ANNEX 7
Response by the 3 bodies to Annex 5
PUBLIC SECTOR SIMPLIFICATION
PROGRAM!ME
Response
to letter received
from Michael Russell.
Minister
for Culture
External
Affairs
and the
Constitution
in July 2009
Introduction
1.
In response
to two reports we submitted
in February
about the scope for savings
from
shared
support
services
and about joint working
among
our three organisations
the Minister
has commented
that the predominant
thrust of our earlier
proposals
is a focus on business
improvements
requiring
upfront
investments
without
exploring
whether
savings
elsewhere
in
the three organisations
could be utilised to find these business
improvements.
He has
therefore
asked us to revisit these proposals
to establish
whether
there is scope to achieve
efficiency
savings
across
the three organisations
in support
of the simplification
agenda.
He
has also asked us to consider
ways in which the three organisations
can work together
in a
more efficient
way by increasing
collaboration
between
us.
2.
We think it is worth pointing out that we are being considered as a group only because
Historic Scotland (HS) and the National Archives of Scotland (NAS) were the two possible bodies
with which the Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Scotland (RCAHMS)
might have been merged. HS and NAS have relatively little in common and each of us has other
strong partnerships.
For example NAS work with GROS and the Lord Lyon to provide
ScotlandsPeople,
RCAHMS work with the other National Collections to produce major exhibitions
such as the Sir Basil Spence Exhibition, and Historic Scotland work with the National Trust for
Scotland and the Historic Houses Association on growing the historic attractions sector.
Scope to Achieve
Efficiency
Savings
3.
The Minister's first question is whether there is scope to achieve efficiency savings across the
three organisations
in support of the simplification agenda. In principle such savings might come
from:-
sharing support services;
reducing the costs of existing collaborations;
or
other measures within each separate organisation.
4.
We reviewed the first of these possibilities in depth in one of the papers we submitted in
February. A copy of that paper is at Annex A. Our conclusion then was that each organisation
already shares many support services with other parts of the Scottish Government family, and that
there was no area where we could see significant savings from new sharing among our three
organisations. We do not think anything has changed since February which affects our analysis.
5.
In relation to the second of these possibilities we have listed below in paragraph 8 the main
existing collaborations
among us. We have reviewed the effiCiency of each of the collaborations in
this list. We think each has been set up in a way which minimises cost and we do not see scope for
delivering the same outputs from these collaborations
at lower cost.
6.
In relation to the third possibility each of us is finding the current efficiency savings targets
identified in the last spending review for our own organisation very tough to meet. These targets
have to be realised and recycled in order to pay staff and keep existing services going. An
increasing percentage of our resources goes towards the paybill each year. This year is very hard,
but
201 O~11 will be harder. There is no real prospect in our view of finding any extra efficiency
19
savings in our individual organisations,
over and above those needed to meet the existing targls,
which would contribute to the simplification
agenda.
7.
Our conclusion
therefore in response to the Minister's first question is that with the best will
in the world we cannot see scope for further efficiency savings, on top of those to which we are
already committed,
in Sl,.lpportof the simplification agenda.
Scope for Greater Effectiveness
through
Increased
Collaboration
8.
The main collaborations
in which two or three of our organisations
are involved are as
follows:-
Pastmap: a searchable historic environment database which brings together data from HS,
RCAHMS and Local Authorities and gets 9,500 hits per month;
Archaeological
survey;
an established arrangement under which RCAHMS undertake a survey of
all sites of interest in an area, as part of its wider programme, before HS review these in order to
identify sites of national importance for scheduling (the most recent example is in Shetland); HS and
RCAHMS work jointly to prepare the information required for the nomination of world heritage sites,
most recently that of the Antonine Wall.
Historic
Land-Use Assessment:
a long-running programme run by HS and RCAHMS which is well
on the way to completing an online interactive map of historic land use for the whole of Scotland;
National Fire Database:
in collaboration with Scotland's fire brigades HS and RCAHMS have put
together a database on all A-listed buildings which is available to fire crews when they are called out
and contains key information about the listed building to assist in dealing with the fire;
Scotland's
Rural Past: a five year project funded by HS and RCAHMS in conjunction with NTS, HIE
and the Heritage Lottery Fund, and managed by RCAHMS, which is raising awareness of
archaeological sites in rural communities across Scotland and building capacity to understand and
protect them;
ScotlandsPlaces:
a brand new online service bringing together historical information from NAS and
RCAHMS, to increase understanding
of how local communities have developed and encourage
ancestral and other tourist visits; the first phase will be launched by the Minister in October and there
are opportunities to scale up the service with additional data and new partners.
Sacred Scotland:
HS and RCAHMS both support this ecumenical organisation which encourages
and promotes the opening of churches in Scotland to visitors, the most recent initiative being the
establishment of a website and the launch of a series of area guides.
Scotlandslmages:
NAS and RCAHMS are both involved in this online photolibrary service aimed at
the professional picture buyer. Other partners include the National Museums, National Library and
National Trust for Scotland.
