Good morning, and welcome to the fifth meeting of the Education and Culture Committee in 2012. I remind members and those in the public gallery that all mobile phones and other electronic devices should be switched off at all times and not just be switched to silent, because they interfere with the sound system.
I am a member of the board of the National Library of Scotland under the current governance arrangements, which is a registrable interest.
Thank you for that, Marco.
The main aim of the bill is to modernise the governance arrangements of the National Library of Scotland, which date from when the library was established in 1925. Stakeholders have expressed broad support for the need to reform the arrangements, which are out of line with those that are expected of modern public bodies.
Thank you for that, Carole. It was very helpful. I remind members to indicate whether they have supplementary questions on any areas.
The first question is on membership of the proposed new body corporate. I note that it is proposed that there will be between six and 13 members. A written submission from the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland has said:
It might be helpful to explain how we decided on having six to 13 members plus a chair. A board of 32 members, which the National Library of Scotland has at present, has been considered by many, including the the NLS itself, to be very unwieldy; many of the 32 members do not attend the board meetings. We considered the relative sizes of other boards of cultural bodies, including National Museums Scotland, which has between nine and 15 members, including its chair, and National Galleries of Scotland, which has between seven and 12 members, again with a chair. It is important that Scottish ministers reflect on the fact that they do not want to hinder the operations of the board, but similarly there needs to be balance in terms of its size. The bill provides for flexibility in increasing by order the minimum number of seven members. We are considering the matter further and will happily reflect on it at stage 2.
You said that membership of the board will be based on merit. How do you envisage members’ skills and expertise being scrutinised? How will equal opportunities be considered in appointments to the new body corporate?
On scrutiny, the bill proposes that appointments be made by Scottish ministers and that the appointments will be regulated by the code of conduct that has been set out by the Public Appointments Commissioner for Scotland, which contains very rigorous rules and regulations about the appointment process. The code covers aspects such as diversity and equal opportunities, and we are confident that that will be captured because of the oversight and regulation of the process that we will follow.
How will you attract ordinary Joe Public library users, who may not necessarily have the skills that you mentioned but who will be very representative of the person in the street who uses the library for whatever reason?
As part of the appointments process, due regard is given not only to specific knowledge and specialist areas but to a full blend of skills. Over the past few years, the Public Appointments Commissioner has made great inroads in trying to appoint to boards from among a range of people in society—not only from among those who have professional expertise. For instance, we would expect board members to have a number of generic skills that anyone can have in terms of their involvement in the decision-making process and strategic planning of the library, such as experience in corporate governance in relation to board membership and the ability to be part of a team, which is a basic requirement.
The Scottish Library and Information Council and others have expressed concern in their submissions that the bill does not set out in detail the skills that will be necessary to be a member of the board. If that is not in the bill, how can you ensure that experts from the library and information sector will be interested in being appointed?
The important point that Scottish ministers will have to bear in mind is that appointments that they make to the board should allow the library to deliver its functions. As Carole Robinson said, appointees will have a range of expertise, including expertise in library services. A general position that the Scottish Government is taking is that it wants to give maximum flexibility to recruit the people that the library needs, given that it might be 80 years before an opportunity arises to amend the legislation again.
I return to Neil Bibby’s original question. The minimum number of members will be seven, including the chair. Do you really believe that such a small board—even the other boards that Carole Robinson mentioned have a slightly bigger minimum size—could cover the necessary range of skills to run the National Library properly?
The bill provides for additional expertise to be brought into the board’s operation through the ability to co-opt people who are not board members on to committees.
I am sure that we will return to that.
Neil Bibby mentioned the view of the Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator about the most viable board structures. What the bill proposes still falls two or three members short of the comparators that Carole Robinson mentioned. Is there an argument for saying that OSCR’s figure should be the baseline, although ministers would still want the flexibility to add or co-opt people as necessary? I struggle to see why you have gone as low as you have, albeit that flexibility is available to have additional board members or to co-opt people.
