1. Introduction
1. In the spring of 2020, large
parts of the world began to barricade themselves behind their borders
and behind closed doors, in the hope of curbing the spread of a
previously unknown virus. Instead of vehicles, striking images circulated
of deserted and silent main roads; while hospitals filled up, classrooms
and concert halls, offices, factories and gathering places emptied;
as the numbers of infections rose, human contacts became increasingly
limited.
2. Behind this staggering void, however, exchanges continued
online. From the moment restrictions on the movement of people were
imposed, digital communications, which already occupied a growing
place in our societies, quickly took on unprecedented importance
in almost all areas of life. Commercial exchanges, contacts with
public administrations, certain types of work, interactions with
family, education, medical appointments: even in spheres where information
technologies had until recently played a modest role, their place
quickly expanded.
3. Successive lockdowns, heightened controls or even border closures
and other restrictions imposed on physical travel have thus cast
a harsh light on a reality that has been too easily overlooked until
now: that of the digital divide.
4. As the Secretary-General of the United Nations pointed out
at the time, “the digital divide is now a matter of life and death
for people who are unable to access essential healthcare information.
It is threatening to become the new face of inequality, reinforcing
the social and economic disadvantages suffered by women and girls,
people with disabilities and minorities of all kinds”.
5. Digital technologies can indeed be powerful tools for information,
communication, autonomy and social inclusion, when all the necessary
conditions are met; conversely, in our increasingly digitalised
societies, digital exclusion is a major barrier to equality.
6. By accelerating and intensifying our use of digital tools,
the Covid-19 pandemic has highlighted the depth of the digital divide
that already existed between “connected” and “unconnected” people,
while widening it still further.
7. Awareness of this – and the real inequalities we have witnessed,
and continue to witness – should spur us to act now to adopt a truly
inclusive approach to the digital realm.
8. This is why the motion for a resolution that is at the origin
of this report calls on the Parliamentary Assembly to carry out
research to determine the extent of discrimination that exists in
access to technology and to make recommendations to member States
on ways to bridge the digital divide.
2. The digital divide: a real-life problem
that requires comprehensive and concrete solutions
9. As early as 2001, the Organisation
for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) defined the “digital
divide” as “the gap between individuals, households, businesses
and geographic areas at different socio-economic levels with regard
both to their opportunities to access information and communication technologies
and to their use of the internet for a wide variety of activities”.
10. Since then, the continued expansion of the fields in which
these technologies are used has broadened the situations where they
create inequalities.
11. Today, the internet, in particular, has become “a basic need.
It’s no longer a ‘nice-to-have’. The lack of it prevents people
from having access to public services, to education, to a chance
in life. It just limits what [one] can do.”
12. For governments, understanding and tackling all dimensions
of the digital divide has thus become an essential element in promoting
equality, whatever the area of life concerned.
13. The digitalisation of public services, which is being progressively
implemented by many governments in Europe and elsewhere in the name
of rationalising costs or in order to “simplify” or improve the
efficiency or speed with which casefiles are processed, is a striking
example in this area, as it all too often leaves behind those who
do not have ready access to digital technologies, thereby depriving
them of access to their rights. The impact on equality of the digitalisation
of public services has been the subject of an in-depth analysis
in recent years by the French Defender of Rights.
We
had the opportunity to hear a representative of this institution
at our meeting on 16 September 2022 (see section 5.1 below).
14. The OECD has for its part already carried out important research
into the digital economy. Its report "Going Digital: Shaping Policies,
Improving Lives" analyses seven dimensions that need to be taken
into account to ensure that digital transformation leads to better
lives: access; use; innovation; jobs; society; trust; and market
openness.
While all
of these are linked, it is the first two issues (equality of access,
equality of use) that are of particular interest to me in this report.
15. In order to better identify the means of action available
to public authorities in this context, it is perhaps useful to distinguish
between the structural and human dimensions of the digital divide.
This is because, in order to benefit from the positive contribution
that digital technologies can make, everyone needs, on the one hand,
to have access to the infrastructure and tools without which such
technologies cannot function (section 4), and, on the other hand,
to be proficient in their use (section 3).
