Supplementary memorandum submitted by
the Audit Commission
1. SPENDING ON
PUBLIC LIBRARY
SERVICES
At the hearing of the Select Committee last
week we were asked if we were able to identify the three highest
and three lowest spending library authorities and we undertook
to report this information to the Committee. Our source is the
public library estimates statement for 2003-04 prepared by CIPFA.
The table below shows the highest and lowest spending councils
in England together with the averages for different categories
of councils.
Public Library Statistics 2003-04 Estimates
|
| £ per '000
population
|
|
| Highest spenders | |
| Westminster | 52,218
|
| Camden | 36,863
|
| Islington | 35,303
|
| Lowest spenders | |
| Northamptonshire | 11,556
|
| Telford & Wrekin | 10,876
|
| South Gloucestershire | 9,495
|
| Group averages | |
| Inner London | 27,151
|
| Outer London | 20,813
|
| Metropolitan Districts | 17,884
|
| Unitary Authorities | 16,508
|
| English Counties | 14,805
|
|
Five councils have not completed returns and I have excluded
the Corporation of London from the analysis. Members will recognise
that spending levels of course neither represent reliable indicators
of the quality of the service nor value for money. Book stocks
perhaps unsurprisingly appear to be higher per head of population
in the higher spending council areas.
The Audit Commission as part of the CPA consultation process
is currently consulting on the inclusion of a compendium of performance
indicators, which include performance against the public library
standards but also the quality book stock indicator to test balance
and range of book stock, cost per visit, cost per book procured
and book stock levels per head of population. This is intended
to assist in giving a more rounded picture of performance. As
we stated in our evidence the sector does lend itself for more
robust examination of data; the challenge is to ensure the data
set matches the accepted and acknowledged role of the library
service which can result in meaningful comparison and judgement.
Our consultation will test perceptions of this.
2. SPENDING ON
SCHOOL LIBRARY
SERVICES
We gave evidence that there is an uneven picture of what
is being spent by local authorities on school library services.
We derived this from a review of the Section 52 budget statements
which sets out the levels of "earmarked" funding for
school library services. The appendix to this letter explains
in more detail the data which exists. We have helpfully received
an explanation from the department this week which describes why
some councils are registering a zero allocation and others are
not—in that this reflects the decision taken locally to
delegate funding to schools to determine how they spend their
budgets. The regulations around delegation and devolution of funding
are complicated. School library service spending for the primary
and special sectors does not have to be delegated. However the
appendix shows that the level of earmarked funding for school
library services has fallen by 57% in money terms over a five
year period and the number of councils that earmark at least some
portion of their budget to support school library services has
fallen by a half.
|
