Taking back control of government data mustn’t leave the public in the dark

Machinery of government

The complete lack of transparency in the run up to this machinery of government change has been particularly troubling. It is described as ensuring that “government data is used most effectively to drive policy making and service delivery” – a laudable aim but where’s the detail? What’s the objective? It’s unclear to avid followers of data policy if this is tinkering round the edges or whether something more substantial is afoot.

What is it that the government now wants to do with our data that isn’t possible in DCMS, and wasn’t that the reason for moving it there just two years ago? How does this fit with recent reports of Number 10 special advisor Dominic Cummings’ designs for a new “10DS” data science unit?

Are we facing more years of a lack of coherent strategy when it comes to government data, or is this the start of the creation of a Downing Street Data Death Star. How does it fit with the National Data Strategy we were promised back in 2018? And why is all this happening without any public debate on how the government uses, stores and protects our data?

How the government uses data about us has implications for every part of public policy and public service delivery. But sadly, too often government thinks about Whitehall when it thinks about data policy.

An approach which believes all data must feed into some kind of central repository run by Downing Street misses the point on the vast opportunities that better and more joined-up data can do to improve public services at the level closest to the people that rely on those services.

Build public trust

In all the years the government has been mulling the data strategy, it has also been evangelising on how artificial intelligence will transform society. It’s difficult to see how they are going to do it without fixing the plumbing and having a frank and honest conversation with the public about what is involved.

What we’ve seen from successive governments is that it is absolutely essential to build public trust by having an open debate. Care.data, the abandoned plan to share private medical records, was a prime example of what happens when things go wrong. Taking back control shouldn’t mean a Downing Street data grab. Public data must be a public good.

As an immediate priority, I’m asking the government to do three things. First, provide the highest level of transparency on the proposed direction of travel with citizen data. Second, clearly lay out what effective governance and oversight structures are in place for any changes they are looking to introduce. Third, ensure deep and proper public participation in these discussions to build trust.

That is why Labour is eager to explore our digital future. How we gather, use and protect citizens’ data is essential to that. Our data can be a platform for better services and citizen empowerment. Or it can be part of a private fiefdom in 10 Downing Street. The government should at least let us know which it is.