So. The Ministry will never:

- say why it has not acted
- rule out action or inaction.
- give a time limit to its action or inaction

Really it seems like they are just hanging about doing nothing whilst waiting for the courts to decide so that we have to foot the bill. Therefore, it is totally justified for campaign groups to send DCMS the invoices for legal fees.

This is stunningly ineffective management by a minister of his department and his civil servants. How does he explain to the children whose only delight in New Cross was using their library, closed early 'Cos Lewisham Council was frit! What part of the Big Society was offering to let a comunity group run the library, at a cost of £30,000 rent? The other community libraries are free to rent!
In fact, does Ed know any of this?
He needs to take this department by the scruff of its neck and shake it out! Or he should do the honest thing, admit he cannot cope and resign.

Patricia Richardson

Mr Vaizey and DCMS are identical twins. Neither deals in clarity, transparency nor, indeed, democracy, but in smoke and mirrors. Their agenda is to hammer through the shifting of libraries from councils to anyone who wants them. This they mean to achieve as fast as possible and as silently as possible. In the absence of the late unlamented CEO of the MLA, the evaizive Minister is now more exposed. By contrast, to his stance when in opposition, he now lacks the courage to come right out and say in what endeavour he and DCMS are jointly engaged -- for fear of scaring the public. The combined behaviour of both twins is abhorrent. Of course, should their attitude change, one will utter paeans of praise, but I rather doubt they give tuppence for anyone except themselves, their political ideology and their own advancement.

The people in government at the moment probably don't know what it means to grow up in a house without books and a future without access to books. Their houses are probably full of books. Having lived in Europe for many years I don't understand what the Brits are doing with their kids - they are taking the books away from them and have allowed teens to drown in booze for years.So are we going to end up with illiterate, inarticulate alcoholics to as a work force in 15 years? The most deprived children should be given more books than the rich kids, so that they learn to communicate, or are they all going to end up on the Jeremy Kyle show speaking with a vocabulary of 20 words? The voluntary sector can do a lot, but is often hard to organise coherently. Are we, the educationally conscientuous, to roam the streets with a rucksack full of books to distribute to any kid that looks deprived? If libraries are to cut down, instead of filing them with computers, why not concentrate funds of the young up to the age of 16? In the last couple of years the Cheltenham library has turned into rooms filled with computers and there are hardly any books left. What is the point of spending all that money on that when most adults have a computer or the spending power to get one. Even the chronically unemployed have money to spend on games, but kids don't have these possibilities, so they should be the last to have books withdrawn from them.

Surprised? And it doesn't matter which party is in charge. I live on the Wirral and remember all too clearly when the Labour council tried to close most of the libraries. The way they tried to do it was despicable, underhand and actually ruled unlawful...and yet Gloucestershire County Council seem to have taken it as their blueprint and ran with it, as are many others.

Here in the Wirral the Labour council have just got back in after a year or so of Tory stewardship and have the cheek to complain about the state of the 'empty' libraries the Tory council have left them with. Yes the exact same politicians that emptied the libraries out a few short years ago and handed the libraries to the Tories in that state. Sheer brazen hypocrisy and taking the public for fools. And that just about sums up all politicians. The only silver lining is that the people of Wirral fought hard and won (for now). The people of Gloucestershire can do it too. You can't rely on ministers intervening or reviews, it's all just lip service. You have to get out there and physically chain yourself to the libraries and show the councillors that they are about to lose their seats. It's the only thing they'll listen to.

Surely the point is that the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964 is a law which is in force, however much some people may choose to consider themselves above it. If breaking this law is acceptable to the government of the day, are we all at liberty to break any other laws which happen not to suit us? I doubt it! The Conservative Party's mantra was always that it upheld "the freedom of the individual within the law", so let's see some evidence of it. It was a Conservative government which brought in the PLMA, after all - in a more enlightened age, it seems. Good luck to the people of Gloucestershire, but what a pity that it should have to come to this.

London Borough of Lewisham.
They have closed 5 libraries. We now have 4 pseudo-libraries and one dead library (New Cross - the most deprived area in a deprived borough).
Ed Vaizey has a duty under the law to intervene. Instead, he is supervising a two-tier system in Lewisham. Therefore he is a law breaker.
Who will help the deprived, children, young people, the elderly, in Lewisham? Not the Prime Minister, not the Deputy Prime Minister, not Eric Pickles, not Jeremy Hunt.
Shame on them all. But what comes around, goes around.

Peter Richardson

On 30th March, Jeremy Hunt, the Secretary of State and Mr Evaizive's boss, gave evidence before the House of Commons Culture, Media and Sport Committee (chairman: Mr John Whittingdale MP). Under questioning by Mr Paul Farrelly MP, he made the following statements:

1. "...I shall be writing again to all local authorities as soon as the May elections are out of the way, to make it clear the circumstances in which I would consider intervening under (the 1964) Act."

2. "I am also proactively talking to local authorities so that they understand the circumstances under which I would be prepared to intervene."

As far as I can tell, neither Mr Hunt nor his sidekick has written to the authorities as promised, though I may be wrong and it may require a Freedom of Information Act request to get the information. However, for the moment, I have contented myself with writing to Mr Hunt to remind him of his testimony and ask him what he's doing/has done. I've copied my letter to Mr Farrelly and Mr Whittingdale, as I tend to think that it would be appropriate for Mr Hunt to be asked to appear before the Committee again.