Informationoverlord

“A good library will never be too neat, or too dusty, because somebody will always be in it, taking books off the shelves and staying up late reading them.” Lemony Snicket

I’ve writing so much about libraries recently that anyone coming across this blog might confuse me with a librarian. Oh, no, wait …

If nothing else Libraries do seem to be getting a bit of press and that can only be a good thing, right? Well, yes actually. Whilst they are only in the press again because our Libraries are facing their biggest challenge in many decades as a result of the economic situation the country finds itself in, this also proves a good opportunity for reiterating why they are an important part of our society ( ‘big’ or otherwise) and why it’s not just about books.

A couple of weeks ago new culture minister Ed ‘champion of libraries’ Vaizey set out where he see libraries playing a role in the ‘big society’, and an alliance of grass-roots library campaign groups joining together to launch a national Library Charter.

Let’s start with Mr Vaizey.

Like all good ministers he mainly talks a good talk. He declares that he wants to be a ‘champion’ for public libraries: “I am a genuine fan and I think others – in central and local government, and more members of the public, in fact – should recognise and exploit the potential of libraries.”

I think very few of us who have ever been involved in public libraries would disagree with this statement. This is the heart of the argument – not just highlighting the huge contribution libraries already contribute to our society but also exploring and exploiting the ‘potential’ of libraries to contribute even more. Indeed, Vaizey praises libraries successes “Almost 80% of 11-15 year olds visit a library and children’s borrowing continues to increase year on year. For many areas of the country there are tremendous success stories as library visits increase during the recession.” And yet cuts will mean these resources that are additionally relevant and helpful during economic downturns are going to be facing closure by councils across the country who’ll see them as an easy cost saving to meet their budget cut targets.

He continues: “I want libraries to be at the heart of the digital agenda, which is absolutely intrinsic to libraries’ information role.” It might have been an idea for the coalition government not to go back on funding recommendations from Labour’s Public Library Modernisation Review, in particular the promise to make an affirmative order , under section 8(2)(b) of the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964, to preventing libraries from charging for internet access. If you care about the digital agenda and the digital divide then surely guaranteeing free internet access to all library uses, and providing the only internet access to many of the poorer members of our society – young and old – should be central in this digital agenda ? And let’s not forget this is the government that are also committed to connecting the whole country to ’superfast broadband’. If you don’t have any computer to start with, this isn’t an issue.

Of course by not introducing the affirmative order this allows councils to either re-start charging or increase charging for internet access as a means of income generation to perhaps keep libraries open or to finance other services.

Vaizey is also keen on Co-location ideas. ” Co-location arrangements are bringing many libraries even closer to other public services, be it job centres, primary care trusts or cultural organisations.”

Actually, I don’t think libraries should necessarily fear this idea. Many already help to provide access to education, public health, and employment advice and resources so more official ties in some instances could be positive move. Of course people will also mention private co-location tie ups too, and the much trotted out ’starbucks’ idea. Again, I think it is narrow minded to just dismiss this out of hand. Whilst I don’t think every library needs (or wants) a coffee shop attached to it, in some instances I don’t see why it couldn’t work. I remember when I worked for Swansea Libraries 15 years ago, all the staff were quite keen on the idea of a coffee shop as part of the library building. It seems it is just a matter of who is running it that get’s some people’s backs up.

Similarly Vaizey points to the George and Dragon pub in North Yorkshire. “[It] is now delivering a library service and a pint to the community in Hudswell. That sounds like a good partnership to me.” Those living in Ireland will long be familiar with the concept of pubs and other shops effectively co-locating – most often pubs and grocers/convenience stores. In smaller communities it works well. Whilst it should not be a one size fits all approach, we should not turn our backs on new ways of delivering our services, just as long as the service and the purpose of the service is not sacrificed along the way.

Vaisey also says we need to ask tough questions, like “whether there is scope for savings in reducing the number of library authorities through voluntary alliances.” That’s tight the party who hates central government and centralisation wants to encourage a bit less de-centralisation for library authorities.

That said, Vaizey seems genuine enough, to me. But as we all know, talk is cheap. So it is all very well saying he’s going to be a champion for public libraries, but if he oversees the largest closure programme of public libraries across the country his words will be hollow.

