We love Kensal Rise Library and Cricklewood and Tokyngton and Neasden and Preston Road and Barham Park

Today is National Libraries Day with the slogan

Fine if you still have a local library to use/love/join!

The Friends of Kensal Rise library and Preston Road library are organising family activites today to celebrate National Libraries Day - muffled in hats and gloves and at the pop-up library at Kensal and in a nearby local school at Preston Road. Have a look at this on the Save Preston Library site and see if you agree with Boyd Tonkin that "no local authority has behaved with quite such pig-headed arrogance in pursuit of the destruction of much-loved branches as Labour Brent".

You've probably heard the news yesterday that the Supreme Court turned down the application by the Save our Six libraries campaign for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. This means that the legal challenge to Brent's decision cannot be taken any further through the courts. But is this the end of the fight? Not at all. Spirits were high at last night's Fundraiser in aid of the campaign - the launch party of the limited edition prints designed by artist and anarchist Jamie Reid.

Local Paul Stolper who has a gallery - the Paul Stolper Gallery at 31 Museum Street, WC2 (just opposite the British Museum) generously arranged the printing of a limited edition of prints designed by Jamie Reid and the print was launched last night. It's a great design as you can see, and all proceeds support the campaign. I think there are still a few left...

How else are you going to get kisses from Jamie Reid?

We were packed in an upstairs room at the Mason's Arms with our own bar and pub food to share, listening to "One man and his Beard" and Tim Dowling playing banjo in his band "Police Dog Hogan".

Most frequently overheard
"It's the first time I've been warm for a week"
"I could have left my thermals off"
"Pass the spare ribs"
"If you believed Tim Dowling's column you'd think his band was rubbish"
"What's wrong with Brent council - you'd think they'd be pleased we want to run Kensal Rise library?"
"We'd never have kept going this long without Margaret Bailey"
"Our solicitor was brilliant - if anyone could have won the case it was him"
"MORE BANJO MORE BANJO MORE BANJO"

David Butcher gave us a brief update on the campaign including the good news - if I heard correctly - that Brent have now agreed to look at the Business Plan drawn up by the Friends of Kensal Rise library and submitted to the council in December. Read the Business Plan here.

Thanks from all of us to Rachael Newberry who organised an evening which warmed us all up - in every sense, the Mason's Arms for hosting and to David and Margaret and all the supporters, the bands for donating cds and downloadable tracks in aid of the campaign, and everyone who came along.

You'll remember that even if we had won our legal challenge in the Supreme Court the effect of that would just have been to set the decision to close the 6 libraries aside. It wouldn't have stopped Brent making the decision again, but making sure they considered everything relevant including the risk of indirect discrimination against part of the community.

As Margaret Bailey reminded us in a recent e-mail
"This campaign has always been about keeping as many options open as possible in the face of the intransigence of the council. The legal option has been one of the options we have pursued, not the only one, but one that has allowed us to focus on challenging the right of councils to make decisions that damage communities. Cuts to local authority budgets is a serious issue but an unwillingness of the council to find a solution, co-operatively, imaginatively, has made the options that we as a community are forced to consider difficult and not without risk.

We consider these options with hope and if they are not successful we look elsewhere.

We may not be given leave to appeal to the Supreme Court in which case we will explore other options, and we have other options.

We believe this community needs a library and that is the end we are pursuing."

I can't put it better than that!

And here's One Man and his Beard with WE NEED LIBRARIES NEW WE NEED LIBRARIES NEW

Buy it to support the campaign

Libraries Latest - Court of Appeal decision 19th December 2011. The fight goes on

No early Xmas present for Brent Library Campaigners as the Court of Appeal today dismissed our appeal - but don't go - the fight continues as we voted to take our solicitors' advice to seek leave to appeal to the Supreme Court (the highest court in the land).

A quick look at the written judgment doesn't reveal any in depth legal analysis of the sort one might expect from the Court of Appeal - very disappointing after all the efforts of Dinah Rose QC and the rest of our Legal Team.

