Simon Draper v Lincolnshire County Council
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Collins |
| Judgment Date | 17 July 2014 |
| Neutral Citation | [2014] EWHC 2388 (Admin) |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Docket Number | Case No: CO/0403/2014 |
[2014] EWHC 2388 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Mr Justice Collins
Case No: CO/0403/2014
Mr David Lawson (instructed by Public Interest Lawyers) for the Claimant
Miss Helen Mountfield, Q.C. (instructed by Lincolnshire County Council Solicitors) for the Defendant
Hearing dates: 8 & 9 July 2014
-Judgment
The claimant is one of a significant number of users of libraries in Lincolnshire who have objected to the decision to cut back the provision of library services in the county. The public was made aware of the proposals in July 2013 when a consultation was commenced. While it was recognised that some cuts were inevitable having regard to overall financial pressures on local authorities, there has been objection to the scale of the cuts to library services. It is submitted that the proposals which were adopted by the defendant in a decision of 3 December 2013 do not meet the statutory requirements set out in section 7 of the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964. Further, there are challenges to the process whereby the decision was reached in that the consultation was flawed and there were failures to comply with the Public Sector Equality Duty and to consider in a lawful manner an expression of interest by a charitable organisation to take over the provision of library services and avoid the cuts which were proposed.
Section 7 of the 1964 Act provides:-
"(1) it shall be the duty of every library authority to provide a comprehensive and efficient library service for all persons desiring to make use thereof …
(2) in fulfilling its duty … a library authority shall in particular have regard to the desirability –
(a) of securing, by the keeping of adequate stocks, by arrangements with other library authorities, and by any other appropriate means, that facilities are available for the borrowing of, or reference to, books and other printed matter, and pictures, gramophone records, films and other materials, sufficient in number range and quality to meet the general requirements and any special requirements both of adults and children; and
(b) of encouraging both adults and children to make full use of the library service, and of providing advice as to its use and of making available such bibliographical and other information as may be required by persons using it; …"
Section 10 of the Act confers what are described as default powers on the Secretary of State enabling him, if he considers that a complaint that a library authority has failed to carry out a duty imposed by the Act justifies it, to investigate the complaint through a local inquiry. If he is then satisfied that there has been a breach of duty, he may make an order directing the authority to take specified measures to remove the default. A failure to comply can be enforced by an order of mandamus (now presumably a mandatory order). This is clearly a cumbersome and expensive procedure and it would not be at all surprising if the Secretary of State was most reluctant to engage in it. Judicial review is an obvious alternative and in the circumstances I do not think that the s.10 route can be regarded as a practical alternative. The defendant has not argued in this case that it should have been used.
It is apparent that library services were even in 1964 not limited to books or other literary material. We are now in the computer age and computer facilities are provided. They are used for the purposes of research and access to what is available and so are to a great extent an obvious 'other material' which would fall within s.7(2)(a). But they are also made available to those seeking work or benefits since the systems now in place require in a number of respects internet access. Since such people are unlikely to possess their own facilities because they are likely to be too poor, a library provides them with such access and, incidentally, encourages them to use the other facilities available in accordance with s.7(2)(b). Thus it seems to me that all the computer services now provided by the defendant's libraries can properly be regarded as part of a library service within the meaning of s.7(1) of the 1964 Act. However, I do not think that an authority is bound to provide this particular service but, if it does it must continue to do so as part of its service.
The defendant has for some time recognised the need to review its library provision since it considered that it was not efficient. In 2007 it commenced this exercise by carrying out what is described as a Fundamental Library Review. It recommended a number of improvements but did not suggest a reduction in the number of static libraries which were available. Essentially it provided for changes to opening hours, improvements to the ambience of libraries together with the introduction of self-service technology and a review of the shape and size of the library network. A report in 2009 again did not indicate that there would be a reduction in the static libraries of which there were then 48.
