Successful challenge to library closures: lip service not enough for equality duties

24 November 2011 by

R (Green and others) v GLOUCESTERSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL & SOMERSET COUNTY COUNCIL [2011] EWHC 2687 (Admin) – Read judgment

In the administrative court, the decisions of two local authorities to withdraw funding for library services were held to be unlawful. 

The court held that the withdrawal of a local library might indirectly discriminate against people with physical disabilities, women and the elderly.  Both councils had purported to carry out equality impact assessments but the mere fact that such an assessment had been conducted did not demonstrate that due regard had been given to the public sector equality duty.

The process and substance of the decision had to be analysed.  In this case the evidence suggested that the councils had failed to consciously direct their minds to their statutory obligations.  The information-gathering exercise was insufficiently thorough and there was no proper analysis of the information gathered.

The duty to provide library services

As with the Brent libraries case (see previous post here) a further ground of challenge invoked the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964.  It was argued that the councils had failed to have regard to their duty to provide a “comprehensive and efficient library service” under section 7.

The court held that a local authority could not fulfil its s.7 duty unless it had assessed the needs that its library service had to meet.  In the absence of such an assessment, the local authority could not form a lawful or rational view of whether its service was comprehensive and efficient.  However, the court could only intervene where something had gone seriously wrong in the information-gathering process.  Otherwise, it was a matter for the Secretary of State to consider whether to undertake an inquiry pursuant under s.10 of the Act.

The councils in this case had clearly obtained sufficient information to make lawful decisions about future library provision.  It could not be said that something had gone seriously wrong. The councils had not been required to carry out a discrete information-gathering exercise to discharge their duties under section 7, but were entitled to rely upon the expertise and experience of their professionals and other reliable sources.

Services v resources

Moreover, as with the Brent libraries case, the court held that the s.7 duty could not be divorced from resource issues arising from the country’s economic crisis. In the absence of an unlimited budget there would always be gaps in the service that could be offered and some people might have to travel further to reach a library.  The court could not interfere in the councils’ judgments as to how to best deploy resources in the provision of services in these circumstances.

Public consultation

The court also rejected the argument that there was an inadequate public consultation process.  There was no conflict between keeping an open mind and consulting on a preferred option, and the Councils were not obliged to consult on alternative means of achieving the same ends. The Councils had not been shown to be unwilling to reconsider their preferred option in the light of the consultation.

Impact of the decision

Despite the success of this challenge, it is questionable whether it will have much effect in stemming the tide of library closures.  The court’s observations on resources clearly leave a lot of scope for councils to move on with plans to withdraw funding for libraries, notwithstanding the impact on the local community.

However, this case is a powerful reminder to public authorities that they cannot simply pay lip service to the public sector equality duty; it will not be assumed that an equality impact assessment does what it says on the tin.

Shaheen Rahman is a barrister at 1 Crown Office Row chambers.

Sign up to free human rights updates by email, Facebook, Twitter or RSS

Related posts

1 comment;


  1. “a powerful reminder to public authorities that they cannot simply pay lip service to the public sector equality duty; it will not be assumed that an equality impact assessment does what it says on the tin.” It may serve as a powerful reminder if the Equality impact assessors were made aware of this outcome. Alas, the tin contains at least one Equality Impact Assessor who has missed out on the whole impact of equality for women. Our locality has an assessor who makes a career out of intimidating women and works for an employer who behave towards people with disabilities, as if they are terrorists.

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the UKHRB


This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates


Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.

Subscribe

Categories


Tags


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus coronavirus act 2020 costs costs budgets Court of Protection covid crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Facial Recognition Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges nuisance Obituary parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecutions Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania round-up Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence shamima begum Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance sweatshops Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe

Disclaimer


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: