Scottish Minimum Digital Living Standard: interim report

6 Challenges to implementing a Scottish MDLS

6.1 Stakeholders’ perspectives

During the stakeholder interviews, many participants remarked on the specificity of rurality within the Scottish context, which must be accounted for if we implement a Scottish MDLS. As explained by participants, within rural areas, communities tend to be more spread apart than in other areas, such as Wales. This, along with the geographical landscape of rural Scotland, poses physical difficulties with establishing and maintaining a digital infrastructure. As emphasised by P11, a representative of a housing association: “in Scotland, in terms of rurality ... I just think sometimes the connectivity of it can be a little bit more difficult... Reception is not so good in some areas”. As further unpacked by P25:

“I think ... that you do get rural parts of Scotland where there's still limitations around phone coverage and Internet access. I think that's fair to say. I know now, for example, that there's definitely places in Scotland where you go more rurally that wouldn't be set up for that level of digital.”

What stood out from the interviews is that issues of digital exclusion are interlinked with issues of poverty, which exist in rural areas but are more prevalent in urban areas. Many participants commented on deprivation in large cities such as Glasgow and, more generally, on poverty that cuts across all social and digital exclusion elements. Many remarked on the extent to which digital inclusion issues, however important, are secondary to more basic needs such as access to food, heating or shelter. P27 talked about the challenges that this raises to their provision of digital skills support:

“Let's see how we can get a good iPad or computer to use, but people who haven't got that privilege, they're going to be in ... poverty... When we've given them the training ..., when they have the laptop or they have the iPad ..., they say ... they are hungry [so] they cannot see them for too long if they are hungry [... or] concentrate on the digital equipment.”

Relatedly, P14 discussed the problem of homelessness, with “40,000 people in Scotland that are technically classed as homeless”. He emphasised that an MDLS should encompass not just the binary of people who are either in secure accommodation or rough sleeping but all those who are “in inappropriate accommodation..., in abusive relationships ..., sofa surfing [ ... and] temporary accommodation”.

Besides poverty, it was recognised in interviews that a Scottish MDLS should also account for intersectionality and the vulnerabilities and needs of specific groups, such as older people. For example, P2, who works for an organisation supporting recovery from the use of substances, explained: “we support a lot of people who come through here of an older generation, so they haven't necessarily ... got the digital equipment. If they have, they don't know how to use it”. Meanwhile, besides other factors such as disability, differing levels of proficiency in the English language can intersect with the vulnerabilities of different groups, such as ethnic minorities, and with other factors, including poverty. Working for an organisation supporting refugees and migrants in Scotland, P6 explained:

“Adult new Scots ... will have very specific barriers, so English language being the obvious one... When you have a resettlement programme, for example for Syrians or Afghans or Ukrainians, the first thing everyone thinks about is English language classes. But people don't also think about digital literacy classes or digital access. So, in my view, those two things are equally as important.”

Other intersections may relate to language and rurality. P26, who works with people over 55 in a Scottish city, points out that there may be a language barrier “way up North if people are speaking Gaelic.”

While the above relates to obstacles concerning those receiving support to be digitally included, participants also identified challenges relating specifically to the work of organisations and policymakers tasked with providing that support. Representatives of both organisations and local authorities see the limited and inconsistent nature of funding as a significant problem affecting their ability to conduct digital inclusion work on the ground and support organisations. This includes financing from the government and other organisations, such as charitable trusts. P20 works for an organisation that takes a human-rights approach to digital inclusion. As she emphasised from the perspective of an organisation struggling in the current funding climate: “[there is] very limited funding ..., [which] seems to be at a very crunch point. There is no funding... Organisations will not exist without funding”.

What is more, when calls for funding are put out, these calls are often too prescriptive, or their allocation is ineffective because of a lack of clarity as to what needs to be prioritised to achieve the best outcomes. Several organisations, for example, mentioned shifting their work to fit different funding criteria, sometimes using the money to continue to provide their core services while also providing new services in line with these criteria. While this means that as organisations are potentially stretching themselves even more thinly without funders necessarily being aware, the allocation of funding is not always targeted in the most effective areas, with precarious staff conditions becoming the norm. As explained by P30, working at a community support centre in rural Scotland:

“I think when a government throws money, I think they don't always do it well... If we wanted to buy laptops and give them out, we could probably get funded for that. But the really important bit ... that really works and makes a difference is paying the staff's wages to make it work.”

