Library Services (South Manchester)

– in Westminster Hall at 4:29 pm on 5 April 2011.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of John Leech John Leech Liberal Democrat, Manchester, Withington 4:29, 5 April 2011

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr Gale. I am delighted to have secured this short debate. Most of my remarks will relate to Barlow Moor library on the Merseybank estate. This debate was sparked by the decision of the Labour-run Manchester city council to close the library as part of its cost-cutting programme. Before I give the House a brief history of Barlow Moor library and the council’s policy on the provision of library services, I pay tribute to the staff who work in library services in Manchester. I suppose that I ought to declare an interest, as I hold Friday surgeries in three of the libraries in my constituency: Chorlton, Withington and Didsbury. I appreciate the work that the staff do to accommodate my surgeries and, more important, to make libraries a welcoming place and encourage more people to use our local library services.

Manchester has certainly had a tough Budget settlement —it has been particularly hard due to the front-loading of spending reductions—but the Labour council has responded by using the settlement as an excuse for cuts that it has wanted to carry out for many years but never thought that it could get away with politically. It is making politically motivated cuts with the intention of discrediting the coalition and the coalition’s attempts to tackle the Budget deficit.

When the Labour council announced its budget, it included the axing of numerous front-line services, including libraries and leisure centres. Labour said that there was no alternative, blaming the Budget settlement and coalition cuts. Interestingly, the Liberal Democrat opposition on the council proposed an alternative budget that would have kept all the leisure centres and libraries open, but it was voted down by Labour.

However, it was not the alternative budget that nailed the lie that there was no alternative to cutting front-line services such as Barlow Moor library and leisure centres; it was the huge community campaign in the constituency next door against the closure of Levenshulme baths. The council’s position was that it had no alternative but to close the baths, but it has done a U-turn, and Levenshulme baths will now remain open. The council failed to con people into believing that there was no alternative and got cold feet once a community campaign was up and running with enormous local support.

Why does the council want to close Barlow Moor library? The simple fact is that it has wanted to run down the library service on the Merseybank estate for years. It has made no real commitment to maintaining the local library, concentrating resources instead on the main libraries, including a multi-million-pound investment in the city centre. The council has shown a serious lack of commitment to Barlow Moor library over the years. Even before I was elected as a local councillor, one of the first campaigns in which I was ever involved opposed plans by the Labour council to reduce Barlow Moor library’s hours to save money. At the time, we warned that reducing the library’s hours would ultimately threaten its future, which is proving true.

Unfortunately, a few years later, the library was burned down in an act of arson. Despite promises to the contrary, the library was not rebuilt. Instead, it was permanently relocated in a shop unit on the other side of the road. After the library was burned down, it was agreed that the council should delay rebuilding while discussions continued about revamping the shops and the opportunity for a joint service centre on Merseybank avenue, which would have secured the future of Barlow Moor library for years to come.

However, it is unfortunately now clear that the council never had any intention of pressing ahead with that much-needed investment. Although the plans were supported by council officers, local Liberal Democrat councillors and local people on the estate, they were dropped by Labour councillors. The council’s Labour leader, Richard Leese, stated in a council meeting that Merseybank was not a priority for the council—a shameful remark—despite the fact that Merseybank falls within the top 5% of deprivation in the country.

Why was the library not simply rebuilt with the insurance money? That would seem fairly sensible, and insurance was paid out, but unfortunately it appears that the payout was not enough to rebuild the library. The council spent half of it securing the site and removing the remains of the building. That is a scandal, and we still do not know what happened to the rest of the money. Instead, the temporary library on the other side of the road has remained, but it has been open for only 15 hours a week. Given that it is open for so few hours, is it any wonder that library usage at Barlow Moor is lower than at any other permanent library in Manchester? There is a lot of uncertainty about when the library is open. Residents often tell me that they are never sure when the Barlow Moor library will be open, so they choose to use other libraries that are open longer.

Compared with those 15 hours a week, the next closest library, Chorlton library, is open 61 hours a week. That is the crux of the problem. Although investment has been made in the main district libraries, including Chorlton, and hours have been extended, smaller local libraries, which tend to be in more deprived areas, have been neglected. In my view, there has been a deliberate policy of concentrating resources in the bigger libraries while starving the smaller ones and running them down so that they can ultimately be closed.

