irectorate for the Built Environment
rchitecture
and Place Division
: 0131-244 7476 F:0131-244 7949
The Scottish
:
[email address]
Government
r Wyllie
[email address]
our ref:
[email address]
ur ref:
Fol/10/00022
3 February 2010
ank you for your email requests dated 30 December 2009 and 12 January 2010 under the
F eedom of Information
(Scotland) Act 2002, for information
col tained in any minutes of
eetings or correspondence
since 1st January 2008 between Mini ters or officials and any of
t e three bodies concerned in the rationalisation and streamlinin
of the Royal Commission
o
the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Scotland (RCAHMS)
Historic Scotland and the
N tiona I Archives of Scotland (NAS).
e have completed our search for the information you request, an
I have provided the
r levant information we hold on meetings and correspondence
in the form of complete and
a curate extracts from our records as part of this letter and in the attached annexes. While
w
have endeavoured to provide information whenever possible, e~emptions under section
3 (b)(i)&(ii) of the Act apply to some of the information in the serie~of e-mail exchanges
d ring this period between officials and representatives of the 3 bo ies - see
annex 12.
T ese exemptions apply because disclosure of the information wo~ld be likely to inhibit
s bstantially the free and frank provision of advice and the free anclffrank exchange of views
fa the purposes of deliberation.
J
A
the exemption is conditional we have applied the 'public interes test'. This means we
h ve, in all the circumstances
of this case, considered if the public interest in disclosing the
in ormation outweighs the exemption.
We have found that, on bal~nce, the public interest
Ii
in favour of upholding the exemption.
We recognise that there ,is a public interest in
di cussions about the future of public bodies but we believe that this will largely be met by
th
information which we are providing.
In our view there is a greater public interest in
e suring that Ministers and officials have some private space within which they can have
fr e and frank discussions about issues such as this, without fear t~at all details of those
di cussions will be prematurely released.
MEETINGS
Linda Fabiani, as Minister for Europe, External Affairs and Culture, and her officials met with
representatives
of RCAHMS to discuss these matters during the period concerned 0
21
August 2008 and 11 December 2008.
The 21 August meeting was with the Chair,
ice-
Chair and Chief Execut,ve of RCAHMS to discuss alternative options for delivery of rei
ant
benefits envisaged by the Scottish Government's
Simplification
programme.
Ms Fa iani
sent a minute to the Scbttish Government Chief Architect after the meeting which was c
ied
to the Chief Executive~ of Historic Scotland and NAS.
Information
from this meeti g is
I
included as
annex 1. ~he meeting on 11 December was with the Chair and Chief Exec tive
of RCAHMS to discu~s the view taken by the Scottish
Cabinet on 2 December
2 08,
regarding the future of RCAHMS in relation to the other 2 bodies. No minutes were ke t of
this meeting, but detail
of this are included in the Minister's subsequent
letter, inform tion
from which is included
t
annex 4.
Ms Fabiani had discus ions with the Chief Executive of NAS during this period on 19 A
ust
2008 and 6 September 12008. The 19 August meeting was a telephone conversation an the
16 September discussion
was part of a meeting to discuss a wider range of topics
No
minute was made of either conversation.
I
j
Ms Fabiani met with re resenta tives of Historic Scotland on a regular basis (usually mon hly)
as part of her portfolio responsibilities
to discuss the work of the Agency.
During so
e of
these meetings there
ere discussions
about proposals being considered for the futu e of
RCAHMS, including the rationalisation
and streamlining
of the 3 bodies, but the mee ings
were one to one, and n~ written records of the meetings were taken.
1
I can confirm that a nu
ber of meetings also took place between the Minister's officials and
officials of the three or anisations during the period you are interested in. These mee ings
were held to enable 0 icials to obtain a more detailed understanding
of the technical and
practical issues around the rationalisation
and streamlining of the activities of the 3 bo ies.
This was to enable 0 icials to brief Ministers
in greater detail about the options
ing
considered.
The only meeting
of this nature where formal minutes were taken w s a
meeting on 7 May 20 8 between
representatives
of RCAHMS
& Historic Scotland and
officials of the Scottis
Government
to discuss possibilities
for integrating the inform tion
technology
systems 0 the 2 bodies (see
annex 2 for the information
contained
in this
document).
An informal minute of a meeting between officials and the Chief Executi e of
RCAHMS on 14 Octo er sets out the key points of the discussion
(see
annex 3 fo the
relevant information).
Mr Michael Russell, a
Minister for Culture, External Affairs and the Constitution,
an
his
officials met with repre. entatives of RCAHMS during the period concerned on a visit t
the
I
organisation on 19 May 2009.
Mr Russell summarised
his discussions on the area of
our
request in a subsequent letter to RCAHMS dated 1 July 2009: see below and
annex 6).
I
ORRESPONDENCE
s Fabiani wrote to RCAHMS
on 19 January 2009 setting 0 t how she wanted to take
orward the consideration
of the options for the future of RC HMS: see
annex 4 for the
elevant information
contained
in this letter. The three organis!ations submitted a detailed
oint response in February, which consisted of a shared suppoH: services document and a
orking document: see
annex 5.
I
r Russell wrote to RCAHMS, Historic Scotland and NAS on 1
uly 2009 to summarise the
osition he expressed at his visit of 19 May 2009: see
annex 6. In his letter he asked the 3
rganisations to submit detailed proposals.
The 3 organisation
made a joint response on
o August: see
annex 7.
he Chief Executive
of NAS submitted
a paper on NAS's
iews of joint working with
CAHMS on 14 February 2008: see
annex 8.
The Chair of
CAHMS wrote to the First
inister on.. 10 October 2008 concerning
the future of RCAHM~and
Ms Fabiani replied on
2 October 2008: see
annex 9. The Chief Planner of the Scotti h Government wrote to the
hair of RCAHMS on 20 November 2008: see
annex 10 for rei vant informationeftrom
the
etter.
The Chair of RCAHMS wrote to Mr Russell on 11 Februfiry 2009 introducing him to
he work of RCAHMS, stating his view on the relationship betw~en the natural, historic and
uilt environments and inviting him to visit the organisation.
Mr
ussell replied on 13 March
009: see
annex 11.
here has also been a series of e-mail exchanges during this
eriod between officials and
epresentatives
of the 3 bodies.
Extracts of the relevant inform tion from these messages
re included as annex
12, with the exclusion of some informition
which we consider is
xempt from release under section 30(b)(i)&(ii) - see above.
I
I you are unhappy with this response to your request, you
ay ask us to carry out an
i ternal review, by writing to:
he Permanent Secretary
he Scottish Government
t Andrew's House
egent Road
dinburgh
H13DG
our request should explain why you wish a review to be carri d out and should be made
ithin 40 working days of receipt of this letter.
We will reply within 20 working days of
ceipt. If you are not satisfied with the result of the review, yo
have the right to make a
f rmal complaint to the Scottish Information Commissioner.
ours sincerely
im Mitchell
enior Architect
ictoria Quay, Edinburgh
EH6 6QQ
wW.scotland.gov.uk
INVESTOR
IN PEOPI.F.
ANNEX 1
Minute from Linda Fabia i, Minister for Europe, External Affairs and Culture, to the Scotti h
Government Chief Archi ect
PUBLIC SECTOR REF
RM: RCAHMS
1.
Thank you for yo~r support at today's meeting with the Chair, Vice-Chair and C ief
Executive of RCAHMS.
:
I
2.
The Commission I representatives
were left in no doubt that the status quo is no an
option,
however
much Ithey want that to be the case.
Against
that background,
the
Commission's
clear preference
is to transfer to NAS which they thought offered exci ing
opportunities and they w re resolutely opposed to the splitting of their functions.
3.
The Commission
agreed
to come back to us with their view
on what a
organisation
which me
ed the Commission
and the Archive
would
look like and
hat
benefits it would offer.
he option of a merged organisation should be explored with N S.
We also agreed to look at the issue of survey and recording further.
I would be gratef I if
you could put the arrangements
in hand for this as a matter of urgency as my intentio
is,
early next month, to seek the agreement of the First Minister and Cabinet Secretaries on the
way forward.
'
I
4.
I should also wish to put on record that I gave the Commission representatives my
assurances that they wduld be equal partners in progressing whatever proposition Cab net
agrees.
4
j
NNEX 2
May 2008 meeting between representatives of RCAHMS nd Historic Scotland and
I
cottish Government officials to discuss possibilities for ntegrating IT systems of
CAHMS& Historic Scotland more closely.
xtract from minutes of meeting:
The meeting was held to discuss the possibilities for clo
r integration of the two IT
ystems as part of the Scottish
Government's
programme
of delivery
of simpler, more
ffective government.
RCAHMS
and
Historic
Scotland
started
their
IT syst ms with
a linked Oracle
atabase system, supplied by the Scottish Office in the 1980s, a d which both still have. A
I ter comparison study showed there was a narrow overlap betw en the interests of the two
rganisations
in relation
to place and the link between
the two
remains.
RCAHMS
rogramme of digitisation of architecture records was originally Ii ked with the HS system on
t e data base side so that the two systems can see each other.
he joint PASTMAP project
rew out of the success of RCAHMS's Canmap.
There are regular joint IT liaison meetings
t
manage areas of joint working.
RCAHMS
also works with Historic Scotland on GIS
evelopments when HS do not have the necessary technical staff
Pastmap
is hosted and maintained
by RCAHMS
at a ~ervice cost to HS which
i eludes significant charitable software reductions, particularly of IESRI software.
Charitable
atus gives RCAHMS a Higher Education discount as an associ~te member of the CHEST
( ombined Higher Education Software Team) agreement.
HS i~ not a member of CHEST
nd is therefore not eligible for the discount.
HS has internal licrnsing for GIS.
RCAHMS
s site licences for GIS as a package which allows all staff to u~e the system: about 50 of
CAHMS staff are currently active GIS users.
The cost of thes~ licences would be much
h gher if they were
not available
to RCAHMS
through
CHEpT.
CHEST
also allows
CAHMS to bring other users, such as local authorities,
into prstmap.
Charitable status
akes this easier.
RCAHMS is now hosting one of the local authprity Sites and Monuments
ecords (SMRs).
Both RCAHMS and HS want to join the eplannirng system.
4
If RCAHMS joined the Scottish Government
SCOTS system, it would still need the
d fferent specialist software it currently uses.
Either these wouldl be verified and packaged
~ r use on SCOTS PCs or they would operate as stand-alone
fystems.
Verification and
p ckaging is required for any software that is to be installed onto a PC.
