Agenda item

5.1

The Committee considered a report of the Executive Director, Communities, entitled “The Future of Sheffield’s Library Services”, containing proposals on a new operation model for the City’s community libraries, following an extensive consultation exercise. The Council, at its meeting held on 8^th January, 2014, and at which 12 petitions objecting to the possible closure of libraries across the City were received and a debate on the library review was held, requested that a report on the outcome of the library review consultation be submitted to this Committee, prior to its consideration by the Cabinet. The Committee therefore gave consideration to the Cabinet report, which contained a number of appendices, including the Library Review Consultation Report.    

5.2

Councillor Mazher Iqbal, Cabinet Member for Communities and Inclusion, reported briefly on the history and background in respect of the proposals as detailed in the Cabinet report.  The Libraries, Archives and Information Service review began with the establishment of a Members Task and Finish Group in July 2011, and concluded with the report now being considered, which was to be submitted to the Cabinet at its meeting held on 19^th February 2014. He stated that the proposals contained in the report had not been informed solely by the recent Government budget cuts, although such cuts had played a major part in the proposals now being made.  Since 2010, as a direct result of cuts to local authority budgets, approximately 400 libraries nationwide had been closed and, following the Government’s recent budget cuts, this Council had been forced to make an additional £80 million of savings over the next few years. The Libraries, Archives and Information Service alone had been requested to identify savings of £1.6 million.  As a result of the budget cuts, it had been determined that the Library Service, in its current format, could no longer continue, and that the Council was no longer able to provide an efficient library service.  He stressed that no Members of the Council wanted to see libraries closed but, as a result of the budget cuts, they had been forced to make a number of very difficult decisions. The Council had arranged a detailed consultation exercise in terms of the proposals and, as part of this process, Councillor Iqbal and officers from the Libraries, Archives and Information Service had visited a number of libraries across the City to listen to the views of library users. 

5.3

In response to the questions raised regarding the legality of the proposals, specifically with regard to the Council’s duty to provide a comprehensive and efficient library service, Councillor Iqbal stated that although the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964 required all Councils to provide a comprehensive and efficient library service, there were no criteria in terms of how such a service should be delivered and on this basis, the Council was of the opinion that, despite the Service being considerably reduced, it would still constitute a comprehensive and efficient service.  The Council had given consideration to the Brent Council judgement and was confident that the proposals being put forward represented a viable option. 

5.4

Steve Eccleston, Assistant Director, Legal Services, added that Members and officers were all aware that any changes proposed could only be made following a fair and objective assessment of what the public wanted in terms of a library service.  The consultation process had provided a detailed insight in terms of informing the proposals being made. Mr Eccleston confirmed that the “Gunning criteria” set out what good consultation should include, and it was his view that these had been met.  With reference to the legal arguments being put forward by Francis Bennion, Mr Eccleston stated that, in his opinion, he disagreed with Mr Bennion’s interpretation, and his views were not implied by the statute in public law.  He added that, as the City’s needs changed, the Council was within its legal rights to change the Library Service. 

5.5

In response to further questions from members of the public and Members of the Committee, Councillor Iqbal stated that, as part of the review process, he and a number of Council officers had visited a number of local authorities to look at examples of good practice in terms of the delivery of their library services.  It was evident that the interpretation of the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964, by the local authorities, differed considerably.   He made specific reference to the Equality Impact Assessment (EIA), attached as an appendix to the report, which assessed the impact of the proposals on a range of people with what were termed ‘protected characteristics’ under Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010, and also issues relating to poverty, deprivation and financial inclusion.  He made reference to the legal action taken by local residents following library closures, which included action against Brent Council and the review in terms of Wirral MBC.  A summary of the key points from the Wirral review had been presented to Councillors. The key learning from this was the importance of a Needs Assessment underpinning any changes to the library service. 

5.6

In connection with the Needs Assessment, Councillor Iqbal stated that whilst it was accepted that some of the library buildings were in very poor condition, it had been decided that it would not be fair to use this as part of the criteria.  As part of the Needs Assessment, the Council had taken into account the number of registered users, the number of books and materials issued, the number of People’s Network sessions and the number of library visits. In addition, the assessment also considered the demographic needs of those people who lived, worked or studied in each library area, including the needs of older people, children and young people, people with a disability, people from minority ethnic backgrounds, people facing deprivation and people with literacy needs. Based on the principles of the Fairness Commission, demographic need had been weighted twice due to the huge inequalities across the City. 

