Digital Inclusion Action Plan Call for Evidence: Local Government Submission

• The Local Government Association (LGA) is the national voice of local government. We are a politically led, cross-party membership organisation, representing English councils. Our role is to support, promote and improve local government and raise national awareness of the work of councils. Our ultimate ambition is to support councils to deliver local solutions to national problems.
• The Society for Innovation, Technology and Modernisation (Socitm) is a membership organisation of more than 2,500 digital leaders engaged in innovation and modernisation of public services. Established for more than 30 years, our network combines to provide a strong voice, challenge convention and inspire change in achieving better place-based outcomes for people, businesses and communities.
• The Society of Local Authority Chief Executive (Solace) is the UK’s leading membership network for more than 1,700 chief executives and senior managers working in the UK public sector. As apolitical public servants with granular expertise of implementing policies across a place, our members offer a unique understanding of how to achieve the best possible outcomes for communities while achieving the Government’s aims.
• iNetwork is a membership led partnership for local public sector-based organisations. Established 20 years ago, we currently have over 70 members across the North West, Yorkshire and Humber. We have a strong collective voice empowered to confront the most pressing challenges in the local public sector to drive innovation and change to enhance service delivery for our residents, patients, tenants and service users.

• Empower local government: Realising the government's digital inclusion ambitions requires a fundamental shift towards recognising and sustainably investing in local authorities as strategic partners, leveraging their unique expertise and community connections.
• End the digital inclusion postcode lottery: The current inconsistent landscape demands a commitment to long-term investment that enables the scaling of successful, locally led digital inclusion initiatives, ensuring equitable access for all. Long-term, sustainable investment in dedicated local digital inclusion teams and initiatives is essential to build robust ecosystems and achieve lasting, positive impact within communities.
• Pursue a unified whole public sector approach: The co-badged Digital Inclusion Action Plan must translate into genuine cross-departmental collaboration, shared ownership and aligned objectives to provide effective and coordinated support to local government and address the complex nature of digital exclusion.
• Integrate connectivity and inclusion: A more integrated approach at the national level is crucial to align digital infrastructure rollout with digital inclusion efforts, prioritising underserved areas and recognising the interconnectedness of access, skills and motivation.
• Focus on outcomes, value local knowledge: Evaluation frameworks must prioritise the real-world impact of digital inclusion on people's lives and national strategies should be balanced with and informed by the invaluable knowledge and established routes of local authorities and their partners. 

We welcome the opportunity to respond to this call for evidence and recognise Government's Digital Inclusion Action Plan as a significant step towards addressing digital exclusion.  Within the State of Digital Government Review and the Blueprint for Digital Government, digital inclusion was identified as a foundational element of the digital transformation of public services and is vital to the Government’s ambitions of economic growth. The co-badging across multiple government departments provides a key recognition of the multifaceted nature of digital exclusion and the need for a whole of government, whole of society approach. 

Local and combined authorities, across all tiers, are key enablers of successful engagement and delivery within communities, supporting digitally excluded residents through established relationships and community assets. Their convening power and strategic oversight are essential for coordinating diverse stakeholders, identifying local priorities and advocating for specific local needs. In the absence of national prioritisation of digital inclusion since 2014, there is a disparity in organisational capacity across local government and communities experience a ‘postcode lottery’ in digital inclusion support.  

While we welcome the government's Digital Inclusion Action Plan, realising its full potential hinges on a fundamental shift towards recognising and empowering local government as a strategic partner. By embedding local expertise, ensuring sustainable investment, fostering genuine collaboration and integrating digital inclusion with connectivity strategies, the DIAP can become a truly effective mechanism for closing the digital divide and unlocking the potential of digital inclusion for all residents.

This response draws upon the extensive experience and insights of local and combined authorities in England and sector partners to strengthen the DIAP, ensuring its effective implementation in partnership with local government to benefit the communities they serve. 

• Local initiatives: Locally led and convened digital inclusion activity is vital to achieving digital inclusion goals. Local government delivers digital inclusion support both directly and indirectly, through strategic, place-based coordination programmes, internal advocacy of considering digital inclusion in service design & delivery, empowering local VCFSE and health stakeholders and targeting support to residents through skills interventions, device distribution and digital champions initiatives. There is a wealth of proven, impactful locally led digital inclusion initiatives. However, there has been limited support to scale these initiatives.
• The persistent postcode lottery: The current landscape of digital inclusion support is characterised by a significant "postcode lottery," with inconsistent levels of resources, capacity and activity across local authority areas. Local and combined authorities have played a crucial role in raising the agenda of digital inclusion, however authorities that have delivered direct and/or indirect digital inclusion delivery and convene key stakeholders in a place continue to be the exception and not the rule. The DIAP presents an opportunity to address this and must be mindful that councils with greater levels of deprivation have often less capacity to invest in digital inclusion.
• Peer support and scaling initiatives: The LGA’s Digital Inclusion Network has over 400 members, comprised of local authorities, VCFSE stakeholders, NHS & health representatives and others, to spotlight innovative practice and facilitate national discussion on issues of strategic importance. The group has existed for over 5 years and has supported the development of a community that has been crucial when championing local government’s role in closing the digital divide.  Convening local authorities at varying stages of their digital inclusion delivery provides the opportunity to share and learn from peers and is a valuable foundation that DSIT can build on in sharing best practice of local initiatives.
• Local Government ‘multiplier effect’: The "multiplier effect" in local authority-led digital inclusion, the ability of councils as leaders of place to convene partners and coordinate delivery for the benefit of their communities, stems from the dedicated, long-term capacity to strategically address the multifaceted nature of digital exclusion within a place. This sustained focus enables the development of robust local ecosystems, fostering partnerships across sectors to deliver coordinated and tailored support that goes beyond addressing isolated needs. Consequently, councils and partners become more adept at identifying and responding to evolving digital exclusion challenges, leading to a greater overall impact than short-term, fragmented initiatives. This established capacity also significantly strengthens local authorities' ability to leverage support elsewhere such as through industry partnerships and the development of compelling funding applications. This also provides a sustained clear track record of delivery, working through established partnerships and allows for robust data collection mechanisms to effectively demonstrate the impact of digital inclusion interventions on the community and its growth.
• Respecting local knowledge and established routes: Top down approaches must be balanced with local knowledge and established routes that local authorities and their partners have into the most excluded communities. Local government understanding of local needs, trusted relationships and existing community networks are invaluable assets and key to addressing digital exclusion. The DIAP should explicitly recognise both the direct delivery of digital inclusion support by local authorities and their crucial convening role in fostering local digital inclusion ecosystems: bringing together diverse partners, securing resources and driving strategic coordination in place. 

• Assertive role of government: Clear engagement is needed to identify where central government can and should step into a more directive and assertive role to drive progress on digital inclusion (e.g., setting national standards, addressing market failures in infrastructure provision, working with industry, regulation on leveraging social value) and conversely, where it should step back to empower local action and innovation.
• Strategic engagement with local government as a sector: Local government needs to be considered as a strategic partner and continually engaged with throughout policy development to ensure that interventions are available to all areas and that support is proportionate to address capacity gaps and local needs.
• Reflecting multifaceted needs in co-badged approach: Mechanisms are needed to ensure that the co-badged DIAP truly reflects the multifaceted nature of digital exclusion and effectively addresses the systemic needs of interventions through genuine collaboration, shared ownership and aligned objectives across all relevant government departments. In the delivery of 800+ services, councils interact with every Government department. It is vital that Government is coordinated and collaborating consistently on digital inclusion to ensure that support to local government is as coherent as possible and efforts are made to reduce duplication. Effective cross-departmental, mission led interventions has significant potential to break down barriers that individual local and combined authorities are not best placed to do.
• Technology adoption in social housing: There is an opportunity to share best practice to ensure that the deployment of technology is appropriate to the needs of the end user and at reasonable cost. An area where this is of particular importance is within the social and supported housing sector, where challenges with collaboration have been seen in the Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN) switchover. Greater collaboration across the technology sector, local government and housing sector, with guidance from national government, can support and improve the quality of life for residents living in supported housing. 

• Sustainable investment over piecemeal funding: There is a critical need for longer-term and more sustainable investment in locally convened digital inclusion activity. Where councils have core-funded, permanent digital inclusion teams, dedicated resource and capacity at the local level effective ecosystems can be built and a ‘multiplier effect’ occurs. The DIAP should outline a commitment to longer-term resourcing for council digital inclusion staff and teams and a more strategic investment in locally convened activity. This should also facilitate the sharing of best practices and the scaling of successful local models.
• Addressing varied local capacity and capability: Therefore, funding and support mechanisms must acknowledge the varied capacity and capability of local authorities and places to deliver impactful digital inclusion activity. Targeted support, including capacity building initiatives and peer learning networks, may be needed to address these disparities and ensure equitable access to funding and resources.
• Scaling existing innovation: Whilst we welcome the commitment to funding digital inclusion initiatives, we have concerns with the focus on innovation. Instead, the DIAP should outline clear pathways and support mechanisms for scaling and mainstreaming innovative digital inclusion practices that are already demonstrating success at the local level, enabling them to become "business as usual" and benefit a wider population. This includes sharing best practice and providing resources for wider adoption. There is a clear gap between what is viewed as “innovative” by some organisations and an existing approach by others.
• Enabling local leadership: The design of any funding opportunity should avoid overly prescriptive criteria that may not align with the diverse needs and contexts of local delivery and may hinder the ability of existing, effective local models to deliver activity that suits their proven function. Funding mechanisms should actively encourage and facilitate effective partnership working between local authorities, health and VCFSE, recognising the unique strengths and reach of each in supporting digitally excluded individuals and fostering community led solutions.

• Multifaceted nature of exclusion: Digital exclusion rarely affects individuals in isolation. Interventions must recognise the complex and overlapping nature of vulnerabilities. Focusing solely on discrete groups risks creating silos and missing individuals experiencing multiple barriers, including those who may not be captured within the groups identified, also undermining the local prioritisation that takes place. Prioritisation of groups is important to the delivery of digital inclusion delivery, however lessons from local authority delivery & coordination suggest greater outcomes are seen when key stakeholders, who work with vulnerable residents, work in partnership in a multi-agency approach to adopt a systemic approach to service delivery.
• Omission of key groups: Additionally, the current priority groups, while important, do not comprehensively capture all those at risk and may exclude key groups, such as care leavers, homeless people, those with English as a second language, refugees and asylum seekers, the underemployed (who may lack opportunities for digital upskilling for better employment) and those experiencing digital exclusion due to health conditions beyond formal disability classifications. This list is not exhaustive, however local delivery operates across every likely excluded group and over-prescription of priorities may undermine the strength of multi-agency, place-based interventions. While we advocate for joined up approaches to intersecting priorities, a more inclusive definition would be valuable to ensure no one is missed and local prioritisation is effective integrated when the DIAP serves as the strategic direction for evolving digital inclusion activity. 

• Integrating infrastructure, connectivity and inclusion: The current divide between infrastructure and connectivity portfolios at the central government level needs to be addressed to ensure a more integrated approach to digital inclusion. Local authorities often see these as interconnected and a mirrored approach at the national level is crucial to avoid placing undue burden on local delivery and ensure a cohesive strategy. The LGA recognises this integration as ‘Digital Communities’ and provides the secretariat to the Digital Communities APPG, which advocates for increased join up across digital inclusion, connectivity and inclusion.
• Addressing regional inequalities: The rollout of digital connectivity has the potential to drive inclusive growth, but this potential is undermined when regional disparities in access are left unaddressed. Underserved areas, such as rural regions or economically disadvantaged communities, face a cycle of exclusion. a new digital divide has emerged in gigabit and full fibre coverage. The top 10% of district/unitary local authority areas enjoy full fibre coverage of over 60%, while the bottom 10% have less than 10% of premises able to access these services . Poor connectivity limits access to opportunities such as remote work, online education and digital services, further entrenching economic and social inequalities. Public intervention and strategic planning by councils are essential to breaking this cycle and ensuring that need, not just market potential, drives connectivity investment.
• As illustrated in the Lloyds Consumer Digital Index , regions with lower levels of digital infrastructure tend to have higher levels of digital exclusion, compounding disadvantages for residents in these areas. Limited access to affordable, high-speed internet restricts opportunities for skill development, job creation and community cohesion, reinforcing cycles of deprivation.
• There is also a challenge with urban based ‘not-spots’ which many urban based local authorities believe are not being adequately addressed by network operators or national initiatives which have a focus on rural areas. Digital exclusion is amplified in rural areas due to infrastructure limitations, geographical isolation and transport poverty hindering access to physical support and training. Addressing urban not-spots and the urban vs rural divide, requires a different approach which local authorities, as place leaders, can support with.
• Digital connectivity as the foundation for inclusion: Individuals must be able to access the internet whilst also having the motivation, confidence and skills to thrive online. Without access to good and affordable connectivity, the potential £9.48 return for every £1 invested in digital inclusion initiatives will be hindered . Better connectivity also fosters inclusivity by connecting underserved communities. In rural areas, where digital infrastructure gaps are more pronounced, connectivity improvements are vital to ensuring no community is left behind. .
• It is therefore paramount that digital inclusion and digital connectivity are considered as integrated, through to the role played within local authorities and their importance in both accelerating connectivity ambitions and identifying those most at need. This is reflected in the ministerial portfolio, however greater integration when considering support to local authorities is significant.