2012)

Total New Hours

Change

hours

%

Belsize Library

Tue-Wed 10am-7pm

Sat 10am-5pm; Mon

25

?

?

?

?

Thu-Fri, Sun closed

Camden Town Library

Mon-Fri 10am-7pm

Mon-Thur 10am-6pm

Sat 10am-5pm

52

Fri, Sat 11am-5pm

44

-8

-15.38%

Sun closed

Sun closed

Chalk Farm Library

Mon, Fri 10am-7pm

Sat 10am-5pm

25

?

?

?

?

Tue-Thu and Sun closed

Heath Library

Mon-Tue 10am-7pm

Thu 10am-8pm

Fri 10am-7pm

49

?

?

?

?

Sat 10am-5pm

Sun 11am-4pm

Wed closed

Highgate Library

Tue-Thu 10am-7pm

Tue-Thurs 10am-7pm

Sat 10am-5pm

34

Sat 10am-5pm

34

0

0

Mon, Fri, Sun closed

Mon, Fri, Sun closed

Holborn Library

Mon-Fri 10am-7pm

Mon-Thurs 10am-7pm

Sat 10am-5pm

52

Fri 10am-5pm

49

-3

-5.77%

Sun closed

Sat 11am-5pm

Sun closed

Kentish Town Library

Mon-Fri 10am-7pm

Mon-Thurs 10am-7pm

Sat 10am-5pm

52

Fri 10am-5pm

49

-3

-5.77%

Sun closed

Sat 11am-5pm

Sun closed

Kilburn Library Centre

Mon-Fri 10am-7pm

Mon-Thurs 10am-7pm

Sat 10am-5pm

52

Fri 10am-5pm

49

-3

-5.77%

Sun closed

Sat 11am-5pm

Sun closed

Queens Crescent Library

Mon-Fri 10am-7pm;

Mon 11am-7pm

Sat 10am-5pm;

52

Tue-Thurs 11am-6pm

41

-11

-21.15%

Sun closed

Fri, Sat 11am-5pm

Sun closed

Regents Park Library

Tue-Thu 10am-7pm

Tue-Thu 10am-7pm

Sat 10am-5pm

34

Sat 10am-5pm

34

0

0

Mon, Fri, Sun closed

Mon, Fri, Sun closed

St Pancras Library

Mon 9am-7pm

Mon 9am-7pm

Tue-Fri 9am-6pm

52

Tue-Fri 9am-5pm

48

-4

-7.69%

Sat 11am-5pm

Sat 11am-5pm

Sun closed

Sun closed

Swiss Cottage Central Library

Mon-Fri 10am-8pm

Mon-Thurs 10am-8pm

Sat 10am-5pm

62

Fri 10am-5pm

59

-3

-4.84%

Sun 11am-4pm

Sat 10am-5pm

Sun 11am-4pm

West Hampstead Library

Mon-Tue 10am-7pm

Mon 11am-7pm

Thu 10am-8pm

Tue-Thurs 11am-6pm

Fri 10am-7pm

49

Fri, Sat 11am-5pm

41

-8

-16.33%

Sat 10am-5pm

Sun closed

Sun 11am-4pm

Wed closed

Total Hours (all libraries)

590

448

-142

-24.07%

Total Hours (April 2013))

590

414

-176

-29.83%

Total Hours (10 libraries)

491

448

-43

-8.76%

Camden Council's Latest Assault on Libraries

In spite of a extensive campaign by CPLUG, on 18th July, the Culture Scrutiny Commitee voted to close Regents Park Library and to hand-over Belsize Library, Chalk Farm Library and Heath Library to local community organisations. After the first year of operation, these organisations would have to fund all activities within the libraries and would be responsible for the upkeep of the library buildings.

Having failed to persuade Camden Council that there were other ways of saving the required amount of money, without inflicting permanent harm on its library service, CPLUG made the following complaint to the council. This was ignored and the complaint was forwarded to the Local government Ombudsman in late December 2011.

Maladminstration complaint by Alan Templeton on behalf of

Camden Public Library Users’ Group (‘CPLUG’)

Summary

On 8 June 2011 London Borough of Camden (‘the Council’)’s Cabinet made a decision (‘the decision’) agreeing to officers’ recommendations for savings in the library service similar, but not identical to those identified as Option A in the officers’ report to that meeting. The decision was approved on 18 July 2011 despite reconsideration by the Council’s Scrutiny Committee as a result of a ‘call in’. In letters of 14 and 17 October 2011 the Council rejected arguments that the decision was unlawful, refused to agree to mediation or other forms of alternative dispute resolution and threatened to seek its legal costs if CPLUG supporters put those arguments to the Administrative Court in a judicial review claim. They decided they could not run that risk and so no claim has been issued. The Council did, however, agree to determine any complaints they wished to make about the decision: see its e mail of 28 October 2011.

