HC Deb 01 March 1961 vol 635 cc1702-20

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Chichester-Clark.]

9.40 p.m.

Mr. Alan Fitch (Wigan)

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the opportunity that you have given me to raise the problem of the shortage of qualified librarians in our public libraries. So much of our time is taken up, and rightly so, in discussing matters of great national and international importance that we are apt to forget those small groups of people who never hit the headlines, and who cannot form effective pressure groups, but whose work is becoming more important as we enter an age of increasing leisure with greater opportunities for reading. The librarians in public libraries are such a group.

More and more public libraries are having great difficulty in filling junior professional posts with qualified staff, and some libraries have been obliged to fill vacancies with partially qualified people. In 1957, the percentage of posts graded as A.P.T.1, that is, Administrative, Professional and Technical, and A.P.T.2, occupied by unqualified staff, was 16. In 1959, it rose to 23, and by 1960 it had risen to 27. Many posts at this level have remained vacant, and at the end of 1960 there were 277 posts graded in A.P.T.1 and A.P.T.2 which were reported as vacant, in addition to 998 occupied by unqualified staff, out of a total number of 2,738 posts in these two grades, which is about 46 per cent.

This very disturbing situation led the Library Association, which is a professional body open to all librarians whether from public or non-public libraries, to ask for information from 484 public libraries about their turnover of qualified library staff since January, 1959. Of the 484 who were asked for information, 352 sent returns showing the number of junior qualified staff who had left the library service, either for employment in other types of libraries, or leaving the profession altogether.

A summary of the returns revealed that 47 per cent. of the qualified staff leaving were lost to the service altogether and that only 56 per cent. of the posts left vacant were filled by qualified librarians, 34 per cent. were filled by unqualified staff and 10 per cent. remained unfilled. The returns also showed that if there had not been a loss of 299 qualified librarians from the public library service to other types of library and other employment, the 218 new posts created during the same period of two years could have been filled by qualified staff, and the existing number of posts filled by unqualified staff could have been reduced.

Those are disturbing figures, and so are some of the figures relating to new entrants to the profession who joined the Library Association to become qualified librarians. Figures for the last five years reveal that approximately 800 new entrants each year were on the staffs of public libraries. Only one in three completes the registration examination and becomes a chartered librarian. A further analysis of over 700 members who gave up their membership in 1959 revealed that two-thirds of them had been in membership for less than three years. Not a few libraries have had a complete change of junior staff in two years, and others have failed to keep any staff who were qualifying to the time when they could appoint them to professional posts.

That is a very unsatisfactory position, particularly in view of the recommendations of the Roberts Report, which suggested an increase of over 2,000 qualified librarians in the public library service to ensure an efficient service.

Shortage of manpower in industry can usually be attributed to either poor pay or to bad working conditions, or to both, but shortage of trained people in a particular profession is usually attributable to low salary and poor prospects, and I think that the shortage of qualified librarians in our public libraries is due to the poor salary paid.

The Roberts Report, which was presented to Parliament in February, 1959, recommended, in paragraphs 96 and 97, that the need for an increased salary should be brought to the notice of the appropriate joint negotiating bodies. The Committee was very definite about it. I quote from paragraph 97 of the Report: It would not be appropriate for us to recommend particular salary scales for qualified librarians, since negotiating machinery already exists for this purpose. We feel bound. however, to emphasise the importance of having library staff who are sufficient in number and suitable in quality to discharge their responsibilities effectively. To achieve this, adequate salary scales are necessary, and employing authorities should operate these in a manner calculated to provide attractive careers for librarians. We hope that our views on this subject will be brought to the notice of the appropriate joint negotiating bodies. In March, 1960, I asked the Minister of Education if his attention had been drawn to paragraph 96 of the Roberts Report: and what proposals he has to make His reply was: Yes, Sir, but, as the Roberts Committee recognised, negotiating machinery exists for determining the salaries of qualified librarians, and I have no doubt that paragraph 96 has been noted by those concerned."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 24th March. 1960; Vol. 260, c. 656.] In December of last year, I asked a similar Question and received a very helpful reply from the Minister: Since the hon. Member raised this question previously, I have entered into discussions with the local authorities about the future of the library service in the light of the Government's decision to introduce legislation and further studies are envisaged. The provision of adequate and properly qualified staff is of great importance in the running of an efficient service and I know that the local authorities are fully aware of the comments of the Roberts Report on this matter."—40FFicIAL REPORT, 1st December, 1960 Vol. 631, c. 570.] In spite of the Minister's sympathetic reply, no improvements have been made in the salary scale for libraries since the publication of the Roberts Report. A claim for an improved salary scale has been before the appropriate joint negotiating committee for many months. Are the employers ignoring the recommendations of the Committee? One gathers from the Written Answer to a Question on this subject from the hon. Member for Carlisle (Dr. D. Johnson) that the Government agree in principle with the proposal of the Roberts Committee that the Minister of Education should assume a general responsibility for the oversight of the public library service.

Will the Parliamentary Secretary bring to the notice of his right hon. Friend the fact that the employers' side of the joint negotiating body seems to be completely ignoring the recommendations of the Roberts Committee? Of course, it may not know what is the view of the Minister. It may take the view that the Minister has not given it his official blessing. A lead from the Minister at this time would do a great deal of good. It is reasonable to assume that staffing difficulties are due to low salaries because there is no evidence that this unsatisfactory situation exists in other types of libraries. Apart from occasional vacancies their staffs are always up to full establishment.

A glance at the salary scales reveals the reason. For example, the lowest professional grade for qualified librarians in the Civil Service rises to a maximum of £1,154 a year, while the lowest grades in the public library service rises to a maximum of £815 a year. The maximum in the second grade is £960, which is still below the maximum for the lowest grade in the Civil Service. University libraries and professional and technical institutions, in fact 75 per cent. of the posts for qualified staff, carry a maximum salary of £960 a year. It is no wonder that qualified librarians leave the public library service which offers a maximum of £960 to go to posts of similar responsibility and grading where the maximum salary is £1,154.

Closely linked with the question of salaries is the question of prospects. The Roberts Report recommended an improvement in the career prospects of the public library service. I hope that without being tedious I may quote from paragraph 103 of the Report. It says: salary scales for the staff of public libraries should be commensurate with their qualifications and responsibilities, and should be applied in a manner calculated to make career prospects attractive; and … this recommendation should be brought to the notice of the appropriate joint negotiating bodies. There is a feeling among librarians that employers are opposed to making any change in the grading of staff as recommended by the Roberts Report. Liaison, the news sheet of the Library Association says: It is no secret that they "— that is, the employers— are unimpressed by the recommendations of the Roberts Committee. What reasons have the librarians for thinking this? Immediately following publication of the Roberts Report, the Library Association asked N.A.L.G.O. to reopen negotiations with the employers to obtain a better grading system which would give effect to the Roberts Committee recommendations on career prospects and appropriate salaries. Certain proposals were agreed upon by the staff side of the National Joint Council in January, 1960. That is thirteen months ago. It submitted proposals to the employers' side in April, 1960. Consideration of these proposals was deferred pending the settlement of a general pay claim for all local government officers. That settlement was received in September and discussions on the proposals were resumed in October, 1960. The employers' side made no offer and that is the position today. The prospects of an early settlement appear very bleak indeed.

The position of chief librarians is no better than that of their subordinates. For over twelve years the Society of Municipal and County Chief Librarians, that is, the chief librarians' trade union, has tried to obtain recognition of municipal chief librarians as a category of chief official for whom it would be both practicable and desirable to have uniform salary scales. To date, it has submitted five claims. The first was submitted on 18th October, 1952, based on the population served. That was rejected.

On 26th June, 1956, the second claim was submitted for a uniform salary, this time based on a percentage of the salaries of designated chief officers. That was rejected. On 15th October, 1956, a third claim was submitted, based on total expenditure on the library service, but the officers' side was not agreeable to that. On 5th July, 1957, a fourth claim was submitted, based on staff control. That was rejected by the employers' side. Following the recommendations of the Roberts Committee, a fifth claim was submitted on 10th November, 1959, based on a points system. That was rejected on 30th June, 1960.

What patience these librarians have had! If they had been members of my union, the National Union of Mineworkers, it is inconceivable that they would have waited twelve years for the settlement of a claim. I am pleased to say that I am a member of the Libraries Committee of Wigan County Borough Council. We have had the same difficulties and been unable to get the necessary number of qualified staff after months of advertising.

What is required to become a chartered librarian? To the average member of the public, who only sees someone handing out and receiving books, it seems to be a fairly easy job. It is one of the peculiarities of human nature to imagine that another person's job is easy money, but that idea persists only until by chance one has to do that job oneself. What are the qualifications required to become a chartered librarian?

