The income divide and its impact on digital exclusion

Posted on by
5

Some are in the fast lane whilst others are left behind (image c/o bottleleaf on Flickr).

The internet has massively changed the information landscape.  It’s development has led to an explosion in the availability of information.  There is more information available to the average citizen now than there has ever been.  However, whilst it is accessible for many, there is still a significant proportion of people who either do not have the equipment or the skills required to take advantage of this development.

Take, for example, the most recent Internet Access Quarterly Update for Q4 published by the Office for National Statistics (ONS).  These quarterly reports produce a wealth of information about the state of the digital divide in the UK and if you are interested in understanding the extent of this divide, they make essential reading.  Included amongst this report are internet access statistics in relation to age, gender, disability and earnings.  If you believe that everyone has access to the internet, these statistics provide a welcome reminder that this is far from the case.

The statistics in relation to earnings particularly demonstrate the extent of the divide between those that can be defined as ‘information rich’ and ‘information poor’.  As you can see from the graph below, there is a stark difference between higher and lower wage earners.  As you move up the scale from low to high earners, the proportion of those who have never used the internet (not just do not have access at home, but have never even used the internet) drops dramatically.  So much so that the proportion of people earning over £800 per week who have never accessed the internet dramatically drops to virtually 0% in each subsequent pay scale.

%age of those who have never used the internet by gross weekly wage.

Now, 8% of low earners may not seem a significant figure, but it is still a sizeable proportion considering this represents a section of society that has never accessed the internet. And when it is compared to the proportion of higher earners it is clear that there is a very substantial divide.  But, of course, the higher you go up the payscale the more likely you are to have the funds to be able to afford the equipment.  It is particularly easy for higher earners to assume that everyone has access to the internet or has at least used it.  After all, if everyone around you is connected, why should you believe that there are people out there who are not?  Which perhaps explains why it is always middle-class commentators who argue that libraries are irrelevant in the age of the internet.  Their friends all have a connection so of course that means everyone has.

The nature of this divide raises a number of concerns.  For example, given that 8% of very low earners have never utilised the internet, what is the likely impact of transferring the benefits process online?  In these times of increasing unemployment, this is likely to be a very real issue for many.  Whilst assurances are made that a “minority” of claimants will be dealt with face-to-face, can we be sure that those without access will not be severely disadvantaged due to both a lack of access and skills?  As I mentioned in a previous post, literacy and numeracy levels are such that, even if access was provided there are still barriers to overcome.

This also raises questions about the programme of library closures that are taking place across the country.  For those earning less than £200 per week there are a multitude of concerns that take priority over the ownership of a computer and an internet connection, not least putting food on the table.  As long as their gross income remains so low, it is highly unlikely that they are going to invest in the technology required to connect to the internet.  Furthermore, given their restrictive budgets, it is highly unlikely that they would be prepared to spend any of their money on making use of high street internet facilities if doing so requires payment, no matter how seemingly insignificant the fee.  Which is where libraries come in.

Admittedly, public libraries probably haven’t been as successful as they might be in attracting users from the lower end of the income scale.  However, they do provide free internet access (in most cases) and trained staff to support them.  For people on such a restrictive budget, the local public library is their best and most feasible means of connecting to the internet.  Take that away and there is nothing left for them.  Yes they can pay for access via another service provider (as the free market would expect them to), but when you have a choice between paying the bills and putting food on the table or connecting to the internet, it is not hard to see which side they would come down on (despite the economic benefits of access to the internet – which I’ll come to in a later post no doubt!).

The question for public libraries and library authorities is how to address this problem and how to ensure that they do not further exclude entire communities (and yes, it is depressing that this question is still being posed).  Closing libraries certainly isn’t the answer and will not only lead to entrenching the digital divide, but will also kick the ladder away for many making it harder for the currently disconnected to join the ranks of the “information rich”.  Furthermore, there is a risk of this being entrenched across the generations.  As has been demonstrated, children with internet access at home are at a significant advantage to those without, achieving better grades and, therefore, enhancing their prospects.  For those on low incomes then, the impact of the divide will also be felt by the next generation, destined to remain excluded from the connected majority, harming their future prospects and consolidating their isolation.

