Digitization means inclusion and accessibility.
It has been more than 6 years since
the Swedish Act on Accessibility to Digital Public Services
was adopted by the Swedish Parliament (2018).
Based on the large amount of public government documents
that we have reviewed, we can confidently state:
- The review clearly shows that concerned
Swedish public authorities completely ignore
the Swedish act on accessibility to digital public services
for digital documents.
- The Swedish Agency for Digital Government (DIGG),
supervisory authority for compliance with the DOS Act
by Swedish public authorities,
lacks the ability to adequately perform its supervisory task;
also confirmed in DIGG's annual report 2023,
and in the Analysis Report of DIGG, 2023, by Statskontoret
(The Swedish Agency for Public Management).
- It's time for accountability:
Authorities affected must comply with
the requirements of the DOS Act.
6 years is a long time.
Our authorities have had plenty of time to adapt their operations
and implement the necessary relevant quality assurance measures
that ensure that the authorities' digital communication meets
the applicable legal requirements for public websites and other channels,
i.e. that the services/websites and the information published there
shall be provided as digitally accessible.
Why are authorities and businesses covered by the DOS Act
allowed, year after year, to provide digitally inaccessible
websites, government documents and apps?
- Why does no one care?
- Who is responsible?
- Where is the accountability?
- Who should be held accountable?
Hardly a question of lack of resources.
The public sector has large resources
available for its accessibility work.
According to the report of Statskontoret
(The Swedish Agency for Public Management)
"State Administration in Brief", 2024-06-14, on January 1, 2024,
(unfortunately also report is published as an inaccessible PDF)
only under the Swedish government there were:
- 367 authorities/agencies
- with a total of approximately 257000 annual workforce
A not entirely insignificant resource to involve in the government's
accessibility work (that also includes accessibility validation of
all digital documents before they are shared or published).
With these large resources behind them, it is surprising that
the websites, apps and digital documents of the affected actors
still do not comply with the DOS Act.
Nor is it a lack of budget, prioritization of other tasks,
lack of time, lack of competence,...
The possibility for authorities to invoke "undue burdensome adaptation"
as a reason to justify exceptions from making websites, documents and
apps accessible is too tempting for many.However, it is a clear exception provision that
can only/should be invoked with great restraint.
Unreasonably burdensome adaptation cannot therefore be invoked year after year:
- "Lack of priorities, lack of time or lack of competence
are not grounds for unreasonably burdensome adaptation".
Different treatment can constitute a form of discrimination.
Authorities that are not yet able to meet the DOS Act's requirements
to provide digitally accessible PDF documents are often trying to
"cut corners" on the DOS Act by urging users on their website to:
- "Click here to print the PDF document"
- "Contact us for an accessible PDF"
Which raises the following questions:
- Why should users who need to use
assistive technologies to read/access
the information in the authority's PDF document:
- first print the PDF document on paper?
- be forced to queue (for an unspecified period of time)
to wait for the authority to provide the desired document
in the form of a digitally accessible PDF document?
- how should the user then be able to act if the authority document
relates to a matter where the user is asked to immediately respond
or confirm an appointment?
Accessibility statement.
Actors and others covered by the DOS Act must also
provide a mandatory accessibility statement.
In this statement, the actor must explain which parts of
the website's content and functions are not accessible
and where improvements are still needed to meet
he DOS Act's requirements for digital accessibility.
However, these accessibility statements are all too often misused
by covering up ("accessibility washing?") the inability of the authority to
take adequate measures to comply with the DOS Act.
It is given the appearance that they are actively working on
the "challenge" and that the website will soon comply
with the DOS Act's requirements.
The problem with this is that they write this in their
accessibility statements, not just once, but year after year,
and without DIGG intervening.
A clear credibility problem for the authorities concerned,
and above all for the supervisory authority, DIGG,
the ability to carry out its mission.
Reporting an authority that does not comply with the DOS Act.
According to the DOS Act, users have the opportunity to report a
public actor/authority that they believe does not comply with
the DOS Act's requirements.
One reason may be that the reporter believes that the website
violates the DOS Act; i.e. that the authority is probably committing a crime.
The report can be made to the legally responsible person,
i.e. to the Director General of the Authority, via the authority's Registrar.