As Carole Robinson said, we took care to look at comparators from among similar organisations.
You have chosen, however, a number that is lower than even the lowest comparator.
When the chair is included, I am not sure that that is the case.
The National Museums Scotland board has seven members plus a chair.
We hear the arguments that are being made. As Carole Robinson said, we are reflecting further and will come back to the issue at stage 2.
Before we move off the subject, I will ask a question that has not been raised so far. How do you envisage planning the transition from the old board of 32 to the new board, whose number of members is yet to be determined but will certainly be a lot smaller? What transitional plans are in place?
We have explored that carefully with the NLS’s chair. Scottish ministers are keen for business continuity not to be disrupted and for the arrangements to minimise disruption as much as possible. We are considering the matter with the NLS and our public appointments team, which is why we have drawn up a skills matrix early in the process. The idea is that a small number of existing trustees who have the skills and meet the requirements that are set out, which depend on delivering the functions, might be able to form the nucleus of the board under the arrangements that are set out in the bill.
You refer to “a small number”. Will you be more precise about the number that you are thinking of? A small number could be one, but other small numbers are three and four.
We are still considering the number with the NLS’s chair, but the number could be about four.
I am just trying to get a handle on how the transitional arrangements will work.
It is worth adding that we must bear in mind the wishes of the individuals concerned and discuss whether they wish to continue as members.
I understand that. I am not looking for names; I am just asking about the process.
Such discussions might have an impact on numbers, too.
I am sure that we will return to the subject.
Initially, there were a few concerns about charitable status, as there have been in relation to other bodies. What concerns did you ask to be addressed before you were comfortable that there are no issues with the library having charitable status?
Do you mean in relation to the power of direction?
Yes.
I wanted to be clear about that.
If I am not mistaken, one of the criteria that must be met in order to guarantee charitable status is about the constitution of the body. If there is specific mention of a Government minister’s involvement, there is a problem. Can you give us an assurance that that is definitely not a problem in this case?
That is not a problem. The Charity Test (Specified Bodies) (Scotland) Order 2006 exempts the National Library and the other national collection bodies from the usual requirement in the Scottish charity test to which you refer: that a body’s constitution must be free from reference to ministerial direction. As I say, we consulted long and hard with lawyers and OSCR, which has welcomed the special protection that we have provided in the bill to safeguard the aspects of the NLS’s work that are special to running a national library.
I have one final question. You seem to be fairly comfortable that ministers would be very much at arm’s length and that the power to interfere would be used only as a final resort. Can you give a scenario in which ministers would have to interfere?
I ask Colin Miller to say a bit about that.
In essence, the statutory power of direction in relation to public bodies is very much a last resort. The thinking behind it is that it is to allow ministers to step in if they consider it appropriate to do so in the event of serious operational or organisational failure: in other words, when something has gone seriously wrong and all other attempts to resolve the matter without use of the statutory power have been unsuccessful. The bill makes it expressly clear that the power of direction over the National Library cannot be used in relation to cultural or curatorial matters. That is the same approach as was taken to Creative Scotland in 2010. The power would be used in the event of serious operational or organisational failure or if, for some reason, a particular body was not prepared to comply with an aspect of general Government policy that applied across the public sector.
I am sorry to be a nuisance. You have been specific about two categories of issues on which ministers would not interfere and you have suggested three categories of issues on which it is possible: administrative, operational and general. What might fall into that “general” category?
The Government has, for example, a policy of no compulsory redundancies across the public sector, including public bodies for which the Government is responsible. It is entirely hypothetical to say that the power over the National Library could be used in relation to that policy, although it is the sort of general Government policy that applies to a group of public bodies.
You have provided some reassurances on charitable status and the views of OSCR, which is helpful. We will have an opportunity to tease that out with the next panel.
I do not want to detract from your question in any way, but I point out that the responses that you referred to from the National Museums of Scotland and the National Library of Wales were made before the bill was published, so they do not take account of the significant safeguards that have been built into it.
