If Mr Bennion had intended that the Act could be interpreted by the courts in such a way that it specified a level of service below which a council should not fall, then he should have made that abundantly clear in the Act.

He didn't, leaving only the vague phrase "comprehensive and efficient", which then has to be re-interpreted each time in the light of prevailing circumstances.

That is what Mr Justice Ousely has correctly done. Comprehensive? Well, he has found that Brent did take user needs into account. Efficient? It can only be efficient in the light of "the availability of resources".

If anyone else thinks that the Act provides specific standards by which to judge an authorty's library service please make that plain. It is one of the great myths of the moment that the 1964 Act is some sort of defence of the existing level of provision. This myth is leading library campaigners up a very blind alley.

And, thanks to this current government, there are a lot less resources around at the moment.

As I keep saying Lewisham's library service is already living with the damage done by introducing "community" libraries. THe council says "do as we say" or we shall do what we want, ie we will close your library. The minister, he who must not be named, looks the other way and colludes with this appalling behaviour.
We have always tried to get library users across the country to see that you will not keep your libraies and adherence to the law unless we act together.
Vaizey needs to be challenged and we need to start raising funds. Who will join in?
If you do not this judgment will enable every council across the country to diminish its library service, flout the Public Libraries Act and kill off the library service.
Is that what you want?

Patricia Richardson

Dear James

The Act has never adequately defined a council's legal obligations as regard libraries. It is a massively flawed piece of legislation which is tragically little understood by those who invoke it in libraries' defence.

What you and I would like "comprehensive" to mean matters not one jot. Sadly for those who think the belated pronouncements of Mr Bennion carry some weight, that legalistic drafter did nothing to define comprehensive, so the courts are forced to look at the current legislative requirements for a council in considering how it provides services. Brent has met these tests, like it or not.

As for the argument that Brent had previously overspent, well it hadn't. It had spent the resources it was provided with. They allowed 12 libraries. Now there are less resources so there will be less libraries.

If you have a problem wih that, then go and have a word with Cameron and Osborne and the volte facing Lib Dems who have deemed cuts in public services are what we must suffer.

Until you can come up with an answer to the fact that there the government has decided in its infinite Tory wisdom that public services should get less money, then you are just peeing in the wind on this issue. The 1964 Act makes zero difference. It never has.

The Potato Man

Just because Brent ran 12 libraries does not mean that 12 libraries was deemed adequate to meet the requirements of the Act. For a start, and it is getting boring the repeat this, the Act goes nowhere near specifying what level of service has be provided, just the vague and almost utterly useless "comprehensive and efficient".

Also, just because a level of service was provided in year A that does not mean that a change in year B necessary contravenes the Act. Even if the Act specificed required levels of service (which I repeat that it doesn't) a council may have provide a service that was above and beyond that which it might fall foul of the Act, and a reduction in this would not lead to a contravention of the Act. Reasons for this might be a particular local councillor departing the scene who had for years successfully defended a local branch library. Or it might just be that the council has less money.

And as for you suggestion that the council should consider expenditure in other areas, I wholeheartedly agree, but please don't fall into the trap laid by the Daily Mail and the Express that if we could cut fat cat Town Hall salaries and councillors perks then we could save services. We can't. The decisions about where else from a council's resources money might come from to save libraries is not answered by populist answers like that. It will involve debates about whether libraries should be funded more than parks, social services or bin collections. Of course if a council tax collection rate is too low, then that should be dealt with, but don't forget that council tax only accounts for 25% of a councils income. Also, to get the council tax collection rates to be better you need to invest in those services, and that won't show a return for a couple of years, and of course Eric Pickles has demanded that councils make their savings in this financial year, so actually they don't have time to wait for an increase. They have to make those cuts now. Don't blame councils, don't blame councillors. Blame Uncle Eric and his Lib Dem stooges.

And as for council reserves, well councils need to hang onto them because they have to lay off thousands of staff and require this money for redundancy payments. And even if they can meet their projected redundancy costs, they don't know whether the double dip that George Osborne is about to plunge us into will require further cuts and further redundancies.

Ah yes, but I forgot. Councils have to ignore all of these complex and difficult issues because the 1964 Act tells them to keep every single library that is currently open in that state from now until the end of time.

Dear Spud,

You still have not explained how a service can still be described as 'comprehensive' after the summary removal of half of its infrastructure, stock and staff. I guess that this must be too 'boring' for you to address. However, you are quite happy to speculate as to the meaning of the legislation at the same time as complaining that it is too vague to HAVE any meaning!

For someone who decries the policies of 'Eric, George, Dave and Nick', you seem remarkably keen to justify the implementation of them as far as the destruction of the public library service is concerned. Strange that some library authorities have managed to avoid any closures at all. Perhaps they are more aware of their statutory obligations and responsibilities, even if certain others (including the judiciary) are not.
You also conveniently overlook the views of the residents of Brent, who do not share your resigned acceptance of the dismantling of the local services that they are still effectively paying for (with their Income Tax as well as the 25%-worth of Council Tax).

