Vaizey done good

I hate to say it but Vaizey has actually done a very good thing in getting CIPFA to do these comparisons. It confirms what I have been saying all along about the Oxfordshire library service, its expensive and bloated and the back office spend is far too high, this has to be tackled instead of forcing volunteers to replace low paid library assistants in a scheme that doesn't really save any money.

Oxfordshire has:

• Average number of libraries and users
• Just below average population in the comparison group
• Just above average number of active borrowers (although there isn't much in it)
• High level of book issues (this is the best thing they are doing)
• High level of total revenue expenditure. (bad, bad, bad)
• Low level of volunteers.

There are lots of other comparisons in there and Oxon does quite well in quite a few of them, I think the central library does skew our stats a bit because we have Oxford University, one of the biggest in the world and the central library is always full of students which you wouldn't get in cities with small universities, perhaps the colleges should be encouraged to chip in a few staff? The authorities with the busiest central libraries are ones with big universities. I would love to see some stats on centrals usage by people who live outside the county, I know the 1964 act says we have to provide to all but I'm sure its a massive, hidden subsidy to the colleges by the taxpayer of Oxon, I don't object at all but I would love to see how much it is. The high book issues is very good but this shouldn't be linked to the back office costs, the 4.4 million service support is outside of the main library service budget and I don't think it can be linked to the book issues. It says more about the people of Oxfordshire being avid readers than anything.

On the total revenue expenditure:

As I have been banging on about for months, the cost of the library service, especially the back office is too high. You cannot designate the rural libraries as non-statutory, not mention it in the consultation at all and then expect the volunteers to replace the low paid, front line library assistants when such a increasingly expensive, bloated back office is allowed to exist. My view is that it has always been to high but its just getting worse, a roughly 7.4 million library service is now costing 4.4 million in other expenditure (includes service support) according to the CIPFA returns and its far too high. These costs HAVE to be reduced or shared with other authorities, 17 miles away Bucks duplicate these back office activities and costs.

On volunteers, Oxfordshire scored below the average, there are lots of volunteers in our library and in the other rural ones I have visited. We can get our volunteer numbers up from 1.7% of worked hours, to the average of 4.5% only if the entire library service embraces volunteers, The rural libraries already depend heavily on volunteers to add extra services, its the big city libraries that I think are not getting enough volunteers in, they said after the "consultation" that they cannot have volunteers in their "statutory" libraries, this has to change.

Volunteers can and should make the library service better as it does in the small threatened rural libraries, but we cannot and shouldn't be used to replace low paid library assistants while such back office bloat is allowed to increase. Replace the statutory status and the hours, it will cost almost nothing, share the bloat with Bucks and lets encourage as many volunteers as we can in all libraries to make our library service a thing to be proud of.

Despite being supine and ignoring his responsibilities under the 1964 act, on the specific point of getting CIPFA to do this, I will say this again, well done Ed Vaizey. <cough, choke, cough>

http://www.cipfastats.net/uploads/CIPFA_Profile_Nearest_Neighbours_Oxfordshire1312201256135.pdf

The 3 mile Economy Drive

Newcastle City Council say they have to find 90 million pounds worth of savings because of increased costs and cuts of 39.3 million to their grant. They are proposing to close 10 of their 18 libraries to help achieve these savings. Staffing costs tend to one of the biggest areas of spending in libraries and looking at their CIPFA returns since 2008 staffing has already dropped by about 20%

Which to me shows that the staffing in the library service has already had more that its fair share of the cuts. Having further cuts to staff numbers is clearly why they have to close libraries. In the CIPFA returns there are always two areas of expenditure that I always find really murky. There are called Service Support Costs and Other Expenditure.

According to the forms service support costs are defined as:

"Include an apportionment for administrative buildings, central departments, central support services, central expenses and departmental administration even if the authority does not make such an allocation to the public library account. Also include any executive costs of the department (of which libraries form a part) which are fairly attributable to libraries. Exclude any costs included in Cell 95. No attempt should be made to separately identify the staff element of central administrative charges, nor should such costs be included in Cell 77 / 114. Include recharges that arise as a result of either Internal Service Level Agreements (SLAs) or the authority externally contracting out central professional services."


And Other Expenditure, which is defined as:


"Other Expenditure (Estimates only - this should include Computing Costs, Other Supplies and Services, Transport, Third Party Payments and Support Services Costs)"

The other expenditure includes the service support costs and various other costs involved in running the library service. The service support costs specifically are the cost to the council, outside of the actual library budget that it costs to run. So HR, Payroll, accounts, share of the building costs for the non-library buildings etc.

