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.

Kent Libraries – what’s going on??

Whilst campaigns have been going on up and down the country, it has been a little quiet in Kent over the past few weeks.  However, this does not mean that there is nothing going on.  On the contrary, there’s a lot going on behind the scenes in regard to public libraries across the county.  A consultation will be launched this year on the future for libraries across the county, perhaps as soon as March.  Of course, this is going to take place after there has been a customer satisfaction survey made available in all static libraries (this is going to take place next week by the way so make sure you get to your local library, fill one in and state why the council should protect the library service not dismantle it).  So, what is going on behind the scenes?

Mike Hill, councillor for libraries, recently wrote:

Our vision is for a core of first-class modern libraries supplemented by smaller branch libraries where there is a proven need, and by a comprehensive mobile service to make sure there is widespread access to library services.

We will also explore and encourage the establishment of volunteer run libraries in line with the Big Society concept. Our detailed plans are still being developed and we will be consulting widely with the public this year before any firm decisions are taken.

Hmmm.  So, the ‘Big Society’ is at the heart of the council’s and libraries will be assessed according to ‘proven need’, whatever that might mean.  So, what of Kent’s ‘Big Society’ concept, what does it mean for taxpayers in the county?

The council is even raising some areas of spending, like IT, and a £5 million Big Society Fund is being created for town and village groups to tap into.

£5 million pounds for Big Society projects across the county.  Snip off £1 million of that and you get to have your project plus ensure that the libraries that are being considered for closure (and mark my words, they already know which ones they are going to close) remain open serving their communities as part of their real ‘Big Society’ (as opposed to the fake one imposed on them).  It is also worth pointing out that Kent County Council is taking part in the government’s Future Libraries programme.  According to the DCMS website, Kent is linked with Oxfordshire as part of this programme.  Oxfordshire plan to close 20 of the county’s 43 libraries.

Of course, the consultation is bound to be a sham.  As was revealed in Cambridgeshire, the consultation will merely act as a way for the council to get the changes it wants.  No doubt there will be a choice between a library closure or a volunteer run library, which is effectively no choice at all.  For most people, a volunteer run library is better than no library at all, but it is only marginally so.  Residents should be given the full range of options if it is to be a full and effective consultation.

So what now?  Well, first of all, make sure you get to your local library next week and complete a survey making clear what your views are on potential closures are reductions in service quality.  Make sure you make positive noises about the service as it is now, whilst also expressing your alarm and concern about the council’s intentions.  Secondly, if you want to set up a campaign group to pressure the council, please contact Voices for the Library at contact[at]voicesforthelibrary.org.uk.  We can help promote your campaign, send people in your direction and link you up with other campaigns to share experiences and ensure as effective a campaign as possible.  Furthermore, if you want advice or support in launching a campaign, you can also contact me (my details are via the contact tab at the top of the page).  Whilst I am unable to run a local campaign, I am more than willing to act as a liaison between a Kent campaign and Voices for the Library, as well as help establish a presence online.

Which side is living in the past in the great library debate?

“….this is very obvious from the debate which took place in the Leeds Town Council when a memorial in favour of a public library was brought forward in 1861.  Councillor Newton, for example, complained that those who voted for the library would not be those who would pay for it, and that the additional tax would fall very heavily on the middle-class ratepayer.  He went on to argue that the libraries already existing were decaying for lack of support, and that “the working classes should be taught to rely a little on themselves.”  Alderman Wilson was opposed to a compulsory contribution for educational purposes, and believe that “the working classes already had the opportunity of obtaining all the knowledge that was necessary to them.” Mr Yewdall said a 1d. rate would cost hom 50s. a year, and he was not prepared to pay it.  Councillor Stead added his impression that a public library was “merely a shelter for a lot of idle fellows to spend their time in.” [my emphasis]

(History of Public Libraries in Great Britain 1845-1975 by Thomas Kelly)

150 years later and the same arguments are being used.  It seems like the opponents of free libraries are the ones stuck in the past.

Library Usage Increases

Library usage is on the rise...

There’s a headline you don’t see very often!  Yep, another statty type post I’m afraid, kinda sums up my week really.  Anyway, I’ve been digging a bit further into the library statistics provided by CIPFA and found some more interesting results.  Most interesting of all are the statistics related to library usage.  Often library usage statistics simply refer to the numbers of people walking through the door.  However, this does not take into account the increasing numbers of people who search the catalogue from home, reserve items or renew books they have on loan, borrow ebooks or eaudiobooks, consult reference resources like the Encyclopaedia Britannica – all things that once required a library visit but can now be achieved virtually.  So, with that in mind, here are the overall figures for library usage for the past four years:

2006/7 – 401,332,115

2007/8 – 404,677,184

2008/9 – 438,480,469

2009/10 – 441,721,165

Yep, library usage has grown by 40 million in just 4 years, not bad going eh?  Yes, I know, this combines physical visits with virtual visits and is perhaps misleading but, as we all know, many of the online visits have replaced the previous need to visit the library (ie for book renewals, reservations etc) so I think it is fair to combine the two.

A good indication of this change in usage can also be identified in the number of requests for items.  Again, worth keeping in mind that it is now much easier to reserve items than ever before now you can do so from home:

2006-07 – 10,917,385

2007-08 – 12,026,938

2008-09 – 13,629,479

2009-10 – 15,025,060

Unsurprisingly given the ease with which people can now look items up on the library catalogue and reserve as appropriate.  Certainly it indicates, as I have repeatedly argued, that people are changing the way people interact with their library but, crucially, they are interacting with their library and more so than ever.

