Council library takeover challenges blocked
Two call-in challenges against a county council over its plan to bring library services back under the authority's control have been rejected.
Since 2012, libraries in Suffolk have been managed by independent charity Suffolk Libraries but now the Conservative-run Suffolk County Council is taking over the running of the 45 sites.
It has seen a public dispute between the charity and the authority, with a petition against the move being signed 23,000 times and a protest taking place.
The opposition Green, Liberal Democrat and Independent (GLI) group and the Labour group had lodged separate challenges but the council rejected both.
Call-in challenges can be lodged by councillors against council decisions. A monitoring officer, who is employed by the council in a non-political role, decides whether the challenge can progress.
If allowed, the council's scrutiny committee would debate the issue.
In the case here both challenges were deemed 'not allowed' on all points.
The GLI argument centred around four points:
Whether the contract with Suffolk Libraries could have been extended for a period while the council retendered the contract
If financial costs had been 'properly scoped'
That councillors received the full background information for the decision too late to prepare a response
That the decision should have been subject to a public consultation.
Simon Harley, the group spokesperson for communities, said: "It is disappointing, but not surprising, that the Conservative administration has rejected a more independent scrutiny of this decision, also ignoring the massive petition from the people of Suffolk on legalistic grounds.
"We have no further options available to us to overturn this, but the people of Suffolk will remember this flawed decision and likely regret it for many years to come."
The Labour challenge raised similar points but also suggested the time left until the council takes control on 1 June would be "extremely challenging" and raised concerns that vulnerable people who use library services may see those stopped.
Labour group leader Sandy Martin said: "The Conservative council claim that all the relevant information needed to make a sensible decision was in the reports shown to the meeting.
"But the fact remains that they have never explained in detail how county council employees, on higher salaries, working for a council department that will not have charitable status, can deliver a better library service for less money than Suffolk Libraries have done."
A spokesman for Suffolk County Council said: "The way our cabinet reached the decision to bring Suffolk's libraries back in house has now been thoroughly reviewed.
"This means that any suggestions that the decision was not taken properly have been rejected.
"We will now focus on keeping all 45 libraries open, maintaining current opening hours, bringing libraries staff back to the Suffolk County Council family and continuing our investment in library services."
Follow Suffolk news on BBC Sounds, Facebook, Instagram and X.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Government struggles to cut foreign aid spent on asylum hotels
The government is struggling to cut the amount of foreign aid it spends on hotel bills for asylum seekers in the UK, the BBC has learnt. New figures released quietly by ministers in recent days show the Home Office plans to spend £2.2bn of overseas development assistance (ODA) this financial year - that is only marginally less than the £2.3bn it spent in 2024/25. The money is largely used to cover the accommodation costs of thousands of asylum seekers who have recently arrived in the UK. The Home Office said it was committed to ending asylum hotels and was speeding up asylum decisions to save taxpayers' money. The figures were published on the Home Office website with no accompanying notification to media. Foreign aid is supposed to be spent alleviating poverty by providing humanitarian and development assistance overseas. But under international rules, governments can spend some of their foreign aid budgets at home to support asylum seekers during the first year after their arrival. According to the most recent Home Office figures, there are about 32,000 asylum seekers in hotels in the UK. Labour promised in its manifesto to "end asylum hotels, saving the taxpayer billions of pounds". Contracts signed by the Conservative government in 2019 were expected to see £4.5bn of public cash paid to three companies to accommodate asylum seekers over a 10-year period. But a report by spending watchdog the National Audit Office (NAO) in May said that number was expected to be £15.3bn. Asylum accommodation costs set to triple, says watchdog Asylum hotel companies vow to hand back some profits On June 3, Home Secretary Yvette Cooper told the Home Affairs Committee she was "concerned about the level of money" being spent on asylum seekers' accommodation and added: "We need to end asylum hotels altogether." The Home Office said it was trying to bear down on the numbers by reducing the time asylum seekers can appeal against decisions. It is also planning to introduce tighter financial eligibility checks to ensure only those without means are housed. But Whitehall officials and international charities have said the Home Office has no incentive to reduce ODA spending because the money does not come out of its budgets. The scale of government aid spending on asylum hotels has meant huge cuts in UK support for humanitarian and development priorities across the world. Those cuts have been exacerbated by the government's reductions to the overall ODA budget. In February, Sir Keir Starmer said he would cut aid spending from 0.5% of gross national