Clearly, if as many as 8% of low earners have never used the internet, public libraries have been unsuccessful in getting this particular section of the community connected.  But the failure to attract the socially excluded is something that libraries have particularly struggled with for many years (sub required).  Despite the intentions of the People’s Network to connect the socially and digitally excluded, it is clear that many remain excluded.  But if libraries are closed, how will this problem be addressed?  Will it just result in permanent isolation of the unconnected? Condemning generations to digital exclusion.  Shouldn’t more effort be put into public libraries getting the “information poor” connected?  And, if so, how?  Sophisticated social networking marketing will clearly not have any impact on this section of society.  So what strategies can and should be employed?  Public libraries are in the ideal position to connect the unconnected.  Closing them suggests we have given up and are prepared to accept there will always be the connected and the excluded.

Is it time to boycott Amazon?

Posted on by
11

Amazon Kindle - adding fuel to the fire? (Image c/o oskay on Flickr)

Yes, I am serious.  No, this is not just provocation for the sake of it.  Is it actually time to boycott Amazon?  Much as I want to say no (I use Amazon as much as anyone for my online shopping), maybe now is the time to actually break the habit and look elsewhere for my online retail needs.  A number of stories recently have led me to this conclusion and, unless I can be persuaded otherwise, I cannot my view changing.

Now, perhaps I should preface this with an acknowledgement that I have not exactly been a cheer-leader for Amazon in the recent past.  I have written often (boringly so, some might say) about my reluctance to purchase a Kindle and to say I am not a big fan of their ebook business model (it lends itself far too readily to monopoly), is somewhat of an understatement.  So perhaps the fact that I have come to this conclusion has come as no surprise.  However, as I mentioned, I have long used Amazon to purchase music, films, books, Christmas presents etc etc.  I have, to all intents and purposes, given up shopping for such items in the high street.  If I want a film or a CD, Amazon is always my first point of call. But maybe not for much longer.

The first of the stories that has prompted this re-think is the news that, despite £3bn generated sales in the UK last year, Amazon has paid no UK corporation tax. Not a bean.  Incidentally, it is worth pointing out that despite this government’s argument that reducing corporation tax to 22% would help the economy, Luxembourg (where Amazon is based in Europe) has a rate of 28.8%.  The Guardian reports:

UK sales over the past three years, according to the SEC filings, were between £7.6bn and £10.3bn. If the same profit margin was applied, this would have generated taxable profits of £266m-£360m and yielded notional UK corporation tax of up to £100m.

However, in the nine years between 2003 and 2011, the UK-registered company has reported a cumulative net tax bill of just £3m – of which £1.9m was incurred in 2011. This is not the tax actually paid to HMRC; that information is not available because the UK company is not required to produce a cash flow statement.

Whilst Amazon are entirely within their rights to do this (no allegations of criminality have been made), it is disturbing to see how much money is draining out of the country to the benefit of the online retailer.  Every time a purchase is made at Amazon, potential tax revenues are leaving the country.  At a time of austerity and public spending cuts, can this really be justifiable?  After all, purchasing the same goods from another retailer based in the UK would ensure that money remains in the economy and result in an increase in tax revenues.  With that in mind, can we really argue the case against public sector cuts whilst also purchasing goods from a company that effectively leads to reduced revenue for the government and therefore reduce spending capability?  Should we not be acting as ‘ethical’ consumers and supporting businesses that to contribute their fair share of the burden?

And it’s not just tax revenues that have resulted in falling out of love with Amazon.  In September last year, one investigation revealed the conditions that their workforce endures in a warehouse in Lehigh Valley, Pennsylvania.  Local newspaper, The Morning Call alleged that:

Workers said they were forced to endure brutal heat inside the sprawling warehouse and were pushed to work at a pace many could not sustain. Employees were frequently reprimanded regarding their productivity and threatened with termination, workers said. The consequences of not meeting work expectations were regularly on display, as employees lost their jobs and got escorted out of the warehouse. Such sights encouraged some workers to conceal pain and push through injury lest they get fired as well, workers said.

Whilst long, I’d certainly recommend reading the full article to see the kinds of conditions workers had to endure working at the LeHigh Valley warehouse.  Again, if these allegations are indeed accurate, I would find it very hard to continue purchasing my goods from a retailer that allegedly engages in such activity.

