Local authorities strapped for cash are aiming to cut their library budgets, an unpopular but, they say, unavoidable economy.
 
One is Cambridgeshire, which is encouraged by a survey that suggests the majority of respondents back decisions it has already half-reached. The preferred option there is to reduce staff and stretch those that are left more thinly by maximising self-service in libraries. The report of the consultation carried out suggests that two thirds of people support this option.
 
But look at the question asked. “We are proposing to put self-service machines in all our libraries, reducing the number of paid staff, and recruiting volunteers to help deliver the service. This way of working has the potential to save money without closing any libraries.
 
“Do you think (1) This is a good idea if it prevents library closure (2) You would rather see fewer libraries but fully run by paid staff or (3) Didn’t answer/couldn’t commit to one or the other.”
 
Presented with this leading question, it is hardly surprising that 68.5 per cent of respondents said yes to answer 1. Cambridgeshire concludes: “The consultation demonstrated that we have strong public support to proceed with the Alternative Delivery Approach ...”
 
Well, maybe. If the survey had instead asked: “We are proposing to lay off library staff and replace them where possible with volunteers” rather fewer might have agreed it was such a good idea. And if they had been given the option of responding “find the cuts somewhere else and leave the libraries alone” quite a few might have ticked that box.
 
It’s largely a matter of the questions you ask, and how you ask them. There may indeed be no alternative to the plans put forward by Cambridgeshire but claiming this survey in support is unconvincing.