Brent Council's deputy leader, Cllr McLennan, told last night's Scrutiny Committee that cuts in library hours has been 'taken off the table for now'. Questioned further she said that even though it was off the table this did not mean that the proposal was not being looked at in the background and it may have to be considered in 2020. With those cuts off the table the council will have to look for cuts elsewhere.
Cllr Nerva pressed the Budget Panel's case for consideration of transferring libraries to a Trust in order to save money without reducing hours, as well as handing some services over to volunteers to prevent closures. Cllr McLennan did not rule out consideration of these proposals.
Philip Bromberg of Preston Community Library commented to Wembley Matters after the meeting:
Cllr Nerva pressed the Budget Panel's case for consideration of transferring libraries to a Trust in order to save money without reducing hours, as well as handing some services over to volunteers to prevent closures. Cllr McLennan did not rule out consideration of these proposals.
Philip Bromberg of Preston Community Library commented to Wembley Matters after the meeting:
If I understood Margaret McLennan correctly, all of the proposed cuts to the Library Service (which included the possible closure of one library as well as cuts in opening hours) are now 'off the table'. That's very good news. Unfortunately the committee seems to have felt obliged to recommend alternative savings. Their first two recommendations would amount to a radical transformation (yes, really) of the library service and, as I said at last night's meeting, would probably prove more controversial than the proposed cuts in opening hours.Philip Grant adds:
I asked where their recommendations had come from - who had they consulted, and what evidence had they considered? The surprising answer was that these recommendations for major changes in library policy had arisen from 'discussions among the members of the budget scrutiny panel'. (Discussions which, incidentally, are held in private). Had they asked their own library service? No, they had not (even though the library service had looked at - and rejected - the idea of a trust three years ago). Had they consulted any of the existing volunteer-run libraries in Brent? Or elsewhere? No, they had not. But they had discussed it among themselves. And that, evidently, is how policy gets made in the London Borough of Brent.
But, for the time being, the threat of further cuts seems to have been averted. And, as I said, that is good news.
I am strongly against the suggestion that Brent's libraries (and Museum & Archives?) should be hived off to a charitable trust. Although this might appear to provide savings for the Council, the increased administration costs which would have to be incurred by an "independent" library organisation mean that the funds available for the front-line service would be greatly reduced. Brent's Libraries/Museum & Archives play an important part in delivering a range of Council services to local residents, and should be kept "in house".'
My opposition to such Trust arrangements is based partly on the experience of a member of my family, who was working for a local Council museum service in the Midlands. The City Council decided to transfer its Museum and Art Gallery to a Trust, for similar reasons to those put forward in the Brent Libraries proposals.
Because it was now an independent entity, the Trust appointed a Chief Executive (of course, on a salary higher than any of the existing Museum staff), who then "had to have" a personal assistant, and staff to look after finance, HR etc.
The end result was that they had to make big savings in other staff costs, and a number of existing front-line museum staff, providing key services for the public and ensuring that the museum objects and displays were properly looked after, were made redundant.So, Brent beware of transferring Libraries to a Trust!
