I have thought that for a long time but it was emphasised this week when we watched the public library service turned into a pickled onion when various newspapers rolled out stories about how libraries ban books in response to requests made by their customers (Ba ba the elephant is racist, or animalist or something)

The public library service needs a decent PR agency to look after it - and then the good it does would clearly be shown to outweigh the old fashioned nonsenses with which it is often labelled

Councils should collectively employ a PR agency and manage it through a development group

There is no point having the Arts Council or somebody else do that- they are interested in something else.

If the body was worthwhile and demonstrably added value to what councils do on their own - then they should pay for it out of their own library budgets.

As this site will readily repeat, there is loads of money wasted in council library services, and this would be a better, more useful way of spending it.

Good PR brings visits and reputation. Good visit numbers and high repuatation bring approval from council finance officers and votes for councillors. It has nothing to do with the DCMS or Arts Council

The development agency could also host one libraries website, run one libraries catalogue, obtain decent procurement contracts fromn publishers, create one set of standard processes, manage one library management system etc etc ... and save a lot of money - but it is councils and councilllors that need to call for it, set its agenda and make it work properly, and not MP's and quangoes in government

We could take positive steps that would help each local council into a path of improvement and the people who staff the service now could lead it into a fine future

It's not even hard to say what those steps should be.

So -- who will do it?

Or we shall we just allow the service to moan its way into oblivion?

The first step is the simplest to say and the hardest to do - and it is this: "If we agree to do something, we must all commit to doing it quickly."

As the recent debate about library management systems and RFID standards has shown - the collective of library managers find such a simple commitment very hard to undertake. That is where the first change has to come..... All library services are not independent of each other-- actually they each depend very heavily on each other.

There is one public library service which has 3,500 different manifesations of how it works locally. We need one system, one website, one communications network, one set of operating standards for every process - and 3,500 buildings . The 150 systems and websites and sets of specifications we have now need to be closed down

Who will do it?

Let me put the challenge even more clearly: If the management of CILIP, CLOA, the DCMS, the SCL and the library section of the Arts Council can't even organise this step, why should anyone listen to anything they say at all

Now we have really hit the jackpot. Here is a book you abolutely have to get hold of and read as quickly as possible .

It is "Dear Miss Landau" by James Christie

This book is beautifully written, exquisitely constructed, unpredictable, extraordinary, totally original, gripping and a master work.

The honour is that James has been for a long time someone who comments on this blog. We should have known. He has always writen with perception and honesty.

The irony, I think will be, that he will become more famous for this book, than the whole of the library campaign- or even perhaps the other characters about whom he has written. I'm not going to say any more

I have the good fortune to have been invited to talk on the BBC programme 'A good read' in a couple of months. They asked if I have a special book to talk about -- and now I do

I'll say it again "Dear Miss Landau" by James Christie. i'm not going to say anything about the story, the author, the subject or the plot. You have to go and find it all out. It's on Amazon.

Even the Charteris Inquiry in the Wirral concentrated on other obligations of local councils to consult and be inclusive - but not on the duties of the Minister. In that case I thought it was wrong that the DCMS themselves appointed the Inquiry Chair - because they were effectively able to set the limits of the inquiry to exclude their own activities, and they did

In other cases in London and in the Shire counties, the concentration of legal attention seems to have been focussed on other legal obligations of the council than those particularly defned in the Libraries Act. We have had arguments about social inclusion, processes of consultation and all kinds of things that could apply to any council activity, but none that apply particularly to libraries

Not only is this wrong, but it is dangerous because it increasingly creates a set of precedents for local councils to behave, in my view, illegally, with respect to the one Act that matters.

Most of the narrative and argument of campaigners, press and even MP's has been about the 1964 Act - and the have been repeated affirmations from all the political parties that they think the Act should stand.

So why haven't we had a public, thorough, neutral, legal case in which the matters of detail and fact of the operation of the Act are explored properly?

