House of Commons - Culture, Media and Sport

Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport Sixth Report

VII. FUNDING AND RESOURCES FOR PUBLIC LIBRARIES

(i) Local Authority funding for public libraries

87. Library services are funded by local authorities from the general Revenue Support Grant (RSG). Local authorities do not receive 'ring-fenced' funds for libraries and therefore there are no set spending levels for libraries by local authorities other than their statutory duty to provide a 'comprehensive and efficient service'. The LIC recognised that: "There are of course pressures on local authority finance", but stated that "public libraries ... do not enjoy the corporate profile they deserve in the local authority organisation".[240] The Library Association agreed that library services had become the Cinderella service of local authorities because the "traditional departments ... the big services ... are taking the lion's share".[241] The LIC stated that "the connectivity of services, joining in with education, is placing the public library on a level with many other services in local authorities",[242] and continued that the library service is connected to "all departments; it is involved with learning, it is involved with health, it is involved with social inclusion. Sometimes it is not perceived by the general public or always the funding authorities in terms of that very pervasive role."[243]

88. The debate on local authority services will ultimately be determined by funding considerations, and as the LGA states, "funding for public libraries has been historically precarious".[244] It also noted that "any increases in local authority finances tended not to reach the public library service".[245] Estimated net expenditure on public libraries, for 1999-2000, will be £856 million, an increase, in cash terms, of 6.3 per cent over 1998-99.[246] However, the LIC said that "it is a source of constant concern that funding is sometimes not as adequate as it should be from the local authorities".[247]

89. Library users and professionals identified the key factor in reduction of library access to be local authority funding.[248] The Library Campaign stated that library closures were often the result of "insufficient funding from the local authority", which was in turn due to the Government's failing to connect "the need to maintain and enhance library infrastructure".[249] LIC was not convinced that there had "always been adequate investment",[250] to ensure that libraries were open sufficiently long to fulfill the "role they should be carrying out in today's society".[251] Libraries for Life for Londoners stated that "central government should be responsible for ensuring that funding is available for libraries, either through the SSA [Standard Spending Assessment] or by other means".[252] The LGA did not envisage an alternative to local authority funding for public libraries,[253] but rejected a specific SSA for libraries.[254]

90. Mr Beauchamp explained that libraries have established collaborative partnerships: "there are ten regional library systems spanning the whole of the UK and Northern Ireland and there is a multiplicity of local co-operative schemes".[255] These consortia have cooperated in supportive structures for purchasing books and other resources: for example the Foursite Consortium (Bath and North East Somerset; North Somerset; South Gloucestershire and Somerset) has "benefited in cash and service terms from the joint procurement of a single computer system".[256] The LGA state that regional support for library services is an immediate challenge for MLAC and the DCMS.[257] Libraries have been able to benefit from cooperation with the private sector such as the sponsorship of the Bookstart initiative by Sainsbury's.[258]

91. We agree with the Local Government Association that it would be inappropriate for library funding to be ring-fenced by central Government. However, it should be the responsibility of local authorities to protect funding levels for libraries and ensure that they reflect properly the wider value of library services and their role in society.

92. We recommend that the Government encourages local authorities to pursue vigorously the scope for support for public libraries from the private sector through sponsorship or other means.

(ii) Funding for regional cultural centres

93. The problems with library funding are seen most acutely by local authorities that represent regional centres. Manchester City Council argues little account is taken of the "needs of the regional centre to provide and maintain the infrastructure to support business, university and commercial interests".[259] Libraries for Life for Londoners stated that London libraries suffer from under-funding partly because they have a statutory responsibility to cater for people who commute into London and use local facilities, although that additional burden is not reflected in their funding.[260]

94. In cities such as Manchester and Newcastle, the population that uses local authority services is much larger than the population that provides the tax base. Such cities face further difficulties because their boundaries exclude the more affluent suburbs and mainly encompass more deprived inner-city communities. In Manchester, for example, 94 per cent of dwellings are in Council Tax property bands A to C, with 71 per cent in band A, generating the lowest tax base of any major city in the country.[261]

