Agenda item

The Panel received a presentation from the Assistant Director of Families, Communities and Partnerships which set out the next phase in the Council's Libraries Transformation Programme. She explained that since 2011/12 over £3.7m of efficiency savings had been achieved through a range of approaches including co-location and re-modelling of mobile library. Building on this progress, further substantial change was required to meet the new £1m savings target identified in the 2017/18 Medium Term Financial Plan (MTFP), £200,000 of which was on target to be met for this financial year.

Building on the previous transformation work, the Cabinet at its meeting on 18 October 2018 agreed to add an additional theme to the Strategy for library change set by Cabinet in 2011, which was to encourage individuals and communities to do more to promote greater self-reliance.

The Panel was informed of the detailed Needs Assessment which had taken place based on 4 key characteristics, namely deprivation, service isolation, exclusive use of home library site and library activity levels. Each library had then been given a ranking with an aggregate score which placed them in order of level of need. The ranking had then been used to identify an initial transformation option for each library for the Consultation exercise. It was highlighted that the Needs Assessment had also taken into account the demographic groups using each library, the need for value for money and the feedback received from over 2,000 residents via the customer survey which took place over the summer.

As a result of the Needs Assessment and the resultant recommendations for library transformation, the Cabinet had received 6 transformation options to shape library transformation going forward, including two new options: Open Libraries and Community Managed Libraries.

Having visited other local authorities to explore how Open Library systems operated, the Service Improvement Manager - Libraries explained what an Open Library system would involve and how it might work in practice. She advised that the option for Worcestershire would involve the system operating for parts of the day, rather than whole days and that this would allow libraries to be accessible for longer periods with reduced staffing costs. The system would build on the current self-service approach in libraries and would require users to be separately registered and supplied with access cards for their use.

In terms of Community Managed Libraries, the Assistant Director explained that local communities already played an important role in libraries, there was over 400 volunteers currently working in libraries across the County. She highlighted that Welland and Martley were run as library links and were currently hosted in village halls and fully run by volunteers on a day to day basis. There was also community supported libraries at Broadway, Hagley, Upton, Pershore and Catshill  and the plan was to build on the community supported libraries scheme, but going forward on the basis of services being provided entirely by volunteers.

The Assistant Director led the meeting through the various 6 different options set out in the Consultation and the reasoning for where each library was placed. She stressed that at this stage there were no proposals to close libraries. If this was a suggested route further through the process, then additional consultation would be required.

The Cabinet Member for Communities (CMR) advised that consideration would be given to all options and ideas, for example further work was being carried out to explore space sharing with the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) and other agencies. The Panel also noted that there would be no significant changes to the mobile library function at this stage.

The Panel was informed that the Consultation exercise had commenced on the 29 October and would run until the 2 February 2019. It was expected to be mainly an online exercise, although paper copies were also available in libraries and other key customer locations. The Consultation set out the Council's 'preferred options' for each library location and an explanation for each recommendation.

Following the presentation, the following main points were made:

·       In response to a question about whether residents use of libraries in neighbouring local authorities was taken into account in isolated areas near the County borders. The Assistant Director advised that whilst being aware of this usage, it couldn't be taken it into account because those libraries were not under Worcestershire County Council control. She stressed, however, that there was regular liaison with neighbouring authorities on this.

·       A Member suggested that it was important to speak to District Council's and partners as part of the Consultation process.  The Assistant Director confirmed that information had been shared with District Council's and conversations were happening at an officer and member level.

·       Although Open Libraries was an option worth considering, it was suggested that it was important to explore other options first.

·       The issue of public safety in the Open Library system was raised. The Service Improvement Manager - Libraries advised that this had not proved to be a problem in currently operated schemes. Members were assured that safeguarding was a key priority and that technology would be introduced, such as CCTV, to enhance security. It was also highlighted that the Open Libraries would only be accessible to customers who had registered for the Scheme and received appropriate instruction and training. It was likely that this Service would appeal to a subset of users and the full range of services wouldn’t be offered.

·       A concern was expressed about Option 4 which was to 'Introduce New Community Run Libraries'; this Option was reliant on an increase in the use of volunteers. Although, Members recognised that there would be a number of training and support factors that would need to be taken into account, it was suggested that this wouldn’t replace trained, experienced librarians who were equipped to handle the needs of vulnerable customers, which might prove a challenge for volunteers. There was also the issue of potential abuse from customers.

·       The possibility of sharing the library space with a commercial operator such as a coffee shop or Post Office was put forward. The Assistant Director confirmed that any suggestions for potential partners could be considered.

·       Concern was expressed that the Hive was rated as the library with the least Value for Money (VFM) and Members queried whether commercialism could help in this situation. The Assistant Director explained that there was a Private Finance Initiative (PFI) on the Hive, but work to ensure that the partnership with the University was more cost effective, for instance by allowing more chargeable activities to take place in the building was being carried out.

·       The changing nature of libraries was discussed and how the Library Service was adapting to the new ways of usage. It was noted that the facilities shared with DWP in Malvern, Kidderminster and Redditch were good examples of this and DWP customers would often use the facilities being offered by the library, which was therefore an added benefit.

·       A Member questioned whether commissioning the Service with the mutual sector had been considered as an option. The Assistant Director advised that this had previously been looked at, but had not been seen as a viable option and the size of the Budget made it more difficult to manage.  If however, it was agreed that it should be proposed option, it could be looked at.

·       Where an Open Library arrangement was suggested for a library based in a school, the Panel was assured that discussions would take place with the school to ensure appropriate safeguarding arrangements were in place.

·       A question was asked about the balance between the money needed to be spent on technology to enable Open Libraries to be set up, against the additional hours that would be able to be covered by Open Libraries, to ensure cost-effectiveness. The Panel was informed that modelling costs of technology would need to be carried out, to ensure that VFM was achievable. The Service Improvement Manager – Libraries confirmed that the costs of implementing Open Libraries would be between £23k – £41k depending on the library. The Panel would be supplied with more details to clarify this point.

·       The recent customer survey had shown an under-representation of certain target groups in terms of library usage. It was acknowledged that more work was required on social inclusion.

·       A Member asked why the public had not been given reassurance that the larger libraries would not be closing. The Panel was assured that there were no plans to change the current library provision at the Hive, Redditch, Kidderminster, Malvern or Evesham libraries and the two community run libraries at Welland and Martley, as had been outlined in Option 1 of the Consultation paper.

·       A question was asked about the savings achievable if a library closed. The Assistant Director explained that this would be dependent on the size of the library, but for a medium sized library, it would be in the region of £100k.

·       Panel Members asked how they assist with the Consultation process. The CMR welcomed the support of the Panel and encouraged attendance at Member Briefings across the County. The Assistant Director advised that she would appreciate the Panel's scrutiny and support in terms of how solutions might be implemented and views on the risks and problems that might be encountered.

·       A Member suggested that Unison should be invited to speak to the Panel to represent the views of employees and to explore the mutual process. The Assistant Director advised that there would be a formal consultation process with staff in due course.

It was agreed that the Panel would receive an update on library re-modelling at its meeting in March, prior to the issue being considered by Cabinet in May.