Technology in Public Services

Layla Moran Excerpts

Monday 2nd September 2024 Commons Chamber

[Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to begin this new parliamentary term debating the role of technology in public services. I start by extending a special welcome to the friends and family in the Gallery eagerly waiting for the many maiden speeches to be made this evening; I will be brief. You can start timing me if you wish, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Under the Conservatives, Britain’s public services have steadily deteriorated, with insufficient investment across the board. Schools, hospitals and prisons are literally crumbling, and transport projects were axed on a ministerial whim. In a cost of living crisis, when people are looking desperately to public services for support, tackling the big challenges in our public services is absolutely essential.

I am a technophile. I am a former science teacher. I spent most of my childhood buried in science fiction, and you can draw a straight line from “Star Trek” to where I am standing now. That is “Star Trek, the Next Generation”, in case anyone was wondering. So today I will focus primarily on the positives, but if we want buy-in from the public, we need to show the public that this Parliament also understands and legislates for mitigation of the risks of technology. I will touch on that, too.

Technology has the potential to revolutionise our public services, making them more efficient, accessible and responsive to the needs of every citizen. Automating routine tasks can free up staff time, so that staff can deal with more complex issues, and using digital platforms can reduce the need for physical infrastructure, which lowers costs. Digital services can help us reach those in remote areas, and real-time data or open data initiatives help to make Government processes more transparent. There are many examples of local councils and public services already innovating and using technology to improve services. Online GP appointments and digital prescriptions, where appropriate, can free up GP time, as surgeries are under ever-growing pressure. The Secretary of State spoke movingly about his mother and the technology that she sadly did not have, but he is right to point out that technology is transforming our NHS day to day, and we must welcome that.

Going back to my heartland of teaching, online learning platforms have been used incredibly successfully in the education sector, particularly during the lockdowns, and we have learned much about what works, and what does not, when it comes to technology in the classroom. But when those delivering public services look at introducing innovations and new technologies, there are also significant barriers. Despite recent funding increases, council budgets are expected to be 18% lower in real terms in 2024-25 than in the early 2010s, with demand for acute services increasing post-pandemic.

Local services are too often struggling with tight ringfenced budgets, which prevent the strategic investment needed to upgrade outdated systems and implement digital technologies. How many people have spent their time in a queue, waiting to talk to the local council, and wondered why on earth we still have this old technology? Digital and technology skills are often also highlighted as a big concern for local authorities, who face a growing struggle to recruit and retain skilled technologists. Public services find it hard to compete with the salaries of the private sector, or to invest in training and development.

Artificial intelligence is by far and away the sexiest and one of the most significant and talked-about areas. That technology is developing rapidly, and we risk falling behind. If implemented properly, it can improve experiences for service users. Chatbots and virtual assistants can help with personalising services and addressing queries. Automated data analysis can evaluate larger quantities of data in a shorter timeframe, and where AI is used to support the creation of datasets, accurate patterns and trends in data can be identified. In my area of Oxfordshire, the county council is piloting the use of generative AI to support administrative tasks, and the scheme will look at whether AI can speed up routine processes in order to reduce costs. The previous Government’s announcement that £110 million of funding will be ringfenced for the deployment of AI across the public sector was a welcome development, and I would like to hear from the new Minister whether the Government plan to follow through on this scheme, which I think is well worth investing in.

But AI is not without its challenges. It reflects the values and biases of the humans who create it, causing campaigners to raise concerns. In August 2020, the Home Office agreed to stop using a computer algorithm to help sort visa applications after it was claimed that the algorithm contained entrenched racism and bias. It essentially created a three-tier system for immigration, with a speedy boarding lane for white people from the countries most favoured by the system.

Earlier this year, it emerged that the Department for Work and Pensions had stopped routinely suspending benefit claims flagged by its AI-powered fraud detector. Campaigners had long raised concerns that potential bias in the system could lead to unfair delays for legitimate claimants. The campaign group Big Brother Watch said:

“DWP’s overreliance on new technologies puts the rights of people who are often already disadvantaged, marginalised, and vulnerable, in the backseat.”

It is vital that the Government are open and transparent with the public about how and why AI and algorithmic models are being used, so I am pleased the Department recently said that the algorithmic transparency recording standard is now mandatory for all Departments, but I would argue that we need to go further.

