National Library of Scotland Bill: Stage 1
The next item of business is a debate on motion S4M-02332, in the name of Fiona Hyslop, on the National Library of Scotland Bill.
14:55
I am pleased to open the debate on the general principles of the National Library of Scotland Bill. I thank the people who gave evidence and I thank the convener and members of the Education and Culture Committee for their scrutiny of the bill at stage 1. I welcome the committee’s support for the general principles of the bill and appreciate the opportunity to address some of the key issues that it highlighted.
The bill is long overdue. The National Library of Scotland is a 21st century organisation, the governance of which is, increasingly, out of date. The National Library of Scotland Act 1925 set up the board of trustees with the sole function of managing the library. The 1925 act was also concerned with transfer of non-legal material and legal deposit privileges from the Faculty of Advocates’ law library.
The people who created the National Library in 1925 were in inspiring company. It was a pivotal year, which saw the publication of great literature—F Scott Fitzgerald’s “The Great Gatsby” and Virginia Woolf’s “Mrs Dalloway”. The first surrealist exhibition was held in Paris and, closer to home, John Logie Baird created the first television transmitter. Two years later, the world’s first long-distance television pictures were transmitted by Logie Baird to Glasgow’s Grand Central hotel. Of course, Logie Baird’s achievements have had an enduring impact on the development of modern culture and society.
The National Library continues, in its own way, to reflect the past while being ever relevant to the future. In its recent history, it has assumed responsibility for the Scottish screen archive, which preserves and gives public access to our TV and film heritage. We are supporting the library through the bill and in other ways, and I am delighted to confirm that the Scottish Government is providing £250,000 to support the library’s planned relocation of the screen archive to Glasgow city centre, as part of the exciting project with Glasgow City Council and the University of Glasgow on the revamped Kelvin hall, to develop a progressive research centre for our great collection of moving images.
It is interesting that during the passage of the 1925 act through Parliament, the then member for Edinburgh Central, Mr William Graham, referred to the National Library’s establishment as being quite a radical political statement of its time. He said:
“what the Secretary for Scotland is proposing this afternoon is in my judgement the highest form of Socialism in this or any other country, because he is bringing the means of learning directly to the ownership of the Scottish people under a representative board. That is quite a remarkable departure in the case of a Conservative Government”.—[Official Report, House of Commons, 24 July 1925; Vol 186, c 2628.]
The proposals that are in front of us could not be described in such radical terms, but I am happy to say that the Scottish Government is proud to carry on funding the National Library as a resource for learning and research for all Scotland. The bill is small, but it will make a big difference to the National Library and its stakeholders. It delivers on a commitment that I made to the National Library before the election, in the event of the Scottish National Party’s being returned to government.
The National Library has achieved much over the past 87 years and the bill will ensure that it has the necessary governance arrangements to realise its ambition for decades to come. The bill sets out clear statutory functions, which reinforce the importance of what the National Library does and can do for Scotland. Its main purpose is to maintain and develop the collections and to make them as relevant and accessible as possible to users. The functions emphasise the library’s role as a major research library and its role in sharing good practice and expertise.
The governance reforms will ensure that the library’s board structure is comparable with that of other modern public bodies. The bill will reduce the size of the board, which can consist of 32 members under the current arrangements—I will come back to the number of board members. The bill will also remove reserved places and ensure that all appointments are based on merit and selection. I am grateful to the current chair, Professor Michael Anderson, and to board members for their service to the board.
The National Library is part of our rich cultural heritage. As Scotland’s only legal deposit library, it can request a copy of all printed items that are published in the United Kingdom and Ireland. Some 5,000 items are added every week under legal deposit arrangements. With 14 million items in its collections, the National Library is Scotland’s largest library and is a major reference centre for the study of Scotland and the Scots. More than 70,000 people visit the library’s reading rooms each year, and online hits of around 2.25 million show the demand for, and relevance of, its collections.
The National Library received a record number of visitors in 2009, when it displayed the last letter of Mary Queen of Scots, with 12,000 visitors in one week. The library also holds the wonderful John Murray archive, which contains a quarter of a million items from great writers, politicians, explorers and scientists of the past.
The National Library ensures that our national record is made accessible and relevant for generations to come through the growing use of electronic formats: the library is to be congratulated on its already significant work to digitise more than 1.5 million items, which extends its national and international reach. Its website is viewed by visitors from 188 countries. The bill is forward looking and has been drafted so that the legislation will keep pace with future technological developments, including the advent of United Kingdom regulations for electronic legal deposit.
I want to ensure that the bill works to support the National Library and to enable it to continue its working relationship with the Faculty of Advocates’ law library. The relationship between the National Library and the Faculty of Advocates is important to the future of Scotland’s legal library collection. The Faculty of Advocates’ library has been run and funded by the Faculty of Advocates since 1689. Between 1842 and 1925, the faculty held the sole right of legal deposit for Scotland. In 1925, it passed that right to the National Library. The significance of the gift of non-legal material and legal deposit privileges was not underestimated in its day. At the time of the parliamentary passage of the 1925 act, the advocates’ library was described in the House of Lords as
“a great Scottish national possession ... which has grown ... with the development of modern Scotland”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 2 July 1925; Vol 61, c 961.]
The National Library was the fruit of the generosity of the Faculty of Advocates, and there is great history to be found in that continuing relationship. The bill complements that good relationship by ensuring that the National Library and the Faculty of Advocates can enter into co-operative agreements on public access to their collections and on the care of items that they hold. That process has already begun, with both organisations signing a memorandum of agreement that outlines how they will work together.
I am pleased that the Education and Culture Committee has accepted the general principles of the bill. The committee expressed concerns that the proposed size of the NLS’s board is too low, given the range of skills and expertise that is required. I want to be constructive on this issue. There is a danger that, if a board is too large, it can become less focused on strategic direction and leadership. I certainly do not want to hinder the board’s operation and I am content to raise the minimum number of NLS board members, so I will lodge an amendment at stage 2 that will allow the membership range to be between nine and 14. Early indications are that the NLS, the Scottish Library and Information Council and the Faculty of Advocates support that proposal.
The committee questioned the need for and the scope of a ministerial power of direction. The inclusion of such a power provides accountability. Around 86 per cent of the NLS’s funding is provided by the taxpayer so ministers need to ensure the money is spent wisely. A ministerial power of direction is a standard feature of modern public bodies. The great majority of non-departmental public bodies that have been established as statutory bodies since 1990 have powers of direction—17 out of 21 bodies. Eleven of the 14 NDPBs that have been established since devolution have statutory powers of direction.
The power of direction that is proposed in relation to the NLS has been carefully crafted to maintain the curatorial freedom of the NLS. That is why I cannot direct the NLS on the delivery of key functions such as preserving, conserving and developing its collections, exhibiting and interpreting objects in the collections and making the collections accessible to the public and to people who are carrying out study and research. The NLS supports that drafting approach and pointed to the protection that it offers in relation to its independence from ministers. A similar arm’s-length guarantee in relation to Creative Scotland is contained in the Public Services Reform (Scotland) Act 2010.
The committee has asked for more explanation of the power of direction, so I will write to the committee on how and when the power of direction can be used, so that my intentions are on the record before stage 2. For the purposes of today’s debate, it may help if I outline that a direction could be justified in the event, for example, that the NLS failed to comply with public sector policies, such as those on no compulsory redundancies or on pay. Those examples refer to overall management of the library; ministers can direct the overarching function that the NLS has in relation to managing the library, as expressed in section 2(1) of the bill.
Ministers can also direct in relation to collaboration and diversity because those areas extend beyond the NLS’s particular curatorial and cultural functions. Action might be taken if there were efficiencies to be realised from greater collaboration and shared services, but the NLS was not complying with public sector duties in that regard.
The National Library of Scotland currently works with local authorities, universities and a range of other information service providers. The general intention is to future proof legislation sufficiently to allow for any significant changes in public sector policies or operational practices. I confirm that my officials have been discussing the nature and extent of the power of direction with the NLS, including in relation to collaboration.
