Whilst the issue in question is not yet available online, we are delighted to be able to reproduce the relevant section thanks to Alan Gibbons uncompromising and leading Campaign for the Book articles.  Together with other libraries being systematically destroyed, Doncaster is included in an article entitled ‘On Borrowed Time? A Library News Special’ which appears in Issue No. 1305 dated 13-26 Jan 2012.

In Doncaster, 14 of the borough’s 26 libraries either shut down or were handed over to volunteer groups in November. But that’s all right because last week the authority announced it has now “improved and modernised” its service with the launch of a new “digital library” with ebooks to download at home.
So, good news at least for library users who can afford fast internet and e-reading devices? Er, the digital library contains a grand total of 456 titles and, thanks to Amazon’s restrictive rights management, doesn’t currently work with Kindles.

Whilst we applaud Doncaster Libraries in moving forward and implementing e-book lending (albeit somewhat later than most, and with little research and no promotion), the intent to engage and enable Doncaster residents to access information technologies and reading material of all formats is a great step forward, we can’t help thinking this is yet another example of knee-jerk, ill-thought out and badly executed actions.  Yes Libraries can work ‘without walls’, but please let the people now in post manage projects in a timely fashion and do not set them up to fail.  This is a project that will work and will grow, but you need to know your demographic and let them know how they can use the facility.  At present only those with Internet access at home or the ability to reach a library will be able to manage. The more internet savvy of Doncaster’s Library users are already surfing the social networks with negative comments which will damage the first innovation the Libraries have seen in months, nay years (Discussion within Save Doncaster Libraries Facebook group). This exactly the demographic which the Library service needs on side, to expand and promote the service through satisfied customer promotion.
Don’t make the mistake of thinking our being quiet means we’ve given up and gone away. We have not. We will always push for proactive, current and expanding library services and fight unnecessary, destructive and unfair cuts.

5. DCMS monitoring of Gloucestershire County Council’s library strategy

Over the last year Mr Vaizey, you sent letters to library authorities (including Gloucestershire County Council) with the following advice which specifically highlighted factors for consideration from the Wirral report.

In your letter dated 3 December 2010, you recommended that authorities should:

“Provide a thorough analysis of local needs, including the general and specific needs of adults and children who live, work and study in Gloucestershire.”

“Provide a detailed description of how the service will be delivered and how the plans will take fully into account both the demography and the different needs of adults and children in different areas (both in general and specific terms)”

You also quoted the Charteris report to DCMS on the breach of statutory responsibilities by the council in the Wirral. This included the following-

“The Secretary of State (should) require the Council to evidence how it will meet the needs of all groups and communities (in all cases).”

“The Council (should give) due regard to the general requirements of children.”

The council should demonstrate “a clear understanding of the extent and range of services currently being provided in the libraries, including those which are ‘core’ to the service and those which are ancillary.”

The Council should demonstrate “an adequate plan for and commitment to a comprehensive outreach service.”

The council should demonstrate its commitment “to adults and children with specific needs in line with the most recent equalities legislation e.g. older people, children, people with disabilities, unemployed people, people in residential homes, and housebound people.”

Save Doncaster Libraries must once again point out that DMBC cannot ignore the findings of the Equalities Impact Assessment they conducted regarding the impact on the 12 threatened branches. In the Judicial Review recently conducted into Gloucestershire County Council’s plans to cut libraries and give a number to volunteers to run, Judge McKenna ruled:

“the decisions under challenge failed to give effect to the public sector equality duties and were not merely unlawful decisions but were, in substance, as Ms Mountfield submits, amounted to bad government.  It is important to the rule of law to give due respect to these issues of equality.  The breach of the equality duties is a substantive and not merely a technical or procedural defect.”

Furthermore, there is no renewed timetable informing Doncaster residents of the anticipated closure dates or dates libraries will become community-run, other than the news that Carcroft Library will close at 6pm on 20^th December, to be replaced by a Mobile/Outreach service, with Denaby following the next day at 5pm – news that reached residents through an article in the Doncaster Free Press.

Carcroft and Denaby, two of Doncaster’s most deprived areas, are to lose the only free access to information, professional reading support, advice, learning materials, and their only opportunity to engage with local democracy and their communities, without the council having due regard to the impact this will have on individuals within the community. Consultation on this issue has been woefully inadequate and misleading. These decisions were made before consultation even occurred. The council have paid no attention to local people’s needs, or recommendations from national government.

