In September 2020, the Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport (DCMS) published the UK National Data Strategy. It is a large-scale document with a very straightforward objective: to reflect the opportunities and challenges of our new hyper-digital world, weigh the priorities and potential trade-offs of data in a deliberate and evidence-based way, and, above all, drive growth in the UK economy and power its recovery from Covid-19.

Secretary of state Oliver Dowden sets an important framework for the publication in his foreword: when he became digital secretary, he vowed to be “unashamedly pro-tech” (his words, not mine. I would be asking questions such as: “Pro-tech, as opposed to what? Pro-analogue? What do you see as the antithesis of pro-tech? Pro-privacy and data protection? Pro-competition and antitrust?”). He sees the strategy as seeking to maintain the high watermark of data use set during the pandemic, and to free up businesses and organisations to keep using data to innovate, experiment and “drive a new era of growth” (again, his words, not mine. Mine would tend to underline the exceptionality, speciality and peculiarity of the use of data during the pandemic. Also, what exactly does “free up” mean?).

The scope and size of the document are gargantuan. Tackled in its entirety, one cannot but recognise the significant effort put into identifying and addressing all levels of data relations. The strategy is welcomed for being – as suggested – a framework that, undoubtedly, needs to be developed in concrete actions and measures. It is a very commendable publication, and tackles data in its entirety – “information about people, things and systems, personal data, biometrics, demographics, systems and infrastructure, used to describe location, information generated by sensors, administrative, operational and transactional data, as well as analytical and statistical data”.

Considering the nature and the objectives of the document, it is an understandable choice. However, the missed opportunity to take a stand by clearly distinguishing the treatment of personal and of non-personal data is still quite surprising; such a stand could have helped reinforce concepts long-embedded in ethics, society and legislation. Making data available for enabling value creation is a worthy and strategic action, but it cannot be achieved at the expense of data-privacy rights.

Without going into the details of the strategy and without losing all hope in a fair data future, let’s see one major critique (legislation on data protection) and one major opportunity (data skills).

When the strategy was first published, the general reaction was to see it as a nail in the coffin of acquiring EU adequacy. Since then, another nail has come from the Court of Justice of the European Union, which found that UK surveillance measures on bulk retention and access of communications data are incompatible with EU fundamental rights.

Another possible hiccup might be the implementation of the UK-US bilateral data-sharing agreement. The strategy refers to “securing a data regime in the UK that is not too burdensome for the average company […that] will support vibrant competition and innovation, building trust and maintaining high data-protection standards without creating unnecessary barriers to data use”. The strategy also intends to “drive UK values internationally: now the UK has left the EU, we have an opportunity to set the UK apart and take an independent, individual approach that extols UK values. […] We want to ensure that UK values of openness, transparency and innovation, as well as the protection of security and ethical values, are adopted and observed globally.”

The strategy seems to suggest that a revision of the internal and international data-regulation framework is coming, one that should be led by different values than those in effect until now. I might be missing something, but have core fundamental rights and values changed in the past couple of years? Has something occurred in the UK since the adoption and application of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) that calls for such critical revisionism? Are fair, practical and clear rules, clear and trustworthy data-governance mechanisms – the ethical grounds of data protection, consumer protection legislation and competition law – no longer UK values, as they were when it was part of the EU? After all, the GDPR has been the benchmark for demands for greater data-protection legislation across the globe.

So, I guess the question is: what are the UK values to drive internationally? Should we really read this against the background of the Internal Market Bill, an agreement that, according to the government’s own admission, breaches international law? Then I guess I really did miss something, and UK values have changed considerably.

Data-protection legislation should not be this controversial. As International Journal of Market Research editor-in-chief Daniel Nunan notes in the September issue: “It is customary to criticise the burden of regulation – the red tape that makes research more difficult to carry out […] With the benefit of hindsight, perhaps the past 10-15 years of ‘anything goes’ use of data will be seen as a historical anomaly, much in the same way the harmful periods before the regulation of advertising, tobacco, or food safety. So, the wheel turns. With it, the value of the research expertise needed to navigate this world will also increase. Accustomed to a world of ever growing analytical possibilities, researchers in the future may need to learn to make do with less. It is those with the skills to navigate this world and understand that research was never just about the data who will prosper.”

It is precisely with these researchers in mind that MRS is one of the main drivers behind the Advertising Association’s recommendation that the UK government introduces a sector-skills grant scheme. The aim of the scheme would be to invest in individuals and businesses most affected by the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic, allowing them to acquire new skills – particularly in digital and data – and, thereby, grasp new opportunities to support the UK’s economic recovery.  

The proposed scheme would include support for industry training for new starters. For an initial 12-month period, it would allow professional development providers – especially professional bodies and trade associations that typically set the standards and develop the skills for their sector – to apply for grants to provide free skills training and/or qualifications to: practitioners who have been furloughed and/or made redundant as a result of the Covid-19 crisis; college and school leavers aiming to enter the sector; and businesses that are unable to invest in staff because of significant decreases in revenue/trading as a result of the pandemic.

The proposal is currently under consideration by the government. I have no doubts it fits the objectives and purposes of its National Data Strategy… but will the government agree?

This article was first published in the January 2021 issue of Impact.