Gloucestershire’s Mark Hawthorne costing taxpayers thousands

The High Court have issued an injunction against Gloucestershire Council - image c/o Joe Gratz on Flickr

Yep, arguably the most incompetent council leader in the country, Gloucestershire’s Mark Hawthorne, is set to cost taxpayers thousands due to his complete contempt for local library campaigners.  Earlier today, it was revealed that the Hight Court has issued an injunction against Gloucestershire County Council, preventing library closures until the review on the 7th July.  This is great news for local campaigners, and very bad news for Hawthorne, which perhaps explains his weird rant on the BBC website:

“This is very frustrating for council taxpayers and community groups.

“They are being forced into a costly legal process at a time when 20 communities have stepped forward with innovative and exciting business plans to take over their local facility.”

Yes, it is costly and frustrating for taxpayers Mark.  Which begs the question, why did your council embark on a disgraceful consultation that took little notice of the needs and requirements of the local community?  To think, the people of Gloucestershire will suffer purely because of your utter incompetence.  This could have been easily avoided if you had just listened to the people of Gloucestershire.  You chose not to, and these are the consequences.  Why is it Conservatives argue for individual responsibility and yet absolve themselves of all responsibility when their incompetence is found out?  It is a puzzle.

Still, at least we can rely on the local press to really scrutinise Hawthorne and get to the heart of this mess.  But then, the local press do not exactly have a great record for holding Hawthorne or GCC to account.  The Gloucestershire Echo’s ‘outrage’ over the Downfall/public libraries mash-up (the paper claimed that it was comparing library closures to the Holocaust – much to Hawthorne’s delight no doubt) was eventually found to have breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editor’s Code of Practice.  Of course, there is no doubt whatsoever that the same newspaper will take an objective view of recent developments and in no way will act as a mouthpiece for the county council. No wonder the people of Gloucestershire despair.  Let’s hope this leads to some very welcome good news and, just maybe, the resignation of Britain’s most incompetent council leader.

Libraries – a little bit like supermarkets really

A grocery store (in case you forget what they look like) - c/o roadsidepictures on Flickr

There’s a blog title I never thought I’d write.  Stick with me on this one.  I was listening to Eddie Mair in the car on the way home from work this evening (on the radio obviously, he wasn’t actually in my car) and he was running a short segment about the growth of online grocery shopping.  Introduced with a line about how increasing numbers of people no longer actually visit their supermarket, Mair proceeded to introduce two guests (binary alert!), one celebrating online shopping (think it was one of those Trinny/Susannah types – for brevity I’ll refer to her as Trinnyanna) and one celebrating visits to the store.  And this is where it got interesting (I know, not like it wasn’t interesting already, right?).

The arguments put forward by both sides were very…familiar.  The one arguing in favour of visiting the shops (the non-Trinnyanna) talked about how online shopping tended to result in less experimentation when shopping.  Instead of browsing around and picking up something that maybe you hadn’t had before, the tendency would be to just go straight to the items you always buy out of habit.  No browsing.  No checking out something different or unusual.  Just routine shopping.  She also pointed out (and I agree entirely on this point by the way) that by shopping online you are not able to check out the produce that you are intending on purchasing beforehand.  Instead of having the chance to root around the fruit and veg to find a nice firm item, you could end up with something that turns to mush as soon as you pick it up to put in the fridge.  Seriously, this does have a point to it.  I’ve not taken to suddenly blogging about grocery shopping.  Not yet anyway.

The argument in favour of online shopping was also interesting (if a little wishy-washy).  According to Trinnyanna, what makes supermarket shopping so tricky is that it is confusing (seriously) and hard to find the things you want (sound familiar?).  Not only that, but often you end up buying the ‘wrong’ things (again, I am serious here).  Seems to me that rather coincided with what the supporter of ‘real’ grocery shopping was talking about – the random purchase of items you would not necessarily buy.

Basically, strip out the grocery element of the discussion, and they could easily be talking about libraries.  The tendency to experiment, the ability to browse, being able to examine an item before deciding whether to take it home, the confusing layout, the accidental taking home of an item you didn’t really want…  Are supermarkets turning into libraries at a time when libraries are trying to turn into supermarkets (well, bookshops at least)?  In the future, will we see the supermarket threatened in a way that libraries are today?  Will the ability to get everything you want online make the supermarket on the high street (or, more likely, out-of-town development) redundant?  Who knows?  But then, who thought libraries and supermarkets would have so much in common?

No Furniture So Charming – The Future for Libraries

Bethnal Green Library - home to the evening's discussion

Yes, it may be a nice day outside but what better way to pass the time than to write-up yesterday’s library debate at Bethnal Green library?  Let’s face it, sunshine is overrated.  Mind you, that may have something to do with being fair-skinned and prone to burning.  Anyway, I’m not here to share my dermatological issues, this post is supposed to be all about last night’s fascinating discussion about the future for public libraries as part of the London Word Festival.  An interesting and, dare I say, lively event which gave me much to ponder and left me trying to work out how on earth I was going to put it all together into a coherent blog post – you may have guessed already I was struggling to think of how to open this post.  And now I have drawn attention to it I have only made things worse. Damn.  So, where to start?  How about the beginning?  Or maybe some Tarantino-esque narrative messing?  No, let’s go conventional.

It was with a certain amount of fortune that I was able to attend last night’s discussion.  A few days back, the author Alex Butterworth (he of the excellent The World That Never Was – read it!) tweeted that he had a ticket available as he was no longer able to attend.  Seeing as I was off on Thursday afternoon I decided I should definitely make the most of the opportunity and asked if I could have the ticket.  DMs were exchanged and, although I had no official confirmation, I was assured that my name was down on the list and surly bouncers would not turn me away.  Pleased that I had managed to secure tickets for the event, I then moved onto stage two of my cunning plan: get some fellow Tweeters to come so I have company and get the chance to meet people that I have only ever encountered virtually.  Lucky for me, Sphericalfruit, usernametaken10 and the more conventionally named PhilBradley, were all also intending on going to the conference.  This meant only one thing: a touch of pubbage beforehand (well, a pint anyway) – a fine way to start the proceedings.

We’ll skip the pubbage bit, not that anything untoward occurred of course…suffice it to say, however, that the Salmon and Ball pub makes an interesting contrast to Bethnal Green library…

So, on to the event itself – which is, after all, the reason why I am writing this post.  The event was hosted by Travis Elborough, writer and occasional reviewer for The Guardian.  The panel consisted of:

• Nora Daly – Digital Curator at the British Library.
• Charles Holland – Architect who recently completed work on Thornton Heath Library.
• Chris Meade – Director of if:book.
• Philip Jones – Deputy Editor of The Bookseller

In terms of the format, the presentations were split into groups of three with a break between each session to enable the panel and the audience to reflect on the ideas that the presenters had each put forward.  There was also a short interval after the second group of sessions to enable people to get a drink and talk to other attendees (and, in my case, do a little Voices for the Library promotion).  So, on to the presentations…

…but before we move onto that, there were a couple of annoyances that kicked the evening off.  First, the event started with Travis ‘shushing’ and then we were told that the presenters’ would be informed that they had reached their five minute time limit by the sound of a book being stamped.  If they proceeded for a further thirty seconds then the audience were to collectively ‘shhh’ until they stop.  I’m sure this was all meant as an amusing way to manage the presentations, but it did strike me as ill-advised.  At an event such as this it is not advisable to alienate a proportion of the audience so early in the proceedings.  As we all know, there’s nothing librarians hate more than the stereotypical book-stamping, shushing, over zealous librarian.  Well, apart from those that perpetuate that stereotype perhaps.  So, next time, skip the shushing please

Taken shortly before the shushing announced the start of the discussion.

The first session of the evening included presentations by Tom Armitage (game designer and technologist), Kirsten Campbell (writer and educational games designer) and Rachel Coldicutt (creative producer).  There seemed to be a running theme through these opening presentations: libraries as places to explore and transform.  Tom had an interesting idea about using the date label as a space to provide intriguing information about the book in question.  He argued that ‘books are their own souvenirs’ and should include information about the book’s own story (is it new, well travelled, always out on loan?) to intrigue people into exploring the book itself.  Kirsten referred to her love of her mobile library (her father was a mobile library driver) and how libraries should be a space to inspire children and act as transformative spaces.  She also shared her illustrated version of the mobile library – complete with cocktail bar (!).  Thankfully, it also included a computer and underlined the importance of the library as a vital resource for those without Internet connections (not all presentations reflected this need).  I’m not sure if her vision of a mobile library complete with cocktail bar would get off the ground, but I’d certainly use it!  Finally, Rachel argued that the kind of library we know now is probably coming to an end.  And, luckily, she has now posted her presentation online so, instead of making sense of my notes, I can simply quote her:

In my experience, all the best libraries make it as hard as possible to find things. They disguise them with esoteric filing systems, hide them in book stacks, or behind book request form, or they just don’t have the books you want.

…

I’m a big fan of limited choice. When there aren’t many things to choose from, the difficult choice is a lot easier. And when you don’t have the luxury of “people who liked this also liked”, you have to find your own way.

…

So I would ask that the library of the future is a place that enables limited, arbitrary choice. A place that makes you concentrate. And a place that makes you improve yourself, because you don’t have any other choice.

An interesting, slightly quirky presentation: libraries as places where you can’t find what you want.  Would that work?

