Agenda item

4.1

Petitions

The Committee received a joint paper and electronic petition from Ruth Woodhouse, containing 304 signatures, requesting the City Council and Park Community Action to protect its librarians at Park Library, in their Council posts, and call on the Council to acknowledge the essential service that Park Library provides for local residents, and to pledge finances beyond two years.

Ms Woodhouse stated that, in her opinion, there were a number of omissions and errors in the consultation report appended to the report to be submitted to the Cabinet on 19^th February 2014.  She made reference to flaws in the consultation process, specifically regarding the lack of opportunity for children, who comprised a large percentage of library users, to comment.  Ms Woodhouse considered that the proposed model did not fit adequately for the City, both financially or ethically. 

The Committee noted the receipt of the petition, which would be taken into consideration as part of its determination to be made at this meeting. 

4.2

Petitions Submitted to the Council Meeting on 8^th January 2014

The following, who were either lead petitioners of, or speakers to, petitions objecting to either the closure of individual libraries or the closure of libraries in the City in general, were invited, at the request of the Committee, to provide any information, over and above what had been reported at the Council meeting, as follows:-

4.2.1

Will Hiorns (Park)

Mr Hiorns referred to the likelihood of the eventual closure of 40% of the City’s libraries, therefore resulting in an immediate loss of 40% of staff.  He focused on the City Council’s legal duty to provide an efficient and comprehensive library service, referring specifically to the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964 and to the views of Mr Francis Bennion, a distinguished Barrister and retired law lecturer at Oxford, and who was widely regarded as Britain’s leading writer on all aspects of statute law.  Mr Hiorns stated that the Council’s proposals were illegal based on Mr Bennion’s legal interpretation, details of which were circulated to Members of the Committee.

4.2.2

Mike Davis (Greenhill)

Mike Davis referred to the rigorous campaign by local residents to retain Greenhill Library, which was the area’s only civic building, and stated that he would like to see all the City’s libraries kept open, and led by professional librarians, with support from volunteers.  He stated that the current proposals did not appear to bear any relation to the outcomes following the original consultation undertaken in 2012.  In support of this, he referred to the fact that 60% of people who had responded as part of the consultation in 2012, had indicated that they would not like to see any library closures, and stated that despite this, such support had not appeared to have informed the present proposals. He concluded by referring to his request that the consultation exercise should not be simply a ‘tick box’ exercise, pointing out that he had been promised this would not be the case.

4.2.3

Kate Elliott (Walkley)

Ms Elliott stated that the Walkley Library building was handed to the City for the benefit of the public.  The library was well-used and well-run, which she considered was due to the exceptional service provided by the library staff.  Ms Elliott considered that the current proposals were not suitable on the basis that if Walkley, and the two nearest libraries were to be closed, either now or in the future, the nearest hub library was Hillsborough, which was too far away.  She concluded by stating that she, along with many others, were not happy with the short-term, funding proposals in connection with the independent libraries, indicating that it was simply a case of prolonging their closure.

4.2.4

Andy Shallice (City Wide Closures)

Mr Shallice referred to the results of the latest consultation exercise, indicating that, whilst it stated that 39% of survey respondents answered with ‘Yes’ or ‘Yes with reservations’ that the proposals, as a whole, were fair and reasonable, it did not state that 61% of respondents were against the proposals.  He also made the point that those respondents who were most affected by the proposals were the least positive in their overall responses, with such groups including older people, children and young people, people with disabilities and people from ethnic minority groups.  In terms of volunteers, Mr Shallice stated that, as part of the consultation in 2012, a high number of respondents had indicated that they were in favour of volunteers supporting full-time library staff, whereas in the current proposals, it was evident that such volunteers would be replacing full-time staff.  He concluded by referring to the human resource implications of the proposals, expressing concern at the fact that there was very little emphasis in the report in terms of how such a high number of volunteers would be supported.

4.3

Public Questions

Questions were received from members of the public, as follows:-

4.3.1

Peter Hartley

(a)      How many more people of Sheffield have to object, on top of the 22,000 plus that have already objected, to the proposed cuts to the library budget before this Committee changes its policy instead of blindly following the party line?

