People's Network computers - best value or expensive beige elephants?

Note added Feb 2004: a shortened version of this webpage is now available.

For early feedback about this webpage read what library professionals have said. Your comments would also be welcomed - please email the SeeRed author. Requests for anonymity will be respected. This webpage is being 'frozen' as of September 2003. It will serve as an historical record of the analysis as of February 2003, when the seered website was first published. Further developments in the 'PN saga' will be chronicled elsewhere.

Explanatory note:

This is a large webpage full of text. It comprises an interim discussion of the People's Network computer project. The aim is to provoke debate. The installed cost of each PN computer seems to have been up to £5000 whereas simple new machines capable of servicing the needs of most if not all users could have been installed for less than £1000 under different administrative arrangements. (This website was prepared on a five year old Internet capable machine that cost £45 and that would have served most casual library users adequately).

It is noted that the New Opportunities Fund (NOF) has recently been criticised for being too much a government body concerned not with helping genuine charities or 'good causes', but with allocating Lottery money to projects that should rightly have been funded out of general taxation. Analysis of other NOF projects would provide a further measure of whether Lottery funding is being managed in the public interest.

You are recommended to download this webpage and view it off-line at your leisure. The file size is c. 100kB. Tips for printing. It includes near the end, questions for the Minister in charge of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS). Because of the webpage length, a separate index is provided. A pdf version will soon be available. 

It has been predicted that museums will close and that their collections will be warehoused only a few years after hundreds of millions of pounds of lottery cash was spent on providing new facilities and buildings. With this 'capital' money used up on grandiose projects, the deficit in running costs will be even greater than before. The government dismissed the story as 'unduly alarmist' - but without saying quite why the calculations were wrong. More details at http://society.guardian.co.uk/lottery/story/0,8150,459071,00.html. A similar point is made in the April 2003 issue of 'Update' the magazine of the Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals. Discussing the future of 'social inclusion' and UK Online, they say:

Some NOF projects funded under the Capital Modernisation Fund face closure in January 2004, when their one year of revenue funding runs out. 'If UK Online centres are forced to close, it is not clear whether there will be sufficient resources to set up a replacement in the vicinity', says NAO (National Audit Office report http://www.nao.gov.uk/publications/nao_reports/02-03/0203428es.pdf.)

One of the key justifications for the People's Network project was to bring computer technology and opportunities to 'disadvantaged' groups. A recent national survey showed that while 44% of the population had direct access to ICT, for specific groups such as lone parents, people with disabilities and those with 'basic skills needs', the user rate was only 32%. It was further noted that whilst over 60% of professional or clerical people use ICT (and can therefore keep themselves mentally switched-on to the use of computers), this falls to less than 33% for those living in areas of deprivation. Amongst the 16-34 age group, who are the heaviest users of ICT, half are said not to be able to afford to own a PC. All of this is claimed to be "an eloquent case for library based public access ICT and training facilities".

However, the promise of 'computer access for all' must be seen against the backdrop of a desired (NOF) rate of provision of 0.6 computers per 1000 population and with several Authorities (including Devon) managing only around 0.4 per 1000, because of lack of available space in libraries.

At the moment, use of PN computers is restricted to a narrow subset of the population. Already, some machines are fully utilised and with queues forming during busy periods. If, for example, only 20% of the population were ever to make use of the machines (which may be too low a figure), this would imply a provision rate of one machine per 400 users. Each library computer could be made available for (typically) 70 half hour sessions every week. Because of inevitable slack periods and system failures, the actual usage might fall to (say) 50 per week to satisfy demand from 400 active users. This implies an average of one session every two months! Given that many experienced 'surfers' are already claiming sessions almost on a daily basis there is no prospect of the machines ever being able to fulfil core social expectations. The logic of the People's Network scheme is almost a reinvention of libraries in the computer age but with the restriction that you are required to wait in turn to read the books, rather than being allowed to take them home. One alternative route would have been to provide far more emphasis on interactive digital television services.

