Earlier this month, Birmingham City Council released details of its preferred option for managing the library service across the city.
The council’s preferred option includes only one full-time Community Library Hub for each of the city’s 10 parliamentary constituencies, with a further 18 libraries open just 14 hours per week. One library has been earmarked to close permanently, while the remaining 7 are being considered for transfer to local community groups. However, if these Community Asset Transfers are unsuccessful, then these libraries would also be permanently closed.
The council’s latest consultation runs until 27 September 2024.
Below is a letter that Save Birmingham has sent to all Councillors and MPs in Birmingham as a response to the consultation:
Missed opportunity
As we submitted to the council’s initial consultation in July 2024, we consider the council has an opportunity to consider an alternative – creating a citywide community trust.
We are extremely disappointed to see that the council has not acknowledged this option in the second stage of its consultation, despite assurances that suggestions received during stage 1 of the process would be taken into consideration during stage 2.
A clear case for this model was presented by Save Birmingham, building on the extensive work that was done on this model in 2015.
A citywide community library trust
As a city-wide trust, the entire library service would be transferred to a separate organisation, which could be run or owned by workers, the community, or both – based on co-operative values and principles that empower people to be involved in designing the services that they use.
Being operationally separate to the council would enable the trust to secure contracts from the council, which are necessary for the council to meet its duties and the needs of local residents, supported by a paid workforce. At the same time, the trust would be able to access external funding to provide a wider range of services. Additional services could include learning, heritage, cultural and social inclusion services from an array of funders.
Critically, the scale and scope of a citywide trust would enable a more comprehensive and equitable service across the entire city, ensuring no community is left behind.
This is not currently reflected in the council’s preferred model, where it would appear that community transfer opportunities have been identified simply where a local group has shown an interest, rather than taking a considered look at the spread and provision of library services across the city in an equitable way, to ensure that the most vulnerable communities do not lose out.
While a citywide trust may be seen as a radical departure from the current situation, the level of change is helped by the fact that:
- Birmingham is not alone – local councils as diverse as Devon (Libraries Unlimited), York (Explore) and Nottinghamshire (Inspire) have adopted versions of this approach, empowering residents, transforming services and delivering sustainable finances.
- Birmingham has been here before – around 10 years ago, the City Council explored a similar mutual model – the 93-page business plan is still on the council’s website.
For both of these reasons, implementation costs can be minimised, helping to meet budgetary targets in a timely manner while maximising the benefits of these models.
We are happy to share further details about how these alternatives could work in practice, drawing on the experience of creating similar models in other parts of the country.
Working constructively together
If it intends to adopt its preferred mixed delivery model, we strongly encourage Birmingham City Council to work with communities to fully take part in the process, working together to maximise the chances of success.
We welcome the council’s recognition of the role of community asset transfers, which we have advocated as a positive solution since we launched our campaign. Done right, they can save community assets, empower residents and transform local areas. However, we note from considerable experience that community asset transfers are not straightforward and community groups need significant support and time to take advantage of this model – especially diverse communities that require additional support and capacity building.
In this context, Birmingham City Council must work with local communities right across the city, providing sufficient time for community development, as well as financial resources where appropriate, as part of any asset disposal strategy. Changes to the library service should not be considered in isolation from the rest of the council’s community asset portfolio, considering each community in the round and taking advantage of colocation or partnership opportunities.
Save Birmingham and its partners have already started engaging communities – we are willing to work with Birmingham City Council to facilitate further community engagement, building on existing relationships, projects and shared ambitions.
What can elected representatives do?
We encourage elected representatives (MPs and councillors) to ask council officers whether they have considered the alternative option put forward by Save Birmingham, and to consider carrying out a feasibility study that builds on previous work in Birmingham and example elsewhere, working with Save Birmingham and its partners who are able to facilitate this work.
Elected representatives should also engage with local library campaign groups, listening to what their residents want and ensure they are able to fully engage with the council’s current consultation period.