After Rachel’s presentation we moved onto the panel’s reflections on what had been discussed.  Before we moved onto the next round of presentations by Ruth Beale (artist and ‘pamphlet librarian’), Nicky Kirk (architect at Amenity Space Architects) and Peter Law (digital producer for Hide and Seek).  Ruth argued that libraries do not have a clear identity compared to books.  She suggested that libraries represent:

• A classic hallowed place
• Communal space
• Something personal
• Something digital

She shared images of the book block at the recent protests in London and the mass book withdrawal at Stony Stratford library, as well as noting the many cultural references to libraries in film, such as Ghostbusters, The Day After Tomorrow etc.  It was interesting to note that books do have a clearer sense of identity than libraries.  Perhaps that is because libraries represent abstract ideas and notions that cannot easily be symbolised.

The next presentation by Nicky Kirk unfortunately referred to libraries as ‘monastic spaces’.  Yes, you can guess where this is leading.  Libraries should be a place for peaceful study and should be a reaction against the digital world.  They should be filled with intimate private spaces, sound-proofed to ensure quiet reflection and study can take place.  Quite where children (who make up a massive proportion of library users) would fit into this I am not really sure, let alone those without Internet connections at home.

The final presentation in this session was delivered by Peter Law and argued that libraries should have revamped tech, better websites and should be a playful space for things beyond books (although, as Peter kept reminding us, libraries should be about books too).  Also suggested that libraries should be a space to use for theatre productions (like that idea) as well as for bands to perform (which some libraries have already taken advantage of).  I think out of all the presentations I liked this one the most.  Peter acknowledged that books are central to the library, but that they could and should offer so much more.  Surely this is what the future library should look like?

The London Word Festival - including a lovely badge!

We then had another break for a discussion amongst the panel and points from the audience.  It was at this point that a couple of us (one more forcefully than the other!) raised the issue of the strong book bias in a lot of the presentations as well as the event in general.  The shushing and book stamping were raised as issues of concern in terms of stereotyping and there was a certain disappointment with the lack of really innovative thinking in terms of what the future library would actually look like.  I added that I felt access to information was a crucial component of the library service, and that the format in which it comes in is not important, whether it be ebooks or the Internet, libraries should provide a space for free access to information in all its forms.  To be fair, I think some of the panelists and presenters did reflect this, but there had been a high number of depressing ‘books and silence’ type presentations.  Certainly few of the presentations reflected my vision of the library of the future.

After a heated exchange and short break we moved onto the final round of presentations (and consequently the end of this long post!).  The final presentations were delivered by Dan Thompson (Empty Shops Network), Trenton Oldfield (This Is Not A Gateway) and finally Jon Stone and Kirsty Irving (Sidekick Books/Fuselit).  Dan started off with the controversial statement that he ‘doesn’t like libraries’ and finds them ‘dull and uninspiring’ – good start!  What followed, however, was an interesting presentation on creating portable book cases containing your favourite books which can be shared with people to inspire them.  Dan argued that we all have books that we would happily pass onto others (I’m a bit of a hoarder so not sure I would!), and this would be a great way of sharing the books that inspired you with the people you know (or even those you don’t).  He also argued that councils are not the best institutions to provide a library service and, instead, people should take over empty shops and convert them into library spaces.  I kinda liked the idea of having one less commercial outfit on the high street and replacing it with a space for books and information – although I am not sure how this would work practically.  I think it is fair to say Dan was a little concerned about how his presentation would come across after earlier criticisms, but it was well received by the audience, even the loud ones at the back .

Next up was Trenton Oldfield who opened by talking about his romantic connection to libraries before expressing his view on the politics of the future library.  He argued that they should be held onto no matter what, even if underused by the local community.  Trenton very much appeared to believe in the importance of libraries as social spaces which was an nice change from some of the ‘bookish’ presentations that had gone before (not that there was anything wrong with those).  To finish he put forward six propositions:

1. Defend the exisiting library
2. Make the houses of the wealthy the library…open up the places where people have a wide collection of materials
3. Split the coalition (!)
4. Create a rite of passage whereby everyone can publish a book (aided by the library?)
5. Encourage serendipity
6. Promote libraries as a 21st century social space.

I may have paraphrased those slightly as I was rather focused on listening as opposed to note taking at this stage!

Finally came Jon Stone and Kirsty Irving who came up with an interesting comparison of libraries as being like old computer games that should evolve in the same way.  Their piece was amusingly illustrated by playing an old RPG text based game with a library as the setpiece.  Ultimately they argued that the future of the library is virtual rather than the traditional form that we are used to.

Wow, that was a long blog post!  In summary, it was a very interesting event with some innovative (as well as traditional) visions of the future of libraries.  I’m not sure if a fully formed vision emerged from it (if that was even the ultimate goal) but there were certainly plenty of ideas thrown around and lots to think about.  Above all, it was great to see so many people discuss libraries so passionately and argue in defence of such a great and vital institution.  People actually care about libraries and care enough to present a vision for the future, that alone was an encouraging sign.  No defeatism here, just more food for thought for those that wish to see them destroyed (if they are even prepared to taste what is on offer).  Yes, there was a little shoutiness and a little disagreement and debate, but that is a good thing.  Without debate and discussion there is no drive to defend libraries.  By arguing and debating we can come to a much stronger vision for the future of libraries, one that is shared by a wide-range of people.  I sincerely hope there will be many other such debates in the future.  My favourite line from the evening?  ’Libraries should cost more and be paid for through an increase in general taxation’.  Amen to that.