3. Human
dimensions of the digital divide
16. Faced with the same structural
situation (the same level of access to the necessary infrastructure
and tools), and even if the structural situation is favourable to
them, different people will not experience the same ease of use
of digital tools.
17. The fight against digital illiteracy has become a major challenge
for our societies. According to a recent report by the French Senate,
for example, “the widespread digitalisation of public services...has
left 3 out of 5 French people unable to carry out administrative
procedures online”.
This
is alarming but unfortunately not surprising: according to the same
source, “even the General Inspectorate of Social Affairs was unable
to carry out a test of online housing assistance application in
December 2019”.
18. In order to ensure equal access to rights, States must take
steps to combat digital illiteracy and to provide effective support
to all those who are not proficient, or not yet sufficiently proficient,
in digital technologies.
19. I discuss different human dimensions of the digital divide
below, their causes and possible solutions.
3.1. The
gender divide
20. As UN Women recently emphasised,
“from online learning and digital activism to the rapid expansion
of high-paying tech jobs, the digital age has generated unprecedented
opportunities for the empowerment of women and girls. But advancing
technology is also introducing new forms of inequality and heightened
threats to their rights and well-being.”
21. Women and girls remain under-represented across the creation,
use and regulation of technology. They are less likely to use digital
services or enter tech-related careers, and significantly more likely
to face online harassment and violence. This limits not only their
own digital empowerment but also the transformative potential of
technology as a whole. As a result, the choices we make today will
profoundly impact our path forward.
22. The International Telecommunication Union (ITU) estimates
that globally, there are some 250 million fewer women online than
men.
A substantial divide persists between
women and men in digital access and use. Digital technology does
no more than reproduce socio-cultural biases and norms that are
at the root of women’s exclusion – and that of all other victims
of discrimination.
23. Research carried out by the OECD
show
contrasting situations between countries. While in many OECD countries
men and women use the internet in roughly equal proportions (with
Estonia and France being the most egalitarian in this respect),
in some countries, however, such as Türkiye and Italy, women are
still far less connected.
24. Women are globally under-represented online and in the business
world few women work in the tech industry. This is partly due to
the fact that gender still plays a role in career paths: women and
girls make up only 17% of IT students in the European Union.
As our
colleague Christophe Lacroix pointed out in his report on the use
of artificial intelligence,
the
discrimination in our societies is reflected in the use of new technologies.
Tackling gender stereotypes is a first step towards reducing gender
inequalities and how they are replicated in new technologies.
25. Among coders aged 16-24, the OECD has moreover found that
a systematic gender gap exists when it comes to information and
communication technology skills, with far less women than men in
coding and programming. It is important to work on this and bring
more women into science, technology, engineering and mathematics
studies.
26. Programmes such as Black Girls Code in the US have been successful
in empowering women and girls from an early age with a mix of skills
to succeed in the digital world. For older age groups, women’s entrepreneurship
and innovation can be nurtured through ensuring equal access to
seed funding, venture capital funding and the acquisition of business
skills.
27. The OECD is also strengthening its evidence base in this area
by developing additional indicators on the digital gender gap. Available
on its Going Digital Toolkit portal, these will be of interest to
anyone seeking to develop effective equality policies informed by
hard data.
28. Finally, the digital dimension of violence against women is
also an important factor in the gender digital divide. As early
as 2016, our former colleague Marit Maij pointed out in her report
entitled “Ending cyberdiscrimination and online hate”
that women receive disproportionate
amounts of abuse online. Sustained campaigns of misogynistic online
abuse, frequently accompanied by other phenomena such as stalking
and rape and death threats, have for example led many women to cease
their online activities, temporarily or permanently – including
journalists or women holding elected office for whom the online dimension
was an essential component of their work.
Online misogyny – just
like other forms of hate (racism, LGBTI-phobia, etc) – thus leads
women who have overcome all the other obstacles to using digital technologies
and who have a perfect grasp of the necessary tools to abandon their
life online, exacerbating the digital divide.
29. The Group of Experts on Action against Violence against Women
and Domestic Violence (GREVIO) analysed such issues in depth in
its General Recommendation No. 1 on the digital dimension of violence against
women. This contains crucial recommendations to governments, aiming
to ensure that the measures they take to implement the Council of
Europe Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence against Women
and Domestic Violence (CETS No. 210, “Istanbul Convention”) take
full account of the digital dimension of the forms of violence that
it covers.
