Feryal Clark MP’s response to the proposed library closures
I am writing in response to the current consultation for the Draft Library Strategy 2025-2030, and in particular in relation to the three libraries in the parliamentary constituency of Enfield North: Enfield Highway, Bullsmoor, and Enfield Island Village libraries.
I was extremely disappointed at the proposal to close these libraries.
I am not writing simply to oppose Council measures, but because I have serious concerns about the impact that the closure of these services will have on my constituents, and particularly about the assessments that the Council has made of the likely impact on vulnerable communities in the borough and of the independent value of library services to our community in Enfield North.
Library Offer
The universal library offer framework – to which your draft strategy refers – claims that libraries meet broad societal needs; connecting communities; improving wellbeing and promoting equality through learning, literacy and cultural participation. The framework imagines the offer through four categories: reading, information and digital, culture and creativity, and health and wellbeing.
I have heard first hand from constituents how valuable the employment, housing, and benefit support provided by Community Hubs situated in local libraries can be. Yet, I remain concerned that the strategy’s approach does not adequately consider the independent value of library services outside of the provisions facilitated by Enfield’s Community Hubs.
In contrast, National Literacy Trust’s research on children and young people’s access to books and educational devices during the cost-of-living crisis only highlights the essential value of libraries – with over a third of families struggling financially due to the increased cost of living disclosing that they were spending less on books for their children.
The role and potential of local libraries is similarly set out in Enfield Poverty and Inequality Commission (EPIC) Report (‘All Things Being Equal’, published January 2020). Recommendation 14 of the report calls on the Council to “maximise the use of libraries to mitigate overcrowding and enhance learning”. It specifically calls on the Council to promote libraries as a place for children living in overcrowded conditions to do their homework, as well as recommending the provision of homework clubs in libraries and community centres in poorer wards.
However, the draft strategy and strategic review provide minimal attention to the independent value of libraries, and to outcomes and measures which are associated with library provision to improve digital access and literacy, support cultural and creative enrichment, and increase reading and literacy.
Libraries in Enfield North earmarked for closure
I am particularly concerned that the three libraries identified for closure in Enfield North are in areas of particularly high need.
All three library’s wards (Brimsdown, Bullsmoor, Enfield Lock) have higher than borough average proportions of children in relative and absolute low-income families. Two of those three are rates “significantly higher” than borough average. All three wards have households on unemployment benefits or Universal Credit at rates “significantly higher” than the borough population overall.
Bullsmoor Library and Enfield Highway Library
Enfield Highway Library serves Brimsdown and Carterhatch wards, ranked by your assessments as third and fifth highest wards in terms of borough need, used to assess socio-economic deprivation. These wards rank 23rd and 24th in the borough (out of 25 wards) for educational attainment, indicating, for example, lower percentages of children achieving expected literacy and reading standards. Bullsmoor similarly has lower than average educational attainment, with the percentage of adults aged 16+ with no qualifications significantly higher than the borough population overall.
Enfield Island Village Library
Enfield Lock ward is similarly characterised by high levels of benefit claimants and low levels of educational attainment and employment.
I am particularly concerned about the impact of the closure of the Enfield Island Village Library.
Enfield Island Village Library is described by the Strategic Review as service Enfield Lock – along with Ordnance Unity Centre. However, Enfield Island Village library serves a specific local need, and does not acknowledge the barriers to accessing Ordnance Unity Centre. One of these is limited public transportation access, both slowed and complicated by the need to cross Mollison Avenue and travel to the far end of Ordnance Road – the other side of the ward, interrupted by the regular closure of the Road for the train services through Enfield Lock station.
Assessing the impact of closures
Further to my concern that the libraries are located in areas of particularly high need, I have some concerns around the equalities assessment made in relation to these proposals, and the broader judgements made about the possible impact of the closures.
Specifically, I am concerned that the conclusions of equalities assessments negate the differential impact that this change in service provision will have on the socio-economically disadvantaged. The belief that the negative impact is “justified by the need to improve and enhance the library service at the retained 8 libraries, and the need to deliver the library service in a more efficient manner” does not reflect a consideration of the differential impact of your proposals. The assessment further asserts that the closure of the eight libraries will have “a negative impact on all users regardless of their socio-economic status”.
I am also concerned about the use of London-wide borough comparisons to support proposed library closures. For example, comparing London Boroughs, the review emphasises that Enfield has one library per 20,625 while Haringey has one library per 29,335 population. It does not, however, highlight that the proposed model would result in Enfield having one library per 41,250 people (less only than Brent in the population served per library, and a third greater than the next highest population relative to library numbers, Waltham Forest).
Queries
In light of these concerns, I have several questions regarding the proposals. I would be most grateful to understand:
What assessment has been made in relation to your first principle – ‘focusing resources in areas of greatest need’ – in your decision to propose the closure of Enfield Highway, Bullsmoor, and Enfield Island Village libraries?
What assessment has been made of the impact of closures on library provision in Enfield in comparison to the library provisions in other boroughs, including following their own programmes of closures?
What assessment has been made of the impact on the closure of libraries in Enfield on borough educational attainment, and what provision does the Council propose to mitigate against the potential impacts on child and adult literacy?
What assessment has been made of the impact of the closure of libraries on children accessing books and the internet? And what has been made of the potential impact on children in deprived communities to access third spaces?
What assessment has been made on the accessibility of more remote library services on elderly residents affected by disability and socio-economic disadvantage? And what
What, in the Council’s assessment of library use, constitutes a ‘visit’ – and what assessment has been made on the impact of visits to existing community hubs on the current assessment of library visits?
What consideration has been made of the impact of proposals to reduce library space in Enfield North on the Council’s commitment to, or present and future delivery of, Enfield Poverty and Inequality Commission Report (‘All Things Being Equal’, published January 2020) Recommendation 14?
I would also be sincerely grateful for any clarification that can be provided regarding the ways in which your approach has been informed by the national supporting documents you reference in your plan, not least Libraries Deliver: Ambition for Public Libraries in England 2016-2021.
I would appreciate copies of papers, reports, correspondence or notes which detail the reasoning for why the decision was made for each question above.
I am not convinced that the proposals, in their existing form, to close Enfield Island Village, Bullsmoor, and Enfield Highway libraries are sufficiently attentive to the independent value of local library provision or of the communities that they serve, and strongly urge any possible further consideration, or reconsideration, of the impact of these proposals.
Many thanks for your time and attention to this pressing matter.
Yours sincerely,
Feryal Clark MP
Member of Parliament for Enfield North