Rt Hon Margaret Hodge MBE MP Department for Culture Media and Sport 2-4 Cockspur Street London SW1Y 5DH 26 March 2010 Dear Minister The Modernisation Review of Public Libraries: a Policy Statement We represent thousands of writers who rely – in many cases to a considerable extent – on income they receive from the Public Lending Right Scheme. We note with concern the proposal in this week’s policy statement for “bringing together the functions of three different organisations – the Museums, Libraries and Archives Council (MLA), the Advisory Council on Libraries and the Registrar of Public Lending Right” under a new “strategic body for the library sector”, particularly as this was not signaled during the consultation process and this is therefore our first chance to comment on it. The purpose of the possible change is stated to be “as a means of providing a stronger national voice for libraries and improving leadership and development of the sector”. The PLR scheme is not primarily concerned with the “voice of libraries” but with the rights of authors and we do not consider it is a good fit with the MLA and the ACL. PLR has undergone strong development in recent years, to the great benefit of authors and the library sector alike, and its world-leading expertise will be required in the implementation of legislation to extend the scheme to cover audiobooks and ebooks. We do not believe PLR’s leadership under the present long-serving Registrar can be faulted. Should there be any cost-saving motive behind the new proposal, we would point out that PLR is based in Stockton-on-Tees – a low-cost location chosen specifically as it is an area of depressed employment opportunities. Over the past three years PLR has achieved notable efficiency savings, with a considerable reduction in staff and concentration in smaller premises, at a time when the quality of service to authors has improved. It should be borne in mind that the UK PLR Office has taken a leading role in encouraging and advising on the introduction of PLR in many European countries and farther afield. Writers, library services, cultural institutions and governments everywhere would be astonished if this world-leading organisation were to be jeopardised in any way.
It is essential that hasty changes are not allowed to undermine the current funding, autonomy and efficiency of the administration of the PLR scheme. PLR is a right, and a vital source of income to many writers, and we consistently hear from our members nothing but praise for the Registrar and his staff. We would be pleased to have your assurances on the following: 1.
If the nature of the administration of PLR is to change, all options will be explored before any decision is made (especially in view of possible changes to collective licensing provisions);
2.
The role of Registrar will be maintained, with its current legal status and powers, ensuring that he is able to make independent and impartial decisions;
3.
PLR funding must be ring-fenced and be under the control of the Registrar. The current funding has already been pegged for too long, and will be put under additional strain as PLR is extended e.g. to ebooks;
4.
The highly respected and extremely competent team of staff currently running the PLR Office should be retained. It is hard to imagine a new team of staff doing the job as well or as efficiently, or having as much expertise to deliver on expanding into ebooks;
5.
A guarantee of full consultation with our organisations and other interested parties before any changes are made to the status, nature or administration of PLR.
Please may we have the opportunity of an early meeting with you to expand on these concerns? Yours sincerely,
Penny Grubb – Chair, Authors’ Licensing & Collecting Society Owen Atkinson – Chief Executive, Authors’ Licensing & Collecting Society Mark Le Fanu – General Secretary, The Society of Authors Tom Holland – Chair, The Society of Authors Bernie Corbett – General Secretary, The Writers’ Guild of Great Britain Robert Taylor – Chair, The Writers’ Guild of Great Britain