income to 0.3% by 2027 - a fall in absolute terms of about £14bn to some £9bn. Such was the scale of aid spending on asylum hotels in recent years that the previous Conservative government gave the Foreign Office an extra £2bn to shore up its humanitarian commitments overseas. But Labour has refused to match that commitment. Gideon Rabinowitz, director of policy at the Bond network of development organisations, said: "Cutting the UK aid budget while using it to prop up Home Office costs is a reckless repeat of decisions taken by the previous Conservative government. "Diverting £2.2bn of UK aid to cover asylum accommodation in the UK is unsustainable, poor value for money, and comes at the expense of vital development and humanitarian programmes tackling the root causes of poverty, conflict and displacement. "It is essential that we support refugees and asylum seekers in the UK, but the government should not be robbing Peter to pay Paul." Sarah Champion, chair of the International Development Committee, said the government was introducing "savage cuts" to its ODA spending, risking the UK's development priorities and international reputation, while "Home Office raids on the aid budget" had barely reduced. "Aid is meant to help the poorest and most vulnerable across the world: to alleviate poverty, improve life chances and reduce the risk of conflict," she said. "Allowing the Home Office to spend it in the UK makes this task even harder." "The government must get a grip on spending aid in the UK," she said. "The Spending Review needs to finally draw a line under this perverse use of taxpayer money designed to keep everyone safe and prosperous in their own homes, not funding inappropriate, expensive accommodation here." Shadow home secretary Chris Philp said: "Labour promised in their manifesto to end the use of asylum hotels for illegal immigrants. But the truth is there are now thousands more illegal migrants being housed in hotels under Labour. "Now these documents reveal that Labour are using foreign aid to pay for asylum hotel accommodation – yet another promise broken." A Home Office spokesperson said: "We inherited an asylum system under exceptional pressure, and continue to take action, restoring order, and reduce costs. This will ultimately reduce the amount of Official Development Assistance spent to support asylum seekers and refugees in the UK. "We are immediately speeding up decisions and increasing returns so that we can end the use of hotels and save the taxpayer £4bn by 2026." Is the government meeting its pledges on illegal immigration and asylum?
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Uzbekistan Builds Where the West Withdrew
Uzbekistan's interest in connectivity with Afghanistan is driven by economic opportunity, energy cooperation, security needs, and geopolitical strategy - factors that will help Uzbekistan access new markets and stabilize the region. Ambassador Javlon Vakhabov of the International Institute for Central Asia in Tashkent, Uzbekistan, calls it 'Stability Through Connectivity.' That is, Uzbekistan favors pragmatism over trying to isolate Afghanistan, and a policy that balances humanitarian support and regional security. The Central Asia republics (Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, the Kyrgyz Republic, and Turkmenistan) were on the border of the wars in Afghanistan, i.e., the Afghan civil war (1992-1996, 1996-2001) and the U.S.-led NATO occupation (2001 – 2021), which they consider 'lost decades' of economic growth and social development. The republics' leaders know they and Afghanistan are 'neighbors forever' and do not have the luxury of retreating to North America if things go wrong, so policy must acknowledge geography. Uzbekistan's engagement with the Taliban began long before NATO evacuated Afghanistan in August 2021. In 1997, then-Uzbek president Islam Karimov proposed the Six plus Two Group on Afghanistan,which grew from an understanding that dialogue and a political settlement, nor armed force, was the path to peace. The group was unable to persuade the warring sides – the Taliban and the United Front (formerly the Northern Alliance) – to pursue a March 2018, Uzbekistan hosted the Tashkent Conference that urged direct peace talks without preconditions between the Taliban and the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. Unfortunately, the Taliban said it would only negotiate with the United States, the "foreign occupying force,' and demanded the departure of foreign troops before the start of negotiations. In July 2022, Tashkent hosted a conference on Afghanistan, attended by representatives of 30 countries. It was an opportunity for the international community to take the measure of Taliban officials and for the Taliban to encourage investment in Afghanistan and seek the release of Afghan assets seized by the West after the fall of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. The tone of the event was forward-looking, but Uzbek president Shavkat Mirziyoyev, '…reiterated the international community's conditions for formal diplomatic recognition, namely 'forming a broad representation of all layers of the Afghan society in state governance, ensuring basic human rights and freedoms, especially of women and all ethnic and confessional groups.'' Tashkent has consistently called for engaging with Taliban-run Afghanistan, including unfreezing the $9 billion in state assets that were seized by American and European authorities after the ouster of the Kabul government in August 2021 Central Asia is a water-stressed region and Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan are in the 'severe water stress' category. The construction of the Qosh Tepa canal in Afghanistan