Talking about funding, many participants expressed concern about the shifted priorities since the lifting of COVID-19 restrictions, with the perception that the Connecting Scotland programme is being suspended. Rolled out in the spring of 2020, this program consisted of a funding scheme supporting organisations in providing digital devices, connectivity, and digital skills support to people in need in Scotland. We know from discussion with the Scottish government that the programme has not been suspended but has now evolved into a different model designed to support existing projects providing support; however, respondents perceived that funding was no longer available from the programmes as it had been in the past. While the Scottish Government is considering options for continuing to provide digital inclusion services like those offered by that programme, many participants explained how this cessation of funding was already affecting their work and were worried about the future. For example, as emphasised by P14: “we know how tight Scottish Government and general national government funding is… That door has been very very firmly closed just at the moment”. Many participants worried not just about funding, but also about how far digital inclusion seems to have slipped from policymaker agendas in Scotland. As remarked by P9, who works at a digital inclusion charity in rural Scotland: “digital inclusion is becoming deprioritised by a lot of funders and government agencies and public bodies. And it shouldn't be, it needs to come back to the forefront like it was during [COVID-19]”.

6.2 Supporting families facing challenges to digital access

In our group discussion with families, we discussed the challenges that can prevent households with children from meeting MDLS. These challenges relate to three main areas: inadequate infrastructure, unaffordable goods and services, and insufficient skills and confidence. We asked groups what would help families with children overcome these types of barriers. The headings below outline the key areas of support they identified: better connectivity, supported access to equipment, and opportunities for developing skills and knowledge.

6.2.1 Better connectivity across Scotland

• Better infrastructure, specifically to improve connectivity for households living in rural and remote areas.
• More choice of broadband providers across Scotland, including for households living in recently developed areas and in rural and remote areas.
• Higher-quality social tariffs enable all families to use broadband at the same time.
• Better upfront advice about what data and broadband package a household need.
• Fairer pricing strategies for data and broadband that minimise the use of “loyalty premiums”.

Groups said that connectivity, including data, broadband and phone signal, was important for everyone, regardless of who they were or where in Scotland they lived. However, issues of affordability and infrastructure could impact a household’s connectivity. While these were issues that could affect households across Scotland, with gaps in mobile provision discussed in both the parent’s and young people’s groups in urban areas, it was identified that households in rural areas were particularly impacted by patchy phone signal and data connectivity and poor broadband provision.

Groups said that characteristics of rural and remote Scotland, such as the hilly landscapes, traditional stone buildings and rainstorms, were all barriers to connectivity. Still, they said that these factors alone could not explain their experiences of lacking provision. Instead, aspects of rural living were compounded by lagging infrastructure, with access to reliable broadband raised as a particular issue. People were concerned that the gap between rural and urban parts of Scotland was widening, observing that cities and larger towns were equipped with newer fibreoptic broadband while smaller towns, villages, and remote areas struggled with older copper technology. Consequently, groups said rural households were left with weak services, high costs and little recourse to do anything about it. Premium rates for broadband were seen as a problem for people living in rural areas where there was limited or no choice between service providers.

“Man: So much focus on the central belt and Glasgow and Edinburgh, and if it doesn’t happen there, then it doesn’t matter. But it is obviously not true, and so many people living in rural or remote or island or highland areas it is… I kind of get an impression [infrastructure] is almost like an afterthought…Some of it is practical things, like it is difficult to lay fibre in those kinds of areas, but there are other things out there… things should be subsidised…Towns and cities have continued to get better and better whereas that real rural connection…you will really struggle for any kind of competent service… we’re trying to put that broadband connection through legacy, aged copper cables, overhead copper cables that will fail regularly.”

(Parents group, rural Scotland)

The affordability of digital services was a key issue among groups who said that phone and broadband packages presented significant costs that some families would struggle to pay for. However, people were clear that given the digitalisation of everyday life, forgoing such services would not be the answer to financial hardship. Social tariffs, an intended solution for low-income households, were described as inadequate, both in terms of connection and cost-effectiveness, by parents who had accessed them. The inadequacy of social tariffs was frustrating for families, especially if they had already had ongoing issues with poor broadband provision, as described by a parent living in a rural part of Scotland:

“Woman: I didn’t think our broadband could be any worse than it was prior to [the social tariff] but it is really an issue. Obviously, [that is] a step towards trying to make it more inclusive, more accessible. But I am going to have to scrap it and we’re going to have to go for fast fibre because it is false economy for us as a family, it is worse than it was before.