5.7

James Henderson, Director of Policy, Performance and Communications, elaborated on the Needs Assessment process, indicating that the Council had used two sets of indicators to come up with an overall score for each library. These indicator sets were “Use of Library Services” and “Demographic Needs”. Mr Henderson confirmed that the demographic needs element had been given twice the weight in the light of the Authority’s requirements to consider discrimination and equality issues. This overall score had been combined with information about the proximity of each library to its nearest neighbour, and the number of registered library users, to give the final rankings, which determined the 11 hub libraries. Although a few minor issues had been identified in terms of the data, following consultation, officers had checked these, which had resulted in there being no change to the overall list of 11 hub libraries.  However, there had been some changes to the order of libraries within this list.  Mr Henderson stated that the Council was therefore confident in the process used. Whilst it was accepted that there was no specific indicator of rurality as part of the Needs Assessment, this would have been considered as part of the distance criteria.  Also, children and young people had been taken into consideration as part of the Needs Assessment, in terms of attainment levels and the education and skills domain of the indices of deprivation.  Mr Henderson concluded by stating that the Council was confident that the data and statistics, as well as the process used as part of the Needs Assessment, represented a fair and robust process in connection with how the libraries were prioritised in terms of their rankings. 

5.8

In response to the issues raised by Mark Parnell, relating to the proximity criteria, as part of the Needs Assessment, specifically regarding how the Council had calculated the travel distances between the libraries, Councillor Iqbal stated that he and relevant Council officers had met with Mr Parnell to discuss his concerns, and had provided an explanation as to how the distances had been calculated.  He explained that the distances had been based on the advice received from the bus/tram companies. 

5.9

Further to the questions from members of the public and Members of the Committee on the consultation process, Councillor Iqbal referred to the summary of the consultation exercise undertaken in 2013/14, as well as the detailed consultation report set out in Appendix ‘C’ to the Cabinet report now submitted.  He stated that the consultation had been detailed and fair, and had achieved the aim of ensuring as many people of Sheffield as possible were aware of the proposals for the future of the City’s library services, and were able to have their say.  He made reference to the budget cuts within both the Council’s Libraries, Archives and Information and Community Services, and considered that the Council had done as much as it could in terms of consulting with the public, despite current financial restraints.  He stated that the Council had relied considerably on the social media, as well as the excellent work of Members and officers.  Kate Register, Quality and Improvement Development Manager, Communities, responded to the comments on the lack of consultation with children and young people, acknowledging that it was difficult to make consultation meaningful to school children, particularly young children. However, to overcome this, specific consultation work had been commissioned to ensure that children and young people were able to have a say. Sheffield Futures had also been commissioned to undertake engagement with young people of secondary school age, up to the age of 25, and the Children’s Involvement Team had been commissioned to undertake work with children from primary school age. Information about the consultation had also been made available to all schools in the City.  A number of schools had arranged for their pupils to write letters and draw pictures, and all of these had been read and included within the consultation results. In addition, the main survey included 12 free text boxes and many people had chosen to make comments there, about the impact on children and young people. Officers had analysed approximately 90,000 text boxes in all, and comments about children and libraries had been included in the consultation report.  Councillor Iqbal made reference to the consultation undertaken in 2012, referring specifically to the efforts made to engage with non-library users.  It was considered important that there was clear correlation between the results of the consultation undertaken in 2012 and the proposals now being made in respect of the future of the library service.  Councillor Iqbal stated that mitigating actions had been included in the Equality Impact Assessment (EIA), which was appended to the Cabinet report, to ensure that no-one would be adversely affected by the proposals.  Details of the equality implications, including how the EIA assessed the impact of the proposals on a range of people with what were termed ‘protected characteristics’ under Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010, as well as issues relating to poverty, deprivation and financial inclusion, were detailed in the Cabinet report.

