The council’s executive approved proposals in June this year to seek a private organisation to take over the running of the libraries in a bid to save £170,000 a year
advertisement
Libraries' future to be debated
By Caroline CookNovember 17, 2011
The future of Wokingham’s libraries will be up for discussion again this week after a public petition secured enough signatures to prompt a full council debate.
Wokingham Borough councillors will be talking about the future of the borough’s 10 libraries at a meeting of the full council tonight after more than 2,300 people signed a petition against plans to put the management of the libraries out to tender.
The council’s executive approved proposals in June this year to seek a private organisation to take over the running of the libraries in a bid to save £170,000 a year.
But the move prompted a huge backlash from library users and a campaign and petition were launched by Liberal Democrats Anthony Vick and Rachelle Shepherd-DuBey.
If a petition attracts more than 1,500 signatures it must be taken back to the council for a debate according to the council’s constitution.
Council members will be discussing the matter at a meeting of the full council on Thursday when Ms Shepherd-DuBey and Anthony Vick will also have the chance to speak.
Councillor UllaKarin Clark, executive member for internal services, welcomed the debate and said the council was looking forward to discussing the issue.
She said: “We share the passion that those who have signed these petitions have for libraries and that is why we are exploring the option of finding an expert partner to help us safeguard our libraries for the future.
“The issues will be discussed on November 17, and we do not want to pre-empt those deliberations, but we can say we are looking forward to an open debate that will, we hope, provide an opportunity for us to allay some of the more worrying fears that have built up around this issue.
“We are currently in a competitive dialogue process with potential library partners and cannot discuss details of these discussions. But many exciting and innovative ideas have come forward that could build on what is offered at our libraries.”
Browse Sections
Most recent user comments 7 of 7
Please don't think that I misunderstand. What I am saying is that there is no difference in practice; your contention that the distinction means the libraries are safe is untrue. Any private company to come in on a contract with the council would be looking to make a profit, and if they haven't the control to close libraries then they will look to other ways to save money. This, I suspect, will fall with any mix of: reducing hours open; increasing fines and fees; cutting staff wages; or cutting staff themselves. Any of these would result in an inferior service.
And if you limit the contract to exclude these possibilities (as I accept you are fully capable of doing so), then who would take it on? I can't imagine any company being interested in a straight-jacketed services contract.
The fact is, the private sector is interested in making a profit. This is its nature, and it is neither a good nor a bad thing. It simply is. But as soon as you try and put a public service (like the libraries) into the private sector, then there is going to be an inevitable conflict between the profit motive and the interests of the people for whom the service is meant to be being run.
24/11/2011 at 16:12 Offensive or Inappropriate?
Please let us know the reason you find the above comment inappropriate.
The key difference between the two approaches, which Matthew simply dismisses, is that you totally lose control of the service if you privatise. Following privatisation, if the purchaser decides to do something we would not like you cannot do anything about it.
If you outsource there is a legal contract that fully defines the service that needs to be provided by the winner of the contract. i.e. you retain total control of whatever you specify in the contract. If that company fails to deliver then that means they have broken the contract and then you take it away from them.
So there is a fundemental difference, although I will admit the specification of the service is critical which is why it will be the subject of an Executive decision before any further steps can be taken including not proceeding to tender for the service.
20/11/2011 at 12:21 Offensive or Inappropriate?
Please let us know the reason you find the above comment inappropriate.
19/11/2011 at 02:17 Offensive or Inappropriate?
Please let us know the reason you find the above comment inappropriate.
19/11/2011 at 02:17 Offensive or Inappropriate?
Please let us know the reason you find the above comment inappropriate.
The Conservatives spent their speeches trying to distance the terms "outsourcing" and "privatising", an academic difference if there is any at all. At any rate, their argument that it's all okay because the buildings aren't being sold is meaningless, as it isn't the buildings that the people of Wokingham want to protect, but the services.
And then, when the debate finished and the council had to vote on a proposal to deal with the petition, Cllr UllaKarin Clark, speaking for the executive, didn't have a suitable one ready, and had to write it there on the floor of the chamber. A ridiculous, disorganised mess, which was frankly embarrassing. It's enough to make you weep, seeing important decisions made in such a farcical way.
If anyone is interested in a more in-depth account of last night's debate, I've posted one up on my blog: http://matthewsdent.wordpress.com/2011/11/17/wokingham-borough-library-shambles/
18/11/2011 at 07:00 Offensive or Inappropriate?
Please let us know the reason you find the above comment inappropriate.
The Tory literature for the election in May deliberately didn’t mention the reduction in monies to assist the unemployed find jobs, they didn’t mention that they axed travel tokens for the elderly, they cut services to needy children and off course privatise the libraries, yet by 26th May they had voted on the libraries.
7th June 2011 - Cllr. UllaKarin Clark's said "we are not planning to close our library services" well Cllr. we note your words. Considering your party’s deliberate exclusion of facts, as stated above, I hope that for all of Wokingham your words are true.
Remember, a rule in politics is always tell the truth, that way it doesn't come back to haunt you.
Cllr. Tahir Maher
17/11/2011 at 14:08 Offensive or Inappropriate?
Please let us know the reason you find the above comment inappropriate.
17/11/2011 at 11:31 Offensive or Inappropriate?
Please let us know the reason you find the above comment inappropriate.