Thanks, Sue.
Y'all might like to see what The Library Campaign has told Sieghart...
Laura
WRITTEN EVIDENCE TO THE INDEPENDENT INQUIRY ON PUBLIC LIBRARIES IN
ENGLAND, FROM THE LIBRARY CAMPAIGN.
CONTACT: Laura Swaffield, Chair, [log in to unmask], 07914 491 145
====================================
THE LIBRARY CAMPAIGN
TLC, founded in 1984 and now a charity, is the sole national
representative of library users and Friends groups.
We liaise with the SCL and ACE, attempt to work with DCMS, and work
with CILIP, Unison, Campaign for the Book and Voices for the Library
through the Speak Up For Libraries coalition, holding well-attended
annual conferences and working on a national SUFL website of
resources.
Our own website (www.librarycampaign.com) serves a large number of
members and non-members, eg by maintaining the only national list of
library groups.
We also publish the only national magazine on public libraries. Back
issues can be downloaded from our website.
PREAMBLE
We look forward to meeting you personally.
We could expand at great length on any points we raise here. We know
you have received very many responses, and we know that panel members
really do not need us to spell out the basics. We have done so, just
in case, in APPENDIX 2.
We have made no secret of our view that yet another basic inquiry on
public libraries is not our chosen priority. Libraries have been in a
state of crisis for some time. It is now an emergency.
Nevertheless, we welcome the tight deadline you are working to and we
respect the expertise of the panel.
We are keen to help ensure that the real problems are addressed - and
that this time, action follows.
RECOMMENDATIONS
We are currently unsure whether the panel will be given all the
evidence collected to read in full.
If this is the case, we urge you to read our RECOMMENDATIONS.
SUMMARY
· What are the core principles of a public library into the future?
Numerous reports have addressed this question, many of which are listed at
http://www.publiclibrariesnews.com/useful/documents
Most have said roughly the same things. What has been lacking is any
sustained, coherent effort to put them into practice.
A short, comprehensive summary of the obvious points is the UNESCO
Public Library Manifesto, to which the UK is a signatory. It is
illuminating to compare its principles to the practice of the current
government.
http://www.unesco.org/webworld/libraries/manifestos/libraman.html
* Is the current model of delivery the most comprehensive and efficient?
The basic 'model' - services run by local authorities, backed up by
national resources and policy - has been flexible enough to take on
every new development - in delivery formats, in new social and
demographic needs, in national and local government priorities.
The problems have been fragmentation of responsibility, lack of money,
lack of publicity both local and national, and - especially recently -
lack of action by DCMS to provide any central
leadership/advice/resources or even to co-ordinate the large amount of
good work being done by SCL, TRA, NLT and individual library
authorities.
Certain structural problems have been pointed out for decades, in
particular the waste created by having 151 separate library
authorities. The evidence sent to you by Desmond Clarke expresses all
we would wish to say about this, so we will not repeat it.
* What is the role of community libraries?
Any functioning local library is a community library. This 'heart of
the community' concept is constantly expressed by DCMS, ACE and
everyone else.
If, however, the panel takes these words to mean 'volunteer'
libraries, we object in the strongest possible terms.
The word 'volunteer' is itself a cynical misnomer. Communities are
forced to attempt to run their own libraries by local authorities that
refuse to offer any alternative to wholesale closures. Many
alternatives exist.
These libraries are proving to be a huge burden to carry. Their
chances of survival are very poor.
Every single one of these 'volunteer' groups has made it clear that
what they want is a proper professionally-run service. Every single
one has campaigned long and hard for this right, with strong public
support. Their formation represents a defeat for democracy and
reasoned argument.
Above all - and we cannot stress this too highly - promoting them is
the worst conceivable way to attempt to make savings.
Their role is akin of that of food banks - they meet, inadequately, a
need that should never have been created.
SUMMARISED SUMMARY
Public libraries are uniquely trusted, well-loved, accessible,
low-cost centres for information, communication and recreation. They
are infinitely flexible and adaptable.