95. Mr Howarth confirmed: "There is power under the 1964 legislation ... for other library authorities in the region served by a library that could be regarded as a regional facility ... to contribute to the costs of running that library. It is not a power that they like to avail themselves of ... we have to find ways that are more effective than the ways we have so far found to encourage that to take place."[262] The legislation allows "for one authority to contribute to the expenses of another authority".[263] He was ambivalent about applying other inter-authority funding proposals, such as a levy or precept, to libraries, stating that: "I can imagine many difficulties in establishing such a [levy] regime, but I think that we should make efforts through diplomacy to achieve a better pooling of responsibility".[264] Mr Howarth was more enthusiastic about "the trust model ... permitted under the legislation".[265] Mr Howarth described an example of a trust "to which public authorities, entities in local government and other public agencies, do contribute".[266] He continued that he hoped that the Regional Cultural Consortia would bring the relevant organisations together and promote their "mutuality of interest" and "negotiate deals, get them to make commitments", leading to a solution that was "fair and reasonable and that would be sustained over a period of time and would enable the organisation that needs the funding to plan and run itself better".[267]

96. The duty on an authority to provide free access to libraries is "enshrined at the very heart" of the public library system.[268] It therefore seems anomalous that libraries in major cities, which provide such free access for everyone, should suffer financially for their success. Although the concept of a contribution for libraries in regional centres from neighbouring authorities, has benefits, it may lead to the contributing authorities merely reducing their own library services in order to fund the contribution. The Government is currently reviewing the system of local authority funding. We recommend that the review of local authority funding should specifically examine the funding of regional cultural facilities, including libraries, and consider whether adjustments to the Revenue Support Grant formula should encompass the additional cost burden of such facilities that serve a wide population. We further recommend that local authorities be permitted to charge for library services provided to businesses located outside the geographical area of the funding local authority.

(iii) Local authority income from libraries

97. Library authorities have considerable powers to charge for services under the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964. Although the basic book-lending service is free, libraries may charge for additional, related functions such as notification and late returns and the lending of non-print material or reproduction of non-print items such as a print-out from an electronic database. In 1998-99, public libraries generated an income of more than £76 million. The sources of that income included charges for overdue items of almost £18 million, fees for hire of audio or visual items of more than £18 million and revenue from information technology of just under £1 million.[269]

98. Mr Beauchamp confirmed that "local authorities may charge for basically anything other than the book lending and reference service ... but the amount and the incidence of the charge is entirely at [the authority's] discretion".[270] The additional income that public libraries can generate is welcome. However, Mr Howarth thought that it would be "regrettable ... if they begin to rely in what seems like a disproportionate way on that particular source of income".[271]

99. Library authorities are at present entitled to charge for networked and multimedia services. However, while it is true that charging for networked services may regulate demand for a popular service, we believe that networked and multimedia services must now be regarded as core services of public libraries together with books. Present policy separates them through charging whereas they should all be regarded as staple services. That being so, although Mr Howarth doubted that charging would exclude some users, we consider it is now time to assert that Internet and multimedia services are as much core library services as books. Therefore, we recommend that there should be no charges placed on networked and multimedia services.

100. These issues are considered inadequately in the Government's proposed library standards. We recommend that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport seeks to develop further standards relating to charges and fine income before implementing its library standards.

(iv) National Lottery funding

101. The National Lottery contributes to the library service through the New Opportunities Fund (NOF), which provides funding streams to train public library staff in information technology. A separate NOF funding stream is available for training teachers and school librarians in information and communication technology. NOF has also made funds available for the creation of digital content to be delivered over the People's Network.[272] NOF is providing a Community Access to Lifelong Learning (CALL) stream from which libraries may benefit. CALL will fund the development of learning centres and network infrastructure throughout the United Kingdom.[273]

102. The LGA said that the cost of maintaining library buildings was a major drain on library authority budgets. It added: "While capital funding has become available for other cultural facilities via the Lottery, there are no equivalent sources in the library sector".[274] Capital spending on library buildings also suffers because local authorities cannot attract matching lottery funding for libraries.[275] The LGA pointed out that: "Libraries could face the ironic situation of housing state of the art technology in crumbling Victorian buildings".[276]

103. We sympathise with the LGA's concern. Libraries are at the periphery for more than one Lottery funding body, but appear to be the central concern for none of them. It would be unacceptable for libraries to continue to fall between the cracks. We recommend that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport as a matter of urgency should allocate funding of libraries to a specific National Lottery fund.

240 Evidence, p 2. Back

241 Q 24. Back

242 Q 1. Back

243 Ibid. Back

244 Evidence, p 30. Back

245 Ibid. Back

246 Public Library Statistics 1999-2000, p 2. Back

247 Q 1. Back

248 Evidence, pp 13, 37, 104, 115. See also Access to Public Libraries. Back

249 Evidence, p 37. Back

250 Q 2, 4. Back

251 Q 2, 3. Back