These amendments all arise out of concerns that were expressed during stage 1 and in the committee’s stage 1 report that the bill may not sufficiently recognise the local dimension. What Liam McArthur is trying to do is similar to what the Government is trying to do in that regard, and the committee will need to assess what might be the best way to deliver that.
The concerns include the importance of communities and the need to take account of local issues and decision making by local authorities. As the committee will be aware, those matters are also at the heart of the historic environment strategy’s work. I undertook to consider them again before stage 2, and amendment 11 is my proposal to address them at this point in the bill.
I emphasise that there will already be a requirement on historic environment Scotland, as on all public bodies, to take account of all relevant factors in undertaking its functions. “All relevant factors”, of course, include local issues.
To signal how seriously we take the matter, the amendment that I have lodged places the interest of local communities alongside national policies and strategies. Therefore, amendment 11 changes section 2(8) to read:
“In exercising its functions, Historic Environment Scotland must have regard—
(a) to any relevant policy or strategy published by the Scottish Ministers,
and
(b) as may be appropriate in the circumstances, to the interests of local communities.”
At the same time, HES will be a body with a national remit. Local concerns cannot, and should not, always be the overriding consideration. Therefore, I have proposed an amendment that requires HES to consider the circumstances of each situation. Amendment 11 provides a legal mechanism to deliver that local dimension.
Amendment 2 does not work, because the bill at this point refers to HES working with persons—that is, natural or legal persons, such as local authorities, community trusts or similar. Local communities can be hard to define. They might be the occupiers of a small group of houses beside a monument, the inhabitants of an island or even people who do not live locally but feel a special bond to a particular place. Therefore, legal definition of “local communities” is difficult.
HES, like any other public body, will be expected to take account of all relevant factors in reaching its decisions. That is how public bodies are required to work as a matter of first principle. The local decision-making process is already covered in different areas, such as planning, environmental impact assessment and listed building legislation.
The bill clearly defines the way in which HES will be required to interact with local authorities in areas where they play formal roles in decision making. However, we are conscious that HES will be a national body and, although the local dimension is hugely important, we would not want to signal that it was always pre-eminent, although it often will be.
We have tried to pay some attention to how we can ensure that the principles that Liam McArthur is trying to identify can be part of the bill. Mr McArthur and I are in close accord about the principle that the local dimension matters. I suppose that the issue is how we put it into the bill in a meaningful way that has a legal content and bearing. I have responded to the requests from the committee at stage 1. I promised to come back at stage 2, and amendment 11 is the result.