And, of course, there is the uneasy relationship between Amazon and public libraries.  Unsurprisingly given their Kindle business model, it’s not a  good relationship, certainly from the perspective of libraries.  In fact, as one blogger has put it, Ebook Readership Explodes; Amazon Strengthens Attack on Public Libraries.  In the article, Thad McIlroy reveals that 16 of the best selling Kindle titles are exclusive to Amazon (one for bilbary to ponder).  Narrowing it down to 13 authors (see the article for the explanation), McIlroy points out how many titles by these others are available via Overdrive:

What about the ebooks, I sense you wondering. Amazon makes its Kindle ebooks available to 11,000 public libraries (including Kansas) via OverDrive. Nope, not The Amazon 13. Not a single title was listed.  Not even the mega-bestselling Stephen Covey book.  The only member of The Amazon 13 with any titles on OverDrive is the late Kurt Vonnegut, and then only three of his books, The Sirens of Titan, Cat’s Cradle and Slaughter-House Five. Surely they offer Player Piano, God Bless You, Mr. Rosewateror Breakfast of Champions? Nope.

It’s enough to make you wonder whether Amazon would be quite happy to see the end of the public library service (wonder is perhaps putting it mildly).  It seems fairly clear that Amazon sees public libraries as an obstruction to its plans.  It wants complete dominance of the book market and there seems little doubt its ultimate goal is to supersede the library service with its own lending model.  A lending model that can encourage ‘patrons’ to purchase more items from the retailer, creating effectively a captive market through the Kindle.  Offer books for free for a limited time via Kindle and it doesn’t take much to turn that into a future ebook sale.

So, allegations of tax avoidance, alleged poor working conditions for their warehouse staff and a seeming unwillingness to co-operate with libraries.  It doesn’t look good.  Whilst I have been a frequent shopper at Amazon over the years, I am afraid the time has come to give Amazon a wide-berth wherever possible.  Sorry Amazon, I’m just not that into you any more.

Surveillance in a democratic society

Posted on by
Reply

Time to breakdown the surveillance state? (Image c/o Caneles on Flickr.)

Despite the initial belief by some that it was an elaborate April Fool’s joke, it has become clear that government proposals to monitor email and social networking are very real:

Ministers are to introduce a new law allowing police and security services to extend their monitoring of the public’s email and social media communications, the Home Office has confirmed.

It is expected that the new system will allow security officials to scrutinise who is talking to whom and exactly when the conversations are taking place, but not the content of messages.

Yet another attempt to strengthen the surveillance state within the UK and weaken hard won civil liberties.  And it is not clear that this legislation is even required to deal with the problem which it claims to resolve. As David Davis MP has pointed out, current legislation is sufficient to deal with any existing need to monitor an individual perceived as a ‘threat’.

And it is not just the fact that the legislation is unnecessary that calls into question government proposals.  As pointed out in the Telegraph today, the plans are ‘practically impossible’. Trefor Davies, Chief Technology Officer at business internet service provider Timico, points out the obvious:

“The problem is that it is too easy to avoid detection on the internet. Proxy services provide anonymity for web users – Google “free proxy server” and you will find 33million results,” said Davies. “A culture of anonymity online means such people could not be targeted for copyright-infringing activities under the Digital Economy Act (eg music downloading) and we would be making it easier for people to go undetected when doing indisputably bad things such as accessing illegal child abuse material. More prosaically, proxy servers are also often the source of malware.”

So illiberal (and where are the Liberal Democrats on this issue?) and ‘practically impossible’.  One wonders why exactly the government are pursuing this policy, particularly when Tory minister in the (very recent) past have been so keen to publicly demonstrate their party’s opposition to state surveillance.

But there is a further issue here.  This government have repeatedly claimed that this is (or will be) the most transparent government in British history.  Transparency is supposedly at the heart of government policy.  Despite this, we have seen increasing attacks on the Freedom of Information Act.  Furthermore, we have witnessed government ministers, such as Michael Gove, challenging a ruling by the ICO that private emails allegedly related to departmental business must be disclosed.

And herein lies the problem.  There are increasing efforts by the state to prevent the electorate from gaining access to information about the workings of government whilst simultaneously attempting to obtain more information from us.  Increasingly it appears that politicians are no longer answerable to us, we are answerable to them.  This claim for more information from us whilst simultaneously wishing to restrict access to information from them is the clearest signal yet of how the power relationship has shifted in recent years.  We should be demanding greater surveillance of the state rather than accepting greater surveillance of us.  Because, in a democratic society, it should be us holding them to account rather than the other way round.

Is this the kind of help public libraries need?

Posted on by
8

bilbary - the great hope for UK public libraries?

