Library Closures - Culture, Media and Sport Committee Contents


2  A comprehensive and efficient service

Defining a 'comprehensive and efficient service'

29.  The 1964 Act requires local authorities to provide a "comprehensive and efficient" library service for local people.[38] Neither of these terms is defined in the Act, and both are open to widely varying interpretation.[39] In 2005 our predecessor Committee conducted an inquiry into public libraries and in its Report said that there was "need for more clarity as to what constitutes 'comprehensive and efficient' service and what action will be taken when this criterion is not met".[40] The 2005 Report went on to recommend that the DCMS should review the case for new library legislation.[41] However, in its response to the Report, the DCMS said that it did not see a compelling need for new legislation.[42] Currently, as a number of judicial challenges are being brought against local authorities' decisions to close libraries and/or make other cuts to library services, the definition of 'comprehensive and efficient' is becoming a legal minefield.[43]

30.  Opinions among our witnesses differed, however, as to whether it was desirable to have a clearer definition of the core criteria for a comprehensive and efficient service and, if so, whether it should be provided through statute, through guidance from the Secretary of State, or left to local authorities themselves (with the backstop of judicial review). Andrew Coburn, of The Library Campaign, argued that, while the final decision had to rest with the local authority, "Nationally there needs to be assistance, guidance and possibly something stronger than that". He lamented the demise in England of the public library standards drawn up by the DCMS (they have been retained in Wales).[44] Our predecessor Committee summarised the library standards in its 2005 Report, and suggested some additions. An outline of the then standards is set out in the textbox below.
Library service standards in 2005

The top ten Public Library Service Standards with which library authorities had to aim to comply in 2005 related to:

i.  the proportion of households living within a specified distance of a static library;

ii.  aggregate scheduled opening hours;

iii.  the percentage of static libraries providing access to electronic information resources connected to the internet;

iv.  the number of electronic workstations with access to the internet and the libraries catalogue;

v.  dealing with requests;

vi.  number of library visits;

vii.  adults' satisfaction rates;

viii.  children's satisfaction rates;

ix.  number of books and other items acquired annually; and

x.  time taken to replenish the lending stock.

Standards which were omitted in 2005, but had been incorporated in those published in 2001, referred to: book issue periods; the number of books permitted to be borrowed at any one time; the number of visits to library websites; levels of success in finding a specific book or gaining information; and other types of satisfaction rates.

Our predecessor Committee said it had sympathy with those who wished to see the standards strengthened and the list extended. It recommended that the list of standards should be extended and/or revised to include measures of: the number of adult and children's book loans; the provision of material for users with disabilities; extended opening times; value for money and the three Es (efficiency, effectiveness and economy—including the balance of management and frontline staff); free access to the internet; and the quality of user consultation (and subsequent action).[45]

31.  The Public Library Service Standards shared the flaws of those imposed elsewhere in the public sector, in that they concentrated on the measurable rather than giving a rounded indication of the quality of service—let alone its responsiveness to changing customer needs and demands. It is noteworthy that most of our witnesses wanted a broader and more permissive approach on the interpretation of 'comprehensive and efficient'.

32.  CILIP argued in its submission that the Government should set out a "fresh vision for the 21st century public library service defining what comprehensive, efficient and accessible mean and forming a basis for local planning and delivery".[46] We noted the addition of the word 'accessible'. Annie Mauger of CILIP suggested that the Secretary of State should set out a framework for what a public library service should provide and how the needs of the local community should be assessed, but that it should then be for the local authority to decide how to deliver that.[47] Alan Davey of the Arts Council was of the view that it was necessary to have a debate about what a comprehensive service would comprise, but he also considered that guidance should be in the form of a framework rather than a detailed prescription.[48] The Minister thought that enough guidance had been made available already, given the cumulative effect of the Charteris Report, the guidelines published by the Museums, Libraries and Archives Council and CILIP's advice.[49] Despite this, a number of library authorities have had to curtail their plans for changes to their local services in the light of judicial reviews and discussions with DCMS officials.

