National Library of Scotland Bill: Stage 3
The next item of business is stage 3 proceedings on the National Library of Scotland Bill. In dealing with the amendments, members should have the bill as amended at stage 2, the marshalled list and the groupings to which I have agreed. Those documents—SP bill 2A, SP bill 2A-ML and SP bill 2A-G, respectively—should be available at the back of the chamber.
If there is a division, the division bell will sound and proceedings will be suspended for five minutes for the first division of the afternoon. The period of voting for the first division will be 30 seconds. Thereafter, I will allow a voting period of one minute for the first division after a debate. Members who want to speak in the debate on a group of amendments should press their request-to-speak buttons as soon as possible after I call the lead amendment in the relevant group.
Members should refer to the marshalled list of amendments.
Section 3—Acquisitions, deposits and disposal of objects
Group 1 is on means of acceptance on deposit. Amendment 1, in the name of the Cabinet Secretary for Culture and External Affairs, is grouped with amendment 2.
At stage 2, I lodged an amendment that added new subsection (1A) to section 3, to recognise that the National Library of Scotland may receive acquisitions by virtue of legislation other than the bill. For example, as one of six legal deposit libraries in the United Kingdom and Ireland, the National Library receives 90 per cent of its acquisitions through the system that was established under the Legal Deposit Libraries Act 2003. The 2003 act is not directly referred to in the bill as a means through which the National Library can acquire items, so the amendment captured all relevant legislation under which the library can acquire items.
Amendments 1 and 2 are purely technical and will extend section 3(1A) so that it applies to deposits as well as to acquisitions. Therefore the same principle is applied: the National Library can accept deposits by virtue of legislation or rules of law other than the bill.
The approach in amendments 1 and 2 is consistent with the drafting approach that is taken throughout the bill. Rather than provide a list of all relevant legislation that applies to the National Library, the amendments provide flexibility to accommodate future legislative developments, as was the case with the amendment at stage 2.
I move amendment 1.
Amendment 1 agreed to.
Amendment 2 moved—[Fiona Hyslop]—and agreed to.
Section 5—Legal publications
15:30
Group 2 is on legal publications. Amendment 3, in the name of the cabinet secretary, is the only amendment in the group.
Amendment 3 is a technical amendment that is concerned with dispute resolution between the National Library and the Faculty of Advocates. It might be helpful to members if I put the amendment in context.
On 22 December 2011, the national librarian and the dean of the Faculty of Advocates signed two memoranda of agreement to reinforce their operational relationship. The first memorandum contains guidelines on how both bodies will work together to manage and maintain access to their respective collections. The second memorandum deals with the ownership of items that are currently held by the National Library which are the property of the faculty. It also sets out the dispute mechanism for any ownership claims and requires that both parties draw up deposit arrangements for current and future items owned by the faculty but in the possession of the National Library.
Amendment 3 extends the application of the dispute resolution provision that is set out in section 5(5) to cover section 6. As it stands, section 5(5) deals with the handling of disputes about what constitutes a legal publication for the purposes of section 5, which deals with legal publications that are made available between the National Library and the faculty. The amendment ensures that disputes about what constitutes a legal publication for the purposes of section 6, which is on the joint arrangements, are handled in the same way.
I expect any disputes between the National Library and the faculty to be resolved amicably, in line with their close and long-standing working arrangements. That is why any disputes are to be resolved by agreement by both parties in the first instance and, failing that, by arbitration. Those arrangements are acceptable to the National Library of Scotland and the faculty and are in line with the dispute resolution in the memoranda of agreement between both bodies.
I move amendment 3.
Amendment 3 agreed to.
Section 8—Directions and guidance
Group 3 is on Scottish ministers’ power of direction. Amendment 4, in the name of Liam McArthur, is grouped with amendment 5.
Committee colleagues will recognise the amendments from stage 2; some may even be wondering why they are being asked to strike them down again. Leaving aside my fading hope of inspiring a rebellion on the Government’s back benches, I thought that it was important to allow members to consider the issues inherent in both amendments.
Amendments 4 and 5 deal with ministerial powers of direction, raise questions about the relationship that ministers have or should have with bodies such as the National Library of Scotland, and reflect wider concerns about the extent and nature of the powers that ministers are seeking more generally.