Intending librarians must have the G.C.E. at Ordinary level in five subjects, including one foreign language. They must pass the examination of the Library Association, which consists of four groups covering a wide field such as cataloguing and classifying, organisation and administration, assistance to readers and one examination on literature of a special subject. They must have three years' approved library service and they cannot be recognised as librarians at associate level under the age of 23. They are fairly stiff qualifications for salaries of under £1,000 a year.

I have raised this question because I believe that librarians in public libraries are having a raw deal. They are asking only to be treated like their professional contemporaries in local government service.

9.55 p.m.

Mrs. Eirene White (Flint, East)

I am sure that we are grateful and obliged to my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. Fitch) for having raised this subject tonight. He has been extremely pertinacious about this matter. He asked Questions in March and December last year and although, as he said, the Minister made quite amiable replies, we had nothing very much out of either of the two answers. I am hoping that tonight we shall have something more substantial from the Parliamentary Secretary.

The story, which has been given us in greater detail than previously is, I think everyone will agree, quite horrifying. I speak with great feeling in this matter because, many years ago, I was a librarian myself. I was not in the public library service of this country, but I served the greater part of one year in a very fine public library, of New York City. When one compares the relative status of librarians in the United States, and the conditions of service, pay and amenities provided for them, with the very shabby treatment which is the normal lot of persons in the public library service of this country, I think that we should be thoroughly ashamed of ourselves.

I have felt for many years that we have had a tradition in this country of taking our librarians in the public library service for granted. They are people who give devoted service to the public and are not, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan has rightly said, very combative by nature. They are more studiously inclined, perhaps. That makes it all the more unnecessary that the public should recognise that if we are to have an adequate library service we must provide reasonable conditions.

The occasion of the Roberts Committee's Report, which is now two years old, was surely one which should have brought this matter home to the people concerned. I must say that I am deeply disappointed to learn that the employing authorities have apparently been exceedingly reluctant to come to a proper conclusion in this matter. The whole history of this business is lamentable. As long ago as 1927 the Kenyon Committee made recommendations concerning the conditions of librarians which have not been observed. They made recommendations for parity with the teaching profession. Teachers are not very well off at the moment, but librarians are worse off.

There is also the question of opportunities. It is not only the basic salary, inadequate as it is, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan pointed out. it is also a question of giving opportunities both of rising in the general administration and, for those who have special qualifications, recognition of their qualifications as specialist librarians—reference librarians and children's librarians, for example, They do an extremely important educational job.

I had occasion, not so long ago, to pay a modest tribute in The Times to Miss Anne Carroll Moore, the great children's librarian of the New York Public Library, who died recently. She was very well known indeed to librarians all over the world. Children's librarians have a tremendous responsibility in cultivating the taste for reading among young children. They, too, should have this responsibility properly recognised in the normal way, namely, by adequate pay and good conditions.

It being Ten o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Whitelaw.]

Mrs. White

I therefore hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to tell us more than we have heard hitherto.

My hon. Friend gave the results of the inquiries made by the Library Association into the turnover of staff. I wonder whether the Ministry has made any other investigation of its own. This matter was raised in March and December last year, and we understood that the Minister was asking his Department to look into it. I wonder whether there are any figures in addition to those which the Library Asso- ciation has been able to produce, though we hardly need supplementary figures because the ones which we already have are horrifying enough.

I should like to know whether the Parliamentary Secretary can say anything about the training arrangements for librarians. These are mentioned in the Roberts Report, and I have one matter of particular concern to me which I should like to mention. As it is St. David's Day, it is most appropriate that I should do so. It concerns the reference in the Roberts Report to the lack of training for librarians in Wales. It is suggested in paragraph 112 of the Report that Consideration should therefore be given to the establishment of a school of librarianship where full-time courses can be provided and to the problems of training bilingual librarians. in the Principality. Obviously, this is of extreme importance to us in Wales where some librarians often have a double job to do. They have to deal with English-speaking readers and with those who wish to be served with Welsh books or Welsh periodicals. I should very much like to know whether any arrangements have been made as a result of the recommendation in the paragraph to which I have referred.