[TV SHOW IDEA: Co-location, Co-location, Co-location : Viewers propose a local library and Channel 4 get Kirstie Allsopp and Phil Spencer to come in and offer use a choice of potential co-habitors? Please send my share of the syndication rights to …]

You were allowed to read and comment on Mr Vaizey’s speech at the DCMS site, until the 8th July ( A whole week after publication). Marvellous. Annoyingly if you just want to read the speech normally there didn’t seem to be a version of the speech you could just read in one doc/page. The ONLY way to read this speech seems to be via the format set up for commenting, at ‘writetoreply’ which I find annoying. (this link no longer seems to work for me either). Sadly, unlike on the TWFY site, the speech is not all on one page but broken up.

In fact, whilst we are on the topic, the DCMS seem to have removed the ministers ’speeches’ section from their site altogether which was always useful for, you know, reading the speeches of their Ministers.

Meanwhile, the same Day Ed was waxing lyrical, the Library campaign also launched their 12 point Charter. According to them “The essential value of public libraries needs to be reinforced at both local and national level and a focused effort must be made to see libraries fulfil their role and maintain their relevance for generations to come. ”

To achieve this?

1. Make the libraries local
2. Increase opening hours
3. Improve library collections
4. Improve the library environment
5. Embrace technology
6. Liberate the library staff
7. Collaborate and share best practice
8. Don’t waste money
9. Performance feedback
10. Engage individuals and communities
11. Don’t close libraries
12. Make and keep a promise

Go back 30 years or more and you really could have been looking at the same list. To be fair each of these ideas was fleshed out a bit, but I was still left slightly disappointed that this was the best we could come up with. Maybe the problem is just that we haven’t really made enough progress in the last 20-30 years in addressing these issues? In point 12 of the charter - Make and keep a promise - it calls on Public library users call upon councils to commit themselves to achieving the aims of this charter. This looks set to be tested, especially in relation to point 11. Don’t Close libraries.

Where I live in Lewisham, the council is set to vote on proposal this week that will see it target £830,000 of saving in the Library budget, most to be achieved by closing five libraries: Sydenham, Blackheath, Crofton Park, Grove Park and New Cross. For Blackheath and Grove Park this will seem like déjà vu as both were earmarked for closure along-side Manor House Library back in 1999 – when all survived. [It was a Labour controlled council in 1999 as it is now, only then we also had a Labour government]

According to the proposal “Service co-location, community management and asset transfer are all being considered as part of these proposals… This work is being undertaken jointly with Property Services. It should be noted that the existing lease on Blackheath Library runs until Jan 2013. We will be looking at an alternative use for the facility in the interim. ”

One thing is for sure, if Lewisham is looking at closing Libraries as part of their cost cutting so will London’s other 32 councils. If they all followed suit 33×5 . It would see 165 libraries facing closure, which based on figures from the MLA would mean that almost half of the capitals current 385 Libraries could potentially be facing the axe this year, if others followed Lewisham’s lead. Once closed, libraries rarely re-open.

Of course, in Blackheath, earlier this year the Blackheath Society – tasked with protecting the village - was hawking a plan to knock the library down to create at piazza in the ‘heath although their plans did include a new library in the redevelopment that would have seen more flats built, but parking space in the ‘heath decreased.

Crofton Park are looking to form a Friends and Users Group to try and fight their proposed closure.

Ian Clark, has written a very good piece over at the Guardian site explaining why Libraries are still needed in today’s society.

“I’ve got a vendetta to destroy the Net, to make everyone go to the library. I love the organic thing of pen and paper, ink on canvas. I love going down to the library, the feel and smell of books. ” Joseph Fiennes

What is clear is that, those of us in the library profession need to make ourselves heard more, as do those who are supposed to represent our interests – such as CILIP.

With this in mind Phil Bradley has come out (no, not in that way) and announced he will be standing for vice-president of CILIP in the upcoming autumn elections, which also includes elections to the council. I think Phil would be good for CILIP. He has an understanding of the various strands of the profession, the importance of education, an openness to trying new technology to see how it might help improve the work of librarians, and in delivering services to patrons – public and private, and most of all he has a belief that the profession needs a strong advocate, and one that is not hidden from sight.

Because of this, and the economic situation we find ourselves in, I think these council elections could be the most important ones we have had in many years. Hopefully a wide range of new people will put themselves forward for the council – people with a drive and a vision to re-unite CILIP and give it the renewed focus that many of us think it lacks – be they those who think it is obsessed only with public libraries, those who think it can’t see further north than Watford, those who wonder if it even remembers it’s meant to represent Information Scientists as well as librarians, those who question the relevance of Chartership, and those who think that it is always behind rather than ahead of the curve with new technology.

