Liberal Democrats Say No to Compulsory Digital ID
The Government recently announced the introduction of a mandatory requirement for Digital Identity to be used in right to work checks.
This is what I said in reply to the Ministerial Statement in the House of Lords
The introduction of compulsory digital ID represents another fundamental error by this Government. The Liberal Democrats strongly oppose this proposal, which is a serious threat to privacy, civil liberties and social inclusion. We thank the Minister for bringing the Secretary of State’s Statement to this House today, but my disappointment and opposition to the Government’s plan more than mirrors that of my honourable friend Victoria Collins in the Commons yesterday.
The core issue here is not technology but freedom. The Government insist this scheme is non-compulsory, yet concurrently confirm that it will be mandatory for right-to-work checks by the end of this Parliament. This is mandatory digital ID in all but name, especially for working-age people. As my party leader Sir Ed Davey has stated, we cannot and will not support a system where citizens are forced to hand over private data simply to participate in everyday life. This is state overreach, plain and simple.
The Secretary of State quoted Finland and the ability of parents to register for daycare, but I think the Secretary of State needs to do a bit more research. That is a voluntary scheme, not a compulsory one. We have already seen the clear danger of mission creep. My honourable friend Victoria Collins rightly warned that the mere discussion of extending this scheme to 13 to 16 year-olds is sinister, unnecessary and a clear step towards state overreach. Where does this stop?
The Secretary of State sought to frame this as merely a digital key to unlock better services. This dangerously conflates genuine and desirable public service reform with a highly intrusive mandate. First, the claim that this will deliver fairness and security by tackling illegal migration is nothing more than a multibillion-pound gimmick. The Secretary of State suggests that it will deter illegal working, yet, as my colleagues have pointed out, rogue employers who operate cash-in-hand schemes will not look at ID on a phone. Mandatory digital ID for British citizens will not stop illegal migrants working in the black economy.
Secondly, the claim that the system will be free is disingenuous. As my honourable friend Max Wilkinson, our home affairs spokesman, demanded, the Government must come clean on the costs and publish a full impact assessment. Estimates suggest that creating this system will cost between £1 billion and £2 billion, with annual running costs of £100 million pounds. This is completely the wrong priority at a time when public services are crumbling.
Thirdly, the promise of inclusion rings hollow. This mandatory system risks entrenching discrimination against the millions of vulnerable people, such as older people and those on low incomes, who lack foundational digital skills, a smartphone or internet access.
The greatest concern is the Government’s insistence on building this mandatory system on GOV.UK’s One Login, a platform with security failures that have been repeatedly and publicly criticised, including in my own correspondence and meetings with government. There are significant concerns about One Login’s security. The Government claim that One Login adheres to the highest security standards. Despite this commitment, as of late 2024 and early 2025, the system was still not fully compliant. A GovAssure assessment found that One Login was meeting only about 21 of the 39 required outcomes in the NCSC cyber assessment framework. The GOV.UK One Login programme has told me that it is committed to achieving full compliance with the cyber assessment framework by 21 March 2026, yet officials have informed me that 500 services across 87 departments are already currently in scope for the One Login project.
There are other criticisms that I could make, but essentially the foundations of the digital ID scheme are extremely unsafe, to say the least. To press ahead with a mandatory digital ID system, described as a honeypot for hackers, based on a platform exhibiting such systemic vulnerabilities is not only reckless but risks catastrophic data breaches, identity theft and mass impersonation fraud. Concentrating the data of the entire population fundamentally concentrates the risk.
The Secretary of State must listen to the millions of citizens who have signed the petition against this policy. We on these Benches urge the Government to scrap this costly, intrusive and technologically unreliable scheme and instead focus on delivering voluntary, privacy-preserving digital public services that earn the public’s trust rather than demanding compliance.
A Defence of the Online Safety Act: Protecting Children While Ensuring Effective Implementation
Some recent commentary on the Online Safety Act seems to treat child protection online as an abstract policy preference. The evidence reveals something far more urgent. By age 11, 27% of children have already been exposed to pornography, with the average age of first exposure at just 13. Twitter (X) alone accounts for 41% of children’s pornography exposure, followed by dedicated sites at 37%.
The consequences are profound and measurable. Research shows that 79% of 18-21 year olds have seen content involving sexual violence before turning 18, and young people aged 16-21 are now more likely to assume that girls expect or enjoy physical aggression during sex. Close to half (47%) of all respondents aged 18-21 had experienced a violent sex act, with girls the most impacted.
