Help navigation
- Wednesday, 19 June
Log in to TheBookseller.com
News
-
RELATED STORIES
-
Gardner and Pinfold win Carnegie and Greenaway Medals
Sally Gardner's childre...
-
IPG offers support as MPG rescue plan fails
The Independent Publishers ...
-
Major library cuts for Lincolnshire
Lincolnshire looks set to a...
-
Rebuck interviewed for SB.TV
Random House c.e.o. Gail Re...
-
Quercus brings sales in-house
Quercus has brou...
Libraries
04.10.09 | Benedicte Page
The public library service is "woefully" lacking in leadership and a new Library Development Agency for England is needed to articulate a national vision, the All Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on Libraries has said in a report published today (2nd October).
The report, on governance and leadership in England's public library service begun last year under the chairmanship of Labour MP Lyn Brown and co-funded by CILIP (Chartered Institute for Library and Information Professionals), recommends a bringing together of government funding and functional responsibility within a single government department, the creation of the new agency to provide leadership and advocacy, and adjusting the "role, function and funding of the MLA (Museums, Libraries and Archive Council) . . . accordingly".
The report states: "We acknowledge that the MLA is confident that it can improve its performance in relation to libraries despite its financial constraints and there is a view that it should be given time to allow its new approaches to be tested. However, others told us that its split responsibilities make focused library advocacy impossible."
The library report says that a series of "relatively simple and small central policy changes" could create a "dramatic" improvement in the quality of services delivered by public libraries, which show a "deep chasm" between the best and the worst. The report also recommends changes to the Advisory Council for Libraries, suggesting that its role, membership and business programme be reviewed.
Lynda Waltho MP, Chair of the APPG on Libraries, said: "The responses to our survey identify a public library service that is woefully lacking in leadership . . . Libraries desperately need a strategic vision to ensure that they are a future-facing service, rather than one that is struggling to keep up in a digital age."
Bob McKee, chief executive of CILIP, adde: "The government needs to act promptly on the report's recommendations so that the library service gets the clarity of leadership it deserves and local people get the quality of service they have a right to expect."
The All Party report is the first of three much-anticipated library reviews due this month, with news of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport Library Service Modernisation Review and the report into Wirral libraries expected at the Public Library Authorities' conference in Bristol next week.
TheBookseller
©2012 Bookseller Media Ltd rights reserved.
Comments: Scroll down for the latest comments and to have your say
By posting on this website you agree to the Bookseller comments policy. Comments go direct to live please be relevant, brief and definitely not abusive. Report any "unsuitable comments by clicking the links"
Sort: Oldest first | Newest first | Readers' most recommended
It is now two and a half years since the previous ceo of the MLA left his post. If, at that time, faced with the significant parliamentary and public criticisms of both their and the DCMS' role in the public library service, the MLA board had laid out its understanding of the issues and a thought-out plan for its new ceo, the situation might now be different. However, the MLA board not only has never done that, but it has only both continually, ignored facts, denied problems and insisted in, I'm afraid to say, a most supercilious manner, that it always knows best what to do. It has imperially refused to listen to, hear or discuss library matters with people who use libraries, or who would like to see them improve so they can use them. There are many with relevant and proven experience and expertise, but they are never listened to. The reality is that because they have conducted themselves in this way, the MLA and DCMS have no credibility left. So, for these reasons, this Parliamentary group is correct in its judgment and right to call for urgent action. It is needed. What is hard to see is from whom it can come. There is no no-one with the authority, experience, strength of vision, stature or courage, to make a new plan. Only the ministers have money- and this report makes clear, that no one knows to which minister one should turn. As is being said elsewhere, what leadership must do is bring together the right people, as Churchill did in 1940, and put behind us the arguments of the past few years, to take action. Those actions are simple ; more books, longer hours, better buildings, less wasted money on management and administration and to get close to library users and listen to them For goodness sake, let's just get on and do it. Time is short. Who will call a meeting?
The report identifies many of the issues that
have long been known to cause problems for the public library service.
Some of the solutions suggested may not be the right ones. We are still examining the report.
