The Libri report, From University to Village Hall, suggests that it is “stupid” to discuss what services public libraries should provide for their users. This unfortunately encapsulates the tone of the whole report. It is completely intolerant of any idea or opinion which does not support the premise that libraries are for books only.

That public libraries should have the book lending service at the top of their priority lists is not really an issue. It usually is, in spite of the more extreme suggestions to the contrary. However, we are now in 2005 not 1905 and public library services do have to attempt to respond to the changed circumstances. There are now many more methods available for the provision of information and entertainment than print on paper. These will multiply rapidly over the next decade and the challenge to library services will be how to respond to the corresponding changes in community needs.

It is the phrase “community needs” which was at the heart of the LLL 1 submission to the recent CMS Select Committee 2 enquiry into the UK public library services. The needs of affluent, home county users are radically different to those of deprived, inner city users. There is no one solution to the public library conundrum and a blinkered attempt to force a straightjacket onto the country’s libraries would do immense harm.

There is no doubt that Libri would be impatient of this do-gooder approach, but it should be remembered that it was do-gooders who were responsible for the creation of public libraries in the first place. Would those Victorians approve of the Libri dismissive attitude or would they want to consider the options? Surely these hard-headed industrialists and businessmen would choose the latter.

In pursuing its books only agenda, Libri has cast librarians in the role of villains. They are accused of subverting innocent local politicians, of gross inefficiency and generally not being up to the job. There are incompetent people in all professions and the librarian profession is no different. However, just like other professions, the vast majority of librarians are competent and hard working.

To suggest that librarians are responsible for persuading politicians to institute policies against the best interests of library users is to show a lamentable lack of knowledge of local government. How many librarians are likely to advocate wholesale closure of public libraries? This was the preferred approach of very many local politicians in the 1990s. Only revolts by the library users (Libri was noticeably not part of this battle) prevented widespread devastation. The success of these revolts was very often aided by assistance from the library professionals and it is not inconceivable that a similar collaboration will be necessary again in the future. Just because mass library closure programmes are not on the agenda at present does not mean that they will not be in the future.

The local government officers heading departments responsible for public libraries are, more often than not, non-librarians. They are officers with experience in other fields and the mistakes that they make should not be attributed to those who have to implement the resultant policies. The policy decisions are actually made by Councillors and it is they who have to accept responsibility.

Perhaps it is possible to say that senior librarians should be more publicly vocal about Council policy. However, they do have families to feed and mortgages to pay and these are things that nobody lightly puts at risk. In general, the local government ethos is that officers do not criticise Councillors and their policies, however much they would like to.

If blame for the state of Britain’s public libraries has to be attributed, there really is no doubt that it has to placed with local politicians and, just possibly, the users themselves. It is the users, current and former, who voted for the politicians. In case Libri has not heard of it, this is called democracy. It is not a very efficient form of government but it is accepted that it is preferable to any other tried so far.

As library users do not tend to be the people with the loudest voices, the politicians, understandably, often believe that, within the general public, there is little interest in the quality of the library services offered. That is, they believe it until they make a cut too far. It is quite noticeable that, where local politicians do take a genuine interest in the public libraries under their control, those libraries prosper and the users are more satisfied with their lot.

The Libri report does recognise that The People’s Network programme has produced an increase in library visits but goes out of its way to damn the project with faint praise. In reality, the project has been a great success and, unusually, has lived up to the government’s expectations. Contrary to the Libri argument, this project is completely in line with the spirit of the public library movement. It has educated the general public to enhance its ability to work and play - just as the pioneering public libraries did in the nineteenth century. That the success of the project has produced problems for the future is undoubtedly true. However, these are problems that it is better to have, rather than to have foregone the benefits.

The People’s Network project is a good indication of the dedication and competence of ordinary library staff. It is they who bore the burden of work pattern disruption and training to acquire new, strange skills. They have shown what is possible and they have put a marker down for their ability to cope with the new challenges that are inevitable in the medium term. That the various systems were implemented without great calamity surely proves that senior librarians can plan very well, if given the opportunity and means.

From University to Village Hall has collected within its pages some interesting data, which is used to show that improvements in efficiency can be achieved within library services. This is not a new finding and has been put forward by many user groups over the past decade. Perhaps this strident reiteration of the theme will have some greater effect. It has to be doubted though. Library services operate within the local government system and are subject to the same overall inefficiencies of that system. It is very difficult for one, small part of that system to go its own way. This is especially so, when pressure to integrate services into giant departments is applied by central government.

Libri has arbitrarily rejected the notion that libraries, archives and museums have common interests and can collaborate for the good of all. The traditional link between archives and libraries is not considered and the fact that the educational work of all three services overlap is ignored. In essence, the word synergy is one without meaning to Libri. If Libri was really interested in greater efficiency, it would wholeheartedly support organisations such as the MLA 3.

That the MLA and similar organisations should invite representatives from user organisations to participate in its discussions is a sensible suggestion and is one that will probably be supported by the Library Campaign, as the library users’ national body. It is certainly supported by LLL for the London library users. With the best will in the world, it is only too easy for ivory tower syndrome to infect the discussions of professional/politician groups. Introducing an independent element is a good antidote for this. Giving public library users a voice will also help to mitigate the widely held impression that the public are not considered to be stakeholders in public library service provision.

The long delay in the publication of library performance data by CIPFA 4 is another legitimate concern raised by the Libri report. It should be possible to reduce the delay by using modern methods of communication, but the degree of improvement is unlikely to be great. All national statistics tend to be out-of-date on publication, even when the full resources of the state are employed. However, it is possible to publish limited sets of data far more quickly, as CPLUG 5 has attempted to do for Camden.

One concern that users have with CIPFA publications, which was not touched on in the report, is their very high cost. This high cost means that user groups, with limited financial resources, cannot purchase one of the essential tools required to carry out their function.

There is a danger that the Libri report and its anti-librarian stance will be accepted as a presentation of the views of library users. It is possible that there are some users with views that match those of Libri, but not the vast majority. What the Libri constituency covers is difficult to establish. It is certainly not mainstream public library users.

Whatever Libri claims its purpose to be, it is a little worrying that the organisation has chosen for its title the name of a 19th century, Italian mathematician (Count Guglielmo Libri) whose main claim to fame is that he was a successful book thief.

ABREVIATIONS

1 LLL = Libraries for Life for Londoners (the umbrella group for London public library users)
2 CMS = Culture, Media and Sport
3 MLA = Museums, Libraries and Archives Council
4 CIPFA = Chartered Institute for Public Finance and Accountancy
5 CPLUG = Camden Public Libraries Users Group

AT, July 05