The political battle over library closures has intensified. Earlier this morning, shadow culture secretary Dan Jarvis chastised libraries minister Ed Vaizey for being the ‘Dr Beeching of libraries’. Jarvis said that Vaizey should not be so ‘short-sighted’ as to permit 600 libraries to shut in England. He urged the government to intervene to save these ‘vital assets’, adding that not to do so would make a ‘mockery of the 1964 Public Libraries and Museums Act’.
The Act allows the secretary of state to intervene if local authorities are in breach of their statutory requirement to provide a ‘comprehensive and efficient’ library service in local communities. Library campaigners have already demanded that Jeremy Hunt block closures.
Many campaigners attended this morning’s select committee hearing, where Ed Vaizey was quizzed about these issues. Asked about the importance of the 1964 Act, Vaizey replied that it still had a ‘huge role to play’. It was crucial, he said, that the statutory duty of local authorities remained and that the secretary of state could review decisions on a case by case basis.
He frequently referred to the 2009 Charteris inquiry into public libraries. The report insisted that Wirral Council’s plan to close 50 per cent of its libraries should be dropped because there had not been a sufficient review of library provision prior to the decision. Vaizey said that the inquiry’s findings had made ‘an important contribution to library policy’. He pointed out that the courts have been testing specific cases on the same basis — a reference to the recent judgments on proposed closures in Gloucester and Somerset and in Brent.
Vaizey rejected the accusation that this said ‘the government is happy if the courts are happy.’ He explained that his officials had met with council representatives and library campaigners from 7 local authorities, and added that their advice is forthcoming. He has persistently refused to be drawn on whether the government will intervene, but the Department for Culture, Media and Sport is clear that further public inquiries will only be called in the event of a ‘very good reason’.
Politically, the government is very keen to emphasise that libraries are a matter for councils. The aim is to devolve power to local communities — and with it responsibility for certain public services. It is an ambitious strategy that might be too clever by half. Public disquiet is building against the government. Campaigners are marching on parliament today. They are a diverse bunch. The local protesters have been joined by national bodies, including representatives of UNISON.
The appearance of union provocateurs may please the government, but a petition of 70,000 signatures gained by the Women’s Institute will spark unease among Conservatives who are conscious that they have not connected with female voters. Vaizey revealed today that he has not met library campaigners (or council leaders) for fear of prejudicing any ministerial adjudication. Had he done so, he would have discovered that the library campaigners are predominantly local women (many of them mothers) who say that, with some justification, they are ‘the big society’.
Vaizey was at pains to profess his sympathy for those opposed to closures, but he insisted that there is a ‘spectrum of options’ for library provision. In some areas, he said, fewer buildings might create a more efficient service. He said that libraries could not be ‘immune’ from the implications of the comprehensive spending review, and assured the committee that libraries had not been ‘singled out’ for stringent cuts. He declared: ‘I don’t think the library service is in crisis.’
Comments