Last week a new ebook service was launched in America (due to go live in the UK next month). Bilbary intends to act as a rival to both Amazon and Apple in the delivery of ebooks. According to their website, Bilbary aims to “offer all the ebooks in the world” adding 750,000 titles in the coming months. Given some of the models currently being employed in the ebook market (I’m thinking specifically of Amazon here), it seems hard to believe that this aim is possible. If so, it could be an interesting addition to the ebook marketplace. But there is more to this than the news that there is a new ebook provider entering the market. The man behind the service is none other than former Waterstones MD, Tim Coates.

This, for me, is a particularly interesting development given my history with Mr Coates on the topic. For some time I have been advocating the introduction of ebooks to public libraries. Indeed, I have had many arguments with Coates on just this matter. Whilst I strongly believed that libraries should meet the needs of their users and offer an ebook service, Coates was less keen on the idea (this thread being a case in point). Now, obviously, a person can change their mind, but this does seem like an amazing about-face in such a short space of time. Particularly as this new service also intends to “increase the availability of ebooks to library patrons”. But this isn’t even the interesting bit.

On Friday, The Independent revealed that:

The dire position led Mr Coates to pledge part of Bilbary’s UK profits to individual campaigns to save libraries under threat, bypassing the official channels. “Saving these libraries is more important than engaging with the dysfunctional system,” he said.

The project is still in its early stages, and it is unclear which libraries will benefit and how much money will become available. “We’ll put in as much as we can,” Mr Coates said. “We want to make a point. The library system in Britain is not working.”

And not only funnelling money to individual campaigns campaigning to save libraries (not of itself a bad thing), but also to community groups actually running libraries, as revealed in The Bookseller:

Consequently, in the UK, Coates said Bilbary would “try to find a way to raise the same money” to help campaign groups across the country save libraries from closure. “Instead of spending it with the official library service, we will work with groups trying to operate and save individual libraries, like Kensal Rise,” Coates said.

Unsurprisingly, reaction to the news was mixed. Some were highly supportive:

I'll give money to save libraries, ex-Waterstones boss pledges http://t.co/YTyvOWye power to Tim Coates, the libraries champion.
March 23, 2012 10:04 am via Tweet ButtonReplyRetweetFavorite
@adollarmore
Anne Dolamore

But there were also concerns that profits from US libraries might be funnelled towards public library campaign groups in the UK:

Am I the only one who thinks its wrong to make a profit off US libs then donate that money to UK libs? Bit like robbing Peter to pay Paul.
March 25, 2012 12:57 pm via HootSuiteReplyRetweetFavorite
@librarianbyday
Bobbi Newman

Whilst there have been assurances that only UK profits may be used in this way, there is clearly concern regarding the extent to which business with American libraries (already stretched for funding) might inadvertently result in funding being channelled towards UK public libraries and, in particular, volunteer groups running these libraries. But even if only UK funds are used in this way, there are still many valid concerns.

It is important to note, at this stage, that Coates has some valid concerns about the state of UK public libraries (emphasis on the word ‘some’). The whole situation is a bit of a mess at present (to put it mildly). Ed Vaizey might as well be dubbed Ed Vaguely for his lack of vision and understanding of the value of public libraries. Councillors clearly don’t seem to have a clue about what a 21st century library service looks like. And as for the Society of Chief Librarians (“Leading the development of public libraries” no less), well, even the Secretary of that body could not bring themselves to engage in a day of celebration of libraries, a service they should be promoting at every opportunity.

The Society of Chief Librarians - leading the development of public libraries (allegedly).

But, that is not to say that there are not some legitimate concerns about the support that Coates is proposing.

Whilst it is laudable to offer financial aid to those fighting library closures, there are very real concerns about offering such aid to those communities forced into running their local library because the authority decided they were an unnecessary burden. Firstly, it will do little to dissuade councils from forcing communities to run their library service. The introduction of another form of financial support for communities will only encourage councillors to believe that communities have plenty of options before them to obtain funding. Furthermore, it may encourage community groups to think that running the library themselves is a viable option if another revenue stream is opened up to them.

There are two things existing community libraries are screaming out for at the moment. The first is funding, particularly as we find ourselves in a period of both mass privatisation and a rapid increase in the number of new charities formed to take up delivery of services that the government have cut. Between 2000 and 2008 the number of new charities formed each year was at around the 4000 mark. After the banking crisis in 2008, this number rocketed to nearly 7000 new charities each year between 2009-11 (see chart below – figures taken from the Charity Commission website). This rapid growth in new charities obviously puts pressure on community libraries run as charities as more charities equals more competition for charitable donations.