I acknowledge that, following the publication of the initial bill, Fiona Hyslop has sought to define the powers more tightly, but in resisting the amendments at stage 2, she argued that her objectives are to future proof the legislation, safeguard the efficient running of the NLS, and achieve balance and accountability. That position is not unreasonable, but we are passing a bill that sets out the statutory functions and duties of the National Library, which relies on central Government for 86 per cent of its funding and will operate under a new, streamlined board structure. We are also approving ministerial direction in relation to general powers that are set out in schedule 1. They will be significant in achieving the cabinet secretary’s objectives, and I simply do not accept that a persuasive case has been made for loading the dice further in favour of ministers, even as a last resort.
In its evidence, the NLS said that it regretted the principle of ministerial direction, but Ms Hyslop accepted that
“a power of direction has never been applied to cultural public bodies”.
Again at stage 2, the cabinet secretary struggled to identify circumstances in which it might be appropriate for such a power to be used or where that could safely be done without impinging on the curatorial, cultural or professional functions of the library, its board and its staff. Therefore, when we are being asked to put in a bill powers that have never been used and for which no compelling case can be mounted as to why, when and where they might be needed, other than for general future proofing, I have grave concerns.
That is all the more the case against the backdrop of a Government that seems all too eager to exercise control from the centre. Ms Hyslop’s colleagues the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning and the Cabinet Secretary for Justice are perhaps most noteworthy as serial offenders in that respect. On each occasion that ministers seek more powers and control, we are told that that will increase efficiency, improve accountability in how public funds are spent and safeguard the public interest, but that rarely, if ever, stands up to scrutiny.
As I said at stage 2, there are many things that would make the lives of ministers easier or the functioning of Government smoother, but not all of them—possibly even very few of them—can be said to be desirable, and those reasons are certainly not reason enough to enshrine them in law.
Fiona Hyslop deserves considerable credit for the way in which she has handled the bill, and for her willingness to respond to almost all the concerns that have been raised with her. Amendments 4 and 5 represent the exception. I urge her, with that praise ringing in her ears, to relent, even at this late stage.
I move amendment 4.
A number of members have indicated that they wish to contribute, so I limit members to up to two minutes.
I recognise the content of Liam McArthur’s contributions today and at stage 2, and his sincerely held views on the difficult balance that must be struck in these areas.
Liam McArthur quoted the NLS’s view on these particular ministerial powers, but the NLS went on to say that it recognises that the Government has included substantial restrictions on the powers of direction, which have been extensively discussed with the present board of trustees. That is a slightly more balanced account of what the NLS said about the powers.
I point out to Liam McArthur that the powers that are being discussed today are in line with powers that have been included in previous acts. In fact, I have a list of previous acts that have been passed by the Scottish Parliament and for which, on all occasions, the lead minister was a Liberal Democrat. On all occasions, very similar—or almost the same—powers of direction were included in the bills. I will not embarrass Liam McArthur by reading out the titles of the bills, some of which he may recognise from his previous employment.
The committee took written and oral evidence on this particular aspect of the bill. We examined it carefully and in some depth, and at stage 2 we debated both of the amendments and rejected them on a cross-party basis by quite a margin. I ask members to reject amendments 4 and 5, and to leave what are tightly drawn powers in the bill.
Colleagues who took part in the stage 1 debate will recall that Scottish Labour raised its concerns about this particular area at that time. We are grateful to the cabinet secretary for listening to that debate, and for seeking ways in which the powers can be limited.
However, we believe that—as Liam McArthur has outlined—the powers that Scottish ministers already have in connection with the National Library of Scotland are more than sufficient to allow them the type of control that is commensurate with their role in that regard. To have any more powers is really just to be excessive.
We do not believe that there is a persuasive or compelling case for those powers to be described as they are, nor do we view them as having a place in the text of the bill. We allowed the cabinet secretary the opportunity to consider and to listen to the stage 2 debate, but we are not persuaded that she has come quite far enough as yet to allow us to be satisfied with the Government’s current position.
Stewart Maxwell has indicated that he has a list of bills in which Liberal Democrat ministers have signed off similar powers of intervention. I remind Mr Maxwell that history has a habit of contradicting itself, and I remember him being vehemently opposed to ministerial powers of direction in a similar area not that long ago.
I hope that my declaration of interests does not take up my whole two minutes, so I will abbreviate. I am a member of the Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals and chair of the Scottish Library and Information Council.
Liam McArthur was asking for a rebellion. Here is a rebellious librarian who can see sense and argue about what is before us, rather than about flights of fantasy and conspiracy theories as elaborated by Labour, which accepted the cabinet secretary’s comments at stage 2 and in fact voted down the two amendments at stage 2.