9.
In addition there 'is more routine collaboration over collections,
including collaborative
purchases and collaborative arrangements for allocation of archive material, over archive
conservation,
where NAS and RCAHMS have shared procurement and disaster preparedness
planning, over educatioln,
where all three organisations take part in the Heritage Education Forum,
over periodic exhibitions
and publications,
such as the forthcoming "Played in Glasgow" book to
be published in the run-up to 2014, and over images; RCAHMS have provided many of the images
for the new series of HS guidebooks
10.
The Minister's second question is whether we can work together in a more efficient way by
increasing collaboration.
11.
We can see plenty of opportunities to build on the collaborations
listed above, as follows:-
In relation to Pastmap
HS and RCAHMS would like to develop a more comprehensive
database which might be called Scotland's Historic Environment Data. They are considering 3
20
important reports about aspects of the management of historic environment
data and will be
establishing a project board, or something similar, including representatives
from local authorities, to
consider the recommendations
in these reports and develop a business case for a collaborative
project;
In relation to Archaeological
Survey HS and RCAHMSare
considering the development of
guidelines for survey to ensure that effort by contractors or staff is well directed and that information
reaches the public domain expeditiously.
This will include the rationale for the use of different survey
techniques, including laser scanning, long term curation of digital data and methods of dissemination
for public use;
In relation to Historic
Land-Use
Assessment
HS and RCAHMS have recently reviewed the
existing project. They have agreed that the aim should be to complete it to a tighter remit with more
involvement of councils as key users.
HS and RCAHMS are extending the National
Fire Database to cover buildings listed at
category B.
Scotland's
Rural Past has been a successful project so far, The HLF funding runs out in
2011 and HS and RCAHMS will consider next year whether there is a case for promoting a follow-on
or similar project.
There may be a case, once it is established, for HS data to be added to ScotiandsPlaces.
There is scope to make more use of HS properties for exhibitions
of material from the
archives of RCAHMS and NAS
12.
There are other opportunities for new collaborations,
as follows:-
Understanding
our Urban Environment;
this project between RCAHMS and HS, and other
potential partners, would aim to improve understanding
of the growth of towns and cities, as part of a
wider RCAHMS programme, and would fit with the "understanding
and enjoyment of the built
environment" aspect of National Outcome 12;
Flodden:
all three organisations
are working with other partners on the commemoration
of
this battle in response to an invitation from Northumbria
Podcasts:
all three organisations
plan to explore working together to record and disseminate
podcasts of our experts describing their specialist work, These would be promoted through Scran
and Glow and may be made available through the "Scotland's History" website.
13.
Some of the opportunities
in paragraphs 11 and 12 above carry little cost and will be pursued
in the current year. Others would be more expensive and will require careful consideration given the
likely decline in funding for all three organisations after spring 2011. For that reason HS and
RCAHMS have agreed that a break clause in the funding for Historic Land~Use Assessment is
needed.
14.
Lastly there are longer-term
possibilities
which would
need substantial
capital
investment,
as follows:-
ScotlandsPlaces
Centre. Building upon the online service, this would involve creating a joint
reading room where the public could access the combined collections of maps, plans and
photographs held by RCAHMS, NAS and other partners.
Shared storage
and/or conservation
facilities.
NAS and RCAHMS both have a need for
additional storage for archival material.
For RCAHMS this is immediate anti urgent, NAS estimates a
need in about 5 years. The requirements are likely to be very similar.
There could be some
economies of scale in planning these together, and looking at high density, low energy solutions.
Sharing storage facilities would also make possible sharing of archive conservation and digitisation
services which need to be located close to where records are kept.
21
15.
Our conclusion therefore on the Minister's second question is that there is a fair amout of
scope for increased collaboration and new collaboration. The possible developments and
improvements will generally improve customer service or the quality of other outputs, but not produce
further efficiency savings for our three organisations. Only some of the possibilities for increased
collaboration can easily!be pursued within existing resources.
16.
We look forward to the planned discussion with the Minister.
August 2009
ANNEX 8
14 February 2008: Paper on NAS's view of joint working with RCAHMS:
1.
NAS do not believe that a merger with RCAHMS would produce sufficient business
benefits to outweigh the probable costs. The business fit between the two organisations is
limited to the area of preserving archival collections (storage, conservation, etc.) and making
them accessible (reading rooms, web delivery, education services and exhibitions).
RCAHMS have a large surveying and recording operation that has no parallel in NAS. NAS
can see no business case for merging with RCAHMS that is better than the one for Historic
Scotland doing so. If ministers are determined on structural change, a merger between
RCAHMS and Historic Scotland is the best course.
2.
There are exceillent opportunities for NAS and RCAHMS to work closely together on
new public services, but these are much more likely to succeed if the two organisations
concentrate on joint public delivery,
rather than on trying to re-engineer structures and
governance.