Number of new charities per annum. Notice big increase since 2008.

The second thing is expertise. Community libraries are obviously run by volunteers who are doing whatever they can to keep their service running. However, they generally have very little professional support. Very quickly after taking over the delivery of a library service, they find that there are a whole series of complex questions that need resolving, from library management systems to stock supply and everything in-between. All of which rather begs the question, if Coates is prepared to put up some funding, is he also prepared to offer his ‘expertise’? Will financial aid come with certain conditions? Or will the money be provided no questions asked? Will there even be enough funds generated to distribute amongst local campaigns and community libraries?

There are a lot of questions that need answering in regard to the proposals put forward by Coates and Bilbary. Whilst the intentions may be honourable, there are some concerning elements that need resolving. Whilst local authorities, national government and the SCL have arguably failed public libraries over the past few years, I am not entirely convinced that these proposals provide the best alternative. At a time when library campaigners need to unite to fight library cuts and closures, we certainly do not need to provide local authorities with any more encouragement to wash their hands of local libraries and force them upon their local communities. Whilst the intentions are good, I am unconvinced that this move would be a good one for public libraries.

NHS Risk Register would “mislead the public debate”

Posted on by
Reply

Below is the response I received from my local MP (Julian Brazier) after writing to express my concerns about both the NHS reforms proposed by the government and the refusal of the government to release the risk register.  Note particularly:

“The information contained in the risk registers is integral to government policy-making.  To release these documents would damage the ability of Ministers to receive accurate advice, mislead the public debate and be detrimental to the public interest.”

So much for that transparency agenda…(click to view full screen)

 

Julian Brazier Letter

View more documents from Ian Clark.

Speech on behalf of Voices for the Library at the Speak up for Libraries rally

Posted on by
1

Time to Speak up for Libraries (image c/o Shrieking Tree on Flickr).

I’d like to thank Gary Green and Nicky for their help in putting this together and, of course, thanks to all my colleagues at Voices for the Library for their support.

In August 2010, a group of us got together and formed Voices for the Library.  The intention was to highlight the positive role libraries provide and create an online space for everyone who loves libraries to share their stories and experiences of the value of public libraries.

However, we have found ourselves in a position where we constantly have to defend them against those in power who do not seem to understand their value. We’ve seen local campaigns emerge throughout the country in response to these cuts, with local campaigners fighting their own corner with passion & determination. In many cases, it appears that they are fighting for their local libraries against authorities who do not understand the purpose of libraries, and do not understand how libraries and trained library staff benefit library users, the local community, local economy and the UK as a whole. Many of these campaigners have been put into a position where they are effectively acting as superintendent to their own library service, despite this being the responsibility of Jeremy Hunt & Ed Vaizey. 

We welcome the fact that an Inquiry is currently underway to examine library closures and we hope that this leads to securing the future of library services, including the re-introduction of library standards, despite Ed Vaizey’s statement that the Government has no intention of reintroducing them.

Ultimately, what the government seem to be overlooking is that libraries are important.  They’re vital in a democratic society where access to information facilitates the democratic process.  They’re vital for any sort of society that values education, in all of its forms. This includes teaching people how to use computers, how to apply for their tax disks online, how to apply for jobs and seize the opportunities that the rest of us take for granted.  The difficulty is that the people making the decisions aren’t the ones who need this help.  They’re the ones who were well educated as children, who grew up in homes where books were present and available, who started using computers when they became widely available and know exactly who to ask for help.  These are the people who if they need a book, will buy a book.  They’re the people who have bought books for their children.  What they don’t see are the people who have grown up without books, without the ethos that education is valuable and useful.  They don’t see the people who are in desperate need of jobs, who move to new places and need a cornerstone.  And they don’t see that for thousands and thousands of people, the library, and the librarians who staff them, are essential.  They might not be essential to them today.  It might not be tomorrow.  But their very presence is essential.

And what has the government done?  Across the board they have held up their hands and blamed the councils.  With the introduction of academy status for many schools, they have held up their hands and blamed the schools. And yet we’re told that every child should read 50 books a year.  Where will they get these books?  We’re told that standards in IT are woefully inadequate, but where can children, parents, adults, the elderly, access a computer if they don’t have one at home?  We can all afford computers now, the ministers tell us.  Books are cheap. Broadband is widely available.  But when it is widely publicised that in many areas, families are having to choose between buying food and heating their houses, even that which is cheap is utterly unaffordable. 