In any case, widespread deployment of a technology just because it has become feasible is not in itself logical. Nor is the supposition that people will learn anything more worthwhile just because vastly more material is made instantly available. Indeed, 'information overload' can itself introduce an extra hurdle to genuine learning. Availability of so much material on-line can reduce (for example) writing an essay to a mechanistic procedure involving no more thought than 'click, cut and paste' and playing with a mouse. Experience of 100+ television channels bears this out, as do many documents written in government-speak. In justification, Resource have said:

"The UK Government has made very clear the importance it attaches to the role of learning in all its guises as the cornerstone of people's lives, and has set out its thinking in a series of key policy documents. Furthermore the Government sees universal access to ICT and its use as a delivery mechanism for learning opportunities as the catalyst for change. A major element of this is the People's Network, a £170 million project to create ICT learning centres in all 4,300 UK public libraries by the end of 2002. £50m of this funding is for NOF-digi as a major contribution to on-line resources complementing National Curriculum materials."

Not everyone seems to be convinced about the potential for 'real learning'. In the Devon Action Plan it is noted that out of over 50 static libraries, only 4 have specially designed and equipped ICT training suites. The others offer only computers dotted around often in busy areas of the main library. Furthermore, in the Devon Library Plan it is conceded:

In some cases, library buildings may not, themselves, be the only, or best, locations for learning centres or focal points for the Government's e-government and UK On-line strategies. The intention remains to share spare bandwidth .. and to involve other DCC public buildings.. other local authorities.. community and voluntary organisations.

In other words, it is recognised both that many libraries may be unsuitable and that many more types of buildings may be required to be pressed into service. Even these measures would probably both fail to meet demand for 'free' services and introduce myriad problems of supervision, abuse of systems and access.

Listen also to Anne Fine, a celebrated author of children's books writing in the Jan 2003 edition of Update, the CILIP magazine:

We cannot be Luddites and pretend this (computers) is not the future. Manifestly it is. But before sitting quietly by as the powers-that-be continue to starve the bookfund to pay for it, we must be confident it's all worthwhile......And there is simply no point in having brilliant new means of communication if there is little or nothing of true value to communicate. How many of us have sat in children's libraries and been unable to suppress the thought that those who are hunched at the machines are absorbed in what, in earlier times, we would call simply 'a waste of time'?.... Dismal enough, when nothing but time is wasted. But what if what is wasted is the talent of others? When something else has to be sacrificed, to make the space or release the money?

One of the Great Promises of the People's Network, trotted out by Devon Library Services (and a few others) in a range of leaflets, is the Pure Approved Thought:

"and it won't mean less money for books!!"

But what if the new technology had been properly thought through and costed utilising accepted principles of marginal cost-benefit analysis? Would then Devon have been permitted to spend at least half its Lottery windfall on new books and the other half on providing just as many computers but with less emphasis on broadband, video streaming and all purpose command and control systems fitted to even the smallest libraries? And where, in the coming years, will the staff and other resources come from to service the computers? Is Lottery money guaranteed to flow, digitised largesse without end? Where is the proven market for the £50 million worth of 'newly digitised content' that is to be made freely available by NOF and with such enthusiasm?

The full text of Anne Fine's address to the IFLA conference (Glasgow 2002) can be found at http://www.ifla.org/IV/ifla68/papers/165-218e.pdf . If this direct link does not work try http://www.ifla.org/IV/ifla68/prog02.htm#8 to get to the appropriate index page. Her lecture is worth reading if only for the clarity of exposition as a passionate defence of books and serious study having a place in the library of the future. It also affords a welcome opportunity to view an endangered species at close quarters - a conference paper written in plain English.

Contrast Anne Fine's heartfelt beliefs with the mechanistic government-speak used by a senior delegate from Resource at the same conference. For this, see http://www.ifla.org/IV/ifla68/papers/161-123e.pdf . A glossary of jargon is at http://society.guardian.co.uk/glossary/0,11637,646397,00.html. The website of the Plain English Campaign may also be helpful! http://www.plainenglish.co.uk.

The impact upon libraries

"Pity the poor bloody infantry"
A library assistant discussing how to cope with PN machines.