Since the announcement that Barlow Moor library would close, along with a couple of other local community libraries, the Labour executive member with responsibility for libraries has gone on a charm offensive, attending consultation meetings on the future of library services and attempting to blame the proposed closures on the coalition Government. At a meeting on the Merseybank estate, Councillor Amesbury even had the cheek to claim that the council had been just about to rebuild the library when the coalition cuts were announced. That is simply not true, and when he was challenged, he made no attempt to back up his claims.

That series of meetings is not just about Councillor Amesbury’s attempt to deflect the blame for Labour’s closure of libraries in Manchester; it is also about a consultation on the future of the libraries. My concern, which I voiced at the Barlow Moor library meeting, is that the consultation will be unbalanced and will give the council the opportunity to press ahead with its policy of running down the smaller libraries at the expense of the larger ones. Far more people who use the bigger libraries, which have a much greater footfall, will fill in the “Over to you” consultation. Although council officers have agreed to make the consultation documents as readily available as possible in the local community, the reality is that people are far more likely to pick up a consultation document about library services in the library, so the consultation will be skewed in favour of the larger libraries. At the same time, what incentive do users of Barlow Moor library have to fill in a consultation on the future of their local library when they have already been told that the council has decided to close it?

I am trying to get as many people as possible to take part in the consultation. Part of the reason why I wanted this short debate was to highlight the issue of the consultation and get as many people as I could to sign the petition against the closure of Barlow Moor library. The people of Levenshulme have shown that the council can be forced into a U-turn, and we know that there is an alternative to Labour’s cuts.

A politician recently said:

“Libraries are a vital resource; they are hubs of our communities. Libraries open doors to a world of opportunities, not just for reading, but for learning, self-improvement, access to employment. Closing libraries denies many people these chances and leaves us all poorer.”

I could not agree more, and I am sure that the Minister could easily have made that statement himself. However, it is actually a quote from the shadow libraries Minister. It is a shame that Manchester Labour councillors seem to think that it is acceptable to close such an important local facility.

The additional worry is that the consultation will result in further cuts to our library services, possibly including a reduction in hours across all libraries. The council consultation document points out that a reduction in hours can always be reversed once budgets are not so tight, but that somewhat contradicts the decision to close libraries such as Barlow Moor. I am fairly certain that most library users would prefer to see a reduction in hours across the board rather than library closures, but the problem is that a reduction in hours is much more likely to be in addition to, rather than instead of, library closures.

We ought to look at all alternatives to reducing library hours, whether through a volunteer network of library supporters or through other cost savings, because there is a real danger that the hours will not be restored in the future. This is particularly important for local community libraries, which may end up, in years to come, with the same fate as Barlow Moor library if their hours are cut further, perhaps down to the number on which Barlow Moor library has been surviving.

Finally, I will mention briefly the mobile library service, which also faces the prospect of being wiped out following the consultation in Manchester. The provision of mobile library services costs £13.26 per visit, which is approximately six times as much as the £2.27 per visit to permanent libraries. The library service in Manchester says that there is evidence that a significant number of mobile library users also visit permanent libraries. Clearly, those people would be relatively unaffected by the closure of the mobile library service, but it is a lifeline for a relatively small number of mobile library users, who are probably among the most vulnerable of library users. It is vital that those people are included in the consultation, to ensure that they are able to retain some level of library service in the future.

Photo of Ed Vaizey Ed Vaizey The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport 4:41, 5 April 2011

I am grateful, Mr Gale, to serve under your excellent chairmanship for the second time this afternoon. I congratulate my hon. Friend Mr Leech on securing this important debate. He spoke with passion and eloquence on the library in his constituency that he seeks to keep open. I hope that, when we look back at this campaign, which I hope will be successful, the library will be renamed the John Leech library, in honour of the campaign that he has started.

I have probably said too much already, because it would be wrong of me to get involved in any specific campaign on any reorganisation of a local library service. As the Minister with responsibility for libraries, my first point is that library provision is still very much a local service, albeit with a statutory underpinning to which I shall return in a moment. One of the things that I was keen to stress when I became a Minister was that libraries are a local service, which means a number of things. It is important that they are a local service, because one would expect the local council to understand the local community and to know its varied needs, which are different in different parts of the community. The idea that that provision could be second-guessed from Whitehall is absolute nonsense.