Lord Justice Pill (we'll keep the bitter pill jokes for later) gave the main judgment. He agreed with Dinah Rose that, to establish indirect discrimination it was sufficient to show an adverse impact of the proposal on the Asian Community as compared with non-Asian communities. Given the scale of the spending reductions the council was required to make and the information available following earlier studies, a decision tht the library service should bear a share of the reduction was not, in his judgment, unlawful. There was no reason to doubt that the council was aware of its statutory duties, including those in relation to race discrimination.
He said it was "fanciful to suggest, taking the best view we can of the appellants' evidence, that it was so obvious that library provision, as distinct from other services, had discriminatory effects upon the Asian community that it needed to be a significant factor in funding decisions as the the apportionment of resources."
He found that "the decision as to which librares to close was carefully considered by the council... a full consultation was conducted and fully reported to the decision makers." and "I do not consider that the council was in breach of duty in failing to give further consideration to the racial dimension, in so far as it affected the Asian community in relation to other communities."

As to the second ground of appeal, Lord Justice Pill was satisfied that "the council exercised its functions in this case with due regard to the requirements under s149 [of the Equality Act 2010]. To put forward a reasoned proposal for closures was a reasonable reaction in the circumstances, including the urgent need to economise. It was not necessary for an Equalities Impact Assessment to be conducted before the forumlation of the proposals on which the public were to be consulted."

As to the third ground he found that the duty under s7 of the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964 "was also in mind and the council was aware of the duty specified. Decisions as to closures were taken with that duty in mind, the proposals included improved ways in which the expectations of users might be met. Mitigation measures were proposed in this regard".

So, in other words, the Court of Appeal agreed with the judgment of Mr Justice Ouseley.

But it's not the end of the road! Even though the Court of Appeal refused leave to appeal (which was predictable, and what usually happens).

Our solicitor, John Halford, from Bindmans, explained his view that the case does raise issues of public importance and that we should petition the Supreme Court for leave to appeal because
1. It's the first case ever decided about large scale library closures in the UK
2. The judgment addressed a number of points about he way to make cuts in public services, and was incorrect in what the law requires in relation to the closure of public services because of the risk of indirect discrimination to the Asian community. The court said that Brent could be excused because no one brought it to their attention until the legal case started and that anyway it was not significant enough to justify quashing the decision and making Brent start again.
3. It's important not only becase of what happened in Brent but because very similar decisions are being taken up and down the country in relation to other libraries and public services. If this court is correct then a number of legal protections which parliament put in place won't be as strong as they need to be.

Read John Halford's Press Statement on Bindmans website

With the benefit of that advice, and the amazing offer by John Halford on behalf of himself and the barristers, to continue on our behalf despite uncertainty about whether or not Legal Aid will be granted, it was unanimously agreed to continue with the fight and to take the next step which is to ask the Supreme Court for leave to appeal to it.

In the meantime, John Halford has asked Brent not to further dismantle the libraries. If they don't agree it will be necessary to apply for an injunction restraining them from doing so. The injunction which was in place was discharged today.

John urged us to press on showing the same spirit, and the mood outside court today was for doing just that. There was a vote of thanks to John and the rest of the legal team for their fantastic work on our behalf so far, and their preparedness to help us go to the next stage.

Read the view from Preston Road campaigners

From Kensal Rise campaigners

Twitter has been a-tweet all afternoon, the Kilburn Times has an excellent piece by Tara Brady

The Guardian

BBC News with a particularly apt photo of Alan Bennett looking glum

And Brent? Well, you heard about the unbelievably crass presentation of Team of the Year award to the team who have worked tirelessly to dismantle the library service? Sorry, I mean the "Libraries Transformation Team".

I think we need to end with an uplifting song - optional of course. How about Johnny Cash's Walk the Line?. Not entirely inappropriate.

You'll have realised that the Save Our Six Campaign still needs to raise funds to carry on to the next stage, so please continue to support the fundraising events and just donate here

Brent Libraries Latest - the Appeal

 photo by Martin Francis from his Wembley Matters blog

Just back from court 63 where Lord Justices Pill, Richards and Davis have spent the last two days hearing the appeal against Mr Justice Ouseley's decision in favour of Brent Council on 13th October.