Researcher: And when you refer to it as a false economy, do you mean because then you are having to rely on the phone data?

Woman: Yes absolutely, absolutely yes…We have always had to get [phone data] as high as we possibly could because the broadband [connection] wasn’t good anyway but since changing to the social tariff, the need is even worse. So yes, I have actually upped the data on our contracts.”

(Parents group, rural Scotland)

Groups said that many households could be overpaying for data and broadband if they had been sold packages that provided much more than they needed. They said that people needed better advice about broadband and data rates (e.g., guidance on which provider had the best deals) and reliable advice from service providers about what package would be required according to household needs. As noted above, this ability to shop around depended on having a choice of providers.

People also identified the “loyalty premium”, higher rates charged to longstanding customers, as a type of financial shock affecting households. According to groups, people could end up having to commit to higher annual rates because they forgot to switch providers because they did not know that switching would save them money or because of their personal circumstances (e.g., illness) or location (living in places with a restricted choice of providers) meant they could not switch. Groups suggested that changing regulations to restrict loyalty premiums as a pricing strategy would reduce the financial pressures and shocks induced by sudden price rises for necessary connectivity services.

6.2.2 Supported access to equipment

• More use and promotion of second-hand and reconditioned goods.
• More access to devices through school, for example via initiatives such as the Inspire Learning Programme.

If a household wanted to be digitally included but had inadequate or none of the described devices, accessing many everyday services, such as school or work, could be more challenging. In trying to make up for inadequate devices at home, people might try to access them elsewhere, but this could come at the expense of a person’s time and opportunities. For example, young people described how accessing school computers to complete homework came at the cost of missing out on seeing their friends at lunchtime. In another example, parents said people could find it more challenging to make doctor’s appointments by not possessing smartphones. For the groups, such regular disadvantages could accumulate to make people feel excluded from society.

Both parents and young people observed that affordability and the cost of devices could be a challenge to digital inclusion amid competing priorities for parents struggling to get by.

“Woman: On the question of are we quite digitally included in Scotland for children, I don’t think we are. I just think, without being doom and gloom, all we hear just now is how much people are struggling to feed their children, to do anything at all … so the last thing on a parent’s mind who can’t feed their child, who is struggling to heat the house, is going to be anything digital.

Woman: But they can’t do anything without being digital.

Woman: …Whether we like it or not, Scotland is full of deprived areas, I imagine if you go to one of those schools, there is a huge proportion of all of the things that we have just discussed, where the kids can’t go home and do their homework online, because there is a lot of them.”

(Parents group, urban Scotland)

Groups said that selling and using second-hand and reconditioned devices was a good way to tackle waste and affordability issues. They welcomed any organisations using such a scheme to support families.

“Girl: My old iPad, we gave it in to the charity shop because they can then give it to people that maybe like can’t afford one so I think maybe if people start doing that a bit more than it might help people that can’t afford it.”

(Young person group, urban Scotland)

They were also very supportive of the Inspire Learning programme carried out by some councils in Scotland (they referred namely to the Scottish Borders and Glasgow City) to distribute shared iPads to all classes in Primary Years 1-3 and personal iPads to all pupils in Primary Year 4 to Secondary Year 6. Groups referred to the programme as the “iPad scheme”. Parents said that the distribution of iPads was a positive step in the government taking responsibility for digital inclusion. Groups noted that the programme alleviated household financial pressure and helped mitigate social and digital exclusion. They wanted to see the programme upscaled to include the whole of Scotland so that families living anywhere in the country could receive the same standardised support.

“Woman: It takes a lot of strain off of families and there is no stigma because absolutely every child in like Primary 4 upwards gets given iPads, so it is not just the people who can’t afford it. They are all given one which takes that pressure off everybody…

Man: Yes, it is very much by local authority whether they will get a device or not. You’re not going to have the conflict potentially with kids, going to look at my laptop, it is better than yours type thing. If there is a level of consistency, it is going to make life a bit easier on that…”

(Parents group, rural Scotland)

“Woman 1: All the kids in that school have got an iPad…they don’t do that in my kid’s school…

Woman 2: Yes, they don’t do it in mine either. But they possibly don’t think that it is needed in our school.