Following
these recommendations would also contribute to strengthening the
fight against the digital divide.
3.2. The
generational divide – youth and the elderly
30. Older people are often less
trained in the use of digital technologies than younger people.
With the growing use of digital technologies comes the risk that
older people will be left behind because they are less comfortable
than younger people with using these tools. It is crucial that public
authorities explore all possible means and take every possible measure
to include older people through digital technology. Even people
with little previous experience with digital technology can of course
become competent and self-sufficient in this field, and many do.
31. Initiatives are often taken at local level – for example,
through public libraries or digital drop-in centres – to provide
basic internet training, including for older persons, who are uncomfortable
with using digital technologies to carry out ordinary procedures,
such as consulting their bank accounts or depositing their tax return
online, or using social media to stay in touch with family members
living far away. These can be highly effective, as initiatives taken
at local or community level are best placed to reach individuals
who by definition will not see online awareness-raising messages.
I believe that such initiatives should be strongly encouraged, including
through the provision of State support.
32. It is not just older people who may be left isolated by this
generational divide, however. It can also affect younger members
of society. While young people are “digital natives” and generally
appear to navigate social media or online games with ease, this
is not always the case. For one thing, not all young people have
access to digital technologies, and for another, stereotypes about
young people and technology can be misleading.
Young
people – including those who are comfortable with using social media
– may, for example, find it hard to deal with online administrative
procedures. Training – whether for younger people or through life-long learning
– must not overlook the need to learn how to use certain platforms
for routine administrative procedures.
33. The aim must be to avoid leaving behind all those who do not
know how to use digital technologies, or who do not want to.
3.3. The
social divide
34. Having access to digital technologies
means having access to digital tools, particularly mobile phones, computers
or tablets, and a network connection set up by an operator. Vulnerable
people find it harder to access such technologies, which can be
very expensive – in some cases prohibitively so, and as a result
face unequal treatment when the use of digital technologies is required.
35. This question is closely linked to many of the points that
I deal with in greater depth in section 5 below, focusing on the
impact of digitalisation of public services.
3.4. The
disability divide
36. People with disabilities may
face more barriers to using digital technologies. These are often
not sufficiently adapted to their needs, and although new techniques
are constantly being devised to help bridge the digital divide –
with, for example, software for blind or visually impaired people
that can convert written text into audio output – they are often
very expensive. Many sites and platforms make no accommodation for persons
with disabilities, with the result that the divide remains.
37. In view of the wide variety of situations concerned and given
how high the stakes are in terms of access to fundamental rights,
I feel that this question would warrant a separate report.
3.5. The
digital divide and the sustainable development goals
38. Two thirds or 1.3 billion of
the world’s school-age children do not have an internet connection
in their homes, according to a joint report by the United Nations
Children’s Fund (UNICEF) and the ITU.
The same report notes that 63% of 15-24
year olds have no internet access at home. During the health crisis,
191 States decided to close their schools.
This deprived many pupils of their right
to education, widening the gap between and within generations. The
pandemic has highlighted how important it is to tackle this aspect
of the digital divide.
Bridging
the digital divide could in fact help achieve Sustainable Development
Goal 8.6 (substantially reduce the proportion of youth not in employment,
education or training).
3.6. Other
dimensions of the digital divide
39. The sources of digital inequality
listed above are not exhaustive. While the causes and effects of
digital exclusion are generally similar, particular situations,
such as those of prisoners, protected adults and asylum seekers,
may require tailored responses in order to guarantee equal access
to rights.
40. It is not possible for me to examine all of these issues in
detail in the present report. However, I wish to underline that
when authorities put in place digital systems, the needs of all
potential users must be taken into account.
4. Structural
dimensions of the digital divide
41. Digital technologies cannot
function unless adequate telecommunication systems are in place.
This presupposes the existence of large and costly infrastructures,
the cost per capita of which increases when the distances to be
covered are great and the number of potential beneficiaries small.
42. From the point of view of equality, and given that access
to these systems has become essential for the enjoyment of other
rights, governments must guarantee access for all to efficient mobile
telephone and/or high or very high speed internet services (in particular
via 4G or even 5G networks and/or an ADSL or optical fibre connection).