33.  Sue Charteris and the representatives of the local authorities argued for greater confidence in the ability of local authorities to judge local needs.[50] The Local Government Association emphasised that not only did local needs differ widely, but also any attempt to give a detailed statutory definition of service standards would soon fail to reflect changes in technology and broader social changes: the example often cited was that the 1964 Act required libraries to supply gramophone records, while, unsurprisingly, there is no requirement in the Act in respect of digital material or services.[51] Local authorities therefore regarded the prospect of central government defining 'comprehensive and efficient' as imposing a "straitjacket" and "immediately building in obsolescence". They argued that councils must ultimately take the decisions; accountability for those decisions would be through the ballot box. They accepted that this model required individual councils to make it very clear what they considered a 'comprehensive and efficient service' to comprise, so that they could be held fully to account.[52]

34.  In February 2012, the Arts Council launched a consultation called Envisioning the Library of the Future, which was intended to discover the value which the public placed on library services, to provide an overview of trends in society, and to provide information about best practice—and, indeed, innovative developments that, for some reason, it had been difficult or impossible to implement. The consultation included desk research, interviews with a carefully selected cross-section of professionals and users, seminars and workshops, and an online public consultation. Interim conclusions were published in March and May, and the final report will be published this autumn.[53] The Chief Executive of the Arts Council admitted that it would have been very useful to have completed this work before local authorities had had to start making decisions about the future of their library services, but "we are where we are".[54]

35.  The professional librarians have also given serious consideration to what constitutes a good library service: CILIP distributed a leaflet on the subject to all local authorities and councillors in 2010.[55] CILIP stated it was willing to work with the Arts Council and the Secretary of State to help formulate guidance to local authorities about the way in which they should approach the construction of a comprehensive and efficient library service.

36.  Local authorities are having to take decisions now about the funding and shape of the library service but a number appear insufficiently aware of the available guidance on the definition of 'comprehensive and efficient'. They also appear to lack information about the requirements emerging from multiple judicial reviews. It is not cost-effective for policy to be made by judicial review and it undermines democratic accountability. While we are firmly of the view that decisions ultimately are for local authorities in the light of local needs, the provision of public libraries is mandatory and local authorities should be assisted to understand what is expected of them under the Act and subsequent guidance. We recommend that the Secretary of State provide all local library authorities with the guidance arising from the Arts Council's consultation exercise as swiftly as possible, and to take that opportunity again to remind local authorities of the recommendations of the Charteris Report.

Assessing local needs

37.  When asked what they want of libraries, the public tend to answer more access (which is a question partly of the location of services and in part of opening times) and more books.[56] However, all our witnesses were of the view that libraries provided a number of benefits to the community in addition to access to books and reference materials, and those championing library services were especially anxious that these wider considerations should be taken into account in assessing local needs.

38.  It was failure to make adequate needs assessments that led the High Court to rule against Gloucestershire and Somerset County Councils' library closures in November 2011. In his ruling, Judge McKenna said that, in order for the councils to have known whether they would still be compliant with Section 7 of the 1964 Act after closing libraries, they would have had to properly analyse:

the library related needs of people living in particular areas, the needs of particular groups of people and the particular ways in which people use libraries in different contexts. Further, in order to design a comprehensive and efficient service it was necessary to assess such factors as who used libraries in particular areas, what they use them for, when they use them and how they travel to them.[57]

Judge McKenna went on to say that this assessment must also take into account "persons with specific needs such as the elderly, the disabled, the poor, the unemployed and parents of children", and that both councils' assessments had fallen short of what was required.[58]

39.  A number of witnesses suggested that the best guide to how local authorities should approach an assessment of local needs was the Charteris Report. Sue Charteris's inquiry into the library service in the Wirral concluded that the local authority was in breach of its duty to provide a comprehensive and efficient service. The primary reason for this breach was "that the Council failed to make an assessment of local needs (or alternatively to evidence knowledge of verifiable local needs) in respect of its Library Services".[59] She further considered that the Council had taken the decision to close 11 of its libraries "in the absence of a strategic plan or review of the Library Service" and "without a clear understanding of the extent and range of services [then] being provided in the libraries". She found there had been a further breach in relation to the needs of deprived communities, and a key concern was that there had been no adequate plan for and commitment to a comprehensive outreach service. Without an assessment of needs and a strategic Library Service review, the Council had "displayed a lack of logic around why some facilities were recommended for closure and not others".[60]