At stage 1, I said that I was a proud and fierce defender of the independence of libraries. I maintain that I am, and that the two ministerial powers of direction in no way interfere with that independence. Section 2(3)(c) is about ensuring that there is always accessibility to libraries and their collections—any librarian would go to the wall to ensure that—and that the National Library will continue that tradition.
Section 2(2)(d) is about collaboration and good practice. Why do members think that I accepted the post of chair of the Scottish Library and Information Council? I did not do so so that I could tell librarians what to do or what to stock; I did so so that I could be part of the library community and could go on the shared journey to excellence. As a profession and a public service, we achieve most when we learn from each other and when we work together within and across the library sectors.
The bill is about our National Library. I want to be sure that the National Library will fulfil a leadership role, when appropriate. With the proposed power of ministerial direction, I am sure that it will continue to do that, so I urge members to reject amendments 4 and 5.
I am grateful to Liam McArthur for lodging his amendments. We believe that the overriding need is to enshrine in the provisions of the bill and the subsequent legislation the facility to increase the efficiency and accountability of the National Library and, given the institution’s structure, to ensure that there is a correct balance between the powers of ministers and those of the board.
In her evidence to the Education and Culture Committee on 24 April, the cabinet secretary acknowledged that the two key principles were balance and accountability. However, she went on to say that it was not a debate about “ministerial direction in general”. It might not be in one respect, if we look at the technicalities of section 2(2)(d) and 2(3)(c), but I do not think that they can be separated from the wider issue of ministerial responsibility.
Some members of the committee were exercised about the fact that the cabinet secretary appeared to be hesitant when she was asked to identify the circumstances in which it might be appropriate for such a power to be used and how she intended to put in place safeguards to protect the independence of professional staff and the board when it came to the making of key decisions by the National Library. That vagueness, combined with the very strong concerns that many stakeholders voiced about the extent of ministerial powers, became the subject of the central debate in the committee, and rightly so.
I suggest that the cabinet secretary was much more comfortable about defining the circumstances in which she or any of her successors would not interfere than she was about defining those in which ministers might interfere. At a time when technology is changing particularly quickly, that served only to accentuate the concerns. Those concerns remain, which is why we are happy to support Liam McArthur’s amendments 4 and 5.
Amendments the same as amendments 4 and 5 were lodged by Liam McArthur at stage 2, when they were defeated by seven votes to two. I point out that we have reached stage 3 and that stage 3 consideration should be about the specifics, rather than the wider agenda of ministerial direction, which Liam McArthur and Liz Smith have raised.
Between 1999 and 2007, the passage of four out of the eight acts that included a ministerial power of direction was led by Lib Dem ministers. Of those four, the one that Liam McArthur will be most familiar with is the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Act 2005, which contains a power of direction in relation to the Scottish Further and Higher Education Funding Council. Its passage was led by Jim Wallace, who was ably supported by his then special adviser, one Liam McArthur.
We are making law, so let us home in on the specific area that we are talking about. The debate about the power of direction is all about balance and accountability. As the convener pointed out during stage 2, a power of direction is a standard feature of modern public bodies. Of the 20 bodies in Scotland that have been established as statutory bodies since 1990, a power of direction is associated with 17 of them. Eighty-six per cent of the National Library’s funding comes from Scottish Government grant, and it is correct that the National Library is accountable to taxpayers for how that money is used. At the same time, it is equally right that ministers should respect the National Library’s curatorial responsibility and freedom to look after the collections on behalf of the people of Scotland. Section 8 of the bill provides that balance.
I want to take some time to explain the approach that we have taken in drafting the power of direction. To address Liz Smith’s point, section 8 is deliberately drafted in such a way as to put beyond doubt those areas in which Scottish ministers cannot direct the National Library rather than to prescribe those areas in which the Scottish Government can exert an influence. Quite rightly, I cannot direct the National Library in relation to access or how it exhibits or interprets the collections. I cannot direct the National Library on how it encourages education and research or how it contributes to an understanding of our national culture. I cannot direct on acquisitions, deposits, disposals, borrowing or lending. Those are all matters of curatorial judgment for the National Library. Furthermore, I cannot direct on matters relating to legal publications or the joint arrangements between the National Library and the Faculty of Advocates, nor can I direct on grants and loans. That approach of setting out clearly the areas in which ministerial powers of direction do not apply deliberately and explicitly supports and, indeed, underpins the arm’s-length principle that applies to the relationship between Scottish ministers and our publicly funded bodies.
