Was it not the LGA that wanted the statutory duty of councils to provide a comprehensive and efficient public library service repealed? This report seems to give councils the green light to replace paid librarians with volunteers and to close branch libraries.

"Libraries in the hands of community groups, private sector funding and self-service borrowing points in shops and village halls are the way forward for the public library service"

Even though this is clearly NOT what people want.
"How to Get There"? - if Gloucestershire County Council are anything to go by this is done by ultimatums, disengagement, alienation and totally ignoring the public - all whilst DCMS cheers them on.

This report is a real disappointment and paves the way for a second class library service. No vision, no understanding of the needs and requirements of library users. This is not the blueprint that many library users (and indeed campaigners) were hoping for. One can only hope that all of those representing libraries will stamp their feet and demand that these proposals are withdrawn and something truly visionary is put in its place. We can but hope.

In the absence of proof to contrary, the professional bodies who had input into the production of this report must now be considered to be complicit in its recommendations. By condoning the replacement of their own members by volunteers, they are demonstrating what ? That they exist for reasons other than to support their own profession ?

The SCL has said absolutely nothing for months. Indeed, its members are currently advising councils to close community libraries, 'divest' them to volunteers, or even advocating the privatisation of the public service they work for.

Librarians and Library Assistants are "gagged", one is told. They have to rely on CILIP and the SCL to represent their best interests. This is clearly not the professional bodies' priority.

At the sharp end are the users of libraries and the campaigners, now joined in their misery by substantial numbers of beleaguered library staff amidst the wreckage of the service. I call on the SCL and CILIP to distance themselves utterly from this report; anything less will confirm that they have no business representing anyone.

To 'A more careful reader' - that line is taken almost verbatim from the top line of the LGA press release, in fact, so unless they are misrepresenting their own report it must be considered a reasonable precis.

"By breaking down the barriers of tradition, councils are bringing libraries into the 21st century and meeting the needs of a new generation of library users."
Proper library services, such as Norfolk, have been bringing libraries into the 21st century for years, and deserve even greater investment to enable them to reach a wider public. The problem is that one hears of councils running their services down to the point where they no longer provide even a service that would have been deemed adequate in the last century. And no, major cuts are neither helpful nor necessary. The MOD have lost billions yet have the temerity to whinge about their budget; the government wants to cut the tax paid by top earners. There is money available but little political will because the decision makers fail to understand what library services do or why, when properly funded, they meet the needs of their public. Instead of vision we get crass proposals to give libraries over to charities (so the council gets less money in rates and the rest of the ratepayers have to pay more) or vague ideas about volunteer-run libraries (and will the volunteers be professionally qualified and experienced?).
This report looks very much like a cop-out when Ed Vaizey has completely failed to demand that councils provide a comprehensive and efficient library service as required by law.

Anyone who would like to check out the full report (and the press release!) for themselves, here's the link
http://www.local.gov.uk/web/10161/home/-/journal_content/56/10161/88839/...

Dear Ian, I am sorry if you think I am criticising you for merely stating your opinion. Far from it, and I'm sure if you go back and read my comment then you will see that. However, my substantive point still stands. What is the alternative? As far as I can see library campaigners are standing firm in defence of the status quo and any move away from that is condemned in the fiercest of terms.

I am no fan of the cutters and I believe in a public library service where all have access to librarians. The problem is that whatever way you look at it there is going to be less public services, and that means less library services. Not only both governing parties but the opposition are committed to reducing public spending. I disagree, but that is the way that it is going to be.

Now, if it were up to me we'd just get rid of the wasteful Trident and spend the cash on schools, hospitals and libraries, but that aint gonna happen. So we have to deal with the fact that library services will receive less money. The question is how to deal with that fact.

My point is a very simple one. If we as users of libraries are unhappy with the ideas being proposed by government then in standing only for the status quo or no reduction in any service we cede the debate about the future to those who will only slash and burn the service.

So, for library users and campaigners the challenge seems to be, what are the alternatives that we can advance? I don't know what they are, but I do know that if we don't come up with some then we'll find ourselves crying in the wilderness, and ideas we don't like will be brought in.

If that's telling people they have to come up with ideas, I plead guilty, but it's hardly telling you your free speech should be restricted, and I apologise if you got that impression.

I have done a comprehensive list (with pros and cons) of how to save money while note closing libraries on the website Public Libraries News - have a look some time. The link is http://www.publiclibrariesnews.com/p/election-may-5th-2011.html

However, the most important point here is that money should not be disproportionately cut from libraries, not that money should be cut. Many authorities are taking more from libraries than from other departments as it is seen as easy - again, I have done a full list of what councils are cutting what at http://www.publiclibrariesnews.com/p/cuts-and-closures-by-local-authorit...

It is very interesting to note that many authorities are not making big cuts - so it's not essential to cut libraries, just a political choice.