This document sets out those complaints. They can be summarized as follows:

the Council (quite properly) decided to consult on proposals to save money on the library service but then did so in a way that dramatically constrained the responses consultees could give, which in turn meant it lacked adequate information about the public’s views on the options it had in mind and on others;
the Council committed itself to undertaking a needs assessment to enable it to decide what library services should be provided locally in line with the approach recommended by the Wirral Inquiry and the Secretary of State (again there was nothing improper about this), but it then failed to assess needs in that manner because inquiries were inadequate and the special needs of particular groups were not identified;
despite having a clear policy on seeking comprehensive information to facilitate a proper assessment the impact of proposals of this kind in equality terms, the Council failed to follow it with the result that the particular needs of groups defined by characteristics such as disability, age and faith were not taken into account; and
two Councillors who are part of the Cabinet had particular interests in the decision which meant they could not approach the matter impartially and objectively. They ought to have recused themselves, as one other Cabinet member Councillor did, but they did not.

Each failing amounted to chronic maladministration. This caused ongoing, unremedied injustice because the public library service the Council intends to provide in Camden on the basis of the decision is significantly reduced, the opportunity to capitalize on offers of voluntary work to maintain hours and keep libraries open has been squandered, and the particular needs of defined groups in Camden who live in certain parts of the borough will not be met. This is exacerbated by the fact that the public library service is paid for, in part, by Council tax payers for whose benefit (along with their children) it is operated. Having said it would properly take into account their views and needs before making the decision, then having failed to do so because of its maladministration, the Council caused them further injustice in the form of outrage and a sense of acute frustration and disempowerment.

Background

Consultation

In February 2011, the Council decided to embark on a consultation exercise about the future of the public library service in the borough. The primary focus of this consultation was the means by which £1.6 million of the current library budget might be saved in future years. This figure was identified as a necessary saving following discussions at Cabinet and full Council level and after making ‘back office’ savings of £400,000.

External consultants, Red Quadrant, were commissioned to devise a consultation questionnaire, to hold some focus group meetings and produce a report (entitled Public Consultation on the Camden library service – ‘Red Quadrant’s report’ below) for the Council to consider.

Two versions of the consultation questionnaire (one for adults, the other for children) were made available for completion by the public either in hard copy form or online. Library staff were instructed to distribute one or both versions of this document at certain sites, including five schools and a college. One such school and the college are in the WC1 area, one is in NW1, one in N19 and two in NW5. It remains unclear how the schools at which questionnaires were distributed were selected, which versions of the questionnaire or whether a mixture were distributed in this way. On any view, however, the distribution was not to a representative spread of Camden schools located near libraries.

The wording of the first question in the questionnaire directed at adults is critical and for that reason we quote it in full. It reads:

“…to make the first £1 million worth of savings, please look at the following possibilities and select your preference for how the large savings could be made.

Please take one box only in this question

Swiss Cottage Central library to be closed ¨

Two larger libraries to be closed ¨

Three medium-sized libraries to be closed ¨

Five smaller libraries to be closed ¨

40% reduction in opening hours at but all libraries ¨
remain open”

Questions 2 and 3 are similar in form although they contain different options for making smaller savings. Each asks the consultee to tick two boxes.

There are three significant features of these questions.

First, consultees are not given the option of ticking a box prefaced “none of the above” or any means of otherwise indicating their disagreement to the premise of the questions: that savings must be made from the libraries budget in the specified ways.

On the contrary, to answer the first question, consultees are forced to choose options from the set “menu” (a word used by the consultants, Red Quadrant, who devised the questionnaire). This was a very deliberate design feature. Indeed those who completed the consultation questionnaire online (around half of responders) were not physically permitted to proceed to question 4 unless they had positively answered questions 1, 2 and 3 in one of the limited permissible ways (see paragraph 4.23 of Red Quadrant’s report).

The second notable feature of question 1 is that consultees could only express a preference for the closure of a single identified library i.e. Swiss Cottage Central. To put this point another way, a consultee might want to agree with the proposition that £1 million should be saved by closing two larger libraries but strongly object to the closure of their own local, large library. Or for altruistic reasons they might take the view that their own local large library should be closed so another elsewhere, or a series of small libraries, might be saved. Neither preference can be expressed through the questionnaire. Consultees are not even told what libraries the Council may be inclined to close, nor the criteria that will be used to make the decision.

