Libraries must be the future – for the good of democracy

Is two tier information access inevitable? Image c/o Julian Sebastian on Flickr

If there is one thing you can rely on when reading an online article about libraries, it is that someone will suggest that the internet has made libraries and, by extension, librarians, irrelevant.  It is not just amateur commentators though even representatives from established think tanks perpetuate this belief.  The fact that 9 million people have never even accessed the internet is a minor inconvenience.  But still this belief persists.  Ironically (given that librarians are considered ‘past it’) it is those that utilise these arguments who are behind the curve and refuse to recognise the very nature of the internet.

The argument used by the ‘internet trumps libraries’ brigade relies on something that we know full well is not representative of the internet we have all grown to love (and hate?).  Since the mid-90s, the internet has frequently changed.  The internet of today is quite different from that preceding the dotcom crash.   It is not a static medium.  Who would have thought just 5 years ago that a large proportion of the population would be happy to share their personal details freely and openly?

…the internet is not static and is subject to change.

The assumption made by many when discussing library closures is that the internet will remain static, forever acting as a source of free and open information.  But, of course, the internet is not static and is subject to change.  And who is the biggest driver of this change?  Corporations.  Unfortunately for the corporate world the level of competition on the internet is inhibiting their ability to make profit.  However, moves are afoot to change this, shifting the balance of power from the individual to corporations.

Take the issue of net neutrality for example.  Ed Vaizey has been less than enthusiastic in his support of net neutrality.  In a speech delivered towards the end of last year, Vaizey stated that:

“Content and service providers should have the ability to innovate and, most importantly, to reach end users … This could include the evolution of a two-sided market where consumers and content providers could choose to pay for differing levels of quality of service.”

The implication being that the government envisages a two-tier internet, with all the inequality that goes with it (he later claimed that this wasn’t the case). The implications for the digital divide could not be more stark.  As Tim Berners-Lee has warned:

“Control of information is hugely powerful. In the US, the threat is that companies control what I can access for commercial reasons. (In China, control is by the government for political reasons.) There is a very strong short-term incentive for a company to grab control of TV distribution over the internet even though it is against the long-term interests of the industry.”

Abandoning net neutrality could lead to a shift in the control of information.  At present the flow of information is neither controlled by the state or by corporate interests – it moves freely enabling equal access for all. The removal of ‘net neutrality’ would change this, leading to corporations controlling access to information.

“…we are on the slippery slope towards a much more controlled, less open, internet.”

However, it is not just net neutrality that should concern us.  The Guardian recently reported that the growth of smartphones also poses a danger to the freely accessible internet that we know today.  In an article subtitled ‘The proliferation of powerful mobile phones could see control of the internet pass into the hands of corporations’, John Naughton comments that:

“…we are on the slippery slope towards a much more controlled, less open, internet. If these trends continue, then it won’t be all that long before a significant proportion of the world’s internet users will access the network, not via freely programmable PCs connected via landline networks, but through tethered, non-programmable information appliances (smartphones) hooked up to tightly controlled and regulated mobile networks.”

The root cause of this problem is the established belief that information is a commodity that can be bought and sold, a vital cog in the economic machine.  The growth of the internet has provided business with a wealth of opportunities, many of which remain untapped.  For the libertarians, commodities are best placed in the hands of corporations who can utilise them to their advantage and grow the economy, turning a blind eye to its potential impact on society.  As Anne Goulding noted ten years ago (£):

“The danger is that governments, supported by business and industry, will place a higher priority on the development of ICTs to support economic productivity than on assisting social cohesion and progress.”

This leaves us in a perilous state if our public libraries are destroyed.  Libraries do not discriminate when providing access to information.  You do not have to be rich to take advantage of the wealth of information that the library provides.  Likewise, you do not have to be wealthy to consult a librarian and ensure you gain access to the very best information available.  This is the danger in believing the internet will remain static and unchanging forever.  The internet is a mechanism for corporations to make money, whereas for libraries it is a tool to enhance the social, political and cultural life of society.

In 1998, Noam Chomsky, in an interview for CorpWatch on Microsoft and corporate control of the internet, argued:

“If you really know exactly what you want to find, and have enough information and energy, you may be able to find what you want. But they want to make that as difficult as possible. And that’s perfectly natural. If you were on the board of directors of Microsoft, sure, that’s what you’d try to do.”

Libraries and librarians are here to make that process as easy as possible.  When we suddenly find ourselves in a world of paywalls and divided access, will we look back in shame at what we cast aside because of a failure to understand the nature of technology?

Discipline and fear

Letwin - hoping everyone has got the fear.

I couldn’t let this go without at least writing a short blog post about what this means to me.  In case anyone needs reminding, Oliver Letwin said the following about the public sector:

“You can’t have room for innovation and the pressure for excellence without having some real discipline and some fear on the part of the providers that things may go wrong if they don’t live up to the aims that society as a whole is demanding of them.”

