For anyone thinking of using Gloucestershire County Council as an example I would urge caution and remind you that they lost a judicial review on equalities grounds as they did not consider the needs of, and impacts of their cuts, on vulnerable people. As they did not use the EIA to evaluate, analyse and mitigate the impacts, they were deemed to be guilty of "bad government" and a "substantive breach of the law". Whilst they now say they have been advised by the EHRC, the EHRC say they have not endorsed GCC's approach, they were simply there to advise. Nothing more. This does not mean GCC listened.
The claimants lawyers response to GCC's new approach and to which Carole refers raises serious concerns, stating
"The EIA lists too many "positive effects" for what are in fact, neutral or only negative effects. This could be a serious flaw.
The EIA, p.10 has a "neutral effect" for race, but the traveller population in Churchdown had been previously identified."
Here are some important points the judge made in his ruling
"123. In particular, so far as GCC is concerned, the first EIA is criticised for the absence of evidence that the needs of any vulnerable groups played a part and in particular for concluding that the proposals would have a neutral impact. There is of course considerable force in that criticism.
124. However, regard must be had to the fact that in total three EIAs were prepared by GCC so I turn to consider the criticism which has been made of the second EIA so far as its timing is concerned and as to its failure to analyse and or draw conclusions from its realisation that common themes arising were that accessing a library for those reliant on public transport might be difficult and that the proposals might have a disproportionate impact on vulnerable adults and children. Thus it was said that the assessment of the likely equality impact of the proposals was at best cursory and inadequate. The only potential negative impact identified was in respect of the removal of mobile libraries. There was no consideration of the potential impact of the closure of static libraries or of the reduction in opening hours. By way of example it was also said there was no analysis of whether particular disabled people had particular needs or used the library services for particular purposes such as reducing social isolation, undertaking particular educational activities or that they were more likely to be unemployed or whether particular communities might have greater concentrations of disabled people or whether they might be less likely to be able to travel significant distances or be less likely to have home internet access.
125. So far as gender was concerned there was no analysis undertaken of the impact of closures on female users such as for example whether single mothers might be more reliant on libraries than others. To my mind there is significant force in these submissions.
126. The third EIA was also criticised as being too late to inform the Cabinet decision and the Council decision and in any event on the basis that essentially it repeated the flaws of the previous EIAs and was no more than a classic example of the rear guard action criticised in many of the cases to which I was referred."
"129. It is unfortunate, but not by any means determinative, that no specific reference was made to the statutory duties by the decision makers and I do not consider that in this case it can fairly be said that GCC or indeed SCC had no regard at all to their respective statutory duties in the light of the fact that both GCC and SCC produced a number of EIAs and in the light of the evidence led by both Defendants. On the other hand, nor do I consider that the existence of EIAs is in any way determinative that due regard to the statutory duties was had. It is of course substance not form which is the benchmark.
130. The real question on this aspect of the case, it seems to me, is whether there was a conscious directing of the mind by the decision makers to their obligations under the legislation and in particular to the need to exercise the duty to have due regard in substance and with rigour and based on sufficient information, appropriately analysed.
131. In my judgment, on the preponderance of the evidence, no such due regard was had in substance. In order to discharge their respective duties, GCC and SCC should have undertaken a sufficiently thorough information gathering exercise and then properly analysed that information. In this case I conclude that both GCC and SCC failed to comply with that obligation, accepting as I do the substance of the Claimants’ criticisms made of their respective information gathering and analysis to which i have refrrred above."
John Holland, who is the former assistant head of Gloucestershire Library service said about the "new" approach
"The main issue for me is that equalities legislation does not permeate the whole review. Just applying multiple deprivation indices as a criterion and saving 3 libraies in poor areas is NOT applying equalities legislation throughout the review. Where is the evidence that it permeates the whole review? Nowhere! Certainly the fact that Share a Book (for children) and Home Link (for people in residential care) are for the chop suggests otherwise!"
I apologize for the length of this email but I think all of this is important in providing context when GCC's approach is offered up as an example to others.
Regards
Johanna
Friends of Gloucestershire Libraries
|