Transparency data

Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation Minutes - Board Meeting 6

Updated 12 October 2023

This transparency data was withdrawn on 16 October 2023

This content is no longer current. The Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation (CDEI) Advisory Board closed on 9 September 2023.

July 18th 2019

Turing Institute, 96 Euston Rd, London NW1 2DB

Attendees:

• Roger Taylor (RT)
• Rt Revd Dr Steven Croft (SC)
• Edwina Dunn (ED)
• Prof Luciano Floridi (LF) (AW) (dialling in)
• Dame Patricia Hodgson (PH)
• Dame Glenys Stacey (GS)
• Richard Sargeant (RS)
• Kriti Sharma (KS)
• Dr Adrian Weller (AW) (dialling in)

Apologies:

• Dr Susan Liautaud (SL)
• Baroness Kate Rock (KR)
• Prof Lord Robert Winston (RW)

Observers (CDEI staff; for sections of the meeting relevant to their work):

• Michael Birtwistle (MB)
• Ollie Buckley (OB)
• Sam Cannicott (SC)
• Natalie Davis (ND)
• Benedict Dellot (BD)
• Emily James (EJ)
• Alex Lawrence-Archer (ALA)
• Ben Lyons (BL)
• Louise Pakseresht (LP)
• Lisa Whiting (LW)

External attendees

Erika Lewis - DCMS

Item 1: Chair’s Welcome

The Chair welcomed the Board to the meeting and thanked the Turing Institute for hosting the Board. He welcomed AW and LF who were joining by phone.

Apologies

Apologies were given by KR, RW and SL.

Declaration of interests:

There were no declared interests.

Minutes from previous Board meeting:

The Board approved the minutes from the previous meeting.

Decision: The Board agreed the minutes from the previous Board meeting.

Action: CDEI to publish the minutes on gov.uk.

Item 2: Reviews

• The Chair thanked the team for their hard work getting the interim reports ready and noted that we are in the last stages of development. The final comments will be added following the discussion today and this final version will be published tomorrow. The Chair also thanked the board for their input throughout the process.
• The team gave an overview of the development and contents of the reports, including an outline of the minor changes that had been made since the last version the board reviewed. The team noted that two separate documents will be published with one overarching document setting out the CDEI’s role and approach to ethics and governance. Alongside the interim reports, the CDEI is also publishing landscape summaries which provide an overview of the research conducted in the relevant areas to date. The team gave details about the planned publication strategy of the reports, including sending the reports to all stakeholders as well as promoting their publication on social media.
• The board commended the reports and thanked the team for their work.
• Board members recommended that parliamentarians also receive copies of the report. The team agreed and informed the board that this is part of the wider engagement plan around publication and ongoing stakeholder work.

Decision: The board signed off on the publication of the interim reports.

Item 3: Statutory footing

• The Chair introduced the item on the CDEI statutory footing, adding that after a brief discussion the board would be joined by Erika Lewis from the Cyber Security and Data Policy Directorate of DCMS to present the perspective from the department.
• The board noted the importance of a good understanding of what powers and duties the CDEI should have.
• The board discussed possible statutory vehicles that may be used to advance putting the CDEI on a statutory footing. They also discussed timelines and how this may relate to the benefits of various approaches.
• There was a discussion on the potential remit the CDEI could have and the need to ensure public trust in data-driven technologies. There was also a desire to make sure the CDEI is able to progress work rapidly on urgent ethical issues. The board also noted the international dimension of this challenge. This led to the conclusion that it was preferable to be on a statutory footing sooner.
• The board considered possible funding options. There was also a discussion on possible operational functions.
• Erika Lewis then joined the discussion and gave an outline of the background structure to the department and explained the close relationship that had been built between the department and the CDEI team. There was a discussion about the department’s perspective on what an appropriate statutory vehicle would look like. Erika set out that the department would need a detailed proposal on what the CDEI envisages would be their remit and responsibility, including powers.
• The board’s preference was to be part of legislation that would lead to the CDEI being on a statutory footing soon, rather than waiting for an opportunity further down the line. They felt this was appropriate given the urgency of the challenges the CDEI is looking to tackle.
• Erika highlighted that this will involve further consideration of the practicalities and advised that the CDEI seek legal advice to help develop the proposal.
• Board members agreed that whilst this is being developed it is important the CDEI demonstrates its impact to help make the case for statutory footing.
• The Chair and OB thanked Erika for attending and listening to the views of the board.
• The board felt it would be useful to see a draft proposal from the CDEI and then have a further discussion.

Action: Team to develop proposals on CDEI’s statutory footing and circulate to the board for further discussion.

Item 4: Chair and Executive Director updates:

• The Chair updated on his recent meetings and events, including a meeting with the Permanent Secretary.
• The Chair updated the board on the communications work and explained that while we are part of DCMS we will need to work closely with the comms team around publishing outputs.The board discussed this and highlighted the importance of being visible.
• The Chair discussed his recent attendance at the Ipsos Mori dialogue events on online targeting. He has also attended various APPGs and met with some MPs and ministers.
• The Chair also informed the board that he is travelling to Australia and Singapore at the end of the month and would welcome suggestions for people to meet with.
• AW needed to leave the meeting at this point. OB gave an update on his recent activities and gave an overview of the work from the team, including the Ipsos Mori events, attending various roundtables and the recent launch of the work with the Behavioural Insights team.
• The team has benefited from a secondee from Ofcom who is helping with the targeting review, and the team are also recruiting a data science specialist and a head of comms.
• OB gave an update on events he has spoken at including Institute for Chartered Accountants as well as a Chatham House event on public trust and the future of work. Chatham House keen to engage.

