Kent County Council admit they can maintain existing library service

6 Replies

Well, not directly, but indirectly they certainly have. Last week, Paul Francis wrote an article revealing that Kent County Council aim to force local communities to run a number of libraries across the county. Interestingly though, the detail reveals that they really don’t need to at all:

As many as 10 libraries in Kent could be taken over by parish councils or other community groups as part of a drive by the county council to save money.

The council is in discussions over transferring responsibility for running some of its libraries to volunteers in a move it believes will benefit library users and others.

Although the authority has reaffirmed that it does not have any plans to shut libraries, it plans to reduce spending on the service by £500,000 next year – with the budget for its 97 libraries going down to £13.2m.

Of course, such a move won’t benefit library users, indeed it is likely to lead to a further reduction in service through the adoption of a model that is demonstrably unsustainable. But the key point here is the £500,000 the council aims to save by next year, a figure that the council indirectly admits it doesn’t really need to cut.

Early last year, the council announced that it planned to create a £5 million Big Society Fund “for town and village groups to tap into”. This figure was later reduced to £3 million (with £1m being donated to the Kent Community Foundation each year until 2014). Given that the council plans to cut the library budget by £500,000, the money that the council is investing in the Big Society Fund (BSF) could maintain the existing library service for six years. Of course, if the council are so determined to continue to experiment with taxpayers money in creating this BSF, perhaps they might consider using £2m to maintain the existing service for four years and then invest the rest in the BSF. Or even reduce the budget slightly but look at other ways to cut costs. That way, the people of Kent get to keep a vital service and the council get their opportunity to experiment. Can’t say fairer than that can we? After all, Kent County Council have already accepted the money is there, so why not use it?

Ian Clark

A qualified librarian and co-founder of a leading national library advocacy campaign, I have written articles for The Guardian and the Open Rights Group on a range of professional issues.

More Posts - Website

Follow Me:
TwitterFacebookLinkedInGoogle PlusFlickr

  • librariesmatter

    Forgive me but isn’t the Kent Big Society Fund an amount of money available for lending – not revenue expenditure? Thus at the end of the 6 year period you mention Kent CC will still have a £3m fund for future use. Under your proposal £3m is spent. isn’t your proposal therefore just a version of: “Please don’t reduce spending on public libraries by £0.5m p.a. – find the money from somewhere else” ?

    • http://infoism.co.uk/blog Ian

      Pretty much. But also, when services are being cut and there is a £3m pot for lending, why not just incorporate the £3m and not lend money. State shouldn’t really be using taxpayers money to support the private sector, they should be using it to invest in the services those taxes are meant to cover.

      • librariesmatter

        Kent CC is consulting residents about its library services presumably
        because it thinks there is insufficient income to cover the revenue expenditure
        that you propose. Assuming all possible efficiencies have been implemented, Kent
        CC could always increase Council tax (£575m in 2011/12).

        Also isn’t the Kent big society fund only open to social
        enterprises? It is not available to the general run of the private sector i.e.
        organisations that distribute profits to owners. See http://www.kentcf.org.uk/apply-for-a-loan/

        • http://infoism.co.uk/blog Ian

          Sorry, I should have been clearer with that. If they are “for profit” social enterprises, I would certainly question providing state funding. And even if they are “non-profit” I am not convinced this is a good way to use taxpayers’ money. I suspect funds are more likely to go to the latter but, as I said, not convinced that this is appropriate.

          As for consulting residents…not really. They have or are in the process of setting up locality boards, but personally I am struggling to find any information on them and, sadly, the locality boards established in Kent in the past have not exactly been open affairs.

  • Pingback: Round up | Alan Gibbons’ Blog

  • Pingback: Trashing libraries just a bit more