Helen Milner recently went public with the view that some public libraries are not good enough and are being overly protected. This has led, at time of going to press, with a report in the Guardian and, I understand, an interview on Sky News tomorrow. Her views have led to dispute, some of which has been fairly heated,  in the library community. I caught up with Helen this afternoon and asked her to clarify her views some more.

Tinder Foundation CEO Helen Milner

Tinder Foundation CEO Helen Milner

Am I right in thinking that you were saying that some libraries have been given protected treatment compared to community centres?

“There’s a lot of people campaigning for libraries to stay open without the nuanced debate about what a library is for and whether they are good enough. I see a lot of libraries and a lot of community organisations and I see them both suffer, the latter more than libraries.

“There’s a lot of people campaigning for libraries to stay open without the nuanced debate about what a library is for “

Councils have a statutory responsibility ‘to provide a comprehensive and efficient library service for all persons’ in the area – and this allows for consultations. Elected members are also aware of the public outcry and may shy away from closing them. Community centres, on the other hand, seem to have to roll with the punches. They don’t write to MPs, there’s no protest, no Lord’s debate, and there’s no campaigning.”

It sounds like you’re saying that community centres are being cut because their users are not campaigning to keep them open.  Doesn’t this simply mean that users of community centres should campaign more?

Austerity is real and we know there is not enough money to go around. I’m not saying I like this – I don’t like it. And I can lobby for more money for key services and call for a debate about the quality of those services at the same time. I don’t believe the two are mutually exclusive.

Local authorities have seen cuts of around 30% between 2010 and 2015 – some £18 billion in real terms. And the cuts keep coming year on year. We need to debate the quality of what we have, and how public money can get to the places really supporting their local communities.

“I don’t believe it helps libraries to hold them as automatically sacred.”

I’m quite a practical person so I’m not sure if campaigning is helping councils to make decisions in a strategic way. But in a community where the library is under-used and the community centre is busy, then yes, I think the council take a strategic view and either close the library and house core library services within the community centre, or bring the two offers under one roof. I don’t believe it helps libraries to hold them as automatically sacred.

Should campaigners for libraries stay quiet then?

No. We should be talking about all of this. About cuts. About priorities. About quality of provision. But I want councils to take a strategic view on who is best to provide that and I would want the people who are campaigning to take that strategic view as well.

“Campaigning does work but I’d like to see it informed by real, every day users. Not evangelists.”

Campaigning does work but I’d like to see it informed by real, every day users. Not evangelists. I’d like people to look at the issues, and the needs of communities holistically, not just idealistically.

Would the cuts to libraries go some way to explain why they’re not the community hubs you want them to be?

Some libraries are great and are the community hubs people and communities need. All councils have to face the cuts – some have done so and have still managed to modernise and improve their library services. Others have been taken by surprise by the cuts, and were never planning any changes. They weren’t evolving in terms of meeting the needs of their community, or of meeting the challenges of digital services and channel shift.

“They didn’t do it ten years ago when they had more money. Why are we giving them that excuse now? “

Poor quality libraries now were probably not great quality libraries ten years ago either. It isn’t just about money – it’s about strategy and vision, too. They didn’t do it ten years ago when they had more money. Why are we giving them that excuse now? Especially when we’re not making excuses for the other grassroots organisations working with the same communities?

What should failing libraries be doing that they’re not?

I want to pay tribute to the great library staff working hard on the ground, everyday in each individual library. The failure, where it exists, is in leadership at council and national level. Who is helping those librarians and councils to work out what a good strategy for libraries is? Who is offering support for failing libraries to improve their offer? Staff and leaders need to be inspired to develop a new kind of culture. It’s not about kicking them because they’re at bottom, it’s about helping them to improve. I’d like to see a national strategic development plan for libraries.

“The failure, where it exists, is in leadership at council and national level.”

As Tinder Foundation is a social and digital inclusion charity, I’d like to see more emphasis on libraries reaching out to the people who are most excluded in our society. And in today’s world not having the basic skills you need to function in a digital world exacerbates social disadvantages many people in our communities suffer. Some libraries are not fully supporting these people.

What proportion of libraries do you think are underachieving?

I would probably say 10%. Partly, the frustration is a lot of people involved in libraries just talk to other people involved in libraries, so it’s all about how to protect libraries and how to keep on doing what they’ve always done. You should come at it with a blank piece of paper, look at your budget and see how you can best help people. Let’s not draw a big exclusive circle around libraries. Let’s start from what’s the purpose of libraries – from the beginning it was about free, open, welcoming spaces and offers, to help people find knowledge, information, stimulation, inspiration, learning, and entertainment. If you start with that as a concept, what kind of service would design from a blank slate?

Has the debate about your article been useful?

Sort of! I don’t think that saying some libraries are better than others was that controversial. It has been an elephant in the room for some time – and I can’t imagine it was really a huge shock to anyone. It was also not an attack on libraries as a whole, nor on librarians. It was a response to the Lords debate that billed all libraries as community hubs, bringing essential community services together under one roof. This is simply not the case. It does a disservice to the libraries doing this job brilliantly, and to the other types of community organisation doing this job brilliantly. They deserve our support for being good, not just for being libraries. I completely stand by that.

“It was also not an attack on libraries as a whole, nor on librarians. It was a response to the Lords debate that billed all libraries as community hubs, bringing essential community services together under one roof. This is simply not the case.”

My article is saying that the debate needs to be about great services that meet the needs of people and communities. Just talking about libraries as if they don’t exist alongside other provision isn’t taking in the bigger picture.

I love libraries, and I want them to be better. I want them to survive. But to do so, some of them have to change. And yes, some of them may have to close, or merge with other organisations – if there’s other provision nearby that’s better. This is about supporting great community offers, not about knocking libraries. Putting the good libraries on the same pedestal as the bad ones does not help. Pretending all libraries are great does not help libraries to improve. I want to see us broaden the debate about what communities need. I’d like to see a visionary (and realistic) national strategic development plan for libraries. It’s a debate I think was worth having.

“I love libraries, and I want them to be better. I want them to survive. But to do so, some of them have to change.”