The Response of The Library Association

Briefing Paper on the Comprehensive Spending Review

Introduction

1. The Library Association welcomes the opportunity to comment on the DCMS consultation papers on the Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR). It recognises the thought that has gone into producing the proposals and the determination it shows by DCMS to "make a difference" within the remit of its portfolio. We are pleased that the document has recognised the contribution that libraries can make to the Government's educational, economic and social objectives.
2. There are two general, but inter-related, observations which underlie our reservations concerning the proposals in the consultation papers. The first concerns the sphere of DCMS influence. Clearly DCMS, as the sponsoring Government Department, has a major influence on the British Library and the Library and Information Commission. Both have leadership roles within the library and information community as a whole and, therefore, through them DCMS can exercise arms-length influence on the whole LIS constituency. The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport also has a statutory role in regard to public library services (in England). However for many parts of the LIS constituency the programmes of other Government Departments are of greater importance than that of DCMS - library and information services in schools, further and higher education naturally look to DfEE; those in health to the DOH; those in industry and commerce to the DTI; prison libraries, and parts of the voluntary sector to the Home Office; and not forgetting government and government agency libraries which look to their own Departments, the Treasury and the Cabinet Office . Even public library services will be as concerned with DETR (Revenue Support Grant and local government reform) initiatives as they are with DCMS ones. There needs to greater evidence of "joined up thinking" across government about addressing the needs of the library and information sector and exploiting its resources for the benefit of the nation. The sector cannot be satisfactorily addressed within the confines of the remit of one Department.
3. The second point is closely related to the first. Although the cultural agenda is an important part of many library and information services, this is not universally the case, and the relative importance of that agenda will vary significantly from one sector to another. Its importance to health, much of the voluntary sector, or commercial and industrial library and information services, for instance, is marginal. Therefore national and regional LIS structures which focus on culture and heritage are likely to alienate large parts of the LIS world, and put at risk the loyalty of the constituency currently enjoyed by the Library and Information Commission and some of the regional library co-operatives. This is not to deny the importance and potential of the synergy between public libraries, national libraries and a number of academic libraries with museums, galleries and the arts. This needs developing and is rightly highlighted in the DCMS consultation papers. However it must not be done at the expense of libraries support of the National Curriculum; lifelong learning; research; business; health; or community development.
4. The rest of this response examines in more detail specific DCMS proposals in the consultation documents. (The proposals are taken in the order they appear in the Libraries consultation paper).

   A new lottery stream for public libraries

5. The Library Association welcomes the recognition of DCMS that there has been "a substantial period of neglect" in replenishing the stocks of books and other materials that underpin the services provided by public libraries. The statistics produced by CIPFA and LISU both portray a sorry story of a continuing decline in the value of bookfunds which, almost certainly, has been a major contributing factor to the decline in book issues - almost 20% in England between 1985/6 and 1995/6. The continuing provision of such materials is a core part of the public library service and should be part of mainstream funding. Nevertheless we warmly welcome the proposal for additional funding from the Lottery to "help [public] libraries to renew their supply of books and materials as a one-off exercise". Great care will be needed in devising the scheme if it is not to be seen as a reward for recalcitrant local authorities which have comparatively poor investment records in their library service.
6. We would suggest that as a minimum public library authorities which receive Lottery funding should:
   • Demonstrate need through a strategic stock management policy (as recommended by the Audit Commission in Due for Renewal);
   • Address the issue of sustainability and commit the necessary funding to achieve this.

   We also believe that greater priority should be given to those bids which meet a regional need (eg a special collection or regional reference library).

