Policy Connect is a cross-party think tank. We specialise in supporting parliamentary groups, forums and commissions, delivering impactful policy research and event programmes and bringing together parliamentarians and government in collaboration with academia, business and civil society to help shape public policy in Westminster and Whitehall, so as to improve people’s lives. Our work focuses on five key policy areas: Education & Skills; Industry, Technology & Innovation; Sustainability; Health; and Assistive & Accessible Technology.
The Industry, Technology and Innovation team provides secretariat to various All Party Parliamentary Groups, often leading on research inquiries into important issues in digital and emerging technologies, manufacturing and industrial policy.
We have responded to the questions within the consultation that are most relevant to our reports including, “Our Place, Our Data: Involving Local People in Data and AI Based Recovery” (2021), “An Ethical AI Future: Guardrails & Catalysts to make Artificial Intelligence a Force for Good” (2023), and “Skills in the Age of AI” (forthcoming May 2025). We would be very willing to expand on each of the report’s findings in an oral evidence session for the inquiry.
Our Place Our Data
Our Place Our Data follows an inquiry co-chaired by Daniel Zeichner MP, Lord Tim Clement Jones and Lord Chris Holmes. With wide support from the technology and innovation sector, it sets out a vision for better use of data and digital technology to fuel our economy and leverage the benefits for citizens across the UK. The report makes five key recommendations – some of which were taken up by government since the publication of the report. We refer to the recommendations and findings throughout this evidence submission and attach the full list as an appendix to this document.
The digital centre can ensure that public services make best use of AI and digital transformation to offer citizens and businesses more effective, efficient and personalised services. However, these benefits will be significantly increased if the Centre includes in its mission a requirement to take a ‘whole of public sector’ approach, designing in from the start that the tools, guidance and skills support that it develops are to be made available to all in the public sector, and ideally the private and third sectors too. For example, the AI Playbook for the UK Government published on 10th Feb 2025 sets out 10 common principles to guide the safe, responsible and effective use of artificial intelligence (AI) in government organisations.[1] The majority of these principles could usefully also be applied by local government and organisations in the private and charity sectors – for example – SMEs.
The wider applicability of the principles has, however, been artificially limited. For example, the Playbook, in Principle 9, sets out the importance of having the right skills and expertise to use AI tools and solutions, and includes a link to free courses: “You should take the free AI courses on Civil Service Learning[2] and proactively keep track of developments in the field. You can find out more in our Acquiring skills and talent section.” However, only individuals with a gov.uk email address appear to be able to access the AI courses. This seems to be a missed opportunity to provide free support to local government and private/third sector organisations. Our research shows that SMEs and charities in particular struggle with having the capacity – in both time and fiscal resources - to upskill their workforces. As the government is already carrying out this work to develop courses around ethical and effective use of AI, they should be made freely available to all.
Furthermore, a digital centre of government can democratise decision-making by embedding local voices into national data and AI strategies. Policy Connect’s Our Place Our Data report underscores the necessity of involving citizens in the design of algorithms and data-driven policies that shape their lives. The report advocates for a National Data Ethics Council, which would integrate regional and local leaders into discussions traditionally dominated by central government. This structure ensures that hyperlocal challenges—such as disparities in healthcare access or post-pandemic economic recovery—are addressed through place-specific solutions.
A compelling example of this approach is Greater Manchester’s AI Foundry, which demonstrates how regional innovation hubs can leverage AI to address localized issues like unemployment or public health crises. Crucially, such initiatives ensure democratic accountability while fostering place-specific innovation. This model underscores the potential for a more equitable and responsive national data strategy that integrates local expertise and priorities.
By institutionalising mechanisms for citizen input, a digital centre bridges the gap between Whitehall policymaking and grassroots realities. The Our Place Our Data inquiry highlights how algorithmic systems that exclude local perspectives risk perpetuating biases, whereas inclusive governance models build trust and ensure technologies reflect community needs. For instance, involving residents in the deployment of AI-driven social care tools could prevent discriminatory outcomes and align services with cultural values.