As for the company I kept, it was great to finally meet up with some people I have been following on Twitter for some time.  Special thanks must go to both Sphericalfruit and usernametaken10 for distributing Voices for the Library flyers whilst I was trying to pluck up the courage to do so.  Many thanks   It was also good to hear positive feedback about Voices from members of the audience – things like that keep you going!

Chris Meade has also written a blog post on the future for libraries and a collection of photos from the event have also been posted on Flickr.  Thanks to the London Word Festival for putting on an interesting and lively debate, I hope that similar debates will be planned for next year.

Now, let’s see if I can go and enjoy the sun a little before it gets dark…

How to improve your library’s statistics…

The problem with the justification for library closures is that it relies heavily on two statistics:

1) library usage – the number of visits to the library
2) number of issues.

Most heavily relied upon are the usage statistics as everyone knows that people don’t just use the library for books. Of course, these statistics are misleading as many of the services that once required a visit are now available online. Take for example book renewals or reservations. Every year, more and more people use the library website to renew items or reserve books. It is therefore natural that there should be a slight decline. Why visit the library to renew or reserve when you can do it online?

Visits also don’t take into account reduced hours. If the library’s hours are cut, there will obviously be less visits. Which would then lead to the council suggesting the library is underused and should be closed.

So visiting statistics are misleading and inaccurate. They also, however, have a weak spot and one which can be exploited in some cases. For example, many libraries have an automatic counter near the front entrance. This counts each time someone walks in and out. These figures are collected at the end of the day and used to signify total visits. Now, some people (not me I might add) would suggest it may be a good idea to look out for these machines and wave your hand past them a few times upon entering. This would obviously increase the total visits at the library in a misleading way (much like the way the current figures are misleading) and should not be condoned in any way. Obviously.

Another thing worth considering is taking back the books in phases rather than all in one go. Return them in two trips rather than one doubles your visits and if everyone did this there would be a marked rise in visits.

Also, when taking out books at the library, why not take out an extra one or two? It doesn’t matter if you read them, it just helps boost the figures. Take out any old book, doesn’t matter what, and you will be helping to strengthen the case against future closure.

These are just a couple of things worth trying. Who knows, if everyone did these things maybe we’d make it harder for councils to justify closing public libraries across the country.

The Taking Part Survey – usage down again, but why?

Will the DCMS ever get its library survey right?

Yes, it’s time to collectively bang your heads on your desks, the DCMS has published the latest Taking Part survey.  As with last year, the statistics appear to show a further decline in usage amongst adults.  However, as with last year, the survey has been conducted in a rather shoddy fashion resulting in statistics that are barely worth drawing conclusions from (although that won’t stop some people from doing so of course).  The reason why the results are so unreliable?  Well, a major factor in this is simply the question that was asked.

Following on from last year’s survey, the question that was asked was as follows:

During the last 12 months, have you used a public library service at least once?

INTERVIEWER:  IF NECESSARY USE ‘DEFINITIONS CARD’ FOR DEFINITION OF PUBLIC LIBRARY

There are many problems with this question, chief amongst them is people’s understanding of what ‘using a library’ constitutes.  Not unreasonably, most people would assume that this meant visits to the actual library.  Only if they query what the question actually means are they then provided with an explanation of what this includes (via the ‘definition card’).  So, what would it include?

Having had a bit of a think (and asking Twitter library types for some help!), here is a list of things that do not involve visiting the library (or, in some cases, not even require library membership):

• Emailing/phoning a query to the library.
• Using a library’s online resources.
• Using the remote ‘Ask a librarian’ service.
• Downloading an ebook.
• Downloading an e-audiobook.
• ‘Tweeting’ a question to a library’s Twitter account.
• Asking a question on a library’s Facebook Page.
• Following a link that you obtained via either a library’s Twitter or Facebook accounts (you may not have been aware of that link without the library service pointing you to it).
• Accessing a library’s Flickr account.
• A library visit to a school or community centre.
• Using a library’s smartphone application.
• Attending an event organised by the library.
• Accessing community information on the library website.
• Receiving a box of library books at a care home.
• Receiving books as a result of a housebound service.
• Viewing the library catalogue.