7. We also welcome the possibility of Lottery funding for investment in IT infrastructure by "institutions involved in the development of lifelong learning". We have been concerned that the central government investment in the infrastructure for the public library network - £9 million from the DCMS/ Wolfson Challenge Fund - would not be adequate to encourage the necessary investment by other partners such as local authorities and the private sector. This additional source of funding might help to offset that shortfall. As it would be open to institutions involved in the development of lifelong learning it would also encourage joint projects with schools, museums, colleges and others which the sectorally based initiatives, such as DCMS/ Wolfson and the DfEE Standards Fund, are unable to address properly. It would therefore make a real contribution to achieving the benefits of the cross-sectoral approach envisaged for the National Grid for Learning and the University for Industry. As with the DCMS/Wolfson Challenge Fund, public library authorities must be asked to address the issue of sustainability and show commitment to meet associated ongoing revenue costs to support the infrastructure from mainstream funding
8. We remain disappointed that there are still no proposals for Lottery funding for public library buildings. The last full-scale audit of capital needs for public libraries in England and Wales was undertaken by the Society of Chief Librarians in 1996 and identified a total need of £612 million. There is nothing to suggest that the situation has improved since. If anything the Lottery Regulations have made the situation worse. Public libraries are not only excluded, in most instances, from Lottery grants for buildings, but because local authorities wish to maximise the returns they gain from capital expenditure they tend to favour schemes that can lever in other sources of capital finance (such as the Lottery) and disadvantage public library projects still further. We are still convinced that a Carnegie Mark 2 campaign, funded by the Lottery, is required to bring the physical infrastructure of the public library network up to acceptable standards.
9. We also have concerns about the "challenge" nature of most Lottery schemes. There comes a point where this simply rewards the successful and ignores true need. It can therefore extend the gap between high and low achievers. We may wish to comment on this further once the proposed Lottery schemes are being planned.

Immediate steps for the Library and Information Commission

10. The Library Association welcomes the intention of DCMS to strengthen the Library and Information Commission and provide it with the "critical mass" to achieve its objectives. Despite its small size we believe that the LIC has started to establish itself as an influential player within the LIS world. Its most high profile achievement has been in promoting the public library network, but there have also been notable successes in developing an overall vision for the LIS sector - the 20/20 vision statement - and the establishment of a national LIS research strategy. It has also contributed positively to the lifelong learning agenda and other developments such as knowledge management. However we agree that if it is to fulfil its potential, and realise the aspirations of the LIS community, then it needs to grow and have more capacity to undertake the work that is involved in helping to realise and advocate the strategic importance of the library and information network to the nation as a whole.
11. We support the integration of the research funding function (currently undertaken by the Research and Innovation Centre of the British Library) with the strategic research direction currently the responsibility of the LIC. The distinction between the two roles has been a little confusing and the proposal has the virtue of providing greater clarity. It will also add to the authority and influence of the LIC. However we believe that some assurances are necessary:
    • The research budget must be transferred in full. The DCMS consultation paper mentions a sum of £1.6 million . However the current research budget of BLRIC has been cut further (along with many other services of the British Library), and has been higher than £1.6 million in the past. Our understanding is that a budget of £1.9 million (a year) will be required to deliver the research plan set out in BLRIC's recent document - Research plan April 1998 to March 2001. This plan was developed in close consultation with the LIC and reflects their research framework.
    • Research should not be so closely related to policy development that only applied research is favoured, and the importance of "blue sky" or pure research overlooked. Pure research will provide the "big ideas" of tomorrow and will help shape the next 20/20 vision. * The UK-wide remit of the research function should be emphasized from the outset and appropriate mechanisms put in place for the active involvement of the LIS communities in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales as well as England.
    • The international aspects of research continue to grow in importance. Many EU initiatives, Directives as well as research and development programmes, are of relevance, and in terms of electronic networked services, developments in the US have a particular impact on UK LIS. The LIC will benefit from the advice of its own International Committee.
    • In the event of a merger of the LIC with the Museums and Galleries Commission the research funding should be ringfenced for LIS research.

    In addition some consideration should be given to the relationship between the proposed funding body and other research bodies such as the British Academy and Research Councils.

12. We also support a continuing role for the LIC in leading and coordinating the development of the public libraries IT network. As previously mentioned the LIC have established a good reputation for their work on the public library network and are in a strong position to take it forward. If they are to undertake all or some of the roles envisaged for the Public Library Networking Agency in their report, New Library: The People's Network, then they should receive the funding identified in that report to undertake the role effectively.