Thirdly, the options identified in questions 1, 2 and 3 do not correlate to any proposal put to the Cabinet on 8 June or the Scrutiny Committee on 17 July 2011. Consultees were not therefore responding to a proposal which the Council ultimately decided should be adopted or rejected. Option A, that recommended by officers and ultimately preferred over the alternatives by the Cabinet and the Scrutiny Committee, was not even a hybrid of the various options outlined in questions 1, 2 and 3. It was therefore never the subject of public consultation.

One further question is worth highlighting in the adult questionnaire, as are three questions that might have been asked but were not.

The question was asked:

“Do you consider yourself to have a disability? ¨ Yes ¨ No”

but nothing further is asked about the relationship between any disability and library use (for instance, blind and partially sighted people use libraries differently from those who do not have those impairments), or whether any disability would present a barrier to accessing a library close by or elsewhere.

Similarly, although consultees were asked which libraries they “visited within the last twelve months” and which of those they visited “the most”, they were not asked about the frequency of their visits nor whether they had (or would have) any particular difficulty in visiting libraries other than the most frequently visited one. A consultee might live close to one library, use it because of a mobility problem, and have visited another once, with great difficulty, in the last year. That consultee’s answer would be precisely the same as that of someone who, without difficulty, frequently visited two libraries, though one marginally more than the other.

Questions about faith, religion and belief were not asked at all.

Analysis of the responses

There were just under 6000 responses to the consultation in the form of this questionnaire. This is an unusually high figure for a public consultation in Camden.

In a report, ‘Public Consultation on the Camden library service’, Red Quadrant explain the thinking behind the features of the questionnaire highlighted above and analyse some of its results. The latter are variously characterised as “highly accurate” and “statistically robust”.

Paragraph 4.3 elaborates, stating:

“the menu model provides real choices based on real financial figures: the public are expressing preferences on where the savings could actually be made. This approach transparently showed with different real possibilities for making the budget savings and helped to make the choice real to the public.” (emphasis added)

This exhaustive articulation of what was “real” and “possible” is underscored at paragraph 4.4 which says materially:

“The Council considers that it is simply not possible to make this level of savings without looking at either changes in opening hours or library closures, or both.” (emphasis added)

Then, at paragraph 4.7, Red Quadrant explains that the purpose of question 4 in the questionnaire was to provide:

“a useful set of feedback for Camden library service in terms of understanding where else the public would propose savings could be made.” (emphasis added)

This echoes the wording of question 4 itself: “Your suggestions on other savings we should look at.”

In short, taken together, questions 1, 2 and 3 presuppose savings will be made in the ways identified in the menus each contain and that something additional might be achieved by acting on suggestions consultees might make in response to question 4.

Red Quadrant’s report also discusses some qualitative research undertaken with focus groups. The raw data gathered is not appended to the report so it is difficult to understand and evaluate the quality of Red Quadrant’s findings. However, it is readily apparent that, contrary to their assertion that the focus groups would be constituted to “ensure engagement across the entire spectrum of local needs”, they were dominated by users of particular libraries. The table at paragraph 5.13 demonstrates this. It shows that, of the four libraries that are threatened with closure, three (Chalk Farm, Heath and Regent’s Park) had only one representative user involved in all the focus group sessions. Swiss Cottage, by contrast, had 20 users involved in the focus groups. The expressed preferences of focus group attendees were therefore inevitably skewed towards retention of those libraries whose users were well represented, and against those whose users were not.

It is also unclear what the personal characteristics of the people listed in this table are, but it would be logically impossible for a single user to be in any sense representative of all persons and needs from a particular library. For example, if the Heath library representative was an older person who uses the library there for recreational reading, for example, their needs would be very different from those of a single parent using a Rhymetime session or borrowing books they could not afford to buy for their child.

Further, no attempt by Red Quadrant was made to identify and engage with people who define themselves by faith, religion or belief for the purposes of the qualitative research.

Equality impact and needs assessments

On 16 April 2011, just 12 days after the consultation closed, Michael Anderson (an officer in the Library Customer Services Team) completed an Equality Impact Assessment document intended to assist Council members in discharging their duties under section 149 of the Equalities Act 2010.

At section 3 of this document, Mr Anderson explains how the views of certain stakeholders (specifically “users and potential users of library services”) had been obtained to assist him undertaking that assessment; he says this was done through the public consultation exercise.

