« What do people want from their public library service? | Main | SYRUP subs »
January 11, 2007
Top librarian: PwC plan is 'horrifying'
11 January 2007
From tomorrow's Bookseller, I quote:
"A head librarian who was awarded an MBE for reviving Haringey's libraries has branded recommendations for an overhaul of the library supply system "horrifying".
Diana Edmonds, head of libraries at Haringey council, hit out at last year's PricewaterhouseCoopers report, saying that its recommendations would cost efficient councils more than they already pay. "I disagree profoundly with it. I've got excellent arrangements with suppliers and I see no commercial or practical advantage in the PwC proposal. In fact, I'm horrified by it," she said. Haringey is not part of any buying consortium.
The report, commissioned by the Museums, Libraries and Archives Council and backed by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, proposed the establishment of a central contracting agency by 2008, supported by up to 10 regional servicing "hubs". According to PwC, the scheme would cost between £4.5m and £7m to establish, but would help net bigger discounts from publishers and save up to £22m a year if all 149 library authorities in England came on board.
But Edmonds' comments are the latest in a line of setbacks for the proposals. In September last year, the Central Buying Consortium, which represents a quarter of English library authorities, said it would not be joining the scheme. "There are additional costs associated with the regional hubs . . . that may well make the model more expensive than our current arrangements," it wrote to the MLA. "We have no other business option than to proceed in this way [because] members cannot afford to lose the benefits that they currently enjoy."
Edmonds was awarded an MBE in this year's New Year's Honours List for services to local government, after she oversaw the turnaround of Haringey's library service in just five years. Lending rose 26% over the period.
Katherine Rushton"
Posted by Tim Coates at January 11, 2007 6:13 PM
Comments
Tim,
It appears that nowhere is safe. The press report budget cuts in Haringey Libraries amounting to £200,000
http://digbig.com/4qqyp
[url shortened with DigBig]
Posted by: Martyn at January 11, 2007 11:18 PM
Martyn
Many of the London Boroughs and some other councils have had budgets for their library services which (in my view) were too large. It isn't the overall budget which is the most important thing - but how it is spent. A budget cut on its own may well be producing better value for taxpayers. There is always a danger in this argument of assuming that protecting jobs is the same as giving the best service and value to the public. In my view they aren't the same thing.
There has been more information about what is happening in Haringey, which I haven't got, but I think a more detailed scrutiny will reveal a redirection of funds to improve the service while the total budget (which is about £5m for 8 or 9 libraries) is slightly reduced, as you say. the service has been improved prior to taking these reductions in cost, which should give the residents some confidence that the management know what they are doing - which is also an important ingredient.
The objection in Hampshire, which you referred to elsewhere is that the same kind of restructuring is going on but there is no attendant improvement in the service (because the money has been spent on wrong things). They have had plenty of time to understand this and appear to have ignored all the advice.
Posted by: Tim at January 12, 2007 8:09 AM