The model - outlined in many reports - is a national network of
resources, clearly defined and publicised, fully accessible at local
level and supplemented by extra services as required locally.
The meltdown in local library provision is already causing widespread damage.
BACKGROUND
1. It is essential that the panel take on board the new financial
reality, which so far has been ignored by ACE and the DCMS.
2. The coalition government makes it clear that its aim is to reduce
the public sector permanently, and to impose escalating cuts for years
to come. Opposition plans are not much different.
The assumption seems to be that amateurs and volunteers have limitless
capacity to run much of what we call civic society. This is manifestly
not the case.
3. Local authorities are already subject to cuts of up to 50%,
imposed at a speed that has made it difficult to plan ways to minimise
the damage. Further documentation on this appears in Geoffrey Dron's
evidence to the panel.
Meanwhile we see deprivation and social exclusion at near-Victorian
levels in some areas, escalating the need for public resources such as
libraries.
4. In public libraries, this comes on top of decades of
salami-slicing, often by unassertive library managers content to make
do and mend and unskilled in publicising their value.
Support and advocacy at national level have been inadequate.
Branch closures, cuts in expert staff, opening hours, stock quality,
building maintenance etc have already made libraries less accessible,
attractive and useful than they should be.
Many people already have no idea what it is to have a library that (a)
is accessible and (b) delivers a full service. (The general public,
however, can still clearly see libraries' obvious importance and
potential.)
5. The current assault is therefore on a service already dangerously undermined.
In several local authorities, the public library landscape has already
suffered damage on an unprecedented scale. In others, it survives but
quality issues threaten its future. In still others, it survives or
even thrives.
Basic research is badly needed to find out why/how some services cope
and others do not.
DCMS
6. The libraries minister is the crux of the problem now. He is in
clear breach of all his statutory duties (to 'superintend, and promote
the improvement of, the public library service... and to secure the
proper discharge by local authorities of the[ir] functions in relation
to libraries...).
7. Whatever the background situation, he could have done something to
help prevent the current crisis. The growing danger has been apparent
for years. Many immediate problems could be solved with no fundamental
organisational change at all.
8. One of the minister's few actions has been to abolish the ACL (his
sole source of independent advice on libraries). That he apparently
did not know it is a statutory requirement says much about the quality
of advice he gets from his civil servants.
As the emergency grew he appointed one part-time adviser (Yinnon Ezra)
- now gone. We have made repeated requests via FoI to be told what
advice he supplied, which have been refused.
At the time of the select committee inquiry into public library
closures, the minister was attempting to place his supervisory
function with ACE - which rightly declined. (The inability of ACE to
carry out any proper work on libraries - and the expensive, useless
research that made its first 18 months a disastrous waste of time -
are outlined in our evidence to the select committee's current inquiry
on the work of ACE.)
9. As a minimum, the minister should have had a coherent coping
strategy, with maximum sharing of resources and expertise and the
promotion of ideas for efficiencies. He could also co-ordinate,
rationalise and promote existing good development work.
10. The Universal Offers (devised not by DCMS or ACE but by SCL and
TRA) have even done the job for him - but they are scrabbling about to
find one-off grants to finance the necessary research, training and
roll-out.
11. Instead he has moved from doing a bit, to doing nothing while
denying that there is any problem, to engaging in active sabotage.
We were staggered to see in October 2013 the exhortation on gov.uk to
all and sundry to have a go at running a library (we have found out
via FoI that the text was written by DCMS and DCLG, with no reference
to ACE).
This was followed by an interview in the Telegraph hailing volunteer
libraries as the future because they are 'much cheaper' to run than
council libraries.
In essence he has presided over a fundamental change in the service,
with no research and no consultation.
12. He has been approached many times by local people alerting him (in
closely-argued detail) of planned changes that were clearly
destructive. The response has been nil.
13. Currently he purports (in his report to the Commons select
committee) not even to know how many closures (etc) have taken place.