    Advisory Council for Libraries

13. The Library Association recognises the logic of combining the functions of the Advisory Council of Libraries with those of the LIC. We support it but with one word of caution. The LIC is meant to be a cross-sectoral LIS body, bringing together the interests of all LIS sectors and helping to create and advocate a national resource and skills-base that can be exploited to champion the UK cause worldwide in economic as well as cultural terms. The current success of the LIC's work on the public library network; the proposal to give it a leadership role in implementing the public library network; and this proposal to incorporate the role of ACL may give the LIC a very public library profile, that will interfere with its work and influence in other LIS sectors. We believe that work related solely to public libraries should be discretely handled within the LIC - perhaps by the establishment of a separate committee. This would not only allow the main focus of the LIC to remain on cross-sectoral issues, but also allow for a wider representation of stakeholders (councillors, authors, consumer interests as well as public librarians) on the committee dealing solely with public library matters.

    Relationship with the Museums Sector

14. The Library Association accepts that there is common ground between libraries, museums and galleries. However we do not believe that this area of common interest is of sufficient magnitude to justify the merging of the Museums and Galleries Commission and the Library and Information Commission. We have major reservations about this proposal.
15. These reservations are:
    • The merger would inevitably concentrate the focus onto cultural and heritage matters. As mentioned in the introduction to this response for many library and information sectors - health, commercial and industrial, voluntary sector, and Government Departments - this will be of marginal importance. There is a strong risk that they will become alienated and make it harder for the new body to take the leadership role envisaged and advise Government effectively.
    • The outlook and culture of the two professions is radically different - although neither statement is universally true, the museums and galleries community emphasis is on preservation and building up and interpreting the national heritage; that of the library and information community is on providing relevant information at the time and place clients require it - some information services will have no "stock" at all but a network of contacts and sources which they will call on as required.
    • The delivery of services is fundamentally different. Most schools, colleges and universities, for instance, will not have an inhouse museum - all will have libraries or learning resource centres. These are integral parts of the institutions concerned. They will provide the resources that underpin the curriculum covered by the institution. Increasingly, however, the skills of the staff that manage these services, in information handling and learning skills generally, are being recognised as an important element within the teaching and learning programme of the institutions concerned. They are becoming essential parts of the core business of the institutions.

    An indication of the differences between libraries and museums is evidenced by the failure of the Museums Training Institute and the Information and Libraries Lead Body to find enough common ground between the disciplines to be able to recommend forming a joint National Training Organisation for the sectors. Library and information specialists interface with a large number of other "knowledge" professions: IT; teaching; research; journalism; public relations; publishing.

16. Naturally there are also areas of common interest with Museums and Galleries. Major "holding" libraries such as the National Libraries and older universities will share concerns around the preservation of materials and collection development. This will be mirrored in the special collections held by some other libraries - notably local studies collections in public library services. Both sectors will also have an interest in records management and archives. Cultural development will be seen as a major role of most public library services, as well as by a large number of school, academic and voluntary sector libraries, but this common interest will apply to the arts as much as to museums or galleries. Issues such as IT development and copyright are also rightly identified as being important to both sectors, but this is also true of the Arts world. These areas of common interest are partial - they do not engage the whole of the library and information sector, nor do they represent a predominant part of the work of the LIS sector. The areas of common interest suggest opportunities for increased cooperation and partnership between the two sectors rather than the merger of the two national bodies. However if DCMS remains committed to the merger of the MGC and LIC then it will be important to show that the interests of the whole of each sector are adequately covered in the new body, as well as to allay the fears, expressed in both sectors, that one side will swamp the other.

