Agenda item

This report sets out the call-in received by 11 Councillors of the decision relating to the agreed approach to run Community libraries in Bath & North East Somerset. This also covers the points raised by a second call-in notice, also received within the 5 day call-in period, by a further 13 Councillors. The role of the Panel is to consider the issues raised by both call-in notices and to determine its response.

The Chair invited the Lead Call in Member Councillor Joe Rayment to make a statement (Call in 1).

Councillor Rayment read a statement on behalf of Councillors Bevan and Walker which supported and endorsed the call in and noted their particular concerns over the effect of a possible cut of the mobile library service on vulnerable groups.

Councillor Rayment made his statement as lead call in Councillor (Call in 1). He explained that he did not think the Cabinet report had been put together well and that a ‘click and collect’ book service did not constitute a library, as a library is a safe space, not just a book delivery system. He explained that he thought the outcome of the proposals would be that people in affluent areas would get a good library service but maybe not so in other areas. He queried the statement in the report that states that the proposals will help communities to become more resilient. Councillor Rayment listed some questions he had over the practicalities of the proposals including: who would pay utility bills on the building; what evidence was there that groups would volunteer; how would they raise money and what would happen if a Parish Council could not do this, or if there was no Parish Council. He further stated that he thought users should be consulted; that assurances should be given that the mobile library service would not be cut and that the EIA (Equality Impact Assessment) had been available to Cabinet and the public before the decision was made.

The Chair invited the Lead Call in Member Councillor Richard Samuel to make a statement (Call in 2).

Councillor Samuel stated that a case had not been made for this initiative. He stated that mobile libraries are crucial to the community and that there had been no meaningful consultation or discussion with local users. He gave an example of a similar proposal in Kent which was eventually reined back. He stated that the issue over property ownership needed clarity. He added that there must be clarity over the plans for the mobile library; the vehicle is old and usage falls when it is unreliable. He concluded that the report was very thin and the implications for each library and the mobile library must be clearly set out.

The Panel made the following points and asked the following questions:

Councillor Romero asked if the lead call in Councillors thought that there was an untapped pool of volunteers ready to help and also if they thought that rural communities would end up with a click and collect book service; and if so, whether the closures of local pubs and shops may cause a problem. Councillor Rayment stated that he was not aware of any hidden groups of volunteers. Councillor Samuel stated that he had heard about the volunteering service in Paulton and explained that he had experience of CAB (Citizens Advice Bureau) and has had experience of some potential problems with relying on volunteers such as that they may not always be able to make it. He also pointed out that organisations can have difficulties in recruiting volunteers. He concluded by saying that to rely on volunteers for a major public service was very risky.

The Chair invited the Cabinet member for Transformation and Customer Services, Councillor Karen Warrington to make a statement

Councillor Warrington stated that the key point was to engage with each local community to scope out their requirements. She explained that some groups may opt to share space or move and that solutions would be tailored to fit each community. She further explained that the Council will provide access to books and advice. She explained that community libraries have been developed nationally and examples can be given. She clarified that the EIA was available as a link and that the Cabinet had had sight of it; the financial summary has been provided for Panel members. She added that it is possible that other agencies may be involved such as Age Concern. She explained that she could not discuss staffing structures at this stage and did not want to speculate on what would happen if community groups did not come forward. She concluded by stating that she knew how important libraries were and believes these models would work. She asked that the Panel be mindful of their decision, as a delay may mean opportunities are lost to engage in the next round of forums.

The Panel made the following points and asked the following questions:

Councillor Bull asked which other groups the Cabinet Member had spoken to in Paulton (other than the Parish Council, who had to keep this confidential). The Cabinet Member confirmed that it was only the Parish Council.

Councillor Bull asked if the EIA had been available to the Cabinet, which was confirmed by the Cabinet Member. In response to a query from Councillor Bull, she explained that in deprived areas, there would be help to get more people into the libraries. She stated that, at the moment, there was no proposal to close any of the libraries.

Councillor Hale asked for reassurance that the finances will be re-examined so that in the first 1, 2 or 3 years, groups will have help with their rent while they are fundraising. The Cabinet Member confirmed that groups will be helped with funding.

Councillor Butters acknowledged the assurance that there is no proposal to close branch libraries and asked for clarity on the future of the mobile library. The Cabinet Member stated that she does not envisage a mobile library run by volunteers and that this service will be maintained. In response to a further request for confirmation, she stated that she is not going to close the mobile library and this pledge is in the group manifesto.

