Agenda and minutes

To receive apologies for absence and notification of any substitutes present

Apologies were received from Mr Clark and Mr McKenna.

Mr Chittenden was present as a substitute for Mr Clark and Mr MacDowall was present as a substitute for Mr McKenna.

To receive any declarations of interest made by Members in relation to any matter on the agenda.  Members are reminded to specify the agenda item number to which it refers and the nature of the interest being declared

There were no declarations of interest.

Mr MacDowall advised that he had previously met and discussed the petition with Mr Stainton.

RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting held on 20 May 2015 are correctly recorded and they be signed by the Chairman. There were no matters arising.

To receive a petition that has attracted 3,775 signatures from people who live, work or study in Kent and to consider whether to make any recommendations to the Cabinet Member for Community Services in relation to any action taken by the petitioners

1.         The Chairman invited Mr Richard Stainton, the petition organiser, to address the Committee on the above petition. Mr Stainton presented the petition statement, which had been published with the agenda for the meeting. The petition statement concluded by asking the Committee to demonstrate that it had listened by making a series of recommendations, as follows;

a)    that the petition statements be adopted by KCC as criteria against which any proposal be evaluated;

b)    that as libraries are local to every KCC councillor, any final proposal  be subject to a public agenda debate in full council;

c)    that use of reserves (or reductions in continuing payments into reserves) be considered to avoid cuts to the library service; and

d)    that no ‘privatisation’ of Kent’s much-valued public library service be undertaken prior to it being ‘tested’ in 2017 election  manifestos. 

2.         The Chairman then invited the Committee to debate the petition. During debate the following concerns were raised and views expressed;

a)    that there was no statutory obligation to keep 99 Libraries open and, as such, there could be enormous scope for closure;

b)    that change in this Service would be necessary to manage the decline in the use of Libraries and, should the Libraries, Registration and Archive Services have to draw on reserves, it would be irrefutable evidence that it would not be fit for purpose; and

c)    that the consultation was not a fair representation of the people of Kent and needed to be more comprehensive.

3.         Following the petition debate, Mr Hill, the Cabinet Member for Community Services, reassured the Committee and Mr Stainton that the proposal was, in his view, the best way to protect the County’s Library service. He responded to points raised in the petition by confirming the following, were Kent’s libraries to become a Charitable Trust:

a)    Kent’s libraries would remain free and open;

b)    even if Kent’s Libraries, Registration and Archive Services were to become a Trust they would meet the petitions operational demands. The service would continue to employ professional librarians with volunteers providing additional support; and

c)    were the Trust to be established the Cabinet Member for Community Services would still be democratically accountable for the service.

4.         In response to questions and concerns raised in the petition debate, Mr Hill informed the Committee of the following:

a)    he was confident following the consultation that he could take account of all the points raised;

b)    the Trust would operate through a contract with Kent County Council, which could be terminated;

c)    Library Trust status would not be irreversible; and

d)    the Trust would be unable to close any library or make any significant change to the service without the approval of Kent County Council.

5.         Mr Hill then responded to the four recommendations set out in the Petition Statement by confirming the following:

a)    there was no problem with this first recommendation;

b)    any proposal would be subject to the Councils’ normal process of full public debate at the relevant  ...  view the full minutes text for item 83.

To receive a report by the Corporate Director of Growth, Environment and Transport that asks Members to consider and endorse or make recommendations to the Cabinet Member for Community Services on a decision to be taken on a proposed charitable trust model of delivery for the Libraries, Registration and Archives Services for implementation following consultation

1.         Mr Hill introduced the report, which set out a proposed charitable trust model of delivery for the Library, Registration and Archive Services. Reassurance was given that there were no proposals to reduce library branches. He explained that he had been in conversation with the General Registration Office (GRO) who has concluded that primary legislation will be required before Registration staff can be transferred to a Trust.  The GRO could not give a timescale but does acknowledge that the current legislation is not fit for purpose. It was emphasised that this transformation was part of a phased journey.  He described the model proposed in the report as a continuum to modify the service in house and move to a Trust model when Government legislation allows.

2.         Mr Pearson presented a series of slides which clarified the consultation process, consultation results and registration service implications, as well as the next advised steps in the transformation process.

3.         Mr Hill, Ms Slaven and Mr Pearson responded to questions and comments from member, including the following:-

a)    whether or not a new consultation would be required closer to the date would depend on the timing of the required new legislation. Mr Hill confirmed that he would follow the advice of the Director of Governance and Law on this matter and that if a significant length of time had passed before this then a second consultation, would be likely to be necessary;

b)    reassurance was given that the buildings would be leased to the Trust and that Kent County Council would retain ownership of them;

c)    in response to concerns raised with regard to the future of Kent’s archives, Mr Hill explained there were two types of archives to take into account; those archives held by Kent County Council would remain in Kent County Council ownership and be made available by the Trust, while those deposited by others, would require negotiation with the owners to decide how they would operate alongside new model;

d)    there was no intention to change the current mobile libraries service as this was a vital service and the Libraries, Registration and Archives Services were fully committed to widening public access to them;

e)    if a Trust model were to be adopted, the Library, Registration and Archives Service would transfer all of its employees directly over to the Trust, via TUPE, and voluntary workers would not undertake any task that should be completed by paid staff. It was also stated that it would be up to the Trust to determine its own relationship with the unions. Reassurance was given that, as a Trust, it would be within its interest to maintain a good relationship with the unions; and

f)     a view was expressed that, in considering the report, the Cabinet Committee must take into account the number of the electorate which did not make use of the Library service.

4.         The report’s recommendation was put to vote and was carried;

7 votes to 4.

The following Members asked that their  ...  view the full minutes text for item 84.