Agenda item

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 Cabinet Committee as stated in the Councils’ Constitution. A single service matter would go to the appropriate Cabinet Committee as opposed to the full County Council;

c)    advice from the Director of Finance and Procurement had confirmed that the use of reserves for ongoing revenue commitments for any specific service was inappropriate, specifically for the Kent County Council to meet its budgetary requirements in future; and

d)    there were no proposals to privatise Kent’s Libraries, Registration and Archive Services.

6.         Mr Baldock proposed and Mrs Rowbotham seconded that the consultation be repeated, prior to new legislation being introduced, to ensure a more comprehensive response from the public.

Lost, 5 votes to 6.

7.         The Committee agreed to note the petition and thanked the petitioners for bringing this to its attention.