Hansard

Little did I think when I got up this morning that I would find myself speaking in a debate on the National Library of Scotland. Nevertheless, to my surprise, it has been an exciting and diverse debate in which we have discussed the great principles of socialism and capitalism. I specifically mention that because Neil Findlay told us that libraries are the embodiment of the spirit of socialism. However, I did not have to interrupt him, because no sooner had he said that than Clare Adamson pointed out that Andrew Carnegie and the spirit of philanthropic, benevolent capitalism was what really delivered for the library system in Scotland.

We heard Mark Griffin take the debate into the area of “Oor Wullie”. It is an issue that has been raised several times and one that is close to my own heart, because for some 30 years-plus I have been married to a woman who is an expert on “Oor Wullie”. Perhaps it is necessary for us to employ the services of the National Library of Scotland to find out the answer to a question that she has delivered to me many times without any possibility of reply: what happened to Oor Wullie’s sister, who went out to play in 1943 and has never been seen or heard of again? Perhaps, if she is buried under the patio, “Oor Wullie” might yet find itself on the list of banned books.

I will go back to the subject that we are here to discuss. One of the interesting features that struck me in reading the committee report is that the existing board and governance structure have endured for more than 80 years. On the one hand, that suggests that it is necessary to update the arrangements given all the time that has passed, but on the other hand it confirms that there is a rich repository of experience. We should not be too quick to dismiss what we can learn from.

It is interesting to consider the bill’s two main aims, which are to modernise the National Library of Scotland’s governance arrangements and to set out its functions in statute. I do not think that anyone seriously disagrees that we need to do that, but I ask the minister to bear the two aims in mind when she responds to the debate.

On governance, the current structure is unwieldy. It is not suitable if we want an institution of the significance of the National Library to address all the challenges of the 21st century. A board of 32 members is indeed clunky. I think that all members, from our experience of sitting on external committees or boards of trustees, recognise the need for certain criteria to be met in relation to boards.

First, board members should bring genuine experience from a cross-section of backgrounds. The test should be whether each member is worth listening to because he or she adds to the knowledge and experience of the board. Secondly, board members should not be there to tick a particular sectoral box. Such an approach inevitably leads to limited individual vision and a lack of coherent strategic vision. Finally, the board must be large enough to cope with absences for reasons of illness or holidays, which are simply a fact of life. If it is not, meetings might not be quorate or, if they are quorate, the small number of members who are present might not be able to have a meaningful discussion. At worst, meetings have to be postponed.

In the original proposals there was a mismatch of principles. We welcome the spirit in which the cabinet secretary said that she will lodge amendments at stage 2. A board membership of as few as seven seems unsafe. The operation of the National Library of Scotland needs more stability than such an approach would afford. The weaknesses are obvious and seem to have been recognised after the cabinet secretary appeared before the committee. However, the unexpected inclusion in the bill of ministerial powers of direction accentuates the risk. I will talk about that in more detail shortly; suffice it to say for now that conferring such powers while allowing the board to be too small seems to be a highly undesirable combination.

We all agree that there is no magic or perfect number of board members. What has the experience of running the library for more than 80 years taught us? The evidence that the committee heard was helpful. The committee said in its report:

“There was unanimous agreement amongst the organisations that provided oral evidence that the proposed lower limit for the board was too small.”

It went on to say:

“the current chair of the NLS board ... considered that the ideal board size would be 12 or 13 members.”

I think that he is right.

When Scottish Government officials gave evidence, they said that the board could be bulked out by co-option. I do not agree but, if the cabinet secretary agrees, the National Library will have the Achilles’ heel of a board that is too small for its purposes. The ability to co-opt gives a board the important flexibility to bring to the table a person who has particular experience or skill that will assist it in addressing whatever is confronting it at a particular time; it is not a way to make up numbers. I urge the cabinet secretary to listen to the evidence.