This is inexcusable.
14. Disseminating a working definition of 'comprehensive and
efficient' would also save much wasted time and heartache. We assume
DCMS has one, as it must have some rationale for turning down constant
appeals for intervention at local level.
SCANDAL
15. It is hard to see how else to describe the current situation. On
the whole, only library users are speaking out on the value of public
libraries, and the importance of skilled staff in delivering a service
adequate to the need.
Yet users/frontline staff are routinely excluded from all consultations.
16. As just one national-level example, we repeatedly asked ACE to
include library users' views in its unnecessary and expensive
'Envisioning' report. It refused.
17. At local level, we can give numerous examples of local authority
'consultations' that fail to reach many of those most concerned,
ignore their own findings, and refuse to consider alternative
proposals for savings. We can even give examples of local authorities
that have played tricks to ensure they receive only the answers they
want.
18. Much of the work really needed is being done not by the bodies
paid to do it, but by others in their spare time, with or without a
patchy assortment of grants to support it.
As examples:
i. Publicising the value of libraries and librarians - done by local
library users, The Library Campaign, Unison (not ACE, DCMS or CILIP.)
ii. A national development framework (the Universal Offers), including
under-pinning research & staff training - developed by SCL and TRA
(not ACE or DCMS).
iii. A national information resource on public libraries - provided by
one librarian (Ian Anstice) in his spare time, using his small
daughter's broken laptop (not DCMS, ACE)
iv. An advice service for 'volunteer' libraries desperate for
information and support (over 130 of them so far) - Jim Brooks of
Little Chalfont Community Library, latterly with some funding from the
Cabinet Office (not DCMS or ACE).
The last is particularly astonishing. In May 2013, we sent the
minister a list of 23 very basic questions facing volunteer libraries
that need an agreed expert response (PLR, data protection, copyright,
confidentiality etc etc etc). See APPENDIX 1. (This list was meant to
be a starter, to be followed by proper research into the full needs of
these libraries.)
He replied only after a reminder sent in October, and ignored all the questions.
If he really believes volunteer libraries are worth having, it is
incredible that he does nothing at all to help them.
If he really believes they are a way to save money (we doubt this), it
is incredible that he leaves 151 individual library authorities
floundering to find their own solutions to common problems, ensuring
maximum wasted energy and minimum savings.
ACCESS
19. The over-riding core principle for public libraries is access.
This is a moral principle and a practical priority.
20. The development of e-services is one vital aspect. We appreciate
that the Sieghart report has made a start, and applaud the work of SCL
in beginning pilot work. But there is a crying need to develop
national infrastructure, standards and resources.
21.We assume we have no need to document the 'digital divide', which
libraries are well placed to address and which will disadvantage
millions of people for years to come - most probably for ever.
22. Buildings remain crucial. A library service is of course more than
a building, but for most users it starts with a building. (Indeed,
unless there is major change to current proposals on PLR and e-loans,
even e-services will be concentrated on downloading at library
buildings.)
23. Accessible local branches are needed now more than ever. We hardly
need to explain this. The Charteris/Wirral report has analysed the
matter in full.
Some obvious aspects include: poverty and over-crowded housing
increase the need for space and resources, literacy problems and the
collapse of school libraries make pre-school and school visits
increasingly important, high fares and (often) poor public transport
make travel to distant branches near-impossible, many millions of
people have no internet access while government moves to make
resources (including benefits) online-only...
Meanwhile, thanks to the internet the smallest branch can now offer a
vast range of material (if expert support is available, that is).
24. Local branches are cheap to run, universally trusted, and can take
on a huge range of useful functions. Closing them, or dumping them on
to 'volunteers', saves little or no money. Given the social, economic
and educational damage it causes, any small savings are worthless.
25. It is quite obvious that there are better ways to make savings -
notably, promoting co-operation between library authorities and
curbing excessive spending elsewhere within councils, including
expensive central services, outsourced contracts and consultants. This
is, overall, the most important point we wish to make in this
evidence.