Server based
s ftware does not go through the same procedure.
HS has stand~alone computers for tasks
s ch as environmental
monitoring in the buildings in its care and for site surveys.
Another
e ample of a system not hosted on SCOTS is the Edinburgh Castle ticketing system.
HS
h s 50 standalone
computers
in addition to SCOTS.
The educational
outreach staff have
a cess to SCOTS for Internet and collaborative
software (eg MS Outlook) but also have
s andalone
laptops for Powerpoint
presentations
on Video
pr~ectors
and Smartboards.
storie Scotland has responsibility for the security of all of the~
specific IT systems that
a e hosted on SCOTS.
ISIS has responsibility for the security of
ollaborative software, SG
c rporate systems, anti virus and the perimeter security
of SC. TS.
Internet access on
SOTS
is monitored and there is a blacklist of websites.
RCAHMS currently has control
o er all of its IT systems security and joining SCOTS would change this: further investigation
o the implications
for this would be required.
There would al~o be implications for the
S
ISH agreement.
:
5
5.
The possibilities
of developing further links with the other National Collections
Iso
need consideration.
~here
are fibre optic links between
NLS buildings which ma
be
extended to include Gr nton.
RCAHMS wants to become a Trusted Digital Repository, like
SOme of the other Nati nal Collections, but this is not a relevant ambition for HS. RCA MS
works
with
the
Arch~eological
Data
Service
in
England
and
is
keen
that
di ital
archaeological
archives remain in Scotland rather than being stored in York.
The di ital
storage needs of RCAHMS are constantly increasing and are now being further increase
by
the needs of SCRAN and TARA.
HS does not have a need for digital archive databases.
6.
The overlap
of liT
interests
between
RCAHMS
and
HS is restricted.
The
ost
consequences
of chan!ge are complex and would need to be discussed
with ISIS and
possibly independent
liT consultants.
RCAHMS's
main business
is in the provisio
of
information, but could ~eparate the IT service system for email, file access, etc.
How ver,
RCAHMS gets a disco~nt on costs for its email and network and would probably have to pay
more. It couldn't just difh
parts of the system if it became one organisation with HS or
AS.
RCAHMS does much of its IT work in-house for fast response
and only uses ext rnal
consultants where needed.
SCRAN and TARA are currently on stand-alone systems,
ut it
is proposed to integrats them in the long run. SWISH is integrated with everything els
as
RCAHMW has the sam~ database requirements as RCAHMS.
The Welsh would not be
ble
to fund their share of $ISH
if costs increased significantly following the loss of charit ble
status by RCAHMS.
S~ISH
has intangible benefits: it is a service but also a partner hip.
SWISH could be expanded to bring in all the local authority SMRs: one is already on bard.
There is a possibility
bf bringing
NTS in as well.
RCAHMS
provides Wales with the
equivalent of PASTMA~, called Historic Wales.
7.
RCAHMS's
Nov~II network
also benefits from the charitable
status.
The 0
cle
licensing
is still done Ithrough
the Scottish
Government.
Oracle
has been offere
to
RCAHMS free in the pbst because of the charitable status, but in the longer run su port
costs would go up.
IHS has a separate
licensing
agreement
for Oracle.
RCA MS
experience with procur~ment through SG (e.g.: fuel costs) is that it is more expensive
han
when it can procure on its own as a charitable body.
There are also some IT developm
nts
included in some of the HLF grants to RCAHMS for projects.
RCAHMS run these in-hou e.
8.
RCAHMS has a I choice at present on procurement
method and generally gets the
best deal it can by ch60Sing to purchase through the SG framework
agreements
0
by
separate purchase as ~ charitable body.
It could save on hardware costs by purcha ing
through ISIS. There ar~ some services which RCAHMS provides free to the user whic
HS
as an Agency would have to charge full cost recovery for.
6
ANNEX 3
14 October
2008
meeting
between
Chief
Executive
0
RCAHMS
and
Scottish
Government officials
The key points noted from the meeting which are relevant to the request are as follows:-
•
The uncertainties
over the future of RCAHMS have ma e partnership working with
other organisations
more difficult.
These include parts
f the Scottish Government,
Historic Scotland and the other National Collections, incl ding NAS.
There has also
been a significant increase in sick leave amongst staff of RCAHMS in recent months
which may be a symptom of the long term uncertainties 0 er the future.
•
Given the uncertainties
for the future, RCAHMS is find1g
it difficuil to plan for the
2009-10 year.
This is made more difficult by the lack bf clear heritage or culture
policies emerging since the election.
I
NNEX 4
9 January
2009: letter from Linda Fabiani to Chief Executiv~
of RCAHMS
l
I am writing to you to set out how I want to take forward the conSi
erationof the options for
t e future of the Royal Commission following my recent discussio
with Cabinet on the future
f RCAHMS.
I want first of all to confirm, as Ian Gilzean has already set out in 90rrespondence to you in
ecember, that although Cabinet has deferred making a decision Ion the future status of
CAHMS,
it has not yet excluded any of the existing proposed options.
However, Cabinet
ishes to be able to consider the widest range of options for the future of RCAHMS, in order
t at the optimum potential to achieve delivery benefits can be iderltified.
