Not Waving but Drowning

5397782517_98d3a5a785_b
It’s difficult to take a balanced view of public libraries at the moment. Concentrating overly on bad news around closures and cuts appears so much doom-mongering. Equally, highlighting only positive news stories smacks of pollyanaism. Obviously, both aspects exist and will differ from region to region, authority to authority, and even community to community within relatively close proximity. Amongst the cuts there is still opportunity to find examples of good practice, valuable partnership working,  and innovation within the sector.

That said, the bad news does appear to have the upper hand at the moment, especially with the announcement that local councils face an ever deepening hole in their finances: A story in the Bookseller outlines how:

“According to the Local Government Association (LGA), the long-term funding crisis means local government will continue to face an overall funding gap of £5.8bn by 2020 and that more than two thirds of the 375 councils in England and Wales will be forced to find millions in savings to plug the funding gaps in 2017/18.”

This was put into stark context with a warning from the Leader of Liverpool Council that:

‘…even if he closed all 19 libraries in the city and its nine sports centres, stopped maintaining its 140 parks, halted all highway repairs and street cleaning and switched off 50,000 streetlights, he would save only £68m—which is £22m short of what he must cut by 2020. So there will have to be a further 10% reduction in the social-care budget.’

Many other councils are facing equally unenviable choices, which is the consequence of a path determined by the coalition government in 2010. According to the government, at the start of the 2010 almost 80% of council expenditure was financed by the central government grant but by 2020 this will have reduced to 5% with the ultimate aim that it will disappear altogether.

The consequences for libraries are obvious, with a litany of severe cuts from all around the country, and figures showing that UK libraries had lost £25m from their budgets in just one year. Nick Poole has warned that library closures will double unless immediate action is taken, stating that:

“We have already lost 340 libraries over the past eight years and we think that unless immediate action is taken, we stand to lose the same number over the next five years.”

This leaves bodies like the Libraries Taskforce, SCL and ACE in a difficult position. Tasked with developing libraries it seems the best that can be assumed is a slow rout with an eventual retreat in many areas to the consolidation of a central library underpinned by varying levels and quality of community provision.

I am reminded of the image of the Little Dutch Boy holding back the incoming flood, with the Taskforce vainly attempting to stop the torrent of cuts while the dyke around them steadily spouts leaks labelled Kirklees, Plymouth, Walsall, West Berkshire, Bristol, Bury, Lancashire…the difference being, in the story at least, the Little Dutch Boy was successful at plugging the gap!

Or to use a bleaker literary reference the sector is ‘not waving but drowning.’

Unfortunately, the Taskforce is operating to a deeply flawed report that is hopelessly outdated just a mere two years on, with little in Ambition to offer concrete help or financial support. But most of all it is curtailed by political intransigence.

To a large extent the malaise goes even deeper than just funding. Councils have shown themselves to be unimaginative at best and inept at worse when dealing with library services. Parochial to an incomprehensible degree, very little has been done to genuinely merge services across boundaries or treat them as part of a national infrastructure. Localism is part of the problem not the solution.

But let me end on a positive note, which is the re-launch of the All Party Parliamentary Group for Libraries. So welcome to the new Chair, Gill Furniss MP, who stated that:

“I was brought up on a council estate in Sheffield and my dad was a reader. When I was four he took me with him to the public library and it was like walking into an Aladdin’s cave…If my dad hadn’t taken me to that library I do not think I would be stood here as a Member of Parliament for Sheffield Brightside and Hillsborough. I’ve got my career and the knowledge it gave me which drove me on to go and get a degree and eventually become a Councillor.”

Whether the APPG is capable of providing the life-line desperately needed by the sector remains to be seen.

 

 

 

Library as Laboratory – How can Libraries exist in the future?

The following guest post has been received from Bedford Creative Arts. The post highlights how libraries and arts can collaborate successfully and provide a powerful and positive experience for users.

Library as Laboratory – How can Libraries exist in the future?

selfie-slot-car-credit-andy-willsher

Bedford Creative Arts has been exploring new ways that libraries can evolve for the future by bringing together artists and libraries. The result is five pioneering projects created by eight artists, ranging from festivals and performances to slot car championships.