I leave you with the words of Michelle, one of the many people who have shared their love for libraries on our website:

“Libraries are not only an integral part of our society, they are the only place in any community where you can find all ages, and all walks of life coming together to utilise their services. Everyone is welcome, and there is something in them for absolutely everyone. I doubt there is a single person alive that couldn’t walk into a library and find something that they like, even if it is their Internet services. 

“So how is it that, in times such as these, when literacy is such an important factor in our lives and dropping at an alarming rate, that the government can even consider closing such important institutes? Surely we need libraries now more than ever before? We need to be encouraging their use, not closing them down. We need to be looking at saving them, keeping them open for future and current generations to use, not feeding them to the dogs. Because if we let them close our libraries, then we will never get them back.” 

Thank you.

Why I’m speaking up for libraries

Posted on by
2

Speak up for Libraries - March 13th.

This coming Tuesday (13th March) I will be joining library campaigners from across the country at the Speak up for Libraries rally and lobby of parliament. For the past two years libraries across the country have been victim to disproportionate and savage cuts to their budgets accompanied by a surge in deprofessionalisation as libraries are forced upon communities.  There is no doubt about it, public libraries are facing their greatest challenge since the introduction of the 1964 Public Libraries and Museums Act.

So why do I think this is important?  I think libraries provide an essential service for many in society.  Despite the widespread belief that libraries are no longer relevant due to the arrival and growth of the internet, a substantial proportion of the population do not have access to the internet.  For many, the local public library is the only place where they can get online and access the wealth of information that the rest of us take for granted.  And it’s not just about access to information.  There are substantial economic and educational benefits for those that are connected.  From job applications to discounted goods, there are undoubted benefits and opportunities for those less well off in society.

Furthermore, in a world where we are increasingly expected to pay for services that were once accepted as basic human rights, libraries offer a final bulwark against attempts to monetise information.  There is no charge for access to the information held by a library.  Library cards are free and provide users with access to a wealth of resources, many of which are not available on the internet (hard to believe I know, but not everything can be obtained via a Google search).  And even if you don’t have a library card, you can still drop into the library at any time and make use of their resources.  All of this provided without prejudice or bias.  When you request information at your local public library you will not receive information based on the prejudices of a corporate sponsor.  You will not be judged.  You will not be misled.  You will be provided with the information you require without question, without prejudice.

Libraries have not lost their relevance (image c/o Landeshauptstadt Stuttgart on Flickr)

It’s not just information provision and technology that make libraries so important.  Libraries play an important role in developing literacy standards.  If you really want to aid your child’s development, a regular trip to the library should be central to any parent’s weekly schedule.  Not only is it essential, it makes economic sense too (on one trip I calculated a saving of £80).  Keeping your child in books is certainly not cheap and encouraging your child to explore new worlds free from the constraints of tight family budgets (particularly in the current economic climate) will reap substantial benefits in the long term.

There is another reason why I think this is important however.  It is not just about defending libraries from a pernicious assault, important though this undoubtedly is.  The roles of the professional librarian and the paid library assistant are also being assaulted by this current drive of cuts to library services.  We are seeing a degree of deprofessionalisation of the service on a scale that has no precedent.  The belief has taken hold that anyone can run a library.  As a result, we are seeing authorities slash funding and expecting communities to take over the provision of the service on a voluntary basis.  Running a library is so simple, according to local authorities, that people should be able to provide the service without training, without experience and without pay.

Time for Vaizey to listen and act (image c/o IR Glover on Flickr).

The doctrine of deprofessionalisation has now firmly taken root and has spread throughout our network of libraries.  So deeply has it become ingrained in the library narrative that it is threatening to spread across sectors.  It is not just public libraries that have become afflicted, school libraries are also under threat due to budget cuts and no statutory requirement to provide them.  Job losses have already been witnessed across both the HE and FE sectors in recent years as budgets are slashed and libraries are seen as a soft target due to the belief that the provision of the internet is sufficient, even if the individual’s skills are not.  At this rate, will there even be a profession left in our schools, public libraries or universities?  I hope for the best, but I fear for the worst.  But I cannot let the fear paralyse me from taking action, which is why I will be making my voice heard on Tuesday.