On the powers on charging in schedule 1, I am pleased that the committee welcomed my restated commitment to the principle of free access to the National Library. The committee sought to ensure that the bill will allow the NLS to collect material electronically under the legal deposit arrangements. Since I gave evidence, the United Kingdom Government has published updated draft regulations on that, including new provisions that directly address the position of the NLS and the Faculty of Advocates. The bill has been drafted with the UK developments firmly in mind and is sufficiently future proofed to ensure compatibility with proposed and future regulations. As part of my on-going exchanges, I have forwarded a copy of the committee’s report to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, and have highlighted the relevant paragraphs relating to electronic deposit.
I acknowledge that the committee accepts that the bill as a whole will be beneficial to the National Library of Scotland, its users and stakeholders. I am grateful for the help and input from the NLS, the Faculty of Advocates and SLIC in drafting the bill. I welcome the opportunity to respond to and reflect on points that have been raised by members and to address some of the issues in the committee’s report.
I move,
That the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the National Library of Scotland Bill.
15:07
On behalf of the Education and Culture Committee, I make clear from the outset our unanimous support for the general principles of the National Library of Scotland Bill. In our stage 1 report, the committee welcomed the fact that the library’s governance arrangements are being updated and that its functions are being clearly set out in legislation.
However, although we recommended that the bill progress to stage 2, the committee’s report also set out members’ concerns, in particular in relation to the ministerial power of direction. I will discuss that in more detail later.
I agree with the cabinet secretary that the overhaul of the library’s governance arrangements is long overdue; the current provisions have been in place for almost 90 years and allow—in theory, at least—the NLS board to have as many as 32 members. The present arrangements also allow for a considerable number of ex officio appointments to the board, including the committee’s very own Marco Biagi, who is MSP for Edinburgh Central.
Although there was support for the Scottish Government’s proposals to modernise the library’s governance arrangements, there was also concern about the specifics of the Government’s approach; there was unanimous agreement among the organisations that provided oral evidence that the proposed lower limit for the board—seven members, including a chair—is too small. The current chair of the NLS considered that seven members would not be sufficient to cover the range of skills and stakeholder interests that are needed for an effective board.
The committee was persuaded by such concerns and, although we were not in a position to state what the optimum board size is, we sought an assurance from the Scottish Government that it would fully consult all relevant parties, in particular the NLS, before agreeing on a final number. I welcome the cabinet secretary’s willingness to raise the lower limit for the board, and the full discussions that will take place with the NLS.
I turn to the ministerial power of direction, which was the issue that caused the committee the greatest concern in the course of its scrutiny. In essence, the bill allows Scottish ministers to give the NLS directions on the exercise of certain of its functions. Those functions can be summarised as promoting collaboration between library and information services, and promoting diversity in the people who are accessing the collections. The bill’s policy memorandum helpfully sets out the areas in which the Government will not seek to direct the library, but it says very little about why a power of direction is to be retained in those two areas.
The committee therefore explored the issue in some depth. We were told by Scottish Government officials that, generally speaking, a ministerial power of direction in relation to public bodies is
“very much a last resort.”—[Official Report, Education and Culture Committee, 7 February 2012; c 693.]
For example, officials said that it would allow a minister to intervene in the event of serious operational or organisational failure. Although we can debate the merits of such an approach, the committee’s bugbear is that it is not obvious from the bill that the Government would be able to intervene in the manner that is described.
The cabinet secretary made the point—again, in general terms—that taxpayer-funded institutions must be accountable to the taxpayer for spending money wisely. However, she stressed clearly that any interventions in the NLS must not infringe the library’s curatorial responsibility and freedom. The cabinet secretary further explained that the power of direction could be used only in relation to the overall management of the NLS—another point that is not obvious from reading the bill.
To be fair, the committee acknowledged that it may be helpful to the cabinet secretary if she could retain the power of direction in the event of any future unforeseen circumstance. In reality, the power is unlikely to be used. However, given the questions around the issue, we sought a more detailed explanation as to why the Scottish Government justified the retention of the power of direction with reference to such broad issues when the bill focuses narrowly on promoting collaboration and diversity. The committee also asked how the bill could more accurately state how and when the power of direction could be used, which is where clarity and certainty are required. I therefore thank the cabinet secretary for her comments on the power of direction. I look forward to receiving her letter prior to stage 2 in order that we can get clarification and certainty to ensure that the committee is content with the proposals in the bill.
I am sure all members would agree that the National Library of Scotland is one of the country’s most important cultural resources. I am also sure that there would be unanimous support for maintaining free public access to its collections. There was nothing in the committee’s stage 1 scrutiny to suggest that that principle is under threat—indeed, both the Government and the NLS stressed their commitment to maintaining free public access. However, schedule 1 provides the NLS with a range of powers, including the power to make charges for access to its collections. That caused some disquiet at stage 1. For example, the Scottish Library and Information Council warned that proper procedures had to be put in place to ensure that charging for access will not be taken as a given.
While recognising those worries, the committee was comforted by the Scottish Government’s reassurance that the power to charge is subject to the library’s overarching function of making its collections publicly accessible. In other words, the power to charge could not jeopardise that function. The committee accepts that there are situations in which the NLS can legitimately seek payment for certain added-value services—for example, when there is an extra cost involved in providing a particular item. Some practical examples of that were given to the committee in evidence. Officials made it clear that, even in such circumstances, various safeguards would be in place to ensure that the library could not simply use the power unilaterally.
My final point relates to charging and overlaps with my earlier comments about the ministerial power of direction. The NLS’s power to charge, which is one of a number of powers that will be granted to it by the bill, can be used only in connection with the exercise of its functions. We therefore asked the cabinet secretary to clarify the relationship between the ministerial power of direction and the NLS’s general powers. The cabinet secretary confirmed that the library’s powers could, in principle, also be directed by Scottish ministers, albeit that that would be subject to restrictions. The Government stressed that a power of direction would be used only
“as a means of last resort”.
Again, however, the committee considered that the Government should provide clearer justification for its approach. I hope that the letter that is coming to the committee will do that.
The committee felt that greater clarity is required from the Government on how the various functions and powers that will be bestowed by the bill will mesh together and, in particular, how they will fit with the ministerial power of direction. I very much welcome the comments in the cabinet secretary’s opening speech, which provide additional reassurance on the scope and the practical impact of those powers. However, as I have said, I look forward to further clarification before stage 2.
The bill is a welcome and overdue reform of one of Scotland’s great national treasures. The committee therefore considers that Parliament should agree to the bill’s general principles. Assuming that it progresses to stage 2, we look forward to considering how the bill can be further improved to ensure that the library continues to flourish for decades to come.
15:14
I was going to whisper at the start of my speech, but that would have been a cheap and obvious libraries joke, and I would never indulge in such a thing.
It is fair to say that, in the current climate of economic turmoil, rising unemployment and constitutional niceties, libraries are not the most high-profile subject. Nevertheless, we should not underestimate the importance of ensuring effective running and retention of our public libraries as a vital cog in the social fabric.
Historically, libraries have played a major role in the self-improvement of many of our citizens. I welcome the bill and the fact that it does not threaten to close down library provision. It seeks to give the National Library of Scotland governance arrangements that are necessary for it to meet the needs and demands that are being placed upon it.
Sadly, I am afraid that many communities across the UK are seeing libraries being closed or threatened with closure as cuts to local government and austerity policies bite ever harder. I know that we are here today to consider the National Library of Scotland and the proposed changes to its governance, but before doing so, I will expand briefly on the importance of libraries in general because they are vital tools in helping people to achieve and learn. The self-education of many working-class people has been facilitated through libraries, and reading promotes and encourages self-development. Libraries allow people, irrespective of their income, to borrow the same books and read the same material, and that is genuine equality of access.
I was delighted to hear the cabinet secretary herself mention socialism. Libraries are, of course, an expression of municipal socialism in practice. The labour movement has always promoted education as being one of the greatest tools to foster social, economic, and personal change, and libraries have a key role to play in that. At this time of forced austerity and the on-going attack on public services, we must be ever vigilant and we must guard against the threat of library closures. Libraries are often seen as easy targets and are wrongly categorised as being somehow superfluous. Of course, they are not; they are an essential part of the community and part of a group of cherished public services that are a civilising force in our society.