That is fine, but NMS questioned the need for a power of direction at all, so regardless of how you have restricted it, for that organisation it is an issue of principle.
It is an issue of principle. The principle is that, with a public body that is financed primarily by the taxpayer and which is accountable to the Scottish ministers and the Parliament, the Government believes that there should be a power of last resort. Such a power has been applied in very many cases in which public body governance has been set up. Colin Miller can say a bit more about that.
Yes. The national collections, including the National Library, were established as non-departmental public bodies, of which there are 33 or so in Scotland. Most of them were established, or were put on, a statutory basis in comparatively modern times, whereas the founding legislation for all the national collections is relatively old. With the great majority of NDPBs that have been established as statutory bodies since 1990, the practice has been to provide specific statutory powers of direction for ministers. Since 1990, such powers have been provided in relation to 17 of 21 bodies that have been established as statutory bodies. Since devolution, the figure is 11 out of 14.
Have such reassurances allayed the fears that National Museums of Scotland expressed?
I think that there have been six responses to the committee’s call for evidence. The three respondents who mentioned the power of direction, including the National Library of Scotland itself, acknowledged the way in which the power has been qualified and the fact that it would not apply to the NLS’s curatorial functions. National Museums of Scotland did not respond to the call for evidence, so I hope that the concerns that it raised in response to the original consultation have been allayed, at least in part.
There remains concern about how the restrictions will apply, so there is still a job of work to do to provide clarity. We might return to the issue at stage 2.
The witnesses talked about curatorial and cultural independence. What about financial independence, in relation to the likelihood of the NLS using its powers to make charges?
Are you referring to the general power to make charges, in schedule 1?
Yes.
One of the functions of the library—I apologise for sounding like a broken record when I keep coming back to the functions, but the principle is important—is to make the collections accessible to the public. In setting any charges, the library would therefore have to demonstrate that it was still fulfilling that function.
Do you envisage a charging mechanism being used that is similar to the approach that National Records of Scotland takes to the Scotland’s people and Scotland’s places websites?
The example that I gave was about one-off, specific requests, outside a general scheme. If the library was proposing to make a web service generally available and charge for it, it would have to go through the process of gaining agreement that I described.
The functions of the library will be set out in statute for the first time. Some of the objectives that the NLS will be given seem diffuse. For example, they include
It is perhaps important to note that the changes build on what the National Library already does. Although, as you rightly said, the functions are not stipulated in the National Library of Scotland Act 1925, they have evolved over many decades and collaboration and the sharing of good practice are commonplace in the library today. The bill gives a statutory basis to and recognition of those functions and allows them to be measured on behalf of Government. There are a number of mechanisms that we can use to evaluate how well that is being addressed, such as regular meetings between Scottish Government officials and the library, and the library’s corporate plan, and we would be looking to have an annual report on how the library is delivering its functions.
Would we expect the Government to attempt to set benchmarks or encourage the library to reach certain targets?
I do not know about benchmarks as such, but I think that we need to recognise that the operational decisions that the library is engaged in are very much for it to decide. We acknowledge that it has the expertise that is required to enable it to run itself, including dealing with the specific functions that you referred to. However, the annual report that I mentioned will give us an opportunity to highlight any areas of concern.
With regard to the changes in the landscape due to digital media and the fact that the regulations on arrangements for legal deposit have not been finalised, do you believe that the bill future proofs the library against possible changes that might arise?
Essentially, the bill addresses the arrangements for the legal deposit of printed material. As you rightly say, there are movements to collect a number of works, including works that would be covered by legal deposit arrangements, by electronic means, mainly online.
When we visited the library last week, we briefly discussed some of the issues and problems that are associated with material in digital format, including issues to do with e-publishing. How do you envisage e-publishing being dealt with by the National Library? People self-publishing on various formats is a new but growing phenomenon. Some of those books are, effectively, international bestsellers, yet there is no hard copy.
That might be a question that is better addressed to the library, if you want a detailed answer. However, the general purpose of the bill is to give maximum flexibility over the formats in which material can be collected. For example, we refer to “objects”, not “books”.
