Local authorities being left without adequate support to procure AI in public interest, research finds

Local government does not have access to a clear, comprehensive or consistent account of how to procure AI in the public interest, an independent research institute has warned.

To conduct the study, researchers at the Ada Lovelace Institute analysed 16 different pieces of guidance and legislation – published under the 2010-2024 Conservative Government – relevant to the procurement of AI.

However, researchers observed “insufficient clarity” about how to apply concepts like fairness, how to define public benefit and how to ensure that the use of AI is transparent and understandable to affected people.

The report warned that local authorities therefore face “significant challenges” in navigating existing guidance and relevant legislation during procurement, despite a “proliferation” of Government guidance documents.

The report made practical suggestions for improving procurement of AI and data-driven systems in local government, including:

• clearer guidance, definitions, success metrics and responsibilities.
• implementing governance mechanisms like the Algorithmic Transparency Recording Standard.
• piloting impact assessments and supporting public participation.

The Ada Lovelace Institute observed: “While there is optimism that AI could enhance public services, this will only be achieved if the public sector can ensure the adoption of new technologies are safe, effective and in the public interest.”

Imogen Parker, Associate Director at the Ada Lovelace Institute, said: “Procurement can and should be a key lever in ensuring that AI tools being used by local government are safe, effective, fair and in the public interest. Local authorities face the unenviable task of having to navigate unclear, overlapping and sometimes conflicting guidance.

“It's essential that the procurers in the public sector are confident about the products they are buying in - and neither they nor the public are put at risk.

“Embedding a robust, ethical procurement process in the context of reduced budgets is of course a significant challenge. But it is important to also consider the cost of not doing this, both financially and ethically, something demonstrated all too clearly by the Post Office’s Horizon scandal.”

The Ada Lovelace Institute is funded by the Nuffield Foundation.

A Local Government Association (LGA) spokesperson said: “We are broadly supportive of the findings of this report and the need for clear, coherent, and comprehensive support on procurement of AI for local government.

“Councils are constantly innovating to develop new solutions to some of the biggest challenges facing residents and their communities, but too often these face hurdles or extra costs, including with AI. 

“More must be done to understand the local government procurement challenges that already exist and how these interact with the AI ecosystem, and how councils can be supported through stronger assurance mechanisms and local government’s role in fostering competition to prevent further market dominance by a handful of global companies.”

Lottie Winson