But we are keen to help look at what has been proposed and work out the details. As library
users, our members are a valuable source of insights and ideas that is too often neglected. The long, wasteful battle over closures in Wirral is just one example.
Our chief concern, however, is - just who will have the inclination and the clout to grasp the nettle and get something done?
The lack of a clear answer is precisely the problem for public libraries. The APPG report underlines this. No one body is responsible or accountable for this vital service.
We will work with any politician or agency that wants to try to implement the APPG's ideas, and raise the profile and status of public libraries. Too
often, the decision-makers don't even know what a good PL service can do for them. And at a bargain price.
Library users can help. And the Library Campaign can help users
Come on then; let's get on with it.
Is there anyone out there?
"Coo eee ....
Anyone there?"
If the answer is to create yet another Quango surely the wrong question has been asked?
The answer is not to create another quango but to replace all those departments, councils, commissions, ngo's, assonciations, charities and other bodies which currently operate nationally with a finger in the pie of public libraries. These all obtain funding directly or indirectly from the public purse and while some are very well intentioned and energetic, their profileration confuses the management purpose of the library service and none have enough resource to do what they should. Instead there should be just one small operational body designed for the purpose which is to support and improve the management of public libraries within local councils. It is within councils that the management weakness lies and it is to sort out the confusions and variable standards that this (essentially training and support) body, should be created. It should report to council leaders as a group and be accountable to the minister who is responsible for local councils. The 'shared vision' of which people talk has to be one agreed between the political ministers and elected councils. This body can be the guardian of that vision and help councils understand and offer it to the public. In doing this work the new body should actively seek the views of local people everywhere and respond to national and local public need, in order to help councils improve their community work. This means moving it from the DCMS to the department that funds local goverment (currently the DCLG). It means that the minister of state responsible for it should be in the DCLG and not the DCMS. The problem is not a cultural one (The culture in public libraries comes from writers, past and present, publishers and compilers of information) but a management one. This report is from a group of MP's who have no direct responsibility within government for libraries, but a genuine interest in them - it is a kind of 'something must be done' report-- and in that way it is a valid and important expression of the views of a collection of MP's. It's value lies in its observations and conclusions.
We agree with much of the APPG
I am thinking of removal of the funding for libraries that currently goes to the MLA, the regional offices of the MLA, MLA London, the ACL, any funding direct or indirect to the SCL or CILIP, any other regional development agencies, The Reading Agency, the NLT, for any public library activities, obviously the library office of the DCMS, any regional cutural bodies. That whole list of 'Stakeholders' that appear in reports about public libraries (apart from the public, who never do appear in the Stakeholders list). The work done, for example, by The Reading Agency, if it is of value (and it certainly is) and any other bodies will be better managed from inside this initiative than, as at present, from outside it having to lobby for funds and projects. If the funding were direct from the DCLG then the argument (the correct argument) would be whether it is better placed with this agency or given to councils themselves and that would create the need for it to be effective and efficient and seen to be so by councils, (which I submit, the MLA is not). I think that the responsibility for delivery of high standards lies firmly with local councils. This body would be the 'Task Force' for which calls have often been made, to 'help', sometimes with emphatic persuasion from the minister or a collection of other councils, individual councils to address their fundamental management issues. Of course (as I argued at length to the last Select Committee) is no good if the same people are just reshuffled into new jobs. Above all what is lacking is senior leadership to make this all work. Who is appointed is the most important thing, but I am offering this as a structure, which, if it had the right people, could clarify the roles and the responsibilities. In truth, to make it happen, it needs the Prime Minister to move the responsibility for libraries from the DCMS to the DCLG. That would be the key decision that opens the door (and I call for him to do it). As I said, if I was managing the corporation, I would start from local councils first (as I have done) and then work backwards, but I have been struck by the way Whitehall people (ministers and shadow ministers) only think in Whitehall terms (and not in terms of local empowerment) - so I am offering a route through that part of the problem, too. The work in individual local councils, of which there is not enough, is the work that will actually make a difference (as in Hillingdon, and now Tower Hamlets, Wesminster etc).. I think, as you say, the report is a cry for help, but you could say the same thing not just from the vocal campaigns but also from the major reports from the Select Committee and the Audit Commission. There has been too much ignoring of all these, and I support a major change, if it is properly managed and implemented.