It was inevitable that the Internet would take over libraries to some extent. What seems not to have been thought through is the interaction between the old and the new (the quiet of the reference library and reading areas competing with the clatter of keyboards) or the need to retain traditional standards of privacy and freedom when changing (merely) the method of delivery of information. The prime 'serious' use of the Internet in libraries is sometimes cited as being a source of reference material. Yet a recent MORI poll showed that 88% of people would prefer to talk to someone about a query rather than connect to the Internet. The figure fell slightly to 83% for people who were experienced in using the Internet - even they would prefer to talk to someone competent. http://www.mori.com/digest/2001/pdo10302.shtml. This is true even for computer related enquiries. One can either spend hours trawling through the Internet or speak to several clued-up experts within the space of half an hour using a telephone. Most are happy to offer free and highly relevant advice. In this context, an expert can be seen as one of the world's best interactive search engines. 

Of course, the Internet offers many new possibilities - emailing one's friends about a day at the seaside, flipping through holiday websites looking for a cheap weekend, and share dealing and on-line banking, to name but a few. Whether these functions should immediately assume a dominant position (both physically and otherwise) in libraries that were never designed for the computer age is debatable, as is the basic supposition that they have a place in libraries at all.

However, the disruptive impact of computers in many libraries is only one example of what has happened as they have tried to become more 'socially inclusive' in an arguably misguided attempt to appeal to more people in the face of falling usage. Listen to Anne Fine again:

We may say it is the library's job to provide what people want. But people are plural, and the library user is, as we must keep reminding ourselves, an individual. Hanging about in a library in the north east, I watched a boy of 12 trying to do his homework with his fingers in his ears to block out the noise as the ladies at the desk laughed and chatted with local people who, in this depressed area, were using the library as a cheerful social centre.

Looking up, he caught my eye and said, embarrassed: "The problem is, I can't find anywhere quiet to work." In a library! Yet I recall, a couple of years ago, visiting a library in New Zealand, where a dozen teenagers were quietly sitting at tables, studying. Surely this is a more important provision by a library than social cheer. A library is not the Citizens' Advice Bureau, the nursery, the bingo hall or the coffee bar. It was conceived and endowed as something greater, so that people who chose could become something richer and deeper.

To which we might add only that a library may be no place for an Internet cafe where the computer equivalent of free phone-cards and postage stamps are handed out at the public expense. Nor should it be a place in which disadvantaged children eager to learn can no longer escape the bedlam of constant television, pop music and computer games in their own (often crowded) homes.

Perhaps the lasting impact will be deeper. In its determination to press ahead with the New Big Idea of e-government, libraries have suddenly become loved by central government, the reason being perhaps that they have agreed to accommodate a key element of the infrastructure - computer access for all - at no cost to the Treasury. Indeed, 'Lottery' money that had been earmarked for "health, education and environment" has been used to fund the infrastructure, under the guise of providing "ICT learning centres in all 4,300 public libraries by the end of 2002". Some press releases refer to a more modest target of 'over 4000'.

"The importance of the People's Network as an access route to online resources and the significance of the PN in rolling out broadband - both emphasise the core roles of public library services at the heart of government policy" - Director of Libraries and Information Society at Resource, quoted in Update (CILIP), January 2003.

Yet libraries have agreed this apparently without any guarantees of funding for staff in the long term and already central library 'reserve funds' in some areas have been raided to provide extra hours of front-line staff time. Automation of book issue systems to enable DIY for borrowers may release staff for PN duties, but when and who will pay? The bookfund perhaps, as witnessed already by irate borrowers wanting to know why the latest books were not available and had to be requested (at up to £2 each) from a distant library and with a waiting list. And yet there is (obviously to the layperson) no lack of money for people playing for free with computers. This seems at odds with published claims by (for example) Devon Library Services that more ICT broadens the library service "and does not take place at the expense of the book".

The last word can go to Anne Fine as she defends the role books have to play in Society and especially in the education of children, even in the computer age:

"Imaginative literature" (said Ford Madox Ford many years ago) "is the most important thing in the world because it is the only thing that can make you think and feel simultaneously. Books are the best instrument we have for ethical enquiry. It is the easiest and most comforting avenue to self-reflection, the most powerful source of enchantment."

What was really needed?

Any proper analysis of what could have been provided and how much it should have cost has to start with the cost of a simple computer, suitable for Internet, email and word processing using a reasonably up-to-date package. Such a machine would fulfil probably 90% or more of likely usage of People's Network computers. The People's Network was not installed 'cold' with no previous experience. Many libraries had had computers for years and had built up a data base of usage. These would show a preponderance of simple e-mail and web browsing, as would be expected in the absence of (in many areas of the country) any facilities for structured learning of complex packages.

However, logic does not appear to apply in the world of libraries and Lottery largesse, just as it does not apply in the world of home computers or cars. Long ago these passed from the realms of utilitarianism to being a prime means of disposing of surplus wealth in as conspicuous a fashion as possible. What has happened in libraries would have been more excusable had resources already been supplied in abundance to provide up to date books for the majority of borrowers. This website was prepared on an IBM 300GL computer that cost £45 (about $70) in November 2002, purchased from an electrical surplus store. Machines costing £200 each would happily fulfil 95% or more of likely public access library usage for years to come.

Yet even this does not explain why machines cost around £4000 each installed - and for models that could be bought off-the-shelf with a range of software (and a printer) included for £1000 or less. Part of the explanation must lie in the trendy obsession with broadband or equivalent networked connectivity and the rest probably in a desire to implement 'command and control' and snooping systems. Arguably none of these have a place in libraries that are starved of funds for books and buildings' maintenance. For a discussion of snooping and privacy in libraries see for example total_info_aware_system.htm. For a summary of broadband implementation in local government see http://www.socitm.gov.uk/Public/insight/publications/broadband+report.htm

The point is that 30,000 machines entirely adequate for most purposes could have been purchased for around £6 million including (often) slightly out of date software. Alternatively, £20-30 million would have equipped all libraries with 'stand-alone' new machines, leaving the remaining £80 - 90 million spent on the People's Network project to be available for providing (for example and on average) £20,000 per library for employing a dedicated computer literate person to look after the computers and teach newcomers on a part time basis for 4 years (c. £5,000 pa).

This would have ploughed more money into local employment and less into the coffers of distant suppliers. It would also have been more in tune with the stated aim of helping local communities and involving them more in Lottery projects. The expenditure on staff in public libraries is reported at £485 million for 2000/01 out of a total gross expenditure of nearly £900 million. (LISU Loughborough University mailto:lisu@lboro.ac.uk for a printed copy of library statistics). An additional £20+ million per year for staff would seem reasonable in view of the extra loading imposed by the PN project and (coincidentally) aligns roughly with the £30 million projected annual income calculated above.

Centralised procurement: an effort to save money?!

Some effort has been put into comparing the procurement by different Authorities, but little or none into asking whether all-singing hardware is universally required in all libraries. The results from an initial study of different purchasing consortia can be downloaded as a PDF report from the People's Network website at: http://www.peoplesnetwork.gov.uk/future/procurement.asp. "The Resource Consortium Purchase Expert Forum is a group of representatives drawn from the public library and other sectors that is contributing to the strategic planning and development work of the People's Network Team. Details about the work of this and other Resource Expert Forums are available at: http://www.peoplesnetwork.gov.uk/future/forums.asp."

"The People's Network is a comprehensive programme of public ICT provision which will connect all UK public libraries to the Internet where practicable by the end of 2002.  The 170 million-pound initiative co-ordinated by Resource and lottery funded by the New Opportunities Fund, is part of the Government's commitment to give everyone in the UK the opportunity to get online."

£50 million of the £170 million is for the NOF-digitise scheme whereby organisations are given grants of typically £150,000 each to produce digital information packs on a vast range of topics and that will be made available, free of charge, to users of the People's Network and the National Grid for Learning (http://www.ngfl.gov.uk. and  http://www.nof-digitise.org/grants). About 150 grants have been awarded so far with amounts ranging from £14,000 to £4 million. The output is envisaged to contain "over a million images, tens of thousands of audio and video clips, innumerable pages of text and many hundreds of new learning packages on topics as diverse as biscuits, migration, football and music." More is not necessarily better, and if ten million people each view one of these contributions, each may be viewed once and once only, on average.

Presumably the output from NOF-digitise will be free to home computer users also and in formats that older machines can utilise.

Resource Celebrates People's Network Success - by spending yet more money on computers whilst many buildings are crumbling and the book stocks are dwindling.