Of course, in this day and age, libraries are about more than just books; modern libraries are about exhibitions, displays, digital and film archives, web development, service collaboration, archiving and genealogy, as well as being a traditional source of reference and reading materials. Libraries can provide many of our young people with a sanctuary in which to study in quiet and with space, which might not be available in their family homes.
The National Library of Scotland is one of Scotland’s most important and valued public resources. The cabinet secretary mentioned that it was established in 1925. It is right that we now consider its management and governance, and look for ways to ensure that it continues as an effective and respected Scottish institution.
Past and present boards and trustees appear to have done a very good job, which is evident as soon as we walk through the doors of the National Library. When the committee visited, we were able to see the work that goes on there and to experience and taste the unique atmosphere of the place. However, the governance of the NLS is in need of reform—a point that was made in 2006 by the Labour-led Scottish Executive. To my mind, there is a compelling case for the NLS to streamline its governance. I have sat on many a board and committee in my time, so I can see how a board of 32 people might be somewhat unwieldy and could result in a logjam in the decision-making process, but I was surprised to hear the cabinet secretary say that there might be a change to the number of board members. At the committee, she expressed a preference for seven or possibly nine members. We are now being told that the number could be as high as 19.
In my opening remarks, I indicated that I would be willing to move the bottom end from seven up to nine. The range of board membership will be very similar to other public bodies, at between nine and 14 members.
That is helpful.
Reform is also about meeting challenges and embracing wider societal and technological change, and it is clear that the NLS has been proactive in that regard. The “Thriving or surviving? National Library of Scotland in 2030” report and the subsequent “Connecting Knowledge” report have sought to devise new ways to embrace digitisation and to broaden learning through the use of technology. That proactive approach is very welcome. I also welcome the cabinet secretary’s announcement about the screen archive going to Glasgow. However, any change must be managed and any future changes should be made while protecting the NLS’s independence and unique status. Research projects or decisions related to the collections, or any decisions about them, must be completely free of political interference. The principle of curatorial independence, like that of academic freedom, is one that we should protect at all costs.
That is why I have some concerns about the plans for ministerial direction. It is proposed that Scottish ministers may be given the power to give directions
“of a general or specific nature”.
The cabinet secretary addressed that issue in committee, but I hope that she will expand on it in her summing-up speech. I am sure that she does not want to micromanage the NLS—I do not think that she intends to stamp books and hand them out—but there are reservations about the proposals representing another yard down the road to centralisation of power. I am not saying that that is inevitable, but if a less reasonable person than the current cabinet secretary takes over her position in the future, that danger could become a reality. I acknowledge the cabinet secretary’s comment that the library’s independence will be respected, but it would be helpful if we could be given more clarity about the proposed ministerial direction. That would allow us to determine whether we need ministerial direction at all.
One of the library’s key roles is to preserve and promote our national culture and heritage, as well as to promote cultural policy. I hope that it will continue to be an embracing and diverse cultural policy that respects and reflects all the influences on our great country, wherever they come from, and that we do not become overly parochial. There is a danger that the Government could seek to use its position in order to use cultural policy as a vehicle to promote its wider political agenda, rather than to serve the national interest.
I would raise my concerns about the potential centralisation of control no matter who was in power, because, used wrongly, the proposals could represent a danger to the library that would dissuade donors, or even raise questions about its charitable status. Again, clarity on that would be helpful.
We have questions about other parts of the bill. As I have mentioned, the value of libraries lies in their universal character and their status as a public good that is, and always should be, available for all. They are not and should never become commercial entities, so we want more information on the suggestions that the NLS could charge
“for the provision of goods and services”
and that it could raise and borrow money with ministerial approval. Will the cabinet secretary expand on what that means? Which services might be charged for? How will moneys be raised or borrowed, and how would that affect the services? After all, we know that loans have to be paid back. I wonder whether it is a coincidence that the Scottish Government has given the library the right to borrow at the same time as it is reducing its budget by 11 per cent.
I am curious about the principle for allowing the library to create and own companies. We need clarity on what sorts of companies they would be and why they are needed. I hope that the proposal will not lead to the creeping commercialisation of the library. Any such move would call into question the broad principle and ethos that libraries, and the NLS in particular, are open and accessible to all people, no matter their means.
With regard to a number of points that Neil Findlay has raised, it is important to look again at the functions of the NLS. If it did anything to jeopardise access to its collections for the public and researchers, it could be challenged legally. The functions themselves are an important protection in relation to Neil Findlay’s concerns.
You must come to a close.
Parts of the bill are to be welcomed, but others raise questions about the role of libraries in general and the specific nature of the NLS. I raise those issues in a genuine spirit of co-operation and in the hope that we can collectively improve the bill and help to develop a national institution that is fit for the times.
15:23
I apologise on behalf of my colleague Annabel Goldie, who is, sadly, not well today, and thank my colleague Alex Johnstone, who has come into the hot seat at short notice.
We are fully supportive of the need to modernise the legislative process so that we can both maintain and enhance the NLS. As the cabinet secretary said, it is a remarkable asset and we pay tribute, as other members have done, to all who are involved in its work, and to the large numbers of the public who are increasingly enthusiastic supporters of it. In the past, some have called the NLS the library of last resort—to be used only when people have unsuccessfully searched sources elsewhere—but that is no longer an applicable definition. That is very good news, but it obviously brings challenges.
We fully recognise the need in a world of fast-changing technology to put in place structures that will help to create not only more efficient administration, but a better system of access to the library’s archive, and better coherence and collaboration with the other national archives. To allow things to remain as they are is simply not an option, so we support the Scottish Government and the other parties in their overall endeavours on the bill.
Throughout the committee’s evidence taking we were struck by the professionalism, dedication and expertise of all those who are involved with the NLS, and by the careful thought that they had given to the future working of the institution and its role in modern Scotland. That expertise is in many cases unique, and brings degrees of specialism that are not seen elsewhere. It was good to hear that the cabinet secretary will lodge an amendment at stage 2 to reflect that, because there is no doubt that the committee and the witnesses who came to it were overwhelmingly of the opinion that the smaller end of the proposed new NLS board numbers was, indeed, too small. I heard what the cabinet secretary said when she came to the committee about the possibility of co-options on to the board. It is, of course, correct to do that and that option will remain. However, I was struck by just how desirable an aim it is to have a wide range of experience on the board, so it is good that the cabinet secretary has confirmed that she is looking at that again.
I note, too, that the cabinet secretary has stated that the Scottish Government is keen on the principle that the governance of major institutions be considerably streamlined and be represented by smaller boards. Indeed, I think that the cabinet secretary said at committee that the Scottish Government is not in favour of large boards. I suggest that what is more appropriate is not so much a generalisation about the size of boards, but what works to the best advantage of the institution and the public that it serves. I fully understand that the current size of the board makes it unwieldy, but we should not go to the other extreme.
Before leaving the issue of the board, I urge the cabinet secretary to heed the advice of several stakeholders who are anxious for a smooth transition from the existing board to the new board, which will be very important if we are to carry with us the trust of all those involved.
A second major concern, which I think will continue as we debate the bill is—as the committee convener said—the intended extent of the powers of ministerial direction. There was a lack of detail and clarity in the policy memorandum about the precise nature of the intended ministerial power and about whether the power could conflict with areas of NLS management where ministers have no powers. There appear to be inconsistencies in some of the proposed changes. In fact, the chief executive was a little uncertain about how the promotion of greater collaboration and diversity would work when there seemed to be little comment in the policy memorandum about the detail of the proposed new powers.
The rest of the education, lifelong learning and culture brief shows that the Government has a record of wanting to increase ministerial power. College and university governance is just one example of that. I can understand that there are some reasons why that might lead to better governance, but I am not entirely comfortable with its being a general principle. We need a cast-iron guarantee that the moves in the bill are not simply about increasing ministerial powers but about greater efficiency for the institution.
I remind the member that for the Public Service Reform (Scotland) Bill the Conservatives lodged an amendment that would have given ministers greater power to enforce collaboration and direction for Creative Scotland, which I resisted because I was concerned about the mission creep of ministerial direction. It is important that for all such issues for public bodies we take a proportionate approach, which is what we are trying to do with the bill.