Cabinet will
l
amine the options proposed in the context of the other 'further
ork'
proposals of the
implification Programme and the timescales for Cabinet's decisi
ns will therefore depend
o
the wider programme of work by the Simplification Team.
abinet is therefore seeking further clarification of the potential fori RCAHMS, Historic
otland and the National Archives of Scotland to work collaboratively
on the issues of
s ared services, storage and shared working, to establish whether there is scope to provide
r
t e same or similar efficiency and effectiveness benefits to those
!
hich the Simplification
P ogramme is seeking to achieve.
The aim is to establish by the
nd of January whether a
s ared service approach is a viable alternative to organisational
re tructuring in terms of the
p tential efficiencies that can be gained.
ith this requirement in mind, I would ask you to explore with Joh~ Graham and George
McKenzie
what are the possibilities for a shared service approacH and to provide jointly
d veloped and agreed proposals which will address the requiremehts of Cabinet set out
a ove and allow Ministers to compare this approach with the optio~s already under
c nsideration by Cabinet.
Given the timescale adopted, I am asking you to provide Ian
G Izean with your initial proposals before the end of January.
I accapt that there may be
di erent views held by each of you and that you may not be able to reach a collective view of
e ery aspect of how this option would be taken forward.
Such proposals should not be
eluded
from your submission, but a commentary should be provi~ed with them which
e
lains the different views held.
I
7
It is, of course, important ~hat Cabinet is able to look at the financial aspects of your
proposals so that they car be compared with the other options under consideration.
I
therefore require you to provide me with the most robust financial information in support of
your ideas which it is pos$ible to develop within the timeframe we are working to. As part
f
your examination of the fihancial aspects of your proposals, you may also wish to revisit th
figures already submitted for the options involving amalgamation.
As part of your submissioh, I would also like you to consider what kind of governance and
structural changes you wCi)uldjointly propose for the three organisations,
in order to most
effectively bring forward ~nd deliver the shared services proposed.
I am copying this letter tolJohn Graham and George MacKenzie to ensure that they are ful
aware of Cabinet's curre~t thinking about the future of the Royal Commission and to ensur
that the three of you take iforward this work jointly and as soon as possible.
ANNEX 5
Response from the 3 organisations
to Annex 3:
I
DOCUMENT 1:
I
SHARED SUPPORT SERVICES IN RCAHMS, NAS AND HS
Introduction
I
1. This note discusses the scope for the Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical
Monuments of Scotlarnd (RCAHMS), Historic Scotland (HS) and the National Archives
f
Scotland (NAS) to make savings through sharing support services.
It reflects discussi
among the three chie~ executives.
2. The three organisatio~ s have different governance structures and status within
1
government.
RCAH
S is an NDBP and has charitable status and is sponsored into th
Scottish Government
SG) by the Architecture and Place team in the Built Environment
Directorate.
NAS an
HS are Executive Agencies whose chief executives report direct
to SG Ministers.
I
3. The three organisatiol[1s are of different sizes. RCAHMS
employs around 100, NAS
employs around 160, ~nd Historic Scotland employs around 1000.
4. The three Organisatio~s already share support services extensively with other
organisations, although not with each other.
5. The note looks in turn at each of the main support services common to all three
organisations, quoteslthe costs incurred by RCAHMS, discusses the scope for sharing
and offers a conclusiqn on the scope for savings through sharing .
•
I
Information tech'ilology
6. All three organisation,
use information technology to deliver services to customers, an
the scope for greater sharing in that use of IT is discussed in the separate note about t e
scope for sharing fun¢tions.
This note concentrates on IT as an internal support servic .
8
RCAHMS spends around £50K on this annually.
RCAHMS currently provides this service in-house, as does NtS.
Historic Scotland
purchases the service from the core of the Scottish Governm~t
(SG) and its staff are on
the SCOTS network.
The most obvious scope for savings in his area might come from
the RCAHMS and NAS joining the SCOTS network.
Both ha e considered this in the
past, but reached the view that the subscription cost outweigh.
the likely benefits.
Similarly, the initial investment required to bring together the iT~rastructure of NAS and
RCAHMS outside SCOTS would outweigh any savings.
RCArMS
is exploring the
potential benefits of networking with the NLS (National Library of Scotland), NGS
(National Galleries of Scotland) and NMS (National Museums,lof Scotland) with a view to
sharing fibre cabling and providing the infrastructure that woulf support other shared
support services.
There does not appear to be any scope for savings in this aret through sharing among
the three organisations.
Human resources
I
O. RCAHMS spends around £40K annually on HR, including pension and payroll
administration and recruitment advertising .
I
11. RCAHMS, as an NDPB, currently provides the service in-hou~e and its staff are outside
the SGMain bargaining unit. It uses the SG framework contraq:t for recruitment
advertising. RCAHMS provides Human Resources services td A+DS (Architecture and
Design Scotland).
HS as an agency has delegated respons~' ility for human resources
within the SG family, and its staff are also outside SGMain. N S as an agency obtains
the service from the core of the SG and its staff are part of S
Main. It also shares
training and development services with GRaS, which are wo~h around £20k per year.
Each organisation therefore has different pay and grading arrangements and different
terms and conditions.
I
I
1 . There are unlikely to be significant savings from one organisation taking on
responsibility for human resources for staff in another organis*ion
which has different
pay and grading arrangements
and different terms and conditipns. There is more
potential for RCAHMS to work with the NLS, NGS and NMS or shared services for
Human Resources.
1 . There appears to be no scope for savings in this area through rharing among the three
organisations.
