Given the current low profile of the library system in the political hierarchy, both national and local, the vigorous review and comment on the existing service by Charles Leadbeater is to be welcomed. However his conclusions and proposals to remedy the situation he perceives require equal critical consideration.
He argues that �public service renewal requires strong political leadership to challenge complacency, set ambitious goals and legitimise innovation�, but that �libraries lack such leadership� He recognises that this weakness stems in part from the diffusion of responsibility and resourcing at the national level between the DCMS (standards), Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (local government grant) Treasury (funding) and DfES (specific programmes). Triple L has argued this view for some time.
At the local level he asserts that there is a dearth of quality senior management and that a core of senior librarians, recruited 20-30 years ago are on the verge of retiring. At the same time he recognises that local roots are one of the libraries strengths but he asserts that this also leads to � large sums invested in duplications of administration services across 149 library authorities.�
�
He credits them with running many projects relating to social inclusion, learning, e �government services for government departments but lack a sense of their own mission, or of their place in modern society, a sense that they are places for people to access books, information and knowledge far more easily than ten years ago.
He concludes that Public Libraries used to be central to the life of many communities but that they are increasingly being marginalized.
He offers two questions for debate:
1. What should libraries do? The public library system needs to focus on a few inspirational goals
2. How should libraries deliver these goals? Clearer goals need to be matched by a stronger capacity to deliver.
His central proposal to address these questions is a National Library Development Agency with a remit of revitalising libraries. The Agency should be the focal point for creating a political consensus over libraries goals and making sure that these goals are delivered.
A primary aim of this development would be to make the experience available to those who are least likely to pursue their curiosity under their own steam and who are least likely to afford books, computers, videos and internet access at home. Public Libraries can create more equality and opportunity.
The solution? A number of hub libraries in shopping centres should be at the heart of the new offer together with a ` guerrilla` network of people promoting reading, working in communities, schools, housing estates, and residential homes. Libraries should be curiosity satisfaction centres, by helping navigating them to colleges, bookshops, clubs, galleries, television programmes or web sites.
To satisfy these aims the NLDA would build on the development of the Peoples
Network according to five principles
1 Allow the flexibility to devise local solutions
2 Weave together books, computers, video and music
3 Build on approaches that have worked and which could be scaled up
4�� Help achieve goals in education, social inclusion, and community cohesion. Life long learning, and health and crime prevention.
5��� Encourage public libraries to deepen their collaboration locally and nationally with schools, early years centres, health centres, police forces, museums arts centres to create shared approaches to common problems.
He admits that he has drawn on the Singapore model notwithstanding the authoritarian nature of the Singaporean administration.
The NLDA would be funded by taking over the relevant funds from Resource, the DCMS, and top slicing funds from the ODPM. Whilst he quotes approvingly the LLDA model as an means of arbitrating and brokering change, he sees the main drive being set nationally by the NLDA using finance as the means of ensuring that local activities and projects support the achievements of a few national objectives, albeit agreed through consultation with all the stakeholders including the Treasury, DCMS, OPDM and DfES.
The NLDA would set performance standards, monitor achievements using the threat of withdrawal of funds if these standards are not achieved. The Agency would take charge of workforce development�� and planning for the library service as a whole
Many of the shortcomings of the library system in so far as it is�� a system, are of long standing and widely recognised by library professionals and also library users, who do not feature in the LLDA proposed system. (see the Comedia report)
The aspirations are to be highly commended, if only our educational system could achieve these. However they do not fit easily into beaurocratic accountability systems with their focus on measurement.
�The idea of the well appointed central hub library is not new and has attracted new users but is usually dependent upon finance from planning gain and, or, closure of local branch libraries. However the local libraries with appropriate entrepreneurial staffing can, and do perform many of the ` guerrilla ` activities in the proposal.
In spite of the references to participation and consultation the proposal is essentially a top down system and could be seen as yet another nail in the coffin of local democracy. Whilst the proposal does address the need to marry finance available to the DCMS expectations at the national level, it does not suggest how the local influence of the Chief Librarian can by enhanced within the local system
The government is currently seeking to encourage more local diversity in decisions eg. Hospitals, schools, yet we have seen how the Learning and Skills Council, with its focus on economic, vocational outcomes�� and monitoring, has undermined the values of curiosity directed liberal education in Local Authority Life Long Learning plans
.
The suggestion that curiosity clubs and reading groups should take a specific form e.g. that each hub library should have 20 groups with 10 people in each group, is an example of this form of control.
The aphorism � If it aint broke do n`t fix it � has much to commend it. The Overdue proposal�� is premised on the continuation of past trends�� �, sleep walking to disaster� But how broke is the system? Leadbetter recognises that the current system can deliver what is expected of it, e.g. the peoples Network and the LLDA .Is this a sledgehammer to crack a nut?
It can be argued that we need to identify & publicise good practice and enterprise so that library users and councillors can create a demand for change relevant to the local circumstances. This would be an organic and bottom up approach to the future development of the service which would be owned by the various stakeholders as a holistic local and regional system cooperating with a range of relevant non library organisations. The role of voluntary activates such as The University of the Third Age needs to considered.
A possible way of approaching this task would be to develop a system model of the process involved and map onto it the existing resources. Discontinuities in the processes would be revealed and addressed in an appropriate way. This could be undertaken by an appropriate University e.g. Sheffield, who could also follow up with the provision of a � Good Practice � web site available to all, professionals and users
RFS
5.9.03