15:45
The committee’s stage 1 report appreciated that the power of direction as drafted preserves the independence of the National Library. Furthermore the National Library recognises the limits of the power of direction. Indeed, the national librarian, Martyn Wade, stated during a stage 1 evidence-taking session that when he and the board considered the provision, they found that
“ministers are able to direct only in a very small number of areas”.—[Official Report, Education and Culture Committee, 7 February 2012; c 707.]
The limited power of direction is very much a measure of last resort and would be applied only if all other requirements or financial controls had been exhausted. Members could ask why, if a power of direction is not intended for use, it should be included at all. I am ultimately accountable to the Scottish Parliament for the services that the National Library provides. I say to Liam McArthur that it is impossible to predict what might happen in the future, which is why I have chosen the ability to direct in relation to particular functions of the National Library.
Liam McArthur’s amendments would remove the Government’s ability to direct the National Library in relation to two of its functions: promoting collaboration and the sharing of good practice.
With regard to amendment 4, I emphasise that section 2(2)(d) concerns the promotion of collaboration and the sharing of good practice. It is important to emphasise that distinction. That function does not mean that the National Library could be directed to enforce collaboration or the sharing of good practice by others.
I want to make it clear why I believe that Scottish ministers should have a power of direction in relation to section 2(2)(d). The National Library and other libraries operate in a rapidly changing technological age and I want the bill to be sufficiently future proofed to enable it to cope with associated demands and uncertainties. Members have appreciated that at all stages of the bill. The National Library will have a duty to promote collaboration and the sharing of good practice, which thus supports public sector performance, efficiencies and shared services—that is part of the accountability to the Parliament and to the taxpayers. That is relevant with regard to, for example, current digitisation work. I am sure that we all agree that services in that area should be shared wherever practical in order to avoid duplication and unnecessary additional costs. Our public bodies should be working together on that wherever possible. I cannot believe that the Conservatives would be happy to let the efficiency agenda slip on this issue.
Overall, the ability of ministers to direct in respect of promoting collaboration and good practice is in the interests of the public purse and public efficiency.
With regard to amendment 5, it is important that Scottish ministers have the ability to direct in relation to section 2(3)(c). The Government is committed to the equalities and diversity agenda. I believe that the question of the National Library promoting the diversity of people accessing its collection is a matter of public policy interest rather than purely a matter for the library’s curatorial independence. By voting for Liam McArthur’s amendment, members would be voting against Government’s ability to ensure that linguistic, geographic and socioeconomic diversity is represented. I cannot believe that the Labour Party is seriously thinking of voting against diversity by supporting amendment 5.
A power of direction in respect of the promotion of diversity is consistent with the founding legislation for Creative Scotland and was accepted by the committee at stage 2—indeed, Liam McArthur did not move an amendment on the issue at that point.
For those reasons, I cannot support the amendments. I ask Liam McArthur to withdraw amendment 4 and not to move amendment 5.
I am grateful to all those who have contributed to the debate. Stewart Maxwell was fairly gracious in his acceptance of the fact that the committee had concerns about this issue from the outset. Those concerns melted away for some colleagues, but some of us held on to them for rather longer.
Stewart Maxwell quoted the NLS. I recall that the NLS told the committee that
“there are very strong and effective restraints on”
the power of direction. However, it 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.]
Stewart Maxwell made clear during stage 2 deliberations that, in previous times, he had been fighting the glorious fight with regard to ministerial powers of direction. I suspect that that is what Patricia Ferguson was alluding to.
My opposition to the ministerial power of direction under the previous Liberal Democrat-Labour Government was to do with powers that would have interfered in the creative and cultural side of things, not the powers of direction that we are talking about today.
I accept the basis on which Stewart Maxwell was making those complaints. Nevertheless, I cannot see—and the cabinet secretary has yet to explain sufficiently—how the ministerial powers that are being sought in this instance will not bleed into curatorial and professional areas, and other aspects that are supposed to be safeguarded by the bill.
The bill, if passed by Parliament, will prevent by statutory force any interference in curatorial responsibilities. There is no risk whatever of that happening, and Mr McArthur’s remarks belie the fact that his argument is really not strong enough.
I do not accept that at all. In this instance, it is assumed that the guardians of the public interest are only the ministers, not the board. As a result, the Government is seeking to load the dice unfairly in favour of ministers if any disagreements arise between them and the board.