It is also important that local councils engage with their local communities in the running of their local library services. One of the things that I have found disappointing over the past few months, as library closures have reared their heads and campaigns have started, is that some councils—I would not dream of naming any of them—did not engage more with their library services many years ago to see what opportunities were available. Some truly innovative councils have realised that libraries are an extraordinary resource to support the local community. Yes, they are about books and literature, but, in the 21st century, they are also about access to the internet, education, adult education and learning, and about access to health, council and community services. Those councils that have seen and seized that opportunity have provided go-ahead library services.

It is also important to stress—I say this as a matter of principle, with no reference to the specific case raised by my hon. Friend—that, sometimes, closing a library does not necessarily mean that the service is being run down. I always think about the service in Tower Hamlets, where a number of libraries were closed to create a much more vibrant library service. It provided access for a much wider part of the community, particularly young people, simply by investing in core libraries and looking at the different services that different parts of the community wanted. I also look, at a time of cuts, at library services that not only sustain their existing service, but go ahead and open new libraries. For example, the royal borough of Windsor and Maidenhead plans to open more libraries and is putting police points in its library service, because it understands that it is a community service. Hillingdon has also refurbished its library estate.

Photo of John Leech John Leech Liberal Democrat, Manchester, Withington

The Minister may not be aware that, at the same time as it is closing libraries in Manchester, the local council has just opened a couple of new libraries in other parts of the city. If we have an existing service that is valuable to the local community, why is that being closed when resources are being put into other parts of the city for other local communities?

Photo of Ed Vaizey Ed Vaizey The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport

Again, I hesitate to comment on the specific example. Suffice to say that one reason why we support libraries as local services is that the council should be free to reorganise its library service in the way that it sees best. It should also, however, consult local people, and there will clearly be disagreements about the strategy. For example, I remember a vigorous discussion in Swindon, which is, perhaps, a parallel case. Swindon opened a brand new central library and was going to close the old town library, and there was a campaign to keep it open. Bizarrely, the solution, which was to close the old town library but move it into the arts centre around the corner, has transformed that library. When people visit the arts centre or attend an evening performance, they end up looking at the library as well, and visits to it have increased significantly. There are, therefore, solutions, some of which can be imaginative.

My hon. Friend mentioned a volunteer network to sustain libraries, which is an important point. I have been pilloried in the past for suggesting that volunteers should play a key role in sustaining library services. I do not want to sound like I am crying over spilled milk, but I have been misrepresented by being seen to suggest that volunteers should replace professional staff, which is not my view at all. I certainly know, however, that volunteers work in libraries throughout the country and, as my hon. Friend has indicated, if they can be brought into the fold, they can keep an existing library open for longer at the times when the community wants to use it. As my hon. Friend has indicated, it can become a self-fulfilling prophecy: if the local council keeps the library shut for the majority of the week, fewer people will use it and the local council will then say, “Very few people use this library, so there is no justification for keeping it open.”

Although this sounds extraordinarily perverse, I think that, when a library is under threat, there is a massive opportunity to embrace volunteers. For example, in my own constituency, where Grove library is threatened with closure by the county council, I have engaged with the local community and have actively suggested that it seek to staff the library with volunteers. I have also gone further—this is in my role as a constituency MP—and suggested that, even if the council reprieves Grove library, it should still hold on to the volunteer spirit that has emerged through the desire to keep it open. Too often, we sit back passively and allow libraries to be run in a passive-receive mode by a local council, but if we engage with them, we can have them open when we want, and they can start to provide the additional services wanted and suggested by people, which is a much more open process. I hope that Grove library is reprieved—although that will be a decision for the county council—and that a volunteer network will continue to support that library in the future.

Another thing that I did when I became the Minister with responsibility for libraries was to set up the future libraries programme. As I indicated earlier, I feel very strongly that there are some examples of outstanding leadership in the library service up and down the country. It is important that such best practice is shared between local authorities. One of the frustrations that I felt was that some local councils were perhaps trying to reinvent the wheel or to start from scratch when examining their library service, instead of learning from their peers about how they could engage local communities in their libraries, provide additional services and, indeed, save costs. Another frustration is that there are 151 library authorities and 151 sets of overheads. I hope that there will be progress in shared services across council boundaries. That might apply to Manchester, where a Greater Manchester library service could be put in place.