You are also very keen to expound at length as to why no other solution to closure will work/is not realistic/cannot even be countenanced (as you see it). This I find quite revealing.

Libraries cost around 1% of local authority spending, so to deploy the old 'what would you rather cut - libraries or social services' argument is somewhat disingenuous, to say the least. The 'savings' from libraries represent peanuts in terms of overall Council expenditure and yet the negative effects are disproportionately large. This is particularly the case if you have just lost your job and can no longer afford broadband subscriptions, IT hardware or maybe even books. Where are the students, who have been priced out of university and adult education, supposed to go to 'self-educate' themselves and apply for jobs? What about the disabled person or the mother with small children, who will have to struggle on a bus to get to a library because her local one has just closed? Where will children from poorer and more deprived backgrounds go to do their homework in peace, supported by committed and experienced library staff?

Incidentally, there is nothing in the Act (confirmed by the author himself) to say that the Council can use the excuse that it has 'less money', to justify the reduction of an existing level of service by half. As far as a dictionary definition is concerned and on any rational interpretation, this can no longer be considered to be 'comprehensive' coverage. Even if it is not spelt out portentously in words of one syllable by the legislation itself.

"And, fundamentally, that Act fails to come anywhere near defining what a level of service should be."

And you are not addressing the points that I have raised in anything other than a subjective and obtuse way. As you also seem to have adopted some of the TINA brigade's agenda, here are a few more for you to consider:

"Debts worth nearly £135 million have been written off by London councils after they failed to claw back overpaid benefits, dodged council tax bills and unpaid parking fines. Second highest council was Brent, which had £17.3 million uncollected, including £9.7 million of council tax." (EVENING STANDARD 9/11)

"Council chief executives have run up expenses and credit card bills of £2.6 million on luxuries such as five-star hotels and fine dining, it has been reported. The town hall bosses are said to have spent thousands attending concerts and sporting events and eating in Michelin-starred restaurants. Communities Secretary Eric Pickles told the Telegraph he was "astonished" by the "lavish spending" and accused chief executives of "a systematic abuse of public money".(UKPA 10/11)

"The Act says a local authority which is a library authority must “provide a comprehensive and efficient library service for all persons . . . whose residence or place of work is within the library area of the authority or who are undergoing full-time education within that area”. Its stock of “books and other printed matter, and pictures, gramophone records, films and other materials”, must be “sufficient in number, range and quality to meet the general requirements and any special requirements both of adults and children”.
Under this provision a severe reduction now in the public library facilities which were being provided by a particular library authority two or three years ago is likely to be unlawful. This is because there is a presumption that the earlier provision did not exceed what was required under the Act." (FRANCIS BENNION - 'AUTHOR' OF THE 1964 ACT 8/11)

"Brent council spent over £1.2m on consultants in March, the same month that it published its report recommending the closure of six libraries, aimed at saving £1m over two years." (REPORTED IN THE BOOKSLLER 9/11)

The savings that are needed can come from the central costs of the library service in Brent and from the apportioned overhead from Brent council. There is no need to close any library. Across London there is £50m that can be saved without closing any library - and with additional expenditure on books, opening hours and the buildings. It is not hard to see what could be done. (TIM COATES - POST ON A BOOKSELLER REPORT 4/11)

The same has applied to the legal challenge on the isle of wight.
the legal aid services delayed our claim that caused our hearing to be out of date, we never had a chance.
the five libraries due to close are now instead being run by volunteers and funded by the rural community council, but still need to raise large amounts of funds some up to 12,000 every year to make it work, this is a burden hanging over those involved, the opening hours on some libraries are now down to 10 hours a week , the main library is for some over a 14 mile bus journey, with maybe five buses all day with luck,
is this what they call the big society,

Trimmed salaries? Are you for real? That means breaking people's contracts.

As for the reserves issue, I've dealt with that. Redundancies.

As for the issue of "perks" and "expenses" - even if they were cut 100% it would not be enough to reverse spending cuts, and is a Daily Mail smokescreen.

Uncollected revenue - maybe it's difficult to collect that revenue, and anyway to do so means, as I've explained, investment, and therefore can't contribute to this years savings.

Mr Bennion wrong? He might be, or people might be hearing what they want to hear. Mr Bennion's opinion is neither here nor there, sadly, it's the judges' that matter.

Please don't insult me by saying I am a fan of Uncle Eric. I hate what he and his Lib Dem lackeys are doing to the country.

Some councils are not closing libraries, I agree. They tend to be Tory councils who have done very well out of the changes to local government funding formulae.

TINA? You know, I am coming round to the view that unless someone reverses the cuts, then we HAVE to accept a lower level of service. Anything else is cloud cuckoo land and naive. If there is less money, there is less service. End of. The question is how you deal with that reality. I think that some of the hated alternatives that have been put forward, be it trusts or whatever, have to be looked at because the alternative is mass closures and people clinging to the liferaft of the 1964 Act even though it provides almost know protection at all. But the head in the sand brigade won't countenance anything like this.