I am very concerned that there are some who may think that no authoritative body should exist to whom desperate residents can appeal if their local council is arbitrarily proposing to close libraries. It is naive to think that without any possiblity of censure or a curb on their actions, councillors will act entirely in the interests of their community (and the existence of the credit crunch is allowing many to implement swingeing cuts that have been in the pipeline for years). Do not murmur that the Secretary of State's powers under the 1964 Act should be sufficient; ask yourself how often this luminary has been 'minded' to intervene. Do not even suggest that the (excellent) Ombudsman might suffice; it is very difficult indeed as a layman to compile evidence that will result in his intervention on the grounds of maladministration. It is crucial that we begin to thrash out what Tim Coates is suggesting. The status quo is quite awful. There must be strong leadership to which people may turn to for justice when everything locally goes pear-shaped.
These are very interesting comments by Tim Coates, but how realistic is it "to replace all those departments, councils, commissions, ngo's, associations, charities and other bodies which currently operate nationally with a finger in the pie of public libraries"; and are there really that many?
The MLA is obviously one, but it has no powers; CILIP is another, but it is a member organisation, with no core funding from the public purse and also has no powers. SCL is another, without significant public funding or powers. ACL is 'staffed' by part-time volunteers (its Chair runs a large university in his day job!) and it seems entirely marginal to everything.
Besides, the heart of modern decision-making seems to lie with local government.
It is not clear how the "Community Empowerment" legislation (effective for local authorities since last April) would sit with the proposed new 'development agency'; nor is it clear from the report whether or not the MPs envisaged giving the Quango powers to act If not, how would it be better than MLA?).
'Something must be done' is exactly how the report reads; on that basis it will most likely simply be ignored.
I should add that by adopting this approach, the funding of such a body could come from funds that would have gone direct to local government, so saving all the expense of existing bodies. Most of these have only existed for the past few years- the MLA only started in 2002, so there is no question of putting at risk an established institution. Nothing will change if it closes. This new development also would enable a clear position of 'responsibility for the public library service' with one straightforward structure from councils to ministers, reported publicly by this body and it executive. The minister would be resonsible nationally and the leader of each council, locally and the figures reported could be clear and timely and available to all. I agree that it seems odd to start at this end of the management chain-- but politicians do this and one is wary of what might happen in the creation of a new government, of whatever persuasion, next year. This bit should be sorted out, with political consensus, immediately, because of the financial pressures in the air. (Finally- an apology for taking so much space, but the Bookseller is a generous host to this important discussion)
We support any initiative as we want to work with libraries but are finding it not as easy as we had hoped. And we are just what the libraries need!
The People's Book prize
Here are two facts that Tim & Shirley are careful not to mention. Book issues went up in 2009 - the first year-on-year rise since stats were collected. Secondly, the current usage trends suggest that library usage is higher than ever. One wonders why such champions of the library service fail to mention these facts. Something to ponder.
Here are two facts that Tim & Shirley are careful not to mention. Book issues went up in 2009 - the first year-on-year rise since stats were collected. Secondly, the current usage trends suggest that library usage is higher than ever. One wonders why such champions of the library service fail to mention these facts. Something to ponder.
It is now two and a half years since the previous ceo of the MLA left his post. If, at that time, faced with the significant parliamentary and public criticisms of both their and the DCMS' role in the public library service, the MLA board had laid out its understanding of the issues and a thought-out plan for its new ceo, the situation might now be different. However, the MLA board not only has never done that, but it has only both continually, ignored facts, denied problems and insisted in, I'm afraid to say, a most supercilious manner, that it always knows best what to do. It has imperially refused to listen to, hear or discuss library matters with people who use libraries, or who would like to see them improve so they can use them. There are many with relevant and proven experience and expertise, but they are never listened to. The reality is that because they have conducted themselves in this way, the MLA and DCMS have no credibility left. So, for these reasons, this Parliamentary group is correct in its judgment and right to call for urgent action. It is needed. What is hard to see is from whom it can come. There is no no-one with the authority, experience, strength of vision, stature or courage, to make a new plan. Only the ministers have money- and this report makes clear, that no one knows to which minister one should turn. As is being said elsewhere, what leadership must do is bring together the right people, as Churchill did in 1940, and put behind us the arguments of the past few years, to take action. Those actions are simple ; more books, longer hours, better buildings, less wasted money on management and administration and to get close to library users and listen to them For goodness sake, let's just get on and do it. Time is short. Who will call a meeting?