I
Finance
1 . RCAHMS spends around 70k on this annually
I
1 . RCAHMS, as an NDPB, currently provides the service in-hous~ and also provides
finance services to A+DS.
It has its own accounting system but uses the SG SEAS
system to pay invoices.
NAS uses the SEAS system and the SG's e-procurement
system, and draws on the support of the SG Finance Directorate.
HS has delegated
responsibility for finance and has its own accounting system ald procurement system.
r
Each organisation therefore has different existing arrangement
and systems.
9
16. The potential of RCAHMS using the HS accounting system was explored a few year
ago and the accou~ting requirements to Government are very different.
RCAHMS al 0
has to provide SO
P compliant accounts for charitable purposes.
RCAHMS is expl ring
the potential of wor. ing with the NLS, NGS and NMS on financial shared services.
RCAHMS and NAsi have already informally agreed procedures for mutual assistanc
to
ensure business continuity in the event of loss of access to the SEAS system in eith r
organisation.
It may be possible for NAS to undertake some routine payment
transactions via SE~S on behalf of RCAHMS, as it already does for the ScotlandsP
pie
partnership, but this would produce little in the way of savings.
I
17. There appears to be little scope for savings in this area through sharing among the t
organisations.
Facilities mancitgement
18. RCAHMS spends atound £160k on this annually, including staff costs, building
maintenance contracts, cleaning and preventative maintenance and works
19. RCAHMS currently provides a service in-house, but also purchases property and
facilities management services from GVA Grimley (as one of the OGC's preferred
suppliers of PFM s~rvices) for an annual fee of £1.6k per annum plus commission 0
any works they manage.
NAS share the service with the General Register Office for
Scotland, because they share their main building.
HS purchases the service for its
ain
building from a priv~te supplier. Again, therefore, the existing arrangements differ in he
three organisations;
I
I
20. There appears to be little scope for savings in this area
RCAHMS currently operate
its
own security, but thIs is not 24hour cover. Benefits would accrue from a joint approa h
to security though t~is is a necessary shared additional cost rather than a saving.
I
Vehicles
21. RCAHMS spends around £20k on vehicle maintenance annually.
22. RCAHMS makes e,«ensive use of vehicles for its survey work.
It maintains a pool of its
own vehicles. NAS bperates one van on a regular basis and uses the SG central
contract for other v~hicle hire. HS makes extensive use of vehicles and maintains it
own pool, which it supplements using the SG central contract for vehicle hire.
23. The most obvious sbope for possible savings within the three organisations would be for
RCAHMS and HS to establish a common pool of vehicles based in Edinburgh.
This
might reduce by on~ or two the number of vehicles required, and might produce sma I
savings in management costs, but managing a pool across two sites would not be
straightforward and the benefits of having vehicles clearly identified with each
organisation would be lost.
24. There may be some scope for saving in this area, but any savings seem likely to be ery
small.
.
Utilities
25. RCAHMS spends around
£80k on energy and £20k on telecommunications
annual! .
10
I
26. RCAHMS and HS purchase both energy and telecommuniJtions
under the central SG
contracts. NAS uses SG contracts on energy, and has a joinf working arrangement with
GROS on telecommunications.
I
27. There does not appear to be any scope for savings through jbint action in this area.
I
Other procurement
28. The main other areas for procurement spend in the Royal C mmission are ICT(already
shared up to 50% with RCAHMW and other ICT partners), s ecialist survey equipment,
and specialist archive and conservation
equipment (already bulk bought with NAS and
NLS suppliers wherever possible). All other procurement, in luding consultancies, uses
SG contracts, unless RCAHMS can make a case to purchal
more cheaply.
9. The main areas of other procurement spend in NAS are IT r~nning costs, and stationery
and office supplies. In HS the big areas of other procuremenf spend are on works at
monuments, goods for sale in shops and and print work for 1arketing.
O. Since there is no overlap in these other areas there does notlappear to be any scope for
savings through joint action
I
Other support services
I
I
I
1. The chief executives have looked at other services such as ~edia and PR, training and
health and safety, but the spend in RCAHMS in these areas ~sso small that the
opportunities for savings are insignificant.
I
Overall assessment
I
2. RCAHMS is working constructively to establish opportunities ror shared support services
wherever possible. Where is it is possible to use SG system~ directly, eg for
procurement,
RCAHMS does so.
Opportunities with different organisations have been
explored and shared services are already in operation in ICT and in Finance and HR.
Further potential is being considered with NLS, NMS and NG1S,all of which have similar
relationships with the SG and are charitable organisations with similar objectives.
3. Because of the different status of the 3 organisations, the diff~rent systems they use and
the existing shared service arrangements they have with the Sf
and other bodies there is
hardly any scope for savings from further joint action among the 3 of them.
I
anuary 2009
11
DOCUMENT 2:
Shared working betw en RCAHMS, NAS and HS
12. This paper discusses the scope for the Royal Commission on the Ancient and
Historical Mon~ments of Scotland (RCAHMS), Historic Scotland (HS) and the
National Archies
of Scotland (NAS) to achieve public benefit and make saving
through workin
in collaboration.
13. The three orga isations already collaborate with one another and each has
working partne ships with many other organisations.