The implication, of course, being that the public sector workforce are complacent and unproductive and, as such, require a bit of fear up them to force them to be more productive like, say, the private sector.  Well, I have worked in the private sector and I want no-one to go through what I went through.  I experienced what it was like to work in fear and it certainly made me less productive (and prompted me to leave).

It all happened a few years back when a new manager took over the store I worked in.  Up until his arrival, I had had a good reputation amongst other managers.  I was earmarked by my manager at the time as a future store manager and had embarked on a development programme to achieve this. Things were looking good and secure and I felt like I was finally going places.  All that was about to change.

Initially we got on fine.  Like I said, I had a good reputation so this obviously had some bearing on our relationship.  Then, at some point, things seemed to change.  I have always sought to offer my opinion on the decision making process.  Always constructively and always accepting whatever final decision is taken.  I also liked to talk things through with my manager to help identify ways of addressing staff performance and improving the department I ran.  Soon, however, I got the impression that he didn’t really enjoy talking things through, especially difficulties that needed facing.  And what was once a productive relationship, soon became cordial at best.  Then came an unexpected development.

I discovered, through another store manager I knew, that my manager was trying to put me out on secondment to another store, ostensibly to help pass an examination I needed for my role.  I was reluctant to do so and informed my manager that I felt I would be more successful if I remained with my team and completed the qualification at a later date – particularly as I was already on the management training programme. I felt that I should complete the programme first before embarking on any further training.  However, I was pushed into a corner and had to accept the secondment.

So, for the following six months I was seconded out to another store.  During this time I suspended myself on the training programme so I could commit fully to the examination I needed to pass.  During this period I didn’t hear from my manager once, which was rather odd considering the nature of the secondment.  I knew something was up when, a couple of weeks before I was due to return, the area manager came to see me.

I was shocked to discover that they wanted me to stay put, take a pay freeze and no longer work in my existing role.  As this was a secondment I knew I could say no, so I insisted on returning to my store.  This was accepted and I was told that I would need to improve my performance upon my return.  That no-one had ever questioned my performance before wasn’t mentioned, and in hindsight I probably should have raised it.  That said, I was young and intimidated and just kept quite.

Upon my return I was asked to see the manager in his office.  As I sat there he proceeded to tell me that I was being taken off the programme as I ‘didn’t contribute’ on any of the sessions (people who know me will no doubt be laughing at that one).  Silent from the shock of that revelation, the manager then slammed his folder on the desk and demanded that I gave him my full attention.  At this point I was really scared.  In my mind I had done nothing wrong.  I had worked hard and had shown full commitment to the programme.  My performance was never raised as an issue before my secondment or whilst on the programme.  But again, I was young and scared.

The remainder of my time there was hell.  It was clear to me that my manager felt put out that he didn’t get what he wanted by my refusal to stay at the store I was seconded too.  He made it quite clear to me I wasn’t wanted.  During the subsequent weeks and months I was told by colleagues that members of staff had been asked to ‘spy’ on me and report back to the manager.  Furthermore, I would often receive phonecalls from the manager (who often liked to work from home – I worked in retail, go figure how that is even possible) threatening me with disciplinary action if I didn’t action something or other by the time he saw me next.  To say it was an uncomfortable period in my working life is a bit of an underestimate.  I found it extremely difficult to motivate myself at work and I was constantly looking over my shoulder, worried that I might put a foot wrong and face disciplinary action. It still affects me to this day and I will never forget the treatment I received during those last few months.  Thankfully, I had some very good friends that helped me through it and their friendship during that time will always be very precious to me.

Luckily, I got my big escape into the world of libraries and never looked back.  Handing in my notice was quite the most pleasurable experience of my life.  In some ways I wanted to stay and fight.  My union rep said I had a very strong case for harassment in the workplace in light of my treatment going right the way back to the secondment.  However, sometimes it is best to ‘cut and run’ and in this regard I have no regrets.

I would not want anyone to go through what I went through.  Fear and discipline do not lead to increased productivity.  They lead to stressed, unhappy and intimidated individuals who are scared to act creatively and productively.  If Oliver Letwin and his fellow ministers want a productive, successful nation driving the economy forward, it is not fear and discipline that is needed in the workplace.  It is respect and freedom.  Only then will this country truly prosper.  In every sense of the word.

Academic libraries after the Browne Review

The actual M25 (obviously!) - via Bob McCaffrey on Flickr

I should probably have blogged more about CPD25 over the past couple of months since I started getting involved in one of the task groups.  It’s one of those things I keep meaning to blog about, things keep distracting me.  Well, yesterday I delivered my first presentation for many years at a CPD25 event so now is as good a time as any.

CPD25 is, essentially, the training arm for the M25 consortium of academic libraries.  There are a number of task groups which are each responsible for a different aspect of academic libraries.  The group I am involved in, Task Group 3, is concerned with Operational Management – covering a broad range of activities including digitisation, use of social networking and, in the case of yesterday’s event, the impact of the Browne review on academic libraries.

In the lead up to the event, I was asked by one of the organisers if I would like to talk about Voices for the Library.  Normally I leave public speaking at these events to others involved in the campaign (I am far happier pottering around in the background…causing havoc mainly), but I thought this would be a great experience for me and, as I live relatively close to London, I thought I should take on presentation duties for a change.