BLACKMAIL
26. Much of what we say could be expanded with details, references and
examples. We will focus on one area where we have special expertise -
'volunteer' libraries.
27. Those who run them universally feel they have been blackmailed
into doing so. They are given only one choice - to see a branch
library closed and the building lost for ever, or to try to keep it
going until sanity returns.
28. Those who run them universally say that they really want a
professionally-run service, and that what they can provide is very
much second-best.
29. Those who run them are finding the task overwhelming. The workload
is enormous. It is very difficult to find enough volunteers, let alone
expert and reliable ones. Local spats and factions are a common
problem. If they can find funding at all, it is by cannibalising
resources that should be used for many other purposes, from parish
council funds to assorted grants to citizens' own pockets and time.
30. It is obvious that such libraries have little chance except in
communities that are affluent, skilled and largely retired. They have
least chance in the deprived communities that need libraries most.
31. Those who run them say they fear that if they manage to make a go
of the enterprise - no matter how inadequately - this will be
cynically used as justification for a policy of closures/dumping that
they passionately oppose. This, again, is blackmail.
32. The little experience there is shows that volunteer libraries
cannot survive at all without considerable council support. Most
current plans for volunteer take-over include a little financial
support for a couple of years - with nothing said about ensuing years.
We predict widespread collapse at this point.
33. ACE's sole contribution to this unfolding disaster is the
much-ridiculed report on 'Community libraries' issued early last year.
This was an uncritical head-count (already well out of date at the
time of publication) of a disparate collection of volunteer libraries,
some yet to begin functioning, sorted into vague types, with no
evaluation of what might work, or how, or what quality of service
ensues, or what the usage is, and accompanied by 'guidance' that is so
obvious as to be asinine. Both TLC and CILIP have repeatedly asked ACE
to provide the raw data collected, as we cannot believe the findings.
The ACE report came at the same time as one from the National
Institute of Women's Institutes, revealing - from experience - severe
deficiencies in the support offered to volunteers, and asserting that
they must not be used as 'sticking plaster' to hide gaps in the
service.
34. We could supply many quotes to support all these points.
Meanwhile, local people are aware that all pay the same council tax -
but some get a proper library service, others have to fund and run the
service themselves.
In a dire emergency, with retired professionals, communities might be
able to bodge together makeshift schools, medical services, courts,
dad's armies and so on. We see volunteer libraries in the same light.
WASTE
35. A particularly tragic aspect of the current situation is the
failure - over many years - to make proper use of a huge amount of
research and development work.
36. A full list would be impossibly long to compile.
As random examples:
i. The National Literacy Trust has twice run a Year of Literacy that
included research, development work and successful publicity. The most
recent Year signed up 2m new library members via a promotion in the
Sun. In each case, the work has been abandoned.
ii. TRA developed the Love Libraries campaign, with a busy website,
celebrity support, promotional materials, annual awards, constant
press cover etc. This had gained a great deal of momentum when it was
'taken over' by MLA - and simply killed off.
iii. TRA developed an easy-to-use matrix for children's services to
checklist what they provide, identify the gaps and plan improvements.
This was not promoted.
iv. The DCMS's own Public Library Standards (with compliance monitored
and publicised by DCMS) achieved big improvements nationwide - without
breaking councils' budgets. They are much missed by library users and
staff. Similar standards still exist in Wales and Scotland. Coupled
with coherent national marketing, they have demonstrably contributed
to better usage of the service.
v. The MLA website, although difficult to search, contained a wealth
of information, case stories and advice. Under ACE, it has
disappeared.
vi. The Summer Reading Challenge, rolled out nationally, has been a
huge success at minimal cost. Many other such projects are ready to
go.
RECOMMENDATIONS
37. The above list is a brief indication of the wealth of research and
proven initiatives that could be re-visited, revived and promoted to
help with some of the damage caused by government cuts and DCMS
inaction.