The ScotlandsPeople
project, in which three independent partners - NAS,
GROS and the Lyon Office, are creating a world class family history service, is the
suggested model.
3.
NAS and RCAHMS should work together on ScotlandsPlaces,
a new public service
that:
•
brings together elements from both collections that enhance each other and produce
an exciting and attractive resource;
•
exploits the complementary
skills, expertise and passion of both organisations;
•
informs and inspires customers of all ages.
4.
Just as ScotlandsPeople
helps connect people with past generations,
ScotiandsPlaces would connect them, via images and words, with the evolution of the urban
and rural landscapes over time.
For the Scots diaspora, for local communities and for
anyone interested in places, the potential attraction would be high, with important
implications for tourism, particularly in the Homecoming year.
•
ScotlandsPlaces
could for example, combine images of maps and plans, of
photographs, and of textual records via a geographic based interface.
It would be an
online service available via the Internet and in different locations, and would pro~ide
immediate access to selected digital content.
The potential range of content that could be included is immense and goes beyond the ItwO
organisations, but it would be important to develop it in manageable stages.
22
5.
NAS' existing relationships with GRaS and Registers of Scotland provide access to a
"itide range of complementary
record resources.
ScotlandsPlaces
would fit well alongside
IeScotlandsPeople service inthenewcentreatRegister House; butitwould a.Isobe
vailable as an independent resource .
.
A concordat on joint working would form the basic framework within which NAS and
RCAHMS would work together.
This would cover short and long term objectives,
responsibilities, and resource requirements, together with an overarching vision.
To
develop ScotlandsPlaces
would require a specific project management body, using PRINCE
methodology.
Once the service was launched, it would be jointly owned and managed.
ANNEX 9
10 October 2008: letter from Chair of RCAHMS to First Minister
The Commissioners
of RCAHMS have discussed the concept of creating a new body to
integrate RCAHMS with Historic Scotland or NAS. They are firmly of the view that the
formation of a new body, with charitable status, to assimilate the work of RCAHMS with that
of NAS is more likely to ensure that the work of RCAHMS can continue and develop than
one with HS as it currently exists.
The Chair hopes that in making its decision Cabinet would take account of the following key
points, which in RCAHMS's view would ensure that the change of status, if agreed, would
have the minimum impact on the work of RCAHMS and also delver the maximum gain to
government:
•
The work of RCAHMS would be seriously damaged by separating its Collection from
its Survey and Record function.
In practice the two work as an integral whole: the
Record is not a 'dead' archive.
•
The creation of a new organisation, on an equal partnership basis, integrating
integrating RCAHMS and NAS, could create an exciting and dynamic body which
could deliver world-class web facilities, exhibitions, and advice on 'Scotland's People
and Places' to the people of Scotland.
It could provide an important component of the
successful delivery of a rounded view of history in schools.
It could also be of
considerable advantage in the presentation of Scotland's unique identity to the rest of
the world.
•
A merger with HS, in its present form, is likely to result in the submerging of the work
of RCAHMS.
•
Close association with the policy and regulatory functions of HS would damage the
current excellent relations which RCAHMS enjoys with Scottish businesses, farmers,
property-owners,
and government agencies.
•
The Commissioners
believe that it would be in the interest of Government, both
reputationally, and from a public expenditure point of view, for an independent review
to be commiss~oned of the merits and demerits of both merger options, and of the
retention of RCAHMS as a stand-alone body.
I.
RCAHMS believes that an amalgamation with another body would be costly both in
money and staff time in both short and long term.
It would be seen externally as a
retrograde step rather than a desirable simplification.
•
RCAHMS believes that a revision of the status of the body, and its remit, is likely to be
better value in delivering Government's aspirations.
23
22 October 2008: Reply from Linda Fabiani:
I am grateful far y'Ou having taken the time t'Oset 'Outthe views 'Ofthe C'Ommissi'Onerssa :
clearly 'Onthis matter. We are still actively c'Onsidering the best aptian far the C'Ommissi~n's
future and I will be t'Ouch with y'Ouagain 'Oncea decisi'On has been made.
I
I
ANNEX 10
20 October 2008: Chief Planner to Chair of RCAHMS following meeting on 19
November 2008
The key paints discussed:
•
When a decisi'On is reached 'On the future 'Of the C'Ommissi'On y'Ou and the ~hief
Executive will be briefed in advance 'Ofany public ann'Ouncement.
•
The staff sh'Ould als'Okn'Ow in advance 'Ofan ann'Ouncement. An ann'Ouncement in the
New Year w'Ould be better than bef'Ore Christmas.
•
The current uncertainties 'Overthe future 'Ofthe C'Ommissi'Onwas having an impact 'On
staff morale and I am very grateful for the supp'Ort y'Ou have 'Offered t'O the ~hief
Executive
thr'Ough this difficult
time.
