Heritage Lottery Fund enquiry
Library Association response

The Library Association is pleased to provide a few points for the Culture, Media and Sport Committee to consider in their enquiry into the Heritage Lottery Fund.

The Library Association

The Library Association is the professional body for library and information specialists working in all sectors of the UK economy. We have 26,000 members, including many who manage special collections of heritage value. Under the terms of our Royal Charter we have a duty to promote the improvement of skills and qualifications of librarians and information personnel; to promote the better management of library and information services; to encourage the maintenance of appropriate levels of library and information services throughout the UK; and to scrutinise legislation affecting library and information services.

Applications to Heritage Lottery Fund

First we would like to acknowledge the undoubted benefits that a number of Heritage Lottery funded projects have brought to libraries and the nation. Recent examples include the National Library of Women to be developed at the Guildhall University in London (based on the Fawcett Collection); the Surrey History Centre; and the grant to put the catalogue of the Working Class Movement Library in Salford onto the World Wide Web. These, and many other projects, will help to preserve the documentary evidence of our rich heritage and make it more accessible to the public.

We note that the Library and Information sector has been slow, in comparison with other sectors, to take advantage of the Heritage Lottery Fund and submit bids. We will do all we can to encourage more applications from the sector and welcome the increased efforts of the Heritage Lottery Fund itself to engage with the Library and

Information Community and encourage the submission of bids. However there are still concerns voiced by our members, particularly in private and learned societies, about eligibility criteria and the processing of bids. In particular they are concerned about:

The definition of "public good" - precisely what is required of libraries in private and learned societies to satisfy this requirement? Although it is right that improved public access should be granted in return for the investment of public money, many have concerns as to the extent of public access required (internet access?; prior appointment only?) to satisfy the Heritage Lottery Fund and how this will impact on their service to their primary client groups.

Standards - What professional standards are used when assessing bids? It would be helpful for applicants to know which standards they should adhere to prior to submitting bids.

Retrospective Cataloguing - Many have expressed concerns that retrospective cataloguing projects appear not to be eligible for HLF grants as they are regarded as part of the "normal" work of the library. In practice most libraries regard extensive retrospective cataloguing as discrete projects which are additional to normal activity. In the case of "historic" libraries the additional work may be substantial and involve integrating collections which have been catalogued and classified to a variety of schemes and standards over the years, as well as parts of collections that remain to be properly organised. The creation of an integrated catalogue is, in itself, a major contribution to improved access.

Feedback - There is also concern that projects which might fail in one round of bids (because of the competition) could well have succeeded in another round. Feedback on projects, and on whether to resubmit would be useful

"At Risk" Collections

One major area of concern we have relates to "at risk" collections. Many of the special collections that contribute to our nation’s heritage are not held in major institutions with extensive resources of expertise to manage and conserve special collections, but are held by individuals, or small voluntary societies such as Parish Councils or private and learned societies. Although often local or regional in content these collections are of national importance. Unlike the university sector (where top-sliced funding from the Higher Education Funding Councils has been made available for major research collections) there are no national schemes for the upkeep of such collections, and therefore the Heritage Lottery Fund assumes a greater importance to them. In many cases the library has outstripped the resources of the parent body to properly maintain it; in others the library may not be seen as central to the concerns of the organisation (this can even be the case with special collections in public libraries where funding constraints may mean that other more heavily used services are given priority); in a few cases the collection may even be seen as an asset that can be realised to help a parent body through bad financial times. Often it is only a small investment that is required to conserve and develop a collection and make it more accessible to the public. However even at this level the requirement for "matching" funding can be a problem and greater leeway needs to given for "in kind" contributions. We believe that a more pro-active and interventionist policy needs to be adopted by the Heritage Lottery Fund (and others) to address this constituency - otherwise valuable collections are likely to deteriorate further and may even be dispersed and lost to the nation.

It is important that the Heritage Lottery Fund should actively invite bids from this constituency. Some work has already been done in identifying such collections. Library Association Publishing has recently published a revised version of A Directory of Rare Book and Special Collections in the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland edited by B. C. Bloomfield; Michael Perkin is compiling a register of Parish Libraries; and other research is being undertaken specifically to identify collections at risk (with funding from the Heritage Lottery Fund as well as The Library Association). However such an approach should include more than simply inviting these organisations to apply for a grant. The Heritage Lottery Fund will need to be assured that the organisation concerned has the necessary expertise to manage the collection effectively. In some cases the organisation itself will require professional advice before it can put in an application. An infrastructure needs to be put in place to enable this to happen. The Library Association would be happy to work with the Heritage Lottery Fund and others to investigate how this could be done.

Public Libraries

A further concern is more general. It relates to the totality of Lottery money available through the five "good causes" (soon to be six with the New Opportunities Fund) for public libraries. At the moment, unlike sports halls, museums, theatres or arts centres, public libraries as public libraries are ineligible for lottery money for building refurbishment or new complexes. The Heritage Lottery Fund will only fund such work where a library is in a listed building. The outcome is that public libraries are doubly disadvantaged: through the rules of additionality they are excluded, in most cases, from Lottery grants in the first place, but as local authorities are seeking to gain as much benefit as possible from their limited capital funds (such as match funding from the Lottery) they also lose out in capital financing from local authorities. In 1996 the Society of Chief Librarians undertook a capital needs audit of public library services in England and Wales. It showed that over £612 million of capital expenditure would be required over a five year period to bring the public library infrastructure up to an acceptable standard. There has been no evidence of an improvement in capital investment since 1996 and, if anything, the situation is now likely to be worse. We believe that this issue needs to be addressed urgently and that some form of "Carnegie Mark 2" campaign is needed to undertake essential capital work on library buildings to ensure that they provide an attractive environment for users (which includes 60% of the population of the UK).

I hope these comments will prove useful to the Select Committee.

Guy Daines
Head of Professional Practice
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES DIRECTORATE

30 June 1998