The differing functions of t e
three organisa ions means that collaboration between them is mainly bi-Iateral,
either between RCAHMS and HS, or between RCAHMS and NAS. There is littl
scope for colla oration involving all three. The different governance structures
nd
status within g vernment of the three organisations does not affect joint working
RCAHMS char table status brings financial and reputational benefits.
14. Working partn~rshiP s exist at a variety of levels, from informal agreement
between partie pating colleagues to more formal arrangements including
Concordats, S .rvice level Agreements, and Letters of Intent. They may include
financial trans~ctions between the parties and fund raising from external source
15. The paper lookf in turn at each of the key areas in which collaborative work
between the three organisations already takes place, or where there is potential or
f
further develo
ent.
Where greater collaboration is recommended, it
distinguishes b tween what is possible within existing frameworks and budgets,
and more radic I approaches that could be achieved with additional injections of
funding. It doe
not cover the many collaborative initiatives that each of the
organisations ~as with other bodies inside and outside government.
Online Public Services
1. All three organilsations use information systems to manage their data and to
deliver information to customers.
I
All three organisat~ons currently operate a range of specialist systems for their
customers.
,
2.
The HS and RCAHMS systems have been developed in parallel, using shared
consultancy, e1pertise and purchasing power since 1990 with consequent pub Ii
benefits and finlancial savings. As RCAHMS benefits from charitable status,
relevant saving~ are passed on. to its collaborating partners. Regular consultatio
examines the ongoing efficiency of this arrangement as well as future joint
developments.
3. Pastmap. the online service for users of data on the historic environment, was a
early expression of this collaboration, a one-stop-shop for customers interested i
the historic environment.
It attracts public and professional users and is part of t e
SRDP service. This project is provided jointly by RCAHMS under a Service Lev I
Agreement with HS. It currently includes online historic environment data from
some local authorities in addition to RCAHMS data (archive, survey and researc )
and HS data (designations). The potential to extend this to include all local
authorities and other data providers, while upgrading the service to meet current
technological requirements and improve the service it for users has been explor d
12
I
but funds are not available this year. It has the potenjial to link to e-planning.
4. There is, however,
also scope for HS to work with RqAHMS on a system to
deliver better quality and more accessible historic en~ironment data to local
authorities and potential developers. At present the qwality of the data held by local
councils is patchy. Such a system could also improve,the quality and flexibility of
data for the more general user and the potential visitor to HS sites.
5. RCAHMS and RCAHMW are partners in SWISH, a s~ared working arrangement
that develops information services for heritage.
50% of RCAHMS costs of
hardware, software, consultancy and development ar
supported through this
initiative.
The development work is directly relevant t
that used by RCAHMS to
support and develop Pastmap and Scotlandsplaces
hich therefore also benefit
from SWISH.
6. NAS is a partner in the ScotlandsPeople
initiative witH the General Register Office
and the Lord Lyon. The website brings together man
of the official records for
family history allowing customers to search and view
igital images of several
million records.
It has around 700,000 registered sub cribers worldwide and
brings in substantial income for the partners.
7. RCAHMS and NAS are working together on Scotland
laces, a project to provide
one-stop-shop
access for customers interested in pe pie and places. This will be
launched in October 2009 as part of the Year of the Hpmecoming, and will be
extended to include data from other providers thereaftjer. It may, for example, be
feasible to join Scotlandsplaces
and Pastmap togethelr in future.
It will encourage
pride and understanding of an inclusive national ident ty.
8. The technology used in these examples would enabli
the customer to see the
information they want seamlessly, although it is derivE1dfrom different
organisations.
Each organisation would remain resP9~sible for ensuring that its
own information is accurate and updated. There WOUICi1
therefore direct benefits to
users in terms of access and reliability, and economief
of scale for the
organisations.
I
I
9. There has been no assessment of what the cost of th¢se developments would be,
were they to be carried out separately and by external suppliers, but it is highly
likely that they would be considerably more expensive.
5.
Collections
1. As National Collections, RCAHMS and NAS currently ha e collecting policies that
ensure that collecting areas are distinct. Any potential ar a of overlap is discussed on
a case-by-case basis, as are any perceived gaps. Limite
acquisition funds have
occasionally led to collaborative purchases eg the acquis tion of three photograph
albums illustrating the construction of the Forth Bridge.
S does not hold collections
of images or documents for archive purposes, although it does hold other collections,
notably of carved stones.
2. NAS selects public records of permanent value from SCO~iShGovernment, its
agencies, the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish courtt'
under the Public Records
13
(Scotland) Act 1937 and consequent statutory instruments.
It also acquires other
historical records o~~national or international importance relating to Scotland.
RCAHMS research and survey work produces archive, and it collects archive from
elsewhere relating t the built and historic environment.
HS does not collect archive
for long-term preserlvation, nor does it make archive available for public research.
It
disperses government records to NAS and archive relevant to archaeological and
architectural sites to RCAHMS.
3. The archives from all archaeological work commissioned by HS, and by local authori
archaeologists, are required to be deposited in RCAHMS. Finds are disposed to
museums. At RCAHMS the archives are catalogued to historic environment
information standards (for which HS currently provides financial assistance).
RCAHMS provides the informed service for the interpretation of these archives to th
public and professionals who may require them for further study, survey and
excavation work. Urnlike England, there is therefore one major central research sourc
in Scotland for cust6mers interested in archaeological records. This also applies to
architects records, ~ecords of industrial sites and aerial photography.