    Developing a stronger regional structure for public libraries

17. The Library Association understands and supports the desire of DCMS to have a strong regional presence and to fully exploit the opportunities that will result from the establishment of Regional Development Agencies and Regional Chambers. We are pleased that the DCMS comprehensive spending review has identified resources to ensure that there is a DCMS representative in each Regional Government Office.
18. The regional structure of library and information services is a complex issue and requires a great deal of discussion and thought if the best way forward is to be found. The DCMS paper specifically mentions the Regional Library Systems. There are seven of these in England and they have the strength of being well-established and providing comprehensive geographic coverage. However they are not the only regional or sub-regional LIS structures: many parts of the country have Library and Information Plans (LIPS); Metropolitan Area Networks are emerging in a number of areas of the country with a strong library presence (and despite the name, not all are in Metropolitan areas); and the NHS has recently reshaped its regional structure, which will be reflected in the structure of its library and information services. As the consultation paper recognises a feasibility study is also being conducted into the benefits of establishing a London Library Development Agency.
19. The resulting regional system of library networks can best be described as haphazard! However most exist because they satisfy a genuine need, and any attempts at reform will have to weigh in the balance the costs attached to such reform as against the benefits likely to accrue. As the DCMS paper notes, in the case of Regional Library Systems they are voluntary associations and much will depend on how they see their own future.
20. The Library Association has no quick or easy answers to this problem. We accept the logic of a regional structure that reflects the new RDA regions. We are jointly organising a seminar on 16 November with the Library and Information Commission to look at the contribution library and information services across all sectors can make to helping RDAs achieve the objectives set out for them in the White Paper, Building Partnerships for Prosperity; the types of partnerships and structures necessary to deliver this contribution; and how RDA's might contribute to the strength of their regional library and information resources, by, for example. developing a regional information plan.
21. Although not wishing to champion any particular regional structure at this stage, nevertheless we feel the following points are important:
    • The heading for the section in the Libraries consultation paper refers only to public libraries. Although all public libraries have an important role in cultural development, other LIS sectors, notably educational, academic and voluntary sectors, would also have an interest. The current regional structure of libraries is deliberately cross-sectoral, and it would prove difficult (and would not be wanted) to disentangle public libraries from the rest of the LIS community.
    • The LIS community would want to be involved, and help shape the development of the strengthened Regional Cultural Forums. We welcome the intention to devolve some executive functions to these bodies in the future such as Lottery allocations and grant-in-aid. As noted these increased functions would require executive underpinning and have a cost attached.
    • As with the proposal for a merged Museums and Libraries Commission there are concerns about the focus being too narrow to represent the full range of interests of the LIS community. This may mean the continuation of a separate LIS regional structure, but with representation on the strengthened Cultural Forums. This point will need wider consideration within the LIS community itself.
    • Most Regional library Systems, especially those not coterminous geographically with the new RDAs, are actively considering their future and the best way forward. They would welcome the support and interest of DCMS. If change is necessary there will be a cost involved and some form of bridging support may be required.
    • The relationship of the regional bodies to the national bodies needs to be considered. The Library and Information Commission could well benefit through having formal links with regional LIS structures. As it is charged with developing a national information policy, the regional structure could have responsibility for the regional components. This would mean RLSs taking on a more overt policy development role for their regions.
22. In summary The Association believes DCMS is correct in identifying the regional issue as an important one to address. It accepts that the current Regional Cultural Forums are probably the best place to start in developing a regional cultural presence. However we believe more work will be required on how existing library regional structures can fit into this new structure, and the level of integration that will be appropriate given the wider remit of the LIS sector. We would, of course, be keen to be involved in such work.

    Links between the libraries and educational sectors

23. The Library Association supports the proposal that the LIC should establish a cross-sectoral Working Group to examine how co-operation could be encouraged between libraries and the education sector. Education is the Government's number one priority, from raising standards in schools to stimulating an environment where lifelong learning is encouraged in all parts of UK society. It is vital that the role of libraries in all sectors in helping to achieve these aims is recognised. The examples provided in the DCMS paper concentrate on co-operation between library services within and outside the formal education sector. This is important. However an even broader approach should be adopted and consideration given to more general partnerships between libraries and the education sector. This could include public libraries as informal campuses for their local FE colleges; the role of workplace libraries in supporting the UfI; more formal arrangements on access for distance learning students; and criteria for establishing networks of homework clubs. We would also see the Working Group as a possible model for exploring cross-sectoral issues with DTI and the Department of Health at a later stage.

    The British Library

24. The Library Association supports the proposal to investigate other forms of legal status for the British Library to see whether these would allow greater financial and managerial freedom. The recent BL strategic review consultation exercise highlighted the shortage of funding in relation to core activities. Although we welcome the recent announcement that there will be no charges for admission to BL reading rooms, we are concerned at the impact of possible compensatory savings elsewhere. Private sector finance may make up some of the shortfall but we suspect that what is really required is an increase in the grant-in-aid. We believe that the British Library is a vital national resource, providing Britain with a competitive edge in the global market place, and should be publicly funded at a level sufficient to enable it to provide its core services effectively. Any change in legal status should not be at the expense of allowing the British Library to lose sight of its public service role.

