Seòmar agus comataidhean

Not only were all those matters shared with us by whistleblowers; they were things that were, and have been, increasingly covered in the media, especially in the past year. I do not recall those issues being flagged publicly much before then.

If I can finish my answer, Mr Kerr. After she had taken up office, it then became increasingly clear—and it was reported back to me—that issues of concern within Historic Environment Scotland were beginning to be reflected in a disconnect between the board and the incoming chief executive.

I made a judgment in all of this, notwithstanding the fact that there might have been one or more strains of challenge—in other words, generic challenges. After all, as we know, all organisations have human resources issues.

But in terms of this accelerating into such a serious problem that the Scottish Government sponsorship team and I as the cabinet secretary became aware of it—bearing in mind the point I made previously that the organisation is operationally independent—it was the deterioration of the relationship between the board and the chief executive after she had taken up office and the beginnings of grievance procedures that meant that the issue became something of an altogether different order.

08:45

These are organisationally independent bodies.

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

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

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

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

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

Convener, if I may—

I am not even able to—

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

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

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