Library
Campaigners were aghast recently at yet another announcement made by the LGA
stating that Public Libraries were a ‘non-statutory’ service.
"The Local Government Association (LGA), which represents
council leaders, has "mapped out" the likely impact of a 10% funding
cut to county councils and unitary authorities in England in 2015-16.
It predicts that, on average, they would have to save £30m on top
of the reductions already made.
This, it argues, would mean reducing spending on a "broad
combination of non-statutory services which might include children's centres,
museums, libraries and sports centres, as well as reduce road maintenance
budgets, increase bus fares and switch off streetlights between midnight and
dawn"."
This isn’t the first
time they’ve made this claim, in a Bookseller article from 2010 a LGA
spokesperson stated;
"A spokesperson for the Local Government Association (LGA)
said: “Library services are a non-statutory service in that councils are not
legally obliged to provide a library in every town. They have to provide a
service, but there doesn't need to be a library—you could provide a mobile
library, for example. Councils are legally obliged to provide other services,
such as protecting vulnerable children and adults, and they are very expensive.
We have a 28% reduction in funding over four years, so popular non-statutory
services like libraries and leisure centres are being reduced. But it is very
much a local decision and all councils will consult with local residents."
The spokesperson added: “We have to be honest with people. We can't pretend we
will be able to provide the same level of service in future"
If it’s said often
enough and by an official ‘respected’ organisation then other people start to
believe it as well;
"On public services, upper-tier councils predict that adult
social care is the service most likely to be severely affected by funding cuts,
despite the announcement of additional funding streams worth £2bn by central
government. Almost every council will be cutting back a range of non-statutory
services too, from libraries to weekly bin collections."
And then it gets out into
the twitter sphere, Jack Blanchard from the Yorkshire Post tweeting;
"Libraries, art galleries & other non-statutory services provided by councils will face 80% cuts by 2020, LGA believeshttp://tinyurl.com/b2xbm94"
Now I’m sure that anyone that knows the LGA’s attitude to defending Public Libraries won’t be surprised by these announcements, clearly shown by this comment made by Chris White, but what they might not know is that the LGA, in cahoots with the DCLG, has been actively lobbying to have, as they see it, the ‘burden’ of statutory duties lessened for local authorities and yep you guessed it this includes the 1964 Act.
The LGA makes no
bones about this, in one of their reports from 2012 they state;
"Councils cannot, unaided, change the legal
or institutional framework that dictates their
service responsibilities, limits their scope
to do things differently, and constrains their
revenue base. Councils cannot repeal
the statute law that requires care must be
provided, library service provision must be
comprehensive and efficient, roads must
be maintained, equality must be promoted,
or – even – that local newspapers must be
provided with copies of papers for council
meetings."
"The most direct option is to change the
law. Parliament could repeal a proportion
of councils’ 1300 statutory duties and
councils would cease to fulfil them.
A variation on this approach would be to
exploit legal ambiguities to stretch the
boundaries of what fulfilling a statutory
service obligation involves. Councils could
work with their communities to develop a
shared and reduced set of expectations
about what a park should look like or what
the condition of a well-maintained road
should be. As the latter example illustrates,
though, providing “thinner” rather than fewer
services carries legal and moral risks, as well
as political ones."
Another report from
2012 states;
4. Could councils stop providing some services?
“One way of bridging the gap between expenditure and
income would be for local authorities to stop or radically reduce the provision
of some services. The kind of provision which is likely to be most under threat
as the squeeze described above continues will include coastal protection,
economic development, youth services, elections, licensing, recycling, swimming
pools, leisure centres, libraries, planning and housing regulation. Such
provision is not unimportant, but it is unlikely to be protected if budgets
decline as projected on the basis of existing plans and social care expenditure
is maintained. Of course, it has always proved difficult for councils to cease
providing services. There is a risk of legal challenge and the possibility that
local MPs or ministers would oppose such radical change. But if the scenario
outlined above comes about, it is hard to see how all the services listed above
could be protected. Unhelpfully, some of this provision is important to the
promotion of growth.”
So it all becomes a
bit clearer then, if you keep pushing the message that Public Libraries are
‘non-statutory’ then it becomes easier to pull the rug from under them thus
allowing local authorities to close, cut and divest them.
see also;