Frustratingly different councils fill in what appear to be slightly different versions of the CIPFA forms (councils hate direct comparison) but on the 2012 return Newcastle City Council has a figure of £4.1 million for their other expenditure costs:

And a very short hop over the tyne, Gateshead Borough Council has service support costs of £1.2 million

 Both of these councils are cutting or closing libraries, both maintain a separate and expensive (in proportion to their library budgets) back office support cost. The Newcastle total budget for example is around 9 million pounds yet the council need to spend 4.1 million on service support and other expenditure. In Gateshead the library budget is about 4.1 million and their service support costs  (not the total other expenditure) are 1.2 million.

Obviously we cannot make a direct comparison as they haven't used the same figure but there is clearly lots of scope there for not only efficiencies but with two councils very close together they should not be duplicating this work, their main council offices are three miles apart. To be cutting libraries and not pooling these costs is wrong and Gateshead and Newcastle Council should not cut a single library until this duplication and inefficiency is driven out of their budgets. They should follow a similar scheme to the tri-borough proposals in London, they joined up the running and costs of three library authorities and saved lots of money and not closed any libraries. This level of waste would never be tolerated in the private sector. Its time for the councillors in Newcastle and Gateshead to start showing some leadership and stop blaming the other side, if Labour were in Government we would be in exactly in the same position as we are in now.



The Cipfa returns:

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/cipfa_public_library_statistics#incoming-339751

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/library_management_costs#incoming-337336

Info on the tri-borough back office sharing scheme in London:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-19810787

PFI-Perfidious Financial Idiocy

Newcastle libraries have a budget of around 9.1 million for the year 2011-2012 according to their CIPFA returns. In 2009, via a private fiance initiative they built two new libraries, a replacement for their central library and a new library in High Heaton (completed in 08). PFI was something that was dream't up in the dying days of the last Tory government in the 90's. It was taken up and enthusiastically pushed as a way of building new public sector infrastructure by New Labour. The premise is supposed to be simple, private funding is sought to build the building and a contractor runs the property providing upkeep and maintenance. The public body pays a monthly fee, similar to a mortgage over normally a 25 year period and at the end the building belongs to them. It is supposed to deliver value for money and because the private sector can do things cheaper than public, a better deal for the taxpayer. Anyone who has read private eye of the past few years will realise the is often not the case. I know nothing of the detail of the Newcastle libraries deal but we have all heard of cases where the PFI contractor charges £300 to change a light bulb or fit a new electrical socket for a similar amount. Public sector bodies were only supposed to go for the PFI option if it demonstrated value for money over using their own capital budget to build the thing themselves. Because of the small print it can mean the companies end up charging for lots of extras and the fact that the repayments are linked to inflation means that depending on how the economy is doing it may not be cheaper. If the economy continues the way it is for the next few years or longer with low to zero growth and inflation always higher then councils and public bodies who have gone for the "Wonga option" are going to struggle to service the payments and keep services going during the cuts to their budgets. But back to the Toon. They had a library budget of 9.1 million, their monthly payments for 09-10 were £271,761.33 per MONTH! That is 3.2 million a year for two libraries out of eighteen. And of course while the economy continues to die on its arse, thanks to the cost of petrol, gas and electric from our rigged energy market and all other goods going up in cost each year inflation will continue to rise and the monthly cost will continue to grow. In 2012-13 the monthly cost has risen to £281,506.50 which will mean a annual cost of £3,378,07.00 million. 

I accept that thanks to years of neglect that infrastructure was in need of investment during the Labour years. By 2009 though it was clear to everyone apart from those in charge that PFI wasn't the way forward, especially since it was pretty clear by then that the economy wasn't going to be bouncing back any time soon, coupled with the fact that procurement in the public sector tends to be very poor. The private sector always come out winners in contract negotiations.

If Newcastle City Council want to blame anyone for having to cut libraries I think they have to look at themselves mainly, going for the neo-liberal wonga option will haunt them for many years to come. 

Link to the PFI data:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/pfi_costs_of_libraries#incoming-339771

Channel 4 fact check on PFI:

http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/factcheck-does-pfi-offer-the-taxpayer-value-for-money/5705

Article in the Indy on PFI buggering up the NHS:

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/the-funding-timebomb-that-crippled-an-nhs-healthcare-trust-7888977.html

Who's in charge of the deck chairs?

I stuck a question in on the Arts Council’s live chat with Alan Davey that took place at lunchtime today. I wanted to understand from him what ACE understands to mean when E-Vaizey said they are:  “responsible for superintending and promoting the library service”. Below is my initial question and Alan’s response:

Rubymalvolio: Ed Vaizey has said in the house of commons that ACE is: "responsible for superintending and promoting the library service" How is this even possible with only five library relationship managers?

Alan Davey: To Rubymalvolio: I think this must have been a slip of the tongue. We are very clear that we do not have a superintending role and nor did the MLA before us. We are, however, about promoting the importance of libraries and their development. We will maintain a presence in all parts of the country despire our current cuts. That's important.

I wanted to post a follow up and the moderator very kindly told me that it wouldn’t get in by the end so I should put my follow up in an email. I did and here is what I sent, it includes correspondence between the MLA and the tireless campaigner Shirley Burnham and an email exchange between me and the DCMS:

Hi Alan,

There is a lot of confusion on the role of the Arts Council and libraries. I know the minister has the statutory responsibility under the libraries act but it appears that the head of the MLA did believe that they had some responsibility to superintend (or provide oversight) and clearly the minister Ed Vaizey believes this too.  One of my fellow campaigners had an email from Roy Clare CBE in 2010 that implied this:

Hello, Shirley, yes happy for you to circulate.

Wirral’s key features were a “perfect storm” of the following factors:

#. Stated intention for large numbers of closures

#. Driven by asset-review, not social outcomes

#. Ineffective consultation with public (and staff) *

#. Potential of library services not well recognised *

#.No workable strategy for service improvement *

#. ‘Good Practice’ elsewhere not being considered

It was the combination that led us to consider appealing to Secretary of State.

In our view one or two of these factors on their own would not be sufficient grounds to cry ‘foul’. Each is important, but those marked * are fundamental.

Hope that helps?

Roy

Roy Clare CBE

CEO, Museums, Libraries and Archives Council”

I also asked the DCMS what Vaizey meant when he said the line  "A £6 million fund has been provided by the Arts Council, which is now responsible for superintending and promoting the library service"

“Dear Mr Craig,

Thank you for your email of 14 November to the Department about the supervision of library services. I have been asked to reply.The Minister’s comment about the Arts Council was reference to the responsibilities they assumed in October 2011 for the development of public libraries.As I mentioned in my letter of 13 November, The Secretary of State, the Rt Hon Maria Miller MP, has a duty under the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964 to superintend the delivery of library services by local authorities and to ensure that public library authorities in England provide a ‘comprehensive and efficient’ service in accordance with their statutory duties under the 1964 Act”

Which doesn't say it was a slip of the tongue it actually backs it up and the minister and the DCMS believe ACE is responsible for superintending and promoting the library service. As you are no doubt aware up and down the land there is massive anger at the cuts to libraries, even your own department has been cut hard and there is no way 5 library relationship managers could possibly supervise the 151 library authorities on top of the envisioning the future of the libraries program and the 6 million in arts grants. I hope you can give some clarity on this as it seems that libraries are being slashed and there is confusion about who is overseeing them.

With kind regards,

To which Alan very kindly replied very promptly a few hours later:

Dear Mr Craig,

Thank you for your email.

As I mentioned today in my live chat, it is not the Arts Council’s role to superintend libraries and report back to the DCMS on whether a library service meets the statutory requirements of the 1964 Act or not. As your letter from the DCMS made clear, the Arts Council assumed responsibility for the development of public libraries in October 2011, and the superintending of whether a public library service is deemed ‘comprehensive and efficient’ lies with the Secretary of State, the Rt Hon Maria Miller.

I also mentioned in my live chat that the MLA did not have responsibility of superintending the 1964 Act. This is strictly true, although MLA library staff did analyse local, regional and national library data collated by CIPFA, and feedback this information to DCMS. We were very clear when we assumed responsibility for libraries that reviewing library performances would not be a role that we would be undertaking – and that the definition of a ‘comprehensive and efficient’ public library service should be defined at a local level, and be superintended by the Secretary of State.

I hope this clears up any confusion you may have on this matter. If you would like any further information on the Arts Council’s role concerning libraries, please check the Arts Council website here.

Which is very clear, ACE have NO responsibility to superintend and promote the library service, they are not monitoring libraries adhere to their duties under the act it’s down to Maria Miller, Ed Vaizey and the 4.5 staff they have at the DCMS.

It isn’t possible for 4.5 people to monitor the 151 library authorities, no way. Ed trying to take credit for keeping the 1964 museum and libraries act is just smoke and mirrors, it’s meaningless if the act isn’t enforced. The iceberg approaches, there isn’t even enough people to move the deck chairs never mind dodge the iceberg and the captain has locked himself in his cabin with his Xbox.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/politics/4561138/Tory-minister-Ed-Vaizey-in-computer-games-console-fury.html

The bridge is empty, the captain has abandoned ship

Despite my anger at the rather large back office and management costs in my local library authority. I was shocked when my "They work for you" Ed Vaizey alert came through today because he had answered a question in the house on staffing at the DCMS.