Although it is not the subject of this debate, as we have rather more time than we sometimes have, I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to give us some idea of how the more general inquiries are proceeding. In one of our major debates on education on 7th November, the Minister of Education almost went out of his way to refer to the position in libraries. He said that studies were being undertaken with a view to legislation. He mentioned that for the full operation of any legislation which might come about one would have to wait for the local government boundaries to be determined. I hope that the stress was on "full operation", because there are many things which should be encouraged now and which should be started at the earliest possible moment without necessarily waiting for the boundary problems to be solved. If we have to wait for that, it may be many years before we have the improvements in the library service which the Roberts Committee recommended.

Although we cannot go very far tonight, I think that it would be interesting for those concerned about the prospects for the libraries of the country if the Parliamentary Secretary could at least tell us what progress is being made in the more general studies into the library position and if we can hope to have the necessary legislation next Session.

I want to leave the Parliamentary Secretary ample time in which to deal with the matters which have been raised. Therefore, I will not do what I should otherwise have liked to do, namely, discuss the position in Wales at greater length. In the chapter in the Report devoted to the position in Wales, some of our peculiar difficulties are emphasised. We have a large number of very small library authorities whose expenditure on books is so far below what is recommended by the Roberts Committee that one cannot help but feel that some people in Wales must be having a very poor service indeed. I do not blame those authorities. Some of them are far too small and simply do not have the resources. There are interesting suggestions in the chapter for the possible combination of services, and so on.

Unless action is taken fairly soon, it will be very much to the detriment of the Principality and particularly of those readers, English and Welsh, in the areas which, it is clear from the Report, cannot be having the proper supply of books and periodicals to which they are entitled. I hope that we shall have specific replies to the questions raised by my hon. Friend and a little general enlightenment as to what the Government will do about the main problems.

10.6 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education (Mr. Kenneth Thompson)

I join with the hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. Eirene White) in congratulating the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Fitch) in choosing to take the opportunity to bring forward this matter, which we recognise to be of considerable importance. The hon. Member will find as I go along that I am having Obvious difficulty in replying to one of his questions with answers that have even the appearance of being helpful. I hope, however, that what I say will explain how that comes about.

I agree with the hon. Gentleman and with the hon. Lady that the general import and the main recommendations of the Roberts Committee have earned wide support among all who have considered the future organisation of the public libraries. The idea that the libraries should maintain high standards of efficiency, centrally established and broadly supervised by the Government, is in itself a new one. It recognises the importance of the services that the libraries give. In an age which, as the hon. Gentleman said, is characterised by increasing leisure side by side with universal systems of mass entertainment, the growth of the habit of book borrowing and reading is one of the more satisfactory features of our modern life.

The Government believe, as, I think, the library authorities believe, that this habit can grow, and grow more rapidly, the more the libraries set themselves high standards of service. Most people would agree that to a large extent those high standards will depend upon the qualities of the librarians who staff the libraries. The steady growth in the use of the libraries the easy familiarity with which the public, from the youngest child to the oldest pensioner, makes use of them is evidence of the skill with which many librarians have knit their establishments into the social life of the area they serve.

It may well be that this growth could have been more rapid and more widespread had there been more and better qualified librarians. It may be that there would have been more staff if the salary rates had been higher. It may be that the library authorities have been remiss in not anticipating and meeting these alleged shortcomings. I really do not know.

It would be quite wrong to assume from anything that the hon. Gentleman has said about the library service generally, or what the hon. Lady said about the library service in Wales, that the public libraries are falling into desuetude and decay. Public demand seems to proclaim quite the contrary. The Society of Authors protests, not about the failure of the libraries, but that their growing popularity damages their other financial interests.

In these circumstances—to some extent this answers the hon. Lady's remarks about the Government's response to the recommendations of the Roberts Committee—I am sure that we are right to take whatever time is necessary to prepare well-conceived proposals arising from those recommendations to put before the House for its consideration. I need hardly remind the House that in a matter like this, "well conceived" in this context means not only good in themselves, but capable of attracting the support and good will of the local authorities, the librarians and, not least, the general public, whose favourable judgment on our work will be the true measure of our success.

My right hon. Friend informed the House on 15th December last that, arising from the recommendations of the Roberts Committee, it was the Government's intention that the Minister of Education should have a general responsibility for the oversight of the public library service. He indicated that, after certain preliminary work had been completed, legislation would be laid before the House. I am happy to inform the hon. Lady that that preparation is going on very actively at present. I regret that I am not able to say when the proposed legislation will be ready or when the Parliamentary timetable will be able to accommodate it. The Parliamentary time-table is sometimes subject to interruptions of one kind or another.