Since the Director General / Head of Authority is the only official within
the authority who is legally responsible for the authority's operations,
it is reasonable that a report of a suspected crime should be answered in a
transparent manner by the responsible Director General / Head of Authority.
Ideally as a public statement about why the head of authority has
deliberately chosen not to comply with the DOS Act.
For the sake of credibility, it is important that such a statement
is not hidden away in a footnote in the authority's internal system,
email, accessibility report, or annual report.
The responsible government minister and the supervisory authority
responsible for compliance with the DOS Act at the time
shall also be informed in these cases.
Our own experience of this type of notification is that
the authorities do not appreciate having to explain
why they do not comply with the DOS Act.
Examples:
- Some authorities do not even acknowledge receipt of our report,
let alone register it with a searchable record number;
apparently some authorities lack functioning
record management systems?
- Not infrequently,
the authority uses all means at its disposal to prevent the report
from reaching the Head of the Authority/Director General.
Instead, the authority allows an employee from its
communications department, or even its webmaster(!),
to respond to a report of a suspected violation of the law.
This is remarkable since these organizational units are not in
the legally position responsible for the authority's activities
or potential violations of the law.
- Authorities on digital accessibility in social media.
Agency Heads/Director Generals today like to
communicate in social media.
Not least to highlight to the outside world all
excellent accessibility initiatives and activities
that their agency is implementing.
But this type of communication is often one-way only.
It seems its only aim to present the agency as
"a leading player in digital accessibility".
Something that is made clear by the fact that
director generals are not happy to publicly answer
embarrassing questions in his/her feeds.
For example: "Why does the agency still publish
inaccessible annual reports on its website?"
Then suddenly it becomes completely silent in
the director general feed, no answers or explanations!
- Obvious low-water marks are the authorities (regardless of level)
that we have repeatedly, since 2019, reported as a result of publishing
a large number of important operational documents as
digitally inaccessible documents on their websites.
(Thus, not organisations that "accidentally" happen to publish
a few inaccessible documents, but organisations that actively
and systematically publish and share hundreds,
in some cases thousands, of inaccessible PDF documents).
If they respond at all, a typical response might look like this
(Note! this is an authentic response from a national authority):
"The authority is actively working to
increase the accessibility of our website.
We are aware that a few PDFs are not accessible today.
We manage all PDFs on an ongoing basis and the goal
is that all of them will be accessible in the near future."
Translated into plain Swedish, this corresponds to:
"The authority is aware that it is affected by the DOS Act
and that this law is mandatory and must be complied with.
The authority is aware that it does not have control
over its document resources and lacks knowledge of
the documents' accessibility status and who is responsible.
The authority has, despite this, chosen not to prioritize the task
of adapting the authority's documents to be accessible in order
to meet the requirements of the DOS Act."
Such a response may well be acceptable for the first few years,
but when this particular authority has responded with
exactly the same "cut-and-paste"/nonsense response,
year after year after year since 2019,
the Head of the Authority/Director General
must be held accountable and blamed.
As it is now, this type of authority continues to, year after year,
publish even more inaccessible PDF documents,
and completely without DIGG taking any actions.
- When we in 2020 notified another very central authority
about their published inaccessible PDF documents,
they replied:
"Thank you for drawing attention and pointing out to
the authority about the Act on Accessibility to the Public Sector.
It is important, the issue of accessibility is fundamental
for everyone to be able to participate in society.
The Act (2018:1937) on Accessibility to Digital Public Services
means that the authority needs to take responsibility for
services and information to be accessible.
The authority has worked for many years to ensure
that our websites can be used by everyone.
The documents published on the website should
of course be accessible to everyone and
the authority is working intensively on this."
A pleasing, truly hopeful response from this authority.
It clearly gave the impression that the authority takes
the DOS Act very seriously.
Every year since then we have checked
what that authority promised to fix in 2020,
but unfortunately nothing has changed on their
website since then, not a single digitally accessible
PDF document can we find there!
All (thousands) of the authority's published PDF documents
are still completely digitally inaccessible PDF documents.
Thus, a non-binding promise,
- and completely without DIGG taking actions.
Lack of accountability.
When Sweden's most important and central government agencies,
set the tone by systematically failing to comply with the DOS Act,
without penalties, other public authorities follow suit.