It's a mystery to me ... perhaps a lawyer can explain?

If the argument is that the only effective and proper place for the scrutiny of the Minister is Parliament, and not the Courts, then somebody ought to alert the Culture Select Committee to their role in the 1964 Act- there ought to be proper regular reporting to Parliament and the Act does need to spell this out.

What is happening at present is public deception - the people believe they have recourse to a law which is affirmed by Parliament, but in fact this law is not protecting them at all. This is not because the law is wrong, but because the courts and our legal system are, apparrently, refusing to uphold it.

Here- to help the process are two entries from this blog on its own

October 24, 2008
This is the 24th national review of public libraries in 10 years
The public library world in the UK is one never ending review. Almost every week a council calls for a full review of its public library service, there are many going at present. The one in Brighton is fiercely fought.
Since 1998 the national reviews and ministerial initiatives (each arising from another review) have included at least
-1. 'Due for Renewal' - the Audit Commission
-2. "The people's network"
-3. The Introduction of Annual Library Plans
-4. The Local Government Act instigates Best Value Reviews
-5. The introduction of 20 national library standards
-6. The 2000 Culture Select Committee which called for the creation of the MLA
-7. The revision of the standards to 10 Public Library Service Standards
-8. 'Building Better Libraries' Review and Recommendations from the Audit Commission
-9. 'Framework for the Future of Libraries launched by Tessa Blackstone
-10. Annual LIbrary Plans withdrawn in favour of Annual Position Statements
-11. Public LIbraries included in the Audit Commission Culture Block
-12. The 2004 Culture Select Committee criticises the DCMS for having too many reviews and 'too much chopping and changing'
-13. Andrew Mackintosh launches an efficiency review with the PKF report
-14. First Price Waterhouse report from the MLA recommends 6 regional distribution centres
-15. The Second Price Waterhouse report launches 'Better Stock Better libraries"
-16. David Lammy launches 'Love Libraries'
-17. The MLA conducts a national consultation on Impact measures
-18. David Lammy announces heritage lottery funding for public libraries
-19. The MLA announces new action plan at Smith Institute seminar- the 24 hour library
-20. The MLA launches 'Blueprint for the future'
-21. The Department of Local Govt replaces library standards with one national measure
-22. The MLA closes its regional offices and launches 'The New MLA'
-23 Lynn Brown, MP, announces a parliamentary review of libraries funded by CILIP for £40,000
-(in the same week as these two, Unison, a trade union announces a review of public libraries)
and finally - 24. Andy Burnham announces a DCMS review of libraries
Laugh you might, but we live in democracy in which moving ministers from post to pillar is part of the way governments appear to have to work. That is normal and won't change. Therefore it falls to a senior civil servant: a Permanent Secretary of any integrity and common sense, to understand why nearly all these reviews have failed to make any effective change and to make sure that a new review is a worthwhile endeavour. We deserve better management of government than this. It is ludicrous and should not be tolerated.

September 10 2009
10 more library reports in the next 2 months
Instead of managing the library service properly as we should we support and fund an expensive industry of people who write reports about it. In the next 2 months we can anticipate
1. The DCMS report on its review of the public library service which has been in progress since July 2008
2. The Sue Charteris report into whether The Wirral should shut 11 libraries.
3. The All Party Parliamentary Group report on the national operation of the public library service
4. A consultants' report on standardisation of the supply chain in London boroughs
5. A consultants' report on Library workforce benchmarking
6. A consultants' report on Inter Library Loans
7. A further report from the London Libraries Change Programme.
8. A report from SYRUP on what they think public libraries are for. (!)
9. A report from the MLA on why they are unable to comply with the Freedom of Information Act. (and probably a report by the Information commission on why the MLA should).
10. The Local Government Ombudsman's report into the activities of Swindon Council over the conduct of its libraries.
Don't we look forward to it all? - and at the same time poor local councils are said to be faced with the hardest budget round for years and would like a bit of help and a few answers about how to cope with that and hang on to their public libraries and improve their book stock. None of the above reports is likely to tell them those things.