When we know that childrens’ accounts on TikTok are shown harmful content every 39 seconds, with suicide content appearing within 2.6 minutes and eating disorder content within 8 minutes, the question is not whether we should act, but how we can act most effectively.
This is not “micromanaging” people’s rights - this is responding to a public health emergency that is reshaping an entire generation’s understanding of relationships, consent, and self-worth.
Abstract arguments about civil liberties need to be set against the voices of bereaved families who fought for the Online Safety Act . The parents of Molly Russell, Frankie Thomas, Olly Stephens, Archie Battersbee, Breck Bednar, and twenty other children who died following exposure to harmful online content did not campaign for theoretical freedoms - they campaigned for their children’s right to life itself.
These families faced years of stonewalling from tech companies who refused to provide basic information about the content their children had viewed before their deaths. The Act now requires platforms to support coroner investigations and provide clear processes for bereaved families to obtain answers. This is not authoritarianism - it is basic accountability
To repeal the Online Safety Act would indeed be a massive own-goal and a win for Elon Musk and the other tech giants who care nothing for our children’s safety. The protections of the Act were too hard won, and are simply too important, to turn our back on.
The conflation of regulating pornographic content with censoring legitimate information is neither accurate nor helpful, but we must remain vigilant against mission creep. As Victoria Collins MP and I have highlighted in our recent letter to the Secretary of State, supporting the Act’s core mission does not mean we should ignore legitimate concerns about its implementation. Parliament must retain its vital role in scrutinising how this legislation is being rolled out to ensure it achieves its intended purpose without unintended consequences.
There are significant issues emerging that Parliament must address:
Age Assurance Challenges: The concern that children may use VPNs to sidestep age verification systems is real, though it should not invalidate the protection provided to the majority who do not circumvent these measures. We need robust oversight to ensure age assurance measures are both effective and proportionate.
Overreach in Content Moderation: The age-gating of political content and categorisation of educational resources like Wikipedia represents a concerning drift from the Act’s original intent. The legislation was designed to protect children from harmful content, not to restrict access to legitimate political discourse or educational materials. Wikimedia’s legal challenge regarding its categorisation illustrates this. While Wikipedia’s concerns about volunteer safety and editorial integrity are legitimate, their challenge does not oppose the Online Safety Act as a whole, but rather seeks clarity about how its unique structure should be treated under the regulations.
Protecting Vulnerable Communities: When important forums dealing with LGBTQ+ rights, sexual health, or other sensitive support topics are inappropriately age-gated, we risk cutting off vital lifelines for young people who need them most. This contradicts the Act’s protective purpose.
Privacy and Data Protection: While the Act contains explicit privacy safeguards, ongoing vigilance is needed to ensure age assurance systems truly operate on privacy-preserving principles with robust data minimisation and security measures.
The solution to these implementation challenges is not repeal, but proper parliamentary oversight. Parliament needs the opportunity to review the Act’s implementation through post-legislative scrutiny and the chance to examine whether Ofcom is interpreting the legislation in line with its original intent and whether further legislative refinements may be necessary.
A cross-party Committee from both Houses, would provide the essential scrutiny needed to ensure the Act fulfils its central aim of keeping children safe online without unintended consequences.
Fundamentally and importantly, this approach aligns with core liberal principles. John Stuart Mill’s harm principle explicitly recognises that individual liberty must be constrained when it causes harm to others.
.
The Great AI Copyright Battle: Why Transparency Matters
We have recently had unprecedented "ping pong" between the Lords and Commons on whether to incorporate provisions in the Data Use and Access Bill ( now Act) which would ensure that AI developers would be required to be transparent about the copyright content used to train their models. Liberal Democrats in both the Lords and Commons consistently supported this change throughout. This is why.
As Co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Artificial Intelligence and now Chair of the Authors' Licensing and Collecting Society (ALCS), I find myself at the epicentre of one of the most significant intellectual property debates of our time.
The UK's creative industries are economic powerhouses, contributing £126 billion annually while safeguarding our cultural identity. Yet they face an existential challenge: the wholesale scraping of copyrighted works from the web to train AI systems without permission or payment.
The statistics are stark. A recent ALCS survey revealed that 77% of writers don't even know if their work has been used to train AI systems. Meanwhile, 91% believe their permission should be required, and 96% want compensation for use of their work. This isn't anti-technology sentiment – it's about basic fairness.
From Sir Paul McCartney to Sir Elton John, hundreds of prominent creatives have demanded action. They're not opposing AI innovation; many already use AI in their work. They simply want their intellectual property rights respected so they can continue making a living.
