THE FUNDING OF LONDON'S LIBRARIES
SOME LONDON STATISTICS (2002)
There are 395 public libraries in London, as well as 114 college and university libraries and more than 1,500 others in residential homes, hospitals and prisons.
More than 51 million visits are made to London's public libraries every year.
English is an additional language for 43% of school age children in inner London.
275 languages are spoken by pupils in London schools.
London is home to nearly half (47%) of the country's minority ethnic population.
Without
adequate funding, support for these is jeopardized.
Sources:
Association of London Government, http://www.alg.gov.uk
London Libraries Development Agency, http://www.llda.org.uk
On 5th December 2002, the Government published the Local Government Finance Settlement for 2003/04. It was not good news for Londoners, although it was better than the worst predictions contained in the next section which was written a few weeks earlier. The reactions of the Association of London Government to the Settlement are contained in the final section on this page.
REVENUE SUPPORT GRANTS FROM 2003 / 04
Most of the income of Local Authorities is derived from Central Government via the Revenue Support Grant. The method of determining the amount due to each Local Authority is based on a number of mathematical formulae and, over the last few years, changes to the application of these formulae have resulted in London boroughs being severely penalized.
The Government has now issued a consultation paper that proposes major changes to the formulae. A number of options have been suggested by the Government and these have been applied to the 2002 / 03 settlement, so that comparisons can be made with the existing methods. The results of these comparisons are shown in the tables shown below.
A wide range of outcomes is possible from the suggested options, but it is difficult to see any obvious desire by the Government to address the problems caused by the London boroughs' existing inadequate allocation. Indeed, if one examines the number of options which will enhance the income of London's hard pressed Local Authorities (10) and compares the result with the number of revenue diminishing income options (23), the conclusion has to be that things are likely to get worse rather than better.
Of course, it is possible to argue that the areas of high deprivation in London are concentrated in the 12 Inner London boroughs and that considering London as a whole does not do justice to the Government's determination to concentrate resources where they will do the most good. Unfortunately, the Inner London boroughs are unlikely to fare very much better than All London, with the number of positive income options at 13 compared to 22 negative income options.
For at least one Inner London Authority, the new proposals could be disastrous. The worst-case calculation for Camden has shown that the borough could lose �28M per year from 2003 / 04. This is equivalent to depriving every resident of over �140 per year - almost a week's wage, if you are on the national minimum hourly rate.
It appears probable that, by design or by accident, London will lose a substantial amount of income from next year. If this does happen, it is highly likely to have a large, disproportionate impact on library budgets across the capital, due to the conditions imposed by the Government on the provision of the allocated money. Much of the Rate Support Grant is provided by the Government in "ring fenced" packages and Local Authorities have no discretion on where this type of income can be spent. Money provided for cultural purposes, including library services, is not "ring fenced" and can be spent at the discretion of the Councils. Therefore, Councils can raid this allocation to fund services which they believe should be given a higher priority. This is the recipe that has resulted in 20 years of decline in library services throughout the country and which could be simply corrected as part of the new grant regime. So far, there does not appear to be any intention of doing this.
The Government has acknowledged that something has to be done about falling levels of service in the nation's libraries and has introduced standards that have to be met by all Local Authorities. It is obvious that improving levels of service inevitably means spending more money. Local Authorities could therefore be forgiven for expecting the Government to provide some financial help towards achieving these new targets. The introduction of the new Rate Support Grant formulae would be an ideal opportunity to supply this aid. As far as London is concerned, the opportunity is probably not going to be taken up.
For the purposes of the Rate Support Grant, Library Services are included in the Environmental, Protective and Cultural Services block (EPCS). A block which appears to be made up of those services which were left over after the obvious groupings had been made and this has resulted in cultural services being twinned with homelessness, housing benefit administration, refuse collection, waste disposal, concessionary fares, parks and crematoria. Thus, the block contains basic essential services and services of importance to deprived and ethnic minority groups. This is not a service group that a socially aware Government would be expected to target for cost savings. Yet, it is the group where the greatest revenue losses could occur for London in 2003 / 04. Further, the worst-case �271M ALL London loss is mainly borne by the Inner London boroughs (�178.1M) - the place of greatest deprivation.
The consultation paper issued by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has put London into a unique category. It is the only region which is probably going to lose substantial amounts of income from 2003 / 04. All other regions are likely to experience minor overall changes (Met. Districts, Shire Counties, Shire Districts) or will probably be major beneficiaries (Shire Unitaries). Intense lobbying is, of course, under way by all parties and the official responses are in preparation. How much this feedback will affect the final outcome will be determined by the underlying reason(s) for issuing the consultation paper in the first place. If the only reason for the proposed changes to the formulae is the stated wish to simplify them, then London's probable dire situation will be mitigated. However, if there is also a Ministerial desire to redirect money away from London (as has occurred in the past), services in the capital will inevitably be downgraded and cultural services, of all types, will probably be the worst affected.
ALG COMMENTS ON THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE SETTLEMENT 2003/04
In urging the Government to
think again about the Settlement with respect to London, the Chair of the Association
of London Government (ALG) Cllr Sir Robin Wales, said "This is a disappointing
Settlement for London. It will be extremely difficult for boroughs to meet the
Government's priority for improving peoples quality of life in London. London
boroughs are committed to enhancing the life of every member of the community,
but our public services are stretched to the limit every day"
The Vice Chair of the ALG suggested that the Government does not recognise the immense pressures that London boroughs are under and should produce a fairer funding formula for the capital.