Campaigners attempting to stop the closure of their local libraries won a surprise victory in the high court on Wednesday when a judge ruled that the decision to axe services in Gloucestershire and Somerset was unlawful and should be quashed.
In his judgment on a judicial review brought by campaigners in the two counties, Judge Martin McKenna found that local authorities had failed to comply with their public sector equality duties when pushing through the closures.
To the gasps and muted exclamations of the campaigners sitting at the back of the court, he ordered the councils to revisit their plans. Failure to do so, he said, would send the wrong message to other councils.
"It is important to the rule of law to give due regard to these issues of equality," added McKenna, before refusing the defence permission to appeal. Gloucestershire and Somerset county councils could still lodge a request with the court of appeal.
That prospect did not dampen campaigners' joy. "We're really pleased. Finally we have had proper scrutiny of the councils' plan. But we shouldn't have had to go through this," said Johanna Anderson, founder of Friends of Gloucestershire Libraries.
Speaking on behalf of the equivalent Somerset group, Peter Murphy said he and his fellow campaigners felt "completely vindicated". "The big society cannot be used to justify disenfranchising vulnerable individuals from the services on which they rely."
Gloucestershire-based author Joanna Trollope told the BBC she was thrilled with the ruling, and thought it would be "pretty brutal" of the authorities to forge ahead with the closures.
Although ruling that the councils had not breached the 1964 Public Libraries and Museums Act, and had not rushed through a consultation process on the closures, McKenna did believe they had failed to take account of their equality duties – an omission which he said amounted to "a substantive … defect".
"In order to discharge their respective duties Gloucestershire county council (GCC) and Somerset county council (SCC) should have undertaken a sufficiently thorough information-gathering exercise and then properly analysed that information. In this case I conclude that both GCC and SCC failed to comply with that obligation," the judge found.
For the campaigners, Helen Mountfield QC had argued that the withdrawal of funding from 10 libraries in Gloucestershire and 11 in Somerset would have a disproportionate effect on those most vulnerable in society. The councils had not properly assessed the disproportionately severe impact their closure would have on the poor, elderly and disabled, she said.
"Sending councils back to the drawing board would be a good thing," she said on Wednesday, urging the judge to put a halt to all planned cuts and closures to library services. She also said the campaigners should have all their costs covered in spite of having only won on one of the three main grounds – a request McKenna granted.
James Goudie QC had argued that the authorities had acted properly and that their decisions had been taken with care. He urged the judge not to quash the closures, in part because to do so would cause "further delay and further uncertainty" for library employees and their users.
He told the campaigners that they may have scored an "own goal" and that, when councils came to revisit their budgetary dilemmas, it was at least "highly likely" that they would do the same again. "They might actually be more draconian from the point of view of those challenging libraries' closures than the decisions made months ago," he said.
But his words did little to worry those campaigners who had fought against the cuts since February.
Daniel Carey of Public Interest Lawyers said: "Today's high court ruling sends a clear message not only to Gloucestershire and Somerset, but to every council in the country, that catering for the needs of the vulnerable must be at the heart of any decision to cut important services such as libraries."
The message is expected to be heard most clearly in Brent, north-west London, where campaigners are fighting to save six libraries. Having had their judicial review rejected by a high court judge, they have taken their battle to the court of appeal and are now awaiting a decision.
In response to the ruling, both councils said it proved that they had carried out suitable consultations and had not breached the 1964 act. "However, the judge found we needed to do more with regards to our responsibilities under the Equalities Act and this is a huge disappointment as we take our duties here extremely seriously," said Pete Bungard, chief executive of the GCC.
"With hindsight, we approached this as a transfer to the community rather than a statutory closure where a more thorough approach would have been taken."
Councillor Ken Maddock, leader of the SCC, said the decision to close the libraries had been taken "after great deliberation and with great reluctance".
Comments
16 November 2011 11:27AM
Well, sounds more like a stay of execution rather than a breakthrough.
What interests me is the simple but effective mode of attack from the Tories - massively cut funding to councils from the centre, but then force specific choices to fall on councils at the local level.
When the councils are forced to make unpopular cuts (eg, to library services), the Tories just issue a statement saying that it's a local matter, and nothing to do with them. They also postulate that the cuts in funding can be dealt with just by cutting "non-jobs" and "backroom operations".
Simple, effective PR ... and totally disingenuous.