Action: Team to circulate dates on Ipsos Mori events

Item 5 Reporting:

• The team gave an update on the upcoming milestones. The focus for the next few months will be on planning our outputs, including wrapping up the targeting review and the draft policing code of practice.
• There was a discussion over the intention to move out of the DCMS building and board members asked whether this would affect a longer-term move. It was clarified that the short-term move will not affect the location of the CDEI post statutory footing.
• The board discussed the recent developments in facial recognition technology and expressed a desire to make sure we are capturing a nuanced perspective but are not shying away from difficult questions. The board agreed that it would be useful to review the FRT snapshot as soon as it is ready.
• The board requested a fuller item on risks for the next meeting and the team agreed.
• Board members asked what was happening with publishing CDEI’s responses to government consultations. OB noted that the team are reviewing different approaches used by regulators and other arms-length bodies.

Action: Team to add agenda item on the risk register for next board meeting

Item 6 A&A:

• The A&A team gave an overview of the team’s work and progress on the snapshots. The team asked the board if they had any feedback on the latest versions.
• Board members mentioned some developments that had occurred in the areas over the last few weeks that would need to be captured in the reports. The team agreed to incorporate these suggestions.
• The board discussed various points related to the publication and promotion of the snapshots, including whether the CDEI has plans to use HTML versions in addition to a PDF snapshot to make it more accessible. Questions were raised over who the team were speaking to including those on the front line of using technologies. The team responded that they try to speak to a broad range of people when researching for the reports.
• The board agreed to review further drafts when available.
• The team gave an update on the work of the AI barometer aimed at mapping key risks and opportunities in the uses of AI. The team will be using curated expert panels to assess AI’s current and potential impact within several different sectors. The approach will use a combination of online surveys and expert workshops, with the results published later this year. The panel will be made up of representatives from industry, tech developers, government, regulators, academia, consumer groups and wider civil society.
• Board members discussed the methodology for the project. They discussed whether participants would be identifiable when the final report is released. Board members felt that on the one hand, this would be useful to build support for the work, but also recognised that people may not be able to speak as freely.
• A question was raised about the budget set aside for software for the project. The team explained that initially it was felt that paid for software may be needed to visualise the data collected, however this may no longer be necessary.

Action: Team to update snapshots in line with board comments

Item 7: Ethical principles and good governance

• The team introduced the work of the ethical principles steering group and provided an overview of the paper which sets out the CDEI’s framework of ethical principles and good governance.
• Board members who are part of the steering group commented that the work so far had been progressing well and that the challenge is now moving from high-level principles that most people can agree with to reviewing what principles mean in a specific context and how to make these relevant and actionable. It was noted that LF’s contribution was particularly important given his expertise in this area. The steering group felt that it was important to create space for conversations about ethical principles and to consider how this relates to guidance. The Chair also expressed support for the work of the group and acknowledged its importance.
• Board members also discussed how ethical questions must be considered in light of their impact on people, as well as thinking about the technologies themselves. A point was also made about the international dimension to these questions.
• Board members agreed that the steering group should continue their work in line with the framework outlined in the paper.

Item 8: Technical panels

• The team gave an overview of the background to the proposal for creating a technical panel and explained that it would be useful for the team to have access to a broad range of experts when developing work. There had previously been support for this idea from the board but the decision made at the time was that it would be best to wait until work had commenced before reviewing the need.
• The team noted that there is a lot of expertise within the board but did not want to overstretch those with technical backgrounds, particularly as there is a lot of relevant work ongoing.
• The board discussed the proposal and agreed that more technical expertise to advise the Centre would be useful. There was a discussion over whether it would be better to pay panel members and the board agreed this would be preferable. A question was raised over how many people would be expected to sit on the panel and the team suggested that this was an open question but likely in the range of 5 to 8
• The board agreed that it would be useful to have a broad range of expertise, including those with experience of human-centered design as well as a range of sector expertise.

Action: Team to progress work setting up technical panels.

Item 9: International strategy

• The team provided an overview of the international strategy, including the proposed longer-term strategy and shorter-term objectives. The strategy sets out how the CDEI intends to meet these objectives and fulfil its terms of reference whilst remaining nationally focussed.
• Board members discussed the strategy and highlighted that the CDEI should be pitching to high profile international conferences. Examples of what the CDEI could present include emerging findings from both the reviews, as well as the experience of establishing the CDEI. It was felt that it would be better to speak with the conference organisers sooner to find a space in programmes as many prepare their events months in advance.
• The board were interested in reflecting and learning from the experiences of other governments whilst refraining from assuming their policies are worth replicating.
• There was a discussion about the two approaches to international strategies with one option being to seek out information from overseas and find best practice answers from elsewhere with the other being to push domestic best practice and share the UK’s own lessons with other states. Board members agreed that if the CDEI’s work attracts interest that this should follow.
• Board members discussed the country prioritisation I. The team agreed to monitor a broad spectrum of global developments.
• The board commended the level of detail in the paper, and the connection it made to other aspects of the CDEI’s work. This includes A&A’s monitoring capacity, which aims to track the major risks and opportunities associated with AI, some of which may be emerging in other countries sooner than others.
• The board were happy to approve the strategy.

Decision: The board approved the international strategy.

AOB:

• ED has recently joined the Geospatial commission. The board congratulated her on this appointment.