40.  She concluded that there was a strong case for reviewing the decision to close 11 libraries and for retaining at least some physical presence at some sites earmarked for closure. The criteria for selecting sites where some physical presence should be maintained were that the library was located in an area of significant deprivation; and/or had inter-dependent links with schools or children's centres; and where the Council had:

  • changed its decision on which libraries to close; and/or
  • identified an area of need but "subsequently chose to ignore this information"; and/or
  • failed to meet its own standards in terms of a reasonable distance to travel.[61]

41.  The Charteris report set out proposals for the sort of analysis local authorities should be doing to assess local need. We reproduce the relevant passages in the textbox below. In her written evidence to us, she highlighted several key principles, drawn from her practical experience of working with local authorities:

  • Comprehensiveness did not mean "a library on every corner" or "blanket coverage"—it depended on a needs assessment matched against the resources available for the service;
  • The needs assessment would enable the council to show it had acted reasonably in drawing up new plans for its services. This did not mean that it would not still have to make difficult and/or unpopular decisions;
  • The analysis should be made in accordance with the Equality Act 2010, particularly the requirement for a thorough equalities impact analysis of any proposed changes to that model of delivery and evidence that the authority had sought to mitigate any adverse impact identified on protected groups;
  • The assessment of local need should cover the existing service configuration and any proposed changes. It was highly unlikely that the existing pattern of delivery fully met local needs and the analysis was therefore helpful in drawing up potentially different models of delivery.[62]

Charteris Report paras 6.26 - 6.28

While the analysis of local needs may involve a shifting set of circumstances and a developing methodology over time, I would currently reasonably expect an analysis of needs to be based on:

  • consideration of the wide range of those needs caught by the definition of all those who live, work and study in the area, and the specific needs of adults and children and young people of all ages;
  • an assessment of accessibility—drawing on travel data including car usage data, public transport routes and the cost of services;
  • consideration of the views of existing users, and an attempt to analyse the reasons and motivations of non users and how their use could be encouraged;
  • an assessment as to whether there is any differential impact (via an equalities impact assessment) on whether any specific communities or groups would suffer any adverse impacts as a result of the changes to the service; and
  • consideration of information from partner organisations and other departments, including reference to learning strategies for children and adults, links with social and adult care, and employment initiatives.

I would also expect there to be a consideration of new and or amended ways of operating the service that might be more efficient. Currently, this might reasonably include an assessment of:

  • whether the library buildings are fit for purpose, and/or in the right place to serve the needs of the community;
  • whether there is scope for more effective use of resources, through for example flexible staffing arrangements, self-issuing, or the Community Asset Transfer model or partial model;
  • whether there is scope to provide the service more efficiently via delivery partnerships within and outside of the authority, for example through Service Level Agreements (SLAs) with other council functions;
  • whether there is demand for the services in the way that they are currently offered;
  • whether the buildings are beyond their useful life and what the scope of shared facilities might be;
  • whether a physical presence is necessary, taking into account the particular needs of that community, and if it could be replaced by other means such as a mobile service; and
  • whether steps are needed to encourage use of library provision.

While this is not an exhaustive or definitive set of criteria, I would expect a 'reasonable' authority to use such evidence, together with an assessment of resources available, to devise a comprehensive vision and development plan for the service, which addresses these considerations within the development plan. It may, having done this, still draw different conclusions than those others might draw, and it might make decisions that are unpopular, but importantly, these decisions would be based on evidence which could be used to demonstrate the comprehensiveness and efficiency of the service provided by reference to demonstrable need and resources.

42.  We were told that further guidance on how to undertake a needs analysis had been produced recently by the Arts Council which had updated the recommendations from the Future Libraries Programme initiated by its predecessor.[63] These recommendations include the preparation of Equality Impact Assessments to ensure the rights of protected groups, as required under the Equalities Act 2010.