Councillor Romero stated that the consultation in the report did not reflect her experience at the Bath Area Forum and asked if any groups had come forward. The Cabinet Member explained that an individual had come forward and Bath University and Bath Spa had expressed interest – discussions cannot be progressed at this stage as there is no model to be discussed yet.

Councillor Romero asked what would happen if there were not enough volunteers. The Cabinet Member explained that branch libraries are already established and there are possible different models involving schools; book rotation and click and collect – there are lots of different grades.

There was some discussion around smaller villages helping towards the funding of their closest branch library. The Cabinet Member stated that she had no issue with going to local parishes and asking what could be done to help the closest library (maybe in an adjoining ward/parish).

Councillor Butters asked when the current mobile library van would be replaced; the Cabinet Member responded that there were no plans to replace it in the next couple of years.  She was looking at working with partners but the service would not be diminished.

Councillor Romero asked how large areas would be consulted (for example the users of Moorland Road Library). She also asked if the data in the papers had been independently verified. The Cabinet Member explained that she had been asked to meet with volunteers for Moorland Road library and that the data from the consultation process had been independently verified.

Councillor Evans quoted the decision which reads ‘… to adopt a new approach..’ and stated that this was vague. He asked if there was a lot of flexibility apart from the finance; the Cabinet Member confirmed this.

Councillor Bull asked if community engagement in Paulton would begin if the decision goes ahead, to which the Cabinet Member responded that Paulton Parish Council were consulting and this was being raised at forums so other groups may come forward. Councillor Bull stated that this was raised at the forum 2 years ago, and in non-specific way; there had been no community engagement and now the Parish Council had to take on the task.

Councillor Romero stated that in the current financial climate, everyone was under pressure – schools for example. The Cabinet Member stated that she recognised that charities were competing. In response to a query regarding staffing, she explained that she could not engage in discussions around staffing issues at this time and work had to be done to assess how many support staff would be needed.

Councillor Evans asked the Cabinet Member if she was satisfied that the required amount of public consultation had taken place, to which she responded that engagement had been opened up through the Area Forums and the next stage was to explore individual group aspirations.

Closing statement from the Cabinet Member – Councillor Karen Warrington

The Cabinet member stated that no closures were proposed at this moment in time and there would be consultation with community groups and branch libraries. It was recognised that each community will have different aspirations. Support will be provided with income generation and fund raising. Some Parish Councils and community groups have already made an approach. She stated that she will look at the process of maintenance and rents. She asked that, if the Panel uphold the call in, they identify another way to find revenue savings and stated that talking to Area Forums was the next step.

Closing statement from Lead Call in Member – Councillor Richard Samuel

Councillor Samuel stated that BANES has legal responsibility for the Library service and this report is not about the transfer of ownership, but of management; if problems occur the Authority will be responsible and there is no clarity on what would happen should a service fail. He explained that the ‘approach’ in the report does not reference the legal responsibility issue. Regarding mobile libraries – information has been vague. He concluded that there were still many questions.

Closing statement from Lead Call in Member – Councillor Joe Rayment

Councillor Rayment acknowledged that there was a lack of detail as it is still an ‘approach’, but stated that there had been practically no consultation. There seemed to be no scope for tapering the rent (full saving in 2019/20) and rent was not the only budget line. He stated that if the Cabinet Member does not intend to cut the mobile library then it should be in the report; a manifesto was not legally binding. He added that he was concerned about staffing as, when the budget was agreed, there was a guarantee of no compulsory redundancies. He concluded that deprived areas may not be served by this approach and asked the Panel to send this back to the Cabinet and ask for more information.

Panel discussion

Councillor Anketell Jones stated that he thought that bringing the community into the equation was right but he had reservations in this case in that there was no detailed information to reassure the community that there was enough financial strength to support building costs, building maintenance and taxes. There was not enough detail on how the financial support could be structured.

Councillor Evans stated that he was not certain that there had been enough consultation for the Cabinet approach to be adopted.

Panel decision

On a motion from Councillor Romero, seconded by Councillor Butters, it was:

RESOLVED that the Call in of Decision E3000 Modern Libraries – Community Library Approach be upheld (5 members voted for the motion (this includes the Chairman’s second vote), 4 members voted against the motion, 1 member abstained). The Panel asked that the Cabinet consider the following recommendations:

·  That the Cabinet do more work around public consultation and assessing whether local groups can pick up the pieces;

·  More work be done to find out the appetite for this approach;

·  The certainty over the future of the Mobile Library be put in writing.