Lib Dems welcome High Court libraries judgment
Lib Dems welcome High Court libraries judgment, and call on Conservative-run County Council to put the plans back on the bookshelf
Liberal Democrats on Surrey County Council have welcomed the judgment by Mr Justice Wilkie in the High court today.
Commenting on the judgment, Liberal Democrat Communities Spokesperson John Orrick said: "Liberal Democrats have repeatedly raised our concerns regarding the equalities impact of the County Council's library plans.
"On every occasion we were dismissed by the former Cabinet Member for Community Services and the 2012 Games for raising the issue, usually with glib answers. At the December 2011 meeting of the Full Council she was highly dismissive of our concerns in a written answer to a question from the Lib Dem Leader of the Opposition Hazel Watson and further went on to verbally dismiss suggestions that Surrey County Council's decision was flawed due to failing to consider the Equalities Impact Assessment.
"The judgment today means she was wrong then, and that the Cabinet was wrong in taking the decision it did in September. It can't just bolt on equalities training now to its plans, because its decision making was flawed, it would have to go back and reconsider its decisions.
"The Council is burning Surrey Council Taxpayers money on continuing this expensive High Court battle, and it is burning Surrey Council Taxpayers money paying officers to continue working on these ill conceived plans.
"The costs are rocketing up, but the financial savings achieved by the plans are relatively small. The only reason this is still going on is because the Conservative administration is unwilling to say it was wrong. They should cut their losses, and save some face, by abandoning the plans now. The second phase has already been put back on the bookshelf by the Leader, it is time he did the same with the original 10 libraries."
ENDS
Below is the written question and answer to Council on 13 December.
The verbal follow up question and answer can be viewed here. Click on Index Points, then Member's Question Time. It is the second question.
SURREY COUNTY COUNCIL
TUESDAY 13 DECEMBER 2011
CABINET MEMBER FOR COMMUNITY SERVICES AND THE 2012 GAMES
(2) MRS HAZEL WATSON (DORKING HILLS) TO ASK:
On Wednesday 16 November 2011, His Honour Judge McKenna ruled that Gloucestershire County Council's and Somerset County Council's plans for their public library services were unlawful on equalities grounds.
He ruled that both councils had failed to take account of their equalities duties when pushing through the cuts, condemning both councils' approach as "bad Government", and that it was "important to the Rule of Law" that the decisions be quashed.
Surrey County Council's PVR methodology states "PVRs will be delivered by…consulting widely including with residents and specifically vulnerable groups and communities and with staff".
The Equalities Impact Assessment on the Community Partnered Libraries plan stated:
"Older users of branch libraries will be negatively impacted if their nearest branch closures. Younger users of branches and mobiles could be negatively impacted by the removal of services. Surrey's draft Single Equality Scheme suggests places to go are restricted for young people, and this is exacerbated by poor public transport, particularly in isolated rural areas. Libraries currently help promote literacy and love of reading among young people, and no reduction to this service is proposed. However, young people would be negatively impacted by local branch closures as they may not be able to travel independently to another branch."
"Residents with a disability will be negatively impacted by any local branch closures as they may find it more difficult to travel independently to another branch."
"More women will be impacted by any reduction in library services than men."
"Reduction of branches would mean carers have to travel further to get to a local library."
"Rural communities with limited access to services may be impacted if branch services are reduced. Not all library premises have toilets or baby changing facilities. There is a relationship between socio-economic disadvantages and other protected characteristics that libraries have an impact on: race, religion, disability … Libraries offer free information and educational material and programmes help residents with low educational attainment, literacy development and finding employment and developing resilience and life skills."
Given the judgment by His Honour Judge McKenna, the negative impacts highlighted in the Equalities Impact Assessment and the lack of the wide consultation with residents and specifically vulnerable groups and communities and staff stipulated in the PVR process, would the Cabinet Member agree that pushing ahead with the Community Partnered Libraries Programme lays the County Council open to judicial review and therefore the proposals should be abandoned?
Reply:
The Court Ruling was that Gloucestershire and Somerset had not sufficiently gathered and analysed information relating to equalities and, in Gloucestershire, had selected a library in a deprived area for closure. They were ruled to have not given "due regard‟ to their statutory equality needs.
In Surrey, libraries in the county's Priority Areas were excluded from the list of those selected for community partnering and are to remain as part of the strategic core network.
Surrey carried out its EIA concurrently with the PVR. Although the EIA noted that over 85% of Surrey residents have access to a car. Public transport modelling carried out as part of the PVR study showed that 95% of households would continue to have a journey time of under 30 minutes at peak times to a library by public transport.
Surrey's Books on Wheels service will continue to offer service to housebound users.