Looking a Trojan horse in the mouth

I emailed Flick Rea about my concerns with the LGA claiming libraries are non-statutory. The director of communications from the LGA responded on her behalf. The main bit of text that I think is wrong is that the LGA put out was:

" In order to achieve that cut it would have to reduce spending on a broad combination of non-statutory services which might include children's centres, museums, libraries and sports centres, as well as reduce road maintenance budgets, increase bus fares and switch off streetlights between midnight and dawn"

Any fair reading of the above to a person who wasn’t aware of the facts would lead that person to believe that libraries are non-statutory. The response from David Holdstock from the LGA is below and in full:

Thank you for your email following on from the LGA’s press release issued on 9 May titled ‘Government cuts risk “failing communities”.

Councillor Rea has asked me to reply on behalf of the LGA.

I would like to clarify that the LGA fully understands that the 1964 Act confers a statutory duty on councils to provide a comprehensive and efficient library service, and it is regrettable that the language used in our press release was open to misinterpretation on this point. The sentiment we were trying to get across is that individual libraries in-and-of-themselves can be closed without the associated council breaching it statutory duty, as found by recent judicial reviews into the issue of library closures.  Councils do not take such difficult decisions lightly and the purpose of our media campaign is to ensure valued local services are maintained.

Local government, which is seeing its funding from central government cut by £10 billion in real terms across the current spending period (2011/12 to 2014/15), is facing a rapidly growing financial black hole, brought about by a combination of cuts and the escalating cost of delivering adult social care services. We have undertaken some detailed work which shows that by 2019/20, unless there is major reform of local government finance, the deficit will be £16.5 billion. It is because of this dire financial situation we are warning that, if nothing changes, despite their best efforts many councils may have little alternative than to close some libraries to make savings.

This is why the LGA is lobbying for public sector reforms, such as Community Budgets and greater devolution of funding, which will give councils the levers they need to protect the services that matter the most to local people.

I hope that you will support our aims of ensuring councils are able to continue to deliver important services for local people.

I have given my views and asked for a correction but since the BBC, national press and others have already in their ignorance of the museums and libraries act have ran the story and referred to library services as non-statutory a correction will make little difference. I do hope however that the LGA are more careful in their phrasing and stop referring to library services as non-statutory in future.

If it were a statutory instrument, it would have to go before the House

The Local Government association is a lobbying organisation that relies on subscriptions from its members (local government), grants from central government (again our money) and generates income from selling its services (to local government again) in the form of courses and conferences etc. It relies totally on taxpayers money to exist. In simple terms, we as taxpayers are paying for one part of government to lobby another. Most people will only hear the LGA when there's a negative story about local government, they will trot out a spokesman to speak to the media to refute any of the negative claims and blame it on the national government, say there is a lack of government funding and its never the councils fault. They are part of that undemocratic pool of detritus in the Westminster bubble that is comprised of think tanks, quangos and other bodies that leech money away from the taxpayer but are unaccountable to them.

During the current economic downturn, the LGA have made it clear the Libraries will be at the forefront of the cuts. They keep referring to them as non-statutory and that they will have to be cut hard to save the other real statutory services. It seems not just the minister is happy to ignore the 1964 museums and libraries act,  the LGA and the media seem happy to ignore that they are statutory.

It is clearly a ploy on their part to use libraries as a battering ram to try and secure a better funding deal during the next spending review. The fact that we are paying for a un-elected, taxpayer funded body (I didn't vote for anyone on the LGA) to attack libraries and lie to the media saying they are non-statutory to try and get a better deal for councils is offensive. Perhaps if the LGA spent less time defending incompetent local government, attacking national government and used their taxpayer funded resources  knocking heads together between councils to get them to work together better I wouldn't be writing this. Sadly they aren't, they are doing nothing to actually help libraries and are using them to further their own agenda.