The project is funded by Arts Council England Libraries fund and sits in the context of the government spending review which has brought about cuts to spending on libraries by local councils. Libraries are now looking at what services and community offers they can provide in order to stay open and working with other local organisations like BCA is a way to deliver this.handbag-credit-andy-willsher

Library as Laboratory is a brand new, open and collaborative way of working for the Library Services which usually follow a more planned, traditional approach. This project promotes non-traditional activities and ways of working with artists to devise projects and workshops that collaborate with communities and library staff. High quality new work has been created as a response to people and place through collaborating with the local community and brings innovative projects into the library setting.

The artists selected to develop projects are Ania Bas, David Littler, Rosalie Schweiker, DashnDem, Roshi Nasehi, Chris Dobrowolski and Gerry Pilgrim. The projects created:

Flitwick Future Library Festival – a three day multi-activity festival exploring the concept of business not as usual in the library, from cocktails and comedy to yoga, skater films and musical bingo.

Biggleswade B-Fest – a one day multi-activity festival with activities related to the local history of the bike and the brussel sprout from a bike smoothie, brussel sprout supper and a new mobile bike library.

Dump It On Parliament Revisited – a multi-layered collaborative project involving local bands, youth drama groups, a wellbeing group and musicians to create a new compilation of music that explores the alternative local post-punk music history of the 1980’s meshed with today. Created and performed in the libraries.

Selfie Slot Car Championship – a digitally-based making project that invited families to create a personalised slot car and race it in a special one day event, all taking place at the library.

Handbag – a performance work involving female participants dancing around their handbag on an alternative open stage space to ‘Billie-Jean’ by Michael Jackson.

flitwick-furure-library-credit-andy-willsher

About the projects

The project enabled and empowered library staff to gain experience and skills in working with artists, programming and organising events while demonstrating opportunities that encourage long term use of library services. Houghton Regis Library held their first ever live gig in a library and Flitwick their first ever comedy event in a library.

The projects achieved significant increases in the footfall of the libraries of up to 20% with 3802 people joining in with the activities. The long term effects of these projects mean that the libraries are now looking at creating film clubs, recruiting a theatre development officer and hosting workshops.

Three of the artists focused on the idea of the local library as the custodian of local histories, in particular alternative local histories of the late 20th century and communities now. One project in particular Dump it on Parliament Revisited focused on what the role of the library could be, exploring the potential of libraries being a sound archive for recent local history as told by local communities from their perspectives.

Tessa Jackson OBE comments on the Dump it On Parliament project “The phrase ‘socially engaged art practice’ is much over used but Dump it On Parliament genuinely enabled a wide range of people to be creative on their own terms, b-festival-credit-andy-willsherparticipating in the truest sense of the word. Artists DasnDem and Roshi Nasehi, by collaborating with some of the original musicians and activists, were able to incorporate song writing, theatre making, printmaking, fanzine creation, fashion and make-up into their project; new forms of expression inspired new skills.”

Artists DashnDem said: ‘Libraries are one of the last free social spaces, which we don’t want to disappear, but that means they have to move with the times while retaining what is unique about them. This project looks at how we can better emphasise their place as repositories for local history, making it more accessible and relevant today and to future generations.

The outcomes of the project demonstrated to Central Bedfordshire and the Library Service that potential programming ideas from artist run activities to film and comedy nights could bring new library users in by using their Library spaces in new ways. CBC is now recruiting a new service team including Marketing and Engagement Officers who will develop new activities for the libraries and the theatre auditorium.

dump-it-on-parliament-credit-andy-willsherPartnerships have also developed out of the project; The Library Service has been awarded funding from Royal Opera House Bridge for an exciting project linking Leisure, Libraries and Countryside with Children’s Services and Public Health. The project will provide vulnerable learners in the Dunstable and Houghton Regis area with an opportunity to experience arts and cultural activities including music, theatre arts, digital arts and natural art in an outdoor environment. It will also look to engage families and carers and feed into the design and use of the new Dunstable Library Leisure Centre ensuring it is accessible to young people and provides appropriate space, resources and activities.

Cllr Brian Spurr, Central Bedfordshire Council Executive Member for Community Services, said: ‘We are very proud of our libraries, but as times change so must they. That is why we embarked on a refurbishment and modernisation programme across all our libraries, in which we consulted extensively with our residents to understand their needs, expectations and aspirations.

The three arts commissions that form the Library as Laboratory project are an intriguing next step as we seek to discover what our service can offer, now and in the future. They will always be places of learning and discovery and now through different forms of art projects, this innovative initiative also enables libraries to become places of culture and creativity.

