|
Articles A digital inclusion first date for e-gov MPs... Digital inclusion isn’t sexy. For most people this won’t come as any surprise. It’s not the stuff that hits headlines, or upon which general elections are fought, lost or won. It’s not, for example, crime, health, education or employment. My argument, of course, is that digital inclusion has an underlying impact on all of these areas and more, but sadly it wears far too many layers to be a true Siren of British politics, capable of driving politicians and journalists into a frenzy of rhetoric, action or anything else. That’s why last week it was particularly pleasing to see MPs take a flattering interest in digital inclusion. My fear was that the Government on the Internet Public Accounts Committee meeting (28 November) would skip over it, and instead take the more flashy areas of the cost, rationalisation, data security and performance of online government services for a spin around the meeting room. Not so. Far from a wallflower, digital inclusion was very much the centre of attention. As on any first date, MPs and digital inclusion spent some time getting to know each other. Questions were asked, and answered. But at the end of their allotted time together, I’m not sure they’d yet reached a perfect understanding. The problem with digital inclusion, you see, is not just its sex appeal (and lack thereof), but its complexity (and abundance thereof). It does wear a lot of layers, more perhaps, than can be stripped off in a mere hour and a half. There was some talk, for instance, about rising levels of internet penetration, but no chance to explore whether access equals inclusion, or inclusion equals use of government services. (In short, no). MPs did, however, express considerable concern over the possibility that the drive to online services would create a new underclass, leaving the very people with most need of government services with least access to them. Ian Davidson asked for hard evidence the money saved by putting services onto the internet was being spent on the people who couldn’t or wouldn’t actually use them in web form. In each case, the answer to ‘what about the excluded?’ was invariably two-fold: ‘UK online centres’ for the digitally curious, and ‘other channels’ for the digitally dismissive. Personally, I would have liked to have seen more made of the link between the two. Digital inclusion, broken down very simplistically, has three core components – access, skills and perhaps most importantly - motivation. Only when motivated to give a) technology and b) e-government a go, will people move on to the requirements of access and ICT skills. While it was quite rightly pointed out that online government services would always remain a choice rather than a universal replacement of face to face or telephone channels, this rather overshadowed the very real need to do more to support citizens to use the internet, and sell them the benefits of being online. I would argue that to make an informed channel choice, citizens need to know what they could do online, why doing it online could be a good thing, and how they could get a bit of help to try it out for themselves. That’s where UK online centres come in. The network tries to make technology, skills, and increasingly online services not just available but relevant to individuals, and centres work with some of the most vulnerable people and hardest to reach communities in England. It was great to see some of UK online centres’ potential as an intermediary or facilitator between citizen and state recognised by both panel and witnesses at the hearing. However, while not impervious to the implied support and approbation of UK online centres’ work, I must sound a further note of caution. UK online centres are not a panacea. The mere fact of their existence cannot in itself be relied upon to effectively support online government services and deliver them to the excluded. The UK online centres network was set up by the then Department for Education and Skills in 1999 to provide universal access to computers, and is now sponsored by the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills. Over the last decade, it’s become increasingly clear that there is rather more to digital inclusion than access, and the network’s role has evolved accordingly to become about widening participation in technology, promoting and supporting skills development. As part of this work, many centres are introducing customers to the online government services that could save them time, money and hassle in their everyday lives. Indeed, UK online centre pilots and projects have found that a helping hand to find and use government services is key in recruiting new and repeat e-government users. The panel itself touched briefly on the fatal flaw of this model: not all UK online centres can currently support government on the internet. On any date, it’s very important to be honest. If you’re going to go out again you don’t want to build expectations you can’t meet – and frankly, we’re just not that kind of network. UK online centres were presented as a solution to making government on the internet work for the digitally and socially excluded – and they could be. But before the network can blossom, Cinderella-like, into a chain of one-stop-shops (somewhere between online citizens advice bureaux and 21st century post offices) there will need to be some sort of make-over montage, or fairy-godmother action. If digital inclusion is key to the progression of government on the internet, it needs to be suitably attired for the ball, and resourced to play what is actually a very specific role. The interest taken in digital inclusion – and accordingly in UK online centres – at the Government on the Internet hearing was fantastic, but I know better than to assume they’re going to call, or indeed respect digital inclusion in the morning. It is certainly unusual for someone to write an official report about a date, and I’m very much looking forward to seeing how the PAC takes forward last week’s discussion in written recommendations for action, due to be published next year. While I’m still not sure there’s a perfect understanding between MPs and digital inclusion, the match-maker in me remains hopeful that this could actually be the beginning of a rather beautiful relationship.
Return to Articles
|
