The Library Campaign's take on Haringey's current consultation on cuts to library services

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