Library campaigners hunt the secretary of state

Shirley Burnham

Should DCMS be wary of intervention "for fear of contradicting the government's decentralisation agenda" or should it be wary of falling foul of the Law ? That is the question. Mr Hunt has, under the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964 (which has not been repealed), statutory 'duties' of oversight of the library service. These he and his minister, Mr Vaizey, are ignoring -- you suggest -- for reasons of political expediency. The rule of Law should be incorruptible, but it would seem that may not be so, in the minds of these gentlemen at least.

Shirley Burnham

Should DCMS be wary of intervention "for fear of contradicting the government's decentralisation agenda" or should it be wary of falling foul of the Law ? That is the question. Mr Hunt has, under the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964 (which has not been repealed), statutory 'duties' of oversight of the library service. These he and his minister, Mr Vaizey, are ignoring -- you suggest -- for reasons of political expediency. The rule of Law should be incorruptible, but it would seem that may not be so, in the minds of these two gentlemen at least.

Johanna

"Brent is symbolic as it is the most prominent in the country — defeat for Brent is a defeat for library campaigners in general" < Um, two other high profile "prominent" cases won their legal challenges last month. I think Mr Blackburn might need to do his research.

Johanna

"what is regarded as a test case impacts upon the numerous other library campaigns currently before lesser courts"

why is this regarded "a test case" I wonder when two other cases have previously been won by Gloucestershire and Somerset campaigners? Does the author not know about this? They have been widely reported and have been as prominent as Brent as the planned cuts were the first announced and were so extreme
Have a look at the Friends of Gloucestershire Libraries website. (it seems I am not able to link to the website here alas)

there is hope for other campaigners

David Blackburn

Johanna,

Thank you for your comment. The two cases you refer you to were fought on slightly different grounds, which is why I did not refer to them. Although, the Court of Appeal's particular ruling on the equalities issue in the Brent case might indicate that the court's general thinking on the issue differs from that of the High Court, which is one of many reasons why this latest case is regarded as a test in an apparently very murky area of law.

It's important to note that the Supreme Court may overturn the Court of Appeal's decision if a suit is sought and leave granted. And, as I say, it's not clear how this case will affect your campaign should further legal action be brought. I wish you all the best.

Shirley Burnham, I agree: there is little point in having statutory duties if they are not applied.

John Irven

Having fought and won the Somerset case, and having been in complete support of the Brent actions, I would like to point out that it does a disservice to say the Brent is a test case for all campaigners and most prominent in the country. The Judge in Brent specifically said it was NOT a test case for all the country, being fought on the local issues for Brent, and refused leave to appeal. The Somerset case (as Gloucester) was won on the specific grounds relating to Somerset (& Glos). SCC were also refused leave to appeal. Please do not use the loss of Brent to imply a weakening of the judgement on behalf of Somerset and Gloucester. The strength of the two winning cases should be used in arguing for others, not the loss of Brent to cast doubts. We may have had no prominent high profile supporters or celebrities funding our campaign, having to raise all the funds for the case from hundreds of residents across Somerset, but still feel it had prominence.

Shirley Burnham

The "statutory duties" enshrined in the 1964 Act sit on a shelf, waiting for someone with probity to dust them off. Rather than rid ourselves of the duties, I'd sooner be rid of the secretary of state and his minister. These latter cost a lot of money and are not fit for purpose.