3Levers for transformation
37.This Chapter sets out the progress that the Government has made so far in utilising data and technology to enable transformation.
Public sector data-sharing
38.The Government Transformation Strategy, published in 2017, emphasised how and why the joining up of data across the Government and its Agencies was key to transforming the operations of Government:
Delivering public services more effectively and efficiently requires joining together data from multiple public sector bodies […] The convenience and cost-effectiveness of these digital services are felt by individual citizens and society as a whole. They would not be possible without the ability to share data securely within government.78
Similarly, the British Computing Society emphasised that data-sharing and its underlying infrastructure were vital aspects of digital Government as well as a means of better policy delivery.79
39.We heard that the utilisation of data for better public services could, in turn, improve the relationship between the citizen and the State, a key theme of digitisation (see paragraph 22). Professor Weerakkody told us that there was a lot of data out there, that if utilised properly by the Government, would benefit the citizen, providing them with more information that would positively affect their day-to-day life, such as in the case of a citizen who may be moving house and want to look up information and data about schools, transport, environment and healthcare in the local area.80 Further, Joel Bellman representing Deloitte and Councillor Peter Fleming representing the Local Government Association, gave us further examples of how the good use of data by the Government could create more efficient public services that in turn improved the quality of life for citizens.81 Joel Bellman, for example, explained that, in the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham, he had seen how local datasets had influenced policy decisions that fulfilled their social imperatives, while Councillor Peter Fleming explained that in his area, Sevenoaks Town & St. John’s, the data on deprivation levels influenced where the Council spent money.82
40.The Cabinet Office was positive about the Government’s data-sharing infrastructure. It explained that GDS was continuing to make services seamless for users through its expansion of the availability of GOV.UK Registers, as discussed in the previous Chapter.83 SAS, a software analytics company, explained that GDS had undertaken work on data infrastructure and standards already which had made major progress in “joining up the machinery of government”.84 Similarly, Deloitte explained that GDS had been successful in creating services (such as GOV.UK Registers and GOV.UK Design System) which teams across Government could use to assist the sharing of data.85 Tom Smith representing the Office for National Statistics was also positive about the contribution that GDS had made initially to the Government data-sharing landscape: “one great success of GDS was enabling, facilitating and supporting a step change in the technical expertise and capability within Government.”86
41.In addition, the Government Transformation Strategy (2017) outlined further action that the Government had taken to improve data-sharing:
- Opening up Government data and Government services internally and externally through the use of Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) (definition in footnote).87
- Building a national data infrastructure of registers and ensuring they were secure and available to the public, such as a country register and the prison estate register;
- Transforming the way that Government’s data is stored and managed; and
- Exiting large single supplier and multi-year IT contracts.88
42.In 2017, GDS carried out research on how Government services were developed and found that there was variation between departments, often with silos between different areas and professions.89 As such, and in response to the Government Transformation Strategy, GDS set out a commitment to “build services that run seamlessly across government”.90 Since then, GDS and the Cabinet Office have implemented infrastructure to promote data-sharing across departments.91 For example, the Cabinet Office highlighted to us API technical data standards that were released in February 2018, noting that these standards had helped departments to open up data for re-use in a consistent way.92 This had been a significant recommendation made in the Martha Lane Fox review, which led to GDS’s creation, (see paragraph 1 for further detail on the Martha Lane Fox review). These standards included:
- Enabling access to a whole dataset in bulk;
- Having appropriate responses to data requests;
- Authorising APIs to be used by other departments; and
- Keeping local dataset copies up-to-date.93
The Government Digital Service also told us that it was prioritising “making better use of Government data” as part of its workstreams, but little additional evidence was provided about how they planned to do this.94