We have repeatedly warned DMBC about the dangers of their plans.  We have provided a petition of over 16,000 signatures against the council’s plans.  We have protested at individual libraries and within each and every relevant March in Doncaster since June 2010.  We have written to the Mayor, his Cabinet and Councillors requesting information and sharing concerns and requests for proper conduct.  We have warned of potential consequences to their actions.  We have supported two call-ins to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee regarding the flaws and potentially disastrous consequences of the Cabinet’s plans.  We have tried to find evidence of the consultations they state have been completed with local groups, to no avail.  We have tried to find out who the much fêted community groups are, which the Mayor states are poised ready to take over.  We can find nothing other than yet more lack of information provision.

"We have contacted DMBC about issues such if we would be expected to provide computers and pay licences for the use of equipment and the council has never come up with answers - and we just can't go into things blind. We also can't go to the community asking for money without knowing what the true costings are." Edenthorpe Parish Council Chairman John Howard in the Doncaster Free Press, 8th December 2011.

It would seem the 12 Libraries set to become community-run are, in fact, being set up to fail.

The Mayor and his Cabinet have not budged an inch. They have remained firmly glued to their wholesale destruction of Doncaster’s Libraries for more than a year (talks were occurring with Intake Community Enterprise as far back as October 2010 according to the minutes of the 10/11/11 Second Overview and Scrutiny committee meeting, yet they were not added to the list of 14 until January 2011).

One can only imagine the Mayor and his Cabinet sitting in their offices with their eyes shut, hands over their ears, just hoping we will give up and go away. We won’t, and aren’t.  The situation is currently in the hands of legal advisors and we are investigating potential action.  Whilst we still hope this will not become necessary and that the Council will finally engage with us, discuss realistic non-destructive options, and Save Doncaster Libraries. However, past history gives us little faith in the abilities of the Mayor and his Cabinet. They have led the council perilously close to costly legal action, largely because of the ignorance and close-mindedness of their leader. It’s time to listen your citizens, Mayor Davies.

We’re not giving up – we know that the review of Doncaster’s libraries was flawed, that the views of the thousands of people who have signed petitions and told the council during consultation that they do not want their libraries to be closed or volunteer-run have been ignored, and that the plans to make libraries volunteer-run are unsustainable, damaging to the service and contrary to the public interest. We are speaking to lawyers about taking the issue to the High Court.

It was also announced yesterday that the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee is to conduct an inquiry into library closures. The Committee is inviting written submissions and requesting views on the following issues:

• what constitutes a comprehensive and efficient library service for the 21^st century;
• the extent to which planned library closures are compatible with the requirements of the Libraries & Museums Act 1964 and the Charteris Report;
• the impact library closures have on local communities;
• the effectiveness of the Secretary of State’s powers of intervention under the Public Libraries & Museums Act 1964.

Given that national government’s gaze is now upon the issue of library closures and is evidently concerned about the impact cuts to libraries will have, we strongly urge DMBC to put a moratorium on its plans.

Gloucestershire and Somerset library campaigners heard today that they have won their claim over library cuts and closures. The judge ruled in favour of their claims regarding the councils’ neglect to consider or address the findings of the Equality Impact Assessments that had been conducted. A quashing order means that the campaigners have put a halt to the council’s current plans for libraries – both local authorities’ plans will have to be rethought.

Regarding the councils’ failures to comply with the public sector equality duties, His Honour Judge McKenna ruled:

“The real question on this aspect of the case, it seems to me, is whether there was a conscious directing of the mind by the decision makers to their obligations under the legislation and in particular to the need to exercise the duty to have due regard in substance and with rigour and based on sufficient information, appropriately analysed.

“In my judgment, on the preponderance of the evidence, no such due regard was had in substance.  In order to discharge their respective duties, GCC and SCC should have undertaken a sufficiently thorough information gathering exercise and then properly analysed that information.  In this case I conclude that both GCC and SCC failed to comply with that obligation, accepting as I do the substance of the Claimants’ criticisms made of their respective information gathering and analysis to which I have referred above.”