December's government consultation on Copyright and AI proposed a text and data mining exception with an opt-out mechanism for rights holders. This approach fundamentally misunderstands the problem. It places the burden on creators to police the internet, protecting their own works – an impossible task given the scale and opacity of AI training.
The creative sector's opposition has been overwhelming. The proposed framework would undermine existing copyright law while making enforcement practically impossible. As I've consistently argued, existing copyright law is sufficient if properly enforced – what we need is mandatory transparency.
During debates on the Data (Use and Access) Bill, Baroness Kidron championed amendments requiring AI developers to disclose copyrighted material used in training data. These amendments received consistent support from all Liberal Democrat MP’s and peers, crossbench peers, and many Labour and Conservative backbench peers.
The government's resistance has been remarkable. Despite inserting a requirement for an econimic impact assessment and a report on copyright use in AI development, they have opposed mandatory transparency, leading to an unprecedented "ping-pong" debate between the Houses.
Transparency isn't about stifling innovation – it's about enabling legitimate licensing. How can creators license their work if they don't know who's using it? How can fair compensation mechanisms develop without basic disclosure of what's being used?
The current system allows AI companies to harvest vast quantities of creative content while claiming ignorance about specific sources. This creates a fundamental power imbalance where billion-dollar tech companies benefit from the work of individual creators who remain entirely in the dark.
The solution isn't complex. Mandatory transparency requirements would enable:
- Creators to understand how their work is being used
- Development of fair licensing mechanisms
- Preservation of existing copyright frameworks
- Continued AI innovation within legal boundaries
This debate reflects deeper concerns about AI innovation coming at the expense of human creativity. The government talks about supporting creative industries while simultaneously weakening the intellectual property protections that sustain them.
We need policies that recognize the symbiotic relationship between human creativity and technological advancement. AI systems trained on creative works should provide some return to those creators, just as streaming platforms pay royalties for music usage.
The government has so far failed to rise to this challenge. But with continued parliamentary pressure and overwhelming creative sector support, we can still achieve a framework that protects both innovation and creativity.
The question isn't whether AI will transform creative industries – it's whether that transformation will be fair, transparent, and sustainable for the human creators whose work makes it all possible.
AI regulation does not stifle innovation
This is a piece I wrote recently published in the New Statesman's Spotlight on Technology Supplement
Achieving balance between human potential and machines isn’t just possible – it’s necessary.
Ever since co-founding the All-Party Parliamentary Group on AI nine years ago, still ably administered by the Big Innovation Centre, I’ve been deeply involved in debating and advising on the implications of artificial intelligence. My optimism about AI’s potential remains strong – from helping identify new Parkinson’s treatments to DeepMind’s protein structure predictions that could transform drug discovery and personalised medicine.
Yet this technology is unlike anything we’ve seen before. It’s potentially more autonomous, with greater impact on human creativity and employment, and more opaque in its decision-making processes.
The conventional wisdom that regulation stifles innovation needs turning on its head. As AI becomes more powerful and pervasive, appropriate regulation isn’t just about restricting harmful practices – it’s key to driving widespread adoption and sustainable growth. Many potential AI adopters are hesitating not due to technological limitations but to uncertainties about liability, ethical boundaries and public acceptance. Clear regulatory frameworks addressing algorithmic bias, data privacy and decision transparency can actually accelerate adoption by providing clarity and confidence.
Different jurisdictions are adopting varied approaches. The European Union’s AI Act, with its risk-based framework, started coming into effect this year. Singapore has established comprehensive AI governance through its model AI governance framework. Even China regulates public-facing generative AI models with fairly heavy inspection regimes.
The UK’s approach has been more cautious. The previous government held the AI Safety Summit at Bletchley Park and established the AI Safety Institute (now inexplicably renamed the AI Security Institute), but with no regulatory teeth. The current government has committed to binding regulation for companies developing the most powerful AI models, though progress remains slower than hoped. Notably, 60 countries – including Saudi Arabia and the UAE, but not Britain or the US – signed the Paris AI Action Summit declaration in February this year, committing to ensuring AI is “open, inclusive, transparent, ethical, safe, secure and trustworthy”.
Several critical issues demand urgent attention.
Intellectual property: the use of copyrighted material for training large language models without licensing has sparked substantial litigation and, in the UK, unprecedented parliamentary debate. Governments need to act decisively to ensure creative works aren’t ingested into generative AI models without return to rights-holders, with transparency duties on developers.
Digital citizenship: we must equip citizens for the AI age, ensuring they understand how their data is used and AI’s ethical implications. Beyond the UAE, Finland and Estonia, few governments are taking this seriously enough.