4. Looking ahead, long term storage and preservation of archive material is a joint
concern for RCAHMS and NAS and the other national collections. Standards of
archival care and storage are virtually identical for the two organisations. Work has
commenced on joint strategies for long term storage of digital data, storage of
specialist items suc~ as photographs and negatives, plans and drawings and on
compact storage.
Considerable scoping work was undertaken on this matter in 2006
7. There is potential for joint working in this area, which is discussed further below.
I
5. Paper conservation lis an area of mutual interest to RCAHMS and NAS. NAS alread
assists RCAHMS with expertise and advice, and there is some joint purchasing of
materials and equipment.
There have been joint training sessions among the
conservators network in Edinburgh and there is also joint support for disaster
preparedness planrling.
A joint service seems perfectly feasible, and could bring
operational efficiendies and improve standards, though the financial savings would b
modest, if any. NA$ has modern facilities in its Sighthill building and a highly expert
staff, most of whom are professionally accredited.
RCAHMS currently has a
conservation studi01 but it is only staffed using project related funds when available.
Access
1. Both RCAHMS and NAS hold significant collections of archive material relating to
places and building$ over time, including maps, plans and photographs.
There is
potential for bringing together access to some of this material, both onsite and online
Work on the latter is already underway in the ScotlandsPlaces
project, which is
investigating the delivery of information from existing databases of the two
organisations to thej public. By meeting the professional and technical challenges
involved in building a common system for resource discovery, and testing customer
reactions to it, this ~roject will be an important pathfinder for further online
collaboration, and pptentially enlarging the service by bringing in other data partners
eg Registers of Scotland and the other national collections.
2. Looking ahead, providing a single centre for physical access, in effect a joint reading
room for visitors, would be more complex and costly. This would certainly require
significant investmert,
but this could be justified through an improved public service,
and by longer term savings from merging reference services. A ScotlandsPlaces
14
Centre, parallel to the recently opened ScotlandsPeople
~entre for family history
f
would become an important attraction for visitors, as well as helping to simplify the
public sector landscape.
It would also help promote a se se of identity among Scots
at home by putting them in touch with places important to them, their families and
communities.
I
There would be additional benefits if some storage for archivr material was also shared.
RCAHMS have a pressing need for additional storage faciliti,~,
and NAS have a similar
need in the medium term, so the logic for sharing is clear. This could cover both
conventional paper records and the more exacting needs of ~hotographic and digital
materials.
The use of compact and intensive storage techni9ues would increase the
initial investment, but reduce longer term costs by requiring I,ss space.
Considerable
preparatory work has already been done as part of the plann ng for the Granton project in
2006-7
3. It would be essential to have some storage space for pla~s and photographs adjacent
to the access centre, to avoid the dangers of transporting [fragile materials.
It would
also be desirable to develop a joint facility for digitising th,se materials, which would
allow remote and concurrent consultation on the internet and in the new centre. As
more material is digitised, pressure on storage adjacent t~ the access point reduces,
allowing more efficient use of accommodation.
NAS already has considerable
expertise in digitising archive material, having produced
oyer 12 million pages for
family history and legal searching, while RCAHMS has deweloped expertise in
digitising fragile drawings and photographic material inciUring its immense aerial
photographic archive.
I
4. The NLS also holds significant plan and photographic ma~erial, and it would be
important to consider including their requirements in any ~hared access centre or
storage facilities.
I
I
I
6.
Survey and Research
I
1. As bodies concerned with the historic environment,
H~ and RCAHMS have a
long history of working together.
Planned collaboratiejm is discussed at regular
meetings and is set out in detail in a Concordat.
The ~urposes of their
respective activities
are different and complementary. I RCAHMS aims to provide
a comprehensive
research-based
record, while HS ainJIsto assess the relative
importance of individual
sites for their care and prote~tion.
2. RCAHMS work delivers detailed and accurate survey datJ - photographs, plans and
drawings, essential for mapping and planning purposes.
It also provides independent,
well-researched
analytical data that is reliable and essential for decision-making.
It
provides a baseline for the historic environment over and ~bove those sites that are
designated. RCAHMS therefore works with many partnersl in addition to HS, who
require such research.
I
3. HS main task is to care for, protect and enhance the historic environment.
As such,
the work of RCAHMS is usually harnessed to inform this process. HS thereafter
undertakes assessments
of sites using key criteria to est~blish their suitability for
preservation and future management.
15
4. Currently RCAHM$ and HS work together to establish mutually beneficial
programmes of W~rk.
Examples include: The mapping of the Loch Katrine water
system, (prior to Ii ting); the accurate transcription and mapping of aerial
photographs (prior to scheduling); mapping and database work relating to the
nomination of the Antonine Wall as a world heritage site, the recording of listed
buildings in a form accessible to the fire service; maritime data collection. The
RCAHMS survey programme in 2009 will include work in Shetland in advance of th
Historic Scotland Scheduling programme.
I
5. Examples also indude major research projects such as the Historic Land Use
Assessment project, which is valuable to planning and land development; the
recording and analysis of some 22,000 deserted 18th and 19th centu~ settlements
throughout Scotland; the recording and analysis of the remains of 20 h century
defences from two:world wars throughout Scotland, so that a selection can be mad
for preservation.
I
I
6. One of the public denefits of the involvement of RCAHMS in such work is that the
results of the research are made available instantly to the public and have
multifunctional use. They are also in a format that is suitable for long-term
archivepreservation.