Resource is a government organisation that provides "the strategic leadership, advocacy and advice to enable museums, archives and libraries to touch people's lives and inspire their imagination, learning and creativity." The website is http://www.resource.gov.uk/. In September 2002 it appointed Public Relations consultant Harrison Cowley to deliver a PR campaign marking the completion of the People's Network - the UK's biggest publicly funded ICT initiative of its kind.

Boasting that "through the People's Network project, the UK's 4,000 public libraries will have 30,000 new computer terminals successfully installed by the end of December 2002, offering free or low cost internet access to all", it hails as a success "this six-year project, which has been funded by the New Opportunities Fund and managed by Resource" (This seems premature, the project has been running only for 3 years).

Jo O'Driscoll, Resource's Head of Communications, has said: "The People's Network is an absolutely fantastic achievement, which we all want to celebrate.  Public libraries have so much to be proud of in delivering this project on time and in budget and we should shout about this success. Thanks to this new additional facility libraries can do what they enjoy most more effectively than ever before - helping people to find the information they need with more tools and resources at their fingertips."

"Half of the UK's population already use their local libraries (do they really? The number of registered borrowers is 35 million out of a population of 60 million, but only a fraction of these are regular users or users at all.) We'd like to see even more people joining, and want everyone to know about the difference that People's Network is making to the whole library community. Harrison Cowley will help us communicate the real difference that the People's Network will make to people's lives." (There is a slight problem here. Some libraries are already stretched to breaking point dealing with user enquiries about PN machines. If yet more people are encouraged to use them (or indeed merely to experiment and play), more money will be needed for front-line staff and perhaps on a continuing basis).

Harrison Cowley, with 10 offices across the UK, will use the Bristol team to handle the PR brief, following a competitive three-way pitch. (Are we allowed to know how much all the hype is costing?)

The four-month national and regional PR campaign will feature some of the ways the People's Network has changed people's lives by offering ICT access to all and will aim to encourage everyone to visit their local libraries to benefit from these new facilities. Support will also be offered to bolster local PR and promotion activities through the production of a PR toolkit for libraries."

Back in the real world, as reported in The Independent on 17 May 2002, libraries are characterised by falling usage, poorly maintained buildings often in areas where there is no longer sufficient demand for the services they offer, falling expenditure on books and shorter opening hours, presumably all to save money. These are points made by the library campaign http://www.librarycampaign.co.uk   Set against this, is it really a matter for "celebration" that over £100 million has been spent on overtly expensive computers that are proving in many libraries a distraction and in others a nuisance to regular library users?  Rather than spend money on PR consultants who will no doubt produce yet more glossy reports, T-shirts, logos, balloons, and banners might we have a report from someone competent on just what level of computer provision is needed in libraries, what it should be used for and what activities might in future be relegated to Internet cafes?

In her IFLA conference paper  http://www.ifla.org/IV/ifla68/papers/165-218e.pdf   Anne Fine quotes the poet Ted Hughes as having

"inveighed against the new descending dark age of the computerised library and the word processed child.... It is an unthinking techno-chic madness... all part of the psychological blindness in our higher busybodies".

The People's Network Excellence Fund - yet more ICT in Public Libraries!

The following material is adapted from press releases.

Other library services are using technology to help promote their People's Network services using video walls or outreach services with laptops. One 'particularly interesting project' will loan out PDAs to library users and allow the downloading of e-books and other MP3 files across the library's own broadband network.

The People's Network Excellence Fund is using part of England's share of the People's Network £100 million programme that is funded by the New Opportunities Fund and co-ordinated by Resource".

All of which will be a great comfort to borrowers who are continuing to desert libraries for the simple reason that the supply of new books is so poor.

Brief comments on 'First Findings' - the first official report into the PN scheme, written by Prof. Peter Brophy of Manchester Metropolitan University (previously Manchester Polytechnic).

Three rules need to be obeyed whenever it is desired to present a dubious project in the best possible light to a lay audience.

1. Use big numbers

2. Use glossy paper, wide margins and lots of pretty colours.

3. Avoid normalising data to the level of common experience.

With luck, no-one will then notice that the report consists mainly or exclusively of fine words strung together in sentences that are so vague as to have little or no substance.