These are just a few examples of things that could reasonable be considered as ‘using a library’ without it being immediately apparent that the member of the public could accurately say ‘yes’ in answer to the question.  I would argue that if a member of the public engaged in most of these activities just once over the course of a year, they would not consider that they had ‘used a public library service at least once’.  Furthermore, one-off visits to the library may include:

• Collecting Bookstart packs
• Asking directions
• Collecting a bus timetable or other publication
• Using the library fax machine

To name just a small handful (I don’t want to make this post a series of long lists!).  Who would honestly be able to recall in December that they once visited a library in January to make use of these services?  It does not matter if they are insignificant in the grand scheme of things, they count as at least one library visit which is what the survey is seeking to discover.

Now, of course the question attempts to cover this by using the phrase ‘library service’, implying any service that the library provides, but is it a satisfactory question without providing the definition of what this includes as part of the process rather than as an optional addition?  I don’t believe that it is.  With a wealth of library services being provided outside the traditional library space, it is clear that this question is not really satisfactory.

I have also been in conversation with someone who has taken part in one of these surveys.  Apparently the library question was left until last and, unlike other questions, was a standalone without an opportunity to explore further.  It seems obvious to me that this question needs more exploration than a simple ‘did you use the library last year?’ affair. Surely if we want a proper exploration with a meaningful result we would want it to explore the area more thoroughly?

But it is not only the lack of clarity over the definition that is an issue.  Every year there are fewer service points.  Research in the past has demonstrated that people who see their local library closed do not necessarily use the next nearest library, they just stop using the library altogether.  Therefore it is natural that library usage would decline if library closures are increasing.  Let’s make a crazy prediction.   Would argue that next year, once library closures have hit, we will see a big drop in the library usage figure this report seeks to uncover.  It’s not even worth debating, it will happen, even if there is investment in the remaining libraries.

Finally, another point to keep in mind.  Book issues are higher than two years ago and actual library usage as a whole increases year on year.  Despite this, library usage amongst adults as defined by the DCMS is apparently declining (according to this survey).  This suggests (if the figures are to believed) something interesting.  Those who are using the library service are using it more than ever.  It suggests that the library service is providing exactly what their regular users require.  If users are down but usage is up, it rather indicates to me that there is a core group that is using the service regularly and to an increasing degree.  It would seem that libraries are meeting the needs of existing users, they are just failing to attract new ones.  That’s not to say there aren’t problems, it is just that the solutions aren’t as simple as they may first appear.  But hey, that’s statistics for you.

Thank you to the following on Twitter for helping to create those lists:

@the_librain, @girlinthe, @nunuthunder, @annie_bob, @LFairie, @philippaprice, @michaelstead, @chrishall62, @ricaird, @grahamdash, @robertsdj, @booksurfer, @calire, @libraryweb, @toonsarah, @thomasconnelly

When I’m less lazy I’ll hyperlink each and everyone one of those!  Thanks all for your help!

Processing Stock

Out of interest, what procedures do you follow between the arrival of a book at your library (public only) and putting it on the shelf? Interested to know step-by-step.

Privatisation and the Failure Narrative

Last year I wrote about some of the dangers in talking up the negatives for public libraries and ignoring the positives.  As has been seen many, many times in the past, the supposed ‘failure’ of public services is used as an excuse to call in the private sector to rectify these ‘failures’ and deliver a more effective and efficient service (to use the terminology of the privatisation lobby).  It is the danger of the Failure Narrative that dominates the media.  Talk up the failure and you provide opportunities for those to claim that they have the solution.  It matters not whether the failure is real or imaginary, it simply matters that people believe it.

We’ve seen this before.  Before the Royal Mail was identified as the next public service to be sold off to the private sector, there was a great deal of talk about its failings.  Exposes were featured on flagship documentaries such as Channel 4′s Dispatches programme, which opened with the line:

“Once Royal Mail was your friend, not any more.”

It then proceeded to expose the supposed failings of the Royal Mail, wheeling out a number of pro-privatisation voices to stick the boot in and drive forward the Failure Narrative.  Of course, the programme did not reflect the experience of many who utilise the service.  For example, I have never either experienced a parcel or letter go missing once.  I have never received a package late or damaged.  Maybe I am in a minority, I doubt it.  I’m sure people have experienced problems, but it is in no way systemic.  Ironically, the only time I have had a problem with a delivery, it was via a private delivery firm who failed to deliver on time and, upon appearing at the depot to collect the item (a netbook since you asked), was told it might take “a couple of hours to find it”. Hmm.  And what of the performance of the Royal Mail?  Well, in May 2010 it reported a 26% rise in profits, coming on the back of growth in 2009 that saw all four parts of its business in the black for the first time in 20 years.

Of course, such growth is overlooked in order to preserve the Failure Narrative and present an opportunity for those that have the solution.  Which is why we are seeing private companies looking to take over library authorities despite the fact that library usage is at record levels and borrowing is actually higher than it was two years ago (despite increasing competition).  Those promoting the Failure Narrative are either to naive to understand what their words and actions will lead to, or else they are deliberately attempting to dismantle the library service as we know it, handing it over to profit-making enterprises.  We can excuse the former, it is an easy trap to fall into.  Those that do know what they are doing should, however, hang their heads in shame.  It is they who are destroying a great institution.  It is they who are ensuring the death of the public library service.

