National Library of Scotland Bill
The next item of business is a debate on motion S4M-02878, in the name of Fiona Hyslop, on the National Library of Scotland Bill.
16:05
I thank members of the Education and Culture Committee for their scrutiny of the National Library of Scotland Bill. Throughout the process, members have provided constructive comments on the bill. I thank the convener, the clerks to the committee and, of course, the Scottish Government’s ever-responsive bill team for all their hard work. I also recognise the input of the external stakeholders who have informed our thinking and have helped us to shape the bill.
My particular thanks must go to the National Library of Scotland for its support and for helping my officials and me to understand more fully the true nature of its work and what it hopes to achieve as a result of the reforms.
I also value the contributions of all those who took the time to share their views and knowledge during the consultation period, including the Faculty of Advocates, to whom I will return later in my speech, and the Scottish Library and Information Council. I have listened to a variety of views and believe that the bill that we have in front of us is the product of those reflections.
I am confident that all those who have worked on the bill will agree when I say that collaboration across party lines, and with stakeholders, has been central to the successful development of the bill and the general consensus on it, despite the previous debate.
Throughout the bill process there has been strong agreement across the Parliament that the current National Library of Scotland Act 1925, which governs the National Library of Scotland, is out of date and out of step with its vision, both now and for the future. The bill will therefore support the development of the National Library by modernising the governance arrangements for the 21st century.
What will that mean in practice for the National Library and its users? First, the entire board of the library will be made up, for the first time, from those who have chosen to be appointed. Board membership will no longer be determined by the office that someone holds. Indefinite terms of appointment will also come to an end. Instead, the National Library will benefit from recruiting members with the skills and experience expressly required by an ambitious organisation. There will be a regular refresh of board membership and an opportunity to review the skill set required each time appointments are made.
The National Library and the general public will benefit from the clear functions that are set out for the first time in the library’s history. The National Library will have a specific objective of ensuring that the collections are accessible to the public. One of the ways in which the National Library will continue to make its collections accessible to all is through its exhibition programme.
The bill will safeguard the collections by placing a statutory duty on the National Library to maintain and develop the collections for generations to come. It also recognises that the National Library has a duty to ensure that researchers, students and learners continue to have access to the collections. The National Library’s collections will need to be relevant to enable the research community to continue to produce high-quality work to maintain Scotland’s place on the academic map.
To support the National Library’s function of conserving and preserving its collections in a physical sense, I announced earlier this week that the Scottish Government has committed more than £2 million towards the transformation of the library’s Causewayside building in Edinburgh. That will secure the conservation of the collections for years to come by rectifying long-term problems with the external fabric of the building. An additional advantage is that the transformation project will significantly reduce energy consumption.
I should at this point mention the library’s strong record in carbon management. As one of 47 Scottish organisations selected in 2009 to take part in an ambitious programme with the Carbon Trust to realise vast carbon and cost savings, the library committed itself to a target of reducing CO2 by 30 per cent by 2014-15. The library’s carbon management plan involves potential financial savings of around £620,000 over the course of the project and £160,000 annual recurring savings thereafter. Aiming for a 5 per cent CO2 reduction in 2010, the NLS exceeded that first target as it achieved 15 per cent reductions through the involvement and creativity of staff, contractors and unions. Progress has been maintained, and a cumulative 28 per cent reduction in CO2 was achieved by the end of 2011-12. Thanks to investment in new plant, with support from the Scottish Government, the library is likely to exceed its CO2 reduction target.
I turn to the content of the National Library’s collections. One of the library’s great strengths is the John Murray Publishers archive, to which I referred earlier. The library recently received the final set of papers to complete the archive, which will be permanently housed in the library. The archive provides a remarkable insight into British life over three centuries. The final items that were received include unpublished material from Sir Arthur Conan Doyle and “The Memoirs of Sherlock Holmes: The Field Bazaar”, which appeared in an unnamed charity magazine in 1896 and has never been published since.
During the bill’s parliamentary passage, members have heard about the National Library’s involvement in great advances in digitisation and the use of modern technology. That is why the bill was drafted with future developments in mind. The bill is as flexible and future proofed as possible, to allow the National Library to respond to technological advances.
The bill has given the Parliament and the National Library the opportunity to raise awareness of how the library already champions cutting-edge technology to enable greater access to its collections, not only for those of us who are in Scotland but for the world, through the wide and ever-expanding availability of items that are displayed online.
A particularly imaginative use of new technology is the travel application called “Great Escapes: Moray”, which the library helped to develop earlier this year. The library collaborated on that with schools in Elgin and Lossiemouth, with community volunteers and with local authority libraries, and it had the assistance of a hotel chain. The app highlights 20 points of interest in Moray that have natural, industrial and cultural heritage. The library provided a range of archive films, images, maps and documents that the young people in Moray helped to bring to life through developing the app.