38. Just for starters, and as a stop-gap pending proper work on the
basic structural problems, we recommend:
i. An expert panel to develop a coherent policy, guidelines on common
issues and a day-to-day practical advice service for councils trying
to understand what library services could do, and how to make cuts
with minimal damage to the service.
(NB: We are very reluctant to suggest similar support for volunteer
libraries - although they clearly need it - because we are against
them. Those who run them want them to function only as a stop-gap to
stabilise provision until it can be restored in full.)
ii. Basic research is urgently needed on libraries' future that
actually includes what we know is happening - mass closures, local
authorities reduced to a few basic functions, professional
qualifications/posts much diluted, reliance on unregulated volunteer
outposts.
Priority topics might include:
- whether volunteer libraries save any money at all, and their effects
on usage, quality etc.
(We already have evidence that usage often declines sharply, the
library function is diminished and other community activities
(understandably) dominate.
- research into how certain authorities (eg, Lancs, Southwark,
Lambeth) have managed to avoid closures/reduced services
- follow-up research on the Future Libraries pilots, which had yielded
no clear benefits when last evaluated by MLA (and several of which
have since collapsed - why?)
iii. A checklist should be compiled listing what a proper library
service provides - expert staff, appropriate stock, digital support,
convenient hours and premises, outreach work, access to national
resources etc etc.
This would be ticked by both council and voluntary libraries - keeping
alive understanding of libraries' full functions, and providing a
ready-made list of the gaps that must be re-filled.
iv. A similar checklist should be compiled - and enforced - to ensure
that all library authorities are making full use of well-established
ways to make non-destructive savings (including - but by no means
limited to - purchasing consortia, common standards for digital
infrastructure, NAG's common standards for book processing,
e-invoicing, shared back office functions, full use of existing
resources for book promotion, digital marketing and outreach).
v. A searchable database of research results, reference material,
advice, proven pilot schemes, good practice, bright ideas for
promotions, guidance on common problems. Etc. Given the huge resource
achieved by www.publiclibrariesnews.com with no support at all, this
should be easy.
vi. LGA should appoint full-time advisers on library efficiency,
service sharing etc, as it already does for other local authority
services. (Some authorities lack the expertise to negotiate
innovations and can be very naïve - especially with IT and other
outside contractors. The same problem has arisen with PFIs.)
vii. There should be a national campaign to publicise libraries.
Research has repeatedly shown that most non-users are amazed to find
out what is already provided even by the most run-of-the-mill library
services.
viii. There should be - as a matter of particular urgency -
nationally-produced materials to explain libraries' role to
councillors, and their crucial relevance to councils' own priorities
(including - but again by no means limited to - education, public
health, employment, community cohesion, crime prevention, economic
growth, regeneration, support for benefits claimants, use of councils'
own digital service delivery routes...)
ix. DCMS should actively promote the value of public libraries to
delivering the priorities of central government departments including
(and again not limited to) health, jobsearch, education, literacy,
digital literacy/access, citizenship, benefits system.
Despite the minister's repeated promises to do this, it is only too
apparent that most government departments are quite unaware that their
own plans are being severely undermined by failing delivery at ground
level.
x. There should be proper, regular analysis of the CIPFA figures - in
particular to find out what works and what doesn't, by comparing
different authorities. Much effort goes into collecting them, to
little purpose. Past analysis was confined to national trends - thus
failing to capitalise on the wealth of material available for
comparisons. And even this was dropped by MLA.
APPENDIX 1
BASIC STARTER LIST OF PRACTICAL ISSUES FACING VOLUNTEER LIBRARIES
1. Need for proper access to/analysis of CIPFA figures.
2. PLR (relationship to national system, possible extra costs to
non-statutory libraries, etc).
3. Real implications of /requirements under legislation covering
health & safety, equalities, human rights, TUPE, copyright (eg,
photocopying), licensing for events/music/films/alcohol, data
protection. Etc.
