You know I have read this comment a few times, an I am really very annoyed and cross about it. How dare Mr Blantern refer to ‘others’ who , he alleges, do not do!! What on earth does he know?He came to public libraries very recently, and I doubt he is up to date on the enormous efforts made by so many many librarians to introduce automation, to create and support the ‘Peoples Network etc Who have worked their socks off to improve and support their libraries in so many ways. How do you know no one works harder than Ciara? I know loads of librarians, users, volunteers etc who work their socks off, for no money and less money,and for no kudos,but to support public libraries. To whom are you saying ‘they pretend’! How dare you!! Before you condemn and insult people, find out the facts.do your homework! An amazing amount of fantastic work is being done by people who are NOT PAID AT ALL!! And many who are on modest salaries, and don’t blow their own trumpets!! You need to support these people and praise the work they do, and don’t cast aspersions if you don’t know the facts, as you patently don’t.

The SCL would not as an Association be in any way acting politically if it pointed out that some local authorities could be in breach of their obligations and that the Secretary of State should order an inquiry.

Given the above, may I suggest to the SCL President and all its members that there must be a point when it is not only quite proper that they put up their hand, but also that it is their public duty to do so.

“The Society of Chief Librarians leads and manages public libraries in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. SCL is made up of the head of service of every library authority, and advocates for continuous improvement of the public library service on behalf of local people.”

I’d suggest removing that from the website if campaigning for improvement is actually prohibited.

As for the bank tie-ups, it’s blatantly obvious that this is a great marketing opportunity for the banks. The fact that we are facilitating that should trouble everyone, unless we have decided that we are no longer professionals bound by ethical principles. It’s alarming how quickly and easily we have turned our backs on supposed neutrality and embraced facilitating marketing opportunities for banks.

As for the argument that opponents are not in the real world, here’s an alternative proposal: there are thousands of us working in the information profession with the expertise to provide the support individuals need. We have a very strong focus on information literacy and digital literacy. Why are we not tapping into that rather than people who work in banks? As an academic librarian, this kind of thing is part of my job. Why not link up across the profession and have fellow professionals offering what bankers are offering? Not only would that benefit public libraries, but it would benefit HE, FE, schools and society in general. We can provide far better support than the banks could ever dream of.

We have the expertise within us. With confidence and ambition we could collectively deliver something that has significant, tangible benefits. Instead, we are choosing to help banks improve their terrible image whilst also opening the door to allow them to market their products direct to our users. It would be nice, just for once, we could show a bit more confidence in ourselves.

Richard Aird: Happy for you to disagree but you conflate different issues. No individual employee is allowed to criticise their own authority but equally the SCL is a loose confederation of individual heads of service who can and do speak for the collective on many issues. As such nothing prevents them from discussing (or supporting) My Library By Right. Unfortunately, I’m not sure what membership fees you refer to. The SCL is not a subscription organisation, say like Cilip, and members do not pay to belong so not clear what the point is about LA withdrawing membership. Happy to be enlightened.

“Equally, the implication that because individual members might be restricted from campaigning somehow prevents the SCL from campaigning is a logical fallacy. As with all professional or membership bodies the only restriction is where it exists within the organisation’s constitution, charter, or similar guidelines. The SCL has no such guidelines and therefore has no restrictions. This is a very important point; the SCL chooses not to campaign but is not prevented from doing so.”

SCL is made up of senior council officers (or from trusts/mutuals etc. acting on behalf of councils). These people represent their councils (or the council funding the third party) in a paid capacity. Whilst they may be free to be members of CILIP and privately/individually support the campaign, they are unable to do so in their official ‘work’ role or capacity. Their work for and with SCL is undertaken in that official role – membership is not a personal choice.

If the SCL were to support, engage with, or otherwise undertake public campaigns its representatives would be doing so on paid time as council employees (or subcontractors). No local authority would permit their staff to campaign in their official role on the clock. To suggest that the SCL is unable to campaign is a ‘fallacy’ is simply wrong.

If the SCL were able to campaign against closures or other government issues, local authorities would fast withdraw their membership (they pay the membership fees, remember) – fewer participants, less funding, potentially leaving us with one less supporter of public libraries (one which in recent years, has delivered a number of changes for the better to the sector).

The perceived rights and wrongs of corporate social responsibility benefitting libraries to one side, we should stop condemning SCL for ‘choosing’ not to campaign. Instead, focus on encouraging campaign activity in its relevant place, and work with SCL and others to support advocacy & build partnerships to improve services.