In terms of my national responsibilities, the Secretary of State has responsibility for superintending the library service, and it is a statutory responsibility for local authorities to provide a comprehensive and efficient library service. If local authorities fail in that duty, the library can be reviewed by the Secretary of State. That has happened only once formally since the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964 was passed. Some people think it happened twice, because they include Derbyshire but, in fact, it has happened only once with the Wirral in, I think, 2009. I campaigned for the then Secretary of State to call in the Wirral, and I am one of the few people who opine on the subject who bothered to go to the Wirral. Indeed, I also went to Swindon, which was another high-profile case that people were jumping up and down about. When I visited, I felt that no thought or strategy had gone into the plan for library closures.

The Secretary of State’s decision to review the Wirral case achieved two things. First, the Wirral stopped its library closures. However, more importantly, the report prepared by Sue Charteris provided an outline of the kind of steps that a local council should be taking when seeking to provide a comprehensive and efficient library service, which included taking account of the needs of local communities. Since becoming the Minister with responsibility for libraries, I have written at least twice to the leaders and chief executives of library authorities to remind them not only of their statutory duty, but of the steps that they should take to ensure that they are providing a comprehensive library service.

I understand my hon. Friend’s passion for Barlow Moor library, but it is certainly not my role as a coalition Minister to defend a specific example of what Manchester council is doing, particularly if it is seeking to blame the coalition for some of the decisions being made. In some ways, it makes me rather sad that it should do so. If one considers what Manchester has done from a distance, one can certainly see a case for its having a clear strategy for its libraries. It has opened six new libraries in the past seven years, including three in 2010. I am told that the council is planning to open two more next year and that several of its libraries operate in shared buildings. Co-location is a very good example of best practice, because one increases the footfall and new members coming through. What saddens me is that the leaders of Manchester council should be trying to convince local people in making the case for its strategy. It seems that it has put itself in a position of conflict with the local community, particularly in terms of Barlow Moor. In fact, it should be engaging and looking at a solution that delivers not only the required savings, but a service that is much desired by my hon. Friend’s constituents.

I have tried to fill out the time allotted, but I am reluctant to comment on the specific case of Barlow Moor too heavily. If the Secretary of State were to review any library authority’s decisions, he would have to sit in a quasi-judicial capacity to do so. It would therefore be wrong for Ministers to comment too freely on any particular examples. That is why I have so far resisted meeting the many campaigners who have got in touch with me. I have not done so because I wish to be rude to them in any shape or form but because, as proposals for the reorganisation of library services come forward, it is important that Ministers do not get involved unless and until they have to.

By that I mean, first, that many of the library closures that people are talking about are simply proposals that are being consulted on with local communities. Oxfordshire county council, which I know best because I am a Member of Parliament for that area, has said that it is going back to the drawing board with its proposals, which shows how quickly issues can change. Many other local authorities that on paper appear to be closing a large number of libraries have revised their proposals. We are talking about a constantly moving landscape, and it would be wrong for Ministers to intervene at an early stage. Consultation needs to take place and councils need to make a final decision. Importantly, Ministers need to get independent advice from the Museums, Libraries and Archives Council, which is soon to be merged with Arts Council England, on whether an examination is needed before deciding whether to call in any particular case.

I want to use this opportunity to emphasise the alternative nature of engagement that Ministers have taken. As I have said, shortly after we came into office, I was at the launch of the future libraries programme, which will connect up to 36 local authorities with each other to share best practice. Indeed, we published the findings of the future libraries programme on the website of the Museums, Libraries and Archives Council towards the end of last week, so that everyone can see what best practice was shared. We have written to every library authority in the country to remind it of its duties and set out the steps that it needs to take to provide a comprehensive and efficient library service. Even more importantly, officials from the Museums, Libraries and Archives Council have engaged on the ground with individual local authorities to assist them.

I am a passionate supporter of local libraries. I believe that they can sit at the heart of communities and provide a fantastic service for them. I am not complacent in the slightest, but there is a danger of exaggerating the level of closures. As I have said, many of the cases people are talking about are proposals. I do not wish to sound perverse, but it is a good thing to behold the number of communities that have risen up to defend their library service, engage with the council and put forward alternative proposals. No council holds the holy grail or the secret code of how to run a local library service. If a local council is prepared to share the financial information and all the relevant data with local communities, it may be pleasantly surprised by the kind of ingenious solutions and engagement that will emerge.

The library debate has put into sharp focus the need for us to move away from the traditional top-down approach, where a solution is handed down from on high—whether that is the council or the Government—towards embracing a bottom-up approach, where communities work with councils or the Government to provide the solution that they need.

Sitting adjourned without Question put (Standing Order No. 10(11) and Order of the House, 29 March).