In partnership with Bedford Creative Arts, the artists commissioned have all developed three inclusive projects that have tapped into the area, its rich history and its people. I would urge residents to get involved, as they have done before, with these experiments in shaping their library for the future.’

PR Contact:
Binita Walia, PR for Bedford Creative Arts binita@thespaceinbetween.co.uk 07734 507 799
Images available on request credit Andy Willsher.

Links to the Library as Laboratory projects:

Dump It On Parliament
Selfie Slot Car Championship
Future Library Festivals
Handbag

Winning Hearts and Minds

It’s a new year but the same old battle continues. The battle that started five years ago and the coalition government’s introduction of the austerity agenda. Less public services and less libraries. However, the initial rush to closure quickly ran into trouble and the government was genuinely surprised at the strength of opposition, particularly those politicians who couldn’t see out of their rose tinted digital glasses: everything was available online and digital was the future. Whereas libraries were an anachronism, old fashioned, had had their day? Except they hadn’t and plenty of people were on hand to point that out. With placards, demonstrations and judicial reviews if necessary.

The Government and councils were quick to get the message and unfortunately closures quickly morphed into two more insidious strands that hid the true picture from the wider public: hollowing out and volunteer led. Both approaches causing just as much damage to the national public library sector but far more difficult to challenge and fight. Libraries, more than any other service, became the poster child for the Big Society.

In the early days many within the profession saw a opportunity to modernise the service, make it more flexible, more entrepreneurial, with more public engagement. After all weren’t we here to serve our communities? So greater involvement could only be a good thing. Public services, including libraries, had become too directive: doing onto communities rather than working with them. Thus, the inclination to change and involve communities was genuine.

Unfortunately, very few could imagine the scale of change to come, could envisage that by 2020 the core grant from government would no longer exist. This is all part of the governments push to greater regional devolution, with alleged spending powers to match. Some bodies, such as CIPFA and LGA, have welcomed greater financial autonomy for regions seeing it as a way of decentralising control from Westminster. This is to be a brave new world of local self-determination.

Despite the claim that retention of local taxes and business rates will support local services, in practice there are still huge gaps in funding. This has led to many councils becoming commissioning bodies, rather than directly delivering services, in order to survive financially. Nevertheless, this is raising some serious questions regarding the lack of legal protection contracting out gives to service users. It also means that universal and some statutory services, such as libraries, losing out badly.

The professional bodies were slow to act to the rate of change. Both Cilip and the SCL have to accept responsibility for wanting to continue with a more conciliatory and collaborative approach in the hope of retaining influence despite the very obvious negative impact on the profession.

The abolition of the MLA with oversight being transferred to ACE made matters worse, with libraries being shoehorned into an arts-centric model they were ill-equipped to deliver. Equally, ACE were determined to deliver a prototype of libraries that fitted the government agenda, frequently commissioning Locality to inflate the voluntary sector’s ability to run them.

Both Cilip and SCL continued to drive forward valuable initiatives such as the Universal Offers, growing the Summer Reading Challenge, copyright, digital, and e-lending. These are all important areas that require professional input and partnership working but by ignoring the political consequences of austerity and the impact on the profession such  initiatives were merely papering over the schisms and strains appearing in the sector. Between 2009 – 2014 Cilip lost over 4,000 members through job losses and those leaving the body out of sheer frustration with perceived political inactivity.

Something had to give and fortunately with both the appointment of a new CEO and pressure from members Cilip has now taken a more oppositional stance to the government agenda. This has included taking legal advice regarding the Secretary of State responsibilities to libraries and the launch of the My Library By Right Campaign. I shall return to the campaign in a future post but encourage every library campaigner, user, paid staff, and Cilip member to get behind the campaign regardless of the slight misgivings some have raised (and for goodness sake sign the bloody petition!).

The SCL continue with a more conservative and conciliatory stance, preferring to work in tandem with the LGA and the  Libraries Task Force. This has led to accusations of merely helping to bring about government policy rather than standing up for the best interests of the sector.

The difficulty when discussing the SCL is the sheer opaqueness of how it operates and the lack of any clear decision making mechanisms such as how it seeks feedback and consensus from members over controversial decisions. In fact do members get to actually vote on issues at all? While it appears to derive authority from high level partnership working with the LGA, the Reading Agency, etc. it also appears to lack any democratic processes, and thus lack a mandate, to genuinely claim to speak on behalf of the wider profession.

