Agenda item

Following the receipt of a Notice of Call-in within the required deadline, from Councillor Hankey (Chair of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee) calling in the decision of the Cabinet set out in Minute CA.04 of the meeting held on 10 July 2013, a meeting of the Committee has been convened in order to consider the matter in accordance with the reasons set out on the Notice of Call-In.

In considering the matter, the options available to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee are as follows:

1. The Overview and Scrutiny Committee decides not to offer any comments on the Notice. In this situation the decision of the Cabinet will stand.
2. The Overview and Scrutiny Committee decides to offer comments or objections, which will be referred back to the Cabinet at the  meeting arranged for 28 August 2013.
3. The Overview and Scrutiny Committee may refer the Notice, without comment, to the Council. The matter will then be considered by the Council on 11 September 2013 (a standard item appears on all Council summons to consider referrals from Scrutiny Committees). Any comments or objections from Council will be referred back to the Cabinet at the earliest opportunity, in accordance with the Council Constitution.

The Cabinet will be required to consider any objections and comments but will not be bound by them unless..."it is contrary to the Policy Framework or contrary to or not wholly consistent with the Budget" (Overview and Scrutiny Procedure Rules - Paragraph 16(g) of the Council Constitution).”

The Chair, Councillor Hankey, reported that the main item of business before the Committee was as a result of a Call-in Notice. The Notice related to the Cabinet decision taken on 10 July 2013 to approve proposals in respect of Libraries across the Borough

The report for decision of the Cabinet Member for Leisure, Tourism and Culture had been submitted which outlined the next steps of the Library Review process and set out revised proposals following on from a report considered by Cabinet in April 2013.  The April report, the Phase 2 Consultation report and the Equality Analysis Form were appended to the decision report.

The reasons for the Call-In of the decision were set out within the Notice as follows:

1.   The results of the consultation were ignored.

2.   There were insufficient financial figures provided in respect of alternative proposals.

The Chair, Councillor Hankey, and Members of the Committee questioned the Cabinet Member for Leisure Tourism and Culture and the following issues were raised:

·         The Chair, Councillor Hankey, and Members of the Committee acknowledged and welcomed the fact that all Libraries in the Borough would remain open as a result of the proposals in the report. In response to a question relating to potential further changes, the Cabinet Member stated that no further changes were planned at the present time.

·         With regard to the initial Plan for Change programme and the time taken to realise savings from the Library Service, the Executive Director of Communities and Neighbourhoods highlighted that as a statutory service, a process had been followed which had involved detailed consultations and the exploration of different procurement options. The Executive Director also referred to the changing budget position of the Council as a result of further cuts in grant funding and the impact this had on bringing the proposal forward.

·         In response to a questions relating to the decision not to proceed with the development of Community Hubs, the Executive Director of Resources explained that, following detailed structural and technical surveys, the substantially higher than expected level of capital investment required had changed the risk profile and viability of the business case. This was further compounded by notification of a further 10% cut to the Council’s budget as a result of the latest Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR) in June.

·         Councillor Daly expressed concerns that the report to Cabinet in April had asserted that the Community Hub Model could be supported without detailed structural surveys having been undertaken. The Executive Director of Resources explained the importance of not pre-empting the consultation process but highlighted that the report submitted in April did clearly set out that any final proposals would be subject to a viable business case being developed following technical and structural survey work.

·         In response to points made by Councillors Carter and Cummings, the Cabinet Member agreed that the probability that there would be further substantial cuts to the Council’s overall funding as result of the CSR, and changes to the business rates system, had contributed to the risk profile changing.

·         The Cabinet Member acknowledged that it was regrettable that the development of Community Hubs could not be progressed at the moment but stressed that the Council were committed to examining the future viability of the development of this model through ongoing Asset Management Reviews. The Leader of the Council highlighted that Community Hubs did offer a means of providing services in a different way, making a better use of assets and providing accessible services for the future.

·         In response to a question concerning job losses, the Cabinet Member confirmed that the number of job losses highlighted in the report to Cabinet in April had not changed as a result of the revised proposals. The Executive Director of Communities and Neighbourhoods explained that

20.25 full time equivalent posts would be lost from the service and reported that a number of employees had already expressed an interest in taking voluntary early retirement/severance.

·         With regard to the impact of the job losses on the service the Cabinet Member and Executive Director of Communities and Neighbourhoods highlighted that this had to be looked at in light of changes to the way people use libraries, the increase in the use of electronic books and the introduction of self service technology. It was explained that a range of performance indicators are used to ensure the continued quality of the service.

·         Councillor Hankey referred to the duty placed on Council’s in relation to libraries as set out in the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964. The Cabinet Member expressed confidence that the service would continue to provide a comprehensive and efficient service and explained that legal advice had been taken throughout the whole process.

·         In response to questions from Councillor Daly and Councillor O’Hanlon concerning the reconfiguration of the Service, it was explained that this could not be meaningfully be drawn up until it was apparent which staff had requested voluntary early retirement/severance. It was explained that any requests would be looked at in light of the future staffing requirements of the service.

·         In response to questions from Councillor O’Hanlon, the Executive Director of Communities and Neighbourhoods expressed confidence that thorough research had been undertaken with other authorities in relation to staffing levels and acknowledged that the exact cost of individual severance packages was subject to a number of variables, such as length of service and number of hours worked.

·         Councillor O’Hanlon questioned the reasons behind the judgement that the development of community hubs did not offer value for money. The Executive Director of Resources explained that the scale of capital costs identified as a result of detailed survey work meant that a clear business case could not be made. The Executive Director further explained that Members had been advised, and accepted, that funding such a high level of unsupported capital expenditure from prudential borrowing risked breaking the Council’s Golden Rules.

·         During discussion of the procedural options available to the Committee in respect of the called in decision, Councillor O’Hanlon proposed that comments be submitted to Cabinet requesting further financial data and information supporting other potential options for the library service.

  It was agreed:

That, having considered all the points raised in the Notice of Call-In, this Committee does not offer any comments to the Cabinet in respect of Minute  CA.185, Plan For Change Review Of Libraries – Proposals Following Consultation.

(Note: Councillor O’Hanlon requested that it be recorded that he voted against the decision on the above item)