The Good Library Blog

Tim

You are right in the sense that pigs will fly before Mr Lammy lifts a finger to ensure councils provide a statutory library service. Wrong in that anything has significantly changed over the last 12 months in respect of any inclination to act to maintain even minimal serice levels.

For nearly 40 years the legislation was all but meaningless as nobody knew what a statutory library service was.

Following the introduction of standards we thought that ministers might have been able to use these as evidence to justify intervention to improve the worst libraries. Experience has shown that this was just a pious hope.

So I doubt that there has ever been a time since the 1964 legislation was introduced when it meant any more than very occasional flurries of very limited activity. Unfortunately even that is far beyond the capacity of Mr Lammy.

Phil

Surely the 1964 Public Libraries Act has not been rescinded?

That Councillor should be knocked on the head with a copy for such flagrant contempt for his residents.

Actually he is rather a good councillor and I believe he may do more good for his residents than many I have encountered.

He is newly elected, though, and clearly no one had troubled to tell him about the 1964 Act, yet.

However I stick to my guns here. If the people of Cornwall are faced with 10 library closures next year and they use the processes of the Act - ie they write formally to the Minister to exercise his powers, then when he does nothing they take him to court, a defence lawyer will be able to say that Lancashire closed 14 libraries last year and that did not contravene the Act.

Similarly, if the people of Devon are given the opportunity to run their own libraries (while still paying council tax)- which used to mean that the county council had broken the law, the defence barrister will be able to point to the case of Buckinghamshire and say it happened there and no law appears to have been exercised against them.

So i do think two material things have happened which effectively make the law unusable.

I think it's rather a good law. It's just like all the remaining structures of the public library service- instead of using its good intentions in a responsible manner, all those involved had tried to turn it to their own personal advantage and in so doing behaved irresponsibly. This is what I tried to explain in my evidence to the Select committee. There is no need for change of the fundamental set up of the library service, just for those involved to be replaced by people who will act as responsible public managers.

A wet Saturday afternoon when you are blocked on the Guardian killer sudoku is an excellent excuse to argue an academic point with Tim. Academic; becuase no minister has ever used the 1964 Public Libraries Act anyway.

However Tim's point about Lancashire depends on whether Lancashire's decision to close 14 libraries was sufficient to be in breach of the act. It might have been, quite possibly it should have been or it might not; we don't know because this law has always been a distraction because it has never been tested. If it wasn't sufficient then the law may still apply. What would happen if a council took a decision based upon Tim's advice above to swing a larger axe at their libraries than Lancashire; possibly even closing them altogether. It would be open for Tim's somewhat theoretical expensive barrister representing the public to argue that Lancashire's action of itself was not in breach of the legislation but Blogginton's decison to replace all their libraries with Lord Lammy's labellers is more serious and therefore the law is extant.

So the law might still be usable in the event of a council doing something worse than Bucks or Lancs. But none of us should hold our breath expecting anything to happen because in more than 40 years it never really has.

Tim - perhaps you would also be kind enough to indicate just how long you think I may have got before you get round to replacing me with a responsible public manager? Tim hat time for me I guess!

Phil

Phil

You make my point that without an effective law there is effectively no statutory duty.

The answer to your final point is-- it depends whether the quality of the service you give is going up or down. If it is going down, the time has already come. That is how most other management operates.

This posting is completely irrelevant, though it sums up my feelings towards Mr Lammy?

Little piggies, flying high,
Dropped their messages from the sky.
Angry Lammy wiped his eye,
Tis a pity, cows don't fly!