Options for Isle of Man Family Library future to be explored
Options for the future running of services at a community library under threat of closure over funding are set to be brought forward in October.The directors of the Isle of Man's Family Library have said the facility will shut on 31 July due to expected annual losses of £100,000, as a result of rising costs and declining incomes.In response, Tynwald members supported Treasury Minister Alex Allinson's proposal for the Council of Ministers to work with the directors to understand its financial situation, and explore options to save it.He told politicians an urgent meeting with the library's directors had been scheduled for 30 June.
Welcoming the move, a spokesman for the facility said he had been "encouraged by the growing recognition among local politicians of the library's value and the urgent need for a sustainable funding model".However, he said it would be "irresponsible for us to continue beyond 31 July without being able to guarantee the necessary funding to operate for the following 12 months".With government funding for the facility, which has being provided on a sliding scale since 2021, is set to end in 2026.Supporters of the community facility have backed volunteer group the Friends of the Family Library in its campaign to protect the services, which has raised about £6,000.
Based on Westmoreland Road in Douglas, the Family Library offers activities to young people, schools and adults as well as operating a mobile library in rural areas and a home service for those who are housebound.The service has been run as an independent charity since full funding was pulled by the Department of Education in 2011 in response to a reduction in the island's VAT income.
'Rare institution'
At the June sitting of the Manx parliament, Joney Faragher MHK asked politicians to support taking "urgent steps to prevent the closure" and develop a "sustainable funding proposal to secure its long-term future".She described the the Family Library as "one of those rare institutions that prevents larger costlier social problems down the line", a sentiment that was supported by several other members.But Kate Lord-Brennan MHK argued "definite questions" should be asked about how the service had been run, and said there was a danger of a "precedent being set" on government support for organisations that operated "on a charitable level".During the debate Lawrie Hooper MHK argued Allinson's amendment did not provide "any certainty that we are going to end up with something that solves the problem".But members ultimately supported the treasury minister's proposal for the Council of Ministers to work with the charity to consider available options, after getting an understanding its financial position.A library spokesman said "all aspects of our operation, from a financial and organisational perspective, are fully transparent and in the public domain".He said he hoped the information would aim politicians "to better understand" the charity's position.The directors would support the process "in any way we can", he added.
Read more stories from the Isle of Man on the BBC, watch BBC North West Tonight on BBC iPlayer and follow BBC Isle of Man on Facebook and X.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
30 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Notting Hill carnival in danger without ‘urgent funding', says leaked letter
The future of the Notting Hill carnival could be in jeopardy without 'urgent funding' from the government, according to a leaked letter from its organisers. The carnival's chair, Ian Comfort, has written to the culture secretary to request public money, the BBC reported on Wednesday. It follows a review of the festival in west London, which began in 1966, identifying 'critical public safety concerns' that needed additional funding to address, the letter said. Comfort wrote that the money was 'essential to safeguarding the future and public safety of this iconic event', but did not state a figure. The independent safety review, whose findings and recommendations have not been made public, was commissioned by the carnival's organisers and paid for at a cost of £100,000 by the Greater London Authority (GLA), Kensington and Chelsea council and Westminster city council. In the leaked letter to Lisa Nandy, Comfort also referred to a separate report published in April by the London Assembly. He said the research highlighted the increasing strain placed on the Metropolitan police during large-scale public events. 'Limited resourcing has restricted the police service's ability to respond to growing operational pressures,' Comfort said in the letter. He went on to say that increased investment in stewarding and crowd management was 'now essential to allow the police to focus on their primary role of crime prevention and public protection'. Comfort added that a failure to secure immediate additional funding 'risks compromising public safety and jeopardising the future of the carnival'. The carnival chair said that although the GLA and the two councils had provided 'substantial support' for stewarding during past festivals, they could no longer 'meet the growing operational requirements identified in the review'. Sign up to Headlines UK Get the day's headlines and highlights emailed direct to you every morning after newsletter promotion The Met police's assistant commissioner, Matt Twist, previously raised concerns of a 'mass casualty event' at the carnival due to crowd density. Giving evidence to the London Assembly police and crime committee last September, Twist said: 'While we acknowledge that crime often gets the headlines, the thing that worries me most is the crowd density and the potential for a mass casualty event.' The carnival, second only to Brazil's Rio Carnival in size, attracts about 2 million people over the August bank holiday weekend. This year's event is scheduled to take place on 24 and 25 August. The Met had about 7,000 officers on duty for last year's festivities, drawn from local policing teams and specialist units. The organisers of Notting Hill carnival have been contacted for comment.
