Task 2 model answer: Are public libraries still necessary?

With vast amounts of information now accessible on any smartphone, some argue that public libraries have become an expensive relic. Others maintain that they still serve essential purposes. In my view, although their role has changed, libraries remain valuable public institutions.

Those who see libraries as outdated make a reasonable point about access to information. Encyclopaedias, academic journals and even entire novels can be downloaded in seconds, often free of charge, and search engines locate facts far faster than a catalogue. From this perspective, maintaining buildings full of printed books appears an inefficient use of limited council budgets that could instead fund schools or healthcare.

On the other hand, supporters of libraries argue that this view assumes everyone is online. In reality, many elderly people, low-income families and recent migrants lack reliable internet access or the skills to evaluate what they find. Libraries provide free computers, Wi-Fi and staff who can help users navigate digital services such as job applications. They also offer something the internet cannot: a quiet, safe and free space to study, which is particularly important for students living in crowded homes.

I believe the second view is more convincing. The question is not whether libraries should survive in their traditional form, but whether communities need a free, public place for learning and support. They clearly do, and libraries that have adapted — by hosting coding clubs, language classes and community events — demonstrate that the institution can remain relevant.

In conclusion, while the internet has replaced some of the library's original functions, it has not replaced its social purpose. Rather than closing libraries, governments should invest in modernising them.