So the word “objects” would cover books that were self-published in an electronic format.
My legal adviser informs me that section 9 defines “object” as including
It does indeed. I apologise. I have not seen that form of words before. Is “thing” a legal term?
It is the broadest word that we could use in that context. It is a plain word to capture any thing.
I thoroughly enjoyed our visit last week. I recognise the change to the National Library collections over the years and think that it is fantastic that the public have access to the collections. The figure that you gave is evidence that that has been a good thing and that people are taking up the opportunity.
The faculty library is a hybrid—it is a private, historic collection that is paid for by the members of the faculty. It has certain rights to request and claim material under legal deposit and therefore, as a fundamental principle, reflected in the memorandum of agreement, it will make items that have been collected under legal deposit available to the public. That is an important principle that the faculty has articulated and set out.
In effect it would not be within our gift to legislate in any case. Is that right?
We are into issues of scope there, which I believe are for the parliamentary authorities. Essentially, what section 6 is doing is picking up from the 1925 act, which indicates that there will be joint regulations on a limited access to some of the faculty’s collections. That will now be picked up under the joint arrangements under section 6 of the bill.
I know that I am looking slightly further forward here, to stage 2, but I turn to evidence that we have received in relation to possible amendments. For example, the faculty suggested amendments to section 5(3). Even at this early stage has the Government considered some of the evidence that has been received and decided not to take forward amendments suggested by others?
We are keeping an open mind on the proposed amendments and we are discussing with the National Library and the faculty the issues that have been raised. I would not want to go further at this stage, particularly in the absence of the cabinet secretary, and say which ones we have said yes or no to. I hope that the committee will bear with me on that.
That is entirely reasonable. I wanted to see whether there are any areas that have been ruled out for amendment, but you met my expectation that you have an open mind.
We move on to this morning’s second panel. I welcome Andrea Longson, who is senior librarian, and Mungo Bovey QC, who is keeper of the library, both from the Faculty of Advocates; Elaine Fulton, who is director of the Scottish Library and Information Council; and Martyn Wade, who is national librarian and chief executive, and Professor Michael Anderson, who is chairman of the board of trustees, both from the National Library of Scotland.
My question is about membership of the new body corporate, as proposed in the bill. The National Library of Scotland and the Scottish Library and Information Council are among a number of bodies that have suggested that the number of members that has been proposed for the body corporate is not large enough. Would the NLS and SLIC expand on that? Does the Faculty of Advocates have a view on the number of members of the new body corporate?
My trustees took the view that seven members would not be enough to cover the range of skills and stakeholder interests that they believe should be present in an effective board, given the diversity of what the National Library does and the need for people who can help the library with good governance. When one draws up even the beginnings of a draft skills matrix it is difficult to see how everything that is required could be covered by seven members. Although it may be that we could bring in some skills through committees, a small board should not have too many committees or it will end up in a difficult situation. When we considered the range of skills that we think are necessary, our view was that ideally the board would, as a norm, have 12 or 13 members, allowing for the fact that at times there may be vacancies.
The Faculty of Advocates agrees with that. A range of abilities and experience are necessary. However, although I recognise that it is useful to have non-trustees on the board, according to paragraph 7(3) of schedule 1 of the bill those people will not be entitled to vote at meetings. To be frank, if you want good people to come along and take an active part in committees, it is a little insulting to say, “You can come and give us your words of wisdom, but you can’t vote”. That would be a mistake: it would be disrespectful and it would reduce the quality of people who would be willing to serve in committee posts.
SLIC agrees for exactly the same reasons. In order to ensure that the library can meet its objectives as a charity and as a non-departmental public body, we must enable the maximum number of trustees to participate in meetings. If there are too few, governance becomes very difficult.
We have dealt with the number of members on the body corporate. With regard to the skills and expertise of members, I note that the bill does not specifically state what the criteria should be. What are your views on that? How should equal opportunities be considered with regard to membership of the body corporate?
