I wish to thank Councillor Reuben Thompstone for inviting me to meet council officers to discuss the current libraries consultation.

I found the meeting very helpful and am also pleased to respond to questions raised in his letter (‘A number of report questions to raise’, Your Views, February 5).

Cllr Thompstone wonders why public response to the consultation documentation, as reported in my research findings, often seems hostile. Put simply, the consultation documents tend to alienate people. People find the documentation difficult to follow, unnecessarily repetitive and too time-absorbing. Many of the questions make little sense to the public and some appear disingenuous or leading. Trying to complete the questionnaire can feel like a punishment and people can easily derive the impression Barnet Borough Council is not being sincere.

As respondents explore the consultation thoroughly, such responses arise spontaneously and without any undue influence from the researcher. In short, the consultation documents can give the impression that the public is effectively being ‘locked out’ of the consultation process and even that the council is not approaching library reform responsibly. However, the council is hardly reliant on my research to tell it this. Some members of the public have organised themselves to provide guidance on how to fill in the consultation questionnaire, which they believe is designed to trick the unwary. This provides clear and independent evidence that the consultation alienates people. I suspect that many completed questionnaires will also reflect irritation with the consultation process.

I agree that my research is far from perfect. It had to be conducted quite hastily and some aspects of it may appear unorthodox. However, I think the presentation to council officers communicated the problems with the current consultation in a clearer and fuller way than the document of research findings. I am keen to repeat this presentation to councillors as some of the questions raised by Cllr Thompstone are better answered in the context of such a meeting. Also, I think councillors would benefit from understanding why the public can react negatively to a consultation and the benefits of engaging the public in a more meaningful way. The meeting with council officers gave me an appreciation of the pressures they face in trying to address the emotive and complex issue of library reform.

In such circumstances, the council may well tend to view a legal obligation to consult the public as an unwelcome additional burden.

However, it is precisely because of the difficulties presented by library reform and the emotive nature of the topic, that a better consultation could be very helpful.

This could open the public’s eyes, as well as provide the council with clearer information on which elements within its proposed reform have most potential and which provoke hostility and rejection.

I fear the flaws in the current consultation mean little of value can be derived from completed questionnaires. Rather than the council spending more money on this exercise, I am happy to help it prepare a better consultation that can positively engage the public.

Denis Robb

The Research Practice, New Barnet