This requires significant investment by the public authorities,
backed up by policies to ensure equality in this area. These questions
are examined in the present section.
4.1. The
geographical divide
43. Digital access varies very
widely between urban and rural areas – just as it does between the
most technologically advanced States and developing countries. There
are still “white” or “grey” areas where there is little or no access
to information and communication technologies. The territorial dimension
of the digital divide hits people in the countryside and in small
villages particularly hard.
44. Recognising the need for urgent action, the Food and Agriculture
Organisation of the United Nations (FAO) adopted a strategy to address
the rural digital divide as early as 2003.
Its aim was to increase the availability
of digital technologies in rural areas and promote infrastructure
development. The FAO’s strategy is evidence of the long-standing
need to overcome the territorial digital divide.
45. During the hearing held by the Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination
on 16 September 2022, Ms Verena Weber, Head of the Communication
Infrastructures and Services Policy Unit, OECD, presented this organisation’s
findings on connectivity-related aspects of the digital divide.
Very often there was a territorial dimension to the issue. OECD
countries were performing fairly well as regarded the number of
households with fixed broadband connections, but the speed of connections
varied widely between countries, and in most countries there was
also a significant urban-rural divide. As regarded mobile internet
coverage, there were again significant discrepancies between countries,
which were often linked to the price of mobile data usage and reflected
the structure of mobile data-usage offers.
46. The evidence gathered by the OECD in numerous studies conducted
over the past 20 years showed that fostering competition was the
best way to improve connectivity, increase choice, stimulate innovation,
and drive up both investment in and quality of coverage, including
in rural areas. Competition could be fostered effectively through
measures such as pro-competitive wholesale regulation and efficient
spectrum management for mobile networks. With increasing digital
transformation, demands on networks were growing, and there was
a need to boost connectivity. The OECD considered that most investments
should come from the private sector, but that public funding could
be important in rural and remote areas, where there was no positive
business case. Policy makers could also create incentives to invest,
at little cost to themselves, for example by removing administrative
barriers to deploying networks, streamlining access to rights-of-ways
or promoting network-sharing models. Demand aggregation was one
policy that could improve connectivity in rural and remote areas.
Coverage obligations could also be included in spectrum auctions,
and public-private partnerships could provide complementary funding
for rural areas.
47. In countries with universal service, OECD data show that funds
are often not used well or not spent at all, whereas countries with
broadband competition have achieved much lower prices. Accordingly,
competition should be maximised to bring prices down, and then if
marginalised groups still need subsidies to be connected, these
can be put in place. It is true that operators often lobby governments,
arguing that they would have to cease investing if competition intensified.
In practice, however, the opposite is the case: operators invest
more in the countries where they face more competition, in order
not to lose their competitive edge. Insufficient investment in rural
areas is therefore not due to too much competition.
48. In areas where there is not enough private sector investment,
the public sector could provide complementary funding. Regarding
public-private partnerships, it was pointed out at the hearing that
these frequently lead to the private sector pocketing all the profits
while the public sector is left to cover the investment costs, meanwhile
also losing the capacity to guide the transformation process in
the public interest. Colombia was however cited as a positive example
of a public-private partnership, where public investment had functioned
well. In this country, the public sector had financed a fibre backbone
across the country, and municipalities had financed connections
from that main line. The number of municipalities which financed
these connections were significantly higher than expected.
4.2. Position
to adopt
49. The presentation of the above
conclusions generated considerable debate in the Committee on Equality and
Non-Discrimination. It was underlined that in a world where everyone
needed to be connected in order to function as citizens, and given
that the private sector’s first goal was to maximise its own profits,
governments had the responsibility to ensure that everyone had access
to the internet. On another note, network coverage was paramount,
especially in remote and rural areas. While promoting competition
could benefit users in high-density areas such as cities, there
was a risk that this would come at the expense of rural users unless coverage
obligations were imposed on providers. In addition, Belgium was
mentioned as an example of how competition could not fix everything,
as prices there remained high despite the presence of four operators
A hybrid model in which the State owned the network but imposed
public service obligations on operators, such as a requirement to
serve rural areas, was proposed as a response to this situation.