International convergence: despite differing regulatory regimes, we need developers to collaborate and commercialise innovations globally while ensuring consumer trust in common international ethical and safety standards.
Well-designed regulation can be a catalyst for AI adoption and innovation. Just as environmental regulations spurred cleaner technologies, AI regulations focusing on explainability and fairness could push developers toward more sophisticated, responsible systems.
The goal isn’t whether to regulate AI, but how to regulate it promoting both innovation and responsibility. We need principles-based rather than overly prescriptive regulation, assessing risk and emphasising transparency and accountability without stifling creativity.
Achieving the balance between human potential and machine innovation isn’t just possible – it’s necessary as we step into an increasingly AI-driven world. That’s what we must make a reality.
The new Council of Europe AI Framework Convention demonstrates that the principles of the European Convention on Human Rights are still highly relevant after 75 years
I recently took part in a debate in the House of Lords celebrating the 75th Anniversary of the European Convention on Human Right. This is what I said about the importance of the new Council of Europe Framework Convention on Artificial Intelligence and Human Rights, Democracy and the Rule of Law and how it links to the principles and objectives original Convention.
The new Council of Europe framework convention on artificial intelligence is another living demonstration that the principles of the European Convention on Human Rights are still highly relevant after 75 years. The AI framework convention does not seek to replace the ECHR but rather to extend its protections into the digital age. AI now permeates our daily lives, making decisions that affect our privacy, liberty and dignity. These systems can perpetuate discrimination, erode privacy and challenge fundamental freedoms in a way that demands new protections. Open for signature in September 2024, the AI framework convention is the first legally binding international instrument on AI, setting clear standards for risk assessment and impact management throughout the life cycle of AI systems.
The framework convention’s principles require transparency and oversight, ensuring that AI systems cannot operate as black boxes, making decisions that affect people’s lives without accountability. They require parties to adopt specific measures for identifying, assessing, preventing and mitigating risks posed by AI systems, and a specific human rights impact assessment has been developed. The convention recognises that, in the age of AI, protecting human rights requires more than individual remedies; it demands accessible and effective remedies for human rights violations resulting from AI systems. Rather than merely reacting to harms after they occur, the framework mandates consideration of society-scale effects before AI systems are deployed. I only wish, having heard what its director had to say on Tuesday, that our AI Security Institute had the same approach.
The framework convention was achieved through unprecedented consultation, involving not just the 46 member states of the Council of Europe but observer states, civil society, academia and industry representatives. Beyond European nations, it has attracted signatories including Israel, the United States—albeit under the previous Administration—and, most recently, Japan and Canada, in February this year.
“Once the treaty is ratified and brought into effect in the UK, existing laws and measures to safeguard human rights from the risks of AI will be enhanced”.
How will existing UK law be amended to align with the framework convention? What additional resources and powers will be given to our regulatory bodies? What mechanisms will be put in place to monitor and assess the impact of AI systems on vulnerable groups? The convention offers us tools to prevent such problems, but only if we implement it effectively.
As we mark 75 years of the European Convention on Human Rights, we should remember that its enduring strength lies not just in its principles but in how nations have given those principles practical effect through domestic law and institutions. The UK has long been a leader in both human rights and technological innovation. I urge the Government to present a comprehensive implementation plan for the AI framework convention. Our response to this challenge will determine whether the digital age enhances or erodes our fundamental rights. I do not need to emphasise the immense power of big tech currently. We need to see this as a time when we are rising to meet new challenges with the same vision and commitment that created the European Convention on Human Rights, 75 years ago.
Empowering Our Communities with Data Intermediaries
I recently responded to the Government's Call for Evidence on Data Intermediaries. I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this important call for evidence which centres around unlocking the value of data whilst exploring mechanisms that facilitate responsible data sharing and at the same time empowering individuals.
Data is increasingly integral to people's lives and fuels most modern business. Citizen data holds tremendous potential for economic and societal benefit through innovative products, improved public services, and research advancements. However, cumulative failures, such as the backlash to both Care.Data and subsequently the General Practice Data for Planning and Research programme, and the response to the Cambridge Analytica scandal, have resulted in tenuous public trust in data sharing. Data misuses, breaches, and sharing scandals highlight the need for models of data stewardship that safeguard privacy while enabling innovation guided by public input. Increased legitimacy and trustworthiness of data and AI use are needed to reverse this trend.