43.As discussed in the previous Chapter, Estonia was highlighted to us as an example of a State that had made good use of citizen data to transform the way in which the two interacted. Estonia utilised a system known as the X-Road to ensure that data was shared securely between departments, but without a reliance on a centralised database.95 The X-Road is a system of registries whereby each register has an owner, usually a department or team within a department, who is responsible for the data. In order for the citizen to access this data, they provide a single unique identifier (we discussed the theme of single unique identifiers at paragraph 29). In turn, the citizen’s data is encrypted and every time a person accesses it, including the citizen or the Estonian government, a digital footprint of that activity is left so that people can see who has accessed that data. In a book published by e-Estonia, a group that presents the way in which the Estonian government had facilitated electronic interactions between the citizen and the State for global policy makers, they summarised the benefits of the X-Road:
The X-Road is a critical tool, one of the key ingredients in e-Estonia’s infrastructure that connects all the decentralised components of the system together. It’s the environment that allows the nation’s various e-services and databases, in both the public and private sector, to link up and operate in harmony no matter what platform they are being used on.96
44.The Alan Turing Institute, the national institute for data science and artificial intelligence, suggested that GDS had taken steps to emulate features of the X-Road in the Government as a Platform (GaaP) approach: “where each data variable is the responsibility of one agency alone, and there is a mechanism of secure data interchange between registries, X-Road”.97 However, David Durant, a former employee for GDS, told us that GOV.UK Registers received minimal support from the rest of Government and, as such, progress stalled.98 Further, a report from the National Audit Office in 2017 and a 2018 Report from Reform, a think tank working to reform Westminster, both concluded that, though progress had been made, further work on the necessary infrastructure was required so that data could be shared across the public sector for optimum results.99 The Government has taken other steps in this area too. For example, in January 2019, GDS launched the “data revolution”—a public call for thoughts and ideas on how the Government could create “a strong practical movement in central government focusing on the applied experience of data for better services”.100 In the blogpost that announced this, GDS identified five key areas in which the Government needed to make distinct progress to better its data-sharing practices. These were:
- Making sure data is fit for purpose and stored appropriately by the Government;
- Ensuring the right skills in both leadership and lower down, so that data skills gaps are appropriately addressed;
- Ensuring funding teams to work across department boundaries;
- Building shared guidance and standards to ensure all data custodians and guardians are connected whilst maintaining autonomy; and
- Sharing data through open but secure collaboration.101
45.In July 2018, DCMS announced its intentions to launch a National Data Strategy, “to unlock the power of data in the UK economy and Government, while building public confidence in its use.”102 The Office for National Statistics and 360Giving explained that the National Data Strategy also had a key role to play in the future good use of data.103 While this has not yet been published the Government has begun the process of developing the strategy. In June 2019, the Government announced the first phase of this strategy, which was a call for evidence to underpin the strategy itself. The final strategy is expected late next year.
46.Data-sharing is key to ensuring that digital Government can be transformative. It enables departments to work together to produce efficient public services that work for the citizen, thus improving the citizen-Government relationship. We welcome that the Government has commenced phase one of developing its National Data Strategy. As part of this process to inform the content of the National Data Strategy, DCMS should conduct an audit of data-sharing amongst Government departments to see where best practice is taking place, and identify which departments are particularly siloed. Further, the audit should also determine to what extent the initial recommendations by Martha Lane Fox were adopted. This audit should be completed and published in advance of the National Data Strategy being published in Winter 2020 so that its findings can inform the National Data Strategy.
Culture and leadership
47.As mentioned at paragraph 38, the relationship between departments and the processes within departments are key to maximising the use of data across Government. Further, Tom Loosemore, a former Deputy Director of GDS, identified that, as departments improved their own expertise, there remained a need for a central driving force, such as a data advisory board, to ensure cross-government collaboration.104 The creation of a ‘Data Advisory Board’ was mentioned by the Office for National Statistics, DCMS and the Cabinet Office as having the potential to remedy data related challenges and to ensure that use of data had the appropriate leadership and governance across Government.105 Such a Board was set up earlier this year, as a result of the Government Transformation Strategy.106 The Board’s terms of reference explain that it is “the senior public sector board responsible for driving the better use of data in government and addressing any gaps and barriers preventing it.”107 The Board has met but membership and the minutes of meetings are not a matter of public record.
