The current regulation and oversight of library services in England means that the Government is failing in its duty of accountability to the taxpayer and in its specific duty of sector development and improvement.

It’s time to move out of the era of fragmentation and into better stewardship of our vital library network, put in place new and progressive regulation, and bring an end to the ongoing battle between local and national government over public services.

This is why CILIP is calling for a new Library Compact between central and local Government and library leaders – a new social contract which demonstrates how we will work together to address big societal challenges.

The 1964 Libraries and Museums Act

The main legislation governing libraries in England is the 1964 Public Libraries & Museums Act. Broadly, the legislation sets out operating principles, under the presumption that the value of libraries is already understood.

The act envisages a combination of local self-determination in the context of regionalised support, through joint Library Boards, and national oversight, which includes two powers for the Secretary of State/governing department, which is nowadays Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport (DCMS).

These two powers/duties are:

• a generalised responsibility to ensure the development of libraries
• a specific right of intervention if a Library Authority is delinquent in provision.

As “enabling” legislation, the act was neither designed to be qualitative or progressive in its delivery.

It specifies how the government will support good libraries, but does not define the standards by which a good library is measured.

After more than a decade of public sector spending cuts and austerity, the insufficiency of the Act as enabling legislation has been cruelly exposed.

At this point, the most useful legislative tools for the promotion of quality local libraries are the 2010 Equalities Act and the accompanying Public Sector Equality Duty, both of which require that changes to services cannot further disadvantage marginalised groups or people with protected characteristics.

However, Government could easily plug this regulatory gap by creating clear library standards for Councils to follow.

Solutions from other Contexts

Mandatory service rules and a progressive library compact could provide alternative legislative solutions in the fragmented library sector.

In the prisons sector, Mandatory Service Rules set out a legal framework for service provision and although they override local self-governance, they set out clearly a framework for measuring effectiveness and success. While nobody wants to ‘bind the hands’ of Local Government, if the price of local autonomy is fragmentation and inequality in provision, we need better regulatory mechanisms to guarantee services.

A more tenable (and collaborative) alternative would be a progressive Library Compact that follows the Dutch model where the Government and libraries come together to agree how to address specific societal challenges, instead of regarding libraries as dependencies.

Worst of both worlds

England’s ongoing struggle on whether it is a centralised national economy, or a federation of regions and localities confounds the issue, as the central government does not want to be seen to create additional burdens on local authorities.

The localised delivery model, supported by inadequate nationally controlled funding, results in unfair and unequal delivery of services across different regions and a fragmented library network.

Ironically, the answer probably lies in governing according to the 1964 Act.

The model the act envisages - local leadership, regional support, national oversight and development - could work perfectly, but only if underpinned by clearly defined standards and measures, so we know what success looks like and how to attain it.

Summary

The best way forward in four parts:

• Return to running the sector as envisaged in the 64 Act
• Lobby for a more progressive Library Compact with Govt
• Argue for a 'backstop' of clear, quantitative Library Service Standards
• Make the case for fair funding