If you read it (but I don't recommend you take the time) you will find it isn't really about an announcement that was made about the possibility of diverting some of the new ebook income, to the benefit of public libraries, which is pretty uncontroversial. The criticism is instead basically about me .. The people who wrote it say they don't know what is being proposed, but anyhow they object to it.

Within those who campaign to save libraries there is a group who are actually professional library staff - and they can't stand anything I say.

The reason for their objection is that for over twelve years now I have been saying as loudly as I can that the fundamental problem in the public library service in our country is not about money or the failure of politiicians (although they are heavily to blame for not taking corrrective action). The real fundamental problem lies in the so - called 'public library profession'

Not only does this group not provide any of the management or leadership that politicians and the public are entitled to expect from them, but they are incoherent, self serving, inefficient, lacking in vision and lacking in the ability to improve things. I've said those things so often here and in reports and in such detail that they are hardly worth repeating. The public library profession have some fantasy idea of the future where everything is electronic and they are the guardians of information. It is pathetic to see.

I emphasise I am only talking about public libraries - not other libraries- and I am only talking about those people who don't actually work, day to day, in the libraries. I am talking about the senior office staff.

But what is true and important and relevant - is that they hate being criticised. They can't stand the idea that there is someone who doesn't say what a wonderful job they do. They can' t bear the idea that someone can demonstrate in numbers and pounds - how very poor they are . They go to endless conferences simply to feel sorry for themselves and natter. They live in an echo chamber with no windows or doors

Consequently they are at pains - and poor readers of The Bookseller have frequently to put up with it - even though it is incoherent- to attack everything I say, whatever it is.

In large measure they have taken over most of the library campaign - the original idea of which was to save and improve libraries- so that it has become an endless political attack on the employers and about saving their jobs. Some of this is justified, but it would only be credible if it was tempered by a call from the profession themselves to make major improvements their own service and operation

But that we never see. ..

These people have become the library campaign police.. if you don't say what they want you to say, they sneer like rattlesnakes/

My observation is that most of the staff who actually work in public libraries
aren't 'professionals' at all. They are just experienced, wonderful, underpaid, knowledgeable and helpful people. It is these people we need and should value - and should not replace with volunteers who cannot do the same job

By and large (and this is a generalisation - but generally a realistic one) the 'professional' library staff, actually work in Town Halls and County council offices, and certainly remote from the library floor and counter. If we need to save money (and we do) it is from among the ranks of these people that the savings should be made. If we lost 20% or 50% of the 'professional' staff from public libraries, it would be no loss at all - because they do not work in libraries.

Down with Perkins - for telling the truth

Councillors, ministers and officials should be tackling this problem - it is the only way to save the library service in the future. They will have to take some of the flack that I get- but its about time that they did.

But she is known to be a good local MP who had to fight against the BNP in Barking and Dagenham and that cannot always have been easy. She is courageous

So it is nice to be able to say how much I agree with the stand she is making about the accountability of public officials and civil servants. She is in public argument with Gus O'Donnell, the former head of the civil service, who believes that civil servants should not be publicly made to answer for their actions

Having watched the administration of councils, quangoes, government charities, government departments and senior and middle ranking civil servants for a decade in this pursuit of one simple public service, that of public libraries, my conclusion for a long time has been the same has she is drawing now

Our civil service is a terrible mess. People are not trained, not open, not accountable, not transparent, devious, deceitful - and much public service verges on the corrupt. It is a kind of rich country corruption- not like poor country corruption carried out with bribes and brown envelopes- but the protection of the unjustifiable by the hidden by the use of obscurity, opacity and incomprehensible language

We have a real and serious problem and this blog backs Margaret Hodge's stand to start to face these issues and deal with them. It will take a long time, because they are engrained. The Government and all parties should support her and take fundamental action.

