John Jackson, Esq.
Director for Social and Community Services
Oxfordshire County Council
County Hall
New Road
OXFORD
OX1 1ND                                                                               19 August 2011

Dear Mr. Jackson 

Oxfordshire County Council: Library Service Consultation 

The following comments represent the views of the Oxford Civic Society on the proposals presented by the County Council for changes to the provision of library services across the county. 

We welcome the detailed consideration and quantified analysis now carried out by the County Council in establishing a potential scenario for meeting statutory obligations for the provision of library services, whilst effecting substantial savings in costs. The process of analysis appears more rigorous than previously, and a reasonable basis for the re-design of the library service, subject to the critical observations which follow. 

We welcome the invitation to consult on the proposals, though we regret that the suggested format for response, via the online questionnaire, allows for less comprehensive consultation than we had previously suggested. Furthermore, whilst you have confirmed that it is acceptable to respond to the consultation in ways other than by completion of the pro-forma questionnaire supplied, or by attendance at workshops, this remains unclear in the publicity material. This is will reduce the value of the responses made by the wider public. It is also extremely disappointing that, to date, none of the promised workshops has yet been organised, nor any details of their location or timing published, although the consultation period is already considerably more than half-expired. 

Regarding the proposals themselves, we have the following observations: 

1. Despite reference to the need to ensure the delivery of a ‘cost-effective, high quality service’ there is no evidence presented to suggest that the proposals will constitute this, or, indeed, any definition of these terms. In fact, there is no evidence provided that implementation of the proposals will even produce the cost savings required. 
   
   
2. Likewise, there is no evidence to suggest that the proposals will deliver a ‘service that is fit for the 21^st century’. Regrettably, this is another un-defined, meaningless phrase. In any event, it will be essential for the service to be subjected to constant review to ensure continuity, not only of fitness for purpose, but of exploitation of developing opportunities throughout the coming years. Periodic review only in times of crisis, as now, is not an adequate strategy, and smacks of complacency and/or political or ideological manipulation. 
   
   
3. We note the proposal to ‘rationalise our management support’; this phrase is regrettably again meaningless without specific detail. It is impossible to assess the effects of whatever is intended by ‘rationalisation’ on service provision, and hence to make a truly constructive contribution to the consultation process. Certainly, changes in management resources are likely to be necessary; evidence of recognition of this, and corresponding details of proposals would be more helpful, indeed, essential for meaningful consultation, not least with those affected. 
   
   
4. Whilst we can support the intention to ‘expand the use of volunteers’, the proposals are devoid of detail on the precise role of volunteers or the processes for their recruitment, training, mobilisation, organisation, management, motivation, incentivisation or retention. Importantly, no contingency plan for the eventuality of inadequacy in volunteer resources is presented, nor is there any recognition of the need for such a plan. Utilisation of volunteer enthusiast support is an operational strategy well recognised and deployed  effectively by many successful organisations, but it requires specific management resources, and there is no indication of recognition of any of the critical issues, nor of how these might be addressed.
   
   
5. Fundamentally, therefore, the issue of deliverability of the proposals, in terms of the availability of the voluntary resources essential to implementation, has not been addressed and remains uncertain. The proposals thus currently represent only a hypothetical solution, fulfilling statutory requirements, but completely lacking evidence of demonstrable deliverability. Concerns on this issue are compounded by the absence of any alternative or contingency plan. 
   
   
6. Although an undertaking is made to ‘assess our current procurement arrangements’, we believe that this should be, again, a continuous process, not an ad hoc single event prompted by a funding crisis. 
   
   
7. We strongly support the undertaking to continue to exploit existing and new opportunities to generate income, however, we are not convinced that such opportunities have, to date, been adequately recognised, or that exploitation has been adequately pursued. Examination of opportunities should be more intensive and more extensive than is implied by any of the current proposals, and should, for example, include investigation of the potential for premises-sharing and redevelopment of current library sites, as well as the provision of complementary ancillary services. 
   
