Agenda item

The Scrutiny and Overview Committee is asked to consider and respond to the Call-In in accordance with the procedure set out in the Council’s constitution

The Scrutiny & Overview Committee considered a call-in request of the Cabinet key decisions set out in ‘Libraries Public Consultation – Phase One’ report. The decisions taken in this report were made at the Cabinet meeting held on 17 May 2021.

The Chair explained the process for considering a call-in, confirming that the Committee needed to agree whether to review the decision or not and if it was decided to proceed, to confirm how much time it wished to allocate for the discussion of the item. The Committee agreed that it would review the decision and allocated forty five minutes for its consideration.

The Chair went on to explain that there were three outcomes the Committee could reach as a result of its review. These were:-

1.    That no further action was necessary and the decision could be implemented as originally intended.

2.    To refer the decision back to the Cabinet for reconsideration, outlining the nature of the Committee’s concerns

3.    To refer the decision to Council, if the Committee considered that the decision taken was outside of the Budget and Policy Framework.

At the outset of the item an opportunity was given to the lead signatory of the request to provide an introduction, outlining the grounds for submitting the call-in. Councillor Gareth Streeter, as lead signatory, outlined to the Committee that the call-in request had been made for a number of reasons. The first was a lack of confidence in the consultation process, which was delivered within the restraints of the covid-19 pandemic. There was also confusion about the options being considered as it had originally been based upon the possible closure of five libraries, which had now been removed leading to conjecture about the reasons for its inclusion in the first place.

There was also concern about the viability of the remaining options to be considered in the next phase of the consultation, particularly the community option. It was felt the report did not provide enough assurance that there had been sufficient engagement with the community groups to evaluate their ability to take on the management of a library. It was also felt that the information provided did not give enough detail on what the outsourcing option would mean for the end service. There was other concerns noted about the business rates to be paid if the community option was chosen and the use of CIL money, which needed further clarification.

The Chair highlighted to the Committee that the use of CIL funding in the Library service was not relevant to the decision that was being reviewed, and as such did not need any exploration at the meeting.

Following this introduction, the Cabinet Member for Culture & Regeneration, Councillor Oliver Lewis, was given the opportunity to explain the reasons for the Cabinet decision. It was advised that it was important for the consultation process to identify how to deliver the savings required from the Library service to be open and transparent. The intention of the first phase of the consultation had been to gather ideas and over 2,000 responses had been received. The response given by residents in the first phase had been listened to and as a result the option to close five libraries had been discounted. The consultation was now moving to its second phase which asked for feedback on more specific options.

Following the introductions, the Committee was given the opportunity to question the Cabinet Member and the Asset Manager on the grounds for the decision. The first question noted that three options were being put forward for the next phase of consultation and asked how the final decision would be made. It was highlighted that although the process was a consultation, not a referendum, the view of the public would be listened to. Although it was likely the final outcome would be one of the three options set out in the consultation, a possible hybrid of these options had not been ruled out.

Reassurance was sought by the Committee that a full assessment had been made on the viability of the outsourcing and community options. In response it was highlighted that having to save £500,000 from the libraries budget was a difficult process and it was fully recognised it would cause anxiety in the local community. If outsourcing was the preferred option, then the Council would need to go through a procurement process with a set fee to ensure the required saving could be achieved. The community run option was the most difficult to assess, but a significant number of groups had come forward during the first phase of the consultation, which was detailed in the report.  The viability assessment of the options set out in the report had been based upon elements within the Council’s control, such as staffing, book stock and IT costs. Elements such as increased income generation had not been included as it could not be guaranteed at this stage.

As a follow-up, it was questioned whether any assessment had been made of the potential for income generation within the service. It was acknowledged there were potential opportunities to raise income through pursuing options such as cafes and room rental. However, at present the Library service only generated income of a few thousand pounds per year, per site. If the £500,000 saving was to be achieved from income generation, it would require a complete change to the present operation of the service. It was difficult to make any assumptions on the potential for income generation as there was no track record of this in the service. Given the financial challenge facing the Council, it was safer to deliver the £500,000 budget reduction required through savings.

It was noted that the Open Plus system, which allowed the public to access libraries outside of normal hours, had been installed in both the Selsdon and Norbury libraries. As such it was questioned when this would be activated. It was advised that it was originally intended to pilot the system last year, but this had been delayed due to the covid-19 pandemic. The pilot was likely to commence in the near future before rolling out the system to other libraries that could support out of hours access.

There was a concern raised that it was difficult to understand the Council’s vision for the Library service. If there was a clear vision, it should be evident in informing the consultation process. Disappointment was also expressed that an opportunity to engage the public in the co-design of the service had not been taken so far and it was asked whether co-design could be used in the second phase of the consultation. It was confirmed that because of the current situation with the pandemic it had not been possible to engage with the public in co-design. Going forward, regardless of the outcome of the consultation, there would be a greater role for residents in the delivery of the Library service.  The Committee agree that it would make a recommendation to Cabinet to include a co-design approach wherever possible.

In response to a question about how the five libraries were chosen as options for the community run service, it was advised that these had been identified during the first phase of the consultation. It was confirmed that the Council would work closely with community groups to find the best level of service they could provide, and the Council would continue to purchase books and maintain the IT service.

Although it had not been considered to date, it was agreed that the possibility of other council services, such as Children Centres, collocating in libraries could be explored as a means of achieving savings.

At the conclusion of the item, the Chair thanked the Cabinet Member and the Asset Manager for their engagement with the questions of the Committee. The Scrutiny and Overview Committee discussed its response to the call-in request. Having weighed up the information received, it was concluded that no further action was necessary and the decision could proceed as originally intended.  However, the Committee did reach a number of conclusions it wished to report to the Cabinet, which are outlined below.

Conclusions

Following discussion of the item, the members of the Scrutiny & Overview Committee reached the following conclusions:-

1.    The Committee concluded that the evidence provided in the report, along with the responses provided by the Cabinet Member for Culture and Regeneration to questions raised, had provided sufficient reassurance that the original Cabinet decision was the correct course of action. As such no further action was necessary and the decision could proceed as intended.

2.    The Committee accepted that the key driver behind possible changes to the library service was the need to make a £500,000 saving from the Libraries budget, which had been agreed as part of the Budget approved by the Council in March 2021.

3.    The Committee concluded that the savings outlined in the option appraisal had been based on known factors and as such were likely to be a good estimate of the potential saving that could be achieved by each option.

4.    The Committee welcomed the commitment from the Cabinet Member to work with the public and local community groups in shaping future services.