The event itself was fascinating.  There were speakers from a range of different libraries, including one from a private university, BPP (who, it seems, appear to be embarking on some aggressive expansion).  Having not encountered a private University library before, I was quite interested to hear what their situation was and how they saw the future post-Browne (I fear that phrase will be used a lot in the future).  It seems there are few differences between ‘them’ and ‘us’, it just seems as though they are better prepared for the ‘customer orientated’ future that we are all facing.

We also heard from Goldsmith’s College and in particular how they dealt with the student occupation before Christmas.  Without getting into the politics of the occupation, it was hard not to feel sorry for the staff who had to deal with what must have been a very difficult situation.  It was interesting to see how they relied on social media to keep up to speed with what the students were planning (chalk another one up for social media).  It was certainly interesting to hear how the occupation was handled and what lessons were learnt for next time (and I’m sure we haven’t heard the last of student occupations).

After the first two talks there was a break out session which enabled the attendees to discuss what is happening in their universities and what they felt the future held.  The common theme emerging from all these discussions could probably best be summed up by the words ‘uncertain’ and ‘challenging’.  I don’t think we will have a clear idea on what the future holds until a year down the line when, hopefully, things will become clearer.  It was certainly interesting to hear from representatives of various institutions about the kinds of challenges that they were having to face – and I think it proved helpful for those in the process of change to hear about similar challenges in other universities.

After lunch we then heard from two representatives from UEL who talked about their inspiring New Beginnings programme.  The one thing I will take away from this more than any other was the story of a current PhD student who left school with no qualifications, took a chance on the NB scheme at UEL and gained the confidence to obtain a degree at the institution before embarking on their PhD. Really amazing stuff that underlines the importance of the libraries and trained librarians in universities.

The presentation before last was a Prezi on the re-structuring that had taken place at the University of Sussex.  Sometimes I am a bit ‘meh’ about Prezis (there’s a temptation to ‘show off’ what they are capable of, which is a little distracting), but this one was simple and not too ‘showy’.  Yep, all the Prezi lovers are going to have a pop at me for those comments I’m sure.

Finally came my presentation.  I won’t talk about it too much as you can view it yourself below.  I will say, however, that I was glad to have been given the opportunity to talk about the campaign.  I haven’t delivered a presentation or stood in front of an audience since me days on a PGCE programme many, many years ago.  Fortunately I was not presenting before a classroom of teenage boys so, despite some initial reservations, I was fairly confident that the crowd wouldn’t turn nasty (yeah, I used that ‘gag’ at the start of my presentation too…shoot me please).  I was also fortunate enough to be given the opportunity to dish out the business cards I had printed out a while back, hopefully a few people will check us out now they know where to find us.  Now I have got one presentation under my belt, maybe I’ll do a few more.  Although maybe I am not quite ready for Prezi just yet.

A copy of the script is also available.

Why Niall Ferguson, Ken Livingstone and Toby Young got it wrong on national debt

It has been a while since I last wrote anything along these lines.  I think the last time I debunked some lazy journalism was when I corrected a piece by Melanie Phillips in an article for The Guardian.  But once again we have seen an example of poor information research and once again it needs to be corrected, not least because of the implications of such mis-information.  So let’s get straight into it.

The nub of the problem is a post written by Toby Young about Thursday night’s Question Time.  His particular claim is that Ken Livingstone ‘lied’ about debt and Niall Ferguson was correct.  Young writes:

On Question Time this evening, Ken Livingstone claimed that when Labour entered office in 1997 government debt as a percentage of GDP was 42% and 13 years later, when Labour left office, it stood at 40%.

Ferguson pointed out that, in fact, debt as a percentage of GDP when Gordon Brown left office was 71.3% not 40%. And he’s absolutely right, as this chart from the Office of National Statistics makes clear.

So far, so seemingly plausible.  Or is it?  Well, no.

First of all, Livingstone actually said (and you can check on the video clip above) was “when Blair won, our debt was 42%”.  This 42% figure that Livingstone introduced comes from the UK National Debt as a percentage of GDP which was 41.92% in 1997, so let’s call it 42%.  It is probably worth explaining at this point what figure government, politicians and the media refer to when they talk about “UK National Debt”.

The website UK Debt Bombshell explains:

The precise term ‘National Debt’ refers to an older definition of public debt that excludes too many liabilities to be meaningful nowadays. The official government measure of what is commonly known as the national debt is Public Sector Net Debt. In this context, public sector refers to central government, local government and publicly-owned corporations. [emphasis mine]

So, essentially, when you hear the term ‘national debt’ what is being referred to is Public Sector Net Debt.  Going back to Livingstone’s 42% reference earlier, he is talking about Public Sector Net Debt (the official government measure remember).  So Livingstone is right on this point.  Debt was 42% in 1997.