This is not to say there are not many fine people in CILIP andcurrently involved in its running but it is no longer good enough to have an organisation that is afraid to take public stands on things on principle without worrying that it might annoy some of its own members – for example in relation to proposed cuts and closures, where some of its members may also be the ones that have to implement any such changes.

I’m not going to run for council myself – as I don’t think I could give it the time or do it justice - but I will support any candidates that want to help turn CILIP into an organisation that I’d want to join again. If that’s you, you have my vote.

(On libraries) “What’s great about them is that anybody can go into them and find a book and borrow it free of charge and read it. They don’t have to steal it from a bookshop… You know when you’re young, you’re growing up, they’re almost sexually exciting places because books are powerhouses of knowledge, and therefore they’re kind of slightly dark and dangerous. You see books that kind of make you go ‘Oh!’” Stephen Fry Room 101 (2001)

The DCMS has confirmed that spending commitments made by the last government following its Public Library Modernisation Review will not be kept. This means that the coalition will not pursue the £2 million (per annum) spending commitments set out in the Public Library Modernisation Review Policy statement published in March 2010.

What were these?

“These were free internet access in all libraries and to promote library membership as an entitlement from birth.”

Proposal 27: The Government expects that from April 2011 all library services will provide free internet access to users as part of their Library Offer to the public. Government will, under section 8(2)(b) of the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964, make an (affirmative) Order preventing libraries from charging for internet access. DCMS will ensure that there will be no net additional costs to local authorities in line with the Government’s new burdens procedures.

Proposal 8: We know children benefit in many ways from early access to books and reading29. The Government therefore expects that from April 2011 all library services offer library membership as an entitlement from birth. This might be achieved in a number of ways:
• Offering Library membership at the registration of a birth30
• Offering Library membership along with child benefits
• Offering library membership with Bookstart packs

Two thirds of libraries already provide library membership information with packs which are distributed to all children at 7- 9 months31. DCMS will ensure that there will be no net additional costs to local authorities in line with the Government’s new burdens procedures.

“It also included extending the Public Lending Right to non-print format books, estimated at £300,000 – this has been suspended and will be considered as part of spending review in the Autumn.”

Proposal 34: Government expects e-books to be loaned for free. Government will under section 8(2)(b) of the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964, make an (affirmative) Order preventing libraries from charging for e-books lending of any sort including remotely.

Proposal 35: DCMS will work with stakeholders to develop the secondary legislation for the extension of the Public Lending Right to non print books to enable simple, cost effective and easy to use arrangements for all public libraries.

This decision is part of £73 million in savings the DCMS is making, which also includes ending free swimming for those aged 16 and under and over 60s.

Not really a surprise, as we are all aware that cuts are going to hit everywhere, but still a little disappointing, especially the decision on offering free internet access.

KPMG have published a white paper entitled ‘Payment for Success’ that has done the unthinkable – it’s annoyed a bunch of Librarians. It’s true, we do get annoyed and sometimes to levels when we go Shhhhhhhh! loudly.

However, like those in other professions - ‘The presenting issue is about levels of spending, but the real issues are about shifting control from providers to their customers and from bureaucrats to enterprising professionals.’ ( KPMG – Payment for Success) – we tend to get really annoyed by people making sweeping, ill-informed, and unreferenced claims about our profession.

The report – which makes some valid general points about tackling problem with public services – ‘Performance management has, in most cases, been undermined by its disconnect from financial management, which remains poor in many parts of the public sector’ ( KPMG – Payment for Success) – also talks a lot of old tosh too.

For example, there are 3 principles to the strategy:

(a) Three distinct customer roles should be created for each of the different types of service – personal, local and national – with these customers radically empowered to decide what they want and from whom
(b) Payment by results should be implemented across the public sector without exception – where it exists already, it should be made more forceful and sophisticated, where it does not exist, it should be introduced with very limited transitional periods.
(c ) Public service providers should be given almost total freedom to respond effectively to their customers and the PBR regime, supported by the active divestment of public sector staff into independent providers in control of their own future.

So correct me if I am reading this incorrectly, but that final one is saying all public sector staff should be outsourced

Another problem is there are just too many people with different jobs and professions working in local government.

‘One example is children services, where there has been a great emphasis recently on co-ordination amongst the many professionals. Success if often defined as having up to 10 different professionals from maybe 6 organisations around a table to discuss a family’s situation ( e.g. a social worker, an educational psychologist, an education welfare officer, a police officer, a pastoral teacher, a health visitor, a doctor, a housing officer, a community worker, a youth worker, a probation officer, etc). Better outcomes and value for money could well come from forging new professions which blend together skills and reducing the number of organisations involved, rather than yet more bureaucracy to manage the fragmentation.’