This preparation has involved my right hon. Friend in very wide consultations. A broad measure of agreement now exists on many of the problems, but some matters require further study from a technical point of view, as my right hon. Friend has already indicated to the House. At the same time, we have to take account of the work of the Local Government Commissions. Their proposals may have very far-reaching effects indeed on the future organisation of the public libraries as well as on other local government services, and I am sure that it would be quite wrong for the House to decide upon a pattern of organisation for the library service which failed to fit into, or was in conflict with, the general pattern of local authority services.

In short, while considering the recommendations of the Roberts Committee, we must bear in mind the possible recommendations of the Local Government Commissions.

Whatever new duties may be laid by the House on my right hon. Friend, the library service will continue in the future, as it is now, to be an essentially local authority service. I am quite sure that the House would not wish it otherwise. The service originated as the result of local initiative and is supported entirely from local rate revenue. It is managed and controlled locally, and it is responsible to local opinion as to the standards of service to be achieved. Its growth has been the result of local demand. Neither my right hon. Friend nor any other Government Minister has any responsibility or duty to intervene. I think that the House would want Ministerial intervention at any time in the future to be limited to the minimum consistent with ensuring standards that are uniformly high.

As we have been reminded this evening, the Roberts Committee expressed the opinion, among other things, that the high standards to be sought would require high standards of staffing both in numbers and in quality. We accept that. Although there has been some increase in the total numbers of staff employed since the Committee reported, it is true that there is still a considerable shortage. From the figures which the hon. Gentleman has given the House, this fact seems to stem mainly from the wastage which takes place rather than from a failure to recruit.

A good deal of this wastage is due to young women leaving the service to marry or look after their families. I doubt whether we can do much about this. We attract into the work a nice type of girl and she attracts a nice young man and they go off together. Neither bribery nor blandishments can prevail against bliss. We are very familiar with this phenomenon in the teaching profession. I have no doubt that a pattern will emerge here as it is emerging in the teaching profession of the domestic episode representing a break in service rather than the end of it. There is a good deal that employing authorities can do to encourage this.

Our experience with teachers shows that there are many married women who qualify before marriage and who find as their families grow up that the intellectual dustbowl of the kitchen leaves them less than satisfied. They can give valuable service which will enrich their own lives and be of help to others. Of course, it will not be always easy to fit their service into the schedules of hours that a public library must keep, but industry and the professions are finding more and more that the special efforts needed to make use of the latent talents of all kinds of married women returners—if I may use the trade jargon—are handsomely rewarded.

Some of the wastage is the result of trained staff leaving public libraries after qualifying to take up appointments in other libraries, in industries, colleges and universities. Although this is highly inconvenient and upsetting to the losing libraries, I hope that it will be seen as a process not without some real value to the system as a whole. It cannot be other than advantageous to the development of a uniform and integrated lending library service. If the broader long-term objectives of the Roberts recommendations are to be achieved, these librarians trained in the public library service will be invaluable in making the resources of non-public libraries better-known and more widely used.

Inter-library co-operation of this kind is a fundamental feature of the pattern which we hope to see emerge. Indeed, a whole chapter of the Roberts Report is devoted to discussing library cooperation. There is already a great deal of this co-operation between public libraries, and I expect that there will be more. The numbers of non-public libraries, particularly the specialist libraries, are growing considerably, as is the extent of their specialised collections.

The hon. Lady and the hon. Member dwelt on the part played by salary scales in attracting and holding on to staff. I think that they will know that there is little I can say on this aspect of the matter. Librarians are the servants of the authorities that employ them and salaries and conditions of service must be negotiated between them. My right hon. Friend has neither the power nor the duty to intervene.

I do not know what responsibilities the House may decide to allocate to my right hon. Friend in the future. For the present, paragraphs 96 and 97 of the Report stand as the best guidance for those upon whom the responsibility now rests. I can do no more than refer to what my right hon. Friend said on this matter on an earlier occasion. I am sure that the House endorses the view that it would be quite wrong for him to intervene to prod either side in negotiations which may or may not be pending at present.

Mr. Fitch

Employers are suggesting that because the Minister has not pronounced on this subject at all they are not prepared to take any action. While the Minister may not have direct responsibility he can at least use his influence. He can make his position very clear and I am sure that notice would then be taken of his words.