43.  When she gave evidence to us, Sue Charteris's concern was that the current situation made it more difficult for councils to take rational decisions based on a thorough assessment of local needs and a wide consideration of options. Given the pressure on local authorities to make budgetary decisions swiftly, and without more guidance to them from the Secretary of State and possibly the Arts Council (particularly on the conclusions to be drawn from the various judicial reviews), she feared that some councils would decide it was too difficult to close library buildings and would look to reduce funding to other elements of the library service, without regard to whether this was more damaging to the principles of comprehensiveness and efficiency.[64] Her prescription for ensuring a comprehensive and efficient service continued to be a proper assessment by councils of local needs, taking into account the requirements of different groups of the population and such issues as access and deprivation, and ideally bringing local communities into the decision-making process.[65] Such an assessment had to start with a good understanding of what libraries were doing at present, and then to consider the provision of those services in the round by taking into account what other facilities there were locally that might provide an alternative location for those services and which facilities were best placed to meet local needs.[66]

44.  The supporters of library services did not disagree with this view — they even suggested that in some places library services had improved thanks to a more creative use of resources by local authorities[67]— but they were far more sceptical about the willingness and the ability of all local authorities to carry out such an assessment of local needs.[68] Abigail Barker of Voices for the Library said:

Lots of cuts have been made with no thought of the needs of local residents. There have been consultations that were basically, "If you do not step forward and run your libraries, they will close." People were not asked, "How and when do you use your library? How could we improve it? If we closed earlier in the week and it meant we could open at the weekend, how would you use it?" In Suffolk, there are libraries that open in schools on a Saturday and Sunday that nobody uses. Of course cuts need to be made, and we are not saying that the library service should be immune from cuts, but why not close those libraries that are not used at the weekend and save or put the money elsewhere?[69]

She also implied that some councils did not sufficiently consider that they would have to provide some services whether or not libraries were kept open, noting, for example, the need to provide access to online reference databases, which would still have to be paid for whether or not they were part of the library budget.[70] Andrew Coburn of The Library Campaign emphasised that local users and campaign groups had to be given access to information about the existing service in order to make a rational decision about options and to suggest alternatives. Anything less, he said, was not true consultation.[71]

45.  The representatives of local authorities agreed that a needs assessment and proper consultation with the public and library professionals were crucial.[72] Nigel Thomas gave us a good example of how a library authority should go about assessing local needs. He said that, when Leicestershire wished to relocate a library branch or operate it in a different way: "In order to make that final decision, I think we have to have a very clear idea of what the nature of that locality is, what its transport links are, what the levels of literacy and employment are and so on, and then we are better informed to make a strategic and informed decision."[73] While the Leader of the Isle of Wight Council—whose decision to close five public libraries unless volunteers were willing to run them led to vociferous protests—placed emphasis on sustaining the service,[74] campaigners have often focused on the retention of individual library buildings.

LIBRARY BUILDINGS

46.  Proposals to close a local library often cause considerable protest. Apart from questions of the ease of access to library and other services in alternative locations, the buildings themselves may have a symbolic value: older ones have been community hubs for a century or more and may be handsome buildings in themselves.[75] Moreover, as one of our witnesses said, "Sometimes the library is the only public building left in the locality."[76] In all these ways, the current proposals to close some library branches are reminiscent of recent programmes of post office closures, and have provoked similar reactions.

47.  Our witnesses recognised that library buildings often acted as hubs in the community. One described them as "sort of indoor parks", a safe environment for both the young and the isolated old.[77] Another pointed out that a relationship of trust developed between the staff in local libraries and the population, encouraging and enabling the population to use the library as a general source of information and support not just somewhere to borrow a book.[78] Local libraries were places to hold homework clubs, reading groups, baby rhyme times: all ways to use the library's resources and to make reading and study a more 'social' activity, while also providing a quiet and secure environment.[79] The Association of Senior Children's and Education Librarians (ASCEL) argued that, while electronic services were changing some of the focus of library services, the building itself was "still a compelling and significant part of a community", adding "In times of economic hardship, it could be argued that more people will need libraries to learn new skills, seek employment, apply for jobs, write CVs etc."[80]

