Why politicians can’t afford to ignore data in their manifestos

Technology is evolving at pace and, used in the right ways, can revolutionise how the state understands and responds to critical challenges. AI and the models that underlie it are complex, and we must ensure that those in positions to legislate - and regulate - understand AI and the data that is its feedstock. 

The Prime Minister said recently that lawmakers are trying to “…write laws that make sense for something we don’t yet fully understand”. Put differently, we are building the tracks while driving the train!

Open Access Government has highlighted the UK’s digital and data skills shortages as an urgent problem, and last year, consultancy Global Resourcing flagged the Civil Service as having a particularly significant digital skills gap. The House of Commons is dominated by people drawn from non-tech occupations, including traditional professions such as law, medicine, and teaching.

While there are parliamentarians who have a STEM background, or a passion for STEM, very few have a skillset related to data and AI. This leaves something of a knowledge gap between parliamentarians and the technologies they are responsible for regulating in safe and beneficial ways for the UK economy.  

The Post Office Horizon scandal demonstrated what can happen if technology is inadequately understood by those commissioning it. Data literacy at senior levels is only now being fully appreciated, not just in politics but more widely. The government’s response to its National Data Strategy consultation (2021) noted respondents thought building a ‘data culture’ in government is vital, and government leaders – politicians and civil servants – need the data skills to make this a reality.

There have been some successes. For example, some ministers have taken the ODI’s Data Masterclasses for Senior Leaders, while parliamentary units - such as the Scrutiny Unit - have seen it as part of their role to improve the use of data in parliament. More work and support are likely necessary, but it is difficult for MPs - and their staff - to find time to access training and learning.

The fast-developing nature of this area of policy and the ability of tech firms to resource large lobbying operations exacerbate the challenge. Politicians should be wary of being seduced into accepting a disproportionate amount of advice from this direction and shutting out - or marginalising - less powerful voices like those of the open source and open data communities and civil society organisations. 

The government can get it right. In 2012, the Coalition Government went through the process of digitalising its services and created the award-winning www.gov.uk. Now, we barely remember a time before it, but it was revolutionary back then. Many government departments fought hard - and unsuccessfully - to resist by keeping their own websites.

With the rise of AI, a new era of government services is on the cusp of emerging. Like with www.gov.uk, a ‘whole mission’ approach is needed in the civil service and among its political counterparts to avoid negatively impacting citizens, the economy, and businesses. Martha Lane Fox spearheaded the gov.uk change, and there are calls for a new digital transformation minister who can realise AI’s opportunities safely and ethically. 

My organisation, the Open Data Institute, has made several such recommendations to the political parties vying for power in the next general election. While deep expertise is, arguably, lacking in Whitehall and Westminster, there is an equal enthusiasm - bordering on obsession - with AI that has placed the essential role of data in the shadows.

As we head towards the general election, we believe that a renewed commitment to building and maintaining strong data infrastructure should be at the heart of the UK’s digital and data agenda. All parties must commit to increasing data literacy and ensure that policy decisions around data consider transparency, safety, and equity.

Equally important will be commitments to keeping human decision-makers in the loop when AI is used to make choices. If an algorithm has decided - even in part - the outcome of a decision where a human is impacted, there must always be a human with the expertise and the capacity to hear an appeal against that decision. Only in this way can we avoid outrages such as Horizon, Robodebt (Australia), the child care benefits affair (the Netherlands) and the UK’s own exam algorithm fiasco. 

By placing data at the heart of their manifestos this year, politicians can help build a thriving data and AI ecosystem that will benefit people, the environment, and the economy.

Resham Kotecha is Global Head of Policy at the Open Data Institute