    A New Watchdog

25. The Library Association supports the intention of DCMS to establish a "watchdog" to monitor and improve standards of efficiency and financial management and promote quality across its areas of responsibility. We are concerned that it will be limited to bodies in direct receipt of grant-in-aid and second-tier funded bodies. We would remind the Department that it also has a statutory role in regard to the quality of the public library service in England. The introduction of the Best Value regime makes this even more important. The Audit Commission will be establishing a Best Value Inspectorate covering all local authority services, but starting with Housing. It will be liaising closely with OFSTED in regard to inspecting local education authorities and already works jointly with the Social Services Inspectorate. Now is the appropriate time for DCMS to strengthen its inspectorate role in regard to public libraries and assert its role with the Audit Commission. The increasing recognition of public libraries as a national network and national resource means, that as for schools, improving standards should be seen as a partnership exercise between central and local government. Increased concern at central government level will act as a stimulus to local authorities to put public libraries higher up their agenda.

    Royal Commission on Historical Manuscripts

26. The Library Association welcomes the proposals for clearer links between the RCHM and the LIC. However we are disappointed that the issue of archives as a sector has been totally overlooked in the DCMS consultation papers. In our view this sector warranted a paper of its own, especially in the light of the recently published National Archives Policy. The synergies and common ground between archives and libraries are at least as great, if not greater, than those between museums and libraries. There is a strong argument that archives could join libraries in an enhanced LIC. If DCMS decide to proceed with a Museums & Libraries Commission, then archives should be included. We hope that DCMS will consult separately on archives.

    Other proposals

27. The Library Association supports the proposal to leave the Public Lending Right as a free-standing NDPB. We welcome the proposal to consider extending the DCMS/Wolfson Challenge Fund with something similar after 1999/2000. In our view the funding will still be required for developing network infrastructure. However the scheme may have to be more targeted at authorities which have obviously fallen behind in developing the network and have not received DCMS/ Wolfson funding in the past. The danger of Challenge Funding is that, whereas it can encourage innovation and excellence, it can also increase the gap between the better-off authorities and others without the internal capacity to submit successful bids. We also welcome the proposal to give the LIC a strategic role in improving library services for visually impaired people. However we are concerned that this may be to the detriment of the Braille grant to RNIB of £200,000. This RNIB service supports the production of literacy and lifelong learning materials for Braille readers, and the grant is the only Government support for this programme. It has already been significantly reduced since 1991.

    Conclusion

28. The Library Association welcomes the DCMS consultation paper on the comprehensive spending review. Despite our reservations on a number of points, we recognise the significant amount of thought and work represented by the papers and applaud the courageous approach adopted. Much work remains to be done. Each major proposal has to be fleshed out - full costings have to be shown. There needs to be continuing discussions between the major sectors covered by DCMS on possible areas of cooperation and partnership and the structures necessary to make this effective. The Library Association looks forward to playing a full part in the work ahead.

The Library Association, October 1998

Notes

1. Details of the White Paper are:

Modern Public Services for Britain: Investing in Reform: Comprehensive Spending Review: New Public Spending Plans 1999-2002. The Stationery Office, 1998. (Cm 4011) (ISBN: 0-10-140112-4) £18

2. The DCMS consultation paper details are:

The Comprehensive Spending Review: A New Investment in Culture. DCMS, 1998. (Obtainable from: DCMS Public Enquiry Unit, 2- 4 Cockspur Street, London SW1P 5DH. Tel: 020 7211 6200 Fax: 020 7211 6032)

The consultation paper is also available on the DCMS webpage. The URL is: http://www.culture.gov.uk/CSRALL.HTM

The consultation paper has a number of sections which can be ordered singly or collectively. These are: Covering letter from Chris Smith; DCMS and the Regions; Museums and Galleries; Libraries; The Arts; Sport; The Built Heritage; Architecture; Tourism; A New Watchdog; and Film