Now, I am all for ‘forging new professions’ but what are they suggesting on blending here and how? Why not just someone who is trained in more than one area?

But then we get to Libraries, where the reports says the following

‘A “local big state” is no more desirable than a “central big state”. Local government should seek to devolve to the most local level possible and to encourage communities to take over services. One example would be libraries. Libraries face funding challenges – in that they are more discretionary than other services, usage has declined, the unit cost of lending a book can be more expensive than the wholesale price of a book and customers have new book and information media and services (e.g. Amazon, social networking sites, etc). The level of community resistance to closing a library is usually disproportionate to the level of local usage, because communities believe that a local library belongs to them, not the council, and they believe in the future potential of the library to do great things. Devolution can allow new ideas to develop. For example – in North America libraries are often run by volunteers not paid council staff, whilst in the UK charity shops often have waiting lists of volunteers wanting to help them with book sales; much of the public space in a library is badly used storing infrequently used books; e-government has put libraries on line, but they still focus on a buildings based service; too many community groups are spending scarce resource on premises; where some councils have handed the library back to the community, they have often turned it into a much more vibrant community organisation and space. 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.’

Let’s leave aside evidence that visits to libraries and library usage usually rises as the economy declines. (Rising to the challenge: a look at the role of public libraries in times of recession, Christine Rooney-Browne, Library Review, 2009 Volume: 58 Issue: 5 Page: 341 – 352) and just look at what KMPG assert.

‘Libraries face funding challenges’ – in that they are more discretionary than other services,, - Libraries like all local services do indeed face funding challenges, nothing new there.

‘Usage has declined’ –According to this BBC new story  (from figures by the Chartered Institute of Public Finanace and Accountancy) on the 2008/9 figures, there was a year-on-year decrease in visits to libraries in England of 1.4%, a decrease of 4.1% in Northern Ireland and an increase 0.4% in Scotland, and an increase of 3.7% in Wales. So, overall, yes, this does seem to show a decline in numbers visiting – if only slight. But this doesn’t tell the whole story as shown by the ‘unnecessary stock point below.

‘The level of community resistance to closing a library is usually disproportionate to the level of local usage.’ - This CAN be true, in the same way it is true if the local council tries to shut down a local school, swimming pool, or pub etc. This ‘disproportionate’ mass are usually those who recognise that even though they may not use the resource that it is a vital part of the community – especially for the young and the old.

‘In North America libraries are often run by volunteers not paid council staff’ – Well, bully for them, although ‘where does this ‘often’ claim come from. Sure the ALA would be surprised by this.

‘Whilst in the UK charity shops often have waiting lists of volunteers wanting to help them with book sales’ – That’s great, but if they want to sell books maybe they should go volunteer at Waterstones. If someone comes in and asks if they have a particular book are they going to know? Do they catalogue the books that come in, in any form, or do they just stick a price sticker on and stick it on a shelf.

‘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.’ Seriously you’d think that the average library didn’t already engage with the local community and offer space for adult education etc, and that also they were still dark dusty places where there were no computers. We were doing both of these back in Swansea 15 years ago. And believe me people already think they run the library as anyone who works/has worked in public libraries and has been on the end of the ‘I pay your wages’ line will be fully aware.

‘Whilst also saving large amounts of money on over-skilled paid staff’ – Most frontline staff in public libraries are library assistants who are often not qualified librarians – it’s how I started off myself in Swansea Libraries. Those that are qualified are few, and if they are ‘over-skilled’ I’d like the authors of this report to visit a library and tell them just how they are over-skilled by detailing the skills that they have and how those are not suitable for the work in the library. In fact CILIP should call them out on this point. Let them prove they are not just under-skilled at the task of white paper writing.

‘Poor use of space’ – I’m sure there is some poor use of space in some of our libraries, especially older ones in building that are less flexible, but in most I have been in this is not the case – far from it in fact. There are areas for sitting, using computers, borrowing videos, CDs, DVD etc Indeed, if anything the only complaints tend to be from those who think there should be more BOOKS.

‘And unnecessary stock.’ Is that why, according to the BBC item mentioned above, the number of books issued went up in England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland? - 6.8% in Wales, 0.6% in England, 1.7% in Scotland and 3.6% in Northern Ireland. An increase in that unnecessary stock being borrowed by the public obviously.