At the 'Opening 'Of the Treasured
PI~ces
Exhibiti'On y'Ou spake warmly and generously 'Ofthe pr'Ofessi'Onalism and c'Ommit~ent
'Ofstaff in the C'Ommissi'Onand I am sure these wards were much appreciated.
•
We want t'O w'Ork with y'Ou, y'Our Chief Executive and the C'Ommissi'Oners 'Ont~king
f'Orward the implementati'On 'Ofthe decisi'On 'Onthe future 'Ofthe C'Ommissi'On
•
I expressed my strong c'Onfidence in y'Our r'Ole as Chair where y'Our kn'Owledge; and
undiminished passi'On far the c'Onservati'Onand pr'Om'Oti'On
'OfSc'Otland's Built Heritage
will be a vital res'Ource 'Onwhich we can all draw.
ANNEX 11
11 February 2009 letter from Chair of RCAHMS to Michael Russell
We have been under the scrutiny 'Ofthe simplificati'On agenda since May 2007. Since th~
date we have c'Ontributed a significant am'Ount 'Ofinf'Ormati'Ont'Og'Overnment relating t'O'O~r
status and 'Organisati'Onalstructure and a number 'Of'Opti'Onshave been c'Onsidered, all 'Of
which have same advantages and disadvantages, but n'One'Ofwhich has achieved a
satisfact'Ory 'Outc'Ome. IRCAHMS are anxi'Ous t'Om'Ovef'Orward as quickly as p'Ossible and the
work sa far appears t'Obe tinkering ar'Ound the edges rather than grappling with wider is,ues.
We w'Ouldtheref'Ore like t'Osuggest that n'Owis perhaps the time t'Otake an independent
'Oak
at the wider landscape 'Of'heritage' in Sc'Otland and the relati'Onships between natural,
hist'Oric and built envir'O~ments, t'Ounderstand haw best this c'Ountry can be served.
I
13 March reply from Michael Russell:
I n'Otewith interest y'Ourviews 'Onthe relati'Onship between the natural, hist'Oric and built
environments and 1'O'Ok
f'Orward t'Odiscussing them with y'Ou in mare detail.
I w'Ould als'O ike
t'Ovisit the C'Ommissi'Ons'O'On.
24
EX 12: e-mails between the 3 organisations
and officials
14
anuary, e-mail from Scottish
Government
Chief Architect
to Chief Executive
of
NA
As discussed on Friday the key 'headings or 'due diligence'
required in reviewing merger
pro osals are as follows:-
The potential benefits/disadvantages
of merger
The organisational
and policy fit of potential merger partners
The legislative implications of potential mergers
The organisational/HR
implications
The financial implications
The complexity and risks attached
24-
January
2008: e-mails
between the Scottish
Government
Director
of Europe,
Ex
rnal Affairs
and Culture
(DEEAC) to the Chief Executive
of Historic
Scotland
(C HS).
XHS to DEEAC:
Ye
the questions
below are not about the public line on this week's
statement
but
qu stions which we think need addressed
in the further internal work, so that eventually
the e is a robust basis for the final decisions
EEAC to CXHS:
Yo
will see I have already asked the Chief Architect
(CA) to prepare Q and A for the
ister on our element of the FM's statement. However I think some of the questions
you
below are more about HS own interest in the next stage of work and
over and above
statement related questions it is more important to include these in CA's plans for the
stage of work. I also think the Minister will expect us all to be singing from the same
hy
n sheet on this - despite possible difference of opinion on the options
in train - so you
will want to stay closely in touch with the CA's work in order to be able to keep your staff
int: rmed. So I have asked CA to join us for part of our February meeting to catch up on his
wo
on the next stages.
II
XHS to DEEAC:
I h d understood from the Minister before Christmas that she had reached a formal decision
not to proceed with the proposed merger. The public line which is now agreed for the FM
sta
ment is in effect a decision to make no decision but to do further work. On that basis I
am much less concerned about the audit trail, because it is less likely to be probed.
I h ve some concerns about the handling of the announcement
on Wednesday and
I have
cop ed to you an email which asks how some obvious questions are going to be answered.
In r lation to the further work it seems to me that the main issues not fully explored hitherto
whi h now need proper examination are:
t priority do Ministers attach to the various current activities of RCAHMS?
25
In particular what sort of research/survey
activity do they think needs to be done by a
ublic
body, beyond what is necessary to support Ministers' statutory responsibilities for listi g and
scheduling and other casework?
What, bearing in mind the 2% target, are the likely resource
implications
of the v
rationalisation options?
How well has the merger between the Royal Commission and EH worked in England?
What is the level of understanding
among stakeholders of the respective responsibili ies of
HS, NAS and RCAHMS?
How effectively is RCAHMS exercising its current responsibility for providing up to da
and
accurate records of the historic environment at local and national level?
Is it right that HS pays grant to RCAHMS for certain activities?
I'd like to know whether the further work is also going to examine the ideas which we know
some in RCAHMS have about taking over some of our responsibilities.