The Liberal Democrats want to see a clear, workable and well-resourced, cross-sectoral regulatory framework that promotes innovation while creating certainty for AI users, developers and investors. My colleague Lord Clement-Jones tabled a private Member’s Bill, the Public Authority Algorithm Bill—the Liberal Democrats know how to party—in the other place during a previous Session. This important Bill would have regulated the use of automated decision making in the public sector by requiring a public authority to complete an algorithmic impact assessment where it uses an automated decision-making system. I urge Ministers to look at the Bill and to work with colleagues in both Houses to develop the right regulation. If they have not had a chance to speak to Lord Clement-Jones, a former Chair of the Lords Select Committee on Artificial Intelligence, I would encourage them to do so.

Technology offers so many opportunities, but we will lose public support if we do not get to grips with the risks. The Liberal Democrats want to embrace these opportunities for innovation and change, and we also want to protect citizens’ rights, their identities and their data. It is vital that we put the right infrastructure and safeguards in place to help our public services make the most of new opportunities while keeping our country safe.

I hope the Government are ready to think strategically and to invest for the long term by putting science and innovation at the heart of their plan for economic growth. If they do, the Liberal Democrats will support them and, where appropriate, they can expect us to challenge them too.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call Patricia Ferguson to make her maiden speech.

Data Protection and Digital Information (No. 2) Bill

Layla Moran Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 17th April 2023 Commons Chamber

[Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)]

I start by echoing the well wishes to the Secretary of State on her imminent arrival. I am delighted to be here in my first outing as the Lib Dem spokesperson for science, innovation and technology, although in my mind I consider it as the spokesperson for proud geeks. I appreciate that is not a term everyone likes, but as a physics graduate and an MP for Oxford, where we have many fellow-minded geeks, I am proud to call myself that.

Much as this important Bill is geeky and technical—it sounds like it will be an interesting Bill Committee —it integrates into our whole lives. People have spoken about the potential and progress, and I agree to an extent with the comment from the hon. Member for Aberconwy (Robin Millar) about this being the new oil. However, in the context of climate change, there is a lesson for us there. Imagine that we knew then what we know now. We can already see that here. As new as some of these technologies are, and as new as some of these challenges may be, it does feel like, as legislators, we are constantly playing catch-up with this stuff.

We consult and we look, and we know what the problems are and what the issue fundamentally is, but I agree with the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) that we need a bit of vision here. I would argue that what we need is what my former colleague, the former Member for East Dunbartonshire, called for, which is a code of ethics for data and artificial intelligence. I sincerely hope that the Government, with the extra power to the elbow of the new Department, can put some real resource behind that—not in White Papers and thought, but in a proper bit of legislation that answers some of the questions raised earlier about the moral use, for example, of artificial intelligence in war.

Those are important questions. The problem and worry I have is that this Government and others will find themselves constantly on the back foot, unless we talk not just about the geekery and the technical bits—by the sounds of it, there are enough of us in the House who would enjoy doing that—but about the slightly loftier and more important ways that this Bill will connect with society.

In the digital first age, the Government themselves are encouraging those who want to access benefits and every other part of the state to do so digitally. If someone is to be a full citizen of the state, they are required often to give over their data. If someone does not want to engage with the digital realm, it is difficult for them to access the services to which they are entitled. Those are some of the big issues that encircle this Bill. It is fair to make that point on Second Reading, and I urge the Government, and especially the new Department, to give serious thought to how they will knit this all together, because it is incredibly important.

The Liberal Democrats have a few issues with the Bill. I associate myself with the remarks of the hon. Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones), and in particular what he said in asking who is at the centre of the Bill, which is incredibly important. As liberals, we believe it should always be the citizen. Where there is a conflict of interest between the citizen, business and the state, in our view and in our political ideology, the citizen always comes top. I am not convinced that has been at the heart of the Bill at points. Citizens have been thought about, but were they at the centre of it at every stage? I am afraid that our ability as individuals to access, manipulate and decide who has our data has at various stages got lost.

The concerns we share with others are in four main areas: the Bill will undermine data rights; it will concentrate power with the Secretary of State—notwithstanding potential change in government, that is the sort of thing that Parliament needs to think about in the round, regardless of who is in power; the Bill will further complicate our relationship with Europe, as some have mentioned; and it sets a worrying precedent.

We need to understand where we start from. Only 30% of people in the UK trust that the Government use their data ethically. That means that 70% of people in the UK do not. Polls across the world have shown roughly the same thing. That is a huge level of mistrust, and we need to take it seriously. The Open Rights Group has described the Bill as part of a deregulatory race to the bottom, as the rights and safeguards of data subjects could be downgraded because of the changes proposed.