Campaigners have led the fight against library closures. However, campaigns have been piecemeal and lacking genuine national focus. So the biggest challenge for campaigners is to articulate an alternative narrative but accepting that, while major differences exist, it needs to include an element of compromise with vested groups such as the LGA and taskforce.

If the sector has failed to produce the national strategic leadership required then campaigning groups have also failed to fill the void sufficiently.  This is not a criticism but a recognition that opposition in itself is not enough.

What is needed is one body, or campaign group, speaking with one voice, with a vision for libraries and a realistic roadmap of how to achieve it. The individual elements already exist but bringing it together into a unified narrative to challenge the government’s account is for me the single most important issue for 2016.

I started the post by referring to the fight for libraries as a battle but rather than rely on a coercive approach, through funding and ideology, as the government is doing we must instead concentrate on winning hearts and minds across the political spectrum as well as amongst the general public. To do this we need a very clear, positive, and realistic vision for libraries.

 

 

 

When is a librarian not a librarian?

There has always been a confusion in the mind of the public to what actually constitutes a ‘librarian’. From experience I know that many users refer to any and all staff in libraries as librarians. For most of my career that’s never bothered me overmuch. However, over the past few years it’s become more important as the government has tried to redefine terminology to enable the reduction and deprofessionalisation of the public library sector.

For example ‘community library’ used simply to mean a library that was part of a particular community or denoted size/level to distinguish it from larger counterparts. Nowadays the phrase has become synonymous with a library that has been riven of paid staff and run by volunteers. After all ‘unsustainable book swap run by unpaid amatuers’ doesn’t quite have the same attractive ring as ‘community library’. So in best marketing style the term has been hijacked to mask the reality.

Unfortunately, those that should be concerned with maintaining high standards of library provison: DCMS, ACE, SCL have all bought into this notion and readily propagate such disingenuous definition.

That’s why as a profession we should be cautious when terminology is subverted to suit the current political and austerity agenda. A recent newspaper article about a volunteer run library in Lincolnshire uses the term ‘volunteer librarian’. Now  I assume that this oxymoronic phrase (unless they genuinely mean qualified librarians actually volunteering!) has been coined by the local newspaper. However, all such terms need to be challenged before they gain common currency as does any other erroneous assumption that librarianship is anything other than a highly skilled profession.

I was very disappointed when the Arts council averred in Envisioning the Library of the Future that an essential ingredient of the public library was “well trained and friendly ‘people’ (my italics) to help users to find what they want…” when all evidence points that what the public actually wants is ‘well trained and friendly paid staff’. One phrase justifies volunteer run libraries, the other does not. As always terminology matters.

However, it is beholden of the profession to also be wary of accidently perpetuating such an approach. A case in point is the appointment of non-qualified candidates to professional posts. Now to be fair there is a long history within libraries of bringing in candidates with the appropriate skills set from other sectors and this is a perfectly legitimate approach in order to attract the best individual for the job. Such people can be very talented and bring much needed skills and perspective to the service.

However, it is also common for such candidate to undertake further training, perhaps through distance learning or the Cilip Chartership route, to gain qualified status. This is often a requirement for accepting the role.

What the profession needs to be vigilant of and something that should be challenged is appointing candidates to post as ‘librarian’ or equivalent without qualification or the need to pursue one. Regardless of the rights or wrongs of volunteer libraries it is the responsibility of all of us in the profession to uphold the integrity of what it means to be a qualified librarian. Anything else fundamentally undermines the concept of professional librarianship.

No one should use the term ‘librarian’ who has not earned the right to do so and this right includes being appropriately qualified.

Who’s in the house?

Although not able to attend I’m looking forward to the Cilip debate this Saturday (27th September) to discuss the proposition: ‘This House believes Local Authorities are still the best way to deliver the public library service‘, with a panel contesting an issue that might have been inconceivable only a few short years ago. After all who else would deliver public library services! But the days of such surety are long gone thanks to the austerity measures of the past four years.

I have always been open in my own views around this issue, which is that local authorities are best placed to fund or commission library services but strategic development should be left to librarians and not councillors. The continuing long list of reductions and closures hardly inspires either the profession or public to put their trust in local authorities and only strengthens my belief that decisions are driven by misplaced ideology rather than sound business practices. In many ways it is the poor decision making by councils that has given rise to the myth that librarians lack business acumen when actually the reverse is true. Many librarians would relish the opportunity to have greater control and freedom over services rather than having to implement inadequately conceived ideas driven by local political expediency.

