Chamber
Meeting of the Parliament 16 May 2012
16 May 2012 · S4 · Meeting of the Parliament
Item of business
National Library of Scotland Bill
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
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
In the same item of business
The Deputy Presiding Officer (Elaine Smith)
Lab
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
The Cabinet Secretary for Culture and External Affairs (Fiona Hyslop)
SNP
I thank members of the Education and Culture Committee for their scrutiny of the National Library of Scotland Bill. Throughout the process, members have prov...
The Deputy Presiding Officer (John Scott)
Con
I call Neil Findlay. You have up to seven minutes. Any time that you can save will be gratefully received. 16:15
Neil Findlay (Lothian) (Lab)
Lab
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 mod...
Liz Smith (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Con
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 w...
The Deputy Presiding Officer
Con
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 m...
Stewart Maxwell (West Scotland) (SNP)
SNP
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...
Mary Fee (West Scotland) (Lab)
Lab
Over the past couple of centuries, libraries have evolved to become important institutions at the heart of communities across Scotland and the United Kingdom...
Clare Adamson (Central Scotland) (SNP)
SNP
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 con...
Annabel Goldie (West Scotland) (Con)
Con
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 st...
Fiona McLeod (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
SNP
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 othe...
Liam McArthur (Orkney Islands) (LD)
LD
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 famil...
The Deputy Presiding Officer
Con
I offer my congratulations to Orkney library and archive, too.16:44
Liz Smith
Con
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 reaso...
Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (Lab)
Lab
Scottish Labour, too, welcomes the bill and recognises that reform of the structures that support our National Library is necessary. The fact that the existi...
Fiona Hyslop
SNP
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 r...
The Presiding Officer (Tricia Marwick)
NPA
There is far too much noise in the chamber. I ask members to settle down.
Fiona Hyslop
SNP
When I met other culture ministers in Brussels last week, I heard some fascinating insights from Professor Nigel Shadbolt of the University of Southampton ab...