(b)      How can you justify calling yourself a Scrutiny Committee, when I suspect you will just note the report on the libraries report before you?  (A proper Scrutiny Committee would call before them experts in the field of Sheffield libraries themselves, as well as the people who use these libraries).

Mr Hartley requested a written response to his questions.

4.3.2

Annette Hobson

Considering the political affiliation of some members of this Committee, including the Chair, can we really expect that the proposals put forward by Sheffield City Council will be fully scrutinized and that the decisions being made will be made with what is best for the people of Sheffield?

4.3.3

Marcus O’Hagan

(a)      Had the Council assessed the costs of the proposed change and the eventual possible library closures?  Why are these questions not being answered when all the issues should have been considered by the Council as part of the process?  Doesn’t this show the process was ill-managed and has failed?  How can the consultation be considered complete when valid questions from citizens who are concerned at the loss of important facilities have not been answered?

(b)      The Council is required to act in a fair manner, is committed to fairness and required by law to provide an efficient and comprehensive library service.  How can a service be fulfilling that requirement when the entire north west quadrant may be stripped of its libraries?

(c)      What consideration and provision has been made for the possibility that an independent library may fail?  Will such a library return to Council control or will it close?

(d)      Is it the duty of the Scrutiny Committee to ensure the Council is acting fairly and is not risking costly legal action?  If the answer is yes, then should this Committee not require the departments involved to complete a genuine consultation before a decision is made?  Don’t the minor modifications made which in no way answer the overwhelming opposition to the original proposals show clearly that the consultation is a sham?

(e)      As key stakeholders, library professionals should be playing a key role in this process.  How have this group been involved? 

4.3.4

Will Hiorns

(a)      Can the Council move to a more fair model that spreads the pain, and pledge to revive the service in future when resources allow?

(b)      In what real, practical ways has feedback from children informed and shaped the proposal at any stage of the review and how does it respect their particular needs?

(c)      The survey in 2012 showed that many people said that activities should concentrate on activities for children and young people, supporting homework and encouraging reading and educational attainment.  How does this square with the proposal where children will be so heavily hit by closures of their local libraries?  How can the proposals contain such lack of basic logic?

(d)      Will the Committee please strongly recommend that the Council be honest with the public in all future communications on public services? 

(e)      Does this Committee believe that a week is long enough for us to read the revised proposal, due to the size of the report, and then have an informed debate with a Council, who won’t even answer our questions when given months of time?  Is this adequate consultation and does it meet the requirements of the Gunning priniciples?

4.3.5

Patrick Coghlan

Could the Council find the resources to second a professional librarian to help for the first year or two?

4.3.6

Hugh Cotton

(a)      Does the Committee consider the proposals a fair and efficient use of resources?

(b)      After the Committee’s decision, is the Council prepared to agree to keep looking with flexibility and fairness at the issue of where paid professional staff are placed so that independent and co-delivered libraries can also have the benefit of them?

4.3.7

Irene Harrison

What will the volunteers actually be actually volunteering for, how will they be trained and who will arrange the training for them over the next three years and thereafter?  Will personal information be available to volunteers, and will it be possible to hold them to a confidentiality agreement as with paid library staff, bearing in mind there is likely to be quite a high turnover of people wanting to do this work initially, but very likely to drop as time goes on? 

4.3.8

Katharine Harbord

(a)      How are the hub libraries going to be linked to the other non-hub libraries?  If they are receiving the bulk of funding and staffing, will they be providing the extra service for the users in areas deprived of their present library service?  If the hub libraries are not to have more users and groups, why should they receive so much more of the limited resources?

(b)      How will the Council review its stance and ensure that all the threatened libraries are creatively resourced with support from qualified librarians by, for example, running every library on a co-delivered basis?

4.3.9

Natasha Watkinson

Does the Council think one volunteer co-ordinator is sufficient to train the expected number of volunteers or could the Council provide interim professional library staff for each independent library in the first transitional year?

4.3.10

Pauline Rosser

What provision will you make for the support of experienced, professional library staff for the proposed volunteer-run libraries?