You are in your last minute, Ms Smith.
Thank you, Presiding Officer.
I accept what the cabinet secretary said. Others were also a bit concerned about the issue. Ministerial power should be about better governance. However, as things stand now, I do not think that the general principle has been spelled out.
The bill provides an opportunity for a better service from, and wider access to, the splendid archive that is the National Library of Scotland, and it will deliver exciting developments, especially on the technological front, in collaboration with the other national treasures.
With the provisos regarding the size of the board and the remit of the Scottish Government’s powers, the Scottish Conservatives are happy to support the bill’s principles.
15:30
I am a proud Lanarkshire lass who was born in Motherwell, which is one of the burghs that were blessed with the gift of a Carnegie library. I spent much of my early childhood in that library—indeed, one of my earliest pre-school memories is of sitting in the children’s area of the library with the coloured glass panes at the back.
In trying to encapsulate why the bill is so important, I will quote from Andrew Carnegie, who said:
“the best means of benefiting the community is to place within its reach the ladders upon which the aspiring can rise—free libraries, parks, and means of recreation, by which men are helped in body and mind; works of art, certain to give pleasure and improve the public taste; and public institutions of various kinds, which will improve the general condition of the people; in this manner returning their surplus wealth to the mass of their fellows in the forms best calculated to do them lasting good.”
That quote encompasses many of the issues that have been discussed in relation to the bill. For example, it mentions free libraries. The issue of pricing has been discussed, as has the important principle of maintaining free access to the collections, with charging being used in exceptional circumstances for added value. The quote also mentions public institutions. The National Library of Scotland is one of Scotland’s precious public institutions that should be preserved.
Carnegie says that it is important that institutions, whether they are galleries, museums or, as we are discussing today, libraries, deliver the “forms best calculated” to do people good. That encompasses much of what the National Library has done in moving forward and embracing 21st century technology through the delivery of its website. However, that is happening in a vacuum, as the library’s governance arrangements do not give it comfort in relation to the work that it is doing so well.
In this year of creative Scotland, it is right and proper that the Scottish Government should seek to bring the governance of the National Library, which was established in the 1920s, into the 21st century and up to an appropriate and measured level that will allow it to function in this technological era and meet the demands of this century. The changes will facilitate the National Library’s work to meet its ambition to expand and to achieve its goals on improving its service to Scotland and the world.
As the Education and Culture Committee convener said, it is widely accepted that the current board of 32 representatives is too large and unwieldy. The board is not comparable with boards of other organisations, as the cabinet secretary set out in evidence at the committee meeting of 21 February. Ms Hyslop specifically mentioned National Museums Scotland, the National Galleries of Scotland and Creative Scotland. The current National Library board includes the First Minister—I hope that he will not be too disappointed if he loses his job at the end of the bill process.
The bill was introduced following rigorous consultation that ran from March to June 2010. There is broad consensus on the proposals, which is reflected in the committee’s unanimous support for the general principles of the bill. We should not forget that the National Library is one of Europe’s major research and reference libraries. It offers world-class collections and a range of modern library services, exhibitions and resources. It plays a vital role in bringing Scotland’s history and culture to life for not just Scottish but international audiences. What better resource could they have than the National Library?
The library reaches out to the Scottish diaspora by supporting genealogy projects and investigations. It stores plays and literature that resonate throughout Scotland. In a current project on the most important Scottish plays of the past 20 years, students and pupils from all over Scotland can access “The Cheviot, the Stag and the Black, Black Oil”, the uncompromising and thrilling “Black Watch” and “The Steamie”, which I note is to be revived at the Citizens theatre later this year—I will certainly be there to see that. The resources are all in one place and they are accessible through the National Library’s doors or through its website. That is a fantastic opportunity for teachers who are developing curriculum for excellence work streams, and for pupils.
The committee convener described the committee’s concerns about ministerial direction in the areas of promoting collaboration between libraries and information services and promoting the diversity of the people who access the collections. However, we must remember that the way in which we deliver library services across the nation has changed and is changing. They were once the domain of local government, but many library services and functions are now delivered—or are planned to be delivered—through trusts. That fundamentally changes the relationship between the National Library and the front-line delivery of what we might call traditional library services in our towns and cities. Although local authorities still have a statutory duty to secure the provision of adequate library facilities for all persons in their areas, the trusts are now an additional step, and an additional complication, in that relationship.
I thank the National Library board for the fantastic opportunity that it gave the committee to tour the library, for the knowledge that it imparted about its collections and especially for the information about the wonderful plans to create a home for the film archive at Glasgow’s Kelvin hall, which will be a great advantage for the city.
15:36
The National Library of Scotland is an extremely important resource for the people of Scotland, so any changes to its structure and operating procedures must be given careful consideration.
Originally set up in the 1680s as the library of the Faculty of Advocates, it was formed as the National Library of Scotland when the contents of the faculty’s library were presented to the nation, together with an endowment of £100,000 from Sir Alexander Grant of Forres, because the upkeep of the collection had become too much for a private body. Officially established as the National Library of Scotland by the National Library of Scotland Act 1925, it is Scotland’s only legal deposit library, which means that it is entitled to receive a copy of all printed items that are published in the UK and the Republic of Ireland.
As well as the collections that it has received via legal deposit, the National Library has acquired books, maps, music and manuscripts through gift, loan or purchase, and it has a wide collection of important items that relate to the history of Scotland, the Scots and our culture. It has a collection of more than 7 million books, 14 million printed items and more than 2 million maps. It also holds many ancient family manuscripts, including those of clan Sinclair, which date back as far as 1488.
The library holds the last letter written by Mary, Queen of Scots, which was shown publicly to mark the opening of the new library visitor centre in September 2009. It holds a copy of the Gutenberg Bible, which was the first major book to be produced on a printing press; the letter that Charles Darwin submitted with the manuscript of “On the Origin of Species”; the Chepman and Myllar prints, which are the only known copies of nine of the earliest books to be printed in Scotland, and which were produced on Scotland’s first printing press in approximately 1508; the first pictorial survey of Scotland, which was published in 1693 by John Slezer; and, perhaps most important, copies of the first two “Oor Wullie” annuals, which were published in 1940 and 1942. They date back far beyond my collection, which grows every two years thanks to Christmas presents from my mum.
The library is now a non-departmental public body that is funded by the Scottish Government, and it is also a registered Scottish charity. It is responsible for a budget of just under £15 million for the current financial year. The library employs approximately 300 staff, and it attracts thousands of people to the library and to the outreach programmes that are held across Scotland, including roadshows and support for local book festivals.
On the changes that are proposed to the library, one of the key recommendations is a reduction in the size of its board. I know from the cabinet secretary’s evidence to the committee and her comments today that she is not in favour of larger boards, but I am pleased that she has committed to increasing the minimum number of board members from seven. A recent report for the Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator indicated that charities with a low number of trustees are the most likely to fail and that those with nine members or more perform best. I am in a similar position to that of the committee in that I do not feel able to make a recommendation on what the optimum number of board members would be, but I am content that the Government has taken note of the report for OSCR, which supports having a board that has a minimum of nine members and the right number of people to cover the range of skills and experience that it feels are required.
At the same time, I welcome the Government’s expectation that the board should represent broader society and the opportunity that there will be for the board to gender balance its membership and to increase opportunities for younger people to join it, to help drive forward a future digital participation strategy.
Another proposed change is the provision for a ministerial power of direction, which has proved to be relatively contentious. I understand why the cabinet secretary favours such a power, as it will allow for proper audit and accountability to Government. The library is funded by taxpayers’ money, so it is beneficial to have a direct line of ministerial accountability.
Regardless of that, the proposal has still proved to be relatively contentious. National Museums Scotland, the National Library of Wales, the British Library and the National Library of Scotland, among others, have all expressed concern about a power of ministerial direction and its implications for the board and the charitable status of the library, although I note that the Government took advice from OSCR, which confirmed that the library is exempt from certain aspects of the charity test. That means that the power of direction is compatible with the library’s charitable status.