I’m not for one moment saying that Libraries are not facing serious challenges, nor am I saying that there is not a role for more community involvement in supporting them, but KPMG’s lazy paragraph on my profession, like much of the previous government’s ramblings, shows clearly that the authors have not been in a library recently. It also shows they are too lazy to bother to back up their claims with any references.

Was greatly amused today when I came across two blog posts here and here on the Bloggerheads blog about our new Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media & Sport, Jeremy Hunt, and his interesting approach to blogging and Tweeting.

It seem Jeremy just doesn’t really GET IT. He thinks that the way you do these things is to periodically delete old content all together from your blog and your twitter accounts. No, not random one off items but the whole lot, wholesale. Now this is from a man pre-election who said he’d love to be Minister for Technology and who will at least be partly responsible for it in his DCMS role. Apparently as far as his blog goes he only maintains a recent/immediate ‘archive’.

Rumour has it that the Con-Dem nation govt have been trialling the use of a mission impossible app for their tweets and blogs, allowing them to self distruct after a given timeframe. Think Mr Hunt is one of their beta testers.

I know they say that a week is a long time in politics, but … on Monday the Government responded to House of Lords Select Committee on Communications report on the British film and television industries. In response to the Committee’s following recommendation on the video games industry:

We recognise the claims of the videogames industry for support in the face of foreign government-subsidised competition, and recommend that the Government consider providing tax incentives for videogames production.

The government response was:

“The 2009 Pre-Budget Report announced that, whilst recognising the challenges currently faced by the sector in competing internationally, the Government is not currently persuaded that the evidence is sufficiently compelling to justify the introduction of a tax incentive for the development of culturally British video games at this time. The Government remains committed to providing a tax system and business environment that is beneficial to businesses from all sectors, including the video games industry. The Government will continue to look at ways to make the UK tax system more competitive and, as with all decisions on tax policy, will keep the situation under review.”

Fast forward, oh, say, two days and the government, via Alistair Darling announce in their Budget speech the following: “I will offer help to the computer games sector, similar to the steps which are helping restore the fortunes of the British film industry. This is a highly successful and growing industry, with half its sales coming from exports, and we need to keep British talent in this country.”

In the actual text of the budget doc: “The creative industries, including the video games industry, make a valuable economic and cultural contribution to the UK. The Government announces that, following consultation on design, it will introduce a tax relief for the UK’s video games industry, subject to state aid approval from the European Commission.”

Anyone know what sufficiently compelling evidence came to their attention since they said ‘press print ‘on their response to the Lords’ report over the weekend and today when Mr Darling decided there obviously was enough to justify the introduction of a tax incentive??

The Conservative party have published their technology manifesto, which they hope will win over those in and with an interest in the technology industries ahead of the upcoming general election. The manifesto includes commitments to:

On the topic de jour - digital piracy - the party are strangely vague merely stating “We recognise the need to tackle digital piracy and make it possible for people to buy and sell digital intellectual property online. However it is vital that any anti-piracy measures promote new business models rather than holding innovation back.”

Nothing really new in the manifesto, but it does pull together a number of promises made in other statements. Public Reading Stage for all legislation is certainly an interesting one though. It sounds like they envisage a kind of wiki clause by clause based system to allow feedback and comments on legislation - which once the abuse is weeded out, might at least be interesting, even if any comments not made by vested and industry interests are ultimately ignored.

�

The Digital Economy Bill was debated for the first time in the UK’s House of Lords this week.

As is the case with the bill as a whole the main points of discussion centred around the provisions to deal with copyright and p2p filesharing, indeed it even offered an opportunity for Peter Mandelson to practice his stand-up comedy routine: ” I recognise that this House is probably the one place in Britain where peer-to-peer file-sharing is associated more with passing notes in the Lords’ tea room than with piracy”

He hit out at critics who have suggested that the government’s policy to tackle the problem of illegal filesharing focuses on coercion, saying this “is quite wrong” and that “there is a primary role for education about the value of copyright, and a very clear obligation on the creative industries to get their act together and build business models that provide access to content at a cost that makes the risk of breaking the law an unattractive option.”

It seemed that some of the critics he referred to were in the Lords. Lord Lucas seemed to sum up the views of many when he questioned where was the stick for the entertainment industries to go with the truck load of carrots the government were providing: ” We also need to bear in mind that the problems now facing the industry are, to quite a large extent, of their own creation. The industry has been extremely slow to listen to the demands of its customers, and has had something of an abusive relationship with them, seeking to punish them before thinking of how to serve them better. It has taken a decade for the industry to produce sensible alternatives to illegal file-sharing, and the fact that a generation of people have become used to an illegality comes down to the industry’s sluggishness. It is still slow. The football people have complained that there are sites where people can download streaming video of premier division matches. All that the companies offer is an annual contract for several hundred pounds. They do not offer per match deals at a reasonable price. If companies treat their customers in that way, they really should not be surprised that their customers try to get round the system.”