Data intermediaries are broadly defined as entities facilitating data sharing or access between data holders (including individuals exercising their rights) and data users. They act on behalf of or for the benefit of data subjects when dealing with personal data. They can potentially empower individuals to exercise their data subject rights more easily and enable responsible and straightforward sharing of quality data. Data Communities represent a specific proposed model within this landscape, focused on empowering individuals by enabling them to collectively exercise their data rights.
Defining Data Communities and Their Purpose
Attempts were made during the passage of the Data (Use and Access) Bill to define a "data community" as an entity established to activate data subjects’ data rights under Chapters III and VIII of the UK GDPR on their behalf. This concept was part of a proposed set of amendments intended to establish the ability for data subjects to assign their personal data rights to a third party. This would have expressly enabled data subjects to mandate a community to exercise specific rights over designated data, for defined purposes and durations, with respect to specified data controllers—all while retaining ultimate control.
Relationship to Other Data Intermediary Models
Data Communities need to be understood as a specific type of data intermediary or data institution. While related to concepts like data trusts and data cooperatives, Data Communities need to be specifically defined by their function of exercising the individual data subject rights granted under the UK GDPR on behalf of their members They are distinct from, for example, a data trust that might hold legal rights over data assets themselves, or a data cooperative focused on collective ownership or bargaining. The OECD's concept of 'community-based data sharing agreements' appears conceptually related to the aims of Data Communities.
Potential Benefits of Data Communities
The establishment and effective operation of Data Communities will in my view yield many benefits:
•Empowering Data Subjects: Data intermediaries, including Data Communities, have the potential to empower individuals to exercise their data subject rights more easily. This is particularly relevant for rights like data portability, which are currently under-exercised. The collective exercise of rights can provide greater leverage in the data ecosystem.
•Rebalancing Power Asymmetries: By enabling collective action and representation, Data Communities can help rebalance asymmetries of power between individuals and large data controllers, and between technology companies, government and the public.
•Increasing Public Confidence: Involving people through mechanisms like Data Communities can contribute towards increased public confidence in the use of data. This is crucial given the current low levels of public trust.
•Facilitating Responsible Data Sharing: They can facilitate responsible and straightforward sharing of quality data, potentially enabling data use for wider societal gains or public benefit as specified by the community members. Data communities can enable analysis through data access and sharing, supporting areas like public health, innovation in commercially sensitive environments, quality assurance of data/AI, matching skills to jobs, and achieving Net Zero targets. They can absorb some of the costs and risks associated with data processing activities and provide assurances around data quality. Data communities may also go beyond legal requirements around data protection and apply additional measures to protect against unethical use of data and ensure it is only used for agreed purposes.
•Supporting Collective Action: The Data Communities model allows for collective action on data issues, as seen in the example of UK Uber drivers attempting to establish a data trust (related concept) for collective bargaining purposes. This is a practical application for achieving economic benefit that is difficult for an individual data subject to achieve alone.
•Enhancing Transparency and Accountability: Regulatory requirements can ensure that Data Communities operate transparently and are subject to regulatory oversight.
Key Considerations and Regulatory Framework
Implementing Data Communities effectively requires careful consideration of practical challenges and a robust regulatory framework:
•Establishing and Operating Data Communities: There is a need for practical guidance on how individuals can establish, operate, and join Data Communities. Making complex issues transparent and understandable requires considerable time, resources, and skills.
•Interaction with Data Controllers/Processors: Clear guidance is needed for data controllers and processors on how to respond to requests made by Data Communities exercising rights on behalf of their members. This includes defining "good practice" in engaging with Data Communities
•Transparency and Oversight: The proposed requirement for the Information Commissioner to maintain a public register and establish complaints mechanisms for both data subjects and Data Community controllers is essential for ensuring accountability and addressing potential issues.
•Effective Data Portability: The viability of Data Communities heavily relies on the effective and technically feasible portability of data. Challenges in exercising the right to data portability need to be addressed. There is a need to monitor reasons for refusal of portability requests. Technical infrastructure can enhance interoperability and data portability. Users might prefer controller-to-controller transfer, which should be made simple.
•Ensuring Inclusivity and Uptake: Careful consideration is needed to encourage uptake beyond the most engaged or digitally literate groups. A bottom-up approach relying solely on citizen demand might be skewed. Achieving a viable market requires a sufficient number of participants.
•Avoiding Risks: Mechanisms must be in place to mitigate risks associated with data intermediaries generally, such as distrust, the creation of dominant entities or new data monopolies, conflicts of interest, and increased demands on regulatory oversight.
Crucial Role of Appropriate Legal Frameworks
The identification and clarification of appropriate legal frameworks are fundamental for the effective operation and trustworthiness of Data Communities, regardless of their specific scope. Regulatory and legal opacity and uncertainty are significant barriers for data intermediaries generally.