And what of these private companies?  Well, LSSI certainly do not seem to be the librarian’s (or even the user’s) friend:

“There’s this American flag, apple pie thing about libraries,” said Frank A. Pezzanite, the outsourcing company’s chief executive. He has pledged to save $1 million a year in Santa Clarita, mainly by cutting overhead and replacing unionized employees. “Somehow they have been put in the category of a sacred organization.”

The company, known as L.S.S.I., runs 14 library systems operating 63 locations. Its basic pitch to cities is that it fixes broken libraries — more often than not by cleaning house.

“A lot of libraries are atrocious,” Mr. Pezzanite said. “Their policies are all about job security. That’s why the profession is nervous about us. You can go to a library for 35 years and never have to do anything and then have your retirement. We’re not running our company that way. You come to us, you’re going to have to work.”

Fairly disturbing stuff.   Of course, we could dismiss this as being an isolated tactic by LSSI in the United States, surely this kind of approach would not be replicated over here?  Well…

The revenue model will differ for each council, although LSSI claims it can run public libraries at a fraction of the cost of local authorities.

The “slacks and trainers mentality” among librarians will be abolished, Mr Lynch says. In its place will be “a rigorous service culture”.

There is a link there between de-unionisation, cutting costs and “the slacks and trainers mentality”.  The implication being that staff are the cause of the inefficiencies and if only the unions were removed from the equation, the future of the library service would be assured. For companies like LSSI, it appears to be the staff that are the problem, at least that is what their solution seems to suggest.

But it is not even as if private contractors can ensure the long terms prosperity of the library service.  Hounslow, for example, were facing up to the potential loss of up to eight of their libraries.  They are not run by the local council though, they are operated by John Laing, a private contractor likely to be bidding against LSSI should any ‘opportunities’ emerge.  And like LSSI, Laing see staff as the cause of the problems.  Alan Gibbons writes on his blog:

“I don’t have first hand experience of Hounslow’s library service, but a recent letter from a library user who would prefer to remain anonymous does raise concerns. The letter describes recent refits as ‘appalling’ and reports that staff morale is ‘low’ with job cuts and forced retirements leading to great uncertainty about the future and the impending strategic review. The company running the libraries, John Laing, apparently has a fifteen year contract.

“The library user reports that staff have to dress in black because the company considers that they don’t look smart enough and will be sent home if they don’t comply.

“It does seem difficult to square these practices with the most cursory reading of the 1964 Public Libraries and Museums Act whose founders surely did not anticipate that a statutory service would be hived off in this way.”

Again, clearly the staff are the target.  This is a familiar tactic across the private sector – break the unions, reduce investment in the staff, lower staffing levels to the absolute minimum required.  This is not the way to a ‘comprehensive and efficient library service’.  Although who is to say that a private contractor will be held to that standard anyway?

But Laing also make their money in a rather peculiar way.  Part of the deal that they struck with Hounslow meant that library closures would actually benefit the company.  In response to a Freedom of Information request, Hounslow council responded:

In answer to your question yes we would be required to compensate John Laing under the contract. This may include loss of profit and redundancy costs.

Which puts the potential closure of eight libraries into context.  Presumably these eight are the least profitable to run and, given that the needs of the community are secondary to the profit-making capability of the company concerned, the decision was taken to close them and collect the payout from the council.  A council that, one would imagine, is already strapped for cash due to the government’s spending cuts.  Is this sensible?  Is it wise for an authority to contract out the library service and then compensate the contractor if the libraries are closed?  Are Laing, a company contracted to run the library service and ensure its long term survival, effectively making money from libraries closing?  And who decides whether a library should be closed?  Is it the council or is pressure applied by Laing?

Clearly there is a lot to concern both workers and users of public libraries.  Unfortunately, those that wish to talk up the negatives are simply providing covering fire for the private contractors who will launch an astonishing attack on the “extremely nice friendly people who work behind the front desk of the library”.  So long as the Failure Narrative persists, the private contractors will be rubbing their hands together with glee – this is their opportunity to provide the solution.  They may not be bonkers, but those adopting the Failure Narrative are doing a great deal of very serious long-term damage.

If you want to find out more about the damage that private sector companies do to the library service, it might be worth checking out Stop the Privatisation of UK Public Libraries – which has a few links to news about LSSI’s activities over in the United States.

KPMG – The driving force behind library closures?

Last June, a report by the accountancy firm KPMG was published on public sector reform.  That report caused uproar amongst librarians and library staff across the country as it claimed that:

“…giving councils total freedom on libraries could mean that they create huge social value from engaging a community in running its own library, backed up with some modern technology, whilst also saving large amounts of money on over-skilled paid staff, poor use of space and unnecessary stock”.