4. Insurance
5. Protection of children & vulnerable adults, CRB etc.
6. Handling cash/security.
7. RFID.
8. LMS - small individual or linked to council system.
9. IT systems - as above.
10. Access to borough/national catalogues & inter-library loans.
11. Status of the Universal Offers & other national reading schemes,
eg Summer Reading Challenge.
12. Ability to help with online benefit claims, job applications etc
(IT provision, staff training, ethics/legality of volunteers handling
personal information).
13. Access to national schemes like the Reference Online discount deal.
14. Access to reading group sets, music & playsets.
15. Training required to deal with all the above.
16. Organisational kit - draft constitution etc.
17. Volunteer policy.
18. General advice on funding/sustainability.
19. Safeguards for communities that can't run their own library.
20. Guidance on support that is needed by volunteers.
21. Advice on which general model to adopt in running a "community" service.
22. Stock management (eg, dealing with additions, exchanges and
withdrawals for stock provided by the library authority).
23. Not least, numerous health & professional issues for trained staff
having to train/work with large numbers of untrained staff.
APPENDIX 2
APPENDIX 2 - LOCAL LIBRARIES: A BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE OBVIOUS
1. The Charteris report includes a practical, updated checklist for
authorities planning changes. It takes into account relevant
legislation passed since 1964 (e.g, on equality). Especially valuable
is its work in defining the duty under S7(2)a of the 1964b Act that
'a library authority shall in particular have regard to the
desirability... of securing... facilities... to meet the general
requirements and any special requirements both of adults and
children'. The report's recommendations made it clear that the most
vulnerable people must be considered in this context.
2. S7a of The 1964 Act requires a comprehensive & efficient service to
be available to:
'all persons desiring to make use thereof [or at least]... those whose
residence or place of work is within the library area of the authority
or who are undergoing full-time education within that area' [including
provision of] 'such buildings... as may be requisite'.
S7b also specifies a duty of 'encouraging both adults and children to
make full use of the library service'.
It is not encouraging if the nearest library becomes a bus ride (or
two) away. Also, if it is a large, shiny 'centre of excellence' it is
likely to be intimidating. Offering a 'better' service in a remote
building does not meet the needs of all residents.
3. The DCMS website in 2008 (ie immediately after the abolition of
official Public Library Standards) said: 'The closure of one or even a
small number of library branches is not necessarily a breach of the
1964 Act. Sometimes a local authority will close a library to ensure a
better, more efficient service across its whole area. We judge such
cases on the basis of the authority's overall provision.
'We would be concerned if libraries were closed, or their services
disproportionately reduced, just to save money.'
4. Those who need a library most are the least likely to be able to
travel to a more distant branch. Numerous real-life examples are
quoted in the Charteris report. The Charteris report specifically
rejected Wirral's argument that providing a service in far fewer
buildings would be 'efficient' - since this would really consist
simply of transferring time and costs to vulnerable people denied
their local service.
5. To repeat: a library service cannot be comprehensive if it is more
or less unavailable to some residents. Nor is this 'efficient' in any
acceptable sense. NB: The current trend to 'save' some libraries by
reducing services and/or turning them over to volunteers creates a
two-tier service, which is similarly unacceptable under the Act.
6. Children and young families are very heavy users of public
libraries, as are the elderly, the unemployed, and many other people
who cannot access quiet study space, or find or buy all the books they
could benefit from, or acquire the infrastructure and expertise needed
to use the internet.
7. Fares are expensive (and rising). It is absurd to expect elderly or
disabled people, or mothers with push-chairs, to travel to a distant
library, or a school to take classes to visit a library miles away, or
children to head off in the dark to find a homework space after
school. (In many deprived boroughs, the study spaces are packed.)
8. Public libraries are already being used much more as recession,
poverty and unemployment loom. The current government aims to make 80%
of benefits available only online. The needs of the most vulnerable
are obviously set to increase.
9. Many people still can't afford broadband, or any e-connection at
all. Even if they could, they would be unable to use it without the
help of the staff - whom they can fully trust as they cannot (in other
places) trust sales staff or public service 'official' types.