Roger Harvey from DMBC’s Legal and Democratic Services department referred to the recent decision in the London Borough of Brent – campaigners were not granted permission for Judicial Review against the cuts to library services there (this decision is under appeal). DMBC should therefore also take heed of the outcome of this Judicial Review. The council has conducted an Equalities Impact Assessment and is aware that there will be significant negative impact to communities in Doncaster. For example:

• Bawtry: “many reported a difficulty in doing so [accessing alternative branches] due to inadequate transport provision and inconvenience. A specific impact on Wilsic Hall Autistic School was identified. Many responses concerned elderly residents unable to access alternative venues, and parents and grandparents similarly unable to access other venues to access reading materials and resources for children.”
• Bessacarr: “The main issues identified preventing residents from accessing services elsewhere are: inability to travel, cost of traveling, and convenience of local services with relevant opening times.”
• Denaby: “A number of respondents did report lack of comparable local alternatives. Travel and transport are the main issues affecting usage at alternative venues”
• Edenthorpe: “The main issues identified by the impact assessment for this community are:
  - The need for relevant opening times
  - Specific feedback regarding customers with disabilities needs to be addressed
  - Inability to use public transport / inability to travel to other locations easily
  - Suitability of current library location
  - Need for professional support to make informed choices raised.”
• Intake: “The main issues for residents interviewed related to:
  - Inability to access comparable services by the elderly or residents with mobility issues.
  - Need for service provision amongst children and families.
  - Need for information and support for residents looking for work.
  - Prohibitive cost, or lack of transport infrastructure, to enable residents to access services easily elsewhere.
• Moorends: “Travel and transport infrastructure impacts upon ability for some customers to access services elsewhere. Parents and the elderly reported a specific concern relating to inability to access comparable services in other locations.”
• Rossington: “Change in service provision will specifically impact upon:
  - Elderly residents and customers with visual impairments and / or impaired mobility
  - Disabled customers
  - Customers unable to access public transport or without personal modes of transport.
• Scawthorpe: “Some customers reported difficulty traveling to nearest other library at Bentley. Mobility and health-related issues reported, as well as responses regarding low income (and therefore inability to access resources in other locations or methods). Need for professional support to make informed choices raised.”
• Sprotbrough: “Groups and individuals consulted in the EIA reported a need for:
  - Local social and democratically available space
  - Professional support to make informed decisions
  - Access to resources for parents and children
  - Access to information
  Residents reported difficulty in accessing comparable services elsewhere due to cost or opening times. Residents also reported the need for a library building in the current location within the community.”
• Stainforth: “Groups and individuals consulted in the EIA reported a need relating to:
  - Accessible services for the elderly
  - Service provision for residents currently unemployed
  - Concerns regarding proximity and accessibility of other libraries
  - Inability to afford personal or public transport, and lack of adequate transport provision to other libraries”
•  Warmsworth: “The main areas of impact reported:
  - Age-related conditions making other locations unviable
  - Need of parents and children to access locally available resources
  - Cost of accessing resources in other locations”
•  Wheatley: “Children interviewed using the library reported a specific requirement for computer and internet access, and would not be able to access provision at other libraries. For adults interviewed, a lack of free alternative venues was reported. Specific issues from customers related to:
  - Inability to afford cost of travel to alternative sites
  - Issues of unemployment, and need for provision of information and support.
  - Difficulty for parents, children and families to access comparable library services”

The council is aware that closure of these branches would result in a significant negative impact on its citizens. It is also aware, despite claiming that over 700 volunteers are waiting in the wings to take over running 12 libraries, that realistically a very small proportion of those who gave their contact details will be willing and able to follow through with their offers. The discussion of the volunteer plans in Overview and Scrutiny made it abundantly clear that arrangements have not been made and that there is “no Plan B” if/when volunteer library provision fails, and it is apparent that volunteer provision is likely to fall short of the equalities duties, particularly with regard to access to professional support in order for people to make informed choices.

The council should not force its own citizens to take it to court for failing to address their needs and legal rights. The council knows that these library cuts will impact those most in need – young people, the elderly, unemployed, the poor and those unable to travel, for example – so why is it taking such a risk? The council must scrap its volunteer plans and take responsibility for the provision of a library service across the whole borough, not just the lucky half.

The law takes public sector equality duties seriously – DMBC can’t afford not to.

The Royal Courts of Justice - Image CC R/DV/RS on Flickr

The tone of the Overview and Scrutiny (O & S) Committee on 10^th November to consider the Cabinet decision to implement the Library Review was set when, despite the good turnout of elected councillors and members of the public, the Chair was informed that both Mayor Davies and his portfolio holder with responsibility for libraries, Cllr. Cynthia Ransome, had both sent their apologies offering other commitments as their excuse; accordingly the Executive would be represented by Cllr. Mark Thompson. The Chair, Cllr. Sue Phillips, expressed her displeasure noting that at the date and time of the O & S meeting had been arranged to coincide with a space in the mayor’s diary.