I will reflect briefly on the amendments to the bill, including those that we discussed a few moments ago. The bill and the National Library will be strengthened by the amendment to increase the minimum number of board members from six to eight, as was argued for at stage 1, and by the transitional arrangements that will be put in place for a new chair. The procedure for implementing the bill will allow a core group of current board members to be carried forward into the reconstituted board—members across the parties made a point about that at stage 1. The bill process has allowed us to think through and strengthen the mechanisms for giving the library continuity in the transition to its new modernised governance arrangements.
I do not want to prolong the debate that we had about the ministerial power of direction in relation to Liam McArthur’s amendments, but I repeat my general view that the debate has been useful. In the end, we have struck the right balance between the library’s curatorial independence, in which I passionately believe, and its accountability as a heavily subsidised public body.
I will touch on the amendments that were made in response to suggestions from the Faculty of Advocates. The relationship between the National Library and the faculty was discussed briefly this afternoon and more extensively in committee. That relationship is historical and continuing and it prospers to this day, so recognising it appropriately in the bill was important.
The amendments to sections 5 and 6 replicate and modernise requirements on both parties that were set out when the relationship was first enshrined in the National Library of Scotland Act 1925 in relation to the organisation of and access to the collections. The bill as amended will ensure that there is no misunderstanding about what is meant by the faculty’s collections, which are the books that are contained in the faculty’s law library. The joint arrangements that section 6 provides allow the faculty and the National Library to agree the practicalities of their operational relationship in particular areas. That approach is consistent with the memoranda of understanding that both parties signed in December 2011.
It is right that the bill should set the overall principles for an effective continuing relationship between the faculty and the National Library. I make it clear that I am not imposing inflexible statutory requirements on either body. It is for the faculty and the National Library to agree and update arrangements as technology and library users’ requirements evolve. I am grateful to the National Library and the faculty for their careful consideration of those aspects of the bill and I confirm that they are content with the amended bill.
We have an opportunity today to pass legislation that will modernise the National Library’s governance and functions. Together, we have crafted a well considered bill that meets the library’s needs and meets what Scotland expects of its National Library today and in the future. I invite the Parliament to agree to pass the National Library of Scotland Bill.
I move,
That the Parliament agrees that the National Library of Scotland Bill be passed.
I call Neil Findlay. You have up to seven minutes. Any time that you can save will be gratefully received.
16:15
In this era of huge change in information technology, with digital books, online resources, web-based learning, audio books and digital film, the role of modern libraries is rapidly changing. I apologise to any librarians among us, but the genteel and somewhat staid image is a thing of the past. Libraries are now vibrant hubs providing a range of services.
In my local authority area, we have developed a model of service provision in which the library and library staff are key to local service delivery. That partnership approach brings together health, police, sporting, council, advice and library services under one roof, increasing the skills of the staff and providing one contact point for all public services. The library hosts storytelling sessions, computer classes, genealogy courses, homework clubs and much more, as well as hosting local resources in book and online formats.
As libraries change, the arrangements needed to manage and govern them must also change. The bill recognises that. The National Library of Scotland is an important public resource. It is obvious, when we walk through the door, that past and present trustees have carried out their duties well and in the best spirit of public service. It has been well managed and developed, hosting not only extensive book and paper collections but digital and film archives, websites and other new media materials. That area of its work is one that can and will develop further over time.
The Education and Culture Committee’s visit to the National Library was an interesting and rewarding experience. We could sense the unique atmosphere of the place and the pride that the trustees and employees have in it. It is an example of a public service that our taxes pay for—a public service that could never be delivered by the market and one that we have to support, protect and adequately fund.
Labour accepts that the governance of the National Library is in need of reform. We accept the insertion of the technical amendments proposed by the cabinet secretary and the insertion of the Gaelic name for legal, contractual reasons. We also accept that a governing body of 32—including, among others, Professor Anderson OBE MA PhD FBA FRSE, the Lord President of the Court of Session, the Lord Advocate, the First Minister, the dean of the Faculty of Advocates, the minister of the high kirk of St Giles in Edinburgh, the Crown Agent, the Lord Provosts of Aberdeen, Dundee, Edinburgh and Glasgow, and Marco Biagi—requires some reform, as it is rather unwieldy.
We welcome section 2 of the bill, which clarifies the functions of the National Library and makes it clear that the library is a national reference and research library and a resource for Scotland’s research community. We welcome also that section 2 puts in statute that collections must be accessible to the public. That is the main function of any public library.
We welcome sections 3 and 4, which cover acquisition, disposal, borrowing and lending, and sections 5 and 6, which relate to legal deposits and the role of the Faculty of Advocates. Those sections have made progress without any major contention, as has section 7 on grants and loans.