16 November 2011 11:30AM
How much longer can Jeremy Hunt and Ed Vaizey ignore the library cuts? They are clearly ignoring their legal duty to intervine.
16 November 2011 11:33AM
I know . . . maybe some of the wealthier philanthropists in Gloucestershire and Somerset might like to host 'open days', during which the lower orders can peruse their private libraries for a modest fee.
16 November 2011 11:44AM
This going to be their strategy for everything-see the NHS where they are trying to make the health service none of the Secretary of State's business-when it goes up and over they will blame someone else.
Osborne's incompetence on the economy, creating a climate of fear through spending cuts-blame Europe
Ken Clarke's destruction of law centres and CAB by cutting their legal aid funding by 77% (while keeping the higher earning barristers in high fees) blame local authorities.
This is the government that isn't there.
16 November 2011 11:59AM
Totally agree - I've already blogged about the NHS similarities.
What concerns me is that the "opposition" don't seem to have a coherent plan to oppose this approach - they have tended to fight the Tories on their own ground.
Shirley Williams spotted the attempt to disengage the Sec of State for Health from responsibility to provide healthcare - so I believe that particular ruse has been "fixed".
16 November 2011 12:01PM
I don't think this would be a good idea ... giving book access to the plebs will inevitably lead to them getting "ideas" above their station.
Best to stick to fame-worship with X-actor and Strictly (both proving to be a better opiate for the masses than Religion ever was....)
16 November 2011 12:21PM
.
Who needs free librariz wen we got free stuf on intnet ?
Stuf on intnet is much mor innerestin.
Goin in a libree is jus lik goin 2 skool agane - an hoo wants that ?
Libriz ar jus 4 oldiz to sleep in.
16 November 2011 12:34PM
Hey, come on Guardian. Wakey, wakey!
16 November 2011 12:48PM
This is the main problem with the opposition at the moment. There is no cohesive plan or opposition to anything this government is doing. Ed Balls only seems to be able to say VAT cut, which did bollocks all last time, and the rest just say "too far too fast" or "growth" with nothing to back up their opposition.
In terms of libraries, rural areas, such as Somerset, will be hit hardest and contrary to lierbag's beliefs, the south west is one of the most impoverished areas of the country. It is terrible that this government can get away with doing away with libraries by stealth and we really need some decent opposition to prevent this from happening. I have a funny feeling that Labour aren't really interested in this area as they see rural areas as no win areas so don't care
16 November 2011 12:54PM
The beauty of a library is that it gets you thinking what you could do, really do, to make a difference. No wonder the Tories want to close them....
16 November 2011 12:57PM
We live in a digital age when surely the need for libraries to modernise is clear for all to see. Who is drawn to spend time in dusty buildings holding books? If you want to help the working classes then give us access to computers, the internet and other digital resources. It is now almost impossible for school children to do their homework without internet access. Some libraries have free internet access but this should be expanded.
This decision is a technical victory as the councils don't seem to have correctly carried out their impact assessment, which is typical council incompetence costing the tax payer a fortune. I hope the chance for libraries to modernise and meet the needs of the masses is not lost!
16 November 2011 1:01PM
There's the Torie agenda keep the people uneducated and illiterate so they don't understand when there getting the wool pulled over there eyes then make higher education so expensive its only there for rich idiots.
what a terrible future there making for our children
16 November 2011 1:06PM
Or how about universities opening up their libraries to the rest of us. A very few do, but most don't, which is a real shame as this is an incredible resource for research and leisure paid for by the taxpayer (largely) and totally inaccessible to us plebs. Very elitist.
16 November 2011 1:13PM
Tuition fees is Labour's legacy. Gloucester and Somerset are Tory councils, but Brent is not. I struggle to see the difference between Tory, Labour or Lib Dem!
16 November 2011 1:13PM
This is an interesting idea, however, most university libraries do not contain the right type of books for your target audience. This is not because of some elitist idea, just that it's very difficult to go into degree level biology (for example) with no background. But the major problem is that universities don't exist in rural areas and your plan would leave an excuse to get rid of them on the proviso that universities can take up the slack.
On a slightly darker note, being that universities are always trying to maximise their incomes, they are likely to want to charge ordinary people to use their facilities. If this happens, it will only be a matter of time before they start charging the students for the use separately from their tuition fees. I have no evidence for this, it's just a hunch
16 November 2011 1:29PM
All newly built libraries are modernised. Very few libraries only hold dusty books. It's important that libraries are run by experienced and knowledgable professionals with experience, who know which are the best, most useful and effective, and cheapest sources for their library. This includes library services and resources being targeted to the users in each area, which cannot be achieved by centralising services. Nor with volunteers only.