Cllr. Kevin Rodgers introduced the item giving the reason for calling in this item as follows:

• Recent information about the high level of young people not in education, employment or training in Doncaster (25%) which underlined the deprivation in many of Doncaster’s communities;
• The perceived inadequacy of the Equality Impact Assessment (EIA) submitted as part of the Review;
• The Executive’s claim that there were groups of volunteers ready and waiting to take over the running of libraries in their communities;
• The opinion that the consultation on which the Review’s proposals were based did not adequately reflect community views.

Cllr. Rodgers evidenced these points stating that he had been contacted by a number of voluntary groups expressing their concern about the statutory obligations they were being asked to take on. He said that the EIA was supposed to reduce the impact of the proposals on the most vulnerable sections of the community but this clearly had not happened because the 2 libraries most immediately at threat from losing their council-run library, Carcroft and Denaby, had been identified in the Borough Strategy as wards where the quality of life needed to rise the most. He added that the tick-box format of the consultation questionnaire did not take sufficient recognition of the freeform replies given by respondents.

He concluded that many of the 14 communities affected by the proposals had no expertise or appetite to run their local library and that the Executive had offered no Plan B should this large scale transfer of so much of the library service to volunteers fail. Rather the Review should have looked across the whole service in more detail.

The officer from Legal & Democratic Services was asked for his advice and stated that the Borough Strategy was designed to show the ‘big picture’ but was not a detailed delivery plan. Doncaster had to respond to significant economic challenges and Cabinet had sought to focus resources because no change was not an option. Therefore he did not consider the Cabinet’s proposals to be outside the Borough Strategy framework. He also referred to the recent decision in the London Borough of Brent confirming the legality of their proposals to reduce their library service although he noted this decision was under appeal.

On behalf of the Executive Cllr. Thompson offered the meetings that had taken place between officers, community groups, organisations, elected members and at public meetings as evidence that community views had been sought. He stated that many authorities in different parts of the country were considering similar proposals re their libraries – some 3 dozen in all. He referred to a recent report from the Museums, Libraries and Archives Council on community-run libraries and said that although some local authorities were simply closing some of their libraries Doncaster was recommending this alternative to such action. He went on the restate some of the statistics from the consultation concluding that only 12% of the Borough’s population actually used libraries and that what was proposed was the best that could be achieved in difficult circumstances.

The meeting was then opened to questions from other elected members.

Q. How did the Executive view the dramatic negative impact arising from the proposals.

A. From a personal point of view the preferred option would be a volunteer –run service from the current library building. If that proved impossible then hopefully a service could be provided from an alternative venue/location. Believed this amounted to a ‘transformed’ service – change is inevitable.

Q. ‘Volunteers’ are not free. There is a cost arising from the necessary support, training, practical issues such as CRB checks etc. What professional support, budget, safeguarding measures was available?

A. Legal obligations for CRB checks would be met. Training would be given some of which might result in a qualification. Self-service provision would also be used more. This is the best that could be achieved under the circumstances.

Q. These proposals amounted not just to closure but to a death sentence. Of the individual examples of other authorities quoted how many libraries had been sacrificed?

A. Time and effort needed to answer that question would be unreasonable. Some authorities had simply closed libraries. Doncaster is trying a damage limitation exercise within available resources.

Q. Were the proposals based on whether a community could find volunteers or not? It appears none could be found in Carcroft or Denaby hence the proposal to close them.

A. Comprehensive meetings were held in Carcroft. Current building unsatisfactory regarding location/lack of parking. It is believed that a mobile library along with enhanced outreach would deliver a better service. In Denaby there were other council services with a better take-up where some co-location might be feasible.

Q. Re sustainability the anticipated community-led provision is uncertain. What volunteers are there for each community; what commitment do they have and what is the timescale for the hand-over?

A. A ‘comprehensive’ number of volunteers have been identified in Warmsworth, Bawtry, Intake and Wheatley but there are also others in many of the other communities.

Q. Wasn’t the consultation flawed because in effect only 2 options were given, i.e. community-led or closure?

A. A number of creative solutions were proposed and communities were listened to hence the different solutions suggested for different areas.

Q. In Denaby there would be a continuing cost from the space in the LIFT building therefore how could a saving be achieved?

A. Another council service has been identified that could make use of that space.

Q. Re Intake nothing has been finalised yet the community (ICE) is supposed to be taking over in January. There has been no discussion of costs re rents, rates etc. outside one meeting with DMBC Lettings department that had suggested ongoing costs in the region of £6500pa for rent and £22,000 for rates. ICE still had many unanswered questions.