Bringing all digital expertise into a single location is a great start to providing benefits to the UK economy more generally as well as to public service delivery - Policy Connect’s analysis identified fragmented innovation ecosystems as a critical barrier to scaling digital enterprises. A digital centre would act as an institutional anchor, implementing the report’s call for regional innovation hubs that connect startups, academia, and local governments. These hubs could mirror the inquiry’s proposal for place-based digital strategies, leveraging local industrial strengths—from Manchester’s AI expertise to Bristol’s semiconductor clusters—to create specialized growth corridors.
Lessons should be learnt from the earlier amalgamation of expertise on cybersecurity into the National Cyber Security Centre. The bringing together of several units previously scattered across different government departments into a single, high-profile National Cyber Security Centre was a huge success. Cyber activity, both reactive and proactive, came on in leaps and bounds in the private as well as public sectors through, for example, providing a single focal point for technical expertise and guidance to companies as well as to government to minimise the risk of cyber-attacks, and increase the capacity of companies to respond to such attacks.
The current model of the digital centre sitting as a body of officials within DSIT is highly unlikely to provide the same drive and profile to deliver AI benefits into the economy. As Policy Connect recommended in our report “An Ethical AI Future” effective and secure AI exploitation is such an important issue for both citizens and the economy that a high-profile and accessible body should be created sitting outside government. We recommended (applying the model of the National Cyber Security Centre) that this should be called the UK National AI Centre. In the first instance, its functions could include the provision of expert advice on frameworks and principles for rapid, safe and secure adoption of AI, and of supporting capacity and skills-development (as set out above).
Critically, the report calls for statutory duties requiring public sector organizations to embed “do no harm” principles into their AI adoption strategies. For citizens, this translates to safeguards against opaque algorithms determining benefit eligibility or predictive policing tools disproportionately targeting marginalized groups. The digital centre’s role in fostering international collaboration—such as the proposed Global AI Convention—would further protect citizens by aligning UK standards with ethical benchmarks worldwide, mitigating risks from cross-border data flows or unregulated AI applications.
The consolidation of the Government Digital Service (GDS), Central Digital and Data Office (CDDO), and Incubator for AI (i.AI) under DSIT aims to centralise digital expertise.[3] However, the National Audit Office (NAO) warns that mergers of this scale risk creating “silos within silos” if cultural and operational differences are not proactively addressed. The NAO’s 2024 review found that 70% of government bodies piloting AI faced staffing shortages and resistance to adopting new workflows, underscoring the need for DSIT to:
Policy Connect’s Ethical AI Future report therefore stresses that centralisation must avoid replicating the “Whitehall knows best” dynamic that contributed to failures like the Horizon Post Office scandal, which has previously eroded public trust in digitalisation projects as administrated by central government.
In Policy Connect’s recent report on Technology-Enabled Education within the Higher Education Sector (Digitally Enhanced Blended Learning: Leveraging the Benefits of Technology for Higher Education 2024), we recommended on behalf of the Higher Education Commission that procurement reforms must be leveraged to address systemic inefficiencies and monopolistic risks in public sector digital transformation.[5]
On a forthcoming policy report, Policy Connect outlines actionable strategies to align the Procurement Act 2023 with the digital centre’s objectives while mitigating risks exposed in university case studies.
The HE sector’s struggles with decentralised procurement—where institutions duplicate efforts in vetting suppliers—highlight the need for DSIT to establish a National Vendor Database, modelled on the utilities sector’s Achilles system. Although the report focuses on Higher Education, this experience is not unique to the sector and is replicated across the education system and within other public bodies.
HE institutions face “cost of change” penalties exceeding £2 million when switching vendors due to proprietary systems. DSIT’s digital centre could mandate:
Policy Connect’s Digitally Enhanced Blended Learning report recommends aligning these standards with the National Data Strategy’s “data as infrastructure” principle to enable cross-system integration.
