The final countdown for Senate House Library
Senate House Library’s future will be decided by the Collegiate Council at its meeting on December 12th.
The Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) decided not to renew SHL’s £1.1m special research library funding, which, on top of its yearly losses of over £1m means it faces a cash crisis. A review group has been considering a range of options, including closing the library completely.
Campaigners are calling for students to sign their open letter (opposite), urging college heads to decide that it’s worth continuing to collectively fund SHL.
Peter Brett, who has been leading the campaign to save SHL, said: “One of two things will probably happen. Either the library will be taken over by a college, almost certainly UCL, or the colleges will have to bite the bullet and take some difficult decisions, deciding on a realistic approach to making collective ownership and management of the library work.
“Some tough compromises will be necessary, especially since a reduced level of service is inevitable under such a scheme (some colleges are apparently unwilling to increase their contributions beyond their present level under any circumstances). Staff will be laid off, reader spaces reduced, and some portion of the library building will probably be put to other use.
“It is vital, in short, that college heads accept to get less for the same money. If colleges felt it would simply not be worth funding SHL to provide a significantly reduced service, it would spell the end for Senate House.”
As envisaged by CHEMS consulting, who have been carrying out the review, if UCL were to take over the library, readers passes would still be issued and access maintained at current levels. But the collections would be relocated, and spare copies taken off the shelves, leading to economies in staffing.
Save Senate House Library have been arguing against a takeover. Brett explained: “Takeover will result in gradually increasing control by one college of the library’s acquisition policy. It will gradually specialise where that college specialises, forcing every other college - at massive collective expense - to replace the ‘core’ holdings Senate House provides. In history, for example, if UCL buys the library, new books on Latin America and the Ancient Near East would quickly find their way onto the shelves - many others, even ‘classics’, would not.”
To add your voice to those campaigning to Save Senate House Library, go to the Facebook group page: ‘Save Senate House Library for the University of London‘ and send a message asking to sign the letter. If you are not on Facebook, please email: peter2brett@gmail.com or s.gamsu@ucl.ac.uk.
The Letter
Recently the Save Senate House Campaign has participated in consultations and debates across the London student body, discussing how students would react to the various realistic proposals that have been made for the library’s future. We believe these views should be taken into account, particularly since the British Library seems not to have sufficient capacity to absorb readers who stop using Senate House.
For some months now we have understood that the collegiate council will most likely choose between some form of continued collective ownership, with reduced service, and merger with a college library. Over the last year we have argued continuously for the first of these options - our special concern being with how the collections would develop if owned singly. In view of the popularity and usefulness of the library demonstrated in our earlier petition, we believe its maintenance as a collectively owned and managed library should be a spending priority for college management.
We recognise, however, the harsh realities of the situation we find ourselves in. The robust compromises necessary to keep the University of London from fragmentation do not appear likely - to the detriment, especially, of students outside the largest institutions. If a merger with a college library would be unpopular with students, it is of course still preferable to a somewhat extended death as part of a larger, doomed institution. If, for whatever reason, then, an agreement to make collective ownership work cannot be agreed upon (as we nevertheless believe it must be), we would at least expect the college which incorporates Senate House to make the following minimum guarantees, in addition to full access: a long-term strategic plan for collection development and de-duplication that takes full account of the needs of other college libraries, and a binding promise that the terms of such an agreement will not change in the event of that college leaving the University of London at a future date.
Thank you for reading.
Leave a Reply