A. The policy re building leases etc. is being examined – peppercorn rents might be a possibility because the Council is not in the business of profiteering. Charities can obtain rate relief of up to 80%. Recognised there would be many other costs but it is hoped to keep these to a minimum. Meetings had been held with ICE since 2010 but the timetable had slipped because of delays arising from the need to repeat the consultation, reconsider the proposals at a second Cabinet meeting and now a further delay from this O & S meeting. Some community groups had misled DMBC about their intentions. The current cost of running the library will not necessarily be the future cost. In Intake the possibility of leasing some space to a commercial enterprise is being looked at. All options are being considered and no final decisions can be made until legal agreements ready for signing.

Q. IN Bawtry there is a strong sense of looking forward rather than backwards but the community wanted support from DMBC, e.g. how would the question of CRB check costs be handled?

A. All these details will have to be set out in the business case for each location with the funding required from the community and the Council contribution specified in a legal agreement. However there is no massive pot of Council money available but there might be some small element of support. Re CRB checks this is not currently a requirement for library assistants.

Q. The whole exercise is about financial savings yet there will be some long-term costs e.g. training of volunteers. How much might this impact on the saving achieved? E.g. if another council service is to move into the LIFT building space in Denaby will this not simply transfer that cost to another DMBC budget head? Maybe what is required at Denaby is more input to encourage/increase use.

A. There will be some ongoing costs involved in training, rates relief etc. but staff and building costs are long-term savings. Outreach is the key to success but in the past there has been no investment. 8 literacy engagement assistants are proposed for the new structure. The leasing cost of the Denaby space has not been included in the savings calculation because it was known that this would be an ongoing cost.

Q. In Rossington the proposal is to relocate to another community building. The consultation supposedly revealed 25 volunteers. The task of implementing this has been delegated to the Neighbourhood Manager who tried to set up a meeting for prospective volunteers. No one turned up. The offer under discussion at present is 2 x 2 hour library sessions per week . In reality this is no use to anybody especially when the suggested times do not take into account school hours. In essence this equals closure of the service in this community.

There was no response to this from the Executive.

Q. Re management of the volunteers – how and by whom would this be done?

A. A combination of management solutions. Where communities set up Companies Limited by Guarantee (CLGs) to run their libraries this organisation could provide some overall management. In places where co-location was the preferred solution management would be provided by other agencies.

Q. If this Library review is not implemented those opposing the proposals must produce  practical suggestions as to how else  the £1.37 million saving be found.

Q. Re co-locations in schools what would be the provision out of term-time?

A. These discussions still to be held. The delayed decision meant a lot still to be decided.

Q. Re Wheatley – if there is no community-led solution what is the Plan B?

A. Closure could be a possibility in some areas. Again the call-in process meant decisions further delayed.

Q. Does not accept the propaganda from the Executive. The Review has not considered the Library Service in its entirety. There is a disproportionate effect on deprived communities e.g. Scawthorpe. Have the costs or securing/disposing of empty buildings been assessed?

A. It is believed that there is option for a chemist to take over providing a library service in Scawthorpe in the current library building.

Q. Can assurance be given that Intake Library will not close in January?

A. The implementation timetable will be revised as a result of the time needed for the O & S call-in.

The Chair then invited contributions from members of the public.

Q. Re Stainforth DMBC claims has held meetings with Town Council but this disputed. Suggested relocation to Youth Centre is not practical. Believes effects of relocation of groups/societies using current library not adequately considered. No discussion about the stock. The questions in the consultation questionnaire were loaded.

A. A meeting was held with a representative of Stainforth Town Council on 8^th November. Relocation to the Youth Service was discussed but DMBC would be happy to support continued service in current possible if this was achievable. Again mentioned the effect of delays.

Q. Why was the Mayor apparently not aware of the advice being given by a Doncaster CVS trainer at a seminar held for prospective volunteers re the range of responsibilities they might be expected to undertake. Via the media he had asked for further information about this which had been provided but no acknowledgement/response yet received.

A. If resubmitted an officer would respond. Essentially 2 levels of volunteering of which the Mayor referred to the first of issuing and receiving books. Accepted there was another level involving management tasks that may be a role for different volunteers. DMBC wants to try to ensure sustainability. Accepted that perhaps some communities did have unrealistic ideas – this is being addressed.

Q. Re Sprotbrough people living in outlying villages who used the library did not receive the posted questionnaires.

A. The questionnaire was available on-line to everybody in the Borough. Paper copies also available in Sprotbrough Library.

