Public Library System

Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe Excerpts

Tuesday 29th October 2013 Grand Committee

[Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Stevenson for providing an opportunity to debate this issue as we await the outcome of the review promised by the Government in their response to last year’s Select Committee inquiry into library closures. That review promises to tell us what the cumulative effect has been on library services of the reduction in local authority provision, and the growth of alternatives, such as community libraries. In the mean time, as my noble friend eloquently outlined, we have the benefit of insights from the Women’s Institute, whose perspective on the contribution made by community-managed libraries was published earlier this year. This drew on the direct experience of its many members who are library volunteers.

The WI does not believe that community-managed libraries should be used as a substitute for the publicly run network. In particular, it recognises that not all communities have the resources to set up and run a library, warning that if the community-run model becomes the norm, it will lead to a postcode lottery of library services. We know how effectively the WI can make its views known to political leaders. As I read its report, I could hear the echo of a slow handclap of more than a decade ago. When an organisation the size of the WI tells you that you are getting something wrong, you would do well to listen. So while I wholeheartedly support my noble friend’s tribute to the tremendous work of the WI and other volunteers, I also echo his warnings about the potential dismantling of the whole infrastructure of our library system.

Everyone appreciates that libraries are delivering their essential services in a hard financial climate. In 2011, CILIP, the Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals, showed a net reduction in total revenue expenditure of £39 million; almost 1,000 posts removed in one year; library hours per week reduced by 3,000 in one year; diminishing book stocks; and reductions in the range of services offered. Its 2012 survey showed a continuing trend of reductions, alongside changes in how services are delivered, including increasing numbers of community-managed libraries. While library closures were fewer last year, more are now being considered. Given the number of community libraries that might need to take over, if these do not materialise, the network of public libraries faces even more closure by stealth.

It is sadly true that without a willing group of campaigners to fight for their library service, the future of the library itself hangs in the balance. Often communities find that the only way to retain the service is to step in and take over the management of the library. What these volunteers seem to be telling us is that they need more support and guidance than the Government or the Arts Council have yet provided. The Arts Council England guidance published earlier this year does not go far enough.

We know that the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964 places a statutory duty on local authorities to provide a “comprehensive and efficient” public library service for their local community. As the Select Committee inquiry into library closures last year uncovered, this is open to wide interpretation and discretion at local level. What is clear is that more and more authorities are keen to adopt the community-managed model. However, volunteers are warning that authorities’ disparate approaches mean that a piecemeal library service is developing, so varying levels of service provision exist within, and between, localities. Can the Minister assure us that, in his promised review, he will provide more guidance and mechanisms for delivery to assist the growing number of communities which find themselves delivering front-line library services?

There was a lot of discussion during the Select Committee inquiry about the 1964 Act, and I certainly do not propose to repeat it here. But does the Minister agree that the 1964 Act is outdated, with its reference, for example, to the provision of gramophone records? Surely we need new statutory guidance that explicitly references the provision of access to digital media and the internet.

I will make one further point on the contribution of volunteers in our public library system. I know that volunteers can provide wonderful services that paid library staff often do not have the resources to deliver. I know of one elderly, housebound resident in a north London borough who is enormously appreciative of the volunteers who staff the home library service. A volunteer visits her every fortnight with a hand-picked selection of up to 30 books, often staying for a cup of tea and a chat. Indeed, the librarian says that without these marvellous volunteers this service would inevitably put impossible pressure on existing paid staff and would in all likelihood eventually close.

There are great examples of community libraries reporting that they are delivering improved opening times, a more flexible and fuller use of facilities, and better outreach services. But we should not be so busy applauding evidence of localism in action that we are blind to the consequences when there is no such band of willing volunteers available.

If the drive to cut budgets means that we damage our national public library system irreparably, the consequences will be far-reaching. The e-Learning Foundation says 1 million children in the UK live in homes without computers and 2 million children do not have access to the internet at home. According to a 2011 National Literacy Trust report, 23% of children do not have access to a desk at home, and this figure increases among children who receive free school meals.

Children who do not have access to books or a desk at home are more likely to struggle with reading. Libraries are places where children can overcome these barriers, through free access to books, computers and the internet, and to study areas with desk space. Libraries also offer assistance with homework. When a library closes, children have one less place where they can have a desk on which to study, one less place where they can have support to do their homework and one less place where they can read.

I do not need to point out the far-reaching consequences of illiteracy, both for individuals and society, but I was struck by a point made in a speech earlier this month at the Reading Agency, a charity whose mission is to give everyone an equal chance in life by helping people become confident and enthusiastic readers, given by the author Neil Gaiman. In it he talked about private prisons in America, a huge growth industry in that country. He said that when the prison industry plans for future growth—in other words, how many prisoners there will be 15 years from now and how many cells they will need—it found that it could predict this very easily using a simple algorithm based on asking what percentage of 10 and 11 year-olds could not read.

For adults, particularly the elderly, libraries are community hubs. Research shows that they are the trusted place to go for health support and that public library staff are second only to doctors in terms of the trust placed in them. Libraries provide non-stigmatised community space, skilled staff and assisted online access. They are also an important information hub, somewhere you can freely use the internet to find out about and apply for jobs or benefits—all information which is increasingly exclusively online. Of course, you can do all this with your mobile phone, although those of us more challenged in this area usually need the help of a grandchild or younger colleague. In libraries, that help comes in the form of trained, skilled and experienced librarians.

This aspect of the library service is not something we can deliver through untrained and poorly supported volunteers. There are limits to what unskilled volunteers can offer and what can be asked of them. Volunteers need to be given training, advice and support if they are expected to deliver library services. Without systematic support systems and a clear vision of where volunteers fit within the library network, our new models for a public library system will not serve the purpose. Can the Minister give us an assurance that he will take the opportunity in his report on the growth in community libraries to develop fresh thinking on how these volunteers can play the fullest part in a library service fit for the 21st century?