The Labour party's introduction and support of The People's Network was a commitment to bringing equal access to all.
In terms of university libraries, this would be unfeasible on a number of levels. As mentioned, resources would be inappropriate. Public libraries have a broader demographic, and a different purpose. As far as access to digital resources, licenses and contracts would have to be renegotiated, and costs would be likely to soar.
16 November 2011 1:50PM
My local (central) library is a mess. Whoever runs the libraries for the council seems hell bent on making it look like a squat. It's dirty, scruffy and when you walk in you ask yourself; 'where are the books?' Instead we are entreated to buy (for a two week period) crappy DVDs and even crappier CDs (that of course we would not dream of burning!) Quite why it buys five copies of Dumb and Dumber or Hell Place Mutilation and Sexist Sterotyping (in the jungle, in space, in my living room) or some other such horror/violence crap fest is beyond me. Not because they do it but because they seem to think it is providing a service, for which I have to pay a portion of my Community Charge. Not a single TV series since Spooks series one. Does the buyer even watch TV or go to the cinema?
And upstairs where the books are, sees texts slowly being pushed out by more internet stations so we lcan update our facebook pages.
No, I have absolutely no sympathy for the plight of libraries. The cost is disprportionate to the service and I'm sure giving people free online access to books would be better and cheaper and would have more reach. Kindle anyone?
And theose looking for a warm common room could I'm sure be put up, at a fraction of the price of running a library.
16 November 2011 1:59PM
Libraries closing?
What will it take for the Lib Dems to break off their love affair with the Tories?
16 November 2011 2:05PM
It sounds like you haven't been in a library for quite some time. All the ones I've known have access to a vast range of on line resources (paid for ones) such as Mintel marketing reports, newspapers, on-line databases etc. These are crucial to allow people without access to big business or university libraries to be able to access the vast amount of journals and good quality information on line - the stuff you don't find by googling. These are 24/7 sources you can usually log into from home with a library account.
Most local libraries also provide computers, internet access, scanners, printers etc, etc as well as doing inter-library loans if they don't have what you want but some other library does. All that, plus a quiet place to study - critical for many people who want to get on but don't have a decent home life to study there, as well as many others.
There may be some very small local libraries which "only hold dusty books" but you'll likely find your card for that one will allow you to access all of the above through the internet or the central library. Take that away and you take away a very basic equality of information in the modern age you're talking about - a place where those who are exluded can get access, and where anyone can access things like business resources without having to be mega-rich. What you describe is what libraries do with now.
16 November 2011 2:06PM
I have used Librarys for years, and my Two children have always loved reading because they had the opportunity to visit a leaning invironment for free, could loan books and use the internet when we couldnt afford it, Not everyone can afford internet and many older people ( like my Dad) are not always interested or are technophobic. I'm glad they can challenge the closures and believe Librarys are for everyone. Why cant the Banks be made to invest in communities with money the tax payers bailed them out with, they make out in TV commercials that they are 'peoples Banks' after all.
16 November 2011 2:14PM
This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.
16 November 2011 2:17PM
My uni library was already packed to the point of being difficult to get any work done at peak times. You are right though, it's probably an avenue worth looking at
16 November 2011 2:18PM
It seems the judge stopped closure because the council hadnt carried out an equality impact study.
Solution is easy. sack all the equality and diversity officers and use the £ saved to keep the libraries open.
16 November 2011 2:20PM
All I can say is 'Don't judge the entire nation's libraries just by your one local one.' The vast majority are emphatically not like that. As for 'free online access to books', you are immediately depriving around a third of the population of any service at all, since they are not connected to the internet - and, of course, if they do want to use it, rely on their local library to provide it.
Oh, dear, the Kindle ploy again. Would you give your two-year-old a Kindle? No? Then kindly don't think of it as the universal panacea for getting rid of libraries.
16 November 2011 2:24PM
It was hard enough to get hold of some books in academic libraries when you only had other students to contend with, so I can't see how letting the public in would work, along with the question of how much use a lot of the books would be.
Anyway, in my limited experience, don't academic libraries allow limited access to non-members, eg if they're researching something specific?