That statement needs to be qualified. It is clear that only a very particular subset of the data gathered through the questionnaire was fed into the equality impact assessment. For example, there is no information, less still analysis, of usage patterns of individual libraries by reference to gender or disability (not that the questionnaire provided much useful data on the latter – see above). Analysis of users’ ages is very limited; so, for instance, there is not consideration at all of the fact that young children have to be accompanied to libraries. No information about faith, religion or belief is taken into account. There is no reference at all to the information provided by consultees in the free text boxes.

Mr Anderson also makes no mention of others’ views being relevant to the assessment, much less sought.

Drawing on that impact assessment and some other information provided by consultees, officers purported to assess the needs of people in Camden for library services: see paragraph 8.9 of the officers’ report prepared for 8 June 2011 Cabinet meeting.

Volunteers

Various means of delivering the library service other than that used at present were discussed in the officers’ report for the 8 June 2011 meeting including establishing industrial or provident societies or contracting with the private or third sectors.

Yet one alternative delivery model not discussed in any depth was that identified by a large number of consultees: supplementing paid staff with volunteers so as to maintain existing hours of service while making savings on staff costs (one of the two most significant elements of the libraries budget).

This was a significant omission as 72% of the 5099 consultees responding to the questionnaire commented that more use should be made of volunteers. 36% of them (1835 people), expressed an interest in volunteering. This was noted, but the report simply added at 6.5.9:

“officers will seek to build on the strong support for volunteer involvement in libraries in the continuing service. This could include, for example, volunteer-organised events and activities such as children’s story sessions or author visits.”

The Cabinet decision

The officers report and accompanying papers were presented at the 8 June 2011 Cabinet meeting. Recommendations were made which, as has been noted, differed from the proposals actually consulted upon. The Cabinet were advised that decision on those recommendations was one that was within its powers. Councillor Hai (very properly) declared a personal and prejudicial interest as his siblings worked for the library service. He confirmed that he would withdraw from the meeting for that item. There was some limited discussion and then the remaining members of the Cabinet unanimously agreed with Option A, the preferred one, subject to making some modifications around storage of and access to local studies and archived material. Those members included Councillors Patricia Callaghan and Tulip Siddiq. A draft library services strategy proposed by Councillor Siddiq and officers was also approved. That document was premised on the closures anticipated by Option A being implemented.

Call in

As noted above, that decision was called in by a number of other members of the Council and so not implemented pending the 18 July 2011 meeting. In the call in, and in deputations, the Scrutiny Committee was told that the questionnaire had been rigged, eliminating the proper expression of views and discussion of alternatives, that local needs had not properly been taken into account and that there ought to be further consultation. It was also argued that the 8 June decision was outwith the Council’s strategy framework which the Cabinet is charged with implementing.

The Scrutiny Committee’s members included Councillor Mike Katz, a trustee on the board of an organisation called the Winchester Project which, some time ago, bid for a grant , part of which was to be used for public library activities. The Project now plans to run a service from Belsize library. The opportunity for anyone to do so only arises as a result of the adoption, and later approval, of the modified Option A. Councillor Katz therefore identified himself as having a prejudicial interest and recused himself.

Following reconsideration of the decision it was, however, approved by the Scrutiny Committee’s remaining members.

Current position

Since then, some limited steps have been taken. The Council has set about identifying the scope of the arrangements that might be entered into with voluntary and other community groups to take over the space currently occupied by Belsize, Chalk farm and Heath libraries. The council is currently waiting for organisations of this kind to indicate their interest in taking over the buildings and then make firm proposals before a deadline of 20 December 2011. It is intended that Belsize, Chalk Farm and Heath libraries will cease to be run as public libraries from 31st of March 2012. Regents Park will also cease to be run as a library though the date on which that will happen is not clear.

It follows that no irrevocable step has been taken to implement the decision.

What good administration required

Consultation

A decision that is made without adequate information having been gathered will be maladministrative. When a local authority has set out to gather information to assist it in making a decision, especially when that decision concerns the way it will discharge a mandatory duty, it must do so adequately and fairly.

