Scottish Government

Main findings

• An overarching view was that the consultation was timely and sensible. The responses were wide-ranging, based on personal or professional experience and provided a depth of comment of much value to feed into the wider review of Historic Scotland currently being undertaken
• Criticism tended to be constructive with responses containing much in the way of praise for aspects of current performance
• An overriding message was the need for a central body to undertake functions relating to the built heritage, but there was some doubt over whether Historic Scotland as currently organised and operating was the appropriate body
• Qualities required of such a central body emerged as "independent", "neutral", able to champion the cause of the built heritage, with adequate funding to underpin its functions
• There was a call for such a body to have a much broader remit than Historic Scotland has at present, and to be responsible for the entire historic environment
• There was much debate on the merits and disadvantages of Historic Scotland remaining as an Executive Agency or changing in organisational structure, perhaps to a NDPB. No clear cut recommendation emerged from the responses with strong arguments presented for both the status quo and NDPB status
• Some respondents perceived a conflict of interest between Historic Scotland's current advisory and planning roles and also in its promotion of its own properties whilst supporting other bodies with theirs. Possible ways of addressing these perceived conflicts were presented
• Other criticisms included a concern about Historic Scotland's apparent lack of accountability and transparency. Further investigation of such comments are recommended in order to understand and address them appropriately
• Calls were made for Historic Scotland to be more open in operation with stakeholders and to improve its communication with the public
• Many respondents perceived the need for some decentralisation of aspects of Historic Scotland's functions in order to promote better communication and understanding of its more geographically dispersed stakeholders

Introduction

Established in 1991, Historic Scotland is an Executive Agency within the Scottish Executive Education Department. Executive Agencies are subject to regular reviews of their status and functions. The planned review of Historic Scotland in 1999 was postponed because of devolution and in 2003 Scottish Ministers announced that the review should now proceed. The review is being carried out independently of Historic Scotland.

The views of stakeholders are important to the review and have been sought through a written consultation process, the results of which are reported in summary here. Individual responses to the consultation have also been made publicly available.

The consultation document raised a series of questions around each of 4 broad topic areas:

• Role and Strategy
• Planning and Structure
• Performance
• Partnerships and Stakeholders

The consultation period ran from 25 June 2003 until 17 September 2003 before being extended to the end of September to accommodate late submissions. Around 260 copies of the document were distributed with the document also placed on the Scottish Executive website, with hyperlinks to review papers. A link to the consultation paper was also available on the Historic Scotland website.

By the end of September 131 responses to the consultation had been received by the Review Team. The analysis was based on the comments contained in these.

Aims and Objectives

The aim of the research was to analyse the comments contained in written responses to the consultation on the "Review of Historic Scotland", to present the findings of the analysis and to identify any gaps in respondent sector.

Methodology

Responses to the consultation were sent to the Review Team either in hard copy or via e-mail. The Review Team sent copies of each response to the research team at George Street Research.

An electronic ACCESS database was used to store and assist analysis of the responses. The main challenge for the analysis was the relatively large quantity of detailed free text material submitted by professional stakeholders.

The ACCESS fields used to record the material were based largely on the questions set out in the consultation document. Once responses had been examined, a small number of additional fields were added to accommodate any further themes which arose.

A small team of researchers worked through all responses using a well established set of ground-rules which served to promote consistency in handling and recording of the comments contained in the responses. Comments on the topics raised in the consultation were extracted from the responses and entered into the ACCESS database under the appropriate fields.

The analysis of comments was then undertaken based on the extracts contained in the database and reference to the original submissions as required. Most of the analysis was qualitative in nature although where scope for quantitative analysis existed, this was exploited.

The views presented were not vetted in any way for factual accuracy but represent what respondents perceived to be accurate from their perspective, but which others may interpret differently.

Role and Strategy

There was general agreement on the advantages of housing responsibility for a variety of built heritage functions under one roof, particularly in terms of enhancing leadership and raising the profile of the built heritage. There were mixed views, however, on whether Historic Scotland, as currently constituted, is the appropriate body to undertake these functions. A general agreement emerged on the need to review Historic Scotland's functions with a view to rationalisation, outsourcing certain functions, reducing opportunity for conflicts of interest and identifying priorities.

A wide range of negative consequences of discontinuing with the functions were envisaged. Key amongst these was a perceived increased risk of the gradual deterioration of the built heritage condition and stock. Two possible candidates for possible off-loading of functions to other bodies were perceived to be the upkeep and promotion of the Properties in Care, and Historic Scotland's statutory and legislative casework.

Some respondents considered that there would be benefits in Historic Scotland taking on certain statutory functions currently undertaken by local authorities, and suggested a larger role for Historic Scotland in monitoring results of actions and decisions relating to the built heritage. An increased role for Historic Scotland in area conservation was also identified.

There was pressure for Historic Scotland to concentrate on strengthening and clarifying its existing functions and providing more support for others to take forward built heritage work. Calls were made for Historic Scotland to adopt more of a champion's mantle with a stronger, more pro-active approach.

Views were very mixed on whether there was scope for the rationalisation of the functions of Historic Scotland with those of other bodies. The most common view was in favour of rationalisation of functions with RCAHMS. Another common views was in favour of rationalisation of the tourism related functions of Historic Scotland, NTS and VisitScotland.

Several respondents perceived a strong link between Historic Scotland's objectives and the guiding themes and values of the Scottish Executive, and the Scottish Parliament. However, for a significant number of others, the links lacked clarity, or were partial and could be developed further.

There was a general agreement on Historic Scotland's alignment with the promotion of a Scottish cultural identity and its promotion of equal opportunities through improving access to buildings for those with disabilities and families with children.

