« Nothing to read | Main | £300,000 and counting »
August 20, 2009
The London Libraries Change Programme
There are quiet but persistent alarm bells ringing about the ‘London Library Change Programme’, which is a substantial initiative that has already been in progress for about 2 years. The bill for consultants must already be approaching £150k and there has been no 'change' yet.
The first thing to say is that London Public Libraries need Changing. They are, in the generality, in a pretty awful state and incredibly expensive to operate. London public libraries- of which there are more than 350- cost us over £200m per annum to run. Less than 6% of that money is spent on books and there is nearly always a very poor relationship with library users.
There are plenty of ways to analyse the failings and the remedies, and many actions that could be taken, but what worries me about the programme that is in progress is that it does not reflect what the public would say and is unlikely therefore to achieve what the public would want.
I am not saying this lightly, I have been watching this plan in detail, as far as one can from the outside, since it started, and now I am raising serious concern. I see that Mrs Follett and the civil servants are criticising Wirral council for not consulting residents properly-- but there is no sign that this programme in London, which is being managed by her officers in the MLA, has taken any public soundings or reported on what they believe the public want. My view is that thpublic would and should ask these direct questions:
- What improvement can we expect to see in the book stock and when?
- What improvement can we expect to see in the opening hours and when?
- Is there a promise of dignified private study space for readers?
- Will there be a commitment to improve the state of the buildings, to care for some of the famous older ones and indeed to open some new ones?
- Will the most expert and knowledgeable staff be at the front line?
- Will there be a commitment to small community libraries?
- What is the understanding of the public need?
- Why do public library services in London cost so much more than elsewhere in the country?
- Who is actually in charge of public libraries in London, and whom do we call to account? - Is it councillors? government officials? librarians? which of these?
In fact the management board of the project have not identified a response to these questions and needs is the purpose of the project but have set instead three priorities
1. Inter library lending
2. 'Work force development'
3. Supply chain improvement.
Unless these three activities are directly linked to visible public improvements, laid at the door of those directly responsible to the public, there is a high risk will become simply subjects of report and debate as they always have done in the past. They are very reminiscent of previous MLA and similar projects and someone ought to look at what those did and why they achieved so little, before we get too far.
Posted by Perkins at August 20, 2009 8:53 AM
Comments
An early priority should be to get a working unified catalogue. The catalogue on the London Libraries gateway still stoutly maintains that Hackney does not stock Ian Sinclair's 'Hackney: that rose-red empire' when a telephone call to Hackney Libraries reveals that they have several copies.
Posted by: Martyn at August 20, 2009 11:11 PM
Not only is there apparently no, or very little public consultation but there has been no fontline staff or union involvement. The proposals are calling for a cut in the pan-london workforce of between 1-10% and obviously a change to working patterns and terms and conditions but to my knowledge we have not been consulted or formally briefed on the project. I found out about it through another colleague who found reference to it in the minutes of a meeting and then found info about it on the web.
Posted by: Alan Wylie at August 21, 2009 2:43 PM
I'd still like to put the MLA to fire and sword, and I feel utterly exasperated to see, once again, so little being done by so many in order to benefit so few. And can they not cut out the cutting mentality and realise that we actually need people in jobs doing stuff (I exempt the MLA from this statement as they are a useless bunch of...) for things to function. It's not rocket science, for god's sake. Computers cannot, in case we've all forgotten, think for themselves!
Posted by: James Christie at August 25, 2009 3:52 PM
A stony silence I notice from the powers that be. I note the local government association is promoting Councils as a bastion of local democracy
where do organisations like Capital Ambition fit into the democratic decision making progress?
Frankly its a disgrace
Posted by: Paul wycliffe at October 1, 2009 11:59 AM
I doubt the report will address one of the the fundemental issues facing library workers today
Low pay, diminished job status and security. The introduction of new technologies such as RfID, may well be inevitable, they will not however mask the underlying problems of a marginialised, underfunded and failing public service. The public may still have a certain fondness for libraries, but I am afraid they no longer are seen as an essential service, by both national and local politicians
Its ironic that the death Knoll of public libraries, should be filling the pockets of highly paid consultants, one final smash and grab rade of public funds chaps, and then on to the next opportunity to make a quick buck!
Posted by: Paul Wycliffe at October 3, 2009 1:28 PM