R (Green) v Gloucestershire CC and ors

The court analysed the scope of the duty in section 7(1) of the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964 and confirmed that a library authority must undertake an adequate assessment of the needs its service is intended to meet before deciding how to provide a "comprehensive and efficient library service" (application of the Tameside principle). The judge held that resource constraints are relevant and that target duties have an element of "elasticity", but an assessment of needs is an essential precondition to lawful decision making under section 7. The court rejected the claim that either authority had acted unlawfully under section 7 by reason of adopting budget-driven proposals after adequate needs analysis; it found both Gloucestershire County Council and Somerset County Council had sufficient information to make lawful section 7 decisions.

However, the court found that both councils failed to give "due regard" to the public sector equality duties (the statutory equality duties under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 and section 149 of the Equality Act 2010) in substance and with sufficient rigour: the equality analysis and evidence base were inadequate to discharge the statutory duty. The court rejected the Claimants' challenge on consultation, finding the consultations were carried out in a manner consistent with the Gunning principles and were not so unfair as to be unlawful.

This was a judicial review of decisions by Gloucestershire County Council (GCC) and Somerset County Council (SCC) to restructure and reduce library services under their duties in the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964. The claimants were local library users who challenged the councils on three main grounds: (i) unlawful failure to comply with the section 7 duty to provide a comprehensive and efficient library service; (ii) breach of the public sector equality duties (pre and post April 2011) in respect of disability, sex and age; and (iii) inadequate consultation.

Nature of the claim / relief sought: the claimants sought judicial review of the councils' decisions to reduce funding, close or downgrade a number of static libraries, cut mobile provision and reduce opening hours. Remedies sought included quashing the decisions and requiring restoration or reconsideration in compliance with statutory duties.

Issues framed:

• Whether section 7 of the 1964 Act requires a prior needs assessment and whether either council failed the section 7 duty;
• Whether the public sector equality duties (DDA s49A, SDA s76A and EA 2010 s149) were complied with in substance;
• Whether the consultations complied with the Gunning principles for lawful consultation.

Key reasoning and results: The judge concluded that section 7 does require an assessment of local needs before reaching a rational view whether the service is "comprehensive and efficient". Nevertheless, the court accepted that a council may lawfully make budget choices and that resource constraints influence what is required; intervention by the court is appropriate only where the information-gathering or assessment process is so seriously flawed that the decision is unlawful. On the evidence, GCC and SCC had gathered and used a variety of data (surveys, MAIDEN neighbourhood data, indices of multiple deprivation, usage statistics, external consultant reports and mapping tools) such that their section 7 decisions were lawful. By contrast, the judge held that both councils failed to give "due regard" to the public sector equality duties in substance: the equality impact assessments were inadequate in their analysis, timing and depth, and did not demonstrate that decision makers had properly integrated the equality duty into their decision-making. The consultation challenges were rejected: consultations were held, responses considered and changes made; the consultations were not so procedurally defective as to be unlawful. The court therefore concluded there had been unlawful failure to comply with the equality duties, granted permission to apply for judicial review in respect of SCC (permission for the GCC claim had earlier been granted by Beatson J) and invited further written submissions on remedies.

The court held that (i) section 7 of the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964 requires a library authority to undertake an adequate assessment of local needs before deciding what will amount to a "comprehensive and efficient" service, but resource constraints and the target nature of the duty mean courts should only intervene where the needs assessment process has gone seriously wrong; (ii) on the facts, the councils' section 7 decisions were lawful because they had sufficient information to reach those decisions; (iii) both councils failed to comply with the public sector equality duties in substance because their equality analysis (the EIAs) was inadequate and not demonstrably integrated into decisions; and (iv) the consultation processes were adequate and complied with the Gunning principles. Permission to apply for judicial review in respect of SCC was granted (GCC had earlier obtained permission). The court invited submissions on appropriate relief.

This was a first instance Administrative Court hearing. Permission for the Gloucestershire challenge had been granted earlier by Beatson J after an oral hearing on 7 July 2011; on 21 July 2011 Beatson J ordered that the Somerset challenge proceed in a rolled-up hearing to be heard with the substantive hearing in the Gloucestershire claim. The substantive hearing was before His Honour Judge McKenna on 27–29 September 2011, with this judgment delivered 16 November 2011.