Where Livingstone goes wrong is by claiming that it was 40% when Labour were kicked out of office.  It wasn’t. It was 40% when the banking crisis started, but it was not 40% by the time of the election due to the banking crisis.  The Office for National Statistics states that:

Public sector net debt (excluding financial interventions) was £875.8 billion (equivalent to 58.0 per cent of GDP) at the end of February 2011. This compares to £729.9 billion (50.8 per cent of GDP) as at the end of February 2010.

Note that the right-hand graph refers to Public Sector Net Debt.  Remember, “public sector net debt” is the official government measure of national debt as we have already demonstrated.  So, Livingstone is wrong.  National debt was at 50.8% of GDP in February of 2010 and, using the graph as a guide, around 55% when Brown left office.

But then Ferguson claims that the figure was actually 71.3% when Brown left office, a claim repeated by Young.  So where does this figure come from?  Figures from the ONS have already demonstrated that using the official government measure of debt the figure was around 55%, so where does this 71.3% figure come from?

Young handily links to a ONS report that shows where this figure comes from.  Unfortunately for both Young and Ferguson, this is not a chart representing the UK national debt, this chart refers to general government debt, a quite different measure and not one that has ever been used to signify UK national debt.  The ONS states:

In the financial year 2009/10 the UK recorded general government net borrowing of £159.8 billion, which was equivalent to 11.4 per cent of gross domestic product (GDP).

At the end of March 2010 general government debt was £1000.4 billion, equivalent to 71.3 per cent of GDP.

This figure refers to general government gross debt which is quite different, as explained here:

General Government Gross Debt (GGGD) used by EU. is similar to Public sector net debt but excludes net debt of corporations. Also does not offset liquid assets.

So, it is not the same as the government’s official measure for national debt.  Which means that when Ferguson and Young correct Livingstone, they are right to do so (he got the 2010 figure wrong) but the figure they gave is equally incorrect in terms of the measurement of national debt (this chart demonstrates where Livingstone got his 42% figure from and charts that figure right up to 2011).  They are both talking about something completely different to Livingstone who was clearly (as demonstrated by his reference to the 1997 figure) talking about Public Sector Net Debt (the government’s official measurement of national debt – worth repeating).  So, Ferguson and Young are also both wrong.  As stated above, national debt according to the ONS was around 55% in April 2010, not 71.3%.

In summary then: Livingstone was right about national debt in 1997.  Livingstone was wrong about debt when Brown left office.  Ferguson was wrong to claim that debt was 71.3%.  And Young is wrong to repeat it.  And Young’s error is perhaps the greatest.  His wasn’t made in the heat of debate, it was made when he was at a computer and able to check his facts first before blundering in.  A simple check would have revealed to him that the ONS put UK national debt at around 55% in April 2010.

Ok, so why is this important?  It’s just a game of numbers right?  Well yes, but it matters on two fronts.  Firstly, it matters because of the justifications that are being made for the current cycle of cuts.  All the named players above have vested interests at play.  Livingstone wants to play down debt to defend Labour’s record.  Ferguson and Young want to make it sound worse that it is to defend their own ideological positions on the economic right.  Both are wrong and, as usual, the truth is between the two.  Which leads me on to the second reason why this is important.

We are told repeatedly that we live in a world where all the information you could possibly want is free for anyone and everyone to access.  That we don’t need librarians any more to point us to the information we require.  Google can do it all for us.  What we have seen here (as with the Melanie Phillips example cited earlier) is that even journalists and academics make errors when obtaining and sharing information.  And this has very serious implications when one considers the roles that both sets of professionals play in society.  In this case, both Young and Ferguson make a basic error in not understanding what national debt actually refers to.  It is an easy mistake to make.  Who doesn’t leap at the first bit of evidence they come across that defends their own ideological position?  However, the skill is to look deeper, find out what this information actually means before drawing conclusions.  It is a skill that not everyone has, but it is a skill that is essential to the role of the information professional (and, to be honest, it is surprising that an acclaimed historian failed on this score).  Non-prejudicial information retrieval and evaluation.  Remove the information professional from the equation and, as here, you are left with a separation of information from its meaning.

Of course, now Young has put this out on the Internet it is there for all to see.  If only he had asked a librarian for the national debt figure, he might not have made himself look so silly.

Oh and in case you think Young wasn’t talking about national debt (he only uses the term ‘debt’ in his blog post), here’s his comment on Livingstone’s blog post on the issue of debt:

KPMG – The driving force behind library closures?

Last June, a report by the accountancy firm KPMG was published on public sector reform.  That report caused uproar amongst librarians and library staff across the country as it claimed that:

“…giving councils total freedom on libraries could mean that they create huge social value from engaging a community in running its own library, backed up with some modern technology, whilst also saving large amounts of money on over-skilled paid staff, poor use of space and unnecessary stock”.

Since then, perhaps unsurprisingly, talk has grown of so-called ‘community libraries’ or ‘unfunded libraries’ if you prefer.  It is fairly clear that the report has been wholeheartedly embraced by the current government.  In fact, it is hard to see the difference between the policies being adopted in authorities across the country and the paragraph above from their report.  It is certainly not difficult to imagine that central government is advising local authorities to take heed of this report and implement its recommendations. Particularly given the links between this government and KPMG.

