IT Defined as Part of the Statutory Library Duty

I have now had a chance to look at the Lincolnshire judgement on libraries, and I think it moves the debate about statutory definition on significantly. 

The conventional view of many professional librarians, and of the DCMS, is that computers and IT do not form part of the definition.  You can see this in the letter from the SoS confirming there would be no enquiry into Brent's s7 duty, which said:

"The total number of public access PCs is not a relevant matter under the 1964 Act, but in any event is mitigated by improved Wifi provision. It does not appear that there are an insufficient number of computers available."

Contrary to the SoS letter, the Lincolnshire judgement confirms the earlier remarks of the Judge in the Bailey case that in fact IT provision is in some sense part of the s7 duty.  The paragraph (4 in the Lincolnshire judgement) is worth quoting in full:

"It is apparent that library services were even in 1964 not limited to books or other literary material. We are now in the computer age and computer facilities are provided. They are used for the purposes of research and access to what is available and so are to a great extent an obvious "other material‟ which would fall within s.7(2)(a). But they are also made available to those seeking work or benefits since the systems now in place require in a number of respects internet access. Since such people are unlikely to possess their own facilities because they are likely to be too poor, a library provides them with such access and, incidentally, encourages them to use the other facilities available in accordance with s.7(2)(b). Thus it seems to me that all the computer services now provided by the defendant‟s libraries can properly be regarded as part of a library service within the meaning of s.7(1) of the 1964 Act. However, I do not think that an authority is bound to provide this particular service but, if it does it must continue to do so as part of its service."

This backs up the remarks of the judge in the Brent case in paragraph 116 of that judgement.  Basically, computers are part of the modern world and most of us can't imagine libraries without them. 

The last sentence of the Lincolnshire quote does, however, puzzle me.  I don't see the logic of it.  If the authority is "not bound to provide" IT services how can they fall under the statutory definition?  If they are part of the statutory definition, why would the authority not be bound to provide them?  Above all, is it possible using this definition, to charge for ebook lending, PC access, WiFi and so on?

These questions seem to me to be ones that the Secretary of State should be asked.

The importance of asking them is that authorities are throughout the country looking to limit their activities to the legal minimum.  Lincolnshire has gone further in this than any other authority, and the judgement confirms the legitimacy of that approach.  Thus, if (say) ebook or audiobook provision does not fall under the statutory definition there is a real danger they may get removed in many authorities.