On the other sections of the bill, largely relating to technicalities, we have no major concerns. The cabinet secretary has generally listened to the views expressed about the size of board and the need to reflect diversity in its appointments. That is welcome. Overall, the bill has gone through its parliamentary process fairly easily and without any great division. I put on record our thanks to the committee convener and the clerks, who have ably assisted us.
We listened to the debate about section 8, on the ministerial power of direction, at stage 1, in the committee evidence sessions, and at stage 2. We were willing to give the cabinet secretary more time to come back with further changes and we regret that that has not happened. The minister accepted that a ministerial power of direction has never been applied to cultural bodies. When probed on that by Liam McArthur and others, the minister could not come up with any concrete examples of when a ministerial power of direction could be used. She also accepted that curatorial independence should not be compromised. It must be asked, therefore, why we would want to include a power that no one has ever used and for which the minister responsible sees no discernible use. There is undoubtedly a trend of centralisation in this Government, particularly in the way in which it deals with education and local government. Section 8 would appear to be another—albeit small—step in that direction.
The bill is to be welcomed. It puts the governance of our National Library on a sound footing. Parties throughout the Parliament have actively co-operated on the bill and worked to improve it. I hope that, collectively, we have developed a valued national institution, making it more able to meet the demands of a modern service environment. Scottish Labour will support the bill when it comes to the vote tonight.
16:20
I add my thanks to those of Neil Findlay to Stewart Maxwell and the clerks. Stewart Maxwell has convened the committee with his normal sense of humour, and with good stewardship through a quiet authority, which is valued.
The Conservatives are of the opinion that the legislation needs to be modernised so that we can maintain and enhance the National Library of Scotland. The National Library is a remarkable national asset. Like others in the chamber, I pay tribute to everyone who is involved in its work, and to the large numbers of the public who are increasingly enthusiastic supporters.
I mentioned during the stage 1 debate the move away from the National Library being what some people call the library of last resort that is used only when people have searched unsuccessfully for sources elsewhere. That is no longer an applicable definition. That is good news, but the changes clearly bring different challenges and that is why the bill is necessary.
The Scottish Government has set out its proposals for change. We fully support it in its recognition that, in a fast-changing world of technology, we must put in place structures that will help to create not only more efficient administration, but a better system of access to the National Library’s archive, and better coherency and collaboration with the other national archives. It is simply not an option to allow things to remain as they are, and that was made clear to the committee throughout the process by the cabinet secretary and by the witnesses.
Throughout the committee’s evidence taking, I was continually struck by the professionalism, the dedication and the expertise of all those involved, and by the careful thought given to the future working of the institution and its role in modern Scotland. That expertise is, in many cases, unique: it brings with it degrees of specialisms that are not seen elsewhere.
It is on that point that we had some initial concerns about the original stance of the Scottish Government, and it is the reason why we believe that the size of the National Library’s board should reflect those who can represent the wider range of the specialist knowledge. I am grateful to the cabinet secretary for listening carefully to the views expressed at both stage 1 and stage 2, many of which were of genuine concern among the key stakeholders and MSPs about the minimum size of the board. The original suggestion from the Scottish Government that the concerns could be addressed by co-options to the board, when and where appropriate, did not address the more substantial concerns about the need for permanent access to a wide range of expertise.
Similarly, to argue that the Scottish Government is, in general,
“not in favour of large boards”
is not really a satisfactory way of persuading people that the appropriate size of a board is directly linked to the best advantage of the institution and the public that it serves.
A second major concern—and one that we have debated this afternoon—is the intended extent of ministerial direction. The policy memorandum lacks detail and clarity about the precise nature of the intended ministerial powers, which could conflict with other areas of the NLS’s management in which ministers have no power. Some guarantees have been given about the promotion of greater collaboration and diversity, but my Conservative colleagues and I remain unpersuaded that the provisions in the bill are not simply about increasing ministerial power for the sake of having a little more control, but at the expense of greater efficiency in the institution.
I listened carefully to what the cabinet secretary said about that. I accept her argument in relation to some technical issues, but there is an important general principle to be considered. As I mentioned earlier, the difficulty for the committee was that the Scottish Government chose to reassure us by stipulating situations in which the cabinet secretary or her successors would not interfere. This afternoon, she again defined the issue by stating what she could not or would not do. I accept that, but there is still an important point about the powers that she could have as cabinet secretary. That approach sometimes took us into the realm of the theoretical rather than the practical, which made things less clear when it came to justifying the enhancement of public benefit.
Nobody doubts that there is a sensitive balance to be struck when it comes to the legitimate concerns about how public money is spent and the professional judgment of the trustees and the professional judgment and expertise of the librarians—some of whom are in the chamber this afternoon.
This bill brings opportunities for the delivery of a better service, for wider access to the splendid archive that is the National Library of Scotland, and for the exciting developments that the cabinet secretary outlined. On that basis, the Conservatives are happy to support the bill.