Clause 5 and schedule 1 to the Bill introduce a whole set of legitimate interests for processing data without consent and with few controls around their application. The Bill changes the definition of personal data, which would reduce the circumstances in which that information is protected. It reforms subject access requests, as others have said. We all run our own small businesses in our offices as MPs. We understand the burden placed on small businesses in particular, but it is absolutely the right of that individual to find out what is held on them in the way that subject access requests allow. If there is a conflict, it is the right of the individual that needs to be protected. The Government assess that the proposal would save about £82 a year—a price worth paying, given the number of consumers whom those businesses on average are looking after. There is an important hierarchy of user use that is not entirely captured by what the Government have been saying so far.

Big Brother Watch has said:

“The revised Data Protection and Digital Information Bill poses serious threats to Brits’ privacy. The Government are determined to tear up crucial privacy and data protection rights that protect the public from intrusive online surveillance and automated-decision making in high-risk areas. This bonfire of safeguards will allow all sorts of actors to harvest and exploit our data more than ever before. It is completely unacceptable to sacrifice the British public’s privacy and data protection rights on the false promise of convenience.”

I am deeply concerned that far from restoring confidence in data protection, the Bill sets a dangerous precedent for a future in which rights and safeguards are undermined. I have listened to what the Secretary of State has said at the Dispatch Box. I sincerely hope that those safeguards that the Government want to keep in place will remain in place, but we should be listening to those third-party groups that have scrutinised this Bill in some detail. There are legitimate concerns that need to be addressed.

My other concern is the concentration of power with the Secretary of State. As I have said before, while it would be lovely to think that all Secretaries of State and all Governments will all think the same on this and that we all have the same principles, my deep concern is that one day that will not happen. There is an important part for Parliament to play, especially when legislation is running behind what is happening in society, in raising the issues in real time. My worry is that by acting through secondary legislation, which we end up scrutinising less and less often, the Government do not have a mechanism for Parliament to feed in as society changes, which can be year-on-year. We need some way, whether through a Select Committee or whatever, to be able to keep pace with changes in society.

Finally, I want to talk about adequacy and in particular its loss being a real concern. I am pleased to hear that being raised on all sides in the House, which is a good sign, but I hope that this is not a case where little then gets changed in the Bill, as we have seen many times over. We could have it both ways: we can diverge from EU standards if we make the protection of the rights of the citizens stronger. Some who have mentioned divergence, however, have spoken about a weakening, which I worry will lead to a loss of adequacy.

In closing, will the Minister give a cast-iron guarantee to businesses that rely on it—and to our researchers who equally rely on it—that adequacy will not be watered down but will be one of the key tenets of how we move forward? Certainty for businesses and our researchers is incredibly important, and if there is any suggestion that changes in the Bill will affect that, they must be pulled immediately.

Science and Technology Framework

Layla Moran Excerpts

Tuesday 7th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Michelle Donelan]

It is, of course, important for us to create a favourable economic climate for business to prosper. As for regulation, it will be at the heart of our work. We have already commissioned Sir Patrick Vallance to publish a report on the regulation of emerging technology, which will be published imminently, and we will be doing “deep dives” into how we can get the regulatory framework right in order to support innovation, technology and science that is based in the UK.

[Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)]

I welcome the Secretary of State and her team. I hope she will join me in celebrating the achievements of Oxfordshire’s researchers, not just at the universities but in the great science parks: they are, I am sure, four square behind her visions. One of the big issues that they raise with me is the “attracting talent” strand, so I am glad she has raised that subject. Horizon Europe is a big part of it, but it was not just the money but the ecosystem that was important to those researchers. However, will the Secretary of State look again at the visa system, and specifically at the costs? Analysis from the Royal Society shows that the cost of obtaining a visa for researchers to come to our country is about six times higher than the cost among our competitors. Will the Secretary of State speak to the Home Office about that?

[Michelle Donelan]

What we really want to do is provide the research community with complete clarity and the certainty that they have not been able to have for the last two years while we have waited around trying to associate with Horizon. As I said at the outset, we want that process to be relatively swift. As for the question of visas, of course we want to attract the brightest and the best. Part of yesterday’s announcement was about how we are going not just to wait for people to want to come here, but to be proactive and to utilise our global talent network to go out and find them and to persuade them of the value of locating and working in the UK.