« Good counties | Main | A letter from Dumchester »
October 7, 2006
John Dolan's article in the Bookseller
John Dolan of the MLA has an article about public libraries in this week's Bookseller. It is a response to Richard Charkin's article of two weeks ago and the letter of support written by Mark Field, the shadow Minister. The article is below. In essence John suggests that readers of The Bookseller might have been misled by what Richard and Mr Field have said and that MLA has a clear understanding of the problems of the service and where priorities lie.
I leave readers to make up their own mind whether either Richard or Mark Field were misleading, but I do want to resolve one factual question raised by John Dolan as he attempts to justify his assertion.
Richard wrote in his article the total cost to the public of the UK library service is about £1.3bn. Dolan attempts to correct Richard by saying - "No - Net spend on library authorities is £926m."
CIPFA figures for 2004/5 for the UK show quite clearly that Gross Revenue expenditure plus Capital expenditure is £1,294,140,172. That is the total cost to the public of the service in that year. It includes not just the "Net expenditure by councils" of £990m but also income of £108m, depreciation of capital assets of £127m and capital expenditure of £68m.
The "net expenditure" by English councils alone plus the depreciation of assets in English councils (known as the capital charge) is £926m - which is the figure used by John Dolan
In other words John Dolan is referring to the expenditure by English Councils from their revenue budgets, but disregarding the large source of income from rentals, fines etc and also disregarding the expenditure from capital budgets.
On the other hand Richard Charkin is referring- as he says- to the total funding available to the public library service in the UK. (including Wales, Norhern Ireland and Scotland). That is the money spent by UK taxpayers. It is indeed as he says, approximately £1.3bn.
Perhaps it would have been better for John Dolan to find a way to say that both his and Richard's figures originate from the same table in the same data; not to suggest that Richard was being "misleading"- as he did. Richard was not misleading at all. He was telling the exact truth.
John Dolan further tries to correct Richard when he says (in the process of purchasing £85m worth of books) procurement costs are £35m. But what he doesn't say is that the figure of £35m which comes from the recent PwC report and only refers to the salary costs of people doing book selection. (It is an astonishing figure, nevertheless). It doesn't include the whole cost of the inefficient supply, processing, distribution and bibliographic services that operate in over 200 councils and are demanded of suppliers. Richard's estimate of £245m is quite likely to be a very realistic figure for all those activities, nearly all of which are a waste of time and money, and about which no one is taking any action.
"We also love books"
John Dolan- head of library policy, MLA
The Bookseller, 6 October 2006
"Don't be misled" John Dolan warns, "The MLA wants to make public libraries better than ever, with book acquisition a priority"
Let me say it right at the beginning- books and reading will continue to be at the very heart of the MLA's vision for public libraries. Through the DCMS- funded Framework for the Future programme, we will continue to work to raise investment in books and other resources, fund reading development programmes, and promote the value of libraries to local authority leaders and to the public- our strongest allies in achieving change.
The MLA where councils are failing their communities through evidence from the public library standards- and, where neccessary, will provide direct help to achieve improvement. The recent PwC study on stock procurement ("Better Stock, Better Libraries") is an important first step towards making all libraries as efficient and popular as possible. With or without stakeholder support, we will drive these programmes forward. We never suggested it would be easy to get 149 different organisations to join, but there is too much at stake to stop now.
Books are matchless routes to learning, enlightenment and escape, but libraries have always been more than book warehouses. They are trusted sources of information and advice on reading, the community and much more. Recently they have become major players in giving the public access to the internet. These are not conflicting priorities. Libraries must respond to the public need, and today calls for resources beyond books- internet terminals, online reference works and programmes for those in need of reading support.
If progress is to be made there must be clarity where there is currently misunderstanding. Procurement costs £35m, not £245m (Richard Charkin, the Bookseller- 22 September). The MLA is working to reduce the ratio of procurement cost to book budget. "Better Stock, Better Libraries" shows potential savings of £20m but there is more feasibility work to be done before rollout. Net spend on libraries is £926m, not £1.3bn (Charkin again). Book spend is £85m (9% of total) plus other materials when it equals 12.6%. The MLA is in no doubt this must increase. Last year libraries bought 96 million books (84 million in 1999/2000)
The library is increasingly the only community space we can visit freely, where we can read what we like, learn what we want and find out what we need to know. The MLA has to work through existing governance arrangements to effect change, but we will achieve more if we can find a way to work productively with those interested in improving services. We are a partnership organisation, and will be delighted to meet those who want to work with us. What do you think? "
Posted by Tim Coates at October 7, 2006 4:07 PM
Comments
We should perhaps look for the positives here rather than debate the statistics. John Dolan does say books are a priority and he appears to be willing to work productively with those interested in improving services.
