105. Our principal conclusions and recommendations
are as follows:
(i) The Government's
consultation paper on public library standards was published after
we concluded taking evidence as part of this inquiry. Nevertheless,
we welcome the Government's efforts to put flesh on the bones
of the requirement in the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964
to provide a "comprehensive and efficient" library service.
We expect that the new library standards on which the Government
is now consulting will assist in driving up standards of public
library provision. We also expect that when the standards come
into force they reflect the conclusions and recommendations of
this Report (paragraph 11).
(ii) The precise role of MLAC, or "Resource"
as it now prefers to call itself, within the library sector remains
shadowy. For example, there is no reference to the role of the
new body in the Government's recently published document on library
standards. We recommend that the Government clarify the precise
roles which it expects "Resource" to perform in the
library sector as a matter of urgency (paragraph 13).
(iii) The roles for MLAC are, of course, dependent
to some extent upon the resources available to it. Lord Evans
said: "If we do not get extra resources it would have been
rather pointless forming this new organisation". We agree.
It is incumbent upon the Government to send the right signals
to the library sector by increasing its financial commitment to
the strategic body which it has chosen to create (paragraph 14).
(iv) There is a continuing tendency in some analyses
of trends in library services to stress the competition between
the book and new technology. This is a false antithesis. Their
development must be complementary not competitive. We are convinced
that the book will survive for the foreseeable future. It will
be supplemented, not superseded. The challenge for the library
sector is to ensure that the development of information technology
in libraries broadens library services and does not take place
at the expense of the book (paragraph 22).
(v) The book stock is rightly seen as central
to the quality of a library service. The DCMS has recently set
out its proposed standards to monitor expenditure on books and
other materials and the quantity and quality of the book stock.
We welcome these standards in principle, although we have not
had an opportunity to examine them in detail. We note that the
Department canvasses the possibility of determining quality "as
a percentage of the titles nominated for the major literary prizes
in the year of the report combined with a selection of the top
500 best-selling titles". We are surprised that no reference
is made in the proposed criteria for determining quality to the
popularity of books as indicated by the Public Lending Right scheme
(paragraph 26).
(vi) We recommend as a matter of urgency that
the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the Department
for Education and Employment hold discussions to co-ordinate the
supply and sources at community level of information and communication
technology with a view to ensuring public libraries take a lead
in such provision in view of their wider coverage and community
role. That pivotal role will open the way for access to public
libraries through new technology 24 hours a day, 7 days a week
(paragraph 28).
(vii) Library authorities must try to steer a
course that satisfies the competing claims for ideal opening times.
We expect the published library standards to provide local authorities
with further guidance on minimal opening hours for individual
libraries and ensure that library authorities adopt opening regimes
that take account of the needs of the client population (paragraph
30).
(viii) We recommend that any standard for the
location of libraries should be linked specifically to modes of
transport and in particular to measures of the quality of public
transport provision. We further recommend that the standards as
finally issued should require authorities to assess the community
value of individual libraries, a value which goes beyond internal
definitions of user satisfaction, even if this community value
is not readily susceptible to statistical analysis (paragraph
39).
(ix) This Committee has received many letters
expressing the concerns of library users about reduced opening
hours and library closures. Although we did not consider individual
cases of closure or reduced access, we share many of those concerns
and welcome the requirement for local authorities to "justify
library resource reductions". In addition, we consider that
no such reductions should take place without extensive public
consultation, a full explanation of the justification and full
analysis of the implications. Some library campaigns have achieved
their immediate goals in preventing closure. However, if the effect
of this achievement delays the development of improved library
services, then this Committee fears the victories of library campaigns
may prove Pyrrhic (paragraph 40).
(x) This Committee is concerned that the relevant
authorities recognise that different disabled groups have specific
and distinctive requirements for access to libraries and that
funding allocations reflect this fact. We endorse the Library
Association's suggestion and recommend that the Government seek
to expand the Share the Vision model to all disabled groups (paragraph
47).
(xi) We welcome the commitment that mobile libraries
will provide access to information and communication technology
and urge the Government and local authorities to make urgent efforts
to overcome the barriers to such access (paragraph 50).
(xii) This Committee is pleased to note that
the Annual Library Plans include an emphasis on social exclusion
issues, and trusts that that emphasis will lead to continued improvements
in this aspect of library provision. We recommend that the implemented
national library standards provide more specific guidance on the
promotion of social inclusion. We further recommend that the Government
ensure the collection and publication of comprehensive statistics
on library use by all socially excluded groups (paragraph 51).
(xiii) We recommend that the Government and the
higher education funding councils support the continued establishment
and development of collaborative, cross-sectoral initiatives between
public libraries and libraries of all institutions of higher education,
based on the principle of open access (paragraph 62).
(xiv) It is a matter for regret that the potentially
invaluable role of public libraries was neglected during the development
of the National Grid for Learning and the University of Industry.
If there is to be continuity in the delivery of information and
communication technology, it is essential that, even at this late
stage, libraries are seen to be at the centre and not at the periphery
of the delivery of these new services. However, the role now envisaged
for public libraries in Lifelong Learning by MLAC and Ministers
appears to be in line with the best traditions of the public library
service. We recommend that the Department for Culture, Media and
Sport and the Department for Education and Employment work together
with library authorities to ensure that libraries can play an
integral role within the wider delivery of Lifelong Learning and
that funding arrangements reflect this (paragraph 69).
(xv) We consider it a high priority for the Government
to ensure that the development of networks for libraries is effectively
integrated with those for other public services (paragraph 77).
(xvi) We strongly support the British Library
in its endeavours to continue its digitalisation of internationally
important books and manuscripts. We recommend that, wherever possible,
those images should be freely available on the Internet. We consider
that support for this process should be considered a high priority
for Lottery or Government funding as appropriate. It should be
the Government's avowed aim to establish the British Library as
a hub for the United Kingdom and the international library network.
This will enable the British Library to become a universal resource
rather than the preserve of a relatively small number of users
on the site—a library for the many not just for the few.
The expansion of the British Library's role should not be at the
expense of and should in no way compromise the performance of
the British Library's core statutory functions (paragraph 86).
(xvii) 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 (paragraph 91).
(xviii) 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 (paragraph 92).
(xix) 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 (paragraph 96).
(xx) 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 (paragraph 99).
(xxi) 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
(paragraph 100).
(xxii) 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 (paragraph 103).
(xxiii) We can recollect few if any inquiries
that have generated as many submissions to the Committee. That
public interest reflects both the need for public library services
and the high regard in which they are held by millions of people
(paragraph 104).