Man: I would disagree with that because I think there has to be a set standard across…

Woman: No, absolutely.

Man: You shouldn’t be in shock that…my 7-year-old daughter has an iPad and like… I am shocked that you guys don’t have that.”

(Parents group, urban Scotland)

6.2.3 Opportunities for developing skills and knowledge

• Flexible classes and support sessions for parents – e.g., outside of typical work hours, offering online or in-person support, covering urban and rural areas.
• A “one-stop-shop” of online safety information and advice – e.g., a website run by a trusted organisation.
• Manufacturer-led support for developing functional skills, available to people regardless of whether they have a new/second-hand or basic/high-end device.

Groups were particularly concerned with having the appropriate skills for staying safe while using digital devices because of the risks of making mistakes online, such as clicking on fraudulent links. Staying safe would also require that families’ skills and knowledge be constantly refreshed to keep up with evolving risks. People were generally satisfied that schools were supporting the skills development of children. However, they felt that hard-hitting stories about online risks and direct talks from relatable people about real-life experiences could help get online safety messages through to children. They also noted increasing numbers of home-educated children who would not have the same contact with school. While some parents might learn digital skills through work or through their own motivation to use technology, groups observed that there would be a skills divide which would need to be addressed, and they related this to constant technological change.

“Woman: Some parents are going to know more than others and just with all of the changes and erm like you know the different AI and QR codes and things coming in there is different things you need to sort of watch out for.”

(Parents group, rural Scotland)

Group discussions emphasised parents’ need for skills to oversee and guide the safety and development of children’s digital knowledge at home. However, knowing where to seek resources and support to build digital skills could be difficult. To support parents, people said that schools and libraries were examples of trusted places already in contact with many families, and they could be a good source of digital safety information and good hosts for skills classes and talks. However, they also said that they would like to see more flexible support to accommodate various needs, for example, taking into account the different working hours of parents, their level of preexisting knowledge and the family's location. Alongside this, some parents suggested that there should be better online resources where they could find information for themselves, but through a source they could trust.

“Woman 1: I know they do classes in our local town, but if you’re rural then you’re not going to travel to get these classes. And quite a lot of the classes are during working hours as well so if you work then you’ve not got the chance to go…I wouldn’t mind going if they did online sessions or…even if your school invited parents one evening to go over cyber security or something so then you know what to tell your children.

Man: I wonder if there is something for local authorities to do. You know, some kind of…digital officer or something, and maybe this already exists but if it does, they are not very good at telling you about it. Using schools or community centres or GP surgeries or whatever is convenient. Especially thinking about rural areas and doing that you know going out and educating people rather than you know if you have it online. That is all well and good if you can get online… It is just having some kind of public information. There is maybe something there that the local authorities themselves could be doing because they know their areas.

Woman 2: …just building on to what [name] said, all of those digital [safety] skills, I don’t really know them to be honest. Nobody has ever taught me them and I learn bits and pieces as I go. I would like a one stop shop, a website that is reliable, that I know is correct and safe and that gives me the information I need.”

(Parents group, rural Scotland)

Groups said people would also feel safer online if they felt confident in their devices' different functional and practical skills. Retailers could be a good place for people to go if they have questions about the features on their devices. For example, young people talked about older relatives who had accessed advice and lessons for particular devices, such as iPads, through Apple. However, groups also observed that this support was not ubiquitous and unavailable to people with entry-level devices. Greater digital inclusion would require better access to tech support. Other sources of support mentioned included local authorities, due to their knowledge of specific local areas, and tech companies, for example, to provide more accessible and helpful information with devices. Overall, it was seen that a wide range of bodies, organisations and individual families needed to be involved.

“Woman: A lot of different bodies, but I think the tech companies are going to have to have a lot to do with it, it is their tech, they know how it works. But then you have got to have government, you have got to have campaign groups, people who just know what they are talking … we don’t want just tech companies telling us exactly what to do because they have [profit] margins to look after. So, we just want the input from everyone, but in a user-friendly way.”

(Parents group, rural Scotland)