We now move to the open debate. I regret to tell members that we are short of time, so if they can confine themselves to three-minute speeches, it would be much appreciated.
16:25
I thank members for their kind comments about my convenership of the Education and Culture Committee throughout the bill’s passage. I thank in particular the committee clerks for their support, because without their hard work, our work would not have been possible. I thank the Scottish Parliament information centre for its support of the committee and I appreciate the dedication of the committee members in scrutinising the bill. I also thank the witnesses who provided oral and written evidence to the committee as it was extremely helpful in our deliberations.
As the cabinet secretary and other members—Neil Findlay, in particular—did, I also thank the National Library of Scotland for hosting us on our useful visit to the national library building on George IV Bridge. The visit helped us to identify some of the hotspots in the bill, and the issues and pressures that are faced by the National Library in its day-to-day work.
Obviously, the National Library of Scotland Act 1925 was passed some time ago. There is no doubt that it was time for change. I will cover some of the issues in my brief remarks.
Minimum board size was one of the things that particularly concerned the committee. We are pleased that the cabinet secretary agreed at stage 2 to increase the minimum board size from 6 to 8 people. That was a welcome change by the Government. I agree with Liz Smith that the original arguments did not really stack up in terms of how the board would operate at the smaller size, so I am delighted that the size was changed.
I want to pay particular attention to the relationship between the National Library of Scotland and the Faculty of Advocates, which is an important and practical relationship that we must protect. Given the history of the two organisations, it was absolutely critical that we got it right in the bill. I am delighted that the Government agreed to make amendments at stage 2 to ensure that the relationship between the two organisations will continue. That relationship benefits the organisations and it benefits all of us.
I will touch briefly on the ministerial power of direction, on which there has been a lot of discussion at stage 2 and today. For me, one of the cruxes of that issue—rather than the detail—was the idea of future proofing the bill. We must make sure that the bill will allow the NLS to carry out its activities into the future, so we have to look at the limited powers of direction that are provided for in the bill in that context. The purpose of future proofing is to ensure that, in a rapidly changing world, certain principles are protected through legislation. Promoting diversity of access and collaboration fall into the category of things that should be included in the bill, so I am delighted that they have been maintained.
It could be said that the bill is perhaps overdue. The National Library currently operates under legislation from a different time; it is not just decades old, but is from before the age of digitisation and the modern era. Future proofing the bill is essential because the National Library of Scotland has a crucial role in Scotland’s cultural life: conservation and preservation of our national treasures in print, film and digital formats are essential.
I am delighted to support the bill.
16:28
Over the past couple of centuries, libraries have evolved to become important institutions at the heart of communities across Scotland and the United Kingdom. Libraries’ importance can never be underestimated and they should not be evaluated as being costly or ineffective. They have provided the working class with the tools to self-educate, enhance its knowledge and improve opportunities for gainful employment.
In my area, where child poverty is at 27 per cent, the previous Renfrewshire administration closed Gallowhill community library despite a wall of opposition. The administration brandished the closure as being cost effective, but at what cost was that to the children in the area who needed the tools and opportunities that would give them hope in the future? The closure of the library has also been a great loss to the area’s older residents, many of whom have been avid readers and users of library services all their lives. However, we know that in times of austerity libraries are often the first things to be axed.
The bill is welcome in respect of reform of the National Library of Scotland, but what is unwelcome—as has been said—is the centralisation of powers to the relevant Scottish minister. With the previous bill being almost 90 years old, it was right to produce a new bill to repeal the National Library of Scotland Act 1925. After almost a century of social and economic advances, the new bill should enable the NLS to adapt to modern times, as it has been doing over the past few years with the use of new technologies and digital resources.
The reduction in the size of the NLS board of trustees is a must and was even backed by the NLS in its response to the consultation. The idea of reforming its governance was raised by the last Labour Executive in 2006, so I am glad to see that it has finally come to fruition. Yet, that reduction cannot be effective when the power of ministerial direction is implemented, no matter how general or specific that power is. The independence of the NLS board must not be compromised by the interference of a Scottish minister.
As the NLS stated in its consultation response, it is appropriate for ministers to indicate how public funding is used, especially during austerity, as long as a minister does not impede curatorial independence. As Neil Findlay has pointed out, curatorial independence must be maintained at all times, especially given the record of the current Scottish Government. However, like my colleagues on the Labour benches, I am concerned by centralisation—irrespective of who is in power. The NLS has a prominent role in promoting and preserving our national culture and heritage, but I fear that if powers are given to Scottish ministers in the present Government, they will be tested to promote the nationalistic views of the First Minister and his bandwagon.
We cannot stress enough the importance of libraries, whether local or national, nor can we allow their freedom and independence to be damaged by Government interference.