I will come back to the issue of charitable status in my closing remarks, but I ask the member to acknowledge that some of the comments that he referred to were made before the bill was published. The concern of the bodies involved perhaps reflected concern about previous proposals by a previous Government for a more general power of direction. In the bill as published, the power of direction is highly restricted.
I take that on board, and I appreciate that OSCR has confirmed that the power of direction would not impede the library having charitable status.
However, the British Library cautioned against the overshortening of the arm’s-length principle, which it said might have the effect of discouraging potential donors. Neil Findlay made that point.
Before I conclude, I want to touch briefly on the digitisation of future deposits. Books, journals, music and films are now produced electronically. As the committee report said, they are “born digital”—that phrase was new to me. One of the biggest challenges that the library faces will relate to how that new digital material is stored and accessed. If the library is to continue to be able to adapt to modern society, I should be able to access that material online at my fingertips, probably through a smartphone or a tablet PC—although I will not be using either of those in the chamber today.
I am glad to hear it. I need to ask you to finish.
That issue should be at the forefront of any changes to the library, and I hope that the cabinet secretary and the new board will give it due consideration.
15:42
I begin by making two declarations of interest: as many members know, I am a member of the Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals; and, since November, I have been proud to be the chair of the Scottish Library and Information Council. In that role, I am delighted to say that SLIC welcomes the bill overall and feels that it provides a platform to deliver a National Library of Scotland that is fit for the 21st century.
There are three aspects of the bill that I would like to comment on but, before I do so, as a librarian I cannot possibly give up the opportunity to say thank you to the many members who have extolled the delights and virtues not just of the National Library but of libraries in general.
Neil Findlay talked about the fact that libraries are cherished, and I am delighted that he realises that. I point out to him that, in 21st century libraries, we do not say, “Wheesht!”—we just chuck you out. In the last year, it has been demonstrated that libraries really are cherished, because borrowing figures and visits to libraries have increased. Libraries are powerful at all times, but especially in times such as these, when people are feeling financially pressed.
I cannot move on without saying to Mark Griffin that of course the National Library of Scotland holds our treasures, and “Oor Wullie” is definitely one of them.
I want to comment on three aspects of the bill. Although they have largely been dealt with, I want to welcome some of the responses. I want to talk about the size of the board, ministerial direction and charging. If I have time, I would like to pick up on electronic legal deposit, as other members have done, although that issue is not covered in the bill.
I am delighted that the cabinet secretary has announced that the board will have a minimum of nine members. That is hugely welcome, and that was SLIC’s recommendation. The reason for that is that we must ensure that those on the board have a mix of skills and that there can be sectoral representation on the board. With a very small board, people can have trouble in covering absences—members have not covered that point—and there can be a worry with governance if a small board makes decisions when some people are absent. I am therefore delighted by the cabinet secretary’s announcement, but I ask her to clarify whether the minimum number of nine means eight plus the chair or nine plus the chair. It will be interesting to hear the answer to that question.
On ministerial direction, I am sure that many members will know that librarians are proud and fierce defenders of the independence of their libraries. That is because our core function is the collection and dissemination of information. Our core function is to collect and disseminate everything for everyone without direction, fear or favour. As a librarian, I had a long, hard look at section 8(1), which says:
“The Scottish Ministers may give NLS directions”.
I am happy that that is tempered by section 8(2)(a), which focuses that ministerial direction on section 2(2)(d), which is on collaboration between libraries, and section 2(3)(c), which is on the promotion of diversity. I am pleased that the cabinet secretary said that a letter will go the committee to give much more of an outline especially of what is meant by section 2(2)(d) and the promotion of collaboration between libraries. I know that that letter will be eagerly awaited far beyond the committee, including in the library profession. I thank the cabinet secretary for her extra clarification.
A shiver goes up a librarian’s back when charging is mentioned, but I was reminded of the reality. My first job in a library was in 1975, when our collection was thought to be free and accessible for everybody to borrow, but it was not. In those days, we had the add-on of big clunky videos, which we charged for. It seemed appropriate to do that, as the service was an add-on to our core service. When computers went into libraries 20 years later, we initially charged for access to the internet, as that was a cost for libraries. The Parliament and successive Governments have to be thanked for our having free internet access in every public library in Scotland now.
I am pleased with the cabinet secretary’s commitment, which she reiterated in the committee and today in Parliament. The Scottish Government is committed to ensuring free access to our collections. She has also said today that that free access cannot be interfered with by any ministerial guidance under section 2(1), which is on the general functions of the National Library, and section 2(2)(b), which refers to “making the collections accessible”. Statutory weight has been given to that commitment, and I thank the cabinet secretary for that.
On electronic legal deposit, there is the UK Legal Deposit Libraries Act 2003 but, nine years on, the librarian profession is still waiting for regulations. Libraries and librarians need those to allow us to do our jobs properly. I hope that the UK Department for Culture, Media and Sport will heed the cabinet secretary’s approaches and give the committee report due respect.
I welcome the bill.
We are slightly tight for time, so I ask members to stick to their six minutes, please, if they can.
15:49
As I worked in libraries for many years, I start by putting on record my appreciation for the good work of libraries across Scotland and for the National Library of Scotland. In a previous life, I worked at the Mitchell library, as well as Stirling, Whiteinch and Parkhead libraries.
My experience is that, from recreation and learning in the community to academic study and scholarship, libraries provide an invaluable service to the Scottish public. They are a unique place where we can access and enjoy literature and information, regardless of our background, and they are a portal to knowledge, understanding and culture. In that respect, the National Library is no different from any other library but, when we look at the size of its collection and the scale of its work, it quickly becomes clear that it is no ordinary library.
The consensus in the chamber and among those who take an interest in the subject is that the National Library of Scotland Act 1925 should be replaced. Since its inception, the National Library has evolved and modernised. Today, it is more than a library or a collection of materials—however significant those materials might be.
The library is one of the most respected institutions and one of the greatest resources in the United Kingdom. It has become a world-leading centre for the study of Scotland and the home to events and exhibitions to celebrate Scottish history, writing, language and ingenuity. It has embraced technology and modern communications to improve access to its vast and expanding digital collection.
Through the decades, the library has amassed more than 15 million items, as well as 100,000 manuscripts and 2 million maps. It receives 320,000 new items for its collections each year.
The library has built and maintained a strong international reputation. Since launching its new online registration system, it has received 10,000 registrations from 100 countries. Its visitor centre has helped to turn the library building into a tourist attraction in the centre of Edinburgh.
Given that sustained growth and the on-going changes, it stands to reason that we should take the opportunity as a Parliament to revisit the 1925 act and pass our own legislation to modernise the National Library and secure its future for decades to come. I am happy to support the bill, which clearly defines the library’s purpose and functions and which makes the library’s governance fairer and more accountable.
I am also happy to support legislation to widen access to the library. For example, I welcome the digitisation of collections and the promotion of the library’s position in Scottish cultural life—management should always try to promote access to their collection. However, I will—like other members—draw the Parliament’s attention to a number of points from the Education and Culture Committee’s report on the bill.
The National Library is one of only six legal deposit libraries across the UK and Ireland. In common with the other legal deposit libraries, it can legally request a copy of any publication for its collection. It has held that right since 1925—long before the rise of the internet and the digital revolution—when publications generally came in a printed format. Libraries are now presented with challenges in how they collate, record and store publications, which are increasingly being produced in new and different formats. They also have to consider the status and importance that they attach to online content.
I realise that it is not the Government’s intention to address all those points in one bill and that it intends to prepare the National Library for the future, when technology will surely become more advanced and more sophisticated. We need to know where such changes will leave our legal deposit libraries. I hope that the Scottish and UK Governments can resolve those points soon.
Section 8(3) requires the National Library to comply with directions and guidance that the Scottish ministers issue, provided that they do not conflict with the library’s functions and purposes, as set out in an earlier section. Some of the initial concerns about the extent of the ministers’ power of direction appear to have been resolved, but that is still a grey area. I echo some of the concerns, which were expressed in the committee’s report and in the committee’s evidence sessions.
Let me be clear: I do not suggest that the cabinet secretary would ever choose to interfere with the day-to-day work of such an institution. However, it is important to seek assurances as part of the bill process that the National Library’s curatorial independence and responsibilities as a charity will be respected.