50. The Assembly had the opportunity to examine these issues for
the first time in its
Resolution
2256 (2019) “Internet governance and human rights”, in which it
recommended that Council of Europe member States “implement public
investment policies which are coherent with the objective of universal
access to the internet; these policies should be intended, in particular,
to remedy the geographical imbalances (for example between urban
and rural or remote areas)”, without adopting a position on the
precise form that such policies should take.
51. It is clear that situations vary considerably between our
member States, particularly in terms of the size of their territory,
the concentration of populations in urban areas, the density of
populations outside urban areas and the digital equipment already
in place.
52. For this reason, I consider it unrealistic to propose within
the framework of this report a single model for the investment in
and development of digital networks and mobile communications that
would suit every situation in each of our member States. I share
the vision already expressed by the Assembly, namely the objective
of guaranteeing universal access to the internet and the need to
put in place policies consistent with this objective. In order to
remedy the inequalities that already exist in this area, and to
prevent them from deepening further, I also consider it essential
that these policies be treated by States as a priority, that they
be accompanied by adequate funding and subject to regular scrutiny
by national parliaments.
5. Digitalisation
of public services and the digital divide
53. The need for equal access to
online tools and services can seem very theoretical. However, as
I emphasised right from the start, the digital divide is a real-life
problem, which has a direct impact on those concerned and which
requires comprehensive and concrete solutions. To better understand
the extent to which this impact has a tangible effect on the lives
of our fellow citizens, I wish to draw attention to the situation
in some of our member States.
5.1. Impact
of the digitalisation of public services in France
54. In France, the institution
of the Defender of Rights has recently devoted two major reports,
published in 2019 and 2022, to the consequences of the dematerialisation
of public services on equality of access to rights.
Over
the three years that elapsed between these reports, the pandemic
has accelerated the trend towards digital transformation, which
is increasingly becoming the only means of accessing certain rights.
We invited a representative of the Defender of Rights to outline
the main issues and solutions identified in these two reports at
the hearing held by the Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination
on 16 September 2022, in Paris. I wish to thank Mr Agacinski again
for his useful and inspiring contribution on this occasion.
55. It should be said from the outset that the term “dematerialisation”
can be misleading. As we saw earlier, quite apart from the need
to know how to use the tools that have become indispensable to exercising
rights, the move towards online-only provision of public services
requires users to have access to many material means, such as an
adequate connection, device (smartphone, tablet or computer), storage
capacity, operating system and paid-up subscription. The digitalisation
also requires public services themselves to have correctly functioning
devices and tools. All of the above raise important issues related
to access to rights.
56. It should also be noted that anyone can experience difficulties
accessing online public services. In France, for example, following
the closure of many ticket offices and machines for buying train
tickets in small railway stations in rural areas, often, the only
way to obtain a valid ticket once at the station is to buy it using
a smartphone. To buy the ticket, one must therefore not only be
in possession of a smartphone, but the latter must also be sufficiently
charged, connected, etc. Not having a ticket can give rise to a
fine.
57. The follow-up report published by the Defender of Rights in
2022 shows, however, that some groups of people continue to experience
especially great difficulties in accessing digital services. These
include persons in detention, persons with disabilities, the elderly,
the young, poor and marginalised persons and foreigners living in
France. Yet, these are precisely the people who have both the greatest
need of public services and the greatest material difficulties in
accessing them online.
58. During the hearing, Mr Agacinski also made the point that
in France, a person’s level of education is the single greatest
determining factor in their access to, use and mastery of digital
tools.
59. Providing public services only online can thus infringe the
principles of public service, namely equality of access, continuity
and adaptation to users.
60. To try to respond to this, the authorities have opened “France
Services” outlets throughout French territory, where staff help
individuals to submit online forms that are needed to access public
services. While this represents progress, as it enables individuals
who do not have access to the necessary tools to carry out simple
administrative procedures, it is not a sufficient measure, as staff
in these outlets are not in a position to answer specialised questions
about the rights and procedures in question.
61. Accordingly, even where some material problems have been resolved,
it is becoming increasingly difficult for users to interact directly
with civil servants who could reply to such questions. Calling a
government department whose phone number automatically redirects
the caller to an automated answering machine that is programmed
to provide answers to a few simple, questions will enable some problems
to be resolved, but will never enable the individual concerned to
find precise answers to complex questions about their rights – a situation
where being put in contact with a human interlocutor remains indispensable.
