I welcome the publicity given by your paper to the crucial work of the children, education, libraries and safeguarding committee in recent weeks. The support of both sides in recognising the scale of the savings needed to secure the funding for vital services has been welcomed so far.

It should, however, be mentioned that the figures in your edition do not bear the full picture. The savings agreed unanimously on our committee were in fact £8million and not the £5.1m reported. The confusion appears to have arisen as some of the savings are through efficiencies and other avenues, and some are through the redesign of whole services. The £5.1m referred to, in fact applies to the redesign of three specific services; the library service, which is due to be considered at committee this month before going to public consultation, the new education delivery model, which is going out to consultation; and the early years review, which is also due to be considered this month before going to consultation.

I appreciate the attention given to libraries in your publication as I am very conscious of the importance of both the quality and proximity of the service, not to mention the importance of providing a service at times that fits with the local community.

I must clarify, that the suggestion that any of my Conservative colleagues have sought to refuse consideration of any aspect of the service, is disingenuous. No elected member seeks an unnecessary reduction in these services and, whilst several authorities under a Labour administration, like Brent and Camden, have chosen to go down the route of library closures, I have had no suggestion that any member of my committee, on either side, would seek this path preemptively before a public consultation due to offer guidance to the committee.

I am sure the challenge in finding the significant savings in the library service agreed by my Conservative and Labour committee members in July will require tough decisions.

The alternative position of seeking further savings from those other areas agreed in June and outlined above is not a responsible course of action. These areas are already taking a fair share of the savings.

I urge readers of this paper to engage in the public consultation process so that an informed and relevant model can be developed to maintain the comprehensive and efficient library service that benefits the good people of Barnet.

Any elected member for Barnet pushing for a petition to supersede or distract from this library consultation does a disservice to all library users as this would suggest that elected members have already decided how they want the service to change before the public consultation has commenced, let alone concluded and been considered.

Furthermore, as libraries are precious to all in the community, engaging in a scare campaign is likely to take attention away from those that use the libraries and instead play into the hands of those campaigners who choose not to engage in a responsible debate but instead follow a path of avoiding the tough decisions and implying everything is affordable and that tough decisions do not need to be made.

To conclude, I welcome the attention given to this important work in an area that affects us all. I urge the editorial team to maintain a balanced and moderate approach on this matter. I understand the temptation to let conflict determine the dialogue, however, I would like to respectfully point out that the intelligent and educated people of Barnet do not need a paper that generates more heat than light, and that the readership of this publication is improved by maintaining the quality and integrity of the debate and not the artifice of battle, where none is needed.

Cllr Reuben Thompstone

Con/Golders Green, Chairman of children, education, libraries and safeguarding committee, Barnet Borough Council