 |
 |
I live in Somerset and, as you know, it is one of those set to have its library service decimated: only 14 fully funded libraries for the entire county, one of the largest in the country. This is on top of really bad cuts a few years ago and a consequent lack of qualified librarians. I would like to use my local situation merely to highlight what I think is a flaw in the basis being used by authorities to decide where cuts will fall (ie I’m not using this message to ‘save my local library’) and to get views on this, especially from those who will be implementing the cuts. Somerset proposes to fund these 14 libraries because they, "currently account for about 80% of all library visits, 78% of issues and 78% of active members." As I said in a letter to Christine Lawrence (SCC cabinet member for libraries) in completing the consultation questionnaire, I bolstered these statistics by ticking that the library I most use is Yeovil (one of the 14). However, as I also pointed out, nowhere did the q'nnaire ask was this my local library or why I used this library. Had they asked, it would have elicited the answer that I and my family long ago exhausted the library service and stock at our local library, Castle Cary (CC). Viewing the John Harris video of the North Yorks service, Derek Laws too uses exactly the same statisitc, ie funding the 80% most used libraries. (North Yorks and Somerset have largely scattered rural populations and so there may be some similarities which may not apply to urban authorities??) Castle Cary library is not small it is tiny and hence the stock and lack of/access to qualified staff means it cannot offer a full service (NB. this is not a criticism of the CC staff). Ever since living in the area we have been promised a new libary but this has not happened (in fairness, latterly due to local councillors' location concerns). It is well documented that improved library services raise use and hence increase the all-important usage statistics. Consequently, had CC had a new library before these cuts there is every likelihood that it would have entered the ranks of being worthy of continued funding. So, we go from a situation where a community, currently served by a poor library service, is to be rewarded by being served by no funded service at all (but one which the authority had already decided could support a larger, better library service!) I am one of those residents who have the physical mobility, money and a car to enable me to go to another library; a great many do not and, presumably, once unemployment levels rise and more young people drop out of FE from a lack of EMA, there will be a greater need for local services, the very ones being axed? I'm sure similar situations exist in all counties. I do wonder if the powers that be have actually asked themselves, cause and effect: do so few people use a local library because they're not interested in using libraries or is it because it does not offer/no longer offers them what they want/need? Consequently, I feel using these statistics to decide cuts is not only badly flawed but disingenuous and allows authorities to take the easy, simple option and just blanketly cut small libraries, out of expedience...? I welcome your views. Carolyn Carter