The presumption of innocence and due process where also high on the minds of some Lords, with Lord Whitty making the comparison with the theft of a physical product: ” the shoplifters who steal the actual DVD, which is worth a lot more than the rights of an individual download to the rights holders, have a fair trial and are subject to due process. They do not receive a letter, but, at the first attempt of enforcement, they are subject to due process. However, in this system, due process enters the equation only at appeal stage.”

Many of the Lords criticised the government for not delivering a draft of the code which would set out how the process for alerting people about alleged infringement and the appeals process would function. This, the Lords said, was the critical part of the provisions they were being asked to approve. Lord Clement-Jones expressed the views of several Lords when he said “the terms of the all-important initial obligations code must make it clear what those thresholds are. The thresholds must be proportionate and must not be set too low. We should know what they are before the Bill goes through the House.”

Other Lords questioned whether the internet provisions in the bill would actually do more to stifle the growth of a digital economy rather than growing it. Baroness Miller pointed to the potential effect on free wi-fi networks, pointing to the planned town-wide network due to launch in Swindon. She also agreed with Lord Lucas and questioned why the bill choose not to encourage new models but to protect the old models and why it “seeks to make one industry that has seen phenomenal growth, investment and innovation-the internet service providers-pay for the protection of another sector.”

One issue, however, united the Lords more than any other and that was Clause 17, which gives the government “a power to amend the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 in future, to reflect fast-changing technology.” Lord Razzall summed up the feeling on the clause – called a Henry VIII clause by Lord Clement-Jones - by stating:”Clause 17, which effectively gives the Government power to alter copyright law by statutory instrument, should be rejected. .. I just think that if we are going to alter copyright law it has to be done by primary legislation, rather than by statutory instrument.”

This is a view echoed by Google, eBay, Facebook and Yahoo who have written a joint letter to Peter Mandelson this week asking for clause 17 of the to be deleted from the draft law.

According to the four “Clause 17 – which gives any future Secretary of State unprecedented and sweeping powers to amend the Copyright, Design and Patent Act – opens the way for arbitrary measures. This power could be used, for example, to introduce additional technical measures or increase monitoring of user data even where no illegal practice has taken place…This clause is so wide that it could put at risk legitimate consumer use of current technology as well as future developments. We all acknowledge that new business models need to emerge to support creative content. They are inherently risky and entrepreneurs rely heavily on there being a consistent and stable approach to copyright enforcement. This clause would inject an unprecedented level of uncertainty in this regard. The industry as a whole had hoped that the outcome of Digital Britain would be a clear, workable set of principles by which the industry could operate. On the contrary, Clause 17 creates uncertainty for consumers and businesses and puts at risk the UK’s leading position in a digital Europe.”

The Bill itself has now goes into a Committee of the whole House of Lords where the first amendments to the bill will appear, and hoefully Clause 17 - for starters - will disappear.

The All Party Parliamentary Communications Group (apComms) is an independent group of MPs and Lords, from all political parties, which seeks to encourage debate on a range of communications issues, have published the findings of its public inquiry “Can we keep our hands off the Net?”

The report makes refreshing reading, and makes some good points. It includes 11 recommendations for the government: -

1. A recommendation for a Green Paper on Privacy, with a view to bringing forward a Privacy Bill in the next Parliament that sets out simply expressed, but far-reaching, protection for everyone’s privacy in both the offline and online worlds

2. A recommendation to terminate the current policy-making process on what should be done about illegal file sharing; restarting it once the EU has finished negotiating the “Telecoms Package”. Future policy, the report clearly states, should not include the disconnection of end users, because this is not in the slightest bit consistent with policies that attempt to promote eGovernment

apComms go as far as to say the Government should “terminate their current policy-making process, and restart it with a new consultation once the EU has made its decisions.”

What I enjoyed about this topic was apComms took lots of evidence from the entertainment industry wanting ISPs to be forced to do more to tackle the problem of illegal filesharing. They agreed it was a problem but still concluded that “much of the problem with illegal sharing of copyrighted material has been caused by the rightsholders, and the music industry in particular, being far too slow in getting their act together and making popular legal alternatives available.”