After a slightly surreal start with the usher announcing a case involving the "London Borough of Trent", conjuring up unlikely images of Ann John as Maid Marion, he corrected himself, and the hearing began.  We have a new barrister - Dinah Rose - and she was very impressive.  She opened the case yesterday with the complicated indirect discrimination point - but she explained it so well that I think all 50 or so supporters - (the court was packed and folding chairs had to be brought it!) may now be able to explain it to someone else.

Well, here goes... the point is that armed with the knowledge (from the last census in 2001) that 28% of the population of Brent is Asian, and that 46% of active borrowers were Asian (from Brent's own figures), the Council should have been alerted to the possibility that closing Barham Park, Tokyngton and Preston Road, three of the four libraries in the most densely Asian wards (leaving only Ealing Road library open- already the second busiest library in Brent, with 261,000 visits in 2009/10 according to Brent's figures) might have amounted to indirect discrimination against Asians.  Having identified that risk, Brent should have considered it in its Equalities Impact Assessment.

Ms Rose recognised the very real economic difficulties faced by local authorities and the fact that hard choices have to be made by them but subject to their statutory duties - in this case Brent's duties under section 149 of the Equalities Act 2010 and under the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964.  She stressed that the merits of the decision were not being examined (that's going on elsewhere - across the borough wherever there's an activist, library user or defender of places to study and read), purely the process by which it was reached.

The fact that only 21% of the questionnaire responses were from Asians should also have alerted Brent ("the red flag should have gone up" as Ms Rose put it) to the fact that they were under-represented in the consultation.

Brent should therefore have realised that any proposal to close libraries was likely to affect the Asian population disproportionately and they should have considered why this was (ie the cultural, social and economic reasons).  Brent conceded that it wasn't considered at all, but argued that giving no regard to it could nevertheless amount to "due regard" under the legislation.  Ms Rose's argument is that having wrongly concluded that there was no risk of discrimination against Asians the council (wrong again) didn't go on to properly consider it and therefore failed to fulfill their obligations under the legislation.

A witness statement by Sue Harper (Director of Environment and Neighbourhood Services) showed that Brent had concluded that the only disadvantage would relate to mobility (ie difficulties in travelling to other libraries) and that only the elderly, young or disabled would be adversely affected.  They failed to consider whether a racial group could be disadvantaged.

In fact the Asian community have been disproportionately affected because a new witness statement showed that Ealing Road library is now overcrowded, with children (mostly Asian) sitting on the floor to do their homework and great pressure on the computers.

Incidentally children have been sitting on the stairs at Willesden Green library doing homework!  So much for the transformation of the libraries by digital and outreach services (well, I know, we never believed that anyway).

Ms Rose handed up demographic maps (a graphic representation is always a good idea) taken from Brent's website showing the density of the Borough's Asian population with the locations of the 12 original and 6 remaining libraries superimposed.  Miss Laing, on behalf of Brent, did not accept that this detailed ward information was before the Executive when they reached their decision to which Ms Rose riposted "well it should have been: we got it from the council's website".  With a good barrister you really can hear the punctuation- that colon was as clear as anything - but back to the issues.

Ms Rose went on to assert that the judgment contains errors of law relating to indirect discrimination as Mr Justice Ouseley found that Brent did a proper Equality Impact Assessment (which she says they did not)

One of their lordships seemed surprised that councils were required to carry out this exercise every time they wanted, for example, to close a swimming pool.  As Ms Rose explained "these practices have been carried out by local authorities since the legislation came in.  They may be novel to your lordship but they're not novel to local authorities: Brent have a form to help them make these decisions"

Dinah Rose also argued that Brent paid no regard to the impact of its policy until the 11th hour of 11th of April 2011- by which time it was far too late because it had already decided to close 6 libraries and had already set the budget.

A third point was that Brent was in breach of its duty under the Public Museums and Libraries Act, and the fourth point that it had engaged in procedural unfairness by not revealing the "seven secret criteria".  The judge below said they were obvious.  Dinah Rose said they were not.