I'm going to remind both my county and district council that in these tough financial times the LGA subs are non-statutory and perhaps they shouldn't pay them, its either adult social care or the LGA subscriptions as far as I'm concerned. Other big city councils have pulled out of the LGA and are now doing their own thing so obviously some councils are seeing sense.

They spend millions of our money every year lobbying, perhaps the LGA subscriptions from councils should be cut by by 75% maybe that will prompt them into action.

Stop wasting our money attacking libraries, start working to try and save them. My own local authority was paying a 68k subscription to the LGA in 2011, they probably spend lots more on the courses and seminars they put on. That's subscription cost alone is probably enough to fully restore the hours of the low paid library managers and assistants in about 7 of the cut libraries.

Here is the annual expenditure for the LGA for the last few years:

This remember is money spent by a lobbying organisation with one part of government lobbying another. Yes they have councillors in the LGA but they are not directly elected by us. Its time the LGA and other organisations in receipt of taxpayers cash start actually batting for the taxpayer in these difficult times rather than defending the bleeding stump cuts and mediocrity that passes for libraries policy we get in local government.

What would you cut? LGA Subs or libraries, how many libraries could be saved by nearly 28 million pounds?

This is a democracy, and the people don't like it.

The 2013 Oxfordshire County Council election results were counted today. Voter turnout was 32% just under a third of the electorate, two thirds, despite the lovely weather didn't bother to vote. The Conservatives were one seat short of keeping control of the council. Thankfully UKIP didn't get any divisions but the Labour party, Lib Dems and Greens didn't really make any significant gains either, the Tories are lucky the Labour party have such a poor leader and have no alternatives to current policies. There was however four independent candidates that won which can only be a good thing for us people who vote on issues rather than for parties.

The Conservative group will meet tomorrow to decide on a way forward and to try and understand where they went wrong. My view is they didn't actually step up and speak for the people that voted for them for the past elections, they have been bounced into following the party line and this has damaged their vote. 

On the libraries issue, which I'm obviously going to write about, the current policy was decided without consulting the Tory group, the civil servants claim to have had a few meetings about using volunteers but there isn't a shred of documentation to show they actually had a single thing to do with this policy and yet supported it, despite the fact civil servants are supposed to look at evidence then make recommendations on policy ideas that come forward. The scrutiny committee are supposed to be a robust challenge to cabinet yet they waved it through on party lines.

The Tory group had no say in it because it came down from the Prime Minister in a most undemocratic fashion and it was announced to the media before they had a say as Cllr Peter Handley said in the local paper last year: "not as with the library fiasco where one person was making the decisions, talking to the press and then expecting the group to agree with what had been announced" “This has happened several times over recent years.” 

Very few councillors spoke out about the library decision, the current leader Ian Hudspeth spoke to cabinet and put his views and was concerned about the sustainability of volunteers, the methodology used and was of the view that the savings could be made elsewhere

The councillors that speak out against the views of their own parties are the ones who we should encourage, those that sit and nod along like the churchhill dog to whatever bum plasma that comes down from Cameron need to step up and represent the views of the electorate and have some independence of mind.

In a healthy democracy we need councillors with a backbone who will be open and have their own views in public, this is how it is supposed to work, the party whip has no place in local government in my view, it damages proper policy formulation when the central office dictate policy from Number 10. 

Since the scheme for the libraries was passed by cabinet, the back office costs of the library service has gone up by 1.3 million, remember the supposed savings by slashing 21 libraries is only 313k. I got the break down from OCC yesterday:

The cultural services recharge has dropped by 56% but most of the other recharges have gone up, some massively. OCC put a bit of an explanation with the FOI which I didn't request but I think it amounts to they haven't made the savings in these areas yet, well they have a lot of work to turn that ship around I think. They went straight to the front line in a bleeding stump attack on libraries in my view and the above unjustified increases above should be where the 313k saving are made. The libraries that are being cut should be re-designated as statutory because of the flawed analysis, the undemocratic and opaque nature of the decision making (who decided where the cut off point for statutory/non-statutory should be and based on what??)  OCC cannot answer any of these questions on the volunteers policy despite repeated attempts to get answers, the obvious answer is because they weren't made in the proper way with the decisions made behind closed doors without minutes being taken and the decisions weren't tested against what available evidence there is.