I associate myself with the comments that my Labour colleagues have made. I hope that the cabinet secretary will consider the points that have been raised as the bill progresses through Parliament.
15:54
I declare an interest, which has already been alluded to. As the MSP for Edinburgh Central, I am one of the ex officio members of the board of the National Library of Scotland under the 1925 act as amended. However, I will be happy to play the role of a turkey voting for Christmas when I press my voting button to send that interest into oblivion at 5 o’clock. Sadly, that will also put an end to any forlorn hope that I might follow in the footsteps of Guido Biagi, who was the librarian of the Biblioteca Nazionale in Florence in the late 19th century and with whom I share a common but, I admit, rather distant ancestry.
As a member of the NLS board, I am in very good company. Membership is also held by the Lord Advocate, the Lord President of the Court of Session, the dean of the Faculty of Advocates, the minister of St Giles, the lords provost of four cities, five further representatives of the Faculty of Advocates, four representatives of the universities, two representatives of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the Queen’s and Lord Treasurer’s Remembrancer. I admit that I do not know who or even what that is, but it sounds very important. That is by no means the entire list. It is, therefore, no wonder that an overhaul of the governance of the NLS is needed, because it is a 21st century organisation that faces all the challenges of a modern NDPB.
In my brief hello as a member of the board, which has since given way to a long goodbye, I was introduced to the NLS’s organisational to-do list. It is a familiar story to anyone who administers a public body in Scotland. It includes balancing budgets, managing limited staff resources, dealing with the ever-present question of public sector pensions and pursuing shared services, on which the NLS is powering ahead by merging departments with the National Galleries of Scotland, with the NLS taking the lead where it is more established and the National Galleries doing so where it has something to offer.
The National Library is more than just a technical or a regulatory NDPB. As Scotland’s only copyright library, it is a national institution. It offers a first-class service that is unrivalled anywhere. One of my first visits coincided with a study visit by a friend of mine who is a PhD student in Birmingham and who was consulting some of the primary sources that are held uniquely at the NLS. Cross-border movement in such research is common, as researchers go where the books are. I note with interest that the UK Legal Deposit Libraries Act 2003 confers continued rights on the library of Trinity College Dublin to receive UK published books and that that is reciprocated by the Republic of Ireland’s Copyright and Related Rights Act, 2000, which confers the same rights on UK libraries to receive Irish public books. Books are not separated by national borders, nor should they be.
As Scotland’s central library, the National Library has undergone a remarkable transformation in the past decade, in particular. Gone, for anybody who was familiar with the library 10 years ago, are the security barrier and the unwelcoming entrance with a security guard who asked for credentials. Those used to be the first things that users of the library saw. Instead, there is a visitor area with a cafe and exhibitions. The NLS is realising its role not only as a library of last resort but as an inclusive and important part of central Edinburgh’s cultural life.
For example, last year I enjoyed the banned books exhibition, where a publication that had incurred a fair amount of ire from Sarah Palin in Wasilla, Alaska sat alongside “The Love That Dares To Speak Its Name”, which was the last victim of the UK’s blasphemy laws in 1976, and even one of the Harry Potter novels, which I understand has been accused of turning the world’s children to witchcraft. That is news to me.
We can all appreciate that growing openness. It is not everyone who has to consult a copyright library, but everyone can find something there of interest.
As somebody who has been in a few copyright libraries in my time, I think that the NLS ranks high for atmosphere. I always found the British Library unwelcoming—not to mention ugly and full of bricks—and, to be honest, I found it harder to look at the Bodleian in Oxford after I learned that part of it was the architectural inspiration for the temple of the dark lord in the works of that former Oxford professor J R R Tolkien. I always rather liked the Radcliffe camera myself, but clearly he had a less positive experience than many people have had with the NLS and other libraries since then.
Such is the openness of the NLS that it is now actively working across Scotland, and one of its priorities is to expand its reach through local libraries and the innovative use of information technology. By doing that, it will become a truly national institution and be part of the cultural life of not just Edinburgh but the entire country from Stranraer to Shetland. That sort of public involvement and promotion of books and learning in the wider sense is not in the 1925 act—very little is. Section 1(1) of the act states:
“There shall be established and founded in Scotland a library with the name of the National Library of Scotland”.
That is similar to the oft-quoted first line of the Scotland Act 1998. That act goes on in considerable detail, which the 1925 act does not, although it does go into such detail as to set out the librarian’s pension. Given that the 1925 act has worked in some respects for 90 years, they clearly do not make legislation like they used to.
The bill sets out not just the powers of the NLS, as the 1925 act did, but its purposes, and that has been particularly welcomed by the chair of the board and the national librarian. It provides a clear, updated and usable governance framework for the institution, which can only help the NLS to continue to grow and to develop its first-class provision for Scotland and beyond.
16:01
I congratulate the cabinet secretary on the tone and content of her speech, much of which anticipated comments that I was going to make, and I welcome the announcement on the film archive.
The convener of the Education and Culture Committee, Stewart Maxwell, has ably set out the committee’s views and concerns, and he has emphasised the support across the committee for the general principles of the bill. The debate has been useful in setting out the wider role that libraries play. Margaret McCulloch talked about her experience, I am indebted to Clare Adamson for her Carnegie quote, and Fiona McLeod was once again the redoubtable advocate for libraries and their role in our communities.
The legislation is much needed. Updating the library’s governance is perhaps long overdue and, as Marco Biagi says, the bill importantly clarifies the library’s functions. It was dubbed the getting-Biagi-off-the-board bill by some but, given the self-sacrifice that he has shown throughout, I was beginning to wonder why it was taking Government legislation to progress this change until he read out the list of other people who are about to lose their jobs, including the First Minister.
I thank the witnesses, the clerks and my committee colleagues for their efforts at stage 1. There is widespread agreement on the bill but, as I think every speaker has indicated, there are two or three areas of concern, which we will need to explore further at stage 2.
I acknowledge the importance of the National Library of Scotland and pay tribute to all those associated with its work. I was unfortunately unable to join committee colleagues when they visited the library but, like Marco Biagi, I had the pleasure of attending the banned books exhibition, which I found absolutely fascinating. However, I will perhaps disappoint Mark Griffin by suggesting that there was no “Oor Wullie” annual there, so they are clearly not edgy enough.
The visit provided confirmation for me of a statement in the Government’s policy memorandum about the importance of the NLS:
“NLS is a national resource which exists to advance universal access to knowledge about Scotland and in Scotland ... NLS brings Scotland’s history and culture to live in the modern context.”
That encapsulates what the NLS provides.
Marco Biagi also made a pertinent comment about the changes in the physical accessibility and the presentation of the NLS. I well remember scuttling by the front door as an undergraduate at the University of Edinburgh. There was never a terribly welcoming atmosphere, but that has changed beyond all measure, which reflects the changing demands that we place on the library and our expectations of it.
In that context, the legislation is necessary and welcome. It sets out the library’s functions regarding how collections are maintained, developed and kept relevant, and regarding access—acknowledging the demands for physical and, importantly, online access. The bill deals with the research function, which is a vital component of the NLS’s work, and with collaboration, recognising its role in sharing expertise and knowledge with the wider library community.
Collaboration is one aspect on which the ministerial powers of direction are focused. I accept the minister’s points about it being a power of last resort, and I am grateful for the efforts that have been made to restrict it as much as possible in response to the committee’s early concern about the NLS’s charitable status, which now appears to have been dealt with.
Some other concerns have also been allayed. The NLS has stated:
“we feel comfortable that there are very strong and effective restraints on”
the power of direction. However, it has also stated:
“What we regret is making a principle of the ability to direct the National Library.”—[Official Report, Education and Culture Committee, 7 February 2012; c 705.]
There are still misgivings, and I look forward to reading the cabinet secretary’s letter ahead of stage 2, which I and my colleagues will scrutinise.
Although I would not suggest that the cabinet secretary’s approach falls into this category, other aspects of what the Government is trying to do appear to be about gathering further control in the hands of ministers. That is the backdrop, notwithstanding the fact that Fiona McLeod has made it absolutely clear that she and many of her colleagues will be a force to be reckoned with if anyone seeks to mess with the independence—curatorial or otherwise—of librarians. Given the evidence that we have taken from the cabinet secretary and others, there are concerns that it is difficult to see how the power that we are putting in the text of the bill will be used. It is a dangerous road to go down.