•Building Trust and Accountability: A clear legal framework is a necessary foundation for building trust and accountability around data intermediation models like Data Communities It ensures that these entities operate transparently and are subject to regulatory oversight.
•Clarifying Roles and Obligations: Legal frameworks need to define the roles and obligations of Data Communities (e.g., whether they act as controllers or processors) and their relationship with data holders, data users, and regulators. This clarity is essential for the legal certainty needed by all parties involved.
•Enabling the Exercise of Rights: we need to clarify explicitly the ability of data subjects to legally mandate a Data Community to exercise their data rights on their behalf and address current legal ambiguities that hinder intermediaries from acting effectively on behalf of an individual.
•Ensuring Responsible Stewardship: Legal frameworks can incorporate requirements for good practice and responsible data management. This should go beyond mere compliance with existing data protection laws and could help ensure data is used only for agreed and ethical purposes.
•Providing Regulatory Oversight and Complaints Mechanisms: There should be a requirement for the Information Commissioner to maintain a public register of Data Communities and establish complaints mechanisms.
•Interfacing with Existing Law: Data Communities need to operate within the existing legal landscape, including comprehensive frameworks like the UK GDPR. The legal framework for Data Communities needs to clearly articulate how they interact with and build upon these existing frameworks.
Conclusion
In summary, Data Communities, represent a promising mechanism for empowering individuals and fostering more responsible data stewardship by enabling collective exercise of data subject rights. This model aligns with the broader goals of increasing participation and rebalancing power in the data landscape. Integrating the Data Community concept into the broader data intermediary landscape, supported by the proposed regulatory measures, is a valuable step towards a more trustworthy and equitable data ecosystem in the UK. Realizing the potential of Data Communities will depend on developing clear practical guidance and ensuring robust regulatory oversight. Addressing challenges related to effective data portability and ensuring inclusive access will be key to their success. Further exploration and piloting of this model, alongside other forms of data intermediaries, should be encouraged and facilitated to understand their full potential and identify contexts where they are most impactful.
Digital Inclusion Action Plan: No One Should Be Left Behind in Digital Britain
I recently responded to a Call for Evidence on the government's Digital Inclusion Action Plan: First Steps. It represents a tentative first step, but we need transformative action to ensure no one is left behind in our increasingly digital society. As Liberal Democrat spokesperson for Science, Innovation and Technology, I've responded to the government with concrete proposals for systemic change.
Digital Access is a Fundamental Right
In modern Britain, digital inclusion isn't optional - it's essential for full participation in society. Whether accessing Universal Credit, booking GP appointments, or helping children with homework, being online has become as vital as having running water or electricity. Yet millions remain excluded from our digital society.
The economic case is compelling. Research by CEBR shows £9.48 return for every £1 invested in digital inclusion. The Local Government Association found a 4% increase in economic activity per 10% broadband increase. Digital exclusion deepens inequalities, reduces productivity, and increases pressure on public services.
Beyond the Usual Suspects
While the government identifies five priority groups - low-income households, older people, disabled people, unemployed and young people - this framework needs expansion. Digital exclusion affects social housing tenants, benefits recipients, people with health conditions, single parents, those with English as second language, and geographically isolated communities.
Research by Stockport Homes demonstrates how these characteristics intersect - tenants who don't use the internet are more likely to be over 55, have disabilities, and rely on pensions, with 30% having no devices at all.
Learning from Success
We have excellent models to build upon. 100% Digital Leeds provides a council-led blueprint focusing on third-sector capacity building. Greater Manchester's evidence-based approach targets specific demographic needs with affordable connectivity solutions. Digital Unite's Digital Champions Network offers scalable peer support across multiple settings.
Four Pillars - But We Need More
The government's four focus areas - skills, tackling poverty, breaking barriers, and building confidence - provide a foundation but need strengthening:
Digital Rights and Citizenship must be added as a fifth pillar. We need comprehensive online safety education, privacy protection frameworks, and digital citizenship understanding.
For Skills, we must establish digital literacy as a statutory right with clear progression pathways integrated into essential public services.
For Data and Device Poverty, internet access should be an essential utility with legal rights to data access, mandatory social tariff provision, and sustainable device recycling infrastructure.
For Breaking Barriers, we need universal design standards, digital "right-of-way" for public services, multi-language support, and guaranteed offline alternatives.
For Building Confidence, comprehensive scam awareness programs, peer learning networks, and addressing cultural barriers are essential.