Q. Re Sprotbrough  a recent visit to the library had demonstrated 2 or 3 groups likely to be affected because of the difficulties of travelling to the alternative of the Central Library suggested by DMBC including mothers with young children and the frail elderly or people with disabilities. One has to ask where are we going in this community – the residents don’t know and it appears DMBC doesn’t either.

A. Every budget head is being examined. A large organisation has approached DMBC and expressed extreme interest in Sprotbrough but has asked not to be named. Information will be released in due course.

Q. Point of information – the second consultation questionnaire was not available on-line because it was targeted specifically only at residents of the particular communities. Did not recognise others who may work/be educated and be valid users of those libraries. If this is the best way to deliver community library services why not do it everywhere. A 2-tier service is not the way to go.

A. Apologised that previous answer incorrect – this consultation was not available on-line. However the savings proposed by the Review had been agreed by full Council at its 2011/2012 Budget Meeting. If these proposals did not proceed where else would the savings be made?

A statement from the trade union Unison was read out.

Summary.

Cllr. Rodgers continued to disagree with how need had been defined in the EIA and said significant socio-economic factors had been ignored. He repeated his request for a Plan B.

The Executive stated the meeting had been a fair example of a mature debate which aided the transparency of local government and added that it would consider the recommendation of O & S. Everything possible was being done to avoid the closure of libraries.

Cllr. Kidd queried the number of times officers had referred to decisions being delayed because the Cabinet’s decision had been called in by O & S. This was part of the legitimate democratic process and needed to be allowed for when timetables were being proposed.

The officer stated that she had not intended to appear to question the legitimacy of O & S. However there was frustration around groups not wanting to make decisions and not being able to move forward.

Conclusion.

The Chair summarised the Committee’s concerns especially:

• The cost of training/supporting volunteers
• Access to a consistent level of service across the Borough and the impact of a 2 tier service
• The safety of volunteers and issues regarding the safeguarding of children and young people.
• What happens to disused buildings.
• The Equality Impact Assessment and the Borough’s overall policy framework.
• More specific information required about alternative provision solutions.
• Acceptance that the consultation had been flawed.
• Is there a Plan B and if so what is it?

Recommended:

• To refer the Cabinet decision of 12^th October back to the Executive with a request for specific answers to the concerns as expressed and some more detailed examples, especially regarding how community-led library solutions had worked out over a period in other authorities with a view to assessing the medium/long term sustainability of the proposals.

Report author Neil Lee said high Neet levels were one of the UK’s most serious social problems:

“For a young person, being out of education, employment or training can have major ramifications, including long-term reductions in wages and increased chances of unemployment later in life, as well as social or psychological problems arising as a result of sustained unemployment.”

The situation is likely to worsen, and is not remedied instantly by employment:

“For an individual, a period being NEET can lead to wage scarring; lowering earnings long after they find employment. It also represents a significant drag on the economy through lost output, higher welfare payments and lower tax contributions.

Yet there are important concerns that the NEET problem may worsen. Rapidly rising unemployment has reduced the number of entry-level jobs available for those leaving education.

And public sector cuts are restricting both youth services and the capacity of government to help people to enter the labour market. This squeeze will be worst in cities with weak economies and which are already facing the challenge of public sector cuts. Given these trends, we expect the NEET rate for 16-24 year olds to continue to increase (accounting for cyclical variations).” (Off the Map? p.3)

This is particularly problematic in Doncaster:

“Towns such as Doncaster and Grimsby are NEET blackspots: between one in five and one in four young people are NEET. Without targeted action to address the problem of NEETs in these places there is a real danger that a generation of young people, often those living in towns and cities which are already less economically successful, will face long-term problems in the labour market. Both national and local government needs to focus their efforts on young people in these cities (emphasis mine).“

Source: The Work Foundation Analysis using LFS 2009-10

What can be done to address these issues?

A co-ordinated strategy is crucial and must include areas of the council and external bodies who support education, employment and training. They must work in partnership to alleviate the social problems associated with high Neet levels. Libraries must play a central role; they help people find employment, provide access to education for children and adults, and make a significant contribution to careers information, advice and guidance for employability – Doncaster council simply cannot afford to ignore this any longer.

Edit: Research from Glasgow University has found that young people from deprived areas have higher levels of ambition than tends to be expected. What they lack is information about how to achieve what they want to. Schools careers offices, careers advice centres, FE and HE institutions and public libraries give young people access to information about jobs and careers. Public libraries offer people a place to study, access learning resources and careers advice on their doorsteps. They’re the natural place for people to access information and an incredibly good value way for councils to achieve their aims to reduce NEET levels.