3. Recommendations on behavioural advertising to ensure that it is only operated on an explicit, informed, opt-in basis. UKCCIS should consider further regulations to apply to behavioural advertising that is aimed at children and young people.

Phorm was centre of the debate here and apComms were disappointed that despite a request sent to Google to submit evidence on this issue and others, it didn’t (as they say, disappointing considering it is market leader on online advertising) My favourite quote here was from The Foundation for Information Policy Research (FIPR) “On the issue of behavioural advertising and Phorm, I will simply reiterate the comment of FIPR’s General Counsel, Nicholas Bohm: it is amazing that the Home Office gave out free legal advice [ It said Phorm’s service does not fall foul of RIPA] and disappointing that it was so inaccurate.” apComms note that, the Home Office does not make the law of the land, nor does it usually set out to interpret its meaning.

4. A recommendation that eSafety should be included in the core school curriculum, with appropriate topics being taught at Key Stages 1 through 4. Also, the Government should establish a national coordinating body to ensure that eSafety messages and teaching remain up-to-date.

5. A recommendation that network operators and retail outlets cooperate in providing point-of-sale literature on eSafety messages for mobile phones. The report also recommends that, for reasons of clarity, Ofcom should ensure that child protection filters are enabled by default for every type of mobile Internet access device, whether they be handsets or “dongles”.

6. A recommendation that the Government, in consultation with the EU Commission, establish whether the Internet Watch Foundation (IWF) should extend its “notice and take-down” mechanisms to the whole world, and if not, work to establish such a global system.

I agreed here with the views put forward by the OpenRights Group who are generally anti blocking and think illegal content should be dealt with at source and not by an approach which just pretends it’s not there. This echoes my own view expressed in ‘Filtering out child porn — smoke and mirrors?’ – (2004) 6 EBL 10, 11 – where I said “surely the approach should not be to block access to these sites but to remove the sites themselves…These laws and filtering programmes, although good PR for those involved, arguably merely hide it away, rather than actually do anything about the problem itself.”

This was a view supported to a degree by the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre (CEOP) who made a point to the committee that “The current strategic focus is on the product (i.e. images and content) rather than behaviour. Consequently ‘blocking’ is a tool rather than a solution to child sexual abuse and exploitation where technology is a factor, as it does not take into account developments in how offenders use technology and the fact that websites are no longer the primary mechanism for the distribution of child abuse material.” This final point is a very good one, and one often glossed over in the clammer for headlines grabbing announcements.

7. A recommendation that the Government does not legislate to enforce the deployment of blocking systems based on the IWF lists. This has the potential to damage future attempts to fix problems through self-regulation, and will thus, in the long term, be counterproductive.

8. A recommendation that Ofcom keep the issue of “network neutrality” under review and include a section in each annual report that indicates whether there are any signs of change.

9. A recommendation that Ofcom regulate to require ISPs to advertise a minimum guaranteed speed for broadband connections.

10. A recommendation for a voluntary code for ISPs relating to the detection of, and effective dealing with, malware infected machines in the UK. If this voluntary approach fails to yield results in a timely manner, then Ofcom should unilaterally create and impose such a code on the UK ISP industry.

11. A recommendation that the law be revised, so that ISPs can to take proactive steps to detect and remove inappropriate content from their services, without completely losing important legal immunities which fit with their third party role in hosting and distributing content.

You know it is not often I feel sorry for government ministers these days, but I have to admit the whole mountain out of a molehill surrounding the fact that Jacqui Smith’s husband downloaded an watched a couple of soft-core porn films has been ridiculous. Ridiculous because what she did that was wrong has been replaced by the tabloid love of a porn story. Let’s be disgusted, let’s protect the children, let’s be holier than thou …

So, first let’s get the serious bit out of the way. Mrs Smith should not have been charging her TV subscription to the taxpayer; although as a Virgin subscriber too (and by that I do not mean that I subscribe to virgins, but that I subscribe to Virgin Media’s cable services) I am aware that you get the best deal by taking a package on phone, internet and TV services rather than individual services. That aside should we pay for her, her husband or any member of her family to watch VOD films - pornographic or otherwise? No. Should she loose her job over it? No - although whether the same argument can be made over the more serious (yes, more serious) issue of her ’second home’ is another matter. I was also personally more concerned that she saw fit to claim 88p for a bath plug - life as an MP is hard if you can’t afford a buy a plug without trying to claim the money back.