Telegraph
38 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Should abortion have been decriminalised?
While women will no longer be prosecuted for aborting their pregnancies at any point up to birth, an exclusive Telegraph poll reveals that 95 per cent of more than 11,000 respondents are against this decision. MPs voted with a majority of 242 to decriminalise seeking an abortion at any stage of gestation for any reason, removing the threat of women being investigated or arrested for seeking termination. Telegraph readers' reasons against the amendment ranged from a belief that life begins at conception to concerns over late-term abortions and the contrast with ongoing restrictions on assisted dying. 'This law has legalised murder' In a world in which access to birth control is readily available and many who want to be parents are unable to have children, some readers feel strongly that abortion should not be a legal option at all. Giles Darling argues: 'Imagine how many people alive today could have been legally terminated if this abortion-up-until-birth policy had been the law in the past? A child with a congenital condition or an unwanted genetic trait could miss their chance to be an impactful future scientist or entrepreneur.' Rosemary Wells writes: 'A baby at full term or even six weeks before birth is capable of living outside the womb and is completely sentient. They're conscious and able to feel pain. This law has legalised murder. This is legalising the destruction of anyone who is inconvenient and unwanted.' Linda Richards, who says she never thought the amendment would be voted through, comments: 'If these women don't want the child, give it up for adoption.' Bernie Carolan, who wrote to his MP about the matter, says: 'I asked her to vote no, as medical professionals have publicly raised grave concerns about the procedures involved in late-term abortions. These are not abstract debates – it's a matter of life and human dignity.' ' After 22 weeks, it is absolutely not on' Though many readers do not oppose the concept of abortion, and the law does not change restrictions on when doctors can administer abortions, there is a shared sense that allowing mothers to terminate pregnancies up until full term is a step too far. Judith Gordon-Nichols says: 'Abortion can be appropriate if, for instance, a woman or girl is pregnant as a result of rape or if the baby would be very disabled, but otherwise, no. After 22 weeks, it is absolutely not on.' Sharing a similar sentiment, Nicola Bradley comments: 'I think this is disgraceful. I am pro-choice and think that every woman should have the right to a termination on demand, but only up to 16 weeks maximum. After that, it should only be available for medical or health reasons with proper controls and penalties.' Sheridan Cooper writes: 'There is no need for this. I'm pro-choice, but the cut-off point is there for a reason. Unless the mother's life is at risk, there should be no termination beyond 24 weeks.' 'It's a slippery slope to legal death at any age' The decision to decriminalise abortion has been made at a time when Parliament is also in an ongoing debate on the topic of assisted dying. Readers speculate that the change will set a precedent for any future ruling over assisted dying. Louis Degas points out: 'We allow mothers to kill their potentially very healthy unborn child, but we are still debating the right for terminally ill, sane adults to end their own lives. Something seems wrong.' On the other hand, Denise Crowe is concerned about the ease with which Parliament is allowing laws on lives to pass. 'Another totally wrong decision by members of Parliament,' she argues. 'Next, the assisted dying Bill will be passed, and then it will be a slippery slope to legal death at any age.'
BBC News
an hour ago
- BBC News
Government ‘dragging its feet' over harassment act, says MP
Tunbridge Wells MP Mike Martin has accused the government of "dragging its feet" over the implementation of a law to criminalise public sexual passed the Protection from Sex Based Harassment in Public Act in 2023, which was introduced by the previous Conservative Tunbridge Wells MP Greg Clark following a campaign from his the law is yet to come into force because the government is required to pass a "statutory instrument". The previous Conservative government's plans to do this last year were interrupted by the general Wednesday, MPs rejected an amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill, proposed by Martin, which would have enforced the act. The act created a new specific offence for harassment in public on account of an individual's sex, including intrusive or persistent staring or questioning, following someone, sexual or obscene comments, propositions or gestures and non-consensual physical Liberal Democrat MP said he had met or received communication from the government five times over the last eight time they had "failed to say when the act will be implemented", he said: "This act is an extremely important building block in our campaign to reduce Violence Against Women and Girls in this Parliament – a goal I feel incredibly strongly about."I would have thought the Government – with its aim to halve Violence Against Women and Girls – would want to see this act enforced quickly."The Home Office has been approached for comment.
