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.
No comments:
Post a Comment