I
I
7. Community engagement in survey and research is becoming vital to encourage the
public to value and enjoy the built environment. Scotland's Rural Past is an exampl
of a joint initiative, led by RCAHMS but with HS as a funding partner along with
NT
Highlands and Islands Enterprise and the major sponsorship of HLF. This has
provided innovation and changed public perceptions of the value of the built and
natural environmett.
8. Currently work is being scoped out to include research on the growth and
development of towns and cities. This will call on a number of partners including H
as well as central and local government bodies to contribute to the design of the
programme.
7.
Education and outreach
I
1. All three organisatibns have programmes of education and outreach in common wit
all bodies that engage with the public. These are based on the different collections
and resources tha~ each holds, and are therefore complementary.
2. Currently the Herit~ge Education Forum a group comprising the education staff fro
the three organisations and the other national collections, meets regularly and has
already delivered two initiatives - A Union for a'that - a collaborative project for
schools to mark the 300th anniversary of the Union of the Parliaments; and a joint
presence at the 2008 Scottish Learning Festival Cultural Village.
3. Scran. a charitabl~ body that is now part of RCAHMS, provides images and
information to schools through GLOW. It aims to provide a simple route for heritag
and cultural bodies to provide copyright free content for schools routinely.
4. RCAHMS is a partner in the NAS led initiative Scotlandsimages,
which aims to colle t
16
quality images from the heritage and cultural sector for co~mercial
sale worldwide.
HS is not part of this initiative, but operates its own photo library and online service
relating to its properties in care.
I
5. All three organisations are engaged in publication of variOljls kinds. There are
examples of joint authorship between RCAHMS and HS for specialist titles.
I
6. Looking ahead, Scran will contribute significant resources for the delivery of
curriculum for excellence, including valuable information f9r teachers on Scotland's
history.
Future work includes developing a strategy with participating bodies such as
HS and NAS.
I
verall Assessment
AS, RCAHMS and HS have considerable experience of workind together to achieve
uccessful results. The collaborative work allows each organisat~on to achieve more than it
ould individually, and pools expertise and resources when need¢d.
he three organisations
have different remits and priorities which I target distinct and
omplementary areas of work, and allow each to be undertaken ~fficiently and effectively ,.
here is already extensive collaboration between RCAHMS and t1>othof the other bodies in
erving the public.
In those areas where RCAHMS and one of th~ other bodies are both
ctive, the activities of the two are clearly complementary.
These arrangements have
eveloped over a long period and we see no areas of existing work where significant
mprovements in effectiveness could be secured through greater joint working within existing
udgets. We do see areas of development where collaboration would provide an improved
ervice, but they would all require significant upfront funding.
17
ANNEX 6
1st July 2009: letter from IMichael Russell to Chief Executive
of RCAHMS
PUBLIC SECTOR SIMPLIFICATION
PROGRAMME
I am writing to thank you for making me so welcome on my visit to RCAHMS.
I would like t
convey my thanks to you ~nd your staff for a very informative and enjoyable afternoon.
I would also like to take this opportunity to set out in writing what we discussed during the
visit and how I now wish td take things forward.
As you are aware The First Minister's programme of simplification announced in January
2008 contained a commitment to:-
"Rationalise historical ar¢hival, recording and presentation
functions examining
functions and scope for qreamlining
across The Royal Commission on
the Ancient
Historical Monuments of Scotland, Historic Scotland and National Archives of Scotland
and an
increased connection with Scotland's People"
At Cabinet in December 2008 a number of options were considered including those involvin
structural change and merger to deliver a rationalised heritage and archive sector.
Howeve,
Cabinet agreed that a shared service approach between the organisations would be
explored further to see whether there was scope to provide the same or similar efficiencies
and effectiveness of those of which the simplification programme is seeking to achieve.
As discussed, I can confirm that I do not intend to bring forward any proposals for structural
change or merger within inl the lifetime of this parliament.
I am however minded to push
forward the proposals to a¢hieve efficiencies through the shared service approach you set
out in your joint submission of February 2009 with Historic Scotland and National Archives
Scotland.
Having reviewed your proposals for a shared service approach, and the predominant thrust
of the proposals is a focus on business improvements requiring upfront investments without
exploring whether savings ielsewhere in the three organisations could be utilised to find thes
business improvements. I would therefore ask you, together with John Graham and George
Mackenzie, to revisit these proposals to establish whether there is scope to achieve
efficiency savings across the three organisations in support of the simplification agenda.
I will leave it open to the three organisations to decide between you how and where the
savings are made and how they can be achieved.
I would also like you to consider along with John Graham and George Mackenzie ways in
which the three organisatidns can work together in a more efficient way increasing
collaboration between the three organisations.
I accept that there may be different views held by each of you and that you may not be able
to reach a collective view of every aspect of how efficiencies and further collaboration could
be made, but I am seeking to make significant progress on these issues.
Given the timescale adopted, I am asking you to provide Ian Gilzean with your initial
proposals with anticipated savings by Tuesday 16 June 2009.
Once this is received I will
meet with John Graham, George Mackenzie and yourself to discuss your proposals and to
jointly agree on a way forward.
I am writing in similar terms to John Graham and George
Mackenzie to ensure that they are fully aware of my proposals on this matter.
18
Document Outline