This blog opposes Gus O'Donnell's view that civil servants should be protected from answering openly for their actions. That is wrong.

Library campaigners in the past 18 months have seen Rich Country Corruption in action: it is in the town halls of Brent and Lewisham; it is the country council offices of Gloucestershire, Somerset, Oxfordshire and the Isle of Wight; it is in the mysterious letter writers of the DCMS and the incompetent bureaucrats of the MLA .

We all know that the recent Select Committee hearings should have been intended to root out these people and follow the paper trails of lies and distortions. But it wasn't - perhaps it was just about one set of public officials protecting another. We shall see-- but we know

Rich Country Corruption is a bigger problem than MP's expenses- it is one of the biggest political problems this country faces. If we don't tackle it we will become not a Rich Country - but a poor one - poor in culture, poor in honesty and decent values and poor - quite soon - in lack of money.

Bravo Mrs Hodge ... keep going, you are right

It would no harm for a perceptive barrister to examine in public Gus O'Donnell's activity in one of the most senior, unelected, positions in the land . Look where he has been

The reason why organisations (in both private and public sectors) have chief executives is so there is someone to whom those who use or pay for the service can look to give an account of what is happening, how money is spent, how plans for improvement are progressing and so forth

It can hardly be disputed that one of the problems with the public library service is the way that it is managed. This is more than an issue of the chief executive- it also lies right throughout the entire organisation.

Who does train the management?

Who decides what the management should be capable of doing?

Who takes responsibility for developing future management?

What is a local public library trying to achieve?

What is the role, in library management, of a council, or the 'profession' or a 'chief librarian'?

And if we can't easily answer these questions, how can we expect the library service to operate and use public money properly?

It isn't just about money-- it's about all this, too.

Actually last year the public library budget in England went down by three percent.

It may go down by more in the next set of figures, but somehow, I doubt if it will really be nuked in the way we have all come to expect. Local councils simply can't do things like that to themselves - they don't know how to.

No one ever actually looks at the real figures - which is why the library service is such a hopeless mess. Someone influential told me last week that 'Librarians don't have management in their DNA' - and he was right.

I bet (£5) that the Arts Council - who have now had responsibility for libraries for more than a year - haven't got a sensible set of figures about the service upon which to base anything they might contemplate doing. Nobody ever does.

However, if anyone were to look at the expenditure on public libraries in the past ten years, they would find that two things stand out

The book funds have been allowed to decline from 12% of spend to 6.5% - which is dreadful and explains why people are reading less in libraries

And the charges on the library service that pay for council overhead costs (not library overhead costs) have gone up from 8% to 14% - and that is truly truly shocking.

It means that in every budget round collectively, officials have failed to notice that the service is drained of funds - not becasuse there is less tax money available to spend - but because the council central costs are out of control and rising disproportionately

The problem of the library service doesn't really lie with Ed Vaizey and the ministry - it lies in the management of them by local councils. That's what the figures say, if only someone would look at them

That doesn't mean the minister is innocent - it just tells him what he has to do- he has to use the figures. (Public Libraries Act 1964... "The minister shall obtain such information as he needs to superintend the library service")

1. Every library should have more books available than it did this time last year
2. Every library should be open longer hours than it was last year
3. Every library should be clean, with its windows washed and its light fittings working
4. Every public computer in a library should work properly
5. Every library should provide some private space for quiet study

Performance against these should be measured and shown not only only the library notice board but on a national website

Easy

If we adopted these standards and stuck to them, I guarantee the public library service would improve out of recognition; people would use it more, and no one would want to close a library without providing a better one nearby. In just 5 years we would have a library service that would be the envy of the world.

I know that libraries do a lot more than what is highlighted in this list- and how important those other things are. But if we measure and improve the 'core' and basic service - there is no limit to the value that libraries can bring.

If we want councils to continue to run libraries - then these measures will show everyone how well each council performs.