A report back in July 2009 in The Independent claimed that:

KPMG, which also holds many public sector contracts, gave the [Conservatives] donations-in-kind worth more than £100,000 since the start of last year. A single KPMG consultant working in the Department for Children, Schools and Families costs the taxpayer £1.35m over three years, a parliamentary inquiry found. The company said it donated to all three main parties and had done so for many years. However, its gifts to the Tories were up in value from £17,200 in 2007 to £74,500 last year.

Furthermore, The Times reported that:

The Conservatives have received hundreds of thousands of pounds of free accounting advice as they prepare for government, raising accusations that they are too close to contacts in the City of London.

Britain’s biggest consultancy firms — which include PricewaterhouseCoopers, Deloitte, Ernst & Young and KPMG — have seconded some of their staff to Tory MPs as the Conservatives attempt to work out how to cut Britain’s £178 billion budget deficit and decide on a new tax framework.

They certainly appear to be quite close (although it is worth pointing out that KPMG had close ties with the previous government too).  Indeed a recent meeting at the Houses of Parliament suggest that KPMG’s recommendations are being taken very  seriously by this government.

On January 25^th this year, a round-table discussion was held in a private room hosted by Ed Vaizey. The discussion (entitled “Libraries and the Big Society”) had the following items on the agenda:

• Models for community libraries
• Volunteering
• Asset transfer
• Philanthropy
• Libraries role in empowering communities
• Alternative suppliers for delivery including Mutuals and Outsourcing
• Future Libraries Programme

You can actually read the full agenda here.  I recently submitted a Freedom of Information request for the minutes for this meeting which was rejected by the DCMS.  They weighed up the pros and cons as follows:

Public interest considerations in favour of disclosure

• Public Libraries have potential impact on everyone and the greater the public interest may be in the decision-making process being transparent
• Greater transparency makes government more accountable to the electorate and increases trust
• As knowledge of the way government works increases, the public contribution to the policy making process could become more effective and broadly-based, particularly in this area where communities are being encourage to be involved in local services such as this
• The public interest in being able to assess the quality of advice being given to ministers and subsequent decision making

Public interest considerations in favour of non-disclosure

• The withheld information relates to the future guidance relating to libraries, which is not yet complete and subject to change.  Releasing may misinform public debate because we have not finalized our proposals.  The evolving nature of the information means that incorrect conclusions may be drawn, and undermine the policy formulation process. 
• Ministers and officials need to be able to conduct rigorous and candid risk assessments of their policies, including considerations of the pros and cons without there being premature disclosure, particularly regarding contentious issues, which might close off better options
• Good government depends on good decision making and this needs to be based on the best advice available and a full consideration of all the options without fear of premature disclosure
• The impartiality of the civil service might be undermined if advice was routinely made public as there is a risk that officials could come under political pressure not to challenge ideas in the formulation of policy, thus leading to poorer decision-making
• Advice should be broad based and there may be a deterrent effect on external experts or stakeholders who might be reluctant to provide advice because it might be disclosed
• There needs to be a free space in which it is possible to ‘think the unthinkable’ and use imagination, without the fear that policy proposals will be held up to ridicule
• Disclosure of interdepartmental consideration and communications between ministers may undermine the collective responsibility of the government.  Unless these considerations are protected there is likely to be a negative effect on the conduct of good government. If the public interests outlined above cannot be protected, there is a risk that decision making will become poorer and will be recorded inadequately.

Quite why public interest doesn’t trump the concerns of the DCMS in this case I am not really sure.  I shall, of course, be appealing this decision.

It seems fairly evident where this policy of unfunded libraries originates.  Whilst the government refuse to step in when local authorities engage in disproportionate cuts (unless it is in the Prime Minister’s backyard of course), it is also seemingly advising councils to make libraries a central part of the “Big Society” experiment.  This certainly seems to be reinforced by the appointment of Paul Kirby as No. 10’s new head of policy development.  According to The Guardian:

Kirby, who was appointed by Cameron on Friday, is one of the main minds behind a public service reform white paper due in the next fortnight, which the prime minister has hailed as the biggest revolution in the public sector since the 1940s.

He claims it will end a “state monopoly” of public sector services by opening contracts to outside providers.

Kirby set out his blueprint for reform in Payment for success, a paper written last year while he was at professional services company KPMG. He claims an aggressive programme of liberalisation is necessary and shares Cameron’s view that payment by results should be introduced right across the public sector “even if there is likely to be a bleeding edge in getting it right”.

Kirby proposes “the boundaries between public, private and third sector provision should melt away” and suggests “this empowerment agenda will have to be forced on to public sector organisations in the early stages to break the tendency to structural inertia”.

With one of the masterminds behind the ill-thought through KPMG report now directing policy development, it seems obvious that not only will the government not step in to halt authorities disproportionately cutting libraries, they will most likely be encouraging it and, even more worryingly, quite possibly seeking to overturn the Public Libraries Act.  They should know that librarians, library staff and library users will not allow this to happen without a fight.