I hope the Tories don't think a drift to the right is the answer, UKIP didn't nobble the vote for the Tories, Cameron did, he had no place interfering in local matters, despite his supposed support for localism. I hope they realize that if they want to engage the 70% they need to be open, transparent, work properly with the civil servants and debate these things robustly in the group and in public so the correct decisions are arrived at that deliver good public services. Otherwise we end up with bad decision making, sham consultations and no scrutiny which means policy is a mess and everyone sees it and it damages peoples belief in the political process so they don't bother to vote. If they don't sort it out, the voter turnout will continue to decline and independents won't be put off running because of the power of the party machines and the parties will become slowly extinct.

P.S and not specifically on Libraries, if the parties spend the next four years with tribal, ideological bickering and cock jousting (sadly it seems to be a male politicians issue) I will be very cross. You are supposed to work together in the public good not mud slinging trying to get one over on the other side, people before party otherwise there will be no parties if you keep it up!!!

The FOI on the ever increasing service support/other expenditure costs:

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/library_service_support_costs#comment-38574

The FOI response showing not notes, emails, minutes or any other documents exists showing the formulation of the volunteers policy:

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/volunteer_usage_in_libraries#comment-38430

I have questioned this above response as it worrying if meetings are taking place and nothing is written down, there are more important things councils deal with than libraries and if other policy formulation decisions are taken without any documentation it could be a series matter.

This is a British Democracy Bernard.

At the start of the year, The society of chief librarians announced their four "universal offers" I won't go into massive detail the full thing is here but there is some good stuff in there and the competently run library services should be doing most of it all ready.

The four offers are:

The Universal Health Offer
The Universal Reading Offer
The Universal Information Offer
The Universal Digital Offer

I find the use of the word "offer" intensely annoying in the public sector. But I digress. The substance as I have said is good taken in the whole and I was keen to find out if my local authority were signed up to this new initiative and if the non-statutory "volunteer" ran libraries would be part of the "offer" and if to meet the requirements any new funding would be put into the library service. The response I got was:

"Oxfordshire Libraries will be part of the national programme.  There will be no extra funding directed at delivering the offers.  The four offers reflect service areas which modern library customers regard as integral to public libraries and largely consist of what we in Oxfordshire have already been doing.  By launching the offers as a new national approach, it is being made clear to the public what they should be able to expect from their library and, yes, this will apply to all libraries in Oxfordshire."

Which for the fully funded statutory libraries this is clearly a good thing, I'm disappointed and bemused that the volunteer groups are going to be expected to deliver all of this stuff. After my recent visit to Walcot library and seeing what happens when the staff hours are cut back (they get ten hours of staffing support) they remaining staff time gets used up by the admin and keeping the book shelves organised. My local library that is getting it staffing cut by half will be in a very similar position and I doubt there will be any staffing time left to do this stuff so its down to the volunteers (not me btw I refuse to volunteer until my library is statutory) to pick up the following tasks:

• A network of local hubs offering non-clinical community space
• Community outreach supporting vulnerable people
• Expert staff with local knowledge 
• Assisted on-line access 
• Self-help library resources 
• Health and care information services
• Referral and signposting
• Public health promotion activity
• Social and recreational reading opportunities like reading groups
• Volunteering and community engagement activities  (for teenager groups)
• Books on Prescription
• Free books and reading resources
• Free community space
• Supported online access
• Community outreach 
• Services for targeted audiences
• Access to local and family history resources
• Multimedia reading resources
• Bring together government and non-governmental sources of information, which have 
• been researched by information professionals in public libraries, giving a level of quality 
• assurance to the user. 
• Ensure that public library staff and volunteers are continually developing their skills to 
• provide help to people accessing information and services. 
• Free access to the Internet for every customer (for a minimum period of time)
• Clear and accessible online information about library services 
• Staff trained to help customers access digital information
• Ability for customers to join online
• Ability to be contacted online/via email for answers to customer enquiries
• 24/7 access to services through a virtual library presence
• Ability to reserve & renew items remotely via an online catalogue