The report identifies many of the issues that
have long been known to cause problems for the public library service.
Some of the solutions suggested may not be the right ones. We are still examining the report.
But we are keen to help look at what has been proposed and work out the details. As library
users, our members are a valuable source of insights and ideas that is too often neglected. The long, wasteful battle over closures in Wirral is just one example.
Our chief concern, however, is - just who will have the inclination and the clout to grasp the nettle and get something done?
The lack of a clear answer is precisely the problem for public libraries. The APPG report underlines this. No one body is responsible or accountable for this vital service.
We will work with any politician or agency that wants to try to implement the APPG's ideas, and raise the profile and status of public libraries. Too
often, the decision-makers don't even know what a good PL service can do for them. And at a bargain price.
Library users can help. And the Library Campaign can help users
Come on then; let's get on with it.
Is there anyone out there?
"Coo eee ....
Anyone there?"
If the answer is to create yet another Quango surely the wrong question has been asked?
The answer is not to create another quango but to replace all those departments, councils, commissions, ngo's, assonciations, charities and other bodies which currently operate nationally with a finger in the pie of public libraries. These all obtain funding directly or indirectly from the public purse and while some are very well intentioned and energetic, their profileration confuses the management purpose of the library service and none have enough resource to do what they should. Instead there should be just one small operational body designed for the purpose which is to support and improve the management of public libraries within local councils. It is within councils that the management weakness lies and it is to sort out the confusions and variable standards that this (essentially training and support) body, should be created. It should report to council leaders as a group and be accountable to the minister who is responsible for local councils. The 'shared vision' of which people talk has to be one agreed between the political ministers and elected councils. This body can be the guardian of that vision and help councils understand and offer it to the public. In doing this work the new body should actively seek the views of local people everywhere and respond to national and local public need, in order to help councils improve their community work. This means moving it from the DCMS to the department that funds local goverment (currently the DCLG). It means that the minister of state responsible for it should be in the DCLG and not the DCMS. The problem is not a cultural one (The culture in public libraries comes from writers, past and present, publishers and compilers of information) but a management one. This report is from a group of MP's who have no direct responsibility within government for libraries, but a genuine interest in them - it is a kind of 'something must be done' report-- and in that way it is a valid and important expression of the views of a collection of MP's. It's value lies in its observations and conclusions.
I should add that by adopting this approach, the funding of such a body could come from funds that would have gone direct to local government, so saving all the expense of existing bodies. Most of these have only existed for the past few years- the MLA only started in 2002, so there is no question of putting at risk an established institution. Nothing will change if it closes. This new development also would enable a clear position of 'responsibility for the public library service' with one straightforward structure from councils to ministers, reported publicly by this body and it executive. The minister would be resonsible nationally and the leader of each council, locally and the figures reported could be clear and timely and available to all. I agree that it seems odd to start at this end of the management chain-- but politicians do this and one is wary of what might happen in the creation of a new government, of whatever persuasion, next year. This bit should be sorted out, with political consensus, immediately, because of the financial pressures in the air. (Finally- an apology for taking so much space, but the Bookseller is a generous host to this important discussion)
These are very interesting comments by Tim Coates, but how realistic is it "to replace all those departments, councils, commissions, ngo's, associations, charities and other bodies which currently operate nationally with a finger in the pie of public libraries"; and are there really that many?
The MLA is obviously one, but it has no powers; CILIP is another, but it is a member organisation, with no core funding from the public purse and also has no powers. SCL is another, without significant public funding or powers. ACL is 'staffed' by part-time volunteers (its Chair runs a large university in his day job!) and it seems entirely marginal to everything.
