Protest over library closures is just the Big Society in action

Desmond Clarke

The public anger at the proposed closure of almost 500 libraries across the country is perhaps a manifestation of the Big Society in action. Hundreds of thousands people are demanding that councils find another way to make savings.

In particular, people are concerned about the impact that indiscriminate closure of community libraries will have on the young, the elderly and the vulnerable. These concerns have been widely supported by the national and local media who are dismayed at the failure of leadership by government and the unwillingness of local councils to put their own house in order. When a chief librarian and portfolio holder stand in front of people at a local meeting and declare that “there are no alternatives to closures”, they are increasingly being told “we don’t believe you !”

In Somerset, and some other authorities, campaigners have demanded to see the library budget book and are asking hard questions about how the service is structured, managed and operated to the benefit of their residents, especially those in small towns and communities.

Why do we need 151 separately managed library authorities, each with their own chief librarian and support structure ? Why does London have 32 library authorities but just one police authority ? Why do we have today, despite the developments in technology, more bibliographic departments than 20 years ago ? Why do “corporate” costs vary so significantly between authorities and why have these been escalating?

Many of these issues have been on the agenda for several years. For example, the London Libraries Change Programme has been under way for some four years. The bookshelves of the Department of Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) must be heaving with reports and consultancy studies, but we have seen little action and now we face a crisis. We are now told that the Government’s Future Libraries Programme will address some of these issues, but it will only report after many councils have finalised their proposals.

In many authorities there are real alternatives to closures, as has been shown by the 25 or more councils that have confirmed that they will not be closing any libraries. In Somerset, campaigners have discovered that about half of the library fund is apparently spent on corporate and support services. While officers claim that they have an “efficient” and “accredited” support service, it is supporting, among other functions, a book fund of just £200,000 and a total materials budget of £300,000. You don’t need the liner, the QEII to transport a few passengers!

Ministers, past and present, and their advisors seem to admit that there are often alternative options to closure. Ed Vaizey, the Culture Minister, has suggested that the number of library authorities should be cut by 30 per cent through mergers. Other options include independent trusts and outsourcing the management and operation of the service.

The key question is whether there are practical alternatives to many of the closures recommended by council officers and endorsed by their portfolio holders. Is it possible, despite the cuts, to provide an economically and socially sustainable public library service which meets the needs of the millions of people in our diverse communities? The answer must be yes, but we will have to do things differently.

Councils have a legal duty under the 1964 Act to provide a “comprehensive and efficient” public library service and the Act also refers to special needs which are understood to include children and the disadvantaged in our community. Last year, the then Secretary of State decided to use his powers under the Act to order a Public Inquiry when the Wirral Council decided to close 11 libraries. Such inquiries can be avoided if a council properly consults, explores all the options available to meet the diverse needs of its communities, and responds to the special needs of the young and the vulnerable.(The Wirral Council has now decided not to close any libraries).

All this suggests that councils should not rush into making decisions which may have long-term and dramatic consequences on its communities. Any decision to close a library will affect the community for ever. The responsibility falls on councillors to ensure that every option is explored and they focus first on the needs of their residents. There should be exceptional reasons if a council needs to resort to the fatal decision to close any library.