According to research undertaken by the Arts Council England there are 425,
either already in operation or planned, "community supported or managed" public
libraries in England, this equates to 12% of the service.
CILIP estimated that in 2010/11 that there where 21,000 volunteers
working in England's 3,300 public libraries. The creation of 'Community
Libraries', the controversial term used to describe those that are volunteer
run, has developed at an alarming rate from a few communities with guns to their
heads to a multi-million pound ideological agenda supported and bankrolled by
the government.
Before we look at the specific agenda surrounding 'community libraries'
themselves maybe it would be worthwhile giving some background to 'localism'.
In 2011
the 'Localism Act' was introduced with an aim, according to the government, of
devolving more decision making powers into the hands of local communities and
councils.
The key
measures of the act were grouped under four main headings;
- new freedoms and
flexibilities for local government
- new rights and powers
for communities and individuals
- reform to make the
planning system more democratic and more effective
- reform to ensure
decisions about housing are taken locally
the one
that has had a major impact on Public Libraries is 'Community Rights' which can
be broken down into:
·
Community
right to challenge
·
Community
right-to-bid.
·
Community
right to build
The
Community right to challenge came into force in June 2012. This allows voluntary
and community groups, parish councils or two or more members of local authority
staff to express an interest in running a service currently commissioned or
delivered by a local authority. Where the expressions of interest are accepted,
the local authority must run a competitive procurement.
The
Community Right to Bid came into force in September 2012. The Community
right-to-bid allows communities to nominate buildings and land that they
consider to be of value to the community, to be included on a local authority
maintained list. If any of the assets on the register are put up for sale, the
community is given a window of opportunity to express an interest in purchasing
the asset, and another window of opportunity to bid.
The
whole 'localism agenda' has come under fierce criticism and is seen by many "as
a smokescreen for cuts" as highlighted in this article from
the journal 'Public Finance' dated 27/01/11
"shadow
local government secretary Caroline Flint said the changes were masking the
government’s unprecedented spending cuts.
She
said: ‘It’s a smokescreen for these cuts and particularly the frontloaded
element, which is not giving councils enough time to think and plan and look for
different ways to provide services. My big concern about this Bill is that what
is shaping local government at the moment isn’t localism, it’s the
cuts."
It
even drew criticism from the LGA;
“The
Bill also came under fire from the Local Government Association, which said the
notion of localism was ‘undermined’ by the fact that it handed more than 100 new
powers to ministers, such as the right to decide what would constitute an
excessive rise in council tax.
In 2012
the TUC published the report
'Localism; threat or opportunity?' which asked several respected figures
from the charitable and voluntary sector, as well as the IPPR and the TUC
themselves, too comment on specific aspects of the legislation and agenda.
In the
opening section, Brendan Barber, then TUC General Secretary, raises some major
concerns;
“Given
the wide scope of the legislation, we invited a number of different community
and voluntary sector groups, along with the TUC, to offer their perspectives.
This booklet therefore provides a range of views on the Act. But a unifying
theme that comes through is a shared concern about the government’s ‘big
society’ and ‘open public services’ agenda and how the creation of public
service markets and an individualist and consumer-led approach to public service
reform might lead to growing inequality within and between communities, markets
that exclude community participation, competition at the expense of
collaboration and localism that devolves responsibility and blame but not
resources or power.”
Continuing
on from this opening gambit Matt Dykes, TUC Policy Officer, raises some very
specific concerns about the ‘Community Right to Challenge’;
“The
Community Right to Challenge is a key component of the government’s Open Public
Services agenda which aims to open up local public services to a competitive
market. While couched in terms of shifting power to local community and
voluntary organisations, at best it is simply a mechanism for subjecting
services to competitive tender in an open market in which national voluntary
organisations and large private providers will also compete. Recent experience
of outsourcing under this government in the health service and through the Work
Programme suggests that private sector interests will dominate.”
And in
the section ‘Unpacking localism in voluntary action; the wider context’, Adrian
Barritt, Chief Officer, Adur Voluntary Action, raises some major
moral and ethical issues, some of which are very topical and relevant to the
‘community libraries’ debate.
“Overall,
localism is likely to result in an invidious moral dilemma for voluntary action:
to connive in the destruction of local public sector jobs by helping to engage
volunteers in provision of erstwhile public services, or to stand by and see
services vanish whilst needs remain. Another dilemma might be whether to support
a localism initiative which is under-resourced, perhaps not equitable or
sustainable, and possibly offering a lower quality of service”
Out of
this legislation and the Big Society agenda that it’s linked to comes a host of
quango-style organisations such as ‘Locality’, ‘The Asset Transfer Unit’,
The Place Station’, ‘Big Society Capital’ et al, some supported by the
DCLG, whose main purpose is to facilitate the wholesale transfer of
publicly funded, council managed services to community groups, Social
Enterprises and to those who have the time, resources and vocal dexterity to
shout the loudest.