We know that some
argue
that they
should
do
listing
and scheduling
rather
than
us because
the
are
independent, and we know some think we should not hold any records because that i their
job.
What are the governance arrangements
for the further work? Will there be a Project
etc?
Happy to discuss when we meet on 7 February.
i) DEEAC to CXHS
I have now had the opportunity to consider further the work completed and underway
n the
future of RCAHMS being carried out by the CA in collaboration with the Simplification team
and to review with the CA the outcome of meetings held with the Minister just prior 0 the
Christmas break.
As you know the FM's announcement
of Public Service simplification
on 30 January
ill not
be specific about the position on the manifesto commitment to merge Historic Scotian
with
RCAHMS,
but will fOcus on the rationalisation
of archiving,
recording
and sche uling
functions in the historic environment
and will highlight connections
to NAS and Scot and's
People.
The CA and Simplifioation
team prepared a detailed analysis on the HS/RCAHMS
ption
which formed an Annex to the submission of 9 November. I asked the CA to revisit this piece
of work to check that this is complete, comprehensive
and comparable
to other opti ns in
terms of criteria and evaluation.
I will ask him to forward it to you so you can flag u
any
specific areas of content ( or indeed process) which you think remain inadequate or u clear.
I do not get the impression that this will be a big task.
Meantime, given the Cabinet
decision of 4 December that other options over and abo e the
Manifesto commitment should be considered, the CA and his team are continuing to w rk up
these options in order to provide the Minister with a final submission, including the Ma ifesto
commitment. This submission and process will enable her to make an informed decis
n on
her final choice and the reasons for this preference to be clearly captured and recorded.
Although this submission will present the full set of options on the table we know th t the
Minister has expressed interest in the option of combining RCAHMS with another N tional
Collection.
This option could still result in ambiguity and confusion regarding duplica ion of
RCAHMS and HS fuhctions
and
I have therefore asked the CA to ensure his a alysis
26
a dress this and include suggestions
as to how any such ambiguity
be resolved. He will
n ed input from your team on this work ..
A other consequence of the FM's announcement will be the transfer of the CA and his team
t
Planning Directorate from 1 February 2008. This transfer reflects the intention, in line with
th
Government's
proposals
on simplifying
the public sector landscape,
to take a more
in egrated
approach
to
national
policy
on planning,
design,
architecture
and building
st ndards.
The
Scottish
Building
Standards
Agency
will
a~so be
reintegrated
into
g vernment, bringing it together with architecture and planning policy into a new Directorate
fo the Built Environment.
So the CA will report to the Chief Planner from 1 February but he
a d architectural
policy
remains
part of the Minster's
portfolio,
including
this work on
R AHMS' future. The location of the future sponsor role for RCAHMS will depend on the
M nister's final decision.
lope
you find this helpful. We may wish to touch on this and on the other connected
(t ough separate)
issues you raised about the Minister's
overall
understanding
of and
re ationship with Historic Scotland at our next catch up?
1 February 2008: e-mails between the Chief Executive of NAS (CXNAS) to the
Sottish
Government Chief Architect (CA).
N thing really on paper to share yet, I'm afraid. My current position is that:
1. An NAS RCAHMS merger is not an attractive option; if ministers want a merger, then
R AHMS-Historic
Scotland is a better business fit;
2. There are excellent opportunities for NAS and RCAHMS to work closely together on a
p blic-facing service, but this is more likely to succeed on the basis of leaving the two
or anisations more or less as they are, with some form of joint governance for specific
pr jects;
3. The most likely project (ScotlandsPlaces)
would combine resources such as
ph tographs, maps and other records relating to places in Scotland, using a geographical
ba ed interface; the potential scope is immense, so it would be important to develop it in
m nageable stages;
4. This would be an on-screen service (both Internet and onsite), and would provide
im
ediate access to selected digital content.
5. Further partnerships (especially the NLS) would enhance the service, but initially we
sh uld concentrate on making the NAS-RCAHMS relationship work.
6. ScotlandsPlaces
would need a joint governance body, similar to the executive committee
th t runs ScotlandsPeople
for NAS, GRaS and the Lyon Office.
In addition, we should look
at
xchanging one or 1twomembers between the NAS and RCAHMS governing bodies.
ndered if you had anything on paper that I could look at on the RCAHMS options. I'm
meting
the Chair and CX of RCAHMS tomorrow and it would be helpful to know how things
ar
looking from your side.
W uld another meeting to discuss be useful?
27
7 April 2008: e-mails between Chief Executive of Historic Scotland to the Scottish
Government Chief Architect.
ii) CXHS to CA:
Happy to have a discussion on Thursday or Friday, when my diary is relatively clear: pease
suggest a time.
The"ScotlandsPlaces"
idea sounds Ii e an
interesting project, but where is the market research and what resources would be nee
d to
have it live for next year? Where does the Commission
survey activity fit in? It doe
not
seem an adequate basis for a new organisation,
bearing in mind the gateway proce s for
simplification.