Library services should be in the hands of the staff themselves; to shape, develop, and deliver. Librarians have the depth of knowledge, expertise and experience to run an efficient service, and one that reflects a genuine partnership of community focused, rather than community led, libraries. The best way to achieve this in the current climate is, in my opinion, through a not-for-profit trust model. I would also hazard a guess that trusts will feature in William Sieghart’s report given that he has praised the Suffolk Libraries model on several occasions recently.

In the keynote speech to Cilip members at the recent AGM Sieghart also stated that urgent action was needed over libraries and likened the situation to Beeching’s closure of railway lines. However, despite the aspirational tone of the speech the unavoidable reality is that libraries, however delivered, need sustainable funding, not only to survive but also to develop. Therefore, it will be interesting to note what funding streams are identified as part of his report and how genuinely maintainable these will be. Equally, it would be a great pity for the report to concentrate solely on measures to keep libraries open without also addressing the issue of paid staff and professional librarians as being integral to service delivery.

One of the panelists, Ian Anstice of Public Library News fame, a strong proponent of public libraries, knows better than most how under pressure services are since he is the main source of news regarding changes to libraries nationally. The fact that this is achieved in his spare time is testament to Ian’s dedication and faith in the importance of libraries.

Another panelist, Biddy Fisher, should bring an interesting perspective as trustee of the Denby Dale Library.The friends group were instrumental in ensuring that the library continued to be run in conjunction with Kirklees Libraries and retain the services of a paid member of staff (albeit for a limited number of hours per week and with funding only agreed until September 2015). The approach of using a mix of staff and volunteers is becoming more common and an explanation by Biddy of how it came about can be seen here. I am sure that the group will be hoping for the council to continue with paid staff at the library but given the current news coming from Kirklees the future is looking rather uncertain.

Obviously, any debate around the subject needs to consider the dwindling settlement each year from national government to local authorities. Added to this are the soaring costs of both adult care and children’s services, which along with the austerity programme, is forcing massive cuts and radical change within the public sector. Until the matter of funding for social care and health services is addressed at a national level, expenditure locally will continue to increase to the detriment of nearly all other services. Whoever forms the next government will have to face the politically unpalatable issue of deciding whether or not to protect health budgets while so many other services suffer. This is the real context in which reductions to local services, including libraries, is set.

Brian Ashley, Director – Libraries, Arts Council England is also on the panel, and will no doubt be representing ACE’s view. I have never disguised the fact that I think libraries have been misplaced with the Arts Council, who fail to appreciate the full scope of what libraries do and try to shoehorn them into a mismatched arts agenda. I wonder if ACE readily funded library schemes not connected to the arts how many more Library Change Lives projects could be delivered.

I am also cautious about their links with Locality in that they commission a body whose core purpose is to support and enable community organisations to research issues around public libraries. It’s difficult to accept that a predetermined bias towards community led projects does not influence the outcomes of the reports, which calls into the question the credibility of its research. Given the resources available to ACE there appears little justification for not commissioning such work from an independent research organisation. Continually resourcing studies in support of community led libraries hardly inspires trust from librarians or campaigners who believe in the statutory principle of libraries and that paid staff are an essential element of the service.

Hopefully, another panelist, Andrew Coburn, former Secretary of the Library Campaign and UNISON activist, will be bringing the opinions of both campaigners and library staff to the table.

This is a important issue and the principle of local authorities as the best way to deliver library services has very real and practical implications for how services could be run in the future, so this is more than an academic exercise and should be treated as such. Perhaps this could be used as a prelude to a policy making exercise in which the outcome helps inform the formulation of a position statement for Cilip to take forward.

Because while discussion is essential in defining ideas ultimately what good is debate without action?

Community Libraries (part one): what’s in a name?

The Sieghart review has once again highlighted the ongoing debate as to what constitutes a ‘community library’ and the value and effectiveness of such entities.

And herein lies the problem: there is no accepted definition of a community library and it means different things to different people. Until the current austerity programme the term usually referred to a library that was part of a particular community or denoted size/level to distinguish it from larger counterparts.