threatened to increase tensions between the Taliban-led Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan and Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan by reducing the water flow of the Amu Darya River by 15-20% - a disaster for Central Asia agriculture. (In Uzbekistan, agriculture accounts for 25% of GDP and about 26% of the labor force.) In April 2025, Uzbekistan and Afghanistan agreed to cooperate in sharing the water resources in the Amu Darya River Basin. The republics are concerned as 'a significant reduction in the Amu Darya's flow could lead to ecosystem degradation, increased soil salinity, and deteriorating living conditions for populations downstream…[and] could hinder efforts to restore the Aral Sea and further exacerbate the region's environmental challenges.' Though Uzbekistan has not recognized the government of Taliban-run Afghanistan, the agreement on transboundary water resources demonstrates bilateral relations are becoming 'increasingly institutionalized.' Tashkent prioritizes its interests to address not just water resources but the threat of terrorist groups, 20 of which may be sheltering in Afghanistan. This effort will require serious diplomacy by all parties and is an opportunity for Uzbekistan (and the U.S.) to provide technical assistance to ensure the canal is built to minimize excessive water loss and soil salinization. Uzbekistan should take the opportunity to substitute crops less thirsty than cotton for the country's growing textile sector which plans to grow textile exports to $10 billion, and continue to import cotton from Turkey, China, and Bangladesh. (Uzbekistan also imports cotton from Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, and Turkmenistan but should take the opportunity to lead the region away from crops that deplete its water supply.) One step to peacefully resolve the water problem is to make Afghanistan a party to the 1992 Almaty Agreement which regulates water allocations based on the Soviet-era shares of water among the then-Soviet Central Asia republics. The agreement is implemented by the Interstate Commission for Water Coordination of Central Asia (ICWC) and making Afghanistan a member of the ICWC is a way to make it part of the solution and not the problem. It will teach the Taliban the 'rules of the road' in Central Asia and ensure the republics' officials have a clear understanding of Taliban personalities, motivations, and priorities. Other connectivity initiatives are: The Termez free economic zone which offers a 2-week visa for Afghan visitors and features a customs office, a hotel, storage facilities, and capacity to handle 100,000 trucks and 900,000 tons of goods a year. Trans-Afghan railway, a $7 billion, 765-kilometer link to Pakistan's ports that is expected to cut transport costs by 30–40%. And Uzbekistan may soon conduct preliminary studies on extending the railway from Hairatan to Herat, a jumping-off point for trade with Iran and Turkmenistan. Surkhan–Puli-Khumri Power Line, a 1,000 MW line to support electrification of Afghan transport, and that may potentially link to the CASA-1000 power project, a joint venture between Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. (Uzbekistan is already the leading exporter of electricity to Afghanistan, supplying nearly 60% of Afghanistan's electricity imports.) Once operational, the line will increase Uzbekistan's electricity exports to Afghanistan by 70%, delivering up to 24 million kWh daily or 6 billion kWh annually. The project spans 245.6 kilometers, with 45 kilometers on Uzbek territory—already completed—and 200.6 kilometers in Afghanistan. The capacity of this line will not only enhance power availability but also facilitate the electrification of the Hairatan–Mazar-i-Sharif railroad, reducing transportation costs by replacing diesel-powered trains with cleaner electric locomotives. Uzbekistan sees many opportunities in Afghanistan and in 2024 trade climbed to $1.1 billion, most of that exports from Uzbekistan. There are commercial opportunities to be sure, but Tashkent does not want to contain Afghanistan, but to use it as a regional bridge, and not just for trade. There are concerns Afghanistan is a potential source of future transnational terrorism, though that may be stymied by intelligence sharing between the Taliban and the U.S., who share concerns about the Al-Qaeda (AQ) and the Islamic State – Khorasan Province (IS-K) presence in Afghanistan. More trade will not necessarily make Al-Qaeda and the Islamic State change their policies but more economic opportunity may make it harder for them to find recruits, and efforts like funding madrassas in Afghanistan may help detoxify the educational system. And the Taliban can build legitimacy if they are seen to be putting the peoples' welfare first by encouraging trade and business. That won't be favored by the U.S., but after two decades of mayhem in the Hindu Kush, much instigated by America, Washington should encourage action – by anyone - that allows Afghanistan to build infrastructure and make money by means other than poppy cultivation. Outside meddling in Afghanistan usually leads to tears, but if Tashkent can work with the moderate, outward-looking Taliban based in Kabul that want to improve the economy, it may subtly tip the balance against the hard-liners in Kandahar. (Yes, Siraj Haqqani and Mullah Omar are the 'moderates' but that is where we are right now.) Uzbekistan may have a role in the future exploitation of critical minerals in Central Asia and can help the U.S. build a secure critical mineral supply chain. According to Visual Capitalist, 'Out of the 50 minerals deemed critical by the U.S. government, the U.S. is 100% reliant on imports for 