The cabinet secretary has certainly allayed my fears about the size of the board. The range from nine to 14 seems entirely appropriate. Liz Smith made a sensible point about the smooth transition to the new board, and we will probably wish to look at the issue again at stage 2.
The National Library of Scotland is a national treasure. The demands that we place on it have changed over the years and undoubtedly will change in the future, probably in ways that we are unable to predict now. I hope that the bill can help to ensure that the NLS continues to meet the needs of the ever-growing number of people. I look forward to the stage 2 scrutiny.
16:07
Little did I think when I got up this morning that I would find myself speaking in a debate on the National Library of Scotland. Nevertheless, to my surprise, it has been an exciting and diverse debate in which we have discussed the great principles of socialism and capitalism. I specifically mention that because Neil Findlay told us that libraries are the embodiment of the spirit of socialism. However, I did not have to interrupt him, because no sooner had he said that than Clare Adamson pointed out that Andrew Carnegie and the spirit of philanthropic, benevolent capitalism was what really delivered for the library system in Scotland.
We heard Mark Griffin take the debate into the area of “Oor Wullie”. It is an issue that has been raised several times and one that is close to my own heart, because for some 30 years-plus I have been married to a woman who is an expert on “Oor Wullie”. Perhaps it is necessary for us to employ the services of the National Library of Scotland to find out the answer to a question that she has delivered to me many times without any possibility of reply: what happened to Oor Wullie’s sister, who went out to play in 1943 and has never been seen or heard of again? Perhaps, if she is buried under the patio, “Oor Wullie” might yet find itself on the list of banned books.
I will go back to the subject that we are here to discuss. One of the interesting features that struck me in reading the committee report is that the existing board and governance structure have endured for more than 80 years. On the one hand, that suggests that it is necessary to update the arrangements given all the time that has passed, but on the other hand it confirms that there is a rich repository of experience. We should not be too quick to dismiss what we can learn from.
It is interesting to consider the bill’s two main aims, which are to modernise the National Library of Scotland’s governance arrangements and to set out its functions in statute. I do not think that anyone seriously disagrees that we need to do that, but I ask the minister to bear the two aims in mind when she responds to the debate.
On governance, the current structure is unwieldy. It is not suitable if we want an institution of the significance of the National Library to address all the challenges of the 21st century. A board of 32 members is indeed clunky. I think that all members, from our experience of sitting on external committees or boards of trustees, recognise the need for certain criteria to be met in relation to boards.
First, board members should bring genuine experience from a cross-section of backgrounds. The test should be whether each member is worth listening to because he or she adds to the knowledge and experience of the board. Secondly, board members should not be there to tick a particular sectoral box. Such an approach inevitably leads to limited individual vision and a lack of coherent strategic vision. Finally, the board must be large enough to cope with absences for reasons of illness or holidays, which are simply a fact of life. If it is not, meetings might not be quorate or, if they are quorate, the small number of members who are present might not be able to have a meaningful discussion. At worst, meetings have to be postponed.
In the original proposals there was a mismatch of principles. We welcome the spirit in which the cabinet secretary said that she will lodge amendments at stage 2. A board membership of as few as seven seems unsafe. The operation of the National Library of Scotland needs more stability than such an approach would afford. The weaknesses are obvious and seem to have been recognised after the cabinet secretary appeared before the committee. However, the unexpected inclusion in the bill of ministerial powers of direction accentuates the risk. I will talk about that in more detail shortly; suffice it to say for now that conferring such powers while allowing the board to be too small seems to be a highly undesirable combination.
We all agree that there is no magic or perfect number of board members. What has the experience of running the library for more than 80 years taught us? The evidence that the committee heard was helpful. The committee said in its report:
“There was unanimous agreement amongst the organisations that provided oral evidence that the proposed lower limit for the board was too small.”
It went on to say:
“the current chair of the NLS board ... considered that the ideal board size would be 12 or 13 members.”
I think that he is right.
When Scottish Government officials gave evidence, they said that the board could be bulked out by co-option. I do not agree but, if the cabinet secretary agrees, the National Library will have the Achilles’ heel of a board that is too small for its purposes. The ability to co-opt gives a board the important flexibility to bring to the table a person who has particular experience or skill that will assist it in addressing whatever is confronting it at a particular time; it is not a way to make up numbers. I urge the cabinet secretary to listen to the evidence.
Can you come to a conclusion, please?
Indeed. Much more could be said on the subject, but given my lack of expertise it would make good sense for me to thank the cabinet secretary for her concession and to say that I look forward to supporting the bill at 5 o’clock.
Given the lack of time, I am grateful to you.
16:13
This has been a consensual debate, which has reflected the consensual nature of the committee’s discussions. I welcome Alex Johnstone to the world of culture and hope that he will be a regular visitor from now on.
I have a feeling of déjà vu, because I suggested reform measures for the National Library in the draft culture (Scotland) bill, which was consulted on when Labour was in government. I do not know why the Scottish National Party decided to remove those provisions from what became the Creative Scotland Bill, but that is water under the bridge. In today’s debate we must focus on the bill that is in front of us.
Many members have put on record their high regard for the National Library of Scotland and libraries in general, and I share that view. Since 1925, as we heard, the National Library has been Scotland’s only legal deposit library, but it is so much more than that. Indeed, the National Library is an important guardian of our history and culture and part of our family of national collections.
I remember the great excitement when the library was able, with help from the Heritage Lottery Fund and the generosity of the Murray family, to purchase the Murray archive, which contains the private papers, manuscripts and records of luminaries of literature such as Jane Austen and Sir Walter Scott and important figures such as David Livingstone.
The library was kind enough to give the President of Malawi a gift of a copy of a drawing that was sketched by David Livingstone in the margin of the diaries that he wrote during his travels in Malawi. I know that the president treasured it. As an admirer of the poetry of Byron, I remember my reaction to being given a draft printed copy of the poem “Childe Harold”, with handwritten corrections by the poet, to hold and to look at. I am sure that the minister will agree that the post that she occupies is one that comes with challenges but also with great opportunities.
I was delighted to hear the minister’s announcement about the film archive moving to Glasgow. The city will make a good home for the archive and the Kelvin hall is a splendid place for it to be located, as it is close to the Kelvingrove museum. I look forward to seeing the archive there.
Scottish Labour agrees with the Government that the time has come to modernise the governance arrangements for the National Library of Scotland. However, as Neil Findlay has pointed out, we still have questions that we hope that the minister will address.
I was glad that the minister took on board the issue of the size of the board. We look forward to hearing a little more about how she sees that fleshing out and developing, although I think that it is heading in the right direction. However, I have to say that Clare Adamson tempted me to suggest a further restriction to the size of the board when she spoke about the First Minister potentially losing his job. In that vein, I very much hope that Marco Biagi has not taken the minister’s decision about the board of the National Library too personally—I am sure that the decision was not intended in that way.
We are concerned about ministerial powers of direction and the shape and form that those powers might take. I caution against anything that would call into question the curatorial independence of the library or its ability to decide on its own research or exhibitions or on its acquisitions policy.
I mentioned earlier the draft culture (Scotland) bill. Some members may recall that, in the consultation on that bill, I floated the idea of there being ministerial powers of direction in respect of what is now Creative Scotland—I am sure that Mr Maxwell remembers those debates well. Having considered the responses to that consultation, I decided that we would not pursue that power in relation to Creative Scotland as its use would have been so limited as to render it unnecessary. I believe that that is even truer of the bill we are discussing today. Indeed, the further restriction of the opportunities that ministerial direction would give, which the minister outlined today, makes the case against ministerial direction even stronger. However, I look forward to hearing more about that issue as we go forward.
Ministers will have the power to make appointments to the board, and the chief executive officer is an accountable officer to the Scottish Executive, so a strong framework will already be in place. I think that anything additional to that would be questionable in terms of proportionality and might compromise the National Library’s ability to raise money from donations.