Not all of the above are relevant to my point, some are existing online things obviously, but this is just the bullet points from the scheme, there is plenty more and there is lots of good stuff in there, volunteers have no business doing most of it though. If you also get volunteers to empty the bins, do some adult and children's social care and then we can scrap councils altogether. Maybe that's the whole point, the Big Society is about taking us back to Victorian times where there was no state and you provide it yourself or rely on wealthy philanthropists to provide services. Its a failed policy by a government without a mandate and the policy itself is completely without evidence. Its whats so disappointing about the SCL and their support of using volunteers to replace paid staff in libraries. If librarians of all people cannot use data and information to support their arguments and have to rely on a single, flimsy theoretical example then it means we may be without hope in winning the argument. The states should provide services where the market cannot, this is why we pay taxes. I shouldn't have to pay tax and then give up my precious free time to provide statutory services to myself. Neither should retired people, they have put into the system more than I have and should be free to choice what to do with their spare time not bounced into providing important services to themselves. In years to come, when this whole business has finally been seen for what it is, I hope those who have supported it hold there hands up and admit they should have stepped up and spoke out against it. The Big Society and Community Libraries will be remembered, by me at least with other policy failures where those in charge refused to listen like Poll tax, WMD, PFI and Beeching etc.

We will economise on the beaches

The minister, the SCL, ACE, the LGA , Locality all seem to think the way forward to save libraries in these difficult times is to hand them over to the willing arms of the “big society” Little Chalfont and a few other libraries have made a success of running a library themselves and this has been extrapolated into a massive wholesale push by local authorities to rid themselves of their smaller branch and rural libraries as if Chalfont can do it then it’ll work everywhere. Because we are only a few years into this massive experiment with the library service there is no body of evidence to suggest it does work. Before I go any further, I need to make clear this isn’t an attack on those who, when backed into a corner have, rather than let their library be closed have stepped up to prevent the libraries closure. I have nothing but admiration for those people. Chalfont have been lucky, it’s a very affluent area and they have been very successful raising thousands of pounds from the community and have access to a large pool of well educated, retired volunteers. I haven’t seen their issues stats and I don’t even know if the library is still considered statutory by Bucks CC anymore but their success has meant that the ideologues in government, both local and national, the quango’s, locality and various others are falling over themselves pushing the volunteers as a way of saving money in the library service.

Anyone how has looked at the CIPFA data can see that cutting the low paid library assistants and managers in small branch libraries saves little money. But how much damage does can it cause to a local library?

In Oxfordshire, they have declared after using some rather dodgy data analysis that 21 of the mainly rural libraries are no longer statutory and the libraries will be run by the community with limited staffing, a self-service machine and telephone support from other libraries that haven’t been cut.

I recently went to Walcot library recently to see them with Shirley Burnham, this library was threatened with closure and in 2009 and a group of volunteers stepped up to prevent it closing down by merging it with a charity shop. The hours were reduced, self-service installed, half the library space was turned into a charity shop and they get staffing support and access to another library on the phone who can deal with queries.

The two volunteers I met spoke of how they hoped there actions were a safety net, it was better than no library and they hoped that once the economy recovered the authority would support the library properly again. It’s a very deprived area and has massive issues with literacy, they spoke of children who cannot be read to by their parents as the parents are illiterate. This is in 2013 in one of the richest countries in the world.