12 of them, and over 50% reliant for another 321 critical minerals.' Central Asia and Afghanistan are endowed with critical minerals but their isolated location presents a difficult transport problem. Also, mining and processing rare earths requires a lot of water which is in short supply in the region, though a new Chinese technology may triple production speed and reduce pollution, but will put China in a key position, something the U.S. will probably oppose. Andrew Korybko notes that partial completion of the Trans-Afghan railway may still benefit the republics if they can backhaul Afghanistan's minerals for processing in the republics or in Russia or China. The republics will need to secure investment for local, sustainable processing of the minerals (with off-take agreements), but Washington and Brussels must make serious offers to keep the stuff out of Russian and Chinese hands. (Exhortations by Washington to 'do the right thing' and not sell to China and Russia, backed by the hint of sanctions, are a tax on Central Asia and only diminish America's standing in the region.) Uzbekistan, a double-landlocked country, faces hurdles accessing global markets. Connectivity with Afghanistan offers a pathway to South Asia, particularly through Pakistan's seaports Karachi and Gwadar, though Uzbekistan is improving trade relations with Iran as its ports Bandar Abbas and Chabahar, and access to the North-South Transport Corridor, are 'Plan B' if the trans-Afghan route is untenable. Over the past decade, Tashkent has sought to make Central Asia a 'safe neighborhood,' and many of Uzbekistan's priorities, such as peacefully settling border disputes with the neighboring republics and encouraging a broad-based government in Kabul, are shared by Washington, but the Central Asia republics have a broader definition of the regional security, one that is grounded in diplomacy human development, and trade, and that includes trade and normal political relations with Russia, China, Iran, and Afghanistan. Central Asian is no longer a platform for the NATO campaign against the Taliban, but will it become a platform to engage the Taliban, who probably aren't going anywhere despite Washington's ongoing economic warfare. In April, Uzbek president Shavkat Mirziyoyev announced he is ready to work with the European Union (EU) and other international partners to support Afghanistan's development 'to overcome the current crises,' a policy that was welcomed by the Taliban. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and António Costa, President of the European Council, visited Uzbekistan in April with the intent, in von der Leyen's words, 'to take our partnership with Central Asia to the next level.' Aside from the standard fare of promoting European foreign direct investment to the region, securing access to critical minerals, and promoting educational exchanges, Central Asia's putative European partners should move smartly to work with the republics to ensure Afghanistan a productive member of the region and no longer a source of terrorism and narcotics. The failed NATO mission in Afghanistan, though it included European troops, is seen as an American loss, giving Europe more post-war maneuver room in Central Asia. And Europe will rely more than America on East-West trade from Asia via the Belt and Road and the Middle Corridor, so it may be the right partner right now for Central Asia. But the Central Asian republics aren't waiting for the EU and international partners to get to work. In May 2025, shortly after Mirziyoyev's announcement, Tashkent commissioned the Termez Dialogue on Connectivity Between Central and South Asia as a permanent platform for regional connectivity. Uzbekistan and Afghanistan both favor an 'economy first' policy with their neighbors, which the republics call "acceptance of reality" in the wake of the West's failed nation-building project in Afghanistan. The same week the republics' delegates convened in Termez, Uzbekistan to plan to boost Central and South Asian connectivity, Pakistan, China and Afghanistan agreed to expand the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) to Afghanistan. CPEC has fallen short of the partners' expectations, so it remains to be seen if including Afghanistan is a smart move or will just burn more of China's money. And on the heels of the Termez meeting, Iran and China launched a railway route from Xian in western China to the Aprin dry port near Iran's capital, Tehran. The route will reportedly cut travel time from 30 days via sea to 15 days and will avoid the Strait of Malacca and the Hormuz Strait, chokepoints the U.S. Navy hoped to exploit in future conflicts. The route will not pass through Afghanistan but is Beijing's vote of confidence in the region as a connectivity space. Uzbekistan and the other Central Asia republics helped NATO in Afghanistan but it was all for naught, so now it's time for get back to basics - economic and social development - via initiatives like the Uzbekistan 2030 Strategy, and promoting good governance and increasing civic engagement through initiatives like the Center for Progressive Reforms. Washington should focus on how it can assist these sorts of efforts by the republics and not be distracted and agitated by their commonsense wish to not isolate neighboring Afghanistan. By James Durso for More Top Reads From this article on
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Reform UK struggles to find friends to share council power