If you want your voice to be heard, join us (if you can) at the rally and lobby.  You can find more details here.  If you are unable to attend, please consider writing to your MP to show your support for libraries and request that they support early day motion 2817.  Now more than ever we need to speak up for libraries.

Government refuses to publish NHS risk register

Posted on by
Reply

Transparency is certainly not at the heart of Lansley's department (image c/o NHSE on Flickr).

Yesterday it emerged that the government lost an appeal against the information commissioner’s ruling that the NHS risk register be made public.  However it appears that, despite this ruling, the battle for the publication of this register is far from over with government officials confirming to the The Guardian that the ruling will be ignored and the register will remain unpublished.

This is a deeply troubling move and finally kills the idea that this government is serious when it says it will usher in a ‘new era of transparency‘.  It is clear that it is business as usual in Westminster. In advance of such a critical bill that will result in the effective dismantling of our national health service, it is absolutely vital that this information is made public to enable proper scrutiny of the top-down reorganisation proposed by this government.

It is essential that pressure is applied to our representatives to ensure that both the register is published and the bill is dropped.  It is a dangerous precedent for the government to set in ignoring the ruling of the Information Commissioner’s Office.  How many other institutions will ignore the rulings of the ICO on the basis that the government has done so?  We are not so much entering a new era of transparency as a new era of state secrecy and corruption.  It is incumbent on all of us to ensure the government is held to account and that it abides by its obligations under the Freedom of Information Act, not to mention its broader obligations to the electorate who gave no democratic mandate for such an assault on our health service.

Be sure to write to your MP and make this absolutely clear to them.  You can get their contact details from They Work For You.  If we don’t hold them to account, who will?

 

The police, privatisation and accountability

Posted on by
Reply

Will we be able to hold a privatised police force to account? (Image c/o visual.rebellion on Flickr)

At the end of last week it was revealed that West Midlands and Surrey police were offering £1.5bn contracts that would allow private firms to both investigate crime and detain suspects. According to The Guardian:

West Midlands and Surrey have invited bids from G4S and other major security companies on behalf of all forces across England and Wales to take over the delivery of a wide range of services previously carried out by the police.

The contract is the largest on police privatisation so far, with a potential value of £1.5bn over seven years, rising to a possible £3.5bn depending on how many other forces get involved.

It goes without saying that this move is highly controversial and, to be frank, disturbing on a number of levels.

Ever since the election, David Cameron has made it clear that one of his chief goals in office is to reduce the size of the state on the basis that we cannot afford to maintain the level of state funding required to maintain public services (I won’t get into the economic arguments around this here, I’m no economist). In July last year, Cameron launched the Open Public Services White Paper claiming that:

“The old dogma that said Whitehall knows best – it’s gone. There will be more freedom, more choice and more local control. Ours is a vision of open public services.”

The rhetoric has moved on in recent months to an outright attack on defenders of public sector services and a strident defence of big business, arguing:

“In recent months we’ve heard some dangerous rhetoric creep into our national debate that wealth creation is somehow anti-social, that people in business are somehow out for themselves.”

According to The Telegraph:

The Prime Minister also spoke out against the growing “anti-business snobbery” towards large firms that claimed money-makers had “no inherent moral worth like the state does”.

Of course this is nothing more than a straw man argument that has little to do with the real issues at the heart of the debate: transparency and accountability.

With the advent of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, came greater transparency at the heart of the institutions which we fund and, effectively, own. Whilst the Act is far from perfect, it enables citizens to obtain information about state institutions which can be used to effectively hold them to account. Whilst the political establishment have long been wary of introducing such a bill (and indeed even the last government regretted it), it was long overdue. The right of citizens to know how their institutions are run should be absolutely fundamental to any civilised, democratic society. And herein lies the problem.

Just at a time when UK citizens have access to more information about state institutions than ever before, there is a steady assault on this access to information. On the one hand we have the growing attacks on the Freedom of Information Act, on the other we have increasing efforts by central government to further the privatisation agenda. Privatisation would, of course, mean services no longer falling under the scope of the Freedom of Information Act.

This is worrying in itself across the board, let alone in terms of the police force. An effective democracy demands transparency and accountability. Without transparency you do not have an effective democracy. Transparency should be absolutely central to the delivery of all public services but particularly in the police force. Whilst the police serve us they should also be held to account by us. Put the police in the hands of the private sector and they are held to account by their shareholders, not the general public.