1. Raise the matter in the Mayoral elections to see if the candidates are willing and capable... and if they can persuade the people of London of the case.
2. Parliament determines the Mayor's powers - and they can now include operation of the public library service.... if MP's and the Government so wish
3. The Secretary of State can determine that London is a library authority within his powers already granted
4. The treasury removes £200m from the annual grants to London boroughs
5. The treasury grants £150m to the Mayor to run libraries
6. The property, asset registers and the next five years reasonable capital allocations for libraries are transferred from councils to the Mayor, under the supervision of proper audit
7. The Mayor appoints a not-for-profit London Library board
8. The London Library Board appoints a ceo
9. Get on with it -- and we all save £50m per annum and we have management who are accountable to the people and should be capable of managing improvement

London has 380 libraries - many community libraries that are very important in their neighbourhoods- and many important larger libraries, some of which specialise in some world beating collections.

We pay over £200m to operate the service.

The service is of variable quality. There are only a handful of libraries that open in the evening.. which is ridiculous for London, and not many that open on Sundays. A lot of the buildings are run down and in need of love and a few light bulbs at least.

At present there are 33 managements, with 33 management teams and 33 systems managers; almost 33 bibliographic services and 33 Chief librarians. There are about 20 different library computer systems and about 30 different ways to label a library book. There are about 30 warehouses and 60 vans driving books around mostly empty. There are 30 websites and 30 catalogues, all cataloguing the same book in 30 different ways. There are about 10 sets of contract negotiations every year with the same handful of suppliers, each one taking months and months to complete.

About £80m of the £200m is wasted because it is spent on all these things which add nothing to the quality of service to the readers who need it. As a result there isn't enough money for books - about 5% of the whole library budget is spent on reading material. Most of the experienced professional staff don't work at the counters of libraries, but in one of the 33 sets of offices, most of the time at least

It is a nonsense.

We have elections for the Mayor this year in London. At present the Mayor has no say at all in libraries but is obliged to leave everything to the 32 boroughs to argue endlessly and contrive generally about, in council fashion

We don't let councils run our tube or our bus service - it would be a nonsense; we don't let them run the police, I hope. It doesn't make sense to let them run the library service- simply because too much of the money is wasted and the ambition is too low.

So I call for the libraries of London to be run, democratically, by the Mayor's office- with some senior experienced leadership capable of managing 380 libraries.

Personally I would then let each individual library become independent (certainly from its local council) and create one central resource upon which each library could call.

That resource would provide property maintenance, contract negotiation, payroll, one web and catalogue service, one marketing operation, one staff and management training function - and be accountable to the people of London and their Mayor

That would show a lead to other places, too. But above all it would improve the library services in London where currently we are just seeing Decline and Fall.

The Minister says it's down to councils. Chief librarians also say it's councils who decide. But councillors will say they depend upon the officers of their councils to manage the service. The good people who actually work in libraries certainly don't feel in charge of them. The Arts Council are now being paid to do something - but goodness knows what; the DCMS are paid in gold bars - but no one knows who does anything or what they do. The book industry could do a lot - but they don't

There is no one who says 'My aim is to increase the amount that libraries are used by X%' or 'My aim is to increase the number of people reading by Y%' - or even 'my aim is to reduce the cost by Z% but still maintain the service' or 'my aim is to show that libraries benefit so many people- and here is the proof'

So there is no one, anywhere, who can account to the public (who pay the money) for how the money is spent ... no one can assure us that the next generation will inherit a decent service.

Five years ago the Culture Select Committee said the 'service is in distresss' - like a cruise ship floundering at sea. But although all the figures are worse, the Minister tells us that now there is no crisis.

If you adopt a 'my door is always closed and my eyes are always shut' policy in the office- then you probably would never know if there was a crisis. He talks like a 1950's trade unionist always explaining why it is not his job to do anything. We don't need a barrister in the job - we need someone with electric prods who knows how to use them.