Reform UK's success in the recent local elections has propelled many councillors with limited or no political experience into council chambers across England. While Reform UK's rise was the big story of those elections, almost half of the councils up for grabs were not won outright by any single party. That means many of those newbie councillors are now navigating so-called hung councils, where parties with little in common often work together to get the business of local government done. But so far, it hasn't panned out that way for Reform UK, which isn't involved in any formal coalitions, pacts or deals in areas where there were local elections this year. This was despite rampant speculation about Reform-Conservative coalitions ahead of the polls, with party leaders Kemi Badenoch and Nigel Farage not ruling out council deals. So, what's going on? In some places - Warwickshire, Worcestershire and Leicestershire - Reform UK has enough councillors to form minority administrations and is attempting to govern alone. In other areas where coalitions were possible, Reform UK has either shunned co-operation or vice versa. Where Reform UK has explored potential partnerships locally, its policies have been viewed with suspicion by the established parties. In Cornwall, the Liberal Democrats, Labour and the Conservatives refused to work with Reform UK, even though it was the biggest party and had won the most seats. Instead, the Lib Dems teamed up with independent councillors to run Cornwall Council as a minority administration. That infuriated Reform UK's group leader in Cornwall, Rob Parsonage, who branded the coalition deal "undemocratic" and "a total stitch-up". Did other parties contrive to exclude Reform UK? The newly minted Lib Dem council leader, Leigh Frost, does not think so. "The reality is our core values at heart of it just stand for two very different things and it makes working together incompatible," Frost told the BBC. "And then Reform was given two weeks to try to form an administration and chose not to." Frost said Reform UK's Cornwall candidates mainly campaigned on immigration. This was echoed in conversations with other local party leaders across the country. The BBC was told Reform's candidates had little local policy to offer and mostly focused on national issues, such as stopping small boats crossing the English Channel. Slashing "wasteful spending" by councils, like Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency (Doge) in the US, was also a common campaign theme. In Worcestershire, where Reform won the most seats but fell short of a majority, the party's supposed lack of local policy was a major sticking point for the Conservatives. "They haven't got a local prospectus and that was part of the problem," said Adam Kent, Tory group leader on Worcestershire County Council. "They didn't stand on any local issues. It was on national politics. How can you go into coalition with somebody if you don't even know what they stand for?" Joanne Monk, the Reform UK council leader in the county, said she only had "a brief couple of chats" with other party leaders but was uncompromising on coalitions. "I'm damned sure we're not on the same wavelength," she said. She followed the lead of Farage, who ruled out formal coalitions at council level but said "in the interests of local people we'll do deals", in comments ahead of the local elections. In Worcestershire, Reform UK's minority administration may need to do deals to pass key decisions and avoid other parties banding together to veto their plans. Recognising this, she acknowledged other parties were "going to have to work with us at some point". In Northumberland, the Conservatives retained their position as the largest party and gave the impression they were willing to entertain coalition talks with Reform UK, which gained 23 seats. "I said I would work with anyone and my door is open," said Conservative council leader Glen Sanderson. "But Reform the next day put out a press release saying the price for working with the Conservatives would be extremely high. So on that basis, I assumed that was the door closed on me." No talks were held and the Conservatives formed a minority administration. Weeks had passed after the local elections before Mark Peart was voted in as Reform UK's local group leader in the county. As a result, he wasn't in a position to talk to anybody. "Everything had already been agreed," Peart said. "It was too late." Reform UK sources admitted the party was caught a bit flat-footed here and elsewhere as many of its new councillors got the grips with their new jobs in the weeks following the local elections. A support network for those councillors, in the form of training sessions and a local branch system, is being developed by the party. But this week Zia Yusuf, one of the key architects behind that professionalisation drive and the Doge cost-cutting initiative, resigned as party chairman, leaving a gap in the party's leadership. Reform UK's deputy leader, Richard Tice, said the party's success at the local elections "was partly because of the significant efforts and improvements to the infrastructure of the party" spearheaded by Yusuf. Though Yusuf is gone, the party has considerably strengthened its foundations at local level, after gaining 677 new councillors and two mayors. A Reform UK source said party bosses will be keeping an eye out for stand-out councillors who could go on to become parliamentary candidates before the general election. They said in areas where Reform UK runs councils as a minority administration, it's going to take some compromise with other parties and independents to pass budgets and key policies. In the messy world of town halls and council chambers, that could be a tough apprenticeship. Reform UK prepares for real power on a council it now dominates Sir John Curtice: The map that shows Reform's triumph was much more than a protest vote Reform UK makes big gains in English local elections