I FOI’ed both the CIPFA returns for Swindon and also the issues data for the individual libraries. There hasn’t been much change in the staffing numbers in Swindon library since 08/09, they have obviously shifted the staff around to increase the staffing in some libraries. Since Walcot library was handed over to volunteers however the book issues have fallen off a cliff, going from 13,830 to 3,790 and declined every year since:

Since the library was given over to the volunteers on in April 2009 the issues have dropped by 87% this is a library in a deprived area, I’m amazed they were allowed to do it considering the findings of the Charteris report. It also doesn’t bode well for other libraries that are currently being forced down this route.  How many will be Chalfonts and how many will be Walcots? Ironically, the library still gets about 10 hours staffing help, but this is admin and to sort out the book shelves, there are probably more hours to add to this total with the support from neighbouring libraries, this is again almost the same as what the cut libraries in Oxfordshire will end up with.  Support is one thing but its the volunteers that run the library/charity shop in Swindon. 

I applaud the volunteers for keeping their library alive, I condemn Swindon Borough Council for killing it.

I contacted the former councillor Peter Mallinson who along with other volunteers saved the library for his views, it’s my belief that libraries need library managers and assistants, he is responding to view on this being one of the main causes of the library issues decline:

“Dear Mr Craig,

I disagree totally with your interpretation of the data, not having paid library staff is not the problem.

You have not taken into account the very large reduction in books and space occupied by the library since we took over.  It is considerably less than half in floor area and the display of book is very small.  Have you also checked the hours of opening.  Looking at the table you provide it shows that the largest fall in books (2439) was in the year 2008/2009.  Since the volunteers took over with the reduced library the total fall in books is 1900 and that is for four years, 2009/2012.  When you compare the old and the new library systems, you are not comparing like with like.

How do you equate having two paid members of staff with an increase in use under these conditions.  If local people wanted books they would not be slow in telling us. 

The whole of Sussex Square (the shops) has suffered a lot of closures.  People are not using the square like they use to in fact there are now only four shops left.  Even the pub has gone.

Times are changing and the library staff must try to move with the times.  What we offer is what people want and they don’t want books. 

I do not agree with you that “libraries should be staffed and supported by the council rather than volunteers”, libraries should provide what people want and that is I.T.not books.  We have enough libraries full of books and paid staff in Parks and the Town Centre to satisfy those local people who want to borrow books, we do not need any more.

I think your interpretation of the data could be seen to show that there is no longer a requirement for a library in Walcot apart from the I.T. section.

What I intend to do now is to speak to the Leader of the Council and his Cabinet to see if we could increase I.T. and reduce or remove most of the books.

Sorry if I sound a bit brutal but this needs sorting out.

Regards

Peter” 

Mr Mallinson and I have differing views on the need professional staff nor do we share views that people no longer want to borrow books and an Internet café/charity shop will suffice, other libraries in Swindon have increased their issues over the period.  There is a formula that works in some of Swindon’s libraries they have proved that, they just have to identify what works, fund it and replicate it in the other libraries, not give the libraries to volunteers who do a amazing job but it inevitable leads to a loss of issues. If we are to get out of this economic mess, without being a nation rich in natural resource, the minds of our citizens are key and to quote the OECD yet again:

“reading for pleasure was a more important indicator of future success than any socio-economic factors.”

Walcot is an area with multi-generational unemployment and poverty, just like where I grew up. Libraries helped me break out of that cycle, how is the cycle to be broken there without educated, well read citizens?

 Here are the links to the data:

The issues data:

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/library_issues_data#incoming-376024

The CIPFA returns:

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/library_cipfa_returns#incoming-368610

12:25 Further to the above, more of the email exchange, starting with my reply to the above and then his response:



"Dear Mr Mallinson,

I will certainly add the points you raise to the post I'm writing, the issues about the book stock and space the library actually has and the decline of Sussex square as other reasons for the issues decreasing. It is still my belief that have paid library managers and assistants can help maintain and drive up the issues in libraries, John Lewis is bucking the trend in retail and one of the main reasons for that is staff knowledgeable on the products and good customer service, some of the libraries in Swindon have had their hours increased but without staff present just the self service machine and this hasn't increased the issues. You may disagree with my point but its my opinion. I think the fact that some of the libraries in Swindon are increasing their issues does show that people still want to read paper books. You said yourself there are problems with literacy in Walcot and I fail to see how having a internet cafe and charity shop rather than a library would address this.