16:32
The bill that is being passed today marks a new era for the National Library of Scotland, bringing its governance into the 21st century and freeing it to continue to be
“the world’s leading centre for the study of Scotland and the Scots.”
That is a quotation from its own website. The bill will also allow the library to remain a major European research library and, as the cabinet secretary has mentioned, to continue to hold its important world-class collections. The bill will strengthen the role of the NLS in safeguarding and sharing knowledge for current and future generations. On the launch of the consultation on the bill, Martyn Wade, the library’s chief executive, said:
“The Library has changed immeasurably since the previous legislation was passed in 1925. The Bill recognises and reflects our role in the 21st century and is very welcome.”
In the past, I have mentioned that I grew up in Motherwell, where we had a Carnegie library. The Carnegie UK Trust has just published “A New Chapter—public library services in the 21st century”, which sets out the findings of the research that it has carried out over the past six months. It provides clear evidence about the current use of public libraries and public attitudes to libraries. The Scottish data are very interesting and show that 76 per cent of those who were surveyed indicated that libraries are “very important” or “essential” for communities.
Service improvement was welcomed by the people who were surveyed: they were interested in online reservation and cataloguing and in building a community facility, including other attractions such as cafes. Many of our communities already benefit from such facilities and from innovations such as e-reader books—which have recently been introduced by North Lanarkshire Council—and information technology provision within libraries.
There is no doubt that the Scottish people and our communities value library services and are comfortable with those services evolving to meet the needs of the 21st century. The innovation and leadership of the National Library of Scotland will be integral to evolving library services for the future. I pay tribute to the e-learning zone on the library’s website, which supports literature and language, creativity, science and technology, history, politics and society, and geography and exploration, thereby supporting education in our communities.
This is an exciting time for the National Library of Scotland. In March, the Scottish Government announced a contribution of £250,000 to the relocation of the NLS’s Scottish screen archive to Glasgow, as part of the planned redevelopment of the Kelvin hall, and the cabinet secretary has mentioned the £2 million that is being provided for refurbishment of the library’s store.
16:35
When I read the bill as introduced, I had genuine doubt as to the status in law of the proposed new entity. The existing governance was clear: there was a statutory board of trustees, with obligations that were defined by trust law. The successor body’s status was more vague, so I am glad that an attempt has been made to clarify it.
However, a slight paradox remains. Section 1 says explicitly:
“The body corporate known as The Trustees of the National Library of Scotland, established by section 1(1) of the 1925 Act, continues in existence and is renamed the National Library of Scotland”.
Section 1 therefore reaffirms the existence of a body of trustees. That is good, because trustees have independent duties and obligations and operate under a well-developed framework of law—they know what their responsibilities are. Is it not then inconsistent of the bill never again to refer to trustees? Schedule 1, which deals with the entity that is the NLS, talks about “members”, not trustees. To guide us in the interpretation of the bill, it is confirmed that “the 1925 act” means the National Library of Scotland Act 1925, which schedule 3 to the bill will abolish. Will the minister clarify whether the NLS is to be run by trustees, as defined by the 1925 act? If that is the case, would it be wise to retain section 1(1) of the 1925 act, rather than to abolish it? I understand that that could be done by adding to the relevant provision in schedule 3 the words, “with the exception of section 1(1)”, and that that could be effected by a holograph amendment.
My other profound concern is the provision for ministerial intervention. I am vexed that the Scottish Government could not support Mr McArthur’s amendments. If the minister desires to retain ultimate power of last resort to intervene in the event of gross incompetence, malfunction or dishonesty, the intervention power should be appropriately qualified. Otherwise, the potential for conflicts of governance and unreasonable intrusion by Government is manifest. The cabinet secretary should be more explicit about how the power could be used. If she is not explicit, what she is saying to us is analogous to saying, “I won’t run you down in my motor car and I won’t boil you in oil, but I might put arsenic in your tea or shove you off a cliff.” That is not reassuring.
It is also relevant to observe that ministerial powers of intervention are less forbidding if the devolved Administration is a coalition or a minority Government, as was always thought would be likely in the Scottish Parliament. In the case of an Administration that has an overall majority, the opportunity for checks and balances is greatly diminished.
As Liz Smith said, we support the bill. It is necessary, and it is timely that we take account of circumstances that are vastly different from those that prevailed in 1925. However, I would like the minister to address my observations about the legal status of the new entity and I await her expanding on how she thinks the ministerial powers will be used.
16:38
I welcome the Government’s acceptance of an increase in the minimum board size, on which I commented at stage 1.
I do not understand the positions of the other parties—especially Labour, given its change between stages 2 and 3—on the powers of ministerial direction. I will use my three minutes to say that the ministerial power of direction is limited to two areas. Ministers will be able to give directions in relation to section 2(3)(c), on
“promoting the diversity of persons accessing the collections”.