They seem to reason like this:
- "That's what everyone does".
- "When no central authority cares,
not even the supervisory authority DIGG,
why should I, as the responsible head of authority/director general,
care about complying with the DOS Act?"
Nobody cares, not even the Swedish parliament,
the government/government offices, ministries,
or administrative authorities.
And strangely enough, not even the administrative authorities
appointed to exercise public review/supervision of accessibility for all.
Fear of involvement.
There is a fear of involvement.
The state does not dare to interfere too much,
but hopes that all authorities will adhere to the laws,
an attitude where they only appeal to the authorities
to fulfill the requirements of the DOS Act.
It is incomprehensible that more voices are not heard about this problem.
Otherwise life just continues as usual....
Of course it cannot continue like this!
Time for accountability.
"The stairs must be swept from the top"
to gain an impact for the DOS act and the public's trust in
the authorities and decision-makers concerned.
Directly responsible for the fact that these abuses
are still ongoing are, of course, the respective
heads of government agencies, including members of
the government board.
In addition, public organizations and decision-makers
shall be held accountable when Swedish law is not respected:
The Agency for Digital Government (DIGG, www.digg.se
DIGG, appointed regulatory authority
for compliance with the DOS Act.
DIGG manages all matters relating to digital accessibility
and where other authorities and the public should report
observations/notifications about inaccessible websites and services.
DIGG shall coordinate and support the administration-wide
digitalization with the aim of making public administration
more efficient and effective.
Public administration refers to municipalities,
regions and state authorities,
with the exception of elected assemblies
such as the Government/Government Officea/Parliament,
as well as the Security Service, the Fortification Agency,
the Defence University and authorities belonging
to the Ministry of Defence.
Consequently, DIGG is not allowed to audit the accessibility of
Sweden's most central public services/authorities,
or issue fines to them!
This demarcation is probably the explanation why DIGG
has only issued fines to relatively small local/municipal actors
(with limited own resources) while the parliament and
the government/government offices, ministries and
administrative authorities completely and shamelessly
continue to publish inaccessible websites, services
and inaccessible digital documents!
DIGG does not live up to
what it preaches and pretends to do.
DIGG states on its website:
- "When we work with the supervision of
websites, documents and mobile apps,
we follow our new supervision manual"
But the fact is that DIGG's own website is completely flooded
with digitally inaccessible PDF documents!
DIGG has not even followed its own supervision manual
to audit its own website (www.digg.se) for accessibility!
It is further strange that DIGG, the designated expert authority,
with access to its own accessibility expertise in its line organization,
is unable to publish its own operational documents as
digitally accessible PDF documents; clear examples are:
- DIGG Annual Reports (2018 to 2023)
- government assignment reports
(including those relating to inclusion,
accessibility and disability politics)
- information material, guides/guidance, presentation slides
- DIGG's own regulations (MDFFS 2019:2, MDFFS 2021:2)
for the Swedish act on accessibility to digital public services, etc.
So unfortunately, DIGG is not a role model when it comes to
making digital government documents accessible.
DIGG and inaccessible fines - What a surprise:
In 2023, there were two notable cases where DIGG issued
sharp fines to two smaller actors at the local municipal level,
Ockelbo Municipality and Pajalabostäder AB,
for accessibility deficiencies on these actors'
websites and related accessibility statements.
These orders were issued by DIGG in the form of PDF documents.
One would like to believe that the supervisory authority DIGG then
provided these documents as digitally accessible PDF documents.
But alas no,
the documents were/are completely untagged PDF documents,
and thus digitally inaccessible PDF documents for the receiving party.
Perhaps DIGG believed that this type of document would never
ever appear on a public website or be requested from
DIGG for external review?
However, not likely, DIGG's decisions were issued by DIGG's
own supervisory officer and accessibility expert and had been
internally presented for DIGG's Authority Lawyer;
all staff members who were/are well-versed in
the requirements of the DOS Act.
DIGG's role as supervising authority of the DOS Act?
The question is whether DIGG has the right focus and
resources and makes relevant priorities to satisfactorily
carry out its supervisory mission?
DIGG's total staff number approximately 170 individuals.