As I think I said when I met you, I grew up in a area of Sunderland that is very similar to Walcot. My education was patchy and without access to the local library I would not have been able to drag myself out of the unemployment and deprivation that still exist in Sunderland. Its to be applauded that you have managed to keep a library going in difficult circumstances, I thought you had said it was a safety net and hoped that the council would support it again once the economy picked up?

I think you should consider very carefully before you make arbitrary decision to remove books from the library, have you consulted the community it serves, the council who I would imagine still provide some funding the building and in staffing support and your fellow volunteers? You are clearly well connected to the party running the council but does that give you the authority to make sure big decisions alone?

I will add your email in full to the post I'm writing, I want to make sure your views are fully reflected and not distorted by selectively quoting you, don't feel obliged to enter into lengthy correspondence over this, I don't wish to impose upon your time too much and I appreciate the time you have taken to respond. I wish Walcot every success and I hope the council comes to it senses and staffs and promotes a library in a area where one is clearly needed, again as I think I mentioned when we met:

OECD research has proved that “reading for pleasure was a more important indicator of future success than any socio-economic factors.”

Which I think shows it is vital for a community to have access to a good library that promotes reading to the area it serves, the key to our economic recovery as a nation is through the minds of our citizens after all.

With best wishes,

Trevor Craig"


And Mr Mallisons response:


"Dear Trevor,

Thanks for your reply.

It is and always will be my intention to maintain the status quo until the planned redevelopment of the square takes place, however you have put forward a compelling argument of under use of book lending in Walcot.  You have done so without balancing the probabilities of why this is happening.  It may be partly because of no paid staff being present at all times, it may be because of reduction in space, it may be because local people do not want it or it could be any other factors.

You talk about John Lewis and good customer service, I think you can rest assured that all our volunteers give excellent service in all parts of the shop and library.  It is a fallacy to say that paid staff would make a difference or do better.

To give some idea of what people want I will run a mini survey in the shop and library to ask people what they would like.  The alternatives to put to them could be;
More/Less books
More/Less I.T.
Less shop facilities
No tea or coffee facilities
Paid staff instead of volunteers
Longer opening hours for library
We can put the forms out for people to take and fill in anonymously, it could run for a couple of weeks to see what the uptake is like.

I resent your remarks about  “You are clearly well connected to the party running the council but does that give you the authority to make sure big decisions alone?”,  I do not make any decisions, all decisions are made by the trustees of the charity.  You can contact the council as easily as I can, they will listen to you in the same way that they listen to me.

My final point is this, we have many libraries in Swindon, some larger than others.  They all perform a useful function in the communities they serve. To use raw data as a comparison of how well these libraries are functioning is not the correct use of that data.  There are many factors that come into play and this data you are using does not address all of them.

We are now in our fourth year of running something that is a success, has won two pride of Swindon Awards and will be very much missed by the local people if it was taken away.  All this is regardless of the number of books borrowed.

Peter"

Epistemological? What are you talking about?

Ed Vaizey has been given a speech proclaiming the arts sector is in "rude health" this is while Newcastle are slashing their arts budget by 50% and Westminster council by 100% and responded to the decimation of library service by listing lots of cherry picked examples of stuff going on and proclaiming: "Libraries “In Crisis”? Again, I don’t think so."

Yes there are new libraries opening, they seem to be large city centre libraries, replacing their 60’s predecessors backed financially by the widely discredited PFI method of funding and the other stuff he mentions is blue sky bullshit about business incubators, hatchery spaces and other nonsense descriptions of the things that good libraries have been doing for years anyway. All the waffle, nonsense and Boris lite bluster doesn’t disguise the fact that actually library numbers are being savagely cut.

