Green, R (on the application of) v Somerset County Council

A library authority cannot lawfully determine whether its service is comprehensive and efficient without first assessing the needs that the service is intended to meet. The assessment need not be a discrete exercise and may draw on professional expertise, reliable data and consultation. Resources are relevant, and the statutory duty does not require blanket geographical coverage.

Public sector equality duties require conscious, substantive and rigorous consideration of the statutory equality needs, based on sufficiently gathered and analysed information. An equality impact assessment is neither invariably necessary nor determinative. Where consultation is undertaken, it must be fair and meaningful, but the authority need not consult on every alternative means of achieving its objective.

Residents of Gloucestershire and Somerset challenged decisions by the respective county councils to reduce library funding, close or transfer responsibility for libraries, reduce opening hours and reduce mobile library provision. The challenges alleged breach of the duty under section 7 of the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964, breach of public sector equality duties under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 and the Equality Act 2010, and inadequate consultation.

The central issues were whether the councils had adequately assessed library needs, whether they had given due regard to equality needs, and whether their consultations were conducted lawfully.

1. Section 7 duty. The duty under section 7 of the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964 could not be fulfilled unless the authority had assessed the needs which its library service should meet. This was an application of the principle in Secretary of State for Education v Tameside [1977] AC 1014. The court’s intervention was limited, however, because the Secretary of State had default powers under section 10. Intervention was justified only where something had gone seriously wrong in the information-gathering or analysis process.
2. The assessment did not have to be a discrete exercise. A library authority could rely on professional expertise, experience, reliable data from different sources and consultation. Both councils had sufficient information to make lawful decisions. The statutory duty was not a requirement of blanket geographical coverage, and resource constraints were highly material to what constituted a comprehensive and efficient service.
3. Community-run libraries were not part of the councils’ statutory provision and the councils were not unlawfully delegating their statutory duty. Their statutory services remained subject to the section 7 duty independently of whether community libraries came into existence.
4. Equality duties. The duties under the 1995, 1975 and 2010 Acts were mandatory relevant considerations. They required a conscious direction of the decision-makers’ minds to the statutory needs, with substantive, rigorous and sufficiently informed analysis. The principles in R (Baker) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2009] PTSR 809 and R (Brown) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2009] PTSR 1506 were applied. An equality impact assessment was not invariably required and its existence did not prove compliance.
5. Although the councils had produced equality impact assessments and had some awareness of equality issues, their information gathering and analysis were inadequate. The decisions were therefore unlawful for failure to comply with the public sector equality duties.
6. Consultation. The principles in R v Brent London Borough Council, ex parte Gunning [1985] 84 LGR 168, restated in R v North and East Devon Health Authority, ex parte Coughlan [2001] QB 213, were satisfied. The councils had approached consultation with an open mind and made changes in response. They were not required to consult on every alternative means of achieving the same objective.
7. Permission was granted in the Somerset claim. The challenged decisions were unlawful for breach of the equality duties. The parties were directed to make written submissions on the appropriate relief.