« Respect please | Main | Some Cruella de Vil in Local Government »
March 21, 2009
What the Government wrote to the Observer
In response to the oft stated view of officers of Government that the Press never give a fair hearing to the Public Library Service, official desks have been tidied this week as a senior columnist of The Observer has been passing around like the Angel of Light.
Anxious of, course, to ensure that such a prestigious publication should not be deceived by the remarks of a small cat on a deceitful blog (or scared witless by what the paper might say about them and their ministers), the Government spokesperson for libraries wrote an open letter, which they asked be 'circulated freely'. It refers to the suggestion made here a week ago that council overhead expenses for public libraries are going up very quickly and are extremely high in some places.
The Government letter is here in full, below, but translated into English in the accurate way that Augustans of the eighteenth century would wish Government language to be, it says
1. The Government has just published figures which say that the overhead expenses for public libraries incurred across the country are rising quickly and in some councils they are very high indeed. The consequence of this, suggested implicitly, is that managers are being paid more and that library services to the public are suffering. In particular libraries are buying less books than they ought to
2. Until some disreputable researcher highlighted this no one in Government has ever noticed them either at this time of publication, or have noticed these figures in the past
3. As a consequence no Government department has had the chance to tell local councils how to present the figures so that they don't say this.
4. There are many departments that could have arranged such a change in presentation- DCMS, LGA. MLA, CIPFA, Local councils or the Audit Commission, to name but several, but as they hadn't paid attention to these figures, none had thought to do so.
5. The Audit Commission, whose job it is is to give local councils a public score for how well they do, don't use these figures when they make their scoring. . In fact they have given a high score to some councils that were listed in the research as being the most expensive. No one should believe an independent reseacher,or indeed actual figures published by another department of Government, when The Audit Commission expresses an opinion which doesn't need or use figures to explain itself.
6. Everything the Government does for public libraries is wonderful precisely because they spend a lot of other people's money, even though they can't account for how they spend it
7. None of this is the fault of the MLA, whose job is to give good advice to everyone. They do not intend to investigate whether some councils have a high overhead cost in the public library service, that, they say, is someone else's job.
We shall have to see whether The Observer is the least bit interested in overhead costs -- probably not, -- but tomorrow will be the day to find out. Make sure you buy a copy.
Having said all this, and it is jolly good fun, don't you just wish that A Government Official when shown some figures that might indicate a problem, would, instead of ruunning off to build the great sea wall, say, 'We need to explore this properly and, if there is a need, we shall do someting about it' .. That's all one asks.
One just would wish that those whose job it is to administer and improve public libraries in both councils and government in this country would actually do the job for which they are paid, instead of creating cloud like confusion and the destruction of what is a very important public service, in order to preserve themselves and their meaningless instutions
The public should be in no doubt that in the discussions surrounding both elected representatives and senior officials connected with public libraries, the words 'Fibbers' and 'Morons' have been much in use. And rightly so.
.
.
.
.
.
From A Govt Dept to The Observer Newspaper
"Support Service Charges - 20 March 2009
If one wants to find data that indicates whether the support service charges (SSCs) of individual local authorities are too high and consequently are putting a burden on public facing services the figures circulated recently are not the ones to use.
Councils don’t measure SSCs in the same way. That’s because, in response to the distinct needs of their local communities, individual councils have discretion over the way they organise and group services and the way they provide support for those services.
These percentage figures don’t indicate whether more or less is being spent, in relative terms, on library services now or in the past. A more reliable indicator, according to CIPFA, is that overall library spend has outstripped any rises in the Retail Price Index since 2001/02.
For a better insight into the use of council resources one should look at the Audit Commission’s assessment of efficiency and value for money, including SSCs, through the Comprehensive Performance Assessment (CPA). http://www.audit-commission.gov.uk/cpa/index.asp
Using this as an indicator, instead of the SSC percentages illustrated, the ratings show that some councils cited as poorly performing are actually in the highest CPA category.
The Audit Commission’s last CPA report showed that more councils are improving strongly than ever before and 80% were in the top two categories.
The MLA is in the business of best practice and improvement and we are satisfied that, using the data provided by the Audit Commission and CIPFA in the appropriate context, we can work with local government to implement improvements in library services.
The MLA should not attempt to duplicate the work of the Audit Commission – that would not be a good use of public money.
20 March 2009
MLA "
It does not take a sharp eyed accountant to see the flaws in the statements of this letter: The figures weren't 'circulated' - they were published on behalf of local councils by the Government, last week;
even if councils have their own structures, their accounting conventions are consistent and unless they change them every year, the trends shown in figures should be reliable information;
the 'CPA scores' do not go into the detail of costs within library services, so it is perfectly possible for a council to score well and still have issues in this area;
the reference to the increase in councils scoring well is a circular statement-- if the appropriate evidence is being ignored, then they will do;
and the statement that overall library spend has exceeded the rate of inlation, raises more questions than it answers: particularly, why, then, has use of the service declined.
Consequently, with these points in mind, one wonders about the quality of executive scrutiny of the letter that was sent to The Observer, who sent it and with what authority and review?
Posted by Perkins at March 21, 2009 10:35 AM
Comments
Seriously, when reviewing individual council library services, this problem of council service charges does frequently arise. In each case analysis is difficult because it tends to either fall between or above the activities of directorates in the council. Senior finance officers are very uncomfortable when their work is challenged and it is hard to do so. Nevertheless on each occasion where I have been involved, serious problems have emerged which need to be tackled. I am afraid it is extremely irresponsible of officers of central government to suggest either that this problem does not exist or that it is dealt with adequately by the Audit Commission. That is like a senior GP suggesting that a disease does not exist because they have not become across it, and plain evidence shows it is causing great pain and suffering. I can give examples and will be happy so to do-- but so, too, will the chief librarians of the councils involved, because it is they who often suffer the consequences.
Moreover, the suggestion made here that when all else fails, the Audit Commission will provide the answers for the public library service, simply does not wash. The same suggestion was made at the time of the Select Committee hearings in 2004 and was not corrrect then and has not proved to be true since. What it does do, is question again the role value and role of the MLA, because if that organisation now denies it has any role to play in the giving of value for money in the library service, as is implied, by the letter that has been written, then it really is not filling a meaningful role of any kind. The board members of the MLA need to become realistic and get a grip on this situation, in way which, hitherto they have not done.. Their persistent defence of the executive and avoidance of the issues is becoming a matter of further grave concern, which brings each individuals role into question. Or they could resign. Perhaps that is the best way forward. What they certainly need to do is to have a more serious and informed discussion about public libraries at their next board meeting than has been their accustomed practice, it seems. They could start by asking the executive for a full report on what the recent CIPFA figures actually did say. If the officers are unable I would be pleased to provide one.
Posted by: tim coates at March 21, 2009 2:03 PM