The "central accessibility team" responsible for monitoring
compliance with the DOS Act by all public authorities consists of
4 individuals (of which one is a specialist and three are
auditors/administrators; according to the recruitment
advertisement published by DIGG, as of November 2024).
The actual outcome of DIGG's supervisory activities and priorities,
the number of in-depth review cases carried out and
issued remarks and fines, are shown in DIGG's annual reports and
DIGG's webpages on audited websites (years 2020-2023).
The outcome also states that DIGG,
despite its specific and clearly defined mission to exercise
supervision and audit of "websites, apps AND digital documents",
has deliberately chosen not to review and report on how well
the digital documents of the concerned authorities
meet the requirements of the DOS Act.
However, we can report that too many PDF documents
that are published on most of the government websites that
DIGG claims to have audited (simplified and in-depth) are in fact
produced and published as digitally inaccessible PDF documents
- without any form of sanction being imposed on DIGG's part!
DIGG has not exercised its control obligation according to law,
which has had fatal consequences in the form of so many (most)
of Swedish authorities' published PDF documents still being
provided as digitally inaccessible.
Clearly indicates that DIGG has not adequately carried out
its supervisory mission to get Swedish authorities
to comply with the DOS Act.
Nor has DIGG been able to issue actions or fine orders against
several large central administrative authorities/actors for which
DIGG has a supervisory mandate.
Authorities that clearly do not comply with the requirements
of the DOS Act; see a selection of these authorities below.
For example,
it is generally accepted that administrative authorities
are allowed to submit digitally inaccessible annual reports
to the concerned ministries;
without either responsible ministers or DIGG reacting.
Inaccessible annual reports which are in turn republished on
the respective ministries' websites. Total loophole!
It most likely completely violates the intentions of the DOS Act!
As an independent actor, we/NewFormat have identified over
3000 inaccessible PDF documents.
It is not really our task to examine the extent to which
concerned Swedish authorities comply with the DOS Act.
This type of accessibility review should normally be carried out
entirely by a well-functioning supervisory authority over the DOS Act.
If DIGG had wanted to, they could easily have taken
the necessary measures to protect Swedish citizens
from all these digitally inaccessible PDF documents.
If one wants, one can, but it is obvious that DIGG does not want...
DIGG seems to lack both the will and the ability to prioritize
the task of working to ensure that concerned authorities and
actors provide accessible documents according to
the requirements of the DOS Act.
We question whether DIGG is making
the right priorities in its accessibility mission.
It can also be questioned whether the current DIGG
is the most appropriate authority to adequately supervise
compliance with and impact of the DOS Act.
Justitiekanslern (JK), www.jk.se
The Office of the Chancellor of Justice
The JK is tasked with examining whether those who exercise
public functions comply with laws and other regulations
and whether they also otherwise fulfil their obligations.
However, the JK cannot examine the Government or ministers,
nor the Riksdag's authorities or employees and contractors at
the Riksdag's authorities.
Justitieombudsmannen (JO), www.jo.se
Riksdagens ombudsmän / The Parliamentary Ombudsmen
JO reviews that the authorities work in accordance with
the laws and regulations that govern their work
- especially those laws that concern the rights and
obligations of individuals in relation to the public sphere.
JO's task is to exercise supervision, on behalf of the Riksdag,
over the application of laws and other regulations in public activities.
The supervision covers both courts and other authorities
and the employed executives.
One way to clarify whether DIGG is the most appropriate authority
to supervise compliance with the DOS Act is to file a complaint
with JO against DIGG; with the argument that it is extremely doubtful
whether DIGG in its public activities follows and applies Swedish laws
and other regulations correctly in its supervisory activities.
Other authorities affected by the DOS Act can also be reported to JO.
The question, however, is whether JO is equipped to manage
250+ separate reports or whetherJO would rather welcome
a class action concerning all 250+ authorities?
Interesting in this context is that the JO also
does not care about the DOS Act;
The JO also publishes a large number of inaccessible
digital documents on its website, www.jo.se.
Riksdagens konstitutionsutskott (KU),
The Parliament Constitutional Committee
KU is tasked with examining whether the government and
ministers are following the rules for government work.
KU is a committee in the Swedish Parliament with
the task of preparing questions and raising proposals
of constitutional and administrative law significance,
as well as examining the performance of the ministers'
duties and the handling of government affairs.
