Showing posts with label Brent Cross Public Inquiry. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Brent Cross Public Inquiry. Show all posts

Wednesday 15 February 2012

Barry Gardiner: The case against Brent's library closures

This is the evidence submitted by Barry Gardiner, Labour MP for Brent North to the Culture Media and Sport Select Committee Inquiry into library closures.

As you will be aware my constituency Brent North has suffered significant library closures with the closure of two libraries (Preston Library and Barham Park Library) in my constituency alone and an overall 50% reduction of the total library provision across the Borough of Brent. 

I have made it clear to the local Council that I do not support their decision to close the libraries in the borough and remain very concerned about the impact that these closures will have on my constituents. I have stressed to the Council that whilst everyone will understand that libraries should not take priority at the expense of elders’ care or child protection they should be prioritised over many other areas of the Council’s work. It is my concern that this reasoning has not been applied in the case of Brent Council. 

I have made representations to the Minister for Culture, Communications and the Creative Industries Ed Vaizey MP asking for his intervention in this matter. I asked that the Minister consider specifically whether Brent Council’s decision to reduce the boroughs’ library provision by such an extent constitutes a failure in their duty "...to provide a comprehensive and efficient library service for all persons desiring to make use thereof.." under the 1964 Public Libraries and Museum Act. 

I am therefore pleased to see that the issue of library closures and the appropriateness of the current legislation about the provision of library services are to be given attention by the Committee. 

What constitutes a comprehensive and efficient library service for the 21st Century? 

I consider this to be an integral point of review by the Committee and one that has direct implications for the Committee’s other point of consideration – the Secretary of State's powers of intervention under the Public Libraries & Museums Act 1964.

I believe that the vagueness surrounding the definition of what is considered a comprehensive and efficient library service has weakened the Secretary of State’s powers to intervene and overturn a local authority’s decision to close libraries. 

It would be helpful for the Committee to suggest criteria against which comprehensiveness and efficiency could be judged for both rural and urban areas. By setting various standards and defined criteria this will better inform the Secretary of State’s decision when making a judgement on whether the service is inadequate. In this respect I wish to focus my remarks only on proximity and demography. 

Proximity and Usage 

In Brent the Council has set out its intention to improve the service that is offered at the six remaining libraries. Their hope is that by improving the service in a reduced number of outlets, more people will be encouraged to use the service overall. In this regard I think Brent is an interesting case study in the review of what should be considered comprehensive and efficient. In particular does the service in the remaining six have to be improved before the other six cease operating? 

What has been overwhelming in my constituents’ response is the value they put on the locality of library provision and how if you remove the local element this disadvantages certain communities, irrelevant of whether the service at a library located further away is being improved. I would argue that this should be a central component of what constitutes a comprehensive and efficient library service. In rural communities this may be replicated by regular visits of mobile libraries to small local communities. 

The libraries closing in Brent serve a highly dense and often multiply disadvantaged population for whom ease of walking access is economically vital. This factor is particularly poignant for the most vulnerable library user groups such as the children and the elderly. It is these groups that are unable to make the journey to a library that is further away either as a result of the added costs or because they are physically unable to make such a journey. By removing local libraries there is an unfair impact on these vulnerable users. As such it is important that when redefining a comprehensive and efficient library provision that the ease of access for vulnerable communities should be a key criterion. 

There is a sad trend in councils up and down the country to run down service provision in what are seen as non-revenue raising areas such as libraries and allotment gardens. The argument is then adduced that the service is under-used or costs too much per capita and the case is made by Council officials to sell off the buildings or the land. This is what appears to have happened in Brent. 

The six libraries put forward for closure are said to be "poorly located and have low usage". It is clear to me that people living in Preston, Sudbury, Northwick Park and Kenton do not regard Preston or Barham Park Library to be nearly as poorly located for them as the closest alternative. Where there really is under-usage the solution should be to invest in improving the service on offer so that the locality aspect is maintained as much as possible.

A comprehensive library service must also reflect the needs of modern communications with a minimum number of computer terminals with full fast internet access where students of all ages can conduct research. The number of terminals should reflect demographic factors that will influence community demand such as age profile and household wealth. 

Poorer areas with a high school age population should be required to have a far greater number of terminals than wealthier areas with a low number of school children. 

Areas of high immigration should reflect the indigenous languages of significant local communities in their stock of books.

Saturday 20 August 2011

Take action this weekend for Brent libraries

Jeremy Hunt MP, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media, Olympics and Sport, is due to rule in September on whether Brent's library changes (including the closure of half the libraries) will comprehensively and efficiently meet local needs. Hunt has special powers to order a public inquiry into the planned closures if he is so minded. This is a separate procedure from the judicial review case where the decision is due to be announced when the courts resume in early October.

Anyone who wants to make representations to the Secretary of State to persuade him to order a public inquiry should write to him at:
Rt Hon Jeremy Hunt MP
Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport
Department for Culture Media and Sport
2-4 Cockspur Street
London SW1 5DH

or e-mail Dempster.Marples@Culture.gsi.gov.uk

These are some of the issues that you might want to address:
Whether the Council has failed to make a proper assessment of local needs in respect of its Library Services.

Whether there are specific needs for adults that will not be addressed if the plans go ahead, including the specific requirements for older people, disabled people, unemployed people, and those living in deprived areas.

Whether the proposed cuts will hit some groups of people in Brent harder than others and, if so, who they are.

Whether the Council has had proper regard to the needs of the borough’s children generally, and those from particular backgrounds.

Whether the libraries that are linked with particular schools and/or children’s centres ought to be closed and if not, why not.

Whether the distances the Council expects people to travel to alternative services are too great generally, and whether particular groups of people face particular barriers to travelling.

Whether the Council had a clear understanding of the extent and range of services currently being provided in the libraries, including those which are ‘core’ to the service and those which are ancillary, when it decided to make the cuts.

Whether the reduced service would adequately meet the particular needs of deprived communities.

Whether there is a lack of logic around why some libraries were recommended for closure and not others.


Wednesday 28 October 2009

BRENT COALITION STRENGTHENED AS COUNCIL FACES PROJECT COLLAPSE

Jean Lambert, Member of the European Parliament, this week backed the Brent Cross Coalition's call for a Public Inquiry into the Brent Cross Cricklewood Redevelopment Plan.
The Coalition is now supported by individuals at every level of political representation, as she joins Sarah Teather MP for Brent East; Navin Shah, London Assembly Member for Brent and Harrow, Darren Johnson, Chair of the London Assembly; and many local councillors in calling for a public inquiry.  In addition the Coalition is supported by Barnet and Brent Friends of the Earth, Brent Cyclists and organisations representing thousands of local residents in Barnet and Brent.

In announcing her support, the London Green MEP said, “This scheme clearly has regional repercussions in terms of its scale, because of questions of compliance with the London Plan, issues regarding traffic pollution and transport infrastructure. There are also unanswered questions about the planned waste disposal process and its impact on health. I fully support the Coalition’s call for a full Public Inquiry so that an informed and robust debate can take place into such a major and controversial development.”

While support for the Coalition continued to build Barnet Council was forced to contemplate the possible collapse of the whole project.  A report prepared for their cabinet admitted that there would be no return for developers in the delayed first phase of the development and that the first rent revenues for the Council would not be realised until 2018. They drastically slashed the number of guaranteed housing units to 795 units against the overall total for the project publicised by the developers of 7,500 units.  It is clear that after the first phase nothing is certain and there is still a risk of developers pulling out.Much more information is available on the Coalition's blog HERE.

No wonder the Barnet cabinet discussed face saving strategies in the event of the whole project collapsing.