48.Additionally, the Government Transformation Strategy in 2017 set out a plan to appoint a cross-Government Chief Data Officer to oversee data governance across departments.108 However, as of yet this role still remains unfilled. Mr David Durant, a former employee of GDS, and techUK, both emphasised the importance of appointing a Chief Data Officer to ensure that data was given the appropriate leadership and direction it required.109
49.The issue of leadership in data policy was highlighted by other witnesses, including Councillor Peter Fleming from the Local Government Association, who suggested that work was still needed to join up projects across Government departments. Not doing so, he explained, could result in the citizen’s experience of Government being “confused, contradictory and complicated”.110 This view was shared by Deloitte, who explained that some departments only saw “as far as their own perimeters”.111 Deloitte elaborated that this issue existed due to the complex design of Government: the “relatively complex governmental design” presented a large barrier to digital change and collaboration, meaning that systems were entrenched in departments, and “countries with fewer levels of Government and more centralised structures are better able to drive change across government silos”.112
50.We welcome the Government’s establishment of a Data Advisory Board. However, at present its membership, agenda and decisions are not a matter of public record. In response to this Report, the Government should set out how it will make the work of the Data Advisory Board more transparent. It should make public its membership, agenda and a summary of its decisions. If the Government decide that it is not possible to make the Board more transparent then it should set out its reasons why.
51.It is disappointing that the Government has not appointed a Chief Data Officer, some time after it committed to do so in the 2017 Government Transformation Strategy. The Government should appoint a Chief Data Officer by the end of 2019.
Innovative technologies
52.Another major lever of digital Government transformation is technological innovation. This was defined by the Government as “new technologies that do not currently have a critical mass, but which may have the potential to disrupt industries or generate significant savings”.113 This had been prioritised as a key theme for Government, and appeared as a major commitment in the Government Transformation Strategy.114 PUBLIC, a technology consultancy company for the public sector, told us that “the UK has an extraordinary opportunity” to seize the emerging market of innovative technology, where the GovTech market could reach up to £20bn.115
53.In 2017, the then Director General of GDS, Kevin Cunnington, commissioned a review into the Government’s use of innovative technology.116 This review concluded that GDS was in a good position to support BEIS and DCMS in achieving the Government’s ambition of becoming a world leader in artificial intelligence (AI) through the adoption of emerging technologies to transform public services.117 Many of the written submissions we received highlighted the potential uses of artificial intelligence in future Government services. For example, SAS, an analytics and software company explained the economic benefits of AI for the Government:
It has been estimated that Artificial Intelligence (AI) alone could add an additional USD $814 billion (£630bn) to the UK economy by 2035, increasing the annual growth rate of GVA from 2.5 to 3.9%. As such, Government like other constituents in the UK has a massive amount to gain from using data-enabled technologies such as analytics and AI.118
54.Further, we heard how the adoption of new innovative technologies, such as AI, had an important role to play in improving the relationship between the citizen and the State, a key benefit of digitisation (as outlined at paragraph 17). PUBLIC explained that, by the Government utilising innovative technologies, it could also transform and improve how it delivered services for citizens, another key theme of digitisation: innovative technologies could “offer a better service to citizens, both in terms of service delivery and taxpayer money, and Government can ensure equitable, high-quality provision of services”.119
