrutiny by the Parliament. In September, I put a question to Alison Turnbull from HES. I asked:
“I understand that, in June 2024, HES budgeted for a 2 per cent increase in pay despite the Scottish Government having set out a public sector pay policy just two months before that suggested an increase of 3 per cent in the public sector. Is that correct? Is that your understanding? What does it say about your organisation’s financial planning if it is not adhering to the Scottish Government’s pay policy?”
The response was:
“We do adhere to the Scottish Government’s pay policy. I am not aware of the instance that you mention. We will get back to you on that.”—[Official Report, Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee, 11 September 2025; c 29.]
HES sent a letter after the meeting and gave us a one-line response on that. It said
“For 2025-26 HES budgeted a 3 per cent annual cost of living pay increase in line with Scottish Government pay policy.”
That may predate your time, Sir Mark. Mr Davis, did HES at any point budget for a 2 per cent pay increase in 2025-26?
09:15
No. The 3 per cent was in the budget. The 2 per cent figure to which you are referring was part of a financial strategy paper, which was work that had been on-going for some time and looked at sensitivities for the new financial model. There was a 2 per cent figure—that is not made up—but it was not the budgeted figure. The budget was based on 3 per cent.
I have a couple of follow-up questions on that. My understanding was that a presentation was given to senior managers in August of this year referencing that 2 per cent increase and the 3 per cent increase in public sector pay policy. When I asked that question and we got a follow-up letter, why did we not get the response that you just gave me? Why did the committee just get a one-liner that said, “We always adhered to the 3 per cent policy,” and which did not talk about the financial strategy being 2 per cent—
I am sorry—I could not tell you exactly why that answer was the one that was given.
Well, I certainly cannot say why that happened.
I am here to ask questions on behalf of the committee. My original question was about financial management and financial strategies. Clearly, budgeting for 2 per cent and increasing it to 3 per cent suggests that the financial strategy that was in place was not sufficient, because the budget had to be increased to 3 per cent. That was my original question.
My subsequent question today is that there are not only financial management issues in that regard but transparency issues. Parliament is asking questions about the financial strategy and public sector pay, yet we are given one-line answers that do not go into what was clearly an increase in the budget in line with public sector pay policy, which was not originally budgeted for. You may not be able to comment on the specifics, but clearly there are concerns about financial management and transparency within the organisation. Would you agree?
To be honest, I do not think that I would. Within the organisation, we were clear at finance committee and at board as to what assumptions were being made when we looked at things. Any assumption that you make in financial modelling is simply that—it is an assumption.
You do not think that there are any issues with transparency when HES provides a one-line answer that does not go into the detail of the answer that you just gave me.
Sorry—I thought your question was about the situation within the organisation, which I was answering. You have had an answer to the specific question; I was not—
It did not answer the premise of my question.
If it did not answer the premise of your question, we must apologise for that. I hope that you have a clear answer now.
I have a clear answer now, but I do not have a clear answer on the issues around transparency and the culture in HES. I think that there are more questions than answers, given what I also said about the lack of statements on the website. I will leave it there just now, convener.
Thank you. I think that Mr Kerr has a small supplementary.
I do. Thank you, convener, for your indulgence. I want to go back to Stephen Boyle’s letter to me on Friday, in which he said:
“I am also concerned that Historic Environment Scotland has operated without an Accountable Officer for an extended period”.
On the basis of what I have heard this morning, I am now unclear about this. The chief executive officer of HES was not in the business; therefore, there was no accountable officer. Is that right? You went without one for a length of time—the letter refers to “an extended period”.
There was a period of time when the chief executive officer was out of the business and was still the nominated accountable officer.
However, Stephen Boyle says in his letter that you were operating without an accountable officer. He is correct, is he not? That is one of the bases for the section 22 report.
I think that his premise probably is correct, but it is technical whether she was still the accountable officer—I could not tell you whether she was still the accountable officer, but she was not in the business.