Planning and Structure

The issue of Historic Scotland's organisational structure drew more comment than any other consultation issue. However, any change to structure was not viewed as clear cut, with advantages and drawbacks associated with all options under consideration. Consultees cautioned about making changes which could be detrimental to the currently perceived good work of Historic Scotland.

Overall, most responses fell between those advocating the status quo and those wishing to see Historic Scotland's status change to that of an NDPB. The main advantage of the status quo option was its provision of some independence yet the retention of a closeness to government. The main advantages of the NDPB option were seen to be the greater facility for Historic Scotland to act as a champion of its cause, and the reduction of the perceived conflicts between particular functions of Historic Scotland.

An argument was made for a re-structuring of Historic Scotland within its current organisational framework with possible de-centralisation of some functions and the opening up of its management board to non-executive members.

Comments were made regarding creating more freedoms for Historic Scotland. A common view was that a move to NDPB status would create more freedom and flexibility particularly by the disengagement of Historic Scotland from its current close relationship with the Scottish Executive. Other ideas for increased freedom were the loosening of current structural and contextual restraints; better partnership and liaison arrangements; more funding; greater synchronisation of budget cycles with stakeholders and permission to carry forward funding over financial years.

A common viewpoint was that the current corporate planning system was generally effective. A move to a longer term planning cycle was welcomed.

A recurring theme was the need for more consultation to feed into corporate planning with many suggestions made for changes to corporate planning content. A call was made for a broader, top-down, more creative leadership steer to corporate planning.

Performance

There was much appreciation of what was seen as Historic Scotland's effective performance to date. Its performance against its targets was viewed as impressive but there was concern that the targets did not represent a comprehensive picture of functions.

The targets were perceived as being too quantitative in focus at the expense of qualitative assessment. They were also criticised for what was viewed as their focus on process rather than outcomes.

Many suggestions were made for more that could be done and further performance measures which could be adopted. Calls were repeated for the introduction of targets with a qualitative focus and an emphasis on outcome.

Suggestions were made for more detailed performance measures which incorporated a baseline against which to measure progress.

It was considered that establishing a performance framework compatible with that of the Scottish Executive and local authorities would be advantageous.

Calls were made for consultation to feed into a review of current performance targets.

In comparison with English Heritage, Historic Scotland was seen as less pro-active in promoting the historic environment. English Heritage was also seen as having more productive relationships with its stakeholders. However, Historic Scotland compared well against English Heritage in terms of its technical research and publications.

SNH was perceived as being more pro-active than Historic Scotland at promoting its aims and objectives to the public.

Respondents highlighted a lack of comparator information which made it difficult to assess Historic Scotland's performance and recommended research or peer review to fill this gap.

Partnerships and Stakeholders

Most of those who responded reported a clear understanding of Historic Scotland's role. Weaknesses in understanding focused on strategic issues as opposed to operational/case issues and on Historic Scotland's role in providing advice and guidance.

A recurring theme was Historic Scotland's poor level of communication with stakeholders and the public. Historic Scotland was perceived by some to lack reciprocity in understanding of stakeholders' business, roles and constraints.

Respondents reporting positive views on their relationship with Historic Scotland outstripped those reporting negative views in a ratio of roughly 2:1. Some respondents were most appreciative of what they saw as a very productive relationship, others considered that the relationship was poor and/or could be improved.

Commonly quoted factors which curtailed the building of productive relationships included geographical distance between Historic Scotland's headquarters and the stakeholder and the perceived frequently changing personnel at Historic Scotland and their lack of knowledge of the wider planning process.

Respondents made a wide range of suggestions as to how relationships might be strengthened. These ranged from relatively simple ideas to more sophisticated proposals. More generalisable comments included: increased contact between Historic Scotland and its stakeholders; a decentralising of some of Historic Scotland's functions; its adoption of a more open and transparent stance; and a greater understanding of stakeholders' concerns.

Local authorities were the most commonly identified stakeholders in need of closer links with Historic Scotland.

The main difficulties reported were in setting up meetings and discussions with Historic Scotland and its perceived lack of approachability, its inflexibility and particular weakness in relation to involvement in local issues.

An overarching perception was of Historic Scotland's poor public image, fuelled by particular media coverage. There was a perception that the public lacked awareness of what Historic Scotland did. Many ideas were presented for improving Historic Scotland's accessibility and responsiveness to the wider public.

There was a general perception that the promotion of its purposes and services was a valid activity for Historic Scotland. Most of those who responded thought that Historic Scotland promoted all or some of its role and services effectively or generally well. However, many consultees considered that the promotion of all or some of Historic Scotland's role and services could be greatly enhanced.

Of those who responded, just under three-quarters had confidence in Historic Scotland as a body with which they could do business.

Many respondents, however, specified a number of changes which they considered would increase the effectiveness of Historic Scotland in delivering its functions.

For some, the current organisational framework was a major barrier to more effective delivery of Historic Scotland's functions.

Overview of Consultation

The consultation responses were wide ranging and varied. They represented the views of a broad range of stakeholder sectors enabling both sector specific and generalisable comments to be presented.

Many respondents used the consultation paper structure as a framework for articulating their views. Others, however, used the issues raised as stimuli for in-depth comments on particular issues of most relevance to their organisation. From the nature of the responses it appeared that consultees had ample opportunity to express their views on the specific questions posed and on any other relevant issued they wished to raise.

The consultation attracted a relatively high volume of responses in relation to the number of bodies invited to respond. Respondents appeared to be satisfied with their access to the consultation papers, the advertising of the consultation and the time allowed for responses.