Besides, the heart of modern decision-making seems to lie with local government.
It is not clear how the "Community Empowerment" legislation (effective for local authorities since last April) would sit with the proposed new 'development agency'; nor is it clear from the report whether or not the MPs envisaged giving the Quango powers to act If not, how would it be better than MLA?).
'Something must be done' is exactly how the report reads; on that basis it will most likely simply be ignored.
I am very concerned that there are some who may think that no authoritative body should exist to whom desperate residents can appeal if their local council is arbitrarily proposing to close libraries. It is naive to think that without any possiblity of censure or a curb on their actions, councillors will act entirely in the interests of their community (and the existence of the credit crunch is allowing many to implement swingeing cuts that have been in the pipeline for years). Do not murmur that the Secretary of State's powers under the 1964 Act should be sufficient; ask yourself how often this luminary has been 'minded' to intervene. Do not even suggest that the (excellent) Ombudsman might suffice; it is very difficult indeed as a layman to compile evidence that will result in his intervention on the grounds of maladministration. It is crucial that we begin to thrash out what Tim Coates is suggesting. The status quo is quite awful. There must be strong leadership to which people may turn to for justice when everything locally goes pear-shaped.
I am thinking of removal of the funding for libraries that currently goes to the MLA, the regional offices of the MLA, MLA London, the ACL, any funding direct or indirect to the SCL or CILIP, any other regional development agencies, The Reading Agency, the NLT, for any public library activities, obviously the library office of the DCMS, any regional cutural bodies. That whole list of 'Stakeholders' that appear in reports about public libraries (apart from the public, who never do appear in the Stakeholders list). The work done, for example, by The Reading Agency, if it is of value (and it certainly is) and any other bodies will be better managed from inside this initiative than, as at present, from outside it having to lobby for funds and projects. If the funding were direct from the DCLG then the argument (the correct argument) would be whether it is better placed with this agency or given to councils themselves and that would create the need for it to be effective and efficient and seen to be so by councils, (which I submit, the MLA is not). I think that the responsibility for delivery of high standards lies firmly with local councils. This body would be the 'Task Force' for which calls have often been made, to 'help', sometimes with emphatic persuasion from the minister or a collection of other councils, individual councils to address their fundamental management issues. Of course (as I argued at length to the last Select Committee) is no good if the same people are just reshuffled into new jobs. Above all what is lacking is senior leadership to make this all work. Who is appointed is the most important thing, but I am offering this as a structure, which, if it had the right people, could clarify the roles and the responsibilities. In truth, to make it happen, it needs the Prime Minister to move the responsibility for libraries from the DCMS to the DCLG. That would be the key decision that opens the door (and I call for him to do it). As I said, if I was managing the corporation, I would start from local councils first (as I have done) and then work backwards, but I have been struck by the way Whitehall people (ministers and shadow ministers) only think in Whitehall terms (and not in terms of local empowerment) - so I am offering a route through that part of the problem, too. The work in individual local councils, of which there is not enough, is the work that will actually make a difference (as in Hillingdon, and now Tower Hamlets, Wesminster etc).. I think, as you say, the report is a cry for help, but you could say the same thing not just from the vocal campaigns but also from the major reports from the Select Committee and the Audit Commission. There has been too much ignoring of all these, and I support a major change, if it is properly managed and implemented.
We agree with much of the APPG
We support any initiative as we want to work with libraries but are finding it not as easy as we had hoped. And we are just what the libraries need!
The People's Book prize
Here are two facts that Tim & Shirley are careful not to mention. Book issues went up in 2009 - the first year-on-year rise since stats were collected. Secondly, the current usage trends suggest that library usage is higher than ever. One wonders why such champions of the library service fail to mention these facts. Something to ponder.
Here are two facts that Tim & Shirley are careful not to mention. Book issues went up in 2009 - the first year-on-year rise since stats were collected. Secondly, the current usage trends suggest that library usage is higher than ever. One wonders why such champions of the library service fail to mention these facts. Something to ponder.