In an article in last week’s Times Series there was criticism from Councillor Reuben Thompstone of my research into Barnet’s ‘complex and confusing’ library consultation (‘Libraries consultation is ‘complex and confusing’’, Times Series, January 22). As the author of the research, I need to point out that his comments are entirely misleading.

Cllr Thompstone claimed there was something shady and secretive about the authorship of the research. Nonsense. The council possesses in its archives several reports from my company, The Research Practice, and had no difficulty in contacting me to discuss the current research.

Cllr Thompstone said my report was “contradictory” on the basis that it claimed the council was providing both “too much and not enough information”. This is willful misrepresentation. The report clearly demonstrates that the library consultation does not give people the information they seek when they try to complete the questionnaire and is instead padded out with irrelevant jargon and nonsense. For example, before completing a questionnaire the public is told to read a background consultation document. This fails to explain how the council arrived at its current proposals. Its suggestions that libraries can be fully automated and reduced to a tenth of their current size appear out of nowhere. There is no explanation of what such libraries would contain, nor is there any evidence to support that these are workable ideas. Instead, much time is devoted to promoting the council’s ‘three options’, which take a great deal of time for people to understand. Later these prove to be a time-wasting irrelevance as the questionnaire claims that the council’s final solution may involve a mixture of elements drawn from all three options. The background consultation document is, therefore, unhelpful and wastes time.

Cllr Thompstone wrongly says that I have claimed that no one is likely to complete the consultation questionnaire. Instead, I have suggested that the consultation has been designed to deter response and to steer anyone who perseveres with the ludicrous questionnaire into unwittingly endorsing the council’s proposals.

To date the council has apparently received 1,200 responses to its consultation. Unfortunately, the council’s consultation fails to ask respondents to identify themselves, so anyone could submit multiple questionnaires in the hope of promoting the results they seek. Moreover, responses to such a badly-constructed and confusing questionnaire will have little value, so analysing the answers will represent a further waste of public money. Cllr Thompstone claims my report “just doesn’t make sense”. However, I would suggest that it is precisely because my report helps people make sense of an otherwise bewildering consultation process that it is being widely disseminated by others and I am receiving so many complimentary responses to it. However, there’s no need to take my word for it. You can access my report of the findings at: http://www.pdf-archive.com/2015/01/23/barnetcouncillibraryconsultation22jan2015/ and the council’s consultation at local libraries or via engage.barnet.gov.uk. I’ll be very happy for people to tell me about their experiences as they try to participate in this consultation.

Denis Robb

Founder of The Research Practice