What is CILIP doing to promote professional standards in the public library service in the current climate of concerns about ‘de-professionalisation’? Bob McKee outlines the strands of CILIP’s current advocacy campaign.
What is the value added by library and information professionals to the public library service? This question is at the heart of the current debate about the future of public library provision – and it clearly has implications for the future of professionalism in all library and information services.
After the government reshuffle in the summer I wrote to the incoming Secretary of State for Culture, Media & Sport, James Purnell, alerting him to the reports CILIP was receiving which expressed concern about proposals by a number of public library authorities in England.
I emphasised that local people everywhere are entitled to a professional standard of public library service and I pointed out that, although the service is delivered by local councils, responsibility for this statutory provision lies ultimately with the Secretary of State.
The legislation is very clear that the government has three legal obligations: to ‘superintend’ the service; to promote improvement in the service; and to secure the proper discharge by local authorities of the functions conferred on them as public library authorities. And the legislation gives the Secretary of State the power to intervene if an authority is failing in its duty to provide a ‘comprehensive and efficient’ service.
Three concerns had emerged from the reports which prompted my letter: about proposed library closures and the consequent reduced accessibility of the service; about proposed staff reductions and the consequent reduced quality of the service; and about proposals for the transfer of assets and activities to local community groups, and the consequent reduced accountability of the service.
There was also anxiety that transferring services to local community groups would create a ‘two-tier’ service, fragmenting the public library service as a national asset – by which every local library becomes a gateway to the national network of resources.
In raising these concerns with government, CILIP’s aim – made clear by CILIP’s Executive Board – was to act in the public interest, not in a defensive or protectionist manner about traditional notions of ‘the profession’. An important part of CILIP’s role as a major institution in civil society is to promote high standards of library and information service in the public interest and to comment on relevant matters of public concern.
It became clear, as summer turned to autumn and winter, that some proposals for change were causing considerable public disquiet.
A petition protesting about proposals in Hampshire appeared on the Prime Minister’s website, questions were asked in Parliament about library closures, there was a parliamentary debate about proposals in Dudley, and a number of MPs and ministers commented on concerns in their constituencies.
Jim Knight, the schools minister, for example, used the launch conference for the National Year of Reading to voice concern about proposals in Dorset. There was also media coverage − for example, of the proposals put forward by Tim Coates in Hillingdon.
CILIP’s Executive Board has authorised an advocacy campaign with four lines of action:
1 The first was prompted by the government’s response to my letter – a letter from libraries minister Margaret Hodge, in which she noted that ‘central government would only consider intervening in a local authority where there was cause for concern in its return against the agreed performance framework’.
The problem is that ‘the agreed performance framework’ is currently in a state of flux with the move to Comprehensive Area Assessment and the continuing development of a new Performance Management Framework for Public Libraries by MLA (Museums, Libraries & Archives Council).
So the first line of action is to define what CILIP regards as a professional standard of local public library service – using a range of recent statements including the important work on public library standards and quality improvement indicators carried out in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
2 The second line of action was prompted by the reports received by CILIP alleging the ‘de-professionalisation’ of public library services – and the data published by Lisu which shows clearly that cuts in professionalstaff are disproportionately large when compared with overall staff reductions.
So the second line of action is to define the roles for LIS professionals within the skills mix of a modern public library service. We’re working on this in consultation with a number of public library service heads and other key stakeholders.
3 The third line of action was also prompted by the reports received by CILIP about particular authorities. We’ve exchanged letters with those authorities but we need to find out what is happening on the ground. CILIP’s Executive Board has authorised me to commission this work, and Patrick Conway (formerly Director, Culture and Leisure, Durham)has agreed to take on the task.
Patrick will be supported by a steering group chaired by CILIP Past President Martin Molloy, Strategic Director of
Cultural & Community Services, Derbyshire.
Because we’re acting in the public interestand beginning with an open mind, I hope the authorities we approach will invite Patrick to visit them for on-the-spot discussions in aspirit of co-operation and a desire for clarity.
It is in everyone’s interest to clarify what constitutes a professional standard of service, what activities are best carried out by professional staff, and what alternative models for the provision of public library service can be developed which do not compromise quality, accessibility and accountability.
4 The fourth line of action is to continue CILIP’s dialogue with government. In November I had a very useful meeting with Margaret Hodge, who promised to ‘read with attention’ the results of the work commissioned by CILIP.
The minister was refreshingly frank and open in her comments. She doubted whether government could justify intervention in an authority, given the imprecision of the legislation – but she was prepared to investigate, and revealed that DCMS officials had already been in discussion with a number of authorities about their proposals.
She took a robust view on the inevitability of job losses in the drive for greater efficiency and affordability – but she also confirmed that, in her view, there is an essential role for library and information professionals in the delivery of the public library service.
She is interested in new models of provision (combining the twin aims of back-office efficiency through economies of scale and front-of-house localism to deliver service which meets local needs), while being strongly supportive of the traditional strengths of the service.
She also welcomed my suggestion that CILIP could help in establishing the performance framework and in developing the minister’s vision of the future for the service.
I will update readers on how all this work is progressing and report on the implications for the rest of the library and information community in future issues of Update.
Bob McKee is Chief Executive of CILIP.
Updated: 21 January 2008