However, this view has been undermined and now tends to denote one that is ‘community managed’, an approach that is strongly promoted by the DCMS and by extension ACE. So to begin with we need a clear explanation of the term to ensure a shared understanding and frame of reference to enable an informed debate around the topic.

Community libraries tend to fall into two main categories: Community Managed and Community Led. That is, a library which is either run by a voluntary group outside of local authority control or one that is operated by volunteers with a lesser or greater degree of support from the local authority.

Many individual campaigners and library bodies have already highlighted the inherent weakness in both approaches not least the growth of a two-tier library service and lack of quality assurance in terms of standards and provision.

My own view is that even the term community library is a misnomer and as a concept has no place in a modern library service. Like others I believe that there is little evidence that such libraries are financially viable outside of local authority control, have robust governance frameworks, will attract the necessary long-term community support, or are credible in delivering a library service, not just comparable to paid staff, but also to justify them being part of a comprehensive and efficient service.

In response to this it is often argued that community libraries should not be compared to those with paid staff, often by local authorities themselves, which seems to suggest that councillors are happy to foist a second class service onto their own communities. Personally I think communities deserve better.

My main criticism of such libraries is that they displace funding from the parent library authority, often having the detrimental effect of hollowing out services. That is, in order to fund and maintain them resources are taken from elsewhere through the reduction of paid staff, stock budgets, opening hours, and the de-professionalisation of the service. This hollowing out effect is far more damaging to the principle of comprehensiveness and efficiency than any strategic, assessment based library closures.

Equally, the amount of staff time and resources devoted to developing and maintaining community libraries, training volunteers, and providing ongoing support far outweigh the benefits and generates hidden costs that are very rarely acknowledged by local authorities.

This is not to exclude community groups or volunteers. Libraries have a long history of community engagement and volunteer involvement. However, the best models reflect a genuine partnership of community focused, not community managed or led, libraries, with volunteers operating in value added or complementary roles.

Community libraries are based on a flawed ideological notion (the big society), reflect poor business practice, and are driven by austerity measures rather than a strategic vision for the genuine improvement of library services. This leads to many councils retaining assets such as poor quality buildings and providing a second-rate service for reasons of political expediency while inflicting damaging reductions elsewhere within the professional service.

Ultimately, community libraries are a distraction, taking up valuable time and resources, when more creative long-term solutions exist.

Sieghart…or jumping through hoops!

Well, another day and another library consultation over. Given the long list of reviews and reports into libraries over the past few years it’s hard not to be cynical and see the current one as the usual hoop exercise…as in jumping through!

That said, it would be foolish not to make a submission on the extremely unlikely chance that this is the one that will make the difference…so I’ve duly added my tuppence worth.

Feedback was asked around three questions:

  1. What are the core principles of a public library service into the future?
  2. Is the current delivery of the public library service the most comprehensive and efficient?
  3. What is the role of community libraries in the delivery of a library offer?

The fact that the report has been commissioned by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the Department for Communities and Local Government should give pause and makes me wonder what the underlying motivation is. Or to put it another way: is this the usual political machination by the government to undermine the public library service?

The scope of the review is to ‘…produce an independent report considering the current structure and role of public libraries, including community libraries, in England as well as identifying any opportunities for future delivery.’

Colour me suspicious but question two immediately raised a certain amount of disquiet. Although I have concerns about the efficaciousness of the principle of ‘comprehensive and efficient’, for many it is all that stands between library services and widespread closures (cue Lincolnshire).

Then there’s question three about community libraries. Many campaigners and observers have already pointed out that the term means different things to different people. So to begin with a clear explanation of the term is required to ensure a shared understanding and frame of reference.

However, I think it’s safe to assume that in this context the term refers to a library that is either run by volunteers/community group outside of local authority control, or operated by volunteers with a lesser or greater degree of support from the local authority.

The fact that the review blithely refers to such libraries indicates that the panel implicitly accept them as a viable model of service provision. Again, this is a reflection of current government philosophy rather than a genuine invitation to discuss the principle of so called community libraries.

Now, the report should be seen in a wider context including the fact that ACE has recently commissioned Locality to ‘…explore existing good practice and assess the further potential to enable enterprise amongst library service providers’ – for ‘library service providers’ read ‘community libraries’.

So it will be interesting to see if Sieghart does indeed produce an independent narrative or if, as I suspect, this is just another fudged report exploited by the DCMS to justify and extend the use of volunteer run libraries.