5.10

In response to a number of questions regarding the proposed model, Councillor Mazher Iqbal stated that, in response to the consultation, specifically relating to the co-delivered and independent libraries, the current proposals included a long-term lease arrangement to ensure that the libraries had a sound footing, the agreement to pay for utility and other bills for each library, from the additional £262,000 identified by the Council, and providing the libraries with an option to either opt in or out of the catalogue system.  In addition to this, the Council had committed to providing funding to assist those community organisations who had, or were, in the process of submitting Business Plans in connection with the future operation of the libraries.  Details of how the Council planned to provide additional support for the independent libraries were set out in the Cabinet report, which included information on the provision of development support, support to manage library buildings, support to run independent libraries and the provision of an allocation of funding for each independent library to access services.  A number of workshops had been organised for those groups and organisations wishing to run an independent library, which had been attended by Members, officers and third sector partners, with further workshops planned in the future to assist the groups and organisations to take their proposals further.  As part of the review process, Members and officers had looked at similar models in Wakefield and Doncaster. 

5.11

In response to further questions, Councillor Iqbal clarified that there had been a 71% take-up in terms of the School Library Service, with service provision to each school being specifically tailored to meet their individual needs.  This service would continue.  He also gave assurances that volunteers would receive the support and guidance required, and full details of this work were set out in the Cabinet report.  In terms of Ofsted’s views on the proposals, Councillor Iqbal stated that Ofsted had nothing to do with the Library Service as it was the responsibility of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport.  With regard to the long-term sustainability of the co-delivered and independent libraries, Councillor Iqbal stated that he could not guarantee that funding would be available to enable the libraries to continue after three years if, in the unfortunate circumstances, they were unable to continue, on the basis that it was not possible to predict what the Council’s financial position would be at that time.  It was hoped that, by working with, and providing the relevant support and advice to, those community organisations wishing to run the co-delivered and independent libraries, they will prove to be sustainable in the long-term.

5.12

Councillor Iqbal confirmed that although it had been proposed that the Mobile Library Service would close, the Council was willing to consider any offer to run the Service on an independent basis, without on-going financial support from the Council, up to the point of closure.  The decision for this was as a result of low and declining usage, together with the high cost of providing such a service.

5.13

The Chair summed up the proceedings, indicating that she believed that Councillor Mazher Iqbal and Council officers had made every attempt to respond to the public questions and questions from Members of the Committee on the legal context, the Needs Assessment, the consultation process and the operating model.

5.14

RESOLVED: That the Committee:-

(a)      notes (i) the contents of the report now submitted, (ii) the petition now submitted, (iii) the additional comments raised by the lead petitioners in terms of the petitions submitted to the Council meeting on 8^th January 2014, and (iv) the responses provided to the questions raised by members of the public and the Committee;

(b)      thanks Councillor Mazher Iqbal, Cabinet Member for Communities and Inclusion, and officers, for the responses provided to the questions raised and furthermore, thanks all the questioners and petitioners for their contributions;

(c)      is satisfied that the proposals contained in the Cabinet report can be put forward to the Cabinet at its meeting to be held on 19^th February 2014; and

(d)      requests that the Executive Director, Communities, submits a report on the progress made in implementing the proposals set out in the Cabinet report, to this Committee in 12 months’ time.

(NOTE: Prior to the passing of the above resolution, an alternative resolution was moved by Councillor David Baker and seconded by Councillor Trevor Bagshaw as follows:-

“That this Committee:-

(a)      underlines the importance of local libraries to Sheffielders across the City;

(b)      emphasises its belief that library closures in the City are both avoidable and unnecessary;

(c)      thanks campaigners and community groups for the efforts to help save local libraries;

(d)      highlights concerns about the Council’s consultation and inconsistencies in the Council’s Needs Assessment;

(e)      welcomes the announcement of additional funding for independent libraries, but confirms that under this plan, 16 libraries remain under the threat of closure;

(f)       recognises that the Library Service needs to adapt and change in order to build a sustainable model for the future;

(g)      therefore, calls on the Council to investigate better use of volunteers, community groups and joint use of premises to significantly reduce the costs of running libraries; and

(h)      to this end, recommends that all 27 community libraries remain Council-maintained.”

The votes on the alternative resolution were ordered to be recorded and were as follows:-

For the Resolution (4)

-

Councillors Ian Auckland, Trevor Bagshaw, David Baker and Diana Stimely

Against the Resolution (8)

-

Councillors Jayne Dunn, Terry Fox, Ibrar Hussain, Steve Jones, George Lindars-Hammond, Cate McDonald, Pat Midgley and Tim Rippon).