Among the questions I shall ask when we meet are:-
why should merger pose a threat to the existing Commission partnership projects?
what does the Commission have powers to do which we lack the powers to do?
why would legislation be needed to abolish the Commission
when it was not, as I
needed for RFACS?
what is the scale of the Commission's
income from the research councils?
There are 2 bits of strategic context which seem to me to be missing from the draft.
ne is
that the Government
embarked
on last year's review committed
to simplification
an
the
removal of confusion and duplication. No proper assessment has been done of the deg ee of
confusion there currently is between
us and the Commission.
We would say most non-
specialists do not understand how we relate to the Commission, and we would say that here
is some overlap between our activity and theirs. A key test for your options is whethe
they
improve matters, and we would say the preferred option increases the scope for confusi n.
The other is the national outcomes, in this case particularly numbers 12 and 13. Ag
cies
have been warned by Mr Swinney that he is looking for clear alignment of their activit
with
these outcomes. So another key test for your options is are they the most effective stru tures
for ensuring that we value and enjoy our built environment, protect and enhance it for uture
enerations and take
ride in a stron ,fair and inclusive national identit
We would say that a single programme directed at
valuing and en ying
the generality of the historic environment would be better than two. We would, as the body
responsible for ensuring
that over 300 of Scotland's
most important
historic place
are
valued and enjoyed, predominantly
by the overseas market, particularly question the wi dom
of setting up another organisation
with much the same objective, if a different portf lio of
properties, and a title which implies it is taking over our role.
In my view if the Minister
does not want a merger or a split the work on alig ment
commissioned
by Mr Swinney
gives her a route forward: she could commit to usin
the
28
pr cess to drive clearer alignment
of all 3 bodies' work with these outcomes
and such
re rioritisation as is needed to ensure that.
I t ought I would let you have sight of this before I circulate more wiaely.
Es entially, we have 2 merger options - Historic Scotland or NAS, these options deliver a
wi e ran e of benefits which we have set out, but there are also caveats to both.
If t e Minister is not content with either of the full merger options, or splitting the
or anisation, we have developed a creative, but practical solution which enables RCAHMS
to
ecome a new body called 'ScotlandsPlaces'
which could be established with
re resentation on the Board from HS and NAS to ensure co-ordination between the 3 bodies
ta
s place following tlhe establishment of a new organisation. ThroljJgh this route we are
off ring not simplification,
but transformation,
as well as structural scope to clarify the current
re
onsibilities and working relationships between Historic Scotland and RCAHMS, on an
op ion which both NAS and RCAHMS will support.
I appreciate that a full merger or taking
ov r RCAHMS survey functions would be your preferred course of action, but if you were
als
minded to offer support to the 'Scotland Places' concept,
we would finally have an
op on which all parties concerned could work together on to deliver. Potentially this could
be orne a very interesting idea which could also bring The Lighthouse into play in terms of
cr
ting a permanent exhibition of Scotland's built environment from its earliest
de elopments to the current day.
Minister's box opens again for papers on 14 April, so our aim is to get a submission to
Minister as soon as possible after that date.
I'm happy to meet up to discuss this in more detail - I don't have too many meetings on this
we k so I'd be happy to come to LH if you think that would be useful.
3 April 2008: e-mails between Chief Executive of Historic Scotland (CXHS) and
ttish Government officials
Co tent with this, but can we ensure that in announcing it we do not, as the announcement
of t e further work in the FM January statement did, inadvertently create the impression that
the whole of HS is up for review.
P to CXHS DEEAC and CA:
ve now met with the Simplification team leader who has, I understand, offered detailed
co
ments on your submission to ensure that it develops the arguments around the options
mo e fully and indicates the various preferences that HS, NAS and SG has, as well as
en uring that future of RCAHMS is placed firmly in the context of the public sector
29
reform/simplification
agenda.
I think there is also a need to tease out the financial
implications of the options.
I understand that the various options around RCAHMS need to be subject to a Gatewa
Review, so if you all agree, I propose:-
•
You circulate a revised submission at the start of next week which reflects L nda's
comments and suggestions.
•
The submission should indicate that the Gateway Review should consider a d
report on tl11eimplications of the options.
I assume that the GR should mak
recommendations,
but these should not be binding on Ministers.
Perhaps y u
could liaise with Linda on who should make up the GR team and timescale i
which they will report.
•
The submission should also recommend that, once the Minister has agreed he
way ahead,
BDE officials, HS and NAS along with The Simplification team
should meet with RCAHMS to outline the approach we are taking and get th m to
engage on the financial and HR implications of the various options.
I would
Iso
see that meeting being used to identify potential stakeholders whose view s ould
be sought as part of the GR.