The
‘quango’ directly responsible for pushing the agenda in respect of Public
Libraries is ‘The Libraries Community Knowledge Hub’ - http://libraries.communityknowledgehub.org.uk/, LCKH
is an offshoot of 'Locality' and the 'Asset Transfer Unit'. Membership
of LCKH starts at £75.
"This Community Knowledge Hub for Libraries brings expert guidance and
resources together with an interactive community of organisations and local
authorities involved with community managed and supported libraries. In this
way, the Hub provides an invaluable source of high quality information, along
with the latest news from communities on the ground."
"We believe that library services and buildings play a vitally important
role at the very heart of our communities, and that ‘doing nothing’ would come
at a considerable cost. However, documented good practice and specialist support
for those taking their first steps towards development of a community managed
library service is in short supply.
Locality is keen to work with prospective as well as existing community
enterprises to evolve high quality community-led library services through the
development its first Community Knowledge Hub network."
I also recently found out that Jim Brooks, Little Chalfont Community Library, is receiving funding from Nick
Hurd, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Charities, Social
Enterprise and Volunteering, to advise other communities on how to set up
volunteer run libraries!
Now I’m not going to get bogged down in the rights and wrongs and
successes and failures of volunteer run ‘community libraries’ for that I suggest
you look at the following sites;
http://www.publiclibrariesnews.com/campaigning/volunteer-run-libraries
http://questioneverythingtheytellyou.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/ingress-and-egress.html
but what I will say is that something that started with a few
communities with a gun to their heads and told “run your libraries or we’ll
close them” has turned into a multi-million pound initiative with a highly organised support network and publicity machine
behind it.
‘Community Libraries’ also have the general backing of the Arts Council,
research carried out by Locality on behalf of them clearly
outlines the guiding principles;
Community
libraries can be statutory.
There
is no single model of community
involvement
in libraries.
Most
community libraries are not
independent,
they are partnerships
with
their local council.
Community
libraries are testing new
approaches
to library service delivery.
Communities
often want to
be
involved in their libraries
(but
not always).
Community
libraries are often more
than
‘just volunteers’.
Library
buildings and assets can be
transferred
into community ownership.
“Library
services are changing rapidly at the moment. Communities have
always been
involved in their local libraries but current social trends and
the scale of
financial reductions in local government are prompting the
significant
reshaping of services and accelerating discussions about what
role
communities
might be able to play. The emerging picture is diverse but has
revealed a
strong interest from many communities in getting involved in
their
local
libraries. We make no judgements about how we ended up here, but
simply
acknowledge that change is underway.”
The
Society of Chief Librarians in their 2012/13 Annual Report mention the ACE research and the growing
trend towards ‘community libraries’ but strangely don’t include it in their list
of things they have engaged with or responded to, they also don’t mention it in
their key areas of discussion!
The LGA
published in June 2012 the report ‘Local solutions for future local library services’, which
clearly outlines their support for the model by stating that it is
“empowering communities to do things their way” not that it’s a desperate
attempt by communities to maintain services under severe pressure from savage
cuts to local government and the public sector. In the report they also peddle
the myths of ‘assisting not substituting’ and that ‘self-serve frees up staff
time’, in fact peddling myths is what the LGA excels in, they often state that public libraries are not a statutory service!
Some of
the groundwork for this was laid down by the MLA in a DCMS commissioned
report ‘Community managed libraries’ published in June 2011, which to
me clearly expresses the ideological dimension of the agenda.
“Perhaps
most of all, because the threat of closure is only one of a number of catalysts
or drivers
identified
for this process to succeed, the threat of closure is not essential. The
benefits (and issues)
inherent
in community management and support of libraries are clear from the evidence;
the door is
open
for local authorities not simply to transfer libraries to community management
to ensure
efficiencies,
but to work with communities to transition the process in a thoughtful and
strategic manner
to
create shared benefits for local government, but also local community, and local
user.”
I’ll
finish with a quote from Alan Gibbons, Author and Library Campaigner;
“Quite simply, there
is no need to abandon the ideal of a public library service, free at the point
of use and run by paid staff. Anything less is an insult to users. Yes, there
are successful volunteer libraries around the country, but fewer than
politicians in search of a Big Society might imagine. The experience of those
that run them is instructive. It is not easy and cannot be done on a wing and a
prayer.”
