The Act, in this regard, is a failure. Witness every libraries court case in recent years being brought under equalities legislation. Not the 1964 Act. If lawyers can’t use it then it is a useless Act.

It is also a failure in the whole apparatus it puts in place to monitor and support library services. Regional bodies, ACL, all vaguely defined and all an utter waste of time.

In this, as with so much else, the Act is a waste of ink and paper.

But in one regard it is not. It is clear that the secretary of state has a duty to superintend the public library service. Not Re:source, the MLA, not the Arts Council of Great Britain, not the letter writing public. All of these things can only be sources of information which the Secretary of State can use. But he doesn’t have to approach third parties, he can do it himself. The Act empowers the Secretary of State to compel local authorities to provide him with whatever information he so requires to fulfil his duty. Is the Secretary of State still Jeremy Hunt?

Was the Public Libraries & Museums Act 1964 amended to reflect is abolition and, if so, when? Where is the information to be found ?

There is a *Bookseller* Blog about the ACL written in June 2009, under the title ‘Don’t throw out the ACL’. I can find nothing more recent.

I ask this in good faith. Thank you.

From:Roy Clare (roy.clare@mla.gov.uk)
Sent: 14 April 2009 07:12:04
To: Shirley Burnham (saveoldtownlibrary@live.co.uk)
Cc: Andrew Motion (andrew.motion@btinternet.com); Anne Snelgrove MP (snelgrovea@parliament.uk); bushs@parliament.uk; brownl@parliament.uk

“As we have demonstrated over the Wirral, we can also make recommendations to Ministers if we have reason to believe that a local authority is in breach of its statutory duties in relation to library services. To date, we have not made such a recommendation in respect of Swindon, but the option remains open. ”

I have forwarded the full e-mail to Ian Anstice for information – but have quoted only this portion of it here in case there a confidentiality issues with regard to Swindon. The fact is that, due to the MLA’s working with in Swindon, its Council was minded to extend the consultation process on Old Town Library. This eventually led to the Library not being closed, nor being manned by volunteers – but saved for the residents who are still happily using it today.

Here is more, to refute the “MYTH” suggestion :

9th November 2010

Shirley,
By all means pass on the quotes we have obtained from Richmond. But if possible please keep my personal observations private.
Many thanks,
Roy

Roy Clare CBE
CEO, Museums, Libraries and Archives Council

http://www.mla.gov.uk
+44 (0) 207 273 1476/9
Via Blackberry

From: Shirley Burnham
To: Roy Clare
Sent: Tue Nov 09 07:46:40 2010
Subject: RE: “It’s a given”

Many thanks, Roy. I am most grateful for your trouble.
It is very good, now, that you have woken Richmond up to the fact that you are watching them. Perhaps it will concentrate their minds.

Would you be happy for me to pass your response on ?

Although you have been adamant that buildings are not a big issue, they “are” a huge issue for those who reallly value a special venue for their library and know that once it has gone, that’s that. The public are not daft : they know that it is the thin end of the wedge.

I hope you will give residents all the support you can.

As for me, I’m fine and still being a pain in the proverbials as much as I can, to save as much as we can of what we have.

Best wishes:
Shirley

> Subject: Re: “It’s a given”
> Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2010 06:58:50 +0000
> From: roy.clare@mla.gov.uk
> To: saveoldtownlibrary@live.co.uk
>
> Shirley, good morning.
>
> Initial enquiries have elicited the response below. We will speak to them during the week for more information. The crucial part of their service review would seem to be what alternative models they might be proposing and that isn’t clear at this stage.
>
> Quote
> “Richmond upon Thames Council is currently carrying out public consultation on the future shape of the library service in the borough. The closing date for responses is 26 November 2010.
>
> “The responses will inform the Council’s proposals to review the library service in the light of the difficult financial circumstances currently faced by all local authorities. Further public consultation on any proposals to transform the service – including any proposals for reductions in service – will take place from January 2011.
>
> “However, the Council has made the early decision not to progress with the temporary replacement of one part-time community library (at an approximate cost of £400,000) until after the public consultation and resulting service review are completed. (In 2008 the Council agreed to sell the land on which the library is sited to enable the development of a new health centre for the area and to build a temporary library on the site of a local primary school).
>
> “The Council’s proposal is currently to not replace the library with a permanent library building but, as part of its service review, to examine alternative options for the provision of library services in this area.”
> Unquote
>
> I think we would agree that this is a bit-of-this and a-bit-of-that. I’ll let you know what we learn later in the week.
>
> In their favour is that historically they have had a good reputation for managing cultural services.
>
> I hope you are keeping well.
>
> Roy
>
>
> Roy Clare CBE
> CEO, Museums, Libraries and Archives Council
>
> http://www.mla.gov.uk
> +44 (0) 207 273 1476/9
> Via Blackberry
>

On 18th November 2010 I received this via e-mail from Roy Clare, CE of the MLA. It certainly implies that the MLA had an “oversight” function :

Hello, Shirley, yes happy for you to circulate.

Wirral’s key features were a “perfect storm” of the following factors:

#. Stated intention for large numbers of closures
#. Driven by asset-review, not social outcomes
#. Ineffective consultation with public (and staff) *
#. Potential of library services not well recognised *
#. No workable strategy for service improvement *
#. ‘Good Practice’ elsewhere not being considered

It was the combination that led us to consider appealing to Secretary of State.

In our view one or two of these factors on their own would not be sufficient grounds to cry ‘foul’. Each is important, but those marked * are fundamental.

Hope that helps?

Roy

Roy Clare CBE
CEO, Museums, Libraries and Archives Council

http://www.mla.gov.uk
+44 (0) 207 273 1476/9
Via Blackberry