Opinion: quangos, centralisation and less democracy – who’d have predicted that from Labour?

The mountain laboured and brought forth a mouse. But not a very nice or useful mouse.

The Department of Culture, Media and Sport has at last produced a ‘policy statement’ entitled ‘The Modernisation review of public libraries’. There is little radical and little of benefit to the public, indeed precious little modernisation. The library establishment and quangoland by contrast have much to be pleased about.

The paper contains a long list of instructions for local authorities and even specifically for local authority chief executives: no role for councillors here. Local authorities must set flexible opening hours to suit the needs of local people (as opposed to deliberately trying to annoy them?), think of innovative ways of generating improvements, maximise efficiencies in the stock supply chain and improve their ability to use and evaluate evidence.

Local authority chief executives are told they should champion the partnership agenda – DCMS seems to see this as a new idea.

There is to be a ‘new’ strategic body for the libraries sector – apparently MLA plus – which will improve leadership. No role here again for councillors, the LGA or the IDeA, all of which have a proven track record on leadership and peer challenge. Instead we get an appointed quango, folding in the hopelessly supplier-led Advisory Council for Libraries, to ensure that it is the librarian rather than the elector or the user who is in charge.

Local authorities are warned that the process of government intervention is to be clarified. In essence there will be more central intervention – the Government continues to applaud the disgraceful Charteris report into the Wirral, which substituted the opinions of an outside expert for the decisions and processes of local councillors challengeable by the electorate.

Perhaps I was naïve to hope that there might be anything worthwhile in this. After all the LGA had submitted some powerful ideas – the need for new legislation, the need to respect localism, the need to remove the grip of the professional librarian. Nothing seems to survive.

Reactionary attitudes to this precious public service predominate: the All Party Parliamentary Group’s centralist vision is typical, while chief librarians engage in gentile social network shadow boxing with those who question whether a library should ever be more than a collection of books, especially books available round the corner at Waterstone’s.

To some degree one can ask: ‘Why worry’? The current government will not survive long and DCMS may well itself be swept away. But the APPG report serves as a warning to all of us that the agenda across the political spectrum is largely backward looking and centralist, rather than user-focussed and localist.

And if DCMS goes, the same civil servants who produced this policy paper from their ivory tower in Cockspur Street will continue to fail to engage with the realities of the service on the ground – and fail above all to understand that councillors can both understand their communities and understand what a library is for.

Read more by .
This entry was posted in Op-eds.
Advert

2 Comments

  • Andrew Suffield 24th Mar '10 - 8:00pm

    improve their ability to use and evaluate evidence

    I note that this does not instruct them to actually use or evaluate evidence. Just to be more capable of doing so, in case they ever want to.

    Sadly, this distinction is probably what will happen.

  • Liberal Eye 25th Mar '10 - 3:11pm

    As a sixth former I had a Saturday job in the local library, in those far off days before the local government reorganisation of 1974 still run by our Urban District Council. This was an unbelievably tiny authority by modern standards, only about 14,000 people (counting children) yet it managed to run a well-stocked library brilliantly even though the country was very much poorer in those days. The head librarian reported directly to someone in a small office just across the road.

    A large part of my education came from books I borrowed but never afforded to buy.

    That library still exists but it’s been subsumed into the bureaucratic swamp of a metropolitan borough. The management structure is byzantine and there are few books left.

    So yes. Let’s get back to local people making decisions for their own community and abolish the quangos. They destroy value rather than add it.

Post a Comment

Lib Dem Voice welcomes comments from everyone but we ask you to be polite, to be on topic and to be who you say you are. You can read our comments policy in full here. Please respect it and all readers of the site.

To have your photo next to your comment please signup your email address with Gravatar.

Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

*
*
Please complete the name of this site, Liberal Democrat ...?

Advert

Recent Comments

  • Katharine Pindar
    David, as our party policy is now for a Guaranteed Basic Income (GBI) to be brought in gradually by increases in welfare benefits to end deep poverty, and no lo...
  • David Raw
    @ Mike Peters. I would have thought that a universal basic income scheme would increase rather than reduce the problem you refer to, and I don’t see why folk ...
  • David Raw
    @ David Warren. You refer to the 1931 so called National Government but fail to add that the then Liberal Party took part in this, though shortly afterwards it ...
  • David Raw
    @ Steve Trevethan. You state delegating certain powers to the Bank of England creates a plutocracy. It might have escaped you that this was Liberal Democrat pol...
  • Mike Peters
    Interesting article but it fails to discuss an important concept - the idea of ‘the deserving poor’ and the ‘undeserving poor’. Put simply, most people ...