48.  A number of those who submitted written evidence believed that libraries earmarked for closure were often smaller, branch libraries. This was summed up by Sue Charteris:

As part of the mapping of local need against current usage data it will inevitably become clear that some library facilities are so optimally located that they act as centres of gravity or because of the quality of its offer or both (for example, Newcastle and Norwich Central libraries and the forthcoming new/refurbished libraries in Birmingham and Liverpool would qualify on both counts). Others may serve the community in a medium sized town and others still serve a specific community, for example, a village, suburb or inner city housing estate. It is this last group of libraries ... that are most under threat; yet they often meet highly localised need.[81]

Friends of Gloucestershire Libraries said that the libraries earmarked for closure were in the more deprived areas of their county, and therefore that the impact of their closure would have affected the least well off and most in need.[82] The Royal National Institute of Blind People argued that the presence of libraries in residential areas was of importance particularly for more vulnerable users, such as elderly and disabled people, who were often less able to travel, and more likely not to be able to afford books and IT.[83]

49.  While accepting that the benefits of a distributed library network did not require the retention of every existing library building, Annie Mauger issued the warning that, when a library in a local community closed, 44% of the children in that community who had used that branch did not transfer to another library.[84] This was not only a loss for the local population but could also have an impact on national policy objectives, for example by reducing the ability to deliver the Summer Reading Challenge for young people.[85] The study that she was citing found also that 18% of those affected by library closures did not transfer their custom to another library facility; 35% of respondents said their children were using library facilities less; and 36% of respondents felt their children were reading less.[86] This was not a recent study—it was conducted by Sheffield University in the late 1990s—but CILIP said that the lack of more recent data was because "it is some time since there has been anything like the scale of library closures currently happening".[87]

50.  On the other hand, many library buildings are not being used to the full, are difficult to maintain or situated in the wrong place, or do not have enough space to develop services beyond book lending.[88] Brent Council said that the six libraries that it closed were "poorly located and poorly used", and that this was true in many areas of London where libraries had been built in response to 19th or early 20th century population profiles and habits of life. It added: "Brent Council finds that 21st century public libraries flourish if they are located in town centres close to public transport and this view has long been proven correct. Brent is a London borough that is exceptionally well served by public transport."[89]

51.  Whether or not Brent Council's analysis proves correct in the longer term, our visit to Tower Hamlets demonstrated the value in reviewing library facilities: the Borough Council had closed a number of old, crumbling, under-used buildings in less accessible locations in order to focus resources on a number of purpose-built libraries with meeting rooms and facilities for many types of events, with the result that library use had significantly increased across the borough.

52.  One of our witnesses cited Swindon, where a campaign to retain the old town library had failed, but a new building had opened nearby: although it was not exactly what the campaigners had hoped for, they had had some influence on retaining part of the service locally.[90] This is a reminder that focussing on library closures does not give a complete picture: 39 new or extensively refurbished libraries were due to open in 2012.[91] We also received evidence from a number of local authorities—Cornwall County Council, Leicestershire County Council, the London Borough of Hillingdon, Staffordshire County Council and Derbyshire County Council—which explained how they had avoided closing libraries.[92]

53.  We noted that, while many local campaigns focus on buildings, one of the areas of expenditure under particular pressure was the provision of mobile libraries: about one in ten of all 'library service points' in England and Wales (350 out of about 3600) were mobile libraries, but we were told that many of these services were being removed on the grounds that the cost per person served by a mobile library was considered too high.[93] Despite this, the Arts Council assured us that it thought mobile libraries were still an important element in the provision of a good service, though it was also looking at alternative ways of getting books to people who did not have easy access to 'static' libraries.[94] As far as simple access to books was concerned, witnesses cited village halls, churches and pubs as being possible alternatives to under-used library buildings or infrequent visits by mobile libraries.[95]

54.  It may not be possible or even desirable to retain every existing library building, but wholesale closures are unlikely to facilitate an appropriate level of service. The key to ensuring that an adequate—and preferably a good— library service is available to the whole local population appears to be the retention of a distributed service, in accessible locations, but with flexibility over whether the service is provided in dedicated library buildings, in other locations, via mobile libraries, or in any other way that best fits local needs.[96]