I would have thought that all members would want to ensure that the National Library’s collections are always open and accessible to everybody, wherever and whoever they are, and that the minister can always guarantee that our national collection can fulfil that obligation.
Ministers will also be able to give directions in relation to section 2(2)(d), on promoting collaboration. I am a library professional and, as I said during the debate on amendments at stage 3, when professionals collaborate they produce their best work. I do not understand why members would not want the Scottish Government ministers to be able to ensure that the National Library provides such leadership for the library profession in Scotland. For me, that is very important, as libraries are very important to the people of Scotland.
We heard Clare Adamson’s figures, which show how valued libraries are in Scotland. In difficult times such as we are in, libraries can offer much more for people. As a professional, I have to say that there are many different ways in which libraries can provide a vital public service nowadays. It is about access to information. It is not necessarily the buildings that are so important; it is about what we do with information and it is about making it as accessible as possible to people of all hues and abilities.
We have heard about rebellious librarians and eco-librarians. I want to end on a positive note. As a librarian, I am delighted to hear that the public’s affection for libraries is reflected across the chamber. Long may our MSPs’ and the Government’s commitment continue for our library services.
16:41
I endorse Fiona McLeod’s concluding comments.
We have finally managed to get Marco Biagi off the NLS board in order that he can spend more time with his family and his constituents.
I thank the National Library of Scotland, the witnesses, committee colleagues, the clerks and particularly the convener of the Education and Culture Committee, who was almost in danger of losing his much-famed calmness when he was told that he had only three minutes in which to deliver his speech.
I am indebted to Clare Adamson for furnishing me with a comment from Carnegie in the stage 1 debate. Carnegie said that
“the best means of benefiting the community is to place within its reach the ladders upon which the aspiring can rise”,
which included free libraries. Clare Adamson talked about spending a lot of time in the library in Motherwell during her childhood. I did much the same in the Carnegie library in Kirkwall. Sometimes that was to avail myself of the books and research facilities there, but it was often to escape from the howling winds and driving rain. I continue to do that regularly in the new library building.
As many have said, the bill is welcome; perhaps it is overdue. It certainly succeeds in bringing the governance structures for the National Library into the 21st century, and it begins to address the changing demands that we have placed on that library while still enshrining the strengths that we all very much admire.
As other members have indicated, there were a few areas of concern during the passage of the bill. The cabinet secretary responded constructively to the points that were raised about the size of the board and effecting as smooth a transition as possible to the new arrangement, but concerns remained to the end about the powers of direction. I will not try to reopen the arguments, but on the points that our ferocious librarian made, if we look at the NLS’s other functions, ministers would want to be assured that the board was “encouraging education and research” and
“promoting understanding and enjoyment of the collections”.
Ministers would want to be assured that all those functions are being delivered, but they are not seeking powers of direction over them. The cabinet secretary has made clear her position on that. Overall, she has adopted a very constructive approach in meeting the concerns that have been expressed, and I think that the concerns that have been expressed by other members today and previously are now a matter of record.
I acknowledge that the National Library of Scotland is a national treasure. The demands that we have placed on it have changed over the years, and we can undoubtedly expect them to change further in ways that we cannot predict at this stage. I hope that the bill will help to ensure that it continues to meet the needs of an ever-growing number of people.
In conclusion, I draw members’ attention to the Orkney library and archive. Following its success in the golden twits for its contribution to social media, it is up for the library of the year award later this month. I hope that members wish it well in that regard.
I offer my congratulations to Orkney library and archive, too.
16:44
The debate has been largely consensual, out of a need to ensure that we maintain and enhance one of Scotland’s great national treasures for exactly the reasons that Fiona McLeod put on record.
I thank all the witnesses at committee and all those who have sent us exceptionally helpful briefing papers for their considered opinions and expert advice, without which—as the cabinet secretary acknowledged—many of us would have been ill-prepared to work through the bill.
The cabinet secretary outlined a great number of exciting developments that are taking place, such as carbon and digital advances and the work involving the John Murray archive. It is an extremely exciting time for the National Library, which means so much in terms of Scotland’s place in world heritage.
I thank the cabinet secretary for her willingness to listen to concerns. Although we will undoubtedly remain divided on one important element in the bill—the extent of the ministerial powers—I acknowledge the work that she put in, which involved some complex technicalities. Although those technicalities may not capture the headlines, they are nonetheless an important part of our having confidence in the legislation.
It was good to see the cabinet secretary’s willingness to move on the minimum size of the board and on ensuring that there will be as smooth a transition as possible when the current board ends its office to be replaced by the new one. That was helpful, and I am sure that it was appreciated by the stakeholders who had similar concerns at the initial stages.