So, let’s get onto the porn, and the type of response this kind of story automatically receives. According to yesterday’s Daily Mail “the case of Jacqui Smith’s husband raises disturbing questions about the availability of porn on TV.” Err, no it doesn’t. How in all seriousness can you say that an adult renting and watch a legally classified BBFC 18 certificate film raises disturbing questions? If you put events in the current context it still fails to raise disturbing questions.

Oh yes it does says Bafta award winning documentary maker, and mother of two, Olivia Lichtenstein. She signed up - for journalistic purposes - and watched some of the adult material available via Sky that Mr Smith apparently watched; amusingly noting that the Playboy TV’s website had a “We’d like to offer all MPs and their husbands a special VIP subscription to Playboy” message on it yesterday.

What did she find? Degradation and tawdriness. She also found programmes/films in the MILF genre (look it up!) upsetting being a mother herself. However, she got more insightful.

In the words of Olivia Lichtenstein:

“After two hours of watching these channels, my conclusion was that these ‘films’ are degrading, exploitative, overlaid with terrible music and, once the shock has worn off, unutterably dull.”

No argument from me that watching the kind of films available on these channels is dull, especially as much of the content is hardcore cut to pass as soft-core, which oddly enough can make it look worse.

“Hundreds of hours of this garbage television are available each day from ten at night until four in the morning in our living rooms — the result of a dangerously misguided liberalism which says there should be no censorship, no moral checks — that we are all grown up enough to see and do whatever we wish.”

I’m sorry Olivia - and apologise here, but I presume when you make documentaries you bother to do your research better - but you don’t actually know what you’re talking about. First off, most of us are grown up enough to see and do whatever we wish - as long as it is within the confines of the law of the country - as viewing these films as well as much hardcore pornography is. Secondly, there actually is censorship in place which is why it is only 18 rated soft-core material that can be broadcast on these channels and not R18 hardcore films, despite the fact that this material is legally available in the UK in shops and via the internet.These channels and their content are regulated by Ofcom and the Broadcast Code. Section 1.24 of the Broadcast Code reads:

“The problem with pornography, of course, is that those same degrading acts will soon not be degrading enough. The user has constantly to raise the stakes in order to derive the same thrill. It’s no wonder that this kind of porn has been compared to crack cocaine.”

I’m sorry? Soft-core porn has been compared to crack cocaine? Where? When? and by Who? Would this be the same Muppet who said if you smoke cannabis you’ll eventually end up on heroin and crack, because, we all know one drug always leads to another. Personally, if I hadn’t ever had that first cup of coffee, I’d had never moved onto beer, wine and spirits.

“One of the many bitter ironies to emerge from this sorry story is that not only did Ms Smith allow his tawdry entertainment to be charged to her expenses, but as Home Secretary — Britain’s first female one, incidentally — she is the person responsible for regulating the adult entertainment industry. As part of that, she has been determined to introduce tough licensing laws for lap dancing clubs, as well as outlining plans to outlaw paying for sex with a woman controlled by another for their financial gain. Who can say whether the women her husband was watching perform for his gratification were not coerced to take part in filming for the gain of others? Were these women keeping the money they earned, or were they forced to hand it over to pimps or agents?”

Ah, now the implication is all the ‘actors’ in these films are sex slaves and prostitutes and all doing it for their pimps and agents who take all of their money.

It is clear that Olivia Lichtenstein is not a fan of pornography, and that is fine. Last time I looked it was neither compulsory to make it or to watch it. Her children are also safe as access to these TV channels is encrypted, PIN protected, and subscription based.

Because our Politicians think they are above the law, and can just change the law if a court tells them to do things, it is pleasing to see some are willing to take a stand. This early day motion is one you should keep an eye on to see if your MP wants to hide EXACTLY what he/she is  spending your money on.

That this House notes with concern the provisions in the Freedom of Information (Parliament) Order 2009 to remove the expenses of hon. Members and Peers from the scope of the Freedom of Information Act; notes that this Order singles out hon. Members and Peers in a special category as the only public officials who will not have to disclose full details of their expenses; further notes the High Court judgement of 16th May 2008 and subsequent reassurances to hon. Members that expenses would be published in full by autumn 2008; further notes with concern the regressive effect of this Order on parliamentary transparency and the detrimental impact it will have on Parliament in the eyes of the public; and calls on Ministers to block or repeal the Order in the interest of hon. Members’ and Peers’ accountability to members of the public.

They Work For You can help you contact your MP to ask them what they have to hide from you. If they have nothing to hide they should block the order - if they do, they do not deserve your vote at the next election.