55.  While concerned about the geographical spread of library services, CILIP was of the view that "where buildings are not closed, cuts to services, resource funds, opening hours, building maintenance and staffing are equally significant".[97] CILIP told us that significant cuts had been made in staff numbers and opening hours in the 2011-12 financial year.[98] In the case of opening hours, this would reverse the recent trend to have libraries opening for longer periods, especially in the evenings and at weekends, which has been intended to encourage access by previously excluded groups.[99] It also tends to confirm Sue Charteris's fears that local authorities may be tempted to opt for a programme of cuts in areas less obvious than library closures, even if these cuts damage the overall service more than a closure would have done.

LIBRARY STAFF

56.  A number of our witnesses argued that professional librarians were critical to delivering a comprehensive and efficient library service. Not only do they assist the public with finding the books and information they want, help them to use technology with which they are unfamiliar, ensure that the stock of books and other materials are kept up to date and meet the varied needs of different sorts of customers, and manage the environment (dealing with health and safety, child protection issues, copyright law and so on), but they also carry out a lot of 'outreach' work with the community, especially reading and literacy schemes.[100]

57.  CILIP has estimated that in the 2011-12 financial year, there has been a reduction of possibly as many as 700 posts out of the 3,500 staff working in public libraries. UNISON, the public sector trade union that represents many library staff in the UK, told us that the latest figures from the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy showed a drop in paid staff numbers of over 4%, whilst the number of volunteers within libraries had increased by 22% since 2010.[101] Those campaigning for library services said the reduction in paid staff had resulted in the loss in particular of expertise in child literacy (we were told that many reader support posts were being merged so that there were no longer separate posts for adult and child support); and in developments such as the closure of information services or the abandonment of the Summer Reading Challenge, for lack of professional support. More generally, pressure of work on the remaining staff hindered training and staff development, and discouraged co-operation with other services or across authority boundaries.[102]

58.  When we asked whether she thought that policymakers understood the role of the librarian, Annie Mauger said "no, I really don't think many of them do". She went on to say: "I don't believe that a service that isn't professionally delivered is best for anybody's local area."[103]

59.   The local authority representatives who gave evidence to us were keen to emphasise that job losses were directed away from professional librarians and/or front-line staff. Councillor David Pugh denied that any of those who had lost their jobs when the Isle of Wight divested itself of five libraries were 'professional staff': he drew the distinction between professionally qualified librarians and other staff who could, he felt, however experienced they were, be adequately replaced by volunteers.[104] Local campaigners, however—who had forced the Isle of Wight to backtrack on an even more radical programme of closures—strongly disagreed, given that professional, front-line staff were indeed being lost.[105] During our visit to the Pimlico Library, we were told that under the tri-borough programme job losses had been among the managerial ranks (as three sets of managers were merged into one) and in back-room functions such as stock control, not among the library staff who dealt directly with the public. We were also told of projects such as the Enquire project carried out by the Arts Council in conjunction with the Society of Chief Librarians, to use IT in such a way that libraries without a professional librarian on their staff would still have access to professional advice 24 hours a day.[106] The Minister was of the view it was unnecessary to have highly qualified, highly trained and therefore highly paid librarians in every library branch. He argued that there was scope for employing the professional expertise of librarians more "creatively", to train and support volunteers. He suggested that this approach might lead to the opening of more libraries.[107]

60.  Staff costs are a significant and have been an increasing proportion of library costs and, if the service is losing up to 35% of its budget,[108] some staff cuts are inevitable. As with other cuts, however, local authorities need to give careful consideration to how to do least damage to the service provided to the public now and for the future. They must ensure that they retain enough experienced and/or professionally qualified staff to develop the services on offer to the public to reflect changing needs, and to support the growing number of volunteers both within their core library service and in any community libraries that may be established locally.