Like all other members in the chamber, the Conservatives recognise the need to make changes to the National Library so that it can maintain its first-class reputation, its considerable professional expertise and its ability to be flexible and adaptable in the future, when technological change will bring a great many new challenges—just as it will to many other institutions with which the NLS will collaborate. That is precisely the reason why we wanted—and would still welcome—more clarity on the extent of ministerial direction. My colleague Annabel Goldie raised an important point. Aside from the two technical points—I accept what Fiona McLeod said about those—there is a fundamental principle at stake. If members read some of the statements in the bill, it is clear that there are potentially wider powers, and I hope that the cabinet secretary will address that in summing up.
Although we have, through the democratic process, not won that argument today, I hope that ministers will be mindful of the fact that there was—and remains—genuine and considerable concern among the Opposition parties, and that ministers will be held to account as those powers come into operation in the years ahead.
I wish the National Library well in the years ahead, and once again pay tribute to the outstanding professionalism of its staff. We will support the National Library of Scotland Bill at decision time.
16:47
Scottish Labour, too, welcomes the bill and recognises that reform of the structures that support our National Library is necessary. The fact that the existing legislation has served for 87 years is testament to it, and I very much hope that the legislation that is before us today will prove to be equally durable.
We have been happy to be involved in the discussions on the form that the reforms should take, and we are largely pleased with the outcome. I know that Parliament as a whole recognises the need for change. I congratulate the Education and Culture Committee and its convener and clerks on their work in scrutinising the bill, and the cabinet secretary on being amenable to discussion with the committee about the way forward.
I congratulate the staff and the current board of the National Library—especially its outgoing chair—on their hard work and on the care that they take of one of our most precious assets on a daily basis. The Faculty of Advocates should also be praised for its co-operation, both at this time of change and in the past.
In the stage 1 debate, many members expressed reservations about specific elements of the bill, and many of those have been addressed. The size of the board exercised members, and I am pleased that the cabinet secretary has taken steps to allay those concerns and to ensure that the board is small enough to avoid being cumbersome and slow to act, but big enough to reflect the wide range of interests and expertise that we need if the National Library is to continue to be well managed.
I am pleased that some of the existing members will remain on the board to aid the process of transition. That is a sensible move, which will allow the transition period to be as smooth as possible.
At stage 2, the minister sought to clarify the issue of collaboration. It is right that the bill, as it is now amended, reflects the National Library’s role as an active collaborator rather than just as a facilitator of collaboration by others.
The National Library is also often an exemplar of good practice and works with the other national collections, as well as with libraries and librarians, but a ministerial power is not necessary to make that happen—that is the core of the National Library’s work. I think that it is going a step too far to include such a provision.
As I mentioned, the act that underpins the structure of the NLS is 87 years old. Although it has served us well in the past, the future is likely to see changes in the ways in which information and data are exchanged and stored. As we probably cannot yet envisage the nature of those changes or the rate at which they will happen, it is good that consideration has been given to how the bill can be future proofed to accommodate such changes, as well as advances that we can anticipate, such as the imminent regulations for legal deposit libraries.
At stage 1, Scottish Labour made it clear that we would like the cabinet secretary to reconsider the ministerial power of direction. We are pleased that she has done so to some extent, but we had hoped that, following the completion of stage 2, she might have gone a little further and lodged a stage 3 amendment that would have prevented the chamber from dividing on the matter. Unfortunately, that did not happen and we felt compelled to back Liam McArthur’s stage 3 amendments. I am genuinely sorry that the Scottish Government could not see its way clear to making such a concession and that we had to divide on an issue on which the cabinet secretary knew well the views of many members and stakeholders.
As a matter of record, I say to Stewart Maxwell that the previous Administration did not seek any kind of intervention into artistic matters. In any case, we would have removed the relevant provision entirely, because we took the consultation that we did on our proposed culture legislation very seriously and we would not have pursued that element. However, we are where we are.
I have rehearsed on previous occasions my real interest in the work of the National Library of Scotland and the impact that I know that it has on Scotland’s culture. I look forward greatly to watching it grow under its new governance arrangements, and to continuing to be surprised, educated and enthralled by its collections and its exhibitions for years to come. I wish it well in its new format.
16:52
I welcome the tone of the debate and the genuine respect that members across the chamber have expressed for the work of the National Library of Scotland.
In relation to Annabel Goldie’s legal point, section 1(1) modernises and updates the legal name of the governing body. The members of the NLS board can continue to call themselves trustees if they so wish.
The debates on the bill have focused on the National Library’s role as a national centre of research and as a preserver and curator of one of Scotland’s major national collections. That role is distinct from the particular functions of public lending libraries that local authorities fulfil but, as Patricia Ferguson said, the bill gives the National Library a new function of actively promoting collaboration and the sharing of good practice between such services.