16 November 2011 2:32PM
I don't see why councils are so obsessed with cutting back on libraries. Surely they don't cost much? They employ few people and they are poorly paid. With most data available online it should be free to a public body.
16 November 2011 2:39PM
Elfwyn. Re child, actually yes I would; large font, simple to use, what's the issue? Of course, children's books are a seperate case. The best book ever written has got to be 'Goodnight Moon', an existential classic and not worth owning but in the paper version. As to internet access, I am not so sure, need to call in the data on this assertion. Does a mobile phone count for instance? There are already intitiatives in train to extend the reach of and provision of e-technology. I think there is a lot of argument in defence of the library that is actually just more nails in its coffin. Until e-access and libraries embrace the same aspirations, ethic and ethos, libraries will continue to dig their own grave. Why not libraries with free e-books? Why not libraries as communal centres? Purpose and outcomes I think should be the key words, and a library offering crappy DVDs is not it.
16 November 2011 2:53PM
What exactly is the difference between the ethos of e-access and the ethos of libraries? As someone trained in information myself, the who ethos e-access and open access is exactly the same as the library ethos, and librarians have been being traned in that for years now.
Most libraies do have ebooks, as well as a vast range of other electronic resources. Maybe you've never visted your local council's library pages online - maybe you should try it. And if you don't have internet access, the library will provide it. It won't provide the same range of electronic resources as an academic library does, but it will have plenty.
16 November 2011 2:56PM
And if you want to see a wholly online library, look at something like NHS Evidence to see the full range of what libraries can do. This is very specialised of course, but exactly that kind of thing will be available through your local library, with full access that you as an individual won't have. That along with many more specialised resources you wouldn't have a hope of getting access to otherwise.
16 November 2011 3:07PM
Actually, most universities do recognise their role and commitment to the local community, and as a part of that the library is open on a reference basis for the local community. Take some ID along and they may set you up with a reference card, or simply welcome you in!
You might also be interested to know that there is a joint public/academic library opening next year: www.wlhc.org.uk
Anyway, aside from that - a big *well done* to all the library campaigners in forcing the councils concerned to reconsider their moves to disproportionately slash library services.
16 November 2011 3:13PM
This is pitiful isn't it? We are a supposedly a nation of law but in reality the laws are different for different people. So it just comes down to: "they didn't tick the correct boxes.. - if they had ticked the correct boxes and given the condemned a choice of two last meals, Mme Guillotine would have been lawfully used..."
How about we threaten to cut some of the judges and then we'll see them rustle their robes and cook up something resembling judicial activism finally.
And another rubbish aspect of law is how one judgement - instead of using a 'man in the street' standard of common sense - then gets treated as gospel, distorting behaviour and use of public resources in its destructive wake. A judge coins a wimpy phrase like 'institutional racism' and rather than better institutions, we just better paid compliance departments.
16 November 2011 3:14PM
I thought pretty much all university libraries were open to the public. Certainly I've used several without any problem - of course without being a member of the university you can't join and borrow books, but you can still read them there.
16 November 2011 3:14PM
"No, I have absolutely no sympathy for the plight of libraries. The cost is disprportionate to the service and I'm sure giving people free online access to books would be better and cheaper and would have more reach. Kindle anyone?"
Sounds great. Now then, would you like to go talk to the publishers? You really think libraries wouldn't love to provide free online access to all books? They do what they can (e.g. see http://www.overdrive.com/) but there are many reasons why it isn't as simple as you may think. And it costs money....which is hard to come by when councils slash the budgets...and then people like you say the libraries aren't good enough, so might as well close them all down. Do you understand now?
16 November 2011 3:24PM
I don't care how much it costs, or how few people use it - we need a public library service. We need a public library building in every community. We need all the books and CDs to be on physical display on a permanent basis, in a big expensive building right in the centre of town. And we need lots of staff to show us where the books are etc etc.
I've thought about it for a good half hour now, and I'm decided. There is definitely no other way of delivering a convenient and cost-effective public library service.
END OF.
16 November 2011 4:08PM
Most libraries have CD's and compter facilities.
Doncaster Council blatently ignored their library assessment too.
16 November 2011 5:11PM
All libraries should be able to provide free online access to all their books (if a digital copy is available) and of course all digital journals and other publications. It costs nothing - the data is already there in digital format. Why are we still living in the dark ages when it comes to copyright?