Planning and provision of a comprehensive and efficient library service in response to local need

Section 7(1) of the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964 requires library authorities – of which the Council is one - to:

“provide a comprehensive and efficient library service for all persons desiring to make use thereof, provided that although a library authority shall have power to make facilities for the borrowing of books and other materials available to any persons it shall not by virtue of this subsection be under a duty to make such facilities available to persons other than those whose residence or place of work is within the library area of the authority or who are undergoing full-time education within that area.” (emphasis added)

Subsection (2)(a) provides further instructions as to the factors that a library authority must take into account in order to fulfil its duty under section 7(1):

“(2) In fulfilling its duty under the preceding subsection, a library authority shall in particular have regard to the desirability—

(a) of securing, by the keeping of adequate stocks, by arrangements with other library authorities, and by any other appropriate means, that facilities are available for the borrowing of, or reference to, books and other printed matter, and pictures, gramophone records, films and other materials, sufficient in number, range and quality to meet the general requirements and any special requirements both of adults and children…” (emphasis added)

There is an implied duty under section 7 of the 1964 Act to conduct an adequate assessment of local needs. That requirement is an inherent component of the duty to provide a comprehensive and efficient library service. This point was made in clear terms in the statutory public inquiry ordered by the Secretary of State into Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council’s decision to restructure its library service (‘the Wirral Report’):

“The Inquiry has accepted the implicit and explicit interpretation of the 1964 Act that a comprehensive and efficient service is one that is based on local needs (hence why there can be no single definition which is true to all library authorities in England), and if those needs are not fully assessed and taken into account, it becomes a rational impossibility for a library authority to design a service which comprehensively and efficiently meets those needs in a demonstrable way.”

The Wirral Report also stated:

“Because the Council did not demonstrate that it had made an adequate assessment of local needs, I also conclude that the Council did not act reasonably in meeting such needs through their proposals, either in meeting their statutory obligations, or in the context of available resources; as, in the absence of such assessment or demonstrable knowledge of local needs, it was incapable of identifying a reasonable option for meeting such needs both comprehensively and efficiently.”

This ‘needs assessment’ approach was commended by the Secretary of State to library authorities, including the Council, in a letter dated 3 December 2010. Then, critically, at pages 6 and 7 of the officers’ report for the 8 June 2011 meeting a commitment was given to follow it locally.

The content of a proper needs assessment is quite clear from the sections of the Wirral Inquiry report where it identified what that authority had failed to do. In particular the Council had:

“failed to make an adequate assessment of local needs (or alternatively to evidence knowledge of verifiable local needs)” (page 5)

Consequently, it could not have acted reasonably in meeting such needs in the context of its statutory duties.

It was also unable to show that it had had due regard to the general requirements of children. This was a further breach of its duties (page 5). Similarly:

“The Council assumed it knew what people wanted…but it did not base this on any evidence of what local people who live, work and study in the area want and need; i.e. ‘the general…and…special requirements of adults and children’” (page 52).

Further, its decision:

“was made without a clear understanding of the extent and range of services currently being provided in the libraries” (page 5).

The Council had:

“displayed a lack of logic around why some facilities were recommended for closure and not others” (page 6).

The Council had failed to consider:

“the particular circumstances of specific residential communities and their need for library facilities”.

It was unable to demonstrate that it had made an adequate assessment of needs, since:

“[i]t has not been evidenced whether a physical presence is demonstrably ‘surplus to requirements’ in deprived communities and/or whether needs can be met comprehensively and efficiently by other means’” (page 53).

Having explicitly committed itself to an approach to assessment of need for local library services that did not breach these standards, good administration demanded that the Council make good on that commitment: it is maladministrative for a local authority to fail to follow a policy or procedure to the detriment of an individual or class of people, especially when the policy is one of its own making.

Gathering information to decide on equality issues

Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 imposes a duty on all public authorities in the performance of all their functions to give ‘due regard’ to three statutory equality needs to:

“Eliminate discrimination, harassment, victimisation and any other conduct that is prohibited by or under this Act;

…Advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it;

…Foster good relations between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and those who do not share it.”

Section 149(7) provides that the seven relevant protected characteristics are: age, disability, gender reassignment; pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation.

Whether the Council discharged this duty or not would have been a matter for the Courts to decide, had the judicial review claim proceeded.

However, the Council also has a policy which describes in some detail how it will take these matters into account which is by a process of equality impact assessment. It accepted it had to do so in relation to the 8 June 2011 decision. The policy states materially:

“The Equality Impacts Assessments, while not as such a requirement in law, are the means by which we consider equalities implications and seek to demonstrate that we have paid due regard to the issue. In future given both the increased scope of the new Act and the ever greater emphasise [sic] being put on this duty by the Courts it is likely that greater information on this issue will be put before Members when they are asked to make a decision which has impacts upon equality issues. It is down to officers to seek to indentify when matters may have an equality impact and explore these issues and put them before Members in reports to them but when considering the issues it’s important that Members relate this back to the general duties outlined above.” (emphasis added)

As above, good administration requires the Council to follow this policy.