Shouldn't Tim and Richard challenge or explore whether this is real or rhetoric? Are MLA willing to let Tim investigate some of the current problems on their behalf?
On book procurements there are quick wins available without waiting for further MLA feasibility studies and regional hubs? Solihull for example have saved £140,000 already.
Some councils will have appalling budget problems next year? What would be lost if they engaged Tim to recommend alternative savings before more libraries close and book funds are axed?
MLA have announced that library buildings are serious disrepair. They dont appear to have a solution. Why dont they analyse Tim's?
Jaw jaw and all that .............
Posted by: Philip Kerridge at October 8, 2006 6:11 AM
Phil
The statistics and the cost figures may be dull reading, but this issue is, I believe, very important. So much spinning takes place by publishing selective figures, that no councillor or member of the public knows what to believe. They can't tell if their library service is working well or badly. Philip Pettifor made the same point last week in a letter to the Guardian in response to Andrew Stevens.
I have offered endlessly to talk to the MLA-- you have seen it on here in the last few weeks with approaches to Mark Wood. Others do it almost every day. I'm afraid I find them very difficult to believe. My diagnosis is that they are more interested in their own survival than anything to do with public libraries. David Lammy is to speak at the annual libraries conference this week. Perhaps he will convince you then that he has understood the problem. Sheep might fly.
I think it is more productive to keep up the public crtiticism of their work than to sit and talk to them. They are much more likely to get a grip on things when some senior Minister or Treasury offical becomes aware of and anxious about the public unrest, than they are from sitting in yet another meeting taking notes on their pads. At the moment they answer to no one for what they do, so it is difficult to influence them by talking to them. The best thing for them is that they be closed down - they serve no useful purpose.
The real work is to be done working with individual councils, not with the MLA who appear to have failed to establish any credibilty around the country. What we are doing is "Jaw, Jaw" .. there is no alternative.
Posted by: Tim Coates at October 8, 2006 6:53 AM
Tim
I don't really disagree abouts stats, flying sheep, the redundancy of MLA and the importance of councils. However for the moment MLA have an influence and the number of councils solving the problems are very few. I thought it was just possible that John Dolan was opening instead of revolving a door here. It may be because the time is not far away when nobody, not even the MLA who ought to have some idea already, can deny rural libraries are in real trouble whatever the stats. But are you saying that if MLA wanted to talk to you about a serious role within the library tent you'd now refuse?
Phil
Posted by: Philip Kerridge at October 8, 2006 8:50 AM
Phil
When the Select Committee report came out last year I wrote an article for the Public Library Journal in which I said
1. We should agree the analysis of the Select Committee and set about working out how to implement it. We must publicly accept their recommendations and undertake to act as they have asked, with the urgency they seek. Particularly they laid great stress on the restoration of books at the core of the library service.
2. The problem lies in individual councils and we have to look in absolutely minute detail at each with a small group which has Ministerial authority. The chief executive and leader of the council involved have to want this work to be done and give commitment to the project. It needs to be done in 3 or 4 councils initially in order to learn lessons. From this will come new understanding of not only how the council should operate its library service, but also how the relationships between the council, the public, DCMS and Audit Commission should operate.
3. A completely new training and recruitment programme for the public library service is needed
4. We need a completely new performance measurement arrangement to replace CIPFA, library standards and the rest
If the MLA wanted to pay me for the work I have done and money to continue the work, on which I have embarked alone, I would take their money. But that is the agenda. Tim
Posted by: Tim at October 8, 2006 10:07 AM
Tim
On your agenda. Unlike MLA and Price Cooper etc it makes sense. What worries me is that like PcW it may be too little too late. Your agenda for four councils in minute detail may take a long time to work out. That could be too late for a significant number of councils, whose senior librarians, I agree, have foolishly ignored your advice for too long. There will either be a lot of towns without libraries or a lot of library services without new books by the middle of 2007. Either way maybe by then it will hardly be a library service at all. Avoiding this will I think require national and local remedies.
The MLA's money should also be ours rather than theirs.
If there really is an olive branch, and I doubt it too, from MLA it's reassuring to know you wouldn't rule it out. Though I understand neither MLA nor indeed us library professionals deserve this.
Phil
Posted by: Philip Kerridge at October 8, 2006 1:02 PM
Phil
Well, as you know because you have seen much of what the "agenda" comprises in a particular council, it doesn't take very long to say what needs to be done.
In a day's discussion, we could write down exactly what even the largest council needs to do. The long time comes because the profession resist and wave their arms about and prevent perfectly sensible management changes taking place. If only they would stop doing that, we could make rapid progress.
It does take some senior and experienced councillors to be firm and manage the profession properly.
tim
Posted by: Tim at October 8, 2006 2:23 PM