However, this change in usage does bring to mind a number of questions.  If, as appears to be the trend at the moment, libraries are devolved to local communities and handed over to the voluntary sector, what will happen to the IT part of the service?  Who is going to ensure that those staffing the library have the skills to deliver the level of service that is required?  I am not denigrating those that do volunteer but one wonders, where are all these highly computer literate volunteers going to come from?  How are local communities and volunteer groups going to ensure that not only are their IT skills up-to-date, but that they also provide the equipment and variety of online services that current users require?  Maybe I am misjudging the types of people who are likely to take over these services, but I do not see how they can possibly maintain these aspects of the service without sizeable funding.

I guess this all stems from the belief that libraries are all about issuing books and the only skills required are those needed to put books on shelves when they are returned, and stamped when they go out.  Never mind the need to deal with complex queries that require advanced skills in Internet usage (it isn’t just a case of first result on Google you know!).  Never mind the ability to provide a wealth of services online (including ebooks and digital collections).  I’ve not seen a single person outline how these services will be provided by volunteers and local communities, perhaps because these services will no longer be provided.  Given the figures provided above, it rather demonstrates how little people at the top understand both how libraries work and what libraries users expect from them.

Library Book Loans Still Going Strong

Book loans are higher than two years ago.

Cast your minds back, if you will, to the days of 2008.  A time of despair for libraries.  A time when they looked like they were in terminal decline (with 6/7 years of continual decreases in lending and visiting numbers according to official statistics).  A time when people said that they had no need to borrow books from the library as they could buy them cheaply from Amazon etc.  A time when library campaigners were claiming that:

…..the heart of the problem of the UK public library service is the quality of the stock on offer in each public library……

Sad times indeed.  Fast forward two years and where are we? Well, in many ways we are in much the same place.  Same old, tired claims about libraries in decline, librarians are apparently making poor decisions leading to people losing interest in libraries at a time when reading has never been more popular (or lucrative).  Except….there is one big difference between then and now:

2007/8 – Library issues: 307,571,240

2009/10 – Library issues: 309,350,755

Yep, that’s right, a rise in book loans of 1,779,515.  And, I’d wager, there have been a fair number of libraries closed in the past two years, not to mention hours and staff cut.  Makes you wonder how many issues there would have been had library authorities not indulged in cuts.  I look forward to library campaigners talking up the strengths of the library service in the face of cuts and closures, instead of constantly harping on about the negative aspects (and there are some don’t get me wrong).  So how about it?  Let’s talk up the positive side.  By talking about the bad aspects, all we do is play into the hands of the government and local councils who can point to libraries and say that they are failing and need to be taken over by people who can ‘make it work’.  The same old trick played before any attempt at privatisation – talk the service down, increase public sympathy for handing it over (see the Royal Mail – 26% increase in profits, but the ‘negative’ side is talked up so it can be handed to the private sector). It can work without palming them off to volunteers and the private sector.  The proof is there, now just give them some funding.

Voices for the Library

Libraries are under threat - Voices for the Library aims to give librarians and users a voice.

Ok, probably should have posted on this more than just adding a page about it in the menu bar.  Quite frankly, I haven’t had the time what with studying and being involved in a national campaign (it’s hard work you know!).  So, what prompted me to write something now?  This piece on The Guardian‘s website:

An urgent message to local authority chiefs about the value of the public library service has gone out today from a coalition of authors, publishers, librarians, library campaigners and booksellers.

The unprecedented joint initiative – bringing together groups that are frequently found on opposing sides of the debate on libraries – has been timed to coincide with tomorrow’s comprehensive spending review announcements, widely expected to put major pressure on libraries as cash-strapped councils look for cuts in the face of slashed budgets.

The Society of Authors, The Royal Society of Literature, the Publishers Association, the Booksellers Association, Campaign for the Book, The Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals (CILIP) and the Society of Chief Librarians (SCL), along with librarians’ group Voices for the Library and charity The Reading Agency, have all signed up to the letter, which urges the heads of local authorities to recognise the value of the service. Public sector union Unison, which represents library workers, has also expressed support for the message.

Yes, our campaign has now hit the national press.  Whilst this is obviously a cause for celebration as a team, the article itself reinforces quite how serious this issue is.  Libraries are seriously under threat as a result of the impending government cuts.  Cuts that are, in my personal opinion not necessarily that of the rest of the group, completely unnecessary.  The destruction of our library service could do serious long-term damage to our society.  Disenfranchising the most vulnerable in society and widening the gap between the information haves and have-nots.  Not to mention the damage that will be done to our democracy.

So, if you want to support our campaign, visit our website, read what we are all about and sign here to pledge your support.  Once you’ve done that, join our Facebook Page and, if you’re on Twitter, you can follow us there too.  We really hope that we can continue to gain support for our campaign and we need as many people as possible to sign the pledge, join our various groups and get involved in saving libraries.  It’s not going to be easy but, by giving library users and library staff a voice, we hope we can challenge the belief that libraries should be the first target for public sector cuts.  I am proud to be associated with just such a campaign, I truly hope that you join us.