She was clearly not. In Audit Scotland’s letter, that is one of the issues that is highlighted as promoting the need for a section 22 report, which is an extreme measure on the part of the Auditor General.
Did the board discuss at any time during the period when the CEO was out of the business the issue that you were operating without an accountable officer? I have already referred to the Scottish public finance manual. Was that issue discussed?
Did the board discuss it? Yes. Is it a matter for the board? No. It is a matter for the Scottish Government.
Did you seek to communicate with the Scottish Government about the issue of the lack of an accountable officer? Did you communicate with the Government? Did you point the issue out to it? Did you ask for a new accountable officer?
As far as I am aware, the Scottish Government was fully apprised of the position of the accountable officer.
By the board?
By the board and by the chief executive.
By the chief executive?
Yes. There is a requirement on her, which she fulfilled, to keep the Scottish Government informed. The accountable officer reports to the Scottish Government and not to the board; therefore, in her role, she appropriately contacted the Scottish Government.
So, you and the board were saying to the Scottish Government, “We do not have an accountable officer. We understand the regulation and the requirement. We do not have one. Will you give us one?” Was that your request?
That is not a role for the board.
So, what did you do? Did you just point out that you did not have one but not say, “We need one”? Was it understood that you were saying, “We need an accountable officer because we do not have one in the business”?
It is not for the board to determine who the accountable officer is and how they are appointed.
I was not referring to who the accountable officer should be; I was asking whether you asked the Scottish Government for an accountable officer because, to use Stephen Boyle’s words, the accountable officer was out of the business for “an extended period”?
No, we did not ask it because it is not our role as a board to appoint or to have appointed an accountable officer.
Why did you point out that there was no accountable officer if that is nothing to do with you? You are aware of the requirements under the Scottish public finance manual. You were presumably pointing it out on the basis that you thought that you should have one.
We communicate regularly with the Scottish Government, and the Scottish Government was at that stage in the board meetings.
You are dancing around my question. It is a very simple question. Did you ask the Scottish Government to appoint an accountable officer?
No, we did not. It is not the role of the board to ask.
You pointed it out to the Government, so presumably there is a written communication or a minute somewhere that says, “We are pointing out to you formally that we do not have an accountable officer”.
I could not tell you whether there is exactly that.
Really? It is a big deal not having an accountable officer. It is a big enough deal that the Auditor General will issue a section 22 report.
It is not the board’s responsibility; it is not our business.
You do not know, as a director, whether there was such communication on this huge issue. I am really surprised by that, I have to say.
Mr Kerr, I think that we have had the answer that we are going to get.
I agree.
However, if there is such a minute or if the matter was discussed, perhaps the committee could be informed of that after today’s session. We will move on.
Thank you, convener.
My last question is to Sir Mark Jones. There have been a lot of whistleblowers, and I should declare an interest and make it clear with reference to my entry in the register of members’ interests that I passionately believe in the importance of a culture where people can speak up. However, it is interesting that some public comments, even from a trade union leader, have been disparaging towards people who have had the courage to speak up. I ask you to affirm, as the chair of HES, that you understand the importance of whistleblowers and that you have no negative view of people who feel that they have no internal recourse and who reach out to someone it is appropriate for them to speak to under the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 to share their concerns with or ask to do something on their behalf. Will you affirm that you personally, and on behalf of the organisation, would actively encourage people to speak up?
I am clear that it is important that people should be able to whistleblow when they feel that that is the recourse available to them and that they are not satisfied with the normal internal processes. Absolutely—it is clearly important that people should feel able to do that.
Good. Thank you very much.
I have just a few more questions. I would like to go back to the chief executive. Sir Mark, or perhaps Andrew Davis, are you aware of any actions that have had to be taken to accommodate Katerina Brown coming back, albeit just to sign off or work on the accounts?
I am afraid that I really do not think that I can or should discuss the details of an individual’s working arrangements.