Like Carole Robinson, I am not worried about issues such as equal opportunities in relation to the new board because the Public Appointments Commissioner’s procedures should adequately ensure that appropriate measures will be put in place. I have been in close contact with the commissioner for a number of years; I respect her views and believe that she is pushing public bodies very much in the right direction.
Does anybody else want to comment on that question?
As an advisory body, SLIC would like—and expect—there to be a balance of library skills and professional management skills on the board. As Michael Anderson said, that would be almost impossible in a board of seven.
Does Neil Findlay want to come in?
I do not really want to make a point: we discussed last week with Mr Anderson and Mr Wade the issue of widening out representation to users, so you can happily move on, convener.
Thank you. Liam McArthur will go next.
A number of the witnesses were present for the first evidence session. One comparator that was mentioned with regard to how the number of board members would be arrived at was National Museums of Scotland, where the minimum number is seven plus a chair. Can we draw any lessons from that about the skills reach and diversity that are needed, with regard to the number of people who have been on that board at any given time in the past few years? Does it indicate that we may need to consider a figure of around 12 or 13 for governance to be managed and for the board to cover the range of skills that we have identified?
Each of the national collections—although we are grouped together—has a very distinctive role and purpose, and faces different issues.
The range that we have been given for the board’s size goes up to the figure of 12 or 13 that Professor Anderson suggested would be ideal. What is the risk of having the minimum as low as it is? Is it that the temptation will be to sit at or around that level rather than to exploit the opportunity to go up to the maximum?
It will be for ministers to determine the number of members to be appointed within the range. My trustees’ view is that the bottom of the range does not allow for an adequate number of members to bring appropriate skills and stakeholder interests to bear in the board.
The convener probed the previous panel on minimising the disruption in the transition period. It is perhaps difficult for you to speak on behalf of each trustee, but are the concerns that have been raised likely to influence individuals’ decisions on whether to remain on board through the transition to provide continuity and the range of skills?
Ultimately, it will not be for me to determine the matter, but my discussions with a number of board members suggest that they will be willing for at least one further year to bring their skills and experience to the board. In one sense, the board will not be new; it will simply be a reconstitution of the board. The kind of people who would be willing and able to bring their skills and experience gives me confidence that the problem of transition would not cause me particular concern.
As the chief executive, I think that continuity is crucial. The issues in which the library is involved at the moment, such as electronic legal deposit and changes in how the library works and provides its services digitally, are moving at a swift pace. It is important to have continuity on the board to support such work and to enable informed decision making to take place. I do not want to put figures on this, but the balance of skills among the membership and continuity are important. A completely new board, with its induction and information-sharing requirements, would have a significant impact on the library. Making the transition with continuity will be important.
As a trustee of the library, I certainly endorse Professor Anderson’s points about the fact that people on the board come from particular backgrounds. That works both ways, in that they bring expertise and convey an impression to their bodies and to the outside world of confidence in the NLS. I do not have concerns that there will be transitional problems, given the points that have been made about some trustees continuing to be involved and to bring their experience to the board.
We will move on to the ministerial powers of direction, which we discussed with the first panel.
In response to Mr Bibby, Elaine Fulton rightly mentioned that one of the criteria for maintenance of charitable status is that a body must provide sufficient public benefit. Is it your concern that, with a small number of people on the board, it might be difficult to ensure that the public benefit is as widespread as it would be if more people were involved?
The National Library must be relevant to the maximum possible number of people across Scotland, whether in universities, schools, public libraries, communities or health services. We believe that we need more trustees in order to ensure that the National Library is relevant.
Is it therefore your advice that we re-examine some of the charitable status issues before we proceed?
The current provisions on charitable status are sufficient. NDPBs can already have charitable status. That is not the concern; the concern is about charging members of the public. The problem is not necessarily about the board of trustees or the provisions relating to NDPBs, but about the specific issue of charging for services, which does not necessarily relate to charitable status. The public good must be part of the considerations.