Impartiality in the part of decision makers

When a decision is infected by conflicts of interest or personal bias it will almost certainly be maladministrative: see R (Liverpool City Council) v Local Commissioner for Local Government for North and North East England [2000] EWCA Civ 54.

These basic standards are given some detail through policies like the Council’s Code for Members’ Conduct. It provides materially:

“Personal interests

8. (1) You have a personal interest in any business of your authority where either-

(a) it relates to or is likely to affect –

(i) any body of which you are a member or in a position of general control or management and to which you are appointed or nominated by your authority;

(ii) any body-

(aa) …
(bb) directed to charitable purposes; or
(cc) …

of which you are a member or in a position of general control or management”

Maladministration

As indicated above, this takes four forms.

Inadequate consultation

First, this was not a consultation which sought the views of the public at a formative stage. Officers had decided that savings had to be made in a particular way (“it is simply not possible to make this level of savings without looking at either changes in opening hours or library closures, or both”) and briefed Red Quadrant of that. This set a course from which there could be, and was, no deviation. The basic requirements of good administration were not adhered to.

The Council insists that it had an open mind throughout about all options, but that is simply unsustainable in circumstances where its officers had rejected other possibilities beyond those canvassed with Red Quadrant and this narrow approach directly fed into the framing of the questions consulted upon.

This fed into the second manifestation of maladministration in the consultation process: the unfair design of the consultation questionnaire. It did not permit consultees to express a view that none of the fixed “menu” of options at questions 1, 2 and 3 were acceptable. Consultees were positively forced to ‘prefer’ five of those options if they wanted to participate in the consultation at all (those completing the paper based questionnaire could, in theory, deface or decline to answer the first three questions but few actually did).

Consultation responses, far from being accurate and reliable, were therefore funnelled towards those considered appropriate by Red Quadrant and officers creating an entirely false impression of support. When CPLUG ran a much smaller scale open ended questionnaire exercise the results were dramatically different. All other options, including the important proposals about volunteer use, were ruled out of consideration (or at best, wholly overshadowed by the options from the set menu presented to consultees).

The Council’s response to this is to assert that people could obtain paper copies of the questionnaire, decline to complete the first few questions and instead make alternative suggestions to what was proposed in the first questions in the free text boxes. This too is unsustainable. Good administration requires the Council to be straightforward in its dealings with the public. The public who responded to the consultation using the paper based copies would, and overwhelmingly did, answer the (skewed) questions that were put to them, rather than seek to evade them and put forward alternative suggestions. Those who completed the questionnaire on line simply had no choice. In any event, the free text boxes were expressed not as complete alternatives to those proposed at questions 1 to 3, rather additional means by which savings could be made (they were prefaced “Your suggestions on other library savings we should look at” emphasis added).

Thirdly, consultees were not presented with sufficient information to respond meaningfully. No proposals were made about the closure of specific libraries (other than Swiss Cottage) so they were unable to respond by indicating a view about where closures should take place, if at all. The preferred Option A was only adopted by officers later on, and so not actually the subject of any consultation. Nor were the variations of that option agreed to by the Cabinet and Scrutiny Committee consulted upon.

This maladministrative failure could not be addressed by the presence of a free text box or the holding of focus group sessions; they put the onus back on consultees. Consultees should have been told in terms what the Council had in mind, so they could respond; it was the Council’s responsibility to ensure the consultation was fair, not theirs to somehow address the unfairness by answering questions not actually put to them.

Inadequate assessment of need

The next maladministrative omission concerned the inadequate way in which information about local needs was sought. The way in which the consultation questionnaire was framed meant that critical information about how needs could be met was simply not gathered. No meaningful questions were asked about disability, as discussed above. None were asked about faith, religion and belief and their relationship to library use. The ease and frequency with which those whose libraries might be closed could access alternative services was not explored. None of this was corrected by the focus group discussions because their membership was so unrepresentative that distorted results were an inevitability and bound to favour the views of the users of larger libraries, as they did.

In reality the consultation exercise generated information about use of existing libraries by certain existing users (those who responded) rather than the general and special needs of adults and children from the various groups that make up the community in Camden. This approach was wholly at odds with the Wirral Inquiry approach, but resonated with the omissions made by that authority.

For example, the users of Kilburn library (of whom a significant portion neither live, work or study in Camden, but rather in Brent, and so are not the intended beneficiaries of Camden’s section 7 duty) were fully taken into account as having a need to be met by Camden’s library service. By contrast, the needs of those who do not use the library service, or who use it in a limited way, received very little attention.