16 November 2011 5:16PM
A nice thought, but that does not address the basic point:
Public institutions have a responsibility to provide services, like the libraries, which help citizens in many ways. They don't just provide reading materials.
16 November 2011 5:38PM
Phish99 - I understood before but the matter has been covered by others now.
Fergie4 - don't think so. Blaming cuts in budgets is sort of a reasonable argument but a terrible bureaucratic dead hand presses down it seems to me. My library, in a inner-city London borough bought an absolutely useless online borrowing and catalog system that breaks down - a case of the IT carpet bagger selling the LA a bottle of snake oil. And my libraries idea of embracing new intiatives? Getting people to queue up for a go on the free PC internet or to move from selling crap VHS films to crap DVD films and no doubt soon to be crap bluray films. NOBODY buys CDs anymore except the nerdy, so why libraries stock hundreds of greying copies of Wet Wet Wet's last album is perplexing.
16 November 2011 5:40PM
"Big Society" is government, already invented and in place, providing things such as libraries.
It's a profound mystery how Cameron has managed to perform such effective cognitive hijacking as to swerve discussion into details of destroying and then implementing once again what already exists.
As a dual citizen of the US and Britain, I despair. Over here, we've got a traveling roadshow featuring a tiny car packed full of clowns who emerge to hold GOP candidate "debates" with roughly half the electorate doomed to fall in behind the fellow with the biggest, floppiest feet. Meanwhile in the UK there's an entire functioning system of government and services being torn apart and replaced with wishful, romantic fantasy, the fictitious improvements including a crushing extension of the recession thanks to ideological fixation.
The "Cloud of Stupid" we're moving through appears to transcend the Atlantic.
16 November 2011 6:21PM
@ shibbolith
Oh, dearie me. You'd give your toddler a Kindle. You can't ever have had small children. A nice toothsome board book or picturebook costs between £5 and £7 (of course they're free to borrow from libraries). They are made to be robust, in case they're trodden on, left out in the rain, dropped down the toilet or thrown at an older sibling, gnawed, eaten by the dog, had orange juice or food spilled over them, or sick, or worse, used as a toy, or just plain read, loved, held, slept with. Our library service will even 'write off' damaged board books free of charge because babies aren't kind to them. And real books have things like lifting flaps, textured pages, touchy-feely bits which no Kindle can offer.
People like you just have no idea whatsoever of how real books can enrich children's lives. The touch, the smell, the taste (yes!), the feel, learning to look at pictures, follow text, enjoy the story. My boys used to demand three or four be read to them each night. That's a lot of books on a Kindle. But free from the library, and an endless supply.
And of course a Kindle costs a minimum of £89 on Amazon. That's a lot of money to get shoved down the toilet.
I'll let you have your allegedly sub-standard local library if you'll let us all have the thousands of excellent ones.
16 November 2011 7:32PM
just back after participating in a demonstration in Chennai against the move of the Tamil Nadu State government to convert the ultra-modern Anna Centenary Library constructed during the previous regime of Karunanidhi-led government into ultra-modern hospital for children. This is a flimsy ground to close the library.Everywhere the governments' attitude to nurture the libraries is the same in spite of collecting a small sum from every citizen by the local government. Neoliberalism does not permit dissemination of knowledge to the underprivileged! The citizens of Chennai including the progressive writers, journalists and educationists are likely to file suit against the government move. UK news is a morale booster to us.
16 November 2011 10:46PM
Tories don't read books they are usually screwing some poor soul out of all their savings. Or counting their ill-gotten millions like Archer or Mark Thatcher. Off with their gormless heads !
17 November 2011 3:15PM
In Gloucestershire's case they already have sacked most of their equality staff. Which might go some way to explaining how they ended up in this situation in the first place.
A proper impact assessment may very well have led to them closing (or transferring) the libraries anyway, but they would have been able to point to an evidence-base for doing so. Perhaps on the basis that the money would be better spent meeting the needs of vulnerable people through other services.
In this context it's perhaps interesting to reflect on this polemic from Keith Mitchell elsewhere on the site:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/social-care-network/2011/oct/05/libraries-social-care-keith-mitchell-oxfordshire
A proper understanding and implementation of the equality legislation is supposed to help councils with precisely these kinds of tough decisions. Perhaps cutting all the officers who understand, reflect and advise on this stuff isn't such a great money-saving idea afterall...