Free choice without free information?

Can we make rational choices without information?

I try to avoid writing about political events on this blog as this is not really a forum for my personal political views but a blog about my observations about libraries and information in general (as well as a reflection on my studies).  However, as time goes by I guess this is going to be increasingly difficult.  As the cuts start to bite and local authorities close libraries based on spurious financial grounds, it will be increasingly difficult to avoid the topic without sounding partisan.  I’ll try, but I’m not promising anything!

Anyway, one story in the news got me thinking about information in a more general way.  Yesterday, The Guardian reported that fast food companies are being asked to ‘help write UK health policy’.  The report goes on to say:

The Department of Health is putting the fast food companies McDonald’s and KFC and processed food and drink manufacturers such as PepsiCo, Kellogg’s, Unilever, Mars and Diageo at the heart of writing government policy on obesity, alcohol and diet-related disease, the Guardian has learned.

In an overhaul of public health, said by campaign groups to be the equivalent of handing smoking policy over to the tobacco industry, health secretary Andrew Lansley has set up five “responsibility deal” networks with business, co-chaired by ministers, to come up with policies. Some of these are expected to be used in the public health white paper due in the next month.

One of the likely casualties of this (frankly bizarre) decision is traffic light labelling on food packaging.  Whilst some manufacturers have employed the system, many are opposed to such labelling (for obvious reasons, it may rather hurt their sales of processed foods).  It was recently reported that the food industry spent 1 billion euros lobbying the EU against mandatory labelling of this type.  Unsurprisingly (and somewhat depressingly), they won.

The argument is often made that this is about avoiding ‘top-down lectures’ and allowing people to decide for themselves about the food they eat without being subject to state ‘nannying’ (even children).  However, how can people make free choices without free information?  It has often puzzled me that the argument is often made that people are free to make their choices and that the state shouldn’t interfere with their fundamental right to do so.  In many ways, this is laudable.  But without providing the public with the information they need, how can we expect them to make rational choices?  Particularly when the void is filled with misleading advertisements by the food industry.

For me, I think there is a worrying trend emerging recently.  Whilst Murdoch’s paywall hasn’t exactly been a resounding success, with less than 105,000 readers actually subscribing there will be many in the newspaper industry hoping that this does come off.  And what then for those that cannot afford to subscribe to any of the newspaper content protected by paywalls?  Suddenly they will find their information sources radically reduced.  As I have written before, there can be serious consequences for a democracy when its people are unable to access information freely.

Add into this the fact that libraries all over the country are being ear-marked for closure, and there is a real problem over the horizon.  Contrary to popular belief, not everyone has access to a computer, let alone an internet connection.  Statistics released earlier this year revealed that 9.2 million people had never used the internet and 27% of households had no Internet connection at al.  These are not insignificant numbers.  There is a very real digital divide at play here, one that the politicians are not only failing to address, but are also seemingly entrenching (if not actually widening).  Commentators and politicians need to stop pretending that everyone has access to an Internet connection, or indeed have the required level of digital literacy – let’s not forget that around 56% of the population of the UK have literacy levels below a good GCSE pass.

It seems ironic that although we live in the age of the Freedom of Information Act, we seem to be regressing in the amount of information that is in the public domain.  With information increasingly seen as a commodity that has a price, we are gradually seeing information put out of reach of the average citizen.  That this recent drive to put a price on all sources of information, whether they be digital or physical, comes at a time of questioning the relevance of libraries is a worrying and disturbing trend.  Once information about our democracy is hidden away behind paywalls, requiring costly equipment with which to access it, what then for those that cannot afford to access it?  And what then for a society with an increasingly poorly informed electorate?  I’m not sure what the future holds in terms of information as a commodity, but I am sure it is not particularly ‘fair’.

Another One Breaks Free….

Pleased to see that The Guardian has published another CiF about libraries, this time by Lauren Smith (@walkyouhome).  Lauren writes:

The effect this [cuts to library services] would have on the town is huge, especially given the cancelled school development funding. Many use libraries to access the internet (almost a third of the population don’t have access at home), which even David Cameron acknowledges as essential. People in Doncaster use libraries for many reasons: to find jobs; learn ICT skills; read the news; borrow books; study; find health information; improve their literacy; and to meet people in their community. This is incredible considering the condition of the service. It is not too much of a jump to predict that with the following cuts, literacy levels will fall, unemployment will increase, health and wellbeing levels will drop and social breakdown will be more apparent.

I could not agree more Lauren.  Libraries are crucial and yet seem to be an easy target for the government and local councils.  Articles like this go a long way to getting the message out there that libraries do matter and are important for our communities and society as a whole.  I hope Lauren’s success (alongside my own) will encourage others to get writing and send articles into The Guardian CiF pages.  As I’ve said before, it is crucial for us to dominate the narrative, not them.

* There is also a Facebook group which you can join to show your support for Doncaster Libraries here.