5.2. Brexit
and the digitalisation of applications for “settled status”
62. In the United Kingdom, the
government has gradually introduced a "digital by default" policy
over the past decade.
The
universal credit system, which combines six welfare benefits into
one, is the first government service to have become digital by default,
with an algorithm being used to calculate benefits each month based
on information received in real time from employers, tax authorities
and government departments. As has already been pointed out by our
colleague Christophe Lacroix in his report for the Assembly entitled “Preventing
discrimination caused by the use of artificial intelligence”,
many
people lost benefits after this system was introduced – and as a
result were unjustly deprived of access to social welfare – simply
because they lacked the skills to fill in the new online forms.
63. The implementation of the "digital by default" policy was
also foreseen as part of the process of granting a new form of permanent
residence, “settled status”, to nationals of other European Union
countries who had settled in the United Kingdom before Brexit.
64. Before the system was introduced, numerous concerns regarding
(
inter alia) the digital aspects
of the system were raised before the UK Parliament’s Exiting the
European Union Committee.
65. Firstly, providing essential information about the need to
make a formal application for settled status mainly through online
tools (email update sign-ups, social media campaigns and publications)
might not be sufficient to reach (for example) people in residential
care or agricultural workers living in rural areas with limited
connectivity. In 2018, the number of EU nationals living in the
United Kingdom who had signed up for Home Office email updates was
only about 200 000, out of the 3 million people concerned.
The Exiting the European
Union Committee stressed the need to utilise a variety of media
to ensure that everyone concerned understood what was required of
them in order to retain the right to remain in the United Kingdom
after Brexit.
66. Secondly, various technical problems, such as the transcription
of names with specific characters from different alphabets not recognised
by British software, or different conventions concerning family
names (use of the maiden name, order of names), meant there was
a risk that some applications would simply be rejected. The impossibility
of scanning the chip in a passport or other identity document on
phones other than those using the Android operating system created
further difficulties when it came to submitting the application electronically.
I would like to emphasise here
that if authorities require citizens to go through digital systems in
order to exercise their rights, it is up to the authorities to ensure
that those systems take into account – including where technical
problems are concerned – all the situations of all the individuals
concerned, without exception. It is not acceptable for people to
be deprived of their rights because of defects in the design or implementation
of the technical tools that are supposed to provide access to those
rights.
67. Lastly, illiteracy or digital illiteracy might also prevent
people from submitting their applications within the required timeframe
if it were compulsory to do so online. This could include elderly,
disabled, or digitally excluded people (namely without the skills
to access or complete a digital form, or without access to the necessary
tools). The British Government had planned to roll out a digital
assistance scheme via public libraries and telephone helplines.
Representatives of EU nationals had pointed out that libraries would
not necessarily be the first place where people who were struggling
would think to go, however, and that the assistance scheme would
be of no help to them if the scheme itself was inaccessible. Face-to-face
provision would be necessary in the case of some vulnerable people,
such as the elderly or those who could not get around.
6. Possible
solutions
68. Two broad lines of action have
been identified in order to address such concerns.
69. First, according to the French Defender of Rights, public
administrations must be considered as directly responsible for ensuring
that everyone has access to public services. This means that digital
access can be an additional form of access, but must not be the
only one. Free telephone hotlines, manned by real people, must also
be available to ensure that users can obtain answers to questions
affecting their rights. They must also be able to rectify incorrect
data concerning them, as these can also affect their rights.
70. Second, a comprehensive digital inclusion strategy must be
developed, and must be designed for the long-term, with stable financing
and covering the entire territory. In this context, several points
should be highlighted.
71. First, users – including those who face the greatest difficulties
– must be involved at all stages of designing government websites,
and the language used must be easy to understand.
72. Public services must also structure their communications to
ensure that users can contact them directly where necessary. Machines
can be used where they simplify administrative processes, but they
cannot do everything, and must not be used merely to cut posts.
Public administrations, just like businesses, need to understand
people’s need to converse with a real person.
73. As regards this second line of action, the social dimension
of digital transformation clearly needs to be taken into account.