Since then, perhaps unsurprisingly, talk has grown of so-called ‘community libraries’ or ‘unfunded libraries’ if you prefer.  It is fairly clear that the report has been wholeheartedly embraced by the current government.  In fact, it is hard to see the difference between the policies being adopted in authorities across the country and the paragraph above from their report.  It is certainly not difficult to imagine that central government is advising local authorities to take heed of this report and implement its recommendations. Particularly given the links between this government and KPMG.

A report back in July 2009 in The Independent claimed that:

KPMG, which also holds many public sector contracts, gave the [Conservatives] donations-in-kind worth more than £100,000 since the start of last year. A single KPMG consultant working in the Department for Children, Schools and Families costs the taxpayer £1.35m over three years, a parliamentary inquiry found. The company said it donated to all three main parties and had done so for many years. However, its gifts to the Tories were up in value from £17,200 in 2007 to £74,500 last year.

Furthermore, The Times reported that:

The Conservatives have received hundreds of thousands of pounds of free accounting advice as they prepare for government, raising accusations that they are too close to contacts in the City of London.

Britain’s biggest consultancy firms — which include PricewaterhouseCoopers, Deloitte, Ernst & Young and KPMG — have seconded some of their staff to Tory MPs as the Conservatives attempt to work out how to cut Britain’s £178 billion budget deficit and decide on a new tax framework.

They certainly appear to be quite close (although it is worth pointing out that KPMG had close ties with the previous government too).  Indeed a recent meeting at the Houses of Parliament suggest that KPMG’s recommendations are being taken very  seriously by this government.

On January 25^th this year, a round-table discussion was held in a private room hosted by Ed Vaizey. The discussion (entitled “Libraries and the Big Society”) had the following items on the agenda:

• Models for community libraries
• Volunteering
• Asset transfer
• Philanthropy
• Libraries role in empowering communities
• Alternative suppliers for delivery including Mutuals and Outsourcing
• Future Libraries Programme

You can actually read the full agenda here.  I recently submitted a Freedom of Information request for the minutes for this meeting which was rejected by the DCMS.  They weighed up the pros and cons as follows:

Public interest considerations in favour of disclosure

• Public Libraries have potential impact on everyone and the greater the public interest may be in the decision-making process being transparent
• Greater transparency makes government more accountable to the electorate and increases trust
• As knowledge of the way government works increases, the public contribution to the policy making process could become more effective and broadly-based, particularly in this area where communities are being encourage to be involved in local services such as this
• The public interest in being able to assess the quality of advice being given to ministers and subsequent decision making

Public interest considerations in favour of non-disclosure

• The withheld information relates to the future guidance relating to libraries, which is not yet complete and subject to change.  Releasing may misinform public debate because we have not finalized our proposals.  The evolving nature of the information means that incorrect conclusions may be drawn, and undermine the policy formulation process. 
• Ministers and officials need to be able to conduct rigorous and candid risk assessments of their policies, including considerations of the pros and cons without there being premature disclosure, particularly regarding contentious issues, which might close off better options
• Good government depends on good decision making and this needs to be based on the best advice available and a full consideration of all the options without fear of premature disclosure
• The impartiality of the civil service might be undermined if advice was routinely made public as there is a risk that officials could come under political pressure not to challenge ideas in the formulation of policy, thus leading to poorer decision-making
• Advice should be broad based and there may be a deterrent effect on external experts or stakeholders who might be reluctant to provide advice because it might be disclosed
• There needs to be a free space in which it is possible to ‘think the unthinkable’ and use imagination, without the fear that policy proposals will be held up to ridicule
• Disclosure of interdepartmental consideration and communications between ministers may undermine the collective responsibility of the government.  Unless these considerations are protected there is likely to be a negative effect on the conduct of good government. If the public interests outlined above cannot be protected, there is a risk that decision making will become poorer and will be recorded inadequately.

Quite why public interest doesn’t trump the concerns of the DCMS in this case I am not really sure.  I shall, of course, be appealing this decision.

It seems fairly evident where this policy of unfunded libraries originates.  Whilst the government refuse to step in when local authorities engage in disproportionate cuts (unless it is in the Prime Minister’s backyard of course), it is also seemingly advising councils to make libraries a central part of the “Big Society” experiment.  This certainly seems to be reinforced by the appointment of Paul Kirby as No. 10’s new head of policy development.  According to The Guardian:

Kirby, who was appointed by Cameron on Friday, is one of the main minds behind a public service reform white paper due in the next fortnight, which the prime minister has hailed as the biggest revolution in the public sector since the 1940s.

He claims it will end a “state monopoly” of public sector services by opening contracts to outside providers.

Kirby set out his blueprint for reform in Payment for success, a paper written last year while he was at professional services company KPMG. He claims an aggressive programme of liberalisation is necessary and shares Cameron’s view that payment by results should be introduced right across the public sector “even if there is likely to be a bleeding edge in getting it right”.