55.Further, evidence from the Cabinet Office and the Minister for Implementation, Oliver Dowden MP, set out the Government’s use of the GovTech Catalyst programme to develop technological innovation to solve public policy issues.120 The GovTech Catalyst programme is “a 3-year programme that funds private-sector innovators to solve public-sector operational service and policy delivery challenges across the UK”.121 Though the Catalyst is fairly new, the Cabinet Office set out its current and future plans for the programme: “GovTech expects to launch a total of 15 competitions to solve public-sector challenges over 3 rounds and has announced the first 10 challenges selected for funding”.122 We were told by the Cabinet Office that GovTech Catalyst programme funding has helped to tackle public policy issues, such as rural isolation and traffic management, through innovative technologies such as artificial intelligence.123
Leadership in innovative technology
56.Evidence that these technologies were important to digital Government was compelling. However, we also received evidence explaining the importance of leadership in promoting these technologies. Deloitte, for example, suggested that GDS had a key role to play in encouraging departments to adopt new technologies as “forms of artificial intelligence technologies [could] improve the speed of decision-making in areas such as welfare, tax and criminal justice”.124 Nonetheless, the Alan Turing Institute warned that a lack of central leadership in developing and utilising innovative technology in Government could cause smaller departments to fall behind, as “without a concerted and centralised effort, a two-tier system is emerging”.125
57.In March 2018, the Government announced the creation of the Government Office for AI as part of the commitments made in the AI Sector Deal. The Office for AI is jointly led by DCMS and BEIS and committed to making AI work for society, supporting its uptake across sectors and helping to ensure the development of skills and investment.126
58.However, Helen Margetts representing the Alan Turing Institute noted that although the Government had made progress in introducing and committing to innovative technologies, there was a general lack of enthusiasm in the Government’s overall approach to them.127 This view was supported by Daniel Korski, representing PUBLIC, who said that the “Government have to be much more willing to try out, pilot and experiment with new technologies”.128 Further, Deloitte also argued that, without central leadership, departments may inadvertently duplicate work and the implementation of specific technologies, and that “in the promotion of new technologies, the public genuinely needs advocacy for “Government as one entity””.129
59.The Minister for Digital and the Creative Industries, Margot James MP, told us that the publication of the National Data Strategy would help to advance the Government’s commitment to innovative technology, by helping to clarify the opportunities that data presented. Further, in a speech at the Government ICT conference in January 2019, the Minister for Implementation, Oliver Dowden MP, set out his commitment to ensuring that innovation would become “standard practice” in the public sector, and that the Government should become “an intelligent and coordinated buyer of emerging technologies”.130
60.The Government made further commitments on taking advantage of AI and data-intensive technologies in its Industrial Strategy White Paper, which set out AI and data use as one of its four “Grand Challenges”. Further, in a recent announcement on the first phase of the National Data Strategy, the Government emphasised the value of data for Government innovation.131
61.The Government has made positive commitments to artificial intelligence and harnessing its value for transformation. It is too early to assess to what extent the National Data Strategy and Industrial Strategy will impact the Government’s use of innovative technologies. We are concerned, however, that a lack of central leadership for the use of AI and other innovative technologies in Government services may result in inconsistent deployment across departments.
62.The Government should make the Government Office for AI responsible, as a central body, for leading on ensuring that all departments take advantage of the transformative benefits that Artificial Intelligence and other innovative technologies offer.