•
If the Minister agrees the way ahead, we will need a
presentational/communications
strategy.
v) CA to CPo CXHS and DEEAC:
Happy to meet - I suggest that the Simplification team and CXNAS should also be invol ed
in the discussion. The Simplification
team will be able to provide advice on how the
Implementation Guidance on the Simplification Programme (which is in draft at the mo
ent)
will affect how this is taken forward.
iv) CP to CA. CXHS and DEEAC:
I fear we are going round in circles on this. Can we meet, please, to agree on what the e is
agreement/disagreement
on, then arrange a discussion with Ms Fabiani.
I don't claim
ny in
depth understanding of the landscape in this area but I am concerned we propose a se of
solutions which add to the complications in this area while failing to streamline function
or
reduce the number of bodies.
It may be that we have to put a proposition to the Minist
that
she is not at all comfortable with rather than trying square an impossible circle.
iii) DEEAC to CXHS. CA and CP:
How does the recommended option sit with thinking behind the public sector simplifica on
process - not least in that it does not reduce the number of bodies operating in this are
nor
streamline functions
to the extent that that other options would ... The Minister will nee
to
explain any preferred solution to the FM.
in CXHS to CA. CP and DEEAC:
There is a great deal in here with which we disagree.
At the strategic level 'our view is that the point of maintaining
and developing
a n
ional
archive for the historic environment
is to contribute to the National Outcome which say
"We
value and enjoy our built and natural environment
and protect and enhance it for
uture
30
ge erations." HS is very active in this area; we have a very large outreach programme -
m ch bigger than the Commission - and we are in the lead on prot~ction .
We think too much weight is given to academic analogue status - most of the
be efits here can be gained by partnering with universities. We think the analysis of the
eff ctiveness of the Commission has been written without significant contact with its
cu omers. We think the position on legislation needs to be clearer - what exactly are the
po ers which we would need under a merged option, and does the merger really need a
Bill
to CXHS CXNAS and Sim lification team:
Ma y thanks for your input on this paper over the past few days. I've attached an updated
dra for any final comments. I hope to discuss this revised draft with CP on Monday.
31
24 April 2008: e-mails between Chief Executive of Historic Scotland (CXHS) to a
Scottish Government Senior Architect (SA).
ii) CXHS to SA:
The first question about savings and structures is difficult to answer definitively beca se it
depends what priorities Ministers set for the merged organisation.
If no existing activit
can
be stopped the answer will be different from what it mi ht be if a radical review of e stin
activities is undertakern.
I doubt at first sight if :tooking at age structures is going to be helpful, since we canno
now
predict when people wlill retire. But I am copying this to Brian O'Neil so that he can cons der.
On the question of what the merged organisation would
pay for IT for current RC HMS
activities I think our Head of Procurement unit might be the best contact, but I am copy ng to
our Head of Finance to consider. I am concerned about starting bilateral discussion be
een
our staff and Commission
staff without a clear
context. We have so far kept the
hole
consideration of merger to 4 staff in HS.
i) SA to CXHS
I'm coming to you for the additional input we need for the RCAHMS paper following adv ce
from our Public Service Delivery Landscape Directorate colleagues.
32
The other main area where we need to generate better information is the likely change in
costs of IT hardware and software following loss of charitable status. I suspect this is best
done by bringing the senior IT specialists in the two organisations together to discuss the
issues raised so far. Could you give me the best contact in HS who you would be happy for
us to approach direct?
29 April 2008: e-mail from the Director Human Resources at Historic Scotland to a
Scottish Government
Senior Architect.
30 April 2008: e-mails between the Chief Executive of NAS (CXNAS), the Chief Planner
in the Scottish Government
(CP) and a Senior Architect
in the Scottish Government
(SA) .
iii CXNAS to CP:
hanks for sending this and for the opportunity to comment.
In general the options are
clearly set out in the paper.
I would make three points, however.
First, NAS is not against a full merger with RCAHMS (Option 2) because of organisational
isruption;
we are against it because the business fit between us and RCAHMS is not
ufficient to outweigh the costs. Twice as many RCAHMS staff, approximately 50%, work
n the surveying and recording side, which is closer to Historic Scotland, as on the
ol/ections and outreach side, which is closer to NAS.
The business case for full merger
ith NAS is therefore weaker than the case for full merger with Historic Scotland.
econd, it follows from the first point that there would be merit in associating the RCAHMS
unctions that are closest to HS with them and those that are closest to NAS with us, which is
ption 3. The paper tends to dismiss this option as being cumbersome and involving
reater disruption and costs, but it is not clear that this would be the case; from a business
oint of view it would be logical to group functions in this way. NAS would certainly welcome
closer study of the costs and benefits of this option.
hird, Option 4 follows the ScotlandsPeople
model, in which NAS, GRaS and the Lyon
ffice are re-engineering their public service by considering it from the point of view of the
ustomer, rather than of the organisations.
The success of this model, which puts service
. provement before restructuring, could be deployed to counter tile admittedly significant
resentational difficulties of not reducing the number of public bodies.