Mr. Thompson

I am glad that it is recognised how great and widespread is my right hon. Friend's influence, but it would be highly improper for him to intervene in any way in negotiations of this kind. He can do no more than he has done up to the moment. I should be surprised indeed—and I confess to having no direct knowledge of the point as put by the hon. Member—if employing authorities were deliberately sheltering behind the absence of a ministerial edict, which ought not to be there anyway, in order to delay negotiations.

Mrs. White

I fully appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point that he is in a rather delicate situation in this matter, but could he not at least go as far as to make plain that these negotiations should not be in any way delayed or dragged out because the Minister is not able to take steps for some major reorganisation of the library service? It might possibly be argued that because the Minister is not ready yet with his proposals for reorganisation this whole matter of salaries and conditions might be put in cold storage. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could make it clear that that is not at all necessary.

Mr. Thompson

I can do no more than say that my right hon. Friend's position has not been altered one iota by the publication of the Roberts Committee Report, and his position cannot and will not be altered until this House chooses to alter it, and then only to the extent that the House chooses to alter it.

I repeat that I can give no forecast of the date on which the House will be invited to consider legislation on the subject. When that time comes, I imagine that the House will be asked to accept definitions of standards of efficiency and service. Among the factors affecting efficiency and service will be staffing standards, staffing pay and staffing prospects. Those are factors which I have no doubt all concerned with the service have had regard to in the past, and now have and must in the future have regard to—

Mrs. White

I fully appreciate what the hon. Gentleman says. I know that he wants to be helpful, and I suggest that he might be able to make quite clear what I think should be clear already; that because this possible reorganisation Which is coming at some time in the future cannot yet be disposed of, that is no reason for holding up negotiations in which, I fully agree, the Minister has no part. I only try to suggest that it should be made very clear that the Minister cannot give the date for this legislation as yet, and that there is, therefore, all the more reason why there should be no delay in current negotiations under present conditions because at some future time the conditions may be altered.

Mr. Thompson

I know that the hon. Lady is not trying to trap me into an embarrassing position, but I think that she will see that if I followed her advice I would be making the assumption that that is What the library associations are now doing, and there is no evidence to show that that is so. The dates given by the hon. Member support the view that a long time has passed between the beginning of the exercise and today's date. I cannot read into that any motives nor, I think, would the House wish me to do so. I can only repeat that I cannot give any date on which this House may be asked to consider legislation. If that is a factor that the negotiators on either side have in mind they should bear in mind my statement in deciding their next step.

If the House should at some future time decide that my right hon. Friend should have the responsibility for a general oversight of the service he will no doubt have to consider, among many other things, the whole question of the supply and training of librarians. Although he has not yet completed his consideration of the recommendations he will wish to put before the House, I can say that, subject to anything that may emerge from the consultations still going on with interested parties, he will give consideration to the proposition that this matter should be studied by the advisory bodies to which the Roberts Committee referred in paragraph 43 of its Report.

I take this opportunity of answering the specific Welsh points which the hon. Lady, aglow with national pride and daffodils, put before the House. There are special problems presented both by the national aspects in Wales and by the questions of geography to which the hon. Lady drew specific attention. It would be my right hon. Friend's intention, as things are, to have an advisory body with duties relating specifically to Wales. I have no doubt that that body would take into account the very points referred to in paragraphs 110, 111 and 112 of the Report, which were the basis of what the hon. Lady said. We recognise that the problems of Wales are different in many ways, from those in other parts of the United Kingdom.

The standard of service achieved by a public lending library is a compound of many factors. Not least among them is the quality of the men and women who staff the service. It is in the best interests of all that the service should attract high-quality candidates, and that salaries and conditions and career prospects should contribute to this attraction.

Mr. Fitch

The Parliamentary Secretary seemed to imply that a considerable number of attractive young ladies in the public library service met equally attractive young men, and that that was the cause of wastage. That, however, would apply to any kind of library—technical, professional or university—but apparently we do not get that in that type of library—only in the public library.

Mr. Thompson

I have no statistics, but I would be very surprised if a young lady was less attractive in a university library than in a public lending library. My experience of all kinds of the same institution is that the young ladies have the same appeal, and that the same fate awaits the attractive young man when he gets there. The probability is that into those other libraries in universities, and certain types of research and specialist organisations, there may be attracted an older, less attractive—less immediately attractive—person. If that is so, the statistics would fail to throw up the kind of phenomenon to which I referred earlier, but I am pretty confident that the boy-meets-girl complex is the same in all kinds of library.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-six minutes past ten o'clock