Libraries Not ‘Failing’ But Adapting

Sam Missingham shares an interesting and absolutely spot-on comment piece by Rupert Colley on his blog at Futurebook:

Footfall. Always an important measure of success for the public library. How many customers / users step through the front door and into your library. We must, we must improve our visitor figures. For the library service, as a tool for performance management, visitor figures remain Very Important.

And then, once we have our visitor, we give them their PIN, so that next time they want to renew their books they can log onto their PC at home and do so without having to come into the library. Or if they want to check the catalogue and reserve an item – armed with their PIN they can do so – without having to come in; to access The Times from three years ago; to check that entry on Who’s Who – all without having to come in.

And now, to add to it, if they want to read that new bestseller without waiting for the waiting list to diminish they can also do this remotely.

Which is exactly the point that so many people miss when they talk about the ‘decline’ in public libraries. In actual fact, the very opposite is true, as Missingham goes on to point out:

The library service is very different from what it was when I first entered the profession two decades ago. But to simplify a difficult question with a complex answer – are libraries failing? The answer? No. They are merely adapting. And they are adapting because, to remain relevant, they have to.

Much as some people would have the general public believe that libraries are failing (funny that this is being talked up even more in an era of government cuts), the reverse is true. As my earlier stats on library usage demonstrate, usage of libraries is actually up. The important factor being that there has been a change in the way people use the service. There is no point harking back to a mythical age and seeking to argue that libraries should look to the past in order to thrive in the future. Libraries and librarians should be looking to the future. Library users already are. This is the reality. And those claiming that libraries are in decline need to actually take a moment to look at what library users are demanding, instead of pontificating about what they think is best for them.

The Public Libraries Debate

The debate over what areas of the public sector should be cut has begun in earnest.  Unsurprisingly, libraries are at the top of the hitlist.  So much so that on Newsnight on Tuesday, somebody was forced to defend libraries from “swingeing cuts” in front of a panel of three politicians/advisers.  Unfortunately, it was not someone from the library profession or a CILIP representative (although they may not have been given the opportunity to appear), so it was left to Tim Coates to defend the service.

Although I have my disagreements with Tim, I was really rather hoping that he would ride to the rescue of a service under siege as a result of prospective cuts to public services.  Sadly, there was a lack of passion or a will to go on the offensive and pick up on some of the ludicrous comments that were made in advance of his introduction (ie “who needs libraries when everyone has broadband?” and “why borrow books when we have Amazon?” – two incredibly ignorant statements).  Yes he spoke eloquently and methodically, but debates like those on Newsnight call for something a little bit more passionate and forceful.  Maybe this was not the forum that Tim Coates was led to believe it would be, but a stronger individual was needed to force home the case.  But, to be fair, at least he stood up for the service.

There are a number of issues that I have with the debate as framed on Newsnight.  For example, the idea that everyone now has broadband so that eliminates the need for libraries is a joke.  Despite the belief of one of the advisers on the program who questioned the need for libraries, not everyone has broadband and a significant proportion of the population have no internet at all.  Consequently, public libraries provide a key role in both facilitating access to information via the internet, as well as providing free internet access to help bridge the digital divide (which politicians seem to believe only exists between industrialised nations and developing ones, not within a Western nation).  Take away this important role and suddenly you have a lot of disenfranchised people with no internet access and no way of accessing the information available without recourse to a commercial provider….which costs money.  Given that those most disenfranchised would be the lowest paid in society, how can anyone morally argue that there is no longer a need for libraries to provide free internet?  Such a move would only exacerbate the disparity between the information rich and the information poor.

Furthermore, there seems to be a growing, mis-placed belief that once everyone has broadband the problem will be solved and information will be freely available to everyone.  But this is simply not the case.  Providing broadband is one part of the problem, the other is ensuring that people have the skills to use the internet properly.  As far as I can see at present, even those that do have an internet connection and consider themselves to be reasonably IT literate, still don’t know how to search the internet properly.  Many people just plump for the top result in Google rather than bothering to ensure that their search terms are appropriate and that the resource is reliable.   This includes respected journalists who seemingly fail to grasp the intricacies of search engines.  Take, for example, this piece by Evelyn Gordon:

Neither Amnesty nor HRW has issued a single press release or report on Congo so far this year, according to their web sites. Yet HRW found time to issue two statements criticizing Israel and 12 criticizing the U.S.; Amnesty issued 11 on Israel and 15 on the U.S. To its credit, HRW did cover Congo fairly extensively in 2009. But Amnesty’s imbalance was egregious: For all of 2009, its web site lists exactly one statement on Congo — even as the group found time and energy to issue 62 statements critical of Israel.

I don’t want to get into the politics of this piece, but it is one that sticks in my mind as a member of Amnesty International.  What appears to have happened here (and lets trust that the journalist isn’t being deliberately misleading) is that the journalist in question used the search term congo amnesty international and clicked on the link Congo | Amnesty International which does indeed produce one result for 2009.  However, this refers to the Republic of Congo not the Democratic Republic of Congo which is what the article itself was referring to.  A simple error in using Google has led to inaccurate information being imparted via a supposedly experienced journalist (which was then repeated by another journalist, Melanie Phillips).  If a trained journalist makes such basic errors using a renowned search engine, how can we expect the general public to do so without some training or the support of trained professionals such as librarians?  Incidentally, if you are interested, there were actually over twenty statements by Amnesty International on the DRC.  See, being trained in these things is quite useful!