Indeed, many reports consist of nothing more than a random assortment of politically correct phrases and buzz words liberally sprinkled upon the finest quality paper. Part of the trick is to realise that because so many glossy reports are now produced by local and central government, there is little chance of anyone actually reading a copy. (Sadly, the same is true for websites.)

For example, in early 1999,  EDDC, DCC and Devon and Cornwall Police produced a joint report on community and partnership policing. It would probably have been received to universal acclaim but for one small difficulty - I wrote a letter to the local newspaper.  An extract is given below. The full text is at accountability.htm.

"We need to be on our guard. There is large type and pretty pictures, as if few words on a page and multicoloured artwork can help to disguise lack of content and competence".

Forewarned is forearmed, and we can now examine briefly Professor Brophy's 23 page beautifully presented report on People's Network computers. It is acknowledged that only interim findings are presented, so there is room for improvement. However, the main congratulatory paragraphs revolve around the following data and assertions. Comments are in purple.

1. "The People's Network is a project to bring the internet and on-line services to the whole UK population". It can easily be shown that the network is so thinly spread that only a tiny fraction of the population could ever use it on a regular basis.

2. "By the end of December 2002, 68.5 million hours of internet access per annum will be available, and that most of it will be free at the point of use. Overall utilisation of this capacity is already above 50%." The human brain is hopeless at distinguishing 600,000 hours from 6 million from 60 million. This is because scaling factors of up to about 7 can be accommodated and peoples' perception of 'hours' is limited to about 8 or 10. The data would be better presented normalised 'per machine'. Thus 68.5 million divided by 30,000 computers yields 2283 hours per year or 44 hours in an average week. The actual time a computer will be available may be less, because of changeover times, system faults etc, and a figure of 40 hours may be a good maximum estimate. Assuming one computer per 2000 of the population, and assuming 75% utilisation (say 30 hours rather than 40) and assuming that AT LEAST half the time will be taken up by a few 'regular users' leaves 15 hours per week spread amongst (say) only 750 casual users. The availability is therefore ONE HOUR PER USER EVERY YEAR. This seems ample for the purposes of e-government!

3. "Statistical data has been analysed alongside individual case studies to provide a picture of a quiet revolution taking place across the UK". Does this refers to the seething discontent of some library staff? I never cease to be amazed how many 'academics' try to pull the wool by saying they 'analyse' data when the quality of the raw material is so poor that hardly anything could be done with it. But maybe it keeps them in gainful employment.

4. "People are finding new ways to communicate, across countries and continents, lives are being enriched, social barriers breached and learning opportunities grasped." How moving - and what a poetic way of describing sending an email instead of a letter.

5. "The People's Network is moving beyond connectivity into community engagement, to make the transformation to a wired society a positive experience for all." Count the buzz words, admire the social inclusion and despair that 'good cause' lottery money is spent producing this sort of drivel.

6. "That users appear to be coming in significant numbers from among disadvantaged groups in our society is an added accomplishment." At a time when the gulf between rich and poor is growing ever wider, it must be comforting for these unfortunate people (heavy purchasers of lottery tickets) to know that they are, on average, likely to be able to have one hour every year on a computer.

7. An on-line discussion list is maintained at www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/peoplesnetwork.html . Why bother?

8. "The range of users is extremely wide, from schoolchildren to 90 year olds". This represents the fraction of the population able to walk to a library and is a great surprise.

9. "Detailed analysis of libraries' returns suggests that reasons for using the People's Network can be categorised as follows: Learning, Finding work, Personal identity, Community enrichment, Social inclusion, Culture and creativity." How much 'detailed analysis' was necessary to produce this predetermined list? Who cares? It is all so predictable. Just look up the past press releases of Resource and the People's Network and you'll find all the stock phrases there, waiting to be recycled.

10. "In a three month period, 25,000 users undertook IT get started courses, 30,000 did an Internet Taster course, and 10,000 embarked on an office software course". Fantastic. In three months 30,000 computers could be used about 800 times each. So about one in every 400 users did something seriously educational, the rest emailed, surfed and played about - but I guess we suspected that already!!

11. "A survey of 10 library authorities logged over 85,000 uses of email over a three month period". Statistics are so meaningful when presented in total isolation! How many computers in the 10 authorities? How many total log-ins? Where is the perspective?