An interesting factual point which Ms Rose highlighted is that Brent did not simply close the six libraries with the lowest usage figures - Kilburn Library (which has lower usage figures than Neasden - now closed) was reprieved because of the special characteristics of some of the users.  This means that Brent feared that there might be indirect discrimination against certain groups who use Kilburn if it was closed, but they failed to carry out the same exercise in relation to the Asian population's usage of Barham Park, Preston Road and Tokyngton.

I'm afraid I missed the afternoon and following morning during which Ms Rose concluded her application and Miss Laing replied, asserted in essence that Brent used the correct procedure and that the judgment below should be upheld.  But I was back for Ms Rose's response on Friday afternoon.  She dealt with Miss Laing's assertion that the amount of regard which a council had to have under the Equalities legislation was a question of degree by pointing out that "it was a major policy decision which on any view would have very significant effects on the lives and opportunities of those who live in Brent".

 Ms Rose described one part of Miss Laing's argument on indirect discrimination as "completely nuts", a phrase which is unlikely to find its way into the judgment (however appropriate it might be), but which cheered us up at the back of the court.

The final point was about the "seven secret criteria".  Ms Rose dealt with the daft suggestion on behalf of Brent that engaging fully with the  groups who had put forward proposals would amount to re-opening the whole consultation by pointing out there were only ten of them!

Tara Brady has written an excellent piece about the first day and the indirect discrimination point on the Kilburn Times website which is well worth reading.

So has Martin Francis, with great photos (see below), on his excellent Wembley Matters blog.

photo by Martin Francis from his Wembley Matters blog

Our solicitor, John Halford of Bindmans, again helpfully stayed behind to answer any questions after the hearing.  He thought it could be about a month before the Judgment is delivered.  It's impossible to predict how it might go, but Dinah Rose put the case very strongly and persuasively for us, and all three Lord Justices were taking a keen interest and asking plenty of questions to test the strength of both sides' arguments. John felt that no further steps should be taken by Brent in the meantime- no more stock should be removed from libraries or from where it's being stored.

So, fingers crossed, and keep supporting the various events - the next is the fabulous sounding Disco Dance Fundraiser next Saturday 19th November in the Preson Mall Community Centre -more details

Which has given me a good idea to end with - Dance the Night Away by the Mavericks.  Just imagine that the "she" who "has gone away and can't do a thing to me" is someone senior in Brent council and you'll enjoy it even more than you usually do.

Libraries latest - send some e-mails

Just back from an excellent talk by Tim Coates at Kensal Rise Library. Tim, previously managing director of Waterstones, campaigns for improvements to the public library service in London, and he had taken a close look at Brent's figures...

For starters Tim pointed out a discrepancy of £299,863 between the figure given for the library service cost in 2010/11 in Brent's consultation document (£5,514,413) and the figure Brent gave to the government (£5,814,276). £300,000 matters when Brent is trying to save £1,000,000!

Tim then went through the items which make up the total cost of running the library service - please don't abandon ship here even if you don't like figures - this is really worth knowing about

If you're still reading, this is how it goes

Staff                     £2,521,200
Buildings                  £781,600
Stock                      £550,000
Supplies                    £61,000
Computer systems   £412,368

Which makes £4,326,168

You might wonder what else there could be - it looks like you could build a library service from the above, but you'd be wrong...

You've forgotten about other apparent essentials (or "non library costs") like

Development      £43,900
Support            £406,000
Outreach          £115,600
Stock support   £141,590
HQ                   £481,105

Which bring the total up to £5,514,413.

So, asked Tim, why aren't Brent trying to save  £1,000,000 from items in the second list ?. Why are they saying the only way to save the money is to close half the libraries? It could be that the second list represents the Head of Libraries' empire. As Tim put it, it's the box we've never looked in until now. We didn't need to until libraries came under threat of closure.

So Tim's first point was that Brent don't need to close any libraries to make the necessary saving - they need to cut back on some of the items in the second list.

His next suggestion was that all London libraries should be run by a not-for-profit trust - the London Public Libraries Trust - you might have read about it already in the Evening Standard in January. Across London the library service in the 32 boroughs costs £200,000,000, of which £50,000,000 of costs are probably unnecessary - like the £36 average cost for a book transfer. That's when you order a book from another library, a team of people swing into action and the book is chauffered across London.

