Agenda item
Motion - Saving Brent's Libraries
To consider the motion set out in the requisition submitted by Councillors Allie, Brown, Colwill, Lorber and HB Patel for an Extraordinary meeting (see attached)
Minutes:
Opening the debate, Councillor Lorber stated that there had been a long consultation exercise at the end of which the Executive had decided to ignore the views expressed. He added that local people had rejected the proposals which had been recycled from time gone by. Councillor Lorber stated that there were clear alternatives and that these would be scrutinised when the Executive decisions were called-in. The project would result in large parts of the borough not being served by a library. He explained that the previous administration had supported the provision of a new library in the civic centre on the basis that it would be an additional library and that was why there had been investment in libraries during this time. It was the responsibility of local councillors to speak out for their area and Councillor Lorber stated that Liberal Democrat councillors would work with the community to re-establish any library that was closed. He moved the motion circulated.
Councillor Kansagra made a point that although the consultation had run until 4 March, the decision on the libraries had effectively been taken when the budget had been agreed on 28 February. He felt that the proposals submitted by community groups had not been fully analysed to see how the libraries could stay open. He submitted that the full year saving arising from the project could be achieved by stopping the ward working programme. He felt ward working could be re-introduced when circumstances changed but closed libraries could not. Councillor Kansagra stated that the sites of Preston and Tokyngton libraries were earmarked for housing development and that this could include retaining the libraries. He referred to the Council being given extra government grant of £2.53m but instead of using this to preserve front line services it had been put into reserves. He said that reserves were for a rainy day and that it was now raining.
Councillor John stated that the administration did support the library service and that was why it had agreed that the six remaining libraries would remain open for 7 days a week and provide a more accessible and expanded service fit for the 21st century. She pointed out that this Council meeting had been called for political purposes because it did not have the power to overturn the decisions of the Executive. Accordingly it was at the meeting of the Executive where people were heard speaking in support of their local library but it was the responsibility of the Council to consider the service provided to the whole of the borough. Councillor John referred to the scale of the cuts facing the Council. Savings of £23m in efficiencies had been achieved but the Council could not achieve the required savings of £43m without making cuts to services. She added that some library buildings were not fit for purpose; in the past making difficult decisions on the library service had been avoided but faced with having to make such large savings decisive decisions needed to be taken. She referred to many Councils being faced with similar challenges and stressed the importance of the Council ensuring its services were accessible to the housebound and disabled. Many submissions made to the council had called for a specific local library to remain open but the Council had to consider the whole borough provision.
The following points were made during debate of the item.
It was claimed that the decision went against the results of the consultation and so ignored the wishes of local people. It appeared that the wrong interpretation had been given to the results of the consultation. Reference was made to the previous library strategy. A view was put that Preston library was housed in a beautiful building and the hope expressed that it would remain open. It was suggested that the Council’s executive style decision making process had led to the decisions on the library service being made by only ten members of the Council in the face of considerable opposition. It was also claimed that if a free vote was permitted at the council meeting it would lead to some of the libraries remaining open. It was stated that the role of a local councillor was to defend the rights of residents and that the situation had been misjudged to the extent that a U turn was needed.
Reference was made to people being misled into believing that the Council could change the decision taken by the Executive when this was constitutionally impossible. It was suggested that there was limited support from people for all the libraries to stay open. Expressing sympathy with views put forward regarding the provision of services, it was pointed out that the decisions taken on the library service included a report back on the future use of the buildings. It was pointed out that there was a continued willingness to consider proposals from the community to run local services but this could only be on a realistic basis and at no cost to the Council. There was appreciation of the interest and passion shown by those protesting against the decisions but it was stressed that it had to be understood that extremely difficult decisions had to be made in the current climate. The proposals for the library service had been the subject of many months discussion and if it was felt there was a better alternative it would have been followed. Even so it was submitted that the proposals would provide a much better service fit for the 21st century for all residents.
Attention was drawn to the local and national interest in the future of Kensal Library and the hope expressed that the level of local opposition would encourage the Executive to grant more time to consider alternatives in an effort to keep the library open.
Reference was made to the many meetings held with local interest groups and to the large amount of information provided by officers to interested groups. It was claimed that the strategy was designed to result in more people using the library service and more books being lent. It was stated that no credible alternatives had been put forward for keeping all the libraries open. The view was put that lots of people used public transport to get around and this should not stop people using libraries. A reference was made to comments about the loss of community space at Preston Library and it was stated that future plans for use of the building could bear this in mind.
Referring to the comments regarding past investment in the library service, it was pointed out that this was during a time when government provided the necessary funding to local government. The point was again made that the Council had significantly less funding and had to look at the wider picture. It was made all the worse by the Government front loading the budget cuts.
The motion was put to the vote and declared LOST.
In accordance with the provisions of Standing Order 47(c) the voting on the motion was recorded as follows:
For: |
Councillors Allie, Beck, Brown, Castle, Cheese, Clues, Colwill, Cummins, Green, Hunter, Kansagra, Lorber, Matthews, BM Patel, CJ Patel, HB Patel, HM Patel and Shaw (18) |
Against: |
The Deputy Mayor, Councillors Aden, Adeyeye, Al-Ebadi, Arnold, Mrs Bacchus, Beckman, Beswick, Butt, Chohan, Crane, Daly, Denselow, Gladbaum, Harrison, Hirani, Hossain, John, Jones, Kabir, Kataria, Long, Mashari, Mitchell Murray, Mistry, McLennan, J Moher, R Moher, Moloney, Naheerathan, Ogunro, Oladapo, RS Patel, Powney, Sheth, Thomas and Van Kalwala (37) |
Abstention: |
The Mayor (1) |
Supporting documents: