Published: October 7, 2011
by ANDREW JOHNSON

BATTLE lines are being drawn in the fight against Town Hall plans to “hollow out the core” of the borough’s library service which, it is claimed, may result in branches being sold.

Although the Town Hall has pledged not to close any libraries as it battles with a £100million budget cut, staff and supporters are dismayed at proposals due to be made public next week. They argue the effect is the same as shutting two libraries.

The man in charge of the libraries, however, Labour councillor Paul Convery, has defended the measures. He argues that they are the result of a three-month consultation with 2,000 users.

The proposals, leaked to the Tribune, will see:

• 16 library staff lose their jobs – 10 per cent of the workforce;
• Self-service machines brought in across the borough, with traditional counters abolished;
• Libraries to be “twinned” and to open on alternate days – effectively meaning individual branches are open only three days a week;
• Branches to be valued by property services with a view to “co-locating” libraries in colleges and community centres – if this is rejected then branch closures have not been ruled out;
• Merging the Home Library delivery service – which caters to the elderly and disabled – with neighbouring Camden’s;
• Opening hours to be cut;
• Fines and charges to be raised;
• The budget for new books to be cut by £30,000; and
• CD loans to be phased out.

Staff say that at meetings there have been “ominous noises” about how “a library can be set up anywhere” and that space inside existing libraries could be rented, or buildings even sold.

While late opening hours will be maintained, disgruntled librarians say the changes will have most impact on the core of their users – the elderly, disabled, unemployed, single parents and students.

One librarian, who asked to be identified as “Adrian Mole” but whose identity is known to the Tribune, said that staff morale was rock-bottom and that the council had expressed its “terror” about public reaction to the plans.

“Staff are angry and dismayed,” he said. “Morale is very low. No senior managers are losing their jobs, but branch managers, who are qualified librarians, will be as they are twinning libraries.

“It’s damaging the service. Basically, we’re going to be deskilled and turned into floor walkers. The self-service machines don’t save time as the books still have to be processed manually after that. People are afraid for their jobs and for the service.

He added: “Catherine West [Labour leader at the Town Hall] has pledged not to close any libraries down. But these cuts are the equivalent of losing two libraries. I don’t think we’ll be able to provide a service that meets the standard set out in the 1962 Libraries Act. If you are elderly or disabled you can go to your library one day, but the next you’ll have to travel across the borough. Children are going to be affected by these changes.

“There is a concern that there are smaller branches that are under-used. We’ve been told to spread the pain around but Labour don’t want to look bad by closing libraries down.”

Children’s author Alan Gibbons, who is spearheading resistance to library closures across the country with the Campaign for the Book, said that Islington’s plans were “lazy thinking” and “unnecessary”.

“Closing libraries has proved hugely unpopular,” he said. “So the trend across the country is for local authorities to ‘hollow out’ the service – reducing opening times, losing staff. This fits with the strategy being seen across the country.

“The UK is 25th in the literacy league table, so there is no room to undermine the library service. The government is pushing the Big Society very hard as it is hoping the local community will take up the slack. That’s a green light to hive off public services to volunteers. It’s a sleight of hand.”

He believes that local authorities have room to manoeuvre. “Newcastle and Hull have managed to avoid library closures and to protect services,” he said.

“The cuts in Islington look unnecessary. The first place they should be looking is to cut management services. Hitting frontline services is pretty lazy thinking. They should go to the greatest level of effort to try to reduce the effect of the cuts on the public and the core library service.”

Cllr Convery, who has to save £600,000 from the libraries budget, said the council had to make “difficult choices”.

“It’s not as if we want to do this,” he said. “People have said to us overwhelmingly that they want to keep libraries open, even if that means shorter hours. We are putting in some technology that will free up librarians for more face-to-face time.

“We are protecting the library service from the worst of the cuts. We have already restructured staff and taken out middle managers. Do you have more libraries open for shorter hours, or fewer libraries open for longer hours? People have overwhelmingly said to us they prefer the former.”

Plans to place the libraries in an independent trust – mooted earlier in the year – have now been ruled out due to legal complications and public objections.