From the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964[1]:

“…the duty of every library authority to provide a comprehensive and efficient library service for all persons desiring to make use thereof” 7(2)

“…the general requirements and any special requirements both of adults and children” 7(2)

From PUBLIC LIBRARIES AND MUSEUMS BILL, HL Deb 30 June 1964 vol 259 cc514-76 514, § 3.0 p.m., § Order of the Day for the Second Reading read[2]:

“Clause 7(2) indicates under three headings what is implied by the words, “a comprehensive and efficient library service” … Secondly, it should encourage the public to use these stocks and provide them with the necessary advice and help.” (para. 2, col. 517)

“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 517 to local authorities when the Bill becomes law.” (para. 1, col. 517)

[1] http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1964/75?view=extent
[2] http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/lords/1964/jun/30/public-libraries-and-museums-bill#column_517

At this point I have not been able to see a copy of the circular mentioned, however what we do know is that the majority of authorities did implement standards for travel distance to a library and through to the point of the current government (it would be surprising if this aspect of the standards were not included in the circular).

Presumably also any advice from the government’s strategic body advising on library policy and the standard of service to be provided would have been reasoned from the standards at the point of the Act being voted into law (most importantly ensuring that the efficiency of the service was not compromised).

If library usage falls following cuts as seems to be the indicator with Brent, then the question is is this because the service is becoming more inefficient to make use of, and if so has the level of service fallen below the statutory standard (ref. previous two paragarphs (ref. latter two paragarphs)?

If it is believed that is the case, and the council in question has followed all relevant procedures correctly (consultation, equality impact, a coreclty reasoned decision, etc.*), and a petition or otherwise demonstrating that there are people who ‘desire’ to make use of a library service duly presented to an MP, then from what I can gather it is the Parliamentary Ombudsman’s role to call the DCMS to count under § 1 of the Act?

————
*Other issues include the validity of volunteer libraries as meeting statutory requirements; not to mention the politics! (e.g., “…It splits those who are against cuts to libraries per se and those accept the prevailing political view that the best way to improve the economy is to cut spending in all its forms across the board”, IA 27 May), etc.