Overview and Scrutiny Committee Notes From A Friends of Lambeth Libraries Member. This is an attempt to summarise the proceedings before the above committee on 10th November 2015 concerning the Cabinet's agreement on 12th October to the proposals in the Culture 2020 Report. Cllrs Scott Ainslie (Green) sainslie@lambeth.gov.uk ; and Tim Briggs (Conservative) tbriggs@lambeth.gov.uk ; had initiated a proposal known as "call in" which would entitle the committee to send the decision back to the Cabinet for further consideration. I cannot set out everything that was said and in what follows I concentrate on what I think will be useful in the libraries campaign. Cllr Briggs's opening remarks included: • The matter is one of spending priorities and Lambeth's spending on libraries is a drop in the ocean. • The overheads charged to libraries in Lambeth are £2 million more than in equivalent London authorities. • GLL's business plan was two pages. The bid from Libraries' management was in effect rejected because it did not include a business plan. • Libraries and parks belong to the people of Lambeth • The proposals are unworkable and utterly despised by the community. Cllr Ainslie had already gone into some detail in writing. This and Officers' Responses are at moderngov.lambeth.gov.uk/…/Second%20Despatch%20-%20Culture%… His opening comments on the proposals included: • If they go ahead all the good work done in improving the library service will be thrown away. • If not sent back they will be challenged in court. • Libraries are one of many things on which Lambeth's spending was the 10th lowest of 11 comparable authorities in CIPFA 2014 figures. • From personal experience he knows that Streatham is already overloaded, with tables having to be set up in the adjacent hall. Other speakers included:- Patrick Roberts who is blind and said that • to the extent there had been consultation the information was not in an accessible format. • the gyms proposal is especially nonsensical for disabled people. Christina Burnett said • the Administration is only a temporary custodian of gifts to the community and is not entitled to give these away. • We have had the benefit of libraries and we should not be pulling up the ladder after us. • We should be grateful to our visionary Head of Libraries. A level playing field is needed instead of requiring a business plan from her but not from GLL. Laura Swaffield said • GLL is being allowed time and money. Others could be as well. • There is money for all the libraries. Ruth Cashman asked if children would be o.k. without staff while Caroline Mackie distributed a document to committee members, which I gathered was about legal aspects. Cllr Edbrooke's jedbrooke@lambeth.gov.uk ; responses to the above and brief questions from committee members included • More money for libraries would mean taking money away from victims of domestic violence. • Amounts for Culture had been fixed previously and cannot be changed. • The only way of putting more money into libraries would be to take it from other parts of Culture and she is already reduced to charging for the use of sports pitches. • Libraries are being kept in-house as a matter of Labour values. • Carnegie Community Trust will be running Lambeth's first independent library from 1st April 2016. • She will keep libraries at the heart of GLL buildings. • Carnegie and Minet will be let on 7 year leases and with a shorter break clause than previously indicated. Cllr Edbrooke was accompanied by Council officers, four of whom sat with her including John Kerridge. In answers to the committee he included: • GLL's bid was received before the consultation closing date of 24th April 2015 and related to buildings. • The idea behind it was to generate income. • Susanna Barnes's bid on behalf of Libraries' Management did not relate to buildings. It was for running the library service, which GLL did not bid for because they knew it was to be kept in-house. Another officer said that money for Susanna's proposal is not available in time, that is, by 1st April 2016. Questions from councillors included Cllr Dyer asking "What is GLL's target audience?" and both she and Cllr Wilson asked whether it was clear that buildings were being consulted on. There was quite a lot said about Equalities but to me it all seemed inconsequential. In closing comments Cllr Ainslie said the sums involved are peanuts in the context of Lambeth's finances but they are money which is being taken away from the most vulnerable. Cllr Briggs said the proposals will not bring in income; a major problem is that Lambeth thinks of itself as a provider and not a procurer of services. Also, that there are a lot of unanswered questions. Cllrs Parr, mparr1@lambeth.gov.uk ; Dyer, jdyer3@lambeth.gov.uk ; Treppass, atreppass@lambeth.gov.uk ; Nathanson lnathanson@lambeth.gov.uk ; (a Conservative sitting on the committee as a substitute for Cllr Briggs) voted to send the decision back to the Cabinet. Cllrs Davie, edavie@lambeth.gov.uk ; Wilson, awilson5@lambeth.gov.uk ; Chowdhury, rchowdhury@lambeth.gov.uk ; Wellbelove, cwellbelove@lambeth.gov.uk; and Adilypour, dadilypour@lambeth.gov.uk ; voted not to send the decision back but to send comments on it to the Cabinet. Cllrs Parr, Dyer and Davie wanted the Libraries' management proposal looked at by the Cabinet. Cllr Parr wanted earlier break clauses considered and was concerned about internet access. Cllr Dewie wanted more mitigation of the effects on people with characteristics protected under equalities legislation. Cllr Chowdhury wanted details of the activities proposed by GLL. 11th November 2015