38   Section 7 Back

39   The Minister explained the original purpose of this phrase as follows: 'comprehensive' reflected the desire for libraries to have a wide stock of books, and 'efficient' the need to reduce the number of library authorities, which in 1964 totalled about 450. Neither adjective, he argued, referred to the distribution of library buildings. Q 180 Back

40   Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee, Third Report of Session 2004-2005, Public libraries, HC 81-I, para 79 (Public Libraries) Back

41   Public libraries, para 80 Back

42   Government Response to the Third Report of the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee, Session 2004-2005: Public Libraries, Cm 6648, para 33 Back

43   Q 34 Back

44   Q 23 See also the replies given to Q 23 by Voices for the Library and The Reading Agency Back

45   Public Libraries, paragraphs 60-63 Back

46   Ev 50 Back

47   Qq 76 and 77 Back

48   Q 77 Back

49   Q 180 Back

50   Ev 81 and Ev 54 Back

51   Qq 111 and 114The relevant section of the 1964 Act is section 7(2)(a) Back

52   Q 111  Back

53   Qq 78 and 88-92 See also the Arts Council's webpage: http://www.artscouncil.org.uk/what-we-do/supporting-libraries/libraries-consultation Back

54   Q 94 Back

55   Q 83 Back

56   Q 78 (Annie Mauger, citing research undertaken by the Museums, Libraries and Archives Council in the year before its abolition) Back

57   Green v Gloucestershire County Council; Rowe v Somerset County Council; [2011] EWHC 2687; para 108; 16 November 2011 Back

58   [2011] EWHC 2687; para 108; 16 November 2011 Back

59   Charteris Report, piii Back

60   Ibid., pp iii-iv Back

61   Ibid., pp iv-v Back

62   Ev 81 Back

63   Q 77 Back

64   Q 34 Back

65   Qq 34 and 33 Back

66   Q 35 Back

67   Q 62 (CILIP) Back

68   See, for example, Q 2 (Andrew Coburn of The Library Campaign) Back

69   Q 2; also Qq 23 and 24 Back

70   Q 2 Back

71   Q 24 Back

72   Qq 109, 112 and 113 Back

73   Q 127 Back

74   Qq 109 and 113 Back

75   Q 7 (Abigail Barker) Back

76   Q 35 (Sue Charteris) see also Q2 (Andrew Coburn), Ev 81 (Sue Charteris) Back

77   Q 111 (Elizabeth Campbell of the Local Government Association) Back

78   Q 12 (Andrew Coburn)  Back

79   Q 8 (Miranda McKearney); Ev w50 (ASCEL) see also, for example, Ev w3, ev w19, Ev w71, Ev w77 Back

80   Ev w50 see also Ev w71, paras 9 and 10 Back

81   Ev 81 Back

82   Ev w46 Back

83   Ev w107 Back

84   Q 87 See also, for example, Ev w67, paras 14-24 and 28 Back

85   Ibid. Back

86   Ev 50 Back

87   Ibid. Back

88   Qq 44 (Sue Charteris) and86 (Annie Mauger) Back

89   Ev w290 Back

90   Q 24 (Andrew Coburn) Back

91   Ev 74 (Arts Council) Back

92   Ev w31, Ev 72, Ev w39, Ev w57 and Ev w99 respectively Back

93   Q 95 Back

94   IbidBack

95   Q 42 Back

96   Qq 2 and 8 (Miranda McKearney), 7 (Andrew Coburn), 9 and 10 (Abigail Barker), 45 (Sue Charteris), 87 and 95 (Annie Mauger) and 95 (Arts Council) Back

97   Ev 50 Back

98   Q 86 see also Ev w42 Back

99   See paragraph 27 above Back

100   See, for example, Qq 2, 15, 47,67, 69 and 70; Ev 50, Ev w243 and Ev w268  Back

101   Ev w135 Back

102   Q 67 and 71 (CILIP), 17 (Andrew Coburn and Miranda McKearney),  Back

103   Qq 68 and 72 Back

104   Qq 123, 141 and 143-147 Back

105   Q 147 Back

106   Q 82 Back

107   Qq 171-172 Back

108   Q 84 Back


 
previous page contents next page


© Parliamentary copyright 2012
Prepared 6 November 2012