10. Similarly, properly trained staff at the library are a gateway to
all kinds of information, and to online resources in general, that
people need (or would enjoy) but don't know how to find. This guidance
cannot be given remotely to everyone. Least of all to those who most
need help.
11. Trained staff can also inculcate the badly-neglected skills of
'information literacy' - sorting out the good information from the
dangerous rubbish. Government needs to focus more on this, instead of
being preoccupied with the distribution of hardware.
12. It is ironic, then, that some local authorities are trying to
close accessible local buildings just when the internet enables each
one of them to offer a vast range of information and entertainment -
and certainly everything that is available online at the large central
libraries.
13. There is more. As we learned with the disastrous Beeching cuts,
small local outposts are feeders to the larger centres. Those who take
the first step at a familiar, convenient local building will be
encouraged to seek wider cultural and educational experiences of all
kinds. The first step should be made easier, not more difficult.
14. This is especially relevant as the UK slips further down the
international literacy tables - with reading for pleasure identified
as a key route to literacy, and one in which the UK is particularly
deficient. Public libraries do excellent work in this area with
pre-schoolers, schoolchildren and - especially - adults.
15. Libraries are a safe, quiet, sociable place for people whose homes
do not offer such luxuries. As they attract all ages, classes, races,
they provide a unique space to experience other kinds of people, and
indeed to practise the basic rules of negotiating and sharing
resources, sharing space.
16. Current research also underlines the fact that public services are
more than just a means to deliver goods to the individual, isolated
consumer. They embody sharing, civic qualities that we badly need to
reinforce to build social capital, mutual respect, community
engagement, citizenship, social cohesion, co-operation, personal
responsibility. In many areas the public library is the last public
building left.
17. To a great extent - a library service is a building. (Obviously
some rationalisation may be desirable, but closures must be the last
resort, not the first).
18. It is not difficult to appreciate the effects of closing a local
community library.
19. Yet these smaller libraries are, properly viewed, a resource of
huge potential. Excessive closures have already damaged this potential
- but there is still (just) a huge network of easily-reached local
drop-in centres that can be of use to any agency. (When the NHS
launched Patient Choice, they were going to build a network of local
kiosks - until somebody pointed out the whole thing is already set up
in libraries. Extrapolate that principle and see the possibilities...)
On 3/23/14, Sue Lawson <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Here's an interesting submission from Common Futures
> This is the summary from their blog at www.commonfutures.eu
>
> Third Spaces - locally rooted social capital factories, accessible to and
> welcoming of all, that bridge the online/offline divide and encourage
> literacy as well as STEAM skills development to nurture contemporary
> creative endeavour.
> Read/Write Oriented - facilitating the consumption, production and re-mixing
> of information, knowledge and know-how (including, data).
> A National Library Service underpinned by an Open, Enabling ICT
> Infrastructure - to facilitate access to information, knowledge and know-how
> on an anytime/anywhere basis.
> Enterprising Local-by-Default Library Services responsive to User Needs and
> Interests - to nurture digital inclusion as well asaccess to/production and
> re-mixing of information, knowledge and know-how in a trusted and supportive
> environment.
> A Locus for Citizen Interaction with Contemporary Culture, Public Services,
> Community Activities, Open Government and E-Democracy.
> The full submission is available here
> http://commonfutures.eu/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Common-Futures-Response-to-Sieghart-Commission-EXT.pdf
>
> Sue Lawson
>
>
>
>> On 23 Mar 2014, at 11:38, Frances Hendrix <[log in to unmask]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> THE BOOKSELLER : 21st March
>> Sieghart submissions highlight library 'lottery'
>> http://www.thebookseller.com/news/sieghart-submissions-highlight-library-lottery.html
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Frances Hendrix
>> Martin House Farm, Hilltop Lane, Whittle le Woods, Chorley, Lancs, PR6
>> 7QR
>> Tel: 01257 274 833. Mobile: 0777 55 888 03
>>
>
|