We understand that the library might want to capitalise on its ability to raise money from merchandising, particularly around a popular exhibition. However, as Neil Findlay has indicated, we are concerned about those aspects of the bill that suggest that the library might charge for certain services or for the provision of goods. Similarly, what mechanism does the minister see the National Library adopting to allow it to borrow money and, more importantly, to pay it back, and to what purpose would it do so?
Like colleagues, I am intrigued by the idea that the library might want to set up new companies. Perhaps the minister might clarify how they would operate and to what purpose they would be put.
I was interested in Mark Griffin’s remarks concerning “Oor Wullie”, and I bow to Mr Johnstone’s family expertise in that area. However, I simply say to Mr Griffin that there are other families that have the tradition that his seems to have. I also point out that you know that you have received one too many “Oor Wullie” books when you notice that the stories are being recycled—an experience that my brother and I have discussed on more than one occasion.
We all want the National Library to be able to grow and flourish and to be able to move with emerging technologies. So far, it has been remarkably good at doing so, and nothing that we put in place now should stifle that ability.
Scottish Labour is happy to support the principles of the bill and looks forward to hearing more from the minister about some of the specific points that we have raised in the debate. We also look forward to the discussions that we will have as the bill progresses.
16:20
I thank the members who have spoken in the debate, and I would say that Alex Johnstone is living testament to the fact that libraries broaden the mind. I am pleased that, in this stage 1 debate on the National Library of Scotland Bill, the Parliament has had the opportunity to educate Mr Johnstone in areas with which he was perhaps unfamiliar.
We have had a useful and constructive discussion, and I will keep in mind the points that members have raised—as well as the points raised by all the people who have commented on the bill so far—as we steer the legislation through its remaining stages. I have been delighted to hear such warm words about the National Library and the importance of the reform of its governance. Back in 1925, all sides at Westminster backed the proposal to establish a national library of Scotland, and members pointed out the universal support in Scotland, with one stating:
“I do not think that any right hon. Member would grudge anything from public funds for this very important object in Scotland”.—[Official Report, House of Commons, 24 July 1925; Vol 186, c 2628.]
In the same way, this Government is proud to support the National Library of Scotland. We recognise the great benefits that the nation enjoys from the library.
As we have heard, the National Library holds tremendous collections on behalf of the people of Scotland—including Oor Wullie. The collections span the centuries, and include items such as the only known copy of blind Harry’s 15th-century epic, “Wallace”, and a copy of the first printed book, the Gutenberg Bible of 1455.
The National Library ensures that the past is brought to life in a modern context. Its exhibitions and events remind visitors of the enduring relevance of the collections. The current exhibition, “Beyond Macbeth”, uses material held by the library and by the University of Edinburgh to illustrate the importance of Shakespeare to Scotland. The fabulous John Murray archive boasts material from Sir Walter Scott, David Livingstone, Jane Austen and, as we have heard, Charles Darwin. The material has been given a modern relevance by the library; those tremendous figures from our past are brought to life using technology. The National Library has created an app for mobile phones, and there are interactive pods at the entrance so that users can explore in a fun and informative way.
As we have heard, the National Library has operated under the existing legislation for 87 years, and it has done a remarkable job of maintaining and developing the national record. However, it is now time to build on those strong foundations and equip the library with the necessary functions. That is important, because many of the concerns that people have raised will be dealt with by the functions that are set out in the bill. The 1925 act does not set out the functions. A great deal of legal protection will be given in relation to some of the issues that members have raised. The bill also covers powers and governance arrangements that will allow the library to achieve even more.
As well as what it can achieve internally, the library can contribute to a modern and dynamic Scotland. As one of Europe’s major research and reference libraries, it offers world-class collections. The bill will modernise the functions and governance of the library for the 21st century. It is essential that we take this opportunity to strengthen the library’s role in safeguarding and sharing its collections, and to strengthen its work in bringing the nation’s history and culture to life. The bill is drafted to keep pace with requirements so as to preserve and develop our national collections for generations to come.
This afternoon’s debate has given me a further opportunity to reflect on points that were raised in the committee’s report. As I have said, I am content to increase the minimum number of board members from six to eight, with the chair being the ninth member, which I think addresses a point that Fiona McLeod raised. That increase makes sense when we consider the range of skills that are required to support and enhance the strategic operation of the library. However, I would not expect the library to operate at the lower end of that board membership. Similarly, I will strive to ensure that the boards of National Museums Scotland and the National Galleries of Scotland exceed the minimum quota.
Liz Smith made an important point about the need for a smooth transition, and we are already in discussions on how that can be achieved, with the skills of the current board members progressing into the new arrangements. We have done similar things with other organisations for which there have been mergers or changes.
Members have rightly scrutinised the inclusion of a ministerial power of direction, to ensure that we have the right balance between accountability and curatorial freedom. I am sure that Patricia Ferguson will remember the consultation on the 2005 bill, in which the ministerial power of direction was very general. Changes have been made since then to restrict the power of direction. I refer those who have not looked at it to section 8, which sets out the limitations of the Scottish ministers’ power of direction. It completely restricts any directions that would affect the curatorial aspect that Patricia Ferguson mentioned.
I accept that the minister does not intend to interfere with curatorial independence. However, I suggest that she reflect on the fact that the ministerial power now seems to be drawn so narrowly that it does nothing to allow any problems to be dealt with for which there is not already scope in the framework of governance. Perhaps the power is just not needed.
I will come on to some other important points on the power of direction, but we are damned if we do and damned if we don’t in terms of how far the direction might go. The bill provides necessary safeguards, but I confirm that my officials have held—and will continue to hold—discussions with the National Library of Scotland to provide clarity about the nature and use of the power of direction. As requested, I will write to the committee on the matter before stage 2.
I am pleased that the committee is satisfied with the assurance that the inclusion of a power of direction will not jeopardise the library’s charitable status—a point that was raised by members today. If there were an overt use of the ministerial power of direction, that could compromise the library’s charitable status. It is important that we do not jeopardise that, and I am pleased that the committee agrees with our approach. However, 86 per cent of the funding that is provided to the library comes from taxpayers, and I know that, if something goes awry and a ministerial power of direction is required, members of this Parliament will be the first to leap to their feet and call for ministers to get involved, take leadership and so on. The bill needs to be future proofed, and we are concerned to get the balance correct.
The issue of the ministerial power of direction was raised by Stewart Maxwell, Liz Smith and Neil Findlay, and I refer members to the restrictions in section 8(2). We have moved a long way in our discussions and it is important that we get the balance right.
As well as amending the minimum size of the board, I intend to lodge amendments at stage 2 to address some of the points that were raised in the written evidence from the Faculty of Advocates. I agree in principle that the bill should be clearer about the scope of the faculty’s collections, which are wonderful. I will also lodge a technical amendment to tidy up the provisions about legal publications. My officials will discuss those amendments to sections 5 and 6 with the Faculty of Advocates and the National Library of Scotland shortly.
I think that everybody recognises the Government’s position on fee charging. I wrote to the committee on 23 February to explain that, where provisions for charging exist, the National Library of Scotland is providing additional material free of charge; however, it can charge users for digitisation on demand. Fiona McLeod made a good point when she said that, in the past, there has been charging for things that have subsequently become normal provision. We must future-proof the bill to allow progress in areas where technology may overtake us in the future.
In terms of companies, it is a standard provision for NDPBs to charge and mirrors provisions for Creative Scotland. Neil Findlay asked about charging for services. That will be restricted because of the functions in the bill and the need to make collections accessible to the public. However, in relation to catering and hospitality, for example, there needs to be a provision to allow the library to charge for goods and services.
This has been a good stage 1 debate. The committee has taken its responsibilities seriously and the debate has been an opportunity to showcase what Liam McArthur described as a national treasure. It is important that, as we have legislative responsibility for the National Library of Scotland, we take the opportunity to celebrate what is there, recognising not only its role in the past but its role into the future. It is heartening to hear that members and stakeholders are passionate that there should be no charges for access to the library. Free access to our collections is something that I treasure and I am committed to maintaining it.
I am pleased to have the Parliament’s support for the bill and will seek to work constructively with the committee as the bill proceeds to stage 2.