It was quite widely reported in the media that Katerina Brown posted on LinkedIn:
“Sometimes we need a wee reminder ... the story depends on who is telling it”.
What role will Katerina Brown play or is she playing in any changes within the organisation and any investigations, inquiries and so on?
I cannot really comment on what will happen in the future because to do that I would need to have information that I do not yet have. There are processes under way that will need to conclude before I can give any answer to that.
On timescales, I am sorry if I missed this, but you are in the process of recruiting or appointing an interim chief operating officer. Do you know how long that will take? Do you have candidates who are already being considered? I take it that it will be somebody external rather than internal?
I think that it is likely to be somebody external. I do not have a timetable. I would expect it to take weeks rather than months. We are moving on it as quickly as we can.
My last question is slightly different.
You answered some questions from Dr Allan on closures. You will appreciate that all that is happening is a great distraction from the work of the organisation. This is a slightly smaller example—and I will get the pronunciation wrong—but I have had raised with me the case of the Knocknagael stone, a Pictish carving that is more than 1,000 years old that it is alleged is not being looked after properly. A colleague of mine has written to Highland Council about it; the stone is under its care although it is your responsibility. No action has been taken in months.
Is there a concern that some of the bread-and-butter, day-to-day things—I know that these are not your responsibility—that HES is there to do, which are to protect our heritage, are not being done because there is so much going on in other parts of the organisation? Is the organisation fit for purpose in doing that primary job of protecting Scotland’s heritage?
Yes, I believe that HES continues to do a good job in its primary role and that the whole range of work that we do to protect sites, promote the restoration of historic buildings, look after HES’s own 300 sites and so on is continuing and is being done well. I do not know about the particular thing that you refer to, but I would be glad to look into it. Certainly, it is part of our role to be aware of any threat to ancient monuments or scheduled sites.
I would be very impressed if you were aware of it. The concern is that there is so much going on that perhaps attention may not be on some of the day-to-day operations.
I am keenly looking forward to making the visits that would enable me to answer you more fully and more sensibly, but I have not been able to start those yet.
09:30
Good morning, everyone, and apologies for being a wee bit later. I might have been as well not coming, however, because there seems to be more that we cannot ask you than we can ask you. You can understand how concerning and frustrating it is for us—as I suspect it is for you—that you are not able to give us straight answers. Sir Mark, when you got this role and you first had to deal with these issues, your first public statement was:
“My priorities as chairman will be to ensure the organisation can build on its recent successes and retain the trust of the public and our partners”.
Without going into individual things, how are you going to do that, in light of how public all the allegations are that have been made regarding the organisation? How are you going to regain trust after everything that has happened very publicly?
The route to that is first to ensure that the investigations that are under way are concluded and that the issues in question are dealt with and the public can see that they have been dealt with effectively. That is one aspect.
Another aspect is strengthening the management of the organisation so that people can see that it is well led. I think that if we get those two things right we can begin the process of turning attention from the issues that have predominated in the media recently to what I would prefer to concentrate on, which is the good work that HES does in looking after and making policy on the historic environment.
Sir Mark, your record speaks for itself. You are dealing with the situation now to try to fix it. One of the other things that you said in that statement was:
“openness, transparency and good governance is at the heart of everything that we do.”
That is important. Can I get a commitment now, which I think that you have hinted at, that as you go through this process, the committee will be able to get information and be involved? Like you, we want you to succeed, but the problem is that you are a public organisation and allegations have been made very publicly, so we must find a way to get to the other end. Given that openness and transparency are at the heart of everything that you are doing, can we ensure that the committee is involved as well?
Yes.
Thank you.
Thank you. I think that exhausts questions from the committee this morning. Sir Mark and Mr Davis, thank you very much for your attendance this morning. I will suspend the meeting for five minutes.
09:33 Meeting suspended.Air adhart
Sporting Events of National Interest