Kirby proposes “the boundaries between public, private and third sector provision should melt away” and suggests “this empowerment agenda will have to be forced on to public sector organisations in the early stages to break the tendency to structural inertia”.

With one of the masterminds behind the ill-thought through KPMG report now directing policy development, it seems obvious that not only will the government not step in to halt authorities disproportionately cutting libraries, they will most likely be encouraging it and, even more worryingly, quite possibly seeking to overturn the Public Libraries Act.  They should know that librarians, library staff and library users will not allow this to happen without a fight.

Is the Big Society causing library closures?

"The Big Society" - killing a library near you?

Whether you believe in David Cameron’s “Big Society” or not, the promotion of this initiative has had some puzzling side effects.  Take Gloucestershire for example.  An attempt to launch a review of the council’s plans to cut the service has been rejected by the council’s overview and scrutiny management committee (which, like the council, is Conservative run).  The council’s plans are based on funding reductions of around 25 per cent by 2014.  The cuts by the council could lead to Gloucestershire’s library service being cut in half. But here’s the weird thing, Gloucestershire are also promising £50,000 per district for ‘Big Society’ projects.  With around 16 districts in the county, that makes a grand total of £800,000 in cash set aside.  £800,000 that could, of course, be better invested in the library service.  But it’s not just Gloucestershire that is pulling money out of libraries to invest in the ‘Big Society’.

Oxfordshire and Kent have both also recently announced that they will be putting money aside for ‘Big Society’ projects.  Oxfordshire are keeping £600,000 back and are intending to close around 20 out of 43 libraries.  But most mind-blowing of all are Kent.  Although no closures have been announced (yet), they are keeping back an astonishing £5 million for the ‘Big Society’.  One hopes they don’t announce any closures after the impending consultation.  If so, one wonders why they were unable to reduce the fund to £3-4 million without affecting the library service in the county.

So is it really the case that the ‘Big Society’ project is the cause of these closures?  It is hard not to come to that conclusion when you see the money that is being held back.  Scrap the ‘Big Society’ initiative and suddenly library services can be kept fully operational (most councils are already protecting what they see as ‘essential services’ so these budgets are not under threat to the same extent as libraries).  It seems that the answer is obvious, instead of focusing on possible savings that the service could make (which is debatable anyway), campaigners should be asking their council why they are withholding money that could be used to ensure that their library service is not subject to disproportionate cuts.  The cause of the cuts to library services is not the cut in government funding, it is an eagerness to experiment with the ‘Big Society’.  It is a sad irony that, given the role that libraries play in communities, it is the ‘Big Society’ which is killing libraries.

Internet vs Public Libraries

The following was written for the Voices for the Library campaign and distributed earlier today in response to comments that were made about the role of libraries in bridging the digital divide and how providing everyone with Internet would be cost effective.

This argument has been doing the rounds this morning, most notably on BBC Breakfast.  The argument goes as follows:

Libraries are, for over 9 million people in this country, the only place that they can connect to the Internet.  Therefore, why not just connect everyone to the Internet as this would be cheaper and more efficient than providing access through a public library.  With Internet connections at around £100 per year, surely it would be cheaper?

There are many things wrong with this statement, so let’s have a look at how much such a scheme would cost.  Presumably, many of the people who do not have Internet connections do not have a computer either.  The most recent statistics suggest that 7 million households in the UK do not have an Internet connection.  1.4 million said that cost of equipment was the main reason why they did not have an Internet connection – other reasons given include lack of skills or they felt they ‘didn’t need it’.

A good quality computer costs something in the region of £300-500.  The cost of an Internet connection over a year is around £200 (taking £15 per month as an average for broadband).  So, taking the figures above, how much would it cost to connect everyone?

If we take the 7 million households figure first and provided them all with a broadband connection it would cost a grand total of £1.4 billion (of course that figure would be ongoing, every year).  If we took the 1.4 million households who said that computers were too expensive and provided each of those with a computer, the cost would equal £560 million (using £400 as an average cost for a desktop PC). If we were to consider that there are likely to be more households than this without a computer (7 million without an Internet connection remember), the cost could potentially be £2.8 billion.  So to provide everyone with a computer would cost between £560 million and £2.8 billion.  Again, this would not be a one-off payment as computers will need to be updated after a certain period of time to make sure they remain functional (usually every four years or so).

So, the total cost of providing everyone with an Internet connection would be…..

£2-4.2 billion with an annual bill of at least £1.4 billion.

Of course these figures do not take into account things such as software, anti-virus and, most importantly, the training and support that many would need to ensure they can use the equipment and the Internet.  Provision of all these extras could push the bill to over £5 billion (again with an annual bill of at least£1.4 billion plus the cost of upgrades every 3-4 years).  Just to compare that figure, public libraries cost the UK £1.1 billion every year.

So, which option makes sense financially in a time of spending cuts?  It seems fairly obvious.