I want to press you a little on that. Are you content with the bill’s provisions on the issue, or does the bill lack clarity?
The bill is a little lacking in clarity on ministerial direction. Would you want the people of Scotland to be charged for access to the National Library? We must ensure that the bill does not allow that and that libraries of all kinds continue to have access to the heritage of Scotland, because that is what they are there to do in the widest possible way. We must ensure that a charging mechanism does not kick in.
So you are not—
I am not discontent with the bill, but it needs clarity. The bill is good in relation to what it exists to do, which is to set out the functions of the National Library. That is done in section 2. The concern is about implementation and how various other elements of the bill might be applied. That needs a little more clarity.
To follow up on that, you will have heard our earlier exchanges with the bill team and other Government officials on concerns about charitable status. Following publication of the bill, the NLS said that, “in an ideal world”, it would have
The main point is the fundamental principle that libraries are, by their nature, bodies that are trusted to provide unrestricted access to knowledge, information and learning, so I regret the implication that they would not be free to carry out that function without direction. The National Library of Scotland’s aim to collect the entire published record and to make it available without taking a view on the content, or questioning people’s use of it, is part of access to knowledge in a democratic society. That is a fundamental principle of the National Library as part of the library network in Scotland, so, as a matter of principle, anything that suggests Government influence on its operation is to be regretted.
That was helpful. It has been pointed out that Government directs a not inconsiderable amount of public money into the NLS. Do you share the view of the National Library of Wales that safeguards that you have already referred to, such as the annual remit letter and mechanisms for regular monitoring, should be sufficient to secure the outcomes and provide the safeguards and reassurances that ministers and the wider public are looking for without needing to go down the route of a power of direction?
That would depend on your definition of the power of direction. For example, the annual letter itself could be defined as a power of direction; indeed, in certain circumstances, its contents can be very directive. What is important is the principle of having power, not the mechanism that is used to direct. It might be regarded as important if the legislation were not silent on this and actually made it clear that the minister could not direct. That would remove the opportunity for direction in certain areas through the annual letter. I do not necessarily agree with the National Library of Wales that there is no need for a power of direction because there is an annual letter that accompanies the grant in aid, because that letter can direct in itself.
Indeed, at times, the annual letter does direct. In some ways, the bill offers protection against things that might otherwise be put in the annual condition of grant, because if we were to see such things as being directions—as I potentially would—the core cultural functions of the library would be protected.
So, in a sense, you are saying that the functions as set out in the bill are sufficient. However we choose to measure them, they are sufficient, along with the other mechanisms that you have identified.
Yes. That is why the trustees, in the end, are content. They are not delighted, but I think that they are content with the wording in the bill.
In general terms, political direction of any library is not something that people support, because the independence and neutrality of library services are important, and the National Library is trying to ensure that it retains them. The important element to retain is that there is no direction of what the library procures on behalf of the nation.
I have another question on direction. Section 8(2)(a) lists the exemptions, which include
I do not know fully. On section 2(2)(d), the library has had active, specific roles in encouraging collaboration. For example, there is a project involving a shared computer system in Scotland—Elaine Fulton might be able to say more about that—and the library has a track record in sharing good practice. However, I cannot immediately think of areas in which specific direction would apply.
In a sense, that leaves the question exactly where I asked it. Why should it be an exemption?
That is, perhaps, a question for the drafters of the bill.
It may well be, and I regret not asking it when they were here. I am sure that we will take the matter up with them.
I repeat the chairman’s comment that we looked at the bill in the context of its impact on the library, and we did not envisage that the exemptions would have an adverse impact, because of the recognition of the roles that we have.
Will you say a little more about charging, which is covered in paragraph 11 of schedule 1 to the bill? To some extent, charging is a Pandora’s box in that, once it has been opened, we do not know where it will end. Will you give me an idea of where the trustees are on the issue? Perhaps you could contextualise it by commenting on the library’s involvement in the plans for Kelvin hall and whether that will have an impact.