In the last few years 347 libraries have closed, 7.5% of the library service. This is before the cuts have even really kicked in. I wouldn’t be surprised if the number for 2013 is higher than the 201 that closed in 2012. And on top of that the arts council say that by April this year, 425 libraries, or 12% will be community supported, in other words, local authorities no longer see them as part of their statutory network and volunteers are keeping them open.

So since the coalition came to power, 19.5% of libraries will have been closed or cut either wholly or partially so they have to rely on volunteers to replace the low paid library managers and assistants. A fifth of libraries, cut. Crisis, I do think so.

By the end of this year, the 19.5% is obviously going to be a much higher figure, if Ed worked in the real world and the business he was responsible lost this many branches he would be out of a job. At what point will he think any of the 151 library authorities will be in breach of the “comprehensive and efficient library service for all persons desiring to make use thereof” 25%, 30%, 50%? This is from the man who when one authority was closing libraries in 2009 declared: “If Andy Burnham is not prepared to intervene when library provision is slashed in a local authority such as the Wirral, it is clear that he is ignoring his responsibilities as secretary of state, which in the process renders any sense of libraries being a statutory requirement for local authorities meaningless.”

The hypocrisy is so high I’m surprised it hasn’t breached the distance across the curved universe and hit Ed in the back of his own head. The minister is of course selectively ignoring part of the act, he has also ignored the part about needing an advisory body but helpfully has added in extra parts saying councils can factor in the resources available to then as a factor on deciding what their statutory library provision should be. As long as they tick the boxes in the right way, they can close as many libraries as they want. The councils rather than band together to pool the management resources are in nearly all cases cutting the low paid library managers and assistants rather than tackle the duplication that exists across the authorities borders and the shocking high service support costs of running library services. The sensible plan, as cuts are inevitable would have regional library management hubs to cut down on the duplication of having 151 library authorities, the Tories, despite supposedly the party of efficient public services are not doing this though.

Ed’s boss Dave, went to the electorate with the central plank of his manifesto being the “big society”. The public said no, so we are getting it anyway, without a mandate. Others including quangos and taxpayer funded organisations are also supporting the big society, also without a mandate from voters, the Arts Council, The LGA, SCL are all pushing the approach that cuts low paid staff, maintains the bloated service support and get the volunteers to provide the service to themselves approach. The approach that is destroying the library service on the altar of Dave’s vision of the big society.

In 2025 the library service is likely consist of lots of badly managed, glass monstrosities, with PFI liabilities soaking up whatever’s left in the library budget. In the areas outside the city centres, in the rough suburbs of Swindon, Sunderland, Liverpool and beyond, in the remote rural villages, in the shires and the Home Counties thousands of communities will have had their beating hearts ripped out, never to recover, never to be replaced.

Two types of chair

I stuck in a email to Dan Jarvis MP asking some questions on why Labour were not doing certain things in opposition on libraries. My concern is despite the hours and work Dan Jarvis is putting in, the position if Labour get back in may be little different to what we have now.  Below is the email exchange:

Me:

I appreciate you engaging with me over the libraries issues on twitter (rubymalvolio) I do as I have said appreciate all the hours you are putting in over the issue, nobody can doubt you are doing your best. Reading the thing you wrote on libraries does have some good stuff in it but there is nothing that ties a future Labour government to do anything to save libraries and so many have been lost already. I appreciate it must be very difficult and as a shadow minister half way through a parliament you have to be careful not to box yourself in. I have repeatedly asked you to name one authority that you don't believe is "comprehensive and efficient". I have no disagreement with you over the nonsense of the funding formula but you cannot really defend the conduct of Newcastle Council and maintain any sort of credibility with library users. Lots of councils are cutting way beyond what The Wirral did that triggered the Charteris Report intervention by Andy Burnham. You could do the following things that would help, without boxing yourself in too much:

Dan Jarvis:

Many thanks for your email, which I much appreciated – it is always a pleasure to have really thoughtful and constructive input. You make some very good points, which I'll respond to in order. 