Practical Solutions Now
Several immediate actions could transform digital inclusion:
- Auto-enrollment for social tariffs through DWP systems would ensure eligible households automatically receive affordable connectivity
- VAT reform on broadband - using the 15% differential to create a social inclusion fund
- National device donation scheme - government departments and businesses donating refurbished equipment
- Digital champions in every community - trained volunteers providing local support
- Emergency connectivity support - for those in crisis situations
Sustainable Funding Essential
The Digital Inclusion Innovation Fund needs minimum 3-5 year commitments, ring-fenced allocation for deprived areas, and support for both grassroots innovation and proven programs. We should remove early termination charges for benefits recipients and simplify social tariff applications.
Working Together
Success requires partnership across government, industry, charities and communities. We need a National Digital Inclusion Forum, regional partnerships, and statutory requirements for public service digital access. Employers must actively promote digital upskilling - as FutureDotNow argues, businesses across all sectors need incentives to train their workforce in essential digital skills.
The Cost of Inaction
Digital exclusion isn't just about technology - it's about social justice. Every day offline means missed opportunities for education, employment, healthcare, and social connection. The pandemic showed us the devastating impact of digital exclusion. We cannot return to treating it as an afterthought.
Time for Transformation
The government's plan provides a foundation, but we need greater ambition and systemic change. By treating digital inclusion as fundamental infrastructure backed by appropriate resources and statutory requirements, we can ensure no one is left behind.
Change starts with ideas and is achieved by actions. Digital inclusion is one of the defining challenges of our time. Together, we can build a digitally inclusive Britain where everyone has the skills, access, and confidence to thrive in our digital world.
Meet your new Chair, Lord Clement-Jones
In March I became the Chair of the Board of the the Author's Licensing Collecting Society which has over 125,000 members comprising a great range of writers and authors. This is the interview I gave to their weekly newsletter to mark the event.
In March, Lord Clement-Jones was appointed Chair of the ALCS Board. We sat down with him to discuss his extensive background, the use of creators’ works by AI companies, and his focus for ALCS in the coming years.
You’ve had a fascinating and varied career, can you try to summarise your background?
I’ve had somewhat of a dual career. I started off as a lawyer. At the same time, I became very active within the Liberals, so I was heavily involved in legal issues within politics as well as in the various businesses I worked at, such as London Weekend Television, Grand Met and Kingfisher, the big retailer. In politics, I was Chair of the Liberal Party, then Treasurer of the Liberal Democrats.
I came into the House of Lords in 1999 because I was very close to Paddy Ashdown. I was Chair of his campaign and got him elected as party leader. I joined DLA Piper, who, strangely enough, are our lawyers at ALCS. They do a lot of work around copyright, IP and technology. I’m still a consultant there on AI regulation and policy. I’ve been very lucky because I’ve been able to indulge the things I want to do in politics, but I’ve also had a fulfilling series of jobs.
What would you say was your proudest achievement in politics?
I think it’s persuading people to do things that I passionately believe are important. I’ve had two Private Members’ Bills pass through the House. The first was an advertising bill that banned tobacco advertising in Formula One and various other sports. The second was the Live Music Act, which came in 2012. This made it far easier for venues like pubs to host live music, which has had a considerable impact on young musicians who are just starting out.
What drew you to ALCS and why now?
I think it’s a real watershed moment for ALCS. Not that there’s an existential issue, the income from the Copyright Licensing Agency remains strong, but we do need to make sure that our authors benefit in the age of AI and don’t see their labour further devalued or even replaced by machines.
The most pressing issue at the moment is the training of models using creators’ works without recognition, consent or compensation. A lot of scraping has already taken place, and the train is already halfway out of the station. But we also need to consider the outputs. If your work is imitated by AI, you’re not going to see the full benefits of your work and original creation.
The wonderful thing is that ALCS has very strong relationships, not just in the UK but also internationally. We’ve got an active and passionate membership, as well as great allies across the creative sector, including visual artists, journalists, and screenwriters. Working together across these industries will be hugely important to securing a positive outcome for creators.
It seems like a real fork in the road moment for AI. What do you think is at stake if we, as a society, get this wrong?
Without the right approach, we could see a gradual erosion of copyright. Some Large Language Model developers, like OpenAI, don’t appear to believe in copyright. They’ve been aided and abetted by groups like the Tony Blair Institute who argue there shouldn’t be any copyright protection for training material. They take the extreme position of no protections at all, not even a text and data mining exception with an opt-out.
