Dear Councillor

LLL is the representative body for public library user groups across the whole of London . As chair of LLL I am writing to you, as Leader of your council, in the matter of the forthcoming budget round.

Everybody recognises that councils have enormously difficult tasks in facing the budget pressures that arise from the national need to reduce the deficit of public expenditure over income. If proper priorities are established then the public library service makes no special pleading other than that which it merits by value of the service it provides to individuals and groups in communities. We believe that such value can be improved and have published a charter for how to do that, which I have attached. We look for and request your support and that of your council for the articles of that charter.

In the pursuit of the reduction of costs I want to make some specific requests, which are these

1. Please do not close libraries, reduce book funds or opening hours in community libraries, nor reduce the hours of front line library assistants

2. Please do not approve plans which will rely on untried volunteer schemes to operate the core work of the library service. There are none that are proven to be reliable.

3. Instead please look diligently for savings that can be made in the following areas in your own library service

- Bibliographic and cataloguing services, which nowadays can be provided free by suppliers

- Internal storage and stock distribution within the council when it can be provided at nil or reduced cost by suppliers

- Excessive senior and middle internal management costs in the library service

- Excessive administrative and office activities in the library service, of those not actually working permananently on opening hours rotas of libraries

- Library overhead and associated council overhead costs of any kind.

- Council support services

- Systems development work

4. Please examine these matters thoroughly within the activities of your own council before participating in schemes to share work with other councils. It is our belief that the removal of most of these activities I have listed will have little impact on the quality of service to the public and that they will yield savings far in excess of the targets that are needed and will indeed allow funds to be allocated to make improvements to front line services .

In addition to these requests, which we are making of each individual council, we make the further requests of all the London Boroughs collectively

1. Please adopt as a matter of urgency, standard and identical specifications for physical processing of library materials, systems and data interchange so that there is no longer a need for individual libraries or councils to operate or manage their own specifications for any of these things.

2. Please stop replicating further activities in councils which are of no benefit to the service given in individual libraries to the public. We believe that across London £50m per annum is wasted on needless library activity, which funds should be being used to make improvements
I request that you put both the matter of our Charter and our priorities for savings in front of your council and adopt these measures as soon as possible.

I would be grateful if you could arrange for this email to be acknowledged.

With kindest regards.

Tim Coates

Chair LLL.

Library buildings have been absent from much of the debate about public libraries over the past ten years. Continual attempts to persuade themselves, if not the public, that the public library service now takes place online have pervaded the chat rooms of the library profession. They almost seem to forget that for a library to make a contribution to the local community, it has to have a building and that building has to be agreeable, well-stocked, welcoming and open,

The state of library buildings was absent from the all the DCMS/MLA/Audit Commission inititiatives to create standards and measures for public libraries until the Kaufman Select committee eventually drew attention to the omission. Nothing was said about them in the recent modernisation review. It is hard to understand why: any retailer with 3,000 buildings acquired over a long period, would regard them as a most important asset.

The agenda of 'co-location', which means trying to save money by putting council services into the same building, assumes four things that are rarely analysed: firstly that library buildings are generally expensive; secondly that colocated services will be in cheaper premises; thirdly that the capital costs required to make the move are freely available and fourthly that the resulting library will be as good or better than the old one in terms of its comprehensiveness and efficiency for those using it. All those factors might work in favour of a move, but they equally well might not, and inituitively one is doubtful about all of them without some persuasive evidence.

Many public library buildings are freeholds that were acquired years ago and are very cheap indeed. The property bill for libraries is far less than it would be for any retailer trying to set up the same kind of operation now.

The current argument about whether Hammersmith and Fulham council should close Baron's Court library has made me reflect on a number of these things.

I confess I haven't been in it for four years and I hope it has improved a lot since then because when I went to see it it was truly one of the worst anything I had ever seen-- not just a bad library, but a place from the darker pages of the Inferno. It was filthy, the shelves were empty, the lights were dim and the staff were horrid. I was there just before lunchtime on a wet cold day when the brave residents who had come to use it were turned out on to the streets so that the four members of staff present could have their lunch in peace. It can only have got better since then.

Now those same residents are protesting in large numbers that the council are going to close it. They don't want to be forced to have to journey either to Hammersmith or Kensington to use a local library.

It is a fairly modern building which has been allowed to fall by previous council administrations to ruin. It is perfectly large enough and in an accessible location in a quietly well educated part of London. One would have thought a clever architect and designer could - without excessive expense at all- make it really quite smart and useful. Restoration is probably cheaper than the construction of a new multi purpose building in Hammersmith centre, where one would have thought land was more expensive, too. No one seems to have made estimated and written down figures to be looked at. The assumption that a larger colocated library service is going to be all round better seems to have been made without any detailed thinking at all. It certainly hasn't worked in other places, because normally when it is done, it is done for all the wrong reasons.