That's all very interesting, I hear you say (if you've got this far without any photos), but will Brent listen? Tim's proposal has already been put to Brent council on behalf of all 6 threatened libraries.

Here's what we can all do
1. E-mail our councillors and tell them that we won't vote for them next time if they don't stand up for the libraries. If they're labour councillors they need to make their views known to the members of the Executive (as they will make the decision on 11th April). If they are lib dems or conservatives the Executive won't listen to them anyway. Find out who they are here

2. E-mail Jeremy Hunt, Secretary of State for Culture at huntj@parliament.uk and copy in your MP (jacksong@parliament.uk or teathers@parliament.uk or gardinerb@parliament.uk) saying that we object to Brent's proposals to close 6 libraries and that we are not satisfied that Brent are fulfilling their duties to provide a library service. If 20,000 people can be bothered to e-mail Jeremy Hunt in Lewisham, I'm sure we can too.

3. Don't give up!  Have a look at Tim Coates' blog

And, as a thank you for reading all this, here's a photo of a hedgehog who's seen better days

Brent Council vote through budget cuts

The best place to read what went on in Brent council meetings is always the Wembley Matters blog. Not this time, as author Martin Francis was not allowed in to the meeting. As he says "democracy in action?". Well, hardly, but what was to come in the meeting itself was even worse...

Ann John, Leader of the Labour Group (and therefore Leader of the Council) told us that
"our residents rely on labour to protect their interests...it's a brave, determined and responsible response...not shied away from difficult decisions...a budget of priorities...proud of Executive...leadership and honesty...being honest with local people...budget takes £41.7m out of Council's budget this year...next year further £25 to be taken out...we've balanced what's fair with what can be achieved...pledge that we would continue to improve Brent services...regeneration...South Kilburn...Wembley...old, young, vulnerable...mew Willesden Green centre (at no cost to tax payer)...new Civic Centre saving up to £4m per year in running costs...we will keep faith with our library users [an empty phrase if ever there was one]...cannot afford to keep all 12 libraries open... better home library service...dark times...have to choose...warm words not enough...[long attack on government, and on Liberal Democrat group in Council]"

I'm sure you've got the picture by now - although Ann John had a lot more to say, including that she had met residents and listened [and, in the case of libraries, then totally ignored what they had to say]

Last minute shreds of good news were that Youth Centres were reprieved, law centres would not lose all their funding, the Welsh Harp Environmental Centre would be part private funded. Interestingly, Ann John described the Youth Centres in glowing terms (they are this borough's future), while not having a single positive word for the importance of libraries to "the Brent residents of tomorrow".

So, no surprises there then.

The Lib Dems proposed a number of alternatives to specific labour cuts, explaining how these could be funded. In a cynical (but predictable) move, the Labour group voted for these amendments to be taken en bloc rather than individually, preventing labour councillors from voting independently on, say, one proposed amendment with particular relevance for their ward. Take Charteris Sports Centre, for example- the lib dems suggested it could be saved by cutting the Brent Magazine and "managing overspends in the Chief Exec's department", but that proposal could not be voted on individually.

Paul Lorber, the Leader of the Lib Dems, resisting the temptation to spend his whole 30minute slot criticising the previous Labour government, told us
"today is about the future...there is another way...proving it's possible to listen to residents and listen to their concerns...today's proposals are not a real attempt to protect services...Lorraine Skinner [Lorraine- I hope you're reading this!] started a scheme called Greenzones to encourage her netighbours to recycle more and reduce their waste...cost next to nothing to run the scheme...something which residents run and which they support will always achieve more"

As to Libraries, the lib dems proposed that the £408,000 [really so little?] to be removed from the libraries budget be put back in. He stated the lib dem support for libraries...we didn't close any despite a consultants' report recommending closure...current consultation doesn't finish until 4th March...essential give more time to library support groups to come up with proposals...
Council assumes it knows best...why have the major consultations been a total sham?...you'd already made up your minds...on waste, on CPZs [controlled parking zones], on libraries...our amendments are not about political point scoring...they're an attempt to get the council to really listen..to work with local people...look around this room, and the communities you've been elected to serve...time for Brent council to listen"