I appreciate the comments that members such as Neil Findlay have made on the importance of local authority public library services and the challenges that they face. However, the situation in Scotland is quite different from that in England—in Scotland, there have been fewer than a handful of closures over the past two years.
The recently published Carnegie Trust report on public library services, which Clare Adamson mentioned, raises questions that are being considered by local authorities across Scotland, as the statutory providers of library services, and by library professionals. It is appropriate to acknowledge that the City of Edinburgh Council’s library and information service won the library of the year accolade at Monday’s bookseller industry awards in London. I remain committed to continuing to help to facilitate library improvements by maintaining the provision of annual funding of £0.5 million through the Scottish Library and Information Council.
At earlier points in the bill’s progress, members have raised points about the regime for electronic legal deposit. I agree that, nearly 10 years after the passing of the enabling legislation in Westminster, progress with finalising the regulations must continue as speedily as possible. Draft regulations were published by the UK Government in February this year, and public consultation on them is due to close at the end of this week. I understand that further work still needs to be done to find the right balance between the need, in our highly digital age, to preserve the national record and the legitimate rights of publishers, particularly as regards microbusinesses.
I hope that those issues can be resolved productively and speedily, as all members will be anxious to ensure that the regulations are in place to enable Scotland to preserve a record of significant events such as the Commonwealth games.
Members have commented this afternoon on the technological advances in libraries and collections that have occurred or are still to come. It is interesting to reflect that, even 10 years ago, the concept of the National Library taking on a film archive would have been novel. However, the National Library now keeps the Scottish screen archive and, as I announced at stage 1, plans to move it into the redeveloped Kelvin hall in Glasgow, a proposal that the Scottish Government has supported with a £250,000 grant.
Looking ahead to the future unknowns is, of course, more difficult. One seemingly unlikely clue may be found in the recent announcement that the late Freddie Mercury is due to make a return to stage as a hologram in a special 10th anniversary performance of Queen’s popular hit show, “We Will Rock You”. Who knows—data storage by hologram may be one of the future formats that any comprehensive collection such as our National Library will need to adapt to in the coming years.
There is far too much noise in the chamber. I ask members to settle down.
When I met other culture ministers in Brussels last week, I heard some fascinating insights from Professor Nigel Shadbolt of the University of Southampton about the potential for collaboration between online communities through new web-based methods such as cloud computing, which in turn could revolutionise concepts of access to public data. Those sorts of future developments are the reason why we have been at pains to future proof the terms of the bill.
With regard to forthcoming NLS projects, we can look forward to a major summer exhibition, “Going to the Pictures: Scotland at the Cinema”, which will open on 20 June. It looks at films that have been made in or about Scotland from the early days of cinema up to the present day and will be opened by the actor and filmmaker Richard Jobson. The exhibition tells the story of Scotland at the movies, from the romantic world of photogenic landscapes, brave heroes, and eccentric locals that can be seen in “Highlander”, “Braveheart”, “Rob Roy” and “Local Hero” to more recent depictions of urban life in the likes of “Trainspotting”, “Ae Fond Kiss” and “Hallam Foe”.
US independence day will be celebrated at the National Library with the opening of a treasures display that will highlight the strong links between Scotland and the US founding fathers.
The library is supporting the Borders book festival in June by sponsoring an event with Sir David Frost and is taking part in the Ullapool and Boswell book festivals.
The library is working on a project that will allow smartphone users to call up historical maps, photographs and records of any location in Scotland, which is being developed in partnership with the Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Scotland and the National Records of Scotland.
The library has also established a partnership with Wilbourn Associates, a leading firm of chartered environmental surveyors, to provide online access to historical maps of Scotland from Victorian times up to the 1950s.
National libraries have been rather technocratically described as
“specifically established to store a country’s database … to host the legal deposit and the bibliographic control centre of a nation”.
However, like Clare Adamson, I prefer the National Library’s description of itself, which is that it exists
“to advance universal access to knowledge about Scotland and in Scotland.”
It is part of our nation’s collective memory. It is a resource for the people of Scotland to learn about themselves and to challenge their own ideas about Scotland. It is, equally, a window for the world to learn more about Scots and our country.
By setting out simply what the National Library of Scotland should do and also who benefits from it and how, the bill addresses those prosaic and poetic descriptions of why we have a national library.
The bill has been designed to stand the test of time. I am confident that it is sufficiently well crafted to enable it to cope with the technological advances that the National Library will continue to embrace.
With the bill, we have the opportunity today to reform the National Library by setting out clear functions in legislation and to bring in a new modern board structure that will take this great institution forward in the years to come.
We should reflect our thanks to the current chair and previous chairs for their stewardship of the institution, and to all the trustees who have guided the National Library of Scotland.
With the purpose of looking forward, I ask members to endorse the National Library of Scotland Bill at decision time today.