December, 2009
A tale of two Reviews
It was the best of reviews. It was the worst of reviews.
Monday, November 30th brought us the result of Sue Charteris’ report into Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council’s decision to close eleven of its branch libraries, some half of the network. The report represents a stunning vindication of the arguments put forward by opponents of the council’s proposals. These are some of the most important conclusions:
*Wirral MBC’s decision was “in breach of its statutory duties” under the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964. These duties boil down to the need to: “provide comprehensive and efficient Public Library services for all persons desirous to make use thereof.”
*The council: “failed to make an assessment of local needs.”
*The council failed to meet the specific needs of adults. The groups mentioned in the Charteris report are the disabled, older people, those living in deprived areas and the unemployed.
*The council failed to meet :“the general requirements of children.”
*The report condemns the: “absence of a strategic plan” for the borough.
*There was: “no clear understanding of the extent and range of services” provided by the Library Service on the Wirral.
*There was a specific failure with regard to “deprived communities.”
*There was no: “adequate plan for and commitment to comprehensive outreach services.”
*There was a “lack of logic” about which facilities to close.
This amounts to a comprehensive condemnation of the council’s whole project with regards to libraries. The Charteris report says explicitly that the letter-writing campaign had an influence on the inquiry’s conclusions. She also states categorically that just because her report doesn’t mention certain libraries, this is not a red light to move against them. The 90-page report is rigorously argued and should be a signal to library campaigners that their arguments can have an effect. In the report’s conclusions there are two significant pointers to the future, which should figure in thinking about libraries: firstly, that there should be a needs assessment before any major changes take place and secondly, that there should be a thorough-going consultation process.
It should, of course, be remembered how we got to this point. It was not due to the largesse of the then Secretary of State Andy Burnham. His first instinct was that he was ‘not minded’ to launch an inquiry. Public pressure changed his position as indicated in Sue Charteris’ report so that he eventually was minded. Most importantly, hundreds attended the council’s fake, fig leaf consultation meetings to make their views known, 1,000 people marched, hundreds lobbied, 50,000 signed petitions and many more bombarded Burnham with letters. In short, campaigning works. We face a squeeze on public spending but Wirral demonstrates that victories can be won.
Sadly the DCMS statement on the Wirral report has muddied the water in the aftermath of publication. Culture Secretary Margaret Hodge has blatantly ducked the Charteris’ conclusions, leading campaigners to think that we will have to fight very hard to see the principles set out in the report truly inform Government thinking. Surprise, surprise!
Still, as Campaigner and journalist Laura Swaffield says, councils have been told clearly how to proceed when considering the future of libraries:
(1) FIND OUT ABOUT THEM and (2) CONSIDER THE PEOPLE AFFECTED (3) ASK THEM WHAT THEY THINK’.
In comparison, the DCMS review is starting to feel horribly like a damp squib. Amid much talk of empowering, informing and enriching, the key questions of leadership, engagement with the community, the resourcing of quality services, the development of up to date environments and the professional development of the librarians working with the public don’t seem to feature much. Cilip’s Bob McKee systematically dismantles the way the DCMS review has been handled in an excellent post reproduced on www.alangibbons.net. To show that the threat to libraries has not receded in spite of the Wirral report twelve libraries are now under threat in the North East. Once again, there are details on my Blog.
Campaigners will have to continue pressing for concrete action rather than touchy feely gobbledegook. I have posted a provisional response on my Blog. Please comment and I will redraft before sending it in as the formal reply from the Campaign for the Book. I would urge everyone to respond to the review, raising the real concerns of library users:
libraryreview@culture.gsi.gov.uk
Wirral by-election result
The first by-election since Wirral council’s U-turn on the closure of eleven libraries has been held in Moreton. Unsurprisingly, the Conservatives, as the largest and most visible party opposing the closures, benefited from public outrage at the Labour/Lib Dem council’s attempt to impose draconian cuts. Alec McFadden of Wirral TUC stood on an anti-cuts platform and almost overhauled the Liberals whose leaders backed the closure programme. More anti cuts candidates are due to stand in the May elections.
|
Candidate |
Votes |
|
Andrew Wayne William Hollingworth (Labour) |
615 |
|
Alec Mcfadden (Independent) |
121 |
|
Jim McGinley (Green) |
92 |
|
Steve Pitt (Liberal Democrats) |
134 |
|
Stephen Michael Williams (Conservative) |
2255 |
8 votes rejected
Thwarted over library cuts, the council seem to be targeting other areas, On Saturday, 5th December from 10.30am to 2.30.pm in Wallasey Town Hall, Wirral Against the Cuts have a special conference on keeping the region’s parks public and opposition to privatization.
Entries (RSS)
December 3rd, 2009 at 8:27 pm
No minister orders a public inquiry lightly, and imo it was absolutely proper for Burnham to initially be ‘not minded to’.
He did order it though.
I just wonder, given the Conservative aspirant government’s desire to ‘localise’, ‘clarify’ the meaning of ‘comprehensive and efficient’ library services.., and otherwise attempt to evade responsibilities…….. , how easy might it be to get them to call a public inquiry in the event that they get their greasy fingers on power.
December 4th, 2009 at 9:56 pm
Andrew,
In my opinion, Burnham was most definitely wrong to refuse the inquiry the first time round and I told him so in writing. All credit to him however that he did change his mind. No matter who is in Government after May, New Labour budget cutters or New Tory budget cutters or even Cleggite ‘Savage Cutters’, we will have to fight hard for public services such as libraries, especially if the privatisaion/localisation front is pushed even more strongly. I suspect that a major focus will be defending the 1964 Act itself. This is now being targeted by some in local government, led by the Wirral’s New Labour council leader Steve Foulkes. The great tragedy of this situation is that not one of the three major parties stands for robust action against the bankers, not one of them really recognizes the injustice of slashing public services to protect the casino madness of the City, not one of them is seeking to ‘roll out’ the lessons of Sue Charteris’ excellent report. Library users will get only what they are willing to fight for.
December 5th, 2009 at 8:23 pm
Alan
Actually, I rather thought that a primary result of the Wirral enquiry was that Foulkes had been completely discredited.
As I understand the 1964 Act, a huge part of why public libraries are a statutory responsibility, and also why the act states ‘comprehensive and efficient’ is quite specifically to prevent libraries from becoming subject to local political and economic convenience.
So it is easy to understand why the Conservative party intends to undermine the 1964 Act, or perhaps institute a ‘review’ process designed to achieve the same objective.
I see no equivalence between parties, when one has traditionally been supportive of public service, and another which has traditionally despised public services.
December 5th, 2009 at 8:36 pm
Andrew,
Historically, Labour may have been pro public service- my old Labour family were a classic product of the Attlee-Bevan agenda- but in recent years I’m afraid it no longer washes. The whole Blair project was built on the idea that private profit was the driver of ‘reform.’ This idea has led to a shrivelling of Labour’s base, given room for the BNP to grow, and created a ‘Butskellite’ convergence between the parties. If Brown has any sense he will shift Labour back towards its roots but I am not holding my breath.
December 7th, 2009 at 9:53 pm
Alan
I’m sorry , this is not history we’re talking about. At least , with, for example the London libraries stuff, the proposals can be challenged. And the current government have quite specifically demonstrated that they are prepared to uphold the Act
The purpose of Conservative policy , and actions, is to ‘localise’ , undermine the 1964 Act , and make it impossible to challenge proposals.
In a few months time there is an election. Which do you prefer ?
December 8th, 2009 at 3:31 pm
Oh, that’s easy. I am a life long socialist. I just wish Labour were more so!