HE institutions waste an average of 142 staff hours monthly duplicating cybersecurity and accessibility assessments. A digital centre for government could:
The Higher Education Commission’s focus groups with leading Chief Information Officers across the HE sector has revealed that there has been a substantial increase in vendor-driven Freedom of Information Act requests, which will only be accelerated by the Procurement Act 2023 reforms.[6] We therefore recommend to the digital centre to:
Such recommendations are reiterated in the Digitally Enhanced Blended Learning report. DSIT’s digital centre cannot afford to replicate the HE sector’s procurement pitfalls—decentralization, vendor lock-in, and compliance fragmentation. DSIT can transform procurement into a strategic enabler of ethical, cost-effective digital transformation. The Procurement Act 2023 provides the legal framework; DSIT must now deliver the operational rigor to match its ambition.
We agree with the concept of a National Data Library, which should include open data sets of standardised, usable data, available to all sectors and all public authorities. Furthermore, if the National Data Library is to provide the right conditions for place-based partners – in the devolution agenda – to drive forward with innovative citizen-focussed services and products, DSIT should develop it in partnership across the whole of the public sector and beyond. DSIT should in particular closely engage with local authorities and their partners to ensure that the Library includes data sets relevant to the local level. Reaching out in this way to those on the front-line of delivery to citizens will help to identify where data sets need to be at a more granular local level to be of value. The absence of joined-up national and local level data was a critical shortfall during Covid-19, which hindered the capture of meaningful track and trace data about the spread of the virus. Similarly, action to tackle climate change risks at the community level will require data sets at a level of granularity relevant to any community across the UK that is assessing its vulnerability to climate impacts and therefore what measures it can take within the community to improve climate resilience.
It was for these reasons that in our report Our Place Our Data, Policy Connect recommended that: “In order to improve the way in which data can be collated and used to develop AI and machine-learning services and products, national government needs to support and enable local government and their place-based partners.”
A digital centre of government must prioritise universal design to ensure no citizen is excluded from the benefits of digitization. Policy Connect’s work on Inclusive Digital Services stresses that accessibility is not a niche concern but a foundational requirement for public trust – a 2019 inquiry (Inclusive into web accessibility regulations revealed that inconsistent enforcement of the Equality Act 2010 has left disabled citizens struggling to access essential services, from job portals to healthcare platforms. Thinto web accessibility regulations revealed that inconsistent enforcement of the Equality Act 2010 has left disabled citizens struggling to access essential services, from job portals to healthcare platforms.[7] A digital centre could institutionalize mandatory accessibility audits and establish an ombudsperson to streamline complaints, empowering users to hold agencies accountable.
The Talent & Technology report (2019) further emphasizes the role of assistive technologies—such as screen readers or voice-activated interfaces—in unlocking employment opportunities for disabled individuals.[8] A centralized digital hub could mandate the integration of these tools across all government platforms, ensuring job seekers with disabilities can navigate recruitment processes independently. For example, the proposed National Assistive Technology Champion would advocate for embedding accessibility into procurement standards, preventing fragmented implementation across departments.
The success of DSIT’s digital centre hinges on resolving deep-seated structural and cultural barriers. By consolidating leadership, modernizing funding, and prioritizing interoperability, the UK can transition from fragmented digitization to holistic transformation. Policy Connect’s research underscores the need for inclusive design and ethical governance to ensure that digital government serves all citizens—not just the technologically adept. With sustained political commitment and agile regulation, the digital centre can become the catalyst for a public sector fit for the algorithmic age.
03 March 2025
Author: Alyson Hwang Senior Researcher, Policy Connect
On behalf of Policy Connect
[1] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/ai-playbook-for-the-uk-government/artificial-intelligence-playbook-for-the-uk-government-html
[2] https://learn.civilservice.gov.uk/search?q=Generative+AI
[3] https://www.gov.uk/government/news/dsit-bolstered-to-better-serve-the-british-public-through-science-and-technology
[4] https://digitalpeople.blog.gov.uk/2024/11/13/shaping-a-new-digital-centre-of-government-how-were-listening/
[5] https://www.policyconnect.org.uk/research/digitally-enhanced-blended-learning-leveraging-benefits-technology-higher-education
[7] http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/science-and-technology-committee/digital-government/oral/93596.html (Robert McLaren, Director of Policy at Policy Connect’s testimony)
[8] https://www.policyconnect.org.uk/news/lack-tech-shuts-disabled-people-out-job-opportunities