We’ve had a few responses to the Library Consultation document copied to us over the last week. The first is from VB reader, Helen Slade from Ventnor. Ed
I give below my response to the consultation on A New Chapter – A Fresh Direction for the Island’s Libraries.
Facts and Figures
It is not surprising that 82% of visits are made to the two libraries in Newport and Ryde. As you point out, those are the areas where the population is greatest.
You also say that these are the areas where social need is greatest, but you do not justify that statement. How have you measured social need? I see no figures relating to that aspect, nor even a description of what you mean by social need.
I would argue that the proportion of the local population visiting a particular local branch would be a better indicator of social need, in terms of the services offered by the library, and in those circumstances I would suggest that Newport and Ryde would not score so highly.
The proportion of the local population visiting their branches in Ventnor and Niton, for example, would probably outscore both of them. It may well be the same for other branches more remote from Newport.
Libraries Local
You indicate some very broad brush proposals for local, community operated libraries, and suggest possible venues (pubs, shops, schools, village halls, village post offices or shops etc.). These ideas may sound superficially interesting, but demonstrate a lack of diligent examination.
Pubs are not suitable for children, and many women feel intimidated or uncomfortable about going into such establishments on their own. Some people will have moral or religious objections to entering such places, or perhaps reasons relating to their own personal health.
Schools are totally unsuited to allowing access to general members of the public. You must be aware of the safety and security issues which have become prevalent in relation to such places, and it seems to me an extremely irresponsible suggestion.
As to village shops and post offices, it may have escaped your notice that many of these have shut, or are under severe threat of closure. I cannot see that devoting space to a collection of books is likely to increase turnover in the shop or post office to a sufficient degree to justify the loss of space for business purposes that would be required. I do not say that this would never work, but I think that the opportunities for it to work are very limited.
Parish Halls are frequently damp and cold, and not the best place to be storing quantities of library books. They will rapidly deteriorate and become unusable, requiring expensive re-stocking on a regular basis. Hardly an efficient use of a scarce resource.
Discrimination
The proposals will disproportionately disadvantage a number of social groups. I see no evidence in the consultation document of any assessment of this aspect.
Women constitute a high proportion of the visitors to libraries and there appears to be a significant number of women employed in the libraries themselves. Women figure almost exclusively in the pictures in your own consultation document. It could be argued that the proposals discriminate on gender grounds, which is illegal.
Children make up a significant proportion of visitors, particularly to the smaller branches. They may go with parents or grandparents, or by themselves – often for the purposes of using the computers etc. Nurturing this use is an important contribution to the education and development of our future population. Mobile libraries will simply not provide an opportunity for most of this use, which will vanish completely.
Rural communities will be the worst hit. I see no evidence of any exercise in ‘rural proofing’ amongst these proposals.
Suggestion
I could go on, but I do not wish to be entirely negative. I therefore put forward a suggestion for consideration. (I might add that a consultation normally offers choices, but your ‘consultation’ appears to be a foregone conclusion, despite assurances to the contrary)
Rather than concentrate the service into two places, more thought should be given to the purpose best served by each individual library. It may be possible, for example, to extend the services offered at each library to include more social services. You talk in the document about the Library Home service providing social care in addition to library services.
Rather than close the buildings in the outlying areas, why not use them more to deliver a wider number of your services on a more local basis and reduce the need for people to travel, using other scarce resources in the process?
Libraries offer the perfect place for obtaining information and for meeting; services which could be considerably widened.
A few examples which quickly come to mind are:
- information on local planning applications and other documents which, by law, have to be deposited for public scrutiny;
- information on social care, or even the provision of a room for consultations etc;
- local tourist information – essential on a tourist island (the closing of these facilities in the most frequented holiday spots is, quite frankly, ludicrous).
- a meeting place for local councillor surgeries etc.
- A venue in the evening for local groups to use (e.g. small clubs or choirs etc.)
These are just a few quick thoughts, but demonstrate that with a bit more thought and diligence, better use could be made of these invaluable facilities than simply closing them and abandoning the needs of your more outlying residents.
Image: CCAC North Library under CC BY 2.0