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2012-11-26a.129730.h&s=speaker%3A11905#g129730.r0

I find this really, really shocking but for the 151 library authorities the DCMS currently only has four full time staff members and one part-time (the new guy I guess). We know poor Dempster probably spends his day batting back campaigners emails but this means the minister has each person watching roughly 33.5 of the 151 library authorities. No wonder they have to rely on public library news, they don't have enough staff in the DCMS on libraries to realistically have a handle on what is going on. Even if you take E-Vaizey at his word and the Arts Council have some responsibility to superintend, they are being culled hard and are working on the pointless "Envisioning the future of the library service" and administering the six million of funding for arts projects in libraries, also pointless and misguided in the current decimation of libraries in my opinion. Even if their 5 library relationship managers they have left were not working on this stuff and were full time making sure along with the DCMS that the 1964 act was being enforced this would still leave each person with 15.8 library authorities to monitor.

I'm all for small, efficient back office spending in whitehall but this really shows, in my opinion that the ministers in the DCMS don't know and don't care what is happening in libraries. Considering the library spend across these authorities is somewhere in the region of one billion, you would imagine they would have a few more staff to ensure libraries are comprehensive and efficient. This is probably why most library authorities are neither, nobody is looking.

We don't measure our success by results but by activity

I have been chasing the DCMS to get some information on what E-Vaizey meant when he said in the house of commons:

 "A £6 million fund has been provided by the Arts Council, which is now responsible for superintending and promoting the library service"

The very nice Mr M from the DCMS responded (I put in the bold text):

“Dear Mr Craig,

Thank you for your email of 14 November to the Department about the supervision of library 

services. I have been asked to reply.The Minister’s comment about the Arts Council was reference to the responsibilities they assumed in October 2011 for the development of public libraries.

As I mentioned in my letter of 13 November, The Secretary of State, the Rt Hon Maria Miller 

MP, has a duty under the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964 to superintend the 

delivery of library services by local authorities and to ensure that public library authorities in 

England provide a ‘comprehensive and efficient’ service in accordance with their statutory 

duties under the 1964 Act”

Which as far as I can tell means they are standing up what E-Vaizey said.  It might just be me being a bit thick but the act clearly states:

“From the commencement of this Act it shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to superintend, and promote the improvement of, the public library service provided by local authorities in England and Wales,”

So according to Ed both the secretary of state and the Arts Council are responsible for superintending and promoting the library service.

The MLA’s Roy Clare CBE clearly thought it had some responsibility as the comment Shirley added on one of my other posts says. ACE doesn’t though have the statutory duty or the resource to superintend and promote libraries. It’s responsibility of the minister and the DCMS. I have come to the conclusion that either E-Vaizey is a massive idiot with a single digit IQ or he is deliberately trying to obfuscate so when he and his department are finally brought to account over their/his inaction he can do what all politicians do, pretend to forget stuff and say the issue is confused.

I have been quite critical of the Arts Councils Envisioning the future of libraries project being just an exercise in creative inertia. They are being cut hard and are going to be even more ineffective will incapable of supervising or promoting an egg and spoon race never mind 150 library authorities. The whole useless churn of initiatives, reports, hand wringing and jargon laden nonsense that passes for informing the policy and decisions making process continues and while they are all busy in the Westminster bubble arguing about who runs what, in the real world the library service IS being decimated and those paid to protect it are failing.

A tale of two cities (and a borough)

Now Gateshead just across the river from Newcastle are getting rid of some of there libraries, 5 of their 17 they are either handing to volunteers or closing. For anyone unfamiliar with the area Gateshead and Newcastle are practically on top of each other, the council offices are only three miles apart:

Almost spitting distance

Meanwhile in Sunderland 12 miles down the road their City Council had a couple of years ago made big cuts to their book spend but are now putting it back up by 340k and as far as I'm aware are not currently planning on cutting any of their library network. Obviously Sunderland seem to be taking the more enlightened approach. What annoys me is the rush by Gateshead and Newcastle to either close the libraries or hand them to volunteers when they have three separate authorities all with three separate management and professional and service support structures. They can join forces to bid for capital of culture but not to save the library service. We know from Surrey and where I am in Oxfordshire that because of the costs, handing the libraries to the "Big SocietyTM"  doesn't really save any money, if any. So why are the three authorities not working together to pool the back office costs? I grew up in the area and had to listen to the Labour Councils take credit for everything they could and if anything unpopular has to be done blame the Tories. The same happens in the Shires but they started blaming the last Labour government for everything once their party go into government.

I have put in a splurge of FOI's to Gateshead and Newcastle to see how much the libraries are costing to support in such a tiny geographical area. You never know, the FOI's might come back and show that their entire back office and service support costs are already pooled and the closing of libraries and handing them to volunteers is the last resort, not the first.



http://www.journallive.co.uk/north-east-news/todays-news/2012/11/13/gateshead-libraries-now-under-threat-61634-32220097/

http://www.sunderlandecho.com/news/local/all-news/sunderland-s-340-000-books-boost-1-5126198