First, I agree that the cuts in Newcastle and elsewhere are very worrying. The library service as a whole is being badly hit: 343 libraries have been closed or come under threat since April, with hundreds more closed to handed over to volunteers since 2010 – I'm sure you will have seen the Public Library News figures. I think we are on course many more in coming years. 

My concern is that attacking the councils for the cuts puts the focus and blame on them, and risks letting the government off the hook. Councils have an important part to play finding ways to protect frontline services, but they also face some genuinely tough choices. They might have to decide between cutting care for the elderly and cutting libraries. Libraries are not an optional luxury, and I think we should be supporting councils and strongly encouraging them to find innovative ways to make savings without closing branches. But I am also reluctant to parachute in without the benefit of long analysis of the specific challenges they face and criticise them for the difficult judgments they make. I know the financial position that Newcastle for example finds itself in is extremely challenging.

Me:

1. Announce that if you get into government you would properly define the 1964 "comprehensive and efficient for all the desire to make use of thereof" Proper benchmarks and measures that are minimum requirements required by the act.  

Dan:

In relation to defining the 1964 Act, I agree that it is being rendered meaningless in current circumstances, and that needs to change. At the same time I think too rigid a definition of service levels would be the wrong path. I personally support re-examining the interpretation of the Act to make the requirement more meaningful, and will pursue that if I am still in this post when Labour returns to office. The first step would be to publish better information on how local authorities are performing.  

Me:

2. Start pushing for interventions by the current government into a couple of the worst offending authorities, Glos, Brent, Newcastle, Swindon, Liverpool there are lots to choose from. Any of them really, but choose a Labour and a Tory pair to maintain neutrality.

Dan:

 I agree that government should be ready to intervene in some cases, but I am reluctant to call out specific authorities for same reasons I am reluctant to publicly criticise them. I also think the first thing the government should be doing is supporting councils – working with them to identify ways of making savings without cutting services, providing incentives, and sharing best practice. I also think there is a lot of scope to link libraries with other aspects of the work of government, like health and employment, so long as it does not compromise the independence and core functions of the library - and that this could potentially be used to generate more funding. (An example could be funding to create business incubation centres in libraries, which the government has in fact given a small amount of money towards – also greater use of libraries as centres for community life and education). Sanctions have a place in the worst cases, but I believe the first focus should be on finding positive ways to realise the potential of the service, which is huge. 

Me:

3.The biggest cost to most library authorities is the management and professions costs and service support. Its mind boggling how expensive the councils say library services cost to support (this is service support, other expenditure in the cipfa returns). Suggest a network of regional library management hubs, based on the Tri Borough arrangement in London, there are lots of savings to be made by joint working. 151 service supports, 151 other expenditures, 151 management and support structures, its exact duplication up and down the land. All the libraries could be invested in further and millions could be saved if there was the political drive to do this.

Dan:

 I agree this is one option to look at for making savings, and an important one. Not every library authority is suitable for amalgamation, and there are a lot of issues to be worked through first – the Tri-borough model took some time to organise. But I think there is a big role for government in actively engaging with councils and encouraging them to look at this option. I've spoken in favour of this idea, but clearly not loudly enough. That is something I hope I can rectify in the future. 

Me:

 I know he is doing bugger all now but Vaizey was a vocal critic and urged intervention in a specific case in opposition, there is no reason why you cannot do the same. 

Dan:

As you say, Ed Vaizey was good at declaring his indignation about libraries in opposition, though he has been much less effective at standing by his words in office. I don't want to fall into that trap, but there is a lot to be indignant about in the current situation. I have been trying to make the case in various speeches and press releases, but I hope I can amplify that message further.  

Trevor, thanks again for your points. Afraid I have very limited resources with which to do this job – not a single £ of resource for a wide shadow ministerial brief, so I’m not able to enter into protracted correspondence, but once again many thanks for taking the time to engage.