---

Library Services (South Manchester)

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.