To Fiona McLeod, a rebellious librarian who I would certainly think twice about taking on, I have to say that her claim that this is simply a conspiracy theory does not stack up. The cabinet secretary does not know how the powers will be used and I suspect that, as a fierce defender of libraries, Ms McLeod might well find herself on the barricades if my amendments are not agreed to.
I am grateful for Liz Smith’s continued support on this matter and agree that it is a matter of concern that the bill defines where the powers cannot be used instead of setting out the areas in which the cabinet secretary envisages that they would be used.
The cabinet secretary repeated many of the arguments that she used at stage 2. She questioned why, having seen the amendments defeated at stage 2, I had brought them back at stage 3. I point out that I made an approach to the cabinet secretary after stage 2 to find out whether there were any areas of compromise but unfortunately there was a deafening silence, which was rather out of keeping with her approach to the bill up to that point. Nevertheless, I think that it is important for the whole chamber to take a view on the issue and will therefore press amendment 4.
The question is, that amendment 4 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division. As it is the first division of the afternoon, I suspend the meeting for five minutes.
15:52
Meeting suspended.
15:57
On resuming—
We move to the division on amendment 4.
For
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Brown, Gavin (Lothian) (Con)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (Lab)
Davidson, Ruth (Glasgow) (Con)
Dugdale, Kezia (Lothian) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Cowdenbeath) (Lab)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (Lab)
Fergusson, Alex (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Goldie, Annabel (West Scotland) (Con)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Henry, Hugh (Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
Hume, Jim (South Scotland) (LD)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kelly, James (Rutherglen) (Lab)
Lamont, John (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Macintosh, Ken (Eastwood) (Lab)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Provan) (Lab)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McCulloch, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Lab)
McDougall, Margaret (West Scotland) (Lab)
McGrigor, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
McInnes, Alison (North East Scotland) (LD)
McLetchie, David (Lothian) (Con)
McMahon, Michael (Uddingston and Bellshill) (Lab)
McMahon, Siobhan (Central Scotland) (Lab)
McTaggart, Anne (Glasgow) (Lab)
Milne, Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Park, John (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Pearson, Graeme (South Scotland) (Lab)
Pentland, John (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
Rennie, Willie (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Simpson, Dr Richard (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Smith, Drew (Glasgow) (Lab)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Allan, Dr Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Biagi, Marco (Edinburgh Central) (SNP)
Brodie, Chic (South Scotland) (SNP)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Burgess, Margaret (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Campbell, Roderick (North East Fife) (SNP)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Don, Nigel (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Eadie, Jim (Edinburgh Southern) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gibson, Rob (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Ingram, Adam (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Keir, Colin (Edinburgh Western) (SNP)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Central Scotland) (SNP)
MacAskill, Kenny (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
MacKenzie, Mike (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
Maxwell, Stewart (West Scotland) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McDonald, Mark (North East Scotland) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McLeod, Aileen (South Scotland) (SNP)
McLeod, Fiona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (West Scotland) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Robertson, Dennis (Aberdeenshire West) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Thompson, Dave (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Urquhart, Jean (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Wilson, John (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 52, Against 62, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 4 disagreed to.
Amendment 5 moved—[Liam McArthur].
The question is, that amendment 5 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Brown, Gavin (Lothian) (Con)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (Lab)
Davidson, Ruth (Glasgow) (Con)
Dugdale, Kezia (Lothian) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Cowdenbeath) (Lab)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (Lab)
Fergusson, Alex (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Goldie, Annabel (West Scotland) (Con)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Henry, Hugh (Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
Hume, Jim (South Scotland) (LD)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kelly, James (Rutherglen) (Lab)
Lamont, John (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Macintosh, Ken (Eastwood) (Lab)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Provan) (Lab)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McCulloch, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Lab)
McDougall, Margaret (West Scotland) (Lab)
McGrigor, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
McInnes, Alison (North East Scotland) (LD)
McLetchie, David (Lothian) (Con)
McMahon, Michael (Uddingston and Bellshill) (Lab)
McMahon, Siobhan (Central Scotland) (Lab)
McTaggart, Anne (Glasgow) (Lab)
Milne, Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Park, John (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Pearson, Graeme (South Scotland) (Lab)
Pentland, John (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
Rennie, Willie (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Simpson, Dr Richard (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Smith, Drew (Glasgow) (Lab)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Allan, Dr Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Biagi, Marco (Edinburgh Central) (SNP)
Brodie, Chic (South Scotland) (SNP)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Burgess, Margaret (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Campbell, Roderick (North East Fife) (SNP)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Don, Nigel (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Eadie, Jim (Edinburgh Southern) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gibson, Rob (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Ingram, Adam (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Keir, Colin (Edinburgh Western) (SNP)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Central Scotland) (SNP)
MacAskill, Kenny (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
MacKenzie, Mike (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
Maxwell, Stewart (West Scotland) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McDonald, Mark (North East Scotland) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McLeod, Aileen (South Scotland) (SNP)
McLeod, Fiona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (West Scotland) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Robertson, Dennis (Aberdeenshire West) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Thompson, Dave (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Urquhart, Jean (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Wilson, John (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 52, Against 62, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 5 disagreed to.