33
ii) CP to officials. CXNAS and CXHS:
I have a few thoughts on this and will offer them on the back of comments
from recipien
which I would like to have by 2pm tomorrow.
I suppose my main thought is that I am n t
at all sure that Option 4 does really contribute to the simplification agenda in that we have
RCAHMS by another name but with a more complicated governance structure.
In additio
the submission also needs to cover presentational and handling issues - can you discuss
and agree text with relevant contacts in communications.
The intention is that this should go forward on Friday. I should have the opportunity to spe k
with Mr Swinney next week so will get his take on the issues.
i) SA to officials, CXNAS ,and CXHS
As requested, please see attached draft submission for comment on options for the future or
RCAHMS. The submission takes account of our discussions with the Simplification team
and the CXHS's recent comments.
1 May 2008: e-mail from a Scottish
Government
Senior Architect
to a Historic
Scotia
d
official.
As you know, CXHS had asked that I contact you in the first instance about discussing the
possible integration of the RCAHMS IT system with that of HS and how future procuremen
of IT software/hardware
might be arranged in the evel"!.tof the loss of charitable status.
I suggest that the most helpful way forward for us would be for RCAHMS to meet with you
chosen contact and myself. We would like to do this as soon as possible as the RCAHMS
Head of Information Systems is going on leave for about 4 weeks from 9th May.
RCAHM
are available on the afternoons of Tuesday 6th and Wednesday 7th next week-would it be
possible to meet with a suitable IT person from HS on either of those afternoons?
22 May 2008: e-mails between the Scottish
Government
Chief Architect
(CA), the Ch ef
Executive
of Historic
Scotland
(CXHS) and the Chief Executive
of NAS (CXNAS).
iv) CA to CXHS and CXNAS:
CXHS: In relation to your first point, I agree there may be a case for cutting back on the
detail. As it stands, the covering minute could be read as a stand alone document, but as
e
will be seeking to establish a sense of direction from Ministers on this, we feel that it is still
f
value to put forward the more detailed considerations in the annexes. On your second poi t,
I think it will be important 'to bring RCAHMS on board for whatever direction we start to mo e
in, so getting input from RCAHMS on the options will be important from that perspective.
CXNAS: Thanks for your input on this - I have accepted your track changes.
iii) CXNAS to CA:
I am sorry to make further changes at the last minute, but the way para 10 has been edi
d
does not accurately represent our views.
We are not against Option 2 - full merger
ith
RCAHMS, because it will be difficult or disruptive (which we accept is inevitable with m ny
such changes), but because the business fit does not seem as good, overall, as with Hist ric
Scotland.
I therefore propose the para be amended as tracked in the attached.
34
ii CXHS to CA:
nly 2 points. If this is just a progress report I wonder if all the detailed analysis is needed.
nd is the assessment referred to in the penultimate sentence of para 15 going to add to our
owledge if it is done by RCAHMS themselves?
i CA to CXHS and CXNAS:
lease find attached
the final version of the submission on RCAHIMS merger options which I
pe to put forward to Ministers later today. A number of amendments
have been made to
r fleet comments received over the past two weeks, but I would now like to move this
~ rward by getting the views of Ministers. No recommendation
is being made at this stage as
t e process will now be subject to a Gateway Review exercise, but the 4 key options - merge
ith Historic Scotland, merge with NAS, split the functions across HS and NAS or retain the
c rrent NDPB structure (but remove the Royal Commission status) remain the same. The
P is content for the submission to go forward as it stands.
December 2008: e-mail from Scottish Government Chief Architect (CA) to Chief
xecutive of RCAHMS (CXR) and Chief Executive of NAS CXNAS).
rther to our discussions by phone today regarding the outcome of Cabinet's consideration
o
the future of RCAHMS. I have been advised by the Simplification Team that although the
abinet deferred making a decision last week, it is not, at this stage, excluding a decision on
a y of the existing proposed options.
Instead they indicated that they wish to consider the
idest range of options to identify the optimum potential to achieve delivery benefits in this
s ctor. Cabinet also indicated that they would like to examine the proposed options in the
c ntext of the other "further work" proposals of the Simplification
Programme.
The
implification Team will be considering how to take this forward and the timescales of this
a proach.
particular, Cabinet
is seeking further clarification of the potential for RCAHMS, Historic
otland and NAS to work collaboratively on the issues of shared services, storage and
s ared working to establish whether there is the scope to provide the same or similar
e iciency and effectiveness
benefits which the Simplification programme is seeking to
a hieve. The aim is to establish by the end of January 2009 whether a shared service
a proach is a viable alternative to organisational restructuring in terms of the potential
e iciencies gained. As such, I would find it helpful if you could provide proposals on this
b sis jointly prepared and agreed by Historic Scotland, RCAHMS and NAS.
ith this in mind it would be very helpful if you could explore with CXHS how you can
e amine and identify joint priorities which could address the above points with a view to
t king this forward before the end of January 2009.
35
Document Outline
