Unequal library campaigns

Jeremy

David Blackburn:

'...the local council, Labour controlled Brent, could ‘bear a share’ of keeping Kensal Rise Library open without incurring costs by allowing volunteers to run the library.'

Given the circumstances, this sounds like a perfectly reasonable solution to me - at least in the short term. But then, left wing councils don't much like 'volunteers' do they? Volunteering smacks too much of individual initiative. If it cannot be controlled by the dead head of state socialism then, really, it shouldn't be happening at all. Also, what if the volunteers end up providing a better and more popular service then the council ever did? And for less money? Or even for no money at all? The local authority, not to mention the trade unions, might take a very dim view of that.

Yes, there are many difficult and complex matters for the council and the trade unions to consider before allowing this sort of thing to go ahead...

On Benzos

Interesting observation about ticking the equality box. Then again, the courts are not being asked to make a value judgment, which is why the secretary of state's invention will be key here, I feel. Sadly, this philistine government is content to stand by and play politics.

Johanna

What a load of nonsense this article is. The author clearly does not know what they are talking about. Brent and Gloucestershire/Somerset cases were FACT based and were very different. The courts ruled that Brent did do a needs assessment and applied it whereas Gloucestershire and Somerset utterly failed in their public sector duties. The court also did not "find in favour" of Gloucestershire on the other counts put referred the decision to the Secretaty of State!

Jo

There is an astonishing lack of understanding of the legalities and the different facts of the three cases displayed in this peice. It is simplistic and poorly researched. Given that there is so much data and information out there that could have been used I can only assume that laziness is the excuse, or that the truth is inconvenent for the author. Friends of Gloucestershire Libraries website has lots of info. Brent campaigners themselves know they had a weaker case. They really are non-comparible. Please Mr Blackburn, at least make an effort to show you know what you are talking about. The judge made it VERY clear that equalities duties were more than about "ticking boxes" and the claimants QC painstakingly explained why GCC had failed to do anything BESIDES merely tick boxes. Incidently it was the same QC for both cases and she told me herself that the circumstances were very different. Friends of Gloucestershire Libraries would always be happy to provide more info if you wanted to write a peice that was better informed.
Jo (FoGL)

Eagle Owl

It strikes me that poor Johanna suffers inverse Pollyanna...

Ed

Strikes me that Eagle Owl is unable to deal with the topic in hand. If you have nothing to contribute, do clear off. Johanna raises some valid concerns about this piece and library campaigns in Gloucestershire and Brent.

David Blackburn

Johanna and Jo,

Thank you for your comments. I don't think they make any sense; my reply will follow in three parts.

David Blackburn

1) The two library campaigns both ran equality law compliance challenges. The courts found that Brent council had complied and that G&S had not; their constrasing decisions depended on that difference. I say all of that very clearly in my final two paragraphs above; I can only assume that you've misread them.

David Blackburn

2) You're wrong about the G&S judgment. Here's the key section of a the Defence's summary:

'The judge did however found that the Claimants' second ground of challenge - that the relevant decisions had been taken without the necessary 'due regard' by the public sector quality duty - was made out, and accordingly found the decisions unlawful on that basis only.'

David Blackburn

3) On Jo's point about Brent 'having ticked the equality boxes'. My apologies, the phrase was a figure of speech which I hoped would have been contrasted by the technical phrase 'due regard' - or rather the complete lack of 'due regard' by Gloucestershire and Somserset Councils.

Hopefully, any possible confusion has now been removed.

Shirley Burnham

Why be critical of Johanna when, clearly, there are a number of errors of fact in this article ? You might have had the grace to thank her for pointing them out. Yes, please - do undertake a bit of research before bursting into print. It's lazy not to. Insofar as the "Pollyanna" remark is concerned: please note that optimism, honesty and good faith, the virtues displayed by Eleanor H Porter's heroine, have been a consistent feature of the Gloucestershire residents' campaign to save a service they value from the axe.

Johanna

I am not "wrong" and it is your article that makes no sense, lazily comparing two different cases. I have been heavily involved in the case, been in the court room throughout and spoken to the QC and the solicitors involved in both cases, at length . I have full transcripts of the judges rulings and have studied them in depth with the legal teams. The judge was deferential to the secretary of state. Gloucestershire County Council utterly failed to take user needs into account or to mitigate the impact on vulnerable people. Brent did not. The defence claimed they lost on a "minor technicality" the judge ruled it an "substantive breach of the law" and "bad government" so forgive me for taking your quote with a pinch of salt. I refer you to the claimants lawyers submission the CMS select committee.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmcumeds/writev/library/library.pdf and Friends of Gloucestershire Libraries website with a briefing from the lawyers. I will not copy and paste it out of context here, I am sure you could do the research for yourself.

David Blackburn

Shirley Burnham and Johanna,

1) I think we are talking at crossed-purposes: my article is not about the campaigns; rather it is about the importance of equality regulation compliance by local authorities.

I contrasted the two Claimants' equality compliance challenges. This is not a comparison; indeed I say that their fortunes are starkly different.

The G&S campaign won because the councils were in breach of the law, having failed to give 'due regard' to equality compliance. That judgment on equality compliance was the determining factor in establishing illegality in the G&S case; and the strength of that point meant that the councils involved see no point in appealing the decision. In the Brent case, the equality issue was just one decision that went against the campaigners, but it was, nonetheless, important.

David Blackburn

2) Because the G&S authorities were in breach of the law, the court's observation about the secretary of state's primary superintendence under section 7 of the Public Libraries and Museums Act became irrelevant. However, the principle is now of vital importance in the Brent case - hence the fact the campaigners are imploring the government to intervene, all other avenues having been exhausted.

I'm not criticising either campaign or the judgments related to them, but to emphasise the importance of equality compliance in these two cases. After all, the courts have decided that one set of libraries has been closed legally, while the other has been closed illegally.

So neither judgment concerns the rights and wrongs of councils closing local libraries, which the secretary of state may yet consider in the Brent case. Rather, the judgments are about (among other things) a particular council's attention to its duties relating to equality legislation.

Shirley Burnham

Are you still accepting comments on this article ? Grateful to know.

Johanna

I would argue that the judge's ruling on the PLA in Glos is far from "irrelevant" given GCC claim they were given a "clean bill of health on the PLA". They certainly were not, as the claimants lawyers explain in the CMS evidence. That the judge deferred to the Sec of State is very important particularly as we are still appealing for secretary of state to intervene as GCC appear to be making the same mistakes again.

P. Richardson

Your interest in the public library srvice will be greatly appreciated by all library users and campaigners across the country.
Why? Because the whole service is under threat from the Local Government Association ably aided and abetted by Ed Vaizey MP and his boss, Jeremy Hunt Mp, not to mention numerous civil servants, all of whom aim to destroy the 1964 Public Libraries and Museums Act, and with it the lirary service.
Nobody can fathom why, but do not expect logic, from any politician or civil servant!

Patricia Richardson

Steve

I was in my local library in Islington yesterday. It's a den of hobos and romance novels. Why should my hard earned tax dollars subsidise bad writing and the Internet use of the Down and Out?

On Benzos

Coo! What a slanging match over nothing!