Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
The Library Campaign's take on Haringey's current consultation on cuts to library services
The Library Campaign is the national charity that supports public libraries through the activities of Friends and user groups.
We note the massive rejection by 85% of the public to Haringey’s original plans for cuts to library services.
We welcome the temporary decision to abandon ideas of saving a second tranche of £675,000, mainly by an unworkable scheme using self-service and volunteers.
But the maintained original saving of £675,000 is already disproportionate at 7% of the total planned council savings. We pointed this out, in more detail, in our previous evidence.
It is perverse to proceed with this. The current proposals are extremely damaging, yet they deliver only half of the saving. The eventual reduction in the actual service as experienced by users might be anything from 30% to 50%.
Haringey is lucky to have a network of well-established library Friends groups, plus the umbrella group FORE, with years of experience of their branches which, we suspect, can seldom be matched by either staff or councillors. This should be seen as very useful when looking for savings.
Given the public reaction to the previous plan, Haringey would have been wise to work with FORE on redrafting it. Indeed, it has repeatedly claimed to be doing so.
Unfortunately this is not the case. The claim has caused consternation among the Friends, and seriously damaged the prospects of any real co-working in the future.
In particular, there has been no sign of any attempt to consider alternative savings ideas from The Library Campaign, the LibDems and - in particular - FORE. The latter is an extremely detailed document that was widely circulated around the council but has, as far as we know, never even been acknowledged.
This is a key point.
Evidence that these ideas have been in any way considered is urgently required, with a full analysis and explanation.
There can be no progress without it.
FORE is now presented with a request to judge between two hours-reduction plans that were produced without consultation either in principle or in detail. Haringey has made several claims to the contrary, including in the consultation document. FORE in fact does not accept either option. They were not consulted, or even notified in advance.
They have repeatedly requested relevant information, which has mostly been denied, obliging them to complain to the DCMS and the ICO.
This not a good augury for any future late adoption of a "co-production" model. FORE cannot fail to be unhappy that its name might be associated with any reduction in availability of the service, and distrustful of the council’s future intentions.
We do not have extensive local knowledge, but can see indicative anomalies in the current options such as Marcus Garvey Library not being selected for Sunday opening, when the building will always be open and staffed; selection of the very small St Ann's Library for Sunday opening.
This compounds the complete unacceptability of the concept underlying both options: no library open after 6pm, when those with daytime commitments can visit, teen space and study space are needed and libraries are best able to offer social and cultural activities.
It is a crucial time slot, especially for the deprived communities that need libraries most.
We think this puts Haringey in clear danger of breaching the 1964 Act requirement to make the service available to all those desirous to make use of it.
We also note with alarm that the council’s own Equalities Impact Assessment admits negative impact on young, old and disabled people, unemployed people and those on low income. Yet it proposes no real mitigations. This places it in breach of the Equalities Act.
The loss of evening hours is also inexplicable in the context of the Borough of Culture plans. These, we have been told, will focus on local communities. This is to be applauded. It is thus inexplicable that Haringey should now set out to cripple its libraries. These are not only the most obvious local venue for events and activities in 2027, but the most obvious place where ideas, involvement and contacts can be developed in preparation - work that should be starting now.
To strip them of an evening presence is self-sabotage (and, incidentally, knocks out any hopes of raising income from hiring out spaces).
Meanwhile, the consultation process has been extremely flawed, in particular by failure to publicise it properly even in libraries, and wide non-availability of paper copies, which were in short supply, sometimes unavailable and often not displayed at all. Background documents such as the EIA and the needs assessment could only be consulted online or by reading them at a library.
There were no public meetings in any branch library, although they would be seriously affected.
We have had multiple reports of officers at the meetings telling visitors that there was no choice but to accept one of the hours reduction plans, and that the overall cuts decision was irrevocable. The consultation form gave the same impression, very strongly.
All this, plus the failure to provide information to FORE throughout the year, or to consider alternative savings presented, puts Haringey in breach of several Gunning principles - to put forward plans at a formative stage; to give sufficient information to permit intelligent consideration; to take the responses into account - and the widely-accepted additional “fairness” requirement to detail any alternatives considered and rejected.