The decision to close two branches and give 12 others to community groups or close them has been called into Overview and Scrutiny because it is believed that the cuts to the library service conflict with the borough strategies, which include improving educational achievements and qualification levels, and offering “the same opportunities in life for all residents, leading to improvements in their quality of life”. The £1.2 million the council wants to cut from the libraries is a drop in their budgetary ocean (the library service cost £5.7 million in 2010/11, which is less than 1% of the overall council budget).

We know how crucial good library services are to successful societies, and how much of a difference they make to the skills, development and employability of young people. We’ve already written in depth about how investing in the library service, providing trained and qualified staff in 26 fully-funded, well-resourced, local branches offering the same standard of provision across the borough, would help with Doncaster’s strategic priorities. We hope that the Overview and Scrutiny Committee on 10th November pays particular attention to the signs of success that the council identified as desirable in the Borough Strategy:

• Educational standards will rise for all
• Children and young people will have the opportunity to engage in positive activities
• There will be more young people in education, employment or training
• There will be more people qualified with the relevant skills to meet the needs of the local economy
• The same opportunities in life for all residents, leading to improvements in their quality of life
• Raised aspirations, particularly amongst young people, and better skills

It is time for the Cabinet and the Mayor to reverse its decision on the library service and instead invest in library resources for young people. The Labour group say they could find the money within council budgets so that they would not have to cut the library budget – now is the time for the Mayor to consider this. If money is still short, national government should support the council financially in order to focus efforts on young people as recommended by the report.

Eleventh-hour bid to prevent library cuts
Carcroft and Denaby remain open due to fairness concerns

The two Doncaster libraries that were due to close this week have won a last-minute stay of execution.
Carcroft and Denaby libraries had been expected to shut on Tuesday as part of the council’s moves to withdraw funding from 14 of its libraries.
But the entire scheme is now on hold after the opposition Labour group ‘called in’ the plans for further scrutiny.
The cuts – already approved by the Cabinet last month – will be reviewed by the Overview and Scrutiny Management Committee next Thursday.
Lauren Smith, from Save Doncaster Libraries, said campaigners were holding their breath.
“We will be outside the Mansion House from 9am and then go into the meeting to hear what is said,” she said.
“We hope the mayor will be more willing to listen than he was last time.
“Realistically, the chances of a complete turnaround are slim because of the politics of the situation.”
Labour councillors say the cuts conflict with social strategy and have an unfair impact on the borough’s poorest.
It has therefore asked the scrutiny committee to consider whether the cabinet’s decision has been made fairly and in line with council strategy.
Committee members will then present their recommendations to the cabinet and mayor for a decision.
A spokesman for the council was unable to say how long this process might take, but in the meantime libraries at Carcroft and Denaby – which were to have been replaced with a mobile service – will continue as normal.
If the committee does not find fault with the plans, a further 12 libraries will lose funding and be run by community groups by early next year.
They are Moorends, Rossington, Stainforth and Scawthorpe (from January 1); Bessacarr, Edenthorpe, Sprotbrough, Balby and Wheatley (from March 1 in new locations); and Bawtry, Intake and Warmsworth (which will continue to be volunteer-run in their current sites).
The cabinet hopes this will save £1.2m a year, helping it meet the goal of making £80m worth of cuts over four years to meet central government requirements.
Save Doncaster Libraries say it’s a tiny saving at a big cost to the community in terms of literacy and employability.
“Everybody in Doncaster has the right to the same standard of library service,” said Lauren Smith.
“To have one library in one area that’s council run, and then to have next door one that’s run by volunteers with reduced book stocks and reduced access to services, you are unfairly depriving people in that area.”
“You also can’t guarantee that when the funding stops there will be anything in place to keep the libraries running.”
She urged people to use their libraries this week, which she says have been badly marketed and run-down for decades.
Doncaster Council’s assistant director of customer service, Julie Grant, issued a brief statement this week.
“All libraries in Doncaster continue to be open for business as usual,” she said.
“Future changes will be discussed again by members of the council’s Overview and Scrutiny Management Committee next Thursday, November 10, before recommendations are presented at a future cabinet meeting.”

