DRAFT

Proposed Abolition of the

Advisory Council on Libraries:

Response from Share The Vision

  1. Share The Vision (STV) is the UK wide partnership of voluntary sector organisations which produce and lend alternative format reading materials for print disabled people and the main representative bodies for publicly funded libraries. As public libraries in England have had, and in the digital age will continue to have, an important role in meeting the needs of print disabled people to have access to information and cultural content for a variety of purposes, STV wishes to comment upon the DCMS’s proposal to abolish the Advisory Council on Libraries (ACL).
  2. Before responding to the six specific questions set out in Appendix A of the consultation document, STV wishes to make some general comments about the overall situation regarding the provision of advice to assist the Secretary of State to perform his/her responsibilities under the 1964 Act:
  3. Whilst we accept that Section 10 of the Public Bodies Act 2011 requires DCMS to consult on its proposal, it is quite clear that a decision has already been made to abolish the ACL. As paragraph 3.7 of the document clearly states, “Since July 2010, DCMS has conducted itself on the basis that the ACL is effectively defunct.”
  4. In those circumstances, the key question is whether the proposed alternative arrangements to advise the Secretary of State will prove as effective as the document sets out? We have some doubts and concerns about this.
  5. The paper proposes that the DCMS will work with the Arts Council England, Local Government Association, the Society of Chief Librarians (SCL) and CILIP “to ensure appropriate intelligence about the library sector is captured and to advise the Secretary of State.” It goes on to claim “This flexible approach enables the provision of responsive, timely and relevant information and advice to be delivered.” This seems a rather over-optimistic position as the body most closely involved, the SCL, is not resourced to perform this function and is reliant for the most part on its membership sharing the taking the lead on major policy issues in addition to the increasing demands of their employers to fulfil their departmental and corporate responsibilities.
  6. Paragraph 4.9 refers to “DCMS policy officials’ expertise” but it is notable that the comparatively recently created post of part-time Library Adviser has not been filled since the postholder left late last year. We do not cast doubt on the ability of career civil servants to master a brief but the former Library Adviser had valuable personal and professional knowledge and expertise which would surely be extra valuable in providing advice to the Secretary of State. Is it intended to replace him?
  7. The whole approach seems to be ad hoc; the Department will consult one or more of the four partners as and when it determines there is a need to do so. Depending on the specific issue which requires advice to be prepared for the Secretary of State, this can make sense, but other issues will surely require a different approach. Would it not be sensible to organise regular (perhaps quarterly or bimonthly) meetings with these partners so that not only can they provide the feedback the Department requires but they can also raise, singly and collectively, matters of concern which the Department should be aware of?
  8. In February the Department established the Sieghart Review into the future of the public library service in England. If it has not done so already, we would suggest that it might be helpful for the Department to ask the review panel for its advice on how best to provide advice for the Secretary of State.
  9. Taking into account the above comments, our answers to the six specific questions are:

Q1: Do you agree with the proposal to abolish ACL?

Yes, subject to the comments and reservations set

out above.

Q2: Should the advisory function of ACL be

transferred to another existing body?

No.

Q3: Should ACL be retained and improved?

No.

Q4: Will the abolition of ACL impact adversely upon

the provision or use of library facilities in

England?

Not if the suggestions made above are adopted.

Q5: Do you agree that the proposed abolition of

ACL will not remove any necessary protection?

If not, please explain what protection you think

will be removed.

Yes, the abolition of ACL should not, per se, impact

directly on any persons with protected characteristics.

Q6: Do you agree that the proposed abolition will not

prevent any person from continuing to exercise

any rights or freedoms? If you do not agree,

please give details of the rights at risk.

Yes, providing there are clear methods by which all

interested parties can make their views and concerns

known to the Government.

  1. STV is content for this response to be made publicly available.
  2. STV’s membership comprises:
  • British Library
  • Calibre Audio Library
  • CILIP (Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals)
  • Dyslexia Action
  • Clearvision
  • Library and Information Services Council: Northern Ireland
  • RNIB (Royal National Institute of Blind People)
  • School Libraries Group (CILIP)
  • Scottish Library and Information Council
  • Society of Chief Librarians
  • Society of College, National and University Libraries

Mark Freeman

Chair, Share the Vision