As the bill team said, the library already charges in a number of areas, essentially for added-value services. The principle behind the National Library of Scotland, which is similar to the principle that applies in public libraries, is that access is free. We operate that policy in whichever way is appropriate and we try to do it in ways that meet the needs and preferred options of library users.
We would charge for that.
Yes, we charge for that at the moment, but the more that is available digitally, the more there is for them to use.
We have an absolute principle that we do not charge people in, for example, the Western Isles for something that they could come into the library for if they lived in Edinburgh.
That is helpful. You will understand why we are taking a little bit of time on this point, because it involves an important principle. Paragraph 11(2)(m) of schedule 1 makes the rather bold statement that the NLS may
With regard to future proofing the legislation and ensuring its longevity, we looked at the issues from the library’s perspective and noted that visiting an exhibition could be regarded as accessing the collections, and that holding exhibitions is a way of making the collections accessible. For a lot of people in Scotland, visiting the exhibitions and reading the interpretation at them or coming to library events to see the original materials that are on display will be one of the main ways in which they access the collections, so we have placed a strong emphasis on that.
You have already cited a hypothetical situation in which two of the aspects that the bill sets out in statute for the first time—the power to charge and the access function—might come into conflict. How do you anticipate measuring the success, achievement and fulfilment of those functions? Do you perceive the relationship with the Government, for instance through the grant-in-aid letter, having any influence in that regard?
We already measure the use of the library in those terms. We are interested in how many people are aware of the library, how many people actively use it, the ways in which they use it and the impact that it has in various areas. Those are issues that are important for the library in ensuring that we are effective in meeting our functions.
In the last resort, it is the trustees—the members of the board—who are responsible for meeting the requirements under the legislation, so they will wish to set up appropriate ways of monitoring those aspects to ensure that that is being done. Monitoring is not something that has to be done because the Government wants it; the legislation says that that is what the board does, so the board already creates appropriate monitoring and risk-management processes in a number of areas that are important to it.
The bill will put in statute the library’s functions, which have developed organically and in an ad hoc way. Do you foresee a tangible, material effect on the library’s operation from the move from an ad hoc list to functions that are set out in statute?
I think that the approach will be helpful to us. As you know, the 1925 act simply says:
A proposed function that drew my eye is “promoting the diversity” of users of the library. How do you understand that function? What will you do in the area?
We understand it in its broadest terms. I mentioned our responsibilities under equalities legislation, about which we are clear. We acknowledge that Scotland’s make-up is very diverse and we are considering how to ensure that when we collect comprehensively we include the informal publishing that can take place in communities, which reflects issues such as the number of speakers of Asian languages in the west of Scotland. We are clear on our responsibilities to collect Gaelic material and we have a strong Gaelic plan.
Do you understand your responsibilities under the provision to include, for example, the issue that you mentioned to do with ensuring access for people in the Western Isles, rather than just people who can make it to Edinburgh easily of an afternoon?
We absolutely do. As I said, work that has been going on during the past few years reflects our prioritisation of the issue. We have a mass-digitisation programme—I was about to say, “a small mass-digitisation programme”. We digitise a large number of out-of-copyright books each year, to ensure that they are accessible. The year before last, we digitised 3,000 books that were either in Gaelic or of Gaelic interest. A principal reason for that is that the largest audience for those books is precisely the people who find it hardest to get to Edinburgh.
On access, the National Library of Scotland has been actively involved with the national entitlement card. SLIC is working with the Improvement Service to ensure that the card is a smart card for all libraries in Scotland, including NLS. That is another way in which the library is part of the landscape of encouraging access for all.
Of course, the internet presents Scotland to the world, too. There is representation beyond even the Western Isles.
There is something beyond the Western Isles, is there?
I have another question to ask as well, if that is okay.
I will express what I think the intention is. The title “chief executive” is in lower case. That is not the only title that can be given to the job. Indeed, the trustees have already taken the view that there is no reason why the chief executive should not go on being called the “National Librarian”, with a capital “N” and a capital “L”. The bill does not preclude that. For public accounting reasons, it merely names the chief executive as part of the transitional arrangements and puts the title in lower case. I understand that the lower case is deliberate.