• The library review consultation outcome and plan has been called into Overview and Scrutiny by the Labour group for a second time. The committee will meet on 1oth November (documents will be uploaded to here). It is believed that the Labour group do not believe the Equalities Impact Assessment was conducted appropriately and the review does not consider aspects such as deprivation in areas such as Carcroft and Denaby – the two areas which would be the first to lose their libraries (the closure date for these was set for 1st November – the call-in has delayed the closure). Supporters of the campaign to save our libraries are invited to meet at 9am outside the Mansion House. The Mayor, Cabinet and Julie Grant (Assistant Director of Customer Services and ICT) are keen to press ahead with these half-planned proposals, despite the availability of alternatives and the risk that failed community-run libraries will lead to the council being in breach of the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964.
• Local residents in Sprotbrough fear that the future for their library is bleak. They have sent the following email to library managers, the Mayor and his Cabinet:
  “We, Sprotbrough Library Action Group, are concerned that the press release and resulting newspaper articles on Doncaster Council’s intentions for the future of Sprotbrough Library do not appear to correctly reflect the situation in regard to Sprotbrough Library.  They gave the impression that a community group is ready to provide a library service from an alternative venue, and to recruit and manage volunteers to staff the library.   We, S.L.A.G., have never had any intention of providing a library service from any other venue than the present library building – we are not aware of any suitable alternative sites, and certainly feel that neither St Edmund’s Community Hall nor St Mary’s Stable is a suitable alternative.    Our focus has been throughout on the retention and enhancement of the present purpose-built Sprotbrough Library.   We made this clear to DMBC Head of Libraries before the Cabinet Meeting, and had been led to understand that the report going to the Cabinet would be altered accordingly, which it wasn’t.   Furthermore we are not in a position to recruit and manage volunteers.   Nor are we aware of any other community group inSprotbrough ready to provide a library service from an alternative venue.   We are concerned that the Cabinet decision as its stands means thatSprotbrough Library is now likely to close.  The Library is the only DMBC leisure facility within the Sprotbrough Ward and serves not justSprotbrough but also the outlying villages beyond. We hope that this will be taken into account during the Overview and Scrutiny.”

• Similarly, the future of Bessacarr Library is shaky too – the editor of The Bessacarr and Cantley Journal, Geoff Bennett, stated: “Nobody seems to have much idea what they (DMBC) are proposing, but the suggestion seems to be that the library should be housed somewhere else, and run by volunteers. We have yet to find anyone who thinks that moving the library makes any sense. We’ll let you know what is happening if anyone ever gets round to telling the general public.” Save Doncaster Libraries wonder how many of the stated community run groups that the Library Report refers to actually exist. When the public read the DMBC report or read the account in the local papers they assume that these groups are already in place. From our experience this is not the case. We are not convinced that any groups have expressed an interest in running libraries – this is not because libraries are not wanted or needed – the outcome of consultations has already shown that people think libraries are important – but because, as we have repeatedly stated, Doncaster communities are in no position to run libraries. It is grossly unfair to demand that they do so and will result in the silent death of our library service.
• Cantley residents are concerned that plans are being discussed to close down the borough’s busiest and most successful library and relocate it within the old Sycamore School building, as part of a larger community centre. This is not part of the present library review and may be a worrying sign of future cuts to the service.
• Delegates from the Doncaster campaign went to London last weekend to share their experiences and learn from library campaigners around the country. We are helping to co-ordinate a march in London to take place in February 2012 – if you’d like to help with planning, please let The Library Campaign know. There are several blog posts about the campaign conference available here.

Save Doncaster Libraries continue to be disappointed in the council, who have failed the people of Doncaster in their shambolic approach to changes to the library service. The Mayor has flatly refused to listen to solutions offered by the Labour group and has failed to investigate alternative methods of keeping libraries open. Instead, he has jumped at the massively problematic volunteer method.

See here for details about why volunteer-run libraries are not the solution.

We await the outcomes of the judicial reviews for Brent (expected tomorrow), Somerset and Gloucestershire (expected in the next couple of weeks) – they will inform future library policy, and if the Judges make it clear that the processes and policies employed by these councils were flawed and should be scrapped, Doncaster should take heed. The whole process has been a mess and has systematically failed to consider the needs and views of Doncaster residents.

The council has proven itself incapable of effective consultation and unable to meet the needs of its citizens. Mayor Davies has demonstrated total ignorance ever since the library cuts proposals began. These decisions are a disgrace to our town, undermine any supposed Mayoral priorities to improve standards of education and living, and yet again make a mockery of Doncaster and its undemocratic, dysfunctional council.

Former Head of Doncaster Libraries and Information Service, Gill Johnson, will be there from 9:15am with other campaigners and then we’ll be going into the Cabinet meeting to hear what is said about the volunteer/closure proposals.

Gill (far left) and other campaigners outside the Mansion House collecting petition signatures. Image from The Star.