Opposition to privatisation isn’t about the state sector being inherently ‘good’ whilst the private sector is inherently ‘bad’. It’s about taking power away from the people and placing it in the hands of shareholders and businessmen. There are precedents for societies that placed public services in the hands of the unelected and unaccountable few. Democracy in those societies suffered as a result. This isn’t about ‘inherent moral worth’, it’s about transparency and accountability. It is about democracy.

The Digital and Literacy Divides

Posted on by
1

If people do not have the skills, how can we be sure they find the 'right' information online? (Image c/o Landeshauptstadt Stuttgart on Flickr.)

Over 18 months ago, I wrote an article for The Guardian website about the need for libraries in the digital age.  One of the key points in my piece was that IT literacy is as important as the provision of access to IT.  Whilst possessing the skills to utilise IT is clearly vital, underpinning such skills are basic literacy standards.  After all, if you do not meet certain literacy standards, how can you ever hope to develop a degree of IT literacy?  The two things work hand-in-hand.  Whilst there is a degree of compensation for literacy skills (Google’s “did you mean..” function for example), a distinct lack of literacy skills will severely hamper anyone from exploiting the internet to their advantage.

Three years ago, the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) claimed that literacy levels in the UK represented a ‘dismal picture’.  In 2010, the Head of Ofsted claimed that standards of reading and writing amongst 11 year olds fell “stubbornly short” of achievable standards.  According to the National Literacy Trust, 5.2 million people in England (approximately 1 in 10) can be described as “functionally illiterate” (ie would not be able to pass an English GCSE and have literacy levels at or below an 11 year old).  For those 5.2 million people, the provision of a computer and internet access in their home would simply be of no benefit to them.  Clearly, access is not the only issue, there needs to be a degree of support.

Today a new charity, National Numeracy, claimed that ‘millions’ of people struggle to understand a payslip or a train timetable.  The figures appear to have been drawn from the Skills for Life survey.  Personally, I am a little sceptical about these figures, not least because they are a new charity and making such claims does much to raise awareness of themselves amongst the general public.  Clearly they have done an excellent job as their claims have been all over the news websites (and now this blog).  But if we are to take the report at face value, then 17 million people in the UK have numeracy skills below those needed for the lowest grade at GCSE.  Chances are, provided this figure is accurate, a significant proportion of those 17 million people will experience difficulties both obtaining and interpreting data online.

Whilst this is clearly troubling, the most interesting aspect of the story comes from a YouGov poll for the charity.  According to the findings of the poll (and again it is sensible to be slightly sceptical about such polls):

4 in 5 (80%) would feel embarrassed to tell someone they were bad at reading & writing, but less than 3 in 5, or just over a half (56%), would feel the same about telling someone they were bad at maths.

Once more, there is a problem here that simple access cannot resolve.  But then there is also a problem in terms of support and how this can be provided.

One of the key institutions in addressing the concerns of the digital divide are libraries.  They provide free access for those who do not have a computer or internet connection at home as well as skilled staff in order to support them.  According to the latest figures, around 8.2 million people have never used the internet.  Paired with the figures claimed for literacy and numeracy levels, there are a significant number of people who are clearly unable to exploit the internet to its fullest and reap the economic and social benefits.

But herein lies the problem.  There is a perception that because people are sitting at a computer and appear to be comfortable using it, that they are using it effectively and to their best advantage.  As is apparent from the poll findings, many people would not like to admit that they struggle with reading and writing.  Which begs the question, how many people using a computer in a library (or anywhere else for that matter) would be prepared to admit they experience difficulties with their reading and writing and needed support?  How many would just carry on without requesting assistance thinking that they are getting what they require?  Furthermore, how can this best be addressed?  Should staff who are available to assist wait until they are approached by someone?  Or should they be taking a proactive approach?  Is it satisfactory to assume that if they are using the computer they probably know what they are doing?  Or should an interventionist strategy be adopted?

From my experience it is a difficult situation to judge.  We would often wait until we were approached before providing library users with assistance.  But with literacy standards at the levels supposedly reported, how many people use the computers in a public space, fail to make use of the resource fully and leave with second rate information because they aren’t confident in asking for assistance, or are unaware that the standard of information that they did obtain was poor?  How can we be sure that the playing field is levelled so that those without the skills are not disadvantaged?  If 80% of people do feel embarrassed to tell someone they have trouble reading and writing, I’m not really sure what the answer is.  But I do think an answer is fundamental if we are to ensure that the digital divide is closed and we ensure true equal access for all.