Is the Faculty of Advocates satisfied with that response?
We do not have any concrete interest in the matter. To be frank, what you quoted was an observation of mine, and I hold by it, notwithstanding the ingenious explanation that Professor Anderson has offered.
The issue takes us back to our discussion at the start about the trustees and the balance of skills that they require. The mirror of that is within the staffing establishment in the National Library, in which we would want to see the same balance of expertise and the senior management team having a high level of knowledge of library and digital skills. We would want those skills to be mirrored.
My other question was about the relationship with the Faculty of Advocates and its collection in particular.
In general, we have good relations with the National Library, which are underpinned, it is fair to say, by the statutory basis that was set in place when we founded the National Library by donating the non-legal collection and retaining the legal collections. We value the continuing right to nominate trustees. I do not think that we unduly flatter ourselves by suggesting that the board benefits from having the dean of faculty or other distinguished lawyers present on it. Their skills are part of the mix of skills to which reference has already been made.
I will make an observation on the memorandum. The whole purpose of the bill is to future proof the National Library and define its functions. If something such as an operational agreement, albeit a long-standing one, is set in statute, we could be back here in five years’ time trying to alter the legislation. It is much better for the matter to be sorted out by arbitration with the organisations, if that is required, rather than setting it in statute.
We have never had to go to arbitration with the National Library. We have had and continue to have our differences with it, but we are able to meet in a civil way and agree what will happen. That is not to say that the situation could not get worse, but it is not bad and, given that the arrangement has been going since 1925, it has a reasonable track record. In my time, the arrangement has certainly been entirely satisfactory.
Is there a balance of power between the National Library of Scotland and the Faculty of Advocates in the legal advice that they have at their disposal?
It is useful to have a lawyer at the meeting, but the National Library does not rely on us for its formal legal advice; it has solicitors whose advice it takes.
In your written evidence to the committee, you suggest amendments to section 5(3). Can you explain why you have made those suggestions and what their effect would be?
Yes. The principal aim of the amendments relates to the digital deposit. The heart of the proposal is in paragraph 3(ii) of our submission, in which we suggest the addition of a sentence
Thank you very much for that explanation. I ask Martin Wade to give us the NLS’s view.
Mungo Bovey summarised the issue very eloquently, but I emphasise that it would be fair to say that we need to discuss it further, as we did not necessarily agree the solution.
Did the caveat that Mungo Bovey provided at the end of his comments give you some comfort?
Under my proposed approach of proceeding through the memorandum of agreement, part of the policy is that we agree matters in advance instead of trying to sort them out later. Given the uncertainty of what lies ahead with electronic publishing, and given that the memorandum of agreement refers to working together positively, agreeing in advance what we will collect and allowing us to plan for that with a regular review is a more manageable and realistic approach. As Mungo Bovey said, the NLS claims legal publications that, although they are used by the Faculty of Advocates, are part of the national collection.
So, to sum up, you do not support the amendments suggested by the faculty?
That is right. My preference at the moment is that we handle it through the memorandum of agreement.
Thank you. I wanted to make it clear that that is your view.
I think that we are all agreed that we need to have further discussions on this, and we will reflect those back to the committee.
I want to make a general observation. We have talked a lot about the digital age, but, to make a historical comparison, we are probably in the prehistoric age in that regard. There are so many unknowns out there that I am not sure it would be a good idea to tie things to legislation at this stage. We need to work through a range of issues, from the harvesting that Martyn Wade talked about to copyright and licensing issues. The marketplace is quite uncertain at this time, and tying things down to statute is not necessarily the right thing to do.
That is the end of our formal questions. Does anyone have any further points that they have not had the opportunity to make?
No, but thank you very much for the opportunity to address you.
Thank you very much for coming along. I also thank the National Library for hosting us last week; that was very kind.
Previous
Attendance