In 2010 local government funding cuts necessitated identification of savings in the defendant's budgets. Thus it was that a review of the shape and size of the library network became of more immediate importance. Mr Platt, the Head of Libraries and Heritage, who has been responsible for co-ordinating the response of libraries to the review and who has produced statements on behalf of the defendant in these proceedings, has as part of the shape and size been impressed with the possibility of community involvement in running some libraries which catered for smaller population numbers. Such community involvement has resulted in the designation of such libraries as 'community hubs', namely centres at which, apart from what can be regarded as ordinary library use, people can attend and have opportunities to meet together and have other facilities available. Volunteers would be involved in the running of these hubs and it was recognised that they would need training.
Before going further into the proposals which led to the consultation exercise and the decision of 3 December 2013, I should consider what is required to provide a comprehensive and efficient service within the meaning of section 7 of the 1964 Act. I can, I think, do no better than cite the following observations of Ouseley, J in Bailey v London Borough of Brent [2011] EWHC 2572 (Admin):-
"A comprehensive service cannot mean that every resident lives close to a library. This has never been the case. Comprehensive has therefore been taken to mean delivering a service that is accessible to all residents using reasonable means, including digital technologies. An efficient service must make the best use of the assets available in order to meet its core objectives and vision, recognising the constraints on council resources. Decisions about the Service must be embedded within a clear strategic framework which draws upon evidence about needs and aspirations across the diverse communities of the borough."
The last sentence was so phrased because that case involved a London borough, but in this case substitution of a county can be made since the same approach is clearly appropriate. An example of access by digital technology could involve the identification of a book followed by delivery through a mobile library. But there are no doubt other ways in which such access could be achieved. The key is a reasonable ability to access the service by all residents of the county. This means that distances and time taken to reach a library must be reasonable and any particular problems, whether physical disabilities, or created by age or family considerations, must be capable of being met. Furthermore, budgetary constraints can properly be taken into account in deciding the nature of the service provided that it meets the requirements of s.7 of the 1964 Act.
Because of the reduction of available funding for the defendant, it was decided that the cost of the library service must be reduced by some £2 million. That decision, which cannot be challenged and so must be accepted as a material consideration in what library services should be provided has clearly been a very important factor in the decision reached. However, in fairness to the defendant, it must be recognised that the view had been taken as long ago as 2007 that the existing arrangements were not efficient and in particular did not give proper value for money and changes would in any event have been made. Nevertheless, the proposals which were put to consultation and which were implemented in the decision of 3 December 2013 with minor amendments put in place following the consultation exercise were largely driven by the need to achieve the savings which had been imposed.
The existing service has four components. The first is now 44 static libraries. Twelve are district libraries open between 40 and 55 hours a week, eleven are neighbourhood libraries open between 25 and 39 hours a week and 21 community libraries open between 20 and 24 hours a week. All provide services to be expected from a library although their size will inevitably dictate how extensive the individual services can be. The second is a mobile service which provides for rural communities and those who are housebound or who live in nursing or residential homes. There is also a service for schools who wish to sign up for it. The third component covers the various online facilities. The fourth is described as targeted services for those...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R (on the application of L and another) v Warwickshire County Council
...constitutional question. I whole-heartedly agree with the statement of Collins J in the Lincolnshire library closure case ( Draper v Lincolnshire County Council [2014] EWHC 2388 (Admin)) at para 53: "The overwhelming objection to the decision does not in itself mean that it is unlawful. The......
-
The Queen (on the application of WX) v Northamptonshire County Council
...decision-making following the KMPG report. Section 7 Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964 76 Considering the s.7 duty in R (Draper) v Lincolnshire County Council [2014] EWHC 2388 (Admin), Collins J cited with approval an extract from the judgment of Ouseley J in R (Bailey) v Brent LBC [201......
- R Tilley v The Vale of Glamorgan Council
-
Simon Draper v Lincolnshire County Council
...Fionnuala McCredie QC and David Lawson (instructed by Public Interest Lawyers) for the Claimant Nigel Giffin QC (instructed by Lincolnshire County Council) for the (Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of WordWave International Limited Trading as DTI 165 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2DY Tel ......