As we are nearing the agreed time limit, I consider it necessary to allow, under rule 9.8.4A, the debate on the next group to continue beyond the limit, to allow members with the right to speak on the amendments in the group to do so. In this case, that is the cabinet secretary.
Section 12—Commencement
16:00
Group 4 is entitled “NLS: transitional arrangements”. Amendment 6, in the name of the cabinet secretary, is grouped with amendments 7 and 8.
Amendments 6 to 8 are about the transition from the old board of the National Library to the new one. Should the Parliament agree to pass the bill, I propose to commence it as a whole in the early part of 2013, by which time we hope to have completed the process of advertising, interviewing, selecting and appointing members of the reconstituted board. Professor Anderson, the current chair of the board of trustees, has indicated that he wishes to stand down after serving as chair of the National Library for 12 years.
The transitory provision in amendment 8 would modify the National Library of Scotland Act 1925, as a short-term measure until that act is repealed, to allow the new chair to hold office before full commencement of the bill. That will allow Professor Anderson to stand down after chairing his final meeting in October 2012. The new chair will then be appointed under the 1925 act to chair his or her first board meeting in December 2012, before the appointment of the reconstituted board under the bill, which will meet for the first time in the early part of 2013. It is essential that the new chair is in post in good time to take part in the selection of the new board and to benefit from a handover by Professor Anderson. My officials hope to advertise the post later this month, with a view to an appointment being made by October.
Amendment 6, which supports amendment 8, brings the transitory provision into force automatically two months after royal assent. It has the advantage of automatically commencing the transitory provision that will be introduced by amendment 8 and avoids the requirement for an initial commencement order for the appointment of the new chair. Amendment 6 also respects the convention that acts of the Scottish Parliament are not brought into force until two months after royal assent.
Amendment 7 provides that the existing trustees of the National Library of Scotland cease to hold office when the bill comes into force. As members will be aware, I want to maintain business continuity for the National Library. The point about the need for that was well made by members of the Education and Culture Committee at stages 1 and 2. That is why I have proposed that a small number of existing trustees will form part of the reconstituted board. That will be achieved through the appointment of those members under paragraph 2(1)(b) of schedule 1 immediately after their appointment under the 1925 act ceases.
We seek to encourage applicants who have a wide range of skills and who can assist with the strategic development that continues to take the library forward. New members should have an enthusiasm for libraries and their contribution to Scotland’s national culture in this increasingly digital age. The board will also require specialised knowledge and skills, including knowledge of the world of education and research; an understanding of public library services in local areas; and general skills in governance, audit, financial management, fundraising and income generation. The recruitment process for board members will begin once the new chair is in place. It is anticipated that appointments will be made in the early part of 2013.
I take this opportunity to thank the current chair, Michael Anderson, for his commitment to the National Library during his 12 years as chair. His legacy will undoubtedly be the promotion of access to the collections. Record numbers of people now benefit from the new visitor centre, the increased size of the reading rooms and the availability of online material. Under his stewardship, the National Library secured for the nation the permanent acquisition of more than 200 years of publishing history from the John Murray Publishers archive.
I also thank the trustees of the National Library for their sterling work and for their support for the governance reforms that are proposed in the bill. The trustees have helped to ensure that the National Library of Scotland responds to the changing requirements of libraries in the modern age. The board has embraced the advancement of new technology to make the collections more readily available online, not only for those in Scotland, but for the enjoyment of a worldwide audience.
I move amendment 6.
Amendment 6 agreed to.
Schedule 1—NLS
Amendment 7 moved—[Fiona Hyslop]—and agreed to.
Schedule 2—Modifications of Enactments
Amendment 8 moved—[Fiona Hyslop]—and agreed to.
That ends consideration of amendments.