The Government is doing impact assessments and so on, but most people are pretty clear there’s only one real solution, which is a licensing solution. Therefore, it’s up to us and our partners to propose a simple collective licensing system that makes it easy for model developers to comply.
One idea is to resurrect the Copyright Hub, an idea proposed by Hargreaves Review of Intellectual Property in 2012 but never properly utilised. It would ensure all rights metadata are under one roof, making it simple and easy for those seeking this data to obtain it legally. I’d also personally like to see the Government go further and offer tax breaks for using copyright-licensed material, which would provide further incentive to obtain a licence and help ensure that creators are paid for their work.
This issue seems to have struck a chord with creatives, from the Make It Fair campaign to protests outside Meta. Why do you think that is?
I think many are understandably afraid. Authors are in touch with the world, and ever since ChatGPT burst on the scene in November 2022, AI has been everywhere, you can’t open a newspaper without seeing something about it. I speak on these issues and keeping up with developments is incredibly tricky. There’s so much happening all the time, at an incredible pace. This fast-moving world is disorienting. And if it could affect your livelihood, of course you’re going to sit up and take notice.
Authors aren’t alone, many professionals like lawyers, accountants and architects are also deeply worried about AI. But for authors it’s worse. If copyright is eroded, their livelihoods are completely vulnerable. And yet there has been virtually no reassurance from Government.
And are you optimistic that this response we’ve seen from creators will persuade the Government to rethink their approach?
Yes, I am, because of the sheer weight of the push back we have seen. I always thought backbench MPs getting flak from their constituents would be crucial, and that’s what we have seen. Backbench Labour MPs are getting a lot of letters on this, and ministers are too. The government has already rowed back to a large extent and it’s not clear now where they stand.
They initially said their preferred solution was an exception with an opt-out. After more than 13,000 consultation responses, which is absolutely unheard of, they no longer sound like they’re committed to it. They haven’t yet said so publicly in a clear way, and there’s still a long way to go, but they’re definitely on far shakier ground than when the consultation was launched.
Last year, you co-authored a book on this subject, Living with the Algorithm. Can you tell us a bit about some of the ideas you explore in it?
For me, it’s all about mitigating risk. There are more immediate risks like bias and all the other issues we’ve talked about, but we urgently need to regulate AI before artificial general intelligence arrives, because by the time it does, it may be too late to control. We need to make sure model developers have adequate frameworks and guardrails in place. You don’t want to let something loose that may not have humanity’s best interests at heart.
If you give me a vote, I’m on the side of the humans. AI is useful, I use it every week, as many of us now do. But I don’t think we should simply lie back and say, “OK, AI is here and there’s nothing we can do.” We have to keep pushing the Government to come up with better and more robust solutions than those they are currently proposing.
Beyond AI, what should ALCS focus on over the next few years?
We need to get out and about, whether that’s me or Board members or the Executive. Being visible to members is vitally important. I know we have a number of events with members across the country planned for this year, and I’d like to see that continue.
We also need to maintain strong financial controls. Keeping our overheads limited so the vast majority of income goes to members is vital. The irony is that AI and other technologies will be important here too, in helping to streamline some of the increasingly complex processes of collecting and distributing royalties at this scale. We’re already running projects within the organisation that I think will significantly improve our efficiency.
What message would you give to members who are feeling concerned about their rights and livelihoods?
If anyone can sort this out, we can. We represent more than 125,000 writer members, so they are not alone. There are thousands of like-minded people beside them – scriptwriters, novelists, non-fiction writers. Having a dedicated organisation working on their behalf can be a huge advantage. It’s about using our contacts, our knowledge, our influence to secure the best possible terms on their behalf. These coming years will be vitally important, and we will always put the interests of our members first.
What’s a book you’ve read recently that stuck with you?
I’m a dull creature, I try to read a book a week. Recently, I read a book about Meta called Careless People by Sarah Wynn-Williams. It’s essentially a whistle-blowing book about the unethical way that Meta is being run, it’s revealing and horrifying. She had worked there and exposes the very cynical management style from Zuckerberg and Sandberg, and how Meta has dealt with Governments. It really makes you worry about big tech and reinforces my belief that we need to introduce far more robust regulation.
How do you typically unwind away from your busy work schedule?
I always try see the bluebells each Spring. Last weekend, my wife and I went just beyond Greater London to a bluebell wood which was fantastic. We like to travel when we can. When Parliament is in recess, we try to get away for a few days, I just got back from Amsterdam. Before that, we went to Córdoba in the February recess. I try to only focus on whatever books I’ve brought, even though I often fail and still end up dealing with emails! But by and large, that’s how we keep sane.