Ethics of data use
63.One concern raised with us, for example by Helen Margetts, representing the Alan Turing Institute, was related to the ethical implications of new technologies, specifically in terms of the use of the data that underpinned them.132 Concerns were raised about how the Government might misuse or fail to appropriately mitigate the risks surrounding the technology’s associated datasets—for example, the Legal Education Foundation, a charity promoting the rule of law, raised concerns relating to data bias and transparency in decision-making algorithms, which could result in flawed decision-making and policies.133
64.Further, Helen Margetts and Daniel Korski both explained that in order for the Government to fully take advantage of the benefits that innovative technologies had to offer, it needed to clean up the quality of data.134 Helen Margetts raised concern that it would be risky to start adopting data-intensive technologies without ensuring that the data infrastructure that underpinned them was as accurate and usable as possible.135 Peter Wells representing the Open Data Institute shared this view.136 Peter Wells specifically highlighted the need to “build data infrastructure through delivering real practical services by solving problems, always thinking of what other unintended uses you might be making it available for”.137
65.Our predecessor Committee was concerned too that as many of these technologies relied on the presence of automated decisions, transparency around the decision-making process and the provenance of data was vital to their ethical and accurate use.138 In its Report, Big Data Dilemma, published in 2016, our predecessor Committee concluded that “distrust arising from concerns about privacy and security is often well founded and must be resolved by industry and Government if the full value of big data is to be realised.”139 In the Government response to this Report it agreed with the Committee’s conclusion. Further, when our predecessor Committee called on the Government to establish a Council of Data Science Ethics to address “the growing legal and ethical challenges associated with balancing privacy, anonymisation, security and public benefit” when using data, the Government agreed.140 In the Government Response, published in April 2016, the Government agreed with the Committee’s recommendation on independence of oversight and undertook to “consider how a Council for Data Science Ethics should be established”.141 It took nearly two years for the Government to establish the Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation (CDEI). The CDEI agreed to submit an annual report to the Secretary of State, as per the recommendation from the Government, that he or she would lay before Parliament annually. The Government Response also outlined the CDEI’s commitment to publishing an overarching assessment of data use and the governance landscape, including any recommendations it has made and the steps the government has taken to implement them, in order to ensure the Government was making the best and most transparent use of data, to maintain citizen trust and better the quality of public services.142
66.However, since that Report, concerns have continued to be raised that the Government has not taken all the appropriate action to mitigate ethical concerns. For example, medConfidential explained that “until citizens see how their data is used, and algorithms run from the data satisfy the standards of judicial review, the only mistakes that get fixed will be the mistakes with a high political profile”.143 Further, the Legal Education Foundation expressed concern that the Government’s use of personal citizen data might not be entirely transparent: “when Government decisions are made about individuals’ rights using data processing, it can be hard for an individual to know whether their data were accurate or processed correctly”.144
67.Nonetheless, the Government has taken action in recent years. For example, it established a number of arms-length bodies to help advise on mitigating the ethical risks of data technology, such as the Office for AI, the Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation, and the Alan Turing Institute. Since this inquiry commenced, the Centre for Data Ethics announced that it would be dedicating a quarter of its workstream resource to a review of algorithmic bias in public services.145 This work is due to be completed by March 2020. There have also been a number of legislative changes which might help to mitigate ethical risks that data presents, including the GDPR (General Data Protection Regulations) and the Data Protection Act 2018, which gave citizens more control over their data and enhanced transparency.146 The Minister for Digital and the Creative Industries compared GDPR to the Estonian data-consent system, in which citizens can access all the data the Government holds about them and have to consent to sharing it with departments (full details are set out at paragraph 23):
I believe that the incorporation of the GDPR—and, indeed, the Data Protection Act, which goes beyond the GDPR—puts citizens in control of their own data. It gives them a panoply of rights over their data.147
68.Conversely, we heard from some witnesses that there was a tendency for the Government to be overly pre-occupied and concerned by the prospect of data ethics, which might inadvertently affect the deployment of technologies. For example, Doctors in Unite noted:
A Ministerial decision to give people the right to opt out of the use of their data for epidemiological and public health research is smothering important research and important health analysis, even when the only use that is being made of the data is to count people.148
In addition, Joel Bellman representing Deloitte, highlighted research conducted by his company, which showed that the public was not only happy to have their data shared, but also assumed that data was being shared between departments much more than it was in reality. He told us:
Over three quarters of the people said they would be very happy for us to share their data within the NHS to improve outcomes and care. Anecdotally, they then said, “Surely you are doing that anyway.” That made us think that expectations around what the Government are already doing are out of kilter with what people think we are doing.149
69.Many of our witnesses emphasised the role of public outreach and education in both ensuring that the public had faith in the Government’s use of data and in measuring how the public felt about the Government’s use of it. Professor Helen Kennedy and Professor Helen Margetts, for example, both emphasised the use of outreach and education, whilst Dr Fiona Lugg-Widger recommended that the Government consider adopting a model not dissimilar from the Understanding Patient Data Initiative—this was a programme that went out and talked to the general public about their understanding of data use.150
70.We welcome the steps that the Government has taken to enhance public trust in data use, including the establishment of the Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation. However, we are concerned that the Government might be taking an overly-cautious approach and second-guessing citizens’ views on how their data should be used. DCMS should ensure that the Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation annually assesses public opinion on Government data use. This review should start in summer 2019 and should aim to report by Spring 2020.
