Meeting of the Parliament 19 June 2014
I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the stage 1 debate on the Historic Environment Scotland Bill. It has appeared to me for some time, during the evidence sessions of the Education and Culture Committee—and, indeed, this afternoon—that there is no groundswell of objection to the proposed merger of Historic Scotland and RCAHMS. Some people will be more enthusiastic than others, but I have no doubt that Parliament will support the principles of the bill at decision time today.
Moving forward, the critical issue will be how the cabinet secretary and the Scottish Government respond to the concerns and issues that have been raised. A number of reassurances, points of clarification and amendments will be required.
I echo members’ thanks to the committee clerks for their support and for arranging the opportunity to meet key stakeholders in Orkney. Orkney has a great many historical sites and experts, and our worthwhile and helpful visit raised a number of questions and issues. For example, we heard confusion from stakeholders about the exact division of responsibilities in the roles that historic environment Scotland, Marine Scotland and Scottish ministers will play in relation to the marine environment. As the committee report states, it appears that decision making on submerged archaeological sites sits with Marine Scotland rather than with historic environment Scotland, yet the historic environment strategy is to encompass sites under water. I am sure that we would all welcome clarity from the cabinet secretary on that.
During our Orkney visit, the issue of local decision making was also raised, as other members have said. Local groups highlighted the need to guard against centralised decision making on the historic environment. I acknowledge what the cabinet secretary has said about the importance of local partnerships, but as the bill progresses we need to consider how we can ensure that that is underpinned and guaranteed.
More generally, there has been considerable discussion among witnesses from across Scotland and the committee on funding—how charitable status could affect the new body and other funding implications. From a personal point of view, I have not seen enough evidence to conclude fully what the financial impact will be on the new body and other organisations. We need to avoid making grand assumptions about whether shortfalls will be created and whether they will be made up in this case, because we do not have the evidence at the moment. I note what the cabinet secretary said earlier about funding, but we need to look further at the financial implications.