The real problem - everywhere- is that no one is in charge of our library service. There is no one who goes to bed worrying about whether it will be improved tomorrow - and whether people like what is being done. No one anywhere

And as Florence Nightingale said in the Crimean War "If all the generals only regard the award of medals as what they are there to achieve, if no one knows what we are here to do- for certain we have a disaster"

Today is National Libraries Day - may I here offer my congratulations to all those who have striven to make people aware of what is happening to our public library service. You have done a wonderful job. ... and people are aware. You needed to tell local councillors to watch out for what they do - and you have. And it has been cold, bleak, infuriating and diffcult. But you have told them.

This is because of a project in which I am involved called www.bilbary.com

While there was much talk about the effect of restrictions on budgets and how library services are coping with them, the item that seems to much higher on the agenda of anxiety is the way the most senior publishers are declining to supply ebooks to public libraries.

In the United States last year nearly a quarter of books that were read were on ereaders and libraries, of course, want to provide the service they offer in all kinds of reading, to ebooks as well as printed books. If publishers won't allow them to do this, then they are very limited in an important part of their function .

In some camps there was a lot of complaint, and in others there were attempts to find ways to solve the problems.

Both publishers and librarians see 'reading' as an essential part of what they do, and so, to anyone outside the industry, it must seem odd that they cannot find sufficient common purpose to want to work together. Yet the gulf between their methods and principles is so huge that people even talk of 'civil war'

In the UK the divide between publishers and librarians is also a very serious concern. I believe that if all the many attempts to address library problems of the last decade had involved publishers in a meaningful constructive way, then many problems would not exist.

I also believe that all those attempts should also have involved the local councillors who have actual responsibility for the service. .. in a way that they never did.

The library world (professional and administrative) had a terrible habit of closing itself into a room and moaning how nobody understands how important they are, instead of involving people who have just as much concern and interest in libraries as they do in sensible planning and development of strategies.

In America there are ways that the matters can be resolved by bringing key people together and identifying common interests. Libraries will change- so the question is not avoiding constructive discussion, but working out what is right - for readers and the public- in the short and long terms.

One doesn't see much constructive discussion going on over here at present at is libraries and readers who suffer because of that.

The question should not really be 'will the minister intervene?' but rather - 'how can we urgently begin to renew and reconstruct the public library service ?'.. and it is a matter for councillors and publishers to resolve, as it is for civil servants and professional librarians.

I only really discovered reading for myself when I left school early and went to work as an apprentice in a northern city. To be honest I was lonely and too young to have been sent to work in what was a tough environment. I hid in the evenings, because I was unable to be social.

I went to the library and brought home piles of hardback books, most of which I had no idea at all what they would be. That started a life long compulsion. Even though I then took two degrees in scientific subjects and initially worked in telecomnmunications, my solace and my comfort were then and are now reading. I am also obsessive about music. i don't know why these two pleasures came to matter so much, but they have

I went to bookselling because, curiously, at that time, it presented the opporunity to do both two things I enjoy - reading and being analytical.

My interest in libraries came the same way- I have always believed they could be so much better - if they are thought about properly and operated correctly

But they aren't- and after a decade of trying to say how easily they could be improved, I have more or less given up. I understand why they aren't improved, but the reasons are now untacklable. I don't think anything can save them. The problems aren't really about money - they are actually much easier than an absence of funding. They are, as Philip Pullman recently said, about stupidity.

The real failure I believe, and have said many times, is to understand what libraries are for. And if those responsible for them don't have a clear and correct view of that ,there is no chance of rescue or redemption.

I can't see anything more that can be done, The library service in England will collapse, slowly and painfully. Some people will be able to have ready access to an abundance of literature that they do not know about, as I did; and many people won't.

We won't be a happier or better society- we won't. And I hate to leave behind a problem unsolved - especially when I have found the solution - and yet failed to persuade people to listen to it.

There are other things to do now.