Further, the special needs of groups whose identity was either obvious or made so during the consultation exercise despite all of its shortcomings, were not grappled with, just as in the Wirral. Five examples may be of some assistance.

First, the needs of children are different to those of adults and also differ hugely depending on the age of the child. Notwithstanding the children’s questionnaire, strenuous attempts should have been made to establish what they are and how best to meet them not least because some children would not be able to respond to that questionnaire on account of their age. Yet it seems no attempt was made to seek the views of the statutory Children’s Trust Partnership Board established to facilitate the discharge of the Council’s section 17 Children Act 1989 and sections 10 and 11 Children Act 2004 duties, or the Independent Education Commission established in 2010 (this was put to the Council and it was silent on the point in its 14 October 2011 letter). Nor was thought given to how the Council could honour the commitments in its existing Children’s and Young Person’s Plan, given in the context of 13 libraries spread throughout Camden, once Option A was adopted.

If attempts were made to seek and analyse views and information of this kind, their fruits were not fed into the assessment, nor were the views of schools or officers from the Council’s Directorate of Schools and Families that had attended meetings to discuss the proposals.

Secondly, at paragraph 3.5 of the officers’ report, Regent’s Park library was identified as being located in the third most deprived part of the borough. An overwhelming number of its users come from a single postcode area. A disproportionately high number of those users are in fact Bangladeshi and Somali people, as the Equality Impact Assessment reveals at paragraph 5.3. There are particular issues in this area around low income, high rates of unemployment, poor health and poor living environments.

But this was not identified in the main officers’ report as an issue that emerged through the Equality Impact Analysis, less still one of significance. One of the explicit policy aims identified at paragraph 8.9.2 was “focussing investment on enhancing the library service in areas of high need” and the (then) draft strategy submitted with the report made a commitment at page 7 to:

“deliver enhanced services from libraries that serve populations in areas of high deprivation.”

Officers sought to justify the recommendation for closing Regents Park as a library in this way:

“The needs of customers in Regents Park [sic] can be addressed effectively through other alternative means of provision as the core public lending library service is little used.”

Yet those specific needs and the means of meeting them were not identified by officers in the needs assessment part of the report. The assumption was that further thought would be given to this if the proposals were approved: see paragraphs 8.9.2 and 8.9.4. This was a serious error very similar to that in the Wirral: the Council assumed it would, in the long run, know best how Regent’s Park library users’ needs would be met, so there was no need to put proposals to them for comment, or even make clear proposals to the Executive.

Thirdly, various consultees identified the popularity of sessions targeted at preschool aged children at certain libraries including those which are now threatened with closure. These users are accompanied children who, more than other users, could be expected to experience difficulties in travelling to alternative libraries besides the one in use. This issue was not discussed.

Last, certain groups in Camden who would define themselves by faith were concentrated demographically in particular parts of the borough in particular Muslims and Jews. Yet, as we have explained already, no data was gathered about this and so there was no analysis of how their needs might differ from those of the general population for faith related reasons or indeed the extent to which closure or reduction of services at particular libraries might impact on them especially harshly.

Failure to follow the Council’s own policy on gathering information relevant to equality issues

The errors of approach identified immediately above also infected the assessment of impact in equality terms. Despite the large amount of data gathered, there were striking omissions around issues of age, gender, disability, faith, religion and belief: it is impossible to deduce from the assessment whether young children and older people will be affected in different ways by the proposals, whether women (especially those with childcare responsibilities) will be affected differently to men, whether people with particular impairments, such as sight or auditory ones or mobility problems, will be affected differently from others, or whether Muslim and Jewish people will be particularly affected. Yet common sense dictates that all these groups will experience the effects of the proposals differently from the general population because of their personal characteristics, where they live and difficulties they may have in accessing a library if their local one is closed.

It follows that the impact assessment policy was not followed: officers attempted to “identify when matters may have an equality impact and explore these issues and put them before Members” but they did not do so comprehensively. This omission was fatal.

Decision made by Councillors with an interest that meant they could not be impartial

As noted above, Councillor Hai recused himself because he had a personal connection with people affected by the decision. That was proper. His actions should have served as an example to others. They did not.

First, Councillor Callaghan did not recuse herself despite being a trustee of Primrose Hill Residents’ Association, one of the organisations with an interest in taking over Chalk Farm library and running a service from there. The opportunity to do so only arose as a result of the adoption of the modified Option A by Councillor Callaghan and others.

In that sense Councillor Callaghan’s position was identical to that of Councillor Katz who was on the board of a similar organisation. However, he, like Councillor Hai, recused himself.

