Hansard

On behalf of the Education and Culture Committee, I make clear from the outset our unanimous support for the general principles of the National Library of Scotland Bill. In our stage 1 report, the committee welcomed the fact that the library’s governance arrangements are being updated and that its functions are being clearly set out in legislation.

However, although we recommended that the bill progress to stage 2, the committee’s report also set out members’ concerns, in particular in relation to the ministerial power of direction. I will discuss that in more detail later.

I agree with the cabinet secretary that the overhaul of the library’s governance arrangements is long overdue; the current provisions have been in place for almost 90 years and allow—in theory, at least—the NLS board to have as many as 32 members. The present arrangements also allow for a considerable number of ex officio appointments to the board, including the committee’s very own Marco Biagi, who is MSP for Edinburgh Central.

Although there was support for the Scottish Government’s proposals to modernise the library’s governance arrangements, there was also concern about the specifics of the Government’s approach; there was unanimous agreement among the organisations that provided oral evidence that the proposed lower limit for the board—seven members, including a chair—is too small. The current chair of the NLS considered that seven members would not be sufficient to cover the range of skills and stakeholder interests that are needed for an effective board.

The committee was persuaded by such concerns and, although we were not in a position to state what the optimum board size is, we sought an assurance from the Scottish Government that it would fully consult all relevant parties, in particular the NLS, before agreeing on a final number. I welcome the cabinet secretary’s willingness to raise the lower limit for the board, and the full discussions that will take place with the NLS.

I turn to the ministerial power of direction, which was the issue that caused the committee the greatest concern in the course of its scrutiny. In essence, the bill allows Scottish ministers to give the NLS directions on the exercise of certain of its functions. Those functions can be summarised as promoting collaboration between library and information services, and promoting diversity in the people who are accessing the collections. The bill’s policy memorandum helpfully sets out the areas in which the Government will not seek to direct the library, but it says very little about why a power of direction is to be retained in those two areas.

The committee therefore explored the issue in some depth. We were told by Scottish Government officials that, generally speaking, a ministerial power of direction in relation to public bodies is

“very much a last resort.”—[Official Report, Education and Culture Committee, 7 February 2012; c 693.]

For example, officials said that it would allow a minister to intervene in the event of serious operational or organisational failure. Although we can debate the merits of such an approach, the committee’s bugbear is that it is not obvious from the bill that the Government would be able to intervene in the manner that is described.

The cabinet secretary made the point—again, in general terms—that taxpayer-funded institutions must be accountable to the taxpayer for spending money wisely. However, she stressed clearly that any interventions in the NLS must not infringe the library’s curatorial responsibility and freedom. The cabinet secretary further explained that the power of direction could be used only in relation to the overall management of the NLS—another point that is not obvious from reading the bill.

To be fair, the committee acknowledged that it may be helpful to the cabinet secretary if she could retain the power of direction in the event of any future unforeseen circumstance. In reality, the power is unlikely to be used. However, given the questions around the issue, we sought a more detailed explanation as to why the Scottish Government justified the retention of the power of direction with reference to such broad issues when the bill focuses narrowly on promoting collaboration and diversity. The committee also asked how the bill could more accurately state how and when the power of direction could be used, which is where clarity and certainty are required. I therefore thank the cabinet secretary for her comments on the power of direction. I look forward to receiving her letter prior to stage 2 in order that we can get clarification and certainty to ensure that the committee is content with the proposals in the bill.

I am sure all members would agree that the National Library of Scotland is one of the country’s most important cultural resources. I am also sure that there would be unanimous support for maintaining free public access to its collections. There was nothing in the committee’s stage 1 scrutiny to suggest that that principle is under threat—indeed, both the Government and the NLS stressed their commitment to maintaining free public access. However, schedule 1 provides the NLS with a range of powers, including the power to make charges for access to its collections. That caused some disquiet at stage 1. For example, the Scottish Library and Information Council warned that proper procedures had to be put in place to ensure that charging for access will not be taken as a given.

While recognising those worries, the committee was comforted by the Scottish Government’s reassurance that the power to charge is subject to the library’s overarching function of making its collections publicly accessible. In other words, the power to charge could not jeopardise that function. The committee accepts that there are situations in which the NLS can legitimately seek payment for certain added-value services—for example, when there is an extra cost involved in providing a particular item. Some practical examples of that were given to the committee in evidence. Officials made it clear that, even in such circumstances, various safeguards would be in place to ensure that the library could not simply use the power unilaterally.

My final point relates to charging and overlaps with my earlier comments about the ministerial power of direction. The NLS’s power to charge, which is one of a number of powers that will be granted to it by the bill, can be used only in connection with the exercise of its functions. We therefore asked the cabinet secretary to clarify the relationship between the ministerial power of direction and the NLS’s general powers. The cabinet secretary confirmed that the library’s powers could, in principle, also be directed by Scottish ministers, albeit that that would be subject to restrictions. The Government stressed that a power of direction would be used only

“as a means of last resort”.

Again, however, the committee considered that the Government should provide clearer justification for its approach. I hope that the letter that is coming to the committee will do that.

The committee felt that greater clarity is required from the Government on how the various functions and powers that will be bestowed by the bill will mesh together and, in particular, how they will fit with the ministerial power of direction. I very much welcome the comments in the cabinet secretary’s opening speech, which provide additional reassurance on the scope and the practical impact of those powers. However, as I have said, I look forward to further clarification before stage 2.

The bill is a welcome and overdue reform of one of Scotland’s great national treasures. The committee therefore considers that Parliament should agree to the bill’s general principles. Assuming that it progresses to stage 2, we look forward to considering how the bill can be further improved to ensure that the library continues to flourish for decades to come.

15:14