Members of the Parliament have the right to report
the ministers in the government to KU.
KU then investigates whether the ministers
who have been reported have committed an offence or not.
Riksrevisionen, www.riksrevisionen.se
The Swedish National Audit Office.
Riksrevisionen checks that the government and
government agencies are doing their job.
The task is to examine what the state's money is used for,
how it is reported and how efficiently it is used.
Riksrevisionen examines whether the agencies comply
with directives, rules and regulations, whether they achieve
their objectives and whether government efforts are effective.
If Riksrevisionen finds shortcomings,
these are reported together with recommendations
for improving operations.
Statskontoret, www.statskontoret.se
The Swedish Agency for Public Management
Statskontoret works to promote an efficient and
democratic state administration and acts as
the government's investigative authority.
Statskontoret conducts investigations and
evaluations in all sectors by analyzing,
evaluating and reporting as a basis for improving
the efficiency and review of state operations,
developing administrative policy and
promoting a good administrative culture.
(As an outside observer, one would like to believe that
the concept of "a good administrative culture" includes
that Swedish authorities comply with Swedish law,
including the DOS Act.)
In 2022 the Swedish Government/Ministry of Infrastructure
commissioned Statskontoret (in the form of a PDF document)
to carry out an Agency Analysis of
The Agency for Digital Government (DIGG)
The assignment included, among other things,
"analyzing how DIGG fulfills its tasks in relation to instructions,
appropriation letters, government assignments and resources,
and how internal and external factors affect the agency's results".
In its Analysis Report (2023), Statskontoret says:
- "We assess that Digg is not fulfilling its task in
supervising access to digital public services,...."
(i.e., as a supervisory authority for the DOS Act).
- "We base this on the fact that the authority
carries out too few audits within the framework of
its supervisory mission and does not meet
the volume targets that the EU Commission has decided on".
Worth noting:
Despite the fact that both
the Ministry of Infrastructure and Statskontoret
have very good knowledge of the requirements of the DOS Act,
both the assignment document and the analysis report
were unfortunately carried out and published as
digitally inaccessible PDF documents!
Lagrådet (Justitiedepartementet), www.lagradet.se
The Council on Legislation (Ministry of Justice)
Lagrådet is a Swedish authority that reviews and issues
opinions on legislative proposals at the request of
the government or a parliamentary committee.
Lagrådet shall normally be consulted on proposals
for amendments to the constitutions that concern
freedom of the press and freedom of expression
in certain media and on proposals for laws that affect
the freedoms and rights of individuals,
their personal and financial circumstances or
their obligations towards the public.
Lagrådet has, among other things, published opinions
(in the form of its own digitally inaccessible PDF documents)
prior to the implementations of:
- the EU's Web Accessibility Directive (2018-06-20) and
- the Accessibility Directive (2022-10-05)
as Swedish laws.
Åklagarmyndigheten (Statsåklagaren), www.aklagare.se
The Swedish Prosecution Authority
Åklagarmyndigheten is a state administrative authority
with the task of contributing to ensuring that individuals
who commit crimes are held accountable for their actions
and that this is done in an efficient and legally secure manner.
Worth noting:
All the above-mentioned entities
DIGG, JK, JO, KU, Riksrevisionen, Statskontoret,
Lagrådet and Åklagarmyndigheten still publish
digitally inaccessible annual reports, official business reports,
other reports, audit reports and statements
on their respective websites!
Which most likely violates the intentions of the DOS Act!
We have found no indication that any of
the above-mentioned authorities have been interested
in carrying out any form of regulatory audit or action
at the national state level or any opinion regarding
how well the current web accessibility law, the DOS Act,
is being complied with by state authorities.
In summary
Thus, DIGG, JK, JO, KU, Riksrevisionen, Statskontoret,
Lagrådet and Åklagarmandigheten have clear
credibility problems and seem to lack convincing
ability to fully exercise assigned authority tasks.
Conclusion
As said, 6 years have passed since the DOS Act came into force in 2019.
Despite this, it is not being complied with by the concerned
Swedish authorities when it comes to published digital documents.
How much longer will these authorities
need to comply with the DOS Act?
How many more inaccessible documents
have to be reported to the concerned actors
before they comply with the DOS Act?
There should be no need to make special remarks to
heads of authorities to comply with current Swedish law;
after all, according to Regeringsformen
(The Instrument of Government) they are appointed as
heads of authorities by the government
solely on the basis of merit and skill.
Why doesn't DIGG demand real accountability
to a greater extent from the heads of authorities concerned?
Why doesn't anyone care? Where is the accountability?
We cannot find that it is permissible for any other Swedish law
to be neglected by concerned actors in a similar way.
So why is this permitted for the DOS Act in particular?
It is not offensive to demand accountability from
the head of a public sector authority.
There is a regulatory framework, the DOS Act,
it's just a matter of daring and wanting to apply that law!
Where is the political accountability?
Our review shows that not even
the Government / Government Offices / Ministries
cares about complying with the requirements of the DOS Act.
PDF documents that are currently provided by
Swedish digital public services have one common characteristic:
- They are not designed to meet the requirements of the DOS Act
to be provided as digitally accessible PDF documents.
An authority/and administrative culture has been created
that focuses more on cutting corners around the DOS Act
than on fulfilling its requirements to counteract discrimination.
Continuing with the current order is not an option.
Now there is a need for a strong steering of this government culture.
It is time for a re-take where the authorities and executives concerned
are required to face a clear accountability for fulfilling the DOS Act.
The shortcomings are so severe and obvious that even all
responsible Ministers / Heads of Ministries must step forward,
act and take responsibility for fulfilling the DOS Act.
However, the ultimate responsibility (currently) for
demanding accountability and taking measures to stop
the absurdity that is currently taking place is, Erik Slottner,
Minister for Public Administration, Ministry of Finance,
with responsibility for:
"A well-functioning digitalization in public administration
to improve services for citizens and increase
the efficiency of our authorities".
The Minister for Public Administration needs to take
immediate action and answer these questions:
- When the authorities and other actors concerned,
regardless of level, have completely lost their core values
and instead act in conflict with the values
the Swedish state stands for according to
the "Swedish Act on Accessibility to Digital Public Services",
and it doesn't matter if you don't follow the rules,
then for what purpose is the DOS Act?
- What strict measures will you, as the responsible minister,
take, and when, to ensure that authorities and actors affected
by the DOS Act comply with the law's requirements?
Demands for immediate actions:
- The DOS Act must be tightened.
Public authorities should not be allowed
to cut corners around the DOS Act.
Our review shows that the DOS Act in its current form is pointless;
too many concerned authorities do not care to comply with it.
The Authorities' Budget Letters/Appropriation Letters,
regulations and instructions must be clarified:
"Swedish Act on Accessibility to Digital Public Services"
must be fully complied with for the websites,
documents and apps of the authorities concerned.
Head pop Authorities who does not comply with the law,
and thereby actively circumvents the law and his/her own
responsibility, shall risk deterrent legal consequences.
At the national level, issues regarding the DOS Act
shall also be part of the regular follow-up discussions
held between the government office and authorities.
- When an authority or other publicly funded entity
provides a government office/department with
a digitally inaccessible document,
it shall not be accepted/received, but shall immediately
be returned to the sending authority/body for action:
Redo it, do it right!
(Examples of such digitally inaccessible documents:
annual reports of administrative authorities,
consultation responses, reports,...)
- Reform DIGG so that it becomes a well-functioning and
efficient authority to "review digital public services provided
by a public actor to see whether they meet the requirements of
the Act on Accessibility to Digital Public Services" AND that
demands accountability from heads of authorities who choose
not to comply with the requirements of the DOS Act.
Alternatively,
appoint another supervisory authority for the DOS Act (other than DIGG)
with the will and prioritization ability to carry out serious supervisory work
and to effectively exercise its supervisory mission over
the Act on Accessibility to Digital Public Services.
Regardless,
set requirements for reasonable and appropriate competence and
ensure that the appointed supervisory authority itself
complies with the DOS Act and applies it fully to
its own websites, apps AND documents.
The appointed supervisory authority shall,
to a much greater extent, use its entire arsenal of sharp tools.
Fines must be issued quickly when warnings or orders for action
are not respected within a reasonable period of time
(6 years is then not a reasonable period of time!).