4.3.11

Kathy Whittaker

(a)      Are the Council officers aware that the planned hub network leaves an area comprising around a quarter of the City without a library and could they explain how this constitutes a comprehensive service for all those who want to use it?

(b)      Which hub library will Broomhill be relating to as an independent, and what kind of impact can we expect?

4.3.12

Richard Bradley

What evidence has the Council got that community libraries work in the long-term, say in 10-20 years?

4.3.13

Mark Parnell

(a)      The Indices of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) and literacy components of the Needs Assessment uses the average IMD from the Super Output Areas which intersect each library.  However, the Office for National Statistics guidance warns against doing this type of analysis (because of the transformations that have been applied to the data).  How can the Council justify using an incorrect method to calculate IMD for these two demographic needs variables?

(b)      The ranking for the BME and low attaining pupils data sets are incorrectly ranked.  Has the Council addressed these issues, as it appears that it can lead to a change in the 11 hub libraries on the list?

(c)      The Council uses visits as a use of the performance measure, but does not take any account of the actual opening hours, therefore how can it compare the number of visitors that Stannington or Tinsley libraries have (open 21 hours per week) with Ecclesall library (open for 43 hours per week)?

(d)      The Needs Assessment users proximity as a multiplier, but this has no resemblance to the actual travel times by bus to the nearest library.  Is the Council aware of this discrepancy?

4.3.14

Katy Cossham

In view of the acknowledged (Council’s Equality Impact Assessment) negative impact to all library users and, in particular, protected groups, such as disabled people and young people, would the Council consider keeping libraries open and bringing in other Council services under the same roof?

4.3.15

Ruth Woodhouse

(a)      Can Councillors please note my request on behalf of campaigners for more time to digest and respond to the lengthy proposals published last week?

(b)      The Equality Act 2010 states that ‘a public authority must eliminate discrimination’ and ‘advance equality of opportunity between persons who share relevant protected characteristics and persons who do not share it’.  It is clear from the surveys and the report that this will not be possible with this model.  How would the Council manage to achieve this within the three-tier system?

(c)      How are school visits to continue City-wide without staff, and what measures will the Council take to avoid the loss of this essential service across the City?

(d)      Many Sheffield libraries now manage on a 21 hour week which, whilst not ideal, by cutting opening hours elsewhere, a library service for all would be retained, which could be extended again in the future.  Is it not time to explore this alternative model, so we share staff and the burden of cuts, and support vulnerable groups across the City?

4.3.16

Caroline Waudby

If the Council cuts ties with Walkley Library and the other local libraries earmarked for ‘independence’, will it move to review the situation in one year, with a view to taking these libraries back under Council control?

4.3.17

John Chapman

What contingency plans are in place if the independent libraries fail, both within the first three years and after this period?

4.3.18

Chris Reece

Has the Council made contingency plans with one or more commercial companies to take over the libraries if the independent groups decide to withdraw their business plans?

4.3.19

Alan Wellings

(a)      Does the Authority accept responsibility for providing a comprehensive and efficient library service?  If so, what minimum provision does it judge necessary to satisfy this?

(b)      What does the Authority plan to do if any volunteer-run library proves unsustainable?

4.3.20

Michael Stern

One of the proposed hub libraries – Woodseats – has been described as ‘dilapidated’, with a leaking roof which prevents computers from being used in wet weather.  Has the Council given consideration to the physical state of the proposed hub libraries?

4.3.21

Mel Smart

(a)      How can Sheffield fulfil its statutory obligations to provide a library service to those people living in sparsely populated rural areas?

(b)      Would the Schools’ Library Service be able to offer additional support for Bradfield Dungworth School, as room to store an adequate variety of books for ages 4 to 11 is limited, maybe by visiting and changing the book stock more frequently?

(c)      Could Stannington Library be allocated extra funding to offer some help to all those who at present use the Mobile Library Service by becoming a rural hub for this vast area or through some kind of outreach service from Stannington?

(d)      Could the Home Library Service be extended to those who are housebound, not by infirmity, but by the sheer lack of any public transport in their area?