By way of example, during the committee hearing, Mr Agacinski noted
that while competition has brought prices down dramatically in the
French market, between 3% and 5% of the population still do not
have the means to pay for long-term packages. These persons have
no choice but to use pre-paid cards to go online, even though these
are ultimately more costly. In other words, those who have the least means
ultimately pay more for access to the services that they need most.
74. This is why free public WiFi hotspots must be widely available,
and why concession rates must be available for those who cannot
afford ordinary connection fees.
75. Other public actors can also be mobilised in this context.
Our colleague Ms Petra Stienen pointed out in this respect that
in the Netherlands, public libraries play an important role in ensuring
that those who cannot afford to have their own internet connection
can still access online services.
76. As regards digital education, the PIX digital competencies
platform can be mentioned as a highly successful public initiative
enabling high-school and tertiary students and workers to test their
digital competencies with reference to the European Digicomp framework
and gain new ones. This initiative is especially interesting in
that it aims to widen access to internet and ensure that it creates
new links, and not new barriers, between people.
77. These issues and various measures that can be taken to promote
digital inclusion were summarised in another recent French report,
with the measures including improving the user-friendliness of public
sites, providing structured assistance for digital uses and co-ordinating
initiatives, always bearing in mind, as far as public services are
concerned, the need to “move from a logic of 100% digitalisation
to 100% accessibility”.
78. Lastly, during our hearing, our colleague Ms Cressida Galea
drew the committee’s attention to the fact that, as more and more
banks close branches and move services online, very similar issues
arise, notably for older persons, as regards access to financial
services, which are just as necessary as public services. Viewed through
the lens of service quality, the representative of the OECD pointed
out that a good way to create incentives regarding quality of services
is to publish data about it. In Korea, every time a report on service quality
is published, there is a leap in quality, as no company wants to
finish last among its competitors.
79. I wish to emphasise that all of the issues raised above require
long-term attention, and that it is important to keep up the pressure
on public service providers to ensure that everyone whose access
to rights is hindered by the digital divide is taken into account
when rolling out public policies.
7. Conclusions
80. As UN Women recently pointed
out, we stand at a crossroads today: we can either continue to let technologies
exacerbate existing disparities, or harness these technologies to
build a safer, more sustainable, more equitable future for all.
81. With around 3.6 billion people in the world having no access
to the internet, and only about half of rural households in Europe
having access to broadband,
the
digital transition cannot take place without government support.
People already suffering from inequality and discrimination and
struggling to make their voices heard are left even more exposed
by the digital divide. The digital divide should not mean that these persons
are completely disregarded.
82. The Assembly has already proven, through the adoption of numerous
resolutions in this area, that it is fully aware of today’s need
to promote digital technology use that protects human rights, democracy
and the rule of law.
83. The purpose of the detailed recommendations that I have made
to our member States regarding the action to be taken in this field
is to ensure that the use of digital technologies contributes to
creating a world that is more inclusive, more equitable, more accessible
and safer, and that the use of these technologies is affordable
for all.
84. The main lines of action, which are elaborated on in the draft
resolution at the beginning of this report, are as follows:
- have universal access to the
internet as the objective, and put in place policies for deploying
networks that make it possible to achieve this objective;
- in order to remedy the inequalities that already exist
in this area, and to prevent them from deepening, treat these policies
as a priority, ensure that they are accompanied by adequate funding
and subject them to regular scrutiny by national parliaments;
- take into account in development aid measures the importance
of reducing the digital divide as a means of facilitating the achievement
of the Sustainable Development Goals;
- promote access for all to studies and careers in science,
information technology, engineering and mathematics, along the lines
already set out by the Assembly in Resolution 2343 (2020) “Preventing discrimination resulting from the use of
artificial intelligence”;
- consider the provision of digital training for everyone,
regardless of gender, age, social status, economic situation, disability
and any other personal characteristic, as an investment;
- take into account, from the first steps in designing any
new online service, the need to guarantee equal access for all;
- move from a logic of 100% digital public services to a
logic of 100% accessibility of these services;
- develop free internet access points as well as services
to support individuals in carrying out their administrative procedures
online;
- guarantee to each individual the possibility of correcting,
through simple and accessible procedures, any error in the data
concerning them and in procedures carried out online.