Councillor Siddiq also ought to have recused herself, but for different reasons. She had expressed her clear view on the future of the library service in the draft strategy. The reality is that she was one of the architects of the proposals. There was nothing inherently wrong in that, but having formed her views she could not then open-mindedly consider the products of the consultation (flawed as they were), nor the impact assessment nor the deputations to the 8 June 2011 meeting. She should not have been a judge in her own cause.

Councillors Callaghan and Siddiq both acted maladministratively. Councillor Callaghan also breached the Council’s own Members Code.

Conclusion

The injustices caused by this maladministration can still be remedied. The threatened libraries have yet to be closed.

The Council can, and should, withdraw the decision, agree to both consult again and assess needs and impact properly, then make a new decision untainted, and open to scrutiny, by those who are not predisposed to a particular outcome.

However, this will need to happen relatively quickly. The Council is asked to determine these complaints within 14 days in order that they can be put to the Local Government Ombudsman for urgent investigation if they are not upheld.

Signed:

Alan Templeton

Date: 25/11/11

Community Web Kit provided free by BT

Cookie Policy

Existing Opening Hours	Total Old Hours	New Opening Hours (01/04/2012)	Total New Hours	Change
				hours	%
Belsize Library
Tue-Wed 10am-7pm
Sat 10am-5pm; Mon	25	?	?	?	?
Thu-Fri, Sun closed
Camden Town Library
Mon-Fri 10am-7pm		Mon-Thur 10am-6pm
Sat 10am-5pm	52	Fri, Sat 11am-5pm	44	-8	-15.38%
Sun closed		Sun closed
Chalk Farm Library
Mon, Fri 10am-7pm
Sat 10am-5pm	25	?	?	?	?
Tue-Thu and Sun closed
Heath Library
Mon-Tue 10am-7pm
Thu 10am-8pm
Fri 10am-7pm	49	?	?	?	?
Sat 10am-5pm
Sun 11am-4pm
Wed closed
Highgate Library
Tue-Thu 10am-7pm		Tue-Thurs 10am-7pm
Sat 10am-5pm	34	Sat 10am-5pm	34	0	0
Mon, Fri, Sun closed		Mon, Fri, Sun closed
Holborn Library
Mon-Fri 10am-7pm		Mon-Thurs 10am-7pm
Sat 10am-5pm	52	Fri 10am-5pm	49	-3	-5.77%
Sun closed		Sat 11am-5pm
		Sun closed
Kentish Town Library
Mon-Fri 10am-7pm		Mon-Thurs 10am-7pm
Sat 10am-5pm	52	Fri 10am-5pm	49	-3	-5.77%
Sun closed		Sat 11am-5pm
		Sun closed
Kilburn Library Centre
Mon-Fri 10am-7pm		Mon-Thurs 10am-7pm
Sat 10am-5pm	52	Fri 10am-5pm	49	-3	-5.77%
Sun closed		Sat 11am-5pm
		Sun closed
Queens Crescent Library
Mon-Fri 10am-7pm;		Mon 11am-7pm
Sat 10am-5pm;	52	Tue-Thurs 11am-6pm	41	-11	-21.15%
Sun closed		Fri, Sat 11am-5pm
		Sun closed
Regents Park Library
Tue-Thu 10am-7pm		Tue-Thu 10am-7pm
Sat 10am-5pm	34	Sat 10am-5pm	34	0	0
Mon, Fri, Sun closed		Mon, Fri, Sun closed
St Pancras Library
Mon 9am-7pm		Mon 9am-7pm
Tue-Fri 9am-6pm	52	Tue-Fri 9am-5pm	48	-4	-7.69%
Sat 11am-5pm		Sat 11am-5pm
Sun closed		Sun closed
Swiss Cottage Central Library
Mon-Fri 10am-8pm		Mon-Thurs 10am-8pm
Sat 10am-5pm	62	Fri 10am-5pm	59	-3	-4.84%
Sun 11am-4pm		Sat 10am-5pm
		Sun 11am-4pm
West Hampstead Library
Mon-Tue 10am-7pm		Mon 11am-7pm
Thu 10am-8pm		Tue-Thurs 11am-6pm
Fri 10am-7pm	49	Fri, Sat 11am-5pm	41	-8	-16.33%
Sat 10am-5pm		Sun closed
Sun 11am-4pm
Wed closed
Total Hours (all libraries)	590		448	-142	-24.07%
Total Hours (April 2013))	590		414	-176	-29.83%
Total Hours (10 libraries)	491		448	-43	-8.76%