I don't understand how authorities can say that on the one hand the community run libraries are definitely NOT part of the statutory provision (this is stated clearly in several of GCC's library strategy papers), and then on the other (having been backed into a corner) claim they come "under the authorities umbrella" as the Society of Authors put it. THIS is the "grey area".
Otherwise,
- it has been made clear by the PLR and Ed Vaizey that libraries which are not part of the statutory provision are not covered..
- GCC have made it clear that these libraries are not part of the statutory provision.
Until we hear differently from PLR or DCMS then we can only assume GCC are making it up as they go along.
Here is the latest from Gloucestershire http://foclibrary.wordpress.com/2012/07/12/irresponsible-gcc-issues-unsubstantiated-misleading-assurances-to-community-libraries/
The way I see it is that GCC saw these libraries fit to close. They said to communities "if you want them you can run them yourselves but they will not be part of the statutory provision". They are essentially closures of public libraries that have been taken over by private organizations. Now GCC is suggesting that the DCMS, a publicly funded body, are going to pay the PLR fees of these same libraries that GCC saw fit to discard. Can they have it both ways? This is still to be answered.....
|