Then there is the question of how libraries demonstrate their value.  Despite common beliefs, it is not simply a case of relying on verifiable statistics to determine whether a library service is performing or nor.  There are many intangibles in play when looking at how the library service meets the needs of its users.  One certainly cannot rely on issuing figures to determine whether a library is performing or not.  There are a great many functions within a library that cannot be reflected by issues: making use of public computers, accessing local studies reference materials, making informational enquiries at the library’s enquiry desk etc etc.  These interactions between the public and the library service are simply not reflected in an analysis of book issues.

Not only are book issues a poor way of assessing the delivery of the library service, footfall is also a poor measure.  While some people look at declining visits to the library service as proof that the service is no longer in as much demand as before, they overlook a number of crucial factors in why this decline has been happening.  In the past, members of the public would not only visit the library to take books out, they would also visit to renew items, make use of reference materials and to make reservations.  Now, however, these services are also provided remotely via the library website.  No longer do you need to visit the library to reserve an item or renew your books, you can do all this from the library website.  Needless to say, this obviously has a big impact on footfall.  Someone making a reservation before would have made two visits: one to place the order and one to collect.  Now they need only make one visit.  That’s a 50% decline in visits (I probably didn’t need to spell that out!).  And book renewals….before a customer would visit once to take the items out and maybe as many as four further visits to renew.  That’s a potential 80% decline in visits (this is where my maths starts to get a bit questionable so I’ll leave it at that!).

Sure, there is a possibility that there is a decline in visits due to these factors…but if this was really the case, would there not be a massive increase in accessing the library service remotely?  Well, yes.  Looking at the latest figures for accessing library websites shows that many have demonstrated a 100% increase on access compared to the previous year.  So, I would argue, that there is not a decline is usage of the library service, there is simply a change in the way the service is used.  But it does not then follow that we need to abandon libraries as they are now, and shift everything online.  This would be a disaster for the service and for society.  We need to continue to provide a highly skilled service that is able to meet the needs of the general public.  We need to continue to innovate to take advantage of the way in which people are interacting with the service in a different way.  We need to ensure that we can continue to bridge the gap between those that have access to the Internet and those that do not.  If we do not, we run the risk of becoming a society that is ill-informed and ill-equipped to prosper in the so-called “information age”.  Libraries are the barrier to this becoming reality and they need reinforcing, not dismantling.

More eBooks…..

As promised, I thought I would share the results of my recent (entirely unscientific) ebook poll.  Much as I expected, the cost of the technology (both for the readers and the ebooks themselves) was the primary concern of many who voted.  In total, around 40% of the votes cast reflected the need for cheaper ebooks and cheaper readers. Range was also a factor with 15% of votes counted suggesting that the limited range of titles at present is a hindrance to making the move to the electronic format.  A further factor was DRM (Digital Rights Management) with 13% of votes cast indicating that the removal of DRM would be desirable.   However, it was encouraging to note that only six votes flatly refused to even contemplate the idea of ebooks – although given that this poll was primarily circulated via Twitter, one has to consider the type of person who was partaking (generally tech-savvy types who would likely give serious thought to purchasing an eReader).  Consequently, it is impossible to extrapolate these results across the general population (which makes you wonder why I bothered in the first place!), but it is fair to say that there is a high degree of interest in ebooks and certainly the poll suggests that a number of people could be persuaded to buy an eReader if the price is right.  The interest is there, it is up to publishers and manufacturers to meet the demands of the consumers.

Ebooks, audiobooks and VAT

One of the factors keeping both ebooks and audiobooks high in price is the application of VAT at the full 15% rate.  Printed books have been zero rated for VAT for sometime now and it is about time that a reduction in VAT was also applied to audiobooks and ebooks.  Given that both formats have huge advantages for those who suffer from visual impairments, it seems hugely unfair that they should be penalised in this way.  The EU has already voted to reduce VAT on these items, but it is entirely optional as to whether member states apply this ruling.  In order to give the government a gentle nudge, there is currently a petition running at the No10 website urging a reduction on VAT on these items.  At present there are only 21 signatures and there needs to be over 200 for there to be an official government response, so there is some way to go to reach the target.  The petition closes on 20th November so that doesn’t give a lot of time.  I would urge people to Tweet about this poll, spread the word and get as many people as possible to sign the petition.  These technologies can be of great benefit to those who would otherwise be excluded, so I would urge everyone to support a reduction in VAT on them.

Facebook Group

Finally, I have set up an ebook Reader group on Facebook to share experiences with ebooks in whatever format they come in (including on the iPhone).  If you are interested/curious/sceptical about ebooks, feel free to join the group and share your thoughts.  With the imminent release of the Kindle over here, ebooks are going to get bigger and bigger and there will be much to ponder in terms of how their growth will affect libraries and retailers in the future.