Official Report search · Parliament Workbench

Chamber

Meeting of the Parliament 15 March 2012

15 Mar 2012 · S4 · Meeting of the Parliament

Item of business

National Library of Scotland Bill: Stage 1

Smith, Liz Con Mid Scotland and Fife Watch on SPTV

I apologise on behalf of my colleague Annabel Goldie, who is, sadly, not well today, and thank my colleague Alex Johnstone, who has come into the hot seat at short notice.

We are fully supportive of the need to modernise the legislative process so that we can both maintain and enhance the NLS. As the cabinet secretary said, it is a remarkable asset and we pay tribute, as other members have done, to all who are involved in its work, and to the large numbers of the public who are increasingly enthusiastic supporters of it. In the past, some have called the NLS the library of last resort—to be used only when people have unsuccessfully searched sources elsewhere—but that is no longer an applicable definition. That is very good news, but it obviously brings challenges.

We fully recognise the need in a world of fast-changing technology to put in place structures that will help to create not only more efficient administration, but a better system of access to the library’s archive, and better coherence and collaboration with the other national archives. To allow things to remain as they are is simply not an option, so we support the Scottish Government and the other parties in their overall endeavours on the bill.

Throughout the committee’s evidence taking we were struck by the professionalism, dedication and expertise of all those who are involved with the NLS, and by the careful thought that they had given to the future working of the institution and its role in modern Scotland. That expertise is in many cases unique, and brings degrees of specialism that are not seen elsewhere. It was good to hear that the cabinet secretary will lodge an amendment at stage 2 to reflect that, because there is no doubt that the committee and the witnesses who came to it were overwhelmingly of the opinion that the smaller end of the proposed new NLS board numbers was, indeed, too small. I heard what the cabinet secretary said when she came to the committee about the possibility of co-options on to the board. It is, of course, correct to do that and that option will remain. However, I was struck by just how desirable an aim it is to have a wide range of experience on the board, so it is good that the cabinet secretary has confirmed that she is looking at that again.

I note, too, that the cabinet secretary has stated that the Scottish Government is keen on the principle that the governance of major institutions be considerably streamlined and be represented by smaller boards. Indeed, I think that the cabinet secretary said at committee that the Scottish Government is not in favour of large boards. I suggest that what is more appropriate is not so much a generalisation about the size of boards, but what works to the best advantage of the institution and the public that it serves. I fully understand that the current size of the board makes it unwieldy, but we should not go to the other extreme.

Before leaving the issue of the board, I urge the cabinet secretary to heed the advice of several stakeholders who are anxious for a smooth transition from the existing board to the new board, which will be very important if we are to carry with us the trust of all those involved.

A second major concern, which I think will continue as we debate the bill is—as the committee convener said—the intended extent of the powers of ministerial direction. There was a lack of detail and clarity in the policy memorandum about the precise nature of the intended ministerial power and about whether the power could conflict with areas of NLS management where ministers have no powers. There appear to be inconsistencies in some of the proposed changes. In fact, the chief executive was a little uncertain about how the promotion of greater collaboration and diversity would work when there seemed to be little comment in the policy memorandum about the detail of the proposed new powers.

The rest of the education, lifelong learning and culture brief shows that the Government has a record of wanting to increase ministerial power. College and university governance is just one example of that. I can understand that there are some reasons why that might lead to better governance, but I am not entirely comfortable with its being a general principle. We need a cast-iron guarantee that the moves in the bill are not simply about increasing ministerial powers but about greater efficiency for the institution.

Search Hansard contributions

Meeting of the Parliament 15 March 2012

In the same item of business