« Ockham's razor | Main | A new policy for public libraries -Step 2 »
January 19, 2007
A new policy for public libraries
The challenge of the Smith institute-- and the possibility of a new administration with a new prime minister, ministers etc-- is that this is a moment to re-define the government policy for public libraries.
I have sat through two meetings and I want to share the discussion (without embarrassing anyone) on this blog.
I found myself writing down six observations which are these
1. The library service is for people and its only purpose is to respond to their needs (currently it does not do this adequately)
2, It is essentially about reading (currently it not sufficiently so)
3. Its operation must be simple (improvements are too slow because at present it is too complex)
4. Those responsible for providing the service are those who work in the libraries (currently they do not have control over the means that would allow them to be).
5. Those accountable to the public are councillors (currently they do not ).
6. We all pay for it through taxation and the law requires its use to be free and accessible.
Please do comment and feel free to be anonymous (or ask me to keep your name off the blog, if you wish).. I think this could be an excellent platform for debating policy
Posted by Tim Coates at January 19, 2007 10:59 PM
Comments
1. Agree in broad terms, noting that this means not just the current generation, but also having a view to keeping alive the cultural achievements of the past.
2. Agree
3. Agree, but how.... if the present arrangement of local authority control is not to be changed (149-odd authorities running libraries) perhaps the method of funding could be changed? If the funding for libraries was ring-fenced, and not just part of the EPCS (Environmental, Protective and Culture Services) block of central funding, which authorities divide up how they wish, at least one could have some definitive figures to work from. If the funding came through DCMS, rather than the DCLG, they would then be RESPONSIBLE for ensuring it is well spent. Just a thought.
4. Agree.
5. Agree.
6. Agree.
Posted by: Duchess of Malfi at January 22, 2007 1:07 PM
Thank you Duchess
This is a summary of the other points that were made by others in emails and my response to them. Below that I will respond to your comment "ring fencing".
The extra thoughts were.
- "that all documents from all departments must be written in language so clear that the public can understand every word" ;
- "reading material is more than just books" and
- "when you have a good library it is an important part of the community".
I agree with all those and believe they are implied in the six points.
I also received these observations
- "That it is also important to understand
-:where libraries are located (within the departments of government) and what power/influence they have within local authorities
-the articulation of the library interest between local and central government
-how libraries are handled within central government, in particular with reference to the departmental split of responsibilities (DCMS, DCLG etc)
If the structures aren't right, the endeavours of even the best intentioned politicians (national, local) and senior figures in the library world will be only partially successful .
I'm sorry but I don't want to put these elements in to the pot at the moment. I think we have to make sure the public get the service they want-- and these are matters are not connected in a simple and direct way to that purpose. Perhaps we can come back to them later, but I see no reason to change the structure in the 1964 Act, whereby councillors are responsible; this also was the conclusion of last year's select committee
Someone else makes the point - We need also to discuss " vision, strategy, policy drivers, levers for
change - will all be important."
The only "driver" or "vision" I understand is the one that says the public wants a better service for the money they pay. The only "lever" I recognise is one that says that people paid to provide the service should do it as well as they can. So I contend these are exactly the topics we are addressing and we can come back to them as a reference point when we are further down the path.
Posted by: Tim at January 22, 2007 6:05 PM
Duchess-- about "ring-fencing" . For the benefit of others, most of the money local councils use to provide the services they offer (social services, planning, schools, highway maintenance etc etc) comes from central government. Roughly speaking two thirds is from central government and one third from council tax.
With this money the council is obliged to provide a variety of services and it is for the council to determine how it divides the money up. The only exception to this is for schools: in this case central government says "of the money you have you must spend X on schools". This is called "ring-fencing the schools budget"
You are asking why doesn't central government "ring fence" money for public libraries to ensure that they are properly funded. It is a frequently asked question. Libraries represent about 5% of a local council budget. The answer, which is perfectly reasonable, is that if libraries funds were ring fenced, there are several other services which also could be. If the money given by central government comes with priorities set by central government, then local government has no purpose or means to address the local need.
The mechanism whereby we are allowed to object to the way the council allocates its funds is through the ballot box. I hope I have explained that properly, but the argument has always convinced me as being sensible.
Posted by: Tim at January 22, 2007 8:07 PM