They’ve looked at the catchment areas of each of the libraries and some of the smaller ones that initially seemed to be more at risk have actually proven their worth to the council by their visitor figures and catchment areas.

I’m not saying they won’t make some slashing, crushing decisions in the end, but at least so far I feel like they’re looking at things mildly intelligently… aside from the decision to co-locate Hattersley library and a tesco, obviously.

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/lords/1964/jun/30/public-libraries-and-museums-bill

To what extent is the government taking the UK back to pre 1964 levels of library provision (libraries a result philanthropic and volunteer endeavour; the issues with the differences in standards mentioned above, etc.)?

However unless it can be proved that the standards were mistakenly dropped, the above is only of historical interest.

[1] Great Britain. Ministry of Education; Bourdillon, H. T. (1962). Standards of Public Library Service in England and Wales. Report of the Working Party appointed by the Minister of Education in March 1961. (Chairman, H. T. Bourdillon.). London : H.M.S.O.
[2] Moore, Nick (July 2003). “Public Library Trends”. Acumen.

2. While the circular may not have directly referenced paragraph 103, a local authority is still required to provide a service that is “efficient” for the public to use (if a person at home finds that they would like to use the library, but it would be of less value to them than the time and resources required to make use of the library, then this essentially is an efficiency issue):
1. The Report of the Working Party did however make the recommendation that an efficient library service was one in which a library user would not have to walk more than 1 mile to their nearest library. This is by no means a number that had been plucked out of the air, the issue of an efficient library service was under scrutiny from at least the point of the Roberts Report prior to the The Report of the Working Party, and this was the conclusion of The Report of the Working Party after many hours of analysis and reasoning. Further most if not all library authorities based their service on this standard in subsequent years. The public I would think would also agree that a library that is 20 minutes walk away is feasible to use, if this were say doubled which would be the result of some of the current library closure programmes, then the public I am sure would agree that a 40 minute walk to their nearest library is a considerable lowering of standard of library service. So ‘manifestly’, in terms of the calculated definition of the term at the time of the formulation of the Act (recommended by The Report of the Working Party in its conclusions); in terms of what in practise was considered by local authorities in the decades following and up to the present day to be the appropriate standard; but by no means least and in fact most importantly also, in terms of what the public would expect, the term “efficient” in the Act in respect of branch library provision, can be reasoned as being defined by The Report of the Working Party.
2. “A mere literal compliance without substance will not suffice”, Francis Bacon (barrister, who drafted the 1964 Act; quoted from page 12 of the autumn 2011 edition of The Library Campaigner). The substance of the Act would very much be removed if people were to find their travelling distances doubling. Barristers are also I note currently basing arguments on disability discrimination laws; I would suggest also laws relating authorities having to ensure they provide their services to the whole population, and not just a proportion – and libraries are not analogous to a typical One-Stop-Shop service in this respect.

From the second reading of the 1964 Act:

“Clause 7(2) indicates under three headings what is implied by the words, “a comprehensive and efficient library service”. First, the authority must secure adequate stocks both by buying ahem itself and by arrangement with other library authorities. Secondly, it should encourage the public to use these stocks and provide them with the necessary advice and help. Thirdly, it should secure full co-operation with other authorities concerned.”

“Local authorities are naturally anxious to know the standard against which they should measure the efficiency of the service they are providing. These are set out in some detail in the Report of the Working Party on Standards; and its would be the intention of the Secretary of State to refer to the relevant passages of this Report by a circular to local authorities when the Bill becomes law. On the question of standards, there are three points to which I should like to draw the attention of the House. First, the Working Party indicated the annual additions they would expect to a library’s stock of books, given that its existing stock was adequate. Secondly, they drew attention to the importance of co-operation between neighbouring public library authorities below the level of the regional and national arrangements to which I shall return in a minute. There is room for experiment here, and we hope that the Bill will encourage a big development in such arrangements for local co-operation between authorities of all types. Thirdly, the Working Party drew attention to the importance of employing staff adequate both in number and qualification. The Secretary of State will need to take all these factors into account when he considers whether he should make orders under Clause 6.”

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/lords/1964/jun/30/public-libraries-and-museums-bill#column_517

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1964/75?view=extent

Note however if anyone has a copy of the “circular” mentioned above, it has not been made public, nor any of the subsequent documents from when the standards were amended through to ultimately being “dropped.” We essentially only have anecdotal evidence of these proceedings of the Act, which is very surprising given that they must surely have been documents required for legal purposes, and given library campaign groups will obviously given the current situation libraries find themselves in, require to see these documents i) for historical reasons, and ii) in order to validate the process by which the standards were apparently dropped.

In addition to the issues brought to bear by the Hansard record of the second reading above, and very much of interest to groups campaigning against library closures, is branch library provision. This is not directly mentioned in Hansard, however The Report of the Working Party[1] states in paragraph 103 “We think…” that in urban areas no person should have to travel more than one mile to a library:

1. There is the question of whether or not the circular mentioned in the second reading might have referred to this paragraph directly – since we do not have a copy we cannot know for sure, however:
1. The authority is required to “encourage the public” to use library stocks, it could conceivably at least have been directly referenced in the circular.
2. In this[2] report from Acumen Research and Consultancy Ltd branch provision is directly identified as one of the three “most important recommendations” of the Report of the Working Party, which would add weight to the suggestion paragraph 103 may have been directly included in the circular.

[cont. below]

1) Can it be demonstrated to library campaign groups that the standards that were defined by The Report of the Working Party were subsequently amended (and ultimately “dropped”) with proper process and due procedure? This is of obvious importance.

2) Francis Bacon (barrister) states that “A mere literal compliance without substance will not suffice”. ‘Manifestly’ the 1964 Act was an act in which no one would have to walk more than one mile to their nearest library. Likewise ‘manifestly’, a library was to be staffed by trained staff and professionals, not one which had been taken over by volunteers.

These are questions that might properly be asked, and a judge should be aware in providing judgement that if these questions are not answered, then library campaign groups will continue to seek the answers.