78 The Cabinet Office, Government Transformation Strategy, (February 2017), p 47
87 An application programming interface (API) is a set of subroutine definitions, communication protocols, and tools for building software. API makes it easier to develop a computer program by providing all the building blocks, which are then put together by the programmer.
88 The Cabinet Office, Government Transformation Strategy, (February 2017) p 49
89 Tom Wynne-Morgan and Will Harmer, “How cross-government communities can support cross-government services”, GDS Blog, 8 January 2018
90 The Cabinet Office, Government Transformation Strategy, (February 2017) p 5
93 Martha Lane Fox, Directgov 2010 and beyond: revolution not evolution, (October 2010)
95 E-Estonia, Interoperability Services, accessed 25 June 2019
96 “e-Estonia: the epic story of the e-State”, pp 18–19
99 National Audit Office, Digital transformation in Government, (March 2017), para 22; Sarah Timmis et al, “Sharing the benefits How to use data effectively in the public sector”, Reform, (August 2018), p 37
100 Kit Collingwood and Robin Linacre, “Help us start a data revolution for Government”, Government Digital Service January 2019
101 Kit Collingwood and Robin Linacre, “Help us start a data revolution for Government”, Government Digital Service, January 2019
102 Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, “National Data Strategy open call for evidence”, June 2019
105 Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DIG0031); Office for National Statistics (DIG0012); Cabinet Office (DIG0023)
106 The Cabinet Office, “Government Transformation Strategy”, (February 2017), p 10
107 Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, “Terms of Reference for the Data Advisory Board”, January 2019
108 The Cabinet Office, “Government Transformation Strategy”, (February 2017), p 10
113 Government Digital Service, “ Technology innovation in government survey”, August 2018
114 The Cabinet Office, “Government Transformation Strategy”, (February 2017), p 63
116 Government Digital Service, “ Technology innovation in government survey”, August 2018
117 Government Digital Service, “ Technology innovation in government survey”, August 2018
130 Oliver Dowden CBE MP, “Oliver Dowden CBE MP - speech at the government ICT conference 2019”, Cabinet Office, 23 January 2019
131 Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, “AI Sector Deal”, 21 May 2019
138 Science and Technology Committee, Fourth Report of the Session 2015–16, The big data dilemma, HC 468
139 Science and Technology Committee, Fourth Report of the Session 2015–16, The big data dilemma, HC 468, para 60
140 Science and Technology Committee, Fifth Special Report of the Session 2015–16, The big data dilemma: Government Response to the Committee’s Fourth Report of Session 2015–16, HC 992, para 56 - 59
141 Science and Technology Committee, Fifth Special Report of the Session 2015–16, The big data dilemma: Government Response to the Committee’s Fourth Report of Session 2015–16, HC 992, para 57
142 Science and Technology Committee, Fifth Special Report of the Session 2015–16, The big data dilemma: Government Response to the Committee’s Fourth Report of Session 2015–16, HC 992
145 Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation, “Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation 2-year strategy”, March 2019
146 General Data Protection Regulation, Regulation (EU) 2016/679 and Data Protection Act 2018 (c. 12) May 2018
Published: 10 July 2019