The whole document presents no coherent strategy beyond "making cuts". Whether it demonstrates a comprehensive and efficient service for the future appears not even to have been considered. We hope that a new approach - working with the community and in particular the Friends groups - can yield better ideas.
Yours
Laura Swaffield
Chair, The Library Campaign
Registered Charity (E&W) no.1102634
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Clive Carter on
-
WHEN local authorities perform a Public Consultation, they should meet certain minimum standards in public law. These are known as the Gunning Principles, established in the High Court.
- One of Haringey's recent Public Consultation documents comprised 24-pages in full colour, printed on high-gloss, quality paper
- It detailed cuts under two Options: Bunch-of-cuts #1 and Bunch-of-cuts #2.
- In my (layman's) view, the Consultation to library opening hours was of dubious lawfulness on several counts
- Below, I reproduce my letter to the council's chief legal officer about this
- She has acknowledged the letter and would reply in due course
—————
-
-
YESTERDAY, the reply (below) from the Council's Head of Legal and Governance who, perhaps understandably, declines to provide a Legal Opinion in connection with the council's recent consultation on library cuts.
I had raised concerns about the formative stage (i.e. the Gunning principles), the provision of (meaningful) alternatives and the ability to audit responses.
"… the issues you have raised do not give me cause for concern in my statutory role as Monitoring Officer"
Click to expand images ~
-
-
COUNCILS have guidelines they are expected to adhere to when evaluating consultation responses (in general):
Accountability
- All consultation activity should be discussed with the consultation co-ordinator
- Aim for a suitable period of time to enable meaningful engagement. Government guidance suggests that timescales should be proportionate and realistic to allow stakeholders sufficient time to provide a considered response
Transparency
- Be clear about any proposals and who they may impact – both positively and negatively
- Ensure that no key information is withheld
- Ensure that question framing allows for both positive and negative opinions in responses
- All consultations need to be displayed on the central consultation webpage
- Feedback on the consultation should be provided promptly along with information on how the consultation process influenced the policy or delivery of the service
Equalities
- Contact the equalities officer about completing an equality impact assessment (EQIA) which enables the council to understand any equality impacts and comply with its public sector equality duty
- Ensure the consultation is widely accessible. This means using brief, plain English and no internal jargon. Where consulting on technical matters, efforts should be made to break down information and provide clear explanations of key terms
- All documents should be available in alternative formats and languages upon request
- If a consultation impacts seldom-heard groups, extra efforts to engage with these groups must be made
A key success point is ensuring the public feel listened to. Residents should feel that there is a point to having their say and are able to see their views have made a difference. This doesn’t mean everyone gets what they want. It does mean residents are able to see that their thoughts have been considered.
Evaluating a consultation
Effective evaluation helps to highlight what did and didn't work and understand the reasons why. Always ask participants for their views about the consultation process and how it could be improved. Consultation evaluation should not only consider the number of responses received, but also the quality, cost, and timeliness of the consultation and the overall usefulness of the results informing decisions.A recommended evaluation checklist:
- To what extent were the responses representative of Haringey demographics?
- Were intended stakeholders involved?
- Were seldom-heard voices engaged with?
- Was the consultation accessible (e.g interpreters were provided if necessary, venues were accessible with seating and set up to encourage participation)?
- Did the methods used achieve the objectives?
- Was there the right balance of qualitative and quantitative methods?
- If more than one method was used, which worked better than others and why?
- Did some methods work better with particular stakeholders than others? Note this for future
- Was the timescale and process kept to? If not, why not?
- Did the consultation bring data that help inform the decision making?
- Was the level of resources and support sufficient?
- Was the budget adequate? Note areas of overspend/savings for next time
- How did the participants evaluate it? What did they think of the information provided?
I look forward to evaluating the council evaluation of the library-hours consultation responses.
-
Permalink Reply by Roslyn Byfield on
-
Very worrying, especially to see that the Council is just as evasive and dishonest as it's been about the visitor parking permits issue.
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