'Efficient' - as in 'Comprehensive and efficient' has to mean efficient both for the council and the residents who want to use the service. It is not right, in my view, for councils to argue (as one increasingly hears them do) that 'effiicient' means one large library in the area, because that is cheaper for the council. The calculation of efficiency also has to consider the time and expense and ability of residents to make the journey to such a new place and its usefulness to them when they get there. The money, after all, whether they spend it themselves, or they allow the council to spend it for them, is all theirs. If they currently have a local library to which they can walk it is bound to be less efficient for them to make any kind of longer journey, with buggies and barrows, to a library some distance away unless, on balance the visit is a hugely better experience. That might happen but it is unlikely if what you wanted was a small intimate story time with your friends or just a quiet place you could walk from home to read or do your homework.

I think library buildings are a terribly important part of the debate about how to improve libraries to the point that I have written a book about them! I think we do need to get just a little bit hung up on buildings, just as much as we need to get hung up on books.

The case for closing Barons Court libary has not been made at all. But the case for keeping small community libraries, of the kind which Barons Court ought to be, have been made in abundance in many places, not least Hillingdon, which I hope the councillors of Hammersmith will go and see for themselves.

If the rumours that reach Perkins ears are to be believed another £100k or so is to be spent by the LLCP board with consultants Mott MacDonald.

This will make a total of more than £400k on consultancies so far -- which have nothing to show for what they have done.

They will be asked to think of answers to questions like

For the Change Programme what should be

2. The strategic business case-- to be answered by December 2010 -- for the transformation of London's public libraries service including options appraisals of the different models available. The option appraisal for each model must include.
- the business case
- financial plans and assessment of options
- risk assessment
- legal and consultation procedures and issues?

And all that kind of thing!

Did anyone know about all this before it happened-- for example were the good people, the library users of London - involved in any discussion about all this before it happened? Of course not.

But somebody has money in these desperate times of shortage. We could even have bought some books with this.

Outrage! Particularly because if you translate those questions into English they say "Please - what are supposed to be doing?"

It is sad and pathetic when everyone is being told there is no money. I think it is time that people were dismissed. Don't you?

This week I asked at the MLA if they would tell me who is in charge of the LLCP these days now that MLA London no longer exists, but they refused to say. In fact they got rather cross with me for asking. So I have sent them an FOI question to get to the answer. We run the library service like Stasi, the secret police in Romania. This is a long way from The Big Open Society.

I can see two potential concerns- one in Gloucestershire and one in Hammersmith and Fulham.

I'm hoping people will make contact. Here is the link to the mumsnet debate.

The gentleman librarian who looked after me was extraordinarly helpful and thoughtful. It was a real pleasure. Thank you

"Since 2005/06, there has been a steady decrease in the proportion of adults visiting a public library (from 48.2% to 39.4% in 2009/10)" By visiting they mean people who have been at least once through the door for any purpose.

Here is the report

The table with these figures shows that if you ignore those people who visit just once or twice a year, only 29% of the adult population use our public libraries. That figure was 38% just four years ago. The fall is truly dramatic.

At the same time , the very same report records that reading is the most popular cultural activity for most people in the country and three quarters of people read, 80% of those every week.

So why are libraries unpopular? Because they don't cater for people who read. It's blooming obvious.

If libraries concentrated their effort on people who do read (as the law says they should) they would be twice as popular as they are (vide Hillingdon) . What could be simpler?

Even a kitten could understand that. The whole management strategy is wrong.

There is however at least one council who sees things differently. This autumn they will complete two more full refits of their small libraries, increasing their opening hours and augmenting their stock. The staff of these libraries will be given more control over their own budgets. This is happeing because the council knows from their previous experience that this investment which can be made because of overall savings in the library budget, will be extremely popular with the local people and an electoral asset for the council. This is the London Borough of Hillingdon, who will have completed the restoration of half their libraries within the next year. Their plan continues despite all the budget pressure, because the council find it to be of greatest possible value. We would wish all councils had got themselves in such a position

If there is any council elsewhere in the country who would like to embark on a similar programme, please contact this blog. The Hillingdon project originated here and the lessons learned are available to any councillor who wished to take the course.

Closures would include Muswell Hill, Hornsey and Highgate.

Haringey has been one of the most successful library services among the London Boroughs since Diana Edmonds became manager there about 5 years ago. Prior to that it was awful.

If other councils operate in a similar way there will be no more community libraries in the country and a there will be a loss of more than 20,000 jobs in the sector.

Haringey is a Labour council which includes the constituency of former libraries ministers David Lammy and Andrew McIntosh.

This follows more than £300,000 already spent on consultants - with no visible change or improvement so far.

Why? -- and why were library users not involved or consulted in the decision in any way? Why do all these things have to be done in secret as if ordinary people were too stupid to understand the complicated mechanisms of government?

Who has accounted for the expenditure so far? Who has authorised this new work?

What were the actions taken as a result of the previous work?

When will we actually see some improvement, because at the present all we can see are plans for library closures?

What did happen to "WILL" the rather cumbersome mechanism for searching library catalogues across the city. Could it not have been improved? Why have offers to keep it going been ignored

And what on earth can this latest commission be intended for?

Library users in London are very cross with the scornful way with which Government, its Quangoes and the London agencies treat them. And they are justitified in being so. Patience is running thin.

It was closed yesterday by the Communities Minister Eric Pickles. Many congratulations to him.

These were typical entries here and here and here

If Mr Pickles is looking for anyone else to close down he might find some more candidates in this list which we published some time ago.

It is his observation that quangoes that seek to serve departments in Whitehall, rather than the public, that are a waste of taxpayers' money, with which we so thoroughly agree. If a report lists "Stakeholders" and then includes a long list of acronymic organisations, but not ordinary people, then one knows that all perspective has been lost.

I don't think that is what I do at all - and the point was reinforced in a discussion with a solicitor today about the nature of what I and others advocate for public libraries.

"Most campaigns' he said, "are about changing the law. People lobby parliament for that purpose"

I replied "I don't want to change the law and never have. I want councils to obey the law and provide a 'comprehensive and efficient library service' and I do my very best to show them how that can be done within the means they have available (or less)

This is not a campaign- it is just plain honest responsible behaviour.

"The trouble has always been that the Government, MLA and local authorities differ from the public on how to retain a good public library service and with some arrogance are intent upon rolling out a grand plan without reference to what the people who pay them say they want. This is a cross-Party attitude and seems to be shared by all those who achieve office. It sends the message, "We know what's best for you; your can't understand the nature of public service. We will tell you what a public library should be like and what it should do. It is not for you to tell us what you want."

1. We must have one clear idea about what the public library service is for. It is for reading and study. We offer buildings to visit and work in and we offer the opportunity to read and study at home, by allowing borrowing, or access to websites. That is what our management effort is directed at and that is what our assets and our stock are used for. We believe, because we know, that when we offer good library services in this way, the service is highly valued and useful to most of the population who want these things. Where we have space and can be comprehensive we also offer music and film libraries and those of other cultural activities. We are a resource of local history and information. We encourage people, especially the young, to read and to use the service, but we do not aim to make library buildings or services useful to those who don't want to read or study or use these other collections. That is not our purpose. To do so is to waste our limited resources of time, money and energy. We have a base of buildings and collections which have been built over many years. We want to use these to give the service wherever we can. We always aim to improve them. That is what we mean by being comprehensive.

2. The fact that we try to offer local services in so many places has come, over the years, to mean that we replicate organisational activities, needlessly and to no public advantage. We must stop this quickly and identify just only those activities that are needed to give the best possible service in every place there is a library. That is a huge programme of cost reduction and rationalisation that we have to face urgently and in depth. It will need to be managed and it will mean substantial change. This is where the reduction in costs must come from if they are not to reduce the library service. Otherwise we are irresponsibly forcing the public to spend money that they should not have to pay. It means that we have to devise and accept changes in methods and it will mean job losses. Therefore we also have to handle those in a sensitive and fair way, but we have to face this quickly. That is what we should mean by being efficient

3. Therefore the programme of change is not only to be carried out in local councils, but also has to involve a national leadership programme. That has to be set up, be capable of doing what it needs and be effective quickly. It has to work with local councils, but it is going to do what local councils could not and cannot do on their own. It needs strong and experienced leaders and it has to have the trust of the public and be able to work effectively and quickly with local councils. Councils have to participate otherwise there will be a massive failure of the service. In order to participate they have to be properly informed and involved.

4. We should aim to increase the use of public libraries by 50% within 2 years and to reduce the national cost of the library service by £200m or more per annum - by 2011-12. We have to act now.

I offer this plan to the Government. I believe it is, and could be developed as, a much more precise and specific approach than the one which is currently being adopted.