Digital Inclusion – Carrot or Stick?
Posted in All posts, In the news
Bob Holmes
Reports today (see ITPro) suggest that Martha Lane Fox believes that a good dose of the latter is needed.
She is quoted as saying that the government should make its services, such as Council Tax payments, TV licensing and so on, only available online to force people to use the internet.
She uses the example of the digital switchover for television to argue that “shutting down services would be the best way of carrying through the most amount of people, as long as it is carried through with training.”
So is the Government’s Champion for Digital Inclusion right?
My practical experience tells me the issue is more complex.
I’ve been helping older people gain the benefits of digital inclusion for many years now, and I’ve a large collection of stories of people who have found using computers and the internet to be truly life enhancing.
But I’ve also met lots of people who have been shown how to use the technology and who have said something along the lines of “Thank you very much, but I really don’t want to use it.”
Indeed the report that Ms Lane Fox quotes, “The Economic Case for Digital Inclusion” notes that “for a significant number of those aged 65 and over, digital exclusion is unrelated to social participation.”
In other words, they can live their life quite satisfactorily without being online.
So would coercion change their minds? And would it be justified?
There are times when coercion is justified, for instance laws that punish people for doing things that harm themselves and others, like driving recklessly (although it doesn’t seem to stop some people). And there are taxes that we all have to pay, so services that we may not use can be provided for the greater good.
This is the example quoted by Ms Lane Fox, taken from “The Economic Case…” that the state could save £900 million by “moving just one government service online”. Making that sort of saving could be seen as justification for making people work in a certain way.
I looked up the part of the report that supports that claim – I’ll quote it in full.
“Evidence from 19 local authorities indicates that the average cost saving to government of an online transaction is between £3.30 (telephone) and £12.00 (post) compared to an online transaction. There are no reliable data on the current volume and pattern of contacts and transactions between all tiers of government and the citizen. It is clear, however, that the potential savings of greater digital inclusion are considerable. For example, we estimate that if each of the 10.2 million digitally excluded adults could be enabled to switch one contact or transaction each year online from other channels, this would generate savings of around £900 million per annum.”
So in short the case for a saving of £900m is somewhat overstated.
All in all, coercing people over the digital divide simply does not add up for me.
December 3rd, 2009 bobholmes | 8 Comments »
December 4th, 2009 at 8:56 am
This made my hackles rise, and I don’t like getting angry over breakfast. Those who know me (a runner-up in the 2008 Silver Surfer Awards), will know that I started to use a computer 10 years ago aged 71, and that now I could not live without it – it is my magic carpet. But that does not mean that I want to see non-users forced to go on line, at risk if they don’t of being in default on payments or licenses that are legal requirements.
In addition to training, would government provide an adequate and reliable broadband service, buy computers for all those who don’t have them, pay for their ISP and security subscriptions, and for printers and the peripherals. My guess is that, like me, many older users would be confused and daunted by online billing, form filling etc, and would want to print everything off. Indeed, I think many people would be panicked by the mere idea of it.
It doesn’t sound like a nanny state to me, it sounds like a big bully state. Government has a duty to provide the services that people need, not to coerce them into using services they do not want. For goodness sake, at least where the retired are concerned, leave us in peace to embrace such technologies as, individually, we feel able for and are comfortable with. If some of us feel that a computer would be an alien and unfriendly presence in our lives, we are entitled to be allowed to live without them. When our generation has gone, and those who remain have all been familiar with computers from childhood, perhaps that will be the time for Martha Lane Fox to wield her stick.
Grrrr!
December 5th, 2009 at 9:45 am
I’m back again with a comment made by a friend of mine who has elderly parents who are not ‘silver surfers’:
“What it would mean for people like me, is that I would have to take over everything for my parents (aged 86 and 85 with no computer and no wish to have one) where finance is concerned thus removing their independence and a great deal of their privacy and dignity.”
Think again, Ms Lane Fox
December 6th, 2009 at 8:35 pm
Judith, I think your comments are all entirely valid and very well made.
When MLF gets to your age, someone else will be wielding another sort of stick I would imagine. And I would also imagine she may respond more positively if it were more of a carrot!
I would think in general if we took time to understand other peoples’ situations and ‘real worlds’ a little better we may find more creative ways of working with them to solve all sorts of ‘issues’. And that will always be true, generation through generation.
December 6th, 2009 at 10:59 pm
effectively,this would create millions of dysfuntional adults – people who had hitherto been perfectly functional and independent. They would justifiably feel angry and disenfranchised. Not constructive.
December 7th, 2009 at 12:04 pm
I agree whole-heartedly with Bob and Judith. I too have years of experience helping older people change their lives through Digital Inclusion, but it is not for everyone. Some years ago scientific research proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that it would dramatically reduce road deaths if, instead of air-bags, cars were fitted with a sharp spike in the steering wheel. Great in theory but…
For some of our case studies see http://www.leicscareonline.org.uk/careonline_people
December 7th, 2009 at 2:13 pm
I am 100% with Judith on this score.
As the current ‘Internet Generation’ grows up, what the government is proposing will happen naturally. However, trying to suddenly force it upon genuinely technophobic older people will not only be counter productive, it will cause huge stress in a group of people the government is supposedly trying to help.
This is a bad idea!
The end result would be they would have to get someone else to assist them, thereby exchanging the savings in costs to become different actual costs in other areas. Alternatively, older people would simply ignore the requirement to complete forms in this fashion. This would result in unfilled paperwork, lost benefits, lower standards of living and less help provided to this most vulnerable group of people.
January 12th, 2010 at 11:19 pm
The internet generation is already with us. Time has moved on since Silver Surfers’ Day was set up, and now most over 50s (including me)use the net and teach other people how to use it e.g. given the age profile of local government, I bet most of my hants e-learning colleagues are over 50. (They won an award recently – see blog). So I’m sure you don’t mean to be patronising but it is annoying when people assume over 50s are the same as their over-80 parents!
January 17th, 2010 at 12:50 pm
Yes Alys, I think what we need to redefine – with Silver Surfers’ Day in partic – is who it’s designed for. ‘Older people’ are not as you suggest one homogenous group, anymore than ‘younger people’ are. Silver Surfers’ Day is about supporting local people, organisations, intermediaries (such as Hants CC) to engage with older people in their communities around digital technology and skills. SSD is the catch-all, universal phrase that says ‘older people’ – but what that means in terms of 65+, 75+, 85+ is also open for you the intermediaries to interpret as you see fit. What we are all *trying* to say through this one phrase is ‘special attention for older people who would like to learn about/ be introduced to digital technology at a pace and in a way that takes account of their lack of experience and/or understanding/context and the fact they may be out of education and/or the workforce and so not running into digital technology in the same every day way the rest of us are’. It’s hard to say that snappily! Anyway, lots more to say here I am sure, and all very helpful for us as we try to make sure we are doing the best we can in working with and engaging with older people and their intermediaries. Thanks Alys!