   
8. We welcome the proposal to work collaboratively with other organisations, but of course this should include inter-library collaboration. We are disappointed at the notable absence of any reference to district councils, and particularly Oxford City Council. Such organisations are often responsible for provision of other public services such as community centres and recreational facilities, and there are undoubtedly opportunities for closer integration, including sharing of resources and even premises. Oxford Brookes University and the Colleges of Further Education are prime candidates for collaboration, as well as the 234 Parish Councils, 15 Town Councils and 68 Parish Meetings across the county, none of whom is acknowledged in the consultation document. 
   
   
9. We welcome the proposal to work collaboratively with private sector developers and contractors, but fail to understand why this should be restricted to circumstances of ‘changes in future population’. We believe it likely that there are immediate opportunities for private-sector investment, with beneficial outcomes for all concerned, including local communities and library service clientele, and collaboration with the private sector should not be restricted or postponed pending population growth.  
   
   
10. We are disappointed that no assessment of any kind appears yet to have been carried out into real and specific opportunities for collaboration with all categories of potential partner organisations, whether public, private, religious, charitable or community. Furthermore, no evaluation has been made of the substantial benefits which we are certain could accrue from such collaboration. We would suggest that urgent examination of site-specific and community-specific circumstances and opportunities is necessary for any comprehensive review of library services. 
    
    
11. Although we welcome the undertaking to ‘work with other library authorities to ensure that we benefit from best practice …. ’, we consider this to be a disappointingly reactive approach. We can see no reason why Oxfordshire County Council should not have ambitions to be an exemplar in the provision of library services – a developer, rather than simply a follower of ‘best practice’. We would like to see more specific objectives, and more positive proposals. 
    
    
12. We welcome the commitment to keeping all existing libraries open, maintaining good book stocks, providing public-access computers, maximising efficiency and effectiveness, using self-service technology, tailoring opening hours, offering wide-ranging services, working with community groups, and making libraries available as community space. However, this commitment lacks specific detail: we believe, for example, that there are opportunities for provision of innovatory services, such as wireless internet access and small-business meeting spaces, which could be subject to charged membership, as well as restaurant and café facilities. Changes in service requirements and technological developments will undoubtedly necessitate continuous review of the relevance and mode of delivery of services, and of new opportunities for service improvement. There should be consistency in what services are made available, though every aspect of local service provision should be determined by local requirements and proper and effective local community consultation. It will therefore be necessary to establish structures and resourcing for proper engagement with such communities, including, for example, forums for suggestion, consideration and evaluation of ideas and innovatory proposals. 

To summarise: 

1. Although considerable data is provided in the supporting documentation, there are no proper qualitative or quantitative projections for the resourcing, management or local operation of the library service, no financial projections to substantiate the effectiveness of the proposals, and, crucially, no evidence of their deliverability. 
   
   
2. The consultation paper thus largely constitutes a catalogue of good intentions, of which we are fully supportive. 
   
   
3. However, despite this support, we consider the proposals to be insufficiently wide-ranging in reviewing opportunities for the library service, and developing a genuinely imaginative and contemporary service, appreciated by all. The lack of substance and detail to the proposals, and the apparent continuing narrowness of vision are not only disappointing, but limit the value of the current consultation.  
   
   
4. Like the LGG/MLA Future Libraries Programme, we believe that what is needed is an effective partnership between the County, District and Parish Councils, Community groups, and others. Library sector professionals should be looking across and beyond their own service, to share and capture knowledge and to develop imaginative solutions that exploit opportunities, save money, generate revenue and improve outcomes for communities. Crucially, we believe solutions should be about harnessing local political leadership, professional expertise and the inspiration and enthusiasm of local communities, to pull in the same direction for the mutual and substantial benefit of all.   

We trust that these observations and criticisms will be accepted in the positive and constructive spirit in which they are intended, and the points we make will be properly considered and adequately addressed in the development of the proposals. We look forward to contributing further to the establishment of the excellent library service we all want. 

Peter Thompson
Chairman, Oxford Civic Society