12. "There is no conclusive evidence that the People's Network is attracting individuals from social grades D and E (semi and unskilled manual workers, casual or low grade workers)." Oh dear me, better ask library authorities to make a special effort to look out for these people, ask them for a few anecdotes, and in the final report all will be well.

13. "A high proportion of unemployed people of all ages using the service for job related purposes." Revelation!!

14. "We have our own computer but rely on the library for Internet access." Entirely in line with expectations. Seasoned users, who know a good thing when they see it, will make full and regular use of the broadband lines, for example to collect dubious emails and visit sites that might transmit viruses, thus protecting their home machines. Once more people start doing this, the spare capacity for the poor D and E social groups will be zero, and e-government for the masses will be a distant dream. 'Twas ever thus.

15. "Of non-library users who have tried the computers, no less than 40% have joined the library." Yes, but did they read a book or borrow a video?

16. "NOF have commissioned the Tavistock Institute to undertake a two year evaluation of the People's Network. Preliminary findings are due in Spring 2003." I can hardly wait. Maybe this too will need translating into Plain English.

Of course, Ministers are not fazed by facts. They live in the world of spin and double-speak, where if pretence is repeated often enough it becomes reality. Here is what Tessa Jowell, the Minister in charge of DCMS claimed in a press release extolling the merit of 'First Findings'.

"The Government delivers on its targets, and this - the largest public sector IT project ever to be undertaken - was completed on time, within budget, and with exciting and very promising results. As society becomes increasingly technology driven, the need to ensure access to digital information for everyone grows more important than ever. Libraries across the UK can now build on their existing strengths as cherished public services and deliver an entirely new dimension of public service to their local communities, attracting a new range of people in the process"

The paper copy of the report can be obtained from Resource on 020 7273 1458 or downloaded from http://www.resource.gov.uk/information/publications/00pubs.asp.

Questions that the Minister (Tessa Jowell) may refuse to answer.

• One of the central planks of the PN project has been to make public libraries centres for the availability of e-government. Is it true that Lottery 'health, education and environment' money has been used to set up the infrastructure for this, and should not at least part of the funding have been provided by the Treasury?

• Would the Minister agree that in the public interest, the same type of logic as has been applied to the People's Network could be applied to public transport? In this model, money would be thrown at the infrastructure, it would not matter if it was never fully utilised and people could use it for free. Could we then see the makings of a genuine improvement in society?

To ask the Minister these and similar questions you may send her an email at mailto:tessa.jowell@culture.gov.uk. Also, you may decide to stop buying Lottery tickets until such time as the government gets its act together.

Postscript

Controversy in early 2003 over the proposed merger of the Community Fund (which hands out Lottery cash to small groups and charities) with the government dominated NOF has once again highlighted the problems at the heart of the lottery. These have included a continuing degree of bemusement amongst professionals as to why people buy lottery tickets. In a working paper dating from 1997 The Institute for Fiscal Studies observed:

" participation in the lottery is voluntary, so only those who feel that it is beneficial to buy tickets will buy them......although consumers are, on average, financially worse off after buying lottery tickets (since they are an extremely poor investment) they feel better off when they buy them because of the pleasure associated with doing so. We do not know what these pleasures are but can presume that they exist from the fact that people buy this commodity with such a poor financial return."

Perhaps the last word here should go to Baroness Pitkeathley the Labour Party peer who chairs NOF. Speaking in late January 2003 about the merger furore which has seen the previous Minister, Chris Smith speaking out against his own government's proposals, she tried to appear positive:

"We have to face the fact that people have not really appreciated all that the lottery is doing in a coherent way."    

From here you can jump back to read any part of this webpage again. Or you can skip to a new page giving initial feedback from library staff on this analysis of the People's Network. Available at pn_computers_early_reactions.htm

• Top of this webpage
• The New Opportunities Fund - early days
• The New Opportunities Fund - The People's Network
• Community Access to Lifelong Learning - a snip at £200 million
• NOF is wonderful - self congratulation and Press Releases
• Small questions about large sums of money
• The impact upon libraries
• What was really needed?
• Centralised procurement - an effort to save money?
• Resource Celebrates People's Network Success
• The People's Network Excellence Fund
• First Findings
• Questions for the Minister