Harshadbhai Patel, the leader of the Conservative Group, was hard to hear from the Gallery, but did say
"no proper representation...time for ward councillors to make decisions in their wards and speak out...libraries...councillors must vote in the interest of residents in their wards...propose an amendment...to fund the libraries for the year 2011/12 to allow possible plans to be explored to allow all the libraries to continue...£2.5m could be found for this...[I'm not sure how - maybe by not increasing reserves by that amount- comments please to explain- thanks]

The particular significance of Patel's proposed amendment was that it could be voted on alone, and I allowed myself some small hope that ward councillors (including my two labour councillors) might therefore vote with their consciences and for the benefit of their residents rather than with the Labour party...but it was not to be [see below]

Patel also attacked the proposal to reduce street sweeping in residential areas from 3 times a week to twice a week...the borough will be dirtier...also cutting tree planting and maintenance

Of the other councillors who spoke, worth mentioning are Ann Hunter (lib dem) on Libraries:
"once they're gone they'll be gone for ever...we're proposing a rescue package...find £408,000 in budget to keep the libraries open for one year to give local residents chance to draw up business plans...John Murray the labour council leader of Salford did this...not a party political matter...Barry Gardiner [labour MP for Brent North] has spoken passionately about keeping libraries open, as has Sarah Teather [lib dem MP for Brent Central]...some issues are bigger than party politics, this is one of them. Not just about books...overheard a teenager on the bus saying she'd really miss that free hour on the internet...government was big enough to admit it got it wrong on forests...it changed its policy...as you've just done on the law centres...libraries are our urban forests...don't laugh...we want Brent to keep them all open...a year's reprieve...listen to the people you represent and vote with your hearts" [although even voting with their heads would be an improvement on blindly voting with their leader]

Great stuff, Ann, particularly as you seemed to have read my letter in the Kilburn Times last week urging Brent to listen to residents' views and do a forests sell-off type e-turn (I know, the dizzy heights of fame!) Read all three libraries letters here

Back to the meeting [nearly done, but this is important stuff, so bear with me]

James Powney, lead member for Environment and Culture, had been keeping a low profile, but was asked to speak by Ann John, and after a cheap jibe at the lib dems, said in relation to "various voluntary groups who want to do 3rd party takeovers... the timetable has been set by the government...if we have delays as proposed by the lib dems we'd have to pay for it by cutting something else..Greenzones...were paid for by a government grant...that grant was withdrawn...Libraries...we've seen some amendments which don't add up...spoke to Kensal Rise people [!] earlier tonight...officers will appraise any offer on the 10th of March...and report to the April Executive"

You'll notice that there was no mention of the fact that local residents have put enormous amounts of time and energy into exploring all ways of keeping libraries open, have organised meetings, printed posters, had read-ins, or any acknowledgment of the really encouraging community spirit, or any hint of any real interest in working with communities. It all seemed like it was really rather a nuisance.

Other lib dems pointed out that "this labour administration isn't listening to residents...thousands of people have written in in support of keeping libraries open...after 43 consultations on day care centres...the council knows better...and closed them...mismatch between what Ann John said and what's actually in the budget...

Our very own Simon Green [also best dressed and best haircut in the chamber] spoke in defence of Charteris Sports Centre, a vital local facility, suggesting an additional year of funding to allow community groups to put forward a business case, to be funded by scrapping the Brent magazine- Simon hadn't noticed any "Save the Brent Magazine" campaigns- and by a restructuring in the Chief Exec's office.


Finally the voting was reached and all the proposed amendments were rejected. Not a single labour councillor supported either the lib dems' amendments [which had to be accepted or rejected en bloc] or the conservatives' amemdment relating only to libraries- to keep them open for another year while other avenues were explored.

So, it was entirely as expected- the budget proposals voted through with only the labour group's own minor amendments [good news at least for the law centres, youth centres and Welsh Harp Environmental Education centre] but a very sad day for the libraries. However, the consultation is still going on until Friday 4th March- so please complete it here. Don't give up all hope yet!

If you feel that your councillors have not reflected your views or stood up for your interests, LET THEM KNOW! Find out who they are and how to contact them here